Thursday, November 24, 2011
(Nov. 24, 2011) — At the hearing of the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission on Friday, November 18, Rep. Harry Accornero reminded the group’s members that they had disqualified a 2008 presidential candidate because he was not a “natural born Citizen” as required by Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
Some members of the media have described the meeting as a “fracas” and the attendees as a “mob.” Another report stated that those who want the U.S. Constitution’s eligibility requirements upheld were “unruly and aggressive.”
Sal Mohamed, an engineer from Iowa, had run for U.S. Congress in 2004, for governor of Iowa in 2006 and for the U.S. Senate in 2009. He was “constitutionally barred” from running for President in 2008 because of his birth in Egypt. Mohamed became a U.S. citizen in 1983.
That means that, contrary to that which many Secretaries of State have claimed, vetting of presidential candidates was performed in 2008 to keep ineligible candidates’ names off of state ballots. Other Secretaries of State might have done the same with Obama but did not. One secretary of state who claimed she did not have the responsibility to vet presidential candidates was later disqualified herself from seeking the position of Connecticut Attorney General.
Does the New Hampshire Secretary of State “wield tremendous clout” in who the President of the United States will be? Should he?
Is the United States a “democracy,” as Gardner contends, or a constitutional republic? Has the republic been replaced by a democracy, which our Founders tried to prevent?
If Secretaries of State are not responsible for vetting presidential candidates, then who is? Why did the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission take it upon itself to remove Mohamed‘s name from their state ballot if they were not tasked with investigating his eligibility?
Atty. Orly Taitz has filed for a rehearing of the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission’s decision, citing the removal from the state ballot of Mohamed in 2008. On November 18, the Commission claimed that anyone paying the $1,000 fee and completing a candidacy application qualified for a place on the New Hampshire ballot. Taitz used herself as an example of someone who might be disqualified, having been born in the Soviet Union. She told the Commission that Obama is using a stolen social security number and a forged birth certificate to commit fraud and treason against the United States, but the Commission voted to leave his name on the ballot rather than ask the Attorney General to investigate.
Then-Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi did not affirm that Obama was constitutionally eligible on the DNC’s certificate of nomination signed in August 2008. Neither did the Hawaii Democrat Party. Hawaii was the only state which received a nomination form signed by Pelosi which stated that Obama was constitutionally eligible.
If possible presidential nominees are vetted for eligibility for a national security clearance, what about the person who appoints them? Why has following the Constitution’s requirements for president become so politicized?
Obama’s alleged father was a British subject, and, according to the British Nationality Act of 1948, passed on British citizenship to his son. On his campaign website, Obama admitted to having been born a dual citizen of the U.S. and Great Britain. The Post & Email received confirmation from the British IPS that Barack Obama Sr. had applied for and received two British passports in 1959 and 1963, respectively.
Almost a century ago, Democrat Breckinridge Long questioned the constitutional eligibility of Charles Evans Hughes because his father and mother were British citizens.
The Founding Fathers included the term “natural born Citizen” in Article II of the Constitution after receiving a letter from John Jay, who became the first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, warning of allowing foreign allegiances in the country’s chief executive. Candidates for the U.S. House were required to have been “a Citizen of the United States” for at least seven years, and for the Senate, nine years.
Current members of the U.S. Congress have attempted to abolish the “natural born” requirement established in 1789 when the U.S. Constitution was ratified.
Is birth in the United States the determining factor for the presidency, allegiance inherited from one’s parents, or both? If Obama is only “native-born,” why is he occupying the Oval Office? If he was actually born in Hawaii as he claims, why will the State of Hawaii not show proof to Orly Taitz, the courts, and the world?
Could Freedom of Information Act requests be sent to the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission asking why they had the authority to remove a name in 2008 but not now, as long as the fee has been paid? To whom is the Ballot Law Commission answerable?
In the wake of Obama’s connections to those found guilty of money laundering, those who have admitted to committing identity theft, and his campaigning for a foreign political figure in that country in possible violation of the Logan Act, are there not grounds for an investigation as to whether or not Obama is a “natural born Citizen?”
Does he have America’s best interests at heart, or is he a foreign-born domestic enemy?
Posted by giveusliberty1776 at 1:16 PM