Friday, December 9, 2011

Georgia Law Makes Secretary of State Responsible for Vetting Candidates



BUT WILL THE LAW BE UPHELD?

Dear Editor:  The following letter was sent to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp:
December 8, 2011

Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp has not responded to a citizen's demand that the state and U.S. Constitutions be followed
Secretary of State Kemp, by certified mail:
Georgia O.C.G.A. Elections Title 21, Chapter 2 specifies the procedure for qualifying candidates.  O.C.G.A. 21-2-5(c) specifies that “The Secretary of State shall determine if the candidate is qualified . . .” My FOIA request for the certification of Barack Obama for our Georgia primary went unanswered.  Your lack of response implies that you have nothing, which makes it quite clear that Barack Obama was not qualified before placement on the Georgia ballot. enc. 5, 5a
Therefore you must remove Obama from the ballot until you can find that he has acceptable qualifications. enc. 4a However, I ask that you consider the following information in your deliberations.  It is information that clearly shows Obama cannot be qualified for the position of President of the united States.  You will conclude that Obama cannot be returned to the ballot.  To return Obama to the ballot would be additional misconduct on your part.  This is not a request or question for judicial hearing but rather a statement of your misconduct and request for redress by correction of your misconduct.  The law in Title 21 is clear!
The Minor v. Happersett SCOTUS opinion by Chief Justice Waite clearly states that natural born citizens are created by citizen parents (plural) as shown in enc. 1, attached.
The U. S. Congress affirmed this with eight failed attempts at changing the provision of Art. II, Sec. 1 of the Constitution by legislative order and/or amendment in enc. 2 and; finally settled on S. Res 511, co-sponsored by then Senator Barack Obama, which re-affirmed Minor by stating that natural born citizens came from American citizens (plural), enc. 3.  Schneider affirms that Amendment 14 does not pertain to the mandates of Art. II, Sec. 1. enc. 3a.    A rebuttal to the most recent iteration of Haskell’s CRS memo is included as enc. 3b.  Presidential candidates must be born of united States citizens (plural).
FactCheck, an arm of the liberal movement has confirmed that Obama’s reputed father was a British/Kenya citizen.  Obama’s FightTheSmears website concurs with FactCheck that his father was a foreign national, enc. 4.  Obama was not born of U. S. citizen parents (plural).
The DNC did not vet Obama as required by O.C.G.A. 21-2-5 (a), therefore you must first remove Obama from our ballot as not being certified and then review the data in my enclosures 1-4, which prove Obama is not qualified to be on our ballot for president.  This is your responsibility according to OCGA 21-2-5 (c).  You will see from the data in the attached enclosures that you then must not return Obama to our ballot.  See enc. 4a for the definition of your responsibilities, as defined by your predecessor in 2008. The law of Title 21 is clear.  It will be additional misconduct on your part to allow an unqualified candidate to appear on the ballot. 
The following excerpts have been made from the Georgia Codes for your reference.  They all have similar meaning and intent; that being: you have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, there are very real penalties for not doing so.
Title § 1-3-6 – When laws become obligatory; effect of ignorance
After they take effect, the laws of this state are obligatory upon all the inhabitants thereof. Ignorance of the law excuses no one
Title § 45-3-15 – Loyalty oath — Proceeding for false swearing when oath violated O.C.G.A. 45-3-15 (2010) 45-3-15. Loyalty oath — Proceeding for false swearing when oath violated  If any person required to do so by Code Sections 45-3-11 through 45-3-14 and this Code section executes a loyalty oath and subsequently it is proved that said individual has violated the oath, then the governing authority shall institute proceedings in the proper court against such person for false swearing.
Title § 45-10-1 – Establishment and text of code of ethics for government service generally
Any person in government service should:
I. Put loyalty to the highest moral principles and to country above loyalty to persons, party, or government department.
II. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and legal regulations of the United States and the State of Georgia and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.
IX. Expose corruption wherever discovered.
Title § 16-14-3 – Definitions
(8) “Pattern of racketeering activity” means:
(A) Engaging in at least two acts of racketeering activity in furtherance of one or more incidents, schemes, or transactions that have the same or similar intents, results, accomplices, victims, or methods of commission or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated incidents, provided at least one of such acts occurred after July 1, 1980, and that the last of such acts occurred within four years, excluding any periods of imprisonment, after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity; or
(9)(A) “Racketeering activity” means to commit, to attempt to commit, or to solicit, coerce, or intimidate another person to commit any crime which is chargeable by indictment under the following laws of this state:
(xv) Article 4 of Chapter 10 of this title and Code Sections 16-10-20, 16-10-23, and 16-10-91, relating to perjury and other falsifications;
For the Republic,
M. J. Blanchard
cc:
Attorney General Olens
media, grassroots, distribution, wide.
enc. 1
U.S. Supreme Court
MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
88 U.S. 162 (Wall.)
MINOR
v.
HAPPERSETT.
October Term, 1874
[88 U.S. 162, 163]   ERROR to the Supreme Court of Missouri; the case being thus:
discussion omitted
The CHIEF JUSTICE (Morrison Waite) delivered the opinion of the court.
excerpt:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168]   parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words ‘all children’ are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as ‘all persons,’ and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.”
Minor is often confused with Amendment 14 which has to do with citizens.  Art. II, Sec 1 is unique to qualifications of the president in that it calls for a natural born citizen, a term the Founders took from Vattel’s Law of Nations treatise.
Note, also, in enc. 4 that the British Nationality Act of 1948 follows Vattel, as well, i.e. the citizenship of the son follows that of the father.  The BNA is otherwise irrelevant to the argument.
enc. 2
The Patriots News
J. B. Williams
Democrat members of Congress made no less than eight (8) attempts in twenty-two (22) months, to either eliminate the natural-born requirement, or redefine natural-born to accommodate Barack Hussein Obama II in advance of his rise to power. The evidence is right in the congressional record…
1.    On June 11, 2003 Democrat House member Vic Snyder [AR-2] introduced H.J.R 59 in the 108th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsors: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]; Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10]; Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]; Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49]; Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18]; Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4].
2.    On September 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 67 – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]
3.    On February 25, 2004, Republican Senator Don Nickles [OK] attempted to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural-born citizen requirement for president in S.2128 -  “Natural Born Citizen Act – Defines the constitutional term “natural born citizen,” to establish eligibility for the Office of President” – also getting the definition of natural born citizen wrong. – Co-sponsors Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]; Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA]
4.    On September 15, 2004 – as Barack Obama was about to be introduced as the new messiah of the Democrat Party at the DNC convention, Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] introduced H.J.R. 104 – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No co-sponsors.
5.    Again on January 4, 2005, Rep John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 2 to the 109th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the Office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]
6.    Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] tries again on February 1, 2005 in H.J.R. 15 – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No Co-Sponsor
7.    On April 14, 2005, Rep Vic Snyder [AR-2] tries yet again with H.J.R. 42 – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4]
8.    All of these efforts failing in committee and the 2008 presidential election looming with an unconstitutional candidate leading the DNC ticket, Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO] tries to attach the alteration to a military bill in S.2678 on February 28, 2008 – “Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act – Declares that the term “natural born Citizen” in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution, dealing with the criteria for election to President of the United States, includes any person born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces.” – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] – (This was the first effort to also assure that GOP Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain [AZ] would be cleared to run against the DNC primary victor.)
From June 11, 2003 to February 28, 2008, there had been eight (8) different congressional attempts to alter Article II – Section I – Clause V – natural born citizen requirements for president in the U.S. Constitution, all of them failing in committee—All of it taking placing during Barack Obama’s rise to political power and preceding the November 2008 presidential election.
In politics, there are no coincidences… not of this magnitude.
Finally on April 10, 2008, unable to alter or remove the natural born citizen requirement to clear the way for Barack Obama, the U.S. Senate acts to shift focus before the election, introducing and passing S.R.511
enc. 3
SRES 511
Calendar No. 715
ATS
110th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. RES. 511
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
April 10, 2008
Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
April 24, 2008
Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment
April 30, 2008
Considered and agreed to
RESOLUTION
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;
Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;
Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;
Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;
Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
110th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. RES. 511
RESOLUTION
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
April 24, 2008
Reported without amendment
enc. 3a:
SCHNEIDER V. RUSK, 377 U. S. 163 (1964)
U.S. Supreme Court
Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)
Schneider v. Rusk No. 368
Argued April 2, 1964
Decided May 18, 1964
377 U.S. 163
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Excerpted from Syllabus:
“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.
While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rights of the naturalized citizen derive from satisfying, free of fraud, the requirements set by Congress, the latter, apart from the exception noted, “becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual.”
The rights and establishment of the natural born citizen do not come from the 14th amendment.  Only a natural born citizen is eligible to be President.
enc. 3b
The following rebuttal to Maskall’s latest revision to his CRS memo concerning the certification of a Natural Born Citizen was put together by Leo Donofrio.  Attorney Donofrio has been researching this void in the Constitution for several years.  His rebuttal is immaculate to the point of obviating the whole document.  Arguing against the original intent of the Constitution is a losing proposition no matter how glib or devious one may be.
However, I don’t necessarily agree with Donofrio’s LOOMING CONSTITUTIONAL DISASTERS scenario.  We are a nation of laws and those laws are derived from our Constitution, which still stands.  We have good men in elected office who have sworn oaths to defend this Constitution and who will prevent the untoward events that Donofrio predicts.
Debunking The New Natural Born Citizen Congressional Research Propaganda.
Leo Donofrio, Esq.
“Yesterday, attorney Jack Maskell issued yet another version of his ever changing Congressional Research Memo on POTUS eligibility and the natural-born citizen clause.  The CRS memo is actually a blessing for me in that I’ve been putting a comprehensive report together on this issue for about a month now.  But not having an official source standing behind the entire body of propaganda made my job more difficult.
The complete refutation will be available soon, but for now I will highlight one particularly deceptive example which illustrates blatant intellectual dishonesty.  On pg. 48, Maskell states:
In one case concerning the identity of a petitioner, the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen ….”221
221 Kwok Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454, 457 (1920). The Supreme Court also noted there: “It is better that many Chinese immigrants should be improperly admitted than that one natural born citizen of the United States should be permanently excluded from his country.” 253 U.S. at 464.
Reading this yesterday, I had a fleeting moment of self-doubt.  Could I have missed this case?  Did the Supreme Court really state that the son of two aliens was a natural-born citizen?  The Twilight Zone theme suddenly chimed in.  I then clicked over to the actual case, and of course, the Supreme Court said no such thing.
The petitioner was born in California to parents who were both US citizens.  His father was born in the United States and was a citizen by virtue of the holding in US v. Wong Kim Ark.  His mother’ place of birth was not mentioned.  Regardless, she was covered by the derivative citizenship statute, and was, therefore, a US citizen when the child was born.
It was alleged that the petitioner had obtained a false identity and that the citizen parents were not his real parents.  But the Supreme Court rejected the State’s secret evidence on this point and conducted their citizenship analysis based upon an assumption these were petitioner’s real parents.
Having been born in the US of parents who were citizens, petitioner was indeed a natural-born citizen.  But Maskell’s frightening quotation surgery makes it appear as if the petitioner was born of alien parents.  The Supreme Court rejected that contention.  And Maskell’s ruse highlights the depravity of lies being shoved down the nation’s throat on this issue.  I can imagine Mini-Me sitting on his lap while this was being prepared.
When you look carefully at Maskell’s creative use of quotation marks, you’ll see that the statement is NOT a quote from the case, but rather a Frankenstein inspired patchwork.  He starts the reversed vivisection off with the following:
“[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son…”
These are the first few words of a genuine quote from the Court’s opinion.  Then Maskell goes way out of context for the next two body parts.  The first is not in quotation marks:
of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is
And finally, an unrelated quote from elsewhere in the Court’s opinion:
“a natural born American citizen ….”
Put it all together and you get the following monstrosity:
…the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen ….”
But the Supreme Court never said that.  Here’s what they actually said:
“It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 , 18 Sup. Ct. 456.”  Kwok Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454, 457 (1920).
This real quote – when liberated from Maskell’s embalming fluid – does not resemble the propaganda at all.
Maskell avoids the inconvenient truth that the Court took direct notice of the authorities having established that the petitioner’s father was born in the US and that he was a voter:
“…the father of the boy was native born and was a voter in that community.”  Id. at 460.
Maskell never mentions that the father and mother were US citizens at the time of petitioner’s birth in California.
This deceitful exercise alone strips the entire memo of all credibility.
Had Maskell simply offered his arguments fairly, using real quotes instead of Frankensteining this crap, I would not have attacked him personally.  But such deceptive behavior deserves no respect whatsoever.  The memo is pure propaganda, and it’s not even shy about it.
LOOMING CONSTITUTIONAL DISASTERS
The timing of the memo’s appearance is alarming.  I have been saying for quite awhile now that Obama doesn’t really have to worry about the natural-born issue coming back to haunt him in court unless he attempts to suspend the Constitution.  I know that sounds paranoid.  And nothing would please me more than to be wrong on that prophecy.  If my fears don’t come to pass, I will gladly wear the tin foil hat of shame.  But the appearance of the updated CRS memo at this particular moment portends a Constitutional disaster.
If Obama attempts to suspend the US Constitution and/or declare martial law and/or suspend the 2012 election… chances of the natural-born citizen issue finding its way to the Supreme Court on the merits increase exponentially.”
enc. 4

Obama’s Kenyan Citizenship?

Posted on August 29, 2008 , Corrected on September 3, 2008
Q: Does Barack Obama have Kenyan citizenship?
A: No. He held both U.S. and Kenyan citizenship as a child, but lost his Kenyan citizenship automatically on his 23rd birthday.
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children:
British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.”
Corroborated on Obama’s Fight the Smears website here:
Obama’s reputed father was a British citizen at the time of Obama’s birth.
Note also that FactCheck is a project of The Annenberg Foundation and that the Annenberg Foundation receives funding from the Tides Foundation which in turn is a George Soros financed group.  George Soros was an early supporter of Obama’s political ascension.  This piece, then, could be biased as are many FactCheck “facts” but towards, or in favor of Obama.  Obama co-chaired the Chicago division of the Annenberg Foundation with Bill Ayers in the early 1990’s.
For FactCheck to make this admission in the face of SCOTUS and U. S. Senate decisions on “natural born” citizens is blatantly arrogant as was the attempt by Congress to “modify” the Constitution.
enc. 4a
Election Law In Georgia: What City And County
Attorneys Need To Know
Karen C. Handel
Georgia Secretary of State
Atlanta, Georgia
Wesley B. Tailor, Esq.
Elections Division Director
Office of Secretary of State
Atlanta, Georgia
September 2008
II. Elections
5. Secretary of State
The General Assembly has empowered the Secretary of State to carry out a wide range of responsibilities in the area of overseeing Georgia’s election processes,   O.C.G.A. § 21-2-50(a)(1)-(15). These responsibilities include setting the forms for nomination petitions and ballots, receiving nomination petitions from persons running for state offices, determining whether such candidates are properly qualified*, building or programming ballots for local governments using DRE’s, and generally facilitating the operation of the State’s election system by helping to train and coordinate with the various local elections officials.
*O.C.G.A. 21-2-5 (c)  “The Secretary of State shall determine if the candidate is qualified to seek and hold the public office for which such candidate is offering.  If the Secretary of State determines that the candidate is not qualified, the Secretary of State shall withhold the name of the candidate from the ballot . . .”
It is clear in the OCGA’s and it was clear to our previous SOS what the duties of the SOS elections division entailed, i.e. the SOS had the ultimate responsibility to the Georgia electorate to assure qualified candidates were placed on our ballot.
enc. 5
                                                                                                                                                                                                 November 28, 2011
Secretary Kemp by certified mail:
Pursuant to the Georgia Open Records Law (O.C.G.A § 50-18-70 et seq.) (the “Law”), you are hereby requested to provide copies of all files, records and other documents in your possession that refer, reflect or relate to placing Barack Obama on the Georgia primary election ballot for year 2012.
This request includes, but is not limited to, all documents, notes, correspondence and memoranda evidencing the certification of Barack Obama according to U. S. Constitution Art II, Sec. 1 eligibility requirements for president of the united States, and all communication and correspondence in whatever tangible medium between and among the applicable office of or division of the office of the Georgia Secretary of State and any entity of the Democratic Party to include but not be limited to the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives or her designee, the Chair of the Democratic Party or her designee, and or any entity of the Democratic Party who holds themselves out to be responsible for the certification of the Democratic Party candidate for President of the united States for the election year 2012.
If this request is denied in whole or in part, we ask that you cite in writing the specific statutory exemption upon which you have relied, as required by law.  We also ask that you release all separate portions of otherwise exempt material.  Please waive any costs associated with this request, or first inform us about such costs as required by Georgia law.
As you know, the Law requires a response by you within three business days of your receipt of this letter and provides sanctions for non-compliance.  I look forward to hearing from you.
For the Republic,
M. J. Blanchard
cc:
Attorney General Olens
enc. 5a
Posted by giveusliberty1776 at 1:04 AM

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)