DC Declares War On States and Arizona

Comments Off

Here’s a great article by Chuck Baldwin:

DC Declares War On States

Among the limited duties of the US Government enumerated in the federal Constitution is Article. IV. Section. 4. “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.” However, for several decades now, the federal government in Washington, D.C., has shown great ambition and propensity to engage in activities to which it was never authorized, and to ignore those responsibilities with which it is specifically charged. The responsibility of the federal government to protect each State against invasion is a classic example of the latter.

Can anyone deny that the states on the US southern border (California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas) are being invaded by an ongoing onslaught of illegal aliens (many of whom are violent and dangerous criminals)? Somewhere between 12 and 30 million illegals now reside in the US. The entire country is feeling the effects of this invasion, but the Border States are literally under siege. And not only does the federal government do nothing to protect the states against this invasion, it actively wars against states such as Arizona when they attempt to protect themselves. Yes, I am saying it: the Washington, D.C., lawsuit against the State of Arizona’s immigration laws should be regarded as an act of war against the State of Arizona in particular, and against the states general in principle.

PART 2 HERE:

Please consider what Arizona and the other Border States are dealing with. According to published reports:

*In Los Angeles, 95% of all outstanding warrants for homicide in the first half of 2004 (which totaled 1,200 to 1,500) targeted illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) were for illegal aliens.

*Some private reports state that 83% of warrants for murder in Phoenix and 86% of warrants for murder in Albuquerque, New Mexico, are for illegal aliens. These reports cannot be verified, of course, because the feds discourage law enforcement agencies from releasing such statistics.

*At any given time, up to 75% of those on the most wanted list in Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Albuquerque are illegal aliens.

*23% of all inmates in LA County detention centers are “deportable.”

*LA police estimate that violent gangs, such as MS-13 and 18th Street Gang, are “overwhelmingly” composed of illegal aliens.

To read one very enlightening testimony given before Congress by an expert on illegal immigration containing some of the above information (and much more), go here:

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/mac_donald04-13-05.htm

In addition, the Pew Hispanic Center (an organization friendly to all things Hispanic) reports that by 2007, “nearly one-quarter (24%) of all federal convictions” involve illegal aliens. And “among those sentenced for immigration offenses in 2007, 80% were Hispanic.” The PHC went on to report that illegal Hispanics “represented 29% of all federal offenders.”

See the report at:

http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=104

Remember, too, that illegal aliens murder (on average) 12 American citizens EVERY DAY in the United States. That means illegals murder more Americans EVERY YEAR than in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan COMBINED, TO DATE. Plus, illegal aliens who drive drunk kill an additional 13 Americans EVERY DAY.

See the following report:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53103

At this point, I will not again chronicle the financial costs and job losses exacted upon the American taxpayers by these invading illegals, but I encourage you to read a previous column I wrote on this subject. See it here:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=1490

Plus, my web site contains an exhaustive page dealing with the problems and costs of the ongoing invasion by illegal aliens against this country. See it at:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=123

Add to the above the blatant rhetoric and public statements of activists within radical Hispanic revolutionary groups such as La Raza that incessantly call for the “reconquista” of the southwestern United States, and one can easily discern that the invasion by (mostly) Mexicans in the US is much more than “poor people trying to find a better life.” There is some of that going on, of course, but the invasion also includes violent criminal gang members, drug dealers, human traffickers, rogue government troops, and covert provocateurs who are attempting to destabilize US cities and states, promote crime and violence, disrupt honest elections, and even facilitate revolution against the American citizenry.

And what does the Barack Obama administration do? Instead of obeying the Constitution and helping to protect the State of Arizona (and the other Border States), it sues the State of Arizona for trying to protect itself. Again, by this action, has not Washington, D.C., declared war against the State of Arizona (and, by implication, the other 49 independent, sovereign states)?

Please understand: Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and her allies in the Arizona legislature are not only defending their State, they are working to protect every State in the Union. Very obviously, the line is being drawn in the sand against a federal leviathan that increasingly shows blatant disregard for not only its own responsibilities and duties, but for the rights and freedoms of the individual sovereign states, and for the American citizenry as a whole.

And for those misguided Christians and pastors out there who are prone to defend and facilitate this invasion of illegal aliens in the name of Christian compassion, I would like to remind them of the words of our Lord, who said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.” (John 10:1 KJV) Thus, our Savior plainly categorizes illegal aliens (or anyone who refuses to enter through a door–or across a border–honestly) as thieves and robbers. Unfortunately, many are also rapists, murderers, violent drug dealers, and slave merchants.

If Barack Obama had even a smidgen of honesty and integrity, instead of attacking the people of the State of Arizona for simply trying to defend themselves against a very real and dangerous foreign invasion, he would take seriously his responsibility to help protect them against this invasion, which Article IV. Section. 4. of the US Constitution clearly requires him to do.

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19

In Violation of the 11th Amendment Foreign Countries Join DOJ in Suit Against Arizona

1 Comment

Letting foreign countries join the Federal Government  in the Arizona illegal immigration lawsuit  is a violation of the 11th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. It’s a violation of the Constitution.Now believe it or not (you just can’t make this stuff up), but now the Federal Government is saying the Arizona law interfering with Foreign Policy…..What? Yes you read that right, the new Arizona law is “interfering with Foreign Policy”, that is part of their argument in this lawsuit…………  But since when does this president follow the Constitution unless it suits his political agenda?

the 11th amendment:

“The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”

Latin American nations bid to join Mexico in Arizona case

PHOENIX — Seven other Latin American countries want to join Mexico in supporting a lawsuit challenging Arizona’s immigration enforcement law.

Bolivia, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Peru filed separate, nearly identical motions to join Mexico’s legal brief supporting the lawsuit filed by U.S. civil rights and other advocacy groups.

A federal judge formally accepted Mexico’s filing July 1 but did not immediately rule on the latest motions filed late last week.

Mexico says the law would lead to racial profiling and hinder trade, tourism and the fight against drug trafficking.

The law is to take effect July 29. It requires that police conducting traffic stops or questioning people about possible legal violations ask them about their immigration status if there is “reasonable suspicion” that they’re in the country illegally.

Associated Press

Breaking…now Holder wants to file Racial Discrimination against AZ!

Comments Off

Will someone please give this idiot something constructive to do?  Why can’t he address the racism case the government has already?

Attorney General Eric Holder, just days after filing a federal lawsuit against Arizona’s immigration law, on Sunday floated the possibility of filing another suit on racial profiling grounds.

The lawsuit filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Arizona claimed the state was infringing on federal immigration responsibilities and urged the judge to prevent the law from going into effect at the end of July. Despite some officials’ claims that the law could lead to racial profiling, that concern was not cited as grounds for the suit.

However, Holder said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that the federal government was leading with its “strongest” argument in the suit filed Tuesday and would not rule out a second suit months down the road — if the law ends up going into effect.

“It doesn’t mean that if the law for whatever reason happened to go into effect, that six months from now, a year from now, we might not look at the impact the law has had … and see whether or not there has been that racial profiling impact,” Holder said. “If that was the case, we would have the tools and we would bring suit on that basis.”

Holder, reacting to the firestorm of criticism from Republicans and border-state lawmakers, said the Justice Department decided to file the suit because Arizona’s immigration law is “inconsistent” with federal policy and the U.S. Constitution. He said there’s nothing to stop local jurisdictions and states from helping the government enforce immigration law, but described Arizona’s law as contradictory to what the federal government is trying to accomplish.

The law makes illegal immigration a state crime. It requires local law enforcement to question anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant on their immigration status — provided they don’t stop them for that reason alone.

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., disputed Holder’s characterization. Speaking on “Fox News Sunday,” he said Arizona’s law is trying to help, not hinder, the federal government’s immigration efforts.

Mexico files court brief against Arizona immigration law

Comments Off

I got this in an email from my brother last night and I said like he did, “what the heck”?  How can Mexico file a lawsuit in the United States in Arizona? I emailed some friends of mine in Arizona……we’ll see what they say.

Mexico files court brief against Arizona immigration law

(CNN) — Mexico on Tuesday filed a brief in federal court in Arizona supporting a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a tough new immigration law, Mexico’s foreign ministry said.

Opponents of Arizona's controversial immigration law rally in New  York in May.

The lawsuit seeks to overturn SB 1070, a recently passed law due to go into effect late next month, which stipulates that police can ask the residency status of people being investigated for a crime.

“The government of Mexico has requested the court that SB 1070 be declared unconstitutional and that it does not enter into force,” the foreign ministry said in a written statement.

The Mexican government gave its support to the lawsuit filed by a group of civil rights organizations, including the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, the National Immigration Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union.

In its brief, Mexico “underscored that it is fundamental and imperative that the human and civil rights of its citizens are duly respected while present in Arizona or in any other state of the United States,” the foreign ministry said.

In filing the brief, Mexico said it was upholding its duty to protect its nationals in the United States and ensure that they are not discriminated against based on their ethnicity.

The case is Friendly House, et al v. Michael B. Whiting, et al.

Fox News

Breaking News – Obama will Sue Arizona!

2 Comments

From CBS News:

According to President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, the Justice Department is currently in the process of deciding whether or not to file suit over Arizona’s controversial immigration law, which Mr. Obama has called “misguided” and potentially discriminatory.

According to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, however, the decision has already been made.

“President Obama has spoken out against the law because he thinks that the federal government should be determining immigration policy,” she said in an interview with an Ecuadorean television station flagged by The Right Scoop. “And the Justice Department, under his direction, will be bringing a lawsuit against the act.”

The Arizona law, which would go into effect in July, requires immigrants in the state to carry documents verifying their immigration status and requires police officers to question a person about his or her immigration status during a “lawful stop” if there is “reasonable suspicion” that person may be in the country illegally.

Holder has indicated that he believes “the law is an unfortunate one that will be subject to potential abuse” and said that the Justice Department is “considering a court challenge.”

It is not clear whether Clinton was just making a prediction or whether she was getting ahead of a planned announcement by the administration. The Justice Department said today it is continuing to review the law.

Condemning Islamic terrorism banned on Marine training base

Comments Off

WND Exclusive

Looks like we’ve completely lost our minds when it comes to “free speech” vs offending anyone! We don’t have the right to not be offended…..but we do have the right to free speech in the 1st amendment or at least we’re supposed to have it.


IN THE MILITARY

Condemning Islamic terrorism banned on Marine training base

Father of USS Cole victim ordered to remove critical bumper stickers


Posted: November 13, 2008
10:30 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

A lawsuit has been filed against two officers at North Carolina’s Camp Lejeune Marine base for banning a civilian worker – a 25-year Marine whose son was a victim of the U.S.S. Cole attack – from publicly condemning Islamic terrorists.


One of the ‘offensive’ bumper stickers

The lawsuit was filed by the Thomas More Law Center on behalf of Jesse Nieto after base officials first ordered him to remove bumper stickers from his private vehicle then banned the vehicle from all federal installations nationwide.

In a statement e-mailed to WND, base spokesman Nat Fahy said the action against Nieto was pursued based on “third party complaints regarding the offensive nature of Mr. Nieto’s stickers.”

“After refusing his supervisor’s informal request to remove the stickers, Mr. Nieto was issued two separate motor vehicle citations. After being afforded an opportunity to argue his position in front of the base magistrate, the magistrate told him to remove the stickers from his car. While he did remove several offensive stickers off during this period, he refused to remove all of the offending stickers. Because he remained in violation of the base order, Mr. Nieto’s DoD registration decal was ultimately removed from his vehicle.”

According to the lawsuit, Lt. Col. James Hessen, the base traffic court officer, ruled that the decals on Nieto’s vehicle were “offensive,” and when asked to explain, said, “‘It’s just what I think,’ or words to that effect,” the complaint states.

Lawyers for the Thomas More Law Center said Nieto served in the Marines for 25 years, including two combat tours in Vietnam. His youngest son, Marc, and 16 of Marc’s shipmates were killed Oct. 12, 2000, by Islamic terrorists who bombed the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen.

Nieto has worked as a civilian employee at Camp Lejeune since 1994. It was about 2001 when he started displaying various decals and bumper stickers on his vehicle “expressing anti-terrorist sentiments,” such as “Remember the Cole, 12 Oct 2000,” “Islam = Terrorism,” and “We Died, They Rejoiced,”

On July 31, he was ticketed on base by two military police officers for displaying “offensive material.”


Another “offensive” bumper stickers

The ticket was issued even though other automobile-mounted slogans such as a Confederate flag with, “If This Offends You … You Need a History Lesson,” a “Darwin fish” mocking Christianity, sexually explicit symbols such as silhouettes of nude women, one with “Your Child May be an Honor Student But Your Driving Sucks,” and several versions of a cartoon character (similar to Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes) urinating on various symbols were allowed, the lawsuit said.

In August, after Nieto refused to remove the “offending” decals, the base magistrate issued a written order that required him to take his vehicle off the base “until all decals were removed” and banning his vehicle from all federal installations nationwide.

The order, the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina said, now prevents Nieto from visiting Arlington National Cemetery, where his son is buried.

The case alleges the military is violating Nieto’s constitutional rights to freedom of speech and equal protection of the law.

“The banning of these decals is political correctness run amok in the military,” said Richard Thompson, president of the law center. “Our troops are being killed by Islamic terrorists, 9/11 was caused by Islamic terrorists, these terrorists want to destroy America, the Islamic countries persecute Christians and now the military is victimizing a father whose son was killed by Islamic terrorists while serving our nation.”

Thompson said the next move on the part of the Marines might be to “eliminate the Marine’s Hymn since the phrase ‘to the shores of Tripoli’ celebrates the Marine victory over Islamic forces in the Barbary Coast War and the Battle of Derne.”

The lawsuit alleges viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment, equal protection violations of the Fifth Amendment and claims there are no objective standards for guiding bumper sticker banishments.

Also named as a defendant is Col. Richard Flatau Jr., the base commander.

The case also alleges that Nieto was threatened with dismissal from his job for having the decals and not only cannot drive to work or visit his son’s grave in Arlington, he also cannot use his vehicle to visit the U.S.S. Cole Memorial in Norfolk, Va.

“During public addresses, the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. armed forces, President George W. Bush, has used the terms ‘Islamic terrorists,’ ‘Islamic extremism,’ and ‘Islamic militants,’ noting that the Islamic terrorists responsible for killing Americans on September 11, 2001, are the ‘same murderers … responsible for bombing the U.S.S. Cole,’” the lawsuit said.

“The Commander-in-Chief has indicated that the United States will give no quarter to these terrorists, stating that ‘we must pursue them wherever they are’ and we ‘[w]ill not let up until our enemies are defeated and our people are secure,” the lawsuit said.

“Consequently, it is unreasonable to conclude that the words, terms, or political viewpoint expressed by the Commander-in-Chief or those expressed by Plaintiff are prohibited on federal installations in the United States, including military bases such as Camp Lejeune.”

The lawyer handling the case is Robert Muise, who also has been defending Marine Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, the highest-ranking officer accused in the Rep. John Murtha-instigated prosecution of soldiers for a firefight with terrorists in Haditha, Iraq.

Read @ Worldnet Daily

Obama camp: Lawsuits by citizens are ‘garbage’

2 Comments

Here’s is an audio of attorney Phillp Berg, one of many sueing Obama on the Alex Jones program this week. I’m only posting the first of a three part interview. You can listen to all three here:

WND Exclusive


Obama camp: Lawsuits by citizens are ‘garbage’

Legal challenges spring up across U.S., demand proof of eligibility for office


Posted: November 13, 2008
10:30 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

More than a half-dozen legal challenges have been filed in federal and state courts demanding President-elect Barack Obama’s decertification from ballots or seeking to halt elector meetings, claiming he has failed to prove his U.S. citizenship status.

An Obama campaign spokeswoman told WND the complaints are unfounded.

“All I can tell you is that it is just pure garbage,” she said. “There have been several lawsuits, but they have been dismissed.”

WND is tracking the progress of many cases across the U.S., including the following:

Ohio

David M. Neal of Turtlecreek Township, Ohio, filed suit in Warren Common Pleas Court in October to force Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii, the Cincinnati Enquirer reported.

Warren County Magistrate Andrew Hasselbach denied Neal’s request, saying, “The onus is upon one who challenges such public officer to demonstrate an abuse of discretion by admissible evidence – not hearsay, conclusory allegations or pure speculation.”

Connecticut

Connecticut resident Cort Wrotnowski challenged the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate on Oct. 31, and asked the court to order Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz to verify Obama’s citizenship before allowing the candidate to appear on the state ballot. State Supreme Court Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers threw out the case for lack of jurisdiction within a half hour of reviewing it.

“I have not seen the ruling yet,” Wrotnowski told WND. “So, in reality, the case was not heard on its merits. … Currently, we are assembling information for another and better try.”

Washington

As WND reported earlier, Steven Marquis of Fall City, Wash., filed suit Oct. 9 in Washington State Superior Court, calling for Secretary of State Sam Reed to determine whether Obama is a citizen before Election Day. Marquis released a statement saying the state has the authority to “prevent the wholesale disenfranchisement of voters” who might have otherwise had the opportunity to choose a qualified candidate should records show Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen.

Marquis said Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate isn’t evidence that the president-elect is a natural-born citizen because it doesn’t reveal the hospital where Obama was born, a doctor’s name or the baby’s footprint, the Associated Press reported.

Superior Court Judge John Erlick dismissed the lawsuit, claiming the secretary of state does not have authority to inquire about Obama’s birth certificate. He also said Marquis failed to name Obama as a party to the lawsuit.

Get the book that started it all – Jerome Corsi’s “The Obama Nation,” personally autographed for only $24.95

New Jersey

In Leo C. Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, retired attorney and New Jersey resident Leo. C. Donofrio asked the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency stay on Nov. 3 prohibiting three candidates from appearing on New Jersey’s ballots: Republican candidate John McCain, Democratic candidate Barack Obama and Socialist Worker’s Party candidate Roger Calero.

Donofrio claimed the candidates are not “natural born citizens” as enumerated in Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States, which states, “No person except a natural born citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.”

He wrote, Obama is not eligible for the presidency “even if it were proved he was born in Hawaii, since … Senator Obama’s father was born in Kenya and therefore, having been born with split and competing loyalties, candidate Obama is not a ‘natural born citizen’ …”

“Republican candidate John McCain was born in Panama,” the request states. “Socialist Workers Party candidate Roger Calero was born in Nicaragua. And the birthplace of Democratic candidate Barack Obama has not been verified by Respondent.”

Donofrio said Panama has never been considered U.S. soil, and that McCain is merely a citizen at birth by statute, and not a “natural born citizen.”

With three ineligible presidential candidates on ballots, Donofrio warned, New Jersey voters will “witness firsthand the fraud their electoral process has become.”

Justice David Souter denied Donofrio’s application on Nov. 6. However, his case is still pending as an emergency stay application. Donofrio is resubmitting his request for an emergency stay of the national election results and Electoral College meeting to Justice Clarence Thomas.

Pennsylvania

As WND reported earlier, prominent Pennsylvania Democrat and attorney Philip J. Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court three months ago claiming Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen.

Berg claimed that by failing to respond Obama has legally “admitted” to the lawsuit’s accusations, including the charge that the Democratic candidate was born in Mombosa, Kenya.

U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick dismissed Berg’s argument on Oct, 24, ruling that he lacked standing to bring the case. He said Berg’s allegations were “too vague and too attenuated.”

“This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution,” Berg told Jeff Schreiber of America’s Right blog. “If I don’t have standing, if you don’t have standing, if your neighbor doesn’t have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be president of the United States – the commander in chief, the most powerful person in the world – then who does?”

Berg filed a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court on Oct.30, to force Obama to produce his birth certificate. Justice David Souter rejected an emergency appeal on Nov. 3, for the court to halt the tabulation of the 2008 presidential election results until Obama documented his eligibility to run for office. However, Souter set a schedule for a response from Obama, the DNC and all co-defendants on or before Dec. 1.

“I look forward to receiving Defendant Obama’s response to the Writ and am hopeful the U.S. Supreme Court will review Berg v. Obama,” Berg wrote in a Nov. 7 statement. “I believe Mr. Obama is not a consitutionally-qualified natural-born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of the President of the United States.”

Georgia

Rev. Tom Terry of Atlanta, Ga., appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court the day before the election to determine authenticity of Obama’s original birth certificate and his qualifications to be president.

“I bear no personal ill will against Barack Obama,” Terry, an independent, said in a statement. “In fact, his election solely on the basis as the first African-American president-elect is a very positive thing for our nation. However, as an American, I have very grave concerns about Mr. Obama’s possible divided loyalties since he has strenuously and vigorously fought every request and every legal effort to force him to release his original birth certificate for public review and scrutiny. I think that is significant.”

On Oct 24, Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter denied Terry’s request for an injunction against Secretary of State Karen Handel.

“I don’t think you have standing to bring this suit,” he said. “I think that the attorney general has argued the law. I think he is correct. I think you are not a lawyer.”

Terry is appealing his suit even though Obama didn’t win Georgia because he said he wants to set an example for other states. He is asking the court to direct Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel to decertify all votes for Obama.

“Hopefully, this action will be noticed by other states and they will also take a serious look at the meaning of Georgia’s Supreme Court’s actions,” he said. “It is apropos that the Latin motto in the Georgia Supreme Court is interpreted: ‘Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.’ I think if the Court rules in my favor, that motto will come alive with meaning and impact.”

Hawaii

On Oct. 17, Andy Martin filed a writ of mandamus in Hawaii’s Supreme Court to compel Gov. Linda Lingle to release a certified copy of Obama’s vital statistics record. His request to expedite the circuit court was denied on Oct. 22.

Martin now has a pending case seeking access to Obama’s original 1961 typewritten birth certificate. The circuit court hearing is set to begin Nov. 18.

The saga continues …

Several unconfirmed reports also indicate that citizens of Utah, Wyoming, Florida, New York, North Carolina, Texas, California and Virginia have also filed lawsuits or requested court orders to verify Obama’s citizenship status.

As reported earlier, WND senior investigative reporter Jerome Corsi traveled both to Kenya and Hawaii to investigate issues surrounding Obama’s birth.

But his discoveries only raised more questions.

The governor’s office in Hawaii said he had a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin – leaving some to wonder if the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicates a Hawaiian birth or whether it was generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii.

The Obama campaign posted a certification of live birth, a document stating the baby was born on Aug. 4, 1961. However, according to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, there is a difference between the two documents. A certification of live birth is not an authentication of Hawaiian birth, and critics say the procedure could have allowed Obama’s mother to have the baby elsewhere, return to the U.S. and obtain the document in Hawaii.

The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands makes a distinction between the two:

In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.

However, Andy Martin has specifically requested verification of the original 1961 type-written certificate of live birth – or, as the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands describes it, the “more complete record” of Obama’s birth.

Further adding to complications, Obama’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born. In a November 2004 interview with the Rainbow Newsletter, Maya told reporters her half-brother Sen. Barack Obama was born on Aug. 4, 1961, at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu; then in February 2008, Maya told reporters for the Honolulu Star-Bulletin that Obama was at the Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children.

But a video posted on YouTube features Obama’s Kenyan grandmother Sarah claiming to have witnessed Obama’s birth in Kenya.

Seeking to settle the issue, Hawaii Department of Health Director Director Chiyome Fukino released an Oct. 31 statement saying, “State law (Hawai’i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai’i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

The statement does not clarify whether “the record” is a certification of live birth or a Hawaiian certificate of live birth.

Before the election, WND retained a top private investigator in Hawaii with extensive FBI training and tasked him with visiting both the Queens Medical Center and the Kaliolani Medical Center to investigate claims that Obama birth certificates existed at either hospital.

However, the private investigator reported that sheriff’s deputies were stationed at both hospitals to fend off press inquiries about Obama’s birth certificate.

When WND asked the Obama campaign spokeswoman why Obama simply hasn’t released the original 1961 certificate of live birth to make the lawsuits go away, she replied, “I have no idea. I think they released what they chose to release, and Hawaii has confirmed that he was born in Hawaii, so I don’t know what else you want.”

Read the article at Worldnet Daily

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 396 other followers