Obama's Birth Certificate- million $ reward
HINT FOR REWARD HUNTERS: If Obama was born in Kenya his birth certificate might be on record in England since Kenya was a part of the British empire when Obama was born. The birth certificate might also be on file in Kenya. One million dollars should inspire some government employee to start looking.Since the media is starting to turn toward a factual reporting on Obama it seemed appropriate to re-post the reward offer.
Secret of the Rosary Films is offering a one million dollar reward for the certified long-form birth certificate of Barack Obama.
The long-form birth certificate must be certified by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Long form birth certificates are exact photocopies of the original birth record that was prepared by the hospital or attending physician at the time of the child's birth.
The long form usually includes parents' information such as address of residence, race, birth place, date of birth -- and additional information on the child's birthplace, and information on the doctors that assisted in the birth of the child. The long form also usually includes the signature of the doctor involved and at least one of the parents.
When Hawaii became a state in 1959, there were many people who resided there who did not have a birth certificate. From 1911 to 1972, in Hawaii a person -- over the age of one -- whose birth was not registered -- could apply for a short form birth certificate in Hawaii.
Obamas Kenyan grandmother stated he was born in Kenya. However, Obamas mother or grandmother probably filed an affidavit stating that Obama was born in Hawaii and the state of Hawaii issued the kind of short form certificate posted on the Obamas Web site.
This is the reason why Obama has not released a long form Hawaiian birth certificate.
Barack Obama fights presidential eligibility claims
Barack Obama is being forced to repel a series of writs challenging his presidential eligibility, as conspiracy theories claiming he is not an American citizen refuse to go away.
The most common allegation lawyers are having to refute is that a certificate of Mr Obama's birth in Hawaii is false, leading accusers to conclude that he was born outside the country and is therefore disqualified to fill the highest office in the land.
Other challengers have contended that his Kenyan father was British, even though that would not exclude him from occupying the White House.
Both claims are untrue. Officials in Hawaii said they had viewed Mr Obama's original certificate and confirmed it stated he was born in Honolulu on Aug 4, 1961. A certified version of the certificate released by his campaign last summer when the theory began circulating showed the same. Birth notices in Hawaii papers record a birth to his mother and father on the same day.
But that has not stopped the theorists, who have been dubbed "the Birthers" and who see Mr Obama as a fifth columnist. Their accusations are often tinged with racism and antipathy to Islam, the religion of his father. During his campaigns Mr Obama faced an online rumour mill that he was a Muslim, though he has worshipped at a Christian church for 20 years.
The conservative website WorldNet Daily claims to have received 300,000 signatures for an online petition challenging Mr Obama's legitimacy.
Orly Taitz, a California dentist and lawyer, who was herself born overseas, is representing soldiers challenging Mr Obama's right to be president, including retired Maj Gen Carroll Childers, who compared the Democrat to "Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Mao, and Kim Jong Il".
"He is an interloper, a usurper, a fake, a scam artist, a Chicago crook, a recipient of bribes and gratuitous income for which he paid no tax, a socialist (perhaps only a communist or Marxist), and a grave danger to the future of the America that I love and have protected since I was 17 years old," Maj Gen Childers wrote in a statement on the website for Ms Taitz's Defend Our Freedoms Foundation. The rumour got closest to the mainstream when Richard Shelby, an Alabama senator, gave it credibility during a recent meeting with constituents.
Asked for his views on the notion, the Cullman Times, an Alabama paper, quoted Mr Shelby as saying: "Well his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven't seen any birth certificate. You have to be born in America to be president."
The White House regards the claims as an irritant and is not responding to questions about them, but lawyers for the Democratic National Committee and Mr Obama himself have spent considerable time and money combating a steady supply of lawsuits at every court level up to the Supreme Court. The exact cost to Mr Obama himself is not known.
The hubbub over the president's place of birth, which is aided and abetted by the internet, seems likely to last for some time, if not his entire presidency.
Missouri Bill to Require Birth Certificates for Presidential Candidates
March 4th, 2009Missouri Representative Wayne Cooper (R-Camdenton) has introduced HJR 34. It has 15 Republican co-sponsors. It requires presidential candidates to submit a Birth Certificate to the Secretary of State, and says a certificate of live birth is not an adequate substitute. It also requires voters to show goverment Photo-ID at the polls, bans same-day registration, says the deadline for registering to vote will always be 4 weeks before an election, abolishes absentee voting unless the voter will be absent from the county or can establish illness, and says no one may be paid to register voters. This would all be one very large amendment to the Missouri State Constitution. The sponsor titles it “The Voter’s Bill of Rights”. Thanks to Brandon Henderson for this news.
There’s so much confusion about all of this, even the bill proposed in Missouri gets it wrong. But in Hawai’i there are two types of birth certificates: Certificate of Live Birth and Certification of Live Birth. The Certificate of Live Birth is what is given to each person upon their birth. It is created only once, and after that there are only photocopies of it. A Certification of Live Birth is a computer-generated abstract of the original Certificate of Live Birth that includes most, but not all, of the same information, and can be created an infinite number of times. Obama has provided a Certification of Live Birth, not a Certificate.
here is evidence that he is not a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. It is so simple most overlook it. His Father was not an American Citizen. We all know that this is true. He talks about it in his books. How could his Kenyan Father not give his new born son his Kenyan birthright? Why is his Father discriminated against by all the liberals that type about this subject? Is it because Black me in ‘61 could not give their heritage to their sons? The baby boy was born a Brit thanks to his Father’s Kenyan citizenship & Kenya being under the British Flag. No way out of it, he was a Brit. Being a Brit or 1/2 Brit, 1/2 American precludes him from holding the Presidency or Vice Presidency. He can not be a dual citizen and be NATURAL BORN. Read our founding fathers letters back in 1775. They put NATURAL BORN CITIZEN in the Constitution to keep the Brits out of our Government. Now the Obambots elected a Brit. What we gonna do? We need to do something!
Alan Keyes stokes Obama birth certificate controversy
The controversy over the validity of Barack Obama's birth certificate is back on a burner with firebrand conservative Alan Keyes making serious new charges.
In a video (see below) released Friday, Keyes, who lost to Obama in the 2004 U.S. Senate race in Illinois that launched the new president's national political career, calls Obama a communist and usurper and says he refuses to acknowledge the validity of Obama's inauguration over lingering questions in the minds of many conspiracists about the 44th president's birthplace.
The U.S. Constitution requires any president be born an American citizen.
In June, the Obama campaign released to The Ticket a copy of the then-senator's Hawaiian birth certificate (see the jump below and also here). But stubbornly persistent critics demand to see the original, which the state has refused to provide, citing personal privacy reasons.
And the critics, including Keyes explaining here, cite Obama relatives in Kenya as saying he was actually born there in his father's native land when his American mother was too young to pass on her U.S. citizenship.
In December, as The Ticket reported here, the Supreme Court dismissed without comment a New Jersey lawsuit seeking to bar Obama's inauguration due to questions over his actual citizenship. The Obama camp has proceeded normally as if there was no controversy.
Obviously, the inauguration proceeded, although on the advice of White House counsel as a precaution against a verbal muff during the noontime Jan. 20 public ceremony, Obama did take the presidential oath again that night in private with Chief Justice John Roberts. His White House lawyer feared igniting another simmering legal controversy if there was any doubt about the oath's validity, although the Constitution stipulates the new president takes office at noon no matter what.
However, the dispute over his birthplace continues. Listen here to Keyes' rather strong language.
Soldier questions eligibility, doubts president's authority. A U.S. soldier on active duty in Iraq has called President Obama an "impostor" in a statement in which he affirmed plans to join as plaintiff in a challenge to Obama's eligibility to be commander in chief. The statement was publicized by California attorney Orly Taitz who, along with her DefendOurFreedom.us Foundation, is working on a series of legal cases seeking to uncover Obama's birth records and other documents that would reveal whether he meets the requirements of the U.S. Constitution. Obama "has absolutely refused to provide to the American public his original birth certificate, as well as other documents which may prove or disprove his eligibility," Easterling wrote. "In fact, he has fought every attempt made by concerned citizens in their effort to force him to do so."WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday threw out a lawsuit questioning President Barack Obama's citizenship, lambasting the case as a waste of the court's time and suggesting the plaintiff's attorney may have to compensate the president's lawyer.
In an argument popular on the Internet and taken seriously practically nowhere else, Obama's critics argue he is ineligible to be president because he is not a "natural-born citizen" as the Constitution requires.
In response last summer, Obama's campaign posted his Hawaiian birth certificate on its Web site. But the lawsuit argues it is a fake and that Obama was actually born in his father's homeland of Kenya, even though Hawaiian officials have said the document is authentic.
"This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do," U.S. District Judge James Robertson said in his written opinion.
The lawsuit didn't even use Obama's legal name but called him "Barry Soetoro," the name he went by while attending elementary school in Indonesia. It's one of many that has been filed claiming Obama is ineligible to serve as president.
Robertson ordered plaintiff's attorney John Hemenway of Colorado Springs, Colo., to show why he hasn't violated court rules barring frivolous and harassing cases and shouldn't have to pay Obama's attorney, Bob Bauer, for his time arguing that the case should be thrown out.
President Barack Obama installed his personal and political attorney, Bob Bauer, as the Democratic National Committee’s new lawyer, giving Bauer unmatched power in Democratic legal circles and making him a top behind-the-scenes player in Obama’s inner circle.Robert (Bob) Bauer
PHONE: 202.434.1602 FAX: 202.434.1690
RBauer@perkinscoie.com
Robert Bauer is the Chair of the Political Law Group of Perkins Coie LLP. In Bob's 30 years of practice, he has provided counseling and representation on matters involving regulation of political activity before the courts and administrative agencies of national party committees, candidates, political committees, individuals, federal officeholders, corporations and trade associations, and tax-exempt groups.
Bob is the author of several books — United States Federal Election Law (1982, 1984), Soft Money Hard Law: A Guide to the New Campaign Finance Law (2002) and More Soft Money Hard Law: The Second Edition of the Guide to the New Campaign Finance Law (2004) — and numerous articles. He also serves on the National Advisory Board of Journal of Law and Politics. In 2000, he received the prestigious "Burton Award for Legal Achievement" for his legal writing. Bob is a 1976 graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law, where he was named Hardy Dillard Fellow in legal writing.
Bob is General Counsel to Obama for America and General Counsel to the Democratic National Committee, and he has been counsel for many years to the Democratic Senatorial and Congressional Campaign Committees. He has also served as co-counsel to the New Hampshire State Senate in the trial of Chief Justice David A. Brock (2000); general counsel to the Bill Bradley for President Committee (1999-2000); and counsel to the Democratic Leader in the trial of President William Jefferson Clinton (1999). He has co-authored numerous bipartisan reports, including "Report of Counsel to the Senate Rules and Administration Committee in the Matter of the United States Senate Seat From Louisiana" in the 105th Congress of the United States (March 27, 1997); "Campaign Finance Reform," A Report to the Majority Leader and Minority Leader of the United States Senate (March 6, 1990); and "The Presidential Election Process in the Philippines" (1986), a bipartisan report prepared at the request of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Bob is also the author of the Weblog, www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com, on which he writes about campaign finance and other issues of interest to the political community.
Professional Recognition
- Listed as one of the "100 Most Influential Attorneys" by National Law Journal, 2006
- Listed in Chambers USA, “America’s Leading Political Law Lawyers,” 2006
- Listed in The Best Lawyers in America
- Received the Burton Award for Legal Achievement, 2000
- Peer Review Rated AV in Martindale-Hubbell
Professional Leadership
- American Bar Association, Advisory Commission on Election Law
- University of Virginia, Journal of Law and Politics, National Advisory Board
- Election Law Journal, Editorial Board
The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) held its hearing on Jan. 14th and 15th on the agency's performance, policies, and procedures.
Testimony before the FEC, on Agency Procedures
Robert F. Bauer
January 14, 2008
The Commission should be applauded for inviting examination of its procedures. Before you are a number of recommendations, among them several offered by me along with my partners in the Political Law Group.
I would like to avoid restating those and use my time to answer the question of what you might make of the complaints or suggestions of those who have paraded in here to present them—and of the silence of those who have stayed away, conspicuous by their absence.
Defense counsel are here to make suggestions about process. Reform community representatives, some of whom are dependable voices on the agency’s work, are not much in evidence here.
This is one possible explanation: much of the reform community has given up on the agency and concluded that it is beyond improvement. A proposal or two for replacing it has been proposed. Defense counsel (or organizations skeptical of the campaign finance laws, like the Center for Competitive Politics) come with a very different point of view, also skeptical of the law or its enforcement process but not for the same reason.
So you might say, most witnesses are here to put in a word for more process—more protections for the regulated and more restraints on the regulator. And it would be easy to caricature the process as one dominated by the anti-enforcement wing of the regulated community.
This seems wrong. So let me step back for a few minutes and say why the choice should not be so starkly, mistakenly mischaracterized as one between enforcing the law and upgrading procedures to conform more to due process concerns.
Administrative agencies are supposed to "fill in the gaps" in statutes as enacted. This filling-in is standard agency work, if never free of contention.
At the FEC, it is also contentious, in a particular way. If the Congress never enacts a campaign finance law that is not immediately, predictably challenged on First Amendment or other grounds, then it is also true that the areas left untouched, "unfilled", are just as or more sensitive. The FEC fills in with every chance that it will be entering into those areas and stirring up major resistance.
It is hard enough for activists, parties, candidates and other political actors to accept what Congress manages to produce in the face of partisan and ideological division. Why would the actions of administrators, filling in the gaps, go down more easily?
Now the actions by which gaps are filled include enforcement actions and not merely ordinary course rulemakings. It is a fact that the FEC, in the enforcement or Advisory Opinion process, makes or refashions rules or their functional equivalent, for all practical purposes, never quite admitting it. And these are the enforcement actions that anyone really cares about. No one fusses all too often if the agency fines an individual for giving more, and a campaign from accepting more, than the individual contribution limit allows. But there is a wealth of concern about—among other areas—issue advocacy, fundraising rules, party GOTV activity or individual Internet activity.
Feelings about the agency’s "filling in" activities are strong—very strong—precisely because they are held by political actors engaged in political activity. We have seen in recent years that while the noise is loudest in Republican or conservative or libertarian circles, we can hear it virtually everywhere, not always where we would expect it. One example of this has been the 527 controversies. It worsens matters considerably that the law has grown in complexity: this complexity aggravates the natural frustrations—the sense of injury—resulting from fresh constraints on particular political activity.
This the point at which we hear about "circumvention", "loopholes" and the like—how the agency must stand firm against them. All these alleged evasions are lumped together—for example, "circumventions" are not to be confused with "loopholes"—but however the points are understood, the common thread is that those raising and spending money for political purposes are working the less clearly marked stretch of the road. And keep in mind what they are doing: registering voters, turning them out, raising money, running ads.
This is the largest threat to the viability of this campaign finance regime: that filling in of the law by enforcement will wear away credibility of the campaign finance laws. Administrators can be sure of this, whether the agency is organized like this one or is smaller, with an odd number of Commissioners and a Chair serving for a ten year term. They can be sure that the administrative extension of regulation by Advisory Opinion, or enforcement action will encounter resistance at every turn.
For this to work—for political finance regulation to be sustainable—rigorous attention to process is simply indispensable. It may not end objection; but it will moderate it, and it may also slightly cut down on its frequency. It is a condition of this filling-in activity that it be carefully conducted with plentiful opportunity for the affected political actors to be heard.
The stronger and more comprehensive the procedural protections, the better for the future of political finance regulation. Deficiencies in process are more than the already vulnerable regulatory process can bear.
Now there are ambitions to be surrendered if this trade-off of procedural protection for credible enforcement is to succeed. For example, there is a belief that in campaign finance law, delayed penalties are irreconcilable with vigorous enforcement: that we should want an agency that can strike back quickly, in the middle of an election cycle. Otherwise, we hear, penalties will be paid as a "cost of doing business" and enforcement will lack deterrent force.
In campaign finance regulation, this is entirely the wrong goal to set and the wrong view of the consequences of setting it. The better view is—do it right. Hear out the respondent; arrive at a considered judgment; and if the judgment is considered and the penalty fits the offense, the regulated community will take notice.
Over time, the agency’s enforcement actions will shape compliance practices in the regulated community. Enforcement actions must be measured by their cumulative impact. Asking for more immediate satisfaction—for a swift regulatory response that in the particular case deprives the respondent of ill-gotten political gains—is asking too much. It strains the agency’s capacity for acting fairly and wisely, and these strains will cost more in the long run, in acceptance of its mission, than the agency can gain in the short run in a quest for speedy justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment