 | |
 |  |
Noteworthy
- Friends and Associates
Never Forget
- Thanks, Capnbob.us
Recent Posts
- Cutest Dog Competition
- Kevin Jackson: Exposing the "BIG Black Lie"
- ObamaCare: Changing the Narrative
- Sarah Palin: Does Resigning Make Her a QUITTER?
- July 4 Tea Parties Shift Emphasis From Awareness to Action
- Tax Day "Tea Parties" - What was THAT?
- A Primer on the Tax Day Tea Parties
- Liberals Provide More Proof They Abhor the Constitution!
- Nation's Largest "Tea Party" Protest Held Under St Louis Arch
- Hail & Farewell to the Chief - Final Thoughts on the Bush Presidency
My Links
July 4 Tea Parties Shift Emphasis From Awareness to Action
Immediately conservatives took to their blogs, Facebook and Twitter, and email to hastily arrange the February 27 Tea Parties.
It was a cathartic event. There was finally an outlet for the pent-up rage that many were feeling over the sudden leftward lurch our nation had taken.
In St Louis, organizers initially expected 50 to 100 “activists” to show up and were excited to have a couple hundred confirmed attendees on the event page on Facebook. They never imagined or dared to hope for numbers exceeding 1200, but at least that many people of like mind turned out on that cool day under the Arch.
In St Louis, organizers initially expected 50 to 100 “activists” to show up and were excited to have a couple hundred confirmed attendees on the event page on Facebook. They never imagined or dared to hope for numbers exceeding 1200, but at least that many people of like mind turned out on that cool day under the Arch.
Not much attention was paid to the tea parties. At least, there was little publicly acknowledged attention. President Obama later claimed to have been completely unaware of the Tea Parties, though few take that statement at face value.
Still, Tea Party Organizers knew they had done 2 momentous things. They had created a tremor in Washington, even if it was only a 3 on the Richter Scale; and they had awakened the “sleeping giant” of American Conservatism. The “Fools on the Hill” had generated so much angst and ire amongst the normally “Silent Majority” that folks who ordinarily would do little more than hurl expletives at their televisions now were motivated to take a page from the Left’s playbook… and take to the streets. The “Sleeping Giant” was awake and was becoming aware.
The 2nd major set of Tea Parties was held on Tax Day; April 15. This time, the numbers swelled thanks to the buzz created by the first Tea Parties. In St Louis, Keiner Plaza downtown was filled to overflowing – with a crowd exceeding 10,000 motivated patriots.
The April 15 Tea Parties showed the movement could no longer be ignored by the administration. So they set out to minimize, ridicule, belittle and do all they could to discredit, defang or emasculate the Tea Party movement. Awareness was spreading. Conservatives were becoming informed, yes… but also the Administration, the Congress, and their lapdogs in Media were also becoming aware – aware that there were a lot of angry and informed people out there who were going to hold their feet to the fire and demand accountability.
But while protesting with signs and speeches which preach to the choir is great for the above purposes, going forward it will serve little purpose to simply turn out crowds with signs (no matter how clever) if protest is not accompanied by action. This was the theme of the Independence Day Tea Parties. To answer that question, “What do we do NOW?”
In any popular movement, it is only effective as long as it remains a grassroots effort. Looking to “them” to do all the heavy lifting will inevitably lead to the collapse of the effort under its own weight. That burden must be “redistributed”!
Each person of like mind must become educated, not only in the facts - but in tactics and processes by which they PERSONALLY can respond. No army puts its generals on the front line leading a charge, while the troops remain in the barracks watching TV and cheering them on when they are on the news! While senior staff creates policy and establishes strategies, the real work is done by the enlisted soldier, directed by a non-comm.
For the movement to continue to have “legs”, each person must become an individual activist. This does not mean counting on the elected minority to move their agenda forward. We cannot on the voice of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham and the rest to be the lone voices in the wilderness, leading the way all the way to the promised land! Not even leaving the work to the organizers of Tea Parties or other such protests. Each individual must take the personal responsibility to make their OWN voice heard.
The message that came out of the July 4th Tea Parties – Become equipped and engage the battle!
The individual Activist must first become informed. There are numerous resources ranging from Fox News and Talk Radio to Blogs and Social Networking where reliable information can be obtained apart from the Mainstream Media.
An informed patriot must know how to effectively translate that information into action. Most importantly, they must communicate their ideas, their frustrations, their anger and their praises to their elected officials. They must do so clearly, frequently, and in such a manner as to put them on notice that they are being scrutinized and will be held accountable come election time.
They can gather with the likeminded – not just to enjoy the social enjoyment of gathering with birds of a feather – but to share with one another. To share information. To share resources like websites, books and publications, relevant TV and Radio programming etc. To share strategies and analysis of what has and hasn’t been effective. To share “war stories’ both for amusement and for “lessons learned”. To move initiative petitions along.
Making a difference and affecting “change” will take much commitment of Patriots who are willing to engage the process at the risk of “lives, fortunes and sacred honor”. But not to do so means allowing the ever-expanding and increasingly demanding hydra of government to direct our lives, confiscate our fortunes, and discredit our honor. We must never stand idly by and permit the rise of totalitarianism, socialism, or despotism or tyranny without at least standing up in opposition.
After the constitutional convention, Ben Franklin was approached and asked what type government they had given the people. His reply: A republic – IF YOU CAN KEEP IT. Are you ready, willing and able to commit yourself to this cause?
How can you get started?
1) VOTE!! Not just once every 4 years but EVERY TIME the polls are open, whether for the presidential election or for school board or zoning proposals!
2) Get informed. Avail yourself of the available resourses. New Media and Technology. Networking with others of like mind.
3) Get ACTIVE. Call, write, email, fax and visit your elected officials. Pester them till they know your name! Give them a piece of your mind. Make sure they know they’re being watched, and will be held accountable. Write letters to the editor. Post to blogs. Let people KNOW what is on your mind.
4) EVANGELIZE! Grow the movement by encouraging others to join it! That means being prepared to explain what is wrong, why it’s wrong, and what you are doing about it. If you can get someone to understand what’s happening and how it will affect them, you’re half way to changing their mind!
5) BECOME a resource! Share your knowledge. Share your experiences. Provide money and materials where you can.
Remember, only you can prevent the nation from going up in smoke!
Copyright © 2009 by Doug Edelman
Doug Edelman is a conservative political commentator and has been a contributing editor for The Conservative Voice. His work is also seen on News By Us, The American Daily, The Post Chronicle, New Media Journal, Capitol Hill Coffee House etc. For the support of his family, however, he is also an IT Consultant/Contractor and owner of a Computer Services Business. He has taught PC Maintenance & Repair and Networking at his local Community College, and maintains a blog at http://edeldoug.blogs.com/.
Tax Day "Tea Parties" - What was THAT?
April 15 is a date that has meaning to most everyone. “Tax Day”. Or more correctly, the deadline by which Income Tax filing is due each year.
But this year it also took on a new significance. April 15 was the day that ordinary, common Americans took to the streets to give voice to their displeasure with massive unrestrained spending, insane bailouts, trillion dollar deficits for a decade, confiscatory taxation, unprecedented growth in the size and scope of government, and the march of socialism and wealth transfer.
Over 550,000 people turned out at one of hundreds of “Tea Parties” staged in all 50 states. Approximately one out of every 500 human beings in the nation attended such a protest. This is hardly an insignificant event, notwithstanding the Mainstream Media’s reports to the contrary.
The Left-Loving media first sought to marginalize the Tea Party movement, calling the participants “Fringe Elements”. Then they sought to mischaracterize them as Partisan Tools of the GOP. Some went so far as to compare them to Nazis. And in the final days preceding the event – a report from Homeland Security was released, intended to instill fear that attending such a protest put one at risk of being “watched” as a potential “Domestic Terrorist”! (Particularly egregious in that DHS report was the implication that returning veterans represented a potential threat. I personally find it fascinating that while we Conservatives HONOR our returning vets, the powers that be FEAR them!)
If any were deterred… there were over half a million UN-Deterred Americans who turned out to boldly proclaim their opposition to policies which they deem harmful to our republic.
As I wrote in my “Primer on the Tea Parties”, these protests were NOT partisan, despite the best efforts of Michael Steele and the RNC to potiticize them. It was almost amusing how the GOP came back burned when they were publicly rebuffed by the ACTUAL organizers.
Michael Steele attempted to co-opt the movement in a fund-raising effort for the GOP. He received STINGING rebukes from organizers.
Numerous GOP elected officials sought a stage to speak at the Tea Parties. Organizers refused, explaining that the event was NOT partisan and they wished to prevent its being politicized.
In St Louis, it was mentioned by one of the organizers that some elected officials ARGUED that they should be given a platform. But once denied, they didn’t make an appearance! In fact the only elected official that showed up was Congressman Todd Akin, who never asked to take the stage. He was there simply to lend his PERSONAL support to the effort!
No, the Tax Day Tea Party movement is NOT organized by the GOP, by Dick Armey & Freedomworks, by Don Wildmon and the American Family Association, by the Constitution Party, by the National Socialists, or any other group. Taking inspiration from Santelli’s Chicago Board of Trade rant, several bloggers started the movement via Facebook and Twitter!
In St Louis, local blogger, Bill Hennessy contacted blogger, vlogger and local radio personality Dana Loesch following the Santelli Rant about throwing together an ad-hoc “Tea Party” protest. Out went postings on Twitter and Facebook. A Facebook event page was posted. The event was planned for the St Louis Riverfront 5 days later on February 27.
Hennessy and Loesch initially anticipated a turnout of 50 or so committed individuals. They were THRILLED when the Facebook Event Page listed over 250 confirmed attendees the day before the event. But even they were ASTOUNDED when the turnout for the day topped 1200 under the Arch in St Louis! It was the biggest “Tea Party” protest in the nation on that day.
They new they had a movement started, that couldn’t stop there. Dana Loesch of danaradio.com became one of the National Organizers for the April 15 “Tax Day Tea Party”. Along with Michael Patrick Leahy of tcotreport.com, Eric Odom of dontgomovement.com, along with a few other blogger types, the planning began for the April 15 Nationwide Event.
They established an event page on Facebook, and along with their own Twitter and Facebook pages, their personal emails, and finally a website, www.taxdayteaparty.com.
Hundreds of motivated grassroots people around the country organized their own local events, coordinating thru the Facebook, Twitter and taxdayteaparty.com websites. It was a TRUE GRASSROOTS effort.
The issues cut across party lines. There were Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, Constitution Party members, Democrats and more all participating with a common purpose: To express to Washington that they have HAD IT with the unbridled tax and spend policies, growth of government’s size and intrusion, and the threat to our rights and liberties that such a bloated government represents.
St Louisan Scott Ransom commented after the party: “We were "there," and wow, what an awesome crowd, right down to a person. There were some pierced-up Lefties standing right with me, and when I thanked them for being there, I swear one of them started to cry. She was SHOCKED. Fabulous gathering...wanna do it again like now.”
Media coverage of the Tea Parties was largely dismissive. The media and those in Washington dismiss this movement at their peril. It is strong. It is committed. It cuts across the political spectrum. It is not going away. In fact, it will probably grow larger and more powerful by the time the next Tea Parties come around. Yes, there will be more! Get ready for the LIBERTY Tea Parties on July 4!
Copyright © 2009 by Doug Edelman
Nation's Largest "Tea Party" Protest Held Under St Louis Arch
Dick Armey recently sent out a modest newsletter:
“Last week you may have seen or perhaps heard about CNBC's Rick Santelli and his report from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, ground zero for American capitalism and free market commerce, where he called for a "Taxpayer Tea Party" in the wake of efforts to enact a new, multi-billion dollar taxpayer funded housing bailout.
If you are like me, you stood up and cheered.
Rick was channeling what so many limited government advocates have been feeling now for a long time when it comes to out-of-control spending on the backs of hardworking U.S. taxpayers to reward the irresponsible and the corrupt: enough is enough!”
And with that, Freedomworks (http://freedomworks.org) called for grass roots protests against the massive spending stimuli across the nation.
Bill Hennessy of the St. Louis area was similarly inspired by Santelli. Hennessy contacted local blogger and radio personality, Dana Loesch (www.danaradio.com) and the two of them set off to organize the St Louis Tea Party at the Riverfront.
Utilizing the latest in technology – Social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, as well as emails, word spread amongst the St Louis conservative community. Ms Loesch was even approached by a local TV station for an interview the night before the event.
All this began on Monday, February 23, for an event which took place Friday February 28. Organizers were hopeful for a turnout of 50 to 100 people, and were extremely encouraged when they had over 200 confirmed attendees on their Facebook event page Thursday night.
But even they were flabbergasted when the crowd grew to over 1000 people; excited, energized, and motivated!
The majority of those attending took time off work – long lunches or days off – to attend. Many commented that they’d never participated in a protest demonstration before. Said one participant, “Usually, it’s the Liberals protest when the government doesn’t do what they want. Conservatives go to work, take care of their families, and if they’re REALLY motivated, they email their Congressman. This time the stakes are so high we must resort to protests in the streets!”
Notable signs included one held by a college student stating she works 2 jobs to pay her own way thru college, and another held by a youngster asking “Does this mean I can overspend my allowance?”
Drivers passing by honked their horns in support of the demonstrators.
After short remarks by several dignitaries, the crowd descended the levee to the Mississippi River, where they symbolically dumped tea into the river. A Coast Guard Patrol Boat stood watch a short way off shore, in all likelihood a safety precaution against anyone falling in the water. A few announcements were made to the effect that only LOOSE tea should be thrown into the river, lest the Coast Guard cite the protesters for an environmental violation for throwing paper tea bags into the water!
The event galvanized the conservative population of St Louis, whether they were able to attend the event or not. Similar protests are planned in the future, with Tax Day, April 15, being floated as a possible protest date.
Whether this “Tea Party” movement has legs, or is simply a vent of frustration by a decimated and impotent conservative constituency remains to be seen… but at this juncture, this is a force that the powers that be will have to reckon with.
Copyright © 2009 by
Doug Edelman
An Open Letter to the Electors of the Electoral College
Despite the failure of several lawsuits to get a hearing of the facts in the courts, there remain questions about Obama's eligibility to serve as President of the United States under Article II Section 1 of the US Constitution. Only a "Natural Born" Citizen may serve in that office.
On his website Obama finally acknowledged that at one time he held dual citizenship between the US and Kenya. This in and of itself could be argued to be a disqualifier; as the point of the "natural born" clause in the Constitution was to avoid divided allegiances. But if Obama was not born in the United States, he is indisputably ineligible to inherit "Natural Born" US Citizenship from his mother. His father was not a US Citizen, and his mother had not fulfilled the requirement to have lived 5 years in the US past the age of 14. She was only 18 at the time of Obama's birth. Therefore if he was born in Kenya, he is NOT a "Natural Born" US Citizen and is ineligible to serve.
Obama put forth only a "Certification of live birth" as evidence of eligibility; which is NOT A Birth Certificate!
After months and months of unrequited requests, the Obama campaign did finally present a document which they claimed validated your eligibility (per the Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section I) as a "Natural born citizen" to have Obama's name on the ballot in contention for the office of the President of the United States of America.
Some have claimed the document is a forgery; however it is unlikely that the document is not a genuinely issued form from the State of HI…
However, what the Obama campaign supplied was not, in fact, a "birth certificate". What they supplied was actually a "Certification of Live Birth." There is a major difference between a "birth certificate" and a "Certification of Live Birth."
Aside from the level of detail differentiating the documents (hospital of record, doctor, height, weight, etc) - in the state of Hawaii, one authenticates natural born citizenship, and the other doesn't. This part is important; - and it has nothing to do with tin foil hats.
According to the State of Hawaii's Department of Health, "Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country." (For citation purposes, please feel free to visit their site: http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/index.html ).
The "Certificate of Live Birth" as provided by Mr. Obama, is in fact, a derivative of the "Amended certificates of birth" they site. Why is that important? Because of that second clause in the above citation. While you may show citizenship via such a document, you do not necessarily prove "natural born" citizenship. "Natural born citizenship" is what is required to be eligible to be considered for the Presidency, per the United States Constitution.
The form that you posted wouldn't even be acceptable to make an application in Hawaii's Home Lands Program! The STATE OF HAWAII that ISSUED the form won't accept it as proof of "natural born" Hawaiian eligibility for the program!
From: http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl
"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."
THIS is a "Vault Copy" HI Birth Certificate:
And this is the Certification of Live Birth posted on Obama's website:
Notice any differences?
Hospital of birth? Residence address of mother? Birthplace of parents? SIGNATURE OF ATTENDANT AT BIRTH?
What Obama posted IS NOT A BIRTH CERTIFICATE!
There is a further complication, however. EVEN IF Obama was born in Hawaii, his subsequent adoption by Lolo Soetoro and resultant INDONESIAN citizenship represents a bigger fly in his ointment.
Indonesia, at the time Obama lived there and was deemed an Indonesian citizen, did not recognize dual citizenship; and neither did the US recognize dual citizenship with Indonesia. Thus, whether Obama held dual citizenship with the US and Kenya, and whether he was born in the US or Kenya; all is irrelevant as the ONLY legitimate citizenship he would have held once his adopted father moved him to Indonesia was Indonesian! Obama's US Citizenship would be forfeit!
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/breaking-photo-documents-barry-soetoro-indonesian/
Whether and when Barry Soetoro/Barack Obama might have regained US Citizenship thereafter, it would have had to be thru NATURALIZATION; and that is SPECIFICALLY and EXPRESSLY ineligible to serve as President of the United States under Title II. (Could this be why he opted to use the politically risky name Barack Hussein Obama instead of the more innocuous "Barry Soetoro"? Perhaps Barry Soetoro is STILL an Indonesian citizen? Perhaps there are naturalization papers in the name of Barry Soetoro? I'm just asking...)
If there is any doubt in your mind as to the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to serve in the office of President of the United States under Title II, then you have a constitutional duty to withhold your electoral vote.
Another Lawsuit Filed on Obama's POTUS Eligibility
Thanks to the lawsuit filed by Philip Berg, Obama now ADMITS (on his "Fight the Smears" website and factcheck.org) that he held dual citizenship with Kenya as a child. This, in and of itself, may arguably disqualify him under Article II as the whole point of the "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is the avoidance of divided allegiances. (Which makes his covert and quite possibly illegal activities [Logan Act?] on behalf of Kenya's thugocrat, Odinga, all the more relevant and disturbing.)
Obama and Kenya's Thugocrat, Odinga
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html
There is a further complication, however. His subsequent adoption by Lolo Soetoro and resultant INDONESIAN citizenship is a bigger fly in his ointment. (I laugh whenever reference is made to "citizen of the WORLD'... Obama truly is a WORLD CITIZEN!)
Indonesia, at the time Obama lived there and was deemed an Indonesian citizen, did not recognize dual citizenship, and neither did the US recognize dual citizenship with Indonesia. Thus, whether he held dual citizenship with the US and Kenya, whether he was born in the US or Kenya, or even - as some suggest - CANADA, is irrelevant as the ONLY legitimate citizenship he held once his adopted father moved him to Indonesia was Indonesian! His US Citizenship would be forfeit!
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/breaking-photo-documents-barry-soetoro-indonesian/
Whether and when Barry Soetoro/Barack Obama might have regained US Citizenship thereafter, it would be thru NATURALIZATION and that is SPECIFICALLY and EXPRESSLY ineligible to serve as President of the United States under Title II. (Could this be why he uses the politically risky name Barack Hussein Obama instead of the more innocuous "Barry Soetoro"? Perhaps Barry Soetoro is STILL an Indonesian citizen? Perhaps there are naturalization papers in the name of Barry Soetoro? I'm just asking...
The judge in the Berg suit has not, to this date, granted Obama's motion to dismiss the case and it continues to move forward. (If the case has no merit, why hasn't the judge granted the relief Obama filed for??) Now Obama has a second suit he must contend with. Both could be easily dispensed with by providing the demanded documentation which would prove he is a "natural born citizen" and thus eligible to serve. He has not produced these documents and instead seeks to DELAY discovery and production of any documents while he makes motions to dismiss. The "proof" of eligibility he's offered is a "Certificate of Live Birth" posted on his "Fight the Smears" website, and duplicated on Factcheck.org and the Daily Kos sites! (Forensic experts have declared it a forgery!) Even if it were a genuine Hawaiian "Birth Certificate" with raised seal (and it's not), it would still not adequately address the Indonesian citizenship issue which Obama has yet to acknowledge!
The text of the new suit appears below. Note the factual argument in section 5 which is the basis of the case.
(Hey, anyone know a good pro-bono attorney in MO??? I'd love to bring a similar suit that our loony leftist Missouri Secretary of State, Robin Carnahan, would have to respond to!!)
STEVEN R MARQUIS Plaintiff
vs.
SAMUEL SUMNER REED, ACTING IN THE OFFICE OF WASHINGTON STATE, SECRETARY OF STATE
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION NO___________
1. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ORDER
1.1. Plaintiff Steven R Marquis, [hereinafter “Plaintiff”] hereby offers this memorandum in support of his motion for injunctive relief, to demand performance of constitutional duties related to the Office of Washington State, Secretary of State by Samuel Sumner Reed, a/k/a Sam Reed, [hereinafter Defendant”].
1.2. Plaintiff’s complaint challenges the presidential candidate Mr. Barack Obama’s eligibility to run for the Office of President and demands that the Office of Secretary of State make such determination by acquisition of original documentation or by receipt of verifiable information from another government entity so charged with overseeing the election process such as the Federal Elections Commission.
1.3. Plaintive argues that when a challenge is received by the Washington State, Secretary of State to the qualification for office of a candidate appearing on the Washington State Ballot that the entire burden of proof falls on the Candidate for Office to present such information and documentation to the Washington State, Secretary of State as would be normal and customary to establish ones minimum qualifications for office.
1.4. Plaintiff argues that the Office of Secretary of State has the Constitutional and Statutory authority to make such determinations as part of certifying and executing fair and open elections.
1.5. Plaintiff argues that is it only sufficient to show reasonable cause for complaint to the Secretary of State for his Office to require documentation of the respective candidate relevant to determination of minimum qualification; that lacking explicit statute defining the requisite documentation that the Secretary of State has the intrinsic authority to set those reasonable standards that would establish certain confidence in the people in the electoral process.
1.6. Plaintiff seeks focused and expedited review, to protect the veracity of the electoral process and maintain the people’s confidence in the government.
2. COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
2.1. Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, states in particular part, "No Person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States." .
2.2. Mr. Barack H. Obama is a candidate for United States Office of the President. However, Mr. Obama must meet the qualifications specified for the United States Office of the President, which is, he must be a "natural born" citizen. Mr. Obama has failed to demonstrate that he is a "natural born" citizen. There are other legal challenges before the Federal Courts regarding aspects of lost or dual citizenship. That challenge in an of itself further demonstrates plaintiff’s argument that reasonable doubt exists as to the veracity of the electoral process that would allow such fundamental questions exist at this late hour preceding the election.
2.3. The Washington State office of Secretary of State is responsible for the veracity of the Washington State election process from verifying ahead of time the qualification of the voters, the ballots themselves, the candidates and the final counting and certification of results. That office is intended to be non-biased and to provide the critical sense of fairness and correctness necessary for the people to have faith in the fundamental underpinnings of the democratic basis for our republic.
2.4. There is a reasonable and common expectation by the people that to qualify for the ballot that the individuals so listed meet the minimum qualifications as outlined in the constitutions and that proof of those minimum qualifications has been received by the officials executing the election process. Heretofore, only a signed statement from the candidate attesting to meeting those qualifications was requested and received by the Office of the Secretary of State with no verification demanded. This practice, it should be noted, represents a much lower standard than that demanded of one when requesting even a driver’s license. Since the office of Secretary of state has at its core the mission of certifying and establishing the veracity of the election process, this complaint seeks a directive to the Washington State Office of Secretary of State to receive appropriate verifiable documentation and certify any individual’s qualification for Office whose basic credentials for that Office have been challenged by formal request to the Office of Secretary of State from a citizen of Washington State.
2.5. In the case of individuals seeking the Office of President of the United States, the US constitution prescribes a system of electors where citizens of the respective state have a state controlled election wherein electors representing the interest of the named individual on the state ballot are so elected to represent the interests of the respective state at the electoral college. Thus, we do not have a federal ballot controlled by the federal government; we have a Washington State ballot where we elect electors who in turn represent the named individual on the ballot. That is one more reason that the Washington Secretary of State has prevue over the certification of not just the counts of the ballots so cast, but also the veracity of the contents of the ballot.
2.6. This complaint of failure to carry out a key task in our election system could be satisfied should verification of candidate qualifications be received from original or certified documents from primary sources or from a verifiable report generated from government agencies such as the Federal Elections Commission. It is the Washington State, Secretary of State’s duty to certify the veracity of documents or reports so received.
2.7. To avert likely civil unrest and a constitutional crisis which would certainly accrue after the election through laborious legal challenges and impeachment process, this complaint seeks to resolve such complaints prior to the election. It was incumbent on the candidates to present such documentation, but to date Mr. Obama has failed to do so.
2.8. This complaint seeks specifically to verify through the office of the Washington Secretary of State that Mr. Obama is a "natural born" citizen.
2.9. At this point, Mr. Obama has not allowed independent or official access to his birth records and supporting hospital records. Mr. Obama’s citizenship status has and is being challenged in the federal courts which challenge will cast doubt on the veracity of the electoral system regardless of outcome if not resolved prior to the election. The Washington State, Secretary of State Office is specifically charged with certifying and guaranteeing the veracity of official documents and overseeing the elections to wit the people’s confidence in the fundamental aspect of democracy is maintained. To date, in this regard, Secretary of State Sam Red has not carried out that fundamental duty.
2.10. The Federal Elections Commission FEC is generally tasked with providing oversight and verifications of federal candidates. To date the FEC has not produced either certification or verifiable documentation regarding the candidates basic qualifications for office. Lacking that certification from the FEC, this complaint request the Washington State - Secretary of State Sam Reed to formally request of Hawaii State Health Department officials to produce forthwith a certified copy of his “Vault” [original long version] Birth Certificate.
2.11. This complaint requests that Washington State - Secretary of State Sam Reed formally requests primary backup materials if they exist of hospital records that would lend veracity to a Hawaii live birth declaration. A court order of discovery is requested to assist that investigation directed to the respective hospital if so identified on a live birth certificate.
2.12. Should Mr. Obama be discovered, whether by virtue of malfeasance, or negligence, or ignorance on his part to not have a valid certified US birth certificate or to otherwise due to have been revealed by such examination of original records to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and thereby his nomination be declared void by the appropriate authorities acting under the law, Plaintiff as well as other Americans will suffer irreparable harm including but not limited to:
2.12.1. Functional, or actual, disenfranchisement of large numbers of citizens, being members of the Democratic Party, who would have been deprived of the ability to choose a qualified nominee of their liking;
2.12.2. Irreparable harm to the structure and integrity of the Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee. In turn, this too would lead to disenfranchisement.
2.12.3. If the candidate Mr. Obama were to secure the election and later be discovered ineligible, the resulting constitutional and national security crisis that would ensue would generate a severe and genuine likelihood of civil disturbance by virtue of reaction to said disenfranchisement and upset.
2.13. It was well expected that after all the public concern that has been raised over the preceding months now that Mr. Obama would have released for public or official scrutiny the relevant documentation to back up his claim of qualification as a “natural born citizen”. His reaction to public concern and his recent actions in Federal District Court 9/24/2008 demonstrate that Mr. Obama has no intentions of releasing said documentation for review or cannot because they do not exist. The late hour of this request was dictated by the delaying tactics of the candidate Mr. Obama, and the non-responsiveness to Plaintiff’s repeated request to the Office Washington State - Secretary of State Sam Reed.
3. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3.1. As we do not have federal ballot per se, Washington State, through the office of the Washington State, Secretary of State creates its own ballot and supervises the same, electing electors to represent our choice for the Office of President. This case arises under the Washington Constitution RCW 42.04.020 and Section 15, Article III, Section 17 of the Washington State Constitution and Chapter 43.07 RCW. and the laws of the United States and presents a state question within this Court's jurisdiction.
4. PARTIES
4.1. Plaintiff, Steven Russel Marquis [hereinafter "Plaintiff'], is an adult individual with a home address of 34077 SE 56th St Fall City, WA 98024. Citizen USA.
4.2. Defendant, Samuel Sumner Reed, a/k/a Sam Reed is an adult individual with an office address of PO Box 40220 Olympia, WA 98504-0220. Washington State, Secretary of State.
5. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS THAT DEMOSTRATE THE NEED TO PROOF THE CANDIDATE’S MINIMUM CONSTITUTIONAL QUALIFICATION.
5.1. These allegations and statements are not intended to be proof of the status of Mr. Obama’s citizenship or lack thereof. That will be determined in the venue of the US District court. The listing of the allegations detailed below are included to demonstrate the reasonable assertion of the need for the Washington State, Secretary of State to reestablish public confidence in the veracity of the electoral process and the obvious need for precertification as to a candidate’s meeting the minimum constitutional requirements.
5.2. By the U.S. Constitution, in order to run for office of the President, you must be a "natural born citizen" and you may not hold dual citizenship or multiple citizenships with foreign countries. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1.
5.3. There are questions as to where Obama was actually born; in the United States or abroad but subsequently registered in Hawaii. There are further questions regarding Obama's United States citizenship, if he ever held such, being expatriated and his failure to regain his citizenship by taking the oath of allegiance once he turned eighteen (18) years of age. There are additional questions regarding Obama's multi-citizenships with foreign countries, which he may still maintain. To date, Obama has refused to prove he is qualified under the U.S. Constitution and his eligibility to run as President of the United States despite requests and recent opportunities to do so in Federal Court.
5.4. The "certificate" that Mr. Obama has posted on his official WEB site is a "Certification of Live Birth," and not a “Birth Certificate” from Hawaii. There is no indication on even this certificate as to specifically where the birth took place.
5.5. Researchers have claimed to have been unable to locate any birthing records in island hospitals for Barak Obama’s mother. Mr. Obama has offered none for review.
5.6. Three forensic document experts have published extensive reports claiming that there is evidence of tampering on even the Obama WEB site displayed certificate.
5.7. Numerous Freedom of Information Requests have been sent to Officials in Hawaii with no response from the public officials nor has Mr. Obama granted access for release of the information lending to the concern over the veracity of the attestation on the candidate’s application for candidacy for the office of President of the United States.
5.8. The facts are undisputed by Obama that his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a U.S. citizen however, his father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a citizen of Kenya. Obama's parents, according to divorce records, were married on or about February 2, 1961.
5.9. Obama claims he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961; however, has never given the name of the hospital he was born in; whereas there are reports that Obama's grandmother on his father's side, half brother and half sister claim Mr. Barack H. Obama was born in Kenya. Reports further reflect that Mr. Obama's mother went to Kenya during her pregnancy. Wayne Madsen, Journalist with Online Journal as a contributing writer and published an article on June 9, 2008 stating that a research team went to Mombassa, Kenya, and located a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. at a Kenya Maternity Hospital, to his father, a Kenyan citizen and his mother, a U.S. citizen. There are claims of records of a "registry of birth" for Obama, on or about August 8, 1961 in the public records office in Hawaii, but these have not been released for scrutiny. It is alleged in the Federal trial and is a matter of much general speculation that Mr. Obama’s mother was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of pregnancy, which apparently was a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight. It is likely that Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew to Hawaii and registered Obama's birth.
5.10. Regarding the alleged birth of Barack Hussein Obama in Honolulu, Hawaii, it is variously circulated that Obama's birth is reported as occurring at two (2) separate hospitals, Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital. Obama has provided no proof of birth from of either of these or any other US based facility. He has made no effort to address these public concerns.
5.11. There are no published or known hospital birthing records for Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama), Obama's mother. There are only claims of records of a "registry of birth" for Obama, on or about August 8, 1961 in the public records office in Hawaii.
5.12. There is even a Canadian Birth Certificate posted on the Internet in the name of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.; however, the date of birth shows to be August 23, 1961
5.13. At the time of Obama's birth in 1961, Kenya was a British Colony. Subsequently, under the Independence Constitution of Kenya, Mr. Barack H. Obama became a Kenyan citizen on December 12, 1963. There are no indications or reports that Mr. Obama ever renounced that dual citizenship conferred either by nature of birth or by virtue of his father’s Kenyan citizenship. On Mr. Obama’s Senate web site, Mr. Obama acknowledges his father holds Kenyan nationality but avoids addressing that that he (Mr. Obama) also held/holds Kenyan nationality.
5.14. If in fact Obama was born in Kenya, the laws on the books in the United States at the time of his birth stated if a child is born abroad and one parent was a U.S. Citizen, which would have been his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama's mother would have had to live ten (10) years in the United States, five (5) of which were after the age of fourteen (14). At the time of Obama's birth, his mother was only eighteen (18) and therefore did not meet the residency requirements under the law to give her son (Obama) U.S. Citizenship much less the status of “natural born.” The laws in effect at the time of Obama's birth prevented U.S. Citizenship at birth of children born abroad to a U.S. Citizen parent and a non-citizen parent, if the citizen parent was under the age of nineteen (19) at the time of the birth of the child. Obama's mother did not qualify under the law on the books to register Obama as a "natural born" citizen. Section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27,1952,66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S.c. §1401(b), Matter of S-F-and G-, 2 I & N Dec. 182 (B.I.A.) approved (Att'y Gen. 1944). Obama would have only been Naturalized and a Naturalized citizen is not qualified nor eligible to run for Office of the President. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section Clause 4.
5.15. Furthermore, if Obama had been born in Kenya, his birth father Barack Obama, Sr. was a citizen of Kenya; therefore, Obama would have automatically become a citizen of Kenya.
5.16. The Nationality Act of 1940 provided for the loss of citizenship when the person became naturalized upon the naturalization of his or her parent having custody of such person. Obama's mother expatriated her U.S. Citizenship when she married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia and relocated herself and her son (Obama) to Indonesia.
5.17. Obama was enrolled by his parents in a public school, Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia. Plaintiff has available copies of the school registration where it clearly states Obama's name as Barry Soetoro and lists his citizenship as Indonesian, Obama's father is listed as Lolo Soetoro, Obama's date of birth and place of birth are listed as August 4,1961 in Honolulu and Obama's Religion is listed as Islam. This document was verified by television show Inside Edition, whose reporter, Matt Meagher took the actual footage of the school record.
5.18. In or about 1971, Obama's mother sent Obama back to Hawaii. Obama was ten (10) years of age upon his return to Hawaii.
5.19. Sometime after the return of Obama to Hawaii, Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham returned to Hawaii and divorced her husband, Lolo Soetoro. At the time of divorce, Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham could have regained her U.S. citizenship. In order to regain her citizenship, Obama's mother would have had to take the oath of allegiance required. Such oath of allegiance may be taken abroad before a diplomatic or consular of the United States, or in the United States before the Attorney General or the judge or clerk of a court. Such Oath of Allegiance would have been entered in the records of the appropriate embassy, legation, consulate, court or the Attorney General and upon demand, a certified copy of the proceedings, including a copy of the oath administered, under the seal of the embassy, legation, consulate, court or the Attorney General shall be delivered. The certified copy shall be evidence of the facts stated therein before any court of record or judicial tribunal and in any department or agency of the Government of the United States. 8U.S.c.§1435.
5.20. Obama's mother failed to take the oath in order to regain her U.S. Citizenship. Therefore, Obama would not have been able to regain his U.S. Citizenship until he turned eighteen (18) years and then only after he took the Oath of Allegiance before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, or in the U.S. before the Attorney General or the judge or clerk of court. Since the Oath of Allegiance would have been entered in the records of the appropriate embassy, legation, consulate, court or the Attorney General, then Obama should be able to produce in court a certified copy of the proceedings, including a copy of the oath administered. No such copy has been to date produced for public examination.
5.21. After many attempts of the public to obtain Obama's Certificate of Birth, a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) was placed on Obama's campaign website. However, as posted all over the internet, three (3) independent Document Forensic Experts performed extensive forensic testing on the Certificate of Live Birth as posted on Obama's campaign website. The Forensic Expert findings were that the posted Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) was a forgery. It was further discovered that the posted COLB had evidence of having been created from an altered/forged from a COLB issued to Maya Kasandra Soetoro, born in 1970. Maya Kasandra Soetoro is Obama's half sister who was born in Indonesia and her birth was later registered in Hawaii. The altered and allegedly forged COLB is still on Obama's website located at http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert
5.22. Even if Obama had and subsequently maintained his United States Citizenship, which citizenship he has failed before District Court to demonstrate, he may still carry citizenships in Kenya and/or Indonesia. These facts call into question what the constitution attempted to address regarding potently divided loyalties with foreign countries. Thus, Mr. Obama carries multiple citizenships and would be ineligible to run for President of the United States. United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1.
6. Failure to grant injunctive relief will realize these detriments:
6.1. Failing to officially and publically vet the status of the citizenship claims of Mr. Obama will cast a pall of doubt on the election process and taint the election results themselves.
6.2. Failure to grant injunctive relief would allow a potentially corrupted, fraudulent nomination and election process to continue.
6.3. Failure to grant injunctive relief demanding the Washington State, Secretary of State certify the minimum qualifications of challenged candidates not only allows, but promotes an overwhelming degree of disrespect and creates such a lack of confidence in voters of the primary and electoral process itself, so that it would cement a prevailing belief that no potential candidate has to obey the laws of this country, respect our election process, follow the Constitution, or even suffer any consequence for lying and defrauding voters to get onto the ballot when they have no chance of serving if they fraudulently manage to get elected.
6.4. As stated above, Plaintiff as well as all American citizens will suffer irreparable harm if injunctive relief is not granted. Plaintiff does not have any other way of redress regarding these very significant and important issues.
6.5. Despite many complaints, the FEC has failed Plaintiff and the American citizens by their failure to date to perform due diligence and inquire into Mr. Obama's eligibility to run for Office of the President. Lacking such certification, it is incumbent on the Washington State, Secretary of State to certify or decertify as to the eligibility for office before the election based on the availability of clear documentation demonstrating that minimum qualifications for the respective office has been met by candidates.
7. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court:
7.1. Grant injunctive relief demanding that Washington State, Secretary of State Sam Reed immediately acquire primary documents or certified copies from primary sources such as Health Department and hospital records or verifiable reports regarding same from the FEC.
7.2. Plaintiff requests Washington State, Secretary of State Sam Reed to immediately demand such verifiable report from the FEC or demand a certified copy of Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth and subpoena as needed for the release hospital records if so claimed on said Live Birth Certificate to further prove he was born in Hawaii as Mr. Obama claims.
7.3. Direct Washington State, Secretary of State Sam Reed to certify or decertify the challenged candidates prior to the election based on the availability of clear documentation.
7.4. Plaintiff requests the Washington State, Secretary of State to immediately demand a certified copy of Obama’s Oath of Allegiance proving he regained his United States Citizenship.
7.5. If Secretary Sam Reed is unable to document a certified record of Obama’s oath of allegiance and birth and hospital records, Secretary of State Sam Reed must decertify Mr. Obama as a valid candidate for the office of President of the United States Office of the President under the United States Constitution, Article II, Section I;
7.6. Award Plaintiff such costs and fees applicable by law; and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully Submitted,
Steven R Marquis
34077 SE 56th St Fall City, WA 98024
425-698-7084
VERIFICATION
I, STEVEN R MARQUIS, hereby state that I am the Plaintiff in this action and verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint for Injunctive Relief are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties law relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Copyright © 2008 by Doug Edelman
News
- News & Commentary
Recommended
- I use 'em. You should too.
Pando is an award-winning, personal-P2P software that lets you easily download and share large files (and folders) via email, IM and the Web.
Pando Pro is the fastest Pando ever! Pro subscribers enjoy:- Faster downloads
- Share bigger files - up to 3 GB
- Avoid ads
- Get free tech support!
The Fighting 101st
- JOIN UP! - Enlist Today
