June 15, 2014

Court reverses Ruling on Presidential Eligibility, 6 years late

June 15, 2014. Sacramento, CA. Is Barack Obama eligible to be President? Nobody knows. From 2008 to 2011, nearly a dozen state courts confirmed that anyone, regardless of their legal eligibility, can run for and be elected US President. Barack Obama proved that, not with billions of dollars in free TV attacks against those demonized as ‘birthers’. But because one court after another said so.

6 state courts decided nobody has authority to check Barack Obama’s Presidential eligibility, but a CA court ruled it did last month when it disqualified Peace & Freedom Presidential candidate Peta Lindsay.

(This is a jointly published article by Whiteout Press and our sister publication Opposition News)

For those who believe what the corporate news media tells them, they may as well stop reading right here. Because on this particular issue, the truth has been banned from America’s airwaves by the Washington-Wall St propaganda ministers. Your author and Whiteout Press have been covering this story for six years. So, we know the facts of this legal question. And the facts are the exact opposite of what the corporate media has reported, and is still reporting to this day.



Obama eligibility precedent

The US Constitution requires every US President to be a certain age and a ‘natural born citizen’, not simply a ‘citizen’ as the DNC and their Wall Street media allies have insisted. To be a ‘natural born citizen’, as defined by the US Supreme Court, a baby must be born to two parents who are both American citizens at the time of the child’s birth. This is where many insist Barack Obama is not eligible to be US President.

They’ve introduced into evidence countless documents from both America and around the world that appear to prove that Barack Obama’s father was not a US citizen at the time of Barack’s birth. It was only in the time afterward that the father became a naturalized American citizen. If that’s true, then Obama is not eligible to be President. But America doesn’t know if it’s true or not because Obama has spent millions of dollars, and countless taxpayer resources, sealing all government and historical documents that would prove it one way or another, most especially his father’s immigration and naturalization records. The obvious and unavoidable conclusion is that people don’t destroy evidence that proves their innocence. They only destroy evidence that proves their guilt.

Criteria to be US President - none

Thanks to one court verdict after another, America now knows that there is absolutely no process or way to challenge a US President or US Vice President’s eligibility as required by the US Constitution. For every elected office in America, other than those two, there is an agency required to verify candidate eligibility and remove candidates proven not to be eligible.

When the Democratic National Committee nominated Barack Obama for US President in 2008 and 2012, every state Board of Elections was forced to accept the party’s choice regardless of his eligibility. When a half dozen state courts heard arguments from citizens and groups challenging his ability to hold the office, every single court either dismissed the lawsuit or confirmed that there is no process or government entity charged with verifying the eligibility of Presidential candidates. And therefore, anyone including Vladimir Putin, a child or a dog can be nominated and elected US President.

CA court reverses previous rulings

As reported by our friends at Ballot Access News, on May 6th the Ninth Circuit Court in California ruled that the state’s Secretary of State did not violate the rights of 2012 Peace & Freedom Party Presidential candidate Peta Lindsay when it removed her name from the election ballot because she didn’t satisfy the requirements to be US President as outlined by the US Constitution. Lindsay is a rising star on the socialist left, but was only 27 years old. According to the US Constitution, a person must be 35 or older to be US President.



She went on to run for President that same year anyway under the Party for Socialism and Liberation banner. The difference is that in California, Peace & Freedom has major party status and has its own state administered Primary Election. The PSL has minor party status in the state and administers and regulates its own party primary.

The controversy now arises in the form of a half dozen court rulings that states don’t have the authority to judge the eligibility of Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates versus one California court that ruled the states can challenge Presidential candidates. It also ruled they could challenge, not on a uniform basis, but if and when they choose, and only for opposition candidates if they like. The CA Secretary of State even admitted that no voter or organization challenged Lindsay’s eligibility or her candidacy. Instead, government employees read in a newspaper that Peta was only 27 and took it upon themselves to remove her from the ballot.

‘No ones in charge’ or ‘Officials can do whatever they want’

The larger controversy comes from the fact that during the proceedings in the suit over Peta Lindsay and the California Secretary of State, the government’s attorneys admitted they had no legal authority to challenge a Presidential candidate’s eligibility, but they did it anyway.

Ballot Access News reports that the Circuit Court managed to give the government undefined authority while blacking out any mention of the fact that nobody is in charge of verifying the eligibility of Presidential candidates. The publication reports, ‘At the oral argument, the attorney for the Secretary of State admitted there is no statutory authority for the Secretary of State to review the qualifications of Presidential candidates, but that fact is missing from the opinion.’

This court ruling, added to the rest, confirms the legal precedents that the Republican and Democratic Parties can nominate anyone they want for US President, regardless of their eligibility. But opposition parties like the Peace and Freedom Party must abide by the law. And according to the California court verdict last month, the Republican and Democratic Party members who hold all 50 Secretary of State offices can apply the law only to their opponents while at the same time ignoring the law for their fellow party members.

Forget that Barack Obama has a lifetime of documents showing that he wasn’t born in the United States, including his own words, published writings, the materials from his own book, his school records, and a 2009 birth certificate passed off as a 52-year-old document printed on paper that didn’t even exist then using a font that didn’t exist either. None of that has anything to do with this extremely important decision, even though our TV and newspapers have spent six years telling us that’s the only thing it’s about.



The lesson here is that state Boards of Elections can now kick opposition Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates off the ballot when they don’t satisfy the qualifications, while at the same time ignoring the proven disqualifications of their own party’s candidates. Each of the half dozen court decisions from around the country don’t come out and say that. But taken together, it’s more than just a paranoid argument, it’s happened and will continue to happen on an even greater scale.

The above article is a jointly published report by Whiteout Press and our sister publication Opposition News.

 

SUBSCRIBE







DONATE

Whiteout Press is a FREE independent News Service.

Support Indy-Media - Support Whiteout Press

Donate Here