Thread: Inelibibility f/ POTUS.. conspiracy threat to national secur

He has a past that will come back to haunt him. His denial to disclose anything proves that!

BR is right. And this conspiracy theory around every corner is getting to be a little nuts. Obama has a very good brain, graduating from Harvard Law magna cum laude, trained in Constitutional law. I doubt he would put himself up for president if he did not understand the difference between natural-born citizen and naturalized citizen as it is still defined by the courts at the time of his birth and still today.
I take comfort in the fact that this guy can clean up the majority of the mess from the last nearly eight years. Political observers are saying these days that he is more center-right than center-left in his views. And every time he speaks about the economy the stock market goes up.

I didn't trust him even BEFORE the birth certificate issue came about...
I have to agree with that......

I am thinking he was a Foreign exchange student in College...and was listed as a Kenyan citizen....

How can one person have their "Birth Records" SEALED in BOTH Hawaii and Kenya?????

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

The birth certificate his people posted on the web looks just like the certified copy that my mother used to prove citizenship recently. Plus they dug up his birth announcement in the paper at the library. I couldn't muster as much documentation on short notice. People can say what they please, but the certified documentation points to a birth in Honolulu to an American citizen.

*******
Your mother was born in Hawaii? When?

1. Does your mother have a copy of her long form birth certificate, the one with the doctor and birth hospital name on it?

2. Does your mother know what hospital she was born in? Obama and his faimily seem to be confused as to which Hawaii hospital Obama was born in.

3. If the news media asked your mother to see her long form birth certificate----the one with the names of the doctor and birth hospital on it----would she do it, or would she pay a bunch of high-priced lawyers to fight anyone who wanted to see your mother's long form birth certificate, like Obama is doing?

4. My goodness, what terrible thing could have happened to Obama 47 long years ago in that Hawaii hospital so that he is scared to release his long form birth certificate 47 years after the fact--the one with the names of the doctor and the birth hospital on it----and he won't release his Hawaii birth hospital records 47 years after the fact?

5. I don't know about other posters here, but to me, 47 years is a very long time period to try to hide events that occurred on your birth date 47 years ago on Aug. 4,1961.

6. I say it is tme, after 47 years, for Obama to finally come clean and release his long form birth certificate----the one with the doctor and hospital name on it----and to release his Hawaii hospital record.

Let me tackle these questions one by one.

1. Does your mother have a copy of her long form birth certificate, the one with the doctor and birth hospital name on it?

No, of course not. She has a certified birth certificate, which is considered sufficient proof of citizenship. Some people who are calling for the long, original record on file feel that the posted certificate is fake, or is a record of a birth that took place somewhere else. But people who have actually seen and handled the certificate say it has the raised seal, and people born in Hawaii have compared his with theirs, to their satisfaction.

2. Does your mother know what hospital she was born in? Obama and his faimily seem to be confused as to which Hawaii hospital Obama was born in.

No, her birth happened 80 years ago, in a city where they didn't live for very long. The record from the time of the birth is considered sufficient.

3.

If the news media asked your mother to see her long form birth certificate----the one with the names of the doctor and birth hospital on it----would she do it, or would she pay a bunch of high-priced lawyers to fight anyone who wanted to see your mother's long form birth certificate, like Obama is doing?

I have no idea why people are so hell bent on seeing the long form, when what has been posted is sufficient for the rest of us. If they really believe that Hawaii has a record in their vaults that says he was born somewhere else and registered here, or that there is no record, what explains the recent statement by the Hawaiian Health Department?

4.

My goodness, what terrible thing could have happened to Obama 47 long years ago in that Hawaii hospital so that he is scared to release his long form birth certificate 47 years after the fact--the one with the names of the doctor and the birth hospital on it----and he won't release his Hawaii birth hospital records 47 years after the fact?

47 years ago Obama was a babe in arms. I am puzzled as to why people are attaching so much importance to events that took place before he was even 10. Such as, his exposure to Islam, his residence in other countries, etc.

5.

I don't know about other posters here, but to me, 47 years is a very long time period to try to hide events that occurred on your birth date 47 years ago on Aug. 4,1961.

Perhaps he feels like he is being grilled more than is right, or perhaps this is a trap for adversaries who will end up with egg on their faces.

6.

I say it is tme, after 47 years, for Obama to finally come clean and release his long form birth certificate----the one with the doctor and hospital name on it----and to release his Hawaii hospital record.

Well, what if he does and it turns out everything is kosher? I think some people still won't be happy. I don't know how he could get a document, such as the one posted, out of the state of Hawaii without there being a legitimate record of his birth there. That's what the document says.

My questions are: Where is the proof his mother traveled to Kenya to give birth, as after all, you can't really be born without mommy present? As an American citizen, she would have needed a visa. Where is the proof that dad was in Kenya when he was born? There are too many things in these demands of a birth certificate that could easily be handled.
We have become such a litigious society that whatever ticks you off can be brought to court anywhere, at any time against anyone.

Vortex wrote:

I take comfort in the fact that this guy can clean up the majority of the mess from the last nearly eight years.

Talk is cheap, and that's all I've heard up to this point. Personally, I feel strongly that he will make matters worse on the issue we're here (on ALIPAC) for. If you don't mind me asking, what makes you so convinced that he'll clean up anything, especially immigration?

Political observers are saying these days that he is more center-right than center-left in his views.

????????? There has been multiple articles commenting on how Obama is one of the most liberal folks in the U.S. Senate. Where is this information you're hearing coming from?

And every time he speaks about the economy the stock market goes up.

Are you actually utilizing a fluctuating stock market as a measuring stick of future success for an Obama presidency?

You know, I am old enough to have lived through a large number of Presidential terms. I look back and it seems to me that it has not made that much difference who the president is, because he's a president not a pharaoh or something like that. Now, Obama will have a lot of fellow Democrats to work with in Washington, and that may make a big difference, perhaps in ways we won't like. His appointment for Homeland Security has a lot of my colleagues wondering if our careers are over (due to her support for raising the H-1B quota), but none of his appointees will be pharaohs either.

We have to handle these times by becomming better at being citizen-lobbyists, and organizing to be more than citizen lobbyists. We need to make sure we are heard, and this involves both the quality of our thinking and our ability to make convincing presentations.

I believe that some of these people mounting the lawsuits, Andy Martin in particular, are not going in any constructive direction. Martin's allegations about Obama's paternity are especially outrageous and serve no useful purpose(except to cement Obama's American citizenship) . I've heard some weird allegations on this matter, such as there being some "natural law" that would make him inherit his citizenship status from his father not his mother (actually this was overturned long before Obama was born). I am astounded at the sinister interpretations of any innocently acquired dual citizenship he may have picked up and held for a while before the age of 10. I see no evidence that Obama has done any of the things or passed any of the tests that would result in loss of citizenship. (http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship ... p_778.html) And, if he really was born in Hawaii, then he's a natural born citizen.

I believe we all have serious issues on our plate, and that wishing the election was a bad dream and we will wake up and find out that he's not eligible is not a good way to deal with these times. I also believe that it is important for people who are struggling for the issues we care about to avoid linking up with questionable people. I have researched the careers of Phil Berg and Andy Martin beyond the Obama matter, and find much cause for concern. I would not want to be associated with either gentlemen, given what is on the record about them.

Barack Obama and the Citizenship Scandal
Written by Kurt Williamsen
Wednesday, 29 October 2008 08:00


It has been alleged that presidential aspirant Barack Obama is ineligible to become president because, it is claimed, he was not born in the United States, but rather born in Kenya to a Kenyan father, making him a Kenyan citizen. The story has gained credence for several reasons. His paternal grandmother in Kenya has reportedly been audiotaped saying that she was in the delivery room when Obama was born. Obama has refused to release an official birth certificate. Instead he has released a "certification of live birth," which not only shows evidence of tampering — Obama's half-sister's name Maia appears under his name — but wouldn't normally be considered a legal document anyway. Further, Obama will not release his medical records or his records from Occidental or Harvard College. It is speculated that he will not release these records because they indicate he is not a citizen and may, in fact, have applied for some type of U.S. government aid for foreign students.

These are the accusations that lifelong Democrat and former Democratic candidate for office Philip Berg has made in the case Philip J. Berg v. Barack Obama, et al. Berg, a former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, further alleges that even if Obama were born in the United States, when Obama's mother was remarried, she moved to Indonesia with her new husband and renounced her and Barack's U.S. citizenship. The basis for this claim is the fact that Obama was enrolled in school for four years in Indonesia, and the government required (during the time Obama was there) that one had to be a citizen of Indonesia and renounce citizenship in other countries in order to attend school.

Though as of yet unverified, the claim that Obama is not a natural-born citizen rings true if for only one reason: by refusing to supply the requested documents, Obama is alienating voters and losing votes. But there is virtually no chance that voters will find out the truth of the matter before election day because on October 24, Judge R. Barclay Surrick of the U.S. District Court of Pennsylvania dismissed Berg's lawsuit "for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction." The court did not rule on the facts of the case and, in fact, did not consider them at all.

Surrick ruled that even if all of Berg's claims were true, the case must be dismissed because the plaintiff, Berg, was not "entitled to relief" because he had no legal "standing." In other words, Berg was not legally recognized as a legitimate plaintiff against Obama because Obama did not "injure" Berg in some way, whether physically or financially, either directly or by way of damaging his reputation. So no possible remedy as sought by Berg through the court — such as Obama's original birth certificate or a declaration by the judge that Obama was ineligible for the presidency - would "redress" (or make up for) the injury that Berg claimed.

Berg tried to get standing through various means, such as saying that as a lifelong Democrat that his and his party's reputation would be injured by a fraud perpetrated on the U.S. populace and by claiming that he had been "deprived of money and billable hours to secure, as promised, an eligible Democratic candidate for Office of President ... [and that he] has been deprived of his right to vote for an eligible Democratic Nominee for the U.S. Office of President." But Surrick rejected all of Berg's arguments, noting that in a similar case during the presidential primaries against John McCain, the plaintiff was found not to have standing either. (John McCain, though born to two U.S. citizens, unlike Barack Obama, was born in the U.S. Panama Canal Zone, where his father served in the military.)

Surrick went so far as to claim that voters as a class do not have standing in any such case unless Congress passes a law to give them standing: "To reiterate: a candidate's ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizens Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters.... If through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution's eligibility requirements for the Presidency, it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff."

This does not mean that the legal fact-finding endeavor is at a dead-end. Berg has appealed his case to the Supreme Court, and if that fails, he can wait until Obama (upon winning the presidency) takes office and then attempt to get the information using the Freedom of Information Act. (Berg has attempted this already, but he did not adhere to the rules governing how FOIA requests must be made, and he requested information from a state agency when the FOIA only applies to federal agencies — such as the executive branch.)

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/24-elections/461