If it turns out that he was really born in Honolulu to an American mother, that settles it.
Printable View
If it turns out that he was really born in Honolulu to an American mother, that settles it.
This is why documents need to be opened such as his passport from 1981. It has been surmised that he traveled to Pakistan in 1981 on this Indonesian citizen passport as well as used his citizenship to gain access to our most prestigious schools. He traveled to Indonesia before heading out to Pakistan. When he came back to Occidental all of a sudden he changed his name from Barry to Barrack.Quote:
First of all where's the evidence that Obama was legally adopted by his step father? That would have to be done in a U S court to make it legal in the U S. If they did it in Indonesia it wouldn't be accepted in the U S unless they filed papers to that effect. But where's that evidence? There isn't any.Even if it had been done it wasn't him that did it. It was his step father and mother who did it. No child can lose their citizenship because of something their parents do. So even if they had done it Obama would still be a natural born U S citizen assuming he was born in Hawaii.
All documents are sealed - Occidental, Columbia, Harvard Law. How did he get accepted? I've heard by foreign aid - I want the courts to find out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justthatguy
Here is the proof that he enrolled in school in Indonesia as and Indonesian citizen that is what I base this on so far...
http://obamaimpeachment.files.wordpr.../boindsch2.jpg
HE didn't enroll, his stepfather and mother enrolled him. Indonesia certainly considered him a citizen and a Muslim, but that does not affect his standing vis a vis the United States. Besides, all this happened back when he was a little boy. He was back in the US, to be raised by his American grandparents, by the age of 10.
Any Indonesian citizenship he may have possessed would have expired a long time ago due to his absence from the country and failure to swear loyalty to Indonesia.
Not if he got Issued and Indonesian Passport to travel back to the US. Right?Quote:
Originally Posted by BetsyRoss
He had to have a passport to get back but All the real documents are under lock and key or being destroyed and new ones forged, That could be the only reason for the shady behavior.
http://www.americasright.com/2008/11/de ... etary.html
In a press briefing this morning, Deputy White House Press Secretary Tony Fratto ended the briefing by overtly avoiding a question regarding President-elect Barack Obama's birth certificate and demands made by the CEO of WorldNetDaily that a long-form document be released.
Go read it! :lol:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BetsyRoss
I agree with you here, BetsyRoss. Barack Obama II never lost his U.S. citizenship, so long as he returned to the U.S. to live before age 25. The "no dual citizenship" law of Indonesia, a foreign state, does not rescind U.S. citizenship.
U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...
On the other hand, Leo Donofrio and Devvy Kidd are correct in stating that dual citizenship with Great Britain spoils Barack Obama's "natural born Citizen" status.
U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1: 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.
The framers of the Constitution recognized that their status as British subjects excluded them from "natural born citizen" status. As (dual) citizens of the United States, they had to add the clause in bold letters in order to grandfather themselves in as eligible for the presidency.
This has been going on since January [of 2008]. How long could it possibly take to forge new documents? José down in Matamoros can have a complete set ready in less than an hour.Quote:
Originally Posted by 93camaro
Have a look at "Dr. Ron Polarik's" analysis of the forged Certification. José can do a better forgery.
(Link updated on Feb. 18, 2009.)
Here is a text document by "Dr. Polarik" debunking the forged Certification.
But where's the evidence that any of these documents have been forged? Yes they could easily be forged. But even if they were they wouldn't match the ones on file. Some guy prints up a phony social security card for example but a check of the records shows it isn't real. A simple check of government records would show they are phony. But how does someone gain access? There's no legal way to do that. You would have to get a court order. But to do that you'd have to have some evidence that soemthing is wrong. But so far there's no evidence. All that stuff on the Internet about the Certification being forged isn't evidence , it was thrown out by several state courts. Speculation, rumors, hearsay are not evidence. Step number one is produce the evidence. Then a court order can be obtained. And the files checked, the documents can then be proven authentic or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
But if he was born in the US and has citizenship by birth, not naturalization, and he never renounced his citizenship, how does some legal assertion of dual British citizenship via his father change his natural born citizenship standing? The framers of the Constitution were trying to grandfather themselves into citizenship in the new nation. How would that apply to Obama? I don't see some technicallity of his father's British citizenship making any more difference than the Indonesian government's viewing of him as a citizen during the (short) time he lived there.
If anyone has the resources to forge new documents with matching records Obama can. And Yeah you can forge stuff in and hour but it wouldn't pass through the Supreme court! I mean why else would he need a fricken court to tell him to supply something that we the people should and have the right to know. Obama's past is going to destroy him and he knows it.
The only problem with bringing court cases is they are getting thrown out since the petitioners can't prove that it is causing them harm or damage. However they state it. This whole thing is just crap! I will not accept this man until he turns over some kind of evidence. I really don't care at this point where he was born, it is the idea that he is hiding everything which means to me that he could care less how we feel and he is not honorable. He definitely is Arrogant, egotistical, and a liar! I will not accept him as my president! I will not permit him to send my children anywhere!Quote:
Originally Posted by Justthatguy
OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Proofin' the prez: Who's in charge?
Constitutional lawyer says electors have duty to investigate citizenship
Posted: November 24, 2008
9:48 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
A one-time vice presidential candidate who is considered an expert on the U.S. Constitution says it is up the electors from the 50 states to make certain President-elect Barack Obama is a natural-born U.S. citizen before they cast votes for him in the Electoral College Dec. 15.
"If they do their duty, they would make sure that if they cast a vote for Mr. Obama, that Mr. Obama is a natural-born citizen," Herb Titus, the Constitution Party's running mate to Howard Phillips in 1996, told WND today.
"I think it should be resolved. The duty is in the Electoral College. Every Obama elector that is committed to casting a vote on the 15th of December, they have a constitutional duty to make certain whether Mr. Obama is a natural-born citizen," he said.
If the electors fail their duty and Obama proves ultimately to fail the eligibility requirement of the U.S. Constitution, there would be only the laborious, contentious and cumbersome process of impeachment available to those who would wish to follow the Constitution, he suggested.
The issue of Obama's citizenship has been in the news for weeks as multiple legal claims have asserted the Democrat is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. There have been claims he was born in Kenya, that he's a British subject because of his father and that he lost his citizenship in Indonesia.
Two of the cases are pending before the U.S. Supreme Court and several others that have fallen by the wayside.
Also, thousands of people are jumping aboard a petition that demands documentation of Obama's eligibility to hold the highest office in the U.S., not just assurances from party officials.
Already, more than 75,000 petitioners have joined the effort coordinated by WND founder and editor Joseph Farah.
To participate, sign the petition here
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=81550
A report accompanying Farah's petition explains the many questions raised about Obama's eligibility, from an apparently fabricated "Certification of Live Birth" posted online to questions about what nation's passport he used to travel to Pakistan.
One case is scheduled for a conference among U.S. Supreme Court justices Dec. 5. Conferences are private meetings of the justices at which they review cases and decide which ones to accept for formal review. The Supreme Court's website listed the date for the case brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the secretary of state in New Jersey, over not only Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot but those of two others, Sen. John McCain and Roger Calero.
Do you agree with contentions made in "The Audacity of Deceit" about the impact of an Obama White House on the United States?
The case, unsuccessful at the state level, was submitted to Justice David Souter, who rejected it. The case then was resubmitted to Justice Clarence Thomas for conference Dec. 5.
Titus holds a law degree cum laude from Harvard, is admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court and a long list of federal court districts, and helped found a law school. He told WND the framers of the Constitution specifically wanted the electors, citizen voters from all the states, to determine the presidency to avoid chief executives who are indebted to political parties or court decisions.
In 1788, Titus noted, Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers on the issue of the presidential election that "nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption."
"They have not made the appointment of the president to depend on any pre-existing bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment," Hamilton wrote. "And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the president in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors.
"Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single state; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States," Hamilton wrote in support of the concept of the Electoral College.
If the electors fail, Titus said, "I think it moots the point."
"I don't think there is anything in the Constitution [that would allow a challenge based on a candidate's constitutional qualifications.]
"It would politically undermine Obama's re-election … and there may be an impeachment if someone concluded he deliberately misled the people, and knew he was not a natural-born citizen," he said.
Titus said the evidence clearly shows there are questions about Obama's birth that should be resolved. But he said he doesn't believe the courts will do anything, nor should they.
"If it's revealed it's only going to be [revealed because of] investigative journalism or by Obama himself," he said.
"It's only the Electoral College that has the duty and authority to determine is a person is qualified to be president," Titus said.
"We should act accordingly, get the names of all the electors, including McCain's electors, and urge them to do their duty," he said.
He said, however, the bottom line is that there are some people who would rather ignore the Constitution than dispense with a candidate who may be unqualified.
"Politically, [being ineligible] would be a very serious problem for [Obama,]" he said. "But there also would be people who would only shrug."
"It's up to the people. Essentially the Constitution is a covenant of the people with their government. If the people don't insist on their government officials abiding by the covenant, I don't know what you can do," he said.
Titus said the basis of a natural-born requirement traces back to the Old Testament, where Moses prophesied about the people of Israel getting a king.
"The whole notion of a natural-born citizen is designed for the purpose of making sure that the chief executive would not have politically divided loyalties," he said.
Supreme Court would decide?
Meanwhile, a veteran law enforcement officer and director of criminal justice courses says he believes the 2008 election results ultimately could come down to a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which issued a ruling eight years ago that helped put George W. Bush in the White House.
The assessment comes from James H. Hafeman, a veteran of decades in law enforcement who supervised an armed security force, taught criminal justice and directed criminal justice programs in Michigan. He submitted a commentary to WND, outlining his evidence.
Hafeman said his argument is based mostly on the U.S. Constitution, which outlines the requirements for eligibility for president, including that the candidate be a "natural-born" citizen.
While replacing a president is outlined in the Constitution, he warned the replacement of a president-elect who is found to be ineligible isn't simple.
"While many have speculated that an official declaration of Obama’s ineligibility may lead to the appointment of Joe Biden as president, the speculation is inaccurate. Since it was up to the respective political party to properly vet their candidate before a primary election, they may not qualify to be rewarded for their lack of integrity. Additionally there is no separate balloting for president and vice-president; they share the same slot. Obama's ineligibility would effectively void the entire Obama-Biden ticket," he said.
Therefore, he said, other provisions likely would come into play.
"We already know that if two candidates have an equal number of Electoral College votes, the members of the House of Representatives will collectively choose the president. Many citizens have been led to believe that it is the responsibility of the House is to decide the winner by majority vote, but that is incorrect. Members of the House of Representatives from each state would meet in a state-caucus type of meeting and vote with all congressional members from their respective state. The majority of the state's delegation would only have only one vote. Out of the 50 votes allotted among the House of Representative members, 25 plus a minimum of one vote would be required to elect the president," he wrote.
William Ball, a political science professor at Northern Michigan University, has said, "The results of the Electoral College are sent to the president of the Senate, but if there is no winner, then the House of Representatives, not the whole Congress, decides who will be president. But, in this process the State of Vermont or Wyoming with their one vote each would have as much power as California or New York."
Hafeman said the Constitution demands the same process for a situation in which a seated president becomes ineligible, but Obama won't be inaugurated until Jan. 20.
"This may be the first known case where a presidential candidate intentionally attempted to side step the specific requirements of the Constitution in order to run for the office of president," Hafeman said. "The 12th Amendment is quite clear. If the president is found ineligible, the vice-president shall become the president. However, the key is the 'president,' not the president-elect. In other words, if Mr. Obama is found ineligible to hold the office prior to his January 20, 2009, inauguration, the 12th Amendment would not necessarily be the guiding instrument for the Supreme Court.
"The Justices would be free to make their own determination regarding the specifics of the general election," Hafeman wrote.
So, Hafeman concluded, the high court may have to make some decisions.
If the worse fears about Obama's birthplace prove true, Hafeman said, the court will have to decide the consequences for providing inaccurate assurances of eligibility.
"Second, what process will be used to designate someone who will assume the office?" he wrote.
"Since all the secretaries of state will be forced to nullify the Obama-Biden ticket, the Electoral College votes would go to the next highest contender. The principle would award McCain-Palin with the total possible Electoral College votes – all 538 electors," he suggested.
"In the national-interest scenario, the question that might be asked by the Democrats may focus on the question as to whether or not they could hold an emergency national convention in order for the party to re-nominate a president and/or another vice-president candidate. If the Supreme Court declares the entire election invalid, then that may be a possibility, but it is highly unlikely since every other presidential team on the ticket were legitimate," he wrote.
"The Supreme Court may decide a new election is in order and would have to waive the two-term limitations of George W. Bush so that he can remain in office until the conclusion of the election. The continuation of his term is a viable course of action, but it may not be an action favored by the Supreme Court. Instead, the justices may simply view the anomaly as a political race with an illegitimate and disqualified opponent, which would result in a win for the McCain-Palin ticket."
On WND's new forum page, the level of frustration was rising. Dozens contributed their thoughts immediately after the forum was posted:
"What makes Obama non-respon[sive] to the simplest of requests?" asked one reader. "Does he think that it is politically incorrect to ask for authentication of the myriad of facts about himself … Is he testing the grounds to see how far he can play with this charade?"
Other comments included:
"Obama won his first election ever by getting three Democratic opponents thrown off the ballot? He's all for using the law to help himself win. Wouldn't it be ironic if he is not allowed to serve as president due to the law? … Turn around is fair play!
"Even the left-wing liberal news media is beginning to ask the question: 'Who is this man we have elected? We really do not know much about him.'"
"Obama's refusal to produce the ORIGINAL given birth certificate gives us all pause. His silence on these allegations is deafening. The anointed one believes that if he can hold us all back until he's in the Oval Office he's hit a home run and he's 'safe.' Ah, not so! Check your law, Obama, and you will see that even if were to make it to the White House you will no longer be able to hide behind those red velvet ropes."
"There must be something that would have caused him great harm prior to the election, and would have stopped him from becoming elected. What could that little piece of information be?"
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=81944
Where? Not near enough pressure!!!Quote:
"Even the left-wing liberal news media is beginning to ask the question: 'Who is this man we have elected? We really do not know much about him.'"
How about this one?Quote:
Originally Posted by 93camaro
Watch this:
http://atlah.org/broadcast/manningreport.html
Push it up to around 19 minutes or so! This man is brilliant... This is all that we are asking. It seems to be gaining momentum!
To that person who said that Barack Obama is a "natural born" citizen
unless he was delivered by C-section ... you mean "naturally born." :roll:
BetsyRoss, it depends upon what the meaning of "it" is. If by "it" you mean "citizenship", then you are indeed correct. If Barack Obama II were born on U.S. soil to at least one U.S. citizen, that would make him a U.S. citizen, jure soli (based upon birthplace) and jure sanguinis (based upon bloodline or parentage). (I'm no more a lawyer than a sawyer, but the legal terminology is rubbing off on me by association.)Quote:
Originally Posted by BetsyRoss
But if by "it" you mean "natural born citizenship," the Supreme Court may possibly disagree with you.
Leo Donofrio and Devvy Kidd are logically (and perhaps legally) correct in stating that Barack Obama's dual citizenship with Great Britain spoils his "natural born Citizen" status.
U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1: 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.
The framers of the Constitution hereby acknowledged that their status as British subjects excluded them from "natural born citizen" status. As (dual) citizens of the United States jure soli and subjects of the British Crown jure sanguinis, they had to add the clause in bold letters in order to grandfather themselves in as eligible for the presidency. That clause would have been superfluous and redundant if "natural born Citizen" included holders of dual citizenship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.
I don't know that dual citizenship, in the sense we mean it today, was much of an issue back then.
Ok, there were people who were born in one country, and ended up pledging allegiance to another. But the technicalities we see nowadays were not much of an issue back then.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2138735/posts
Could you please take a look at an e-mail that I received from the Library of Congress. There are some points stated and laws given about McCain which prove interesting. They also have a bogus statement in there, but l would love opinions.
It is a mistake to say that the US does not allow dual citizenship. And, it makes a big difference as to whether the person applies for non US citizenship (in which they might lose their US citizenship), or whether the individual comes by foreign citizenship automatically, as a result of the other country's laws. That would describe Obama's case, if there ever was any dual citizenship, as he was back in the US by the age of 10.
If you are applying to be naturalized as a citizen of the US, you will have to renounce your allegiance to your home country. But your home country may still view you as a citizen and allow you their citizen rights if you go there.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archiv ... the_world/
Which is why to hold the post of the President or the Vice President you must be natural born with no allegiance to any other country. These are the only 2 posts in our country that have this requirement.
Does that make sense?
Dual citizenship acquired accidentally, i.e. not by the volition of the person (he was under the age of 10) would not constitute or demand loyalty to any other country.
Once again, BetsyRoss, you are absolutely correct. Because Barry Soetoro returned to the United States before his twenty-fifth birthday, Barack Obama II's U.S. citizenship remained intact and unimpaired.Quote:
Originally Posted by BetsyRoss
HOWEVER, IT APPEARS THAT:
- beginning of hypothetical conjecture -
As an Indonesian citizen from 1967 to 1971, Barry Soetoro acquired an Indonesian passport and never surrendered it.
In 1981, he returned to Indonesia as Barry Soetoro "to see his mother" (who by then had already been in Hawaii for a year).
Barry Soetoro renewed his Indonesian passport and acquired a Pakistan visa as an Indonesian citizen, after age 18, thus forfeiting Barack Obama II's U.S. citizenship.
Barry Soetoro traveled from Indonesia to Pakistan, which was off limits for U.S. citizens (bearing U.S. passports).
He went "bird hunting" in the western and/or northern reaches of Pakistan (can you say "Pashtun"?)
Barry Soetoro then went to Kenya for a visit before returning home to Hawaii. If he had tarried longer with his Obama kinfolk in Kenya, he could even have flown from Nairobi to New York, to begin classes at Columbia University. But he had to return to Hawaii to end his travels as Indonesian citizen Barry Soetoro.
There he re-assumed his identity as U.S. citizen Barack Obama II, bearing a U.S. passport.
- end of hypothetical conjecture -
Obviously, I cannot prove the citizenship and passport ID changes that must have taken place to make those ports of call, in particular, the trip to Pakistan in 1981. So if you can offer a better explanation that connects all the dots without coloring outside the lines, give it your best. I will graciously concede if your explanation should turn out to be correct and mine incorrect.
Thank you for your role as devil's advocate. It makes us all think more clearly and communicate more effectively.
That gives a whole new life to the "no governing authority" excuse for misconduct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian 2
However, under the law, if not in reality, the Sec. of State of each state is responsible to verify eligibility of candidates. That is the primary duty, and almost the only duty, of a state Sec. of State.
The electors from any state can question the eligibility of a candidate before they vote on Dec. 15.
Congress can compel verification before it confirms the vote on January 6th.
A state court can rule on complaints brought about the federal election process in that state. However, it has no authority to compel the state Health Dept. of another state to do anything. The Hawai'i State Supreme Court could have acted on Andy Martin's behalf and ordered discovery, but unfortunately, it didn't.
Federal courts, appeals courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court can hear cases which the state courts have not resolved to the satisfaction of the plaintiff.
Please correct me if any of the above statements is incorrect.
*******Quote:
Originally Posted by jcsjcm
Why don't you post the letter instead of posting a link to the letter?
1. Many people here are not going to take the time to check out your link, but they may read your letter if you post it here.
2. You don't have to post the whole letter.
3. You could stop near the end where it says that Obama was born in Hwaii.
4. I read your letter, and I hope you don't mind but I quoted it on other websites, because I thought it was an important letter in our search to figure out this Obama eligibility fiasco.
MSNBC FINALLY reports on lawsuits against Obama eligibility for POTUS.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/ ... entmessage
ALAN KEYES talking about Obama proving citizenship.
Alan Keyes Tells Us Why He Questions Obama's Presidency
Cynthia Gordy
Quote:
The Constitution requires that, to be president, one must be a natural born citizen of the United States. Conservative Alan Keyes-who ran against President-elect Barack Obama in the 2004 race for the Illinois Senate, and in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign (Keyes ran on the American Independent Party ticket)-is challenging whether that is the case for our new president. In November, Keyes filed a lawsuit against Obama, the California secretary of state, and others, to stop California from giving its electoral votes to Obama until a birth certificate is produced proving that he is indeed a natural born citizen. ESSENCE.com talked to Keyes about where he thinks Obama was born, why he questions the birth records already provided, and if this whole lawsuit is just an overblown case of sour grapes
Read more on link below.
http://www.essence.com/news_entertainme ... keyesobama
http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-812412.html#812412
I submitted a lengthy list of the items of evidence. I realize that I was wasting perfectly good electrons. But we shall see if they will post my comment. Light always banishes darkness; truth usually banishes ignorance, but not always.Quote:
Originally Posted by CCUSA
[7/20/13: The discussion is now closed. Comments are no longer visible.]
I posted comments too that never came up. All the comments are against investigating or called nonsense. I think it's the staff writing the comments.
Here is another article about sensoring which involves GOOGLE the investigation in the pursuit of truth.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=82113Quote:
Google 'censoring' anti-Obama bloggers?
Writer claims Internet giant banning stories that expose president-elect
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 28, 2008
1:35 am Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Pamela Gellar of Atlas Shrugs
Is Google censoring anti-Obama stories?
Pamela Gellar of Atlas Shrugs claims the search engine giant has banned her groundbreaking articles about Obama – a technique many people refer to as "sandboxing."
"There was no warning, no notice, nothing," Gellar told WND. "They have basically sandboxed me."
"Sandboxing" happens when Google strips a website's rankings from its search engine results. According to some theories, this happens to new websites when Google puts them into a holding area known as a "sandbox" until the site gains credibility.
http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-812501.html#812501
Here's a short but poinient article on the issue.
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.)
Here's the link to the story.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/24-elections/461
There are many others there on the President Elect. Some are rather interesting.
We all ascribe such weightiness and finality to the long form Hawai'i Certificate of Live Birth. I certainly have, and so do you.
But have you not considered that Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama filled out that form? She did, [or her mother or father did in her stead,] unless it was filled out by either of the two Honolulu hospitals where he was born, Queens Medical Center and Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children. And if that sounds impossible, figure out how ex-Sen. Obama's father, Barack Obama Snr., had one father, Onyango Obama, and two "mothers", Akumu Nyanjoga Obama and Mama Sarah Ogwel Obama. As Obama Snr. so often publicly said, "An wuod Akumu Nyanjoga kod Sarah Ogwel" ("I am the son of Akumu Nyanjoga and Sarah Ogwel.")
Unless the birthing hospital filled out the long form Certificate of Live Birth, we have only Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama's word[,or her mother's or father's word,] as to her choice of a birthplace for baby Barack Obama II. I shall not cast aspersions about her honesty, veracity, trustworthiness, and reliability - that is unnecessary. She could have written anything on that long form Certificate that she pleased - whatever suited her aspirations and enlightened interests for her baby.
Unless, of course, her baby's long form Certificate of Live Birth has the name and location of the hospital and the signature of the attending physician.
I have given birth 4 times and at no time was I ever called upon to write anything on the hospital record. It was done by interviewing me while I was still in the hospital immediately after the birth. Had I given birth elsewhere, the interview would not have taken place in my hospital room, unless it was an emergency and I was rushed to the hospital, just not quite in time. Which would still indicate a birth in the United States. Hospitals know when someone has given birth within their precints - or not. You have to be admitted and your presence recorded. I do not believe Obama's mother could have faked a Hawaiian hospital birth, based on my own (and other's) childbirth experience.
Got a source for all those often public statements? Perhaps in Kenya you are the child of your father's numerous wives, the same way the children of the fundamentalist polygamist Mormons belong to the community.Quote:
As Obama Snr. so often publicly said, "An wuod Akumu Nyanjoga kod Sarah Ogwel" ("I am the son of Akumu Nyanjoga and Sarah Ogwel.")
I wrote, "As Obama Snr. so often publicly said,
'An wuod Akumu Nyanjoga kod Sarah Ogwel'
('I am the son of Akumu Nyanjoga and Sarah Ogwel')."
I apologize for not including sources. Researching into the wee hours causes lack of attention to footnotes.Quote:
Originally Posted by vortex
http://www.misterseed.com/IKONININOVone2008.html
http://www.eastandard.net/agriculture/InsidePage.php?id=1143998542&cid=4&
Perhaps, or else Barack Snr, consummate politician that he was, liked to invoke familial ties with Mama Sarah's Ogwel family as well as his Nyanjoga family ties through his biological mother, Akumu Nyanjoga Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by vortex
BetsyRoss, I am a friend, not a stranger. We are on the same team, not opponents. I refuse to originate "friendly fire," intentional or unintentional.
We have only Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama's word, [or most likely, her mother's word,] spoken to the interviewer typing the long form Certificate of Live Birth, as to her choice of a birthplace for baby Barack Obama II . . .
If and only if none of the above "unless" clauses apply, then, on Barack Obama II's long form Certificate of Live Birth, [the mother's] "County and State or Foreign Country" in box 7c. originated with his mother.Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
In the absence of a hospital birth, in Hawaii, the place of birth on the long form Certificate is whatever fact or fiction she chose for her new baby.
Well, because of having given birth in America, I cannot imagine, try as I might, her either a) doing such a thing, or b) getting away with it. If she did, then his birth documentation says 'Hawaii' and I can see no basis at this time for challenging that at this late date, other than that many people are suspicious of him for a variety of reasons. Many people still seem to think that some simple thing is going to make his presidency go away, and I just don't see how that can happen.
[quote=MinutemanCDC_SC]BetsyRoss, I am a friend, not a stranger. We are on the same team, not opponents. I refuse to originate "friendly fire," intentional or unintentional.
We have only Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama's word, spoken to the interviewer typing the long form Certificate of Live Birth, as to her choice of a birthplace for baby Barack Obama II . . .
If and only if none of the above "unless" clauses apply, then, on Barack Obama II's long form Certificate of Live Birth, "County and State or Foreign Country" in box 7c. originated with his mother.Quote:
Originally Posted by "MinutemanCDC_SC":2bsfdt1n
In the absence of a hospital birth, in Hawaii, the place of birth on the long form Certificate is whatever fact or fiction she chose for her new baby.[/quote:2bsfdt1n]
You know what MinuteMan, you just brought something to mind.
Have you looked into what the rules were concerning the documentation of home births in HI back then?
The reason I ask is because most states only require........or did require if the laws have since changed.........that a home birth be recorded within a certain amount of time after it occured.
Remember, there is no law saying that a woman who has chosen home birthing ever HAS to go to a hospital or even be seen by a doctor after delivering.
Same goes for the infant.
In fact, there's a big ta-do going on over this right now in various countries....including this one.......where they want to mandate that women who have chosen some type of home birthing....whether it be through midwifery or self birthing......be overseen by medical doctors and then must also submit themselves and their newborns for post natal care by doctors.
What I'm getting at here is this: Supposing that he was born in Kenya and for whatever her reasons she wanted him listed as having been born in US, there was probably nothing which prevented her from stepping off that plane from Kenya with a days.........even weeks?.......old infant and going to have his birth recorded stating that he was born at home somewhere in HI.
So far the assumption is that there is the name of a hospital and doctor on any original BC issued in HI......if there is, in fact, one at all....but, if it does exist no one has seen it so how does anyone know it even lists a hospital or doctor?
Besides, what evidence to we have that Stanley Ann's ambitions for her son were even political, much less presidential? Talking about what hypothetically COULD have happened, if x, y, and z were done 47 years ago says absolutely nothing about what DID happen back then. Occam's razor comes to mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BetsyRoss
Quite honestly, BR.......political aspirations for the baby were never anything I even thought about as the reason.
Back in 1961 why would this have been important?
Societal and family pressures maybe?
Would life in Kenya at that time, like it was in so many other countries, have been miserable for a native born mixed race child, or worse, a child which was 1/2 American? obama talks alot about his perception of her parents not being overly happy about her bi-racial bent in relationships, but how were such things received by the paternal side of the family, the Kenyan population in general and the government? Because he never really mentions anything about that, people automatically assume that it equates to tolerance and acceptance of the situation. But the fact is that he doesn't really KNOW how the bi-racial marriage and child were received in Kenya by anyone, does he?
Could there already have been problems in the marriage and she was afraid of finding herself without rights to her child in Kenya that she would have here?
Was there internal strife in Kenya which would have made a mother think about having to get herself and/or her child out of harm's way quickly if necessary?
Was it easier for her to bring the baby back and forth on US passport to visit her parents than it would have been on a foreign one?
In other words, there are many reasons why a mother would be compelled to register her child as a US birth........IF she did......and to say that it was done in advance of a baby's rise to power some 40 years later is, I think, stretching it just a tad.
Many people are treating this issue as if it were a Victorian murder mystery. A body is found, and people assemble in the drawing room to try and figure out how it happened. But that's backwards - how do we know anything wrong happened? It's that assumption on the part of many people that bothers me. Yes, his childhood was unorthodox. But so was mine, and I'm a citizen. It's like people are having trouble believing that the Obama presidency really happened, but it did. Remember, a lot of people who voted for him didn't necessarily want him, but were just tired of the W years.
You are right, Betsy, that we don't know if anything wrong happened. But here is the kicker. This man had a response team to handle anything that came up during the election. If McCain ran an add that said that the sun rose in the east, within 6 hours the Obama camp came out and had a competing add that contested the fact. Now, for a team that has their stuff so well put together that they can turn around responses to anything that arises in the campaign so well and so easily, why couldn't they respond to this? They came out and said that the lawsuits against them are "Garbage". They refuse to deal with them. All of this would have been averted by a simple news conference after Phillip Berg filed his first lawsuit.Quote:
Originally Posted by BetsyRoss
Obama's press secretary goes out and says something to this effect.
Yesterday a lawyer filed a lawsuit claiming that Senator Obama is not a natural born citizen. We demand that this lawsuit be withdrawn in the next 24 hours or we will counter-sue for defamation of character. By the way, here is the legal, certified copy of his Certificate of Live Birth, showing he was born at XYZ hospital in Honolulu, and Dr. Who was the delivering doctor. Have a nice day.
Did this happen? NO!! What happened instead? He avoided the issue, then produced a bad forgery of a Certification of Live Birth, that even the State of Hawaii says cannot be used for identification without some other corroborating evidence. He moved to have the cases dismissed because of technicalities that the average citizen needs a copy of Black's Law Dictionary to understand. Now there are over 15 lawsuits in 15 states that he won't deal with. How hard is it to produce a piece of paper. Its not like he has to fly halfway around the world to get it. Or does he? He went to Hawaii twice since this all got started. It would be nothing for him to go get the documentation and make this all go away. Yet he refuses to. Why?
There are only 3 reasons.
1. Obama was born somewhere else other than Hawaii and the Birth Certificate says so.
2. Obama was born in Hawaii but there is something else contained on the Birth Certificate that is embarrassing.
3. Obama was born in Hawaii. There is nothing embarrassing on the Birth Certificate. Obama wants to disregard the Constitution to weaken it. He has already stated that the Constitution has fatal flaws in it.
Now I am not normally one to jump on the Conspiracy Theory bandwagon. However, if you logically follow HIS actions, they do not follow the mentality of someone who has nothing to hide.