Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

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.

Originally Posted by Justthatguy

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Originally Posted by 93camaro

Not if he got Issued an Indonesian Passport to travel back to the US. Right?

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.

This has been going on since January. 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.

Have a look at "Dr. Ron Polarik's" analysis of the forged Certification. José can do better.

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.

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!

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

"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.'"

Where? Not near enough pressure!!!

Originally Posted by 93camaro

"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.'"

Where? Not near enough pressure!!!

How about this one?
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."

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

If it turns out that he was really born in Honolulu to an American mother, that settles it.

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.)

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.

Originally Posted by Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.

OBAMA ADMITS HE WAS A BRITISH CITIZEN "AT BIRTH" - AS SUCH, OBAMA IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES AND NEITHER WERE THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION, HENCE THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE IN ARTICLE 2. SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5 OF THE US CONSTITUTION . . .

Don't be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues. They are irrelevant to Senator Obama's ineligibility to be President. Since Barack Obama's father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama's birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen "at birth", just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn't be eligible to be President.

The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens and that's why the Framers declared that, while they were Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not "natural born Citizens". Hence their inclusion of the grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution:

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;

That's it right there. (Emphasis added.)

The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn't want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, whom the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.

The Framers declared themselves not eligible to be President as "natural born Citizens", so they wrote the grandfather clause in for the limited exception of allowing themselves to be eligible to the Presidency in the early formative years of our infant nation.

But nobody alive today can claim eligibility to be President under the grandfather clause since nobody alive today was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted.

The Framers distinguished between "natural born Citizens" and all other "Citizens". And that's why it's important to note the 14th Amendment only confers the title of "Citizen", not "natural born Citizen". The Framers were Citizens, but they weren't natural born Citizens. They put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves in the Constitution and they are the ones who wrote the Document.

Since the the Framers didn't consider themselves to have been "natural born Citizens" due to their having been subject to British jurisdiction at their birth, then Senator Obama, having also been subject to British jurisdiction at the time of his birth, also cannot be considered a "natural born Citizen" of the United States.

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?