Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

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.

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Librarian 2

It is not the job of the Legislative branch (Congress), the Executive Branch (President and the administrative agencies), or the Judicial Branch (Courts) to vet political candidates.

That gives a whole new life to the "no governing authority" excuse for misconduct.

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.

Originally Posted by jcsjcm

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.

*******
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

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

Originally Posted by CCUSA

MSNBC FINALLY reports on lawsuits against Obama eligibility for POTUS.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/ ... entmessage

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.

[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.

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.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=82113

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.