PDA

View Full Version : Obama's Birth Certificate - Still Missing




Gin
10-29-2008, 06:23 AM
Obama's Birth Certificate - Still Missing
October 26, 2008
Joan Swirsky

Last week, during the crucial waning days of the presidential campaign, Obama left for Hawaii
to visit his 85-year-old grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, who had broken her hip. In such bad shape was she - in spite of the hospital's sending her home to heal - that Obama told ABC's Robin Roberts, that "I'm still not sure whether she makes it to Election Day.
"
Filling in for Obama on the campaign trail in Ohio was his wife, Michelle, who told the crowd that granny was doing just fine.


Did Obama have a dual purpose in traveling to Hawaii, the other being to magically produce the birth certificate proving his eligibility to be president? While he's now back on the campaign trail, he has still failed to produce said certificate!

After a recent article I wrote, My Mother's Birth Certicate - And Obama's, a number of people e-mailed me with FactCheck. org's "proof" of the certificate. But let's not forget that FactCheck is owned by the Annenberg Foundation, the same foundation that gave millions of dollars to Obama and his unrepentant terrorist pal William Ayers for an "education" project. To me, that makes FactCheck ipso facto the least credible source of factual information.


Infinitely more credible is the research done by, among others, Pennsylvania attorney
Philip J. Berg (ObamaCrimes), Chicago journalist Andy Martin, ContrarianCommentaryBlog and author Jerome Corsi (The Obama Nation), who have cast persuasive, data-provided doubt not only that the birth certificate(s) so far produced were blatant forgeries, but that Obama - and his leftwing media lapdogs - have been concealing the fact that he was born in a hospital in Mombasa, Kenya, a birth his Kenyan grandmother is on record saying she and Obama's half-brother and half-sister attended.


What else has Obama failed to provide to a public - and an electorate - that deserves to know everything possible about a presidential candidate?

* Occidental College records - not released.

* Columbia Thesis paper - not available, locked down by faculty.

* Harvard College records - not released, locked down by faculty.

* Selective Service Registration - not released.

* Medical records - not released (only a one-page report).

* Illinois State Senate schedule - 'not available.
'
* Law practice client list - not released.

* Certified Copy of original Birth certificate - not released.

* Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth - not released.

* Harvard Law Review articles published - None.

* University of Chicago scholarly articles - None.

* Record of Baptism-- Not released or 'not available.
'
* Illinois State Senate records--'not available.
'


No wonder Obama's critics have called him a Manuchurian Candidate, a Trojan Horse, and a stealth candidate! If he has nothing to hide, why on earth is he still be refusing to come clean with the American people? Answer: he clearly has a lot to hide.


THE BERG CASE

In August, Mr. Berg lodged a suit against Obama and the Democratic National Committee.


On October 4, the accused parties filed a Motion to Dismiss.


On October 21, Mr. Berg released the result of his investigation - "Obama & DNC admit all allegations in Berg v. Obama" - in which he said that by failing to answer the questions the lawsuit posed, both Obama and the DNC admitted, by default, that the charges were true.


On October 24, U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick threw out Berg's suit, which asked that Obama's name be removed from the November 4 ballot and claimed that if Obama were permitted to run for president and subsequently found to be ineligible, he (Berg) and other voters would be disenfranchised. The judge concluded that Berg's allegations were "too vague and too attenuated.
"

On October 25, Berg announced in a press release that he is immediately appealing the dismissal of his case to the United States Supreme Court.


"This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution, Berg said, "If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States - the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world - then who does?"

Berg echoed the outrage reverberating throughout the nation at the prospect of Obama so brazenly flouting the U.S. Constitution, the provisions of which are very limited for qualifying a person to run for president: 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.
"

"For the first time in history," writes journalist Sher Zieve, "U.S. voters are being asked to choose between continuing the Republic or bending to the will of a totalitarian Communist candidate.
"

What will the Supreme Court do? As one e-mailer told me: "The Supreme Court may be very loathe to take this case, given that they're still smarting from being accused of ..selecting' a president in 2000 and they won't want to be accused of ..deselecting" a president" in 2008.
"

WHAT'S HAPPENING NOW?

Big hat tip here to Matt Bruce, a retired fire-rescue captain, who provided the following information.


Currently, lawsuits are being filed in nine states - California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington - that are seeking to require Barack Obama to provide Certification of his Birth in the United States, or to be removed or to remove himself from state ballots. Hawaii, the state in which Obama was supposedly born, is seeking judicial authority to force the certifying or decertifying of Obama's qualification to run as a candidate for President as a natural born U.S. citizen. Previously, two lawsuits have failed to force the certifying documents from Obama.


Every day, new lawsuits are being lodged.
For more information about each lawsuit or on how to start your own, contact:

* Hawaii: Andy Martin: AndyMart20@aol.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .


* WA: Steve Marquis:

* peoplesvoice@peoplespassions.orgThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it (website:http://www. peoplespassion. org/)..

* CA: David Archbold: darchbo1@gmail. com.


* GA: Tom Terr: kingdommatters@gmail.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

* PA: Philip Berg: philjberg@obamacrim es. com; website http://www. obamacrimes. com/.


* NY: Dan Smith: Dansmith1954@aol.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

* CT: Cort Wrotnowsk: Metaqubit@aol

Steve Marquis, noted above, is a Washington State resident who last Tuesday filed a suit in Washington State Superior Court against Sam Reed, Secretary of State for the State of Washington, demanding that Illinois Sen. Barack Obama be removed from the ballot in Washington unless he can provide verification of his status as a United States citizen.


Marquis said that by "resolving, one way or another, the unanswered questions surrounding Obama's citizenship and background would preclude a constitutional crisis and likely civil unrest which would arise should information come to light after the election which shows that the Illinois senator is ineligible to hold the presidency.
"

Are Obama and the DNC guilty of conspiracy, treason, or sedition? According to Webster's New World College Dictionary:


* Conspiracy: Planning and acting together secretly, esp. for an unlawful or harmful purpose, such as murder or treason.


* Treason: Violation of the allegiance owed to one's sovereign or state; betrayal of one's country, specifically, in the U.S. (as declared in the Constitution), consisting only in levying war against the U.S. or in giving aid and comfort to its enemies.


* Sedition: The stirring up of discontent, resistance, or rebellion against the government in power.


WHAT CAN YOU DO?

At this 11th-hour in our election cycle, it is imperative for all activists to act!

The following site has information about contacting your elected representative by phone, fax, and e-mail, as well as extensive information about contacting the media -print, electronic, TV and radio. http://www. conservativeusa. org/megalink. htm.


Use the letter below - or your own version - which was written by Frank Salvato, proprietor of http://www.newmedia.us/ and Executive Director of Terrorism Research at the Basics Project (http://www.basicsproject.org/) literally to blitz your representatives, the media, and the Secretaries of State in your home state.
Use this link to find out who they are:
http://www.e-secretaryofstate.com/.


Remember, this is not partisan! It is to protect the Constitution of the United States against "enemies both foreign and domestic"!


Dear ____,



Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads: "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.
"

There are numerous allegations regarding Sen. Barack Obama's claim of natural birth in the U.S., all raising suspicion and doubt as to Obama's actual place of birth and qualification to run for president.


Some of the assertions to which Obama "admitted" on Philip J.
Berg's suit are:

* He was born in Mombassa, Kenya in 1961 while his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was married to Barack Obama Sr., a Kenyan.


* When his mother, divorced from Obama Sr., moved to Indonesia and married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian, Obama was adopted by Soetoro and became an Indonesian citizen.


* While in Indonesia, Obama had his name changed to Barry Soetoro.


* Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981 under an Indonesian passport, when Pakistan was a no-travel zone for Americans.


* Obama's Kenyan grandmother is alleged to have claimed that Obama was born in Kenya and she was present at the birth.


* Muammar Gadhafi, leader of Libya, has publicly claimed that Obama was born in Kenya and studied in Muslim schools in Indonesia.


* Obama has also admitted on his website to hold citizenship in another country (the U.S. Constitution forbids dual citizenship).


* A lawsuit in Honolulu in the First District Court is seeking a court-order to open Obama's secret birth records.


* Obama has thus far neglected a Freedom of Information request for the records at two hospitals in Hawaii.


* Lawsuits in California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington are asking state Superior Courts to force the each state's Secretary of State, as the chief state elections officer, to perform his or her state constitutional duty to require original certifying birth records from Mr. Obama that would verify his birth in Hawaii.


Philip J. Berg's months-long lawsuit in Federal Court in Philadelphia reached a dramatic plateau as Mr. Obama and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) failed to respond to the court that Mr. Obama is not a natural born U.S. Citizen and therefore not qualified to run for office of President of the U.S. They admitted to Obama's non-qualification by their failure to respond to a 30-day court ordered discovery in which Obama and the DNC were ordered to answer a petition by Berg. Mr. Berg has stated that if the Federal court chooses to dismiss he will appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. This has come to pass.


These allegations will not go away until Mr. Obama produces proof to State and federal authorities. If he will not do so voluntarily he must be compelled by every means available. You, as an employee of The People, have sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution against ALL enemies foreign and domestic. We The People are demanding you to make every effort, both public and private, to resolve this fundamental Constitutional question before Election Day, November 4, 2008.


Sincerely,

[Your Name, Address, and Contact info here]

EXERCISE YOUR PRECIOUS RIGHT TO VOTE

Despite the threat that Obama and his supporters have leveled at the United States Constitution, we as voters have a fail-safe solution.
If Obama continues to refuse to produce an authentic birth certificate, then we voters - on November 4th - can come out by the millions upon millions to end his candidacy simply by voting NO to Obama and Yes to McCain-Palin!

Then we can work to get him out of the Senate!

Joan Swirsky (http://www.joanswirsky.com/) is a New York-based journalist and author who can be reached at joansharon@aol.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .


http://www.rightsidenews.com/200810262351/editorial/obama-s-birth-certificate-still-missing.html

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 06:26 AM
Socialist or National Socialist (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo155.html)
Take your pick. Article by Tom DiLorenzo.

DAFTEK
10-29-2008, 07:06 AM
The man is a lier! A thief, a crackhead and will burn the country down like no other president ever! If you think Bush was bad this guy will make you want to regret not voting for McDick! :D

mello
10-29-2008, 07:56 AM
I remember seeing a story about this months ago. Obama's campaign ended
up showing a copy of his birth certificate which was shown in the story. I wish I could
remember where I saw it in because I'd post the link.

Razmear
10-29-2008, 08:01 AM
Yawn, SSDD

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 08:02 AM
I remember seeing a story about this months ago. Obama's campaign ended
up showing a copy of his birth certificate which was shown in the story. I wish I could
remember where I saw it in because I'd post the link. My understanding is that a copy of the "questionable" ( Ahem! ) "Certificate of Live Birth" from Hawaii :rolleyes:, is/was displayed somewhere on the Obama campaign web site.

yongrel
10-29-2008, 08:09 AM
You'll have to forgive me for not caring.

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 08:20 AM
You'll have to forgive me for not caring. Noted, Ok!, Done!

nodope0695
10-29-2008, 08:27 AM
I remember seeing a story about this months ago. Obama's campaign ended
up showing a copy of his birth certificate which was shown in the story. I wish I could
remember where I saw it in because I'd post the link.

you can have a look at that forgery at http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

You can also have a look at another forgery at http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/print_born_in_the_usa.html

Take a close look at the one pictured in the first link. It has no creases from being folded in an envelope. It has no raised seal. The letters appear to be inserted over erased text. The boarders are fuzzy, like they're a photo copy (real ones have nice dark, sharp lines). GOOGLE, "Obama's birth certificat" under Google Images, and you'll be able to see true examples of Hawaii COLBs.

Now take a look at the one shown at factcheck.org. They are different. That one is folded and creased, has a raised stamp (can't tell from where), and is signed on the back. Very easily forged, and even if it is real, it still does not prove Obama's place of birth, it only shows that his birth was registered.

It is also important to note that this is NOT a birth certificate. It is a Certificate of Live Birth. Beleive it or not, there is a difference. The one presented by Obama is an abbreviated version of the birth certificate. It only gives basic info, and only proves that his mother registered his birth, not that he was born in Hawaii.

The story goes that his mother gave birth to him in Kenya, and then raced home, registered his birth at Kapiolani Hospital, placed an ad in the paper, and went on with her life. Oh yeah, she was NOT married to Barack Hussain Obama Sr. when young B.O. Jr. was born. In fact, she traveled back to the United States by herself.

And, B.O.'s mommy was not of age, nor did she live in the U.S. long enough to pass on citizenship to young B.O. She was 18 when he was born, and in Kenya. The laws on the books in 1961 stipulated that to be a NATURALIZED, not NATURAL BORN (big difference) citizen, the perent(s) must be 19 years old, and had to have lived in the U.S. for at least 10 years, five of which must have been after the age of 14. Let's see. She was NOT in the U.S. when B.O. was born, and she was 18...18 minus 14 is 4. Hmmm...thats one year less than the minimum of five required to allow B.O. to NATURALIZED, but not NATURAL BORN.

Not only was B.O. not a U.S. citizen at birth, he has NEVER been a U.S. citizen. He move with his flighty mother to Indonesia when he was 10. His mommy's new hubby (a citizen of Indonesia and a Muslim) adopted B.O. in Indonesia. B.O. was enrolled in school at a time when Indonesia only accepted Indonesian citizens as students....he was enrolled as an Indonesian citizen, and listed his religion as MUSLIM.

How do I know all of this? I read the lawsuit brought against B.O. by Phil Berg in Pensilvania. The judge in teh case tossed it out, and for bullshit reasons if you ask me, but neverthless, the information presented by Mr. Berg is compelling. I suggest you read it too. The court documents from Mr. Berg's case are here: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-paedce/case_no-2:2008cv04083/case_id-281573/

More info here: www.obamacrimes.com

kpitcher
10-29-2008, 10:10 AM
While the subject is on births - what's the verdict on Palin breaking water in Texas, giving a speech, then flying back to Alaska before giving birth - while the oldest daughter missed 5 months of school. Of course the odds for a down's baby for a teenager is really bad compared to a 40 something.

If I'm going to put a tin foil hat on, it should be for more than a single conspiracy theory!

StilesBC
10-29-2008, 10:46 AM
I thought McCain was born on the Marshall Islands before it became a US Territory and that technically disqualified him too. Or that territorial births are not eligible, or something of that order.

Clearly, there's enough dirt to go around.

PatriotLegion
10-29-2008, 11:04 AM
I thought McCain was born on the Marshall Islands before it became a US Territory and that technically disqualified him too. Or that territorial births are not eligible, or something of that order.

Clearly, there's enough dirt to go around.

He was born on a US Army base in a US Army hospital. Also McCain released his birth records when he was asked.

dannno
10-29-2008, 11:09 AM
Also McCain released his birth records when he was asked.

Correct, McCain released his birth records and said that he would release ANY and ALL information pertaining to his status as a naturalized citizen. Obama is skirting.

dannno
10-29-2008, 11:10 AM
Clearly, there's enough dirt to go around.

ACORN is dirt, Reverand Wright is dirt...McCain/Feingold is dirt.. not being a naturalized citizen is and getting away with running for President NOT dirt.

NewEnd
10-29-2008, 11:34 AM
The judge in teh case tossed it out, and for bullshit reasons if you ask me.....

What reasons were those? :rolleyes: That Berg is full of shit? That anybody born of an American citizen, by law, must reject citizenship by age 19, or they are considered natural born?


Oh, and it is obvious we will see a new one of these stupid threads everyday, for the next four years, in grassroots central.

nodope0695
10-29-2008, 09:22 PM
What reasons were those? :rolleyes: That Berg is full of shit? That anybody born of an American citizen, by law, must reject citizenship by age 19, or they are considered natural born?


Oh, and it is obvious we will see a new one of these stupid threads everyday, for the next four years, in grassroots central.


I gave links to the court document, and other sites where you can read info about the case. If you are too lazy to go educate yourself, then I won't spend my time trying to explain it to you here.

NewEnd
10-30-2008, 01:27 AM
I gave links to the court document, and other sites where you can read info about the case. If you are too lazy to go educate yourself, then I won't spend my time trying to explain it to you here.


try this for education:

our government has a judicial branch, which interprets the vagueness of constitutional statements.

It threw out the lawsuit long before it reached the supreme court.

I dont need it to explain it to me. I already know he is a citizen, because he was born of an American. Game over.

nbhadja
10-30-2008, 02:18 AM
try this for education:

our government has a judicial branch, which interprets the vagueness of constitutional statements.

It threw out the lawsuit long before it reached the supreme court.

I dont need it to explain it to me. I already know he is a citizen, because he was born of an American. Game over.

It is a FACT that the government does not follow most of the constitution! They have violated it millions of times.

So your premise is WRONG. They do NOT review it and hold it up against the constitution. Obama refuses to relase his records/birth certificate while McCain did.

Game over, ignorance to facts does not make you win, you still lose.

BeFranklin
10-30-2008, 02:26 AM
It is a FACT that the government does not follow most of the constitution! They have violated it millions of times.

So your premise is WRONG. They do NOT review it and hold it up against the constitution. Obama refuses to relase his records/birth certificate while McCain did.

Game over, ignorance to facts does not make you win, you still lose.

The original definition of natural born citizen is not defined by staturary law, its common law, and just means born of an American parent to citizenship in one of the States. Natural means by parenthood not "where you were born", which would be really screwy if you think about it. Edit: Naturally born means NOT BY STATUTE as in parenthood. Naturalization laws or the 14th Amendment don't deal with that, they are an artificial contrivance to make someone a citizen who wasn't one natural by birth.

Everything you are reading about place making a difference is from ideas on statutory law, the 14th Amendment, or naturalization laws. You'll need to read common law and understand the difference between 14th amendment citizenship and citizenship in one of the sovereign states of the united States to really understand the difference.

This is a wedge issue that ironically separates neocons and neoconned from those interested in the original freedoms of the founding fathers. We ought to side with Obama and use it to promote non-federal government citizenship and state rights. It will shock the neocons, and possibly win a few people over.

PauliticsPolitics
10-30-2008, 02:41 AM
Wow, this is boring.
There are 1000's of better reasons to hate obama and mccain.
I can make anyone a fake birth certificate. This is lame.
When one of these jokers wins, no one will care about this drivel.

Truth Warrior
10-30-2008, 03:33 AM
If a child is born to two natural born American citizen parents during an airline flight over the ocean, is the child a natural born US citizen, and therefore eligible to run for POTUS? ;)

BeFranklin
10-30-2008, 03:41 AM
If a child is born to two natural born American citizen parents during an airline flight over the ocean, is the child a natural born US citizen, and therefore eligible to run for POTUS? ;)

According to Statue X on the books during 1959 through 1965 before amended, only if standing on one foot while giving childbirth. The federal government defines who is a citizen and not the other way around don't you know :p

lynnf
10-30-2008, 03:44 AM
try this for education:

our government has a judicial branch, which interprets the vagueness of constitutional statements.

It threw out the lawsuit long before it reached the supreme court.

I dont need it to explain it to me. I already know he is a citizen, because he was born of an American. Game over.


lawsuit not thrown out, just an adverse ruling -- appeal continues, the suit is alive!

"born of an American" -- you're assuming, so check out this link to the history
of citizenship laws -- it has changed through the years and hasn't always been
"born of an American".

historical summary of citizenship law
http://www.aca.ch/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51&Itemid=38


lynn

Truth Warrior
10-30-2008, 03:56 AM
According to Statue X on the books during 1959 through 1965 before amended, only if standing on one foot while giving childbirth. The federal government defines who is a citizen and not the other way around don't you know :p It could get very interesting to see how some non Clinton appointed judge rules in another of the Obama birthplace lawsuits. Maybe, they'll ALL just now defer to the recently established precedent.

Dianne
10-30-2008, 05:30 AM
People in eight states have filed law suits challenging his right to be on the ballot.

Don't you think we should get this done in all states? It doesn't cost hardly anything to file a lawsuit.

Truth Warrior
10-30-2008, 05:59 AM
People in eight states have filed law suits challenging his right to be on the ballot.

Don't you think we should get this done in all states? It doesn't cost hardly anything to file a lawsuit. That sounds like a real winner of an idea to me. ;)

fedup100
10-30-2008, 06:03 AM
try this for education:

our government has a judicial branch, which interprets the vagueness of constitutional statements.

It threw out the lawsuit long before it reached the supreme court.

I dont need it to explain it to me. I already know he is a citizen, because he was born of an American. Game over.

Not one of the bastard's parents were american. His communist mother lived outside the us for too many years to even be a legal american citizen and the daddy is obvious, if it is his father at all.

Note the supporters of this bastard on this forum. I am so disgusted at what is left of this poor country that has been destroyed from within on national television. The communist aiders and abetters are thick here and need to be routed out.

We need a serious forum for real freedom loving people that need to discuss the real issues. We don't need the stress of having to wade through the disinformation and depressing rhetoric of the enemy.

I posted about this bastards birth certificate on this forum over 6 months ago when something could have been done but was thrown in the ditch.

This bastard plans on stealing office and then allowing his devote black supporters to tear down your house and kill you and your children to protect his right as a "world citizen" to finish this country off.

We have been told for 50 years that the black race is only about 13% of the population and you have believed it. Crap, they have put these people on welfare and the more they dropped, the more democratic voters they have. There are 30 million blacks in New York, Houston, La and Chicago alone. We have been out breed and lied too. We are the dumbest people on earth I do believe.

Count the number of black faces you see on television in 1 hour and you will be shocked. Without exception now, movie and TV, the leader, the good guy, the top dog, the smartest guy et all to adnausem is always a BLACK. They have brainwashed the silly white fools in this country to vote this dangerous fraud into office and give the safety and security for their asses to this trojan horse. MY GOD!!

96% of the black people in this country will vote for another black even if they knew he would kill every one of them. They have proven this in Afrika time and again. If the white man had not gone into afrika, they would still be in the dark on the dark continent eating each other and still dreaming of how to make a wheel. Oprah's big ass would have been soup a long time ago.


We're in deep shit my friend! For all you PC corrupt crowd, go to hell, you're on the menu too and don't know it.

Slist
10-30-2008, 06:06 AM
People in eight states...

Right now therere are lawsuits in nine states..

nodope0695
10-30-2008, 08:17 AM
try this for education:

our government has a judicial branch, which interprets the vagueness of constitutional statements.

It threw out the lawsuit long before it reached the supreme court.

I dont need it to explain it to me. I already know he is a citizen, because he was born of an American. Game over.

How do you know? How do we know he's not? The point here is that if he's not, then the Constitution is usurped, and the voters cheated. All the suit was asking was for him to provide proof of citizenship...that's it. He did not. And, the case was dismissed by the judge at the circuit court level, and is being appealed to the Supreme Court...plus there are 8 other suits in other states as well.

Being born of an American does not automatically make you a citizen. Especially when the American hasn't lived long enough in the U.S. to pass on citizenship. AND, he would be a NATURALIZED citizen, NOT a NATURAL BORN citizen.

http://www.fugly.com/media/IMAGES/WTF/retarded-llama.jpg
FAIL. Join the flock.

nodope0695
10-30-2008, 08:20 AM
That sounds like a real winner of an idea to me. ;)

Yep, according to Phil Berg's case, I think to was $360 to file his case...

Truth Warrior
10-30-2008, 08:23 AM
How do you know? How do we know he's not? The point here is that if he's not, then the Constitution is usurped, and the voters cheated. All the suit was asking was for him to provide proof of citizenship...that's it. He did not. And, the case was dismissed by the judge at the circuit court level, and is being appealed to the Supreme Court...plus there are 8 other suits in other states as well.

Being born of an American does not automatically make you a citizen. Especially when the American hasn't lived long enough in the U.S. to pass on citizenship. AND, he would be a NATURALIZED citizen, NOT a NATURAL BORN citizen.

I'm Truth Warrior, and I endorse the preceding message! ;) :D

nodope0695
10-30-2008, 08:27 AM
I'm Truth Warrior, and I endorse the preceding message! ;) :D

I cut out the last paragraph...was a little harsh and felt guilty...I forgive him - he knows not what he does.:cool: Besides, you quoted me before I took it out, so its still up...oh well, perhaps he needs to read it.

Truth Warrior
10-30-2008, 08:34 AM
I cut out the last paragraph...was a little harsh and felt guilty...I forgive him - he knows not what he does.:cool: Besides, you quoted me before I took it out, so its still up...oh well, perhaps he needs to read it. I'll take it out of my post quote too, if you'd prefer. :)

NewEnd
10-30-2008, 10:23 AM
lawsuit not thrown out, just an adverse ruling -- appeal continues, the suit is alive!

"born of an American" -- you're assuming, so check out this link to the history
of citizenship laws -- it has changed through the years and hasn't always been
"born of an American".

historical summary of citizenship law
http://www.aca.ch/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51&Itemid=38


lynn

First definition... by the founding fathers


1790 First Congress, Act of March 26th, 1790, 1 Stat. 103.

"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States".

To me, this is pretty clear, except for the sexism prevelant in society at the time, that the founders intended for anyone born of a citizen to automatically be considered a natural born citizen.

lynnf
10-30-2008, 10:28 AM
First definition... by the founding fathers



To me, this is pretty clear, except for the sexism prevelant in society at the time, that the founders intended for anyone born of a citizen to automatically be considered a natural born citizen.

which was superceded by the Act of 1795(?) and later by other acts which acknowledged deficiencies in the original

lynn

acptulsa
10-30-2008, 10:28 AM
He was born on a US Army base in a US Army hospital. Also McCain released his birth records when he was asked.

It was no Army hospital and it was not only off base, it was outside of the Canal Zone.

NewEnd
10-30-2008, 10:31 AM
Note the supporters of this bastard on this forum. I am so disgusted at what is left of this poor country that has been destroyed from within on national television. The communist aiders and abetters are thick here and need to be routed out.

1. Im a bastard
2. I gave $200 to Ron Paul, $50 to BJ Lawson, have volunteered for Paul, spent 4 years vigorously volunteering for the Libertarian party (2000 -2004)
and have spent no time volunteering for Obama, nor have I sent him a red cent.



We need a serious forum for real freedom loving people that need to discuss the real issues. We don't need the stress of having to wade through the disinformation and depressing rhetoric of the enemy.

"real freedom loving" What does this lawyer crap have to do with freedom? It doesn't, its people trying to change an election outcome on a technicality with no real merit.


I posted about this bastards birth certificate on this forum over 6 months ago when something could have been done but was thrown in the ditch.

Good for you.


This bastard plans on stealing office and then allowing his devote black supporters to tear down your house and kill you and your children to protect his right as a "world citizen" to finish this country off.

:rolleyes:


We have been told for 50 years that the black race is only about 13% of the population and you have believed it. Crap, they have put these people on welfare and the more they dropped, the more democratic voters they have. There are 30 million blacks in New York, Houston, La and Chicago alone. We have been out breed and lied too. We are the dumbest people on earth I do believe.

Who is "we?" I see where you are coming from, though. ;)


Count the number of black faces you see on television in 1 hour and you will be shocked. Without exception now, movie and TV, the leader, the good guy, the top dog, the smartest guy et all to adnausem is always a BLACK. They have brainwashed the silly white fools in this country to vote this dangerous fraud into office and give the safety and security for their asses to this trojan horse. MY GOD!!

Sounds to me like you equate "freedom loving" with "****** hating"


96% of the black people in this country will vote for another black even if they knew he would kill every one of them. They have proven this in Afrika time and again. If the white man had not gone into afrika, they would still be in the dark on the dark continent eating each other and still dreaming of how to make a wheel. Oprah's big ass would have been soup a long time ago.

Keep that fat mouth of yours flapping, boy.


We're in deep shit my friend! For all you PC corrupt crowd, go to hell, you're on the menu too and don't know it.

No, your kind is on the menu. Give me a knife, and I'll gladly be the first to start carving the cancer you represent from my country.

P.S. The freedom movement doesn't need racist little shits like you.

NewEnd
10-30-2008, 10:35 AM
which was superceded by the Act of 1795(?) and later by other acts which acknowledged deficiencies in the original

lynn

so which is it? Are you looking for the founder's original intent, or the current definitions as interpreted by the law? If the former, he is citizen by birth (unless you believe only white men, aged 21+ and landed should vote).... if the latter, the court has decided he is a natural born citizen

Ohhh.. I know... you just want the outcome that gives McCain a win.

acptulsa
10-30-2008, 10:38 AM
so which is it? Are you looking for the founder's original intent, or the current definitions as interpreted by the law?

If the founders were alive, we could ascertain intent. We could ask them. As it is, no law can modify the Constitution so the 1790 law (which was quickly repealed), the 1795 law and all other acts of Congress mean nothing whatsoever. And the Supreme Court has yet to weigh in.

I know I am not an neutral observer on this issue. I want both Obama and McCain declared ineligible. I think that would be beyond hilarious and beyond heartening...

NewEnd
10-30-2008, 10:42 AM
I know I am not an neutral observer on this issue. I want both Obama and McCain declared ineligible. I think that would be beyond hilarious and beyond heartening...

I think it is ridiculous to try and claim either is not a natural-born American.

Truth Warrior
10-30-2008, 10:43 AM
If the founders were alive, we could ascertain intent. We could ask them. As it is, no law can modify the Constitution so the 1790 law (which was quickly repealed), the 1795 law and all other acts of Congress mean nothing whatsoever. And the Supreme Court has yet to weigh in.

I know I am not an neutral observer on this issue. I want both Obama and McCain declared ineligible. I think that would be beyond hilarious and beyond heartening... Maybe GWB could issue an Executive Order to that effect. :D

BeFranklin
10-30-2008, 01:03 PM
First definition... by the founding fathers



To me, this is pretty clear, except for the sexism prevelant in society at the time, that the founders intended for anyone born of a citizen to automatically be considered a natural born citizen.

Natural born citizenship is part of common law. It didn't have to be defined. I'm surprised no one on here is looking for answers there. Few of the rockerfeller republicans are going to talk about common law. They hate it - it inteferes with passing arbitrary statutary law and includes more rights and limits on government. Its by blood and parentage, as the Europeans usually do it, and as we did here before the 14th. The 14th was intended to free the slaves that were here, but weren't full citizens because their parents weren't. The 14th was intended to be better than naturalization, but didn't change what is meant by natural born citizen.

If it is by government statue, then the government is defining who is and isn't a citizen, and natural law goes down the tubes. I'm shocked many of you are even taking that path. Government is by we the people, not who we the people are defined by government.

BeFranklin
10-30-2008, 01:13 PM
How do you know? How do we know he's not? The point here is that if he's not, then the Constitution is usurped, and the voters cheated. All the suit was asking was for him to provide proof of citizenship...that's it. He did not. And, the case was dismissed by the judge at the circuit court level, and is being appealed to the Supreme Court...plus there are 8 other suits in other states as well.

Being born of an American does not automatically make you a citizen. Especially when the American hasn't lived long enough in the U.S. to pass on citizenship. AND, he would be a NATURALIZED citizen, NOT a NATURAL BORN citizen.

FAIL. Join the flock.

THat being repeated endlessly and on every talk show doesn't make it true. Out of both of us, I am probably the only one that has read an original copy of blackstone.

Natural means by parentage. Its the 14th that talks about boundaries and creates a "citizen of a nation" instead of states, affecting state rights; and how long you are in the United States is even a more absurd taking of power, as now citizenship is just being defined as an arbitrary statutory law. Want US citizenship defined by statue? Next dictactor that gets elected defines citizenship as anyone and their children who agrees with him. If it was as simply as where you are born, the 14th isn't even necessary as an amendment. However, slaves didn't have parents who were citizens by where they were born.

BeFranklin
10-30-2008, 01:17 PM
First definition... by the founding fathers



To me, this is pretty clear, except for the sexism prevelant in society at the time, that the founders intended for anyone born of a citizen to automatically be considered a natural born citizen.

At that time, women didn't vote. Voting was by household and head of the household, so it makes sense, and matches exactly what I am saying about common law.

Watching everyone run towards the 14th and statutory citizenship is kindof disappointing to see in a liberty crowd.

BeFranklin
10-30-2008, 01:20 PM
It was no Army hospital and it was not only off base, it was outside of the Canal Zone.

Lets have recounts on everyones citizenship. That should do it :rolleyes:

BeFranklin
10-30-2008, 01:21 PM
Maybe GWB could issue an Executive Order to that effect. :D

Or even a pardon :D

Truth Warrior
10-30-2008, 01:23 PM
Or even a pardon :D That'll be page two, in the microfine print. :D

werdd
10-30-2008, 01:25 PM
That'll be page two. :D

more like page 432, with more tax payer protection, and a cool train project.

jsteilKS
10-30-2008, 04:02 PM
somone should ask Obamas grandmother for a youtube or it didnt happen!

JohnJay
10-30-2008, 04:18 PM
Obama's birth certificate is in Hawai'i - what is the problem ?

Lord Xar
10-30-2008, 04:27 PM
What I still do not understand and how anyone could argue a point is --

Everything, and I mean everything is heresay. There is NO PROOF. That is what is needed. For those of you arguing in favor of "we do not need to see it..." - WHY are you so adamant about that fact? Why?

I see NO REASON why we, as citizens and voters, can't verify his eligibility by seeing his birth certificate. What is the hoopla? All I see here is everyone arguing over semantics of what it means to be this or that etc... and all this is based on the assumption of where the parents were born and what their status is. Why all this riga'marole when a simple birth certificate can clear it up?

Also, instead of a select few framing the debate -- lets focus in on the simple fact:

"no birth certificate has been produced and it has been sealed" <-- red flags, red flags..

Truth Warrior
10-30-2008, 04:28 PM
Obama's birth certificate is in Hawai'i - what is the problem ? Significant evidence suggests that he was born in Kenya. ;)

BeFranklin
10-30-2008, 04:33 PM
What I still do not understand and how anyone could argue a point is --

Everything, and I mean everything is heresay. There is NO PROOF. That is what is needed. For those of you arguing in favor of "we do not need to see it..." - WHY are you so adamant about that fact? Why?

I see NO REASON why we, as citizens and voters, can't verify his eligibility by seeing his birth certificate. What is the hoopla? All I see here is everyone arguing over semantics of what it means to be this or that etc... and all this is based on the assumption of where the parents were born and what their status is. Why all this riga'marole when a simple birth certificate can clear it up?

Also, instead of a select few framing the debate -- lets focus in on the simple fact:

"no birth certificate has been produced and it has been sealed" <-- red flags, red flags..

The only way it would make a difference is if he was *adopted*, which I suppose is possible.

But as one last try for holding out for liberty. We didn't use to have birth certificates. Don't need the government to give us permission to marry, preach, carry a gun, or certify we are born.

http://patism66.blogspot.com/2008/03/history-of-birth-records.html

dannno
10-30-2008, 04:34 PM
Obama's birth certificate is in Hawai'i - what is the problem ?

They have posted two different certificates. The organization behind politifact who endorsed the certificate they posted has given Obama millions of dollars in support of his campaign. The other certificate was posted on Obama's website.

BeFranklin
10-30-2008, 04:38 PM
They have posted two different certificates. The organization behind politifact who endorsed the certificate they posted has given Obama millions of dollars in support of his campaign. The other certificate was posted on Obama's website.

Thats a more likely tact, that with two obvious forgeries, the real ones have to be seen. I would question not where he was born, but if he was adopted and has *no* American parents. That is also possible, and more of a real issue.

JohnJay
10-30-2008, 04:59 PM
Significant evidence suggests that he was born in Kenya. ;)

I just can't see it - the Honolulu newspaper anounced the birth in its August 13, 1961 edition.

The Republican Hawai'i governor is following Hawai'i statute in stating that only certain persons - like the person themselves - can request their birth certificate legally - it is not a public record.

But the very fact that the Governor took that action is defacto evidence that there is a Hawai'i birth certificate for Obama.

lynnf
10-30-2008, 05:04 PM
so which is it? Are you looking for the founder's original intent, or the current definitions as interpreted by the law? If the former, he is citizen by birth (unless you believe only white men, aged 21+ and landed should vote).... if the latter, the court has decided he is a natural born citizen

Ohhh.. I know... you just want the outcome that gives McCain a win.



I look for the law that applied at the time. and no, he would not be a natural citizen
if the allegations about it prove true, and many of us are very suspicious about it because Obama seems to be hiding it.

and you are wrong about McCain, I'm not for him. But I am for the truth and for abiding by the Constitution. If Obama proves out to truly be a natural citizen, so be it, but it needs to be proven.

so we see where you are coming from by your absurd assertion.


lynn

lynnf
10-30-2008, 05:07 PM
somone should ask Obamas grandmother for a youtube or it didnt happen!


have some respect for your elders, asking a Kenyan grandmother for a youtube is like torture!

lynn

dannno
10-30-2008, 05:08 PM
I just can't see it - the Honolulu newspaper anounced the birth in its August 13, 1961 edition.


Why wasn't my birth announced in the local newspaper?




The Republican Hawai'i governor is following Hawai'i statute in stating that only certain persons - like the person themselves - can request their birth certificate legally - it is not a public record.

But the very fact that the Governor took that action is defacto evidence that there is a Hawai'i birth certificate for Obama.

Then why are his records from Kenya also being held by the govt? Is that action defacto evidence that there is a birth certificate in Kenya?

BeFranklin
10-30-2008, 05:13 PM
Ah geeze, this is getting further and further afield.

A - your birth is usually called in by a family member to the newspaper, at least in my town.

B - birth certificates weren't even used a hundred years ago. Its an unnecessary government intrusion like marriage licenses.

C - it wasn't a great concern because the founders mean *parentage* by natural birth. If you don't like that and still won't listen, you are just dumb and ought to shut your trap.

RockEnds
10-30-2008, 05:22 PM
As soon as Obama renounces the 14th amendment and proclaims that it's not the state's business to record vital statistics, issue Social Security numbers, and try to force Real ID down our throats, he's off the hook on the birth certificate issue. Until then, he needs to get off his high horse and act as if he's subject to the same laws wishes to place everyone else under.


As to the possibilities of what could be found, well, maybe it's as simple as him not wanting to reveal that his parents were not married. That's doubtful, though, since his wife is bragging about it. He looks like both of his parents, so I highly doubt that he is actually adopted. Not to mention, an 18-year-old single female could not have adopted a child in 1961. But she may have felt as if giving birth somewhere private was in her best interest.

As much as society at large refuses to acknowledge this fact, millions of children were stolen from young, single mothers in the fifties and sixties. Hospital workers told the mothers that they could not see their infants, then recorded that they showed no interest in their children. It's not called the baby scoop era for no reason. She did have a motive to give birth outside the United States, and in her case, she had opportunity. Whether this happened or not, remains to be seen.

It's also possible that he was adopted by her second husband in Indonesia, and some paperwork was required to reverse that in the United States after he returned to Hawaii.

Either scenario is possible. Neither may be true. He could just be a jackass that thinks he's better than everyone else and doesn't want to show his papers like the rest of us are required to do.

In any case, he needs to show proof of eligibility.

Truth Warrior
10-30-2008, 05:22 PM
What I still do not understand and how anyone could argue a point is --

Everything, and I mean everything is heresay. There is NO PROOF. That is what is needed. For those of you arguing in favor of "we do not need to see it..." - WHY are you so adamant about that fact? Why?

I see NO REASON why we, as citizens and voters, can't verify his eligibility by seeing his birth certificate. What is the hoopla? All I see here is everyone arguing over semantics of what it means to be this or that etc... and all this is based on the assumption of where the parents were born and what their status is. Why all this riga'marole when a simple birth certificate can clear it up?

Also, instead of a select few framing the debate -- lets focus in on the simple fact:

"no birth certificate has been produced and it has been sealed" <-- red flags, red flags.. Isn't that one reason for lawsuits?

lynnf
10-30-2008, 05:27 PM
here's an example of what the current definition is:


http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html

U.S. Code

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > 1401

1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.



lynn

JohnJay
10-30-2008, 05:48 PM
I look for the law that applied at the time. and no, he would not be a natural citizen
if the allegations about it prove true, and many of us are very suspicious about it because Obama seems to be hiding it.

and you are wrong about McCain, I'm not for him. But I am for the truth and for abiding by the Constitution. If Obama proves out to truly be a natural citizen, so be it, but it needs to be proven.

so we see where you are coming from by your absurd assertion.


lynn

If Obama is not a native born citizen - very unlikely since he has a Hawai'i birth certificate,
it would be Joe Biden that would assume the Presidency in his place.

McCain could never benefit, because he definitely is not a native-born citizen and is NOT eligible -
the Constitution has never been changed about this, and the Supreme Court has been definitive about what it means.

McCain was not born inside the United States.

werdd
10-30-2008, 06:47 PM
He won't answer the question.

Wonder why..

nodope0695
10-30-2008, 09:35 PM
If Obama is not a native born citizen - very unlikely since he has a Hawai'i birth certificate,
it would be Joe Biden that would assume the Presidency in his place.

McCain could never benefit, because he definitely is not a native-born citizen and is NOT eligible -
the Constitution has never been changed about this, and the Supreme Court has been definitive about what it means.

McCain was not born inside the United States.

Not to come to McShame's defense, but when asked, McCain provided his birth records where Obama has NOT. McCain was born to American Citizens, on a U.S. Military installation...Military installations are U.S. Soil. Obama's mother was NOT on a military installation, she was too young and had not lived in the U.S. long enough to even give Obama dual citizenship.

The fact is, Obama is a bastard (meaning illigitimate), born in Kenya, schooled in Indonesia, never had U.S. citizenship, never became naturalized, and damn sure was NOT natural born.

nodope0695
10-30-2008, 09:40 PM
here's an example of what the current definition is:


http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html

U.S. Code

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > 1401

1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.



lynn

Excellent digging for info there!!! Unfortunately for Barack Hussain Obama, the was born under a different statute...too bad that judge in Phil Berg's case didn't have the balls to uphold the truth...

nodope0695
10-30-2008, 09:44 PM
What I still do not understand and how anyone could argue a point is --

Everything, and I mean everything is heresay. There is NO PROOF. That is what is needed. For those of you arguing in favor of "we do not need to see it..." - WHY are you so adamant about that fact? Why?

I see NO REASON why we, as citizens and voters, can't verify his eligibility by seeing his birth certificate. What is the hoopla? All I see here is everyone arguing over semantics of what it means to be this or that etc... and all this is based on the assumption of where the parents were born and what their status is. Why all this riga'marole when a simple birth certificate can clear it up?

Also, instead of a select few framing the debate -- lets focus in on the simple fact:

"no birth certificate has been produced and it has been sealed" <-- red flags, red flags..

The exact point I was trying to make with another person here in this thread....The thing is, Phil Berg DID find proof to support his case, presented compelling evidence, and requested that Obama prove or disprove the alligations presented. Obama did NOT answer the suit, but instead made empty motions for dismissal based on "lack of cause" or "lack of jurisdiction". All motions that essentially were stalling tactics.

nodope0695
10-30-2008, 09:51 PM
Obama's birth certificate is in Hawai'i - what is the problem ?

We don't know if its there or not...if it is, its been sealed by the governor...that forces the question: If it proves his birth was in Hawaii, why not show it? The thing is, the certificate they have (if at all) must show his place of birth to be outside the united states, or it would be presented, thus shutting up those of us who believe Obama is a bastard son, born in Kenya, and a fucking slimey mutha fucka....forgive my emotional outburst.

heavenlyboy34
10-30-2008, 11:10 PM
if the founders were alive, we could ascertain intent. We could ask them. As it is, no law can modify the constitution so the 1790 law (which was quickly repealed), the 1795 law and all other acts of congress mean nothing whatsoever. And the supreme court has yet to weigh in.

I know i am not an neutral observer on this issue. i want both obama and mccain declared ineligible. I think that would be beyond hilarious and beyond heartening...

+99999999:d

BeFranklin
10-31-2008, 01:46 AM
Excellent digging for info there!!! Unfortunately for Barack Hussain Obama, the was born under a different statute...too bad that judge in Phil Berg's case didn't have the balls to uphold the truth...

Statute citizenship has nothing to do with being a natural born citizen. A statute can't modify the Constitution, which is the highest law in the land. You're supporting your own chains, because if this was the case, Obama could simply re-write the statue to exclude you and your children, pre-suming he really is the devil incarnate and mccain only a minor demon (seeing that hell apparently has rank)

Being a natural born citizen is defined in common law. It predates the constitution, and has to for the constitution to have any legal sense - there has to be a we the people first before there is a constitution to write.

phoenixrising
10-31-2008, 04:38 AM
so in digging deeper ...i found this: {emphasis mine in the 1st sentence}

"Barack Obama is not a legal U.S. natural-born citizen according to
the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between
December 24, 1952, to November 13, 1986. Federal Law requires that the
office of President requires a natural-born citizen if the child was
not born to two U.S. Citizen parents. This is what exempts John
McCain, though he was born in the US Panama Canal Zone.

US Law very clearly states: `. . . If only one parent is a U.S.
Citizen at the time of one's birth, that parent must have resided in
the United States for minimum ten years, five of which must be after
the age of 16.' Barack Obama's father was not a U.S. Citizen is a fact.

Obama's mother was only 18 when Obama was born. This means even
though she had been a U.S. Citizen for 10 years, (or citizen of Hawaii
being a territory), his mother fails the test for at-least-5-years-
prior-to Barack Obama's birth, but-after-age-16.

In essence, Mother alone is not old enough to qualify her son for
automatic U.S. Citizenship. At most, 2 years elapsed from his mother
turning 16 to the time of Barack Obama's birth when she was 18. His
mother would have needed to have been 16 + 5 = 21 years old at the
time of Barack Obama's birth for him to be a natural-born citizen.
Barack Obama was already 3 years old at the time his mother would have
needed to be to allow him natural citizenship from his only U.S.
Citizen parent. Obama should have been naturalized as a citizen . .
but that would disqualify him from holding the office.

The Constitution clearly declares: Naturalized citizens are
ineligible to hold the office of President. Though Barack Obama was
sent back to Hawaii at age 10, any other information does not matter
because his mother is the one who must fulfill the requirement to be a
U.S. Citizen for 10 years prior to his birth on August 4, 1961, with 5
of those years being after age 16.

Further, Obama may have had to have remained in the USA for some
time frame to protect any citizenship he might have had, rather than
living in Indonesia. This is very clear cut and a glaring violation of
U.S. Election law."

to go further & really spell it out:

phoenixrising
10-31-2008, 04:38 AM
OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN


By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
October 29, 2008

NewsWithViews.com




America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional crisis in her history. Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum and prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is “a natural born Citizen” of the United States who has not renounced his American citizenship—or he must step down as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States—preferably before the election is held, and in any event before the Electoral College meets. Because, pursuant to the Constitution, only “a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). And Obama clearly was not “a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution.”




Whether the evidence will show that Obama is, or is not, “a natural born Citizen” who has never renounced his American citizenship is an open question. The arguments on both sides are as yet speculative. But Obama’s stubborn refusal to provide what he claims is “his own” country with conclusive proof on that score compels the presumption that he knows, or at least strongly suspects, that no sufficient evidence in his favor exists. After all, he is not being pressed to solve a problem in quantum physics that is “above his pay grade,” but only asked to provide the public with the original copy of some official record that establishes his citizenship. The vast majority of Americans could easily do so. Why will Obama not dispel the doubts about his eligibility—unless he can not?




Now that Obama’s citizenship has been seriously questioned, the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders. The “burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States * * * is upon those making the claim.” Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, 653 (1948). And if each of the General Government’s powers must be proven (not simply presumed) to exist, then every requirement that the Constitution sets for any individual’s exercise of those powers must also be proven (not simply presumed) to be fully satisfied before that individual may exercise any of those powers. The Constitution’s command that “[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen * * * shall be eligible to the Office of President” is an absolute prohibition against the exercise of each and every Presidential power by certain unqualified individuals. Actually (not simply presumptively or speculatively) being “a natural born Citizen” is the condition precedent sine qua non for avoiding this prohibition. Therefore, anyone who claims eligibility for “the Office of President” must, when credibly challenged, establish his qualifications in this regard with sufficient evidence.




In disposing of the lawsuit Berg v. Obama, which squarely presents the question of Obama’s true citizenship, the presiding judge complained that Berg “would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory.” This is exceptionally thin hogwash. A proper judicial inquiry into Obama’s eligibility for “the Office of President” will not deny his supporters a “right” to vote for him—rather, it will determine whether they have any such “right” at all. For, just as Obama’s “right” to stand for election to “the Office of President” is contingent upon his being “a natural born Citizen,” so too are the “rights” of his partisans to vote for him contingent upon whether he is even eligible for that “Office.” If Obama is ineligible, then no one can claim any “right” to vote for him. Indeed, in that case every American who does vote has a constitutional duty to vote against him.




The judge in Berg v. Obama dismissed the case, not because Obama has actually proven that he is eligible for “the Office of President,” but instead because, simply as a voter, Berg supposedly lacks “standing” to challenge Obama’s eligibility:



regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. * ** [A] candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.

This pronouncement does not rise to the level of hogwash.

First, the Constitution mandates that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution” (Article III, Section 2, Clause 1). Berg’s suit plainly “aris[es] under th[e] Constitution,” in the sense of raising a critical constitutional issue. So the only question is whether his suit is a constitutional “Case[ ].” The present judicial test for whether a litigant’s claim constitutes a constitutional “Case[ ]” comes under the rubric of “standing”—a litigant with “standing” may proceed; one without “standing” may not. “Standing,” however, is not a term found anywhere in the Constitution. Neither are the specifics of the doctrine of “standing,” as they have been elaborated in judicial decision after judicial decision, to be found there. Rather, the test for “standing” is almost entirely a judicial invention.




True enough, the test for “standing” is not as ridiculous as the judiciary’s so-called “compelling governmental interest test,” which licenses public officials to abridge individuals’ constitutional rights and thereby exercise powers the Constitution withholds from those officials, which has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, and which is actually anti-constitutional. Neither is the doctrine of “standing” as abusive as the “immunities” judges have cut from whole cloth for public officials who violate their constitutional “Oath[s] or Affirmation[s], to support this Constitution” (Article VI, Clause 3)—in the face of the Constitution’s explicit limitation on official immunities (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). For the Constitution does require that a litigant must present a true “Case[ ].” Yet, because the test for “standing” is largely a contrivance of all-too-fallible men and women, its specifics can be changed as easily as they were adopted, when they are found to be faulty. And they must be changed if the consequences of judicial ignorance, inertia, and inaction are not to endanger America’s constitutional form of government. Which is precisely the situation here, inasmuch as the purported “election” of Obama as President, notwithstanding his ineligibility for that office, not only will render illegitimate the Executive Branch of the General Government, but also will render impotent its Legislative Branch (as explained below).

Second, the notion upon which the judge in Berg v. Obama fastened—namely, that Berg’s “grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact,” i.e., if everyone is injured or potentially injured then no one has “standing”—is absurd on its face.




To be sure, no one has yet voted for Obama in the general election. But does that mean that no one in any group smaller than the general pool of America’s voters in its entirety has suffered specific harm from Obama’s participation in the electoral process to date? Or will suffer such harm from his continuing participation? What about the Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton as their party’s nominee, but were saddled with Obama because other Democrats voted for him even though they could not legally have done so if his lack of eligibility for “the Office of President” had been judicially determined before the Democratic primaries or convention? What about the States that have registered Obama as a legitimate candidate for President, but will have been deceived, perhaps even defrauded, if he is proven not to be “a natural born Citizen”? And as far as the general election is concerned, what about the voters among erstwhile Republicans and Independents who do not want John McCain as President, and therefore will vote for Obama (or any Democrat, for that matter) as “the lesser of two evils,” but who later on may have their votes effectively thrown out, and may have to suffer McCain’s being declared the winner of the election, if Obama’s ineligibility is established? Or what about those voters who made monetary contributions to Obama’s campaign, but may at length discover that their funds went, not only to an ineligible candidate, but to one who knew he was ineligible?








These obvious harms pale into insignificance, however, compared to the national disaster of having an outright usurper purportedly “elected” as “President.” In this situation, it is downright idiocy to claim, as did the judge in Berg v. Obama, that a “generalized” injury somehow constitutes no judicially cognizable injury at all. Self-evidently, to claim that a “generalized” grievance negates “the existence of an injury in fact” is patently illogical—for if everyone in any group can complain of the same harm of which any one of them can complain, then the existence of some harm cannot be denied; and the more people who can complain of that harm, the greater the aggregate or cumulative seriousness of the injury. The whole may not be greater than the sum of its parts; but it is at least equal to that sum! Moreover, for a judge to rule that no injury redressable in a court of law exists, precisely because everyone in America will be subjected to an individual posing as “the President” but who constitutionally cannot be (and therefore is not) the President, sets America on the course of judicially assisted political suicide.





If Obama turns out to be nothing more than an usurper who has fraudulently seized control of the Presidency, not only will the Constitution have been egregiously flouted, but also this whole country could be, likely will be, destroyed as a consequence. And if this country is even credibly threatened with destruction, every American will be harmed—irretrievably, should the threat become actuality—including those who voted or intend to vote for Obama, who are also part of We the People. Therefore, in this situation, any and every American must have “standing” to demand—and must demand, both in judicial fora and in the fora of public opinion—that Obama immediately and conclusively prove himself eligible for “the Office of President.”




Utterly imbecilic as an alternative is the judge’s prescription in Berg v. Obama that,



[i]f, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like [Berg]. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that [Berg] attempts to bring * * * .

Recall that this selfsame judge held that Berg has no constitutional “Case[ ]” because he has no “standing,” and that he has no “standing” because he has no “injury in fact,” only a “generalized” “grievance.” This purports to be a finding of constitutional law: namely, that constitutionally no “Case[ ]” exists. How, then, can Congress constitutionally grant “standing” to individuals such as Berg, when the courts (assuming the Berg decision is upheld on appeal) have ruled that those individuals have no “standing”? If “standing” is a constitutional conception, and the courts deny that “standing” exists in a situation such as this, and the courts have the final say as to what the Constitution means—then Congress lacks any power to contradict them. Congress cannot instruct the courts to exercise jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution includes within “the judicial Power.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 173-180 (1803).





In fact, though, a Congressional instruction is entirely unnecessary. Every American has what lawyers call “an implied cause of action”—directly under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution—to require that anyone standing for “the Office of President” must verify his eligibility for that position, at least when serious allegations have been put forward that he is not eligible, and he has otherwise refused to refute those allegations with evidence that should be readily available if he is eligible. That “Case[ ]” is one the Constitution itself defines. And the Constitution must be enforceable in such a “Case[ ]” in a timely manner, by anyone who cares to seek enforcement, because of the horrendous consequences that will ensue if it is flouted.

What are some of those consequences?




First, if Obama is not “a natural born Citizen” or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for “the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he cannot be “elected” by the voters, by the Electoral College, or by the House of Representatives (see Amendment XII). For neither the voters, nor the Electors, nor Members of the House can change the constitutional requirement, even by unanimous vote inter sese (see Article V). If, nonetheless, the voters, the Electors, or the Members of the House purport to “elect” Obama, he will be nothing but an usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such. And he can never become anything else, because an usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation.




Second, if Obama dares to take the Presidential “Oath or Affirmation” of office, knowing that he is not “a natural born Citizen,” he will commit the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). For, being ineligible for “the Office of President, he cannot “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” or even execute it at all, to any degree. Thus, his very act of taking the “Oath or Affirmation” will be a violation thereof! So, even if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court himself looks the other way and administers the “Oath or Affirmation,” Obama will derive no authority whatsoever from it.




Third, his purported “Oath or Affirmation” being perjured from the beginning, Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped “Office of President” will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242, which provides that:



[w]hoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States * * * shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, * * *, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Plainly enough, every supposedly “official” act performed by an usurper in the President’s chair will be an act “under color of law” that necessarily and unavoidably “subjects [some] person * * * to the deprivation of [some] rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution * * * of the United States”—in the most general case, of the constitutional “right[ ]” to an eligible and duly elected individual serving as President, and the corresponding constitutional “immunit[y]” from subjection to an usurper pretending to be “the President.”




Fourth, if he turns out to be nothing but an usurper acting in the guise of “the President,” Obama will not constitutionally be the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” (see Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). Therefore, he will be entitled to no obedience whatsoever from anyone in those forces. Indeed, for officers or men to follow any of his purported “orders” will constitute a serious breach of military discipline—and in extreme circumstances perhaps even “war crimes.” In addition, no one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch of the General Government will be required to put into effect any of Obama’s purported “proclamations,” “executive orders,” or “directives.”




Fifth, as nothing but an usurper (if he becomes one), Obama will have no conceivable authority “to make Treaties”, or to “nominate, and * * * appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not * * * otherwise provided for [in the Constitution]” (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). And therefore any “Treaties” or “nominat[ions], and * * * appoint[ments]” he purports to “make” will be void ab initio, no matter what the Senate does, because the Senate can neither authorize an usurper to take such actions in the first place, nor thereafter ratify them. One need not be a lawyer to foresee what further, perhaps irremediable, chaos must ensue if an usurper, even with “the Advice and Consent of the Senate”, unconstitutionally “appoint[s] * * * Judges of the Supreme Court” whose votes thereafter make up the majorities that wrongly decide critical “Cases” of constitutional law.




Sixth, and perhaps most importantly, Congress can pass no law while an usurper pretends to occupy “the Office of President.” The Constitution provides that “[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to an usurper posturing as “the President of the United States,” but to the true and rightful President. If no such true and rightful President occupies the White House, no “Bill” will or can, “before it become a Law, be presented to [him].” If no “Bill” is so presented, no “Bill” will or can become a “Law.” And any purported “Law” that the usurper “approve[s]” and “sign[s],” or that Congress passes over the usurper’s “Objections,” will be a nullity. Thus, if Obama deceitfully “enters office” as an usurper, Congress will be rendered effectively impotent for as long as it acquiesces in his pretenses as “President.”




Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the people.




Eighth, even did something approaching civil war not eventuate from Obama’s hypothetical usurpation, if the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and the people acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. The potential for chaos, both domestically and internationally, arising out of this systemic uncertainty is breathtaking.




The underlying problem will not be obviated if Obama, his partisans in the Democratic Party, and his cheerleaders and cover-up artists in the big media simply stonewall the issue of his (non)citizenship and contrive for him to win the Presidential election. The cat is already out of the bag and running all over the Internet. If he continues to dodge the issue, Obama will be dogged with this question every day of his purported “Presidency.” And inevitably the truth will out. For the issue is too simple, the evidence (or lack of it) too accessible. Either Obama can prove that he is “a natural born Citizen” who has not renounced his citizenship; or he cannot. And he will not be allowed to slip through with some doctored “birth certificate” generated long after the alleged fact. On a matter this important, Americans will demand that, before its authenticity is accepted, any supposed documentary evidence of that sort be subjected to reproducible forensic analyses conducted by reputable, independent investigators and laboratories above any suspicion of being influenced by or colluding with any public official, bureaucracy, political party, or other special-interest organization whatsoever.


(http://www.newswithviews.com/DonateNWV.htm)

Berg v. Obama may very well end up in the Supreme Court. Yet that ought to be unnecessary. For Obama’s moral duty is to produce the evidence of his citizenship sua sponte et instanter. Otherwise, he will be personally responsible for all the consequences of his refusal to do so.


(newsforyou-list-subscribe@newswithviews.com)

Of course, if Obama knows that he is not “a natural born Citizen” who never renounced his American citizenship, then he also knows that he and his henchmen have perpetrated numerous election-related frauds throughout the country—the latest, still-ongoing one a colossal swindle targeting the American people as a whole. If that is the case, his refusal “to be a witness against himself” is perfectly explicable and even defensible on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment. Howsoever justified as a matter of criminal law, though, Obama’s silence and inaction will not obviate the necessity for him to prove his eligibility for “the Office of President.” The Constitution may permit him to “take the Fifth;” but it will not suffer him to employ that evasion as a means to usurp the Presidency of the United States.


2008 Edwin Vieira, Jr. - All Rights Reserve




E-mail This Page (javascript:mailpage())

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts (newsforyou-list-subscribe@newswithviews.com)
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).

Truth Warrior
10-31-2008, 04:39 AM
Excellent digging for info there!!! Unfortunately for Barack Hussain Obama, the was born under a different statute...too bad that judge in Phil Berg's case didn't have the balls to uphold the truth... Being a Bubba appointed judge, he's most probably a liberal Dumbocrat, and is probably planning to vote FOR Obama as POTUS. :p :rolleyes:

Slist
10-31-2008, 04:49 AM
Maybe someone can enlighten me to this: why did neither Clinton nor McCain spend some milions to get rid of obama? I mean, they WOULD have brought this issue up if they thought that obama was really inelegible....

Truth Warrior
10-31-2008, 04:59 AM
Maybe someone can enlighten me to this: why did neither Clinton nor McCain spend some milions to get rid of obama? I mean, they WOULD have brought this issue up if they thought that obama was really inelegible.... Politicians tend to not be too bright.<IMHO> That's why they're politicians. ;) The common ASSUMPTION was that Obama was born in Hawaii, like he LIED. :p

nodope0695
10-31-2008, 05:03 AM
Maybe someone can enlighten me to this: why did neither Clinton nor McCain spend some milions to get rid of obama? I mean, they WOULD have brought this issue up if they thought that obama was really inelegible....


Because Obama would have played the race card, as he's done in the past. The political climate is such that Obama can fight just about every allagation against him with the race card...and we all know that shuts people up quick, and causes his followers to rally behind him.

Any attempt by Hillary or McCain to discredit him on personal grounds, or by his association with slime balls will be fought off with the race issue...worse, if an attack by Hillary or McCain was successful, there would be riots in the streets like you saw when those cops were aquitted in the Rodney King trial. That might be one reason nobody in the MSM or in the RNC won't touch it.

If Obama loses the election bet your bottom dollar there will be riots...and what better an excuse to impose martial law than that?

nodope0695
10-31-2008, 05:06 AM
Being a Bubba appointed judge, he's most probably a liberal Dumbocrat, and is probably planning to vote FOR Obama as POTUS. :p :rolleyes:


The judge in Berg's case was a Clinton appointee, however he is a life long republican...but he also knows the case is a hot potato, and gave it a pass so he couldn't be blamed for the riots that would have ensued had he ruled in Berg's favor, IMHO.

Truth Warrior
10-31-2008, 05:16 AM
The judge in Berg's case was a Clinton appointee, however he is a life long republican...but he also knows the case is a hot potato, and gave it a pass so he couldn't be blamed for the riots that would have ensued had he ruled in Berg's favor, IMHO. Thanks for the info update. Your explanation works too.<IMHO> ;)

lynnf
10-31-2008, 05:23 AM
Statute citizenship has nothing to do with being a natural born citizen. A statute can't modify the Constitution, which is the highest law in the land. You're supporting your own chains, because if this was the case, Obama could simply re-write the statue to exclude you and your children, pre-suming he really is the devil incarnate and mccain only a minor demon (seeing that hell apparently has rank)

Being a natural born citizen is defined in common law. It predates the constitution, and has to for the constitution to have any legal sense - there has to be a we the people first before there is a constitution to write.


if that's your argument, then you've cut yourself off at the knees. back then citizenship went with the father only, and Obama's father was a Kenyan so
by your standard Obama is a Kenyan if he was born in Kenya or the U.S.

lynn

lynnf
10-31-2008, 05:26 AM
Maybe someone can enlighten me to this: why did neither Clinton nor McCain spend some milions to get rid of obama? I mean, they WOULD have brought this issue up if they thought that obama was really inelegible....



easy -- they just assumed he was eligible like most everyone else. then, too, even if they did suspect, they may have judged that the issue was untouchable within the Democrat party. also, Hillary and Bill are not infallible (hence their flawed and losing campaign strategy) and they may have just missed it.

lynn

Truth Warrior
10-31-2008, 05:30 AM
if that's your argument, then you've cut yourself off at the knees. back then citizenship went with the father only, and Obama's father was a Kenyan so
by your standard Obama is a Kenyan if he was born in Kenya or the U.S.

lynn Being born IN the U.S.A. MAKES you a U.S. citizen automatically. Just ask the current crop of pregnant "criminal aliens" from Mexico. ;)

werdd
10-31-2008, 06:05 AM
It's sad, that no one cares or is paying attention to this. They are ignoring the most precious document we have, the constitution.

When we defy and ignore one of the most basic principles of our nation, the qualifications to be president, we know that they could give a shit about the rest.

Why has the governor of hawaii sealed his supposed certificate? Why does Obama not demand it be released? Why is the media not reporting on this??

"Obama is a christian, and he was born in hawaii, okay get it? Don't ask questions."

Fuck that man, im not buying it anymore.

Don't ask questions about 911, dont ask questions about Waco, don't ask questions about the federal reserve, dont ask questions about the NWO, the NAU, or the NAFTA superhighway. Don't ask why we have a fiat currency, don't wonder how the federal reserve act got passed in 1913, don't remember that we didn't have to pay an income tax at one time, don't wonder how we got fooled into paying it, and don't wonder how the US turned into a welfare state.

If you ask any of these questions, you are batshit insane as labeled by the media, and as yongrel put it "Dumb" because you don't buy the official spoonfed story that our very big goverment biased press wants you to believe.

smithtg
10-31-2008, 06:16 AM
does anybody know the status of berg's case with the SCOTUS

Truth Warrior
10-31-2008, 06:20 AM
It's sad, that no one cares or is paying attention to this. They are ignoring the most precious document we have, the constitution.

When we defy and ignore one of the most basic principles of our nation, the qualifications to be president, we know that they could give a shit about the rest.

Why has the governor of hawaii sealed his supposed certificate? Why does Obama not demand it be released? Why is the media not reporting on this??

"Obama is a christian, and he was born in hawaii, okay get it? Don't ask questions."

Fuck that man, im not buying it anymore.

Don't ask questions about 911, dont ask questions about Waco, don't ask questions about the federal reserve, dont ask questions about the NWO, the NAU, or the NAFTA superhighway. Don't ask why we have a fiat currency, don't wonder how the federal reserve act got passed in 1913, don't remember that we didn't have to pay an income tax at one time, don't wonder how we got fooled into paying it, and don't wonder how the US turned into a welfare state.

If you ask any of these questions, you are batshit insane as labeled by the media, and as yongrel put it "Dumb" because you don't buy the official spoonfed story that our very big goverment biased press wants you to believe.

A simple and obvious answer is, The Federal Constitution Is Dead (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gutzman/gutzman17.html) .

werdd
10-31-2008, 06:28 AM
A simple and obvious answer is, The Federal Constitution Is Dead (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gutzman/gutzman17.html) .

good article, we needed a doctor to revive it.

Instead, we got a war hero with no understanding of economics, and a communist messiah, a "constitutional law expert", a beneficiary of exactly what the article talks about.

smithtg
10-31-2008, 06:33 AM
does anybody know the status of berg's case with the SCOTUS


ok so im replying to my own post

links for all to read

http://newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd408.htm

http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm

nodope0695
10-31-2008, 08:36 AM
so in digging deeper ...i found this: {emphasis mine in the 1st sentence}

"Barack Obama is not a legal U.S. natural-born citizen according to
the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between
December 24, 1952, to November 13, 1986. Federal Law requires that the
office of President requires a natural-born citizen if the child was
not born to two U.S. Citizen parents. This is what exempts John
McCain, though he was born in the US Panama Canal Zone.

US Law very clearly states: `. . . If only one parent is a U.S.
Citizen at the time of one's birth, that parent must have resided in
the United States for minimum ten years, five of which must be after
the age of 16.' Barack Obama's father was not a U.S. Citizen is a fact.

Obama's mother was only 18 when Obama was born. This means even
though she had been a U.S. Citizen for 10 years, (or citizen of Hawaii
being a territory), his mother fails the test for at-least-5-years-
prior-to Barack Obama's birth, but-after-age-16.

In essence, Mother alone is not old enough to qualify her son for
automatic U.S. Citizenship. At most, 2 years elapsed from his mother
turning 16 to the time of Barack Obama's birth when she was 18. His
mother would have needed to have been 16 + 5 = 21 years old at the
time of Barack Obama's birth for him to be a natural-born citizen.
Barack Obama was already 3 years old at the time his mother would have
needed to be to allow him natural citizenship from his only U.S.
Citizen parent. Obama should have been naturalized as a citizen . .
but that would disqualify him from holding the office.

The Constitution clearly declares: Naturalized citizens are
ineligible to hold the office of President. Though Barack Obama was
sent back to Hawaii at age 10, any other information does not matter
because his mother is the one who must fulfill the requirement to be a
U.S. Citizen for 10 years prior to his birth on August 4, 1961, with 5
of those years being after age 16.

Further, Obama may have had to have remained in the USA for some
time frame to protect any citizenship he might have had, rather than
living in Indonesia. This is very clear cut and a glaring violation of
U.S. Election law."

to go further & really spell it out:

Thanks for that info...and that is exactly what Phil Berg was explaining in his lawsuit agianst Obama. How the judge could justify dismissal of the case is a travesty...and shows a total lack of balls on his part. What a coward that judge is.:mad:

hillertexas
10-31-2008, 08:42 AM
http://newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd408.htm

http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm

thanks.

also: http://www.obamacrimes.com/


Philip J. Berg Will Be Arriving U.S. Supreme Court, Washington, DC at 3:15 p.m. today to file for an Injunction to Stay Presidential Election Pending Writ of Certiorari regarding Obama who is "NOT" qualified to be President of the United States

(Press Release - 10/30/08 - Contact information and pdf of press release at bottom)



(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/30/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that he will
be at the United States Supreme Court today, October 30, 2008 to file:

Application to Justice Souter for an Immediate Injunction to Stay the Presidential Election of November 4, 2008; and
Writ of Certiorari.
Berg stated, “I am hopeful that the U.S. Supreme Court will grant the Injunction pending a review of this case to avoid a Constitutional Crisis by insisting that Obama produce certified documentation that he is or is not a “natural born” citizen and if he cannot produce documentation that Obama be removed from the ballot for President.

Berg’s case, Berg vs. Obama was dismissed from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Docket # 08-cv-4083 for lack of standing. This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States - the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world - then who does?

What happened to ‘...Government of the people, by the people, for the people,...’ Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address 1863.

We must legally prevent Obama, the unqualified candidate, from taking the Office of the Presidency of the United States,” Berg said.

Our website obamacrimes.com now has 86.1 + million hits.

Berg again stressed his position regarding the urgency of this case as, “we” the people, are heading to a “Constitutional Crisis” if this case is not resolved forthwith.

* * For copies of all Court Pleadings, go to obamacrimes.com


Also here is a good website to check for updates: http://www.americasright.com/


UPDATE, 6:00pm

The rally at the courthouse was attended by about 30 people, Berg said, and coverage of what he called a "news conference" was provided by Fox News and a European news service (the name of which escapes me now). Apparently, the filing may be mentioned on tonight's Fox Report w/ Shepherd Smith, but nothing is confirmed.

Two America's Right readers were there, one of which described the coverage as "sadly thin." The other said it was "nice, but could have been a little bigger."

Truth Warrior
10-31-2008, 08:46 AM
good article, we needed a doctor to revive it.

Instead, we got a war hero with no understanding of economics, and a communist messiah, a "constitutional law expert", a beneficiary of exactly what the article talks about. Thanks!

Even the BEST doctors can't raise the dead. ;)

nodope0695
10-31-2008, 08:51 AM
Thanks!

Even the BEST doctors can't raise the dead. ;)

The only doctor I know who could fix the mess our nation is in is Dr. Ron Paul:D

Truth Warrior
10-31-2008, 08:54 AM
The only doctor I know who could fix the mess our nation is in is Dr. Ron Paul:D Sorry, that's incorrect.

HOLLYWOOD
10-31-2008, 10:41 AM
Being born IN the U.S.A. MAKES you a U.S. citizen automatically. Just ask the current crop of pregnant "criminal aliens" from Mexico. ;)

Ah, Columbia, Guetamala, El Salvador, Venezuela, Chile, Equador, Boliva, Indonesia, Vietnam, Phillipines, China, Korea, Africa...blah blah

The Land of Entitlements... welcomes the WORLD, courtesy of Washington DC slime and the U.S. Taxpayer's money.

phoenixrising
10-31-2008, 11:55 AM
Thanks for that info...and that is exactly what Phil Berg was explaining in his lawsuit agianst Obama. How the judge could justify dismissal of the case is a travesty...and shows a total lack of balls on his part. What a coward that judge is.:mad:


according to a live broadcast on jeff rense w/devvy....berg & vierra are now working together on this to continue proceedings *after* the election as well if needs be.

& as someone said b/4 ...the judges are afraid of blowing this wide open & the "it's not my job" is suppose to save them?? i think not!

also if obama is proven to have committed fraud...gov lingle is on the hook as well (btw: rep neocon gov. all the way --who thinks she doesn't have to obey the law as well)

BeFranklin
10-31-2008, 04:18 PM
if that's your argument, then you've cut yourself off at the knees. back then citizenship went with the father only, and Obama's father was a Kenyan so
by your standard Obama is a Kenyan if he was born in Kenya or the U.S.

lynn

I'm not cutting myself off at the knees because I'm not arguing for or against Obama. I'm saying you are a fool for mixing types of citizenship, and will do great harm to the freedom movement if you persist out of hate for Obama.

BeFranklin
10-31-2008, 04:21 PM
Being born IN the U.S.A. MAKES you a U.S. citizen automatically. Just ask the current crop of pregnant "criminal aliens" from Mexico. ;)

Thats 14th amendment citizenship, which doesn't affect the qualification for presidents in Article II. Also, thats a later day mis-interpretation of the 14th amendment, and it wasn't originally meant to allow that. I even posted a quote from Ron Paul on that earlier.

devil21
10-31-2008, 04:27 PM
Its pretty ironic when an illegal immigrant can step across the border, give birth, and her child is automatically a US citizen, but a guy that actually serves in the Senate and is close to winning the Presidency is questioned about his citizenship. This is such a stupid distraction issue.

Btw, tell McCain to release his medical records if he wants to hit Obama on his birth records. The bullshit of this election is out of hand.

dannno
10-31-2008, 04:29 PM
Its pretty ironic when an illegal immigrant can step across the border, give birth, and her child is automatically a US citizen, but a guy that actually serves in the Senate and is close to winning the Presidency is questioned about his citizenship. This is such a stupid distraction issue.

Btw, tell McCain to release his medical records if he wants to hit Obama on his birth records. The bullshit of this election is out of hand.

It is pretty ironic that after several threads over 10 pages long, there is still not one shred of proof that Obama wasn't born in Kenya yet you state this.

Btw, McCain said he would release ANY AND ALL records pertaining to his birthplace. Obama is hiding his.

If you REALLY think this isn't a big deal, checkout this thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=165696



This could turn into a nightmare.

BeFranklin
10-31-2008, 04:35 PM
It is pretty ironic that after several threads over 10 pages long, there is still not one shred of proof that Obama wasn't born in Kenya yet you state this.

Btw, McCain said he would release ANY AND ALL records pertaining to his birthplace. Obama is hiding his.

If you REALLY think this isn't a big deal, checkout this thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=165696



This could turn into a nightmare.

If Obama was born somewhere else he still would be a citizen, because a natural born citizen is defined by natural law and in common law as your parentage not where you are born. Its ignorance to read the constitution and mis-interpret what natural means in article ii that way.

If you were sucessful in changing the nature of citizenship further along the path of the 14th amendment and statury definition, it would be a pyrric victory, because you'd be giving the government complete control over your life, defining who we the people are instead of the other way around.

dannno
10-31-2008, 04:39 PM
If Obama was born somewhere else he still would be a citizen, because a natural born citizen is defined by natural law and in common law as your parentage not where you are born. Its ignorance to read the constitution and mis-interpret what natural means in article ii that way.

If you were sucessful in changing the nature of citizenship further along the path of the 14th amendment and statury definition, it would be a pyrric victory, because you'd be giving the government complete control over your life, defining who we the people are instead of the other way around.

The lawsuit being waged is more than just about where he was born. Check the link to the thread I provided in my last post, it is an important thread and contains the details in the non-bolded section.


(here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=165696 )

JohnJay
10-31-2008, 04:44 PM
. . . there is still not one shred of proof that Obama wasn't born in Kenya yet you state this.



except for maybe the birth certificate in Hawai'i - under Governor's order to abide by the state statute to be released only to certain parties -
and the listing of his birth in the local newspaper under births on August 13, 1961.

oops, that's two "shreds"

dannno
10-31-2008, 04:47 PM
except for maybe the birth certificate in Hawai'i - under Governor's order to abide by the state statute to be released only to certain parties -
and the listing of his birth in the local newspaper under births on August 13, 1961.

oops, that's two "shreds"

Ya, you're right, Obama DID provide two DIFFERENT birth certificates to the public, which are now GONE.

JohnJay
10-31-2008, 04:57 PM
Ya, you're right, Obama DID provide two DIFFERENT birth certificates to the public, which are now GONE.

What's gone ?

The Hawai'i Governor still has the original apparently available under state statute to certain persons only,
and as well, there is corollary evidence in the Honolulu Advertiser newspaper which reported the birth back in 1961.

BeFranklin
10-31-2008, 04:58 PM
The lawsuit being waged is more than just about where he was born. Check the link to the thread I provided in my last post, it is an important thread and contains the details in the non-bolded section.


(here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=165696 )

Looks like the same thing as this from Worldnetdaily:

Supreme Court asked to halt Tuesday's vote
Constitutional crisis feared over Obama's 'qualifications'
--WND


Isn't this just asking for exactly what others suggested Bush might try to do, halt the election? Why is it now good on such questioned grounds?

Sorry, but I recognize right wing non-libertarian conspiracy mongering when I see it.

I like my conspiracy theories straight up and non-deluted by neocons, and they always lead to more freedom not less. And rarely are they actual such, but are simply truths conveniently forgotten and fashionably ignored.

dannno
10-31-2008, 05:04 PM
Looks like the same thing as this from Worldnetdaily:


Isn't this just asking for exactly what others suggested Bush might try to do, halt the election? Why is it now good on such questioned grounds?

Sorry, but I recognize right wing non-libertarian conspiracy mongering when I see it.

I like my conspiracy theories straight up and non-deluted by neocons, and they always lead to more freedom not less. And rarely are they actual such, but are simply truths conveniently forgotten and fashionably ignored.

My point is it isn't just about being born here, there are two charges against him.

"Mr. Berg presented factual evidence to the Court in support of his claim that you are either a citizen of your father’s native Kenya by birth, or that you became a citizen of Indonesia, relinquishing your prior citizenship when you moved there with your mother in 1967."


And if you go back to that link and read the part in bold, you will see why this is a really big deal.


Personally, I'd prefer McCain to lose, but if Obama isn't a citizen I think people should know before the election. We deserve to know what will happen if Obama IS elected and what the alternatives are.

devil21
10-31-2008, 05:39 PM
It is pretty ironic that after several threads over 10 pages long, there is still not one shred of proof that Obama wasn't born in Kenya yet you state this.

Btw, McCain said he would release ANY AND ALL records pertaining to his birthplace. Obama is hiding his.

If you REALLY think this isn't a big deal, checkout this thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=165696

This could turn into a nightmare.

Last I heard, this country was founded upon the principle that the burden of proof is on the accuser. Whoever the accuser is needs to provide proof that Obama is NOT a US citizen instead of just claiming it with anecdotal/circumstantial evidence then pointing fingers when the accusation isn't proven false. Or should I say, when its not proven false enough for the foaming-at-the-mouth McCain supporters who then yell "FORGERY!!!" when some proof is presented. They don't care if Obama is legally eligible for the Presidency. They just care that they can inject some doubt and continue this stupid "He's a muslim terrorist" nonsense.

And I didnt say anything about McCain's birth records. I said his medical records. He never released anything other than basically a "doctor's note" saying he was healthy. For a man that's had bouts with cancer and other ailments, I think McCain's health should be as much an issue as this is. Nice double standard (hypocrisy) the GOP has going these days. But it makes sense since these are the only types of things McCain can campaign on without reminding everyone he is just Bush III.

dannno
10-31-2008, 05:49 PM
What's gone ?

The Hawai'i Governor still has the original apparently available under state statute to certain persons only,
and as well, there is corollary evidence in the Honolulu Advertiser newspaper which reported the birth back in 1961.


"apparently"


What is gone are the two different certificates that were posted on the web. One by politifact, and the other by Obama's campaign. If they posted two different certificates, why aren't you skeptical that they might be false?

fedup100
10-31-2008, 06:02 PM
It's sad, that no one cares or is paying attention to this. They are ignoring the most precious document we have, the constitution.

When we defy and ignore one of the most basic principles of our nation, the qualifications to be president, we know that they could give a shit about the rest.

Why has the governor of hawaii sealed his supposed certificate? Why does Obama not demand it be released? Why is the media not reporting on this??

"Obama is a christian, and he was born in hawaii, okay get it? Don't ask questions."

Fuck that man, im not buying it anymore.

Don't ask questions about 911, dont ask questions about Waco, don't ask questions about the federal reserve, dont ask questions about the NWO, the NAU, or the NAFTA superhighway. Don't ask why we have a fiat currency, don't wonder how the federal reserve act got passed in 1913, don't remember that we didn't have to pay an income tax at one time, don't wonder how we got fooled into paying it, and don't wonder how the US turned into a welfare state.

If you ask any of these questions, you are batshit insane as labeled by the media, and as yongrel put it "Dumb" because you don't buy the official spoonfed story that our very big goverment biased press wants you to believe.

Thank you! The defenders plan on copious amount of words to confuse and stall until this illegal alien is firmly placed on top of our national security with his finger on the button.

He has noticed "W" can do as he pleases and no one will touch him. BO plans to take office and then he dares you to remove him. Our national security is at great risk. God help us.

heavenlyboy34
10-31-2008, 06:22 PM
The man is a lier! A thief, a crackhead and will burn the country down like no other president ever! If you think Bush was bad this guy will make you want to regret not voting for McDick! :D

I'll vote against both with no guilt whatsover. :D

heavenlyboy34
10-31-2008, 06:27 PM
Thanks to all the folks who posted in this thread and provided info about Obama that I didn't know. He's a scary guy! :eek: (still never voting McShame tho)

devil21
10-31-2008, 07:56 PM
Thank you! The defenders plan on copious amount of words to confuse and stall until this illegal alien is firmly placed on top of our national security with his finger on the button.

He has noticed "W" can do as he pleases and no one will touch him. BO plans to take office and then he dares you to remove him. Our national security is at great risk. God help us.

BE AFRAID!! BE SCARED!! FEAR!! MCCAIN WILL SAVE YOU!!

Give it a rest. Discuss the real issues for once. Until someone can present proof that Obama is NOT a citizen, this is just fearmongering.



Besides, if McCain was elected, wouldn't he just give illegal alien Obama citizenship under McCain's amnesty plan? :D

lynnf
10-31-2008, 08:28 PM
Last I heard, this country was founded upon the principle that the burden of proof is on the accuser. Whoever the accuser is needs to provide proof that Obama is NOT a US citizen instead of just claiming it with anecdotal/circumstantial evidence then pointing fingers when the accusation isn't proven false.

...




that burden of proof is only for criminal cases. civil cases, which this is at this time,
have a different standard. hence, OJ Simpson was found not guilty in his criminal case, but was found liable in the civil case.


lynn

devil21
10-31-2008, 10:29 PM
that burden of proof is only for criminal cases. civil cases, which this is at this time,
have a different standard. hence, OJ Simpson was found not guilty in his criminal case, but was found liable in the civil case.

lynn

Uh no, its not. The burden of proof does not change depending whether criminal or civil. That difference is the AMOUNT of proof, not the burden of proof. When you sue someone it is your job to prove "by a preponderance of evidence" that the person is guilty. The burden of proof is on you. When someone is charged with a crime it is the state's job to prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the crime was committed. The burden of proof is on the state. In other words, the burden of proof does not change, it is always on the accuser, only the amount of proof changes.

So having cleared that up, please demonstrate how the accuser has proved by a preponderance of evidence (meaning more likely than not) that Obama is not a US citizen?

nodope0695
10-31-2008, 10:37 PM
Uh no, its not. The burden of proof does not change depending whether criminal or civil. That difference is the AMOUNT of proof, not the burden of proof. When you sue someone it is your job to prove "by a preponderance of evidence" that the person is guilty. The burden of proof is on you. When someone is charged with a crime it is the state's job to prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the crime was committed. The burden of proof is on the state. In other words, the burden of proof does not change, it is always on the accuser, only the amount of proof changes.

So having cleared that up, please demonstrate how the accuser has proved by a preponderance of evidence (meaning more likely than not) that Obama is not a US citizen?


You are right about the burden of proof...OJ is a good example. He was found in his civil suit to have "been more likely than not to have caused the deaths of his wife and her boyfriend." Thus he was forced to compensate the families for the loss.

Having read the case, Berg vs. Obama/DNC, I believe there to be compelling evidence that Obama is NOT a U.S. citizen, and that he should produce such documentation that either proves or disproves Berg's alligations.

The judge dismissed it because, IMHO, he didn't have the balls to find in Berg's favor. I mean look at the gravity of the case...would you want to be the judge who removes the Messiah from the ballots?

nodope0695
10-31-2008, 10:40 PM
Besides, if McCain was elected, wouldn't he just give illegal alien Obama citizenship under McCain's amnesty plan? :D

LOL...I can see it now, Obama picking cabbage or sugar beats in California's central vally...:D

phoenixrising
10-31-2008, 11:38 PM
Its pretty ironic when an illegal immigrant can step across the border, give birth, and her child is automatically a US citizen, but a guy that actually serves in the Senate and is close to winning the Presidency is questioned about his citizenship. This is such a stupid distraction issue.

Btw, tell McCain to release his medical records if he wants to hit Obama on his birth records. The bullshit of this election is out of hand.


based on your comment i can only presume you didn't read my other 2 posts (yes--i know 1 is very lengthy) yet you must read the *details* in order to comprehend what is really transpiring.

sorry..yet u r totally inaccurate in comparing barky to illegal aliens...different yrs...different rules! read my above post in entirety--please!

& for the record? comparing medical records releazed to authenticating citizenship & upholding our constitution for potus --doesn't even come close!!

& no...i am not now...nor ever have been a mccluk supporter!

phoenixrising
10-31-2008, 11:39 PM
<<If Obama was born somewhere else he still would be a citizen,>>

absolutely not--IF you take the time to read my 2 posts above!!!!

phoenixrising
10-31-2008, 11:42 PM
<<<and the listing of his birth in the local newspaper under births on August 13, 1961.>>>

good grief! a birth listing in a newspaper is NOT a legal document!!! it's an announcement !!! so how come his own family can't even get it together on whaich hospital he was born in in HI. ??? yet gramma says she witnessed his birth in kenya (tape to be translated still)

phoenixrising
10-31-2008, 11:45 PM
<<<Last I heard, this country was founded upon the principle that the burden of proof is on the accuser. Whoever the accuser is needs to provide proof that Obama is NOT a US citizen instead of just claiming it with anecdotal/circumstantial evidence then pointing fingers when the accusation isn't proven false.>>>

ohmygoodness!!!!!!!!!! when it comes to a political office one is not suppose to say "prove i am NOT a citizen" this is crazy!!!

my question is how the hell did this corrupt j.a. get as far as he did???? hmmmmmmmmmmm ...chicago...connections....gee i wonder.

phoenixrising
10-31-2008, 11:49 PM
<<<Give it a rest. Discuss the real issues for once. Until someone can present proof that Obama is NOT a citizen, this is just fearmongering.>>>>

i for one am GLAD to see this discussion taking place!!! too many people do not get the different realms/levels of citizenship based on the constitution & what u can / cannot do politically re: holding office.

barky boy is the one that needs to PROVE he is a citizen!!!! it's backasswards to think otherwise....unless u think everyone here has losted all their marbles & overnite became sheeple!

RockEnds
10-31-2008, 11:54 PM
Uh no, its not. The burden of proof does not change depending whether criminal or civil. That difference is the AMOUNT of proof, not the burden of proof. When you sue someone it is your job to prove "by a preponderance of evidence" that the person is guilty. The burden of proof is on you. When someone is charged with a crime it is the state's job to prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the crime was committed. The burden of proof is on the state. In other words, the burden of proof does not change, it is always on the accuser, only the amount of proof changes.

So having cleared that up, please demonstrate how the accuser has proved by a preponderance of evidence (meaning more likely than not) that Obama is not a US citizen?

So if someone applies for a job, the employer cannot ask for proof of citizenship because the burden of proof is on the employer to present evidence of non-citizenship?

Obama is applying for an elected position with the federal government of the United States. The founders of the nation (we, the people) have no right to ask for proof of qualifications for the position requested?

phoenixrising
11-01-2008, 12:13 AM
In defense of the Natural Born Citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution, and in the wake of last Friday's decision by a federal judge in Berg v Obama, we feel compelled to run a full-page ad in USA TODAY. Click here (http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/misc2008/Obama-USA-TODAY-ad.htm) for a copy of the ad we intend to run if we are able to raise the money.








An Open Letter to Barack Obama:


Are you a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S.?

Are you legally qualified to hold the Office of President?

Dear Mr. Obama:
On October 24, 2008, a federal judge granted your request to dismiss a lawsuit by Citizen Philip Berg, who challenged your qualifications under the “Natural Born Citizen” clause of the U.S. Constitution to legally hold the office of President of the United States of America.
Mr. Berg presented factual evidence to the Court in support of his claim that you are either a citizen of your father’s native Kenya by birth, or that you became a citizen of Indonesia, relinquishing your prior citizenship when you moved there with your mother in 1967.
In your response to the lawsuit, you neither denied Mr. Berg’s claims nor submitted any evidence which would refute his assertions. Instead, you argued that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to determine the question of your legal eligibility because Mr. Berg lacked “standing.”
Astonishingly, the judge agreed, simply saying, “[Mr. Berg] would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary [sic] in living memory.”
Unfortunately, your response to the legal claim was clearly evasive and strikingly out of character, suggesting you may, in fact, lack a critical Constitutional qualification necessary to assume the Office of President: i.e., that you are not a “natural born” citizen of the United States or one who has relinquished his American citizenship.
Before you can exercise any of the powers of the United States, you must prove that you have fully satisfied each and every eligibility requirement that the Constitution mandates for any individual’s exercise of those powers.
Regardless of the tactics chosen in defending yourself against the Berg lawsuit, significant questions regarding your legal capacity to hold this nation’s highest office have been put forth publicly, and you have failed to directly refute them with documentary evidence that is routinely available to any bona fide, natural born U.S. Citizen.

As one who has ventured into the fray of public service of his own volition, seeking to possess the vast powers of the Office of President, it is not unreasonable to demand that you produce evidence of your citizenship to answer the questions and allay the concerns of the People. Indeed, as the one seeking the office, you are under a moral, legal, and fiduciary duty to proffer such evidence to establish your qualifications as explicitly mandated by Article II of the Constitution.
Should you proceed to assume the office of the President of the United States as anything but a bona fide natural born citizen of the United States that has not relinquished that citizenship, you would be inviting a national disaster, placing our Republic at great risk from untold consequences. For example:
Neither the Electoral College on December 15, nor the House of Representatives on January 6 would be able to elect you, except as a poseur - a usurper;
As a usurper, you would be unable to take the required “Oath or Affirmation” of office on January 20 without committing the crime of perjury or false swearing, for being ineligible for the Office of the President you cannot faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States;
Your every act in the usurped Office of the President would be a criminal offense as an act under color of law that would subject the People to the deprivation of their constitutional rights, and entitling you to no obedience whatsoever from the People;
as a usurper acting in the guise of the President you could not function as the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy and of the militia of the several states, as such forces would be under no legal obligation to remain obedient to you;
No one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch would be required to obey any of your proclamations, executive orders or directives, as such orders would be legally VOID;
Your appointment of Ambassadors and Judges to the Supreme Court would be VOID ab initio (i.e., from the beginning), no matter what subsequent actions the Senate might take as well as rendering any such acts by such appointed officials void as well;
Congress would not be able to pass any new laws because they would not be able to acquire the signature of a bona fide President, rendering all such legislation legally VOID;
As a usurper, Congress would be unable to remove you from the Office of the President on Impeachment, inviting certain political chaos including a potential for armed conflicts within the General Government or among the States and the People to effect the removal of such a usurper.
As an attorney and sitting U.S. Senator, I’m sure you agree that our Constitution is the cornerstone of our system of governance. It is the very foundation of our system of Law and Order – indeed, it is the supreme law of the land. I’m sure you also agree that its precise language was no accident and cannot be ignored if Individual, unalienable, natural Rights, Freedoms and Liberties are to be protected and preserved.
As our next potential President, you have a high-order obligation to the Constitution (and to those who have fought and died for our Freedom) that extends far beyond that of securing a majority of the votes of the Electoral College. No matter your promises of change and prosperity, your heartfelt intent or the widespread support you have garnered in seeking the highest Office of the Land, the integrity of the Republic and Rule of Law cannot, -- must not -- be put at risk, by allowing a constitutionally unqualified person to sit, as a usurper, in the Office of the President.
No matter the level of practical difficulty, embarrassment or disruption of the nation’s business, we must -- above all -- honor and protect the Constitution and the divine, unalienable, Individual Rights it guarantees, including the Right to a President who is a natural born citizen of the United States of America that has not relinquished his American citizenship. Our nation has endured similar disruptions in the past, and will weather this crisis as well. Indeed, it is both yours and the People’s mutual respect for, and commitment to, the Constitution and Rule of Law that insures the perpetuation of Liberty.
As a long time defender of my state and federal Constitutions, and in consideration of the lack of sufficient evidence needed to establish your credentials as President, I am compelled to lodge this Petition for Redress of Grievances and public challenge to you.

Make no mistake: This issue IS a Constitutional crisis. Although it will not be easy for you, your family or our Republic, you have it within your ability to halt this escalating crisis by either producing the certified documents establishing beyond question your qualifications to hold the Office of President, or by immediately withdrawing yourself from the Electoral College process.
With due respect, I hereby request that you deliver the following documents to Mr. Berg and myself at the National Press Club in Washington, DC at noon on Monday, November 17, 2008:

(a) a certified copy of your “vault” (original long version) birth certificate;
(b) certified copies of all reissued and sealed birth certificates in the names
Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham
and Barry Dunham;
(c) a certified copy of your Certification of Citizenship;
(d) a certified copy of your Oath of Allegiance taken upon age of maturity;
(e) certified copies of your admission forms for Occidental College, Columbia
University and Harvard Law School; and
(f) certified copies of any court orders or legal documents changing your name
from Barry Soetoro.
In the alternative, in defense of the Constitution, and in honor of the Republic and that for which it stands, please announce before such time your withdrawal from the 2008 Presidential election process.
“In a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 469-471.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,

Robert L. Schulz,
Founder and Chairman, We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc.

specsaregood
11-01-2008, 12:18 AM
So if someone applies for a job, the employer cannot ask for proof of citizenship because the burden of proof is on the employer to present evidence of non-citizenship?

Obama is applying for an elected position with the federal government of the United States. The founders of the nation (we, the people) have no right to ask for proof of qualifications for the position requested?

This lawyer would disagree:
http://www.karapetianlaw.com/CM/Custom/TOCFAQ.asp?ss=/Includes/XSL/PortalPack/faq-single-questions.xsl



Most employers believe that their liability extends only to employment of an unauthorized alien. The INA does provide sanctions for knowingly hiring and retaining unauthorized noncitizens, but it is also illegal to hire anyone without performing employment verification procedures for each new worker. Every new hire, even if he or she claims U.S. citizenship, must produce proof of employable status for the employer's inspection. The employer must complete the federal Employment Eligibility Form, or I-9, which certifies that the employer did view the new employee's documentation. Employers may be liable for acceptance of illegal documentation in some instances. The employer should retain in original form or on microfiche completed I-9s. Employers may face sanctions for not completing this form whether or not any of their employees are unauthorized aliens.

RockEnds
11-01-2008, 12:27 AM
This lawyer would disagree:
http://www.karapetianlaw.com/CM/Custom/TOCFAQ.asp?ss=/Includes/XSL/PortalPack/faq-single-questions.xsl

And still, for some reason, Obama is exempt from producing proof of eligibility for employment and some people are okay with that. It's a crazy world.

bojo68
11-01-2008, 12:40 AM
The Obamacrimes site is down...I've been using this to access it, and while it worked earlier today, as of now it's not. http://www.obamacrimes.com/ Makes one wonder...

lynnf
11-01-2008, 08:53 AM
You are right about the burden of proof...OJ is a good example. He was found in his civil suit to have "been more likely than not to have caused the deaths of his wife and her boyfriend." Thus he was forced to compensate the families for the loss.

Having read the case, Berg vs. Obama/DNC, I believe there to be compelling evidence that Obama is NOT a U.S. citizen, and that he should produce such documentation that either proves or disproves Berg's alligations.

The judge dismissed it because, IMHO, he didn't have the balls to find in Berg's favor. I mean look at the gravity of the case...would you want to be the judge who removes the Messiah from the ballots?


devil21, nodope0695 answered your question to me just about right so I won't address that, I'll go to more important things... on nodope's comments.

about the judge's ruling, these lower level judges typically claim jurisdiction or standing issues to duck an issue and pass the buck, from my understanding. (note: I'm obviously not an attorney)

part of the proof, according to Mr. Berg, is that he has an affidavit from Obama's grandmother that he was born in Kenya and she witnessed the birth. enough to bring a question if the affidavit or tape truly exists.

lynn

lynnf
11-01-2008, 08:56 AM
The Obamacrimes site is down...I've been using this to access it, and while it worked earlier today, as of now it's not. http://www.obamacrimes.com/ Makes one wonder...


could just be the huge traffic the site is getting, or maybe a denial of service attack.

Alex Jones has to keep multiple sites up because of the number of internet attacks sustained in the past. expensive but effective.

lynn

heavenlyboy34
11-01-2008, 09:49 AM
Wow, this is boring.
There are 1000's of better reasons to hate obama and mccain.
I can make anyone a fake birth certificate. This is lame.
When one of these jokers wins, no one will care about this drivel.

+1

Monolithic
11-01-2008, 10:13 AM
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iw1At-4G1xuE50oXVFRlBPfR3dqgD945OLU00

State declares Obama birth certificate genuine

END

D.H.
11-01-2008, 10:22 AM
Counting down....5,4,3,2,1....until a moon bat claims "it's still not real....this is just a vast conspiracy from TBTB" LOL

heavenlyboy34
11-01-2008, 10:23 AM
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iw1At-4G1xuE50oXVFRlBPfR3dqgD945OLU00

State declares Obama birth certificate genuine

END

Interesting...but I still don't totally trust the AP. :p

phoenixrising
11-01-2008, 01:08 PM
http://contrariancommentary.blogspot.com/

Saturday, November 01, 2008

State of Hawai'i backs Andy Martin in Obama birth certificate battle

Andy Martin lobs a grenade into the final weekend of the presidential campaign; the relentless Chicago corruption fighter exposes Barack Obama and mainstream media as liars.

State of Hawai'i backs Andy Martin in Obama birth certificate battle
CNN, Factcheck.org and Obama campaign exposed as liars
"Internet Powerhouse" Andy Martin drops a grenade in the final weekend of the presidential campaign
ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

ATTENTION DAYBOOK/ASSIGNMENT EDITORS

ANNOUNCEMENT OF SATURDAY NEWS CONFERENCE IN CHICAGO

Internet powerhouse Andy Martin wins a major victory in Hawai'i as state officials examine and confirm the existence of Barack Obama's secret birth certificate

CNN and Factcheck.org are embarrassed; Martin demands retractions and apologies for their misleading reports

Andy vows to keep up the battle whatever happens on November 4th; a court hearing is scheduled in Honolulu for November 18th and Andy says, "I'll be there."

Martin's birth certificate litigation victory will roil the final weekend of the presidential campaign; the Internet Powerhouse is set to hold a Saturday news conference in Chicago and disclose new attacks on Obama

Martin issues challenge to Barack Obama: Stop lying to the American people and immediately authorize the release of your original, typewritten 1961 birth certificate

Internet warrior Martin returns home to Chicago on Saturday after one month of "combat patrols" fighting the "Obama Gang"

"Barack Obama has been lying to the American people," Andy says

Fox News faces lawsuit for sliming its source


(HONOLULU)(November 1, 2008) Internet powerhouse Andy Martin has ignited a firestorm in Hawai'i over Barack Obama's bogus "original" birth certificate. Martin won a stunning victory Friday afternoon (October 31st) when the State of Hawai'i backed his assertion that there was an original, "typewritten, 1961" birth certificate, called a "Certificate of Live Birth" or "COLB" in Hawai'i, that no one has previously seen. Hawai'i officials retrieved and examined the document after Martin filed a lawsuit seeking access to the historic 1961 original.

Obama has falsely claimed to have placed the "original" on the Internet. Factcheck.org has falsely claimed to have seen this document and posted it on the Internet; that is not true. CNN has falsely ridiculed Martin.

Hawai'i officials have now refuted Obama's false assertion.

Martin's victory in Honolulu will roil the final weekend of the presidential campaign. Internet chatter is expected to explode as the issue moves to the front page over Saturday and Sunday. Swing voters may be swayed by the exposure that Obama has brazenly been lying to the American people. "We just lobbed a grenade into the final weekend of the presidential campaign," says Andy.

"I am ecstatic. I called Obama a liar. I called Factcheck.org 'ObamaLies.org.' I said CNN was sloppy and lazy and wrong. And I was right. The State of Hawai'i has now backed me up. Whew. I knew I was right, but I feel a lot more comfortable knowing that I have started to get the machinery moving in state government. The original document is now obviously protected and safe from any tampering by Obama.

"My lawsuit started a firestorm in Hawai'i. The circuit judge has set a hearing for November 18th (a report in the Honolulu Advertiser for November 1st for an earlier hearing date of November 7th is inaccurate; that date was cancelled).

"CNN also has egg on its face, because, once again, Hawai'i backs my contention that the original document has never surfaced in public. CNN tried to demean me by contradicting my accurate claim.

"Now Obama, Factcheck.org and CNN have been exposed as liars. I said there was a 'secret,' original, typewritten birth certificate that had never been disclosed, and that document was the original COLB, not the phony 'original' that CNN placed before its viewers.

"Why would Hawai'i officials review the vault document at the Eleventh Hour if my lawsuit wasn't causing a furor in Hawai'i state government? Why? The Friday before the election?

"Mine is the only logical, rational, properly prepared lawsuit that has been filed to open Obama's secret records. I sued in the proper state in the proper court against the proper officials for the proper remedy. And they are responding properly. The judge has properly, although not as quickly as I would have preferred, set a hearing to consider my claims. I have not filed outrageous or exaggerated pleadings.

"I merely sought access to a document based on its scholarly and news value and because I had been tipped by my sources inside state government that Obama was lying. My network of informants within state government helps me and guides me. Others filed lawsuits outside Hawai'i that have either been dismissed or discredited. My 'little engine that could' is chugging along.

"I have an outstanding record of high-profile public interest litigation, as recognized by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court five years ago when they allowed me to represent a U. S. Marine in a landmark lawsuit." See www.AndyMartin.com and www.FirstRespondersOnline.us

In a Honolulu news conference on October 22nd Martin disclosed that Frank Marshall Davis was the biological father of Barack Obama, not Barack Obama senior. The Obama campaign has not denied Martin's claim.

"Over the past month I have been on combat patrol from coast to coast for the truth and for the United States Constitution," says Andy. "I have not the slightest link to John McCain. I am connected to the Constitution and nothing else. I have waged relentless war against Barack Obama's lies. And on the eve of the final weekend in the presidential campaign Hawai'i government has backed me by confirming that officials have examined the original, typewritten 1961 document, and confirmed that the document released by the Obama campaign was a facsimile, not the original.

"I have won a major victory: I proved Obama was lying about what he had posed on the Internet and falsely portrayed as 'the original.' 'Barry, we caught you with your pants down. We caught you lying, again.

"Saturday it will be my pleasure to return home to Chicago after one of the most successful independent political battle operations in media history, to wage the final weekend of war for the truth and Constitution and against the Daley Machine and Obama Gang. I have successfully been exposing and fighting Daley Family corruption for over forty years. Barry Obama is part of the second generation Daley Machine. He is a member in good standing of this criminal operation.

"The Machine doesn’t like me. But I have a history of coming up with the truth, and a history of embarrassing powerful people. In retaliation, they try to smear me. The disclosure that Hawai'i officials have examined the true original COLB, and that Obama lied to the American people by falsely claiming he had posted the original 1961 document, is going to spread like wildfire between Saturday and Tuesday night.

"This election is bizarre because the presidential candidate of the Democratic Party, the Party's leader, is from the Daley Machine in Chicago. And the leader of the Internet Army opposing Obama and working to defeat him and the Daley Machine is also from Chicago. My Senator would be proud.

Martin is expected to announce Saturday that he is suing Fox News as well as the New York Times, for defamation of character. The lawsuit will be released Monday morning.

"For Fox News to treat me as they did is beneath contempt," says Martin. "I am respected around the world for accuracy, honesty and integrity. We know the New York Times is a corrupt media operation. But Fox News? Well, Ruppert Murdock may want to kow'tow to Barack Obama, but I will not kow'tow to Ruppert Murdock. The crass executives deserve to be sued for their malicious attacks on me. Someone ought to stand up for me: I helped expose Bill Ayers and Khalid Al-Mansour. A slimy 'vice president' that probably never worked a case or a story had the nerve to demean me. What a compete corporate moron.

"How dare these media imposters and blowhards smear me with lies, when I have worked tirelessly to expose the truth about Barack Obama—and succeeded," Martin will charge.
http://www.youtube.com/v/RgjQhnDEGSk

"I'll be happy to face the Fox jerk, Vice President Bill Shine, in court and defend my good name against Obama's mud merchants, the New York Times and Ruppert Murdock. Ruppert Murdock's daughter is backing Obama, for Chrissake.

"I also plan Saturday to thank Dr. Chiyome Fukino for confirming my factual allegation that there was/is an original, typewritten 1961 'vault' COLB that has not been made public and that the true 'original' COLB is in official files. That confirmation makes Barack Obama a liar, on the last weekend of the campaign. Thank you, doctor.

"Now you know why Obama and Axelrod and Gibbs call me the 'Internet Powerhouse' that can’t be stopped. Barack Obama will be bleeding through election night because of this massive lie exposed on the eve of their election. I work for the American people, not John McCain or the Republican Party. Friday, truth arrived in Honolulu, and in the remaining 100 hours that truth is going to be spread from coast-to-coast.

"Obama lied."

Martin lands in Chicago at noon, and will proceed to his office, for an afternoon news conference.

Martin is also soliciting financial support to fund his litigation in Hawai'i.

NEWS CONFERENCE DETAILS:

WHO:

Internet Powerhouse and national anti-Obama leader, Author/Editor/Internet Columnist Andy Martin

WHAT:

National anti-Obama leader Andy Martin thanks Hawai'i officials for confirming his claims and exposing Barack Obama as a liar and lays out his battle plan for the final 72 hours of the presidential campaign.

WHERE:

Southeast corner of Huron and Wabash Streets, Chicago

WHEN: Saturday, November 1, 3:00 P. M.

MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639; CELL (917) 664-9329

phoenixrising
11-01-2008, 01:30 PM
http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=248

phoenixrising
11-01-2008, 01:35 PM
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images/header_wnd.gif ELECTION 2008
Obama's aunt living in U.S. illegally
56-year-old residing in Boston slum ignored judge's order 4 years ago
Posted: November 01, 2008
3:40 am Eastern

2008 WorldNetDaily
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images/misc/onyango200.jpg
Obama's (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79743#) aunt Zeituni Onyango
Barack Obama's aunt, revealed this week to be dwelling in a Boston slum, is living in the United States illegally, refusing to leave the U.S. for her Kenyan homeland when a judge rejected her request for asylum four years ago, the Associated Press is reporting.

A person familiar with the case told AP that 56-year-old Zeituni Onyango was told to leave America by a U.S. immigration (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79743#) judge in 2004.

Two separate sources, one of them a federal law enforcement official, disclosed and confirmed information about the deportation case.

Speaking to a reporter with the London Times, outside her home, Zeituni Onyango, 56, confirmed she was indeed the "Auntie Zeituni" so affectionately described in Obama's best-selling memoir, "Dreams From My Father."

In the memoir, Obama wrote: "If Jane or Zeituni ever felt ill, if their companies ever closed or laid them off, there was no government safety net. There was only family, next of kin, people burdened by similar hardship. Now I was family, I reminded myself. Now I had responsibilities."

Onyango declined to answer most other questions about her relationship with the presidential (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79743#) contender until after the Nov. 4 election.

"I can't talk about it, I just pray for him, that's all," she told the Times, adding: "After the 4th, I can talk to anyone."

Obama campaign spokesman Reid Cherlin confirmed to the Boston Herald yesterday that Onyango, who lives on Flaherty Way in South Boston, is Obama's aunt on his father's side.

The AP could not reach Onyango immediately for comment. It was unclear why her request for asylum was rejected in 2004.

It was not immediately clear how Onyango might have qualified for public housing with a standing deportation order.
(Story continues below)

http://media.fastclick.net/w/get.media?sid=46722&m=6&tp=8&d=s&c=1 (http://media.fastclick.net/w/click.here?sid=46722&m=6&c=1)



Boston Housing Authority spokesman Bill McGonagle told the Herald she received a small stipend over the past year for working six hours a week as a volunteer resident health advocate in her complex.

"Auntie Zeituni" recently made a $260 campaign contributionhttp://kona.kontera.com/javascript/lib/imgs/grey_loader.gif
(http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79743#) to her nephew's presidential bid from a work address in the city. She proudly displays photos of Obama, including some that appear as old as 25 years, inside her first-floor apartment, McGonagle said.

A message left at Onyango's apartment was not returned.

McGonagle asked that the media respect Onyango's privacy.

"She is feeling very put upon," he said.




http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79743

bojo68
11-01-2008, 01:52 PM
i guess I don't understand what difference it makes if Hawaii has either a birth certificate or a certificate of live birth.(nor do I care whether whether they are separate things or the same thing) He lost whatever citizenship he had by attending school, which the act of doing required he be that country's citizen at the time.
So, aside from the forgery and bs, what's the point?

devil21
11-01-2008, 01:53 PM
And still, for some reason, Obama is exempt from producing proof of eligibility for employment and some people are okay with that. It's a crazy world.

Look, the only people concerned about this are people pulling for McCain now, hoping and praying for some "divine intervention" (probably literally) to keep Obama from winning. OK so Berg presented an affidavit supposedly from Obama's grandmother. That sure makes a compelling case to stop a presidential election. :rolleyes: That's suspect unto itself. Why would Obama's own grandma want to kill his campaign? It just doesn't pass the smell test. And considering all the garbage trotted out by McCainiacs against Obama this election, is it any wonder that people like me will just roll my eyes at this "issue"? How many B-girl type episodes can we really pursue? I wonder how many of you that are pursuing this citizenship issue also thought the B-girl incident was truthful at first. I called bullshit on that off the top (and was right) and Im doing the same on this.

Call me a cynic and a doubter if you will but this reeks of desperation and it's just par for the course considering how McCain's campaign and supporters have acted. Let's throw this turd at the wall to see if it sticks. Funny how no one ever questioned Obama's citizenship until he was about to win the Presidency. You'd think that maybe McCain's campaign would have been pursuing it out in the open if it's really a serious issue...or maybe whoever Obama beat for his state AND US Senate seats would have pursued it. But no, not a peep. Hammer the guy for his politics all you like but this just doesn't pass the smell test.

heavenlyboy34
11-01-2008, 01:55 PM
i guess I don't understand what difference it makes if Hawaii has either a birth certificate or a certificate of live birth.(nor do I care whether whether they are separate things or the same thing) He lost whatever citizenship he had by attending school, which the act of doing required he be that country's citizen at the time.
So, aside from the forgery and bs, what's the point?

I don't know how he lost his citizenship when attending school. Could you elaborate? I don't doubt you, I just don't read every single story about this subject. :confused:

heavenlyboy34
11-01-2008, 01:56 PM
look, the only people concerned about this are people pulling for mccain now, hoping and praying for some "divine intervention" (probably literally) to keep obama from winning. Ok so berg presented an affidavit supposedly from obama's grandmother. That sure makes a compelling case to stop a presidential election. :rolleyes: That's suspect unto itself. Why would obama's own grandma want to kill his campaign? It just doesn't pass the smell test. And considering all the garbage trotted out by mccainiacs against obama this election, is it any wonder that people like me will just roll my eyes at this "issue"? How many b-girl type episodes can we really pursue? I wonder how many of you that are pursuing this citizenship issue also thought the b-girl incident was truthful at first. I called bullshit on that off the top (and was right) and im doing the same on this.

Call me a cynic and a doubter if you will but this reeks of desperation and it's just par for the course considering how mccain's campaign and supporters have acted. Let's throw this turd at the wall to see if it sticks. Funny how no one ever questioned obama's citizenship until he was about to win the presidency. You'd think that maybe mccain's campaign would have been pursuing it out in the open if it's really a serious issue...or maybe whoever obama beat for his state and us senate seats would have pursued it. But no, not a peep. Hammer the guy for his politics all you like but this just doesn't pass the smell test.

qft

lynnf
11-01-2008, 02:08 PM
I don't know how he lost his citizenship when attending school. Could you elaborate? I don't doubt you, I just don't read every single story about this subject. :confused:


supposedly, he attended school in Indonesia and they only let citizens of Indonesia attend school, so Barry's new father would have had to adopt him to let that happen and Barry becomes an Indonesian citizen. also, supposedly, Barry went to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport in his late teens or early 20's.

lynn

lynnf
11-01-2008, 02:12 PM
Interesting...but I still don't totally trust the AP. :p



and I don't totally trust the state.

lynn

bojo68
11-01-2008, 02:13 PM
I don't know how he lost his citizenship when attending school. Could you elaborate? I don't doubt you, I just don't read every single story about this subject. :confused:

The rules in the country(India??) at the time were that the students had to be citizens of that country in order for the kids to attend. As I understand it that's why Barry Soetoro adopted him, so he could attend school. By the adoption and attending the school, that made him THAT country's citizen, which there is no record of him ever having changed, or having attempted to. I suspect he's trying to run a scam as a US citizen on the basis of the Hawaii certificate, right wrong or otherwise.
It would certainly explain his secrecy.

To the nitwit that claims all people concerned with this issue are McCain supporters, I'd like nothing better than for both McCain and Obama thrown off for lack of citizenship. Your foaming at the mouth deliriousness is idiotic.

RickyJ
11-01-2008, 02:18 PM
Obama won't produce his birth certificate because he was born in Kenya. I have no doubt of this. You will never ever see his original because he will NEVER release it.

bojo68
11-01-2008, 02:33 PM
Obama won't produce his birth certificate because he was born in Kenya. I have no doubt of this. You will never ever see his original because he will NEVER release it.

It doesn't make any difference if he does or not, or if he was born in Kenya, or Hawaii. His mother was underage and hadn't been in the united states long enough as an adult to have him qualify for citizenship, and even if he did qualify, he renounced it when he became an Indian?? citizen.

RockEnds
11-01-2008, 02:33 PM
Look, the only people concerned about this are people pulling for McCain now, hoping and praying for some "divine intervention" (probably literally) to keep Obama from winning. OK so Berg presented an affidavit supposedly from Obama's grandmother. That sure makes a compelling case to stop a presidential election. :rolleyes: That's suspect unto itself. Why would Obama's own grandma want to kill his campaign? It just doesn't pass the smell test. And considering all the garbage trotted out by McCainiacs against Obama this election, is it any wonder that people like me will just roll my eyes at this "issue"? How many B-girl type episodes can we really pursue? I wonder how many of you that are pursuing this citizenship issue also thought the B-girl incident was truthful at first. I called bullshit on that off the top (and was right) and Im doing the same on this.

Call me a cynic and a doubter if you will but this reeks of desperation and it's just par for the course considering how McCain's campaign and supporters have acted. Let's throw this turd at the wall to see if it sticks. Funny how no one ever questioned Obama's citizenship until he was about to win the Presidency. You'd think that maybe McCain's campaign would have been pursuing it out in the open if it's really a serious issue...or maybe whoever Obama beat for his state AND US Senate seats would have pursued it. But no, not a peep. Hammer the guy for his politics all you like but this just doesn't pass the smell test.

You're missing a perspective. Personally, I don't give a good rat's butt who wins this election. I am quite convinced that the results have already been decided and our votes don't mean squat. I don't care if anyone agrees with me or not. It's my personal belief. I've held it for several years, and I'm not about to change it now.

On to bigger and better issues...

I've spent the last 20 years or more concerning myself with the integrity of public birth records. I've spoken with my state elected officials, I worked for a state elected official in regard to this matter, and in the course of so doing, conducted interviews with those involved in the process.

In the post WWII era, officials decided that the states were within their rights to permanently seal original birth certificates, alter the information, and issue new ones. This was not done on a small scale. The official reasons for this and the reasons whispered behind closed doors are very different. Officially, it was done to protect innocent children. In reality, it was done to protect the adoption industry. After all, if children have the right to view their original birth certificate, human trafficking isn't so attractive, and lawyers lose money.

Whether Obama was adopted or not is completely irrelevant. The people within this industry are a very powerful lobby and will put forth their very best effort to ensure that public birth records are not available upon demand.

I would like to poke a hole in their little ship of deception. Public records are public records. The state should produce them upon demand to everyone who has a valid interest in seeing them. In this particular case, the public has a valid interest because Obama should produce proof of qualifications for office, but my interest extends far beyond that single objective.

werdd
11-01-2008, 02:43 PM
Look, the only people concerned about this are people pulling for McCain now, hoping and praying for some "divine intervention" (probably literally) to keep Obama from winning. OK so Berg presented an affidavit supposedly from Obama's grandmother. That sure makes a compelling case to stop a presidential election. :rolleyes: That's suspect unto itself. Why would Obama's own grandma want to kill his campaign? It just doesn't pass the smell test. And considering all the garbage trotted out by McCainiacs against Obama this election, is it any wonder that people like me will just roll my eyes at this "issue"? How many B-girl type episodes can we really pursue? I wonder how many of you that are pursuing this citizenship issue also thought the B-girl incident was truthful at first. I called bullshit on that off the top (and was right) and Im doing the same on this.

Call me a cynic and a doubter if you will but this reeks of desperation and it's just par for the course considering how McCain's campaign and supporters have acted. Let's throw this turd at the wall to see if it sticks. Funny how no one ever questioned Obama's citizenship until he was about to win the Presidency. You'd think that maybe McCain's campaign would have been pursuing it out in the open if it's really a serious issue...or maybe whoever Obama beat for his state AND US Senate seats would have pursued it. But no, not a peep. Hammer the guy for his politics all you like but this just doesn't pass the smell test.


The only people not pulling for this are obama shills, that care nothing for the constitution.

bojo68
11-01-2008, 02:48 PM
I'll go along with most of the above post, but will take exception to this part.
"Whether Obama was adopted or not is completely irrelevant. The people within this industry are a very powerful lobby and will put forth their very best effort to ensure that public birth records are not available upon demand.

I would like to poke a hole in their little ship of deception. Public records are public records. The state should produce them upon demand to everyone who has a valid interest in seeing them. In this particular case, the public has a valid interest because Obama should produce proof of qualifications for office,"

On the contrary, I believe that the fact he wa adopted in India?? is the most relevant point, and by doing so became an Indian?? citizen. Makes all the cert controversy irrelevant.

I will MOST DEFINITELY disagree with the notion that the state should produce certs to "anyone with a valid interest". There is a right to PRIVACY, check the bill of rights. Obama, if he were a us citizen, would have that right. Far as the public having a valid interest, agreed, but that doesn't trump his(if he were a us citizen) right to privacy. Fact of the matter is the public, election process should have required this proof, thereby not invading his privacy. If he refused, fine, not eligible.
I'll agree with you though that it should be that original records are preserved accurately though.

bojo68
11-01-2008, 02:52 PM
The only people not pulling for this are obama shills, that care nothing for the constitution.

Yeah, and the lack of logic and grandiose false assumptions seems real typical of that type too.

NewEnd
11-01-2008, 03:00 PM
The only people not pulling for this are obama shills, that care nothing for the constitution.

Yes, let us make this the litmus test for being in the C4L movement. It is surely the biggest, most important issue threatening our freedoms and our constitution today.

RockEnds
11-01-2008, 03:05 PM
I will MOST DEFINITELY disagree with the notion that the state should produce certs to "anyone with a valid interest". There is a right to PRIVACY, check the bill of rights. Obama, if he were a us citizen, would have that right. Far as the public having a valid interest, agreed, but that doesn't trump his(if he were a us citizen) right to privacy. Fact of the matter is the public, election process should have required this proof, thereby not invading his privacy. If he refused, fine, not eligible.
I'll agree with you though that it should be that original records are preserved accurately though.


Generally, anyone considered to have a valid interest to the certificate of birth are the parents, the child, and anyone directly descended from the child. However, in the case of the president, the circumstances of his or her birth are a condition of employment. In this particular case, the public does have a valid interest that would not normally exit.

devil21
11-01-2008, 04:26 PM
The only people not pulling for this are obama shills, that care nothing for the constitution.

I'm not pulling for this because it's stupid. Efforts are better spent elsewhere.

I tend to care about the part where the burden of proof is on the accuser. That's not only intended for court cases but also as a guide for life. But it seems that's not how it works these days and Im particularly disappointed to see people that believe in the liberty movement ignore it as well and dwell on something like this. The court cases were dismissed. It's over. People can piss and moan about it all the like but it doesn't change that it's a non-issue for the rest of this election season. Like I said, if it was a real issue wouldn't McCain's own campaign be litigating it instead of some no name dude? Neither campaign has had problems using the court systems in this election. If McCain isn't pursuing it then that should tell you all you need to know.

Move on to something productive like how we are going to influence people for 2010 and 2012.

devil21
11-01-2008, 04:30 PM
Generally, anyone considered to have a valid interest to the certificate of birth are the parents, the child, and anyone directly descended from the child. However, in the case of the president, the circumstances of his or her birth are a condition of employment. In this particular case, the public does have a valid interest that would not normally exit.

Im not knowledgable on the specifics of birth records. If there is a birth certificate in Hawaii that is being "locked down" by the state for privacy reasons, would that indicate that Obama was born in Hawaii? IOW, can Hawaii have a birth certificate for someone born in another country? Seems to me that if there is anything to "lock up" in the first place, then the rest of the issue is moot because you can't lock up something that doesnt exist.

ETA: Or is the assertion floating around that Hawaii doesnt actually have a birth cert. for Obama and is instead fronting for him under the guise of privacy laws?
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081031/BREAKING01/81031064/0/BREAKING04 - guess that settles that huh?

RockEnds
11-01-2008, 04:49 PM
Im not knowledgable on the specifics of birth records. If there is a birth certificate in Hawaii that is being "locked down" by the state for privacy reasons, would that indicate that Obama was born in Hawaii? IOW, can Hawaii have a birth certificate for someone born in another country? Seems to me that if there is anything to "lock up" in the first place, then the rest of the issue is moot because you can't lock up something that doesnt exist.

ETA: Or is the assertion floating around that Hawaii doesnt actually have a birth cert. for Obama and is instead fronting for him under the guise of privacy laws?
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081031/BREAKING01/81031064/0/BREAKING04 - guess that settles that huh?

When birth certificates are sealed, they are sealed for the purpose of preventing access from those who are considered to have a valid interest. Those without a valid interest are not issued birth certificates to begin with. This should be a major concern.

For example, my birth certificate is sealed. Even if it wasn't sealed, you couldn't walk in to the courthouse and get a copy because you don't have a valid interest in my birth certificate. But because it is sealed, I cannot walk in and get a copy of it. My parents cannot walk in and get a copy of it. My children cannot walk in and get a copy of it. It has been sealed since November 1, 1966, and it remains sealed today. I have a certified court record of the adoption proceedings that sealed the certificate kept by my adopted father and given to me. Even though I KNOW what is on the certificate and can PROVE that I know what's on it, I cannot access it because it is sealed.

Sealed birth records are in no one's best interest.

Edit: Oh, and yes, altered birth certificates can be issued by a state other than that where the actual birth occurred.

RockEnds
11-01-2008, 04:56 PM
Oh, and one more thing....

I'm sure that each county of each state has different rules, but I was just in the records vault two months ago. I was not allowed to take in any electronic devices, the clerk handed me the books for the records I requested. I was not allowed to take them from the vault to the photocopy machine, and she personally photocopied the death certificate I found.

It may be possible for someone to find a certificate that didn't concern them, but it's not like it was 20 years ago when you could just walk into the vault without supervision and copy what you wanted.

bojo68
11-01-2008, 05:27 PM
I'm not pulling for this because it's stupid. Efforts are better spent elsewhere.

I tend to care about the part where the burden of proof is on the accuser. That's not only intended for court cases but also as a guide for life. But it seems that's not how it works these days and Im particularly disappointed to see people that believe in the liberty movement ignore it as well and dwell on something like this. The court cases were dismissed. It's over. People can piss and moan about it all the like but it doesn't change that it's a non-issue for the rest of this election season. Like I said, if it was a real issue wouldn't McCain's own campaign be litigating it instead of some no name dude? Neither campaign has had problems using the court systems in this election. If McCain isn't pursuing it then that should tell you all you need to know.

Move on to something productive like how we are going to influence people for 2010 and 2012.

McCain is dumber than a rock, and I could care less if he isn't bright enough to pick up on it, or has similar issues of his own and won't pick it up because of that.
Besides that nobody would believe him anyway. It's us not particularly interested in anything other than the constitution that are left to uphold the standards of this society.

I WILL NOT "MOVE ON", period, regardless of your opinion. Further, I'll be the one that decides how much and what I need to know, not you.

RockEnds
11-01-2008, 05:35 PM
It's the American Bar Association that lobbies against open birth records. They're quite successful because most politicians are lawyers and members. It's hard to promote infant adoption when the little darling may be able to find his or her way home 18 years later. They're not really concerned about whether or not we DO find our way home. Their interest is in being able to tell prospective adoptive parents that the records are sealed, and the new certificate will look just like the real thing. It's a racket. That's all.

This is the machine that the Obama BC debacle is bumping up against, and even the lawyers filing the suits are not going to intentionally set a precedent that any and all interested parties be allowed access to original, vaulted birth records. It's not going to happen.

bojo68
11-01-2008, 05:36 PM
Im not knowledgable

Now there we agree.....

Reason
11-01-2008, 06:13 PM
State declares Obama birth certificate genuine

1 day ago

HONOLULU (AP) State officials say there's no doubt Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.

Health Department Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said Friday she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.

Fukino says that no state official, including Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, ever instructed that Obama's certificate be handled differently.

She says state law bars release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest.

Some Obama critics claim he was not born in the US.

Earlier Friday, a southwest Ohio magistrate rejected a challenge to Obama's citizenship. Judges in Seattle and Philadelphia recently dismissed similar suits.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iw1At-4G1xuE50oXVFRlBPfR3dqgD945OLU00

devil21
11-02-2008, 01:05 PM
Now there we agree.....

Good job being the one to resort to petty insults when you run out of logical arguments and are proven WRONG.

Your mother must be proud.

heavenlyboy34
11-02-2008, 04:44 PM
State declares Obama birth certificate genuine

1 day ago

HONOLULU (AP) State officials say there's no doubt Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.

Health Department Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said Friday she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.

Fukino says that no state official, including Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, ever instructed that Obama's certificate be handled differently.

She says state law bars release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest.

Some Obama critics claim he was not born in the US.

Earlier Friday, a southwest Ohio magistrate rejected a challenge to Obama's citizenship. Judges in Seattle and Philadelphia recently dismissed similar suits.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iw1At-4G1xuE50oXVFRlBPfR3dqgD945OLU00

AP will always be suspicious to me after the photographer photoshopped those photos of missles. Plus, they ignored RP like the other MSMs (to my knowledge). :p:mad:

lynnf
11-03-2008, 04:37 AM
Berg files affidavit with SC containing Obama grandmother statement that Obama
was born in Kenya and she was present.

http://www.obamacrimes.com/

scroll down to the headline:

"U.S. Supreme Court Writ of Certiorari and Application for Stay of the Presidential Election"

the affidavits are in pdf files and can be downloaded


I doubt that the SC will stop the election, they'll probably say "too much of a burden".
And, since the turncoat Souter is the one that gets the case first, it's doubtful he will
do anything unless he wants to make sure that he doesn't get stuck as the bad guy
in history - the one that ignored the rules.

lynn

lynnf
11-03-2008, 05:36 AM
Im not knowledgable on the specifics of birth records. If there is a birth certificate in Hawaii that is being "locked down" by the state for privacy reasons, would that indicate that Obama was born in Hawaii? IOW, can Hawaii have a birth certificate for someone born in another country? Seems to me that if there is anything to "lock up" in the first place, then the rest of the issue is moot because you can't lock up something that doesnt exist.

ETA: Or is the assertion floating around that Hawaii doesnt actually have a birth cert. for Obama and is instead fronting for him under the guise of privacy laws?
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081031/BREAKING01/81031064/0/BREAKING04 - guess that settles that huh?

back during the time that Obama was born, supposedly HI had a provision that people of other nationalities could come in and register the birth even though it took place in another country. maybe not surprising since HI is an Asian "crossroad". but there is another possible explanation -- fraud by Obama's mother in registering a birth in HI which actually took place in Kenya. if, as has been suggested, she was trapped in Kenya during her pregnancy and was desperate for her son to be an American citizen, she may have gone to register the birth as soon as possible and may not have told the truth. after all, she was a good little socialist, wasn't she?

so the question is, where does the Obama true birth certificate say he was born? if you believe the HI officials, it says HI. And if it does say HI then that should be checked out as thoroughly as possible, which may not be easy after 40+ years.

lynn

smithtg
11-04-2008, 10:33 AM
bump for anyone with updates

HOLLYWOOD
11-04-2008, 12:18 PM
Book'em O'bamo... Uh, I meant, Danno!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AepyGm9Me6w (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AepyGm9Me6w)


http://www.mjq.net/fiveo/50wave.jpg
http://www.book-em-danno.com/ (http://www.book-em-danno.com/)