ConstitutionWatch.org has been on the sidelines during the discussion of Barack Obama's status as a natural born citizen. Just before his inauguration-they have jumped into the battle with both feet. They explain the history of the controversy and how it applies to the Constitution. ConstitutionWatch.org makes no claim about Barack Obama's status. They do present a laundry list of '100% truths.' Also, they accuse Factcheck.org and DailyKos.com of being caught 'red handed' presenting 'fake' copies of Obama's birth certificate.
Alert: Constitutional Crisis Looming
The Facts
Although we will not jump to conclusions and accuse Barack Obama of not being a natural born citizen, we will list the facts- absolute, 100% truths, below:
* It has been said, and verified, that Barack Obama’s grandmother in Kenya told many of her neighbors, friends and relatives that she witnessed Barack Obama’s birth- in Kenya. Whether or not that is the truth, the fact is that she made that statement. That, alone, should be enough to spark an investigation.
* Officials at Occidental College in Los Angeles, Calif., have been served with a demand to produce records concerning Barack Obama’s attendance there during the 1980s because they could document whether he was attending as a foreign national or not.
* The Supreme Court and Congress are both are being challenged to address the worries that Obama doesn’t meet the requirements of the U.S. Constitution that the president be a natural born citizen.
* A long list of legal cases have been filed against Barack Obama.
* “If Obama is sworn in as president, we will file a Petition for Writ of ‘Quo Warranto,’ a case that will challenge Obama as being ineligible to serve as president because he is ‘not qualified,’” said Philip J. Berg, a lawyer who has brought several cases to court. Berg, whose information is on his ObamaCrimes.com website, indicated the issue isn’t going away.
* Orly Taitz, a California lawyer, has filed a dispute against Barack Obama.
* Some allege his birth took place in Kenya, and his mother was a minor at the time of his birth – too young to confer American citizenship. They argue Obama’s father, Barack Obama Sr., was a Kenyan citizen subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time and would have handed down British citizenship.
* There also are questions raised about Obama’s move to Indonesia when he was a child and his attendance at school there when only Indonesian citizens were allowed and his travel to Pakistan in the ’80s when such travel was forbidden to American citizens.
* Barack Obama and his own half-sister provide two different answers in regards to the hospital he was born at. Excerpted from ConstitutionWatch.org
Top of page
49 comments:
Commendable but they should have been presenting the facts all along. In all fairness they have been and I missed it. Thanks for the post.
Bob A.
In all fairness they have been and I missed it.
should read
In all fairness they may have been and I missed it.
The question is not IF there will be an interdiction of Obama’s Presidency by the Supreme Court, the questions are WHEN and HOW that interdiction will transpire — that is, if the USA is to continue as the Constitutional Republic that now exists.
Your so-called "facts" are a joke. There is not one iota of proof that Obama's mama was EVER in Kenya. His dad was there in 1960, but not again until 1965. Why would a pregnant white girl travel to a country in the tail end of the Mau Mau uprising? Answer: she didn't. He was born in Hawaii.
There are plenty of lawsuits filed by poor losers, racists, and other assorted lowlifes, none of them have been or will be successful.
Your ignorance of the term "natural born citizen" has really made your post a sad fantasy. “The rule of the common law is that citizenship turns upon the place of birth, and that one born within the jurisdiction, EVEN THOUGH OF ALIEN PARENTS is a citizen by birth, or, as the Constitution expresses it, a natural-born citizen; and this rule has been very generally recognized and enforced by all the departments of the government.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 655 et seq.; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 583; 9 Ops. Atty.-Gcn. 373; 10 Id. 382, 394.”
This is the court decision upon which the Supreme Court relies. Read it and weap.
Now let’s address the BS about his travel to Pakistan in 1981. “A WND (that’s WORLD NUT DAILY) investigation could not find any proof Obama used an Indonesian passport to travel to Pakistan. However, WND noted that Pakistan in 1981 was under military rule and that it was difficult for U.S. citizens to travel to the country without assistance — meaning, it would have been easier to enter Pakistan on an Indonesian passport.”
There was NO State Department Travel Ban to Pakistan in 1981 and, in fact, a contemporaneous NY Times article stated that travel visas were available (and necessary) for Americans.
Given that no evidence, or facts leading to evidence has been reported, it is reasonable to conclude that this allegation is false. Moreover, according to WorldNutDaily — which is hardly an Obama fan - "even assuming that Obama may have once been an Indonesian citizen, he likely lost that citizenship".
John Long, PhD
Nice spin too bad you are flat wrong on everything. I just figured out what the PhD behind your name stands for. Pile it Higher and Deeper
JOIN CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST
U.S. CONGRESS FOR CONTINUING FRAUD AND FAILURE TO PERFORM DUTY TO SUBPOENA BARACK OBAMA'S ORIGINAL LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE PRIOR TO CERTIFYING ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES.
JOIN CLASS ACTION!
Cris Ericson http://crisericson.com
I must have missed something in the list of facts.
I saw one fact that might be relavent to the question, the claim made by his grandmother, all the other supposed facts talk about some person or group filing a lawsuit or planning a lawsuit. None of the other "facts" would actually have any value in a debate. Someone filing a lawsuit might be a fact, but just because someone files a lawsuit demanding evidence doesn't mean that there are any other relavent "facts".
To John Long, Phd
Say doc, how do you know that Papa Obama was in Kenya in 1960 and didn't return there until 1965? What's your source? Have you seen his passport?
Also, I believe the MauMau uprising ended well before 1961 and that Kenya was then preparing for independence in 1962. Of course, I only know that from my Weekly Reader back then.
Finally, there is a difference between being an American Citizen and a Natural Born Citizen as described in Article 2 Sect. 1 of the US Constitution. Those cases make him an American Citizen, but they don't make him a Natural Born American Citizen as required by the law of the land. But then the Constitution is a living document so if we adopt your interpretation of it the Republicans can run the Governator in 2012 against Obama. What a match...we could stage the debates in a death cage setting with WWE divas as moderators. Ratings would go through Palin's.
The nice thing about Obama being an illegal President is that all the bills he signs into law are, can, and should be declared null and void having no power of law. Ha! Can you imagine him signing Universal Health Care only to have the Supreme Court throw it out as being non-binding because he couldn't be President. What a laugh!
This is the greatest political theatre since Monica Lewinski.
Let’s start with the grandmother. “It has been said, and verified.” Who “verified?” WND. Only WND.
No one else. If there was verification from AP, UPI, Reuters, AFP, or even such anti-Obama publications as the New York Post, that would be verified. Here is the tape recording of her, in which a US minister on a long-distance telephone gets her to say “yes” to the question “was she present when he was born?” That is used by the anti-Obama forces as proof that he was born in Kenya. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGWcD5OHm08
Yet, on the same tape, when she is asked the straight question: “Where was he born?” The answer is repeatedly America, Hawaii. And if you listen closely, you can hear her voice say “Hawaii.”
So, why did she answer “Yes” to the question “Was she present when he was born?”
Because she is the STEP grandmother. So, she could have interpreted the question “present” as being was she present as a member of the family. In any case, in response to the clear question “where was he born?” she says Hawaii. This is certainly not proof that he was born in Kenya, and it even may be substantiation to the Hawaii legal documents that show that he was born in Hawaii.
A little later in the tape, the grandmother is recorded as saying that Obama “is a son of this village.” But that does not mean that he was born in the village. More than likely it means that he was a relative by blood of that village – which no one disputes since his father was from that village.
Did anyone else say that he was born in Kenya? WND has quoted other relatives, but ONLY WND-—there has been no verification from other news services.
The Ambassador of Kenya to the USA has been quoted as saying that Kenya was going to place a plaque at Obama’s place of birth in Kenya, but the ambassador has since then denied that he meant that. He says that he believed he was being asked about Obama’s family’s ancestral home. In any case, IF the ambassador were saying what he knew to be the truth, it would be well-known in Kenya. The diplomatic circuit in Africa has little to do but gossip, and the news agencies attend the cocktail parties. So, if there were even rumors in Kenya that there were files that showed that Obama was born in Kenya, the mainstream press would pick it up. They would have to at least check out such rumors. They would have to, it would be news, and news still sells newspapers.
Then there is the absence of proof that Obama was born in Kenya.
Usually when Americans travel to a foreign country they take pictures. This is particularly true when they are meeting their in-laws for the first time. If Obama’s mother had traveled to Kenya, surely she would have taken photographs, and had herself photographed with her in-laws. If she had given birth in Kenya, she would have had her child photographed with his grandparents. But no photos exist.
This, the Obama opponents say, is explained by her having argued with her in-laws and her having resented her treatment by them. But this is not likely, since she later became an anthropologist, and so was probably well aware of different customs. And it is unlikely that she would have deprived her baby of photos taken with his grandparents because of this argument IF there were photos.
Or, it could be explained by Obama systematically destroying all the photos. But there might have been photos that Obama’s mother showed to friends years ago. If she did, someone might have remembered that. And no one has remembered.
Then there is the absence of legal documents in Kenya. Opponents of Obama explain this absence by the claim that the Kenyan government sealed the files. But if files existed and Kenya sealed them, this too would be gossiped about. The very fact that Kenya sealed certain kinds of files would be news which would be reported on by the mainstream media, and they have not reported on that. Thus there is no confirmation that the Kenyan government had sealed any files.
More importantly, IF Obama had been born in Kenya there would have to be US government files, which Kenya could not seal. That is because IF Obama were born in Kenya, he would most likely be considered a Kenyan citizen by the US government. In those days everyone in Africa (and in most countries in Europe too) had to get a visa to visit the USA. So baby Obama would have to get a US visa, a record of which would still exist at the State Department in Washington. Or, in the unlikely event that the US considered him a US citizen due to his mother, then he would have to either receive a US passport in Kenya or be entered on her passport. Both would take lots of communication between the US consulate in Kenya and Washington, and no such documents have emerged.
Such documents cannot be considered private or confidential, since they relate directly to the citizenship status and the question of whether he lied of a public official. If they existed, they would be available under the Freedom of Information Act, and most likely the Hillary campaign, the McCain campaign, or WND have already tried to find those documents. But they have said nothing. One explanation is that such documents do not exist. Obama was not born in Kenya.
Then there is the sheer improbability of the event. For it to happen, Obama’s mother would have had to travel when she was pregnant, which few women did in those days (planes were not well pressurized) and there were no direct flights from Hawaii to Kenya. And, to travel to Africa in those days you had to get a Yellow Fever shot (bad for pregnant women).
Moreover, IF she made the trip, she would have had to have done it AND lie about it. She would have had to have claimed that her child was born in Hawaii. But why should she do that? If she had gone to Kenya and given birth in Kenya, she would have done something most unusual, which she could have bragged about for the rest of her life. She could have told her girlfriends, when they gave birth: “Let me tell you, giving birth in a Kenya hospital is something unusual.” And, if she had done that, they would have remembered it. But they didn’t because she didn’t.
Then there is the fact that the trip is expensive. There are some reports that Obama’s parents were poor students, but even if their parents sent enough money for the trip, they would not have wasted it on a trip when Obama’s mother was pregnant—when she could not travel easily to see all the sights along the way. Instead, they would have waited until after the birth, when they could take the child to see his grandparents, and the Obama adults could see Tokyo or London on the way to Kenya. A year later there were already signs of the Obama’s breaking up, but that was not clear at the time of the birth, which was the time when they would have the choice of traveling then or later, and they would have chosen to travel later.
Then, of course, there is the proof of birth in Hawaii, which is in the form of a Certification of Live Birth issued by the State of Hawaii. Some say that this is not really proof. But that is simply wrong. It is a legal Hawaii document. In fact, it is the only Hawaii birth document that Hawaii issues to people who ask for copies of their birth certificate. (You can check this by asking the Department of Health of Hawaii about it at its Web site. There is a page that allows you to send them e-mail.)
Some say that Hawaii law allows the Department of Health of Hawaii to issue Certifications of Live Birth even to children not born in Hawaii. This is true, and Obama’s sister has one. But the law does NOT allow the Certification to lie about the place of birth. In other words, if the child was born in New Jersey, Hawaii law allows a Hawaii Certification, but it has to say: Place of Birth: New Jersey. Obama’s sister’s Certification, shows that she was born in Indonesia, as she was. In contrast, Obama’s certification says that he was born in Honolulu.
It would have been illegal for Hawaii to issue a Certification of Live Birth that said “born in Honolulu” if he had been born in Kenya. If there were a document in the file that said “born in Kenya,” the certification would have had to have said “born in Kenya,” and it didn’t. The officials who said that they looked into the file and found a birth certificate could not have found a Kenyan birth certificate. If they did, they would have known that the Certification had been issued illegally, and they would be required under Hawaii law to make that fact known and perhaps to prosecute Obama. But they did not say anything? Why not? Not because they loved Obama. Even if they did, it would be too risky to fail to take the actions required by law, IF that had been the fact. But there is a simple explanation; what they saw in the file confirmed the location of birth stated on the Certification. He was born in Honolulu.
Then why doesn’t he release his “vault copy?” Surely that means that he has something to hide? No, it doesn’t. As I said, the Department of Health sends out only the Certification of Live Birth, so unless Obama has a copy of the original certificate, which is much more detailed to be sure, but the issue is whether he has it, he can show only what they sent him, which is the certification. But you may ask, surely if he asks, he can get them to issue him the original? Maybe or maybe not. Remember that Hawaii is under a Republican governor. So, the Department of Health could reply that they will treat him just like anyone who asks for a copy of their birth certificate, meaning sending out only what they sent him already.
So, he could sue them for his original? Sure, but that could take months or years.
In the meanwhile, is there anything wrong with the Certification of Live Birth? NO. It is a perfectly legal official Hawaii document, and it says on it that Obama was born in Honolulu, and it cannot lie about the place of birth.
Is it sufficient for Obama to have been born in Hawaii to be a Natural Born Citizen? Perhaps not. There are some who say that the president must have two parents both of whom were US citizens when she or he was born AND be born in the USA. This is probably wrong, but it is at least a plausible theory.
The myth of Obama having been born in Kenya is as absurd as the idea that aliens had landed and some of their remains are still being preserved by the US government in Rosewell, NM.
smrstrauss,
You sure do have alot of "IF"s in your comment.
Obama could easily stop these questions by doing this
1. Release his "original" birth certificate
2. Show that Lolo did not adopt him
3. Release his passports that he traveled under when he went to Pakistan in 1981
4. Release his entrance papers from Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard
I could argue each of your points, but it would be fruitless.
Even IF Obama was born in Hawaii, he lost his "natural born" status IF Lolo adopted him, or IF he used an Indonesian passport to travel to Pakistan, or IF he recieved scholarships or grants awarded to foreign students in college.
My goodness, we are NOT going to stop asking questions until he releases these documents.
I would suggest you get over it, and join us, so you will not have to defend him any longer.
smrstrauss,
Please tell me,
What do we do if he releases these documents, and they reveal that Obama is ineligible?
All we'll do is ask why he didn't release them sooner?
"Then why doesn’t he release his “vault copy?” Surely that means that he has something to hide? No, it doesn’t. As I said, the Department of Health sends out only the Certification of Live Birth, so unless Obama has a copy of the original certificate, which is much more detailed to be sure, but the issue is whether he has it, he can show only what they sent him, which is the certification."
That is not a factual statement. You can get a vault copy of your Hawaiian birth certificate.
"In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."
Link here. http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl
So the short copy is good enough to be President, but not good enough to certify you for the Hawaii homestead program. Jeez.
detailed instructions on how to get an original vault copy of a Hawaii birth certificate. Of course Obama is President. He would not need to do anything but have someone pick up the phone. This is just to show you anyone can easily do it. Obama supporters spread so much untruth. :(
'When requesting a certified copy of your birth certificate from the Vital
Records Section of DOH, let the clerk know you are requesting it "For
DHHL Purposes," and that you need a copy of the original Certificate of
Live Birth and not the computer-generated Certification. If mailing in your
request form, please fill in "For DHHL Purposes" in the "Reason for
Requesting a Certified Copy" section. (See example on page 6.)'
http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/Loaa%20Ka%20Aina%20Hoopulapula.pdf
They even show a sample copy of the vault record for those so blinded by Obama they thought that document was a myth.
I think BHO is in too solid now. Before it would have taken a chisel and a pair of pliers, now it will take a pneumatic jackhammer. The MSM, the RINOs, of course the Marxists, and last but not least the complacency of the American people will protect him.
They care about $ not stuff like Liberty, the Constitution and all that jazz...constitutional eligibility means as much to them as the last Apollo mission to the moon did...boooorrring, and irrelevant to their personal bottom line.
Sorry, but I have no faith in the masses, but thank God for the millions out there who stay informed and remain concerned about this charlatan and his Marxist minions.
Re: "That is not a factual statement. You can get a vault copy of your Hawaiian birth certificate."
That is not a factual statement. You CANNOT get a vault copy. All that you can get is the Certification of Live Birth.
Don't believe it? You can check, by asking your own questions by e-mail at vr-info@doh.hawaii.gov.
The effect of this is that Obama can only show what the Department of Health of Hawaii has sent him, unless he has kept a copy of his original birth certificate and has not mislaid it.
But not to worry, the Certification of Live Birth is a perfectly legal document, and it proves that Obama was born in Hawaii. And as I showed before, there is no evidence he was born in Kenya.
Re: "Even IF Obama was born in Hawaii, he lost his "natural born" status IF Lolo adopted him, or IF he used an Indonesian passport to travel to Pakistan, or IF he recieved scholarships or grants awarded to foreign students in college."
What gives you this ridiculous idea?
If Obama had been adopted under Indonesian law, it would not have the slightest effect on him under US law. He wouldn't even be adopted under US law.
There is no evidence that he was adopted under US law, and that evidence would not be found in his birth certificate file in any case. It would have to be in a civil state court, probably in Hawaii.
As to "IF he used an Indonesian passport to travel to Pakistan." It is NOT even illegal to travel on a foreign passport if you have dual nationality. And so, if you have dual nationality and you chose to travel on the foreign passport, can you lose your US citizenship. NO!
Re: "IF he recieved scholarships or grants awarded to foreign students in college." You certainly cannot lose your citizenship because some organization THINKS you are a foreigner. Even if he said to the organization, "I have dual nationality," that does not make him a foreigner. It only makes him someone with dual nationality.
Is someone with dual nationality eligible to be president? Sure. Where does it say "No dual nationals can be president"? Or, where does it say "a person who has dual nationality cannot be a natural born citizen"?
He has now been sworn in by the Chief Justice of the United States. He is the President.
Re: "When requesting a certified copy of your birth certificate from the Vital Records Section of DOH, let the clerk know you are requesting it "For DHHL Purposes"
I have been in contact with DHHL and pointed out to them that the Department of Health of Hawaii no longer issues anything but the Certification of Live Birth.
Their reply was that unless you had your original birth certificate, which they prefer, they are willing to work with the Certification of Live Birth. You can check with them. Here are their telephone number and fax number: 808-620-9590 / Fax 808-620-9599. I cannot find their e-mail address.
"smrstrauss said...
I have been in contact with DHHL and pointed out to them that the Department of Health of Hawaii no longer issues anything but the Certification of Live Birth."
O'really? The Hawaii department of Homestead deals with these issues every day and you know more than they do?
"Their reply was that unless you had your original birth certificate, which they prefer, they are willing to work with the Certification of Live Birth."
The fact that they are willing to work with the Certification does not prove you can not get the longer form. They still believe you can get it. Read their pdf document.
'When requesting a certified copy of your birth certificate from the Vital
Records Section of DOH, let the clerk know you are requesting it "For
DHHL Purposes," and that you need a copy of the original Certificate of
Live Birth and not the computer-generated Certification. If mailing in your
request form, please fill in "For DHHL Purposes" in the "Reason for
Requesting a Certified Copy" section. (See example on page 6.)'
http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/Loaa%20Ka%20Aina%20Hoopulapula.pdf
Re: "When requesting a certified copy of your birth certificate from the Vital
Records Section of DOH, let the clerk know you are requesting it "For
DHHL Purposes,"
(1) That is an OLD Web page. They haven't changed it since they found out that the Department of Health only issues the COLB.
(2) Have you contacted them to make sure? I have, and they replied that they will work with the COLB.
(3) Here is the Department of Health e-mail address: vr-info@mail.health.state.hi.us
You can contact them and ask them whether they will send out anything other than a COLB. I did already, and they said that they only send out the COLB, but please check. Maybe they have changed their minds.
Re: “Please tell me, What do we do if he releases these documents, and they reveal that Obama is ineligible?”
This is an excellent question, and I will even broaden it. What do we do if anything, ANYTHING, proves that Obama ineligible?
There is an obvious answer. If he is not eligible, you and I would agree, he cannot be president. Biden would become President. (You may not like this, but that is what would happen. The SC would not give the election to the other political party.)
But I am so sure that this will not and cannot happen that I will show you the best way to find out and prove that he was born in Kenya and hence would be ineligible -- IF he were born in Kenya.
I have said that the Lightfoot case, which is trying to prove that Obama is not eligible due to having one parent who was not a citizen, is the best of the approaches to proving him ineligible.
But that is the best legal approach, and it is being well argued. There is nothing that someone who is not already participating in the case can do to aid it. In contrast, in the effort to prove that Obama was ineligible due to finding something out about him, there is still something that ordinary people can do. The best shot is to prove that he was born in Kenya.
He wasn’t born in Kenya, but that is the best shot, since you cannot lose your citizenship due to the actions of your parents, a foreign adoption has no standing under US law, using a foreign passport if you are a dual national is not illegal, Etc.
So, how to prove that Obama was born in Kenya IF he was born in Kenya? As I wrote earlier. If Obama was born in Kenya, there would have to be a US document, such as a visa or a change to his mother’s passport, to get baby Obama from Kenya to Hawaii. Otherwise we would not let him into the USA. We know that he was in the USA as a child, so if he were born in Kenya, there would have to be a document.
All you have to do is find that document. IF there were such a document, it would have to be made available under the Freedom of Information Act. It cannot be considered private since (1) Obama is a public official and (2) his mother and father are both dead and their right to privacy has expired.
Thus all you have to do is file a Freedom of Information Act request with the US State Department in Washington asking to see all applications for visas or copies of granted visas or communications between t he US Consulate in Kenya or applications for passports or applications to change passports in Kenya in the year 1961 with the name Obama or Obama Jr or Obama II on the document or communication.
You would have to be patient. Freedom of Information requests take a while: Maybe three months, maybe four or five. But if there is anything, the State Department will in the end send it to you. Or, if not, you could then sue them, and you’d have every right to sue, and have a good standing to sue, since you filed the request.
If in the end there is a document showing that Obama was in Kenya, you have proved your case. If not, too bad. As I said earlier, I figure the chance of Obama having been born in Kenya is about one in a million, but that’s your best shot on the factual front.
smrstrauss,
First I will comment on this. You commented:
"That is not a factual statement. You CANNOT get a vault copy. All that you can get is the Certification of Live Birth."
Come on now, Obama is the President of the United States, and you're trying to get us to believe that he can't get his "original" Birth Certificate? That is just simply laughable.
I am of the opinion that all Obama would have to do is pick up the phone, and call. The "original" Birth Certificate would be on the way by the next morning.
Then you comment this:
"If Obama had been adopted under Indonesian law, it would not have the slightest effect on him under US law. He wouldn't even be adopted under US law."
Where in my comment did I mention Obama being adopted under Indonesian law?
Then you comment this:
"There is no evidence that he was adopted under US law, and that evidence would not be found in his birth certificate file in any case. It would have to be in a civil state court, probably in Hawaii."
You're right, we can't get the evidence because Obama won't release the documents. His Birth Certificate WOULD have some bearing on this, especially IF his name was changed by the adoption decree to "Barry Soetoro" as his school admission papers state was his name when he was enrolled.
But I would argue that even if Lolo adopted him in Indonesia, he would no longer be a "natural born citizen".
I am not a lawyer, but I would argue that Obama would cease to be a "natural born citizen", because of the allegiance that he would have given to another country. Whether it was a document that Obama himself signed, or if his parent signed it for him.
I would make the same arguments on the passport, and the foriegn aid arguments, except I would include that he was an ADULT when he traveled to Pakistan, and enrolled in college.
I have read that if you take an oath of allegiance, or sign a document that gives you duel citizenship, then you become a "naturalized citizen" and lose your "natural born citizen" status. I would agree with that.
This has not been argued before the Courts. I believe it to be the time to get this issue resolved, before Obama signs too many "executive orders" or laws.
As far as Biden becoming President, I would agree, Biden is eligible, because BOTH parents were US Citizens when he was born.
Have we ever had this issue before? Not in my lifetime at least. This has got to be settled. That's what the Supreme Court is for. Let's make sure, before we get too far in Obama's term.
Finally I will comment that you at least say there is one in a million chance Obama isn't eligible.
I would argue that even that one in a million chance is too much of a chance for me.
It simply amazes me that your side continues to argue the point. You admit to the one in a million chance. To me, that means that there is 350 people in the US that fall in to this catagory.
Maybe Obama is one of them.
1/21/2009 Berg case is toast
Orly case currently in the toaster
Birthers should head for the dust bin of history, space is reserved
SCOTU was sent copy of Obama's BC with 3 affadavits from Hawaii, and they don't need to show you anything!
"Blogger smrstrauss said...
You can contact them and ask them whether they will send out anything other than a COLB. I did already, and they said that they only send out the COLB, but please check. Maybe they have changed their minds.
(3) Here is the Department of Health e-mail address: vr-info@mail.health.state.hi.us"
No you didn't. Not at that phony email address anyway.
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
vr-info@mail.health.state.hi.us
(reason: 550 5.7.1 Unable to relay for vr-info@mail.health.state.hi.us)
Take the test.
FIRST QUESTION: Who IS the actual and lawful 44th President of the USA?
ANSWER: Joe Biden
Biden was initially the Acting President for at least 5 minutes under either the Constitution’s Article 2 or the Constitution’s 20th Amendment, from 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, having already taken his Oath of Office and before Obama completed his ‘oath’ at approximately 12:05 PM, 1/20/09. Under the 20th Amendment if the President-elect shall have failed to qualify, or alternatively under Article 2 if the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term, being 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, which ability and/or qualification includes that he take the Article 2 oath “before he enter on the execution of his office,” then either the Presidency shall devolve on the Vice President under Article 2 or the Vice President shall act as President under the 20th Amendment. (The importance of the oath in ‘commencing’ an ‘Obama Presidency’ — rather than merely the 1/20/09 Noon time — is confirmed by the re-take of the ‘oath’ by Obama at the White House on 1/21/09 after the first ‘oath’ was NOT administered by Justice Roberts NOR recited by Obama in the words as required under Article 2.)
This is significant because at such time that the Supreme Court finally rules on the merits on Obama’s disqualification as not being an Article 2 “natural born citizen” (clearly he is NOT), Biden’s automatic status (without needing to take a separate Presidential Oath) of being President would be predicated upon four different bases: First, having been Vice President under Article 2; second, having been Vice President-elect under the 20th Amendment; third, having been actual President in the hiatus before Obama took the ‘oath(s)’; and fourth, retroactively deemed President during the full period of the Obama usurpation so that the acts of the Federal Government under the usurpation can be deemed authorized and/or ratified by Biden’s legitimacy.
SECOND QUESTION: Who will be the 45th President?
ANSWER: Hillary Clinton
One must assume that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been aware of all of the above. Biden’s wife recently “let the cat out of the bag” on the Oprah Show that both Biden and Hillary had considered alternatively Veep or Secretary of State, in either case, setting up Hillary to be President on a vote of the Democratic Congress if need be.
THIRD QUESTION: Is Obama an unwitting victim of this troika or a knowing participant?
ANSWER: Yet undetermined.
Re: “Come on now, Obama is the President of the United States, and you're trying to get us to believe that he can't get his "original" Birth Certificate? That is just simply laughable.”
Answer: Lyndon Johnson used to tell a story about the use of nuclear weapons. It went along these lines: “You see that red telephone over there. I could just pick it up and say: ‘fire all the missiles.” And you know what they’d say to me? They’d say ‘F (sorry, the site edits this four-letter word) you, Mr. President.”
So I say that the ability to refuse the president something is wonderfully American thing to do. If the law in Hawaii says that all they send out is the COLB, and they send the COLB to everyone. Then it would be an illegal and improper thing to do to send the original to someone just because he was the president.
And I like to think that the bureaucrats in Hawaii would treat the president just like everyone else. They are under a Republican governor’s administration after all.
Moreover, if Obama asked for something that he knew was not given to just ordinary people, he would be asking for special favors, and that would be improper.
You say that he could get it merely by a telephone call, but that also would be improper.
Here’s what the Department of Health of Hawaii says:
All applications requesting certified copies of birth, death, marriage, and divorce certificates must generally be made in writing (application forms may be downloaded from this site - see below). Requests may also be placed for birth and marriage certificates on a limited basis through the Internet (www.ehawaiigov.org/ohsm). Telephone, FAX, or e-mail requests are not accepted.
So, here is the site where you apply for the birth record, when you fill it out and pay the money, what do you get? https://www.ehawaii.gov/doh/vitrec/exe/vitrec.cgi
To repeat the question, what do you get? You get a Certification of Live Birth, like everyone else.
Re: You're right, we can't get the evidence because Obama won't release the documents. His Birth Certificate WOULD have some bearing on this, especially IF his name was changed by the adoption decree to "Barry Soetoro" as his school admission papers state was his name when he was enrolled.
Answer: When I lived in Hong Kong, I had a Chinese name. That did not make me Chinese, nor did it make me a citizen of Hong Kong or a British subject (it was a British colony at the time).
Re: ”His Birth Certificate WOULD have some bearing on this.”
Answer: But the opponents of Obama are asking for his ORIGINAL birth certificate. His original birth certificate cannot be changed. It remains the original.
Re: ‘especially IF his name was changed by the adoption decree to "Barry Soetoro" as his school admission papers state was his name when he was enrolled.”
Answer: You fail to notice the illogic here. IF his name had been changed, the NAME of the file would have changed. It would no longer be the Barack Obama file, it would be the Barry Soetoro file. And Hawaii could not legally issue a Certification of Live birth to someone called Barack Obama. But it has issued a certification of live birth, so the name on the file still says Barack Obama.
So let’s go back to the legal situation. For a legal change of name in the USA, an action has to be brought it a US court (usually a state court). That’s where there would be a file. Go find it, IF there is one.
Re: But I would argue that even if Lolo adopted him in Indonesia, he would no longer be a "natural born citizen".
Answer: Some past presidents got adopted into Indian tribes. That did not make them Indians.
It is an important conservative legal philosophy that foreign law does not and cannot affect US law. This has always been the case with US citizens. Some country may consider that they have changed their citizenship to that country. We say WE DECIDE.
In this case, the fact that some other country thinks he has become an Indonesian citizen, does not make him an Indonesian citizen.
Nor can it affect the definition of “Natural born citizen.” The definition is quite simple. It stems from British common law, which held that anyone born in the realm, except for the children of enemies of the realm and the children of foreign diplomats was a “Natural born subject.”
He could be adopted by the Emperor of Japan, and he would neither lose his citizenship nor his Natural Born Citizenship.
Re: I would make the same arguments on the passport, and the foriegn aid arguments, except I would include that he was an ADULT when he traveled to Pakistan, and enrolled in college.
Answer. If you have dual citizenship, it is legal for you to have two passports. It is often normal to have and use two passports. So, as I say, it is not even illegal to use a foreign passport if you are a dual national. And you cannot lose your US citizenship for using it, as an adult or as a child. Here is the US State Department Web site that lists all the possible ways that you can lose your US citizenship:
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html
Is the use of a foreign passport among them? NO!
Same thing on foreign aid. If he had told Occidental that he was a dual national, they might consider him a foreigner. Does that make him a foreigner? No, it only means that they considered him a foreigner. Can the fact that they considered him to be a foreigner affect his citizenship? No more than an Indian tribe considering Calvin Cooledge an Indian made him an Indian.
Re: “This has not been argued before the Courts. I believe it to be the time to get this issue resolved, before Obama signs too many "executive orders" or laws.”
Answer. This is up to the courts. If the Supreme Court doesn’t take the case, it means that IT HAS DECIDED. It has decided that the “you gotta have two US parents plus be born in the USA” theory is absurd. If that is what it does, then learn to live with it. In the highly unlikely possibility that it takes the case and finds that you gotta have two US parents plus be born in the USA, I would live with it. But there’s very little chance of that.
Why not? Because the common law of England held that a natural born subject was merely one that was born in the realm. (With the exception of the children of enemies and of foreign diplomats.) Obama was born in Hawaii and neither of his parents were diplomats or enemies of the USA.
Re: “I would argue that even that one in a million chance is too much of a chance for me.’
Answer: Then you should file a Freedom of Information request with the US State Department as I advised earlier. IF Obama were born in Kenya, then there would HAVE to be a US legal document that got him from Kenya to the USA, and that would be in the files. IF there is no such document, he was not born in Kenya.
Re: "No you didn't. Not at that phony email address anyway."
They seem to have closed that one down.
Try this one:
vr-info@doh.hawaii.gov.
If that one still does not work, you may have to call them or fax them. The numbers are at the Web site.
smrstrauss,
You just simply make no sense at all.
If ANYONE takes an oath, or signs a citizenship document, they are no longer a "natural born citizen".
You keep posting articles about US citizenship, not about "natural born citizens".
I contend, and will remain steadfast in my contention that Obama could very easily get his original Birth Certificate.
As far as Obama's name change, you need to go and read what the statutes stated for Hawaii in 1965-66. It was fairly easy to change a child’s name in the event of an adoption. Pretty much the same as Stanley did when she and Lolo divorced in 1980.
The divorce decree states that Stanley can go back to using Dunham.
As far as the Birth Certificate being in the Name of Barry Soetoro, you again are wrong. The "original" Birth Certificate would be altered with the new name and then sealed, and a new document would be issued with "altered" in the box that was changed.
But then Obama changed his name back to Obama, and again, the new "original" Birth Certificate would be changed and sealed, and a new document issued with another "altered" in the box that was changed.
Fairly easy to do.
But we're simply playing here; you keep coming up with reasons why Obama won't release the documents.
You should be just as concerned as the rest of us.
We will not give up.
I find it amusing that the man who just yesterday talked about "transparency" does not set the example.
What I hear Obama saying is everyone but him.
I just shake my head in amazement.
What is he hiding? Chicago politics at it's best.
Re: If ANYONE takes an oath, or signs a citizenship document, they are no longer a "natural born citizen".
Answer: Has anyone shown that Obama took an oath saying that he renounced his US citizenship? Has anyone shown that Obama signed a foreign citizenship document?
So, what are you referring to?
Re: “ You keep posting articles about US citizenship, not about "natural born citizens".
Answer: I showed that the US Supreme Court has ruled that the British Common Law definition of “Natural Born SUBJECT” is the same as “Natural Born Citizen.” We just use the word citizen for their word Subject. And the Court ruled that to be a Natural Born Subject, all you had to be in England is born in the British realm and NOT a child of a foreign diplomat or of an enemy of England.
In other words, in Article II of the Constitution, where they referred to “Natural Born Citizen,” they were referring to the US version of a “Natural Born Subject,” which was merely someone born in the realm.
Re: I contend, and will remain steadfast in my contention that Obama could very easily get his original Birth Certificate.
Answer: Okay. No way to prove it one way or another. Maybe Obama can get it and doesn’t want to. If so, big deal, the COLB still proves he was born in Hawaii. (For a Hawii COLB to be issued with the location of birth on it saying “Hawaii” when it was really Kenya would be illegal.)
But there is a way to prove that he was born in Kenya IF he was born in Kenya, and that has nothing to do with the Obama birth file.
As I say, you can prove that he was born in Kenya, IF he was born in Kenya, if you can get the US State Department to send you any documents showing that Obama’s parents applied for a visa for him after his birth in Kenya or asked to have a US passport for him, or asked to have him put on his mother’s passport. He would HAVE to have such a document, or not be able to travel to the USA.
Re: Name Change. I see that under current Hawaii law, a name change request has to be filed with the Lt. Governor. The Lt. Gov of Hawaii is a Republican. Why don’t you write him or call him or e-mail him and ask if there was ever a name change for Obama or a name change for a Barry Soetoro or both?
Moreover, I see that according to the current law, if such a name change did take place, it would have to be published “in a newspaper of general circulation.” So, it would be easy to check whether such a thing had been published. However, don’t you think that if Obama had changed his name and published it, that would be well known by now, and either the Hillary or McCain campaigns would have made that fact known?
Still, even if they didn’t, there still would be a name change in the newspaper or in the records of the Lt. Gov,, and this would be a lot easier to get than Obama’s original birth certificate. So, why don't you or other anti-Obama people do this?
Thus, I am being helpful. Here are two ways to find out what you need to know, (1) the Freedom of Information Request to the State Department; and (2) the request to the Lt. Gov. of Hawaii/searching the files of the Hawaii newspapers.
Instead, you keep coming back to the original birth document. IF Obama only released it, everything would be just fine. Well, maybe he will not release it, but you can find out the same thing other ways.
But you keep harping on the fact that, as you claim, he will not release it. (And as I argue, he cannot release it, since the Hawaii Department of Health sends out only the COLB.)
Did you know that there are still people who believe that Aliens have landed and that the US government is hiding their bodies in Rosewell, NM?
smrstrauss,
"Did you know that there are still people who believe that Aliens have landed and that the US government is hiding their bodies in Rosewell, NM?"
Now, now, you've been doing real well until you try to pin this on me.
Yes I am well aware of this. I am not one of them, but you trying to compare us who are genuinely concerned about the Constitution being upheld, to people who believe in aliens, shows your desperation.
Now back on subject.
I believe, and maybe I'm wrong, but I believe I heard our President saying yesterday that Government was going to be "transparent".
How about him leading by example?
You continue to comment about Hawaii’s present laws, and that's not what the issue is. The issue is the law in 1961, and 1965-66., I have looked at these statutes, and it would have been very easy to “alter” Obama’s Birth Certificate. And stating Obama’s Certification couldn’t have Hawaii as the place of birth is simply not true. The FACT is Obama could have been born in Kenya (and I do not think he was), and the Birth Certificate, when registered could state Hawaii. There was no requirement of length of residence in Hawaii in 1961. Look it up, I have, no residency requirement.
Keep trying though; you'll not get me to believe Obama has nothing to hide as long as he hides these documents.
It's not just the Birth Certificate; it's his college entrance papers and financial aid papers, and his passport form 1981.
You tell me why, when we are asking legitimate questions, we should have to wait three or four or five months for the FOIA request to be rejected, when Obama himself should be releasing his documents?
I thought he graduated from Harvard with honors? Why wouldn't he want these documents released?
smrstrauss, you might as well get over it, until Obama releases the documents, the questions will not stop, and the more people will become aware of the issue Obama has, and then we'll have more voices with more questioners.
It will happen.
Maybe you should join us in asking Obama to release the documents?
Section I
Re: I believe, and maybe I'm wrong, but I believe I heard our President saying yesterday that Government was going to be "transparent".
First, Obama has said that the GOVERNMENT should be transparent. He never said that he should be or that any politician should be. In this, he is just an ordinary politician. Politicians hide things. FDR hid the fact that he had polio. I don’t expect him to be a saint. Few who voted for him do. Why do you? Ah, you say that you DON’T think that he is a saint. Then why expect him to help you out?
If there is something you need to find out about Obama, it is your responsibility to find it out. He does not have to help you. It is not normal to help your enemies. If there is something embarrassing in the files, why should he show it? McCain graduated near the lowest of his class and in some classes he may have gotten a “D.” Big deal.
Re: “You continue to comment about Hawaii’s present laws, and that's not what the issue is. The issue is the law in 1961, and 1965-66., I have looked at these statutes, and it would have been very easy to “alter” Obama’s Birth Certificate. And stating Obama’s Certification couldn’t have Hawaii as the place of birth is simply not true. The FACT is Obama could have been born in Kenya (and I do not think he was), and the Birth Certificate, when registered could state Hawaii. There was no requirement of length of residence in Hawaii in 1961. Look it up, I have, no residency requirement.”
On the residency requirement, you are right. That is the current law. In fact in 1961, there wasn’t any law. There was no way at the time that a parent could register a child’s birth in Hawaii IF HE WASN’T BORN IN HAWAII. That means that at the time, only kids born in Hawaii were getting Hawaii birth certificartes.
This site demolishes this: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/category/birth-certificate/
[(e) is the words in the Lightfoot case.]
“e. The law in Hawaii in 1961, and for all births prior to 1972, (see Chapter 338-178, Hawaii Statutes) provided that a birth could be recorded in Hawaii even if the birth did not occur in Hawaii; and..”
Blatantly false. There was no such law in 1961. State and territorial laws on the Hawaiian Current Law web site go back at least as far as 1949. Covered in detail in my article Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate Doesn’t Really Say He Was Born in Hawaii. The suit says “prior to 1972″ when actually it is really “after 1972″. Citing the 1972 date (the date the law was passed) indicates that the plaintiff knows what the law is and is deliberately trying to fool the public who might have heard something about “1972″. A similar error appears in an earlier Keyes lawsuit where “less than one year” and “greater than one year” were switched for another Hawaiian law regarding the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Certificate program.
And this: From
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2008/12/not_born_in_hawaii/
Assertion: Hawaii allows registration of any child in Hawaii over one year old as being born in Hawaii:
Response: This comes from misquoting a comment from the Hawaiian Homelands Act of 1911. The Hawaii Department of Health web site says: “The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii.” The misquoted version leaves out “born in Hawaii”. More advanced versions of this theory take into account the Hawaiian birth requirement, suggesting that only minimal documentation was required for such a registration. Any version of this theory is, however, ruled out because Certificates of Hawaiian birth are for registrations of a one year old or older and Obama’s COLB shows his registration 4 days after his birth.
Assertion: Hawaii allows residents to register foreign-born infants as being born in Hawaii: Hawaiian Law §338-17.8 says:
Response: The law cited preceding did not exist until its passage in 1982 (the “L 1982″) , 21 years after Barack Obama’s birth registration on August 8, 1961.
Assertion: Conspiracy theorists suggest that some similar law may have existed before 1982,
Response: but this is highly unlikely. When Hawaiian law is amended the previous laws and dates are included in the citation and there is no previous law citation above.
Assertion: Obama was adopted from a foreign country
Response: There are a couple of insurmountable objections to this idea. The law §338-20.5 says:
“The new certificate of birth shall show the true or probable foreign country of birth, and that the certificate is not evidence of United States citizenship for the child for whom it is issued or for the adoptive parents.”
The other problem with this theory is that birth registration for foreign-born adoption was a new procedure introduced in Hawaii in 1979, when Barack Obama was already 18 years old. It was introduced as a result of the 1977 recommendation of the National Center for Health Statistics. See US Vital Statistics History 1950-1995.
Assertion: Block 7(c) of the birth registration form allows the entry of a foreign country for place of birth.
Response: This one traces back at least as far as Alan Keyes lawsuit in California. See Page 11, lines 19-20:
And indeed it says right there “Foreign Country”. The problem with this is that Block 7c is the Mother’s Usual Residence, not the birth place of the baby, which is in block 6a, and has no place for a foreign country.
Section II
Comments on the idea that Obama should help you out by asking for and showing the original birth certificate, which you say that he can get (and I say he cant).
If you were Obama and IF you could get Hawaii to release the original birth certificate WITHOUT exercising the powers or special honors of the presidency, why should he do it?
Here is what he might ask himself before he did that?
1) Was any president or candidate before me asked to show a legal birth record? Did anyone ask Hoover or FDR or Truman or JFK or Bush1 or Bush2 to show their birth certificates?
2) I DID show my birth certificate, the only birth certificate that Hawaii sent me, and as far as I know, the only one that they will send to anyone.
3) Isn’t that a legal document, and doesn’t it say on it “born in Honolulu?’
4) You mean, they don’t believe the document?
5) Who are these people? Are they my supporters? Are they the leaders of the Republican Party? Are they any respected publications? Is any court asking for the document?
6) Oh, you say that they are ALL my opponents. Why should I do anything to make them happy?
7) Didn’t the officials in Hawaii say that they looked into the file and saw a birth certificate? Does someone really believe that that could be a Kenyan birth certificate? Do they think that alien bodies are stored in Rosewell, NM?
8) If it were a Kenyan birth certificate, how could the COLB say “born in Honolulu?”
9) So, you are saying that these people do not trust the state of Hawaii or the officials in Hawaii. So, why should I respect them?
10) IF I were to publish the original birth certificate, who would it please—my supporters or a bunch of nutjobs, some of whom are racist?
11) IF I were to publish the original birth certificate, would they believe it, or would they claim that it was forged?
12) IF a court has not asked to see my original birth certificate, why should I publish it just to make a bunch of nutjobs happy?
13) Surely, if a court were to ask to see my original birth certificate, that would be the right place to show it, since the court would have the facilities to authenticate it, and the nutjobs would just say that it was forged.
14) Speaking about “forged,” some of these nutjobs have already claimed that the COLB was forged. Don’t they know that that would be illegal, and that Hawaii would prosecute if that were true.
15) Some of these nutjobs think that if my name were changed, that would affect my status as a Natural Born Citizen—don’t they know anything about Constitutional law?
16) Some of these nutjobs think that if my parents applied for my citizenship in Indonesia then I must have lost US citizenship—don’t they know anything about Constitutional law?
17) Some of these nutjobs think that my mother traveled to Kenya when she was pregnant and when you had to get a Yellow Fever shot to go to Africa (which would have been risky for my health) and that she went to Kenya, gave birth in Kenya, and then lied about it. That is an insult to my mother. Why in #*#* should I do anything for them?
In short, Obama has shown that he was born in Hawaii, and he isn’t likely to show anything more than what he has shown so far.
If he did, he would be a saint. You don’t want to give him the opportunity to be a saint. I don’t give a damn if he is a saint or not.
That being the case, stop whining. You are not going to get the facts the easy way. Try the hard way. I have given you two ideas.
Section III
I said this in my last post, and I do not see a response to it:
Re: If ANYONE takes an oath, or signs a citizenship document, they are no longer a "natural born citizen".
Answer: Has anyone shown that Obama took an oath saying that he renounced his US citizenship? Has anyone shown that Obama signed a foreign citizenship document?
So, what are you referring to?
Re: “ You keep posting articles about US citizenship, not about "natural born citizens".
Answer: I showed that the US Supreme Court has ruled that the British Common Law definition of “Natural Born SUBJECT” is the same as “Natural Born Citizen.” We just use the word citizen for their word Subject. And the Court ruled that to be a Natural Born Subject, all you had to be in England is born in the British realm and NOT a child of a foreign diplomat or of an enemy of England.
In other words, in Article II of the Constitution, where they referred to “Natural Born Citizen,” they were referring to the US version of a “Natural Born Subject,” which was merely someone born in the realm.
Re: I contend, and will remain steadfast in my contention that Obama could very easily get his original Birth Certificate.
Answer: Okay. No way to prove it one way or another. Maybe Obama can get it and doesn’t want to. If so, big deal, the COLB still proves he was born in Hawaii. (For a Hawii COLB to be issued with the location of birth on it saying “Hawaii” when it was really Kenya would be illegal.)
But there is a way to prove that he was born in Kenya IF he was born in Kenya, and that has nothing to do with the Obama birth file.
As I say, you can prove that he was born in Kenya, IF he was born in Kenya, if you can get the US State Department to send you any documents showing that Obama’s parents applied for a visa for him after his birth in Kenya or asked to have a US passport for him, or asked to have him put on his mother’s passport. He would HAVE to have such a document, or not be able to travel to the USA.
Re: Name Change. I see that under current Hawaii law, a name change request has to be filed with the Lt. Governor. The Lt. Gov of Hawaii is a Republican. Why don’t you write him or call him or e-mail him and ask if there was ever a name change for Obama or a name change for a Barry Soetoro or both.
Moreover, I see that according to the current law, if such a name change did take place, it would have to be published “in a newspaper of general circulation.” So, it would be easy to check whether such a thing had been published. However, don’t you think that if Obama had changed his name and published it, that would be well known by now, and either the Hillary or McCain campaigns would have made that fact known?
smrstrauss,
Here's the law that would have been in effect IF Obama was born outside of Hawaii, and wanted to register his birth in Hawaii:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0016.htm
This law was passed in 1949. Notice where it says "and certificates which have been altered after being filed with the department of health, shall contain the date of the late filing and the date of the alteration and be marked distinctly “late” or “altered”.
This is a moot point, I stated that Obama was born in Hawaii. He is a native born citizen if Lolo adopted him which you could conclude by Soetoro's admission form to the Indonesian school which states his name as Barry Soetoro, and states he is a citizen of Indonesia. This is another document that Obama didn't want released.
You can argue every point, and those of us who actually care about the Constitution will continue to ask these three questions.
1. Why won't Obama release his "original" Birth Certificate?
2. Why won't Obama release his entrance and financial aid documents from Occidental, Columbia and Harvard?
3. Why won't Obama release his passport that he traveled to Pakistan under in 1981?
Easy questions to answer Mr. President.
Re: Birth certificates registered one year or more after the date of birth, and certificates which have been altered after being filed with the department of health, shall contain the date of the late filing and the date of the alteration and be marked distinctly “late” or “altered”.
Answer: This does not apply since Obama’s birth was NOT registered late. The COLB shows the date of registration as August 8, 1961. http://www.politifact.com/media/img/graphics/birthCertObama.jpg
Re: I stated that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Answer: Bravo! You are unique among this group. I hope you can convince some more people.
Here is even more proof. Notice that it is a blog used by Obama opponents to show that Obama changed his name while he was in Indonesia. This is irrelevant, since as I have commented, I had a Chinese name in Hong Kong, which did not make me Chinese or a citizen of Hong Kong. But the important thing on this document, which is ignored by the Obama opponents, is that it lists the place of birth as Honolulu.
http://www.hyscience.com/obama%20indonesia.jpg
The parents would have no reason to lie in an application in Indonesia, so this substantiates the official birth records.
Re: “if Lolo adopted him which you could conclude by Soetoro's admission form to the Indonesian school which states his name as Barry Soetoro, and states he is a citizen of Indonesia.”
Answer: What you need are five Supreme Court justices who agree with you. If they don’t even take the case, or if they take the case and you lose, what you assert is not the Constitution. As I say, he could be adopted by the Emperor of Japan, and that would not affect his Natural Born Citizen status, which requires only that he be born in the USA—and you have admitted that he was born in the USA.
So his Indonesian name was Barry Soetoro. I had a Chinese name, that did not make me Chinese or a citizen of another country. And besides, what does it matter if he was adopted under Indonesian law? If he wasn’t adopted under USA law, it means nothing. If his name was changed under Indonesian law, it means nothing. (You can of course check to see whether it was changed under Hawaii law, but you are not even commenting on this possibility.)
Re: 1. Why won't Obama release his "original" Birth Certificate?
2. Why won't Obama release his entrance and financial aid documents from Occidental, Columbia and Harvard?
3. Why won't Obama release his passport that he traveled to Pakistan under in 1981?
Answer: I spotted this on a Web-site today, and this lawyer has better reasons that I gave:
“There are two legal reasons that I perceive here:
“1 ) possiblity that by providing discovery on this matter Obama may be estopped from arguing that the plaintiff lacked standing. Therefore losing the easiest, quickest and clearest path to concluding the the litigation; and
“2)If Obama goes through the effort of getting those additional records from Hawaii, the thought process goes: “Well you went through the effort of petitioning the Hawaii Government for your vault copy of your birth record, it won’t be any more burdensome for you to request college records from Columbia and Occidental. And since you got those records, it is no burden to produce your Harvard records and any writing done while at Harvard whether you still have them in your possession or not. Oh you don’t keep all the term papers that you wrote in college, well then you obviously are hiding something so we must seize all your personal papers to review so that we can be sure that you aren’t lying. Oh since you produced all those transcripts, you shouldn’t have a problem if we subpoena Columbia, Harvard and every school you ever applied to in order to review any financial aid applications that you submitted. Since we are subpoenaing those schools anyways we should get all pertinent records for Michelle as well just to be sure. etc etc. …”
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/21/hope-restored-obama-takes-oath-of-office-again/
In addition, let me recapitulate some reasons I gave. (1) It is not illegal, nor does it change your citizenship, to get foreign aid from a university if you have dual nationality; (2) The Republican party and such leaders as John McCain have not called for this. Only some extreme conspiracy theorists. (3) If he did it, the extreme conspiracy theorists could say “see how much power we have, we made the President disclose.” (4) He does not like the conspiracy theorists, so why should he do anything for them; (5) It is not illegal to travel on a foreign passport if you have dual nationality; (6) He would have to ask the State of Hawaii to release something that it normally does not release, meaning that he would be asking for a special favor, and they might turn him down [I would].
Oh, and a new idea just struck me, a conservative idea. He might have this thought: “Isn’t releasing the birth documents, when the people who ask for it have the ability to find out the same thing another way just making them lazy?” I mean, there is a way to prove that Obama was born in Kenya, if he was born in Kenya, and there is a way to prove that Obama legally changed his name—both without asking Obama to do something for you.
You can even find out what Passport Obama used when he went to Pakistan (if he went to Pakistan). Yes, there are records in Pakistan.
On another subject, the Supreme Court is set to discuss the Lightfoot Case today. This is the purist version of the “you gotta have two parents who were US citizens AND be born in the USA theory.” To give the case a hearing, there has to be the vote of at least four justices. Of the four conservatives and one swing vote, who would be likely to vote to hear the case, one, Kennedy, has already turned it down. (See the docket). Of the other four, I figure Alito and Thomas are likely to be strong votes to hear the case. But I figure that Roberts and, surprisingly, Scalia, are likely to vote against hearing the case.
Why? Because they are strict constructionists. They are likely to ask: “If the writers of Article II had really meant that ‘Natural Born’ meant two US parents and being born in the USA, they would have said “requires two US parents and being born in the USA.”
We are likely to hear on Monday.
smrstrauss,
Do you not see after the comma it says "and", which means that if you alter a birth certificate maybe 2 or 3 days later, then this is the law that applies.
My whole point of this is that Stanley, upon return to the US from Kenya, could have, under this law "altered" Obama's birth certificate to state he was born in Hawaii, IF she could prove she was a resident of Hawaii, by maybe submitting a student ID from Hawaii. The law does not specify a time on the "altering" aspect, only on the late registration.
With that said, even IF Obama is a "native" born citizen, that does not mean he is a "natural" (born with both parents being US citizens) born citizen as some would argue.
I would argue that having a name change on a school admission form and stating that he was an Indonesian citizen is "prima facia" evidence that Obama 1) Changed his name and 2) was an Indonesian citizen, which, in my opinion would make him a "naturalized" citizen, even if you think he was a "natural born citizen" up until then.I could care less what the law of China is/was when you lived there, we are debating Indonesian law which states that you could not be an Indonesian citizen and a citizen of ANY other country. Game, set and match in my view. If he would have went to Britain, that does recognize duel citizenships, you'd have a legitimate point. Indonesia didn't, end of debate. Same argument goes for his passport in 1981.
I'm not sure how the Supreme Court will rule on this, but for all of you excuse makers for Obama, there WILL come a day when the Supreme Court will either rule on a case that answers this issue, or refuses to hear a case after a lower Court rules in our favor. That day will come.
My whole argument has been, and will continue to be, it wouldn't cost near as much if Obama would just release the documents. Don't you people understand that the economy is in the tank, and people are using their hard earned money on lawyers to fight this? Don't you people understand that this money could be better served being spent on things that would help the economy?
This makes all of you hypocrites, plain and simple. This issue will be resolved one way or the other. I will take on another job if I need too, to donate to the cause.
You know the bottom line is, that it is Obama's responsibility to prove he is eligible to be President, not the other way around, as your side is always commenting. You want us to travel to Pakistan, and Hawaii, and Kenya to chase this down.
Your argument is ridiculous. Obama bears the responsibility, not us.
I get the distinct impression that you could care less if the Constitution is upheld, you just want we who have not said Obama wasn't eligible, only that he hasn't proven it. You say that it is OUR responsibility to prove he is ineligible, and our side says that the Constitution says clearly that OBAMA needs to prove he is eligible.
Show me one piece of evidence that he has done this.
It's like a dog chasing his tail. We are just going around in circles here.
Re: “we are debating Indonesian law which states that you could not be an Indonesian citizen and a citizen of ANY other country”
Answer: Actually, no, we are debating US law and whether Indonesian law can affect it.
If Indonesian law said that if I lived in Indonesia for six months or six years I would automatically become an Indonesian citizen and it does not recognize dual nationality, would that mean that I would lose my US citizenship? There have been cases like this, and I believe the courts said something like “#*#*%**# you, you stupid other country!” We are very protective of our citizens, and no other country can steal them away. That means that if Indonesia says “We do not recognize dual nationality,” we say “@*#*@**@@#** you Indonesia.”
Indonesian law does not affect US citizenship, and it shouldn’t. Only our citizenship law applies in the USA. In Indonesia, sure Indonesian law applies. Here, our courts decide and they decide on the basis of past precedents, and past precedents are overwhelming—you cannot lose your US citizenship because you were adopted or your parents applied to change your citizenship.
Does it mean that Obama has or had dual nationality? Sure. So what? Where does it say that a Natural Born US Citizen cannot also be a naturalized citizen of another country?
Does the fact of having dual nationality affect “Natural born?” No. It doesn’t change anything. If you were born in the USA, you are a native-born US citizen. Can you lose your “Native born citizen” status? Yes, but only if you lose your US citizen status.
Is “native born” a synonym for “Natural Born?” Yes according to British Common Law. We will find out whether the Supreme Court agrees or finds merit in the Lightfoot case on Monday.
smrstrauss,
So what I take from your comment is that you could care less if a candidate has an allegiance to another counrty?
Got it, I see where you're going with this.
The whole point is that Obama lived in Indonesia for 4 years. He would have had to follow Indonesian laws. The law in Indonesia stated that citizens of Indonesia could not hold duel citizenship. Obama was enrolled in to an Indonesian School as an Indonesian citizen. He was not a US citizen at the time.
With the Lightfoot case not being on the paper yesterday, we all can surmise that it again will be denied.
There will be a case heard by the Supreme Court. It may be a year from now, or sooner or later. At some point Obama will have to release these documents.
I say the sooner route, is the route he should take.
Mr. "transparency in government" seems to be more of a door than a window.
What is he hiding?
Re “The law in Indonesia stated that citizens of Indonesia could not hold duel citizenship.”
But US law says that citizens of the USA can hold dual citizenship. Hurray for USA law! It’s the best. It’s right and fair, and most important of all, it’s OUR law.
Re: “He was not a US citizen at the time.”
Yes he was. The stupid Indonesians might not have thought so, but what they think does not matter. What matters is what our law holds. The Supreme Court always decides that, unless—and it is very rare—we pass a Constitutional Amendment to change what the Supreme Court ruled.
Our law holds—and there have been many many cases—that a child cannot lose citizenship due to something done by his parents. And if a child cannot lose citizenship and the child is a natural born citizen, she cannot lose Natural Born Citizenship either.
Re: “With the Lightfoot case not being on the paper yesterday, we all can surmise that it again will be denied.”
I have some good news for you. Someone called the Supreme Court, and a clerk said that the reason it did not appear was a software glitch. So it probably was discussed on Friday as scheduled.
However, I must agree with you that the Supreme Court is unlikely to take the case.
Why not? Because there are plenty of constitutional scholars who say that “Natural Born Citizen” means exactly what “Natural Born Subject” did and does to the British.
And that merely means someone who was born in the Realm to someone who was not the child of an enemy or the child of a foreign diplomat. So if Obama was born in Hawaii, and you have already said that you think he was, he is a “Natural Born Citizen.”
Re: “you could care less if a candidate has an allegiance to another country?’
That’s unfair. If an adult has an allegiance to another country, that is to say, if he has fought for the other country or voted in its elections or resided there most of his life, or said “I like the French better than the Americans,” I would probably vote against him.
But to say that the allegiance of an adult is determined by his father’s nationality when he was born is absurd. (It’s like saying that if my father were a Baptist when I was born I would have to stay a Baptist. It’s like saying that if my mother became an Indonesian, I have to become an Indonesian.)
When it came time for Winston Churchill to become Prime Minister in Britain, a number of leaders in the British cabinet (which made the decision) opposed him because his mother had been American. To be sure, Jenny Churchill had become naturalized before his birth, but the British would have allowed him to be Prime Minister even if she had not been naturalized. And regardless of whether she was naturalized before or after he was born, his opponents opposed him because she was born American. (There was still a fair amount of prejudice against American in Britain in the 1940s.)
I agree with you that IF Obama had been born outside of the USA, he would not be a Natural Born Citizen and would not be eligible. But he was born in the USA.
What will you do if the Supreme Court doesn't take the case?
Perhaps what we need is someone who is harmed by an executive order to challenge its validity on the grounds that it was not issued by a qualified president and get a court order for the state of Hawaii to provide certified copies of all vault birth certificates for Barack Obama and any alterations thereof due to adoptions. As far anyone knows Stanley may be his adoptive mother and his original birth certificate under his birth name is sealed. Maybe Obama senior, a visiting professor at Stanley's university, convinced a starry-eyed 18-year old Stanley to adopt a son born to him and his Kenyan wife. Or maybe Martin Davis is right and Frank Marshall Davis is Obama's real father and the vault certificate will list that. In that case it would be embarrassing but Obama would then have two US citizen parents.
Oops, that should have been Andy Martin not Martin Davis in the previous.
Oh, and by the way, according to wikipedia the Hawaii DoH said they would release the long form birth certificate with Obama's permission:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories
A spokeswoman for Hawaii’s department of health asserted that state law does not allow her department to confirm vital records such as the unreleased 1961 long-form.[31] The spokeswoman says they would release the long form with permission from Barack Obama.[32] A hospital spokesperson at Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children says that their standard procedure is to not confirm or deny that Obama was born there, citing federal privacy laws.[33]
So it appears smrstrauss is all wet about Hawaii not giving out long forms under any circumstance. All it takes is for Obama to give permission. Obvious to all of us he has gone to great lengths to keep that document out of the public eye. Any reasonable person would wonder why he refuses this simple request from the public he serves. It is NOT reasonable to presume, under these circumstances, he has nothing to hide.
smrstrauss,
You comment:
"However, I must agree with you that the Supreme Court is unlikely to take the case.
Why not? Because there are plenty of constitutional scholars who say that “Natural Born Citizen” means exactly what “Natural Born Subject” did and does to the British."
You want to cite "constitutional scholars", but the fact is that they would have no bearing on the outcome of a Supreme Court decision. Scholars have been wrong before, and I believe they are wrong now.
I would also argue that Obama having been enrolled in an Indonesian School is "prima facia" evidence that Obama was no longer an American citizen. I'd be interested what a jury would conclude on this issue.
Your allegiance issue holds no weight either, because there is the very real possibility that Obama used an Indonesian passport to travel to Pakistan in 1981, when he was an adult, and IF he did, then your whole "minor not being able to renounce their citizenship" argument gets blown right out of the water.
You can surmise all you want that Obama used his US passport, but you have as much proof as I do that he used an Indonesian passport.
I would submit that I have a better argument due to the fact that traveling in a Muslim country using a passport from a Muslim country would be more feasible, especially when the fact is he visited his mother in Indonesia before going to Pakistan, along with the fact that he traveled with a Pakistani, who very well could have advised him of that fact.
This would also be bolstered IF Obama received scholarships or grants that were awarded to foreign students.
If this is not an issue, then please explain why he has tried to keep these documents from the voting public?
I would also argue that IF even one of these issues were proven during the campaign, the outcome could have been very different.
Don't you find it hypocritical that your side argues that his personal information is personal, but yet in every election Obama has been successful in, personal information of his opponents has been used to his advantage?
I do.
Re: "You want to cite "constitutional scholars", but the fact is that they would have no bearing on the outcome of a Supreme Court decision. Scholars have been wrong before, and I believe they are wrong now."
I guess you believe that the Supreme Court is wrong too.
Because on January 26, sometime in the afternoon, the Supreme Court docket list showed that the Lightfoot case has been denied.
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a524.htm
Now, you could argue that the Court turned down the case for some other reason than that a clear majority of justices holds to the other definition of "natural born"--but there's no evidence for this.
So, what do we have now:
(1) A clear majority of US voters picked Obama.
(2) He won by far a majority of Electoral Votes
(3) His election was certified by Congress.
(4) George Bush's spokeswoman, while he was president said "we have no problem" with Obama's standing.
(5) Obama has been sworn in twice by the Chief Justice of the United States.
(6) The US Supreme Court has denied the Donofrio and Lightfoot cases. (Which were the ones directly raising the issue that someone may not be eligible to be president even though they were born in the USA).
What are you going to do now?
smrstrauss,
You ask:
"What are you going to do now?"
I'm not in a position to do anything, to be honest, except to keep asking the questions.
At some point, a Court will find against Obama.
The sad part of this is that the Supreme Court refuses to even give those of us concerned, a day in Court.
They deny without an explanation. I have not followed every case, but I am aware that most (all) have been denied by the lower courts because those bringing them have "no standing".
At some point, the people will have "standing".
I do not understand how every American wouldn't have standing when asking these questions.
The more time that passes, the more Legislation that is passed, the more Executive Orders that Obama signs, the deeper the problem becomes, IF he is proven to be ineligible.
Honestly smrstrauss, I hope he does prove he is eligible, that way this whole thing can be put behind us.
I find it absurd that you think that the burden is on us. Obama campaigned to be our President. He signed documents that state he is eligible, and I believe that EVERY candidate should have to prove his eligibility BEFORE he even starts his campaign.
It seems to me that Obama has done nothing to answer the questions I, and many others have raised, and his silence speaks volumes to me.
I do not think these questions are unfair. I believe that it our RIGHT as Americans to know that he is eligible.
I am disgusted that McCain didn't raise these questions during the campaign, but he didn't, so it is now clearly on our shoulders to ask.
We won't stop asking until he answers.
Interested Bystander
I sympathize. Believe it or not, I sympathize.
I wonder if you would feel happier if it could be proven that Obama had not acquired Indonesian citizenship?
That would reduce the questions down just to whether or not a person who was born in the USA but one of whose parents was not a US citizen is eligible under the Constitution to be president. Since we have already agreed that the chance of Obama being born in Kenya is near zero.
So I wonder if you would feel better if the only issue was the question of Obama’s father. For, if that was the case, then it would be just a matter of which of the two theories holds up: Your theory, that to be president you must have two US parents and be born in the USA, or my theory that all you need is to be born in the USA, and there can be honest and dispassionate disagreement until the court rules.
I notice that much of what you wrote against Obama revolved around him having taken Indonesian citizenship and hence lost his US Citizenship. Or that he used an Indonesian passport and thus lost his US citizenship.
IF it could be proven that Obama had never taken Indonesian citizenship and hence never used an Indonesian passport (unless he used a forged Indonesian passport, which is illegal but not relevant to citizenship), would you feel better?
Because I can do that, and you can confirm it. (Interested?)
Re: “The sad part of this is that the Supreme Court refuses to even give those of us concerned, a day in Court.”
Believe it or not, I sympathize with you on this as well. I’m not a lawyer, so I cannot explain it. However, Andy Martin, a fierce opponent of Obama, who is fighting to get the real Obama birth certificate in Hawaii (He has lost twice, so far, but continues to appeal) has explained it pretty well. Although Martin hates Obama, he seems to hate Berg too, and says that Berg should have known about the rules of standing all along.
Here’s what he said in http://contrariancommentary.blogspot.com/2008/11/strange-behavior-of-philadelphia-lawyer.html :
Quotes:
Monday, November 10, 2008
The strange behavior of Philadelphia lawyer Philip J. Berg
Why would a Philadelphia lawyer file frivolous claims in federal courts about Barack Obama? Is it possible the lawyer is trying to divert attention from serious questions that exist about Obama's birth certificate and troubled and confusing family history?
Andy Martin speculates on the bizarre litigation behavior of Philadelphia lawyer Philip J. Berg
ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com
“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
PHILADELPHIA LAWYER PHILIP J. BERG SAYS HE IS AN OPPONENT OF BARACK OBAMA; IS HE?
BERG'S PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS MOTIVES AND COMPETENCE.
(NEW YORK)(November 11, 2008) Some time in mid-August I began to get phone calls from a lawyer's office in Philadelphia. The lawyer was Philip J. Berg.
I eventually spoke with Mr. Berg. He explained that he was preparing to file a lawsuit against Barack Obama and a number of other parties. Berg asked if I would review the case before it was filed, and I agreed.
I carefully read Berg's initial complaint. (Some of the confirming e-mails are in the hands of Patriot Brigade Talk Radio Network.) I advised Berg's office that his lawsuit would not fly in federal court. His joinder of the Federal Election Commission was utter nonsense. Naming the Democratic Party was questionable. Seeking to enjoin the Party's convention was silliness. For an ordinary voter to sue Obama was a lost cause; I explained that already this year two judges had ruled individuals lacked legal standing to file such a claim. Berg sent me a revised version of his lawsuit that was equally deficient.
Berg has tried to pretend that his lack of "standing" is a technicality. On the contrary, in federal courts standing is a threshold jurisdictional issue. State courts have broad "general" jurisdiction. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. I explained to Berg how he could file a meritorious lawsuit in state court but he was frantic. "I want to file before the Democratic Convention so I can apply for an injunction," he said. At that point I decided Berg was a loon and had no further contact.
Mr. Berg did file his loony case, and it began to attract a lot of attention. My initial reaction was sadness at the gullibility of the public. People obviously had no idea that the form and forum of Berg's lawsuit were totally deficient.
I did not become concerned until a New York radio talk show host who is a friend called me and said "Andy, what about the order for Obama to produce his birth certificate?" I explained to my friend that there was no such order. Berg and his supporters were spreading disinformation or allowing it to be disseminated.
I began receiving more calls and e-mails about Berg's lawsuit. Berg was escalating the idiocy of his behavior to attract frustrated voters. "Obama admitted he was born in Kenya," screamed one Berg release. Obama had admitted nothing of the sort. The more irresponsible Berg became, the more e-mail he generated from desperate voters.
Berg's lawsuit was promptly dismissed, as I had anticipated before it was even filed. Berg was ready with an explanation: there was a conspiracy to deprive him of justice. No such conspiracy existed.
Last month my staff and I discussed whether we should do a column about Berg's harmful behavior. We decided to ignore him and hope he would go away. Mr. Berg is not going away. He keeps manufacturing false claims to stay in the news and to keep soliciting money.
After Berg lost in the district court, he filed an appeal to the U. S. Court of Appeals. But there was no "juice" in a mere appeal. Berg was soon asking the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the national election—on the basis of his crackpot lawsuit. Once again Berg was denied relief. And once again Berg was ready with a new round of disinformation.
I started to get e-mails telling me the Supreme Court had ordered Obama to produce a birth certificate. No such order existed. The Rules of the Supreme Court allow thirty days to respond; Berg converted that into an "order" from the Court compelling his opponents to respond. Sheer disinformation. There was no "order."
The false claims about the Supreme Court are what convinced me to reverse my earlier view and write a column questioning Berg's behavior.
Enough, Mr. Berg.
What's next from him? What ridiculous claim will he concoct to continue attracting attention?
During this entire period of idiotic behavior Berg was going on talk radio and soliciting funds for his doomed mission.
What should all of this teach us? I have several thoughts for the reader to consider.
First, no one is more opposed to Barack Obama and his hard left warriors than I am. Obama's minions were not attacking Berg during the campaign; they were attacking me. I was the first one to focus attention on Obama's evasiveness and deception, four years ago. But while I have attacked Obama, I have also worked hard to anchor all of my claims in evidence, interviews and traditional forms of legal research. That's what really scares Obama.
When I asked Berg in August how he was going to prove Obama was born in Kenya, he said "I saw it on the Internet." Not good enough for a federal judge.
Second, Berg likes to identify himself as a "supporter" of Hillary Clinton. That's garbage. He's smearing Clinton. Clinton must cringe every time Berg does some new stunt and misuses her name. Berg has no connection with Clinton. More misuse.
Third, is Berg's motive to collect money from frustrated voters? I don't know. He does ask for cash, so that may be the explanation. To be sure, my Committee also receives donations, but we have funded two trips to Hawai'i for Obama research and investigation, and a birth certificate lawsuit scheduled for a hearing on November 18th in Honolulu.
Fourth, could Berg be professionally incompetent? Berg has been criticized by judges: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1122023117263
http://systocracy.com/Bergmalpracticetwo
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05D0679P.pdf
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05d0521p.pdf
Finally, is Berg really an Obama operative? Berg's behavior is so far outside the normal confines of legal practice that his conduct is aberrant as well as abhorrent. To date, only Obama has benefited from Berg's misbehavior. When an Obama opponent acts crazy, Obama's people say "See."
There are very legitimate questions about Obama's birth certificate and family history. By filing frivolous cases (a case filed in the wrong court seeking the wrong relief against the wrong defendants is frivolous) and misusing legitimate issues, Berg obscures the seriousness of the underlying questions about Obama's past. And, inevitably, journalists link Berg and others (such as myself) together, despite the fact that we have absolutely no connection. I, for one, do not enjoy being joined to Berg in any form, even a news story. http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=20193200&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8
Likewise, Berg's use of Clinton's name benefits Obama by discrediting Clinton as a possible behind-the-scenes Berg supporter, when nothing could be further from the truth. Dirty tricks? Obama and Axelrod are masters of smears by association and deception. Although I am not an enthusiastic believer of the Berg-for-Obama explanation for Berg's behavior, it still makes a lot of sense.
Certainly no competent attorney who regularly practices in federal court would engage in Berg's hijinks. At some point Berg could face sanctions for his misconduct and abusive behavior.
So we are left with no clear explanation for why Berg is acting out: (1) is he "crazy" or ill? (2) is he an Obama saboteur? (3) is he a financial flim flam artist using false claims to collect money? (4) is he an incompetent attorney? I can't say for sure which of those apply. I leave it to the good reader's common sense to reflect on Berg's behavior and to decide for him or herself just what Berg's motivation is.
Helping the anti-Obama movement is not Berg's mission. Quite the opposite. Berg has helped Obama by discrediting Obama's opponents. So what is Berg's game? Let me know what you think.
End quote.
smrstrauss,
I do not see how this proves Obama didn't ever have Indonesian citizenship, or didn't use an Indonesian passport to enter Pakistan in 1981.
All I see in this whole article is that Berg should have filed his case in a State Court and not Federal Court.
And if my memory is correct, Martin's case was not allowed also.
Yes. The Martin article does not prove or disprove the Indonesian citizenship of Obama. It was merely a way of making you feel better about the Berg case.
I asked Because I can do that, and you can confirm it. (Interested?)
I'll wait for an answer to that before I show how to prove or disprove whether Obama was ever a citizen of Indonesia.
Re Martin case. He has lost so far too, as you say. But not for the same reason. He is attempting to get the State of Hawaii to show records that it normally restricts to members of the family to someone who is not a member of the family. That's not the same thing as suing to stop an election or suing to demand that a State Board of Elections must check out certain information. For that you do require standing.
By the way, Berg is not suing in Pennsylvania state court, which is where Martin said that he should have sued to start. That is where he would have standing to sue--at least that is what Martin says.
But, if I am right and Obama was never an Indonesian citizen and never born in Kenya, then Berg will ultimately be disappointed. Even if he gets the facts, they will show that Obama was born in Hawaii.
So, the question to you is, do you want to know how to find out whether Obama ever had Indonesian citizenship?
smrstrauss,
I am guessing you just do not get it.
It is not my job to figure out whether Obama was, is or has ever been an Indonesian citizen.
In my view, Obama is the one who submitted his resume to be President. It is his responsibility to prove he meets the requirements for this job.
There are many many employers who have employed illegal people. Most of these employers did not do so maliciously.
Yes Obama was elected, but this is not proof of anything other than that he can influence people to the point that they think "hope and change" are coming.
The so called "stimulus" package shows that he was spewing nothing but hot air during the campaign.
I know how Obama can prove his eligibility, he can release the documents.
The whole point of this, is that people take people for their word way too often. People saying that Obama's Certification of Live Birth is proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, when all you have to do is look it up to find out that this is simply not true, is just ridiculous.
Again, Obama submitted to be President. IT IS HIS RESPONSIBILITYTO PROVE THAT HE IS ELIGIBLE.
What part of that do you not understand?
Re: "So it appears smrstrauss is all wet about Hawaii not giving out long forms under any circumstance. All it takes is for Obama to give permission."
I have been in e-mail communication with the Department of Health of Hawaii, and they say repeatedly that all they send out is the computer-generated short form.
If you would like to check, here is their e-mail address: vr-info@doh.hawaii.gov
Re: "IT IS HIS RESPONSIBILITYTO PROVE THAT HE IS ELIGIBLE."
I was just trying to make you feel less sad.
You say that it is his responsibility to prove.
I say that he has done it. He has posted an official document from Hawaii showing that he was born in Hawaii. It is the only birth document Hawaii issues these days, as the DOH of Hawaii has repeatedly told me, and as you can check, see above. He has proved something to the voters of this country, and to the Electoral College. He was sworn in as president.
You say that it is his responsibility to prove more than this? Why? Did any president or candidate before this election have to prove where he was born, or prove his citizenship in any way?
Did we ask Hoover or Taft or Wilson or FDR if he had a Canadian stepfather and maybe he was adopted by the Canadian? Or Maybe, Kennedy traveled on a British passport?
The people who count accept that Obama is a US Natural Born Citizen and won the election fair and square. I mean if Sarah Palin and John McMain accept that he is president, then why shouldn't we?
(It is interesting to note that, while John McCain posted his original birth certificate, that IF his parents had lost it, he could not prove that he was born in the Canal Zone. Why not? Because there is no longer a Canal Zone Authority, so who keeps the records? Where would he have gone to get a copy?)
So, you may say, "but the reason that we never demanded proof of citizenship from JFK or LBJ was that there were no questions about his background."
Okay, so I say that the questions were all manufactured by a small group of zealots, some of whom do not mind lying. For example, the grandmother tape. She clearly says that he was born in Hawaii. You can hear her voice say "Hawaii." They say that she said that he was born in Kenya.
All the questions about Indonesia can equally be removed. How? Well, simple, call the Indonesian Embassy and ask them. Ask if Obama was ever a citizen of Indonesia. Ask if he or his parents ever applied for him to have citizenship. Ask if he ever had an Indonesian passport. Ask anything you want, of course, but those are the obvious questions.
Here's the telephone number: 202 775 5200. I suggest you ask for the press office and then ask for the information officer.
You will find that Obama never had Indonesian citizenship. He never applied for it and neither did his parents. And since he did not have Indonesian citizenship, he did not have a valid Indonesian passport. (You could claim that he used a forged Indonesian passport, but how can you prove it--and what does it matter in any case?) There is a document on-line, the application for school in Indonesia, in which the word Indonesia appears after an entry in Indonesian. Some have said that this means that the document says that Obama’s parents said that he was born in Indonesia. But I put the words through a translation service, they say: “Country of RESIDENCE.”
Since this removes the Kenyan myth and the Indonesian myth, what remains? Only the assertion that Obama is still not eligible because of the citizenship of his father. This is something that people can disagree on. Only the Supreme Court can settle it. But if it never takes the case, it settles it. It in effect rules for Obama.
We can discuss this, but we no longer need to discuss things like—“maybe he lost his citizenship because he used an Indonesian passport.”
There is a way to find out without any question whether or not Obama was born in Kenya.
IF he had been born in Kenya (and he wasn’t), there would have to be a US visa or a passport issued to him (or a revision to his mother’s passport to include him) to get him from Kenya to Hawaii. There would HAVE to be such a document, or he would not be allowed to enter the USA. So, all you have to do is find that document. It must be a public document. It cannot be considered private, since Obama is a public official. If there were such a document, it would be available under the Freedom of Information Act.
In order for Obama to travel from Kenya to the United States, he would have to have either a visa—which is more likely—or be issued a new US passport, or have his mother’s passport revised to include him. The visa is most likely since IF he were born in Kenya, the combination of the location of birth and his father’s citizenship would make him a British subject at the time—and a Kenyan after independence. But he wasn’t born in Kenya. There is no such document.
I am sure there is NO such document. Still, if you want to try to prove that Obama was born in Kenya, this is a sure way to do it. (Of course, if the State Department says that it has no record of anything related to an Obama visa or passport issued in in Kenya in 1961, it effectively disproves the notion that he was born in Kenya.)
Here’s how to find out whether Obama ever had Indonesian citizenship or was issued an Indonesian passport: Simply call the Indonesian Embassy in Washington. Tel 202 775 5200. I suggest you ask for the press office. They have been asked this question dozens of times before. No, he was never an Indonesian citizen, and he never even applied. So, he was never issued an Indonesian passport.
Do you mind if I quote a couple of your posts as long as I provide credit and sources back to your site?
My blog is in the exact same area of interest as yours and my users would definitely benefit from some of the information you present here.
Please let me know if this okay with you. Appreciate it!
Feel free to visit my website ... klimatyzacja
Post a Comment