Berg vs Obama: Response to Supreme Court due December 1
Many bloggers have been aware of the challenge to Barack Obama’s citizenship from Philip Berg, Hillary Clinton supporter and attorney from Philadelphia. I have not followed the situation much because to me, it seems improbable that any merit can be established for the claims. And recently, some blogs are reporting that Obama has until December 1 to produce his “real” birth certificate. What is accurate is that the Supreme Court via Justice David Souter has given President-elect Obama, the DNC and other defendants until December 1 to respond to the court case dismissed by the Third Circuit in late-October.
Here is the Docket entry from the Supreme Court website:
No. 08-570
Title: Philip J. Berg, Petitioner
v.
Barack Obama, et al.Docketed: October 31, 2008
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Case Nos.: (08-4340)
Rule 11~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)
Oct 31 2008 Application (08A391) for an injunction pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Nov 3 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Philip J. Berg filed.
Nov 3 2008 Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter.——————————————————————————–
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Philip J. Berg 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 (610) 825-3134
Lafayette Hill, PA 09867
Party name: Philip J. BergAttorneys for Respondents:
Gregory G. Garre Solicitor General (202) 514-2217
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530-0001Party name: Federal Election Commission, et al.
I called the number listed on the Supreme Court website: Public Information Office: 202-479-3211, and asked the person who answered if the Obama camp had until December 1 to produce a birth certificate. She said she could not verify the specifics of the case but said Obama has until December 1 to produce a Brief in response to the Third Circuit case No. 08-4340.
UPDATE: Scott at the SCOTUS PIO recommended this document which provides the press with an understanding of stays and writs of certiorari. Most such applications are denied but this one is pending. From the document:
There are several possible scenarios for the disposition of an application:
• A Justice may simply deny without comment or explanation.
• If a Justice acts alone to deny an application, a petitioner may reapply to any other Justice of his or her choice, and theoretically can continue until a majority of the Court has denied the application.
In practice, applications usually are referred to the full Court by the second Justice to avoid such a prolonged procedure.
• A Justice may call for a response from the opposition before reaching a final decision. Such responses are usually due by a date and time certain. The Justice may grant an interim stay pending receipt of a response.
• A Justice may grant. If an application is granted by an individual Justice, or if the full Court acts upon one, its disposition is indicated by a written order or sometimes, an opinion. An order granting an application will indicate how long the order will remain in effect—usually until the Court acts on the petition for writ of certiorari. In fairly standard language, the order will often go on to state that if the petition is denied, the stay will automatically terminate, but if the Court grants full review, the stay will remain in effect until the Court hands down a decision on the merits and the mandate or judgment is issued.
Point three appears to be the category of this case. The Obama camp may or may not respond. If the court grants the writ of certiorari, then one might expect to see more reporting about this case.
UPDATE – 12/2/08 – Lisa Liberi from Philip Berg’s office wrote to say that the Solicitor General is only representing the Federal Election Commission. Obama, and the DNC have separate counsel but the Court has had no response from them. According to Liberi, SCOTUS was waiting a week in case the responses had been mailed. A conference date with the full Court regarding the certiorari petition will be scheduled after the week passes. She also noted that Berg has a petition in the works to prevent Electors from casting Obama votes in the Electoral College.
UPDATE: 12/8/08 – Berg today filed an application with the SCOTUS for a stay of the Electoral College vote. A quick check of the docket shows it reflects this filing.
UPDATE: 12/10/08 – Late yesterday, Justice Souter denied Berg’s request to stop the Electoral College from voting for Obama.
Related Posts
Berg vs Obama: A brief update
Berg vs Obama: Dept of Justice Waives Right to Respond to Petition
Berg vs Obama: Update and current status
Donofrio vs Wells: NJ Obama citizenship case slated for SCOTUS conference
UPDATE: 1/2/09 – Add the following events and planned SCOTUS conferences to the above docket:
Nov 18 2008 Waiver of right of respondents Federal Election Commission, et al. to respond filed.
Dec 1 2008 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Bill Anderson.
Dec 8 2008 Application (08A505) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Dec 9 2008 Application (08A505) denied by Justice Souter.
Dec 15 2008 Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2009.
Dec 17 2008 Application (08A505) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 18 2008 Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.
Dec 23 2008 Application (08A505) referred to the Court.
Dec 23 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2009.
Apparently, Berg will get his two days in court (1/9 & 1/16).
You are correct that the December 1 deadline is for filing a brief setting forth the legal reationale why certiorari should not be granted, but the date was not imposed by Justice Souter. The date is set automatically by Supreme Court Rule 15.3, which provides that “any brief in opposition [to a petition for a writ of certiorari] shall be filed within 30 days after the case is placed on the docket … .” (Rules 10 through 16 relate to petitions for writ of certiorari.) The brief is not mandatory, except in a capital case, which Berg v. Obama clearly is not. See Rule 15.1. Whether Obama and the DNC choose to file an opposition brief remains to be seen — most likely they will. The entry of an appearance by the Solicitor General is a pretty clear indication that the FEC will oppose certiorari.
The Supreme Court does not decide factual disputes. It limits its decisions to legal issues, in this case, whether the District Court erred in denying standing to sue and whether the Third Circuit erred in affirming the District Court’s decision.
GeorgetownJD – Thanks for the information. From your description, it sounds like the most the Supreme Court would do (other than to concur with the Third Circuit in which case, the case fails) is to refer the case back to the District Court. As I understand you, the SCOTUS might refer back to the DC if the Supremes believed the District Court was wrong to dismiss the case based on Berg not having standing ot bring suit.
Sound right?
If what you are saying is true, then just who defends the constitution? If for some reason this escaped the DNC and they put up an illegitimate candidate and citizen recognizes it — who enforces the constitution? Seems to me someone should be able to get to the bottom of this. IN fact if there’s nothing to hide — why doesn’t the President-elect just provide the required documentation instead of hiding behind motions and and let us all move on from here.
Prof. Throckmorton — Sounds right. If the Court were to grant certiorari (based on the “Rule of Nine” which refers to the rule that four of the nine Justices votes in conference to grant certiorari), the case would be set for briefing and, if the Court deems it useful, for oral argument. The Justices meet in a weekly conference (on Fridays) to review petitions for writs, and they are armed with a “cert memo” that has been prepared by one of the law clerks which distills the issues and makes a recommendation. Announcment whether certiorari is granted or denied is published on the following Monday. If cert is granted, the parties are notified of a briefing and argument schedule.
Supposing the Court were to grant cert and were to agree that the Third Circuit erred, and hence, the District Court erred in concluding that Mr. Berg does not having standing to seek relief, the case would be remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. The trial court is where evidence and rebuttal evidence are heard and where either (1) a jury finds the facts, or (2) in a bench trial the judge makes written findings of fact. The usual burdens of proof and the rules governing the admissibility of evidence would apply. If one of the parties does not care for the result, the appeal process would begin anew, with the aggrieved party contending that the trial court committed some error in its findings, its rulings on admission or exclusion of evidence, improper jury instructions, etc.
Regarding Karen’s question of who should enforce the eligibility requirements: current precedent is the secretaries of state of each of the states for which the candidate is on the ballot. In past elections candidates have had their eligibility challenged and their names removed from the ballot by various secretaries of state. I would expect Mr. Berg to know that.
So what happens? Obviously no one ever thought to question the Senators eligibility. Suppose it turns out that the President-elect can’t provide a birth certificate — Or let’s give him the beneifit of the doubt. He does and the alligations that he was adopted and later traveled (age 20?) on and Indonisian passport turn out to be are true. What happens? Does he reamin the President of the United States? Is he removed from the Prsidency ? Do we have another election and if so who’s president in the interum – -who’s president period. If it turns out that the President-elect isn’t even a citizen, I can not see Joe Biden stepping in since the “non-citizen was the person that choose him to step in — the American people didn’t elect him — he couldn’t even get through the primary. Does Nancy Palosis step in? This could be a real mess — one that should have been cleared up PRIOR to the election! Never-the-less, it should be cleared up and the President elect could do it quite easily provided he is a natural born citizen and retained his citizenship.
I don’t know if there is a provision for a president-elect being disqualified before he takes office. This might be new ground for the US. Also, the electoral college hasn’t officially voted yet, they will do that on Dec. 15th.
I can’t imagine what sort of rioting that would take place if there was even a hint that Obama would be denied the presidency.
This whole thing might be nothing but then again it could really get out of hand.
If, for whatever reason, Obama does not present a hospital issued birth certificate from Hawaii complete with both parents signatures, the doctors signature and the little Obama foot prints in ink (common at that time), he should be denied office and arrested for fraud against the U.S. and the citizens that elected him. The Constitution is clear and the Supreme Court must order Obama to clarify his actual place of birth.
If it is true that Obama is not a qualified person to be president , he either knows it or truly believes it from what his mother told him. It was a common practice back in the early 60’s that if a woman showed up with a newborn baby in Hawaii that a birth certifcate was issued. The newspaper showed a birth announcement of him being born in Hawaii. However , the mom could have placed that ad only to make it appear that he was born there so that Obama wouldn’t have any more racial problems than other blacks. The early 60’s had very bad racial problems.
So if it is true that there are real problems with proving his birth and they know it then they have a “Game Plan.” The “Game Plan” right now might be to get America so used to having a first black president-elect that the very thought of denying him of that would create so much fear that the people in charge of looking at the evidence may not be able to look at it objectively. Whoever would deny Obama would be labeled many bad things and be automatic targets. Fear is powerful.
Since the election is not official until the electoral college votes, couldn’t the electors simply vote McCain in at that time?
IF HE HAS NOTHING TO HIDE THEN WHY DIDN’T THE DNC or OBAMA supply the birth certificate. He would have to denounce citizenship in one of the countries. But he made trips to Kenya, Palestine, and Indonesia on taxpayer dollars while he was a senator, which means he would have had to have a passport. HAS HE EVER APPLIED FOR CITIZENSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES since he moved back to Indonesia with his mom and attended school there. These records should be checked and could be checked easily. WHERE WAS HE REALLY born???? Mobaysia Indonesia?????
THE COURTS ARE SUPPOSE TO ALLOW THESE THINGS TO BE QUESTIONED and PROVEN. With all terrorism going on what a way to DESTROY OUR COUNTRY.
“The newspaper showed a birth announcement of him being born in Hawaii.”
My mother published a birth announcement in my home town paper, 3500 miles away, when my child was born. Proud new grandparents are like that.
A great deal of “inaccurate” verbiage is being posted regarding this constitutional matter. I am certain the Supreme Court will grant Cert and due to (1) the scheduled vote of Presidential Electors and (2) the Presidential Inauguration the Supreme Court will keep this case for swift and final resolution. Unless, President-elect Obama can produce an original birth certificate showing birth in Hawaii verses the previous posting of the meaningless “Certificate of Live Birth” and can present credible oral argument before the full Supreme Court, President-elect Obama chances of being sworn in as our next President are about equal to the average person on the street being sworn in as our next President! Personally, I sincerely think the Obama/Biden ticket will be disqualified and the McCain/Palin ticket will be sworn in as our next President/Vice President. “The Rule of Law” and our United States Constitution will trump any election of an ineligible Presidential candidate. To be continued…
[...] I noted previously, Philip Berg petitioned on October 30 to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari in regard to [...]
Why have Obama & the DNC been SO UNWILLING to get the information out to the public & the investigators so they can put a STOP TO THESE THINGS IF they are just rumors? IF he was born in the USA then he has NOTHING TO HIDE!
IF not, The Constitution MUST BE OBEYED. Our presidents are SWORN TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION…HOW could HE start out in the office of PRESIDENT WHEN HE DID NOT OBEY THE CONSTITUTION HIMSELF FROM THE START??
I am thankful that Mr. Philip Berg is continuing the fight to have the TRUTH KNOWN! Obama’s grandmother in Kenya, says he WAS BORN IN KENYA & that SHE WAS THERE WHEN HE WAS BORN. NOW it time to PROVE OTHERWISE.IF HE CAN prove he is a natural born United States citizen..
When a Senator travels out of country, it is my understanding that they travel under a different passport than other people (maybe a diplomatic passport). It is also my understanding that the proof of birth requirements are different as well for those passports.
Now I see Rick Martin is going after P. Berg and claiming Berg is off his rocker. Since Martin is from Illinois I wouldn’t be surprised if he isn’t being paid or threatened into making these claims. Chicago politics doesn’t get much dirtier.
If you don’t know who would be sworn in as President in the (unlikely) event that Obama were disqualified, then read the Twentieth and Twenty-Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Hint: It wouldn’t be McCain.
November 14, 2008
[recipient address was inserted here]
[recipient name was inserted here],
This is the response that I received from the Electoral College regarding
Mr. Obama’s President-Elect Status and Dispute of Same: —–Original
Message—– From: Electoral College To:
—————————————- Sent: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:53 am
Subject: Re: Validation of President – Elect Obama The Office of the
Federal Register at the National Archives and Records Administration
administers the Electoral College process, which takes place after the
November general election. The Office of the Federal Register does not
have the authority to handle issues related to the general election, such
as candidate qualifications. People interested in this issue may wish to
contact their state election officials or their Congressional
Representatives. Because the process of qualifying for the election and
having a candidate’s name put on the ballot varies from state to state,
you should contact your state’s top election officer for more information.
In most states, the Secretary of State is the official responsible for
oversight of state elections, including the presidential election. Visit
http://nass.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=89&Itemid=1 to
locate contact information and web addresses for the Secretary of State
from each state and the District of Columbia. Under federal law an
objection to a state’s electoral votes may be made to the President of the
Senate during Congress’s counting of electoral votes in January. The
objection must be made in writing and signed by at least one Senator and
one member of the House of Representatives. Both the Senate and the House
of Representatives debate the objection separately. Debate is limited to
two hours. After the debate, both the Senate and the House of
Representatives rejoin and both must agree to reject the votes. Legal
Affairs and Policy Staff Office of the Federal Register
[End of Email from EC]
I, as a legitimate voter and “natural born citizen of the United States”
would like to request the signature of Representative —– and
Senator——– or Senator ——— on a document that I
will make in writing for an objection to any votes supporting an
unverified “natural born” status of Mr. Obama and who even has issues
supporting and abiding by the Logan Act. Without disclosure of the
documentation to validate his “natural born status” and without deters
along his life path, he should be able to legitimize his citizenship
status. I would like one for each of the 50 states and District of
Columbia. There is no stipulation on the amount of states that can be
disputed nor does it specify that the Senator or Representative be from
the same state but I was hoping my current home state would be receptive
me. It also does not state the reasoning to address any objections, but I
will list them on the objection. I am willing to send the objections out
immediately upon contact by your offices. I see endless concurrent debates
in Congress on this matter and will be giving adequate time to provide all
necessary documentation for the debates from so many sources. Please
contact me immediately via the email address provided off site, the U.S.
Constitution is in peril. Please protect the U.S. Constitution, the United
States, and all Americans. Thank-you.
Sincerely,
————————————————— btw every American can do this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I would like to see where he was really born. Even if he was born in Hawaii, when he moved to Indonesia, he changed his citizenship. Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship, so he had to denounce his United States citizenship. He was also listed as being Islam on his school papers in Indonesia. Also, none of his college records have been produced. It would be very interesting on what nationality he put on those records. My guess is that it says the he in Indonesian and his religion is Islam.
The real puzzle here is why did Mr. Berg file this against Obama when he knew or should have known that he does not have standing to sue. Why are other legal entities that do have standing to sue staying out of this one?
I do not see anything in Berg’s submissions that would require the Supreme Court to reverse the lower federal court on this issue.
Who has the right to sue state agencies that apparently did not do their job?
There was a sort of a similar situation during the last parliamentary elections in Croatia. Several members of the government from another state (Bosnia and Hercegovina) were running for Croatian parliament while still members of the government of Bosnia and Hercegovina. When I raised this issue with the DIP ( Electoral Commission in Croatia) they told me that I only had 48 hours after these individuals were officially nominated raised to this issue. Since this limitation already expired by the time I learned about this government officials from another country running for office in Croatia there was nothing I could do to disqualify them.
Maybe these kinds of basic errors are not as rare as we think….
Andjelko Galic
http://www.blogihrvati.com
Lets take a look at the whole picture
Claiming to be US citizen prior to adoption would have made this easier as Indonesia would most likely deny the application for a Kenyan.
1) A child was born in 1961 to Ann Dunham US citizen.
2)This child named Barrack Huissein Obama Jr.
3) Obama Sr., a Kenyan citizen reported as father
4) Regardless of location of birth Jr’s parents can claim he is:
a) US citizen by birth from a US citizen (mother)
or
b) Kenyan citizen ( right of citizenship belongs) to father)
But not both as neither allows dual citizenship
5) Birth on US soil (including embassies, military bases, commonwealth and protectorates at the time of birth) automatically qualifies for US citizenship regardless of nationality of parents and is considered ‘natural born’
6) Jr’s mother divorced and married Lolo Soetoro Ng- Indonesian citizen who adopted Jr- making him an Indonesian citizen named Barry Soetoro
7) Dual citizenship not allowed so US citizenship was given up
9) Barry lives and is schooled in Indonesia
10) Years later he is again on US soil- in Hawaii with the maternal grandparents. 11) Uses the BHO jr name, goes to school, college,pollotics, runs for senate, then presidency.
12) Questions arise to his citizenship. Avoids clear response with documentation for the following:
1) Actual location of Birth with legitimate documentation
2) Proof that US citizenship was applied for and obtained when he returned to the US after being an Indonesian.
Even if given the benefit of the doubt with concern to the burden of proof on the legitimacy of the Hawian live birth certificate:
When and where did he apply for US citizenship on his return from Indonesia,
What happened to Barry Soetoro or does this alias still exist as an Indonesian citizen.
Where is the immigration stamps on his passport(s) showing his leaving and returning to US soil.
The burden of proof rests on JR! You can flip flop parents, religion, race- but
NOT US CITIZENSHIP. The law was intended to prevent those that have sworn allegiance to another country from holding the highest office in America.
Dont you think the Republicans would have ran Gov Arnold?
Obama is not a citizen of natural birth. If he was, then it would be easy to provide the proof. Instead of responding to the law suit filed by Mr. Berg, Obama has repeatedly filed for dismissal (hoping to sweep it under the rug). Obama has already be put in default when the case was first issued. He had 30 days to respind already. When he failed to do so, he legally defaulted and in so doing admitted his guilt. Everyone needs to visit Philip Berg’s website Obamacrimes.com and use the information there to write the Supreme Court Justices and tell them what we the people want. We want our Constitution, our rights, our government, and our country protected against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Berg did not have standing to bring the suit. Only the Federal Election Commission has standing. Moreover, the court with original jurisdiction to hear such a suit from the Fedral Election Commission is the Federal Court for the DC circuit, not the Federal Court in Philadelphia. In short, the case is a no go from square one.
The Supreme court will and should dismiss the Writ for Cert.
All of you people worrying about “original” birth certificates are barking up the wrong tree. Obama’s legal birth certificate has been published on his web site.
To Char Krust -
Given that Barack Obama was born in Kenya here is the reason why he is disqualified.
According to U.S. law, from “Dec. 24, 1952, to Nov. 13, 1986,” a U.S. natural-born citizen at the time of Obama’s birth must be:
1.) A natural-born citizen; OR
2.) Born to two U.S. citizen parents; OR
3.) If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.
Since Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama’s mother was only 18 at the time of his birth, she failed to meet the legal requirements of U.S. residency for at least five years after the age of 16.
It’s the mom & dad who disqualifies Barack Obama.
It really hangs on the birth certificate.
We have a grandmother who says he was born in Kenya, a doctored birth certificate that was posted on Barack’s website, and a state (Hawaii) that won’t release the real birth certificate.
I think we are going to see in front of our very eyes the unimaginable. This country is so screwed up.
In regard to John’s note above..
So you are saying that because it was filed in PA BY Mr. Philip Berg, instead of in DC it has NO importance & the Supreme Court has no reason to investigate??? I DON’T BELIEVE THAT!! He has FORCED THIS ISSUE TO EVEN BE DISCUSSED!!
The President ABOVE ALL PEOPLE should HAVE TO follow the Constitution..& PROVE THAT HE IS REALLY a CITIZEN one way or another!! He HASN’T done that.!! WHY?? I’d guess, because he CAN’T PROVE IT..HE ISN’T A US CITIZEN & SO IS DISQUALIFIED to be president..
NOW you think it should NOT BE CONTESTED IN COURT? He has to be MADE TO FOLLOW THE United States CONSTITUTIONAL LAW! He will be SWORN TO UPHOLD THE USA LAW WHEN SWORN INTO OFFICE!!! He should at least be qualified to BE IN OFFICE in the first place BY FOLLOWING THE LAW OF THE LAND!!
I have yet to see any legitimate proof that Obama was not born in Hawaii. The birth announcement seems fairly valid proof that he was, and the fact that his original birth certificate was confirmed just doubles that likelihood. The Indonesian argument is rather pathetic because according to the US Code, only someone 18 years of age can disavow their citizenship. Obama’s adoptive father could not disavow Obama’s citizenship by claiming him to be an Indonesian citizen. Apparently neither Berg, nor anyone in this comment board, has bothered to research the actual law themselves.
It’s rather disappointing to see people still arguing about this when Obama has already gone to extraneous lengths to provide his birth certificate to the public and allowed Poltifact and Factcheck to review it. Nobody has argued against McCain’s citizenship this vehemently considering he was born in Panama, and 11 months before the initiation of the US Code which gave him his citizenship for being born on a US base. Technically that made him a “naturalized citizen” but the obvious political bias of the people who have pursued this argument has blinded them to that simple fact.
It seems that there is a considerable amount of political bias in your above statement. McCain DID supply all his information right away when asked. AND Obama’s “birth record” from Hawaii has been called a fraud by several sources. There is a list of things that are either missing or not a part of any birth record in Hawaii at the time of his birth.
There other issues that make him a BAD choice for office of president..NO experience in ANY foreign affairs, NO business experience, NO governmental experience other then the Senate where he voted “present” over & over again..making NO decisions..well, he did vote to INCREASE taxes 94 times out of the 153 days he was even present.
Still, he was voted into office..the LEAST HE CAN DO IF he can, is have an original document that stands up under scruteny.. He hasn’t. IF he had Mr. Berg, who knows the law would NOT be persuing this when it isn’t easy to fight the Liberal courts. Most judges are liberal. He also would NOT be spending his money to persue a cause he KNOWS does not have merit.
GeorgetownJD, You say it wouldn’t be McCain, why not? If O is disqualified, then technically McCain ran unopposed. This of course assumes this is settled before he is sworn in. After he is sworn in, then I would assume the same rules would apply as if he died in office. Correct?
Mel
Philip Berg has said “This is a very simple request! Every American kid who plays Little League Baseball has produced his birth certificate in order to play baseball! I have told the Obama Campaign and the DNC repeatedly to simply produce the requested documentation and this whole thing goes away. They have not produced the necessary documentation because the CANNOT produce the necessary documentation.”
Article 2 of the US Constitution requires that the President must be
1) at least 35 years of age, and
2) have been a US resident at least 14 years, and
3) be a Natural-born US Citizen.
Article 2! That was only the SECOND thing the framers thought about when they put the Constitution together!
When Obama asked the court to declare that Berg has no standing he is saying that this issue “Is none of yo Damn Business!” The merits of the case have never been addressed by the courts. Berg offers strong proofs – this is not a frivolous suit.
SCOTUS MUST overturn the lower courts! THINK ABOUT IT – especially now that Obama has won the election! IF A U.S. CITIZEN (Berg) has no standing to ask that Article 2 be enforced, the NO ONE COULD HAVE STANDING to ask to have Article 2 be enforced, thus rendering Article2 unenforcable!!!
And if Article 2 is unenforcable, well, then why would Article 4 ever be enforcable? or Article 3? or Article 7?
The unraveling of the U.S. Constitution will be complete!
Personally, I hope that Obama wins this thing on the Facts. But if he cannot, he cannot be seated as POTUS! The Constitution is at stake.
THANKS for your comment, MrChamber.
My sentiments exactly.. He wins (or not) on the FACTS. That is the way anyone should have to operate when elected into office..
HE will be sworn to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION whiile president..
WHY does he think he should be able to ingor what the Constitution plainly says BEFORE he is sworn into office?
Ignoring the tin foil hat crowd, there is no real question of Obama’s eligibility. He has a US Passport, valid to prove US citizenship to anyone who might care to ask.
End of story. Except, of course, for the Black Helicopter Crowd.
@Robert: Do the people in the Black Helicopters also wear tin foil hats?
Sorry, Warren: I should have been more clear. The Tin Foil Hat crowd SEES the Black Helicopters but is not actually IN them. How could they be? The helicopters don’t exist.
The Tin Foil Hat crowd, on the other hand, most definitely DOES exist and spends time concocting wild conspiracy theories based on internet half truths.
“Occam’s Razor” would be good thing to keep in mind when reading stories like this about Obama (or Bush, or Palin, etc., etc.). The same people who brought us “Palin’s special needs child really belongs to her oldest daughter” now bring us this about Obama.
Robert…lot’s of people hold U.S. passports…doesn’t mean they are “natural” born citizens. You can use that line on the faithful “Obamabots”…they question nothing and know less.
@Robert: I doubt it was the same people since the DailyKosniks brought us the Palin story. Who is bringing the Obama stories, surely not the DKs?
Not that I buy the Obama is really not a citizen narrative, but I don’t think it is the same crowd bringing the Obama lore as brought the Palin lore.
Robert, keep in mind that the “tin foil hat crowd” in this instance is Philip J. Berg, a lifelong Democrat, a Philadelphia lawyer and the former Deputy Attorney General for the State of Pennsylvania.
Berg began warning his own Party last Spring and early this Summer that they were about to nominate someone who would be disqualified from holding the Office of POTUS, thus preventing the Democrats from holding the White House.
All of his warnings fell on deaf ears, so he filed his lawsuits in August, long before these elections.
The questions that I have are
1) Berg repeatedly has said that defending the Constitution trumps the historical feel-good moments of Obama’s Ascension. If he believed he had no case, why would he continue the expense and controversy post-election to press his case?
2) The issue here is whether or not Obama is a NATURAL-BORN U.S. citizen, not whether or not he is a U.S. citizen. About 260,000,000 Americans would have virtually no problem producing this documentation. Why is it that Obama is having this difficulty?
3) It’s clear that the Lower Courts did not rule on the merits of Berg’s case – they just said that “It’s none of your business to bring this up.” Is Justice David Souter, a noted liberal Justice, a member of the Black-Helicopter-Seeing, Tin Foil Hat Crowd becasue he has asked Obama and the DNC to file Answers by December 1, 2008, along with any documentation they have to prove their claim?
Again, at best, this whole debacle is fun to watch!
PS: Regarding McCain – at this point, it is a Moot Point as McCain LOST the election. He is not the one with a transition team working to take over the Executive Branch. Obama is.
An extremely legitimate, fairly well-documented challenge to his qualifications has been lodged long before the Election by a respected member of his own Democrat Party, NOT by Obama’s opposition! (Heck! McCain SUPPORTED Obama’s relationship with Rev Jeremiah Wright!)
(Berg also says that he now has post-election media recordings of Obama’s Paternal Grandmother of Kenya exclaiming how excited she is that her grandson finally won the election for POTUS … AND that she was in the delivery room in Mombasa, Kenya the day he was born!) Shouldn’t this all be examined? Our U.S. News Media surely never did!
Besides, McCain’s parents were both U.S. Citizens when he was born and they were in Panama becuase his father was on active duty service, stationed there with the U.S. Navy. There is little reason to question his national allegiance, which is the reason for Article 2 to begin with. Not so with the President Almost-Elect.
Why would anyone want such a simple-to-answer, but dramatically important, question to go un-answered?
It seems a standard tactic of the Obamaniacs to attack anyone who dares to question the qualifications of The Annointed (and now Almost-Elected) One with an equal but opposite argument.
Kind of like how they went ballistic over Sarah Palin in the #2 Slot once they realized that her popularity was a real threat. They assaulted her alleged lack of experience (which is arguably superior to Obama’s) while they totally ignored the complete vacuum of qualifying experience of their own presidential candidate in the #1 Slot.
This argument could SO easily have been put away when it first came up – IF acceptable documents could have been produced.
“Don’t argue the facts – just put enough static and smoke in the all-friendly news media to distract from the facts.”
I am sure that strategy will work well with Vladimir Putin and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Just a few thoughts. First though, let’s put aside the conspiracy theories for a second and be objective.
Regarding the SCOTUS deadline, it appears to be a procedural issue according to their rules.
As far as Obama’s possession of a US Passport, their website stipulates that it will accept a Birth Certificate or a Certification of Birth. Believe it or not people, there is actually a difference. Additionally, Certificate of Birth’s are issued to births outside the US. Don’t believe me, check for yourselves.
According to the XX Amendment of the US Constitution Section 1. Terms begin and end at noon Jan. 20.
According to Section 3. If a President has not been elected or President elect has failed to qualify, then the VP elect shall become President.
However, the main arguement here that I believe is being obfuscated, is that this country was founded on the premise of “By the People, For the People”. When exactly did we as citizens lose the right to question our elected officials? When did we as citizens lose the right to make our elected officials answerable to us rather than the other way around?
Mel: Did you read the Twentieth Amendment, as I suggested? If so, you would know why McCain would not succeed to the office.
Electors are party faithful. They are committed to vote for the candidate that their party slated. On December 15 the majority of Electors who will meet in their respective state capitols will be Democrats. Now, you do not seriously contend that Democratic faithfuls would vote for McCain, do you? Be honest. Someone who has been a longtime party worker is not going to throw away his vote by turning coat. The Democratic Electors will vote for Obama and Biden. In each of the blue states, the electoral vote will be given to the Democratic nominees, and Obama will be the President-elect. The votes cast by the Electoral College will then be transmitted to Congress, where the votes will be officially counted in January.
Pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment, if the President-elect is disqualified or dies or whatever before he takes office, the Vice President-elect becomes President. Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment states: “Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President.”
What language in the Twentieth Amendment suggests to you that McCain would succeed? McCain is not the Vice President-elect.
Actually, I should have posted the entirety of Section 3, because it makes clear that the Vice President elect takes over if the President elect fails to qualify.
“Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”
And here is the applicable provision of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment:
“Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.”
Hey, folks, all of this is public record.
MrChamber — I’m afraid you have misunderstood Justice Souter’s role in this. He has not ordered anything. Justice Souter is the Associate Justice who is currently assigned to review emergency applications for stays in cases that are coming from the Third Circuit. Berg filed an application to stay the election, and Justice Souter denied it.
Obama has not been ordered to produce anything at this point. He has the option, if he desires, to file a brief on or before December 1 addressing solely the issue of whether certiorari should be granted in this case. If he files a brief, it will be to oppose certiorari. He also might file a waiver, indicating that he believes the petition for writ of certiorari is so meritless it doesn’t even stand a chance that the Supreme Court will accept the case for review.
The overwhelming majority of petitions for writ of certiorari are denied. Most are not what is termed “certworthy.” The late Justice Harlan wrote that “a great many petitions for certiorari reflect a fundamental misconception as to the role of the Supreme Court” thus they have no chance whatever of being granted. Former Justice Brennan also rote an article explaining how he routinely decided that a case was not certworthy by looking at the “Questions Presented” on the first page of the petition — and reading no farther.
If you read Berg’s petition, it becomes clear that he has made a very uninspiring argument why this case should be heard. He has violated the foremost rule of making his petition certworthy: the merits of the case are not of primary concern at the petition stage. Rule 10 sets out the criteria that the Justices are looking for: “(1) the decision below conflicts with decisions of one or more federal courts of appeals or state courts of last resort on an important issue of federal law; (2) the court below decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with rulings of the Supreme Court; (3) the court below decided a question of federal law that is so important that the Supreme Court should pass upon it even absent a conflict; or (4) (a category into which very few grants fall) the court below “so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power.”
Berg has dedicated pages upon pages of argument about the “alleged” facts that never were proven by admissible evidence. He never really addresses the four factors set out in Rule 10. Heck, even his “Questions Presented” are guaranteed to send his petition into the “no cert” pile.
There is an abundance of material available about how a petition proceeds through the Supreme Court, much of it available on the Internet.
Hey, Thanks, JD!
I appreciate the clarification.
In that the lower court ruled that Berg has no standing and didn’t deal with any merits of the argument, wouldn’t Souter – if he agreed Berg’s motion is not cert worthy – be saying that no one has any standing to question the qualifications of the President?
How is it possible that No One can question the qualifications of the President?!
As a point of law, that would be a rather huge issue to let stand.
In your view, WHO could ever have standing in a case like that? If it is a list of people that is smaller than the voting public, then that confirms that elections are a closed system only for the chosen few, doesn’t it?
This thing really needs a Court opinion, I think!
Has anyone ever read Unintended Concequences by John Ross?? Very interesting book indeed. Either way, I believe with this topic now making the media and becoming a great concern, that “the people” have the right to know the truth of the matter. Either way the decision goes, the country is already starting to devide greatly. This is going to be a real problem! You can’t even walk into a coffee shop and discuss the issue as seen on here, that people aren’t greatly divided and oppose each other. We oppose each other with respect on here, but there are many on the street level that DO NOT! I work the streets as a law enforcement officer and it has already started with some pulling the race card! The country is going to divide on their stance on this president! It’s just a matter of when and where it starts! If it needs to start at the court level then so be it, as it will move to the streets soon enough. We’re already seeing this. Make the wrong decision and it will be like shortening the fuse that’s already been lit.
Varget..
Does Obama even care about how this is hurting the country? IF he cares HE could resolve it..by producing this birth document.. that is IF he IS a NATURAL BORN US citizen..
This ISN’T A RACE ISSUE. It is an issue of UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION!! I would easily have voted for Clarence Thomas (or any minority candidate) because they are GOOD, honest people.. THIS is a matter of PRINCIPLE!!
A matter of OBEYING THE MOST IMPORTANT LAW WE HAVE!! Our
foundation & the Standard all other laws are to stay within.. A matter of OBEYING the greatest law of the land.
Shocking evidence that Vince Foster was MURDERED, and there was a COVERUP – possibly by the Clintons:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/foster.html
If it’s not true, WHY doesn’t Hillary Clinton DENY it? WHY?? I’d guess, because he CAN’T PROVE IT.. NOW you think it should NOT BE CONTESTED IN COURT?
This is a matter of PRINCIPLE!!
How is it possible that No One can question the qualifications of the Senator?!
Until she denies it and produces EVIDENCE that she had nothing to do with it, I refuse to believe that they are innocent.
MrChamber — Qualification for the ballot is really a matter of state law, so there may be a state that requires the election official to certify the qualifications of every candidate. Unfortunately, to date seven or eight lawsuits brought in states have failed, because the plaintiff did not take a good look at the state’s statutes before bringing his action.
Since we actually vote for electors, there may a state that requires electors to certify their candidate’s qualifications, but again, to date, the plaintiffs — generally laypersons who are just filing copy-and-paste lawsuits based on Berg’s flawed complaint — have gone about this in unorganized fashion and they are racking up a string of losses that just cause each court to justify dismissal because the earlier suits set the precedent.
Congress will count the electoral votes on January 6. Per 3 U.S.C. section 15, objections may be made: “the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; …” Two hours of debate are allowed.
The best attack,in my view, would be to persuade a Member of Congress to make an objection.
Good argument technique, Minty – major props for the approach!
There’s a big difference in the two, though: one is someone’s assertion of a Clinton felony and the other is a matter of an Obama job qualification. In the Clinton case, one would have to prove the felony, which they have not done. The other case requires Obama to prove that he is qualified to hold the job, which there apparently is a good deal of honest debate over.
No one is accusing Obama of committing a crime. Berg has uncovered what he claims is evidence (a Kenyan birth certificate, etc, etc) that Obama is not qualified to hold the office of President – but it should be easily refuted by Obama.
Anyone applying for a job has to be able to prove they have the qualifications to hold the job. I support Hillary Clinton as Senator from NY – or even as Sec’y of State – until that point where a court of law proves that she is guilty of a felony, or some other factor that disqualifies her from holding that job. She is otherwise qualified to hold her office.
It’s not that certain with Obama’s qualifications, apparently – which are unique to the job he aspires to.
Sweeping the whole thing under the rug without a court ruling on the facts won’t do anyone any good, in my view.
Thanks again, JD!
You are SO right about the STATES electing the electors! Most people err when they believe that the PEOPLE of the U.S. elect the President and Veep, when in fact it is the STATES who do. Chalk one up for States’ Rights!
You are correct that qualifications for the BALLOT is a function of State law – but qualifications to HOLD THE OFFICE of President is not. (Berg’s argument with his own Party is that they nominated an ineligible candidate and have risked invalidating their ticket. Why can’t that easy question be settled??)
You may be on to something here, JD. Perhaps the only ones with standing in a case like this are the Electors in the Electoral College and the members of Congress.
It’s never come up before – that’s what makes this so fascinating!
Again, instead of all the legal maneuvering, Obama should be able to put this whole argument away as easily as a kid signing up for Little League! The fact that he hasn’t HAS to make even a semi-concious citizen wonder – doesn’t it??!
This is such a simple deal! For the good of the country, Obama needs to win this on the adjudicated facts – or else step aside. Why is that too much to ask for?
Obama has a simple and uncomplicated task to perform. He must produce his long form Birth Certificate – issued and certified by the State of Hawaii which clearly proves that he is a natural born citizen.
He must also submit proof that he was not a citizen of Indonesia and he must prove that he returned through U.S. Immigration and applied for U. S. Citizenship, if indeed his U. S. Citizenship was forfeited by his Step Father.
He must also produce his many Passports issued by other Nations which he used to travel freely around the world.
He must provide a copy of each and every application he filed ion order to attend shcools and universities in the USA.
He must provide clear evidence that he and only he registered with the Selective Service.
Why must he provide all of these documents? Because he not only failed to produce a verifiable and certified copy of his Hospital issued long form Birth Certificate when asked….HE REFUSED TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THE DOCUMENT THAT MEETS ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES!!
Until Obama does what millions upon millions of American citizens are asked to do in order to fulfill some Statute, Law, Rule or Regulation required by Federal, State or Local laws….then the doubts that millions upon millions of people are having….have been generated and initiated by him and him alone!!
He may very well be who he claims to be. However, in the minds of a great many people….he has gone to extra-ordinary lengths to make the issue go away.
It will disappear when and only when OBAMA takes the initiative AND HONESTLY AND TRUTHFULLY PROVIDES THE PROOF.
Unfortunately, many citizens seem to believe that a Presidential election is like the American Idol TV show. The whole thing is comprised of three goofy “judges” who are making a fortune watching a never ending string of “performers” get silly in front of an audience. The “performer” who wins the most “votes” becomes a “star!” However, regardless of the many intriguing similarities, governing a Constitutional Republic by the rules is a much more important and complex task and, given the ease with which many politicians are “bought off,” rightly so. At any rate, a President is not the kind of shallow personality depicted on American Idol and the process by which one is chosen is far more important to citizens than those which govern a TV show! This is why the qualifications for the person who makes decisions that affect the lives of millions of people is so important and is worth taking seriously.
Some on the left say that George Bush was a usurper and, as a result, did not have the moral authority to govern. To that we say,” Do you want your man to be looked at in the same way?” Votes are certainly the governing factor PROVIDED the person who got them meets the Constitutional requirements! In any event, the current question of Obama’s legitimacy is a much more important issue than one concerning “hanging chads.” ANY President must meet the Constitutional requirements that qualify him or her to be a candidate. Meeting the qualification and then winning the votes provides the moral authority to govern. Absent this moral authority we are simply a “banana republic” where “El Magnifico” rules simply because guns are votes and he has the most!
We have felt, and continue to feel, that President Elect Obama should provide whatever documentation would lay the question of legitimacy to rest. Even though he won a majority of the electorate, the legalities need to be settled according to Constitutional requirements. He has failed, thus far, to provide records of proof that meet the requirements. If he had previously provided the necessary documentation then Judge Souter, through his Clerk, would not have required that they be produced. The article below fully explains the reasons for providing the documentation.
On October 24, 2008, a federal judge granted your request to dismiss a lawsuit by Citizen Philip Berg, who challenged your qualifications under the “Natural Born Citizen” clause of the U.S. Constitution to legally hold the of fice of President of the United States of America.
Mr. Berg presented factual evidence to the Court in support of his claim that you are either a citizen of your father’s native Kenya by birth, or that you became a citizen of Indonesia, relinquishing your prior citizenship when you moved there with your mother in 1967.
In your response to the lawsuit, you neither denied Mr. Berg’s claims nor submitted any evidence which would refute his assertions. Instead, you argued that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to determine the question of your legal eligibility because Mr. Berg lacked “standing.”
Astonishingly, the judge agreed, simply saying, “[Mr. Berg] would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary [sic] in living memory.”
Unfortunately, your response to the legal claim was clearly evasive and stri kingly out of character, suggesting you may, in fact, lack a critical Constitutional qualification necessary to assume the Office of President: i.e., that you are not a “natural born” citizen of the United States or one who has relinquished his American citizenship.
Before you can exercise any of the powers of the United States, you must prove that you have fully satisfied each and every eligibility requirement that the Constitution mandates for any individual’s exercise of those powers.
Regardless of the tactics chosen in defending yourself against the Berg lawsuit, significant questions regarding your legal capacity to hold this nation’s highest office have been put forth publicly, and you have failed to directly refute them with documentary evidence that is routinely available to any bona fide, natural born U.S. Citizen.
As one who has ventured into the fray of public service of his own volition, seeking to possess the vast powers of the Office of President, it is not unreasonable to demand that you produce evidence of your citizenship to answer the questions and allay the concerns of the People. Indeed, as the one seeking the office, you are under a moral, legal, and fiduciary duty to proffer such evidence to establish your qualifications as explicitly mandated by Article II of the Constitution.
Should you proceed to assume the office of the President of the United States as anything but a bona fide natural born citizen of the United States that has not relinquished that citizenship, you would be inviting a national disaster, placing our Republic at great risk from untold consequences. For example:
. Neither the Electoral College on December 15, nor the House of Representatives on January 6 would be able to elect you, except as a poseur – a usurper;
. As a usurper, you would be unable to take the required “Oath or Affirmation” of office on January 20 without committing the crime of perjury or false swearing, for being ineligible for the Office of the President you cannot faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States;
. Your every act in the usurped Office of the President would be a criminal offense as an act under color of law that would subject the People to the deprivation of their constitutional rights, and entitling you to no obedience whatsoever from the People;
. as a usurper acting in the guise of the President you could not function as the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy and of the militia of the several states, as such forces would be under no legal obligation to remain obedient to you;
. No one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch would be required to obey any of your proclamations, executive orders or directives, as such orders would be legally VOID;
. Your appointment of Ambassadors and Judges to the Supreme Court would be VOID ab initio (i.e., from the beginning), no matter what subsequent actions the Senate might take as well as rendering any such acts by such appointed officials void as well;
. Congress would not be able to pass any new laws because they would not be able to acquire the signature of a bona fide President, rendering all such legislation legally VOID;
. As a usurper, Congress would be unable to remove you from the Office of the President on Impeachment, inviting certain political chaos including a potential for armed conflicts within the General Government or among the States and the People to effect the removal of such a usurper.
As an attorney and sitting U.S. Senator, I’m sure you agree that our Constitution is the cornerstone of our system of governance. It is the very foundation of our system of Law and Order indeed, it is the supreme law of the land. I’m sure you also agree that its precise language was no accident and cannot be ignored if Individual, unalienable, natural Rights, Freedoms and Liberties are to be protected and preserved.
As our next potential President, you have a high-order obligation to the Constitution (and to those who have fought and died for our Freedom) that extends far beyond that of securing a majority of the votes of the Electoral College. No matter your promises of change and prosperity, your heartfelt intent or the widespread support you have garnered in seeking the highest Office of the Land, the integrity of the Republic and Rule of Law cannot, — must not — be put at risk, by allowing a constitutionally unqualified person to sit, as a usurper, in the Office of the President.
No matter the level of practical difficulty, embarrassment or disruption of the nation’s business, we must — above all — honor and protect the Constitution and the divine, unalienable, Individual Rights it guarantees, including the Right to a President who is a natural born citizen of the United States of America that has not relinquished his American citizenship. Our nation has endured similar disrup tions in the past, and will weather this crisis as well. Indeed, it is both yours and the People’s mutual respect for, and commitment to, the Constitution and Rule of Law that insures the perpetuation of Liberty.
As a long time defender of my state and federal Constitutions, and in consideration of the lack of sufficient evidence needed to establish your credentials as President, I am compelled to lodge this Petition for Redress of Grievances and public challenge to you.
Make no mistake: This issue IS a Constitutional crisis. Although it will not be easy for you, your family or our Republic, you have it within your ability to halt this escalating crisis by either producing the certified documents establishing beyond question your qualifications to hold the Office of President, or by immediately withdrawing yourself from the Electoral College process.
With due respect, I hereby request that you deliver the following documents to Mr. Berg and myself at the Nation al Press Club in Washington, DC at noon on Monday, November 17, 2008:
(a) a certified copy of your “vault” (original long version) birth certificate;
(b) certified copies of all reissued and sealed birth certificates in the names
Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham
and Barry Dunham;
(c) a certified copy of your Certification of Citizenship;
(d) a certified copy of your Oath of Allegiance taken upon age of maturity;
(e) certified copies of your admission forms for Occidental College, Columbia
University and Harvard Law School; and
(f) certified copies of any court orders or legal documents changing your name from Barry Soetoro.
In the alternative, in defense of the Constitution, and in honor of the Republic and that for which it stands, please announce before such time your withdrawal from the 2008 Presidential election process.
“In a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it f ails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 469-471.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Schulz,
Founder and Chairman, We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc.
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/misc2008/Obama-USA-TODAY-ad.%20htm
Unfortunately, many citizens seem to believe that a Presidential election is like the American Idol TV show. The whole thing is comprised of three goofy “judges” who are making a fortune watching a never ending string of “performers” get silly in front of an audience. The “performer” who wins the most “votes” becomes a “star!” However, regardless of the many intriguing similarities, governing a Constitutional Republic by the rules is a much more important and complex task and, given the ease with which many politicians are “bought off,” rightly so. At any rate, a President is not the kind of shallow personality depicted on American Idol and the process by which one is chosen is far more important to citizens than those which govern a TV show! This is why the qualifications for the person who makes decisions that affect the lives of millions of people is so important and is worth taking seriously.
Some on the left say that George Bush was a usurper and, as a result, did not have the moral authority to govern. To that we say,” Do you want your man to be looked at in the same way?” Votes are certainly the governing factor PROVIDED the person who got them meets the Constitutional requirements! In any event, the current question of Obama’s legitimacy is a much more important issue than one concerning “hanging chads.” ANY President must meet the Constitutional requirements that qualify him or her to be a candidate. Meeting the qualification and then winning the votes provides the moral authority to govern. Absent this moral authority we are simply a “banana republic” where “El Magnifico” rules simply because guns are votes and he has the most!
We have felt, and continue to feel, that President Elect Obama should provide whatever documentation would lay the question of legitimacy to rest. Even though he won a majority of the electorate, the legalities need to be settled according to Constitutional requirements. He has failed, thus far, to provide records of proof that meet the requirements. If he had previously provided the necessary documentation then Judge Souter, through his Clerk, would not have required that they be produced. The article below fully explains the reasons for providing the documentation.
Our Sec of State Jen Brunner said, It’s not my job to qualify candidates for election. So, I have wrote to the senator, congressman, every elected official you can think of and no one seems to want to take responsibility. Apparently everyone is taking the word of the DNC.
Alan Keyes (presidential candidate) filed lawsuit in California
http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=973&posts=12
Why is Mr. Obama fighting this so hard? Mr. Berg is correct when he has stated that its a simple thing for him to put the verifiable documents on his desk. He has said that if that was done, this would be over, he would go home and support Mr. Obama for President, but he believes he has not done it because he cannot produce said documents. If that is so, we are in DEEP constitutional trouble! This MUST be resolved properly. It should have been resolved a long time ago. The courts would be derilict in their duties if they do not see this to conclusion. Mr. Obama would not even pass the questionnaire for those seeking a JOB in the new administration!
I have seen comments concerning “standing issues” in various lawsuits. However, the birth certificate controversy strikes at the heart of the Constitution. How can the Justices let this pass without effectively hearing the case? How can Chief Justice Roberts allow no challenge since he will be swearing in the President-elect? So, the birth certificate issue directly touches the office of the Chief Justice. The Justices are duty-bound to uphold the Constitution.
It is so obvious, by their unwillingness to now
comply with the SCOTUS, that the Obama people
have something to hide. Absolutely incredible.
Gee if there was nothing to this there wouldn’t be any Obama supporters that would have to defend him.
If this is so cut and dry and Obama has nothing to be concerned with then why are the Obama supporters rallying to his defense?
If Obama has already shown what he has to in order to prove that he is a US citizen then why is this still being debated?
Wouldn’t it be better for the Obama supporters to just drop this thing of defending his citizenship and just say “I told you so” when December 1st comes and goes?
Why are they so worried?
I’ll tell you why, there is doubt even with the Obama supporters.
I didn’t support McCain or Obama. They both were poor choices and America got what they deserved, poor leadership.
@Gene: It is not clear yet that Obama, DNC and FEC are unwilling to comply. They are not required to file a brief in response to the writ of certiorari and may find it unnecessary if they believe the facts line up in their favor. Let’s be clear, the Supremes have not requested any specific information (e.g., to see Obama’s birth cert) but have given the defendants an opportunity to respond.
My guess is that certiorari will not be granted; but it is only my guess. With all the challenges springing up nationally, it may be that one of them will get some traction.
@Bill: I have wondered why PE-Obama doesn’t simply produce the original birth cert. I cannot tell that it is even on his radar. I posted on this not because I know the ins and outs of it all but because I find the narrative interesting. Is anyone reading here aware of any new statements from Obama (beyond the Fight the Smears website) the DNC, the Solicitor General (in addition to the Justice Dept statement to me) about this matter?
Can someone check his mother’s medical records or hospital records that recorded the doctor, nurses, etc. that were present and their notes prior, during, and after the birth? Lab reports, and medical records should be on record at the hospital he says he was born or in the storage facility/vehicle they use.
I have to disagree with you. Obama and the DNC are CLEARLY unwilling
to comply. They demonstrated that with the lower Court. The very fact
that they are letting it get to this point, rather than simply produce the damn
birth certificate (not the bogus DailyKos version, but the real thing), speaks volumes.
I just picture where this is headed. Not only will they
fail to produce any birth certificate or anything else on
12/1, but they will also respond by coming up with
some personal dirt on Justice Souter.
Yes, Gene.
Isn’t that just the way the DNC & Obama have ALWAYS done things?
When they can’t prove ANY POINT they get MAD, call names, dig up “dirt” that usually isn’t of ANY MERIT or is even proven untrue. It makes sense to defend your position with real, rational arguments. Then you may convince someone of your position..BUT that’s not their method & maybe not even their goal. I doubt that they even are concerned with those things. They only want THEIR WAY whether its proven right or not.
Yikes!! Fallacy after fallacy, after fallacy!!
FACT: Stop whining about the DNC or Obama and their forthcoming response to Souter. SHOULD there be a response (it is optional), that response will come from the Solicitor General of the United States, who will respond for the FEC.
Of course, I’m sure the FEC is in on the big conspiracy as well, so… there you go.
Warren: TWO for you. I should have said the same “type” of people. Obviously, tin foil hats are worn by left wingers as well as right wingers…
All the wailing, whining, and spinning conspiracy theories on this remind me of nothing so much as the Dem crying over the Florida recount in 2000… just alot of puissant tears over an election outcome they did not like.
OBAMA WAS BORN ON MARS!!! TAPE ON YOUTUBE!!!!
LOL LOL LOL
@Robert: But I bet the tin foil on the left is recycled…
Boy this story had me rattled for a bit. So much so that I cited it to a friend who responded with the fact that it simply isn’t being covered by any major news source. AHA! A media conspiracy. No, not really. It’s more just the blathering of sore losers.
Snopes.com, the site famous for debunking rumors and urban myths, gets into this story and cuts to the chase with one simple point. Although Obama’s father was African and his mother was very young at the time of his birth, those points are moot. Obama, himself, was born in Hawaii after it achieved statehood. That birth certificate has been released and had even appeared on the internet.
(An interesting side note is that folks were also challenging McCain’s citizenship because he was born in the Panama Canal region.)
No way, Warren! On the Left they are Green post recylcled consumer fiber hats… suitable for wearing to the civil union service of your choosing!
Evidently Alan Keyes has gone of the deep end also. Keyes has sued to halt the allocation of California’s electoral votes to President-Elect Obama on the theory that Obama was born in Kenya and therefore is not a natural-born U.S. citizen.
http://www.politickerca.com/benvandermeer/3211/alan-keyes-files-suit-over-obama-citizenship-question
I guess he’s still smarting over the idea of losing to Obama over the Illinois Senatorial seat. Obsession make you do the wacky and Keyes has shown he’s well capable of that, first, when he threw his daughter out for being a lesbian and now stooping to conspiratorial theories to try to get to Obama. Nevermind that FactCheck has Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth online….
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
…..or that they found a mention of a baby Barack Obama being born in Honolulu in 1961.
Apparently, state officials of HI are also in on this massive anti Constitution conspiracy, as they state unequivocally that a valid birth certificate is in the vault there…
And did anybody else here fall out of their chair laughing at the laundry list of demands of Robert Schulz (posted above)? Obama’s college transcripts??
LOL- you just want to pat these people on thier cute little heads and tell them that they have some lessons to learn about losing!
To Eddy and Lynn David:
I see. So I guess we should tell Souter and the
Supreme Court to drop their demands and go to
snopes.com for their answer to the birth certificate
question, right?
Even if Alan Keyes WAS “smarting” over his loss
to Osamma, does that mean the question isn’t
relevant?
Both of you should try growing up. It’ll do wonders
for you, trust me.
******
See? What did I say before? Rather than simply
produce the valid birth certificate, they will attack
the Supreme Court, attack Berg, attack Alan Keyes,
attack Republicans in general, attack ANYONE,
just to avoid the issue.
This is the wonderful ‘governing’ that we can
look forward to for the next four years. And you people
wonder why Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin,
FOX, Drudge, and a whole host of other alternative
media outlets exist.
Gene — Neither Justice Souter nor the Supreme Court has ever ordered Obama to produce the birth certificate or other evidence of his citezenship. The December 1 deadline is for filing an optional brief responding to whether a writ should be granted and the decision of the District Court should be reviewed.
Every time the Supreme Court issues an order, it is published either on the Order List that goes out each Monday when the Court is in session, or it is published as a Miscellaneous Order. All of these can be viewed on the Supreme Court’s website. Go to the main page, from the list on the left select “Docket.” At the bottom of the Docket page there are links — select “Orders” and that will take you to several years’ worth of orders. Select the orders for the present term — “2008 Term Orders” — and open up each Order List and Miscellaneous Order since the date that Berg filed (October 30). You will find that there is no order in Berg v. Obama.
I love how the main stream left news outlets are just ignoring this whole thing about Obama’s U.S. Identity and proving that he is legal to be president. This should be front page news on every paper in the U.S. Is the media hiding from this fact so as not to be called a racist for questioning Obama’s legality to be president? Obama is HALF WHITE, quarter asian, and a quarter Kenyan. He is more white than black, so why all the fuss over the race issue?
Warren,
Aren’t all Obamas’s past history to be made public record?
Why is it so hard for the DNC and Obama to give up this info and just be done with it?
Even the, “Great Clinton” had to make his files public record.
Why did Indoniesa, Kenya, and the Gov. of Hawaii have Obama’s records sealed from the public a week or so before the election at the DNC and Obama’s request?
I feel that there is something Obama and the DNC does not want the people of this great land to know about, whether it be something to do with his birth cert. or his citizensship or even some ties to groups that have interests against the Free People of this nation.
If Obama has a valid birth certificate and it has been certified by the state of Hawaii to be valid then why is Obama waiting for December 1st?
Is he allowed to go ahead and prove it now or does he have to wait for December 1st?
I would think he would be allowed to present everything needed now just to get this off the table and move forward.
Does he have to wait?
To GeorgetownJD:
Gee, what a relief. He hasn’t been “ordered” by the SCOTUC to produce a
birth certificate (according to your interpretation), so therefore of course,
he will not. Rather than settle this very troubling question once and for
all, they will continue to evade and obfuscate the matter to the best of their
ability.
Like I said, our new ‘government in action. We are in for dark days.
This doesnt make any sense…
Let me clarify. After hearing about this controversy today, I went to the Supreme Court of the United States’ website and verified that this Berg v Obama case existed and was on the docket exactly as has been copied above. So, yes, that much is true – even the “Response due December 1, 2008″ part is true). I understand the issue before the Supreme Court. If the claims made by Mr. Berg (and others – it was my understanding that Sen. Hillary Clinton initially filed a similar suit but dropped it – I havent researched it to see if this is true or not yet…) in his suit are true (that Pres. Elect Obama is not an American citizen), then this is in fact a HUGE problem…
It should be easy to figure this whole thing out – just produce an official birth certificate. Surely the State of Hawaii’s Office of Vital Statistics (or its equivalent) has records of births in its state since Obama was born? Why is this so friggin’ hard??? Given the fact that both of his parents were NOT American citizens, he was either born in HI or he wasnt – why is this so hard to either prove or disprove???
And another question: How in the heck can someone running for the Office of President of the United States even get by the paperwork to become a candidate WITHOUT first producing an official birth certificate??? This doesnt make any sense either… Or so I thought….
….Interestingly enough, I went to the FEC website and looked at FEC Form 1 and FEC Form 2 (the two forms required to be filed by people seeking to run as candidates for U.S. House, U.S. Senate, and U.S. President. And for the life of me, I could not find on any of these forms ANYWHERE anything requiring that the candidate be a “Natural Born Citizen of the United States” – not anywhere. It is my understanding that this is the Constitutional requirement to be elected President of the United States (i.e. that one be born on U.S. soil; one cannot be a “NATURALIZED” American citizen). Maybe I am blind or just missed it but I didnt see any such requirement on either of these two “mandatory” forms – if anyone else can find it on the forms, please let me know. So why the HECK is this not a given to be on ANY such FEC Form for candidates seeking to run for President??? The point is that this whole question SHOULD be moot – this thing should have either been decided as YES he is an American citizen BORN in America or NO he was not WAAAAAAAY back when he initially filed to be a candidate for President. But, given the fact that I couldnt see ANY reference to being an American citizen BORN in America on FEC Forms 1 and 2, this opens the door for these kinds of problems and it simply doesnt have to be. That in and of itself makes no friggin’ sense…
…And in followup to my previous comment, I want to say that I am EXTREMELY skeptical about the veracity of this whole Berg v Obama case. If, after December 1, 2008 Pres. Elect Obama has not “responded” to the U.S. Supreme Court with an official birth certificate (and/or whatever else was required by the Court), THEN there may be some credence to this whole thing and proper attention by the media and others may be paid to the issue…
I just find it UNFATHONABLE that something like this could even happen and am having a hard time wrapping my mind around this even being possible…
Obama doesn’t have to provide YOU or Phillip Berg with anything. Birth Certificates are confidential documents.
-
In regards to his qualification under Article 2, the State of Hawaii has verified his birth certificate and thus has acknowledged that he was born in Hawaii in 1961, and thus he was a Hawaiian citizen at birth, and since Hawaii was a US State at the time, he is a natural born United States citizen, and that’s enough for the state Secretaries of State, and the federal government.
If you think the State of Hawaii is part of a big conspiracy, go sue them… oh wait, you can’t.
To EEE
OBAMA DOESN’T HAVE TO PROVIDE US WITH A BIRTH
CERTIFICATE?!?!?! THE HELL HE DOES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Who the hell is HE to say he’s going to ignore us? FUCK
that son-of-bitch! The law is the law, and it applies to non-citizens
like Osamma, as well as citizens. Thank God the Court is pursuing
this arrogant bastard.
EEE -
Query: If Presidential Candidates dont have to provide a copy of a birth certificate showing that they were natural born American citizens, how else are they to prove that fact to meet Constitutional requirements to run for the Office of President? Sure, he doesnt have to show me or Mr. Berg his Birth Certificate but surely he must show it to the FEC, right? And if that was done, this case should also be done, over, dead in the water, right? Why is this stupid case then still even on the docket??? I am not a lawyer but I am educated, in graduate school, and have a pretty sharp mind full of common sense… This should not even be an issue….
If HI verified his birth certificate, FABULOUS!!! OK, then, case closed!!! I am delighted to hear that b/c the LAST thing this country needs is ANOTHER Constitutional Crisis at THIS time of turbulent times…
Eddie..
It has been recently known that the Snopes site isn’t unbiased. It has connections that make its opinions of question. It is run by a husband & wife … few people if any, are not biased at all.
In any case, There IS GOOD REASON TO QUESTION Obama’s birth record. . IF they hold the TRUE & WHOLE RECORD in Hawaii THEN they should make sure it IS RELEASED!! It hasn’t been so far. WHY NOT? The record from Hawaii that WAS released has several inconsistencies as far as the TYPE RECORDS that were made at the time of Obama’s birth.. THE ONE RELEASED DOES NOT show that it is an ORIGINAL produced at that time..
Again, the left thinks that poking fun at another opinion or anyone having a question is appropriate. The people who are questioning this are NOT stupid, and are NOT “sore loosers”. There are some who believe there IS A GOOD REASON to INSIST THE CONSTITUTION BE UPHELD & we DON’T SEE that this is being done!
What OTHER stability does the United States have.. but the Constitution? Evidently you just want to believe anything that won’t question your candidate. What is your problem with the questions? It seems that maybe you could be THE “sore loosers” because you’re upset that anyone wants a GOOD ANSWER. IF there were NOT A QUESTION as to Obama’s eligibility for the presidency NO ONE would be persuing this.. Well, a PROPER BIRTH RECORD would take care of this.
(UNFORTUNATELY we now have a nation that is not so interested in what the Constitution SAYS, OR the GOOD OF THE NATION. Instead they are interested in electing a “leader” with NO experience who promises to supply all their “gimmies” ..their endless concerns. They wish to believe him. .We are to
be a people FREE to persue OUR OWN goals NOT look to BIG GOVERNMENT “DADDY” TO TAKE CARE OF US ALL.) This is why many of the people are NOT ASKING QUESTIONS as they should be. They think they will GET a lot because of electing him. Yes..we WILL. The USA will go BROKE if he even STARTS to do what he says he will
WE WILL NOT STOP ASKING THESE QUESTIONS UNTIL HE PROVES his elegibility as HE SHOULD HAVE DONE ALREADY. WHEN he proves THIS we will support him in the good things he can do for our wonderful country.
Gene — My “interpretation’? Of the docket? Please elaborate what you believe I am misinterpreting, because it is a fact that the Supreme Court has not yet decided to accept this case and it is a fact that the Supreme Court has not ordered Obama to do anything. So what “interpretation” are you referring to?
Gene ranted:
Uh, no…. but FactCheck.org and the state of Hawaii.
Evidently you need to get out of your obsessive infancy even more. You cannot even bring yourself to truly name the 44th President of the United States. And how is it that Keyes has standing in California? Last I heard he quit his carpetbagging ways in Illinois and went back to his home in Maryland. Or did he take up carpetbagging and hoof it out to California just before the election?
________________________________________
c.j. opined:
Evidently, you need a lesson in race relations in this country. And where are you getting his quarter asian ancestry from? His step-father? As far as his father’s side is known they are all Kenyan.
And I too love the fact that the mainstream media isn’t insanely obsessed the way so many of you all appear to be.
________________________________________
Chuck said:
Huh? Stanley Ann DUNHAM was born on 27 November 1942 in Wichita, Kansas. How is it that being born in Kansas and then moving to Hawaii does not make one a United States citizen?
Lastly, why has not John McCain gone after this? He is either satisified as to Barack Obama’s natural-born citizenship or he’s slinking around letting all of you, Berg, Keyes, and perhaps others risk making fools of themselves so he can rush in and claim the presidency in a constitutional crisis. Frankly, I have a better opinion of McCain than that.
Gene–
You say that Obama could simply present his birth certificate and this would all be answered….it would all be over. BUT he DID present his birth certificate back in October; I directed you to a link where you might view it online. You didn’t acknowledge that link but instead directed me to grow up. I’ve concluded you aren’t looking for an honest discussion just an excuse to throw a few jabs.
Was there something lacking in that certificate? Are you suggesting that he somehow lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother moved him to Indonesia? Can you cite the law that says that his citizenship would be revoked based on his mother’s actions? I would think that, since he was a child, he would have had no legal authority on his own to renounce his citizenship. He has proved that he was born in Hawaii by presenting the birth certificate. How did he lose the citizenship that was his from birth?
I’m willing to participate in an open adult discussion; your suggestion that Lynn David and I need ‘to grow up’ points very clearly to the need for somebody to grow up but it isn’t us.
Warren:
I believe that Gene’s comment in a later post should have been moderated into oblivion. “FUCK that son of a bitch” is NOT the kind of dialogue I expect here.
Beverly:
How many copies of your birth certificate do you have? Obama produced one but you evidently see some flaws in it. Can you be specific as to those flaws? Is there one that suggests that he was born somewhere other than Hawaii or that perhaps he was born before Hawaii was granted statehood? Or, as I queried Gene, what evidence is there that his birthright citizenship was somehow forfeited?
I do apologize for the ’sore losers’ comment. I try to refrain from such as a rule but allowed myself to get caught up in the snarky spirit.
Lynn David -
My apologies. I didnt fully explain my statement, “Given the fact that both of his parents were NOT American citizens, he was either born in HI or he wasnt – why is this so hard to either prove or disprove???” I meant that in the context that BOTH of his parents were not BOTH American citizens. Of COURSE his mother was an American citizen – that is a given… My apologies for not being clear on that.
The reason I even made that statement is that it is my understanding that if BOTH parents are not an American citizen, the natural born citizenship rules change a little bit (is there an immigration attorney in the midst – I’d love to hear your comments on whether that is true or not and whether it has any bearing on this case whatsoever…). But, as you say, if he was born in HI, I dont think it should make a difference one bit – but I am not an immigration attorney….
As I indicated earlier, I am very skeptical of this whole Supreme Court case to begin with b/c I find it unfathonable that something like this (what Berg is alleging) could even happen. How could he become a U.S. Senator and this not be an issue? How could he even APPLY to become a candidate for President and this not be an issue? It doesnt make sense…but…. it is curious that the case is still on the docket…
Maybe we all (nation) have always presumed there needs to be a proof of birth when applying to be congressman, senator or president. Maybe this is either a loophole or just a mistake that has never been corrected.
Does anyone have any proof or knowledge that proof of birth is a required document when seeking office?
Maybe the nation is collectively assuming and we are all having our eyes opened at once.
I don’t understand why, if a lawyer, why “a natural born citizen” wouldn’t take a mother as of the same a father? Since it takes both a mother and father to make “a natural born citizen” that becomes a human born of either one nation or of two nation’s depending on the “natural born citizen” of eac parents ?
An American Opinion
This discussion is FUN!!
Let’s recap: Here we have alot of a made up “controversy” that only the wingnut faction of the right wing cares about, treading water about various issues that have been asked and answered about a dozen times. Points of interest:
* STOP saying that “Obama” and/or the “DNC” have to respond to Judge Souter by December 1. The do NOT have to do. And, if anyone is to respond, it will be the Federal Election Commission. Stop making this grade school error.
* Gene. I know that in certain circles, uneducated rednecks get a big tee hee out of mixing up Obama’s name. We get it. Funny stuff. But at LEAST get it right!! The terrorist’s name is “O-S-A-M-A” Bin Laden, not “O-S-A-M-M-A” as you have ham handedly given us. Seriously- if you don’t know the name of the 9/11 perpetrator, you might have better uses for your time than trolling through internet forums.
* The state of HI states categorically that Obama was born in HI. Therefore- categorically- he is a natural born US citizen. End of story, in spite of all the wailing.
Meanwhile, in the real world, rumor has it that Obama has settled on a pick for Attorney General. Good news.
Are any of you trying to get tix to the Inaugration?
Chuck-
You are correct, the rules are different. As I understand it, if a child is born of a single US parent family (like Obama’s) outside the states, that child has to elect citizenship of one nation or the other by the age of majority.
Eric Holder is the name I’m hearing, although the Governor of my state, Janet Napolitano, had been mentioned. Napolitano would be a terrific choice for Solicitor General or Homeland Security.
Is anyone familiar with Hollander v McCain??? LOOK IT UP!!!!
FYI — McCain had a similar case brought against him (by Hollander) in that he was actually born in a Panamanian Hospital in Colon Panama which was NOT part of the U.S. territory (i.e. not under U.S. jurisdiction). For some reason, McCain’s mother decided NOT to give birth at the hospital under U.S. jurisdiction (i.e. he was “technically” born in a foreign country). The suit was basically dropped b/c the citizen “had no standing.”
In response to this, a resolution in the U.S. Senate was put forward in May 2008 to try and make McCain a “natural born citizen” – it was passed in the Senate but it is considered non-binding.
What are your thoughts on this????
As I see it, we have TWO candidates with “questions” about their “natural born citizen” status…
What a FRIGGIN mess…
Correction: We HAD two candidates with “questions” about their “natural born citizen” status… Pres. Elect Obama won and since HI apparently verified that his birth certificate was authentic/etc., as I see it, this thing is over and done with…
Unless something else happens/develops with this issue, any further discussion is moot, is it not? If anything, we THE PEOPLE should use these situations as a means to FIX the problems, tighten up the rules and paperwork, so that NOTHING like this can EVER happen again. If it requires AMENDING the constitution (whichever side of the issue you fall on), then we need to friggin AMEND it!! IMHO…
Since I don’t support McCain or Obama I have the privledge of ripping both or supporting both or ripping one over the other. They were both lousy canidates, they both have no leadership experience. One went to law school and the other flew planes. They both never ran a business, ran a city, or ran a state. They both have connections to corrupt people and they both voted in favor of the stupid, stupid, stupid “bailout”. They both belong to the same organizations that influence most of our canidates and they both are in the tank for whatever it takes to be a part of our corrupt political machine.
One wants to take the country down the socialist path and the other truly believed that the “fundamentals” of our economy was sound. Both canidates do not or did not have a clue as to how much trouble the economy is in to come up with either socialism or tax cuts.
Both canidates have citizenship issues and it didn’t matter which one won. Either canidate was going to have this issue after the election and whoever won the election would sail through the Supreme Court.
Both canidates were manchurian canidates and America lost it’s sovereignty when both these canidates were put forth.
America is being adjusted right now to “fit in” with the rest of the world.
All the Obama supporters, your guy is in.
All the anti-Obama people, get over it.
I totally agree! They were both Manchurian candidates.
Touche’ Bill!!!!
The bottom line is that Pres. Elect Obama won and ASSUMING nothing further develops with these “citizenship issues,” this matter is over and done with. Then it is on to the job of President after inauguration… A job, I do not envy considering the HUGE mess he is inheriting (brought about b/c of BOTH parties TREMENDOUS arrogance and lack of foresight – as Bill also pointed out, BOTH candidates supported this HORRIBLE bailout bill that is clearly becoming an even BIGGER mistake as each day passes; billions of dollars “disappearing” with no accountability and nothing to force these banks to lend the money – they are just sitting on this stuff and now the “Big 3″ ALSO want bailouts!?!?! It never ends…But I digress…), I might add…
One interesting point, though – For someone who ran on bringing “change” to Washington, he is sure bring a lot of Clinton re-treads into top leadership positions… I was hoping he would try and govern more from the “center” but it is not shaping up that way based upon his cabinet picks – at least at this juncture…
I guess we will just have to “wait and see” what happens and what he does when he officially takes office…
Robert says “This discussion is FUN!!”
You’re RIGHT, Robert. It IS fun to see you people crap in
your pants thinking “Oh, Shit! Even Souter doesn’t believe
him! What are we going to do now?”.
Carter brought us Reagan.
Clinton brought us the ‘94 Congress.
Osamma (thank you for the correct spelling) is going to
bring us EVERYTHING.
I see my last post was removed. So much for the liberal
idea of ‘free speech’. Thank you, webmaster coward.
Gee, Gene….Why so hostile, man? Lighten up…(sheesh)
Regardless of what you might think about him, to compare Pres. Elect OBAMA to OBL (even in some sort of twisted jest…) is just…well…asinine…
If you are up on current events, you would know that OBL’s #2 released a video and basically insulted Pres. Elect Obama on a number of different levels. So, like it or not, the enemies of American DONT want Americans to succeed regardless of who the President is…
In the end, we are ALL Americans and we will have to pull through this mess together….
Romney/Santorum 2012
And to be clear…
….Just like the extreme left wingers would try and compare Pres. Bush to Hitler, etc., I found that not only ATROCIOUS, but equally asinine and distasteful, and made points about calling those NUTS on it, as well…
Ann -
For the record, I happen to LIKE Romney. IMHO, he would have made a better nominee for the GOP than McCain did…(shrug)
@Gene: Your post was removed because it did not meet up with the guidelines for posting. I am not sure which name you called me – liberal or coward – was most offensive. You should read more here to get a feel for the forum. This is a civil conversation and is moderated by me. Strong beliefs are fine but argument by taunting and namecalling is not. You are not banned but future problems will lead to that.
After reviewing about 4/5 of this string (some comments very good}, and after reviewing several other documents and sources associated with the the question of Obama’s birth legitimacy, I am ready to render my decision.
Obama is not a valid candidate for the office of President of the United States.
So, now on to step two: selecting his replacement.
HighlanderJuan -
Hmm….
Well, as I said, let’s see what if anything more becomes of this issue presently before the U.S. Supreme Court.
And, what say you then, about the “legitimacy” of Sen. McCain’s Presidential candidacy? His birth certificate CLEARLY places his birth in a foreign country (Panama; a hospital in Colon, Panama) NOT under U.S. jurisdiction/control (hence the May 2008 Senate non-binding resolution to declare him a “natural born citizen” – if there were no “questions” about his citizenship, that resolution would not have even been necessary).
It seems as if BOTH candidates for President had “questions” about their “natural born citizenship” status, does it not? And to be frank, there is more ambiguity surrounding Pres. Elect Obama’s status than Sen. McCains (HI has apparently authenticated Obama’s birth certificate but McCains birth certificate is, under U.S. law, problematic in that it places his birth in a foreign country – “technically” speaking….).
So what the heck would we be discussing is McCain, won the election – the same FRIGGIN thing!!! This is why I made the point earlier that these problems can be and SHOULD be stopped at the front in when filing FEC Forms 1 & 2 – if you are not eligible to be President based upon birth certificate (and whatever rules and regs we want to impose in order to authenticate them), then you are done as a candidate. OVER before you even begin. This kind of mess should NOT be happening today. Period….
Chuck,
It was my understanding that McCain provided all documents when requested. That satisfies my demands. If Obama had done the same, we would not be having this discussion.
It’s Obama that is hiding his background material – not McCain. Let’s stay on point.
HighlanderJuan -
Yes, he did provide the documents and in doing so, he (or someone in his behalf) STILL thought it necessary to have a RESOLUTION passed in the U.S. Senate (May 2008) to declare him a “natural born citizen.” What does that tell you? Why do this if there are not “questions” regarding his citizenship? The reason is simple – IT WAS A PROBLEM (otherwise, why go through the trouble of filing such a Resolution???)! That is EXACTLY the point – BOTH candidates have “questions” surrounding their citizenship…
….Again, these problems SHOULD and COULD be stopped at the FRONT END of ANY campaign… We should not even be having this discussion about Obama or McCain…. I am sure we can ALL agree on that…LOL
Dow down another 427 points. I see how eager the
business community is for President Osamma.
God help us.
Yes, how eager indeed considering Obama is inheriting a HORRIBLE recession brought about by a lack of leadership in the BUSH Administration and the DEMOCRAT controlled Congress and Senate… All of these people in Washington make me sick… Before Obama even won, the economy was totally in the tank…
Warren – Precisely what did I say that was so offensive?
I merely pointed out that this situation is likely to lead to
a Constitutional crisis. I STILL say so.
You seem to have no trouble at all with stereotypes and
names applied to me by those on the Left. Clearly, you have
a double standard.
Well gee, Chuck, since Osamma is now going to
be President (shudder!), I guess everyone should
be happy and optimistic now, right? Even though
we were not actually IN a recession under Bush
(you ought to try reading the definition), everything
should just be humming along now that the Messiah
is going to save us! So why don’t the markets reflect that?
God, what a mess.
Chuck ~ Nov 19, 2008 at 6:02 pm
143694
HighlanderJuan -
Yes, he did provide the documents and in doing so, he (or someone in his behalf) STILL thought it necessary to have a RESOLUTION passed in the U.S. Senate (May 2008) to declare him a “natural born citizen.” What does that tell you? Why do this if there are not “questions” regarding his citizenship? The reason is simple – IT WAS A PROBLEM (otherwise, why go through the trouble of filing such a Resolution???)! That is EXACTLY the point – BOTH candidates have “questions” surrounding their citizenship…
=================
So, let’s get Obama to do the same thing. I’d accept that.
In fact, Obama is a pretty smart guy, and if he saw McCain doing this, he should have done the same thing immediately after McCains resolution.
Seems simple enough for me.
Definition: A recession is defined to be a period of two quarters of negative GDP growth.
Next quarter is going to be even worse according to economic analysts….
So, yes, the technical definition may be premature, but come on, really!?! Take a look around you – trillion dollar bailouts, major job cuts, more reduction in home sales, consumer spending down (and dismal Christmas spending predictions), etc…(shrug)
When the figures come in for the CURRENT quarter, they will show that America is in a recession…
Gene,
You have some very good points – many that I agree with, however, the use of profanity and name calling is not in good taste or conducive to a civil discussion.
HighlanderJuan -
Well, Obama has until December 1st to respond to the U.S. Supreme Court, right? Although it is apparently a voluntary response (i.e. he was not ordered to do anything), let’s see what happens…
And you keep missing the point. McCain turned in everything and what he turned in shows that under a strict interpretation of U.S. law, he is INELIGIBLE to become President of the United States b/c he was NOT a “natural born citizen.” The record, and actions on McCain’s behalf, CLEARLY show concern about this, as reflected by the resolution to have him DECLARED a “natural born citizen.”
And hasnt HI authenticated Obama’s birth certificate??? Doesnt that end this debate??? What am I missing here???
Chuck,
You asked:
And hasn’t HI authenticated Obama’s birth certificate??? Doesn’t that end this debate??? What am I missing here???
=============
Hawaii only said there was a birth certificate on file. They did not provide any details at all. Obama could have filed his Kenyan BC for all I know.
Also, one has to ask why Obama didn’t release his school records. Did he get student aid as a foreign student? What do his academic records reveal?
Please remember we are dealing with a lawyer here, and lawyers 1) understand the law very well, 2) use specific words when they speak or write, and know very well how to blow smoke (if you get my drift). How do you define ‘is’?
I have given serious consideration of trying to pass legislation that will prevent lawyers from being considered in national office. They may know the law, but they don’t have any experience managing anything, and their first inclination is how they can stop something from happening. Not exactly what we look for in legislators or POTUS.
Oh goodness…
Folks on the left were crying about the same kinds of things about Pres. Bush and why didnt he release ALL of his Reserve records, etc. I didnt think much of it then any more than I do now with Pres. Elect Obama. In my view, release what is necessary and nothing more – I didnt get offended when Bush did that nor will I be offended with Obama doing that….
And HI saying a BC was on file means what?!?! They wouldnt have it “on file” if he wasnt BORN in HI, correct? That is typical bureaucrat speech for, “It is here, leave it alone…”
I live in Florida but was born in TN – I have to go to TN to get an official copy of my BC b/c I was BORN there and Florida doesnt have it – TN has it on file!
And Pres. Clinton has records he didnt release as does Sen Hillary Clinton – this can go on and on ad infinitum in a fishing expedition…
Yup. GTG
Have a good one.
You too!!! Have a good one!!!
Let’s all PRAY for our country and PRAY that Pres. Elect Obama does the right things in Office as President…. Only time will tell… He hasnt even been sworn into office yet…(shrug)
I hope and pray for the success of EVERY U.S. President, regardless of party – if they screw up the country, we will ALL pay the price so we have to support our leaders – INCLUDING the KNUCKLEHEADS in CONGRESS and the SENATE…
IMHO – The SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE is a DIMWIT and the SENATE MAJORITY LEADER is a DIMWIT (partially why Congressional approval ratings have been even LESS than President Bush’s, if such a thing can be possible)…GOD HELP US IF PRES. ELECT OBAMA CANT LEAD THE COUNTRY IN RIGHT DIRECTION WITH TWEEDLE DEE AND TWEEDLE DUM CONTROLLING THE PURSESTRINGS…
Gene–
The post Warren deleted was the one where instead of answering my questions you chose to refer to me as ‘a little boy’. That’s considered both a taunt and name-calling. And, while I am quite short, I’m old enough to qualify for a senior discount in many fine restaurants.
I’ve heard several of you mention that the Hawaii birth certificate is flawed and I’m really trying to learn. I’ve seen the photocopy and I’m simply asking once again for someone to point me to the flaws.
LOL. And, even as you were thanking Chuck (I think) for correcting your spelling of the president-elects first name, you still got it wrong. It’s Osama with one M. Capitalizing all of the letters of his middle name goes nowhere. Isn’t one of the Coor’s family named ADOLF? And how many people are there named JESUS–although they pronounce it differently–that aren’t particularly Christlike?
It is VERY important that everyone contact their Senators, Representatives, and the Supreme Ct to make them demand Mr. Obama present evidence of his citizenship before December 15 when the Electoral College casts its vote. Otherwise, the election should be disqualified as a fraud.
Eddy,
Try the following links to see some of the flaws:
Obama Birth Certificate Fraud Proof (Pt 1):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIsQJNTvlUE
Obama Birth Certificate Fraud Proof (Pt 2):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAZAbqgpoGQ
Obama Birth Certificate TOTAL FORGERY FAKE FRAUD; Kos Kaught in Krime!:
http://firedoglake.com/2008/07/05/obama-birth-certificate-total-forgery-fake-fraud-kos-kaught-in-krime/
The October Surprise:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs
I hope this is helpful.
List of missing Obama documents:
Original birth certificate — Not released
Obama/Dunham marriage license — Not released
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license — Not released
Soetoro adoption records — Not released
Besuki School application — Released
Punahou School records — Not released
Selective Service Registration — Released but under suspicion of being a fraud
Occidental College records — Not released
Passport (Pakistan) — Not released
Columbia College records — Not released
Columbia thesis — Not released
Harvard College records — Not released
Harvard Law Review articles — None (maybe 1, unsigned – of course if it’s unsigned??)
Baptism certificate — None
Medical records — Not released
Illinois State Senate records — None
Illinois State Senate schedule — Lost
Law practice client list — Not released
University of Chicago scholarly articles — None
If I have to show my BC to the BMV, SS office to be legal I show it or I walk. That’s the law. I guess when you are Barack Obama you are above the law right? Whatever, he will be certified as a citizen to avoid a race war. The needs of many out weigh the needs of one. But for all practical purposes Obama is not my president. I am a natural born native of Ohio, USA .
AND I HAVE THE DOC TO PROVE IT!
LOL! I loved the link that suggests he can’t even prove that he was born. Just shows where unbridled logic can lead you.
I have several problems with the first two links. He keeps mentioning that ‘a certificate of live birth’ is not the same as ‘a birth certificate’ but doesn’t fully elaborate. Seems to be suggesting that it is a document produced when the actual ‘birth certificate’ can’t be found. But, gee, they have a space for time of birth and they filled it in. Could it be that people who are so lame as to lose the actual certificate (or, as suggested, weren’t really even born where they say they were) can produce enough support to have the state issue such a certificate and can be expected to document the time of birth?
The bottom of the certificate of live birth states that alterations make it invalid. If it’s not a legal document as the ‘expert’ proclaims, what’s the difference between valid or invalid? What’s it valid for? Why is that not considered ‘legal’? I’m having trouble wrapping my head around ‘a valid document’ ‘issued by the state of Hawaii’ that is somehow not ‘a legal document’.
Then, even though he says that this document is legally meaningless, he goes to great lengths to show us the document (he claims two versions)…a physical one with creases and the scanned version without…as proof that this also has been altered. I actually do a fair amount of scanning in my line of work and, if a document is gently creased, as ‘version 1′ was, I won’t be satisfied with my scan unless I can make those crease marks disappear. In the case of a gently creased document, I might not even have to apply pressure to the scanner cover to get rid of those unsightly puppies. I did note though that in the one version, the document number (right side, about a third of the way down) was visible and in the other blacked out.
Of all the ‘proofs’ this ‘expert’ provided, the only one that gave me any pause was the Adobe Photoshop evidence. Naturally, since he’s wanting to believe the worst, he’s going to think that some nefarious trick was being pulled but I’ve got Photoshop myself and often use it for such innocent things as resizing an image, sharpening it, cropping, etc.
I think we’ve reached a time when America is going to have to trust the government that is already in place. I think between them the first two videos had over 100,000 hits. Rather than discuss this with a bunch of non-experts (myself included), let’s recommend that they get all these ‘proofs’ to the powers that be and trust them to judge fairly and honestly.
We shouldn’t need to make demands. We shouldn’t need to stir up the masses to call your senator, congressman, governor, mayor. If the evidence of fraud is so obvious, the evidence, when placed in the right hands, should speak for itself.
As I said, I’m no expert. I’ve got a brother who spent his adult life working with birth and death records…but it was in a state other than Hawaii. But, I’ve recognized that there aren’t any experts checking in to this discussion. So, what we’ll have is just an endless back and forth that really leads nowhere. I’ll wait for the story to break on the national news or as an updated topic here…but, in the meantime, i’m going to remove my non-expert self from this discussion. Dec. 1 is only two weeks away.
Eddy,
Good comments. There’s another site I couldn’t find last night that goes deeper into the inspection of Obama’s Hawaiian BC and discusses the anomalies in much greater detail.
My own personal view is that presidential candidates need to be vetted by the FBI (including the Forensics Lab) before they are nominated for office (to minimize the impact of the candidate’s political power over federal agencies), and then be certified, very much like security clearance requests.
Because I’m not a forensics guy, I personally don’t have to see any candidate documents, but I want someone who guards American interests to have seen and verified the documents,and to put their individual names down as having verified the validity of documents submitted by the candidate.
Think about it. If Obama isn’t really an American citizen, or if he’s been a member of the socialist party, or if he’s just a liar and a fraud, what loyalty does he owe to the United States? Obama likes the Europeans, we know that. If he wants to change the Constitution, or withdraw the troops from a battle zone, how do the American People know he’s doing that for their best interests? Loyalty and love for the American way (opposed to the European way) should be a given for presidential candidates. None of us get that feeling of loyalty from Obama – he wants change.
And, you know, Americans shouldn’t have to worry about whether they can TRUST their POTUS to do the right thing for America. They shouldn’t have to worry about a president who won’t wear an American flag pin and who won’t place his hand over his heart during the playing of the national anthem.
I think right now, there is huge disbelief in about a third of the Americans who are aware of the birth certificate issue, and that number is just too high. Obama can settle all questions and disputes, one way or the other, by just openly displaying his credentials as McCain has done.
Why won’t he do it? What’s he hiding?
Eddy,
A bit more from another thread:
Obama’s “Certificate of live birth” proves nothing whatsoever.
From Free Republic:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2133728/posts?page=138#138
Well, here’s proof that Obama’s “Certificate Of Live Birth” means nothing.
Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country.
This is straight from the Hawaii Department Of Health Website:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/index.html
In other words, the “Certificate of Live Birth” posted on Obama’s website, Factcheck.org and the Daily KOS doesn’t prove anything, simply because someone born in a foreign country could file for an amended certificate — click the link, read it for yourself.
Obama’s sister Maya was born in Jakarta, Indonesia, but Anna Dunham registered her as “born in Honolulu” shortly after her birth. Maya has a State of Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth, and just like Obama — proves nothing.
Eddy, one more for your perusal and enjoyment.
From another post at:
http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=973&posts=12
This, previously posted by Philomena on another thread, still seems the most salient argument…
Don’t be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues. They are irrelevant to Senator Obama’s ineligibility to be President. Since Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen “at birth”, just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn’t be eligible to be President.
The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens and that’s why the Framers declared that, while they were Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not “natural born Citizens”. Hence their inclusion of the grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President;
That’s it right there. (Emphasis added.)
The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn’t want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.
The Framers declared themselves not eligible to be President as “natural born Citizens”, so they wrote the grandfather clause in for the limited exception of allowing themselves to be eligible to the Presidency in the early formative years of our infant nation.
But nobody alive today can claim eligibility to be President under the grandfather clause since nobody alive today was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted.
The Framers distinguished between “natural born Citizens” and all other “Citizens”. And that’s why it’s important to note the 14th Amendment only confers the title of “Citizen”, not “natural born Citizen”. The Framers were Citizens, but they weren’t natural born Citizens. They put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves in the Constitution and they are the ones who wrote the Document.
Since the the Framers didn’t consider themselves to have been “natural born Citizens” due to their having been subject to British jurisdiction at their birth, then Senator Obama, having also been subject to British jurisdiction at the time of his birth, also cannot be considered a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.
Never have much time in the morning…need to catch that bus to work. Woke up thinking about that certificate of live birth from your earlier first link…the one with the creases. Who is holding it and having it photographed? I can’t imagine anyone from the Obama camp having any reason to display the creased document. Nor can I imagine them releasing the original. If it was done as part of a legal inquiry into the veracity of the document, that would be evidence that the protests are being heard and entertained by the political powers that be.
Something’s fishy. I suspect that an Obama detractor used their Photoshop skills to make a copy of the uncreased version Obama furnished and then toyed with it. That would also explain why the creases are ‘gentle’. If it had been creased and stored away for years, the creases would be much more severe. Just some musings. I am not a legal expert but I do know quite a bit about document handling and storage and something just doesn’t ring true about that scenario.
Ah, technology, both a blessing and a curse!
I am STILL WONDERING WHAT IS THE PROBLEM with all you people who defend Obama in NOT presenting the REQUESTED DOCUMENT? Evidently SOME LEGAL ISSUES are involved with this and he is just evading it ALL.
Don’t YOU have ANY CONCERNS about a LEGAL president? WHAT is YOUR problem with Obama making SURE THE PROPER DOCUMENT IS IN PLACE? That is what this IS ABOUT! HE just believes he can get away without OBEYING THE LAW or that nothing will be done to FORCE HIM TO COMPLY. It seems that he has TOO MANY SUPPORTERS in this WILLFUL DISREGARD TO THE REQUEST…which has now become a legal issue. Maybe IF he thought his supporters even cared about the truth he would finally decide he needs to do something about it.
All you people who think Obama has not presented an actual BC should try linking to
The tanking of the stock market has nothing to do with Obama’s election victory nor his cabinet choices. It is the result of almost 10 years of unregulated financing including banking, insurance and mortagages.
Think about it. This recession is as bad as 1982 and probably will be deeper and longer than anyone is willing to say. There is no way it could have precipitated since the democrats took control of Congress in 2006. They had neither the time nor the power to accomplish such a calamity.
To continue,
try this link for a view of Obama’s BC.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
If this does not convince you, nothing will. Obama was legally vetted and elected. He will take office on Jan 20, 2009. Get over it.
Trying to blame Obama or the democratic congress of 2006 for our current economic problems is more than a little fanciful. These problems go back to the successful efforts of Phil Gramm and others in 1998 to deregulate banking. They managed to create the “free market” they were so sure was needed, dispite all evidence to the contrary, and it resulted in the chaos we see today.
As for appointing some of Bill Clinton’s people to cabinet posts, what is the problem?? Why appoint someone with no Washington experience or contacts in positions where Washington experience and contacts are vital.
So far, Obama seems to have made sensible decisions, with the possible exception of HRC and even that won’t be known until she has accepted and has a chance to show her stuff next year.
When one looks around at the shambles our country is in the resulting resounding defeat of the republican party in 2006 AND 2008 can not be surprising!
What happens now remains to be seen. Several scenarios are possible.
I’m guessing this one will be correct. Obama will govern from the center left, his liasons to congress will be effective in getting his agenda passed and the country will start to recover. The republicans will still be in the grip of the rightwing in 2010 and will lose even more seats. They will finally start to realize that the days of Reagan are over. That the Rove strategy of focusing on divisive tactics and white Christian voters will NEVER win them power in Washington again and they will start to try and modernize their party.
They will not accomplish this by 2012, nor by 2014. Maybe not even by 2016. The old guard of Newt, Boehmer, Romney etc will all have to be dead or ignored.
After the hell of the last 8 years, I finally have hope that our country can once again be respected as the “land of the free”.
clestes ~ Nov 20, 2008 at 3:57 pm
143955
To continue,
try this link for a view of Obama’s BC.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
If this does not convince you, nothing will. Obama was legally vetted and elected. He will take office on Jan 20, 2009. Get over it.
==============
Sorry, Clestes, if you understand the vetting process, you will understand that Obama has NOT been properly vetted. Mostly his fault because he hasn’t produced any background documentation.
Also, Factcheck.org has been challenged for this situation because they have been shown to be in the bag for Obama.
HighlanderJuan
As I said, get over it. The Supreme court will not even ask for the lower courts ruling documents. It has been tossed out of court twice already.
And yes he has been properly vetted. Do you really think that when he filled out the paperwork for applying for the job of president of US, the DNC didn’t ask for and get all appropriate paperwork??
John McCain lost the election in 2008. Looking around at the problems facing us today, I am glad he did.
He has neither the vision or strength to lead this country today. His time was in 2000. It is past.
clestes ~ Nov 20, 2008 at 6:11 pm
143976
HighlanderJuan
As I said, get over it.
I can only discuss intellectual and factual matters with someone interested in doing so.
Have a nice day.
Beverly
The reason they dont ask is because they dont care! They are so hell bent on this guy becoming POTUS that they could care less about the constitution.
HighlanderJuan–
It was good to chat with you. I’ve been a regular blogger on this site for a year or two. It’s only been recently that the topics have been political in nature. I recall when the political topics started I vowed to stay out of them. I detest the whole campaigning process for the attitudes of animosity and hatred that it seems to provoke. This particular topic thread has been a pretty good portrayal of the snideness and snarkiness that I detest.
I appreciate your sincere efforts to rise above that. Another time, another topic perhaps we would have discussed further but I’m going to move on from this particular thread. It’s been my experience that real communication and the quest for real answers suffer greatly when the comments turn into a flame war. Or, at best, the journey to the answers is both compounded and confounded by the snide and the snarky. I’m thinking it’s not worth the trip. In the end, it really won’t matter what I personally believe; that’s really for the courts and the electoral college to chew on.
Eddy,
I’ve already moved on.
Have a good one.
LOL…
Still at it I see…LOL
I’ll be back AFTER December 1st and see what (if anything) has happened…(shrug)
Tell you what. Somebody get ahold of Larry Sinclair up in Duluth. (He claims that he did drugs and had sex with Obama on several occassions.) I would be willing to bet that Larry has the information in regard to Obamas qualifications to be Potus.
To all those who keep insisting that they’ve already ’seen’
Osama’s “birth certificate”, that copy posted by the DailyKos
(as if they were some sort of reputable, official body) has
already been shown to be a fake. Why, by the way, did they
blank out the serial number? To protect his identity? It doesn’t
make any sense!
And obviously, Justice Souter was not convinced, else he would
have dismissed this case by saying “I’ve seen his birth certificate.
He was born in the USA.”. But he didn’t do that. Get it now?
Dow down 400 points today, another 400 points the day before.
But alas, it’s up a whopping 18 points today!!!! The Osama recovery
in action! I just KNEW the world was waiting for all the wonderful CHANGE
he’s going to bring us! Hallelujah!!
My God, are we in for TERRIBLE times.
Interesting that Obama’s choice for Sec. of Treasury is Timothy Geithner. Proud member of the Council on Foreign Relations, IMF, etc…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Geithner
This political puppet show goes a lot deeper than many people realize. Many still believe we are actually under a two-party system. They don’t understand that our ‘Republican’ and ‘Democratic’ candidates are pre-selected and presented in the form of a choice.
Gene shows in spades why Obama should NOT publicly release his birth certificate- no matter what is released, no matter who reviews it, the sheep of the easily led far right will be led to believe the document is false.
If these people are gullible enough to believe that HI state officials are part of some Obama Conspiracy, then nothing will convince them of what is true and what is not. Best that they are ignored.
Today, it looks like Clinton might be the next Secretary of State. Excellent, pragmatic choice.
Today, it looks like Clinton might be the next Secretary of State. Excellent, pragmatic choice.
Why? The only pragmatic reason I can see is that it puts her in the administration which will discourage her from running against him again in 2012. Oh goody, just when it was looking safe that the Clinton’s would go away and finally leave us alone, our newly president elect decides to kiss and make up to them by nominating her for this critical position. When you compare her to a James Baker, well….there is no comparison.
Romney/Santorum 2012
The downstream media will probably keep this quiet until the Supreme Court gives a decision. SCOTUS may rule that Pres.-elect Obama is indeed a natural born citizen, and that he automatically reverted to his U.S. citizenship according to Section 349(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952. Then riots will be averted.
However, if SCOTUS rules that Barack Obama II is indeed not Constitutionally qualified, the riots will begin at that time. But they will have been averted during the interim between now and then.
Robert ~ Nov 22, 2008 at 12:56 am
You said:
Gene shows in spades why Obama should NOT publicly release his birth certificate- no matter what is released, no matter who reviews it, the sheep of the easily led far right will be led to believe the document is false.
My response:
The problems I see with liberals and socialists are that they are disingenuous and duplicitous as hell. On the one hand they talk about how divisive the Republicans have been. On the other hand, they undermine everything America stands for, and then dribble on about how stupid conservatives and Republicans are.
I hope one day Robert, you grow up and understand that it is people like you who attack your neighbor that are causing the problems we have in America today. The day will probably be when your children attack you and you will have no idea what happened.
Regarding the birth certificate, I, as a conservative, don’t need to see the piece of paper, but I do want to know that someone who has America’s interests at heart has seen and verified its validity. Like the FBI Forensics lab.
I also want to know that Obama isn’t the fraud I believe he is. I want to think he’s legitimate. Having said that, if he shows himself as a fraud, I want him tried and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
BTW, I want ALL national figures properly vetted by the FBI. The DNC and the media clearly don’t do a good job, unless it’s someone on the conservative side of the aisle – then they pull out the stops and slander at will.
Now, Robert, if you think I am some sort of sheeple, let’s have it. I’m basically pretty tired of smart a$$ liberals like you taking cheap shots at conservatives because of your own immaturity.
MinutemanCDC_SC ~ Nov 22, 2008 at 3:25 am
You said:
The downstream media will probably keep this quiet until the Supreme Court gives a decision. SCOTUS may rule that Pres.-elect Obama is indeed a natural born citizen, and that he automatically reverted to his U.S. citizenship according to Section 349(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952. Then riots will be averted.
However, if SCOTUS rules that Barack Obama II is indeed not Constitutionally qualified, the riots will begin at that time. But they will have been averted during the interim between now and then.
My response:
Good thoughts. I might add a few comments.
Department of State’s regulations are found here: http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html, and that may be worth a re-read.
Overriding that, Article. II., Section 1of the U.S. Constitution says this:
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
The use of the word ’shall’ means mandatory. Eligibility requirements are not an option – they are mandatory, and the Constitution over-rules all other legal documents.
With that said, I don’t believe SCOTUS can rule in Obama’s favor until they have been provided verification of Obama’s birth origin, and with all of the claims of fraud, that will require a forensics lab test and a background check in Kenya, Indonesia, and in Hawaii, and the subsequent legal ruling on Obama’s status as a natural born citizen of the United States.
Of course, having Hawaii’s rulings on birth certificates as they are (http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/newbirthcert.html) doesn’t help matters very much, because it provides for the registration of foreign births and allows amendments to its records.
If Obama’s sealed birth records in Hawaii do reflect he was born in Kenya, then he may be of British citizenship as other posts herein have indicated. Under any circumstance, not being a natural born U.S. Citizen will automatically exclude Obama from being president.
I’m not sure about the riots. We have had many conflicts in our nation’s past, and I’m certain all of the compassionate liberals and socialists will merely turn the other cheek and accept their Messiah’s fate.
Ooops. There I go, thinking like a conservative again. My mistake.
I don’t think Barak Obama could ever qualify for a position with the FBI or CIA because of his past associations – he would not be eligible for a security clearance. Seems the presidential position might be as important, if not more, than a job at the CIA or FBI and yet he got elected based on, well, I haven’t figured that one out yet.
I doubt Bush Jr could have been an eligible candidate for the FBI or CIA either. Look at his record. He probably would not have passed the IQ test anyhow.
Obama was elected. There be no need to have qualifications. Pretty face, nice voice, good word choices and selection. Oh yeah and he’s black. Most of America is not white, male, protestant. Most of America is made up of men and women, from different minority groups, with a middle protestant view. Has anyone noticed that he has not been photographed with rolled up sleeves since the election? Or at least not much at all??? Kind of makes you wonder how everything is staged for perception. He’s now, buttoned up, jacket on (usually bottuned again, etc…. Different profile is emerging.
People grasping at straws. If God appeared and attested to Obama’s citizenship, a number of fanatics would disavow God. Let’s put it this way, he’s proven it to a majority of Americans who would not tolerate obstruction of his inauguration. I knew people could be bitter, but this is really going to some depths. Sewer news. For the sake of the Republic, let’s hope that the Justices just give this a quick merciful depth and the radicals can fume in provate.
To all who have weighed in on this very interesting and educational debate, I offer the following: Last night and today I read every entry and visited almost all of the links. I have listened to the arguments on both sides of the issue regarding Obama’s eligibility to be The POTUS. Although I am a conservative, for the sake of our country, I hope and pray that Obama WILL respond by providing the necessary documnetation that WILL prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is eligible to serve. As my President I will pray for him often. If he can not or refuses to prove his eligibility, our country is going to sink even further into the pits of despair, especially if Obama is legally required to step aside. However, let not your hearts be troubled, and do not be afraid. God has everything under His control. Everything happens for a reason. God places rulers in their positions of power and He can remove them just as easily. God will have the final say in all of this. Therefore, we need to fully trust in Him. For those of you who are “non-believers” I know I am speaking Chinese. For those of us who do “believe”, we know there is a much greater reward beyond the relatively short lifespan that most of us enjoy here on planet Earth. We also know that we can only see a very small fraction of a much bigger purpose and plan for all of mankind that is unfolding before our very eyes. May God bless and protect the USA.
Thanks for the fun post Highlander!! I about fell out of my chair laughing at you, but that’s OK right? Funniest moment? This little gem:
That, from a guy who spends about half his post attacking “liberals” for “undermining” America! LOL!!! Physician, heal thyself!
So- you want an FBI forensics lab to vet Obama’s birth certificate?? GOOD for you, Gene!! [pats Gene on head].
Now you go run along and play while the rest of us non tin foil hatters accept the HI state officials as the authority on whether or not someone was born in their state. Don’t pop a gasket while you watch the inaugration!
Regarding SCOTUS: Sorry, you have heard the last of it from them. The next note will be a “REJECTED” on the writ. Without even a comment. Simply put- they know it is meaningless.
Robert ~ Nov 22, 2008 at 6:34 pm
You prove my point.
Sadly, I had expected more from you.
Ahh, Juan. After telling me people like me are what’s wrong with America, why would you expect ANYTHING out of me?
Other than the last fact: The USSC knows this is a non issue and will dismiss it without comment.
Mark my words.
FredVN,
I appreciate your perspective – thank you.
You’re welcome Ann.
Someone in the string of comments mentioned a relationship Obama had with Larry Sinclair. So I did some research and found the following site which is a video of Sinclair’s press conference regarding the matter:
http://larrysinclair.org/press.html
It appears the MSM decided to give Obama another pass.
There are many more videos on YouTube using “Larry Sinclair” as a search entry. I hope none of this is true. If it is God help us.
@FredVN: I cannot find the link but I remember reading that Obama’s accuser failed two polygraph tests about his claims. His stories were not consistent and had no evidence.
On Nov.21, The KENYAN AMBASSADOR CONFIRMED OBAMA WAS BORN IN KENYA.. (NOT IN HAWAII, NOT ON AMERICAN SOIL….)
LISTEN TO THE CALL TO THE KENYAN EMBASSY ABOUT BARACK OBAMA ON November 21, 2008.
THIS CALL IS 100% REAL! http://my.wrif.com/mim/?p=916
You who think this is fake or “a bit”…
IT IS NOT!
Now take a listen…Quit complaining…And take it for what it is-a cancellation of the ELECTION! B. HUSSEIN OBAMA SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ALLOWED ON THE PRESIDENTIAL BALLOT TO BEGIN WITH-THERE WILL BE NO INAUGURATION ON JANUARY 20TH-PERIOD. TO ATTEMPT TO DO SO WILL BE A DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
@Warren, Thanks for your response Warren. FYI – I found these videos regarding an analyis of the polygraph tests taken by Larry Sinclair:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1uMEXiv1ng&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc8Ys8iXTiU
It seems that even the results of the polygraph tests are debatable and inconclusive. What I found interesting is that the gentleman speaking on these videos, George Maschke, “said he is an Obama supporter and even donated to Obama’s campaign. If these videos had been prepared by someone on the “right” , i.e. someone who has an ax to grind”, they would have much less credibility. I think the jury is still out on this one. Nevertheless, I hope and pray none of this is true. What concerns me the most is how would a former cocaine user hold up under the tremendous stress and strain that inherently comes with the job of being the POTUS, especially in these very difficult times? Isn’t it a fact that Obama has openly admitted to using cocaine at one stage of his life? I have never used cocaine and do not know what it takes to get someone to “fall off the wagon” or what it would take to trigger someone to start using the drug again. Maybe others who know more about how a former cocaine user holds up under stress could weigh in on this sidebar issue if you feel it is appropriate.
I know we are deviating away from the primary focus of the dicussion, however, it all relates to the man’s capacity to serve as POTUS. Discussions regarding the distasteful sexual content of Sinclairs allegations I will leave for others to opine.
Howard Roark–
You tell the Obama supporters to quit complaining. LOL. But I thought the issue was that we weren’t listening…we weren’t take this seriously…that we were blissfully following our Messiah. Complaining seems to be your domain not ours.
FredVN–
While Obama’s admission of cocaine usage may be alarming, please remember that our current POTUS apparently had a few issues of his own before he settled down.
To all:
Isn’t one of the primary roles of the POTUS to defend the Constitution of these United States? Time is running out. Rather than wasting your time here trying to convince us wacked out Obama supporters, may I suggest that you take your complaints and allegations straight to the top…to King George himself.
Then, after we’ve resolved this issue, I’m thinking we need to update or make clarifying amendments to the Constitution. I’d really like to avoid any challenges in future elections based on ‘natural born’…we ought to clarify the meaning so some don’t challenge a future candidate based on the fact they were born by C-section.
@Eddy
Yea Eddy, I thought of that too.
“remember that our current POTUS apparently had a few issues of his own before he settled down”
And based upon some of W’s decisions recently, who really knows except perhaps Laura? I do know how alcohol abuse can affect someone because I have seen it in my own family and struggled with it my self until 1976. However, I am not sure how someone’s mind adjusts to cocaine abuse, especially over the long haul.
It may be providential but the Youth Pastor at our church this morning gave a message called “From Gangs to God” describing how in his youth he formed a gang in Lancaster, PA, abused drugs (he did not use cocaine), committed crimes and every sin imaginable under the sun. By the grace of God he was able to turn his life around and is now living the clean life. Someone recently approached him about writing a book about his life. His story would make a great movie. By the way, his name is Eddie. So, I know anything is possible if we turn to a power greater than ourselves to overcome the vices in our lives.
Have a great day.
FredVN–
There were also some pretty strong rumors that our current POTUS dabbled in cocaine as well…I believe back in his college days. Like many drugs, there are the dabblers and the addicts. Dabbling would have put him at the risk of dependency and addiction and been a temporary drain on his wallet but I’m not sure there’s any hard evidence re permanent brain damage caused by dabbling or experimenting. I worried more about the alcohol because I believe his position and his marriage likely provided some pretty major roadblocks to revisiting cocaine. Alcohol would be more insidious since we have a construct of acceptable, moderate usage…hence, easier to play around on the edges without raising any huge red flags.
In REAL news:
It looks like Bill Richardson will be named to a cabinet post.
Moral of the story: While the far right makes up issues that don’t exist, the real work of preparing to govern continues.
Just more evidence that this stuff about birth certificates, etc. is rightfully ignored. These are dangerous times for our country, and distractions like this must be kept to the wingnut fringe.
FOI request for Obama’s birth certificate –found on the internet at http://www.DailyJeff.com-has all 50 SOS emails-1 stop emailing!
FOI REQUEST TO ALL SOS FOR OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE
We need to find out what the SOS of the various States know about Obama’s birth certificate and qualifications to be president. If you have time, please send/fax/email the following FOI (freedom of information letter) to some or all of the SOS bureau of elections. After you get a response please post on http://www.obamacrimes.com, http://www.freerepublic.com, http://www.peoplespassions.org, http://americamustknow.com,www.rallycongress.com.
1. The address , fax number and email address for the Bureau of elections for the states are at http://www.eac.gov.
2. I like the faxes because they will respond quicker to them. Print off your generic FOI request and past/tape the next name over the top and fax it off. See emails listed below for all 50 SOS.Cut and paste to send all 50 at one time. Sit back and wait for answers.
November 21, 2008
TO: BUREAU OF ELECTIONS
Bureau of Elections, California
1500 11th St, 5th Floor FAX: 916-653-5634
Sacramento, CA 95814 Email: elections@sos.ca.gov
ATTN: Freedom of Information Officer
REF: Freedom of Information Act Request/Privacy Act/ Open Meeting Act, Common Law
This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act. Please send the following documents for examining and photocopying:
1. Documents that show that Barack Obama is qualified to be President of the United States , including but not limited to:
a. Original birth certificate
b. Proof that he is a natural born United States citizen
c. Proof that he was born in Kenya
AS you know , the FOIA provides that if a portions of a document are exempt from release, the remainder must be segregated and disclosed. Therefore, I would like to examine all nonexempt portions of the records that I requested and I ask that you justify and deletions by citing specific exemptions of the FOIA
This is a continuing request into the future for 6 months.
If this is not the proper department, please forward to the Election Bureau/SOS.
I promise to pay reasonable search and duplication fees in connection with this request. (Note: The FOIA permit some fee reduction or waivers).
Please notify me if the charges will exceed ($20.00), so that I can decide whether to authorize a higher amount.
Thank you for your assistance, I look forward to receiving your reply within five business days, as required by law.
Sincerely,
Robert Johnson
123 Main St
Anywhere , CA
Cc: Clerk of the US Supreme Court
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543
FAX: (209) 479-3021
WARNING
Should any person try to cover up this request or documents herein, BE YOU HEREBY PUT ON NOTICE: You may be indicted under USC Title 18 Sec. 3. 4, 2381, 2382, 2383, and 2384. Also, 4 U.S.C. & 101, federal law requires all state employees and officers take an oath of office and records kept of such administered oath.
Jeannie.price@sos.alabama.gov,governor@alaska.gov,governorsoffice@asg-gov.net,
sosadmin@azsos.gov,sos@sosmail.state.ar.us,constituentaffairs@sos.ca.gov,
secretary@state.co.us ,susan.bysiewicz@po.state.ct.us ,lorilee.harrison@state.de.us ,
Stephanie.scott@dc.gov,secretaryofstate@dos.state.fl.us,sosweb@sos.state.ga.us,
elections@aloha.net,sosinfo@sos.idaho.gov,JWhite@ilos.net,
constituentservices@sos.in.gov,sos@sos.state.ia.us,kssos@kssos.org,sos.secretary@ky.gov,
bobby.jindal@la.gov,sos.office@maine.gov,bmorris@sos.state.md.us,
agoweb@state.ma.us,secretary@michigan.gov,secretary.state@state.mn.us,
administrator@sos.state.ms.us,sosmain@sos.mo.gov,sos@mt.gov,receptionist@sos.ne.gov,
sosmail@sos.nv.gov,elections@sos.state.nh.us,feedback@sos.state.nj.us,
nmsos@state.nm.us,info@dos.state.ny.us,emarshal@sosnc.com,sos@nd.gov,
tworley@sos.state.oh.us,governor@gov.state.ok.us,Oregon.sos@state.or.us,
pcortes@state.pa.us,correo@fortaleza.gobierno.pr,comments@sec.state.ri.us,
rdaggerhart@sos.sc.gov,sdsos@state.sd.us,phil.bredesen@state.tn.us,
secretary@sos.state.tx.us,mshurtleff@utah.gov,dmarkowitz@sec.state.vt.us,
justice@usvi.org,soc@governor.virginia.gov,mail@secstate.wa.gov,
wvsos@wvsos.com,wigov@gov.state.wi.us,secofstate@state.wy.us,
@Eddy,
I agree Eddy with one exception; I think it would be far easier for the former or even the POTUS – Elect to hide a cocaine problem, even if it were occuring today. I could take one look at my Mom and know when she had taken even one drink…….I could see it in her eyes. Furthermore, the odor of alcohol is very strong and distinctive. I can tell when someone has gotten tanked up the night before, because they smell like booze the next day. The odor can’t be easily washed away. Plus, continued abuse soon becomes evident because the person’s performance starts to suffer. I don’t know if any of this would be readily evident with cocaine abuse. Notwithstanding, we all need to pray often for Obama. He is inheriting a very difficult job indeed.
If Obama was born in Kenya yet Hawaii was generous to allow him citizenship 4 days later why would his Mom fly back so fast and lie applying for this COLB and needlessly say he was born in Honolulu? This secret Muslim plotted his illegal Presidency at birth?
People say Maya did this also. Where is her COLB? I haven’t seen it.
Didn’t the law allowing this possible late birth cert scam only pass in 1982?
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm
just show the birth cirtificate … ive got mine, youve got yours … where is his ?????? were not asking for him to anything really hard or demeaning, if he was truly born here, then why is that so hard fro him to do? i hade to show mine to play little leauge ball, water polo, go to college and get my license, if i cant have them without my birth cirtificate, then why should he be allowed to lead a country without his? for all of you saying get off his back, i say get off his nuts. once he grows a pair and shows hes from here (if he can) then well back off. common sense will tell you that somthing is fishy if he will not relese his documents
There is a lot of hateful nonsense posted on this site.
A certificate of live birth is acceptable proof of Obama’s citizenship and has been accepted during the course of his life and by EVERY STATE in order to place him on the ballot during the election.
The US Government is NEUTRAL as the question of multiple citizenship. You can check the Dept of State’s website. I am a dual citizen and possess two passports.I didn’t have to renounce my US citizenship and using my US passport to enter and leave the US is about the issue with it. Please get your facts straight.
As for having to renounce (not denounce) US citizenship, this is true for naturalized citizens who are ADULTS. Renouncing US citizenship is a serious matter and is not taken lightly by the US government. Once should expect an interview with a State Department official before such an act. Minors are unable to renounce their citizenship because they are minors. Parents can not do it for them in the event that they claim other citizenship.
Barack Obama won the election and will be the next president. Get over it.
@James Ralston: There is some hate in the commenters (if you mean me, please point it out); but there is also lots of misunderstanding fueled by far right blogs. I am interested in this on several levels and one is the power of this narrative. But I also have attempted to debunk some of the claims regarding this narrative. The information you provide is a part of that narrative but sadly, so too is your dismissive tone toward those who are misinformed.
“Regarding Karen’s question of who should enforce the eligibility requirements: current precedent is the secretaries of state of each of the states for which the candidate is on the ballot.”
And if they don’t — citizens also don’t have standing to sue the SOS to force the SOS to keep unqualified candidates off the allot. See Steve Marquis case.
@Warren: I’m not pointing to any particular commenter, but to the comments themselves. It’s exhausting listening to and reading this stuff from the right wing. Enough already. I got here today because my wife and I heard about this issue over the weekend. I’m amazed at how many suits have been filed. It’s nonesense.
I think it’s undeniable that some of the comments doubting Obama’s citizenship are expressions of hate and my comments are directed at those. Some of this hatred is political, some of it is cultural and unfortunately, some of it is racial and religious, but it’s all hateful and I’ll call ‘em like as I see ‘em.
It’s hateful because it can’t be based on reality. Barack Obama is a qualified citizen and has shown sufficient documentation to prove it. By virtue of being born of his mother, a US citizen – even it his birth occurred abroad and his father is foreign – President Elect Barack Obama is a citizen. Minors can not renounce citizenship and forfeiting US citizenship is very difficult and extremely rare, so some of the assertions here that he has compromised his citizenship are baseless. There is absolutely no credible evidence to indicate that his citizenship is in question.
Many of the assertions about citizenship on this site are simply factually wrong and show the posters, and the propagators of these myths to be lazy and hateful. A visit to the State Department will be enough to get the facts.
When people make comments, or file law suits, that have no basis in fact, they should be dismissed and if my tone is dismissive toward them, then so be it. There’s no reason to entertain nonsense and lies as if they are somehow credible when they simply are not. Haven’t we had enough of lies driving this country’s conversations and policies over the last eight years?
doesn’t the hospital have medical records from the attending physician and nurses and anesthesiologist for both labor and delivery and then after the birth? That would be a good place to start as far as where he was born.
Hospitals can’t release medical records without breaking the HIPA law.
To suggest otherwise is to create yet another avenue that the right wingers will consider thwarted by Obama and his minions.
Look, if the nut cases think Obama has committed a crime by running for office as a non-citizen, then it is up to the accusers to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. But they know they can’t.
They just want to create doubt and fear, stoke hate and foment discord and division.
James Ralston,
Contrary to the legal opinions you are expressing in a couple of your posts, there appear to be actual legal issues involved in the Obama matter. Let’s let SCOTUS and the lower courts decide if there is any legitimacy in these Obama cases. Unless you are a Constitutional attorney and have reviewed all of the various case files, I’m not certain you really want to be expressing legal opinion.
By the way, Obama can clear up any misunderstanding concerned with his birth status by merely revealing his background material, which, as you well know, he refuses to do. Combining the Obama secrecy with the changing stories (like which hospital he was born in), and you have disbelief. People pick up on that and then ask questions. Nothing sinister going on, people just want to know their president to-be is qualified and eligible.
So, the question has to be asked ‘why won’t Obama reveal his background information?’ You can’t answer that question, and neither can I, but it needs to be answered. Soon.
And, finally, regarding hateful comments, you ain’t seen nuthin here. I suggest you review some conservative web sites (e.g. TownHall.com) and see how absolutely nasty and vile some emotional and immature liberals can be. They put conservatives to shame.
My own belief is that, if everyone, who adds to this blog and the other blogs associated with Obama’s being a qualified candidate to run for the Office of President, can be cordial to each other and treat the topic with reason, logic, and common sense, we will all benefit, and maybe answer a few questions along the way.
Sounds like a win-win solution to me.
James Ralston,
One other thought. Well, actually three.
You said:
“Some of this hatred is political, some of it is cultural and unfortunately, some of it is racial and religious…”
1. Hatred is a strong word, and I’m not certain I would see that emotion very prevalent in these blogs. To hate someone or something, you have to know them or it. We-all just don’t know Obama well enough to hate him. In time that may happen. Then again, Americans are a pretty forgiving people. Look at what we put up with in Congress.
2. The only racism I observed in this election was on the part of the black community, and that was in nearly 100% deference to Obama who appears to be half black and half white, but promotes himself as being black, rather than being white. Is that the racism you see?
3. I have no idea what you are referring to with the religious comment, unless you are referring to Obama being declared Muslim while in Indonesia, and that being held against him in today’s United States. Our Judeo-Christian country being at war with certain Muslim extremists around the world may account for some of that prejudice. And it is real.
Interesting that you did not comment about Obama’s political training and theories. Now there’s a can of worms for some one to take on.
All,
Very interesting article this morning on World Net Daily which sheds some new light on the matter of Obama’s eligibility.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81944
FredVN ~ Nov 25, 2008 at 8:20 am
Thank you. Good post.
If readers haven’t seen this video, I suspect you will find it interesting also:
http://howobamagotelected.com/
The original birth certificate and Obama’s country of birth are moot issues. Since Obama’s father was apparently already married at the time he married Obama’s pregnant mother, the purported Hawaiian marriage was “void ab initio” per Hawaiian statute(s) and Hawaiian case law. Accordingly, an entirely different set of United States’ citizenship laws are applicable. A child born out-of-wedlock in a foreign country to an American citizen mother and an alien father gains United States’ citizenship at birth if the mother had been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of one year prior to the child’s birth. If it is proven that Obama’s father was already married in Kenya, President-elect Obama will be President Obama come January. (A Retired Lawyer)
HighlanderJuan ~ Nov 25, 2008 at 8:30 am
Yes, I saw the video you posted last week. It apparently has the “left” steaming mad and understandably so. Makes them look very foolish and uninformed. I understand someone (a conservative) offered money to Zogby to do a similar poll of McCain supporters but Zogby refused. It would have been an interesting comparison. What is worrisome is that the vast majority of voters I talk to are not well informed at all (thanks to the MSM). People need to spend time digging around on the internet to find the truth. Most are too lazy or too busy to do so.
To TRS: where did you find info that Obama’s birth Father was already married when he married Obama’s mother? I don’t recall reading or hearing about this before but perhaps I missed it. Do you have a link?
Thanks
RE: FredVN
(1) Information included in various pleadings in other filed cases . (2) Based on statements made by Obama’s Kenyan half brothers and sisters (some older and some younger than Obama). TRS
New Video: Dr. Ron Polarik on the authenticity of Obama’s COLB:
http://www.obamacrimes.com/
This video provides an analysis of Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth by Dr. Ron Polarik detailing the factors contributing to his conclusion that the document is not authentic. “Dr. Polarik” is a pseudonym and his identity is obscured in this video.
One thing is clear to me, a citizen, and a voter, the GOP sures hates to LOSE an election. This is, sorry, scholars of the law, chickenshit shenanigans for us ordinary citizens. Barack Obama is our next president. Get over it!
Food for thought:
What if McCain were the Pres-Elect and he was the one being pressured to prove his citizenship. Let’s suppose that McCain now realized, at this late stage in the game, that he could not possibly prove that he was qualified to be POTUS. What if it became perfectly clear to him that this issue is not going to go away. What would he do?
McCain is a man of integrity. He obvioiusly loves his country. He honors and upholds the principles of the US Constitution. I am certain that he would say something to the effect, “I screwed up and my campaign screwed up. We truly thought we could produce a valid birth certificate but we can not. We did not expect this issue to become a major problem. Unfortunately it has. It is now clear that I can not prove that I am quailified to be the POTUS . Therefore, for the sake of our great nation, I have no choice but to step aside and turn this matter over to the Courts and to the Congress to bring to a reasonable resolution.”
If on the other hand, McCain could prove his citizenship, he would have done so immediately (as he actually did) to eliminate any doubts or ambiguities.
Another significant difference would have been that if it were McCain as Pres-Elect who had not produced the appropriate birth certificate, this issue would have been the lead story every night on all of the major news networks. It would have been above the fold in all of the daily newspapers. The MSM and liberal blogs would have been relentless in their attack mode hammering away every day until McCain either proved he was qualified or until he stepped aside.
Even though I am a conservative who voted for McCain, I too would have insisted that he prove that he is indeed qualified to be the POTUS. The mess that would be created by having an illegitimate POTUS could be disasterous to our nation at this critical time in US history.
I pray that Obama will honestly and thoroughly resolve this matter before he becomes POTUS.
Oh my goodness, there’s an important ‘must see’ video by a doctor using a pseudonym on a website called ‘ObamaCrimes’. Why, I think I’m going to drop everything and rush right over there to check it out.
One poster provided about 50 links to governor’s offices; I suggested going to the chief Defender of the Constitution himself. LOL. Was that the blog where they were reminded that any attempts to delete or derail the message would also be punishable crimes? And yet, this ‘fight for truth’ still runs primarily on blogs. The major news sources, including those that endorsed McCain, are ignoring the story. No governor, of either political persuasion, is heeding the demand for action. The current POTUS is either unaware of this alarming threat to our Constitution or hasn’t deemed it worthy of comment. What could possibly explain that? Does Obama have them ALL under his spell?
I am a professor of law and a defender of the U.S. Constitution at Penn State. First, after reading through all of the wrangling here “C.J.” hS IT RIGHT! He did his homework to the letter. Lets recape to get this mess right. many here think or do not know what the real facts are to be president of this counrty. The Constitution is fact and clear!
Articles of the U.S. Constitution state:”To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born. Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.”
Natural-born citizen
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”
“Anyone born inside the United States
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.”
That is how it stands, cut and dry!
People, if you have any problems in what to think, try reading Article 14, Section 8 of the Constitution and be informed.
Hey everone,
Lets all just google U.S. Constitution and get the facts as they stand!
I have to laugh when I read peoples comments that question the big deal over the requirements to be the President of one if not the most powerful nation on earth. I mean what the heck? If you have the time to write two dozen entrees in thisblog and others then first do you research before making ignorant entrees. It offends me that there are people who live in the USA and don’t even know what the facts are conserning the right to be President!
People stop writing and start researching before making uneducated comments to blog sites!
Lynn David,
I am sorry for my mistake about Obama’s father’s back ground, I had bad info from a independent web blogger. I should have done a better job in my research. Obama’s real father is all Ken. and of that nation.
Hey everone,
Read these and get the facts cut and dry from the U.S. Constitution:
Fourteenth Amendment (1868): Defines a set of guarantees for United States citizenship; prohibits states from abridging citizens’ privileges or immunities and rights to due process and the equal protection of the law; repeals the Three-fifths compromise; prohibits repudiation of the federal debt caused by the Civil War. (Full text)
Twelfth Amendment (1804): Changes the method of presidential elections so that members of the Electoral College cast separate ballots for president and vice president. (Full text
HAVE A HAPPY THANKSGIVING
CJ–
I haven’t noticed anyone questioning the importance or significance of the Constitution…unfortunately it uses the phrase ‘natural born citizen’…some are questioning what that means and others are questioning exactly what proves that status.
I also haven’t noticed any one blogger posting two dozen times in this thread. I’ll have to count but I’m thinking ‘highlanderJuan’ is our winner.
I agree with you that it’s time to move this discussion off the blogs. Since I am satisfied (perhaps in my stupidity) that Obama’s Certificate of Birth proves his citizenship, don’t count on me to be the one to contact the necessary powers that be to defend the challenges made against that certificate. For those of you who feel that the certificate doesn’t count or that it’s been altered, I agree totally with c.j., stop blogging here about it and take your evidence and/or suspicions to someone who can do something about it. It’s very good advice!
James Ralston ,
I have to disagree with your comments. “There is a lot of hateful nonsense posted on this site.”
I beleive that the bloggers on this site are just having a very mature debate and to call it “hate ” is very ignorant on your part. Maybe it is time to look at your own life and first find the hate in you before finding it in others!
Eddy and C.J.
I have to commend both of you on sticking to the facts and siting your faults when they happen instead of blaming another. Thank you both!
Eddy,
I think your up there with HighlanderJuan on the number of comments on this site. I do think that C.J. was just using a little embellishment on the two dozen comments. lol.
Hey Guys,
I’m all for keeping things pithy, but the title of this blog is: “Berg vs Obama: Response to Supreme Court due December 1,” and I thought that was what we were discussing.
If the subject matter has changed, I must have missed that class.
If you’re saying that all that can be said, has been said, I would disagree.
If you’re saying difference of opinion is irrelevant, I would ask how we would learn if we all believed the same things.
If you’re questioning the legal resolution to these questions about Obama, then we can discuss the elements in this blog, but the courts will have to decide how the final resolution will be decided (I don’t trust the parties to decide because they are too prejudiced in their own favor).
So, are you suggesting this blog is finished?
Eddy,
I was just kidding a bit with my comment on the two dozen entrees stuff. lol.
I was just trying to joke a bit. I do think you right about that Highlander gal. You too have quite a few comments hare as well. Oh, well we live this life to to have fun and make sport of our nieghbors in your turn. Talk is cheap but actions make history!
HighlanderJuan,
Absolutly not. I love a grand debate and look foreward to more on Obama. Although the U.S. Constituion defines the rights to be president and they are fact!
I find this whole thing very vexing indeed.
c.j. ~ Nov 27, 2008 at 1:13 pm
This is a vexing problem for all thinking Americans. The only ones escaping the issues are those who are poorly informed or those who are brain dead and just don’t care.
Time to enjoy Thanksgiving and remember all of the wonderful things we do have in our lives.
Happy Thanksgiving!
I hear you. There have actually been about 28 new topics presented by Warren since this one was posted. Several deal with Obama and one is actually an update to this particular topic. I’m a regular here…it’s really the only place that I blog. This particular ‘thread’ has brought in a host of ‘newbies’ and, I’m assuming, they are coming in via web links otherwise they’d likely be posting on the more updated version.
My personal bias is that I tire of endless discussions especially when they go ‘circular’…saying essentially the same thing in a different way. I’m action oriented and really mean it when I say “Please, please take this information and put it in the hands of someone who can do more with it than just spin.” It feels we’ve devolved to that point. (LOL. After the 100th comment or so, most threads do. It goes more to ‘tit for tat’…or ‘pithy’ as Highlander called it…or ’snarky’ as we tend to call it around here.)
In short, I feel we’ve reached the point where little new is being said and we’re all (myself included) simply going for ‘the zingers’. We might be winning some debate points, might be impressing the folks already on our side, might be stirring things up…but are we accomplishing anything other than fostering a spirit of animosity? So, I shamelessly took advantage of your suggestion directed at ‘the lefties’ and turned it around. At the same time, though, directed our attention to the fact that we ’spin’ here; if the concerns are both serious and legitimate, time is running out.
If a legal response is justified and called for, the sooner it comes the better. We are in a very rough spot in our nation; I hungered for the time that the election process would come to a close so that we, as a nation, could focus on the positives in one another once again rather than our political and idealogical divides. My bias just wants the infighting to end.
That isn’t just because it would hopefully favor my candidate of choice. I hated the entire chad-counting mess in Florida that preceded our current POTUS’ first term…but I hated even more all the conspiracy talk, the insinuations against his brother Jeb as Florida’s governor, the resurfacing of issues that I thought we had resolved or adequately addressed during the campaign, all the side issues that distract from the real and basic challenge. So I keep going back to “gather all the allegations and proofs” that challenge Obama’s natural born citizenship and get them into the right hands.
All,
I find it refreshing that the commentors on this blog are respectful to one another (with a few exceptions).
May we all stop and count our blessings, even in these challenging times.
Happy Thanksgiving to all.
@FredVN: Yes, Fred, we strive for that here.
Let me say thanks for that because it makes blogging a lot more fun for me. To all the new commenters, I am glad to have join in.
Why has no lawmen gone after these new eletronic voting machines and challeneged then in their ability to keep voter fraud at bay. I have been hearing many people in different circles both Dems and Rep. complain about how easy it was to cheat the system. With the paper chads you got one, punched it, then put it into the machine to be counted. These new machines you press the screen to start, make your selections, then hit finish. The screen goes back to the beginning and any fast fingered person could quickly vote 2-3 times in a row a leave. I have contacted the Board of Elections and they did amit that it is a serious loop-hole in the system. Then the election could have been rigged by fake votes and the Lady I talked to said there is the chance that it did happen at the larger voting places. I would like to see a revote but with the paper chads instead of the electronic machines and see how different the results would be.
RECALL<RECALL,RECALL!!!!!!!!!
c.j.–
This is one of those side issues I was referring to. It come across like you’re trying to throw a dozen mudballs at the wall in hopes that one of them will stick. This particular topic is about Obama’s citizenship.
But, beyond that, I have two major problems with your complaint. First, it seems to suggest that only Democrats would be dishonest enough to attempt to take advantage of this systemic flaw. That’s just a tad offensive, don’t you agree?
Second, it wouldn’t just demand a presidential race recall but would challenge every election for candidates on every level where this new machinery was in place–whether the current declared winner was Democrat or Republican. Do we really want to go there?
I do commend you for the follow through on this technical flaw but I think it’s something we need to push to have corrected by the next election. To go back and have a revote on all levels for the 2008 elections seems implausible.
Red Alert!!!
There is a great article by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
linked to:
http://www.obamacitizenshipfacts.org/
Scroll down to bottom and click on:
“Obama Must Stand Up Now Or Step Down.”
This article is a MUST READ! Dr. Viera has impressive credentials and he obviously knows his stuff. Please read the entire article. We can not allow the scenario he describes play out in our great nation.
Thanks for that important link, Fred. I was especially fascinated by the evidence presented on Youtube, from an “expert” who obscured his own identity in the video.
When I first saw it, it looked and sounded a bit like my neighbor Hank. But that couldn’t be, because he knows nothing about forgery and birth certificates. And we know that no way he could get something like that up on Youtube without credentials…
FredVN–
My computer must have been hijacked my the lefties…I followed your link but could not find anything with the title “Obama Must Stand Up Now or Step Down”,
@Robert- You are welcome
@Eddy – (and others seaching for the link): I found the following direct link to the article written by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
It is much easier to find using this link.
http://www.sodahead.com/blog/25353/obama-must-stand-up-now-or-step-down/
Sorry for the confusion….some of these articles are embedded 2 and 3 layers deep on the hosting websites.
FredVN ~ Nov 29, 2008 at 12:02 am
Thank you for the post. Very interesting indeed.
Much clearer posting, Fred. Thanks- bypasses right by the ridiculuous Youtube stuff.
Eddie,
I ment no offence to any party, I was just poinying out how eay it was to cheat the system. As far as a recall that was just a bit of jest. It still would be interesting to see the differances.
Thanks for the clarification, C.J. I, too, have jested–mostly on other threads–only to realize that my attempts at humor or jesting were lost on those reading. My bad!
FredVN–
Thanks for the new link. I’ll follow after my next cup of coffee. It was a late night at karaoke last night.
Okay…so I opted against another cup of coffee. It was good reading, Highlander and I agree with Robert that it was much better than the YouTube offerings. Between that and the posting from Dr. Collens I feel we have some solid facts and a base for an informed discussion.
I’m puzzled, though, I realize that Dr. Collens opens with agreeing with C.J. but then it seems that Obama is covered in the expanded definition of what constitutes a natural born citizen. Even if he, himself, was born somewhere other than on American soil, his mother was a U.S. citizen. Wouldn’t the question go more to whether she had renounced her citizenship prior to his birth? If not, on what basis are we questioning his natural born status? (I believe someone, somewhere earlier in the comments, said that her age at the time of his birth threw another wild card into the mix…is that what disqualifies his citizenship?)
My reasoning, although it certainly could be flawed, is that his citizenship hasn’t been ‘credibly challenged’ (based on my logic–or lack thereof–in the previous paragraph). If the mother’s age is a legitmate disqualifier, then that would be a credible challenge. If evidence exists that she renounced her U.S. citizenship prior to his birth, that would again be a credible challenge. If evidence exists that Obama, himself, renounced his citizenship that would, of course, be another.
My mind keeps wandering to Abe Lincoln, ‘born in a log cabin’. Perhaps we’ve played with the facts there and mean simply that he was ‘raised’ in a log cabin. If he was indeed born there, then there was likely no attending physician witness or nurse to authenticate a birth certificate. I keep wondering if the ‘certificate of live birth’ is the document we use when a child, for whatever reason, isn’t born in a hospital with medically licensed attendants.
At this point, however, I submit that the reasonings of both Dr. Collens and Dr. Viera need to be submitted to a higher court for review. Beyond that, as a lay person with only an associates degree in theology, I’ve got more questions than answers. Thanks again for the second link!
Eddy,
Good comments. I have a few additional thoughts for you to consider.
1. I think the Berg case discusses the mother influence.
2. Regarding the Abe Lincoln situation, I think we are all discussing the verification techniques that are available during the last 50 years for Obama, and we should be able to take advantage of newer technology where possible.
3. There is also the question of fraud with Obama, and that is why we are all looking so closely at his offerings (or lack thereof).
4. So far, Edwin Vieira appears to be the most complete and concise describer of facts and legal issues that I have read on this whole matter.
As I suggested earlier, the final judgment should/must come from the courts, perhaps only the Supreme Court, as the lower courts seem to be biased.
But I really like Vieira’s discussion.
HighlanderJuan–
Agreed on all points! Have a great day.
LOL. I’ve been procrastinating on housekeeping chores and really need to give the blogging a rest until I make some progress. (And a round of cheers swept the land….)
Eddy, HighlanderJuan and Robert,
I appreciate all of your comments. FYI – I sent an email to Sean Hannity this AM with the link to Vieria’s article and asked Sean to PLEASE bring this to the attention of all Americans. Hopefully he will follow through. I also intend to fax a copy to SCOTUS from my office on Monday. Sean could certainly do a “Hannity’s America” show with a Constitutional lesson demonstrating what would happen to our country if we swore in an illegitimate POTUS w/o even naming Obama. For the love of God, I hope the SCOTUS (or somebody) forces Obama to prove he is legitimate w/o a shadow of a doubt so we can put this behind us. For the sake of our Country I hope and pray Obama can indeed prove he is legit. Otherwise, there will be hell to pay which would make Watergate look like child’s play. The left will say this is just another “right wing conspiracy” and that there are a bunch of sore losers on the right . To that I say, this is not a left or right issue…this is an American issue.
LOL. I’ve been stressing getting this into the hands of legal folks NOT a political commentator who is already infamous for a conservative bias. This situation wants resolve not more speculation and divisive talk.
The notion of discussing the constitutional ramifications without mentioning Obama by name is misguided. Anyone with half a brain would wonder what brought this topic to the forefront at this time. If Hannity does feel impelled to discuss this, I’d rather he did it head on, citing the specifics of this situation. Anything short of this would only fan the rumor mills rather than lead to resolve.
Darn but it’s easy to avoid doing the dishes!
Warren, I think your system clock is off. My clock says 1:21 p.m. EST. Let’s see when this posts.
Hmm, it appears to be an hour off…I’ll look into it. Perhaps the future is so bright, I am just in a hurry to get there?
Warren–
LOL! That one’s a keeper!
I noticed the time thing a day or so ago but thought it was a glitch in my computer.
@Eddy,
I agree with you Eddy. Sean is a lightning rod for the left, he would be attached w/o mercy and the story would certainly be dismissed by the MSM. However, he is probably the only one in the media with the “brass tacks” to do it. After I made the last post I came to the same conclusion that you did….that if Sean did jump in the frey he should do it head on. He should have Dr Vieira as a guest on his show to allow him to do most of the talking (if Vieira would be courageous enough to do so, for obvious reasons). Another option would be for “WE THE PEOPLE” to secure the services of Dr. Vieria to see if he could bring a case to the courts on the behalf of all of us who want our Constitution upheld….assuming the current filings with the SCOTUS are dismissed or inconclusive. That option could be explored after December 5.
Warren,
I just visited your bio and website to find out more about you (yea, I was checking up on you) and came across the link to “ChristianBlues”. I intend to thoroughly check out this site. In the short time since I have joined your blog I have also found links from many of your commenters to very interesting and informative sites that I would not have otherwise known even existed. My “favorites” list has been expanding rapidly. Thank you Warren and thank you commenters for those links….keep them coming.
Hey guys and gals,
I heard from a friend that on either Nov. 19 or 20 U.S. Supreme Court Cheif Justice Thomas put a “Stay” or halt on the Electoral College from voting until Obama provides all his history including his Long copy b-cert. I looked into this and he is right on the money.
I like how the news outlets are totally ignoring the news about Obama. It’s seems to be the method of thinking is, “ignore it and it will go away!” My towns local paper is all over this case and it has made front page news for three weeks straight. None of the national papers or news channels seem the least bit interested in the whole thing. Hell, they care more about dancing stars and Reality TV stuff than a national debate on Obama’s legality to be president.
c.j.
This NJ case may be what your colleague was referring to for Nov 19 action by Justice Thomas:
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm
and
http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-138725-0-days0-orderasc-.html&sid=ed620dc58f8399c4b9c44b5da625c2fd
As I have stated before hear it is agian for those still in debate about what would happen if Obama gets into Office.
As Obama has ventured into the fray of public service of his own volition, seeking to possess the vast powers of the Office of President, it is not unreasonable to demand that Obama produce evidence of hiscitizenship to answer the questions and allay the concerns of the People. Indeed, as the one seeking the office, he isunder a moral, legal, and fiduciary duty to proffer such evidence to establish your qualifications as explicitly mandated by Article II of the Constitution.
Should Obama proceed to assume the office of the President of the United States as anything but a bona fide natural born citizen of the United States that has not relinquished that citizenship, he would be inviting a national disaster, placing our Republic at great risk from untold consequences.
Neither the Electoral College on December 15, nor the House of Representatives on January 6 would be able to elect Obama, except as a poseur – a usurper;
As a usurper, Obama would be unable to take the required “Oath or Affirmation” of office on January 20 without committing the crime of perjury or false swearing, for being ineligible for the Office of the President he cannot faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States
Just wait there is more you may not know!
Obama’s every act in the usurped Office of the President would be a criminal offense as an act under color of law that would subject the People to the deprivation of their constitutional rights, and entitling him to no obedience whatsoever from the People
As a usurper acting in the guise of the President, Obama could not function as the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy and of the militia of the several states, as such forces would be under no legal obligation to remain obedient to him.
No one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch would be required to obey any of Obama’sproclamations, executive orders or directives, as such orders would be legally VOID
Obama’s appointment of Ambassadors and Judges to the Supreme Court would be VOID ab initio (i.e., from the beginning), no matter what subsequent actions the Senate might take as well as rendering any such acts by such appointed officials void as well
And in finishing:
Congress would not be able to pass any new laws because they would not be able to acquire the signature of a bona fide President, rendering all such legislation legally VOID
As a usurper, Congress would be unable to remove Obama from the Office of the President on Impeachment, inviting certain political chaos including a potential for armed conflicts within the General Government or among the States and the People to effect the removal of such a usurper.
I hope you people out in blogger land read and understand what I just wrote. Our FREEDOMS and even the very future of this outstanding country which I served proudly under Presidents Bush, SR., Clinton, and G.W. Bush with the U.S. Justice Department and the U.S. Military could all come to a terrible end such as the fate of Rome!
Give us liberty or we should die protecing it!
@c.j. wrote:
I visited the sites provided by HighlanderJuan but did not see any specific reference to a “stay” or halt on the EC from voting until BHO provides the long copy BC. Perhaps I missed it. Nevertheless, this would be tremendously good news. Do you have another link that states this clearly or can you get the link from your friend? Thanks.
c.j.–
We do get it. We got it when HighlanderJuan linked to it in his post re Dr. Viera. I’m not sure if 1) you didn’t follow that link 2) you followed it and thought it would heighten its impact if you reiterated it via 4 posts 3) you picked up the earth-shattering tidbits from others who did numbers 1 and 2.
If you got your info (which sounds almost like it was lifted directly from Dr. Viera’s comments) from some other breaking news source, please accept my apologies. In the meantime, your desperation is beginning to minimize the significance of your words.
Has anyone on this thread as yet tried to get this info into the hands of our current POTUS? Since the White House is still predominantly staffed by Republicans, I would think that someone should be able to access the President’s ear. If our current President, charged by the people with an obligation to defend the Constitution, weighed in in favor of Obama on this matter that threatens that very Constitution, would that be enough to satisfy you?
More and more it’s sounding like folks are wanting this to be decided in the courts of public opinion rather than by those entrusted with the responsibility to preserve, protect and defend.
C.J.
I guess if you work for the U.S. Justice Dept. you could give us all the details as they happen. I hope you all in D.C. get the truth out of Obama and the DNC about his background! Well you comments are right to the point and br the book to the letter. I had to check myself, don’t know what to beleive anymore on these blog site. Thanks for bringing the facts to surfice about what could happen if Obama became a usurper.
I like your ending, look I am a teacher and no fighter but if it came to fighting for this counrty as our fathers did in all the wars past the yes you can count on me to tke up the Flag and a rifle march to battle so our childrens children my injoy the vast Freedoms of our great country!
I suspect that everyone in the White House, the DNC, the Secret Service, the FBI, and probably a dozen other fed agencies know very well the status of this whole Obama situation and believe it is a hot potato they just don’t want to touch.
For us, the Little People, this would be a great time for a whistle blower to surface with some real G2 on what is actually known within government and what is being done to resolve the situation. Absent that, this has all the earmarks of ‘Constitutional Crises’ written all over it.
I gave up believing in coincidences and in people having secrets a long time ago.
Especially with something as important as this topic.
Somebody outside Obama knows and just isn’t saying anything.
And, yes, I do believe in conspiracies. People are jailed every day for participating in conspiracies.
Eddie,
I beleive c.j. was siting a almost two page article from the USA Today paper back in early Nov. 2008. Here is the link so you and others can read the whole thing:
Robert L. Schulz,
Founder and Chairman, We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc.
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/misc2008/Obama-USA-TODAY-ad.%20htm
I got this from one of c.j.’s ealier postings uptop if you want just scroll up a read the whole thing.
Dr.Collens,
Thank you for clearing upthat little mess with Eddy.lol
HighlanderJuan said,
I suspect that everyone in the White House, the DNC, the Secret Service, the FBI, and probably a dozen other fed agencies know very well the status of this whole Obama situation and believe it is a hot potato they just don’t want to touch.
As one who works in the U.S. Department of Justice thust me we are touching this all over! The U.S. Ambass. to Ken. has be sent there by Pres. Bush to question and gather data on Obama from the Ken. Gov.
The problem is that it is the national media who does not want to touch this and report it. If they do report anything on Obama it is on his picks for offices, his life, and family changing to be President.
It is what we call possitive propaganda where as the media uses negitive reporting with Iraq and never tell us the good the is being done over there.
c.j.
I concur with Eddy, Your posts, c.j., appear to be verbatim what Dr. Vieira wrote in his article at:
http://www.sodahead.com/blog/25353/obama-must-stand-up-now-or-step-down/
However, your postings of excerpts of the article are helpful to those who would otherwise not go to the link or who would not take the time to read the entire article.
I also agree with you and Dr. Collens that this issue is truly worth fighting for, however, taking up arms should not even be dicussed at this juncture. We are a nation of laws and we need to live by those laws.If a tyranical goverment were ever forced upon us, then we will all need to do what we must to protect our faith, our freedom and our families. Hopefully, the courts will sort this out to everyone’s satisfaction and we can all move on in full support of a legitimate POTUS.
Have a great day.
Ah, so it has gotten exposure in the national press (USA Today) and it is being followed up on (the US Ambassador to Kenya has been sent there). I’m puzzled by the seemingly contradictory statements that the White House doesn’t want to touch this hot potato but that we’ve sent an Ambassador to check it out. Anyone?
Dr. Collens, am I clear in that you said you said you work for the Department of Justice? May I ask what your capacity is there and what you have your doctorate in? You obviously haven’t been sanctioned against speaking here. Are we in a position where the Department of Justice is divided on the matter? Could it be that they are waiting for the report from the Ambassador?
It was the list that you provided detailing who qualifies as a natural born citizen that led me to think that it doesn’t matter where Obama was born but rather what was the status of his mother’s citizenship. Others cited his mother’s age at the time of his birth as being the sticky wicket. I believe it was while googling this matter that I learned she was 3 months shy of the time requirement for conveying natural citizenship to him. You didn’t cite the age matter in your first post, can you elaborate on that and whether those age and time standards have either been tightened or relaxed? Do you see the matter as being bigger than the issue of his mother’s age and, if so, how and why?
LOL. I’m still trying to wrap my brain around this whole matter but, on the bright side, I feel I’m closer than ever.
c.j. & Dr. Collens,
I just read your link to the Open Letter to Barrack Obama authored by Robert Shultz that is to appear in the Chicago Tribune.
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/misc2008/Obama-USA-TODAY-ad.%20htm
I would venture to guess that Shultz obtained much of his info from Dr. Vieira or from his article. It is reassuring to know that this cause is gaining momentum and that some legitimate voices are starting to be heard. Thanks for the post.
I misspoke about the hot potato. I meant to imply the feds didn’t want to touch the idea of telling the public. Too much backlash. Who wants to tell the folks that voted for ‘The Messiah’ that he’s not real? I surely wouldn’t.
And, Eddy, it is just my opinion. I have no insider information to pass along, and in that respect, I’m just like you – I’m just trying to learn what the real scoop is.
It would be interesting to come up with a list of people that would have to be “in on” such a conspiracy for it to be true.
Of course, that’s outside the obvious left wing psychos who work for the state of HI and whatever commie pinko placed that “Announcement of Birth” in the Honolulu newspapers back when Obama was “born” in the state.
Of course, the national media isn’t exactly a party to the conspiracy- simply culpable in not following up on what would be a sure Pulitzer Prize Winner for the investigative journalist who uncovered the real story…
And cj- I understand about conspiracy theories, and how they live on in the gray areas of society- but at least get FACTS down right. Clarence Thomas has not (and cannot) “put a stay” or a “halt” on the Electoral College vote…
Shoddy work on the facts is ONE reason conspiracy theories live on…
And- more REAL news: Obama has assembled most, if not all, of his economic team.
You all should look into this, and get to know the people. They will have an impact on your life in years to come, as they take over the reins of government…
@Dr. Collens: The link is not working. Is there another way to the site?
Eddy,
lol,if you scroll up several postings you will see where c.j. said, “Our FREEDOMS and even the very future of this outstanding country which I served proudly under Presidents Bush, SR., Clinton, and G.W. Bush with the U.S. Justice Department and the U.S. Military could all come to a terrible end such as the fate of Rome!”
I am a Professor of Law. I have no want to work in the stress of D.C. not to mention the U.S. Justice Dept.
Redirect questioning to c.j.
Eddy,
I can tell you now that since 9/11 secerity is so tight that c.j. must either work at a lower level or be writing from a secure terminal. I have a feeling that he will not be very willing to tell total strangers what his job is whatever his capacity there. I don’t expect to much inside info to come from c.j. unless it is autherized by the FEDs.
Warren, per your question to Dr. Collens, try this link which is how I accessed the site (assuming this is the one you were trying to open)
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org
Warren, then click on “read it” under the date on right hand side of screen in blue text.
Dr. Collens–
Again, my bad! It was c.j. who claimed to work for the department of justice. (Nothing bad intended in the word ‘claimed’…I’m just not sure that c.j. ever revealed his or her gender..so I slip into 3rd person talk which sounds stilted.)
And since c.j. is going by initials I can understand why c.j. wouldn’t want to reveal anything further that could lead to problems at the DOJ. (LOL. I was puzzled when I thought it was you who said that. “Why, on earth,” I thought, “would someone reveal that info and then attach their name to it.”
c.j.–
Please be careful. If there is indeed a conspiracy afloat, and if some of the things you mention here are considered ‘privileged’, you could get yourself into some serious hot water.
As for me, I’m going to check out for awhile. (Famous last words, I know.) I’ve been running myself thin following these comments along with those on unrelated topics on two other threads.
Hello conspiracy kooks. None of you answered my last post. Here it is again I would like your newest, freshest conspiracy for it.
If Obama was born in Kenya yet Hawaii was generous to allow him citizenship 4 days later why would his Mom fly back so fast and lie applying for this COLB and needlessly say he was born in Honolulu?
People say Maya did this also. Where is her COLB? I haven’t seen it.
Didn’t the law allowing this possible late birth cert scam only pass in 1982?
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm
Barry,
please read the article at the following link. I believe you will find this the most comprehensive analysis of the BHO birth certificate/eligbility issue:
http://www.sodahead.com/blog/25353/obama-must-stand-up-now-or-step-down/
By the way, if you think this is all nothing but a scam, wait until you see The Open Letter To Barrack Obama that will appear in the Chicago Tribune on December 1 and December 3. If you scroll up through the thread you will find most of it’s content posted by other commenters.
This response is brought to you courtesy of Conspiracy Kook FredVN
Have a pleasant evening.
Actually, the FEC does NOT have standing to bring a lawsuit against Obama. Originally, the FEC requested dismissal from the Berg suit in the lower courts stating the FEC does not have oversight on Constitutional requirements for POTUS.
What was denied in the Supreme Court case, was a “stay” of the general election.
What was submitted as “new” in the Supreme Court case was affidavits from witnesses who interviewed Obama’s grandmother in Kenya, and she alleged Obama was born in Kenya in Mambosa, and she was present at his birth.
I agree that this suit may very well be tossed for lack of standing, which means Berg cannot prove he was damaged personally if the allegations are true.
There is another suit out there, however, that does have legs. That one is from the candidate that lost the US Senate race to Obama. So, if the allegations are true, he truly was damaged by the actions because he would have been the US senator, not Obama.
Again–why does it matter where Obama was born if his mother was a US citizen? I’m really very interested in clarity on that point. I’ve appreciated the general ‘cool down’ here and a focus on the real issues. Towards that end, I’d appreciate a thoughtful answer rather than a zinger. Thanks!
Barry Truthgun ~ Nov 29, 2008 at 10:35 pm
You asked:
“If Obama was born in Kenya yet Hawaii was generous to allow him citizenship 4 days later why would his Mom fly back so fast and lie applying for this COLB and needlessly say he was born in Honolulu?”
The issue of the Barack Obama (or Barry Soetoro) birth certificate being valid seems almost moot at this point, but if you would like a fairly thorough review of the Hawaiian birth certificate process, try this site:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/why_the_barack_obama_birth_cer.html
If you want more on Barack Obama specifically, here’s one more review for you to examine (this is part 1 of 4 parts):
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12932.htm
I’m kinda wondering if we elected Barack Obama or Barry Soetoro.
Anybody know the answer to that question?
And the beat goes on… and the beat goes on…
Obama’s “birth certificate” – the Devil’s in the details:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2139603/posts
Obama Selective Service Registration: Another Obama Record, Another Question:
http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2008/11/obama-selective-service-registration-another-obama-record-another-question/
Again, apologies if these posts have already been made.
Where do I start? Lets start with government employees. There is a great line in a movie called backdraft, “you see that little red light blinking in the corner of your eye? That is your career dissipation warning kicking into over drive”. I work do a lot of work for the government. I work with government employees every (work) day. One thing they all have in common is the protection of their jobs. Government workers for the most part just want to keep their jobs with all the benefits and then pension. It is very rare that a government employee, will do something they know might jeopardize their continued employment. So why did Chiyome Fukino do it? Can someone explain why this career government worker, gave a statement to the national press, that would eventually be proven to be a lie, just so she could protect someone she barely knew? Assuming she knew Barack Obama at all. What possible motivation did she have to jeopardize her pension and benefits? As near as I can see it she had none. If she tells the truth she keeps her job she goes on to retire in a few years with a nice pension, and all is well and good in her world. If she lies she is screwed. Government workers don’t get fired for doing their jobs. That is one of the reasons many people go into government work in the first place. There is an overwhelming attitude that doing what you are supposed to wont get you in trouble. It might get you some bad press, but in the end the powers that be will stand behind you, for doing it the way you are supposed to. However go give a statement to the press that eventually is proven to be a lie and you are done! Toast! A member of the former government workers guild, which really means unemployed, no pension, no health insurance. Someone has to supply a credible explanation for why she lied, before I even begin to consider that she did. For the record she said “she has Senator Obama’s original birth certificate on file in Hawaii.” In other words he was born in Hawaii. As Director of Health for the State of Hawaii she is more qualified to comment on this subject, than (almost) anyone else in the world.
It has already been pointed out on numerous other posts that Senator Obama has provided a birth certificate. I would like to point out something else. At a previous job I worked in an environment that caused many people to threaten me with civil law suits. I personally never responded to any of them, in court. That is not how it works. I would give a statement to an attorney. The attorney would go to court and get the case dismissed. This is done every day in our court system, when dealing with frivolous lawsuits. There is no reason to believe someone with Barack Obama ’s knowledge of our court system, would do it in any other way.
As for all the hatred. Come on people. If you want people to take you seriously, you can’t refer to Barack Obama as B Hussien Ossama. Or John McCain as senator McSame/McPain or whatever other sophomoric name you think of.
Stop typing in capitals. Capital letters don’t add to the strength of your message, they show a lack of verbiage. When most people read a sentence written in all upper case letters, they assume the writer was very angry. Add a few misspellings, most folks jump to the conclusion that not only was the writer angry, but the writer was ignorant as well. Often times when someone thinks you are angry and ignorant, they call you names. So if you want people to take you seriously, just follow some basic rules of grammar.
Now about that electoral college. Many have posted the vice president will be elected if fo rsome reason the president can’t be sworn in. No one has brought up how th eframers would have interpeted this. Originally the vice president was the person who got the second highest vote total for president. This does lend some credibility to the people who think John McCain could still become president. I personally don’t think that will happen, but it is interesting to note that all the so called experts haven’t brought that up yet. It is the most compelling argument for McCain becoming president.
Stalker Out!
Documentation required to obtain a United States Passport…………
…….this from
Documentation required to play tournament play in Little League Baseball in the United States……
….this from
Documentation required to play Little League Baseball……..
…….from this form…..
So, my question is……………….WHAT IS OBAMA’S PROBLEM?
Barry:
I understand your frustration that you cannot get a straight answer to your question. Pointing to another blog is not “support,” particularly when the “article” is riddled with legal error.
Here is the answer: The provision under the Hawaii statute for a birth certificate for a child born outside the State of Hawaii was, indeed, as you pointed out, added in 1982. It did not apply to births prior to its effective date, and the provision is not grandfathered. It has absolutely no application to Obama.
Moreover, nothing in H.R.S. 338-17.8 provides that a birth certification for a child born out of state would reflect that the child was born in Hawaii when, in fact, the child was born elsewhere. The certification of birth that is issued pursuant to this provision reflects the ACTUALl place of birth. Interestingly, no one “relying” on section 338-17.8 has offered any legislative history, and I surmise that the provision (which, by the way, is parallel to similar statutes of other states) was enacted to facilitate adoptions.
This is supported by H.R.S. 338-20.5 (which none of the COLB cult has addressed) which addresses the certificate that is actually issued for a child who is born abroad. That statute provides, in relevant part: “The department of health shall establish a Hawaii certificate of birth for a person born in a foreign country … when it receives the following: … (3) A report on a form to be approved by the department of health setting forth the following: … G) True or probable country of birth. The true or probable country of birth shall be known as the place of birth …; and (4) A request that a new certificate of birth be established.” Section 330-20.5 goes on to state: “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.” (emphasis supplied)
The bottom line is that, if Obama were born anywhere but in Hawaii, his certification of live birth would show the actual place of birth. The State of Hawaii’s certification that the “place of birth” was Honolulu is that state’s legal assurance that Obama was in fact born in Honolulu.
With regard to the “amendment” question, a birth certificate can be amended by application of the child’s parents, but without a court order, the certificate must show the amended fact by striking a line through it. Again, this is a common provision in most states’ statutes. My own birth certificate was amended, because the clerk who took the information from my mother spelled my name wrong. Sixteen years later, when I went to MVD for my first driver’s license, my mother noticed this, and she and my dad requested that my name be corrected. My birth certificate has the wrongly-spelled name stricken out, and the correct spelling inserted above it.
And, BTW, the amended certificate has been accepted — without question — for all legal purposes (passport, Social Security, marriage license, driver’s license, etc.)
@Eddy you wrote:
From the 2nd link provided by HighlanderJuan above I copied the following in response to your question regarding Obama’s mother’s citizenship:
“Jim Geraghty, reporting on the Campaign Spot blog of the National Review and one of the original writers on the controversy, cited the “rumor” that Obama was born not within the United States, but elsewhere, possibly Kenya.
Geraghty stated that “If Obama were born outside the United States, one could argue that he would not meet the legal definition of natural-born citizen — because U.S. law at the time of his birth required his natural-born parent (his mother) to have resided in the United States for ‘10 years, at least [f]ive of which had to be after the age of 16.’”
He then points out that Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother, was 18 when Obama was born “so she wouldn’t have met the requirement of five years after the age of 16.”
According to FindLaw.com, cited by Geraghty, the requirements that were in force from Dec. 24, 1952 to Nov. 13, 1986, encompassing the time of Obama’s birth, state, “If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.”
I hope this helps.
Dr. Collens:
You are no doubt familiar with Charles Gordon’s, Lawrence Friedman’s, Malinda Seymore’s, and others’ scholarly writing on this subject. Also, a number of student notes have addressed the originalism debate, including and, as you are aware, have come to differing conclusions. I’m wondering if you would comment on the various theses and offer your opinion which of these authors makes the more persuasive case.
FredVN wrote: “According to FindLaw.com, cited by Geraghty, the requirements that were in force from Dec. 24, 1952 to Nov. 13, 1986, encompassing the time of Obama’s birth, state, “If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.”
Fred, have you researched the legislative history of subsection 1401(g)? Given that Congress and the courts have historically broadened citizenship rights rather than narrowed them, see Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 826 (1971), I think you will find that the five-year residency requirement was intended for a naturalized citizen-parent. As Ann Dunham was a natural born citizen, citizenship could be acquired through her regardless of her age. You may want to check the Congressional Record and the blue book on this.
@ GeorgetownJD
You omitted one important factor, the BHO COLB that has been made public is alleged by multiple sources to have been altered. Perhaps the original in the vault in Hawaii says he WAS born in Kenya, and perhaps that is why it has not been released. If what you say is true, and he can prove via his COLB that he was born in Hawaii then it would be VERY EASY for BHO to put this entire matter to rest by allowing the true and authentic copy of the COLB to be made public. That is all any of us are asking. For the sake of our nation I hope and pray he CAN prove he is legit. Otherwise, we would have a Constitutional crisis on our hands if he is sworn in as POTUS (as a usurper) and later it is proven that he was born in Kenya. Those on the left imply that those of us on the right want BHO replaced by McCain. That is absolutely NOT the intent, at least from where I stand. He convincingly won the election. If he is legit he deserves to be the POTUS. What we want is proof that BHO IS qualified to be the POTUS. As of now he has failed to do so. It will be interesting to see how the SCOTUS weighs in, assuming they do.
The liberal interpretation of the residency requirement is supported by Charles Gordon, Stanley Mailman & Stephen Yale Loehr, Immigration Law and Procedure, sec. 93.02[5](c). Prof. Gordon, as you probably know, is the former General Counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, so his view carries substantial weight.
You have misconstrued my point. It doesn’t matter where in the universe he was born, Obama acquired citizenship through his natural born citizen mother. Did you check the blue book as I suggested? Constitutional scholars and specialists in immigration law just don’t seem to be jumping on this Titanic, and for good reason. They have studied the origins of the “natural born” term in Article II and they do not share your view. In the very remote chance that SCOTUS were to accept a case presenting this question, these are the academics whose amicus curae briefs would be entertained by the Court. They are going to hold enormous sway.
If you want to present your professional credentials, I would be happy to consider your view along with those of academics. Perhaps you could petition for leave to file your own amicus brief.
It’s not too late to apply for SCOTUS’s consent to file an amicus on whether the Donofrio application for stay should be converted into a petition for cert and cert granted. Why hasn’t anyone who doubts Obama’s citizenship taken this tack?
@GeorgetownJD.
I am not a constitutional lawyer, scholar or specialist in immigration law. However, thank you for thinking that may even be possible. I am flattered. I have gleaned most of my information from this and other blogs, from numerous websites and from various media sources. It took a day and a half just to read all of the comments and visit most of the links associated with this only this blog. However, for the time I have invested in this very interesting and educational debate to date, I found the article written by Dr. Edwin Vieira PhD, J.D. (perhaps you know of him) to be the most informative and educational. I would very much like to know your opinion regarding the major points made in Dr. Vieita’s article which can be found at:
http://www.sodahead.com/blog/25353/obama-must-stand-up-now-or-step-down/
Thank you.
I do know of him, and he is a self-professed constitutional scholar. Other than his single article on the blog, he is not a published author. Nor does he list his credentials that suggest that he has a specialty in immigration law. For instance, I did not see any analysis of recent cases such as Miller and Nguyen in his article, yet these cases signal the direction that SCOTUS is going vis-a-vis scrutiny of laws granting derivative citizenship. Without understanding, for example, Justice Scalia’s rationale that he elaborated in his concurring opinion in MIller v. Albright, I don’t see how Vieira can come to the conclusion he does. Philip Berg, Leo Donofrio, or Cort Wrotnowski seemed to have overlooked Scalia’s opinion and apparently think theyare going to be able persuade the conservative members of the Court to accept their arguments regarding Kenyan/Indonesian/dual nationality.
My views have been informed by the writings of a number of academics who have published in scholarly journals and/or learned treatises, and whose works are (or may be) cited by courts in written rulings. It’s a matter of weight.
GeorgetownJD,
A couple of points. Actually a few.
1. If I understand your comments accurately, you are suggesting that posters do the legal work involved in proving our point, which I think is a bit arrogant and presumptuous on your part. Most of us are not attorneys and don’t have the resources necessary (experience or financial) to do as you suggest. We expect people like you, as officers of the court, to do the right thing when you see criminal activity happening.
2. None of us really know the mother (S. Ann Soetoro), nor do we understand her intent when she made certain her son’s birth was registered in Hawaii. She is known to be bright (Phd, Anthropology), although odd in some respects . She may very well have known exactly what she was doing by assuring that her son and daughter had registered births in Hawaii. Think about it. Why would she rush home from Kenya shortly after giving birth, just to register her son’s birth?
3. Barack says he was born in one hospital in Hawaii while his sister Maya Soetoro-Ng says he was born in the other hospital. I have seen no signs of verification from either hospital in question that Barack Obama, his mother, or his sister were ever registered as patients in either hospital. What does that tell you? As Berg says (I paraphrase): the truth is always the same, and liars change their story.
4. It looks to me as though you completely discount the article and opinion written by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D. entitled “OBAMA Must Stand Up Now Or Step Down.”
So, I hope you don’t think my comments are too harsh, but there is so much crap in the blogs, and most of it is by American citizens just trying to figure out the truth level that has been obfuscated by the DNC and Obama himself, I’m hoping you can help us understand what you know. The ultimate answers to the fraud questions will come from the courts I expect, although I personally would rather see them come from the FBI or the Secret Service before Obama is elected by the electors.
GeorgetownJD wrote:
I think this is the crux of the problem here that I have not seen anyone address.
Sio that we are all aware:
Key Electoral College Dates and Events
* November 4, 2008 – General Election: The voters in each State choose electors to serve in the Electoral College. As soon as election results are final, the States prepare seven or nine original “Certificates of Ascertainment” of the electors chosen, and send one original along with two certified copies (or three originals, if nine were prepared) to the Archivist of the United States.
* December 15, 2008 – Meeting of Electors: The electors in each State meet to select the President and Vice President of the United States. The electors record their votes on six “Certificates of Vote,” which are paired with the six remaining original “Certificates of Ascertainment.” The electors sign, seal and certify the packages of electoral votes and immediately send them to the President of the Senate, the Archivist of the United States and other designated Federal and State officials.
* December 24, 2008 – Deadline for Receipt of Electoral Votes: The President of the Senate, the Archivist of the United States, and other designated Federal and State officials must have the electoral votes in hand.
* January 8, 2009 – Counting Electoral Votes in Congress: Public Law 110-430 changed the date of the electoral vote in Congress in 2009 from January 6 to January 8. This date change is effective only for the 2008 presidential election.
The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes (unless Congress passes a law to change the date).
GeorgetownJD,
Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).
For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.
He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective. http://www.piecesofeight.us
He is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash of the Federal Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes. http://www.crashmaker.com
His latest book is: “How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary” … and Constitutional “Homeland Security,” Volume One, The Nation in Arms…
He can be reached at:
13877 Napa Drive
Manassas, Virginia 20112.
E-Mail: Not available
@GeorgetownJD
Thank you for your response regarding Vieira. For the sake of the “doubters” in the general public and for laymen such as myself, I hope the SCOTUS at the very least will offer an opinion that would be concise and easily understood to put this matter to rest once and for all. A response from SCOTUS that will help unite our country would be most welcome.
May God bless America.
Juan:
As an officer of the court, I am obligated to present only evidence admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Surely you can understand that I view this debate over Obama’s citizenship from a legal standpoint, and that includes scrutiny of evidence that would be necessary in a court of law, not the court of public opinion. This blog is about a legal proceeding, and I am sorry that you think this is arrogant to write in terms of legal proof and research.
There is no ongoing criminal activity. If I had evidence, I would be obligated to report it. All that I have seen is hearsay, and more frequently, double and triple hearsay. What began as conjecture has been copied and pasted as “fact.” None of it is “evidence.”
Again, the “registration” is a non-starter. That law was first enacted in 1982, about 21 years too late for even a woman as clever as Ann Dunham/Soetero. Also, a “registered” birth nonethless is evidenced by a certificate that shows the actual place of birth, so even if Barrack and Maya were so registered, their Mombasa and Djakarta birthplaces would appear on their repsective certificates.
I discount Maya’s recollection of the hospital where Barrack was born, as she is nine years younger than he. Whatever she believes has come from other sources, again hearsay.
And yes, I do discount Edwin Vieira, J.D., Ph.D., for reasons explained in my previous post. His article is considerably at odds with more scholarly work, and he is well known for his ultraconservative views. It does not surprise me that his article is little more than apologetics for an anti-Obama view. Charles Gordon wrote his article in 1968 and so it does not suffer from the same partisanship.
I’m afraid that many here have fallen for an old debater’s strategy–if you were given the role of defending a point that was false, you could still win the debate. The easiest way was to shift the focus away from the basic premise and then have your opponent scrambling needlessly to answer to a thousand points that were ‘off the point’.
In this case, GeorgetownNJ has brought us back to the basics. And it explains a whole lot! Obama’s citizenship is NOT in question. His mother was a natural born citizen and, therefore, he has that status as well. Case closed.
It doesn’t matter where he was born. It doesn’t matter whether he presented a birth certificate or a certificate of live birth. He simply IS a citizen based on the fact that his mother was a natural born citizen.
Just like in the debates, when you move away from this point, you get to raise all kinds of fun and/or scary questions and allegations but, the fact remains, they are all ‘off the point’. It explains why this conversation lives on among blog pseudo-experts but is being ignored by the media. It also explains why Obama isn’t playing into the game. In the debating strategy, if you play into the hands of your opponent who is ‘off the mark’, you lend credence to their ‘off the mark’ points. Any response will only give them another ‘talking point’–even if it’s nonsense talk.
I’ve found it most interesting that everytime I’ve suggested the most logical solutions to this imaginary crisis like contacting the current POTUS himself, it’s been met with silence and non-response. Why? I believe it’s because the real interest is simply in disparaging a man NOT in putting this foolish debate to rest.
Oh, another debate tactic, if people aren’t buying into your point, go for the fear level. “Imagine the threat this would be to everything we hold near and dear.” Toss in value-laden words. “He would be a usurper.” And, by all means, use that word a gazillion times. Soon, people are reacting to the image of a usurper rather than to the fact that Obama ISN’T one.
I actually can’t wait for the Open Letter to appear in the Chicago Tribune. I do hope that it’s signed. It’s high time we started to make people pay for this foolishness that only has one intent: to divide America. Yes, the very thing that they are accusing Obama of.
His mother was a natural born citizen therefore he is! If you’re going to challenge his citizenship, you need to start there. Otherwise you are simply ‘off the point’.
I believe that there are people involved in this debate who are quite sincere in their concerns. Please try not to be led down the thousand paths to nowhere that are being presented. Our Constitution is not being threatened. If it were, our current POTUS, who is neither blind or deaf, would certainly be stepping into the fray.
Many challenge Obama’s silence, why then aren’t you questioning the silence of President Bush? I believe one or more bloggers suggested that the White House simply doesn’t want to touch this issue. I find that ludicrous.
Consider that he’s now in what’s traditionally called the ‘lame duck’ phase of his presidency. Consider all the negatives (our economy, the bailouts, etc.) that are being blamed on him. What better way to restore his good name for all of history than to thwart a serious challenge to our Constitution? Suggestions that he isn’t doing this for any reason other than that the issue has no merit are scandalous. If he’s resisting responding for any personal or political motives, then you have nothing to fear from Obama, because all those values you hold near and dear have already been flushed down the toilet for the sake of personal and political expediency. (I don’t even like President Bush but even I have more respect for him than that!)
One more comment for those who are involved because of their genuine concerns for America. Please consider seriously the flip-side of this issue. If Obama is truly our President Elect by virtue of his mother’s citizenship, what then is the intended impact of this debate other than to minimize his ability to lead? A war of doubt and uncertainty is being waged at a time when we need focus more than we ever had in my lifetime. The damage of rumors, whether they be true or not, is far reaching and often lives on even after the rumors have been squelched. Consider that serviceman, serving on foreign soils, who may have been exposed to the rumors but not their resolution. Has his or her trust or faith in their new Commander-in-Chief been undermined? Would they choose to disobey because they’ve been led to believe he is a usurper?
I learned a parable in my youth about lies and rumors. The child apologized for lying and they were forgiven but then the parent took a feather pillow, ripped it open, and cast the feathers to the wind. They then instructed the child to gather all the feathers. Immediately the child protested, “But that’s impossible.” The parent then responded that it’s that way with our words as well.
GeorgetownJD,
You said:
“And yes, I do discount Edwin Vieira, J.D., Ph.D., for reasons explained in my previous post. His article is considerably at odds with more scholarly work, and he is well known for his ultraconservative views. It does not surprise me that his article is little more than apologetics for an anti-Obama view. Charles Gordon wrote his article in 1968 and so it does not suffer from the same partisanship.”
With all due respect, I thought the law was the law, and not subject to political interpretation (idealistically speaking). So, the fact that Vieira is a conservative doesn’t mean his opinion is wrong, and in fact, if you disagree with his opinions, it would seem reasonable for others to ask you to point out specific elements of his argument that you disagree with, and subsequently back up your own arguments with your own research material and case cites. This isn’t a court of law, so I don’t actually expect you to do this herein.
It has been my observation that conservatives hold to the intent of the lawmakers when interpreting the law. Liberals tend to think of the written law as ‘evolving law,’ subject to interpretation.
No offense, but I’ll go with the conservative attorney every time.
As you noticed maybe… I have chosen to not participate longer in this so called discussion. There is NO benefit in it. Everyone is ONLY CONCERNED in supposedly “proving” what THEY THINK. There IS REASON TO QUESTION HIS CITIZENSHIP OR there would NEVER HAVE BEEN THIS OUTRAGEOUS MESS to begin with. & YES, Eddie..(on Nov. 18th) I have 3 of copies of my ORIGINAL BIRTH certificate.
The problem with Obama is that the copies of HIS ..SO CALLED BRITH RECORD.. are NOT Copies of an authentic ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE.. Otherwise NO PROBLEM. Mr. Berg, who DOES KNOW THE LAW & is a Democrat,. has checked out this issue. He would NOT have gone through this whole thing just because he “thinks” he is right. He has others who also agree. I am NOT someone who KNOWS what the original birth certificates DID LOOK LIKE & WHAT THEY CONTAINED in HI at the time of Obama’s birth. His OWN GRAMDMOTHER says he is Kenyan..she was there when he was born. Why doesn’t he Disprove this? He could with a copy of his ORIGINAL RECORD.
This has just become a one side against the other…NOT a place to get real answers & see what we can learn about this situation.
As far as I’m concerned THIS forum is worthless …NOTHING accomplished.. SO I refuse to participate further.
Eddy,
I disagree. Obama’s citizenship is part of the question at hand.
Too much of this argument is redundant.
Fred: I share your desire for SCOTUS to clarify this, but I don’t believe that the cases that are pending before it are procedurally postured to accomplish that. The issue in Berg is limited to standing; the Court will not opine on citizenship in a case that is about standing. Donofrio and Wrotnowski have two defects. First, both are before the Court on application for stay, not petition for writ of certiorari. The Court will rule on the stay, not the substantive issue. Leo Donofrio hopes that the Court will treat the application for stay as a petition for certiorari — this was done in Bush v. Gore. Wrotnowski, whose stay was denied by Justice Ginsburg (and will no doubt be renewed and “shopped” to Thomas or Scalia), also asked that his application be treated as a petition. SCOTUS is unlikely to comply, because that would deprive the respondents (the secretaries of state of New Jersey and Connecticut) an opportunity to be heard on whether certiorari should be granted.
Second, Donofrio and Wrotnowski both challenged secretaries of state, under the theory that state law imposed upon them an obligation to investigate the qualifications of the candidates. Thus, the issue on appeal is whether (1) the state court’s interpretation of its own state law was erroneous — something SCOTUS absolutely will not do, or (2) whether Art. II imposes some implied duty on a state officer to investigate — which neither Donofrio or Wrotnowski cited authority for. And remember, SCOTUS will not opine on a constitutional or federal issue if the lower court’s holding is supported by independent state law grounds.
I predict that SCOTUS will decline to hear any of these cases. Of course, there is a slim chance that SCOTUS would issue some ruling just to quell the outcry, in which case I predict that it would be a “per curiam” opinion — a short decision that does not identify which Justice authored the opinion.
I think the point most people are missing here is that it is Obama, and Obama alone, that can make this all go away simply and quickly.
All he has to do is to produce his vault copy of his birth certificate that includes his mother and father’s name along with the delivering doctor’s name and any witnesses to the birth.
It’s really just that simple and yet, Obama refuses to do so. Why is that? Is it really all the difficult or is he in fact trying to hide something?
It is Obama’s actions that keep this issue in the forefront. This would have gone away long ago. Mr. Berg even said as much publicly…”Produce evidence that you are a natural born citizen and this goes away!”…..but Obama and the DNC have another approach……….petition the courts for a dismissal!
Is it therefore any wonder that there are questions?
Obama must know, given his supposed understanding of the legal system and his (self proclaimed) ‘love’ for this country, exactly what reactions his ‘refusal to produce’ are having upon our nation and yet, it’s like he is telling everyone in this nation “I don’t care!”.
There are only 3 requirements for one to hold the office of President of the United States. Constitutionally, all three must be met!
I’m sure glad that Obama didn’t want to play Little League Baseball! Not wanting anyone to see your birth certificate will get you a set in the stands at any game, but it won’t get you on the field!
Juan: You make some valid points. But law is all about interpretation, and the courts do look to a number of sources to discern original intent. That is where the works that have studied the history of citizenship law will be consulted if this somes before the Court. AndJustice Scalia, a conservative and an “originalist”, has already written that there are only two kinds of citizenship, citizenship at birth and citizenship by naturalization. In his view, there is no third status, so he is not likely to be receptive to Berg’s. Donofrio’s and Wrotnwoski’s (and Keyes’) arguments.
Thanks, Crazy Greek,
Obama won’t make this issue go away by open disclosure of his records because he isn’t being truthful, and never has been truthful with regard to any of his politics as near as I can determine.
Obama does have something to hide. He has a lot of something to hide.
Any truths we get about Obama will come from someone else.
Beverly–
All the caps are very, very distracting. I’m glad you have 3 copies of your birth certificate although it does make me question the standards of the state you’re from. 3 is a bit of an overkill don’t you think?
My point is that it doesn’t matter. Unless you are questioning his mother’s birth certificate and what country she was born in, you are ‘off the point’.
It doesn’t matter if he was born in Kenya; his mother was a natural born US citizen. It doesn’t matter if he was born in Kenya; his mother was a natural born US citizen. It doesn’t matter if he was born in Kenya; his mother was a natural born US citizen. It doesn’t matter if he was born in Kenya; his mother was a natural born US citizen. I could go on but why….
HighlanderJuan–
Thanks for the bio info on Viera. The title of his book “How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary” certainly suggests someone who has an axe to grind.
GeorgetownJD,
Scalia point well made, but have learned a few things from my own studies and in my review of the several Supreme Court decisions I have read.
1. The Supreme Court hates to hear cases and will use any one of about 15 criteria to prevent a case from being heard.
2. The adjudicated case will be narrowly ruled upon.
3. Sometimes you learn more about the case material from the dissenting opinion than the deciding opinion.
I haven’t read the case in question, but I suspect if the Court wants to ignore Scalia’s opinion on citizenship, they’ll find a way to do so.
Just my opinion.
Beverly,
With GeorgetownJD posting comments (who obviously has the credentials) I believe we ARE bringing this topic into greater focus. Although some may not agree with all of GeorgetownJD’s opinions and views, the debate has become more elevated. My opinion on this matter has changed even just today and I now have more confidence that it will be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.
Eddy, nice closing arguments. Your passion came through loud and clear…… and you made some very good points.
.
Crazy Greek: No, Obama is taking the right approach. Already some (like Keyes) have announced that they intend to file suits challenging every single act that Obama takes. It is better to let the courts handle it and determine whether the allegations have merit, otherwise Obama would be forever tied up in litigation. If the suits are deemed meritless, and litigants continued to file them, at some point there will be monetary sanctions imposed.
Ours is a representative form of government, so it is up to our representatives to stand in our stead. If they are satisfied that Obama has met the constitutional qualifications, then they will certify the electoral vote. If one or more is in doubt, the law provides for them to raise objection and then there must be two hours of debate and a vote of both houses of Congress. If a Congressperson or Senator demands proof of citizenship, then Obama should — and will — comply. Those who send letters and petitions to Congress are recognizing and respecting this procedure. Since you have strong feelings about this, I hope you have made them known to those who will be seated in the next Congress.
Jim Graham..Nov. 20.
Yes. I have to agree with you, Jim They are hell bent on this guy becoming president EVEN IF HE IS A FRAUD.. Obama has not shown any concern about the Constitution & his worshippers haven’t either.. Sad to say, this country is in BIG TROUBLE if the Constitution is NOT even respected or applied by the people AT THE TOP!! & the American people don’t care enough to INSIST IT BE FOLLOWED.
Juan: I don’t think it’s so much a matter that the Supreme Court hates to hear cases, so much as the Court has limited resources and so selects with care those cases which will have the greatest impact or resolve a long simmering issue. From that standpoint, the citizenship issue would be ripe for the Court. But your point that the Court rules on the narrowest grounds is well taken, and that is why the cases that have been docketed are not going to be successful — each can be resolved on state law grounds.
Scalia’s opinion in MIller was a concurring opinion, and the view that there are only two kinds of citizenship is based on a long line of cases and is noncontroversial. It is probably accepted by all nine Justices. That’s why I opine that Donofrio — who argues for three classes of citizenship — will be unsuccessful, even assuming the Corut agrees to hear his case.
Crazy Greek–
I believe Obama is not caving to these pressures because they are ‘off the mark’ and he won’t play into the games. It’s actually a very presidential stand to take–to not be bullied unreasonably. He saw all the speculations that arose from producing his Certificate of Live Birth…people questioning it’s lack of creases, the type fonts, the letter spacing. Public ‘pseudo experts’ fueling a rumor mill. So, he ain’t playing. If the courts see merits in your challenges and he still has no answers, then I’ll worry but for him to respond to the rantings of a misinformed public whose sole purpose is to discredit him would be a sign of genuine weakeness.
The courts will either see merit to the allegations that he’s not a natural citizen or they won’t. If they don’t see merit, you can then start ranting about how they all–both Republican and Democrat–are a part of that vast conspiracy against the Constitution. If they do see merit, I trust he will produce it for the courts to review rather than the blogging pseudo-experts. One presentation…one day in court rather than the court of uninformed public opinion.
Court. C-O-U-R-T.
Well, Eddie..
It is NOT overkill to have 3 copies.. they are ASKED FOR in a number of places. SO when I need it I have one available… I feel you are a bit sarcastic but you know I have found that most Obama supporters are.. The capital letters ARE to emphasize things some miss otherwise.. For your info..
GeorgetownJD,
You said:
“Those who send letters and petitions to Congress are recognizing and respecting this procedure. Since you have strong feelings about this, I hope you have made them known to those who will be seated in the next Congress.”
The reason why Congress has such a low rating with the American people at this time is specifically because they do NOT listen to their constituents.
I have written to my Congressmen and Senators for the last twenty years, and grade them 1) on whether or not they respond at all, and 2) whether the answer I receive is connected with the question I asked or the position I made.
I subscribe to the school of thought that everything you do counts – it either counts for you or it counts against you.
Government, in general, and except in our small towns, has shown by its actions that it is hugely incompetent, and getting worse (e.g. bailouts).
So, for me, government in general hasn’t done much that counts for me, except wage the war against the terrorists (thanks, President Bush). That counts.
Obama hasn’t done anything (for me, personally) that counts. He’s been untruthful in many things like his birth status, and has changed his story on many other things. That doesn’t count in my book of records.
I simply want the truth out of the man. Then he’ll count in my book.
How’s that for being pithy?
Everyone — I’ll share with you a website that allows you to listen to audios of actual argument in the Supreme Court. It will give you a sense of the give-an-take between the Justices and the attorneys as the Court seeks to refine the argument and define the parameters of the Constitution. The site is maintain by the Oyez Project:
http://www.oyez.org/
Juan– I’m sorry for your cynicism. I have more faith in our system, even if I (frequently) disagree with our President and Congress. Before I went to law school I was on the staff of a Senator and then served on a Senate Judiciary subcommittee staff. I saw the letters and took the phone calls from constituents. The members of Congress do take seriously the comments and concerns of those they represent and they have staffers who look into the substance before forming a response. However, they are frequently bombarded with mail and calls about conspiracy theories and rumors, and they know how to spot them. They also receive a lot of mail about popular causes that, legally or constitutionally, cannot be redressed. For instance, when I was on staff, my Senator receive a huge volume of mail and calls about a Monte Python movie, “The Life of Brian,” that outraged them because it was (in their view) blasphemous of Christianity. They wanted him to introduce a bill in Congress outlawing movies like that. Yet the First Amendment protects such speech, and the Senator would not, and could not, do what thousands of his constituents wanted him to do.
If your Congressman or Senator does not act on this Obama citizenship thing, perhaps it is because he/she has information that satisfies the issue.
Thanks GeorgetownJD
This link is much appreciated.
Beverly
I have to agree with Stalker and some of the others that you are overkilling it with all the capss use. You end up sounding like a very angry and bitter writer. This blog is a very civil and mature debate on Obama. The use of so many caps turns people off and
Who would be “playing into a game” here? All that is being asked is that Obama produce a viable copy, to be certified by any ‘professional’ the courts deem.
No one is asking that Obama submit to any ‘internet group’ for certification here.
Most of us have seen the ‘Certificate Of Live Birth’ that Obama has placed on his website. A lot of people believe that to be a forgery! I know that his certificate of live birth posted looks nothing like my birth certificate…or my wife’s……or my children…or anyone else’s I have ever seen!
The State Of Hawaii has stated that they have a copy but will not release it to anyone but Obama. They did not say that the copy they have is the same as the copy Obama placed on his website, nor did they say that the copy they have list Hawaii as Obama’s place of birth specifically.
What’s the big deal with releasing a certified vault copy of someone’s birth certificate? If it contains information on it that verifies what you say is there, no porblem. I’m sure there aren’t that many people in this world that are concerned with Obama’s length or weight at birth. It’s not exactly information that is of a ‘national security’ issue!
I disagree that Obama is ‘acting Presidential’ in this matter. What I see his actions betraying is someone with something to hide…otherwise, Obama would have put this matter to rest a long time ago and would be able to assume the office of President of the United States without any worries of something following his administration around for his complete tenure.
It may be about c o u r t…but it’s also about t r u t h!!!!!
soon no one will want to read you comments. I thought you were done with this blog, you said, “THIS forum is worthless …NOTHING accomplished.. SO I refuse to participate further.”
Then you come back Nov 30, 2008 at 4:54 pm with a new comment? I guess the above was just more of you hot headed ignorent venting!
LOL
Welcome Back to the Great Debate.
Well Gang,
I have to get ready for teaching my law students this week and ending the semester. I will continue to tract posts at this site in whatever free time I get but I hope to see the truth come out soon. If this problem is not taken with a serious
stance, then we will face the truth that the Constitution means almost nothing and is no more that a old document with no meaning! I fear if Obama gets in and it is later found he is not qualified then we all will have hell to pay. Anarcy will happen I fear. I am praying every night to God, Budda, Alla, and anyother head honcho out there that this matter is resolved and the Constitution is upheld to the highest standards.
I lmost forgot,
I was listening to some of Obama’s resent pre-election inteviews and in one he refers to the Bill of Rights as the “Bill of Negativity!
Makes one think that he does not look of it with a friendly eye, may have something to do with his outstanding disreguard for the Constitution and the law!
Just my thought.
Stalker,
You said, “Add a few misspellings, most folks jump to the conclusion that not only was the writer angry, but the writer was ignorant as well. Often times when someone thinks you are angry and ignorant, they call you names. So if you want people to take you seriously, just follow some basic rules of grammar.”
Look if you are going to point out the faults of other then first correct your own mistakes. I counted at least 25 grammer errors in you blog entry. If you notice the stort postings get read and commented on. Your long winded lecture on the best way to blog is uncut and unrefined! Lets stick to the conversation at hand, which is Obama having to prove his legality to the Free Peoples of the USA!
Dr, Collens Out!
Dr. Collens ~ Nov 30, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Very perceptive comments.
I hope everyone has had a very happy Thanksgiving weekend and now it’s time to prepare for Christmas and the other holiday fun at this most festive time of the year!
Stalker,
I work for the U.S. Justice Department but I had a hard time swollowing what you wrote. You seem to be very ignorent of the seperations of power in our government and how things work he in D.C., your comments a off topic and overbearing! The way you signed out tells me you are Military, maybe a Marine. I was in the Military before my current job so it is easy to tell from the way you sound-off! Shorten your comments and try not to burate other bloggers. This is a good debate and we would like to keep it that way without the obtuse comments!
HighlanderJuan,
I agree totally with you and I hope the good Doctor can find time these next few weeks to keep us motivated with his good comments.
Beverly–
Yes, I’ll admit that I was being sarcastic. But, think about it, if Obama said he had 3 birth certificates, wouldn’t we then be demanding to see all three so we could compare them and wonder which one, if not all of them were forgery since most of us (I think) only have one? “Why three?” would be the big debate for the next week.
And, please, that was a cheap and totally unfounded shot you took at Obama supporters. The truth is that you likely don’t know very many Obama supporters at all…not in any way compared to the number who voted for him. And, I’ll grant that you likely have met with sarcasm on blogsites from Obama supporters but that’s because your comments are mostly ‘flame’…you haven’t been adding much to the discussion other than your belief that he’s a fraud. I don’t mean that unkindly; it’s just that if you compare the substance of your comments to those of others who actually bring links or information to the discussion, you’ll note that yours pale by comparison. And, please believe me, on ANY blog on ANY topic, if you overdo the caps, it inevitably brings sarcastic replies. It’s our way of saying “Why are you shouting?”
Crazy Greek–
You keep saying “all we’re asking”…who is this ‘we’, kimosabe? The ‘we’ you speak of is the frantic online bloggers…the very ‘court of public opinion’ I’m referring to. And I’m saying that he won’t play your game but will respond to the real courts if they feel the matter has any merit. Playing into the hands of the blogging folks would be incredibly foolish.
Consider that this blog, even with its faults, is probably one of the more sane and mutually respectful of the blog discussions that is going. Many of the others are still running at ‘high flame’ level with more rhetoric than facts.
Eddy,
If the good Dr. Collens is correct in his observations at ~ Nov 30, 2008 at 5:57 pm, then Obama will not respond to the courts because he does not respect the law.
This is what starts revolutions, thinking back on the French Revolution.
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi.
This blog is addictive. I keep trying to do other things like watching football or reading online news but I keep coming back to it. I guess I am hooked!!!!
Back to work tomorrow though….not complaining….I thank God I still have a job.
@FredVN: I probably should have a warning label about the addiction thing.
Ditto on the job sentiment…
c.j.–
While I appreciate your concerns for Stalker’s style, please realize that the criticisms also set you up for some.
It’s ’swallowing’ not ’swollowing’; it’s ‘ignorant’ not ‘ignorent’; it’s ’separation’ not ’seperation’ and it’s ‘berate’ not ‘burate’.
Truth is though that many people are spelling-impaired and it does not mean that their comments have no substance or value. Even Dr. Collens had a few. I’m mostly telling you because I believe you are serious about your message and it could cause some to minimize your thoughts without fully considering them. (I’m compulsive about spelling but a genuine ditz at anything beyond simple math…I tip 20% only because calculating 15% makes my head hurt.) One trick is to open a word document on the side, type your comments there, use the spell check and then cut and paste your comments here.
But I agree with your opening sentiments: Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Blessed Ramadan. (Yikes…I don’t think I spelled that last one right and I don’t think spell-check will help me. LOL.)
Actually, what Obama said in the interview was “the Constitution is a document of negative rights.” Any professor of constitutional law would understand what this means, and would readily recognize it as a libertarian philosophy.
Hey, you’re either underachievers or new to this blog addiction thing. Since yesterday’s pronouncement that I was leaving, I’ve been to two garage sales, took some pictures in the park, did two loads of laundry, two batches of dishes (a third is soaking), practiced a dozen karaoke tunes. The key is multi-tasking!
LOL. Warren knows how much I’m teasing. I don’t know anyone who can juggle as many tasks at one time as he does. I’m a slouch by comparison. And working a little levity into the blog is a good thing too!
EDDY wrote:
The ‘We’ I am referring to is the American people that are asking these questions EDDY……and they all are not bloggers. Haven’t you been listening anytime you enter a restaurant or hear someone at work talking. This subject has gone WAY beyond blogging and I think you know it.
Just because the question keeps coming up does not necessarily mean that this is something that is ‘just on the blogs’ and carries no legs. Heck, it’s obviously got some kind of legs since it’s made it all the way to the Supreme Court and other courts in about 8 different states so far…with more to come, I’m sure.
Gotta remember EDDY, there has to be a ‘We’ in order for anything to get done and the “WE” in this case are the American people, demanding that Obama simply produce 1/3 of the requirements set forth in the Constitution in order to be Commander In Chief!
To put it another way…and I am just paraphrasing here…..”When they came for the Jews, I didn’t say anything….because I wasn’t a Jew. When they came for the Catholics, I didn’t say anything…because I wasn’t a Catholic. When they came for the Protestants, I didn’t say anything…..because I wasn’t a Protestant. When they came for ME…..there was no one left to say anything!”
@ HighlanderJuan stataed:
What do you mean? What are expecting to happen? No response is mandated, the brief is optional, and it is possible that Obama and DNC will (like the FEC) waive response.
Wow, that was really poor spelling. My bad.
Interesting Crazy Greek- from an earlier post, you cite the documentation requirements to hold a US passport.
So are you trying to say that Obama does NOT hold a US Passport?
GeorgetownJD ~ Nov 30, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Now, you’ve made an interesting comment.
Obama’s background appears to me to be socialistic, and it would be hard for me to think of him in any other manner.
Having said that, if he is indeed a libertarian in disguise, I’ll take that.
I guess I miss the subtle undertones of his comments.
Can you elaborate on this a bit?
Crazy Greek–
The people at my work haven’t a clue that this discussion is even going on. I’ve mentioned it there; I’ve mentioned it to online friends; I even brought it up at the VFW I hang out at…it was news to everyone I spoke to.
EDDY……Holy crap…….are the people you hang around with sittin with their head in the sand of something? (I mean that in a nice way now…jokingly) I’ve got people I work with who don’t even know how to use a puter and they know about this stuff regarding Obama.
I can’t believe that these people you know, especially at the VFW, wouldn’t be aware of some of this stuff. Maybe not as into it as we are, but at least have some sort of vague idea of what is going on in the world…know what I mean?
Actually, in a weird sort of way, I can understand what you are saying. It’s the same when you ask anyone a simple question regarding Obama…one I’ve been asking of anyone who supports him…”Name ONE accomplishment Obama has to his name since serving in the United States Senate.” I always get the same response…a dumbfounded look on their face and a “DOH” for an answer. LOL
HighlanderJuan (and GeorgetownNJ)–
Just a suggestion on this one. Warren has probably had about 2 to 3 dozen posts on Obama in the past few weeks. There’s at least one on the socialist viewpoints…not sure about the libertarian. Anyway, I’m thinking that with the way this thread has been running, it might be better to have that conversation on one of those threads. Of course, it’s up to you. but then, I thought you might find it interesting to see the other topics Warren has had. LOL. Just go up to the search box on the top right and search ‘Obama’.
For the rest of you, you are likely subscribed to this topic. If they do decide to start commenting on another thread, check for their names in the ‘Recent Comments’ box also on the upper right. Warren doesn’t mind having a sleeping topic revived.
Crazy Greek–
Well I do live in Minnesota:-) maybe that explains it.
And my online friends are from California.
Scariest thing though is that I can’t even get them interested in it. They think I’m crazy for being involved in the conversation!
ROBERT wrote:
Not at all Robert. I am sure that Mr. Obama does indeed possess a United States passport…probably a Diplomatic Passport. Doesn’t mean that he is a “natural born citizen’ in either case.
What I was referring to is that a copy of a person birth certificate is one of the items required to prove proof of citizenship when applying for a passport.
Understand the difference?
Now, if Mr. Obama did NOT have a problem providing proof of citizenship when he applied for and got his current passport, why is he fighting such requirement now?
The ONLY reason I can think of would be that ‘natural born citizen’ status is NOT required in order to obtain a passport while ‘natural born citizen’ status IS REQUIRED in order to hold the office of President of the United States.
Simple really.
Eddy wrote:
ROFLMAO…….now that IS F U N N Y!!!!!
Maybe this also explains why they think you are crazy to be involved in this discussion!
LOL
Juan — Warren would have to open up a new thread on that. The “negative rights” comment was made in the 2001 radio interview that got everyone’s underwear in a twist during the campaign because Obama spoke of “redistributive change” and everyone thought he was advocating socialism. What Obama meant when he said “the Constitution is a document [pr perhaps her said "charter"] of negative rights” is that the Constitution limits or restricts the actions of the state against the individual. For example, the First Amendment prohibits the government from abridging free speech and from dictating religious thought. The Fourth Amendment restricts the government from engaging in unreasonable searches and seizures. Etc. This notion of negative liberties comes straight out of the philosophy of Hobbes and Locke. In the roundtable discussion that was broadcast, Obama stated that the leaders of the civil rights movement failed to understand that the Constitution is primarily a charter of negative rights, and hence, since they were seeking positive rights, they were going about it the wrong way by pursuing change through litigation. Specifically, he was referring to San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, a 1973 case that challenged the unequally funding of school districts. The plaintiffs who brought the suit were emboldened by the advancements of the civil rights movement which had been victorious in equal protection arguments in cases such as Brown v. Board of Education. In Rodriguez they argued that the Equal Rights provision in the Fourteenth Amendment should be read to require [i.e., a positive action] equalization of the tax base for school districts. The Supreme Court rejected the argument. Obama pointed out that the civil rights leaders didn’t really understand the negative rights grounding of the Constitution, and that it was their downfall in trying to take their movement too far, with the result that they lost Rodriguez. Their remedy, he was arguing, should have been to seek legislative change rather than litigative change. t was in the context of his discussion of Rodriguez that Obama made the statement that Dr. Collens is troubled by.
Again, apologies for the spelling and grammar.
The “redistributive change” was the redistribution of the calculation of property tax-based funding for schools, i.e., funding between school districts with a high tax base (think Dallas or Fort Worth) and school districts with a low tax base (think San Antonio or Brownsville).
The oral argument for San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez can be heard at: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1972/1972_71_1332/
Wee awl mak misstakes GeorgetwonJD.
However, some are quick to point out the errors of others. We all type as fast as we can w/o realizing mistakes are being made along the way until we push that darn “submit comment” button at which point our errors become glaringly obvious. Let’s all be understanding of this fact and only point out the errors when the meaning of the comment is unclear as a result. of such errors.
The idea posted to first type the comment as a “word document” then insert it is a good idea for those seeking perfection.
GeorgetownJD,
Excellent. Now I understand.
And I agree with what you have written.
Acknowledging that, you must admit that Obama re-opened the redistribution door when he was talking with Joe the Plumber in Ohio.
If Obama is really a closet libertarian, the simple comment to Joe the Plumber destroyed his credibility in that area.
Back on point, and to the subject at hand.
Will Obama respond by tomorrow, EOD, at the Court?
Let’s wait and see what happens in the ongoing saga of Obama against the truth seekers.
Night all.
///
Well the kooks couldn’t answer my simple questions and cj I proved you a liar. Lucky for Obama nobody with brains are behind any lawsuits.
FredVN I am not interested in reading more garbage from forums and blogs. I only want a couple of facts as I stated. One of those facts RE: 1982 Georgetown confirms. Can you prove him wrong there? I suspect not.
HighlanderJuan nobody gives a crap about a fake Dr. on blogs saying things are fake. I asked about facts as I specifically stated.
@Barry Truthgun: Please read the Guidelines for Commenting. The demanding name-calling must stop.
Crazy Greek said:
I think the point most people are missing here is that it is Obama, and Obama alone, that can make this all go away simply and quickly.———————————-
Crazy Greek,
-
I see this kind of thing on science blogs all the time. Scientists are constantly bombarded with people saying things like “Just buy my $50.00, 800 page book and read it cover to cover and you’ll see how it proves Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and the Big Bang and everything else wrong”.
-
The reason scientists quickly learn to ignore them is because they know they can’t make them go away. When people are determined to prove their point, it doesn’t matter how many of those points you disprove. They’ll keep coming up with more. And they say exactly the same kinds of things. e.g. “You’re persecuting me”. “You’re ignoring me because you know it’s true”. “You’re ignoring me because you’re conspiring to hide the truth”. etc.
-
I’m quite sure its exactly the same for politicians.
-
I can’t imagine why the copy of the birth certificate that Obama has already produced wouldn’t be sufficient evidence. To say that it’s not, is basically saying that the President-Elect of the United States of America and the Department of Health of Hawaii are deliberately conspiring to commit fraud. Although such a thing is certainly possible, I expect extraordinary claims to be accompanied by extraordinary evidence. To expect the opposite (i.e. for the accused to provide evidence of their innocence) is, IMHO, appalling!
-
I’ll wait for the court’s decision and if they decide that it’s so baseless that it should be thrown out of court because of jurisdictional issues, then as far as I’m concerned, that’s pretty solid proof that it was a nutcase argument to begin with.
Barry Truthgun wrote:
Ok…facts you want….how’s this for FACTS?
Also this………..
‘Factual’ enough for ya?
We are talking about the requirements set forth in the Constitution of the United States here for someone to hold the office of President of the United States….and that IS NOT something to be taken lightly!
Skydancer…..
I am sure that you are correct. Once the courts rule that will be it.
However, the courts are bound to rule on a preponderance of evidence and it would seem to me that they cannot do that without having some outside agency (the United States government has many that are qualified) to examine a certified vault copy of Obama’s birth certificate. Based on the findings of this agency, the court can then make their ruling based on evidence, good or bad.
It’s gonna be an interesting couple of weeks, that’s for sure!
Wow…
….You guys are still at it? LOL…
Georgetown JD is right – let’s see if the SCOTUS kicks it back down to the District Court. If not, this thing is over…
If they do kick it down to the district court, I am sure that one way or the other, Pres. Elect Obama will end up “winning” the factual battle in court. Mark my words, right or wrong, natural born U.S. citizen or not, Pres. Elect Obama will become the next President of the United States in January 20, 2009…
When it happens, good folks, whether you like it or not, we need to move forward and support this President just like we supported Presidents Bush, Clinton, and Bush 41 before him as PRESIDENT of the United States. I am an AMERICAN first and I want our President to be successful b/c he/she leads this nation and I want AMERICA to be successful – whomever it is holding that office…
So in my prediction, call it intuition, call it understanding how this “things work” in the “back room deals” that are made all the time, etc. – whatever you want to call it, this thing is a done deal at this point. Obama is going to be the next President of the United States…
Now, if by some off chance it doesnt happen and Obama is NOT inaugurated on Jan. 20th (I dont think this is going to happen but it could…), then we are going to have a lot more to worry about than who is right and who is wrong. A REAL CRISIS will be looming over us all if this happens. And if you will recall from discussions WAAAAY back in this blog, Sen. John McCain, the next logical choice for the Office of President if something happens to Obama, has some rather “questionable” natual born citizenship issues, himself. Which is why I do not think this claim against Obama is going to go anywhere – the GOP’s candidate has his own peculiar set of problems in this regard…
Just my thoughts on a prediction of the outcome of this whole thing….
Thanks for the first few posts and the last post. I had to skip over most of the rest since they seemed to be rehashes of things I’ve read on other forums. This site has been the best so far on explaining what’s been happening with Berg’s Supreme Court Case. Most of the forums seem to think that Obama has to produce his Birth Certificate, and that if the Supreme Court thinks it’s fake John McCain would become president. Here are some questions, hopefully they’re not repeats:
1) For legal experts – if this case gets sent back for trial what will the burden of proofs be? Will this be handled like a civil case where whoever has the preponderance of evidence wins?
2) For legal experts – what other forms of proof of “natural born” citizenship would be considered acceptable. Is there some sort of point system like there is for getting a driver’s license. I can tell you for certain that there are MANY people in the United States who are natural born citizens, have always been treated like that, and don’t have a birth certificate and weren’t born in a hospital. Come back in 30 years and there probably won’t be any, but I have very old relatives(95+) who fit that description.
3) For HIstorians – what did they do at the start of the republic? Did this issue even come up?
4) For the Stop Obama crowd – Why do you think Clinton and McCain didn’t question his citizenship? I think a Clinton supporter was one of the first people to bring it up. They would have had standing to question it.
5) For the Stop Obama crowd – there are numerous people who have related stories about seeing the baby within a few months of being born. Both Obama’s mother and father were enrolled at college up through May in Hawaii. Do you really think they went back over the summer to Kenya to have the baby born? I didn’t know Kenya had such a great reputation for neo-natal care, gynecology, hospital maternity wards etc? Then if they went to all that trouble to go to Kenya why did they come right back. What record of their travel is there?
Crazy Greek — That’s legal argument, not facts. The legal argument proposed on the Federalist Blog is one interpretation; other constitutional authors have a different view, including some who have pointed out that the Fourteenth Amendment in no way purported to amend Art. II but only intended to naturalize emancipated slaves, who were not citizens by birth because they regarded as propoerty . The SCOTUS, if the right case were presented, would take upon itself to choose between these competing legal arguments and settle whether “natural born” in Art. II requires that a President be born within the sovereign jurisdiction (Wong Kim Ark) or can be a citizen at birth by conference of state (Nguyen), or both.
Facts, however, are entirely different from law, and the SCOTUS does not decide facts. A fact would be, for instance: “Obama’s mother traveled to Kenya in July 1961″ and “she gave birth to Obama in a hospital in Mombasa” and “she rushed back to Hawaii fewer than four days later.” To establish these facts, one would need evidence, admissible in court, that Ann Dunham Obama got on an airplane and traveled to Kenya (a plane ticket authenticated by the custodian of records of the airline, stamped passport ) and that she indeed gave birth in Mombasa (authenticated hospital record and Kenyan birth certificate) and that she re-entered the US on or about Aug 7, 1961(INS record of entry). Another fact that would have to be proven is how Ann got a newborn infant without a passport into the US. Other facts requiring proof: “Lolo Soetoro adopted Obama” (requires evidence of adoption); “Obama traveled on an Indonesian passport” (evidence that he ever had a passport issued by Indonesia, record of entry in Pakistan using such); and “There was a travel ban to Pakistan in 1981″ (authenticated record of a State Department announcement of a travel ban).
And then there are questions of foreign law that must be proved, for instance, “Under Indonesian law Obama was required to be a citizen of that nation in order to attend school there.” That would require an expert witness on Indonesian nationality law.
So far the “facts” are merely allegations (in a complaint in which Berg cannot even properly spell “Declaratory” in the caption), some based on unspecified “reports,” some based on unsourced Internet sites (“references circulating on the Internet”), some sourced on a crank Canadian BC signed by Mickey Mouse, some verified by television, some not even anchored to a source (“there are questions”), and finally, some that are admittedly conjecture (“Stanley Ann Dunham could have regained …”). The are allegations, but no evidence supporting them has come forth.
There is also a problem with reliance on a 1940 law that was repealed, as well as some downright false statements of law (“Obama’s mother expatriated her U.S. citizenship when she married Lolo Soetoro”).
There is a saying that “bad facts make bad law.” There is also a saying that “the lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.” Berg would do well to heed both of these.
Goodnight, all.
Warren,
You should have spell check for this site. LOL
I was just having some fun jesting at the Stalker who has never wrote back.
I guess he ment it when he said, STALKER OUT!”
LOL
Have to lighten the mood a bit at times. lol.
Have a good day at work everyone, I and a many others will be at work here in D.C. this week hoping to get the truth out of The O’man before the Electoral Colege votes.
Hold on to your seats we might hit some big bumps here soon.
So all you can do is hope that our justice department will ignore the possibility of our constitution being violated?
Your article fals to address the fact that Mr. Obama has NOT provided any proof that he meets the constitutional requirements.
The justices, congress and president are hired by ALL the American people. If you refused to produced requested proof of being able to work in the U.S., or even worse presented a forgery, you would not be hired.
Why is this different for the ruling class.
Stop the legal crap and present the proof, if you have it.
For those of you wondering about Obama being a Socialist. My comment would be that he ran for his Illinois Senate seat as the New Party (joint venture between the Socialist & Communist parties in the U.S.) in 1996.
There is a newsletter article at: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/08/will-msm-report-obama-membership-socialist-new-party
@c.j.: If anyone comes across a plugin for spelling check, let me know.
Warren, you might look at this site:
http://aspell.net/
I can’t be more specific because I have no idea what your server software is.
David,
All very good questions. I’ll leave numbers 1 & 2 to the legal experts as you requested, but would like to chime in on 3 – 5 if that’s alright. The problem with anyone answering anything bluntly regarding Obama is the fact that nothing is really known about the man.
I think the answer to this is the very reason we are having this discussion today. The framers of the Constitution realized the need for some way to control things so that only a ‘natural born citizen’ could ever be in control of this new country because their greatest fear was of a ‘kingdom’ of sorts (the very type of tyranny they had just left) being started up here on this continent. Realizing that the first President (some actually wanted the mantra “KING” for our leader) would have to be someone not “natural born” to this country is the reason for the wording of the article.
I think this is the very question that frustrated many McCain supporters, in fact if you will remember, there was a shouting match at one of McCain’s ‘town hall meetings’ where one of the his supporters was almost in tears asking McCain to take the gloves off and go after Obama. Heck, I even sent him email asking the same thing and getting specific regarding Obama’s citizenship. Never heard a peep from the McCain camp. I don’t know why Hillary didn’t go after Obama on this, given her ‘bulldog’ tendencies. The only thing I can think of is that she was so arrogant and thinking that this little upstart didn’t have a chance against her that by the time she realized that she was being left in the dust, it was just too late to do anything.
From what I understand, and we will never get the complete story on this, is that the timeline went something like this.
1. Obama’s Mama is banging Obama’s Papa
2. Obama’s Papa returns to Kenya (for whatever reason) not realizing (or caring is probably more like it) that Mama is ‘with child’.
3. For whatever reason (maybe school) Obama’s Mama waits until she is almost full term with the baby before flying to Kenya to confront Obama’s Papa and get a name for her child. When she gets to Kenya, she finds out that Obama’s Papa already has a few wives and is not about to marry another.
4. Supposedly, Obama’s Mama is so close to delivery that the airline refuses to let her fly back for fear of the child being born on the aircraft, and they tell her that she has to stay in Kenya until after delivering her child.
5. Obama’s Mama delivers a son in a hospital in Kenya.
6. After a few months, Obama’s Mama returns to Hawaii with her new born son and applies for and gets (reason known only to Obama’s Mama) a Hawaiian Certification Of Live Birth.
This is the timeline as I understand it from those believing that Obama was born in Kenya rather than Hawaii and would therefore be a BRITISH subject at birth rather than a ‘natural born citizen’ of the United States.
I hope I got all that right. If not, I’m sure that someone (LOL) will gladly step forth with a “correction”.
This is the problem one encounters when trying to discuss Obama’s ( now President elect Obama) entire life. The man is nothing but smoke and mirrors and refuses to release ANY type of record regarding his life.
Well, today’s the day. Anyone hear anything?
OBAMA WILL IGNORE THE COURT I BET, KNOWING THE LOOP HOLES. HE IS AN ATTORNEY REMEMBER, AND KNOWS THE FLAWS IN OUR SYSTEM.
Obama was a Birtish citizen until they transferred his citizenship to Kenya when they were no longer a protectorate. He was born a dual citizen, whether born in Hawaii or not. Can persons holding dual citizenship be president? The framers said no, but did any one ever make a Congressional interpretation? Obama knows he is putting the country in crises, and he does not care. That is who you voted for. A man who while on tax payer dollars was brokering money to put Odinga in power in Kenya, appearing on the media in Kenya even. Does this suggest divided interests, just as the founders warned of? I when Kenya took all British citizenships, they refused to honor dual citizenship, did that make Obama natural born (if in Hawaii)?
Gene wrote:
Give the lawyers a chance to wake up Gene…….it’s still EARLY in Washington, D.C. ya know.
ROFLMFAO
Im so tired of hearing about the riots that would happen. So be it! Maybe the other 52% of the country that did not vote for BHO should riot if they dont hear this case and get to the truth!
Whether legally married or not, his father was Kenyan. The local witch doctor pronounced Obama and Odinga to be future leaders of government, according to other rumors. The african press says there is an Imam who left Kenya with proof on Obama and sought asylum in England. Anyone know if that is fairy tale?
By virtue of the fact Obama’s mom was American he is a Citizen, but does he meet the natural born requirement with dual citizenship as well, even if he had a real Hawaii Birth certificate? I have heard there are now suits in 27 states! If all the courts ignore the need for answers, then we might as well move to Russia.
They will probaly be ruling us soon anyway! Movcing more weaponms into Cuba and Venezuela, doing war evxercises. Arming Kenya and hte Middle east. What is Obama’s plan to talk us out of this?
Frankly, if the riots are going to happen, let them. I don’t
like civil disorder, but a domestic war can end only one
way, and WOULD settle a lot of our problems in the end.
@Gene: Given our situation in the world, civil unrest sends exactly the wrong message to our enemies. Even though I did not support Mr. Obama, I would rather be governed by him than any number of our foreign enemies. This is so obvious as I write it, I am stunned that I feel the need to.
LMAO ! lol….well its early afternoon anything ??/?
Guys….
IMHO….
Whether we like it or not, this issue with Obama’s citizenship isnt gonna’ go anywhere… Whether we like it or not, Obama is going to become the 44th President of the United States…
Obama supporters, jump for joy…
McCain supporters, learn from this and move on…
(shrug)
You’re probably right, Chuck. But something is clearly in the air.
Warren – I agree, but an illegally-elected President is
a bad signal as well.
Gene -
Let’s HOPE and PRAY that Pres. Obama will do the BEST things for this country while in office. That is my hope…
If that means pissing of his supporters, then so be it. The REALITY is that he cant deliver ALL of those campaign promises – as we can see, he is already backing out of the promise to raise taxes (get rid of the Bush tax cuts). He is also going to find that he will not be able to do a lot of other things now that HE is in that chair. It is easy to criticize and point fingers at others when you are not in the position of authority and dont have access to all the information. But when you get there, odds are, you are going to revise your positions b/c now you know more about the issue/problem. This is just the nature of things…(shrug)
Let see what he does…
Only time will tell – he is getting his team in place for the transition. Lets see what they do…
Warren,
Unfortunately, there are many people who in their undertone of speech and action are preparing their minds for a civil war. Some are predicting that or a revolution. Either way, now is NOT a good time for that. We are broke, we are disrespected in the international community and looking at using China for our bank (depending on how N. Korea acts). We are in a very weak position. Any one who has studied wars, conflicts, civil unrest etc… would know this is not a good time to have a civil war. It will break the country.
“Let see what he does” by, Chuck
Dear Chuck,
I’ve seen enough already.
A Mossad agent, dual citizen is now the White House Chief of Staff. Hillary Secretary of State. Clinton retreads everywhere especially the ones that destroyed finalcial regulations and enabled the bankersters to go wild and destroy our economy.
I remember Obama’s promises of open and transparent government. The $800,000 in legal fees so far, attests to Obama’s transparency.
No man is above the law. Patriots must and will rally to The Constitution.
It’s regrettable for Obama and his supporters that pledged their hearts, minds and billions to a man that knew beforehand he was ineligible to become President.
It’s not about race, religion, sectionalism, or any other emotional reason that is the enemy of logic and reason.
It’s all about the Patriot’s duty to protect the Constitution.
If Obama does not qualify to be President of the United States. He must disqualify himself before the Supreme Court does it for him.
Is a $10 birth certificate too much to ask?
Well stated, Mary….
(Sigh)
beijingyank….
My point was that we dont have much choice at this juncture…
This is a done deal – I doubt very seriously that “the powers that be” are going to let anything deride this transition of power at this point over this “citizenship issue” (for all of the reasons Mary stated above and THEN some…), which for all intents and purposes, plagues BOTH former candidates for President.
And to be fair, it is highly possible that Obama believes he was born in HI. I dont know what he was told by his Mom or Grandma – perhaps they told him the same thing? I havent seen anything saying that he was NOT born in HI – just speculation and possible problems with his citizenship based on the fact that his mom was American and his dad was Kenyan and his mom was POSSIBLY out of the country at some point while carrying Obama. That is all I have seen, but the State Dept. sealed his Mom’s travel records so I dont hink we will know – this is more than likely standard practice for Pres. elect. So what else do we have to go on? We have to trust that HI, a sovereign state, has their records in order and that his records there are valid and official. What else do you suppose we do to prove otherwise?
Perhaps he simply LOST the original certificate (and never reapplied for an original) and all that remains is the record in HI’s center for vital statistics (or whatever they call it in HI)? If HI says he was born there, then whether we believe it or not, that settles it doesnt it? If the SCOTUS decides not to remand this to the District Court, this thing is done.
I dunno if he was or he wasnt born in HI – none of us know (even Obama may not know for sure – shucks, when I was born I didnt know where I was born other than what my birth certificate said and what my parents told me – that is all any of us can go on…)
Without going thru all of the back and forth of facts, let’s see what happens with the SCOTUS after today…
My guess is, nothing will happen…
This is a DONE deal, my friend…
Obama et al have until the END OF BUSINESS today to file their response. I doubt if we will see anything much today other than confirmation that they did/did not respond.
beijingyank -
Ummm….
…And just curious, what is the problem with a former Mossad agent? I am a strong supporter of Israel and HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THIS… Why is this problematic to you? I just ASSUMED that most folks in America ALSO strongly support Israel and would have no problem with Mr. Emmanuel – goodness, he is a frickin’ badd azz dude just the kind of man you want in that position. What is the problem? We’ve never seen ANY reason to question his loyalty to America – if ANYTHING, this should give people who questioned Obama’s dedication to supporting Israel some relief.
You disagree? Apparently so… Tell me why?
….AND he served in Clinton’s admin, as well – no problems arose re: his ties to Mossad, etc. then…
WTH???
A process comment – let’s keep this thread about Berg. I have posted on Obama’s appointments – just did in fact. Let’s move discussion of his staff and advisers to that thread.
Thanks.
we the people of the united states should not let our CONSTITUTION BE BULLIED by a non qualified usurper who will not produce aNYTHING BUT A FORGED CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH made from 9 pieced together overlays on a 2007 hawaiian certificate form///// tyranny we have already had…. monarchy we have already had… BRITISH RULE WE HAVE ALREADY HAD…
@Crazy Greek: I am pretty sure that he will not do anything more than the Solicitor General already did – which is waive response.
@dennis: Please tone down the caps – in the Internet world, it is like shouting. Thanks, Warren
Warren -
Indeed…I was just responding to “beijingyank’s” comment/problem with him. My apologies for not doing so in the right forum, good sir! ;o)
@Chuck: No prob at all; just saying
Crazy Geek -
So that I understand what you are saying, you (and others) claim that Obama was not actually BORN in HI, but in Kenya, yet somehow his mother was able to get HI officials to somehow conjure up a HI certificate of live birth? Do I have that right?
Well, IF in fact what you say is true, then of course, we have a REAL problem. The fact that ANY state would willy-nilly give anyone a certificate of live birth upon request of the mother goes WAY beyond just this case. How then, can we have confidence in ANY such claims if states can just make these things up as they go?
Hello Warren. If somebody like c.j. lies such as saying 1 Justice put a stay on the electoral college and I call him a liar for that lie then it is unacceptable? If so I apologize for not reading your rules in advance. I tried to elicit some evidence from him through strong language but these kooks never have evidence and no prodding of them can command any. I will leave you to play with your liar friends in peace.
@Barry Truthgun: Maybe cj was mistaken; I don’t know. Do you?
It is true that the Obamanites have until the end of the
day to respond to Souter, though I seriously doubt they will.
And it’s not because they can’t come up with the $35
processing fee to get a certified copy of the birth certificate.
A child at this point can see that they are hiding something
big. VERY big.
Maybe the government IS preparting for riots. Check your ammo,
people.
Gene -
You may be right – perhaps they are hiding something. I dont know for sure – I dont think ANY one can at this point; which is part of the problem. ALL of these questions should have been either decided YES or NO at the front end – for BOTH of these candidates (again, McCain has similar issues re: natural born citizen status…).
Lack of institutional integrity and CONFIDENCE in those institutions goes to the HEART of these concerns/problems. As I stated before (much earlier in this blog), the fact that ANY candidate for President could actually file the FEC Forms 1 and 2 and NOT be required to provide proof of natural born citizenship status at THAT point (before being a bonafide candidate) is beyond me. Look at the forms yourself on the Federal Election Commission’s website – Forms 1 and 2 are all that are required to run for President. That simple fact means we have a problem in the process and bureaucracy associated with electing our public officials – PRESIDENT’s in particular. I looked at both FEC Forms 1 & 2 and NOWHERE on either of them does a candidate have to “prove” natural born citizenship to run for President of the U.S. NO-WHERE!!! If you guys can find it, please let me know cuz I couldnt…
Just to get land in Hawaii, one has to produce the original Certificate of Live Birth.
Per the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands……..
There is a difference in the two documents.
I have never said that Obama was indeed, in fact, born in Kenya. I did say that it has been speculated that he was, thereby raising questions as to his citizenship as a ‘natural born citizen’ of the United States.
The Certification of Live Birth shown on Obama’s own website has said to have been forged and made from several different documents. Has it? Who knows? However, one thing is quite evident…there is no signature of an attending physician on the document Obama has posted.
Warren -
I don’t doubt your findings about the FEC, and actually, I’m not
surprised. Nor am I surprised that the Constitution does not
spell out any provisions for what should be done should someone
be elected President who is later found to be ineligible on the grounds
of birthplace.
And why do I say this? Simply because I’m sure that neither
the FEC nor the Founding Fathers of this Nation would have ever
imagined that some lunatic would get himself elected as President
under such circumstances!
God, what a mess!
To Chuck:
Imagine if you left your 6-year child alone in the
living room, and when you came back, you noticed your
favorite vase missing. You ask your child where it is,
and he says he doesn’t know. Not only are
you going to believe that the child knows where
the vase is, but you are also going to STRONGLY
suspect that something happened to it.
THAT is the type of mentality we are dealing with
here today – something equivalent to that of a 6-year
old. And this is what we going to trust with the nuclear
button? God help us!
It didn’t appear to me that Barry Truthgun contributed very much, if anything, to the blog, so we are all probably much better off with him in retirement.
I have to say all the crackpot “legal” theories in the comments below are pretty funny, although it’s discouraging to see what a poor grasp of the law many folks (including Berg) have.
.
The unasked question is: why would Berg bring this case in the first place? The answer, as it often is, is: for the money and the publicity. Berg was fined a few years back for unethical conduct. Basically — as an attorney — the guy is damaged goods. So, by launching a wild lawsuit against a controversial presidential candidate, Berg gets himself a moderate amount of media attention. He makes a video and sets up a website … to which donations can be made. The guy isn’t doing this for free — he’s collecting money from his tinfoil-hat army and probably sticking it straight into his checking account. It doesn’t cost him much of anything to hammer out his pleadings and submit them to courts, yet he’s been passing the hat around since the beginning of all this.
.
I suspect Berg knows his suit is bogus. Or he’s a really lousy attorney. He sued Obama as an individual, which is completely irrational. He should’ve been suing the US government to force it to investigate Obama’s eligibility or turn over the results of any investigation it might have done under the Administrative Procedure Act or FOIA, respectively. Then, he could’ve argued the FEC (or whomever) failed to determine Obama’s eligibility. Of course, the problem with that is that the government has already determined he is eligible, so Berg would’ve lost the case, and he would’ve had to spend actual money to do so (he would’ve had to call his witnesses, put on his so-called evidence, etc.).
.
All I see happening here is the Supreme Court issuing a one-liner: petition denied.
.
And then we can see how much of the money Berg gives back.
To Yoshi:
You don’t GET it, do you? This has nothing to do with
Berg anymore. He’s irrelevant! It’s now SOUTER
who is demanding that Obama clear this up. He
sure as hell is not saying ‘petition denied’!
Hello from Planet Earth!
OHMYGOD! RIOTS! SOMEBODY CALL THE …
Oh wait, it’s just a couple kids playing with a yappy dog. Guess the world isn’t going to end today after all. Oh well, I suppose we can all go back to debating whether 9/11 was an inside job or not.
Has anyone bothered to check and read the natural born citizen act???
Here’s a link to a summary.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s108-2128&tab=summary
Actually, Gene, I’ve got a pretty good grasp of how filing for a writ of certiorari works. You will note in the excerpted portions of the court’s order above that the court is asking for a response to Berg’s petition. That’s it. No mention about a birth certificate (or any evidence at all).
Planet Earth says hello back to you.
The business day ends in about two minutes. So much
for the forthrightness and honesty of ‘PrezDet-Lec Obama’.
Just posted a brief update on this case.
Next step is a full Court conference on the certiorari petition. According to the SCOTUS PIO, this could be set at any time for any time.
To Yoshi -
Well OBVIOUSLY (that is, to people with half
a brain) Souter is not satisfied. If he was,
he would have just told Berg ‘petition denied’
like you’ve wished, and that would be the end
of it. But that didn’t happen now, did it? Golly gee.
Not being an attorney, I don’t know what full the implication
of the case being ’scheduled for conference with the full
Court’ entirely means, but it sure doesn’t sound to me
like the matter has been resolved.
[...] Berg vs Obama: Response to Supreme Court Due December 1 Berg vs Obama: Dept of Justice Waives Right to Respond to Petition http://wthrockmorton.com/2008/11/19/berg-vs-obama-dept-of-justice-waives-right-to-respond-to-petition/ Digg ThisGregarious [...]
I sure HOPE the Court takes up the Obama matter.
I just can’t take any more of this ‘prosperity’ that the
markets anticipate with Obama’s ‘presidency’.
Down down another 680 points.
QUOTED BY .
Clestes and all others who may find themselves in this predicament…..
I, Jerry, will not get into a “battle of the wits” with you for one reason. I will not fight unarmed persons.
Gene,
You did read the reports that state the recession for america started in dec 2007? that’s what guided today’s trading session.
I think what is so frustrating for most people is the realization that Obama says he wants to bring this country together, but his actions speak far louder than his words making it evident to all that this man could care less about what the country, or anyone else in the world, thinks of him.
His arrogance in this matter borders on the criminal since it would be such a simple matter to resolve this issue.
Still, like everything else in Obama’s world of smoke and mirrors, it remains unanswered.
Crazy Greek–
Although I disagree with your position, I’ve appreciated your comments when they didn’t involve mind-reading and speculation about motives. I believe Obama’s actions re: assembling one of the most well-rounded and well-balanced team of advisors in modern US history speaks pretty loudly. Ahhh…but that’s another topic thread.
He’s clearly NOT trying to run a one-man show and he’s even done a little reaching across party lines…and he’s not done yet. But I feel my words are wasted here.
From today’s insightful post (not all of them yours, BTW) I’ve garnered that his technical right to citizenship hinges on the fact that his young mother gave birth to him while on a trip to Kenya because doctor’s advised that her pregnancy was too far advanced for her to travel safely by plane. Conceived on US soil, nourished in the womb by food grown on US soil until the final days of the pregnancy. And then, by an accident of bad timing born in a foreign country. Wow! What a conspiracy! Definite grounds for a civil war and riots in the streets. Definite grounds for all the hateful talk that’s been circulating.
Eddy wrote:
Really? Since all of these ‘well-rounded/well-balanced’ folks you speak of haven’t even made ONE decision as of this date, I have to ask….”What crystal ball are you using to get your information?”
I would also have to take issue with your description of Rahm Emmanuel (Obama’s new hand picked chief of staff) being “well-rounded orwell-balanced. Standing at a table and plunging a knife into the table each time you shout out someone’s name and saying “DEAD” simply because they opposed your way of thinking does not fit any definition of well-rounded or well-balanced that I have ever heard of.
What Obama is clearly (as you put it) NOT doing is keeping up with the promises he made to his voters during the campaign……and he hasn’t even taken office yet!
Eddy wrote…….
Yep…..That’s the part that is frightening hell out of a lot of people.
Crazy Greek–
I said the ‘team’ was well-rounded and well-balanced. They aren’t all cut from the same mold or the same cloth. LOL. The differences in approach and philosophy will lead to lively discussions and, I hope, balanced solutions.
LOL. Did I really think you’d agree with my impressions? Not a chance!
I’ve got a big day tomorrow and need to prepare. The holiday weekend is over…boy, is it ever over!!!
Have a good week Eddy……….I really enjoy a little light hearted banter just to liven things up every so often.
Have a good one!
LOL
FYI -The attached link will take you to an article written today entitled: DONOFRIO V. WELLS WAS DISTRIBUTED FOR CONFERENCE OF DECEMBER 5, 2008 BY THE FULL UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Some of the comments posted that follow the article are interesting too.
@GeorgetownJD
I would be very much interested in your analysis of this related article:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/01/leo-donofrio-comments-on-judah-benjamin-article-concerning-natural-born-citizen-and-the-common-law/
Thank you.
FredVN — As between Leo Donofrio and “Judah Benjamin” I would choose Leo’s argument. JB’s argument makes the mistake, as Leo points out, of relying on the 1790 immigration law that was subsequently repealed, and JB also ignores the following language in Justice Swayne’s opinion in United States v. Rhodes: “An alien naturalized is ‘to all intents and purposes a natural born subject.’ Co. Litt. 129. “Naturalization takes effect from birth; denization from the date of the patent.”
When Justice Swayne wrote of “naturalization” he was using the term in the classical sense of the word: the process by which one becomes a citizen. One process is to be “naturalized” at birth (natural born); the second way to be “naturalized” is to go through a prescribed process sometime after birth. In the second instance, then, when Justice Swayne wrote that an alien who is naturalized is effectively a natural born citizen, what he meant is that the statutory process of naturalization puts the new citizen in the exact same status of a citizen who was naturalized at birth; there is no discrimination between them vis-a-vis legal rights, no first class citizenship for natural borns and second class of citizenship for those naturalized under the statutory process.
In Rhodes, Justice Swayne was sitting as a circuit court judge (in the 18th and 19th centuries Justices “rode circuit” acting as court of appeals judges in addition to their Supreme Court duties), so the opinion has persuasive value but is not binding on SCOTUS. Keep in mind that Rhodes was decided a few months after the Fourteenth Amendment was proposed but before it was ratified. Nevertheless, Rhodes sets out the principles of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Where Leo Donofrio veers off course is his suggestion that for purposes of the “natural born” language in Art. II there are three statuses: natural born, naturalized, and dual citizenship. In Donofrio’s view, a newborn who has dual citizenship has divided allegiances. First, there is absolutely no legal support for the proposition that dual citizenship precludes one from being a natural born citizen. The Supreme Court, which has numerous times recognized that there are only two forms of citizenship (natural born and naturalized), is not going to buck more than 200 years of precedent and announce a new, hybrid form of citizenship. Second, from a practical standpoint, it is preposterous to suggest that a newborn infant has conflicting loyalties between two nations. The Justices, even the conservative members, are not such ideologues that they would allow this theoretical conflict to get in the way of real world sensibilities, particularly in this case where Obama’s Kenyan citizenship expired on his 21st birthday. SCOTUS does not rule on hypotheticals.
Hope this answers your question.
David Fry — Sorry I missed your post last night. you asked:
If the case were to be remanded for trial, the burden of proof (on Berg) would be “preponderance of the evidence” as to the facts. I haven’t done the research, but I believe that Berg would have to prove the foreign law upon which some of his facts rest with “clear and convincing” evidence, which would result in a battle of experts.
Admissible evidence would include a certified copy of a state-issued document showing place of birth. For this purpose, the short form COLB would be admissible, because Hawaiian law provides that it is evidence of the facts stated therein. Other admissible evidence would be testimony by a witness with first hand knowledge. For instance, a doctor or nurse or relative who was present . The testimony must be under oath in accordance with US standards, but it could be by deposition and preferably subjected to cross examination. If a Kenyan relative, there would have to be a court-certified translator. A witness could be impeached by a variety of methods, e.g., showing bias, faulty memory, reputation for dishonesty, poor eyesight (remember that scene from “My Cousin Vinny”?), conflicting testimony, etc. That is where good cross examination comes into play.
Now, if there were conflicting evidence, say, both a certified COLB establishing Honolulu as the place of birth and a relative’s testimony that Mombasa was the place birth, the factfinder (jury or judge) would decide how much weight to give the evidence and would be the final arbiter of the veracity of the witness.
All – I cross posted GeorgetownJD’s comment above to the thread on Donofrio.
Thanks for the great discussion here.
Gene said:
Gene, The American Bar Association has published a primer about how a case progresses through the Supreme Court. It can be found at http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/scprimer.pdf. The Justices meet every Friday when the Court is in session, to go through a stack of petitions asking the Court to hear the cases. This private meeting is called “conference.” Each petition for certiorari is scheduled for an upcoming conference after the respondent has had the opportunity to file a response brief. Because there are so many cases to go through at conference (about 200), the Justices don’t actually read each one. Instead, the petitions and response briefs go to a “cert pool” and a law clerk will review the briefs and prepare a memo that goes to all the Justices, making a recommendation whether the case is “cert worthy.” Currently all Justices except Stevens and Alito participate in the cert pool; Justices Stevens and Alito have their own law clerks read the petitions and responses. At the conference, very few of the cases are actually discussed. If a Justice thinks a case should be discussed, he/she places it on a “discuss list.” At conference, if four Justices vote to hear a case, certiorari is granted. The petitioner and respondent each file a “merits brief” arguing why the lower court’s decision should be reversed or affirmed, and the case is scheduled for oral argument. Also, other parties may apply for permission to file an amicus brief; sometimes the Court invites certain parties (most often the Solicitor General) to file an amicus.
The response that is due on Dec 1 in Obama v. Berg is the response brief in opposition to certiorari. After that, Berg may file a reply brief if he wishes. Once all the briefs are filed, the case will be scheduled for conference. The docket entry will look like this: “DISTRIBUTED for conference” and will identify the date of the conference. On the Monday following conference, the Court will publish an Order List that announces whether certiorari was granted or denied.
The Donofrio case is a little different. Leo Donofrio filed an application for stay rather than a petition for certiorari. Justice Souter denied the application, and under the Supreme Court rules, Donofrio could renew his application and ask that it be directed to another Justice (Donofrio renewed his application to Justice Thomas.) While this is permitted under Rule 22.4, it is disfavored. When one Justice has denied an application, another Justices are most reluctant to overturn that decision, so they customarily punt it by “referring” the application to the full Court for reconsideration. That is what Justice Thomas did. When an application is referred, it is put on the conference list. It does not mean that Justice Thomas thinks the application has merit; rather, he is following custom.
Night all.
Oops, make that Berg v. Obama. It’s late folks.
GeorgetownJD,
Excellent posts. Thank you.
Dear Mary -
No, that is not correct. Markets don’t react to the past
or even necessarily the present. They typically react to
what is anticipated in the the future. And the future
looks pretty bleak under the Democruds.
Eddy argues that Obama is eligible to be President because he
was “…nourished in the womb by food grown on US soil until the
final days of the pregnancy.”
If we follow that line of thinking, any pregnant foreigner who
eats McDonald’s hamburgers is nuturing a potential US President.
Did you take your medications today, Eddy?
To GeorgetownD -
So you think the Court is going to treat the
case of possibly an ineligible person taking the oath of
the US President as ‘just another case’ out of
a couple hundred? Common sense would tell
otherwise.
Did you take your medications today, Eddy?
Gene,
Sarcasm is an unattractive quality.
Supposedly it’s just in that Wrotnowski’s case has been denied by Justice Ginsberg and that Wrotnowski has resubmitted the case to SCOTUS Justice Scalia, who in turn has sent the documentation to a lab for anthrax testing!
Man, this thing is just gettin more bizarre by the minute now!
I don’t understand why so many are runnin scared on this thing. It’s a simple matter of put up or shut up and get outta Dodge!
This is a Constitutional matter, right? The Justices of the Supreme Court are sworn by oath to uphold the Constitution, right?
You know the Justices are bound to be aware of the ramifications should a person not eligible under the rules of the Constitution being sworn in as POTUS!
I know one thing…..this one ain’t goin away any time soon and I would sure hate to be Chief Justice Roberts administering the oath of office to the 44th President of the United States not having done everything in my power to clear this up beyond all doubt!
This one is really turning bizarre, just to put it mildly.
Crazy Greek,
And doesn’t this say something about Barak Obama’s ability to resolve issues? Here is an issue before him that questions his eligibility to be POTUS and it is going unresolved. It seems that would put into question whether he thinks he is the exception to the rule and more importantly, that it doesn’t bother him enough to resolve it.
Hummmmmmmm….election year 2012.
Since Obama is more than likely going to be sworn in because our SCOTUS is dodging their responsibility, thereby rendering our Constitution just another piece of scrap paper, I can see an interesting race for the Presidency of the United States……Vladimir Putin vs. Barack Obama.
Hey, I understand that Putin is looking into getting back to running a country again, right?
ROFLMAO
I hear ya Ann. I just can’t understand SCOTUS draggin their feet on this one, of all cases before them. You would think that this one would take precedence over anything on their docket right now and that they would want to get it resolved quickly!
The very fact that this has made it as far as the Supreme Court and that the Justices have even considered it for “discussion” should tell everyone something.
Resolve the damn issue. This has gone way beyond having a Justice tell the American public what he/she thinks personally regarding a case now. It should be a simple matter of the Supreme Court of the United States simply stating “Mr. Obama, there are questions arising regarding your qualifications to be President of the United States. Before Chief Justice Roberts administers the oath of office to you on January 20, you are required to submit before this body undeniable proof of your citizenship status.”
It’s as simple as that!
It’s as simple as that!
Crazy Greek,
I agree! Remember the disruption Clinton caused when he wouldn’t tell the truth as the majority of people see the truth? Is vs. Is
So what is the latest? I can’t find anything.
So much breathless fantasizing by people who can’t accept the fact that Obama is going to be the next president.
First of all, the State of Hawaii has confirmed that Obama’s birth certificate is genuine:
Obama’s Hawaii Birth Certificate Confirmed
Pacific Business News (Honolulu)
October 31, 2008
The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed on Friday what Barack Obama has been saying all along: the presidential candidate was born in Honolulu.
“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate,” said Chiyome Fukino. “State law prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.”
Citing her statutory authority to oversee and maintain Hawaii’s vital records, Fukino said she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
“No state official, including Gov. Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii,” Fukino added.
Lingle, a Republican, has been campaigning on the Mainland for Obama’s opponent, Sen. John McCain of Arizona.
Obama, a Democratic senator from Illinois, was born Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu. He graduated high school at Punahou School in 1979.
Think about this for a minute. The governor of Hawaii is a Republican and a McCain supporter. If there was any doubt about whether Obama was born in Hawaii, don’t you think that Governor Lingle would be all over it?
As GeorgetownJD has pointed out, the fact that three lawsuits have been appealed to SCOTUS means absolutely nothing about the underlying merits (or lack thereof) of those lawsuits. All three were dismissed by the lower courts on issues of standing and/or jurisdiction. Because the merits of the underlying cases have not been adjudicated, SCOTUS cannot rule on the merits. The only issues for SCOTUS to rule on are whether the lawsuits were properly dismissed. If SCOTUS rules that any of the lawsuits should not have been dismissed, those cases will be remanded to the lower courts to start all over again. So the idea that SCOTUS might order Obama to produce proof that he was born in Hawaii is nonsense. It isn’t going to happen.
Besides, as the State of Hawaii has confirmed, Obama does not possess his original birth certificate. The State of Hawaii has possession of it. Obama has possession of a certified abstract of the original. As for the allegations that Obama’s copy is a forgery, those claims have been thoroughly discredited:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
In any event, even if the lawsuits are remanded, the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs to make a prima facie case that Obama is not qualified to be president. Where is their evidence? All I have seen is wild conjecture. Some of the claims which have been made are ludicrous. It doesn’t matter if Obama was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather. The courts have ruled consistently that there is nothing that parents can do to strip their children of citizenship. Even if a child’s parents were to renounce their U.S. citizenship, it would have no effect on the citizenship of the child. Unless Obama at some point personally renounced his own citizenship, he never lost it regardless of what his mother did. Likewise, as GeorgetownJD pointed out, the fact that Obama’s father was a British subject has nothing to do with Obama’s eligibility to be president.
My prediction is that all of the appeals to SCOTUS are going to be rejected.
the supreme court has allowed 7 days for the dnc and obama to respong to berg’s scotus…………due to the fact IT MAY BE IN THE MAIL….so says BERG’S SECRETARY 12/02/ 2008
@Gene: The latest I can find is in the update on this post. Berg will probably file an application to stay the Electoral College vote.
Gene–
Democruds? Really? Did you wet yourself laughing when you typed that one? Did you give yourself an “I’m So Clever” star? “Look what I did…I’m so clever…you see it’s really Democrats but I found this other word that starts with ‘cr’…isn’t that just too funny?”
And, naturally, you missed the point. People were talking CIVIL WAR, Gene…over a technicality. People are saying they fear that the Constitution will be trashed and yet they say they’re ready to take up arms against their neighbors and co-workers. That IS insane.
If a civil war did erupt over this matter, it would be far more bloody than THE Civil War we’ve all read about. There would be no North and South dividing line. There would be no safe place ANYWHERE in this country. You think our economy is in a downturn now…what about when you can’t drive down the street? What about when your mall becomes a war zone? When all forms of public transport come to a screeching halt? When trading on the stock market itself comes to an end?
America in a Civil War. Now, that’s playing into the hands of every enemy our nation has ever had.
Supreme Court Rule 29.2:
Rule 29. Filing and Service of Documents; Special
Notifications; Corporate Listing
****
2. A document is timely filed if it is received by the Clerk
within the time specified for filing; or if it is sent to the Clerk
through the United States Postal Service by first-class mail
(including express or priority mail), postage prepaid, and
bears a postmark, other than a commercial postage meter
label, showing that the document was mailed on or before
the last day for filing; or if it is delivered on or before the
last day for filing to a third-party commercial carrier for
delivery to the Clerk within 3 calendar days.
Or it may be that legal counsel for Obama and DNC decided not to file a response brief in opposition. In that case, next week the Clerk will distribute copies of the petition to the Justices, and it will be assigned to a law clerk to write a memo analyzing Berg’s petition for certworthiness. After that, conference.
Oh well……If Obama gets sworn in (and at this point it looks like he will) at least he won’t have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate…….this just in…….
Also, looks like Coleman is expanding his lead (although only slightly) over Al Franken in Minnesota….maybe one less kook to worry about.
At least there’s a little bit of a silver lining in this dark cloud.
Crazy Greek–
Ah, but Coleman used to be a Democrat. I’m sure he just waiting to ascend to the Presidency before he reveals that his switch to Republican was just a ploy.
But seriously, this recount isn’t looking good for Franken…which is okay by me. Their race got way ugly towards the end but I still favored Coleman…a good man regardless of his political affiliation.
Eddy,
“Democruds? Really? Did you wet yourself laughing when you typed that one? Did you give yourself an “I’m So Clever” star?”
Ah, – but Republicans the country over – Ann Coulter being one of the best – constantly revel in creating new words that mock anything with which she, or her party, doesn’t/don’t agree. They pat themselves on their backs for grade school humor FAR too often
Wouldn’t it be obvious that before a person runs for the highest office in the country that he would be obligated to show his qualification to run: ie the birth certificate. Shouldn’t this be somethng automatic? I would love it if he was thrown out. He is a fraud on so many levels. This man invented and created himself with the help of very dubious characters and players. He must go. Hopefully, he will be shown to be a liar and not a US citizen.
[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
.
taxes? 1960
Rich,
Who is the heck is Fukino?
“Defendant is a medical doctor and a custodian of health records. She is neither a political battering ram nor an agent of presidential politics. She solicited a role as the former while inserting herself in the latter.
In Justice Lewis’ language, Dr. Fukino can no more
“blow hot” and then “blow cold” than Obama. Exhibit A and other local coverage reflects that Fukino solicited coverage on the last weekend of the presidential election by purporting to express an expert opinion on a document that she refused to make public and where she was not remotely qualified as an expert. The original 1961 COLB may confirm what she claimed, or it may not. It may eliminate questions or it may raise new ones. We simply don’t know.
In a democracy, and under clear principles of Hawai’ian law stated below, we don’t have to take Fukino’s word for what the document is or contains; we have a right to examine the original.
Dr. Fukino cannot make declaratory statements about a public record and then refuse to allow the media to cross-examine her claims by examining the original document that she is discussing. She clearly manifested an attempt to use the statutory secrecy of her office for an improper and unlawful purpose, political manipulation. (Parenthetically, Fukino’s desperate last-minute efforts only confirm the strength and success of Plaintiff’s bona fide efforts to raise concerns about the manipulative actions of Hawai’i officials.)
If Fukino had merely exercised her right to go into the vault and examine the document in question, that would have in no way constituted a waiver. But she far exceeded her statutory duties, solicited massive media attention and interjected herself into political controversy and sought to bolster Obama on the final weekend of the election. That behavior blatantly exceeded both her statutory duties and professional competence, all while seeking to manipulate a document in her possession and control. The law does not allow a public official to so openly manipulate material and information in her possession.
Even if Obama had not already waived access to the material in Fukino’s possession, there is no way anyone can test the accuracy and veracity of Fukino’s unconditional claims without actually seeing the document concerning which she was offering testimony. Entirely and completely independently of Obama’s waiver, Fukino waived the secrecy provisions of the statute by her own conduct or misconduct.”
http://www.pr-inside.com/obama-court-hearing-to-focus-on-r915438.htm
Rich,
Your link to factcheck.org is laughable at best. Who within factcheck.org who has “seen’touched’and felt” the document is the experts in the forensics?
Heck, If I just looked at it and felt it I would probably think it is real but I am no expert. Here is a link to an expert opinion who professionally points out the flaws in this supposedly real document.
Can you provide a link that has a notable expert claiming that the document is authentic and not a fraud? I would like to see it ….
http://www.obamacrimes.com/
drumaslot -
Andy Martin’s arguments are ludicrous and will go nowhere. The notion that producing a certified copy of your birth certificate waives your privacy rights is laughable. If I show my birth certificate to my employer to prove that I am a citizen, that doesn’t give my employer the right to order his own copy of my birth certificate without my consent. There is no waiver. In fact, Martin’s emergency Motion for an Order to Show Cause was already denied by the Circuit Court in Hawaii on 11/18. Martin filed another emergency Motion for an Order to Show Cause on 11/26, and that will be denied as well.
Martin doesn’t explain why Governor Lingle, a Republican and a supporter of McCain, would not have intervened if Dr. Fukino had done anything improper. Martin’s claim that Dr. Fukino inserted herself into this is ridiculous. It’s obvious that Dr. Fukino got involved only because her office was being deluged with questions about the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate.
As for the forensics — your idea of a “notable expert” is “Dr. Ron Polarik,” someone who won’t even give his real name? Give me a break. And keep in mind that the burden of proof is on the party making the allegations.
And as for Philip Berg, he is an embarassment to the legal profession, an attorney who has a record of filing frivolous lawsuits. U.S. District Court Judge J. Curtis Joyner had this to say about Berg: “Other attorneys should look to Mr. Berg’s actions as a blueprint for what not to do when attempting to effectively and honorably perform the duties of the legal profession.”
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1122023117263
Mark my words — everyone of these lawsuits will be dismissed. In 12 days Obama will be elected by the Electoral College, and he will be sworn in on January 20. Get used to it.
Rich wrote:
This may very well be Rich, however there are still a lot of folks looking at Obama and wondering about his actions in this COLB matter.
Just a ‘for instance’ for ya…….here we have a man that has access to various departments of the United States government given his stature as Senator. Now he is running for President of the United States and questions arise regarding his citizenship, specifically his birth record.
One would think that this individual (Obama) would want this issue resolved immediately and laid to rest. The United States government has departments that deal in documentation every day…the FBI and CIA, not to mention Immigration just to name a few. Does Obama submit his COLB to any of these organizations? NO! He does the very same thing that you are berating others for doing…relying on an entity of the internet to add veracity to his released document!
This behavior alone, notwithstanding his behavior in other areas, is what is fueling this problem. Like I have stated before, it is Obama, and Obama alone, that has the power to put this all to rest. No one else! Yet, he fails to do so! Why?
Everyone knows that Obama is bound to know how this one item on a long list of items regarding his prior life is tearing this country apart. He has publicly stated that he wants to be the man of change, the one to bring this country together!
His actions tell a whole different story!
He’s still the man of smoke and mirrors and will continue to be until he answers the questions. One would think that a man wanting to be the man of change and wanting to bring the country together would want this resolved!
So, again, my question is, WHAT’S OBAMA’S PROBLEM with producing his vault copy of his birth certificate to a judge and saying “Here it is your Honor….take it to any outside source/combination of sources you choose and have it verified…..then publish those sources findings publicly so that there can be no further questions regarding my right to hold the office of President of the United States.”
Any takers on the possiblitly of Obama doing that?
Nah…didn’t think so!
My husband is a truck Driver in Texas and when we moved to Texas we had to show our Birth Certificate with other ID and Documents. Barack OBama taking the most important position in America USA needs to provide proof of him being a United States Citizen. If he trully is a US citizen this should be easy. If he is a fraud in any way he should not have the presidency and be deported.its , just like Arnold Shwartinger from CA Governor, excuse me if I spelled his name wrong.
I received this link today regarding this issue. Naturally, we
have to go to a foreign publication to get this information.
God forbid the DEMOCRUDically-allied ‘free speech’ liberal
media in this country report two sides of a story.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/6687
Some idiot named Rich says the State of Hawaii has confirmed
that Obama’s birth certificate is genuine because a bureaucrat
there named Chiyome Fukino says she has “personally seen and verified
that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original
birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
Apparently, the birth certificate is just too hazardous for us to look at -
our eyeballs may fall out. So rather than Obama ending all this controversy
by spending the $35 to produce the damn thing, he saves us all that
agony by having Chiyome Fukino tell us what it says. How nice.
Rich also drivels: “And as for Philip Berg, he is an embarassment to the legal profession, an attorney who has a record of filing frivolous lawsuits.”
Well, that eliminates about 99.47% of the legal profession, doesn’t it?
Nevertheless, like Berg and Souter, I still want to see that birth certificate,
FOR MY OWN EYES!
“Change we can believe in”. Yes, I believe it, alright.
Check out these two stories.
http://africanpress.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/the-intent-to-air-the-michelle-obama-tape-before-the-electoral-college-meets-on-the-15th-december-to-take-a-decision-on-mr-obamas-eligibility-to-the-presidency-may-be-hindered-by-cia-operatives-in/
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2225
Crazy Greek –
You don’t seem to understand. Obama has made the certified copy of the COLB which he has in his possession available to the media. Everyone who has inspected it has concluded that it is genuine. Obama does not have possession of the “vault copy” of his birth certificate, so he couldn’t produce it even if he wanted to. You cannot produce that which is not yours. Obama doesn’t own the “vault copy,” the State of Hawaii owns it. Try going to the city or town where you were born and demand that they give you the “vault copy” of your birth certificate. They won’t give it to you, because you don’t own it.
And this is hardly “tearing the country apart.” Most people who are aware of these lawsuits know that they are friviolous and will be dismissed. The only people who are torn apart by it are the fringe elements of the right wing who are obsessed with trying to keep Obama out of the White House.
Some reading for you:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
Obama has nothing to put to rest. Filing a lawsuit does not create a controversy. A lawsuit only becomes a controversy when a court accepts jurisdiction, and so far no court has accepted any of these lawsuits. Obama has more important things on his mind than a few unethical lawyers who are trying to get their 15 minutes of fame by filing frivolous lawsuits.
Sheri –
There is no question about Obama being a United States citizen. Regardless of where he was born, his mother was a citizen, so Obama is a citizen.
Obama had to provide proof of citizenship when he got his Social Security Number, when he registered to vote, etc.
Rich, The bottom line is that if Obama is eligible/meets all three qualifications w/o doubt to be POTUS, then it’s all good. Obama is hiding somethinbg for sure. He is hiding his eligibility for sure. If he has nothing to hide regarding his qualifications, then why spend so much time and money trying to keep it out of the courts. Truth always pre-vails.
This man is trying to become the POTUS. He is not running for School principle.
There is major doubt being expressed by the Dems as well as the Repubs. It is Obamas duty to prove that he is qualified. If he will not willingly do so via a team of professional forensic scientists, and he makes it into office, prepare for civil war bro.
drumsalot –
Yes, the supposed Michelle Obama interview which was going to be released before the election but somehow never saw the light of day. You apparently missed the editorial note at rightpundits.com in which they admit that the tape most likely does not exist:
Editor’s Update: The failure of the organization to provide a promised audiotape to the public, after stalling and stalling, helps us believe that this story from API was a hoax. We do not believe there was a Michelle Obama interview.
And now we are are supposed to believe that it will surface before December 15? Don’t hold your breath.
Besides, it wouldn’t make any difference. Do you understand how the electoral college works? Obama has 365 electors who are pledged to vote for him. They were on Obama’s slate of electors because they are Obama supporters. The notion that anything could happen in the next 12 days to change that is absurd.
Gene –
Calling me (or anyone else) an “idiot” is hardly the way to start a civil discussion.
@Gene: Rich is correct. Gene, eliminate the namecalling. Please see the Guidelines for Commenting.
Rich, read the first posted link API claims they have the audio and proof of interview. They claim the CIA is interfering….do you see it all or just what you want to see?
Ig Obama does notset this issue to rest and prove that he is qualified to be POTUS, 1/2 of this nation if not more, including myself will recognize him as usurper.
This is a serious issue that he needs to address and yet he fails to put the issue to rest. He is already failing millions of Americans and he isn’t even officially the pres-elect
Rich wrote the following:
I don’t seem to understand? Let’s see………the copy…and indeed what Obama “released” on his web site is undoubtedly a forgery and has been proven to be a forgery…………was not initially “made available to the media”……it was made av