Pennsylvania attorney Phil Berg, who filed the first lawsuit on whether President-Elect Barack Obama meets the constitutional qualifications for president, had had two requests pending in the U.S. Supreme Court, both called Berg v Obama. On January 12, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Berg’s request that the Court take his case for full review. His request for injunctive relief is on the January 16 conference. Odds are extremely high that it will also be denied, but that won’t be known until January 21. The Court is closed on January 19 and January 20. UPDATE: technically, the U.S. Supreme Court did not deny cert. Instead, the order is: “08-570. The petition for a writ of cert before judgment is denied.” That is slightly different than just “cert denied.”
This will end up like a ballot access case. They will wait to after it is possible to act and then not decide the case on the merits only say that nothing can be done now.
This news report is “backwards.” Today, the court denied Berg’s petition for writ (i.e., for full review). Berg’s application for injunctive relief is scheduled for conference on January 16.
See http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/011209zor.pdf (order denying writ petition); and http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm (not yet updated to show today’s order, but showing that application is scheduled for Jan. 16 conference).
Are we still a Republic, or have we totally morphed into some Soviet style state? We, citizens, have no standing in any court to ensure that the Constitutional requirements for office are followed.
Liars and idiots assure us that obviously insufficient web postings somehow make this a non-requirement. Try that at the DMV.
Why should we follow the dictates of FedGov if they won’t even allow us to learn who really rules us? (They have the guns.) It is pathetic.
They will rule us as long as we permit them to do so. They are well aware that the many millions are not in favor of their actions and that millions more simply don’t care at this point. They are also aware that for the most part modern day Americans are cowards when it comes to standing up for their rights. Not until a sufficient number feel that they have had enough and that they are ready to give “The last full measure” and make that fact known will anything change.
It comes down to this, if you do not approve of the actions of a mad pitbull your actions are very limited.
What a bunch of spineless losers making up SCOTUS and the Senate. Does no one have the guts to simply say: show me the money and let’s put this to rest, giving Barry the benefit of the doubt that he is qualified. But since he is not, SCOTUS and the Senators would have nothing to fear for disqualifying him and upholding the constitution, Barry would then not be in power. This would be such a simple matter to resolve and would save the SCOTUS hours and hours of future lawsuits and taxpayers dollars. As long as Barry is in office, this will never go away. And, years after he is out of office by whatever mean, this will have repercussions due to the laws and policies that this usurper will put into place ILLEGALLY!
“…many millions are not in favor of their actions…”
Okay, let’s assume, say, 18 million are not in favor. So how many of those 18 million showed up at the Supreme Court building for The Big Protest. Let’s see (clickety-click on the ol’ calculator) … exactly one-millionth of them. That’s right, eighteen people. And they proceeded to argue with each other about exactly why Obama is not eligible. Between them I believe they had 37 different reasons, some of them mutually contradictory, unless he was born in multiple places.
You guys’ overblown sense of grandiose self-importance borders on the psychotic. Seriously, get some help. All of you millions, er thousands, er, tens of you.
Richard:
Today was the decision for granting cert (without final judgment) next Friday (the 16th) will be the conference for the injunction (yes, I know that this order of conference issues sounds odd). Then, after Obama is inaugerated, will be yet another already scheduled conference on the 23rd (for what will be, I’m guessing, deliver proof or be removed from office just as any public officer with a defective oath of office with the possible addition of enterprize corruption surrounding the grand-daddy of all frauds)
No. 08A505
Title: Philip J. Berg, Applicant
v.
Barack Obama, et al.
Docketed:
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Case Nos.: (08-4340)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 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.
——————————————————————————–
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Philip J. Berg 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 (610) 825-3134
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Party name: Philip J. Berg
Attorneys for Respondents:
Gregory G. Garre Solicitor General (202) 514-2217
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Party name: Federal Election Commission, et al.
Lawrence J. Joyce Lawrence J. Joyce LLC (520) 584-0236
1517 N. Wilmot Rd., #215
Tucson, AZ 85712
Party name: Bill Anderson
Stalin said the overthrow of the United Sates Democracy will come from within…..I think we are very well on the way.
Many of the posters here are perfect illustrations of how much is wrong in the US today. Every political disagreement sems to dissolve into personal attacks, conspiracy theories and rampant overstatement. How are we ever going to solve our problems if issues can’t be debated without personal invective?
To billvanallen-You are surely aware that Chief Justice Roberts will administer the oath of office to Obama. He does not seem like the kind of person who would do that on Jan 20, only to find him inelligible on Jan 23. The plain truth is that Berg and the others are plaintiffs with a burden to produce evidence to support their arguments. They have not done so, so they will simply get nowhere in court.
Here’s what’s happening:
1. Berg’s case is going down to the Court of Appeals.
2. Supreme Court has nevertheless accepted the amicus brief that, regardless of Berg, Supreme Court MUST issue a stay until the matter is resolved (either at the Court of Appeals or through one of the other actions now before the Supreme Court or Obama voluntarily withdraws for the peace of the country) because it would be catastrophic damage to USA if Obama were inaugurated and LATER determined inelligible (that is, because all actions by the Federal Government under an inelligible Obama would be void or voidable).
3. Supreme Court currently has a Stay set for Conference on 1/16/09 and can Stay the 1/20/09 Inauguration of Obama to be replaced by the swearing in of Biden under the 20th Amendment (at least to serve as Acting President until the Obama constitutional elligibility is resolved).
4. Alternatively, the Supreme Court can retroactively Stay (after 1/20/09) — say on 1/23/09 at its scheduled conference on the Lightfoot case — the Obama Inauguration until the eligibility issue is resolved
— if obama was not born in HI, his tenure, just as with RMN (Nixon) Watergate coverup, is toast and someone such as HRC (Hillary) will be the eventual POTUS.
Otherwise the majority (of voters) has clearly spoken and Obama will be and will serve out his term(s) as POTUS/CINC
— unless of course the economy fails completely (i.e. sky-high currency inflation followed by economic depression) then all bets are off
What is needed is the right of discovery, allowing the petitioner to subpoena the State of Hawaii to obtain Obama’s birth certificate, and possibly the Grandmother’s testimony. There was a claim that another case, in Washington state, would achieve this. The petitioner’s lawyer made the claim, citing existence of a little used state statute, but unfortunately the reporter failed to name the specific statute or provide its language. Does anyone have any further insight?
You nuts are looking nuttier by the minute.
Do you realize just how totally insane you sound to a normal person?
Do you really think that Obama was born in Kenya and this is all part of a massive conspiracy?
Let me guess . . . moon landing is a hoax too, right?
to BJS:
Yes, we do think Obama was born in Kenya… his gradma thinks so too and it is on Video. Obama should be the one with the burden of proof here, not Berg or anyone else bringing suit. There is no record anywhere of Barack H. Obama having ever presented any documents to anyone (State of Illinois, DNC, etc) verifying that he is in fact a natural born citizen and therefore qualified for the job. I am a teacher and had to submit to a background check and present proper documentation to get my license. I couldn’t shift that responsibility to the school and say, prove I am not a child molester or whatever. Why should it be on us to prove that a presidential candidate qualifies. They should have to prove that. And if he can’t then he should be thrown in jail for conspiracy and forgery, etc.
I there is nothing to hide, why does he continue to hide it?
I got a Benjamin says not one of these cases goes anywhere. As loony as you guys are, not one of you is loony enough to actually put money on your nutso scenarios.
The most amazing thing is that a guy supposedly born in New Haven, CT (anyone seen his b.c., by the way?) is leaving a holy mess and that doesn’t seem to bother any of you. But let some nutjob claim on absolutely NO evidence worthy of the name that Obama (who embodies the true American spirit very nicely, thank you) was born in Kenya and you think the whole world should stop.
Once again, you are delusional. The Chief Justice is not swearing someone in, only to try to throw him out 3 days later. No sir.
Luke Bauman:
Do you realize just how totally insane you sound to a normal person?
By the way, has everyone read Orly Taitz’s letter to Chief Justice Roberts? http://www.scribd.com/doc/9693866/Orlys-Letter-to-Chief-Justice-Roberts
In the middle of trying to convince him of the justice of her cause, she stops to reprimand him for his association with an Annenberg-funded project…
It must be read.
In order to think that Obama will be found ineligible, you have to think that Hillary, McCain, the DNC, the GOP and everyone on both sides who opposed Obama at some point over the last 2 years did one of two things:
1. Either they did the worst job in vetting a candidate that this country has ever seen – missing something as easily verifiable as his place of birth and citizenship status – and in that case I have to wonder why anyone would think them qualified for the job anyway. Even absent access to the birth certificate, they all had access to federal records that would prove his citizenship status at birth, and any changes made henceforth. As government officials investigating the claims of an applicant for office, per Hawaii law, they also had the ability to obtain official verification of all of the information stated on his short form BC. Let me remind you that this BC states he was born in Hawaii on Aug 4, 1961, so a verification would have to either support or deny these claims.
He traveled to Indonesia as a 6-year-old. You don’t think there’s any record of his passport with the state department? And absent any record of it, wouldn’t they want to raise questions?
His opponents are Senators with inside connections in government. McCain had the support of the Bush Administration, with all of the investigative power of the US Government to verify Obama’s citizenship. And Hillary, a Senator and the wife of a former President, has pretty equal pull to get verifying information. The fact that they never once mentioned this story, and that they aren’t trying to sue him (as they DO have standing) would lead anyone other than the most blindly partisan right wing nut job to believe without a doubt that this is all trumped up garbage.
2. Because with all of this information available to them, if there is any truth to this, and they didn’t raise questions, they were all party to the biggest conspiracy this country has ever seen – a bipartisan effort to seat a naturalized citizen or illegal alien in the Oval Office.
Why isn’t he releasing his long form certificate? There are a few legal/political reasons and I have one other theory behind that.
1. The theory: His parents were not legally married. His father had a wife already in Kenya. (Notice that his BC says that his mother is Stanley Ann Dunham, not Stanley Ann Obama. Not very common in those days to not take your husband’s last name. It’s not even that common today, usually only practiced by those women who have a professional reputation under their maiden name.) If the marriage was annulled, or they weren’t legally married to begin with, his long form birth certificate is marked BASTARD. Not something that you want to hand over to the press, is it? Whatever it is, there is something on the certificate that is less than desirable, but it isn’t his place & date of birth, which is clearly stated as Honolulu, HI – Aug 4, 1961. Since his short form provides all of the necessary information to prove place of birth, requesting anymore than that is an invasion of privacy to which not even Presidential candidates should be subjected. It’s certainly not something to which any of them before Obama has ever been subjected.
2. He’s already proven his citizenship with the short form certificate, which is more than enough for the State Department and any other federal agency to determine place of birth, yet the rumors continue to be created.
That document was falsely declared a forgery. The claims that the so-called “experts” make about the supposed forgery could not be obtained by reviewing a jpg file that has been reduced for presentation on the Internet. It’s a 100 KB file that in its original size and clarity would be well over 3 MB!
The same thing would happen if the long form were released. There aren’t that many people who believe the story, and so the effort to continue to fuel the opposition with rumor fodder is pointless. Those who believe it will always believe, and they won’t ever move over from the right, so what’s it matter? It’s pointless for Obama to try and appease extremists who will continue to believe this story no matter what he does. The majority of the people 67%+ are on board with him and fully approve of him.
3. The first reason for fighting the cases in court with motions to dismiss? The people suing him have no standing, and those with standing (McCain, Hillary, the GOP, the DNC) aren’t suing him. And even if the current plaintiffs did have standing, the next fight would be over admissibility of evidence, as they have not a shred of substantiated evidence that would stand up in court. Rumors on right wing websites are not substantiated evidence and would be laughed right out of court.
4. The second reason for fighting the cases in court with motions to dismiss? It’s cheaper than a legal battle before a judge. If he fought one with a full trial, it would set precedent for ALL of the cases to go to court. That requires actual face time by his attorneys, not just a pre-drafted motion sent to the court. Additionally, it sets precedent for anyone to challenge the eligibility of any future candidate. This would present a great burden on the election system in this country. Third parties with limited funds would be sued out of the running, as their funds would be burned up in legal defense. And the major party candidates would spend more time & money defending themselves in court than they do on the campaign trail.
5. And the final reason for filing motions to dismiss – defending the Constitution!!! He’s already gone above and beyond by releasing his short form certificate, when no other candidate born in the USA has ever been asked to do so. These legal cases seek to violate the Constitution on a couple of levels:
First, Article III of the Constitution would without a doubt be violated if anyone without standing were allowed to sue Obama questioning eligibility, as they can show no substantiated damages, nor present any possible claim for which relief could be granted by the court.
Secondly, Due Process provides for equality of all citizens to fair treatment in the eyes of the law, and prevents the government from violating the rights of any citizen – including the President-Elect – in the interest of preserving the individual rights to life, liberty and property.
The man has proven his birth in Hawaii, and absent any substantiated evidence presented in court by a party who has standing to sue (ie. able to show damages and a claim for which relief may be granted by the court), the whole process and all of these 20+ lawsuits are nothing more than a witch hunt by conspiracy theorists.
The burden is no longer on Obama to prove his eligibility – he’s already done that. The burden is on the accusers to show standing and present a reasonable case. Unfortunately, no one is coming forward, so it appears that no one has a case.
If the “strict constitutionalists” (as most of the citizenship brigade claims to be) were honest about their reasons for pursuing this case, and spent as much time studying the Constitution as they have beating this dead horse, they’d realize that they were making an unconstitutional defense of the Constitution.
But since we’re trying to make up some trumped up BS about his citizenship in order to throw him out on technicalities, let’s really look at what technicalities would be presented if this case were brought to court. Unfortunately, for the right wing nut jobs, even if it went to court, and the details of the whole case were fought out, he would still be eligible for the Presidency, even if HE WAS born in Kenya, and even if HE WAS adopted by Lolo Soetoro and obtained dual citizenship in Indonesia.
First of all, we know:
1. Barack’s father was already married to a woman in Kenya, and had a child with her already.
2. Ann was pregnant and he had married her (illegally in the US because he was already married, and the US recognizes almost all marriages, particularly those of a British Colony). Why would he take her to Kenya, where she’d find out about his Kenyan wife?
3. What 18-year-old white girl would want to go to 3rd world Kenya during the late term of her pregnancy even today, nonetheless in 1961? Sanitation, modern medicine, modern civilization, law & order – these are all HIGHLY overrated, I guess.
But let’s just pretend that this isn’t insane, and consider that Obama may have been born there. The argument has been that Obama’s mother would have to have been at least 19 (5 years of presence in the US after age 14) in order to pass natural born citizenship to baby Barry due to differing laws for married or unmarried mothers overseas. But even if he was born in Kenya, his mother & father’s marriage in the US was illegal and not recognizable by the US. So he was born out of wedlock, and the natural born laws require only 1 year of physical US presence by an unwed mother prior to birth overseas.
The other claim is that he lost his citizenship when his mother married Lolo Soetoro in Indonesia and Lolo adopted him, despite the lack of any proof whatsoever that he was ever officially adopted. They claim that he first lost citizenship because his mother did by marriage, effectively passing her citizenship to him and renouncing his US citizenship – WRONG. And then lost it through adoption by Lolo – WRONG. You have to voluntarily and deliberately renounce citizenship, and you can still obtain citizenship in another country with the intent of remaining a US citizen. So any adoption or marriage would not have automatically renounced citizenship, especially for a minor child unaware of what was going on.
The laws straight from the State Department website regarding all of this are listed below.
[b]Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother[/b]: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309© INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.
[b]Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock[/b]: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html
[b]Validity of Marriages Abroad[/b]
In general, marriages which are legally performed and valid abroad are also legally valid in the United States. Inquiries regarding the validity of a marriage abroad should be directed to the attorney general of the state in the United States where the parties to the marriage live.
http://travel.state.gov/law/family_issues/…rriage_589.html
[b]POTENTIALLY EXPATRIATING ACTS[/b]
Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform [b]certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship[/b]. Briefly stated, these acts include:
1. obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);
2. taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);
3. entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);
4. accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or ((IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);
5. formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);
6. formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only under strict, narrow statutory conditions) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);
7. conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).
[b]ADMINISTRATIVE STANDARD OF EVIDENCE[/b]
As already noted, the actions listed above can cause loss of U.S. citizenship only [b]if performed voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship. The Department has a uniform administrative standard of evidence based on the premise that U.S. citizens intend to retain United States citizenship when they obtain naturalization in a foreign state[/b], subscribe to a declaration of allegiance to a foreign state, serve in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or accept non-policy level employment with a foreign government.
[b]Loss of U.S. Nationality by Marriage[/b]
In some countries, marriage to a national of that country will automatically make the spouse either a citizen of that country or eligible to become naturalized in that country expeditiously. The automatic acquisition of a second nationality will not affect U.S. citizenship. However, naturalization in a foreign country on one”s own application or the application of a duly authorized agent may cause the loss of American citizenship. Persons planning to apply for a foreign nationality should contact an American embassy or consulate for further information.
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html
vb1175- Excellent arguments, sir!
I have one more reason for not releasing the long form. Military strategists would say that if your enemy insists on attacking an irrelevant or valueless target, you don’t stand in their way. If his enemies want to waste their time, let them go at it. Being the subject of unrelenting attacks by far-right whackos can only gain him sympathy from thinking people.
The only “constitutional crisis” is in Berg’s mind. Then again he is one of the few PUMA’s left who is still trying to make noise because Hillary Clinton isn’t the president.
Sore loser.
“I there is nothing to hide, why does he continue to hide it?”
No one is hiding anything. This is the Right’s mythic attempt to explain this crushing defeat. Very much like the post-bellum Dixie cult of The Lost Cause.
I believe that a great part of the reason Obama has discouraged the idea of a thorough, broad investigation and indictments, is because his own myth handlers don’t want to infuse this sort of movement with any further fuel. If Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld were even investigated, it would do a great deal to enliven this whole anti-Obama conspiracy movement.
I don’t like us not prosecuting them (perhaps some court abroad will!), but I see why Obama’s handlers are afraid to pursue it.
Investigations of the Bush 43 regime would involve revelations abt the Democrats complicity, and often ignorance, regarding the invasion of Iraq and the authoritarian excesses of much of he “war on terror.” I think this will also stop the Congressional Democratic leadership from approaching investigations of the Bush 43 regime.
This fly on the wall has been observing. What he sees piques his interest: the smooth talkers are starting to do their polishing. “Me thinks thou do protest too profusely.” When the smoothies show up, you know they’ve got something to polish.
“Yes, we do think Obama was born in Kenya… his gradma thinks so too and it is on Video.” — Luke Bauman.
Speak for yourself, Luke. Is that the editorial we, the royal we, the Truther Brigade we, or do you gots a mouse in your pocket? I, and apparently several others who have posted here, don’t agree with you, so maybe you should be a little less grandiosely dramatic and say “some of us”.
His granny is on video now? Wow, how those tall tales do get taller. Berg originally announced he had an audio tape, which last I read he has not released. Have *you* actually heard it? Can you provide a Web link to it, so we can hear it? I understand that granny is speaking a foreign language and is being interpreted by … someone. Do we know who this interpreter is? Her credentials? Who vouches for her? Let me guess. Phil Berg.
I repeat: *what* audio tape?
“Obama should be the one with the burden of proof here, not Berg or anyone else bringing suit.” — Luke Bauman
Tell ya what, Space Cadet Skywalker. If you want to live in a country where you get to write the law to suit yourself, go move somewhere else besides *my* country and have at it. Start from scratch. Here in *my* country, tort law says that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, who has to prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence that *he* provides.
Fact is, in both the PA federal court and the SC, this is how seriously the Berg case respondents have taken Berg: they have waived their rights to respond at all. So much for the blogosphere rumor that Obama has hired three law firms and has spent $300,000 (or was it $3,000,000?) fighting these suits. It doesn’t cost that much to send a note to the judge saying “naaahhhh… you go ahead and start without me. I have to clip my toenails.”
America — love it or leave it.
Relying on blogs for anything other than a down-the-Rabbit-Hole view of the world is like trying to forecast the weather by looking in your closet.
Walter Says:
“the smooth talkers are starting to do their polishing. When the smoothies show up, you know they’ve got something to polish.”
Walter demonstrates here one of the core principles of conspiracy wackoism: if you don’t agree with us completely, this is proof that You Are Part Of The Conspiracy.
First corrolary: if you know about the conspiracy and do not speak up, You Are Part Of The Conspiracy.
Second corrolary: if you suspect there is a conspiracy and do not speak up, You Are Part Of The Conspiracy.
Third corrolary: if you do not speak up at all, your silence is proof of your complicity, and that You Are Part Of The Conspiracy.
You see, all extremists have this in common above all: their prime directive is to divide, polarize, and disunify. This is why there was not that much difference between the statism of Communist Stalin and Fascist Hitler (both committed genocide, after all — “by their works ye shall know them”)
It also explains why rightwing extremist Rush Doublewide Cheeseburger embraces the extremism of the black gay activist/extremist ultraliberal film critic, David Ehrenstein, who wrote the April ’07 LA Times editorial, “Barack the Magic Negro,” on which Chip Saltsman’s favorite song was based.
See, Ehrenstein and Doublewide are comrades-in-arms in the cause of extremism. Don’t believe me? Mr. E., after learning that Rev. Rick Warren (pastor of Saddleback Church, which does not let homosexuals join, but will let them attend) was going to participate in the inaugural, said “He’s not my president.” Sound familiar?
The difference between this allegation and ballot access cases are too many to list here and now. Yet, here are hte major points.
Ballot access cases tend to have a bit more agreement on some basic facts. Candidate A or Party Z was or was not on the ballot.
Yet, here you have a handful of people (mostly on the far political right) who insist that Obama is not legally eligible to be a candidate, where as most people say he is. The dispute in facts, is a key difference.
Ballot access reforms, especially successfully ones, also tend to have a much more diverse coalition of supporters then the ‘Obama is not eligible’ crowd.
Even if you think the SCOTUS should look at the issue, once you read and investigate Berg or Lightfoot you see it’s filled with idiotic rumors and outright lies. Some qualified attorney should have made a clean case or cases to clarify the process of validation of a candidate and definition of natural born. The Kenyan/Indonesian upsurper crowd destroyed the issue with their hateful noise.
better than half of you guys are nuts and clearly almost none of you are lawyers
Berg never had standing to bring suit .. that’s it; done … no jurisdiction … nothing is more fundamental in our system
if you are unhappy with this state of affairs, lobby Congress to confer standing to sue on whomever you think should have it … but don’t hold your breath
Berg would not have won on the merits even if he did have standing … he’s lucky he hasn’t been slapped silly with Rule 11 or Section 1927 sanctions
L
Walter said “This fly on the wall has been observing. What he sees piques his interest: the smooth talkers are starting to do their polishing. “Me thinks thou do protest too profusely.†When the smoothies show up, you know they’ve got something to polish.”
ROFLMAO!
What have Berg and the wack job brigade been doing for half the year now? They spent all this time throwing #&%@ at the wall hoping some of it would stick, and when none of it did, now they’re polishing it trying to turn one of these pieces of @#&% into a diamond. Hilarious, Walter. Hilarious.
I really wish by some miraculous occurrence this case did make it front of a judge, and the so-called “evidence” that Berg has was somehow allowed into court. And I honestly wish that this BS about Kenyan birth and Indonesian citizenship actually WAS true also, just so we could all see the collective heads of the conspiracy theorists out there explode when these revelations came out and Obama was still deemed eligible by virtue of natural born citizenship.
After all, McCain was deemed eligible, and he actually was born on foreign soil before laws even allowed for transfer of US citizenship to foreign born babies born to US citizen parents. Congress just passed a resolution declaring him natural born. Of course, there was no constitutional crisis there, was there? Why?
Because this isn’t about constitutionality. The reasons that people are holding onto hope for this case have to do with one of a number of issues, none of them being the Constitution. Not an all-inclusive list but here are the big ones:
1. Racist fear of a black president
2. BS Beliefs that Obama is a Muslim, also rooted in bigotry
3. BS Beliefs that Obama is a Communist
4. Just general hate for liberals, and the willingness of the right to mount ridiculous witch hunts to bring them down.
Like I said, if the “strict constitutionalists†were honest about their reasons for pursuing this case, and spent as much time studying the Constitution as they have beating this dead horse, they’d realize that they were making an unconstitutional defense of the Constitution.
Natural born = at birth allegiance to the regime — derived from Dark Ages feudal stuff.
The question is the status of persons born in the U.S.A. having a FOREIGN father (assuming that Obama was actually born in the U.S.A.).
Sorry – NO U.S.A. citizenship for the children of female sex slaves dumped into the U.S.A. by wartime enemies, pirates, terrorists, etc.
See the 1866 debates on the citizenship definition sentence in 14th Amdt, Sec. 1.
Way too difficult for party hack judges to think about ???
Berg press release
01/12/2009: PRESS RELEASE – U.S. Supreme Court denies Berg vs. Obama Berg states he is disappointed for the 300+ million U.S. citizens, for our “Forefathers†and for the tens of thousands that have died defending “our†Constitution and we will fight on as Obama is “not qualified†to be President
(Contact information and PDF at end)
(Lafayette Hill, PA – 01/12/09) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications†to serve as President of the United States and his case, Berg vs. Obama, in the U.S. Supreme Court announced today that the U.S. Supreme Court has “denied†our Petition For Writ of Certiorari Before Judgment.
Berg said, “I am disappointed for the 300+ million U.S. citizens, our ‘Forefathers’ and for the tens of thousands that have died defending ‘our’ Constitution.
I am committed to keep our efforts going to continue litigation until the truth of Obama being ‘not qualified’ for President comes out. The Obama candidacy is the biggest ‘HOAX’ ever to be put forth to the citizens of the United States in 230 years.
In addition to the current case in the U.S. Supreme Court, we have or will have:
A case filed two [2] months ago captioned Berg vs. Obama, said case ‘under seal’ so I cannot comment further;
The case of Hollister vs. Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama, filed 12/31/08 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 08-02254; said case being an ‘Interpleader’ case with the Plaintiff, a retired Colonel from the U.S. Air Force, who is questioning whether to obey or disobey an order if Obama recalls him, based upon whether or not Obama is a ‘qualified’ President;
The case that was denied in the U.S. Supreme Court is still pending in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Berg vs. Obama, with our Brief due by January 20, 2009; and
If Obama is sworn in as President, we will file a Petition for Writ of ‘Quo Warranto,’ a case that will challenge Obama as being ineligible to serve as President because he is ‘not qualified.’
Berg states ‘if Obama is sworn in’ because Obama knows he is ‘not qualified’ and he should hold a Press Conference and Obama should state that I, as a black American, received more votes than anyone else on November 4, 2008 for President and on January 8, 2009 the Joint Session of Congress counted the Electoral College votes and announced that I am President-elect, but because of things in my background, I cannot be sworn in as President. However, Obama is not man enough to state the above!
More and more people are aware of the fact that Obama does not meet the ‘qualifications’ for President. When the truth finally comes out, individuals including Barack Hussein Obama, Michelle Obama, Howard Dean [Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC)], other top officials of the DNC, senior campaign staff and some of his new administration should be brought into the criminal justice system, indicted and tried with incarceration for those convicted.â€
Berg continued, “Obama is setting himself up to be blackmailed and perhaps he is already being blackmailed. He was the candidate for ‘change,’ but look at his cabinet – 70% from President Clinton’s days and how about his Secretary of Defense, Gates. Give me a break!
There is nothing more important than ‘our’ U.S. Constitution and we will fight on!â€
For copies of all Court Pleadings, go to obamacrimes.com
For Further Information Contact:
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659
Cell (610) 662-3005
philjberg@obamacrimes.com
“… and Obama should state that I, as a black American, received more votes …” Phil Berg, according to billvanallen
He didn’t really say “black”, did he? Wow, he really let the cat out of the old secret agenda bag there. Oops!
“And now you know … the *rest* …….. of the story.” — Paul Harvey
I am glad to see common sense reasserting itself on this issue here. There is absolutely no doubt that the “ineligible” crowd is motivated by prejudice and ideology. That said, it is probably not a good idea to have a poorly defined term like “natural born citizen” sitting there to rear its ugly head. One option would be to scrap the term entirely by constitutional amendment. Since its genesis was largely in the crass political purpose of denying the Presidency to Alexander Hamilton, that is worth considering.
If amendment is unfeasible or undesirable, then Congress (not unelected judges) should clearly define the term, taking into account issues such as dual citizenship, adoption, in vitro fertilization, etc. They should specify what documentation is required and who is charged to examine the documents. The laws should be universal, not ad hoc, as was done with McCain.
Of course, none of these laws would apply ex post facto to Obama, who is entitled to run on the same basis as the previous 33. But there is something to be said for clarity going forward.
“Even if you think the SCOTUS should look at the issue, once you read and investigate Berg or Lightfoot you see it’s filled with idiotic rumors and outright lies.” — “Usurp my nuts” (love it!)
Has anyone actually read Anderson’s amicus curiae brief? It’s more entertaining than Crazy Guggenheim, and makes less sense.
http://wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/joyce_anderson-amicus-final.pdf
It rests its “logic” on the legal principle of res ipsa loquitur (“the thing speaks for itself”), in other words, no proof is really necessary (how convenient, eh?), and some neat circular logic. He says that the BC on Obama’s website is “obviously” flawed and suspect (res ipsa), and then he assumes on that basis that it’s a forgery and asks the court to go on that assumption (circular reasoning, using an allegation to prove itself) and grant the petition for writ of certiorari.
I love the way the court said (a) attorney Anderson, your petition to file an amicus curiae brief to urge us to grant attorney Berg’s writ of certiorari seems in order and proper; petition granted, and (b) attorney Berg, petition for writ of certiorari denied. Next!
*chortle* Tell me those guys don’t have a sense of humor.
“If amendment is unfeasible or undesirable, then Congress (not unelected judges) should clearly define the term, taking into account issues such as dual citizenship, adoption, in vitro fertilization, etc.” — GetOverYourselves
Amen and amen to everything you said. I was hoping that the SC would take one of these cases solely in order to define the term natural-born citizen or at least take a step in the direction of clearing up that particular fogbank.
I dearly wish Michael Crichton was still with us. He could have written a bang-up political/genetic-engineering page-turner about a presidential candidate who was born to a surrogate mother, who was born in Boston of parentage traceable back to the Mayflower. The candidate was born (also in Boston, from an egg fertilized in vitro from an Israeli woman, an ardent Zionist, and the sperm of an Afghan man, who was born and raised in Al Qaeda territory. The egg was then implanted in her “birth mother’s” womb.
Fate brought the actual parents’ DNA together. Super-snoopery on the part of some journalistic spies brought out the supposedly confidential facts.
What to do, what to do? Makes one long for the simple days of “where was Chester A. Arthur actually born?”, don’t it?
Make no mistake, something like this will happen, and sooner rather than later. As you say, GetOver, we need to get out ahead of this.
centrist-Yes, Obama is the first Pres (and, yes billvanallen, he will be Pres) with an “unusual” background, but almost certainly not the last. Wise policy anticipates circumstances rather than reacting to them. I would quarrel with putting this in the courts, though. This is a matter for Congress to write some laws that are as clear as possible. Having elections decided in court, which seems to be the current fashion, is a terrible idea.
Demo Rep, what does that have to do with Berg? Ann Dunham was not a female sex slave, she was a US citizen. And the Berg case has nothing to do with his father’s citizenship. Are the specifics of this case too much for you to think about? How about the fact that the Supreme Court has previously found in favor of citizens born to foreign parents? Who’s the hack?
GetOver – I’m not talking about a court deciding an election. Rather defining undefined terms.
Since the Constitution says “natural-born citizen” it will take an amendment to change that particular wording. Whether or not the term can be defined by legislation without changing the Constitutional wording itself is a matter for legal scholars to decide.
Since the Constitution does not define it, I see no reason why not, as long as new law does not contradict any current SC rulings.
Only problem with legislation is that the shark pool of lawyers would feed off of it for years. “Unconstitutional! Unconstitutional!” We’d be right where we are now. An amendment wouldn’t have that problem.
But hey, I’m just a brilliant scientist working on the Large Hadron Collider and in my spare time extending superstring theory into 32,000 dimensions — what do I know?
GetOver — Also, a SC decision defining “natural-born citizen” would settle the matter, without having to wait for an Amendment. Some people, including all 18 of the SCOTUS foilhat brigage protestors, might not like that, but that is, after all, the SC’s job.
Flaming centrist- There are problems with leaving it to the courts, besides the duly noted shark feeding frenzy. Courts generally don’t define terms; rather, they rule narrowly in specific cases. Their decision in a Korean adoptee case may or may not apply in an Israeli-Afghan in vitro fertilization case. Each shark and internet scribbler will have their own opinion. Second, courts act retrospectively, rather than prospectively. Every candidate should know in advance whether or not they are eligible and every voter should know in advance whether or not the person they plan to vote for is eligible. Congress is best placed to set clear rules prospectively.
However, I am only a poor immunologist, so what do I know? I am trying to help my son with his high school Physics, based on very dim memories of Newton’s laws.
The SCOTUS has already ruled several times on the definition of “natural born citizen” (PERKINS v. ELG; US v. Wong Kim Ark.)
It is without question that a citizen born on US soil is natural born. The US Code also defines provisions under which foreign born children are natural born. All we have now is a case of semantics, and the citizenship brigade trying to redefine long-understood definitions of natural born citizenship by creating arbitrary terms in an attempt to find a rope with which to hang Obama. Any “citizen at birth” is natural born. There is no intermediary classification between natural born and naturalized. You’re either one, the other, or not a US citizen.
If they want to change that, they’ll have to create a new law. No amendment would be required, as nowhere in the Constitution is natural born defined. Any law that gets passed won’t have any bearing on Obama, though. Congress will make certain of that.
And I’ll add to this that no one in Congress cares about this case. Not one of them – Republican or Democrat – wants to touch it. It won’t be redefined any time soon. The laws are clear enough as is for those who care to look at the law. The only reason that it would be redefined is to eliminate “anchor babies” but that’s going to have to wait at least 2 years, as the Democratic Congress isn’t going to rule in favor of that.
As far as Obama’s citizenship is concerned, our election system is designed to be a long, thorough public trial. Each candidate is both a defendant and a prosecutor. The burden is on them to find and reveal any negative aspect that could eliminate an opponent, and the voters are the jury.
This is what makes the whole question of eligibility so laughable. It is without question the first thing that anyone would look at when investigating their opponent, and any questions about it would be raised early on in the campaign. It wouldn’t be something that is seriously debated post-election. And I remind everyone that these rumors have been floating around since 2007. This is NOT something that anyone missed.
To think otherwise, you have to think that our government is completely inept. Our government is made up by a vast majority of attorneys. Hillary Clinton herself is a brilliant attorney with many others on her side. And the GOP is also filled with some of the brightest minds in the legal world. Attorneys don’t let something this simple slip through the cracks.
vb1175-Your arguments leave only 1 question. At what point can the courts act to stop these ridiculous lawsuits in their tracks? Cases are supposed to end when the SCOTUS denies review. Coming back endlessly with minor variations of the same arguments seems is a flagrant abuse. I hate to think that even one penny of my taxes is paying the costs of the courts hearing this collosal nonsense.
GetOverYourselves and vb1175 are my gay lovers. Look at the time stamps on our posts. They are soooooooo close together just like the 3 of us. in fact, we are all posting from my bedroom right now because we are one being just with different personalities.
Flaming Centrist:”Berg originally announced he had an audio tape, which last I read he has not released. Have *you* actually heard it? Can you provide a Web link to it, so we can hear it?”
If you do a search on YouTube.com using Obama and Grandmother as keywords, you can hear the audio tape. The interpreter is purported to be a Baptist minister.
The tape-my goodness, where to start? A barely intelligible conversation over a terrible phone connection. A “translator” of unknown origin or qualification (it isn’t even clear whether she is speaking Luo or Swahili). An elderly woman talking about events in the distance past. And, to top it off, is she talking about the birth of Barack Obama Jr., POTUS #44, or, perhaps, his father, Barack Obama, Sr., who WAS born in Kenya?
I would be ashamed to present this so-called “evidence in traffic court, let alone the Supreme Court. If Berg et al. were serious, rather than just attention-seeking clowns, they could at least get a sworn deposition, in person, with a court-certified translator.
I can’t believe the ignorance of many of the posters on this forum. Obama submitted the COLB he was provided by the state of Hawaii. Hawaii DOES NOT EVER give out a long-form or “vault” certificate to ANYONE. It is state policy and has been so for decades. There is no subterfuge here. The state considers the short-form to be legal to get a drivers license, run for office, etc. Even if Obama wanted the long-form certificate, he could not get one.
As to being born in Kenya, give it a rest. His mother was NEVER in Kenya and nobody has ever seen proof that she was. Corsi attempted to con everyone with is tape recording of an old woman who says she was at his birth. The translation has been debunked. Ask yourself this question: “Why would a pregnant white girl enter a country during the full-scale uprising of the Mau Maus? Answer: she didn’t and I challenge anyone to submit a shred of proof that she did.
I salute President Obama.
The most powerful argument against Obama’s citizenship in my opinion is his 1981 trip to Pakistan. When Americans were not allowed in he went via Indonesia. Most likely to use his Indonesian citizenship. Therefore as an adult he renounced his American citizenship if he had it to begin whith.
reposted from the Betrayal blog
Berg v. Obama: Second Conference Hearing on Friday
Posted on January 13th, 2009 by David Crockett
The Right Side of Life is reporting:
Philip Berg, Plaintiff in Berg v. Obama, will have a second Conference this Friday, January 16, concerning his request to either (1) stay the Electoral College vote or (2) stay the certification of same (original docket; new docket; ).
In my opinion, if Mr. Berg is smart, he will appropriately deal with his Third Circuit case (his brief for the case is due by January 20) prior to this Friday. Of course, even that won’t guarantee that the Supremes will react any differently to this question than his original petition for Certiorari, as the lower court is in no way obligated to “finish up business†prior to this Friday.
We also don’t completely know all of the cards in Philip Berg’s hand. Clearly, he has a sealed Berg v. Obama case currently under consideration in the Judiciary, and he’s already promised to file a Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto, should the President-Elect be inaugurated without any orders being handed down.
Even before this week is over, we also already know that next week could entail action from the courts at the State and federal levels as well; I’ll be writing a posting on that later.
In the meantime, be sure to keep yourself up to speed with the current listing of eligibility lawsuits.
Update: Excellent video, “The Embassy,†from TheDailyDigest.com.
http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=752#more-752
citizen1
How about some real proof that travel was actually banned to Pakistan. I don’t mean something read off a blog that came from another blog, that came from yet another blog, that came fros still yet another blog. I want to see some real proof.
Heck you can still travel to Cuba despite State Department warnings about doing so–I think the whole Indonesia passport to go to Pakistan is just so much more internet blog rumor BS.
The standards of evidence used by some to justify all this Obama is not a US Citizen nonsense are so absurdedly low it is ridiculous!!
train111
“The most powerful argument against Obama’s citizenship in my opinion is his 1981 trip to Pakistan.”
Well, then even the most powerful argument is wrong. It was NEVER forbidden for US citizens to visit Pakistan. Pakistan has been on the State Department watch list because it can be very dangerous (still is), but private citizens are free to ignore those cautions at their own risk. But keep throwing more sh#@ in the hopes that something will stick.
Undoubtedly the Supreme Court is fully aware of the catastrophic damage to the USA were Obama inaugurated and LATER determined inelligible (that is, all actions by the Federal Government under an inelligible Obama would be void or voidable). This seems precisely why it has accepted the Anderson amicus brief and has retained two conference dates for stay of the inauguration (one before and one after), while sending the Berg case back to the Court of Appeals for resolution.
His place of birth is of no importance. I feel very confident that our founding fathers wished to avoid a POTUS with any allegiances to another State. I make a distinction between “Natural born” for mere citizenship and POTUS eligibility. POTUS/CINC MUST rise to a higher level. A person born in the U.S. to at least one U.S. parent is a Natural Born citizen. However, even the U.S. code recognizes that one of those parents must be a U.S. citizen and must have lived in the U.S. for 10 years with 5 of those being lived out after the age of 16. Obama’s mother may have been a U.S. citizen but she was only 18 when she gave birth to him and would not have fulfilled the 5 years after 16 requirement. His father was clearly Kenyan and Obama himself was a subject of the U.K and then Indonesia (traveled on an Indonesian passport as an adult). At best he should have been “naturalized” upon his return to the states. He clearly does not meet the requirements of being a NATURAL BORN citizen to U.S. Citizens, regardless of his place of birth. For $12.00 he could bring all of this to an end by producing his vaulted Birth Certificate. Instead he chooses to spend 100s of thousands of dollars on attorney fees to protect himself. Protect himself from what? If he is sworn in adn then removed later, because he was not eligible, will that not make Biden ineligible as well, thus opening the door for Pelosi? UGH!!!
citizen1 says: “The most powerful argument against Obama’s citizenship in my opinion is his 1981 trip to Pakistan. When Americans were not allowed in he went via Indonesia. Most likely to use his Indonesian citizenship. Therefore as an adult he renounced his American citizenship if he had it to begin whith.”
This is BS, too, there was no ban on travel to Pakistan in 1981, and there never has been as near as I can tell. Travel warnings, yes. Travel bans, no. There’s a big difference. There are travel warnings right now to just about every country in the Middle East, but US citizens travel there on US Passports every day.
I’ve searched through news articles on Google Archives for 1979 – 1982, and even then all that ever occurred were travel warnings advising against travel to Pakistan, as well as occasional removal of the families of US officials for their safety – like in Dec 1979 after the US Embassy was set on fire in Islamabad. Families returned and travel warnings (not bans) were lifted six months later in May 1980.
By the time Obama visited in the summer of 1981, there wasn’t even a travel warning, and President Reagan was working out relief and military funding programs to support Afghan rebels and refugees. US Citizens were traveling to Pakistan and back in increasing numbers from May 1980 on.
Just another in the many lies that have been thrown together in this giant conspiracy theory. Here are the news stories that support this:
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0E1FFC3B5C12728DDDA90B94DD405B8084F1D3
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-1885494/India-Pakistan-travel-WORLD-EMBASSY.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/07/27/powell.kashmir/index.html
(Google Archives (http://news.google.com/archivesearch) is amazing, by the way. They have material indexed dating back to 1750. An amazing utility and days of fun for any other geeks like me.)
I AM a history & politics geek, and I took this issue as a personal challenge to find any information that I could find to refute the rumors. Fortunately, it wasn’t difficult, and required no trips to Hawaii, Kenya, or Indonesia. Anyone else want to throw up some slow balls? Please do. I’m sure I’ve already got the info to refute it.
Corsi could have saved his money, and if more of the right wing nuts would look into it themselves, they wouldn’t be throwing their money at that slime ball con artist Phillip Berg.
How can anyone think he needs any more money to fight this case, anyway? He’s done little research, his case is written like he delegated it to a 12-year-old, and he’s hardly set his face in court. Does it really take weekly pleas for donations posted around the net in order to keep his hopeless case funded? Judging by the traffic he has to his site and the number of people who comment on it, particularly in November, I’m sure he already raked in at least a few hundred thousand in donations.
Dimitri
Where’s the proof Obama travelled as an adult on a foreign passport?? There’s none that I see. Again, reading it on a blog, that came from another blog, that came from yet another blog is no proof!!! Where’s the actual evidence for your charge??
Obama spending thousands defending himself?? Hardly!! It appears that he is ignoring all of these cases by not responding to them. The only people spending thousands of dollars are those taken in by Berg, Martin, Keyes and all the other charlatans who are laughing all the way to the bank with their money!!!
train111
The only “staying” of the inaguration will be done at the Marriott, Hilton, and other hotels in DC.
BWAAHAHAHAHAHA!
for whatever it may or may not be worth:
Gretawire.foxnews.com just announced that plainsradio.com has a certified copy of an INS form, signed by Stanley Ann Dunham, showing that she and Obama entered the USA from Kenya on Aug 10, 1961 — proving his likely birth outside of the USA mainland.
Dmitri, unfortunately, the SCOTUS has disagreed with you in prior cases. They tend to follow and interpret the Constitution and US Code, not the law as interpreted by Dmitri.
Speaking of which, you need to reread the current US Code as well what it stated in 1961. The restrictions on mother’s age only apply to persons born overseas. Inside the US, the US Code is quite clear and was long before 1961:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
Additionally, in 1961, the requirement for overseas birth to one US citizen parent was 5 years after the age of 14, not 16. Ann Dunham was 3 months shy of her 19th birthday, but it’s irrelevant, as Obama was born in Hawaii on US soil.
As of 1986, it is 2 years past the age of 14. This just highlights the ridiculousness of the right wing nuts making a fuss over this and trying to claim that Obama was born in Kenya. McCain was born in Panama, before there were any laws granting citizenship through birth to children born overseas.
A ridiculous technicality? Yes. But that was the law then. He was not a citizen at birth. Congress just passed a non-binding resolution this year to declare McCain a natural born citizen. And his technicality was no more ridiculous than the ones for which lies have been fabricated in order to hang Obama. And hell, Obama was born in the US! There’s no doubt that McCain was born overseas. But there was no constitutional crisis there, was there?
Dmitri: “His father was clearly Kenyan and Obama himself was a subject of the U.K and then Indonesia (traveled on an Indonesian passport as an adult). At best he should have been “naturalized†upon his return to the states. He clearly does not meet the requirements of being a NATURAL BORN citizen to U.S. Citizens, regardless of his place of birth. ”
I also just showed that the Indonesian passport rumor is BS, as travel wasn’t banned for US Citizens. His dual-citizenship as a child holds no weight, as neither the US Code or the Constitution states anything about dual-citizenship being a disqualifier of natural born status. He has always been and always will be a natural born citizen. If the law needs to be changed, they can update that section of the US Code again. They’ve done it five times in the last 50 years.
Dmitri: “For $12.00 he could bring all of this to an end by producing his vaulted Birth Certificate. Instead he chooses to spend 100s of thousands of dollars on attorney fees to protect himself.”
He already released his birth certificate, and that didn’t end it for the extreme right wing nuts who claim it’s a forgery and have since created a laundry list of other accusations, why would the long form change any of that?
And It doesn’t cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to file pre-written motions to dismiss in each case brought against him. It would, in fact, cost a lot more money to fight these bogus law suits out in court when he doesn’t need to. Quit believing everything you read on blogs as fact and use some common sense.
He doesn’t need to present his vault birth certificate, as he’s already proven his date and place of birth through the short form. Congress is satisfied, as they were long before that was ever released to the public. The only people asking for the long form are insignificant wack jobs.
Dmitri: “If he is sworn in adn then removed later, because he was not eligible, will that not make Biden ineligible as well, thus opening the door for Pelosi? UGH!!!”
It won’t happen. If it was going to, McCain and Hillary would be in court, not Phillip Berg. And no Biden would not be ineligible, although if it did happen, I’m sure you guys would come up with some story to implicate Biden as well.
This is at least the 3rd time that I know of that plainsradio.com has announced that they possess some amazing certified evidence that will be a revelation in this case.
First it was that the Lolo/Ann Soetoro divorce papers indicated that Obama was born in Kenya. They hyped that for a week, then released them, and it said no such thing. They’re still posted on the front page of their website.
Then it was that the Barack Sr/Ann Dunham divorce papers stated that he was born in Kenya. That was a bunch of BS, too, as they also didn’t state anything of the kind.
I wouldn’t hold your breath on this report. If news will be found, it won’t be from PlainsRadio.com. Anything that they have is nothing that people way higher up haven’t already seen.
— if the CIA and FBI do not know today exactly what the truth is concerning BO foreign birth or in HI — these two agencies would not have done their basic national security jobs vetting security clearances of high level politicians
I don’t know if this is true. The only place I’ve read it is on right wing sites. But the original source was a supposed interview with a high-ranking official in the FBI. According to the story, politicians don’t have to obtain security clearances like other applicants for secure jobs. The reason being that the election is designed to be the most public investigation that anyone could subject themselves to, and thus the public decides if they are fit to handle the most secure of information. But to think that no one in the CIA or FBI investigates them is just insane. And if damning information were found, it would be leaked in an effort to keep them from office, which may be where much of the revelations come from that make their way into the media at election time. We’re still under the government of the Bush Administration, here, after all.
Come to think of it, I think I heard this discussed on Fox News as well.
the only “leak” that counts for at least the next 8 days is a legal request from SCOTUS to DOJ public integrity section to confirm whatever SCOTUS has determined its US constitutional definition of what it means to be qualified to serve as POTUS/CINC as “natural born citizen”.
This “INS form” is fishy. US citizens like Ms. Dunham do not fill out any INS forms when entering the US; only non-resident foreigners do.
But here’s a more important point. Everyone entering the US from overseas, even infants, needs a passport. This was true even in 1961, except for driving across from Canada or Mexico. So if Baby Obama had been born in Kenya, he would have needed a passport to enter the US. There were 2 options:
1. He got a US passport at the Embassy. In that case he was a natural born US citizen.
2. He got a Kenyan/British passport. In that case he would have needed an immigrant visa to enter. This would have to have been processed at the US Embassy and would have taken months, not a few days. And there would be a record. And his mother would have had to apply for a green card when she got back to the US. And there would be a record.
It’s simply not possible for him to have been born a Kenyan citizen and enter the US a few days later. Therefore he was born in Hawaii-case closed.
If you have tickets for the inaugural, I suggest you plan on attending. Bring a warm coat, though.
you may not know that the mom’s passport records have also been FOIAed from DOS (by private civilians including Strunk both from federal courts USDC-EDNY and USDC-DC) and have not been produced as per statute — but the DHS, FBI/DOJ and CIA would most likely should have already had access to to this records. Records have also been requested from the other jurisdiction (UK)
I don’t give a rodent’s hindquarters about his mother’s passport. HE would have needed a passport to enter the US, even as a 2 day old infant. And where would he get such a document in such a hurry?
If you are going to attempt to respond to someone’s post, at least read it and address the point made therein.
And while your at it, why not address the point that others have made as to why Hillary and McCain haven’t raised this issue? If Bush thinks he’s ineligible, why spend the last 2 months doing a transition? If Chief Justice Roberts thinks he is ineligible, why is he swearing him in?
Look in the movies the hero shows up 2 seconds before the bomb goes off and saves the day. Or the bride leaves her stuck-up groom at the alter for the handsome guy on the motorcycle and they ride off into the sunset. However, in real life, inagurations that are eagerly awaited by most of the world, that everybody who is anybody is attending along with several hundred thousand citizens don’t get called off 2 days before.
Why is it so hard for you people to accept reality? There was an election, the result was clear. It’s not healthy to keep obsessing over this. Time to get on with life. There will be a do-over in 4 years. In the meantime, the birthplace of the President is WAAY down the list of things you need to worry about. A little perspective, guys.
Citizenship sentence. 14th Amendment, Section 1 [regardless of anything before the 14th Amendment took effect in 1868].
Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session
May 29, 1866, P. 2869, col. 1. Senator Howard [amendment to Sec. 1 of H.R. 127 – later 14th Amendment]
All persons born in the United States and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United
States and of the States wherein they reside.
[the second “States†was a typo error – see P. 2892, col. 3 top]
—-
May 30, 1866, P. 2890, col 2. Senator Howard. ***
This amendment which I have offered is simply
declaratory of what I regard as the law of the
land already, that every person born within the
limits of the United States, and subject to their
jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and
national law a citizen of the United States.
This will not, of course, include persons born
in the United States who are foreigners, aliens,
who belong to the families of embassadors or
foreign ministers accredited to the Govern-
of the United States, but will include
every other class of persons.
***
—–
Attention armies of constitutional law MORONS —
note the WILL NOT sentence.
The children of foreigners born in the U.S.A. are NOT U.S.A. citizens — including those above children of sex slave women and even non-sex slave foreign women.
The party hack Supremes are brain dead ignorant as usual on basic stuff.
In 1866 the regime was TOTALLY male dominated.
Did citizenship follow the status of the FATHER ???
Natural born = at birth allegiance to a regime.
Obama at birth (wherever he was physically born) had allegiance to WHAT Nation-State regime ???
Sorry — the 1787 folks did NOT want any President to have had ANY loyalty connection with a foreign Nation-State (noting that on 4 July 1776 loyal U.S.A. folks became U.S.A. citizens (via the 13 States) — for obvious reasons — since the Prez is CIC especially.
Natural born citizen >>> natural born children.
Naturalized person >>> naturalized citizen >>> natural born children.
ALL others = foreigners >>> children are NOT U.S.A. citizens even if physically born in the U.S.A.
There are NOT an infinite number of combinations.
The gerrymander Congress can only mess around with the naturalization process.
Fixed in the constitution and NOT subject to manipulation by the party hacks – natural born Art. II and U.S.A. citizen 14th Amdt Sec. 1
Demo Rep,
Howard was not declaring any new definition. He’s reiterating what was already a long-held opinion based on English common law. English common law bestows birthright citizenship to anyone born within the Kingdom, so long as they ARE NOT born to a foreign ambassador or born to foreign enemies in hostile occupation of any part of the Kingdom.
This same argument from English common law was the basis for the decision in US v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), which found a child born to two Chinese nationals living within the US was a “natural born citizen.” There’s the biggest precedent on the books declaring a case for Obama’s classification as a natural born citizen. But even it is irrelevant based on the powers bestowed upon Congress by the 14th Amendment, as I’ll show below.
At the time of ratification of the 14th Amendment, people were concerned that Indians would be declared full US Citizens, and this was the directive of his “aliens” statement, which he further clarified during debate in Congress would NOT be the purpose of this Amendment. Congress in 1866 had no interest in preventing the citizenship of legal aliens, for the most part. In fact, it was very much encouraged, just as it always has been – dating back to the Revolution. Among the list of the injuries and usurpations of which King George was accused in the Declaration of Independence:
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
The intent of the 14th Amendment was not to define native born citizens as only those born to two US citizen parents. And even if it was at the time, section 5 of the 14th Amendment makes it very clear that “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” It is very evident that the intention of this section is to bestow the power upon Congress to pass legislation to define the provisions further. As such, Congress has fully defined the laws of citizenship – natural born and naturalized – and clarified those laws many times since 1866.
The Congress has operated within their power, and based on the laws today, as well as those on the books in 1961, Obama is a natural born citizen regardless of his father’s citizenship. If those laws should be changed, they must be handled again through Congress.
There is nothing within the Constitution through which the SCOTUS could render our current citizenship laws unconstitutional. There also isn’t any definition in the Constitution or in any US law that defines the requirements of the natural born citizenship clause in Article II of the Constitution as any different than those listed in 8USC1401.
Sorry, Demo Rep. You’re very wrong.
another cross post (from obama.files) on the integrity of INS travel records
Payback
Obama’s top terrorism and intelligence adviser, John O. Brennan, heads a firm that was cited in March for breaching sensitive files in the State Department’s passport office, according to a State Department Inspector General’s report released this past July.
The security breach, first reported by the Washington Times and later confirmed by State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, involved a contract employee of Brennan’s firm,
During a State Department briefing on March 21, 2008, McCormack confirmed that the contractor had accessed the passport files of presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and John McCain, and that the inspector general had launched an investigation.
Sources who tracked the investigation say that the main target of the breach was the Obama passport file, and that the contractor accessed the file in order to “cauterize” the records of potentially embarrassing information.
“They looked at the McCain and Clinton files as well to create confusion,” one knowledgeable source said. “But this was basically an attempt to cauterize the Obama file.”
At the time of the breach, Brennan was working as an unpaid adviser to the Obama campaign.
From Wikipedia — US military oath of office
United States Uniformed Services Oath of Office
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Oath of Office is a solemn oath taken by officers of the United States Uniformed Services on commissioning. It differs slightly from that of the oath of enlistment that enlisted members recite when they enter the service. It is statutory (i.e. required by law) and is prescribed by Section 3331, Title 5, United States Code[1]. It is traditional for officers to recite the oath upon promotion but as long as the officer’s service is continuous this is not actually required.[2] One notable difference between the officer and enlisted oaths is that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders, officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States.
[edit] Text of the Oath
I, [name], do solemnly swear, (or affirm,) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[1]
Note that the last sentence is not required to be said if the speaker has a personal or moral objection, as is true of all oaths administered by the United States government.[citation needed]
Note also that this is not an oath to defend any specific territory or persons or property. This is an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States.
Note also that there is no duration defined in the Oath, once taken it is a lifetime affirmation.
Officers of the National Guard of the various States, however, take a different oath:
I’m pitching this to Hollywood, so let me see if I have the timelines right:
1. Hawaii, Summer of 1961. Very pregnant teen (memo: see if Jennifer Anniston is available; if not, try Kate Winslet) somehow gets together money for a plane ticket and decides to leave the first-rate medical facilities of the US and goes to- Kenya! Reknowned for the high quality of its pre-natal care and an island of stability at that point in time.
2. Somehow, she talks the airline into letting her onto a plane despite her advanced state of pregnancy and goes to Kenya. She travels a dirt road through hostile territory to some village and finds somewhere to stay.
3. She stays long enough to give birth, the plucky girl, aided by a mother in law she never met, with whom she shares no language.
4. Immediately realising that the young infant is destined to grow up to be President of the United States, she jumps out of her birthing hut and dashes to the US Consulate or Embassy to register the birth, thereby making her young son a US citizen at birth. She then immediately procures him a US passport and departs.
5. Alternately, she dashes to the Kenyan passport office and magically procures him on the spot a Kenyan/British passport. Then she rushes to the US Embassy/Consulate and magically procures him a US entry visa in 2 days.
6. Then she gets on the plane and rushes straight from Honolulu airport to the registry office.
Look, I know there’s a ton of holes in this story, but it’s only a movie, so who cares?
GetOver, go read some stuff on PlainsRadio.com. The muse overwhelms me when I’m there. They come up with some of the most bat s#&% crazy stories, filled with the most racist and sexist claims toward Obama’s mother you’ve ever read. And then the posts are usually followed up by someone claiming that they’re crying and praising the Lord that this person has been sent along to deliver the truth.
Hey, why not make Ann a Virgin, too. Birth in a barn surrounded by goat herders and Kings would also be quite a touch.
And I’ve got the name for the sequel. Skip 30 years of his life, and then write the story of the “Immaculate Election.”
“Hey, why not make Ann a Virgin, too. Birth in a barn surrounded by goat herders and Kings would also be quite a touch.”
It’s been done, but Hollywood loves sequels. Any suggestions for who plays the 3 Wise Guys? I’m thinkin Clooney, Pitt and Samuel L Jackson. What say you?
Those State Dept laws you posted are the new ones not the ones in effect at the time of Obama’s birth you dum dum
If is BC says bastard or anything else embarassing cant he just produce it to the court I will take thier word for it if they see it
from NYTimes.com
January 14, 2009, 6:22 pm
Obama and Biden Visit the Supreme Court
By Helene Cooper
For the first time 16 years, a President-elect and Vice President-elect paid a pre-inaugural visit to the Supreme Court.
For President-elect Barack Obama, who dropped by the court Wednesday afternoon with Vice President-elect Joseph Biden, it was a chance to shake hands and chat with Chief Justice John Roberts—the same man who Mr. Obama voted against confirming back in 2005.
Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden also met with the other Supreme Court members, in the Court’s ceremonial West Conference Room.
“Those State Dept laws you posted are the new ones not the ones in effect at the time of Obama’s birth you dum dum”
The laws I quoted are the ones that were in effect in 1961. Go to the links I provided and see for yourself. They have citizen at birth laws listed for several years, as those laws have changed several times in the last 50 years. The other laws I posted have not changed anytime since 1961.
“If is BC says bastard or anything else embarassing cant he just produce it to the court I will take thier word for it if they see it”
No, because he doesn’t need to. His birth in Hawaii has been confirmed and the people suing him have no standing. The vast majority of people view the COLB for what it is – a valid document issued by the State of Hawaii proving Obama’s place and date of birth. Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress, as well as President Bush and his administration, also view that document the same.
Why would your need to see his long form certificate be any reason for him to give up his right to privacy? He’s already proven his place of birth by releasing what no candidate born in the US has ever been asked to release. If that’s not good enough for you and the fringe extremists out there clinging to hopes, why would he think that the long form would change any of that, and again, why would it even matter to him? He’s got 70% of the population on his side now, and no one with standing questions his eligibility.
“who plays the 3 Wise Guys? I’m thinkin Clooney, Pitt and Samuel L Jackson. What say you?”
Gotta be Anthony Hopkins, in his best Dr. Hannibal Lecter drag, as Herod. Full face closeup, staring out from under those evil eyebrows: “Find him. And bring me his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.”
“And I remind everyone that these rumors have been floating around since 2007. This is NOT something that anyone missed.”
This is one point I forgot to mention in discussing Anderson’s amicus brief in Berg v Obama. As evidence that the BC posted on Obama’s website is suspicious, he offered the fact that questions about it had been raised on the internet for well over a year.
Such a brilliant legal mind!
A mind is a terrible thing to waste, and a wasteland is a terrible thing to have for a mind.
Flaming Centrist Says:
January 13th, 2009 at 9:03 am
GetOverYourselves and vb1175 are my gay lovers. Look at the time stamps on our posts. They are soooooooo close together just like the 3 of us. in fact, we are all posting from my bedroom right now because we are one being just with different personalities.
Needless to say, someone has usurped my moniker. Someone who obviously has a “thing” about homosexuality. Get some help, flaming-whatever-you-are, and it’s not “centrist” if you know what I mean and I think you do.
“If you do a search on YouTube.com using Obama and Grandmother as keywords, you can hear the audio tape. The interpreter is purported to be a Baptist minister.” — Lani
Thank you, Lani. Most informative. I went immediately and listened to the whole youtube video post. I looked up Ron McCrae, and he is indeed Bishop of the Anabaptists Churches of North America, so I have no further doubts as to the authenticity of the tape or the phone call.
As to the youtube video, though, it raised more questions than it answers. It’s obviously not objective journalism. Only a propaganda piece starts out with “It is common knowledge that Obama was born in Kenya.”
They didn’t even get grandma’s name right. It’s not Sarah Hussein Obama, it’s Sarah Onyango Obama. I don’t know if that’s ignorance or more demagoguery. What it’s not is credibility.
But that’s only part of the whole audio recording of the phone conversation. The transcript (which I assume — I haven’t managed to find a link to McCrae’s actual affidavit yet — is the one Berg included in his lawsuit) is only part of the transcript of the entire conversation. It ends right after the interpreter says “Yes, she says he was born here.”
Interestingly, the next part of the conversation goes on to say that this was a misunderstanding, that she says he was born in America — Hawaii, in fact. Here is a link to the entire phone conversation, on which you can hear the interpreter saying Hawaii very clearly:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/8167169.wma
Here is a link to a place where $2 will get you an unbiased transcript and analysis of the conversation, and background of the lawsuit from Greg Doudna, author on contemporary Christianity and an expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls:
http://www.lulu.com/content/5277910
Here is a link to a website where you can read more on all this, where I found the two links mentioned above.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/independent-grandmother-transcript/
“The most powerful argument against Obama’s citizenship…”
Wait for it, folks …
“When Americans were not allowed in”
That’s been thoroughly debunked. They were not forbidden, they were discouraged.
“…his Indonesian citizenship…”
What you’re saying in essence is that your most powerful argument rests on a one-word entry on a grade-school enrollment form.
Very powerful. Don’t wait for the inauguration. Impeach the guy now! Make it a Blagobama twofer!
“Most likely to use his Indonesian citizenship. Therefore as an adult he renounced his American citizenship if he had it to begin whith.”
Let me guess. You don’t make a living as a law professor, do you?
“Instead he chooses to spend 100s of thousands of dollars on attorney fees to protect himself”
100s of thousands on *what*? So far all he’s done in Berg v Obama is waive his right to respond in the PA federal court and in the US SC. That’s a pretty expensive two responses to file. 50s of thousands each. I think he should shop around for cheaper lawyers. What are they, fat-cat Republicans?
And I haven’t seen anything in the SC dockets of the other cases where he’s responed yea or nay at all. Feel free to prove me wrong or direct me to a lower federal or state court docket which shows some activity on his part that might have cost billions and billions
Anything at all to prove you’re right. Anything. Anything not from a blog, that is.
IMPORTANT BREAKING NEWS!
My meeting with the studios went super! Soon you will be seeing my sci-fi flick “Birth of Obama”, as detailed in post #75 above. We got Kate Winslet as Stanley Ann Dunham and Whoopi Goldberg as Grandma Obama. The studio writers have resolved the dilemma of how to get Baby Obama back to Hawaii 2 days after he was born without a passport or visa. I can’t give away the details, but let’s just say “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”.
Now, Hollywood wants me to work on a sequel. A documentary this time. We’re going to call it, “Greatest Hits of the Internet Wing-Nuts”. Warner is reviving the Looney Tunes label for this blockbuster. Here’s s brief preview of some scenes:
1. “Obama is hiding something”. We’re going to have a bunch of extras parading around naked with their SSNs, phone#s and other personal details tattooed on their faces, so everyone will know everything about them. Balloons over their heads will display all their thoughts and feelings.
2. “If Obama is President, all laws, treaties, etc. will be invalid”. We will have a nut case committing a crime spree and raising that as his defense. Said nut case will bring a bag with his personal effects to court, because the judge will be sending him straight to jail.
3. “This is the greatest fraud in the history of the world”. Cut to an interview with Bernie Madoff. He is really pissed off that anyone would challenge his undisputed right to that crown. We will also see if we can interview Jeff Skilling at the Club Fed.
4. “There are dozens of lawsuits filed”. Cut to a giant pile of BS. Show conclusively that adding more BS doesn’t turn the BS into gold, it just makes a larger pile of BS.
5. “The SCOTUS will enjoin the inaguration or remove Obama 2 days later”. Cut to the tooth fairy making me the new centerfielder for the NY Yankees.
With a fireplace warming the Supreme Court’s West Conference Room, President-elect Obama and Vice President-elect Biden had a reception hosted by Justice Roberts, a 40 min. chat and light refreshments were served. The Court enjoyed their day with our new president:
link for story at court’s blog:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/a-conversation-at-the-fireplace/
Hey Birthers, enjoy the story, it’s cheerful!
b1175 Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
The laws straight from the State Department website regarding all of this are listed below.
[b]Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother[/b]: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309© INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.
[b]Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock[/b]: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
———————————————————————–
1. i’m not going to copy your entire lengthy post, but regarding the state dept definitions you cite above the one that would more likely apply to Obama (out of wedlock mother as they are not legally married under US laws) clearly states the mother “may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA” and with emphasis on the words “may acquire” this does not mean natural born and is no different than a foreigner having to “acquire” US citizenship.
2. a certificate of live birth is not accepted by the US Govt as an valid form of identification, at least not in the military unless it was changed in the last 10 years, i know this 1st hand as when i initially brought my certificate of live birth to the military MEPS center when i went to enlist I was told it was not an acceptable document and needed to provide my actual birth certificate which I did, the difference between the two is exactly what the other arguments have presented, my birth certificate was a piece of paper stamped with a raised seal,had all the pertinent info like time of birth, doctor’ name, witnesses, etc.. where the certificate of live birth does look official with a nice seal and the hospital, it does not contain all the information found on the BC and is more like a college diploma that could be hung on a wall or framed.
Basically, Obama will be in the same class as Arnold Schwarzenegger, unable to run for President but can be Governor or Mayor. I’m really anxious to see what the college records show!! This guy has almost gotten away with one of the biggest frauds in history and I hope the guys in the Intel agencies & DOJ that dropped the ball on investigating this stuff get their azzes fired!
On a side note, even if he was born in Kenya, with all the connections Obama’s mother, father & adopted father had, how hard do you think it would be to get a Cert of birth issued to him from Hawaii? C’mon, back in the day I could have gotten you a blank, stamped authentic cert of live birth & a blank SS card on the streets here in the US for ~$300, not to mention all the illegals that they probably knew who had connections to get that stuff and I’m not even touching the potential bribes that could’ve taken place at the hospital for lil’ Hussein.
Has anyone requested a copy of the mothers passport records to see where she was traveling?
Glen-You’re late to the party, my friend. Obama was not only “able to run for President”, he DID run. In fact, rumor has it, he won and will be inaugurated tomorrow.
Let me amend the above. He DID run, DID win and WAS inaugurated. Now the real hard work begins. We could all stand with a bit of success right now.
It may be a short lived victory if the Supreme Court does there job.. anyway, how is it that Obama was able to have a private fire place lunch with members of the SCOTUS when they were in the middle of hearing cases before them concerning his eligibility? this sounds like a conflict of interest and ethics violations at the very least?
I bet Hawaii gets a whole lot of extra funding for “projects” as a thank you gift for keeping his personal records sealed or “corrected”
can someone say… “expanded US Interstate Highway Project and Volcano Preservation funding” at the sum of probably $20 Billion as laundered paoli to the Island for services rendered, must be nice to have friends in high places… LOL
Hey Glen, can you say the Right Wing equivalent of the 911 Truthers? Go see a psychiatrist and get some Haldol. It should help with the delusions. ‘Tis over.
Oh, and Glen, if you look up what “Section 301(g)INA” is the provision of the Immigration & Nationality Act
that covers all laws defining Nationals and Citizens of the United States at Birth. There’s only two types of citizens in the US Code – Natural Born or Naturalized – and this is one way to be natural born.
Section 301 states:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
And the subsection that applies is subsection (g):
A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.
Not that it matters. He was born in Hawaii, he was inaugurated, he is the President, and he will be for at least 4 years.
“A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.”
Ok, so can it be proven she was physically present in a US possession for 1 year prior to the birth? Where are her passport records? Time for subpoenas!
There is still the issue of his Indonesian citizenship and passport records…since when can a President of the USA be a dual citizen? the saga continues.
For those that insist that “all Obama has to do is provide a valid birth certificate”, um he’s done that but you idiots are not satisfied with what he provided (which was what was given to him by the Hawaian government and last I checked Hawaii IS a state in this union).
But here’s the deal…Obama doesn’t have to “prove” anything…Berg does because he is the Plaintiff. If Berg can’t make his prima facia case then he has no case, period.
This is why his initial case in Philly got tossed. These are his appeals from that initial case. He wasn’t able to prove his case then and he’s not going to be able to prove it now.
This man needs to have his law license yanked. He’s a nobody and any time he doesn’t agree with something, he files suit. He’s wasting tax payers money. Courts have other things to decide and this crap isn’t one of them.
World Net Daily (WND) is in the foregroud of anti-Obama articles, they have an anti-Obam article evry day, this is a Christian web site, but something interesting about these Christians
they prayed for Obama not to get nominated
OBAMA NOMINATED
they prayed for Obama’s nominatin be rained out!
NO RAIN
they prayed for Obama to lose
OBAMA WON
now they pray for Obama to fail
GUESS OUTCOME
it appears that God is on Obama’s side as he rejects these prayers or maybe God don’t like Christians!
“…saga contines”
only in the mind of a Birther, you know the ones that constantly lose suits and can’t get most people to believe them.
Berg case denied and today Lightfot/Orly case denied, so keep it up, you people enjoy losing so much, it’s a nice laugh for us!