View Full Version : Obama Kenyan Birth Certificate Surfaces
Aoresteen
08-03-2009, 11:36
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105764
If the document is authentic, this is a REAL problem for the country.
It looks real enough.
Here is the actual court filing:
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/?p=3583
[admin edit]I removed the hyperlink from the second link in this post. Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your computer. See my post in this thread, Dan[/edit]
The problem I have with the document is that it is dated 1964.
So it is an "official copy" of his 1961 birth.
That means it has been sitting around for something like 45 years. Looks to have been folded and kept in a desk drawer.
Who has been holding it and where was it sitting for all that time? The story does not say much about that.
Obama's relations in Kenya do not appear to have that nice of quarters. I would not expect it to have been so well kept if it was one of them.
The problem I have with the document is that it is dated 1964.
So it is an "official copy" of his 1961 birth.
That means it has been sitting around for something like 45 years. Looks to have been folded and kept in a desk drawer.
Who has been holding it and where was it sitting for all that time? The story does not say much about that.
Obama's relations in Kenya do not appear to have that nice of quarters. I would not expect it to have been so well kept if it was one of them.
I agree! I was reading the article earlier and while I wanted to be optimistic that it was the real mccoy, I am in the "wait and see" mode. How did Orly get it? Who was the source? Why did it sit for 3 yrs before it was "sealed" and signed in 1964 (for a 1961 birthdate)? While the current regime ignore it or will they blast it?
Aoresteen
08-03-2009, 12:08
My guess is that someone requested the COPY of the birth certificate.
I was born in 1952 but my birth certificate is a certified copy dated in the 60's that I need to enlist in the Army. The orginial had been lost by my parents.
I am also taking a wait and see position. A rogarty letter has been requested. My guess is that President Obama's lawyers will fight tooth and nail to prevent the rogatory letter from being sent to Kenya for verification.
The MSM will NOT cover this development.
..... Why did it sit for 3 yrs before it was "sealed" and signed in 1964 (for a 1961 birthdate)? ......
1960s - thats before copy machines.
I had to get a "copy" of my 1950s BC in the 70s and it was some kind of ugly black negative kinda' thing.
If it is a true copy then a copy of the BC was requested in 1964. The data from the file copy was copied onto the new form and the official signed his name that it was a true copy of the original.
The problem I have in all this is the people pushing this should do a little more research to back up their story. What was happening the winter of 1964 where Obama would need a copy?
Obama was just a regular kid up until the 80s. Why would anyplace in the world be keeping records of him? Why would the Kenyan family? Why would his 1/2 brothers and sisters?
Must have been good paper and good storage.
It has fold marks but I don't see any acid stains. The fold marks apper to be as if done to put in a shirt pocket. Unusual for storage but could have been done to move it.
Concur with Pete for the following reasons:
The State of Hawaii has officially stated they have an official certificate of live birth for BHO
- vs -
A registration filed 3 years after the fact
By a father seeking to assert paternal control (still an issue which goes on quite frequently among American women who marry foreign men)
In a country for which the bribery of officials and questionable authencity of 'official' documents is internationally famous
From a mysterious, unnamed source who fears for his life :rolleyes:
Did they also request Taitz's help to transfer $10,000,000.00 to her safe, American bank account?
Certainly nothing questionable about that document. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
[QUOTE=Pete;276572]1960s - thats before copy machines.
The problem I have in all this is the people pushing this should do a little more research to back up their story. What was happening the winter of 1964 where Obama would need a copy?
QUOTE]
That was when his mother filed for divorce and was advised by her attorney to have the certificate in the event she requested child support or would need welfare later on.
Judge Samuel P. King who granted the divorce – last I heard was retired and alive (for now) in his 90s in Hawaii -- MAY or MAY NOT have asked to see the Marriage Certificate. BUT, I bet Judge King asked to see Obama JR's Birth Certificate to confirm Ann's claims that Obama SR was in fact the father. That is “standard” policy to have a Birth Certificate in case the mother asks for child support from the father (or Welfare) later after the divorce. Judge King probably told Ann to produce a birth certificate before or at trial, which would have been sometime in mid- to late-February 1964 HAD Obama SR answered his notice that was sent to Cambridge.
Sourse: http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2306640/posts
...That was when his mother filed for divorce and was advised by her attorney to have the certificate in the event she requested child support or would need welfare later on.......
Would it have been easier to just get the HI one than write off to Kenya. But let's just say she did - or he did. If it was filed as part of the divorce then it would be a public record. Divorce files are public unless sealed by a judge.
So lets just say the papers were not filed with the divorce papers - just held by either the mother of father. They are both dead, and dead since before Obama was a somebody. Did Obama's mother's parents get her papers when she died? Who got them when they died. Would whoever got them "fears for his life"? His dad's copy? Would it survive to this day?
I think there is something fishy going on but to head off down this trail I need more information.
dr. mabuse
08-03-2009, 13:48
Undecided as of yet. BHO is so cagey about it. He KNOWS what would shut up his detractors and he could do it with a phone call and yet does nothing. All from a man who has a clear history of taking time away from his job to answer "slights" from detractors.
Doesn't look like a photostat.
My 1957 original BC or copy (1965) doesn't have any acid stains in the folds. Been sitting in a cedar chest pretty much the whole time.
I asked a retired nurse and she said in the dinosaur days sometimes hospitals had a clerk "type" a "copy", stamp it, sign it and mail it out.:munchin
Dozer523
08-03-2009, 14:37
This one looks good but the one he produced doesn't.
Okay. Maybe this is just too much effort.
Time to move on.
OMG! did I really say MoveOn?
President Joe Biden, 3 words that should scare you all..
Some interesting points of analyses regarding the latest 'official' document for all the 'birthers' out there.
And so it goes... ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
'Birthers’ Latch Onto Forged Kenyan Birth Certificate
David weigel, Washington Independent, 3 Aug 2009
On Sunday night, the online community of “birthers” erupted after Orly Taitz released a photo of a “Kenyan birth certificate” for Barack Obama. The “birther” movement quickly divided between the credulous — people who believed that the new certificate was genuine — and skeptics who believed that their movement was being taken for a ride.
This story needs a little bit of prelude. Last year, as the bloggers at ObamaConspiracy remember, Philip Berg included an obviously forged birth certificate with his lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee. (The certificate was Canadian and signed by “Dudley Do-Right.”) Foreign birth certificates, unlike, say, American passports, are prime targets for forgery — few people stateside know what the real ones look like, and the penalties for forging them are basically non-existent.
So here it is: the “certified copy of registration of birth” that Orly Taitz obtained and is submitting as evidence in her lawsuit on behalf of Alan Keyes. The most obvious problems:
- It records Barack Obama Sr’s age as “26.” Obama Sr was born in 1936; his son was born in 1961.
- Its publication date is February 17, 1964, but it purports to be a document of the “Republic of Kenya.” Kenya did not become a Republic until December 12, 1964, a year after it won independence from Great Britain.
- It’s signed by “registrar E.F. Lavender.” Earth Friendly Lavender is a kind of detergent, and government officials who use vanity initials on official documents are, to put it mildly, rare.
- The kicker? The image is part of the extremely ill-informed conspiracy theory that Obama was born in Mombasa—conveniently, one of the more Muslim parts of the country.
This has always been a red flag for conspiracy theorists, so it deserves some explanation. Barack Obama Sr. was born and educated in Nyanza Province, in southwestern Kenya, on Lake Victoria. This is the area where Obama’s family lived and continues to live; Sarah Obama, the step-grandmother of the president, lives in Nyang’oma Kogelo, a small town in the province. But Mombasa is a city on the Indian Ocean, a thousand miles to the east. It didn’t even have an international airport until 1979. And the city wasn’t even part of Kenya when the future president was born. Mombasa was a part of Zanzibar until December 12, 1963, when it became part of the newly independent Kenya.
The new forgery? Why, it claims that the president was born in Coast General Hospital in Mombasa.
- As some FreeRepublic posters have pointed out, the document contains a number that’s either a humorous coincidence or a wink by the forger. It’s number 47,044. Barack Obama, 47 years old, is the 44th president of the United States.
So what’s the likeliest story here? One popular theory right now is that the document was faked to discredit the “birther” movement. That wouldn’t be surprising: another document that circulated over the weekend was a “certificate of birth” from “Kenya colony,” and its creator tipped his hand, telling readers that it was a “work of parody.”
http://washingtonindependent.com/53494/birthers-latch-onto-forged-kenyan-birth-certificate
Team Sergeant
08-03-2009, 15:46
The problem I have with the document is that it is dated 1964.
So it is an "official copy" of his 1961 birth.
That means it has been sitting around for something like 45 years. Looks to have been folded and kept in a desk drawer.
Who has been holding it and where was it sitting for all that time? The story does not say much about that.
Obama's relations in Kenya do not appear to have that nice of quarters. I would not expect it to have been so well kept if it was one of them.
I have my great great grand fathers Civil War discharge. It's dated about ten years afterward. I took it to a "historian" and asked why, he said he probably need a copy of a discharge to obtain land given to Civil War veterans.
I'll wait for the Keynan "historians" to weigh in.
I've said this before, I can only think of two reasons you don't show the public your birth certificate, one is that you were not born in the US, the other is someone elses name in the block for "Father", is different than what your mother always told you.......
I'm tellin' ya my wife still says it's cause the real BC lists him as "White".
FWIW - Section 1, Article II of the U.S. Constitution states:
Article II: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
But Obama is natural-born citizen, even if he were not born within this country's borders, since one parent was a citizen at the time of his birth. As a congressional act approved on 26 March 1790 states:
Congress: "And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."
http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llsl/001/0200/02280104.tif
Another congressional act in 1795 issued a similar assurance, though it changed the language from "natural born citizen" to just "citizen."
But the State Department clarifies the issue, saying that the 1790 language is honored under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. And even "IF" he was born outside the US - which I personally don't believe to be the case - this is the law as it is applied to:
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: 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.
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother: 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(c) 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.
http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html
Guess there's no chase as exciting as a wild goose chase - or a Loch Ness monster chase - or an Area51 UFO chase - or...
And so it goes... ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Aoresteen
08-03-2009, 17:17
FWIW - Section 1, Article II of the U.S. Constitution states:
... As a congressional act approved on 26 March 1790 states:
Congress: "And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."
Note the words 'And the children of citizens ' His father was NOT a citizen. It's plural which means BOTH parents have to be citizens. This the crux of the matter.
Snaquebite
08-03-2009, 17:25
+1
While I think this new "certificate" is probably a fake, I still wonder why the big O is spending lots of money on lawyers instaed of just showing his birth certificate.
BO....if +1 is all you have to say then a comment is not necessary.
Snaquebite
08-03-2009, 17:28
Just went through all my certified copies of birth certificates.
Born: 1952 (OK no wise cracks)
BC #1: Certified 1970 after being drafted
BC #2: Certified 1982 for security clearance update.
Note both are in different formats.
On another point, there was dispute about his mother's age at the time of his birth also. Apparantly the mother must be a certain age (21?) for the NBC to be applicable. Can anyone chime in on this? I'm looking for more info now.
Warrior-Mentor
08-03-2009, 17:36
...cowboys & muslims...
You purloined that quote from the comedy zone...and I can't claim credit as the author.
Richard is correct; all other points of interest are not valid,
FWIW - Section 1, Article II of the U.S. Constitution states:
Article II: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
But Obama is natural-born citizen, even if he were not born within this country's borders, since one parent was a citizen at the time of his birth. As a congressional act approved on 26 March 1790 states:
Congress: "And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."
On another point, there was dispute about his mother's age at the time of his birth also. Apparantly the mother must be a certain age (21?) for the NBC to be applicable. Can anyone chime in on this? I'm looking for more info now.
You are correct.
Between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, the law specified that if you were born outside of the United States and only one of your parents was a citizen, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least 5 of which were after the age of 16.
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/obama-birth.htm
So, if in fact he was born in Hawaii it's a mute point and yes Richard's post is correct as it stands. If not...see above, she was only 18 at the time of his birth so this would cause a problem.
Note the words 'And the children of citizens ' His father was NOT a citizen. It's plural which means BOTH parents have to be citizens. This the crux of the matter.
Reading the entire sequence of the post might help better understand why the DOS - and we - would consider BHO a fellow citizen of the USA. ;)
MOO - and YMMV - this single-minded focus by some on a moot point of successive and superceding law is an unfathomable waste of our nation's finite resources, time, focus, and energies...especially at a time when we really need to be devoting them towards issues which threaten us all and our collective future as a nation. The ideas that there are those who need to get a life and to get over themselves comes to mind when giving this matter any real thought after weighing the arguments presented by all sides.
__
BT
Richard's $.02 :munchin
thomps33
08-03-2009, 19:19
I'm tellin' ya my wife still says it's cause the real BC lists him as "White".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that be impossible due to the "one-drop rule"?
Aoresteen
08-03-2009, 19:29
Richard,
The issue is not if he is a citizen; the issue is if he is a natural born citizen (NBC).
The issue of NBC is not clearly defined in the Constitution; case law will apply.
No court to date has declared that President Obama is a NBC. That is what most of these court cases are about. So far the Supreme Court has been silent (they made no comment on the two cases that they have rejected thus far).
I, for one, am waiting for a court to make a decision. In all the documents that President Obama's legal teams have submitted thus far in the 30+ court cases, they have NEVER claimed that President Obama is a NBC. Why?
The issue of NBC is not clearly defined in the Constitution; case law will apply.
In all the documents that President Obama's legal teams have submitted thus far in the 30+ court cases, they have NEVER claimed that President Obama is a NBC. Why?
According to the record of Congressionally definitive changes to the law - you're either a 'citizen' (one born of a parent or parents who hold citizenship) or a 'naturalized' citizen (one not born of a parent or parents who hold citizenship but attains citizenship legally through other means) - the term 'natural born' citizen issue being argued today by the so-called birthers actually died in the Congressional Record at the end of the 18th Century - it's in the National Archives.
FWIW - I do not care much for BHO and personally resent having to defend him - but what's right is right - it's the American way as I was taught to believe - and still do.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/?p=3583
Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your computer:
http://safebrowsing.clients.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?client=Firefox&hl=en-US&site=http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/?p=3583
Sounds to me like a good hoax to draw in visitors to spread the malware. You'd better have your browser, anti-virus, and firewall up to date before visiting if you so choose. Don't be predictable.
While I agree he should have produced a genuine birth certificate before being elected; it says a lot that he never came out with a certificate to quell any rumors. I believe he is assisting with the AQ plan to bankrupt the U.S.A..
armymom1228
08-03-2009, 20:31
I'm tellin' ya my wife still says it's cause the real BC lists him as "White".
I am with your wife. Back during that time the BC usualy stated whatever the mom was, the kid was. At least I am not alone in my theory.. tell your wife thank you.
...just my two cents, but the P0TUS could release documentation admitting he was the love child of two martian cyborgs, and nothing would be done except a bunch of "harumphing" name calling and saber rat-ling' . Barack 0bama is the P0TUS and I can think of no document that would change that. Like it or not he is the commander in chief until he is voted out.
My team lost the world series, my candidate lost the general election...
armymom1228
08-03-2009, 21:27
Just went through all my certified copies of birth certificates.
Born: 1952 (OK no wise cracks)
BC #1: Certified 1970 after being drafted
BC #2: Certified 1982 for security clearance update.
Note both are in different formats.
On another point, there was dispute about his mother's age at the time of his birth also. Apparantly the mother must be a certain age (21?) for the NBC to be applicable. Can anyone chime in on this? I'm looking for more info now.
check snopes ..there are a number of articles on her there that debunk some of the theories about her and her age as I recall.
18 I believe.. is the age you need to be to have a natural born child.. hey,don't ask me. law is law.. dunno what all those kids born to 15 yr old moms do later when they want a passport..
MY original birth certificate in my birth name and parents.. negative type copy...
connived and lied my way to that copy in 1973.. (see reason below)
duplicate from april 2004 on green sercurity paper but a photocopy certified with a raised seal
Adoptive birth certificate with adoptive parents.. on green security paper names and all that hand typed in and certified with raised seal.. every time i Have gotten a copy.. 1966 for drivers license, 1970 for passport, 2009 to get a new passport ALL the above North Carolina
To be a US citizen one does not have to be born to two citizens.. just one has to be the citizen.. My son in law is a case in point. He and his other 8 siblings were born to an American dad and a Morrocan mom.. Ari's mom still is a legal alien. Never did become a citizen. He has a passport and a Pennsylvannia BC.
5 of his silbings were born in Rota, Spain where his dad was stationed in the navy..they too are all citizens.
I have been saying all along that Barry O is a white man masquerading as a black man.. it all goes back to credibility.. If that is proven then he lied to a significant portion of the population... that stink will rub off on the Dems in the mid term election. What else can the man have to hide? That he is gay, that he lives with Oprah on the weekend and wears a cute french maid outfit?
or likes stilletos and klondike bars? He hasn't got a space alien love child hidden in some insane asylum somewhere as the supermarket tabloids keep telling me and they tell me that his wife is a domnatrix.. so what else could be so terrible that he has to have a bevy of lawyers to hide and counter any suit that might actualy produce his BC in a manner that makes it all perfectly clear?
The ONE copy that was released to the press. The photos I saw were taken off to the side, not face on. It was all but unreadable the race and the place of birth.. hel I even maginfied it onscreen and still could not realy read it. its out there on the nets, hiding somewhere I am sure.
Ya know conspiracy theories are far more fun that the mere truth.
Snaquebite, I can make wise cracks.. I am older than you( by one yr), you are just a young'un so hush.. '52 was a good year.. wasn't that the first year we sent in 'advisor' to teach Ho Chi Minh how to wup the french or was that '53?
It was a good yr anyway..you were born..
AM
...just my two cents, but the P0TUS could release documentation admitting he was the love child of two martian cyborgs, and nothing would be done except a bunch of "harumphing" name calling and saber rat-ling' . Barack 0bama is the P0TUS and I can think of no document that would change that. Like it or not he is the commander in chief until he is voted out.
My team lost the world series, my candidate lost the general election...
Sorry Billy,
I can think of 1.......
The Constitution of the United States of America.
All BHO has to do is once and for all, call upon the state of Hawaii and say, "Guys, release my BC for all to see."
The fact that he doesn't speaks volumes, and is a slap in the face to our founding fathers and all who, "Preserve, Protect, and Defend" that document. Past, Present, and Future.
At least on this forum there is reasonable discourse on the subject, other forums (which I visit less and less) are absolutely rabid and focused on this one subject! And they nearly ignore important topics like Health care reform, Cap and Trade, Cash for Clunkers, Taxes on the Middle Class.
What if it were found to be true? Can you imagine the time it would take the Special Committees to make a determination? And what would be the possibility that anything would be prosecuted?
Say Obama were to get kicked to the curb, you still haven't solved the problem. You still have Uncle Joe, Hillary, Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Specter and all the other trash to contend with.
Fact or fiction, there are more credible and pressing matters to spend your time and energy on.
charlietwo
08-04-2009, 00:07
FWIW, on the Michael Savage Show today, Orly Taitz who is at the forefront of this "birther" situation said that if it were determined that Obama was not a naturally-born citizen, he would should be removed from office without impeachment. Biden would take temporary control of the country until another election could be held to place another administration into office.
This entire scenario baffles me. If he were to be removed by constitutional authority, the ensuing riots would rip this country asunder. There's too many seemingly knowledgeable, level-headed people on opposing sides of this to make any logical sense of it.
Perhaps destruction of logic was part of the strategy? :munchin
I still wonder why the big O is spending lots of money on lawyers instaed of just showing his birth certificate.
Been lurking and watching this subject. Have seen both good and bad pros and cons offered. Ive got my own feelings on it.
If a police officer stops you on the interstate for speeding, he asks you for your drivers licensce, registration and proof of insurance.
You give him your reg. and POI, but do not give him your DL, because you feel that the information you've provided is enough. You tell the officer that youre willing to spend thousands of dollars to prove your point.
Wouldnt it be easier to just show the DL?
Wouldnt it be easier to just show the DL?
He has...and - sadly - I'm beginning to think Stanley Fish is correct in his assessment of it all. :(
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/henry-louis-gates-deja-vu-all-over-again/
Richard's $.02 :munchin
HowardCohodas
08-04-2009, 06:08
This whole thing is probably an Obama-engineered disinformation campaign designed to make all those who oppose him be painted with the same brush as the nut-jobs who buy into it.
It has been reported that his birth announcement is in two Hawaiian newspapers. This evidence satisfies me. Why should Obama do anything to stop those who oppose him from damaging their own credibility?
Aoresteen
08-04-2009, 06:17
He has...and - ... :munchin
I disagree Richard. FACTCHECK.ORG was shown a document that is porported to be a Certification of Live Birth for a few hours last summer. The staff that saw it are not document experts and no court would accept a posting on a web site as proof of citizenship. They didn't have a control document to compare it to. They would never qualify as an expert in a court of law.
The document has NEVER been examined by document experts and has never been submitted to a court as evidence under the penalty of perjury.
President Obama's sister has a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth but she was born in Indonesia.
Until President Obama submits his Hawaiian documents to a court where independant experts can examine them, no one can testifiy to authenticity of his COLB.
While you may accept the images posted on a web site as authentic, no court would.
The State Department will not issue a passport based on a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth.
I say submit the documents to a court and let all sides examine them and let the chips fall where they may.
Ms. Taitz has done just that. Why won't President Obama do the same?
And some people even go so far as to believe that today is actually BHOs birthday. Imagine that! Some ffolkes will believe just about anything. ;)
Personally - I'm waiting for somebody to produce Michael Jackson's Nigerian death certificate - authentically folded, punched, stamped, stained, signed - claiming he really died in a hotel there while on a visit to see his secret birth mother in 2001 - but the guy holding the document wants to remain anonymous for fear of repraisal from rabid MJ fans - and although he wants to set the record straight, he won't let the document go until someone is willing to help him transfer $10,000,000.00 from an estate holding account to their personal bank account in the USA. I read on several 'in the know' blogs that there's an attorney in the LA area who has been in contact with the guy and this thing's going to set Hollyweird back on its heels when it breaks. :rolleyes:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Ms. Taitz has done just that.
No she hasn't - the Kenyan document is the same type document as issued by the State of Hawaii - it is not a Certificate of Live Birth as claimed - so why do people believe that 3 years after-the-fact document from a questionable source and a notoriously corrupt government and not one from an American governmental agency? :confused:
Stanley Fish may be right in his comments. :(
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Dozer523
08-04-2009, 06:56
FWIW, on the Michael Savage Show today, Orly Taitz who is at the forefront of this "birther" situation said that if it were determined that Obama was not a naturally-born citizen, he would should be removed from office without impeachment. Biden would take temporary control of the country until another election could be held to place another administration into office.
This entire scenario baffles me. If he were to be removed by constitutional authority, the ensuing riots would rip this country asunder. There's too many seemingly knowledgeable, level-headed people on opposing sides of this to make any logical sense of it.
Perhaps destruction of logic was part of the strategy? :munchin
Oh is that how it works? We just say "Dude! you weren't even s'posed to run. Your bad, Our bad. Do over!" I'm pretty sure there is something in the Constitution that covers the removal of leadership for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Maybe the bafflement comes from the fact that you are listening to Michael Savage. The guy's lack of knowledge is only surpassed by his inability to construct a logical arguement.
As for the "ensuing riots, would rip this country asunder". Like that is going to happen. We have a whole lot of folks (many of them, here) that are dedicated to that not happening, ever, for any reason.
FWIW, on the Michael Savage Show today, Orly Taitz who is at the forefront of this "birther" situation said that if it were determined that Obama was not a naturally-born citizen, he would should be removed from office without impeachment. Biden would take temporary control of the country until another election could be held to place another administration into office.
Actually - I think the following would occur:
Congress would impeach - if justified
Senate would conduct public trial
BHO would be removed - if convicted
Biden would assume Presidency
Biden would seek to appoint VP - Congress would have to confirm
America would yawn and less than 65% would vote again in next national elections
The world and WWW would continue to create distracting nonsense for us all
Richard's $.02 :munchin
He has...and - sadly - I'm beginning to think Stanley Fish is correct in his assessment of it all. :(
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/henry-louis-gates-deja-vu-all-over-again/
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Maybe in some venues and areas of the country that theory would fly, but not the majority.
I would also consider that in Gates case he was born in 1950, he probably experienced extreme prejudice and may be a bit gun shy and/or has a chip on his shoulder. Having have had Southern relatives of Gates era I understand why Gates may have reacted as he did or harbor the feelings he may have.
As for Obama, he would use race to further his agenda just as Jackson and Sharpton have done for decades. Just as he did with the Gates incident.
I would not go so far as to say Fish is entirely wrong because there is a minority that fit his profile, but I would suggest that he is more of a pawn by fueling the of Race Baiters by promoting the Big House theory.
Since WND seems to be at the forefront of keeping this issue alive, here are some relevant editorials by the founder, Joseph Farah:
Why I doubt Kenyan birth document
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105902
Not the last word on Obama's birth
http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=105769
I am beginning to believe Fisher is right as well. I really don't believe there are any vocal true conservatives any more. Too many of them are former Democrats who left the Democratic Party to call themselves Conservative Republicans over the Civil Rights legislation. Barry Goldwater's comments on Jerry Falwell's opposition to Sandra Day O'Connor's appointment to the Supreme Court come to mind. "All real Americans should kick Jerry Falwell in the ass." That is how I feel about these "birthers". Most of them are also mad that the power to steal has been passed to someone else. That is my honest opinion to piss everybody off for the day.
...... Too many of them are former Democrats who left the Democratic Party to call themselves Conservative Republicans over the Civil Rights legislation. .....
As someone who has lived in the S/E since the mid 70s and have been a Republican all my life I take issue with that statement.
Knowing both Democrats and Republicans - when I'm talking about an individual I was dealing with I've never had a Republican ask "Are they black?"
Some pretty good editorials - BUT -
The 'natural born citizen' argument is passe' as defined by Congressional Acts at the end of the 18th Century and recorded in the Congressional Record - there is only 'citizen' or 'naturalized citizen'
It does not require both parents to be American citizens for a child to be a 'citizen' and eligible to run for POTUS
A 'citizen' does not have to be physically born in the USA to be eligible to run for POTUS
If the record keeping of Hawaii is as flawed as he asserts in his own arguments - there may never be available the sort of definitive proof he claims BHO needs to produce - a proverbial Catch-22 of tin hat magnitude
And so it goes... :confused:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I didn't say all--I said too many. I grew up in th rural south where we were the only Republicans I know of in the 4 county area. It is now dominant Republican. I travel extensively in rural Texas, La, Ms and Ark. I hear it all the time from people I like and trust. In a few minutes I will be leaving for such towns as Arcadia, La, Greenville Ms and Kosciusko Ms. I guarantee you I will be hearing comments from someone concerning race. Some of those comments will be positive, some will make your hair stand on end.
Some pretty good editorials - BUT -
If the record keeping of Hawaii is as flawed as he asserts in his own arguments - there may never be available the sort of definitive proof he claims BHO needs to produce - a proverbial Catch-22 of tin hat magnitude
Good point.
armymom1228
08-04-2009, 09:08
I. I guarantee you I will be hearing comments from someone concerning race. Some of those comments will be positive, some will make your hair stand on end.
Depends on how much hair you have I guess.
I grew up Southern, Roman Catholic in a Southern Baptist south.
My godfather is or rather was a Senator... Republican Senator..
My fatters side upper-class military, my mother blue collar democrats..
I have heard it all believe me..... but the worst has been the past 5 yrs here in Baltimore from the other side of the racism fence... the ignorance and hatred is unbelievable...the comments made to me on a regular basis are far past making my hair stand on end. It both angers and saddens me. It makes me ashamed that I ever thought that two cultures could coexist in peace and equality.
It further chaps my knickers that the age old... the south is racist and the north is not BS still exists... it shows that some people have not traveled to both ends of that stick.
MY politics is not static and not one side or the other all the time. I tend to straddle the fence and take my stand issue by issue. I vary wildly depending on the issue but for the most part, I agree pretty much with everyone here.
For the record I am a registered Libertarian. After the last election I was so disgusted with both parties that I changed. I was, until then a Democrat.. for no other reason than it let me vote in the primaries.. I did not vote for Bush I wrote in some one else.. I did not vote for Clinton I wrote in betty boop...but I voted...
outta here for the rest of the day..you boys place nice now.. mom is not paying attention... put the squirt guns away and stop tossing sand on each other.. in any case all fights must be clean... as long as you don't draw blood I am good to go.. blood is too hard to get out of the carpet. A few bruses never hurt anyone..
AM
Aoresteen
08-04-2009, 11:00
No she hasn't - the Kenyan document is the same type document as issued by the State of Hawaii - it is not a Certificate of Live Birth as claimed - so why do people believe that 3 years after-the-fact document from a questionable source and a notoriously corrupt government and not one from an American governmental agency? :confused:
Stanley Fish may be right in his comments. :(
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Sorry Richad but she has submiited the Kenyan document to the court for authentication. Read the filing. She has asked the court to issue rogatory letters to the Kenyan government via SecState Clinton to authenticate the document.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/
The Kenyan document will be examined by the court. The Hawaiian documents have never been submitted.
President Omaba has NEVER submitted his Hawaiian documets to a court for examination.
Richard,
What is your opinion on why he does not just release his certificate and get it over with? .
It is the same reason Pres Bush never directly addressed moveon.org or any other attacks from the internet.
I am not sure I want the internet to have sway over the President if I voted for him or not.
ZonieDiver
08-04-2009, 11:13
Richard,
What is your opinion on why he does not just release his certificate and get it over with? Do you think he sees an oppertunity to feed the animal and make the opposition look like a bunch of nuts? <snip>
Though I am not Richard (by any stretch of the imagination), I think that Obama's mama did something that many moms would have done with a light-complexioned, mixed race child in the early 1960's - when it came time to put down "race," she put down "white." Just my penny and a half.
IMO - a problem with this thread is the patently misdirecting title - Obama Kenyan Birth Certificate Surfaces - no such birth certificate has surfaced as the title states - only an affadavit based on the word of BHOs father some 3 years after the fact in a country whose government is notoriously famous for its corrupt government officials and made for questionable reasons during a divorce proceeding.
MOO - YMMV
Richard's $.02 :munchin
This whole thing is probably an Obama-engineered disinformation campaign designed to make all those who oppose him be painted with the same brush as the nut-jobs who buy into it....Why should Obama do anything to stop those who oppose him from damaging their own credibility?Howard, FWIW, we are in agreement <<LINK (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=238188&postcount=56)>>. Just as some are now using the breakdown of the "cash for clunkers" program to discredit government-run health care, the president could turn the table on his opposition sometime down the line.
I would not go so far as to say Fish is entirely wrong because there is a minority that fit his profile, but I would suggest that he is more of a pawn by fueling the of Race Baiters by promoting the Big House theory.
While Stanley Fish is a controversial figure, I don't think even his most embittered critics would call him a pawn. Terry Eagleton tees off on Mr. Fish here (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v22/n05/eagl01_.html). (The piece may be of broader interest as it (a) highlights the hostility the left holds towards pragmatists, (b) shows how viciously academics can go at each other, and (c) at times it is rather funny.)
armymom1228
08-04-2009, 15:36
Though I am not Richard (by any stretch of the imagination), I think that Obama's mama did something that many moms would have done with a light-complexioned, mixed race child in the early 1960's - when it came time to put down "race," she put down "white." Just my penny and a half.
In some cases mom does not have to put anything down... the clerk looks at mom and writes it in.
Barry O, has built his political career on being African American. He even used the phrase "my white mother" and my "white" grandmother.. but never my 'african father"..simply my father. That to me was a racist statement.
I was not 'for' him from the beginning for many reasons, but that one alone should have been a huge bell ringer to the politically correct crowd.
Brush Okie... The 14th amendment garuntees the right of citizenship to ALL those born on these shores. I am not sure why someone would say your Grams marrying a noncitizen would NOT be a citizen unless she voluntarily gave up her citizenship.. the 14th amendement was adopted July 9, 1868.
Here is the 'citizenship clause'
Citizenship Clause
Main article: Citizenship Clause
There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment.[7] During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as excluding not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” He was supported by other senators, including Edgar Cowan, Reverdy Johnson, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull.[8] Howard additionally stated the word jurisdiction meant "the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now"[8] and that the United States possessed a “full and complete jurisdiction” over the person described in the amendment.[4][9][8] Other senators, including Senator John Conness,[10] supported the amendment, believing citizenship ought to be extended to children of foreigners.
In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the clause's meaning was tested regarding whether it meant that anyone born in the United States would be a citizen regardless of the parents' nationality. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the children of Native Americans were not citizens, despite the fact that they were born in the United States.
The meaning was tested again in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), regarding children of non-citizen Chinese immigrants born in United States. The court ruled that the children were U.S. citizens.[11]
The distinction between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants was not clear at the time of the decision of Wong Kim Ark.[12] Neither in that decision nor in any subsequent case has the Supreme Court explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the amendment,[13] although that has generally been assumed to be the case.[14] In some cases, the Court has implicitly assumed, or suggested in dicta, that such children are entitled to birthright citizenship: these include INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985)[15] and Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).[16] Nevertheless, some claim the Congress possesses the power to exclude such children from US citizenship by legislation.[13]
The Constitution does not explicitly provide any procedure for loss of United States citizenship. Loss of U.S. citizenship is possible only under the following circumstances:
Fraud in the naturalization process. Technically, this is not loss of citizenship but rather a voiding of the purported naturalization and a declaration that the immigrant never was a U.S. citizen.
Voluntary relinquishment of citizenship. This may be accomplished either through renunciation procedures specially established by the State Department or through other actions which demonstrate an intent to give up U.S. citizenship.[17]
For a long time, voluntary acquisition or exercise of a foreign citizenship was considered sufficient cause for revocation of U.S. citizenship.[18] This concept was enshrined in a series of treaties between the United States and other countries (the Bancroft Treaties). However, the Supreme Court repudiated this concept in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), as well as Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980), holding that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment barred the Congress from revoking citizenship.
VoTrooper99
08-04-2009, 21:13
Six past U.S. Presidents had foreign born parents. Two of those don't count here because they were in the US at the adoption of the Constitution. Those are Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. Buchanan b. 1791 had a foreign born parent, but it is likely that they were in the US in 1788 when the Constitution was adopted, making them citizens at his birth.
The other three were:
Chester Arthur, b. 1829. - His father was Irish and the family once lived in Canada. When Arthur became President it was alleged that Arthur was born to his American mother in either Canada or Ireland. It was never proven in court, and is actually alot like this case with Obama.
Woodrow Wilson, b. 1856 - His mother was British.
Herbert Hoover, b. 1874 - His mother was a Canadian under the British Crown.
Here's a little something from the State Department's website:
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother: 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(c) 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.
So even if he was born OCONUS it's a moot point.
There are other contentions out there that somehow Obama's family "renounced" his citizenship when he went to school in Indonesia or listed himself as a foreigner on some college application. This couldn't be according to US law.
B. ELEMENTS OF RENUNCIATION
A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:
1. appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer,
2. in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and
3. sign an oath of renunciation
Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described above have no legal effect. Because of the provisions of section 349(a)(5), Americans cannot effectively renounce their citizenship by mail, through an agent, or while in the United States. In fact, U.S. courts have held certain attempts to renounce U.S. citizenship to be ineffective on a variety of grounds, as discussed
F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN
Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.
Now I don't care for Obama in the least. However this is a distraction and a dead horse. It diverts energy and resources from the real political fight. That would be the mid term and next general elections.
charlietwo
08-04-2009, 22:40
Oh is that how it works? We just say "Dude! you weren't even s'posed to run. Your bad, Our bad. Do over!" I'm pretty sure there is something in the Constitution that covers the removal of leadership for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Maybe the bafflement comes from the fact that you are listening to Michael Savage. The guy's lack of knowledge is only surpassed by his inability to construct a logical arguement.
As for the "ensuing riots, would rip this country asunder". Like that is going to happen. We have a whole lot of folks (many of them, here) that are dedicated to that not happening, ever, for any reason.
The only thing I care about in this situation is the constitution. There are proceedings for a situation like this, but I've searched a great deal and haven't been able to find anything. There hasn't exactly been a precedent.
In regards to Michael Savage, your opinion of him leads me to assume that you are not a regular listener. If you've listened to him for a while, you would understand his rants are typically wrapped up with a cynical bow of wisdom. You are entitled to your opinion, but I fail to see how he is unable to construct a logical argument. His position in this is cynical, to put it simply. He finds the birth certificate irrelevant in the light of President Obama's socialist/communist policies. In no way am I hoping President Obama is not a citizen. My biggest concern as it stands now are his economic and social policies, which are destructive to say the least. I would argue that his apparent loyalty to un-American causes are fueling the flames of this "birther" movement. Would you not agree?
In regards to the riots, I completely agree that there are folks who are dedicated to preventing such events... I'm one of them. But, the cities are large and numerous, with lots of people.
Would you not agree that numerous large scale riots in various major cities across the country would be highly destructive for the internal and external integrity of this nation?
I am not big on the tin hat stuff you hear a lot of, but the fact that he is spending so much money to fight what could be cleard up with a simple clear certificate has botherd me.
IMO nothing that Obee releases will satisfy the "birthers". IMO to release anything is to validate the groups agenda with no hope of ending the "debate".
The slippery slope here is every crank on the internet will then be able to force POTUS (of either party) to capitulate in some way, think if all the 911 deniers, the area 51 idiots etc could make the government jump.
armymom1228
08-05-2009, 11:21
IMO nothing that Obee releases will satisfy the "birthers". IMO to release anything is to validate the groups agenda with no hope of ending the "debate".
The slippery slope here is every crank on the internet will then be able to force POTUS (of either party) to capitulate in some way, think if all the 911 deniers, the area 51 idiots etc could make the government jump.
I tend to agree.
However IF the BC were to say he is a race he has not built his career on, being his credibility would drop like a stone. I can just see the left wing liberal politically correct crowd now.. :D
However, looking at the whole issue from another angle.. how would it look for the US if the President had such a thing happen... He has screwed with our world image enough in the eyes of other nations.. I think one has to look at the whole issue and how it could and would affect the nation as whole. To not do that is both self centered and self serving. We are a nation as a whole not just one or two tin foil birther individuals. I am sure the DNC and GOP both know the truth.. ever wonder WHY the GOP has not pushed the issue themselves?
If the truth ever comes out, it will be AFTER he has left office.. I personally dislike the guy even more than Clinton or Carter... but we, the people, did elect him and we the people need to just suck it up and deal with the issue... the midterm elections are a good way to deal with it.. Republican control back to the houses and he and his social adgenda would be stymied.
AM
but we, the people, did elect him and we the people need to just suck it up and deal with the issue...AM
Armymom,
I must respectfully disagree with you, as am not likely to suck up to any fraudulent activities of my President, Dem or Republican.
I did not elect him. Those that did, well, can only hope they feel the big black boot comming swiftly for their 4th POC from their elected king.
I'll just keep screaming my head off, and lobbying where I can, while drowning my sorrows in my bowl of cheerios.
Just my humble opinion.:munchin
Holly
armymom1228
08-05-2009, 12:12
Armymom,
I must respectfully disagree with you, as am not likely to suck up to any fraudulent activities of my President, Dem or Republican.
and how is he committing an illegal act? He IS half African on his fathers side.. he just 'got in touch with my African roots".. Do you have any idea how many people simply, conveniently 'forget' part of thier heritage for any number of reasons? There are some famous examples of people passing as whites.. go watch the movie "True Women' one child was named 'cherokee' for a reason..
Last I checked conveniently omitting what race you really are is not illegal.
I consistently write 'human' on those race things in job apps..
I did not elect him. Those that did, well, can only hope they feel the big black boot comming swiftly for their 4th POC from their elected king.
I did not vote for him, nor did I vote for John McCain. I would never ever vote for someone who consistently votes against Veterans issues.. However, BO won with a majority of votes...NO matter what you or I think, it was the 'american people' who voted him in. Stop looking at this from a personal standpoint. look at it from a national standpoint...I personally think the whole BC issue should have been solved BEFORE he was allowed to run.. and the whole thing posted on the MSM... but as a citizen I bow to the majority.. even if I think it suxs big puppy dawg weenies..
I'll just keep screaming my head off, and lobbying where I can, while drowning my sorrows in my bowl of cheerios.
NO sorrow here.. as much as I detest his winning the election..what would you rather.. that congress decides before hand who is in office and stuffs the ballot box.. that xxxx becomes dictator for life.. there ARE a lot of other scenarios that make me far more nauseous than BO. You might consider reading Ruth First's book, "The First Hundred Days" It is a pretty scary scenario about South Africa before Nelson Mandela was released.
Instead of crying in cereal..what are you doing eating cereal btw.. do you know how much sodium is in that stuff.. its bad for you.. in anycase.. find out who is runing against the local dnc candidate and stump like heck for thier opposition.. let the local dnc candidate know WHY you opose them.. the power is NOT entirely with BO, its in Congress..
and how is he committing an illegal act? He IS half African on his fathers side.. he just 'got in touch with my African roots".. Do you have any idea how many people simply, conveniently 'forget' part of thier heritage for any number of reasons? There are some famous examples of people passing as whites.. go watch the movie "True Women' one child was named 'cherokee' for a reason..
Last I checked conveniently omitting what race you really are is not illegal.
I consistently write 'human' on those race things in job apps..
I did not vote for him, nor did I vote for John McCain. I would never ever vote for someone who consistently votes against Veterans issues.. However, BO won with a majority of votes...NO matter what you or I think, it was the 'american people' who voted him in. Stop looking at this from a personal standpoint. look at it from a national standpoint...I personally think the whole BC issue should have been solved BEFORE he was allowed to run.. and the whole thing posted on the MSM... but as a citizen I bow to the majority.. even if I think it suxs big puppy dawg weenies..
NO sorrow here.. as much as I detest his winning the election..what would you rather.. that congress decides before hand who is in office and stuffs the ballot box.. that xxxx becomes dictator for life.. there ARE a lot of other scenarios that make me far more nauseous than BO. You might consider reading Ruth First's book, "The First Hundred Days" It is a pretty scary scenario about South Africa before Nelson Mandela was released.
Instead of crying in cereal..what are you doing eating cereal btw.. do you know how much sodium is in that stuff.. its bad for you.. in anycase.. find out who is runing against the local dnc candidate and stump like heck for thier opposition.. let the local dnc candidate know WHY you opose them.. the power is NOT entirely with BO, its in Congress..
Ma'am,
I will agree to disagree with you on the topic of Obama, and what he has or has not done fraudulent so far in his presidency
Am also always up for suggestions on what I should be doing, rather than what I am doing. In fact, closing my mouth and opening my ears has been a very valuble tool for me here on ps.com.
That being said, I think that it is the duty of United States citizens to speak up, and loudly, when we do not agree with what those in power do for us, by the will of us, and through us. And nothing will ever change that for certain!
That duty was a gift given by those serving this Country, and paid for in blood. I feel it is the least I can do to honor their memories.
My .02:munchin
Holly
Aoresteen
08-05-2009, 13:29
It is the same reason Pres Bush never directly addressed moveon.org or any other attacks from the internet.
I am not sure I want the internet to have sway over the President if I voted for him or not.
Not the same issue. President Bush wasn't sued by moveon.org. President Obama has been sued so he must respond.
Aoresteen
08-05-2009, 13:32
Six past U.S. Presidents had foreign born parents. Two of those don't count here because they were in the US at the adoption of the Constitution. Those are Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. Buchanan b. 1791 had a foreign born parent, but it is likely that they were in the US in 1788 when the Constitution was adopted, making them citizens at his birth.
The other three were:
Chester Arthur, b. 1829. - His father was Irish and the family once lived in Canada. When Arthur became President it was alleged that Arthur was born to his American mother in either Canada or Ireland. It was never proven in court, and is actually alot like this case with Obama.
Woodrow Wilson, b. 1856 - His mother was British.
Herbert Hoover, b. 1874 - His mother was a Canadian under the British Crown.
Here's a little something from the State Department's website:
So even if he was born OCONUS it's a moot point.
There are other contentions out there that somehow Obama's family "renounced" his citizenship when he went to school in Indonesia or listed himself as a foreigner on some college application. This couldn't be according to US law.
Now I don't care for Obama in the least. However this is a distraction and a dead horse. It diverts energy and resources from the real political fight. That would be the mid term and next general elections.
You are missing the point. Citizenship is NOT the issue. Being a 'natural born citizen' is the point. Having citizenship doesn't mean you are a 'natural born citizen'.
armymom1228
08-05-2009, 13:47
You are missing the point. Citizenship is NOT the issue. Being a 'natural born citizen' is the point. Having citizenship doesn't mean you are a 'natural born citizen'.
Isn't The Terminator a 'citizen'? But since he was born IN Austria that negates his chances for running, thank heavens..
BO is still 'natural born" to his Citizen mother.. if that was the case the John Mac would have been ineligible having been born in the Canal Zone.. Hawaii was a territory or was it a state by then.. 1959 wasn't it admitted to the union.. hel if I know.. pb blaster is making my brain rot today..
You are missing the point. Citizenship is NOT the issue. Being a 'natural born citizen' is the point. Having citizenship doesn't mean you are a 'natural born citizen'.
Citizenship is the issue.
The 1787 information you cite is out-dated - having been more definitively defined by Congressional Act in 1790 and 1795.
Since that time - by law - there is only 'citizen' or 'naturalized citizen' - and a 'citizen' (wherever born) is considered what was formerly called a 'natural born citizen' whereas a 'naturalized citizen' is not considered to be a 'natural born citizen.'
BHO - being born of a citizen - is, therfore, a citizen and eligible to become POTUS.
Arnold Schwarznegger - being a 'naturalized citizen' - is not eligible to run for POTUS.
You should try to reread this entire forum as that very point has been made several times.
Gutes lesen.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
armymom1228
08-05-2009, 13:54
Citizenship is the issue.
The 1787 information you cite is out-dated - having been more definitively defined by Congressional Act in 1790 and 1795.
Since that time - by law - there is only 'citizen' or 'naturalized citizen' - and a 'citizen' (wherever born) is considered a 'natural born citizen' whereas a 'naturalized citizen' is not considered to be a 'natural born citizen.'
BHO - being born of a citizen - is, therfore, a citizen and eligible to become POTUS.
Arnold Schwarznegger - being a 'naturalized citizen' - is not eligible to run for POTUS.
You should try to reread this entire forum as that very point has been made several times.
Gutes lesen.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
oops... that's right..Terminator is 'naturalized' not natural.. oh never mind.. back to sniffing stuff...
Aoresteen
08-05-2009, 14:26
Citizenship is the issue.
The 1787 information you cite is out-dated - having been more definitively defined by Congressional Act in 1790 and 1795.
Since that time - by law - there is only 'citizen' or 'naturalized citizen' - and a 'citizen' (wherever born) is considered what was formerly called a 'natural born citizen' whereas a 'naturalized citizen' is not considered to be a 'natural born citizen.'
Richard,
Not all agree with your assertion. Here are the Acts:
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).
TEXT SOURCE: 1 Stat. 103-104. edited version: De Pauw, Linda Grant, et al., eds. Documentary History of the First Federal Congress of the United States of America, March 4, 1789 – March 3, 1791. 14 vols. to date. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972-1995. 6:1516-1522.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject” (January 29, 1795).
TEXT SOURCE: 1 Stat. 414-415.
For carrying into complete effect the power given by the constitution, to establish an uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States:
SEC.1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise: --
First. He shall have declared, on oath or affirmation, before the supreme, superior, district, or circuit court of some one of the states, or of the territories northwest or south of the river Ohio, or a circuit or district court of the United States, three years, at least, before his admission, that it was bona fide, his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly, by name, the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whereof such alien may, at that time, be a citizen or subject.
Secondly. He shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare on oath or affirmation before some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided within the United States, five years at least, and within the state or territory, where such court is at the time held, one year at least; that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name, the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court.
Thirdly. The court admitting such alien shall be satisfied that he has resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States five years; and it shall further appear to their satisfaction, that during that time, he has behaved as a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.
Fourthly. In case the alien applying to be admitted to citizenship shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility, in the kingdom or state from which he came, he shall, in addition to the above requisites, make an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, in the court to which his application shall be made; which renunciation shall be recorded in the said court.
SEC. 2. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That any alien now residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States may be admitted to become a citizen on his declaring, on oath or affirmation, in some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided two years, at least, within and under the jurisdiction of the same, and one year, at least, within the state or territory where such court is at the time held; that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; and moreover, on its appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that during the said term of two years, he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same; and when the alien applying for admission to citizenship, shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility in the kingdom or state from which he came, on his moreover making in the court an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, before he shall be entitled to such admission; all of which proceedings, required in this proviso to be performed in the court, shall be recorded by the clerk thereof.
SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.
SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the Act intituled, “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.
--------
The 1790 act specificly mentions the term 'natural born citizen'. The 1795 Act repeals the 1790 act but does NOT specificly eliminate the term 'natural born citizen'. To say that it does is reading much more than the act contains.
The 1790 Act:
And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
The 1795 Act:
SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.
And... :confused:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
VoTrooper99
08-06-2009, 23:33
I am currently out of town, but when I talked to the GF I asked her about the situation. Her and her fathers understanding is that because the the male was not a citizen she relenquished her citizenship by marrying a foreign national. Apperantly if it had been the other way around and she had been a non citizen and he was a citizen then the male would keep his citizenship and she would automaticly become a citizen. As my GF stated, it does not make sense today, but in 1912 it made sense. Remember this was a time when women were not allowed to vote. Many historians try to look at things in todays perspective insted of the perspective of the times.
As for is the big O being a citizen, I guess if the law was the same in 1961 as it was in 1912 and if he was born in Kenya, you might make a case. A lot of If's there. I am NOT a fan of the the guy, but kicking him out on a shakey case like that would probably cause more harm to this county than good. Lets face it. His popularity goes down every day. The persuit of this makes the republicans look like a bunch of tin hat folks.
Now on to someting we all know exists, Bigfoot........;):p
The only way to renounce citizenship is to formally renounce it...
(from 8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(5))
B. ELEMENTS OF RENUNCIATION
A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:
1. appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer,
2. in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and
3. sign an oath of renunciation
Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described above have no legal effect. Because of the provisions of section 349(a)(5), Americans cannot effectively renounce their citizenship by mail, through an agent, or while in the United States. In fact, U.S. courts have held certain attempts to renounce U.S. citizenship to be ineffective on a variety of grounds, as discussed below.
This was also on a the U.S. Consul General of Bermuda's site. It stems from Section 349 of the above law.
U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. These acts include:
1. Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state;
2. Taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions;
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;
4. Accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) a declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position;
5. Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. consular officer outside the United States;
6. Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only "in time of war");
7. Conviction for an act of treason
Obama's mother was not subject to any of this. Thus she remained a citizen.
I am not disputing this. Like I said it was about 1912, things have changed a quite a bit since then. Apperantly at the time if a woman married a foreign national that was an act that renounced her citizenship. Since they have both been dead for a long time I can't ask them. That is just how her and her fathers understanding. Her dad is actually quite old these days. He was 49 when she was born and he served in WW II, so it is hard to get it directly from the source. As I said before I know they are not lying about it. In fact her father is a regualr communist. I don't say that with any jest or exagaration. In the 1950's he was a card carrying member of the communist party and thinks Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I avoid political discussions with him.
That could very well have been the case - then - as that was during a high-point wave of Southern and East European immigration - many of them were zealous socialists and Zionists (and even anarchists) which caused suspicion and great anxiety amongst the social structure and labor force of the time - and women held less than full citizenship. It might be interesting for you to research the laws of the day for your own family history.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
olhamada
01-27-2011, 17:30
Hawaii Official Now Swears "No Obama Birth Certificate". Woops.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=254401#ixzz1CDGcFAQl :munchin
Former Hawaii elections clerk Tim Adams has now signed an affidavit swearing he was told by his supervisors in Hawaii that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Barack Obama Jr. in Hawaii and that neither Queens Medical Center nor Kapi'olani Medical Center in Honolulu had any record of Obama having been born in their medical facilities.
Notary seal on Timothy Adams' affidavit
Adams was employed at the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division from May 2008 through September 2008.
His position was senior elections clerk, overseeing a group of 50 to 60 employees responsible for verifying the identity of voters at the Absentee Ballot Office. It was in this capacity that Adams became aware of the search for Obama's birth-certificate records.
See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential-eligibility mystery!
"During the course of my employment," Adams swears in the affidavit (viewable in full as part 1 and part 2), "I became aware that many requests were being made to the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division, the Hawaii Office of Elections, and the Hawaii Department of Health from around the country to obtain a copy of then-Senator Barack Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate."
As he inquired about the birth certificate, he says, his supervisors told him that the records were not on file at the Hawaii Department of Health.
"Senior officers in the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division told me on multiple occasions that no Hawaii long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Senator Obama in the Hawaii Department of Health," Adams' affidavit reads, "and there was no record that any such document had ever been on file in the Hawaii Department of Health or any other branch or department of the Hawaii government."
Tim Adams, former senior elections clerk for Honolulu
In a recorded telephone interview, Adams told WND that it was common knowledge among election officials where he worked that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate could be found at the Hawaii Department of Health.
"My supervisor came and told me, 'Of course, there's no birth certificate. What? You stupid,'" Adams said. "She usually spoke well, but in saying this she reverted to a Hawaiian dialect. I really didn't know how to respond to that. She said it and just walked off. She was quite a powerful lady."
Moreover, Adams was told that neither Queens Memorial Hospital nor Kapi'olani Medical Center had any records of Obama's birth at their medical facilities: "Senior officers in the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division further told me on multiple occasions that Hawaii State government officials had made inquires about Sen. Obama's birth records to officials at Queens Medical Center and Kapi'olani Medical Center in Honolulu and that neither hospital had any record of Senator Obama having been born there, even though Governor Abercrombie is now asserting and various Hawaii government officials continue to assert Barack Obama Jr. was born at Kapi'olani Medical Center on Aug. 4, 1961."
"We called the two hospitals in Honolulu: Queens and Kapi'olani," Adams stressed. "Neither of them have any records that Barack Obama was born there."
In 2009, WND documented that Obama and his supporters had first claimed he was born at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu, before the story changed to Kapi'olani Medical Center in Honolulu.
After WND's report on the two conflicting hospitals, online news sites including the United Press International and Snopes.com scrubbed their websites to eliminate any reference to Queens Medical Center, substituting instead that Obama was born at Kapi'olani Medical Center without explaining the discrepancy or the correction.
Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie
In 2010, then-candidate for governor Neil Abercrombie was involved in an Obama birth controversy when he read a letter at a Kapi'olani Medical Center centennial dinner in Honolulu that supposedly was authored by President Obama, claiming Kapi'olani as his birth hospital.
As WND reported, the letter read by Abercrombie and initially displayed on the Kapi'olani website turned out to be a computer-created likeness of a letter using HTML code, the building blocks of Internet websites, not an actual paper letter.
The White House has still not confirmed it wrote or sent the letter.
Moreover, Adams claims, the Hawaii government was engaged in a cover-up designed to tell the American public through the Obama-supporting mainstream media that Obama was born in Hawaii, even though no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Obama could be found on record in the Hawaii Department of Health.
In the affidavit Adams swears, "During the course of my employment, I came to understand that for political reasons, various officials in the government of Hawaii, including then-Governor Linda Lingle and various officials of the Hawaii Department of Health, including Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the director of the Hawaii Department of Health, were making representations that Senator Obama was born in Hawaii, even though no government official in Hawaii could find a long-form birth certificate for Senator Obama that had been issued by a Hawaii hospital at the time of his birth."
Adams further swears his supervisors told him to quit asking about Obama's birth records.
"During the course of my employment," Adams states in the affidavit, "I was told by senior officers in the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division to stop inquiring about Senator Obama's Hawaii birth records, even though it was common knowledge among my fellow employees that no Hawaii long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Senator Obama."
"I can go get my long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate," Adams told WND. "And so I don't understand, this whole controversy should have been settled three or four years ago in about five minutes."
Nor does Adams feel the short-form Certification of Live Birth is authoritative documentation proving that Obama was born in Hawaii.
"My basic assumption is that he wasn't born there," Adams said. "Certifications of Live Birth were given to people who were born at home, or to people who were born overseas and whose parents brought them back to the islands. If his parents were U.S. citizens, or if one parent was a U.S. citizen, as was the case with Obama, the family would apply for a Hawaiian birth certificate when the parents came back from overseas. That's normally how you would have gotten on [a Certification of Live Birth] in the 1960s."
WND has reported that in 1961, Obama's grandparents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, could have made an in-person request at the Hawaii Department of Health for a registration of a Hawaii birth, even if the infant Barack Obama Jr. had been foreign-born.
In the past few days, Abercrombie has represented that there is a registration of Obama's birth in the state archives.
But the state registration of birth in 1961 theoretically could prove only that the grandparents had registered Obama's birth, even if Obama was not born in Hawaii.
Similarly, the newspaper announcements of baby Obama's birth do not prove he was born in Hawaii, since the newspaper announcements could have been triggered by the grandparents appearing in-person to register baby Obama as a Hawaiian birth, even if the baby was born elsewhere.
WND has documented that the address reported in the birth announcements published in the Hawaii newspapers at the time, 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, was the address where the grandparents lived.
WND has also reported that Barack Obama Sr. maintained his own separate apartment in Honolulu at an 11th Avenue address, even after he was supposedly married to Ann Dunham, Barack Obama's mother, and that Ann Dunham left Hawaii within three weeks of the baby's birth to attend the University of Washington in Seattle.
Dunham did not return to Hawaii until after Barack Obama Sr. left Hawaii in June 1962 to attend graduate school at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass.
It's possible the yet-undisclosed birth record in the state archives that Abercrombie has discovered may have come from the grandparents registering baby Obama's birth, an event that would have triggered both the newspaper birth announcements and availability of a Certification of Live Birth, even if no long-form record exists.
WND has confirmed with Glen Takahashi, elections administrator for the city and county of Honolulu, that Adams was indeed working in their elections offices during the last presidential election.
"We hire temporary workers, because we're seasonal," Takahashi told WND.
Adams told WND he supported Hillary Clinton during the 2008 presidential election campaign.
He described himself as a libertarian who wants less government spending, fewer laws that restrict personal freedoms, more adherences to the Constitution and an end to foreign wars.
"I'm interested in individual liberty and upholding the Constitution," he said. "I want to get American troops out from foreign countries, and I want to see the federal budget balanced."
He said he might be inclined to support former-Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee or former-Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney in 2012 to run against President Obama, but he has not yet made up his mind.
"It depends on how fiscally conservative Huckabee and Romney turn out to be on economics," he said. "But from what I know right now, they would probably be better than Obama."
Read more: Hawaii official now swears: No Obama birth certificate http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=254401#ixzz1CHVQyMrJ
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110127/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_birth_certificate_1
– Five Hawaii Democratic representatives want to pass a law making President Barack Obama's birth records public and charge $100 to see them.
The bill, introduced this week, would change a privacy law barring the release of birth records to anyone unless they have a tangible interest.
The measure hasn't been scheduled for a public hearing yet, and can't move forward until that happens.
Its primary sponsor, Rep. Rida Cabanilla, says she wants to end the controversy surrounding Obama's birth by handing over official state records to those who will pay.
She says the fee would help offset the extra work by state employees who handle frequent phone calls and e-mails from people who believe Obama wasn't born in Hawaii.
Hawaii's health director has said she's verified Obama's original records, and notices were published in two newspapers within days of his birth at a Honolulu hospital
Snip
perdurabo
01-27-2011, 22:53
I'm completely sure someone in the records dept in Kenya can't be bought off, or manufacture a sufficient counterfeit document (Kenya being known for its technological advances and all). :rolleyes:
Birthers are up there with Pelosi when it comes to annoying.
Hey, I'm no Obama fan, but when are people going to get over this? His mother was American. Time to focus our attention on more useful issues.
The bill, introduced this week, would change a privacy law barring the release of birth records to anyone unless they have a tangible interest.
I would think that is a HIPAA issue and, therefore, a federal matter.
Richard :munchin
mark46th
01-28-2011, 00:07
I posted the following in a thread in the Soapbox area:
The most important document is the Financial Aid as a foreign student document from Occidental College. Obama's mother was a U.S. Citizen, so he, by default, was born a U.S. citizen. It doesn't make any difference where a person is born. As long as one of the parents is a U.S. citizen, that person gets U.S. citizenship. BUT, if that person is issued and uses a passport from another nation, at age 18, they must declare U.S. citizenship. The Occidental College document says he recieved aid as a foreign student.
The Hawaii issue may have been a problem for his mother and grandparents. His grandmother was a well connected Bank Vice President and may have arranged for the Certificate of Live Birth. Hawaiian politics are a cesspool of incestuous relationships so it would have been easy for the grandmother to arrange. But the mother and grandmother are both dead so that is irrelevant.
If he traveled under a U.S. passport and he received aid as a foreign student, he may have perpetrated a fraud upon Occidental College, which is irrelevant due to the statute of limitations.
If he traveled to the United States after he turned 18 under an Indonesian passport, there is an issue concerning his citizenship.
If he traveled to the United States after he turned 18 under an Indonesian passport, there is an issue concerning his citizenship.
MARK - Why couldn't he have had dual-citizenship?
Anyway (this part isn't aimed at anyone in particular-carpet bomb)--The idea that there is some kind of conspiracy here is unbelievable to me. Putting aside for a moment the fact that O was vetted by the appropriate federal agencies (as every Pres. is), it's absurd to think that who-KNOWS-how-many people are being controlled by bribery.
Dislike his policies. Vote for someone else. Don't cheapen your argument by proposing an "alien abduction" scheme.
I'm a white guy from the east coast and I didn't have my birth cert until I was going through MEPS!!!
MARK - Why couldn't he have had dual-citizenship?........
So how come nobody has seen his long form BC? Little odd don't you think?
So how come nobody has seen his long form BC? Little odd don't you think?
Aren't the investigations carried about the Feds kept private? For example: they couldn't parade my SF86 around.
BUT--it IS odd that O's people haven't released anything.
I'm just not sure that means he's some kind of manchurian candidate!
Maybe O and his people have decided not to release the documentation as protection from something less serious but still potentially embarrassing. OR maybe the O people just want this story to finally die and see no advantage in releasing documents that may or may not be originals/copies of originals/paid for.... Some people WILL NEVER BE CONVINCED.
....... OR maybe the O people just want this story to finally die and see no advantage in releasing documents that may or may not be originals/copies of originals/paid for.... Some people WILL NEVER BE CONVINCED.
Your two statements are reversed in thought. If O wanted this to go away he would release the long form BC - if there is one. And yes some people will never be convinced - as long as O refuses to release the long form BC.
If O was a Republican the news ferrets would have sniffed out the story on his BC, his student loans/financial aid and what passport he travelled under in his younger years.
The MSM continues to protect The One.
I knew I shoulda bought that Alcoa stock. ;)
Richard :munchin
I knew I shoulda bought that Alcoa stock. ;)
Richard :munchin
Cute little statement with the pink Richard but why has this story been allowed to fester for well over two years?
If there was some "simple little explaination" don't you think it would have been released by now?
How about "What type of student aid did you get when you went to college?" What? Classified? Can't tell you? Some Army dude tries that around here and he's a posser.
The truth will come out - maybe many years from now - and the enablers will all giggle and say "No big deal it's old news."
dadof18x'er
01-28-2011, 08:15
the mystery continues, who's political points being tallied? ? maybe this being an annoying issue could help "o".
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/27/politics/main7288553.shtml
Cute little statement with the pink Richard but why has this story been allowed to fester for well over two years?
I, too, am patiently awaiting a simple explanation sans all the hyperbolic conspiratorial speculation.
However, my speculative 'gut feeling' is that whatever is disclosed may prove to be but an embarrassment - a real horror to such a narcissist touted as some sort of a national political savior and his supporters.
Richard :munchin
I, too, am patiently awaiting a simple explanation sans all the hyperbolic conspiratorial speculation.
However, my speculative 'gut feeling' is that whatever is disclosed may prove to be but an embarrassment - a real horror to such a narcissist touted as some sort of a national political savior and his supporters.
Richard :munchin
Embarrassment?
Richard, if it was just a simple "embarrassment" he could have released it early last year as he was doing an interview with somebody friendly like Oprah, little side tear, quiver in the voice, maybe Dr Phil on the side to say it's "normal" to try and hide this - whatever this is.
I mean like maybe he was listed as "white" on his BC. "Hey, my folks did it, think of the times, not my fault, both as dead." If it was somehting like that very few would hold that against him. "I didn't want it out there because I knew racists would try and twist it." Bang - dropped as an issue.
It would immediately be shifted into "old news" and anyone who brought it up would just be a "mean spirited Republican".
No - there is something to this more than an "embarrassment".
mark46th
01-28-2011, 10:27
Richard- I quit using aluminum foil rings in my head gear. I discovered that I enjoyed the extra terrestrial commo that I was receiving. Also the cosmic rays have a calming effect on me...
I've always been more interested in his academic records as well as any articles from the law magazine.
I've always been more interested in his academic records as well as any articles from the law magazine.
Remember John - I served in VN - burned in my memory - K? He still ain't signed the damn form. Another turd the MSM gave a pass to and carried his water for him.
But when it's a Republican - "Fake but accurate" is close enough. Just ask the former employee of SeeBS - Dan whatz-iz-name.
Remember John - I served in VN - burned in my memory - K? He still ain't signed the damn form. Another turd the MSM gave a pass to and carried his water for him.
But when it's a Republican - "Fake but accurate" is close enough. Just ask the former employee of SeeBS - Dan whatz-iz-name.
lol Couple clowns in the LSM outdid themselves Wednesday talking about how there wasn't a lot of applause at the SUA, which was good, because it was such a serious and important speech applause would have taken away from it.
mark46th
01-28-2011, 13:53
The following is from the State Department web site:
"A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person
naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of
birth. U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to
choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically
granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a
person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S.
citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person
must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with
the intention to give up U.S. citizenship."
So, the questions are:
1. Did Obama have an Indonesian passport?
2. If he did have an Indonesian passport, was he 18 years old at the time of the application?
3. Did he apply for it voluntarily with the intention of giving up his U.S. citizenship?
If these questions were answered, the whole thing could be laid to rest.
<<SNIP>>If there was some "simple little explanation" don't you think it would have been released by now?<<SNIP>>
No - there is something to this more than an "embarrassment".
My own two cents are these. QP Richard was correct to point us to Mr. Fish's blog entry in post number #35 of this thread (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=276688&postcount=35).
I believe that the current president and some of his supporters have a better understanding of the history of the politics of racial identity and the history of race than do many of his critics. They know that they can let this issue linger in the public consciousness. They know that when some of his critics raise the point, it will come across to some of the president's supporters as a racially motivated attack that is exceptionally vicious for its subtlety. Asking a black man in America to prove that he is who he says he is can touch a lot of nerves. (At least as many nerves as talking trash about a black woman's hair.)
I think more traction can be gained with less political fall out, if the president's critics were to focus on the Dustmeister's point.I've always been more interested in his academic records as well as any articles from the law magazine.
YMMV.
I think more traction can be gained with less political fall out, if the president's critics were to focus on the Dustmeister's point.
Agreed - IMO it is potentially more insightful to review his academic record than where his birth record was filed and what that record might contain - however this is supposed to be a self-described transparent administration.
And, simply stated, these records (birth and academic) should be released by anyone serving as (or running) for president - moo.