Replies

Thanks, Drew, now I know that I'm an idiot. FYI, there is compelling evidence that Obama is not eligible to be POTUS, starting with the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment stipulates that to be eligible to be POTUS, a candidate must be a natural born citizen.

The term "natural born" comes from the British "natural law". Under natural law, the status of an individual's citizenship at birth, is derived from the parents. 2/3rds of any individual's citizenship comes from the citizenship of the father, with the remaining 1/3rd coming from the mother. The law does NOT allow the citizenship status of any individual to be derived solely from one parent, so there is no way that his status could have come just from his mother.

We know that Obama's father was NOT American because he was in Hawaii going to school and was Kenyan. All of the official documentation supports the fact that he was Kenyan and Obama even acknowledges that his father was Kenyan. So, under the term "natural born" in the 14th Amendment, Obama doesn't meet the minimum standard. The natural born terminology has been misinterpreted and misunderstood for well over a century to mean someone born on American soil. However, when you chase the term back to its roots (as I did), you discover that that is NOT the meaning and never was.

The location of his birth, then, essentially becomes immaterial. However, this tends to be a sticking point for many people. Obama claims to have been born in Hawaii in 1961. However, there is anecdotal evidence that, before he became a candidate for president, he claimed that he was born in Hawaii in 1959, 2 years before Hawaii became state. Again, this is anecdotal, so it can't be proven one way or the other.

So, let's go back and re-visit the natural born requirement. At some point, Obama was adopted by an Indonesian man named Soetero, who moved Barry (whose name was legally changed to Barry Soetero) to Indonesia where he attended a muslim school. A legal adoption suggests that his citizenship status had to have changed from whatever he was considered previously, to Indonesian. However, like everything else he has done, those records have been sealed, so there is no way to confirm it one way or the other. Nonetheless, it muddies the water with respect to his legal status. We don't know his legal citizenship status at the time of his birth and the adoption confuses the issue more. At the time he was born, Kenya was a British territory so, in keeping with the 14th Amendment, he could possibly have had dual citizenship as both Kenyan and British or, possibly, British and American (although that is relatively dubious).

Which brings us to Obama's background To date, he has spent nearly $2 Million to cover up and hide all the evidence of his background. That raises a lot of suspicions but, as you might surmise, does not in and of itself prove that he has done anything illegal. However, it does raise one very important question: why would someone spend $2 Million to hide their background when they knew it was such a major issue and they could resolve the issue by simply releasing their vault copy of their Birth Certificate? Instead of doing that, Obama has released 3 different copies of his Birth Certificate, all of which have been conclusively proven to be forgeries or fakes, beginning with his original Certification of Live Birth.

So, in and of itself, each item I have addressed here (other than the 14th Amendment issue) doesn't provide any proof one way or the other. However, collectively, they certainly suggest that something is very, VERY wrong with Obama's story and it needs more in-depth investigation.

However, the fly in the ointment for Obama remains the natural born requirement of the 14th Amendment. So far, Obama hasn't figured out how to lie, obfuscate, or wiggle his way around that one to get out of it. Instead, he just ignores it and either pretends it doesn't exist, or hopes it will simply go away.

Anyone who goes to the lengths that Obama has to hide his background rather than being forthcoming about who and what he is is tacitly admitting that he HAS something to hide.

Which takes us to the judges. Every single case that has been brought against Obama on the basis of his eligibility status (regardless of how it is phrased) has been dismissed out of hand. Typically, the judge has dismissed it claiming that the plaintiff "lacks standing" in the eyes of the court to bring such a case. This, in itself, raises additional questions. The issue of Obama's eligibility to be POTUS is a fundamental Constitutional issue. To date, none of the respective judges has defined who has standing to bring these types of cases, they have simply dismissed the case claiming that the plaintiff lacks the standing. IMO, being that this is a fundamental Constitutional issue, ANY American citizen should be able to bring such a case to court and have the necessary standing. The Founding Fathers established a government that Lincoln so eloquently described as "of the people, by the people and for the people". IOW, we OWN the government, lock, stock and barrel; right down to the last dust bunny in the corner of any federal building! So, if we are the owners of the government, does that not give us standing to question the eligibility of the individual we have hired to lead the government?

These are legitimate and compelling issues, Drew, and NOT, as they have been characterized by the leftist DBM, the rantings of drooling right-wing fringe nutjobs.