Posted on 11/27/2008 2:11:06 AM PST by solfour
The Constitution requires that, to be president, one must be a natural born citizen of the United States. Conservative Alan Keyes-who ran against President-elect Barack Obama in the 2004 race for the Illinois Senate, and in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign (Keyes ran on the American Independent Party ticket)-is challenging whether that is the case for our new president. In November, Keyes filed a lawsuit against Obama, the California secretary of state, and others, to stop California from giving its electoral votes to Obama until a birth certificate is produced proving that he is indeed a natural born citizen. ESSENCE.com talked to Keyes about where he thinks Obama was born, why he questions the birth records already provided, and if this whole lawsuit is just an overblown case of sour grapes.
ESSENCE.COM: What exactly do you want to accomplish with this lawsuit?
... snip ...
The reason an issue has been raised about Obama is because of the simple question, which can be answered with a birth certificate that shows he was born in the United States, or born to parents who had the capacity to transmit U.S. citizenship. When the question was asked, he danced around it. If the most important office of the federal government can be occupied by someone who is not qualified under the United States Constitution, that destroys the authority of the Constitution. I think it's something that needs to be dealt with in a clear, straightforward way. Eventually the case will get to the Supreme Court, establish the facts, and clear the air. It's really all very simple.
(Excerpt) Read more at essence.com ...
See my other response to you.
If I recall correctly he traveled back to Indonesia sometime in 1981 prior to traveling to Pakistan - an apparent lie about visiting his mother since she was purported to no longer be in Indonesia.
Asking myself any of these questions is pointless since I don’t have the answers, just hoping and praying the Supreme Court decides to rule on this case on or about Dec. 5th. Plus not too sure the truth will set us free in this case but life would most assuredly improve w/o Obambi as POTUS.
Regardless have a Happy Thanksgiving! Signing off for now.
I’m not saying he wasn’t a citizen at birth, but that he is not a natural born citizen. These are distinct concepts. The ONLY consequence of importance for your son is that he is not eligible to be President.
I hope you haven’t hung all your hopes on his ascending to the Presidency. 8-)
Obama has not been charged with anything here. Don't mix civil law with criminal law.
and then in your next comment in the very same post you said:
The presumption in the law is innocent until proven guilty.
Just a little FYI, "innocent until proven guilty" is a criminal standard. Might be a good idea to follow your own advice and stop mixing civil and criminal law.
Note quotation within the quotation marks, "Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record," and I say, Big woop. Having a birth certificate on file means nothing. It's what is on that certificate that matters but notice the editorial license MSNBC took when they put words into the director or Hawaii's Department of Health's mouth by saying which shows that he was born there.
The director has said no such thing.
It really is sad if you ask me. Think about it. The RINO Schwarzenegger would have been our president had he just hidden the fact that he was born in Austria.
An excellent point. It's preponderance of the evidence that matters here. And the evidence from Peter Ogego and Sarah Obama and Obama's refusal to produce his birth certificate suggests he was not even born in the USA.
Not that that should matter, because even as he has already conceded, he was a dual citizen at birth, and, therefore, not natural born.
Maybe if he never talked that would have worked out.
I'm really shocked -- and everyone here should be -- that Alan Keyes did not recognize the false statements made to him by ESSENCE.COM about Obama's birth certificate and place of birth, and that he did not know anything about the "ESSENCE" of the bogus birth certificate controversy.
ESSENCE.COM stated that, "The Obama campaign responded to these questions months ago by posting a birth certificate on his campaign Web site, showing that he was born in Hawaii."
WRONG! The Obama campaign conclusively and irrefutably posted a forged image that was NOT of a real document, and claimed that it was Obama's original birth certificate. That is patently and demonstrably false. It is also called, "document fraud."
ESSENCE.COM stated that, "State officials from the health department of Hawaii have verified that they have Obama's birth records, and that he was indeed born in Hawaii. Do you think they're lying?"
WRONG AGAIN! The ASSOCIATED PRESS are the ones who "failed to tell the truth" about what Hawaii's officials actually said. The ONLY thing that "State officials from the health department of Hawaii verified" was that they have Obama's birth certificate on record.
THAT'S ALL.
They NEVER said what is on that record. They NEVER said WHERE, WHEN, or to WHOM Obama was born. If Obama had been born in Hawaii, then they not only would have said it, but the would have thrown a month-long luau for the entire State of Hawaii.
ESSENCE.COM asked Mr. Keyes, "Why didn't you bring this up earlier, during the campaign? Why wait until two months before the inauguration?"
Because AMERICANS were hoping that Obama would finally show his real birth certificate. He hasn't. Instead, document fraud was committed, and regardless of how long it takes for people to treat this offense seriously, our Constitution must be preserved and justice must be served.
ESSENCE.COM asks, "For argument's sake, let's say Obama is only a naturalized citizen, and was raised by Americans and grew up in the United States. What difference does that make to you?"
For argument's sake, "Let's say that Federal law enforcement officials confirm that the Obama Campaign created a false identity document and passed it off as Obama's real birth certificate, SOLELY for Obama to avoid having to show his real one, and more egregious, to DECEIVE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC into believing that Obama is a natural-born citizen and Constitutionally qualified." WHAT THEN? Say, "Aw, no big woof?"
Well, those same Federal officials just might call that a felony, a violation of USC Chapter 18, Section 1028, and is punishable by up to 15 years in jail and up to $250,000 in fines.
THAT might put a tiny cramp in any inauguration plans, I would think.
Applying for Hawaiian Home Lands
"In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands
Link originally found in article from the American Thinker.
American Thinker article posted on FR.
-----
Good article called Defining Natural-Born Citizen by P.A. Madison on November 18, 2008. Some excerpts:
The adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment obviously affects how we view natural-born citizens because for the first time there is a national rule of who may by birth be a citizen of the United States. Who may be born citizens of the States is conditional upon being born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. The legislative definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “Not owing allegiance to anybody else.”
One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature - laws the founders recognized and embraced.
I was born at Hahn AFB in Germany as well..;)
At 9 years old, I applied for and received a “Certificate of Citizenship” in Wichita Falls Tx that has all by birth particulars on it, along with my picture at the time and an embossed seal.
I’m not sure it is necessary but apparently my parents thought it was.
“The case would be stronger if people could post some actual evidence that he wasn’t born in Hawaii.”
I read a thread yesterday (which I cannot now find - DRAT!) that discussed another unusual piece of HI legislation. The rule at that time apparently allowed the state to issue a certificate after the fact in a case where one wasn’t issued at time of birth. This means Obama could have been born in Kenya, returned to HI w/mother & received a HI certificate. We do have his Kenyan grandmother boasting that she was present at his birth & a Kenyan politician stating his birthplace in Kenya is already a shrine. I’ll keep looking for that other thread...
Sorry, my bad. I had so many posts coming at me from the other direction, I got them a little mixed up.
The Berg case was dismissed by the distric court which makes it eligible for appeal. Given then circumstances, though, I don't give it much of a chance.
A legal dictionary.
The term “natural born” is obviously meant to restrict the class of citizens. Articles I have read, by Donofrio and Judah Benjamin among others plus the use of the word “natural” convince me that the term is intended to restrict consideration to those who are born with undivided allegiance, that is, with both parents as citizens or, on some intrepretations, at least the father as a citizen.
Donofrio's and you opinion's aside, I'd still like to know what legally defines the difference between 'citizen at birth' and 'natural born citizen'. What law or article of the Constitution or Supreme Court decision did that? What writings of the Founding Father's could possibly be taken to mean that Obama and McCain are not Constitutionally eligible to be president. I certainly can't think of any.
You can find posts here at FreeRepublic that discuss this issue in greater detail.
None of them answer any of the questions I am now posing to you.
And where is this detailed?
The Ambassador has already denied implying that Obama was born there, and he certainly does not say Obama was in the interview with the two radio jocks. And as for Obama's grandmother, Berg's affidavit on that would be a whole lot more convincing if it did not say that the woman spoke in Swahili - a language Obama's grandmother doesn't know, she speaks Luo - and if the man hadn't gotten the name of the village she lived in wrong. Who knows whe he actually was speaking to, if he actually interviewed anyone at all?
Two things buddy:
1) His Kenyan grandmother says he was born in Kenya.
2) The COLB that was posted on KOS and which is the same COLB that was posted on Obama’s site was admitted to be a forgery by the guy who runs KOS.
If that isn’t enough for you then go back to KOS or where ever.
Let’s assume for a moment that there is no specific law or procedure that governs how a presidential candidate proves his eligibility per the constitution. Does that absence mean that no candidate should ever have to provide evidence of citizenship? That is patently absurd but seems to be what you are suggesting. Ridiculous.
I suppose that since there may be no specific procedure in place to determine eligibility Castro can come over and run for the Presidency???
It is my hope that the SC will use this case as opportunity to perhaps lay out specific procedures to be followed in the future so that this doesn’t happen again.
You know, you could make your case much stronger if you simply call him a Kenyan a few more times.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.