Posted on 03/14/2009 2:50:55 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
(1) At the time of the November 4 election, Obama’ eligibility was unknown to the majority of the American electorate. That is, the vast majority of the American electorate did not know whether Obama was eligible to become the President of the United States (POTUS).
Furthermore Obama’s eligibility remains unknown, even to Americans who are very interested in this question, and have inquired deeply into it. When asked in court to produce evidence of his eligibility, Obama has declined to do so, even in the face of the considerable time, expense and trouble that is needed to avoid providing this evidence. Thus, the US citizenry did not know on November 4 if Obama was eligible, and they still do not know.
(2) Among the US citizenry are the following: The current POTUS The current VPOTUS & President of the Senate The US Supreme Court The US Congress The Senior Staff of the Pentagon The Senior Staff of the Federal Elections Commission The Members of the Electoral College
To best of my knowledge, none of these individuals have officially and publicly declared Obama to be eligible to be POTUS. They have not produced or provided sufficient evidence to prove this eligibility.
(3) The news media, television, radio, and the Internet transmit huge amounts of information each day. However, to the best of my knowledge the eligibility of Obama to be POTUS is not known by the general public (See Note 1).
Method of formal logic (4) Until and if that dissemination occurs, there is a method of formal logic that can be applied to this situation. It is called the Categorical Syllogism, and was described by Aristotle (Prior Analytics, 24b18-20). Ordinarily, a categorical syllogism is simply called a syllogism, as I shall do here.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
No matter the outcome, the truth needs to be told. That goes for everything in life. There will be consequences whether barry stays as POTUS or not. If he is ineligible, he needs to be removed. We MUST uphold our Constitution, at ANY cost.
Hence, the "birthers". Those in charge SHOULD have, but did not. Therefore, we the people must. Why are you so against finding out the truth?
Good Job, Orly —
If someone did something about it and he was declared illegal to be press a dent, there would be a civil war.
Even if he was born in Kenya, his mother was an American citizen. For the vast majority of the American people: case closed.
I know that there was a law on the books at the time that could be construed that she was too young to confer citizenship on her child should he be born overseas. To the vast majority of people, that would simply be a technicality.
It’s not a minor technicality: you’d have to convince the vast majority of the American people that a young single American woman isn’t enough of a citizen to confer citizenship status on her child. That just isn’t going to fly. Just as difficult, you’d have to convince the public that the old law should be upheld when the change in the law will be portrayed as having ‘fixed that travesty’. This isn’t a matter of discussing the finer technical aspects of the law in Court. No. The only way you would move forward is in the court of public opinion. And. You wouldn’t move forward. All you’d do at this point is buck up his crumbing support as people rally around because of this ‘mean spirited Republican attack on a popular President’. That would be the MSM spin, and, it would stick.
He is the President. Even if he were born in Kenya and this came to full light, he would still be the President. At this point, the only way he would NOT be the President is if he were impeached and removed from office by HIS OWN PARTY. Not very likely. If YOU were a Democrat, would you trade Obama for Biden?
All that said. If he were born in Kenya, it would sure discredit the man. Keep digging if you want. It could change the outcome of the NEXT election.
It isn’t going to change the outcome of the last election.
Thats what I’m afraid of. There’s no way this guy was born in the USA, why would anyone risk losing an election if they could just easily prove they were born in the USA ? I’m sure the Alinskites knew all along how this would unfold and that they could get him in and then it would be too late for a challenge.
Im not and I know the truth he aint qualified to be president he was not born here
Me too with maple brown sugar
There are still pending lawsuits out there!
In this case it is also being argued Barry didn’t legally change his name to 0 which prevents running in WA state:
[…]
Many of the cases challenging Sen. Obama’s citizenship status have been dismissed for “lack of standing.” Plaintiffs in Broe v. Reed claim standing pursuant to the authorization given them by the legislature of Washington in RCW 29A.68.020(2). This statute creates standing for Plaintiffs to challenge the election of a candidate who has been elected but was ineligible at the time of his election to run for the office.
[...]
Federal Law, Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution provides: 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. […]
ARGUMENTS
Barack Obama is ineligible for the office of the presidency because he is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States.
Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution provides:
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. “Natural born citizen” means a person born in the United States to parents that were both citizens, and to children born out of the United States to parents that were both citizens, provided that no citizenship would be allowed for a person whose father was not a resident of the United States. Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, First Congress, Sess. II, Chapter 3, Section I, approved March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103.\
Compare with the Fourteenth Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. “Natural born citizens” continues to mean a person born in the United States to parents that were both citizens, and arguably to people born outside of the United States to parents who were both citizens, provided that the father was a resident of the United States. The Amendment also provides that persons “naturalized” and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens [not “natural born citizens”].
THEREFORE, at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment, you were either a “natural born citizen” or, if you had citizenship, it was obtained through a process of naturalization, as established by federal Acts of Naturalization, Immigration and Nationality. A child born overseas, of an American citizen and a foreign national is not a “natural born citizen,” and the child’s citizenship can only be established by a process of naturalization.
A child born in the United States of an American citizen and a foreign national is also not a “natural born citizen” if the child obtained citizenship of another nation automatically at the time of his birth.
The British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): “Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent [italics added] if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth [italics added].” The legislative history of the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant, according to the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment, exclusive jurisdiction. A subject of the British Crown, for instance, could claim that jurisdiction was proper only under the Crown.
Barack Obama has failed to establish that he is an American citizen. Barack Obama readily admits the following facts:
1. He was born in 1961.
2. His mother was an American citizen.
3. His father was a Kenyan citizen.
To establish American citizenship, Sen. Obama must prove one of two things:
1. He was born on American soil, and was not subject to any other jurisdiction;
2. He was naturalized pursuant to the immigration laws of the United States.
At the time of his birth, he was automatically a British citizen, pursuant to the The British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5). Consequently, the United States did not have exclusive jurisdiction, and he is disqualified from automatic citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. He has failed to demonstrate that he was actually born in Hawaii.
Barack Obama has submitted the following to establish his birth in Hawaii:
1. A Certification of Live Birth (not a Certificate of Live Birth) purportedly from the state of Hawaii;
2. The affidavit of an Hawaiian official who claims that he has seen a “birth certificate.”
While these may be legally sufficient to register a birth in Hawaii, neither is sufficient to establish that he was born on American soil.
Hawaii, under HRS 338-17.8 allows for the registration of births to parents who gave birth while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii [emphasis added] and who declare the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
Because HRS 338-17.8 exists, a Certification of Live Birth in the form provided by Barack Obama is insufficient to establish native birth. Instead, he must produce a Certificate of Live Birth, which sets forth his name, his mother’s name, his father’s name, the hospital where he was born, the attending physician, and which includes his mother’s signature, the attending physician’s signature, and the signature of another witness.
As a matter of law, there is no official Hawaiian “birth certificate” – there is only the Certification of Live Birth, and the Certificate of Live Birth.
As of the present moment, Barack Obama has not produced a single piece of evidence demonstrating that he was born on U.S. soil. Even his birth announcement in the Hawaiian press is inconclusive, given that he was born in August of 1961, and the article was published in August, 1962, and at that time, his father was already back in Kenya.
Corroborating evidence as to his birth and citizenship allegiances could be established by the production of his passport, and his college transcripts, none of which can be obtained because Barack Obama has hired several law firms to make sure that such records remained sealed.
In the meantime, informal polling of the hospitals in Hawaii have received responses from all of the hospitals in Honolulu reporting that they have no records for Stanley Ann Dunham, Barack’s mother, or Barack Hussein Obama. On the other side of the world, however, Barack’s paternal grandmother has stated that she was present at his birth in the Coastal Hospital of Mombasa, Kenya. The Kenyan Ambassador to the United States has said that a memorial is being placed at the site of Barack Obama’s birth in Mombasa, Kenya.
In addition, because Barack Obama was adopted by his mother’s second husband, Lolo Soetoro, he obtained Indonesian citizenship as well. Because of his multiple citizenships, Barack Obama does not have automatic citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Barack Obama has never demonstrated that he was naturalized as an American citizen, which requires a residency period, a test, and an oath of allegiance.
Barack Obama is not qualified under 8 U.S.C. §1401(g). In 1986, Congress amended the statute, replacing the phrase “ten years, at least five” with “five years, at least two.” Pub. L. No. 99-653, § 12, 100 Stat. 3655 (1986), now codified at 8 U.S.C.§ 1401(g). The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act also replaced the “residence” requirement, found in the earlier Nationality Act of 1940, with a requirement of “physical presence” for transmission of citizenship to a child born abroad. See Drozd, v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 155 F.3d 871 at 87( 2nd Cir.1998) (citing to the Nationality Act of 1940, ch.876, § 201(g), 54 Stat. 1137, 1139). That change in language “compel[s] a strict adherence to the plain terms of the Act.” Id. Further, the change from “ten years, at least five” years to “five years at least two” applies only to those born after 1986. U.S. v. Flores-Villar, 497 F. Supp. 2d 1160, 1162-64 (S.D. Cal. 2007) aff’d, 536 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2008). The amendment had no retroactive application that would change the legal analysis for Senator Obama.
Barack Obama did not qualify for automatic citizenship under the INA of 1952. Barack’s mother gave birth at age 18. The INA of 1952 simply disqualified children that were born to mothers who were less than 19 because of the five years of continuous residency requirement after age 14. Because Sen. Obama has not established that he was born in the United States, he cannot claim automatic citizenship, and can only establish his citizenship by means of naturalization (process described above). There is no record of Barack ever naturalizing as an American citizen.
BARACK OBAMA HAS NEVER ESTABLISHED THAT HE IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. Barack Obama did not run under his legal name. Barack Hussein Obama is not the legal name of the candidate, and Sen. Obama has failed to produce any evidence of a legal name change from Barry Soetoro to Barack Hussein Obama. Sometime in the 1960’s, Barack was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, and obtained the legal name Barry Soetoro and Indonesian citizenship. When a person is adopted, a new birth certificate issues in the name of the adopted father, establishing the legal name of the child in the name of the father, and establishing the citizenship of the child in the citizenship of the father. Barack Obama has never produced a single piece of evidence demonstrating a legal name change from his adopted name Barry Soetoro to his name at birth, Barack Hussein Obama. Obama is in direct violation of Washington statute RCW 29A.24.060(3), which provides that “no candidate may . . use a nickname designed intentionally to mislead voters.” Barack Obama’s candidacy is a violation of WAC 434-215-012, which requires that declarations of candidacy contain the following affirmation:
I declare that this information is, to the best of my knowledge, true. I also swear, or affirm, that I will support the Constitution and laws of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington. Senator Obama either failed to sign such a document, or has misled the Secretary of State as to the affirmation in paragraph 2 of the required Declaration of Candidacy which declares that “and, at the time of filing this declaration, I am legally qualified to assume office if elected.”
Bingo. Romney wasn't my first choice, but have you ever thought how things might have worked out differently, if he had been the GOP candidate when the economy started going south?
Perfect. Nice work.
I know that. I just have little confidence in anything these days
Remember the Salamander letters? The LDS church has some of the best in the world on documents.
Mark Hofmann Made documents in his basement,took them for a quarter million I believe.
With the Knowledge the forger has today, compared to the early 80’, you can only imagine how good this “new” document will be.
But don’t forget, they also pushed Obama. And the DNC - OMG. Remember, Hillary led in popular votes (she won the most primary votes in history in any dem primary)and delegates, until they took some from her and gave them to him at the RBC meeting. Then the DNC broke their own rules in the convention to avoid a fair vote so that he could win. So the manipulation was all over this election, not just in reference to McCain. And with redistricting shenanigans, and the predictable upcoming census shenanigans - uggghh Can you tell I’m totally disgusted with these people?
-PJ
Good POINT!!! I forgot about that stuff...
as I recall, when the results were published, ‘for national security purposes’ the actual DNA of WJC wasn’t published. It’s all really foggy now, except it did make the anti-Clinton forces look a little silly. Of course, that was the objective as it is with the bc/eligibility issue.
You people are delusional. He is president in the strict sense and the entire Supreme Court would tell you so. Chief Justice John Roberts swore him in for God's sake. The onus is not on Obama, it is on those challenging him. Should one of these Supreme Court suits actually be given the light of day, then he might have to prove it. Until that absolute fantasy comes to be, this is all a ridiculous drama to avoid addressing the real issue, which is that the country is continuing to move away from conservatism.
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.