Posted on 01/09/2010 1:34:54 PM PST by Red Steel
There have been rumbles of unrest around the world regarding Obama’s nationality since the day he stated he would run for the presidency. Now, after more than a year as president of the USA, the rumbles have turned into a full on eruption.
The Barack Obama nationality scandal is refusing to burn itself out and seems to be gathering even more speed with Congressman Nathan Deal questioning the eligibility of Obama to hold the presidency. This is the first time in history that a serving president has been questioned about eligibility by a member of congress.
Over the last week the internet has been reporting this story with the blogosphere almost going into meltdown over the latest developments yet no mainstream media seem interested in the story that just won’t go away for Obama.
Congressman Deal asked the president to prove that he is legally entitled to hold the presidency electronically on December 1st 2009. This communication was confirmed received by Obama’s staff but has yet to be responded to.
Even though the president has already produced his short-form birth certificate in order to stop these questions, he has spent a large amount of taxpayers money (estimated to be more than two million dollars) ensuring that the long-form certificate is kept from the public – an action that has raised more than a few eyebrows along the way.
Throughout the campaign trail and longer, Obama made promises of the most transparent administration than any other so why the need to hide a simple birth certificate? Many claim that the whole situation is a complete waste of time and distracting but supporters of the question refuse to stop asking more and more questions.
It seems that the original question seems to have caused a stir not just in America but worldwide with thousands of people doing independent research in an attempt to get the facts out. The problem with independent research is that it is hard to verify where the alleged facts came from and when they are traced back its not unusual to find that it stemmed from opinion.
With several birth certificates doing the rounds, many proven as hoaxes, the ‘official’ birth certificate in the Obama nationality scandal seems to prove that the president was in fact a British Subject at birth. On the website dedicated to protecting Obama from smears, Fight The Smears, there is an electronic copy of the birth certificate showing that Obama was born a British Subject. This in itself has been the cause for much speculation on how, why and when nationality was transferred.
Obama’s nationality scandal doesn’t seem to be going anywhere at the moment and even the secret service seem to be taking an interest in anyone questioning Obama’s nationality with visits being made for security reasons. Reported last week at Mother Jones, more and more people who have raised issue are being visited by the secret service and being left feeling very intimidated.
No matter what side of the fence you sit on this scandal seems set to stay around for a long time to come.
Yes, inquiring minds want to know.
In the end, what is at issue with this is: if he used an Indonesian passport after the age of 18, then it was a conscious decision and he is no longer a citizen of the USA.
The State Department has this to say (emphasis added):
Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship.
I would think that using that passport for travel after the age of 18 he has given his consent to the renouncing of his US citizenship. A minor cannot renounce their citizenship, it can only be done for them by a parent.
The state department is very clear that parents can't renounce citizenship for a minor. A citizen under 18 wishing to renounce must convince the consular official that he "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." The renouncer must also sign an oath of renunciation in front of a consular officer.
And by using that passport to travel to places that he would be barred entry on a US passport means that he chose to renounce his citizenship.
See above. The State Department has specific rules as to what constitutes renunciation, and what will result in lost citizenship without renunciation. This doesn't qualify.
I don’t think you would try to claim birthers are acting politically.
Then I replied ...
Now... who would ever make the comment that any of these posters would be acting "political" here... with this issue? LOL...
To which you said ...
“Acting political” means doing whatever you can to get reelected.
Anyone can be "acting politically" without being a legislator trying to get elected. Plenty of people "act politically" over issues in the political realm, and outside the political realm (... with personal matters or within the workplace and in other human interactionst's; it's a common thing with people).
What you’re suggesting is “political” behavior on the part of FR birthers here is in fact an inquiry into the truth.
When we have the truth of the matter, given to us from the State of Hawaii, who has maintained the birth records from the beginning and who is the very agency, itself, who is the only one who can issue a certified copy -- then it's apparent that someone is "acting politically" to ignore the truth that has been given to them by the only source that can give them a certified copy of the birth certificate in the first place... LOL...
To say it another way -- to demand that the information be supplied to them, from the very agency who produces the certified copies of birth certificates -- and then -- to ignore what that very agency says about the person being born there -- is acting politically all right... :-)
And..., to be a legislator who had the opportunity to make any objection known officially at precisely the right time (which was at the time of the certification of the Electoral College vote), and have it heard at that gathering of Congress and then to have not done it -- but -- to do so later, at a time when he knows that time has long passed (after the person has been in office for almost a year) -- to then raise an objection -- is acting politically.
UH That is what I said. The POS was likely born in hawaii.
Yes..., you said "likely" -- and I was posting that proof from the official State of Hawaii statement (so people could see it here) which said he was -- as opposed to "likely"...
No one spends as much time money and effort to conceal all his past records including his original BC if he has nothing to hide.
Even though that would be interesting to find out and follow-up on... I wasn't making that an issue, in regards to his qualifications per the Constitution.
Problem with your POV is not consistent with words and behavior with said person. Said person is not well intentioned.
In regards to your comments about his POV, since he was talking about me, I would be qualified to comment on that... LOL...
I'll just sum it up by getting to the "bottom line" here... people want Obama out of office and have said that the birth certificate being shown will do that (at least that's the theory). I don't think that's going to work -- but -- regardless of whether it's going to work or not -- there's a real simple way to accomplish that.
It's to get some states to enact legislation to require a candidate to produce his birth certificate or else he cannot be on the ballot in that state. I've already been working on that in my state last year and I'll be doing so again this year (in Oklahoma). There are several other states that have moved ahead on that legislation (Texas, Arizona, Missouri and maybe some others that I don't know about).
So, getting to the bottom line, I call it "well-intentioned" when I work for getting Obama out of office in an easy and simple way that will work without any big problems.
I guess a lot of people here like to just spin their wheels and ignore reality and simply "grouse" about the subject. It would be better for them to work on this very simple solution to getting the birth certificate shown.
There are 2 recent aol polls which contradict your comment about the majority of the electorate.....
Well, you'll find that another FReeper supplied some poll information (on this thread) in which it was said that 30% of the population doesn't believe that Obama was born in Hawaii. I don't know how accurate his poll is (or was) but I put that up as something that I didn't look up but another FReeper did. 30% doesn't sound like a majority to me...
But, as I did say, earlier, in this thread... how many people who believe one thing or another thing really doesn't matter -- but rather -- what matters is what the real truth of the matter is.
And in that regard, we have received the information about the birthplace of Obama from the State of Hawaii (posted earlier in this thread, and from the same agency that produces the certified copies of birth records) -- which says that he was born in Hawaii. That is what is more important to me than how many people think one thing or another.
It’s fairly obvious why you’re on this thread.
Well, I hope it's clear, as I've been posting what that is... LOL...
For one thing, it's that the State of Hawaii has made it clear where Obama was born, and that is in Hawaii.
The second thing is that if someone does want to get the birth certificate shown by Obama, then the simple solution to that problem is to get a state law enacted where any candidate must produce his birth certificate or else he cannot be on the ballot in that state.
The third thing is that if someone wants a resolution to the issue of Obama being qualified on the basis of his parents -- then they are going to have to get a Supreme Court decision on the matter, because there are conservatives who do not agree with the way some posters here are presenting it. Two different ways of seeing this have been presented on this board, in regards to that, and it's apparent that it's not going to be solved by discussion but only by a Supreme Court decision.
Anything else that may be discussed about the issue is merely a side discussion and not too relevant to those main points (but we do have fun discussing all sorts of side things here, I notice... LOL...).
FWIW you’re giving the impression that Christians are full of misinformation.
That's one of those side issues on this particular thread, but it's an interesting topic in and of itself and would be good for pursuing on another thread. But, I may comment on it with another poster, if you read some more of my posts, in regards to any particular ideas that Christians may have (in the Christian "worldview" of things...).
Could you explain in plain layman's term what "the way things work in real life" means???
Sure...
I see two ways of viewing things here on these particular threads. One way is what I have referred to as (1) the reality of the situation or the way things work in real life. And the other way is what can be referred to as (2) the way that some people wished that things worked, in spite of how they really are working.
Now, wishing that things worked in a certain way is not necessarily bad in and of itself, because many times that results in some changes being made and then (hopefully) things improve. But, one must always distinguish between the way they "are" and the way that one "wishes they would be"...
One example of that would be in the request for a birth certificate. I was one of those, prior to the election that wanted to have the birth certificate produced and shown to the people. I think that is a valid thing to do. But, I also realized (after looking into it further) that it wasn't something that was legally required. So, I wanted it done -- but -- I found out that it was not legally required to produce a birth certificate.
NOW..., in recognizing "the reality of the situation" -- I then started working on the problem by getting my own state legislature to get a law enacted which would require that any candidate produce a birth certificate or else the candidate would not be placed on the ballot in that state. When the law gets enacted in that state -- then -- it becomes a "reality" that can be enforced.
BUT..., in the process of me working on that, I also saw that certain posters were stuck on their "wishes" (of getting a birth certificate shown, when it's not legally required) -- as opposed to "recognizing the reality" of the situation which would then make it clear that they needed to get a state law passed to require it.
So, that's one little example of "the way things work in real life" as opposed to "wishing" that Obama would produce a birth certificate to be seen.
And there are many other examples I can give, but this one should be plain enough to illustrate the idea.
Many here are stuck on the "perpetual wishing" of something being done, when it cannot be legally enforced (and there's been no one who was able to do it before the election and not after the election and we're about one year into Obama's term in office).
I would recommend getting on with the "reality" of the situation and solving it by such a state law.
With that statement, I think you would be a good candidate for a thought-police!
Well, I'm not "policing" anything, though... :-)
I'm observing exactly what a lot of bloggers who are on this issue do when a statement like this comes out. I saw them "cranking up" their blogs when the prior State of Hawaii statement was made... LOL...
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out...
You don't know a squad about what Fukino is thinking and neither do I!!
I do know that another statement was required (the one I referred to above) because of people trying to get further information and also from a lot of bloggers analyzing the previous State of Hawaii statement on the matter of Obama.
So, if another statement from the State of Hawaii was required (apparently they thought so or they wouldn't have issued it) -- then it's clear that they are clarifying the issue so that there's nothing left to the imagination and that they are as clear as possible. Thus, that's why the extra word was put in there... as you mentioned and questioned.
Again, it doesn't take a genius to figure that one out, especially from the reaction to their prior official statement.
Still the press release was was spattered with terminologies not used in the "Real World" of yours!!!
Well..., that official statement from the State of Hawaii which said that Obama was born in Hawaii -- is -- the "real world" that I'm talking about... :-)
The only way a birth certificate could verify natural born status would be if they had the citizenship of the parents on them. The 1961 Hawaii BC has their birthplaces, but not their citizenship.
As I've pointed out before in this thread -- we've got two groups of people (and their thinking) in regards to the Obama qualifications per the Constitution.
One group is convinced that Obama was not born in the U.S. and is not qualified on that basis.
The second group thinks that Obama may be born in the U.S. but that's not the crux of the issue for his qualifications -- but that the citizenship of his parents is the issue.
Now, regarding that second group (which you're bringing up now) -- there are conservatives right here on Free Republic who agree with what you're saying and there are others who disagree with it (as being the "facts of the matter" and/or "true").
And thus far, after Obama has been in office for about one year (and even prior to the election) -- when all this information has clearly been known (regarding his parents citizenship, which doesn't seem to be a matter of dispute with anyone) -- no one has been able to get Obama disqualified on this particular basis.
If something (as you're saying) is so clear and apparent -- then it would have been very easy to get Obama disqualified on the basis of your explanation. This means (to me) that it's not so clear and apparent -- and certainly not to any courts since no one has prevailed with this type of legal reasoning in a court of law.
Therefore, that's why I say that in this particular legal reasoning that you give -- if you expect it to be understood clearly and acted upon by a court -- it's going to take a Supreme Court decision to clear up the legal matter.
Thus far, the State of Hawaii has said Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born American citizen. The birthplace location is settled because this information comes from the official statement from the agency who has the records and who issues that very "certified copy" that many are asking for.
But, it's also apparent that you don't agree with the State of Hawaii's official position that he is a natural born American citizen -- and that's the legal issue that will have to be decided by the Supreme Court (if they ever act on it, and I don't know that they ever will...).
That is not good enough, he already got on the ballot by sworn fraud documents!!!
What you say would only be true if he were not born in Hawaii and if he were not a natural-born American citizen.
He says he is and the State of Hawaii made an official pronouncement that he is and was born in Hawaii.
So, with his sworn statement and the official pronouncement from the State of Hawaii -- unless you can prove that this is wrong... you're basically out of luck trying to do something about Obama not being qualified for the Office of President of the United States per the Constitution's stated requirements.
Says who???
That should be really apparent to all who have been following this situation since befor the election...
Says ... "the absence of any court order requiring it..." ... :-) Plus the fact that there is no law requiring a candidate to produce his birth certificate, which is the most likely reason for no court "ordering" it...
And that's precisely the reason for getting some states to enact laws requiring all candidates to produce their birth certificates or else they cannot be on the ballot in that state.
I don't buy that. She says that for some other reason to "CYA"!!!
Well, seeing how bloggers have posted and analyzed not only words but the absence of words (LOL...) it makes perfect sense to me, that if the State of Hawaii did not say "American" citizen -- that surely someone would be saying that the absence of saying "American" means that the State of Hawaii knew he was born elsewhere and that they didn't want to state it "clearly" that he was an "American" and thus, the State of Hawaii was perpetuating a "coverup" of him being a citizen of another country. :-)
Having seen the type of reasoning used by many in this topic -- it was smart of them to include "American" citizen to make it abundantly clear... LOL...
You appear to have your own little real world that none of us inhabit.
Oh..., I think you inhabit that same "reality" that I've been pointing out here, whether you want to accept it or not.
I believe you can use your own web browser and go to that State of Hawaii website and see the State of Hawaii's official pronouncement that Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born American citizen.
Yep... that's the "reality" that I'm talking about... LOL...
Be happy but don’t mix your delusions with reality.
Well I definitely don't mix up what "I wish to happen" -- with -- "what has happened" -- as many here seem to do.
I know what I wished to happen in the election -- with -- "what actually happened".
Just because I didn't vote for Obama and when the next day came around, when I found out that my candidate lost -- doesn't mean that I'm under the delusion that Obama "is not the President" ... like I've seen a number of posters here say... LOL...
Unfortunately he is the President, even though that's not what "I wished to happen".
It does pay to keep one's wishes for what they want to happen -- separate from the "reality" of what happens, so they don't get all confused... :-)
And your Messiah (except for nationality) fits well into “Allah” and the global Caliphate. Perhaps you are not so different from Oba-Hussein and just imagine you are.
Well, if you think that Jesus, the Messiah of Israel fits "Allah" -- you've got a big problem there, I see... LOL...
When Christians have analyzed the characteristics of Allah (what the Koran says about Allah and what Muslims believe) -- it's clear to Christians that "Allah" has all the characteristics that the Bible uses and describes of "Satan"...
Now, while "Allah" is a fictional being -- Satan is a very real being, who has created this fictional character of "Allah" and the religion of Islam, for the purpose of opposing the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
I think that you are probably not familiar with Christians who believe what the Bible says and that they also believe that what God says He will do, that is exactly what will happen.
In terms of "categorizing" the type of theology and teaching that this represents, you'll find it is very widespread in Christian circles and comes under the designation of Pre-Millennial, Pre-Tribulational and Dispensational. I put that in there to help you out and to show you in the right direction for discovering this information for yourself and that it represents a large segment of Christianity.
With those Christians, the Messiah of Israel is coming back to go to war and to defeat the enemies (all the enemies) of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, all over the world and to set up His one-world government, ruling and reigning over all the nations of the world (including the United States, of course... :-) ...).
This is the Millennial Kingdom that the Messiah of Israel will rule over, before the Great White Throne judgment of Revelation 20.
It would appear that you don't know as much about Christianity as you might have thought you did... :-)
Your replies are very courteous and Christian-like but in another reality - outer space, star traveller.
In terms of Christianity (if that's what you're talking about) -- there are many things that appear to others as "another reality" or "outer space" -- because they actually are (from our own limited experience here in this present lifetime, as opposed to what the Word of God tells us).
Having dead people come out of the grave and be raised up into living, breathing bodies once again -- is very weird for many people. It's "another reality" to be sure.
And to talk about demons and evil angels, along with the holy angels, as real living beings, who are all around us (as we speak and as we sit here reading this, maybe one right over your shoulder at the moment) -- is -- "another reality" for a whole lot of people, to be sure.
And to talk about what is going to happen, in that someone who died (and was resurrected to an eternal human body) almost 2,000 years ago, coming back and actually going to war and literally defeating all the enemies of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and setting up a "world-wide government" over all the nations with real people living here on earth and going about their business as normal people do -- is -- "another reality" for many people... to be sure... :-)
I can't help it if you think this is "another reality" (in terms of these things) and you don't agree with it -- but those are the facts of the matter, not only for me but for a whole lot of other Christians...
Hawaii says they’ve seen the original they didn’t say he was born there. If you look up the thread from the past couple days regarding Hawaii law at the time of O’s dob.
Well, yes, they did...
The official statement from the State of Hawaii says that Obama was born in Hawaii and that he is a natural born American citizen.
Those who defend the Constiution are working on as you type. But...They can also chew gum and walk at the same time. They will not allow this issue of Obama’s eligibility fade.
If you're referring to the Constitution's three requirements for being President -- we've already gotten the definitive word on one part of that. We see from the State of Hawaii's official statement that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Then secondly, they also state that he is a natural born American citizen.
So, the only way I can see to further defend the Constitution in regards to his qualifications, per that Constitution -- is to get the Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue of the parents' citizenship and whether it's as the State of Hawaii says -- or -- if it's the way that some others say (contrary to that).
Other than that -- on this issue -- I don't see too many other ways to defend the Constitution (again, on the issue at hand on this thread).
“according to the common wisdom of today’s elites”
who are beyond reproach. /s
This legislation needs to be done state-by-state, each requiring certified proof of natural-born citizenship before adding a name to its ballot.
Easier than messing with Washington, and more effective.
Yeah, a whole lot better than messing with Washington DC and trying to get something throug that Democrat Congress. It can be done much easier in certain states where Republicans have the political muscle to get it through.
And it's such a simple method...
In addition to all of the above, it's something that should be done for all candidates anyway. I can't see why anyone should object to it for all candidates.
If we added to these percentages those with questions and doubts the numbers would be even higher.
Using the poll you cited....
70 per cent of respondents believe Barack Obama was born in the U.S., while 30 per cent do not.
Having 70%, in the poll believe that Obama was born in the U.S. is a very large number, politically speaking, for any issue. I've heard that if you get 66% or over on any issue, you've got a definite landslide "winner" (on whatever the issue is).
It is said that it's a waste of time to try and ever "convert" the last 33% of those who are opposed to an issue, as it's not cost-effective.
If ST keeps posting on this thread, I’ll share the evidence with all.
Now when have I ever stopped posting on a thread because of something you say....? LOL...
Well?...Gee! Since it's so “definitive” then release the long form birth certificate.
But...The problem with Fukino’s NOT so “definitive” statement is she did NOT specify to which vital records ( note the plural) she was referring. Hawaii's handling of COLBs was very lax as has been **definitively** pointed out many times.
Also...Dr. Fukino has absolutely NO, NO, NO authority or training to declare anyone a natural born citizen. Judges would be the people to rule on this.
These two DOJ talking points are getting tiresome.
It is statements like yours above that cause people to believe that you are a troll for Obama. I can understand why you may think conservatives should put their efforts elsewhere, but...Please, Please, Please...don't use these two arguments to defend your position that conservatives should give up on Obama’s eligibility.
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.