Posted on 10/12/2008 6:05:35 PM PDT by pissant
Someone is lying. According to Obama's Kenyan (paternal) grandmother, as well as his half-brother and half-sister, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya, not in Hawaii as the Democratic candidate for president claims. His grandmother bragged that her grandson is about to be President of the United States and is so proud because she was present DURING HIS BIRTH IN KENYA, in the delivery room. -This, according to several news sites and Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg (see video below) who is, surprisingly, a life long democrat himself. Berg is the former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and he has an impressive background in his activities as a democrat, but his support for the party seemingly stops when it comes to his trust in Barack Hussein Obama.
Many U.S. voters are suspicious of the Democratic candidate's past, and Berg filed a lawsuit to force Barack Hussein Obama to produce a certified copy of his original birth certificate to prove that he can run for the office of President of the United States. However, he is being fought. The DNC On Sept. 24 filed a motion to dismiss the Berg action. Why? What is there to hide? Why not produce the original birth certificate and be done with all the suspicions against Barack Hussein Obama?
A few months back, a birth certificate WAS posted on the internet which shows that Obama was born in Hawaii. Yet some say this birth certificate is a forgery and again, his grandmother st
(Excerpt) Read more at israelenews.com ...
Yes, according to the law in effect at the time, at least. I suppose the congresscritters weren't thinking of that very unusual situation you brought up at the time they wrote and passed that legislation. But as I said, they provided for a relatively convenient naturalization procedure for such a baby. So for all purposes other than eligibility for President or VP, that baby, if naturalized as an infant, would enjoy all the benefits of American citizenship the rest of his life.
I assume you mean, "To what extent is the interpretation of the Constitution to be controlled..."
The mere fact that a law is "poorly-thought-out" does not in and of itself make that law unconstitutional. So, until some court might rule that that provision of the Immigration and Naturalization Law is indeed unconstitutional, that law is (part of) the relevant law governing "Osama" Obama's eligibility to be president.
If I were a judge deciding this, I would see absolutely no ground to question the constitutionality of that law. But then again, I've seen some really outrageous rulings coming out of federal courts over the past few decades.
The two biggest reasons to fear an Obama Presidency are....
1. Pelosi
2. Reid
That strikes fear in me.
Yup. It does strain commonsense. But straining commonsense is the stock and trade of types like Berg, a 9-11 truther who charges that Bush and Cheney are responsible for those murdered on 9-11.
Let's take the Indonesian school road trip incident. I believe that Mom held on to the passports and used them for re-entry to the US when that period of time was over. I doubt that the US ever knew that the Indonesian adoptive-Dad had made a declaration on school-entry forms of an Indonesian citizenship. I suspect they just wanted him in school at the time. They just gave a wink and a nod to the requirements on the forms... and gave up little Barry's citizenship (assuming he ever had it in the first place).
I guess this makes BHO the ultimate illegal alien: taking your taxes, breaking the law with no reservation, and running our country.
I guess some people on this thread are happy to get in bed with Berg, since his curent whackjob theory might serve their political purposes.
Constitutional requirements to be a Senator:
No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States
You do not have to be a natural born citizen to be a Senator, you do to be the POTUS.
All he has to do is produce an official copy - that would be so much easier - if one exists what is he hiding? The alternative - he does not have an official copy because he was born in Kenya!!!
“Whether you’re natural-born or not, I believe, is decided at birth.”
Except that adoption law is predicated on the legal fiction that a child born of one parents is the offspring, for every and all purpose, of the adoptive parents.
I can’t think of a case where a judge had ruled that adoptive children are to be treated differently than biological children. If a child who shared your DNA and has your name on the birth certificate he would be treated the same as a child who was adopted and had your name on the new birth certificate.
It sort of like a felon who has a presidential pardon. His slate is wiped clean, so he can vote, own guns and run for office even though he’s been convicted of a felony.
That is a good point. Sort of like Watergate, its not the crime that kills you but the coverup (Nixon didn’t even know about the break-in conspiracy until after the burglars were arrested).
Ha ha, now THAT is a novel legal issue. Except for the occassional switch at birth cases, when has the mother’s relationship to a child ever been in question?
Yeah, that does confuse the issue. It was legal marriage except it was bigamy except there no legal first marriage, so no bigamy. It makes my head hurt.
Makes me think the natural born citizen clause of the constitution perhaps needs amended. How about if someone has been a citizen and lived in the US for a set number of years (20 years, say, or 35 years) he can run for president?
Not sure if Obama would qualify even under that standard (assuming he gave up his citizenship when he moved to Indonesia), but its certainly fairer to adoptees who’ve grown up here but cannot run while Mexican anchor babies who move away soon after birth and come back as adults can run.
Even if true (if) I don’t think it invalidates him constitutionally. His guilty mother was a citizen.
The notice is published in a second called "Vital Statistics" and what the Advertiser claims is that the section is a reporting of state records entries by the Department of Public Health.
In the first place, documents such as a record of Live Birth file certificate does not certify anything other than the record name and date. It is common practice in most states to issue these certificates even with respect to persons not born in the state. An adoption in state A by parents in state B with the adoption proceed conducted in B is almost always accompanied by a Birth Certificate certifying birth in B, even though that isn't where it happened.
In order to get the state's real information about a birth, it is necessary to get through to the usually sealed vault birth record documents.
And, at least in the 60's, Hawaii was loose about what they would accept as a birth filing.
I assumed early on in this investigation that newspaper information would appear; I suspect that what is published reflects a document on file with public health that contains the information set forth.
We can speculate on the nature of the document. An Affidavit of Home Birth? A simple Affidavit of Birth? No reason as a practical matter why any of those things would require the Affiant to state where the birth occurred. Had I been doing it to establish a US Citizen birth in Hawaii, I would have done an affidavit of live birth by the Mother or Grandmother; put an ink footprint on it; found a cooperative local doctor in the business of delivering babies at one of the local hospitals; and had the doctor put the affidavit in his daily filings at the hospital where he practiced.
I am now inclined to bet that is not what they did. Because if the filing didn't include data indicating that he was born in Kenya, or at least that he wasn't born in Hawaii, they would have published it by now.
I assume that anyone reading this here is aware of the extensive threads on this topic since last June and the accompanying legal threads setting out the legal issues involved.
As set forth, I think any reasonable reading of the current state of the factual record concludes with the proposition that he was born somewhere in the Mombasa district in Kenya around the end of July or the first of August; that Stanley Ann (his mother) immediately took him on a BOAC flight out of Nairobi through Glaskow to Vancouver BC; then to Seattle where she is on the record with her pal Susan Blake who is testifying that Stanley Ann had not yet learned to change diapers in August of 1961 when she arrived suggesting that the visit occurred very shortly after the birth; Ann on to Hawaii where she and or her mother or father or cooperative doctor make some filing on August 8, 1961 with respect to the birth.
All right, then so what? Berg's point is that this strips BHO of any claim as a natural born citizen of the US, and requires him to re-establish citizenship with a status as 'naturalized'... and Berg so far can't even figure out if that ever occurred. But it wouldn't matter: as 'naturalized' (as best), that would put him in the same Presidential category as Gov. Ah-nold: ineligible.
Now the response from the Obama camp would be something like "well, my parents wanted me to go to school, and nobody ever checked up on this stuff, so I guess they just declared me an Indonesian citizen strictly for the purposes of education... it was all a fraud; I still held a US passport." Indonesian law would seem to beg to differ.
We're kinda running out of time on this, eh?
That is generally correct but with a few minor differences.
Although I agree that a good legal case can be made about Indonesia, I don't think it has a chance politically. If Obama had been born in Hawaii, the court's are going to hold him eligible notwithstanding the Indonesia legal argument. Since I view the record at this point as being pretty clear that he was born in Mombasa, I tend to view the Indonesia issues as excess.
And although you are correct, we are running out of time, the situation presents a serious set of risks to the Republic. If Obama is elected and installed, the Constitution says clearly that he is not "eligible" to act as President.
So he can't implement any legal action in that capacity. Every bill he signs; every order he issues; every act he takes is subject to challenge in the local District Court. It is only a matter of time until some person who has a significant economic interest in some purported presidential action finds a judge willing to hear the case. At that point, we can tie up the federal government in a Constitutional Crisis that will last for some time.
So the issue may get some traction in the next few weeks.
The court ruling is secondary now. The main thing is to get this story into the media quickly. A display of a copy of a bona fide Kenyan BC on the 'Net and alerts to the "conservative" media honchos should be enough to get the ball rolling.
The law at that time was the child of an UNMARRIED American mother was automatically a natural born citizen if mom was a US citizen who’d lived on American soil for at least one year. So regardless of where Senator Obama was born, since he’s certainly a bastard, he’s certainly eligible for the presidency.
8 USC 1409 (c) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person’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.
Most of that is not correct.
For purposes of Sec. 1408(g), "wedlock" will have a fairly broad legal meaning.
As a simple legal proposition, if they had been married in Hawaii, the marriage would have been valid between the parties and as to third parties whose rights were affected (Children) even if under local law, the marriage was voidable.
I don't think they were married in Hawaii--I think they were married in Kenya where the multiple wife marriage was legal and valid and that marriage would certainly be effective wedlock for purposes of the statute. The reason she wound up in Kenya is that they went there to get married at the term break--which they did because he was aware that marrying her in Hawaii would have constituted the crime of bigamy.
As to the citizenship at birth and Article II, Sec. 1, Par. 4, the term "natural born" clearly means something in addition to citizenship at birth. Most Constitutional lawyers think it requires birth in the geographical limits of the 50 states. Neither McCain nor Obama qualify.
And the constitutional bar generally seems to assume that Sec. 1409(c) is unconstitutional notwithstanding a 5 to 4 decision to the contrary.
Where do you find these “conservative media honchos” you speak of?
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.