Posted on 11/15/2008 9:43:51 AM PST by pissant
The California secretary of state should refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until President-elect Barack Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office, alleges a California court petition filed on behalf of former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others.
The legal action today is just the latest is a series of challenges, some of which have gone as high as the U.S. Supreme Court, over the issue of Obama's status as a "natural-born citizen," a requirement set by the U.S. Constitution.
WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi even traveled to Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.
The biggest question is why Obama, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists, simply hasn't ordered it made available to settle the rumors.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
It's only embarrassing in that there seems to be insufficient evidence to show Obama was not born in Hawaii.
If we (America) allows Obama to be sworn in, and it is THEN proved he was not born on American soil, it will SET A PRECIDENT that will endure forever in every court of law in the land.
NO ONE WILL EVER have to validate US CITIZENSHIP to hold any job ..... any job.... which previously required US citizenship to hold.
They can simply cite US v Obama as precident... and every freakin' judge will essentially have their hands tied.
This situation is vital to the continued security of America.... maybe not in the case of Obama.... but certainly in the future of this great country where my kids and grandkids and great grandkids will hopefully live.
Go away. Your carpet-bagging stunt is how Obama got onto the national stage in the first place.
I say Cicero is a space alien. If this is just a tinfoil delusion, why hasn't he posted his birth certificate on FR, hmmmmmmmmmm?
I can't see Biden being allowed to become President from a fraudulent election. Neither can I see the rest of the Democratic ticket being allowed to take seats.
Whew -- where to begin?
The issue is the RULE OF LAW, and whether we are a nation of laws, or a nation of emotions, tribes, races, clans, and ancient rivalries. That is what we supposedly left behind in the 1600s with the Massachussetts Bay Colony and the Jamestown settlement, and was enshrined in our Constitution in the late 1700s and early 1800s, and has never been formally challenged without a fight.
If Martha Stewart can go to the slam for misremembering a date in her schedule when talking to a Federal investigator, and if Bill Clinton can be impeached not for having not-sex-with-that-woman, but for lying about it to Federal investigators, what makes you think an attempt to circumvent Constitutional law by someone who claimed to be a Constitutional law scholar and who will swear to uphold the Constitution for all of our sakes is no big deal? It is a very big deal, and something we absolutely cannot allow anyone to wink and ignore.
There is also a doubt that the so-called democratic election was fair, because of the obvious fakery of the ACORN people, which the Federal Election Commission is not investigating, but should.
Obama likely to escape campaign audit [Democrats break law=shrug, Republicans break law=jail]
Audit of Obama Fundraising Unlikely
Obama likely to escape campaign audit (What McCain was thinking ALERT)
Thirdly, the election is not complete, under our system, until the Electoral College casts its votes. At least one large group of electors, California, have filed suit to have proof of his eligibility before the ACTUAL election by the College, which is in December.
Who cares what the quite obviously corrupt MSM has to say? If either McCain or President Bush had questioned his eligibility, such as Bush saying he would hold off on the traditional tea and crumpets between outgoing and incoming presidents until Obama's eligibility for office was proved definitively, what are the people and the press going to say about Bush that they haven't already said for the past eight years?
If blacks and/or Democrats are smart enough to understand the rules of basketball, football and baseball, they can surely understand that no matter what the fans shout at the umpire, rules are rules and the game is not fair if the ump tips it to one team or the other. The enormously popular Pete Rose got canned over breaking the rules. Michael Vick was not excused. There are many examples of hugely popular sports stars who broke the rules and suffered the consequences, without riots in the streets.
Lastly, if the Obama-funded lefty bloggers can whip up such a storm over Palin's $150,000 of LOANED clothing and ignore Obama's $140,000 Greek amphitheater built for his one night stand at the Democratic Convention, and if they can whip up a huge fuss claiming that Palin's lipliner is tattooed while ignoring what appears to be Obama's nose-slimming surgery, then the only recourse for patriots is sticking to the truth and the rule of law, no matter what.
Thank you Alan. This issue needs to be resolved by him providing the appropriate dcoumentation once and for all.
I lean towards Mr. Berg’s assumption he is a naturalized versus natural born citizen.
ping
The proof of his birth is under a paperweight with Kerry's 180, which we still haven't seen almost 5 years later.
What makes the birth certificate story at all plausible is not the tin-foil-hat theorizing all over the Internet. Rather, it is the very thing that has made the theorizing possible: a purposeful fog of mystery that still shrouds Barack Obama. Many key elements of his life and documents that are routinely released by Presidents and would-be Presidents still remain hidden. The news media has steadfastly refused to investigate this man and his background and a lot of normal, non-tin-foil-hat type people would like to know why.
Right - Throw out the Election results. Ask GWB if he would stay on.
American citizenship cannot be revoked from a child under the age of 18, no matter what the parents do. Even if the child is adopted and gains foreign citizenship, they don’t lose their US citizenship.
As for passport records, what is that? I don’t have any passport records, except for my passport, which is brand new, because I just had it renewed. What exactly do you mean by passport records?
The birth certificate issue is part of a PATTERN of deception which includes Ayers, Wright, ACORN, Davis, Fannie Mae, Khalidi, Zeituni, Rezko, Kenyan insurgencies, foreign money, and on and on and on and on. It’s ALL related; it’s ALL relevant.
The perfect summary! Thanks.
You are inverting the moral emphasis of this argument. All this speculation, correct or not; has come about because this lying crypto-marxist thug from the most corrupt environs of leftist Chicago sewer politics has ascended to POTUS-elect status with the willing aquiescence of the MSM. The MSM was hell-bent on concealing this usurper’s background because they wanted him to be elected. Now, in a classic case of blame the messenger, those of us who belive in the constitution are being reviled for insisting that a POTUS comply with a basic requirement that most of us unhesitatingly conform with when seeking a driver’s license.
The arrogance and effrontery of this lying bastid is breathtaking. The founders knew that they were not natural born citizens, so they had to include language in Art II Sec 1 that exempted THEM. Does this fraud think that he is better than Washington, Madison, Adams, and Jefferson in that sense? Apparently he does, and with the submission of enough folks who think like you, he will suceed in usurping and corrupting the Executive Branch of government. This situation presents the very real posssibility of impelling this great nation beyond a constitutional crisis toward a civil war.
Finally, consider the implications of a man who would undertake these devious machinations to knowingly assume an office that he has no constitutional claim to, and than to see this same counterfeit president elect take an oath to defend that constitution. I believe that such a man would be willing to impose ANY sort or despotism or tyranny upon us to retain power.
Obama’s election from start to finish has been rather mysterious. The people you are looking for are probably the same wealthy, powerful people who control the mass media in this country and who have the “commentators” in place, socialists one and all, to do their bidding. Witness the organized “talking points” of the mass media.
There is no doubt that the MSM has been rabidly and venomously out to get “Bush” and the Republican Party and destroy them for many years now. These people consider themselves erudite, elite, enlightened socialists. What they are is what the communists in this country consider “useful idiots”.
None of this is going to happen. The media and all liberal politicians everywhere sat on allegations that Obama was not eligible to be president. It’s not going anywhere.
The constitutional question is does an election make valid an invalid candidate?
I say no.
The US is a signatory to , and has ratified the Hague convention of 1930. That agreement would seem to negate your argument, the relevant portions are reprinted below. A parent or legal guardian CAN make citizenship decisions for minors under their care as do US adoptive parents. In any event Hissein could have restablished his citizenship upon becoming an adult by going to an appropriate State Dept. official and swearing an oath of allegiance to the US. Alas this makes him a naturalized citizen, at which time he has forever forfeited his natural born status. Consider Article 16.
CONVENTION ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS RELATING TO
THE CONFLICT OF NATIONALITY LAWS
THE HAGUE - 12 APRIL 1930
CHAPTER IV
NATIONALITY OF CHILDREN
Article 12
Rules of law which confer nationality by reason of birth on the territory of a State
shall not apply automatically to children born to persons enjoying diplomatic
immunities in the country where the birth occurs.
The law of each State shall permit children of consuls de carrière, or of officials of
foreign States charged with official missions by their Governments, to become
divested, by repudiation or otherwise, of the nationality of the State in which they
were born, in any case in which on birth they acquired dual nationality, provided that
they retain the nationality of their parents.
Article 13
Naturalisation of the parents shall confer on such of their children as, according to its
law, are minors the nationality of the State by which the naturalisation is granted. In
such case the law of that State may specify the conditions governing the acquisition of
its nationality by the minor children as a result of the naturalisation of the parents. In
cases where minor children do not acquire the nationality of their parents as the result
of the naturalisation of the latter, they shall retain their existing nationality.
Article 14
A child whose parents are both unknown shall have the nationality of the country of
birth. If the child’s parentage is established, its nationality shall be determined by the
rules applicable in cases where the parentage is known.
A foundling is, until the contrary is proved, presumed to have been born on the
territory of the State in which it was found.
Article 15
Where the nationality of a State is not acquired automatically by reason of birth on its
territory, a child born on the territory of that State of parents having no nationality, or
of unknown nationality, may obtain the nationality of the said State. The law of that
State shall determine the conditions governing the acquisition of its nationality in such
cases.
Article 16
If the law of the State, whose nationality an illegitimate child possesses, recognises
that such nationality may be lost as a consequence of a change in the civil status of the
child (legitimation, recognition), such loss shall be conditional on the acquisition by
the child of the nationality of another State under the law of such State relating to the
effect upon nationality of changes in civil status.
CHAPTER V
ADOPTION
Article 17
If the law of a State recognises that its nationality may be lost as the result of
adoption, this loss shall be conditional upon the acquisition by the person adopted of
the nationality of the person by whom he is adopted, under the law of the State of
which the latter is a national relating to the effect of adoption upon nationality.
I meant Article 17.
Albion,
Very well put. I want the truth and only the truth to reveal itself.
I wonder if the Supreme Court Justices know Article II by heart?? I am sure they do. Right?
I hope they want to uphold the Constitution as much as we do. I have to believe they are not all bought and paid for.
Keep writing. I am with you.
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.