Posted on 01/30/2009 10:26:26 PM PST by Jet Jaguar
A new lawsuit is challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, and this one targets Congress as a defendant for its "failure" to uphold the constitutional demand to make sure Obama qualified before approving the Electoral College vote that actually designated him as the occupant of the Oval Office.
The new case raises many of the same arguments as dozens of other cases that have flooded into courtrooms around the nation since the November election.
It is being brought on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. and names as defendants Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 193,000 others and sign up now!
As WND has reported, dozens of lawsuits have been filed over Obama's eligibility to assume the office of the president. Many have been dismissed while others remain pending.
The cases, in various ways, have alleged Obama does not meet the "natural born citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, "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."
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
“This is not good logic. He isn’t born in a particular place until he proves otherwise. Besides, the birth certificate that’s been posted is a “true” birth certificate. It would be enough to settle the question in any court.”
Maybe Hawaii has deferent standards than other states, but what he posted is not a full birth certificate with the usual information found on one as seen in other states. The unique ways Hawaii handles this is causing part of the problem.
The simple truth still remains that if President Obama would post the vault copy of his birth certificate with all the usual information (as other states do) like attending physician, time of delivery, place of delivery, more data on parents....then a great many of the questions would subside (of course not all). There is no “logical” reason for him not to post this. It makes people suspicious. President Obama has pledged “transparency”, he should be transparent and set an example. He needs to say “Yes I can” instead of “No I won’t.”
The document revision date probably refers to the document form itself, not to Obama’s individual version of it.
Has anyone yet sued to see his mother’s passport records? If we’re hypothesizing that she had him in Kenya and flew back here a few days later, wouldn’t that be helpful? Are people allowed to see the passports of others?
Congratulations! Go to the head of the class.
Apparently there are no passport records for BO before his senate-issued ones, which is why people are hypothesizing that he used Indonesian identification to travel abroad (although I think they need to check that there was no American passport issued under the name Barry Soetero, to rule that out).
But I was just thinking... if he had this COLB, why couldn’t he have used it to get a passport to travel to Pakistan? Of course, this copy was issued in 2007, but if he got this one issued, why couldn’t he have had it issued in his 20’s for passport purposes?
In other words, if he was able to get this one, he would have been eligible to get one at any time in his life, based on his original Hawaiian records. So why can’t they find evidence of a passport issued to the name Barack Obama which he could have used in his 20’s?
It makes me think of two options - either he did do that, and the passport he used to go to Pakistan was an American one under a different name than Barack Obama. (although why does this 2007 version say Barack Obama?)
Or he wasn’t able to get a certificate like this earlier in his life, because it’s not legit, and he didn’t have the power or connections back then to have a fraudulent form made up for himself....
It does NOT have a seal. It has a stamp. A time and date stamp that basically shows when the COPY was made, not the ORIGINAL. A recorder's seal should be located on the FRONT of the document, just like it is with any other official document from any other state in the union. It is not there, I don't care how much Photoshop work they have done on it. The stamp they have been talking about is located on the back of this document, showing what time the copy was made. IT IS NOT A RECORDER'S RAISED SEAL.
Wow, they are still trotting out the 1981 Pakistan Travel Ban?
They must be running low on material.
“lib cartoon has “USA” as a crazy guy in back of busted car
that 0 trying to fix. so this is representative of your politics?”
-
Well, Newbie,
I guess it is all in the eye of the beholder...
I see an inept person pretending to be a mechanic
while uncle sam grows impatient as to when the “change” kicks in...
“I guess it is all in the eye of the beholder”
It’s all relative huh.
Apparently, it was either not allowed or not advised for Americans to travel to Pakistan in 1981, when Obama went (among other times). If the former, Obama’s travel was illegal, or was on a non-American passport.
Whatever the case, these issues/concerns could EASILY be cleared up if Obama has nothing to hide and is willing to give reasonable answers to reasonable questions.
Absent his willingness to be forthcoming, not with dirt-diggers, but with the kind of basic history required to satisfactorally document his life, it would appear he has something to hide.
In my view, the Uncle Sam protrayed represents the O-bots: those who actually voted for Obama in the belief he will take them somewhere worth going.
The rest of us don’t want to go anywhere Obama wants to take us.
Well, I don’t know the truth, but other people have shown that is WAS allowed. Plus, I think we need more specifics - WHO didn’t allow it? If it was simply not-advised by the US government, that’s not a “law” that can be broken. And if it was illegal for Americans, and he went on an Indonesian passport, then I guess he didn’t break any law that way, either. If the law forbade American citizens to go there, and he wasn’t an American citizen, then how did he break the law?
It’s just that we “hear” a lot of things on these threads. I think we need to focus on what we have evidence for, or we’re likely to go off wasting time in the wrong direction.
To me, right now, I’ve seen people saying that travel then WAS allowed, and people saying it was NOT. So, rather than choose to believe one or the other, I’d like to see some actual proof.
There are many suspicous things about Obama, that’s for sure. But we need to build on case on premises that have evidence behind them. And since our legal system is based on being innocent until proven guilty, these court cases will probably move further along if they’re based on some evidence, and not on hypotheses. I think perhaps more work has to be done digging for evidence, before these cases go to court....?
You appear to be siding with the Democrat position?
Interestingly, a lot of people still say that it was against the law to travel to Pakistan in 1981, but for some reason, not one person has been able to cite the name of the was that made it illegal for Americans to travel to Pakistan?
I wonder why that is?
Sure, there is a lot we don’t know.
As far as “natural born” citizen status we do know that Obama, at best, had dual citizenship at birth as his “official” father was a British subject through Kenya.
The Supreme Court seems content to not examine whether dual citizenship is compatible with natural born citizenship. Of course, the issue is divided loyalty. (On a side note, the foreign relative that Obama campaigned for, who lost the election in Kenya, allowed followers to terrorize the country, killing many people as he bargained for a share of the government despite losing the election. He eventually prevailed through these terror tactics is some form of shared power.)
As far as evidence that Obama was born in America, all that has been provided is his factcheck.org birth certificate. It does seem a little odd that “Hawaii” would come out on its own, without court order, to say that they have Obama’s original birth certificate on file, without corroborating his posted one as accurate, or affirming that he actually was born in Hawaii. Their statement did nothing to clarify ANY of the issues involved.
It is not hard to clarify any of these issues, though, if Obama were inclined to do so.
In the Hollister case, Obaba’s and Biden’s lawer actually references the suspect factcheck.org birth certificate as a reason the case should be dismissed. They don’t want to actually produce the document(s) that could prove eligibility to hold office.
In a criminal proceeding, the prosecutor should have to prove the guilt of the accused.
In an election contest, the candidate should have to prove eligibility, something Obama has not been required to do.
No. The birthers don't speak for all Republicans or conservatives. They are a small number of people putting their wishes ahead of the facts.
As with any factual issue, the truth does not depend on your political views. The truth is the truth. The birthers are wrong.
I'm sorry, but that's just not true. It has a seal. It is visible on the scan, although you have to look carefully. And it is clear on the photos.
Actually, what I acknowledge are the following:
1. No one has ever been able to explain away the fact that the Seal on Obama's alleged 2007 COLB is not the same Seal used on a real 2007 COLB.
2. Every scan that I have made from a real COLB clearly shows the embossed Seal and the two folds (if the COLB had been folded for mailing). If someone had a real 2007 COLB, and one that had very pronounced impressions of both the Seal and the folds (as seen in the Factcheck photos of the same "document"), then there is absolutely no excuse for producing and distributing a scan image that does not have these features clearly visible to the naked eye. Unless, of course, there is no real 2007 COLB to begin with.
3. Anyone who suggests that there has been no manipulation to either the COLB image or the COLB photographs is a liar or an ignorant fool.
4. Anyone who implies that I am a liar, or that I fabricated my evidence, is a bald-faced liar himself.
The best advice I can give you or anyone else is to read what I wrote and judge for yourself. When these liars and fools start flapping their gums, flat-out ignore them as I do. Otherwise, whatever you try to say to them in writing will be immediately commented, line by line, with non sequiturs, oxymorons, empty invectives, irrelevant comparisons, pointless examples, and out-of-hand negations.
It's as if the Obama motto, "Yes, we can," has been flipped to say, "No, he didn't" with respect to my work.
I do not need to name anyone because the trademark of these trolls is to dominate every birth certificate thread they can find. They will monopolize the thread to such an extent that every other comment, no matter how pointless, ludicrous, and meaningless it is, will be from them.
They have one purpose in being on FR, and that is to obfuscate wherever and whenever they can, thwarting true FReepers from educating others.
Now, I fully expect them to tear this apart as I noted above, but as always, it'll go in one ear and out the other.
Thanks for the ping. “Out of hand negations” is exactly right. Doesn’t matter what facts or evidence is presented before them. They ignore it, and very shortly are repeating the exact same phrases as though no one else had ever said a thing. It’s the Big Lie tactic.
I agree with everything you said.
And if there were sincere people who disagreed with your statements or the statements of others, they would debate in a rational manner. And they would learn. Their arguments would make sense. They would not (as at least four have said) admit that they derive pleasure from sniping, and they would not use stock DU phrases such as “birthers”.
Yup, it’s an ad I have even seen in my websites. I of course have no control over what they post in the ads.
I have a 139, so am I smarter? Yes even if my IQ was 10.
For the record, mlo:
1. Do you, personally, believe that Obama was born in Hawaii?
2.Do you think he travelled on a foreign passport, not as an American, after becoming an adult (18 or over)?
3. Do you think Obama attended college in America as a foreign student?
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.