Why Obama is ineligible – regardless of his birthplace

World Net Daily ^ | April 01, 2010 | Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.

[Seizethecarp]

The following discussion assumes President Obama was born in Hawaii and is a United States citizen.

The purpose of this article is to highlight judicial and historical evidence suggesting that a "natural born citizen" must be born in the United States to parents who are citizens. By that definition, Obama is not eligible to be president. Therefore, his presidency and official administrative acts remain subject to being rendered void by the Supreme Court.

[danamco]

You are dealing with three Obama 2.0 “Professionals” AKA as paid dis-tractors!!!

[butterdezillion]

Tell me where I’m wrong. Tell me why Obama amending the medical portion of his birth certificate 45 years after the event is no big deal. Tell me why he and his mom didn’t simply have a doctor examine them within 30 days of the birth and complete the BC so there wouldn’t be these problems today.

Tell me why the DOH confirmed in 2 different ways that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery. And then tell me why Obama posted a forgery and tried to pass it off as genuine.

With all your law degrees and stellar academic record I’m sure it should be a piece of cake to hit those questions out of the ball park. Hit me with your best shot, champ.

[OldDeckHand]

"I see. Get back to you when I’ve published something in the East Anglia, peer-reviewed, totally honest scholarly journal."

Good grief, you don't even understand how a law review works, and you're criticizing it.

A law review is a scholarly/academic journal where people of varying legal philosophies posit their researched opinion and scholarly theory for others to read. It's the reading - by the at-large legal community - that serves as the "peer review".

Birthers can't even get a single lawyer of any repute to put his/her name on their theories. Why is that?

[edge919]

You’re missing the big picture. Obama is failing to pass the peer-review process. His evidence isn’t credible and the HI DOH got stuck trying to cover for him, and they can’t get unstuck because they don’t have anything to prove his birth claim.

[butterdezillion]

If you don’t like it when they do it then don’t copy them.

Most of the speculation I’ve seen comes because EVERY SINGLE DETAIL OF OBAMA’S LIFE has contradictory statements and/or evidence associated with it.

His dad left the family because he couldn’t afford to go to Harvard and care for the family. Yeah, right. Then why was Ann in Seattle a couple weeks after the birth and didn’t get back to Hawaii until after BHO was gone?

Why is he showing up in a photo with Inouye in Hawaii when his biography says he was in Indonesia?

Why does the Indonesian school record have him as an Indonesian citizen?

Why does he have a couple dozen social security numbers?

Why is there a forged draft registration for him?

Why did he post a forged COLB?

It goes on and on. Any documentation we’ve been able to find contradicts the crap the mainstream has accepted as Gospel about this guy.

Doesn’t that bug you?

[edge919]

IIRC, Chiyome Fukino had spelled Obama’s first name as Barrack in one of her public statements. Perhaps a slip of the truth??

[butterdezillion]

If you had read my blog you would know that I am not interested in legal theories.

I am interested in facts. No case can be decided well without an accurate finding of facts. That step has been totally blown off. If you truly have a degree in law you know better than to do that.

But you are finding me guilty because the academic, legal experts haven’t hasn’t already told you that I’m innocent, or that my fact-finding is sound.

That sounds like somebody who would fit right in with Obama’s vision for Amerikka. So much for due process.

[OldDeckHand]

"Tell me where I’m wrong. Tell me why Obama amending the medical portion of his birth certificate 45 years after the event is no big deal. Tell me why he and his mom didn’t simply have a doctor examine them within 30 days of the birth and complete the BC so there wouldn’t be these problems today."

Do you understand the definitions of "supposition" and "conjecture"?

I quoted this earlier, but it bears repeating...From Judge Land's opinion in his decision granting the defendant's MTD...

""A spurious claim questioning the President’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest."

You don't cite a single fact, not one. All you post is speculation and suspicion. The fact that you don't understand the difference between supposition and fact, speaks volumes. It also speaks volumes about why birthers have yet to prevail in a single case.

[patlin]

There is a Cornell Law Review from 1950 titled "Presidential Timber" by Warren Freedman. I'd be interested in hearing your opinion of that law review on the 'natural born' definition as it pertains to presidential eligibility. It seems this has been an on-gong issue since the WKA decision wherein Grey overlooked and overturned his own decision in Elk when he wrote this: [t]he claimant was not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States at birth, which required that he be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."] Complete jusrisdsiction did not include dual citizenship according to Grey some 16 years after the 14th was ratified. So why did Grey ignore his prior ruling? What was his motive? Political & financial, which later rulings prove to be a fact. Grey personally benefited financial wise from later SCOTUS decisions that were eventually overturned. He was a key figure that helped the statist usher in the 1st steps of the progressive agenda in dumbing down American citizenship to clog the electorate with government trough feeders.

[butterdezillion]

It is a fact that the HDOH denied Terri access to the records of Obama’s amendment to his birth certificate.

It is a fact that the DOH administrative rules, which are required by law to be posted publicly, were kept from the public until around Nov 5, 2009.

It is a fact that Fukino said that birth certificate numbers are given by the state registrar on the “Date filed”. It is a fact that Obama’s Factcheck COLB has a “Date filed” 3 days before the Nordyke twins but has a certificate number later than theirs.

It is a fact that the HDOH confirmed that they had denied everything that Terri asked for - which includes the fees Obama was charged for access to his record and an amendment. It is true that the DOH administrative rules say that fees are not charged if the amendment is required because of an error or omission the registrant or informant was not reponsible for.

I’ve got them listed there, ODH. I’ve numbered them for you. I’ve put in links so you can see the actual documents.

What are you talking about - no facts?

[danamco]

Well, well, well, interesting that AP must have had it all wrong???

http://www.infowars.com/ap-declared-obama-kenyan-born/

Hanen of Sentinel Blog Radio broke the public news of the existence of this AP story at on October 14, 2009 at 12:31 pm. However, The Post & Email can confirm that a professional investigator had uncovered this story months ago, and that certified and authenticated copies of this report, meeting Federal Rules of evidence, have already been prepared and archived at many locations nationwide.

It should be noted that on January 8, 2006, the Honolulu Advertiser also reported that Barack Hussein Obama was born outside the United States.

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Jan/08/ln/FP601080334.html

A Chronology of Deceit

One can now ask an important question which has not yet been emphasized enough: “Just when did Obama begin to publically claim he was born in Hawaii?” This question is distinct from the question, “Just where in fact was Obama born?”, and from the other question, “What do official documents say about where he was born?”

Regarding his claims, we can summarize what is known:

1. As of Monday, Aug. 28, 2006, Obama’s Campaign was putting out that he was born in Hawaii. This is known from the introductory speech given by Prof. George A. O. Magoha, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Nairobi, on the occasion of a speech given there by Senator Obama that day. (One presumes that the Vice-Chancellor was given notes from the Obama campaign, as is customary on such occasions)

2. From the newspaper reports above, it is clear that the Obama campaign was putting out that he was born in Kenya, or overseas, during the period of June 27, 2004, until January 8, 2006.

3. In October of 2004, during the ABC Chicago Affiliate’s broadcast of the Obama-Keyes debates, Obama openly admitted — he conceded — that he was not a natural born citizen. (C-Span aired the uncut version of the debates, which contained this exchange, in the second half of April, 2005)

4. It is known from a classmate of Obama at Harvard University, that while at Harvard, Obama at least on one occasion admitted that he was born in Kenya. (This friend went on record on a call in radio program in Idaho in early July, 2009)

If any reader can find a link which documents a claim to a birth location before Aug. 28th, 2006, which differs from this timeline or which supports it; please let The Post & Email know of it, by posting it in the comment section below.

In a follow up report, The Post & Email has published a brief analysis of the Google Newspaper archive, which shows that Obama’s story changed after June 27, 2004.

Finally, that the AP did cover this story, reprinted by the East African Standard, can be seen from the citation made to AP stories about it (Jack Ryan dropping out of the race), in the following contemporary news articles, which however are incomplete:

[OldDeckHand]

"No case can be decided well without an accurate finding of facts. "

Do you understand enough about American law to appreciate the fact that you don't stroll into court with wild supposition and expect that a judge is going to grant a fishing license for you to dig around in defendant's personal records. To date, all these cases have been dismissed because of justiciability defect based on either subject matter jurisdiction, or standing BUT, many of the presiding judges have made comment in their decision granting MTD that plaintiff's have provided no substantiating facts to support their allegations.

You don't walk into court and say "why did the defendant do x, y or z" and expect to survive MTD if that's all you have. Those are not a facts, those are questions. A fact would be sworn testimony, or credible documentary evidence of a foreign birth. To day, NO one has come forward to swear under oath that Obama was born someplace other than HI, and not a single credible document has been unearthed that merits any evidentiary value.

Barack Obama posses prima facie evidence of his HI birth. Of that, there can be no legal dispute. How do I know that? Barack Obama has a US passport and Barack Obama has never been a naturalized citizen.

[edge919]

Barack Obama posses prima facie evidence of his HI birth. Of that, there can be no legal dispute.

This is false. Obama possesses a jpg. It does NOT have prima facie value unless a hard copy is actually presented to a court. So far, Obama has never presented this document in a court of law, nor has the issuing agency vouched for its authenticity. That IS the legal dispute and it's why butter has been chasing after the DOH to resolve the questions.

[OldDeckHand]

"What are you talking about - no facts?"

First who's "Terri", and who cares? And second, even if everything you've said is 100% accurate, it is still all completely IRRELEVANT in a court of law with respect to FRCP Rule 44. What is FRCP Rule 44? Google is your friend here.

Barack Obama has a "Certification of Live Birth". That certification is prima facie evidence of HI birth. If that COLB carries an embossed seal and signature of the appropriate HI official, then that's all the Court would need to see. That would be the case. Everything else is NOISE, worthless noise.

[butterdezillion]

What judge has looked at the HDOH’s confirmation that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery?

And I am talking about YOU. I’m talking about why you won’t look at what I’ve got and address the actual content.

Obama’s Hawaii documents are not prima facie evidence. Read the Hawaii statutes. Amended certificates do not qualify as prima facie evidence. If the Kenyan BC’s don’t count because they’re not prima facie evidence, then neither does the best that Hawaii can offer on Obama’s behalf. If you think the Kenyan claims are weak, fine - but realize that Obama’s actual Hawaii records are even weaker.

So why do you still act as though there’s nothing wrong with a president posting forgeries and not having anything that qualifies as legal proof that he’s even eligible for the job of most powerful man in the world?

I trust you’ve seen Obama’s US passport since you refer to it as a fact? And BTW, 4 of the 9-11 attackers were registered to vote and they were never naturalized so that proves that they were born in America and should be eligible to be the president also. Right?

This whole thing should never even have had to go to court. Any secretary of state who asked to see a certified copy of Obama’s birth certificate in order to place his name on the ballot could have put an end to the birth questions (though not the Constitutional ones). But wait! Fukino was illegally hiding the administrative rules which showed that - yes, Hawaii’s own rules agreed with the “birthers” that official documentation can be requested by government officials conducting official business.

I don’t want to go to court and ask why Fukino did that. I’d like to go to court and say Fukino is charged with violation of HRS (insert the number here).... and with federal election tampering. Unfortunately, I can’t do that and everybody who can says it’s not their job. Nice, huh?

[Drew68]

It should be noted that on January 8, 2006, the Honolulu Advertiser also reported that Barack Hussein Obama was born outside the United States.

Are you blind? There's a frickin' retraction on the top of the page!!!

Obama openly admitted — he conceded — that he was not a natural born citizen.

Oh brother, this myth has been debunked so many times. This exchange can be found in no transcripts and Keyes himself doesn't remember it taking place. But I'm sure this is just part of the conspiracy.

And the rest of it? Just more nonsense (and BTW, the "AP" that is always cited as authoritative by the "Post & Email" blog is not the Associated Press. It is the African Press. Probably little more than a desk, cellphone and typewriter).

[little jeremiah]

Many of these posters have no - zero - zilch - interest in facts, butterdezillion. Some are paid hires, some are just volunteer leftists, some may be just crochety ***holes, and some may have reasons known only to themselves.

The more you tip your hand to them (especially the paid hires or professional leftists), the worse it is. Many of them - including those lurking - want to know what YOU know. You will never, ever convince them because they either support 0bama or at the very least worship their own greatness and refuse to accept that anyone could know more than them.

They are a total waste of your precious time, IMO.

[butterdezillion]

Apparently you didn’t read when I’ve said it here the 10 or so times before: The best Hawaii has for Obama is an amended birth certificate, which according to Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17 does not qualify as prima facie evidence.

Anything the HDOH prints for Obama has to note the amendment. Specifically that Obama amended the medical information portion of his BC 45 years after the birth. The fact that what Obama posted doesn’t note the amendment proves that it is a forgery.

So Obama has no prima facie evidence from Hawaii and posted a forgery rather than show what he actually DOES have in Hawaii.

Those are facts. Read the blog. http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/

[edge919]

The template the forgers used explains pretty well that it only has prima facie value if presented in a court of law. It doesn’t say it has prima facie value if posted as a jpg on a campaign Web site and it certainly doesn’t say it has prima facie value if photographed by bumbling, amateur, self-appointed fact checkers. There’s a reason why it hasn’t been presented in court and why the issuing agency won’t affirm its authenticity.

[butterdezillion]

I’m sure you’re right, LJ. The epistemology is all wrong for anybody interested in engaging with the genuine facts. You can’t go into a genuine investigation resolved that the conclusion can’t be X. That’s called closed-mindedness, or blind belief. No amount of reason or facts will even put a dent in blind belief. A person can only change their mind if they are willing to put their belief to the test.

I think I’ll go to bed. I’m tired. Goodnight.