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.

[MrRobertPlant2009]

What is the process for becoming a naturalized Kenyan citizen...and wouldn’t there be some paperwork to that affect?

I’ve yet to hear anyone logically explain why a teenage girl would fly to Kenya in the 1960s to have a baby.

Now, you suggest she not only went to Kenya but became a Kenyan.

This broad apparently really really loved Kenya. It took my wife a year to convince me to move to a new neighborhood.

[Canedawg]

It should be noted that the track record of the many lawyers who have attempted to pursue this issue in court is not exactly stellar.
***************

It should be noted that the record of the courts who have heard this issue in various forms has been less than stellar as well. So much for the intellectual curiosity of jurists. The likelihood that every single judge would rule the same way is a suspicious set of circumstances. But then again, crooked judges are an epidemic in our flawed legal system, and the chicago thugs are a bunch of wiseguys.

The MSM has been reporting this issue dishonestly as well.
The shell game of creating the illusion of NBC without ever producing the authentic BC is dishonest.

There is a moral bankruptcy that has accompanied the rise of this regime to power, to rule over the citizens of America, many of whom may have been bamboozled by the pervasive deception.

The lawyers who have brought these cases have managed to make out a prima facie case- if the the courts were interested in hearing the issue.

[OldDeckHand]

"It should be noted that the record of the courts who have heard this issue in various forms has been less than stellar as well."

Really? Perhaps you can recite for us the plaintiff's cases that have prevailed on appeal? To my knowledge, not a single instance of reversible error committed by any of these judges. How about that?

"So much for the intellectual curiosity of jurists."

Interesting, you want district court judges to ignore precedent and statutory law as well as established principles of American jurisprudence to indulge their sense of "curiosity"? You'd make an EXCELLENT liberal judge.

"The likelihood that every single judge would rule the same way is a suspicious set of circumstances."

Tortured logic, indeed. "Every single judge" ruled the same way because every single judge followed the law. No conspiracy there.

"The lawyers who have brought these cases have managed to make out a prima facie case- if the the courts were interested in hearing the issue."

Only in the minds of birthers, and NOT in the minds of the dozens of judges who have heard these cases, nor the judges on appeal. Again, how about that?

Hey, don't take my word for it, this is how Judge Land (a Bush appointee to the bench, and a man with unimpeachable conservative bona fides) characterized your "prima facie case"...

"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."

Emphasis added.

[Canedawg]

You’re a deadhead on this issue, and have no grasp of the legal principle of the Best Evidence Rule. Your posts on these threads are pure, unadulterated garbage.

[OldDeckHand]

"You’re a deadhead on this issue, and have no grasp of the legal principle of the Best Evidence Rule. Your posts on these threads are pure, unadulterated garbage."

Yep, me Judge Land, the 5th Circuit (and a number of other Circuit Courts) Antonin Scalia, John Roberts - we're all idiots compared to your superior intellect and grasp of the American legal system.

Keep telling yourself sweetheart, maybe you'll actually believe it.

[tired_old_conservative]

“You’re a deadhead on this issue, and have no grasp of the legal principle of the Best Evidence Rule. Your posts on these threads are pure, unadulterated garbage.”

Well, looking at the quality of your relative arguments, I have no doubt which of you I would choose to represent me in a court of law.

And, for the record:

“The best evidence rule is a common law rule of evidence which can be traced back at least as far as the 18th century. In Omychund v Barker (1745) 1 Atk, 21, 49; 26 ER 15, 33, Lord Harwicke stated that no evidence was admissible unless it was “the best that the nature of the case will allow”. The general rule is that secondary evidence, such as a copy or facsimile, will be not admissible if an original document exists, and is not unavailable due to destruction or other circumstances indicating unavailability.

The rationale for the best evidence rule can be understood from the context in which it arose: in the eighteenth century a copy was usually made by hand by a clerk (or even a litigant). The best evidence rule was predicated on the assumption that, if the original was not produced, there was a significant chance of error or fraud in relying on such a copy.

In the age of digital facsimiles, etc. the rule is more difficult to justify. The likelihood of actual error (as opposed to mere illegibility) through copying is slight. The balance of convenience favours avoiding needless effort and delay where there is no dispute about the fairness and adequacy of a digital facsimile. Further, it is by no means clear what the ‘original’ of an electronic communication such as an e-mail actually is: as a great many electronic ‘copies’ of a message might come into existence from creation to receipt.”

[LucyT]

"I can tell you from first hand knowledge that the Obama forces are well aware of the threat posed by this issue and by state action to lay the groundwork for ballot challenge in the event of a 2012 reelection campaign. A case that reached the Supreme Court on any of the related issues other than birth location which was decided against the plaintiffs would be an obstacle to subsequent state action to exclude Obama from the ballot on appropriate grounds.

"It should be noted that the track record of the many lawyers who have attempted to pursue this issue in court is not exactly stellar."

Many valuable comments throughout this thread.

Check out # 12 , 14 , 19 , 34 , 47 , 55 , 60 , 62 , 66 , 69 , 76 , 85 .

[Thanks Seizethecarp, David, and OldDeckHand.]

[OafOfOffice]

Hope everyone has seen this one. This guy 18 years in the military.

Army ‘showdown’ at eligibility corral.Top doctor refuses orders,urges Obama to show birth certificate – ‘if you have 1’

http://bit.ly/cYtz95

Army Physician Refuses to Obey Orders Until Obama Produces Birth Certificate http://bit.ly/cyhMi5

[rodguy911]

Here's the problem as I see it.

We are up against a group that has such political/other power in so many areas that they can control BC's,college records at multiple colleges, passport records, flight records of various flights, and can literally blacken any web page they desire in minutes.

NOW I would like to know who has that much power.

And of course I am talking about "before" he was elected.

[LucyT]

Thanks, rodguy911.

At 6:35:13 PM, you wrote:

“Here’s the problem as I see it.

“We are up against a group that has such political/other power in so many areas that they can control BC’s,college records at multiple colleges, passport records, flight records of various flights, and can literally blacken any web page they desire in minutes.

“NOW I would like to know who has that much power.

“And of course I am talking about “before” he was elected.”

-

About three and half hours earlier, I sent this note via frmail to butterdezillion:

“04/01/2010 2:59:47 PM PDT sent

“It is incredible the amount of information about 0thugga that has been scrubbed from the internet. Those kinds of activities take a large, organized group, with lots of $ backing them.”

[Fred Nerks]

IMO: Islam. The marxists think the muslims are useful, but islam is using the marxists...the man in the WH is nought but the tail of an islamic dog.

[rodguy911]

I'm not surprised,we do obviously have like minds.

Additionally, if you take a lot of the info we have received after, what is it almost 2 years of this,it is a pretty logical progression.

. And some of the answers we have suggested include cia, kgb,and others of immense power.

[bitt]

serious attempt ping

[butterdezillion]

The secrecy about the birth certificate is because the amendment Obama made in 2006 shows that neither he nor his mother was available to be examined by a Hawaii doctor within the first month after his birth. Instead of confirming a Hawaii birth that actually calls a Hawaii birth into serious question.

Furthermore, the fact that Obama made a major administrative amendment 45 years after the event renders his Hawaii BC insufficient for prima facie evidence.

IOW, the best Hawaii has for Obama isn’t good enough to be considered legal proof of the claims made AND actually suggests a birth someplace besides Hawaii.

That’s why all the secrecy about his birth certificate.

See http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/

People are afraid of the birth certificate issue because they don’t want to be called crazy and because they’re afraid Obama will pull out a pristine “original” BC and leave the “birthers” with egg on their face. But the Hawaii DOH has already given legally-binding answers that indicate within a very fine boundary what amendment was made - and that amendment is incriminating to Obama. We’ve already in essence got a snapshot of what was on the BC before Obama sanitized it, so if he even TRIES to sanitize it he’ll have big trouble.

We don’t need to be afraid to push on the issue of Obama’s birth certificate. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is straight out of the mouths of Hawaii’s Department of Health. I’d like to hear Chris Matthews and Robert Gibbs say that makes us crazy wingnuts.

[butterdezillion]

Good point. And government, the media, and law enforcement have totally abdicated their responsibilities regarding Obama’s criminal activity. See http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/

[butterdezillion]

In 1961 a person under 19 couldn’t pass US citizenship on to a child born outside the country. If Obama was born outside the country - as even the documents that Hawaii has for him suggest - then he may well not be a US citizen, unless he naturalized at some point.

See http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/

[little jeremiah]

Yes indeed.

[butterdezillion]

It’s highly unlikely that Obama was born in Hawaii, based on the amendment he made to the medical portion of his BC in 2006. Neither he nor his mother was seen by a Hawaii doctor within the first 30 days after his birth, as required to comlete his birth certificate. If they had, all this mess with Obama’s Hawaii records would have been avoided.

Obama’s birth certificate was not complete until 2006. That means that Hawaii could not have printed a birth certificate for him to get entry into kindergarten, driver’s license, or anything else that required a valid BC. He went to kindergarten and presumably got a driver’s license, so he must have a birth certificate from someplace besides Hawaii.

[Drew68]

If Obama was born outside the country - as even the documents that Hawaii has for him suggest - then he may well not be a US citizen, unless he naturalized at some point.

I have not seen any evidence that compels me to believe Obama was born anywhere besides Hawaii. I've seen Lucas Smith's "Kenyan" BC and I think it's as fake as a $3 bill and I've seen the "Kenyan-born Obama" African Press articles in the Evening Standard which I believe to be attributed to nothing more than poor factchecking and which was corrected in later articles.

[butterdezillion]

I don’t think Judge Carter even knew that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery - much less that what Hawaii has for Obama doesn’t qualify as prima facie evidence.

I believe that Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate itself would refute its own claim that Obama was born in Hawaii - because Obama had to complete the medical portion in 2006, when all it would have taken to complete it in 1961 would have been a visit to a Hawaii doctor, if he and his mom were in Hawaii for the birth, as claimed on the BC.