US Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Presidential Eligibility

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by Bunch

I would think that if the vault copy BC is verified by SCOTUS, then that will end the quesitons.

WEll, YOu'd be wrong, as that woudl impy that the peoel obseessed witht eh idea that he's a foreigner are rational or sane.
THis first comes up.

The Obama campaign sighs and puts a scan of his birth certificate on line.

There's much obsessing about seals, photoshop, all that.

Factcheck sighs, goes around to the main Obama campaign office where it is on file, and asks they can see it. They duly examine it, agree that it is an official Hawaiian birth certificate and take a picture of them holding it.

The wingnuts obsess that it's not the original copy (ie, it's the standard computer generated one, not the piece of paper that the parents signed and the hospital filed.)

The Hawaiian state health director sighs, marches over to the file cabinet, and with the registrar of statistics formally certifies that they have Obama's original birth certificate on file.

Last I saw, the obsessives had split into various camps: the ones that believe that the health director, etc, are part of a great conspiracy to cover up him being born in Kenya, the ones that have decided Frank Marshall Davis is Obama's actual father, and the ones have decided that okay, he was born in Hawaii, but because he also inherited Kenyan citizenship from his father that he wasn't natural born.

And then there's Pam from Atlas Shrugged, who has decided that Malcom X was his father. No, I'm not kidding. Working off the logical that his mother liked black men and was in the same city as Malcom X at one point.

reply to post by OldMedic


You are INCORRECT. The base was consdiered to be secret at that time.
Located in Asmara, Ethopia (Eritera today), Kagnew Station (was once home to the US Military Inteligence/NSA/CIA/DIA/NRO) and any member of ATS that lives in Houston.. I will be happy to show them the orginal documents I HAVE.

Link


Be mindful not to attack another member of the forum without YOU having all the FACTS.



[edit on 22-11-2008 by ShadowMaster] Link

[edit on 22-11-2008 by ShadowMaster]

Originally posted by angryamerican
So the neocons are trying to cheat the people again. A majority have spoken on who we want and once again the right wing neocons are saying tuff #%*^ we wont listen to the people we are going to steal this election too.

That is the most ignorant remark I have ever read.

Our Presidents are not elected by a MAJORITY or POPULAR VOTE ! Duh !!!!

They are elected by the Electoral College in the month following the national election.

NEO-CONS (Sounds Like a Matrix Convict)

Originally posted by OldMedic
They will do nothing, because there is no case to be made.

Obama was born in Hawaii, and the State of Hawaii has so certified.

John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which was a U.S. Possession at the time. That alone would make him a natural born American citizern. But, in addition, he was born as the son of a military person serving "overseas". By U.S. Law, all such children are automatically "natural born United States Citizens".

These nut cases do not have a case. They think that just because some voice inside their head tells them "the truth", then this is really the truth.

You're full of your self. Hawaii has not certified a "birth". Big difference.
There are no Vault Copies of his birth certificate in Hawaii because he was not born there.

Honestly, Are you people serious????? I read this site daily but have never posted unitl today. I think you are all looking to much into a "supposed conspiracy". The Dems needed to win this election badly and I think rational planning and execution won the election...I do not think the Dems would of ever taken a chance of using a noncitizened candidate to push their agenda. Barak is as much a citizen as I am (born in Oswego, NY). These phone calls with Kenyans and supposed fake birth certificates..........come on........its a farce like the "whitey tape". Barak is our president elect and you might not agree with it but he is and will be the president for the next 4 years. There are so many supposed phone calls, tapes, interviews, fake birth certificates, etc... but no proof what so ever to make it a fact. Please STOP with the nonsense! I love this site because of the good reads but I loath it too because some of you people really need a life or a wake up call. Barack Obama is uur president and he is not going any where for four years (hopefuly 8!!!!) Everyone on here in my opinion sounds very intelligent and love some of these topics BUT this topic I find extremely outlandish and I hope we can move on and talk about real issues. I dont want to upset anyone and I am not trashing anyones opinion but I do think this is a nontopic.

reply to post by ShadowMaster


This is true. I was there before the fall and it did exist, as well as another installation in Addis Abbaba.

I was in both of them for various duties, but alas not much there except the usual boring pencil pusher types and mounds of paperwork. Nothing even remotely interesting like one would think.

Let me put my tin foil on first, so I can join in on this thread . . . are we all ready????

That's begin . . .

Obama is a Muslim
Obama is not a US Citizen
Obama is a Terrorist

Sarah Palin is Smart
Sarah Palin understands National Policies
Sarah Palin can see Russia from her house

Bush is the greatest president we have every had
Bush never lied to the American people
Bush has made this the best economy ever

All the above statements have one thing in common!

They are all untrue . . . you all need to get a life!

The Kenyan Ambassador never said Pres. Elect Obama was born in Kenya. He was talking about Obama’s father (Barack Obama Senior) as I clearly show here..
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Obama’s Grandmother DID NOT SAY she was present at Pre. Elect Obama’s birth. She was also referring to Barack Obama SENIOR, his father, as BenevolentHeretic demonstrates here…
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Barack Obama’s Birth certificate (long form) is under no special “seal”, but rather is treated with the same privacy restrictions that all of our birth certificates are treated with. Corsi asked to see it and they denied him because he had no legitimate cause.

"It does not appear that Dr. Corsi is within any of these categories of persons with a direct and tangible interest in the birth certificate he seeks," wrote Roz Makuala, manager of constituent services in the governor's office, in an e-mailed response to a WND request seeking the information.

Corsi can't go asking to see Obama's Birth certificate anymore that he can ask to see yours or mine..thank god.

Barack Obama has not "hired a team of lawyers" to fight this. He has ignored it as he has no time or energy to respond to right wing crazies after he has already clearly demonstrated his citizenship to any objective credible authority.


This IS NOT a SCOTUS “Hearing” it is a “conference” to avoid the idiocy of having this case presented multiple times to each and every justice…first he tried Suiter and was denied and then he next went to Thomas. Anyone with a shred of logic can predict that the court plans on issuing a response to SUMMARILY dismiss these claims after CONFERENCE among the justices…not a hearing.

The difference between a BIRTH CERTIFICATE and a CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH IS ZILCH! Don’t take my word for it, take the people who create and validate the certificates word…the Government and the state of Alaska…See next post.


[edit on 22-11-2008 by maybereal11]

[edit on 22-11-2008 by maybereal11]

Maybe this will help…and the source can’t be further to the right.

www.freerepublic.com...

The following was posted on the "Freerepublic" website......

Virginia State Court Dismisses Action Challenging Obama's Eligibility to be President
Posted on Monday, November 03, 2008 1:20:35 PM
The decision was handed down today – it is a long and well-reasoned analysis.

***
Today’s decision is not the result of a conspiracy, nor is it the result of a biased or unprincipled judge. I have made a good living working in out nations courts and have the utmost respect for them. I would hope all patriotic Americans would feel the same way and avoid making unfounded scurrilous remarks about the judge or the judicial system.

***
Quotes:

The Court made the following findings:

1. The Certification of Live Birth presented to the court is unquestionably authentic.

The court noted that the certification had a raised seal from the state of Hawaii, had a stamp bearing the signature of the registrar of vital statistics. The court found “wholly unpersuasive” any of the internet claims that the birth certificate was altered in any way. Furthermore, the document itself was accompanied by an affidavit from the State Health Director (of Hawaii) verifying that the document is an authentic certification of live birth. The court held that there could be no doubt that the document was authentic unless one believed that the state of Hawaii’s health department were in on an elaborate and complex conspiracy – and that there is not a shred of evidence that this is the case.

2. The Certification of Live Birth establishes that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen.

The affidavit of the State Health Director states that the information on the CLOB is identical to the information on the “vault” copy of the birth certificate, and that both documents establish that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu. The Court noted that the CLOB is valid for all citizenship purposes. The court noted our argument that the COLB is not valid for determining citizenship, but referred us to Hawaiian law that states otherwise. “There is no difference between a certificate and a certification of live birth in the eyes of the state. For instance, either can be used to confirm U.S. citizenship to obtain a passport or state ID.” The court found that Hawaiian law makes the COLB valid for all purposes with the exception of determining native Hawaiian heritage for certain state and federal benefits. The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii, the “place of birth” line on the COLB would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors.

3. For that reason, 8 U.S.C. §1401(g), which at the relevant time provided as follows:

“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: ***(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:…..
is irrelevant to this matter, as Mr. Obama was conclusively born in Hawaii.

4. Mr. Obama did hold dual citizenship in the U.S. and Kenya until he became an adult. When Barack Obama Jr. was born Kenya was a British colony. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children: “British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.” In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UK. Obama’s UK citizenship became an Kenyan citizenship on Dec. 12, 1963, when Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. The court noted that Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:

1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…

2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
Thus the court held that as a citizen of the UK who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UK status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), thus Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship in 1963.

However, the court further held that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya. The court held that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama has ever renounced his U.S. citizenship or sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.

The court held that there was no legal requirement that Mr. Obama renounce his Kenyan citizenship or affirm his U.S. citizenship in order to maintain his status as a natural born citizen.

5. Mr. Obama did not lose his U.S. Citizenship based on the acts of his parents, including adoption by an Indonesian citizen. The Court held that no action taken by the parents of an American child can strip that child of his citizenship. The court cited to the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Sections 349 and 355, which was in effect in the late 1960s when Obama went to Indonesia, and which stated that a minor does not lose his US citizenship upon the naturalization of his parents or any other actions of his parents, so long as the minor returns to the US and establishes permanent US residency before the age of 21. Thus the adoption of Obama did not serve to strip him of his U.S. citizenship. The fact that Indonesian law does not allow dual citizenship is irrelevant, as U.S. law controls. Furthermore, the Court held that traveling on a foreign passport does not strip an American of his citizenship. The Court noted first that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama traveled on an Indonesian passport (Mr. Berg and others we reached out to for evidence never provided any evidence of this claim or any other of the claims we could have used some proof of.) Nonetheless, the court held that such travel does not divest an American of his citizenship.

The Court makes other holdings and findings that I won’t bother you with here. Needless to say, the decision is wholly against us. The court finds the claims against Mr. Obama’s citizenship “wholly unpersuasive and bordering on the frivolous, especially in light of the complete absence of any first-hand evidence on any critical issue”

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by paxnatus
To clear up the Indonesian citizenship issue.

You don't "clear up" anything when you post a bunch of rumors without sources. You muddy the water for those of us who are actually trying to clear this up.

Please provide sources that verify the following:

1. In order to attend elementary school in Indonesia a 6-year old must be an Indonesian citizen.

2. Obama was legally adopted by Lolo Soetoro.

3. Six-Year-Old Obama renounced his US citizenship.

Please see Indonesian Citizenship Law Here

Until we see sources for the above, they're just rumors.

You don't do anyone any favors by repeating the same assumptions and suspicions that have been used to cast doubt on Obama's citizenship. We've heard it a thousand times.

I could as easily say that Obama was a US Senator and has traveled from the US to many countries so obviously has a US passport. To get a US passport, one has to prove their US citizenship. Therefore, Obama is a US citizen. But without sources, I might as well be spewing nonsense.

Originally posted by Jenna
Thank you for the information, but I don't suppose you have anything from somewhere other than factcheck to back them up do you?

You're welcome.

Those factcheck articles link to the British Nationality Act of 1948 and the Kenyan Constitution. What more reliable sources could I possibly provide? I don't know what would be considered more unbiased sources.

Well BH who died and made you Queen? Go back and look at the factcheck.org thread. On here see what honest people run that site they lied about posting his original Birth cert. Is that your source? Lol!!

I never said Obama renounced his citizenship himself. He was only a child at that time.
Sorry I gave you credit for a little common sense! Don't worry Won't make that mistake
again!!

Me muddy the waters for the rest of you? Go back and read what I posted on the similar threads! Why don't you calm down! You are not the sole authority on this mess with your god BO!! What an ego!!

My sources to follow!

This is for you BH: but I'm sure you will take issue with the source as you tend to do with anyone who does not follow your idol!

www.wethepeoplefoundation.org...

libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com...

[edit on 23-11-2008 by paxnatus]

Originally posted by paxnatus
Well BH who died and made you Queen?

Nobody has to die to make me queen.

Is that your source? Lol!!

As I said before, the article on factcheck.org links to the British Nationality Act of 1948 and the Kenyan Constitution. THOSE are my sources. Nothing to laugh about there.

I never said Obama renounced his citizenship himself. He was only a child at that time.

I realize that. That's why I asked for verification. Because according to the US State Department, no one else COULD renounce his citizenship but him. Even as a child.

US State Department

Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.

Why don't you calm down!

I'm quite calm. Having been through this many times with other people, I have no need to get excited or upset. Perhaps you should take your own advice.

You are not the sole authority on this mess with your god BO!!

I'm no authority at all. But I know where to find reliable, credible information, like the State Department, various immigration sites and other countries' Constitutions... (not blogs)

Oh, and Obama is not my God. I don't have a God.

What an ego!!

Me or Obama?

Originally posted by paxnatus
This is for you BH: but I'm sure you will take issue with the source as you tend to do with anyone who does not follow your idol!

That's actually not true. I take issue with blogs put forth as credible sources of information, as anyone with a computer can make up anything and write it on an Internet blog. That doesn't mean all blogs are lies. It just means they can't be trusted to be the TRUTH.

www.wethepeoplefoundation.org...

All I can find here is what Phillip Berg charged in his lawsuit. It was neither proven true OR false. But it's hardly fact. It's a charge in a lawsuit. A lawsuit that was dismissed.

libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com...

See above re: blog

Here are a few key phrases in the blog article that you might want to watch for in the future:

He made a trip to Pakistan in '80's quite likely on an Indonesian passport
...
Obama may be a dual citizen of Indonesia.
...
With millions of visitors daily, WND is one of the most popular of all political websites

And you laugh at me for using factcheck as a source??? Please!

Thank you for sharing your sources. I appreciate it. But when you see phrases such as "likely", "may be", probably" and "WND", you may want to look deeper and see if you can find a source that is either more reliable or provides THEIR sources by way of links to credible sites.

reply to post by maybereal11


This was a comment on Berg's Blog. There is no actual court case referenced. Even the Anti-Berg site, What's Your Evidence?, has set this blog comment aside until they can find any confirmation that it is true.

IF you can find the actual case information, It would be appreciated. You know, docket number, plaintiff and defendant names, the Judge who heard it and which court it was heard in.

Until then, it is just something "Wild Bill", a commenter on Berg's website posted with no verifying information.

Originally posted by stander
The eligibility for the Oval Office is quite nonsensical: If someone is born today in California, for example, his/her birth certificate automatically makes this person eligible to become the US President -- the person is considered "naturally born."

And you know why? Because this person was born in the United States of America. He is "natural born" because of jus soli.

But the person was born to immigrants from Iran and the kid was raised in strict Islamic faith that the person carried to his/her adulthood.

Even if a person was born in Iran, to American parents and were Christians, this person would not be "natural born" American? Why? Simple: because Iran is obviously not part of the United States of America.

Now just apply that scenario to John McCain. John McCain was not born in the United States: the Panama Canal Zone was never a territory and Military or Consulates abroad are not part of the United States in the legal sense. His American citizenship was declared by legislation, not by reason of birth.

I believe that John McCain was very much aware of the potential problem and consulted with the qualified personnel.

Well, I hope so. Wasn't this the second or third time he ran for office?

I also believe that the answer from those people who practice Constitutional law was, "Go ahead, John. No problem."

There's no consensus on that, and no one has ever had to legally decide this, so I don't see how could anyone ever say for certain that it wouldn't be a problem.




[edit on 23-11-2008 by danx]

Originally posted by PowerSlave
I meant that the Mccain issue was not adjudicated, i believe the original suit was thrown out. I was also referring to the senate resolution.

You are correct, the Senate Resolution is/was not legally binding. You know what that means, right? That it has no legal value whatsoever.

I think that based on this resolution which has already occurred, that any judge who might have to ultimately decide on Mccains fate, would likely use this information to make the decision to allow Mccain or judge him to in fact be considered natural born.

If you understand that the Senate Resolution was not legally binding I don't get why you arguing that a Judge would use it to substantiate a decision in favor of John McCain...

I think part of the argument used, is that at the time of this law the US had no military abroad, so this was never considered as a possibility. So judgement would be in favor of not limiting the opportunities or penalizing the children military parents serving abroad.

What? What law are you referring to? The Senate Resolution was introduced in April 2008, and it's not even a law.

The legislation that governs this matter in the Panama Canal Zone was introduced in 1952 (Immigration and Nationality Act) and covers people born there since 1904.

Not to mention that US "had military abroad" before any of those dates, so I really don't understand your argument.

I have also read that the intent of this law, was to keep foreign people from running for office who may have ulterior motives that could possibly harm the safty of the country. Since Mccains Parents were US military and both natural born citizens, I dont think this threat is there.

I agree, but I never posted anything about this based on my opinion, or personal preferences alone. All my posts were made based on the legislation that I read, and from the strict interpretation of the Constitution, Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 and US Code: John McCain is not a "natural born" citizen, and therefor is ineligible for office.

Do I agree with that? No, even though I did not support John McCain, I'm sure he has nothing but good intentions for his country and I think he should be allowed to be President, if he had won.

But what (or we) think of John McCain has nothing to do with the law. If the people don't agree with the law, they get it changed. Isn't this a democracy? All I'm pointing out is that: according to current law and legislation John McCain can't be President.




[edit on 23-11-2008 by danx]

reply to post by Gools



You can Google Barack's birth certificate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

reply to post by danx

If you understand that the Senate Resolution was not legally binding I don't get why you arguing that a Judge would use it to substantiate a decision in favor of John McCain

Because, I would think that a Judge would use all available information. This resolution would be a part of that "available information" He has the senate buy already. I cannot see a judge ruling against that resolution. This has nothing to do with how I would personally judge it.

What? What law are you referring to? The Senate Resolution was introduced in April 2008, and it's not even a law.

I am talking about the constitution. When it was written. It was prior to any existing military service abroad. So there was no consideration given to citizens who might have been born on "military" installations abroad.

I agree, but I never posted anything about this based on my opinion, or personal preferences alone.

I did not post this to refute or answer to anything you posted, I was merely adding it as something that a judge may also take into consideration when ruling on any questionable candidate and perhaps something that would be reasonably considered to ammend even the constitution itself.

reply to post by danx

McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone when it was still U.S. territory!
Don't you guys look up anything from sources that are not always looking for conspiracies? I've said it before and I'll say it again: if there is anything to all the conspiracies, even just the ones Jim Marrs posits. the people running them are real dunderheads! According to Marrs himself, many of thes "conspiracies" have been going on for decades, centuries, even maybe millenia! Whoever is running them is pretty inefficient! There are real conspiracies, I have no doubt, but I haven't noticed any Knights Templar in my neighborhood lately, or anywhere else. And the CFR is pretty harmless. I read their stuff all the time and their members cut across political and cultural lines. Their stuff is pretty scholastic: analyses of national and world issues. The One Worlders must really be dumb! They have supposedly been around forever and haven't gotten far that I can see. I did see a real UFO once. At least I couldn't identify it. Maybe there is something there , I don't know. If there is, it's a poorly kept secret. Read Capt, (Air Force) Edward Ruppelts book on Project Bluebook from back in the 50's and 60's. Anyway it's interesting.... But really! Looking up someone's birth place is soooooo easy! Why would the Supremes take the time? Be logical! Barack and McCain would have to have valid birth certificate just to get passports, which they obviously both have! Don't you think they would have been exposed at some point before now? Otherwise, we have some really stupid people handing out passports!

Originally posted by BoulderSue
McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone when it was still U.S. territory!
Don't you guys look up anything from sources that are not always looking for conspiracies?

It is you who apparently have not even read this thread in full.

Legislation (Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952) was passed to declare the nationality of people born in the Panama Canal Zone, provided that at least one of the parents was American.

This differs from the Constitution and 14th Amendment, which if they applied to people born in the Panama Canal Zone, there wouldn't be a need for the legislation now would it?

John McCain's was, at tht time of McCain's birth, a serving naval officer whose duty station was the Panama Canal Zone; even if John were born off post, he's still a citizen, unless he vacated his status as citizen and United States national, and I've not heard that he had. This appears to be one of the usual high profile legal actions designed, from the outset, to fail of success, rather in the mode of ACLU and NRA suits. I hope that the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case, since that would leave the door open for a legitimate suit; if the court hears the case and finds in favour of the defendant, then all three 'candidates' are legitimized and the door probably permanently closed to further litigation on the subject. Too bad, because Osama Obama was born in Kenya, according to early on reportage, and the status of his U.S. citizenship has yet to be established, particularly in light of susequent foreign residencies during childhood and the uncertainsty regarding his mother's own citizenship at the time of his birth, and later as she bounced around the globe with him in tow.

So, by bringing John McCain into the question, the 'plaintiff' has torpedoed the entire question, in my opinion, and it would certainly be a calculated 'error', for that specific purpose, in my opinion.