Obama Birth Certificate Rears Its Head - Again

reply to post by riggs2099


So does it matter to u that we have a Constitution?
Or do u not think past Obama won get over it.
All those who dont want to uphold the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION need to be locked up or thrown out of the USA or shot for treason!!!!

end of story

reply to post by Maxmars


Max..Please excuse me if I don't qoute our entire correspondance at this stage as it is getting lengthy.

"None of which would be acceptable to legally certify 'natural born' American citizen status. The Hawaii declaration regarded the existence of the document - but offered no official certification "

The Certificate of Birth that Obama has presented is the most valid form of proof of Natural Born citizenship that our government requires. The state of Hawaii has said the document is legitimate and document itself contains the "official certification" in the form of the seal and signature.

"I have heard this rumor before, but all I have ever seen is the Soros media machine's rendition of the matter. What other organizations have made this verification?"

Assuming that george Soros is a sinister media-omnipotent force..I am unfamiliar with the theorey that George Soros is controlling the media and in what manner? Does he control the reporters etc.? What media outlets does he control..I will better be able to find a nuetral fact checker if you can tell me which ones you believe are corrupt.

"I am not calling you a liar, but are you sure about your facts? These cases were not dismissed. No lower court justice wants to deal with it."

What I said was that no case has yet to warrant a hearing...they have all either been dismissed or are pending. Maybe I miscommunicated?

"What do you consider an Affirmative Declaration
Repeat: One court ruling, one state official, one person empowered and authorized by the government to simply state "Barak Obama meets the criteria as a natural born American Citizen."

Again...for a court to rule on it there must be evidence that is worth considering and stands up to basic scrutiny. I have yet to see any and apparently either have the courts.

I could file a case claiming that Obama is from Mars and then keep putting out press releases about how it is being considered...and you would be saying what? I won't believe he isn't from mars until a court holds a hearing on the issue and declares it so? See the problem?

"The requirement has BEEN MET

The court said that? The department of immigration and naturalization said that? The department of State has said that? I still fail to see where you get that from. "

Whether you like it or not...The Certificate of Birth he presented along with the State of Hawaii confirming the document is legitimate and is what our government requires...It is the most valid form of ID available to us. Yes even the State Department accept this document as proof of citizenship and a court wont rule on the matter because there is not sufficient evidence to hear a case. Every piece of evidence that has been presented thus far falls apart under scrutiny.

What Berg et al are doing is making the most of putting out PR pieces about the FILINGS of the cases... Look, Look at all the cases...Not the evidence or why they have been denied or dismissed. It's Propaganda via the legal system.

"Strong evidence to the contrary of what? That I have no evidence? I am not claiming he is ineligible. I am not claiming he isn't natural born, I am not, in fact claiming anything.

But some here ARE claiming he IS eligible and natural born. Upon whom does the burden of proof properly belong? "

Both. I think I have seen considerable evidence on both sides of the issue, but that the evidence supporting that he is NOT a natural born citizen has fallen apart every time I look at it. ..And the evidence in support of him being a natural born citizen is solid.

If you need a court "Ruling" I suspect you will be dissapointed. Like I said a dozen times..there needs to be sufficient evidence to hear a case.

[edit on 3-12-2008 by maybereal11]

[edit on 3-12-2008 by maybereal11]

This is not comprehensive, but sums up how I feel about the matter.

www.politifact.com...

As a fact-checking news Web site, we went to extensive lengths to sort out the truth. We got a copy of his 1992 marriage certificate from the Cook County (Ill.) Bureau of Vital Statistics. His driver’s license record from the Illinois Secretary of State’s office. His registration and disciplinary record with the Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois. Not to mention all of his property records.

When the birth certificate arrived from the Obama campaign it confirmed his name as the other documents already showed it. Still, we took an extra step: We e-mailed it to the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records, to ask if it was real.

“It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo told us.

Then the firestorm started.

• Where is the embossed seal and the registrar’s signature?

• Comparing it to other Hawaii birth certificates, the color shade is different.

• Isn’t the date stamp bleeding through the back of the document “June 2007?” (Odd since it was supposedly released in June 2008.)

• There’s no crease from being folded and mailed.

• It’s clearly Photoshopped and a wholesale fraud.


• • •
At PolitiFact.com, we’re all about original sources. We don’t take anyone at their word or take the reporting of other media organizations as proof. We go to the heart of the story, the source of the truth — original, corroborating documents.

When the official documents were questioned, we went looking for more answers. We circled back to the Department of Health, had a newsroom colleague bring in her own Hawaii birth certificate to see if it looks the same (it’s identical). But every answer triggered more questions.

And soon enough, after going to every length possible to confirm the birth certificate’s authenticity, you start asking, what is reasonable here?

Because if this document is forged, then they all are.

If this document is forged, a U.S. senator and his presidential campaign have perpetrated a vast, long-term fraud. They have done it with conspiring officials at the Hawaii Department of Health, the Cook County (Ill.) Bureau of Vital Statistics, the Illinois Secretary of State’s office, the Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois and many other government agencies.


And there’s the rub. It is possible that Obama conspired his way to the precipice of the world’s biggest job, involving a vast network of people and government agencies over decades of lies. Anything’s possible.

But step back and look at the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your sense of what’s reasonable has to take over.

There is not one shred of evidence to disprove PolitiFact’s conclusion that the candidate’s name is Barack Hussein Obama, or to support allegations that the birth certificate he released isn’t authentic.

And that’s true no matter how many people cling to some hint of doubt and use the Internet to fuel their innate sense of distrust.



[edit on 3-12-2008 by maybereal11]

on topic,

if Obama is proven innocent, will you guys apologize?

reply to post by ConservativeJack


In triplicate.

Actually this haunts me. The last think that I want to do is to slander an innocent man.

I am pretty sure tho that something here is fishy...

[edit on 3-12-2008 by Tinkabit]

Originally posted by ConservativeJack
on topic,
if Obama is proven innocent, will you guys apologize?

Apologize for what? They have nothing to apologize for.

Everyone is entitled to free speech, that includes spewing unfounded claims. Also, everyone is entitled to keep ignoring the facts.

Originally posted by danx

Originally posted by ConservativeJack
on topic,
if Obama is proven innocent, will you guys apologize?

Apologize for what? They have nothing to apologize for.

Everyone is entitled to free speech, that includes spewing unfounded claims. Also, everyone is entitled to keep ignoring the facts.

yea I can call somebody who's black the n word doesn't mean I should.

you can call out this black guy and say he isn't like you but it doesn't mean that's what you should be doing

Originally posted by Kords21
My whole argument on the issue is that as a voter I have to prove that I'm eligible to vote beforehand. Why can't I demand the same from people that are on the ballot?

Sir, you absolutely, positively make too much sense.

Maybe I missed a news article somewhere, but wasn't this Obama joker supposed to cough up the goods in front of the supreme court a few days ago? what became of that?

The Federalist Blog has one of the best write-ups on the "natural-born" clause that I have yet found. Here is part of it, see the link for all of it

Natural-Born Citizen Defined

One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature - laws the founders recognized and embraced.

Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue of “natural law and national law.” The first Naturalization Act passed by Congress recognized “natural-born citizens” to be those born beyond the States to resident fathers who were already established citizens of the United States.

The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between nations are avoided, or at least with those nations whose custom is to not make citizens of other countries citizens without their consent. Any alternations or conflicts due to a child’s natural citizenship are strictly a creature of local municipal law. In the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” This national law does not endow upon any person allegiance through birth alone as was the custom under the old English common law practice but only recognizes citizenship of those born to parents who owe no allegiance to another nation. In other words, national law prevented the creation of conflicting dual citizenships between other nation’s citizens.

Secretary of State Bayard ruled under Section 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes in 1885 that although Richard Greisser was born in the United States, his father at the time of his birth was a subject of Germany, and thus, Richard Greisser could not be a citizen of the United States. Furthermore, it was held his father was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The constitutional requirement for the President of the United States to be a natural-born citizen had one purpose according to St. George Tucker:

That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to he dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. … The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.

Additionally, Charles Pinckney in 1800 said the presidential eligibility clause was designed “to insure … attachment to the country.”

What better way to insure attachment to the country then to require the President to have inherited his American citizenship through his American father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child the return in later life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues.

Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.

reply to post by danx


and i was beginning to believe you were objective.....

Originally posted by Tinkabit
and i was beginning to believe you were objective.....

Isn't this being objective? I am an Obama supporter, and I support everyone's freedom of speech to talk bunk about him.

Why should I be against it?

Originally posted by Gregarious
According to what I read on this site, Obama had to produce that BC by the first, to the Supreme Court. And since that time, I have seen zero info on it again. What happened?

That's why you can't believe everything you read here.

Obama was not ordered to produce his BC by the first. That is a REQUEST Philip Berg made in his lawsuit. The judged denied it and tossed out the case. I (and others) tried to tell people that it wasn't true (was it you I asked for a link on that? No, it was Evisscerator) because I knew it wasn't true.

The Supreme Court are going to TALK about it on Dec 5 to see if there should be a hearing.

Originally posted by redhatty
The Federalist Blog has one of the best write-ups on the "natural-born" clause that I have yet found. Here is part of it, see the link for all of it

Natural-Born Citizen Defined

One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen.

I agree with this definition, and this is one of the reasons why John McCain does not qualify as a "natural born" citizen.

And Obama doesn't either if he wasn't born in Hawaii.




[edit on 3-12-2008 by danx]

Y'know what?
If there is this much confusion about this issue, on both sides, quite frankly by very defintion

It STINKS.

There never should have been any question. Hey, I believe the Hymalayas exist...have I ever seen them, personally,,,,well.....no whats my point?

The American Public is easily sold a bill of goods it cannot pay.

Originally posted by ConservativeJack
yea I can call somebody who's black the n word doesn't mean I should.

you can call out this black guy and say he isn't like you but it doesn't mean that's what you should be doing

There's a difference between what you can do and what you should do. Freedom is all about what you can do. What you should do, on the other hand, is a matter of morality, and that's for each person to figure out.

I'm not even expecting an apology from racists, or people who are only pursuing this because they can't bare the idea of an African-American as President of the United States.

They are free to be racists, no matter how much I disapprove of it, or disagree with their motives.

Originally posted by danx

Originally posted by redhatty
The Federalist Blog has one of the best write-ups on the "natural-born" clause that I have yet found. Here is part of it, see the link for all of it

Natural-Born Citizen Defined

One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen.

I agree with this definition, and this is one of the reasons why John McCain does not qualify as a "natural born" citizen.

And Obama doesn't either if he wasn't born in Hawaii.

If you read the entire article, even if Obama WAS born in Hawaii, it is questionable as to his Natural-Born Status, due to his Father's Nationality and allegiance. Obama has already openly admitted he was born with Dual-nationality - both an American citizen and a British Subject.

That is where the crux of the problem really lies

www.globalresearch.ca...



www.globalresearch.ca...

[edit on 3-12-2008 by Tinkabit]

can you say N-W-O?

www.globalresearch.ca...



[edit on 3-12-2008 by Tinkabit]

Originally posted by Tinkabit
www.globalresearch.ca...



www.globalresearch.ca...

[edit on 3-12-2008 by Tinkabit]

can you say N-W-O?

www.globalresearch.ca...



[edit on 3-12-2008 by Tinkabit]

Completely off topic, but good articles all the same

Originally posted by redhatty
If you read the entire article, even if Obama WAS born in Hawaii, it is questionable as to his Natural-Born Status, due to his Father's Nationality and allegiance. Obama has already openly admitted he was born with Dual-nationality - both an American citizen and a British Subject.

That is where the crux of the problem really lies

U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. (source)

Dual nationality can occur as the result of a variety of circumstances. The automatic acquisition or retention of a foreign nationality, acquired, for example, by birth in a foreign country or through an alien parent, does not affect U.S. citizenship. (source)

[edit on 3-12-2008 by danx]

Originally posted by ConservativeJack
on topic,

if Obama is proven innocent, will you guys apologize?

He is not accused of anything. Maybe that's where the disconnect is. At least for my part, I never said he was anything other than remiss in conforming to the satisfy the stated requirements of the position. I know the courts will consider all the facts, including those to which we are not privy, and make the appropriate statement settling the matter once and for all.

You seem to think I want him to be ineligible. That was a great assumption on your part (as well as your colleagues in this exchange.) As a matter of fact, I continually tried to alert you to the fact that my concern was not about Obama, it was about the Constitution. Some decry that as "right-wing" for some reason which escapes my grasp.

Your 'issue' seems to be that you have chosen 'a side' and are defiant of anyone even challenging Mr. Obama's presidency. For me, this ends when the court rules; for some of you, it only ends if the court rules in favor of your position.

I don't vest politicians with my emotional energy, so there is no impact on me personally when they 'get the job' or 'lose'. I can fret for our future just like the rest, but I have yet to see even one reason to believe that the quality of the future rests on one man or one party; in fact, quite to the contrary, it makes no real difference.

If Mr. Obama's birth legacy disqualifies him for the job, let Biden do it, lesson learned. Make an 'exception' because he is so 'loved'; fine. Declare a national emergency and or a do-over, it makes no difference. Regardless of who pretends to 'lead' this country we must surely by now have learned that our destiny is in anything but their hands.

For cripes sake, look at the melodrama about where you were on the globe when you sprouted from the womb! Or maybe you traveled a lot as a child for whatever reason, please. Being an American is about who you ARE not where you were born! If that is the lesson to come from this, FINE - I can live with that too.

This is about settling the question! Not about who 'wins' and who 'loses.' So far the 'defense' (as if there were some accusation) has been to decry and deny the inquiry's validity! Of course it's a valid question! The SCOTUS will settle it (I hope).

Good night friends.