Huge News! Obama Must Prove Eligibility in Court Now as Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

As I recall, the McCain campaign presented a short form birth certificate.

No. McCain never produced a birth certificate of any kind what-so-ever.

There was a forged BC published on the internet that got his birth location wrong (according to McCain's published statements of his birth place).

Also one reporter claimed to have been allowed to review his medical records, but nothing was released generally.

Originally posted by SunnyDee
Obama is black.

Yes.

HiIs father was Kenyan.

Yes.

His grandmother said he was born in Kenya.

No, she didn't. She said he was born in Hawai'i and that SHE was in Kenya when he was born. She was adamant about that even thought the 'interviewer' kept pressuring her to change that story. You cannot possibly be aware of that tape and not be aware that it was edited by anti-Obama propagandists before their fraudulent editing was exposed.

He was schooled in Indonesia

Yes, for a couple of years. In a Catholic school.

, shortly after a stay in Hawaii.

Yes. A stay that began in Kapiolani Hospital when his mother gave birth to him and continued until he was about six years old.

He has questionable SS# and BC.

No. He has been using the same SS# his entire working life and the IRS has accepted it. Due to the illegal publication of that SS#, the SSA may have issued him a new one - that is the only question. There is no question about his BC either, except in fantasy land.

His records of schooling and birth have been sealed.

No. Those records are private, not sealed. There is a difference. Your records are private too as are mine.

As someone that voted for the man,

Forgive me, but I don't believe you.

I still find all the information questionable and would like a judge to decide the facts at this point. Is that racist of me?

It depends. Are you demanding the same level of documentation from any other President or Candidate? If not why not? Is it because he is black and none of the others are? Then yes, it is racist of you.

reply to post by rnaa


Name the Administrators who have viewed Obama's valided birth certificates......

what I have seen so far of both his birth certificates have been proven 100% to be fakes

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by rnaa

 

Name the Administrators who have viewed Obama's valided birth certificates......

what I have seen so far of both his birth certificates have been proven 100% to be fakes

By whom?
When?
Under what authority?

I am curious why we are not demanding birth certificates of all the Republican candidates again?
Was that just a passing phase that just happened to be while a black man was in office? Damn shame the timing.

It depends. Are you demanding the same level of documentation from any other President or Candidate? If not why not? Is it because he is black and none of the others are? Then yes, it is racist of you.

reply to post by rnaa


Because there is not the same level of doubt about Obama's loyalties with other candidates - which is why the 'natural born' clause is there for.

All his formative yrs were spent away from mainland USA being raised by assorted radical Communists and educated as Muslim.

The race card is being played, in order to avoid facing up to the fact that everyone who propelled him to office hates the US!

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by rnaa

 

Name the Administrators who have viewed Obama's valided birth certificates......

I will if you will name any Administrators who legally need to see them, have yet to see them.

My show of faith in anticipation of your acceptance of this bargain:

The Authorized Officials of the Hawai'ian State Department of Health, including Dr. Chiyome Fukino and Alvin T. Onaka, have not only seen it, they produced it from official State Vital Statistics records and verified that the documents, both the Standard Form, as published by the Obama Campaign, and the so-called 'long form', as published by the White House are authentic.

what I have seen so far of both his birth certificates have been proven 100% to be fakes

That is very unfortunate. You are clearly quite energized over this topic, I would have thought you would have looked a little bit further into the problem as you perceive it.

If all you have seen so far are the documents that have been proven 100% fakes, you need to look at the official Hawai'ian Certified documents as published by the Obama Campaign and the White House and stop looking at the poorly executed fake Kenyan documents.

reply to post by JohhnyBGood

All his formative yrs were spent away from mainland USA

He was in Indonesia from the age of about 6 to about 10. So maybe grades 1 through 3. Is that really "All his formative yrs"? Come on, get real.

being raised by assorted radical Communists.

Indonesia was, and is, RADICALLY ANTI-COMMUNIST. You really can do better than that.

Edit: in 1961 the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) was one of the largest outside the Soviet Union and actually part of the government coalition. By 1965, Sukarno had had enough of their 'shenanigans' in Malaysia and interference with treaties with Pakistan the Phillipines (and probably pressure from the US Government, deeply embroiled in Viet Nam) and started distancing himself from the PKI. Rumours were floated that the PKI was plotting a coup. Finally, a coup plot known as the "30 September Movement" resulted in the death of 6 top Generals. To put down the coup, a surviving General Suharto took over the military (there is suspicion that Sukarno may have had something to do with the coup as a leverage point to what followed). The PKI was blamed and was ruthlessly suppressed, with over 500,000 killed. Suharto took over as President from Sukarno in 1968.

Obama arrived in Indonesia in 1967 during the height of the PKI suppression. During the time Obama was in Indonesia, Indonesia was RADICALLY ANTI-COMMUNIST. Anybody who poked their head up as even remotely supportive of Communism or anti-Government ideals in any way quickly joined their 500,000 comrades.

Your charge is laughably so far off base that it isn't even laughable. Indonesia in 1967 is the LAST place on Earth a Communist would go.

and educated as Muslim

In a Catholic school?

Are you one of the "the Pope is a closet homosexual, muslim, nazi, communist" Conspiracy folks? Just askin'.

The race card is being played, in order to avoid facing up to the fact that everyone who propelled him to office hates the US!

reply to post by JohhnyBGood


67 million Americans hate the US?

reply to post by rnaa

As I recall, the McCain campaign presented a short form birth certificate.


No. McCain never produced a birth certificate of any kind what-so-ever.

There was a forged BC published on the internet that got his birth location wrong (according to McCain's published statements of his birth place).

Also one reporter claimed to have been allowed to review his medical records, but nothing was released generally.

Senator McCain requested that the senate do an investigation and pass a resolution as to his status as a natural born citizen. That is what they did. McCain resolution here


Obama could have done the same. But he did not.

RESOLUTION
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen' of the United States;

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen', as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country's President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen';

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

Originally posted by kawika
Obama could have done the same. But he did not.

But as Obama was a natural born citizen, born in the USA there is no need for him to do that.

Birthers would not believe it anyway, as it is not about any bit of paper Obama produces!

reply to post by spoor


Well, there is a controversy. And he got by without really facing the problem.

However, as sometimes happens when one puts off the unpleasant business of facing ones problems, they tend to pop up again. Frequently at the worst time.

If the Georgia court does a good job, that will be the end of it. Had he let the senate investigate, that would have been the end of it. Sometimes more that the paper would be required. Could need witnesses (doctor), college applications or tuition assistance records. Passport records. Any number of things might do the job.

It is possible to get a Hawaii BC without being born there.

But I already stated there are 2 proofs I will accept. And most others would also. But the thing that was released electronically would not satisfy anyone.

I would accept proof as either one of two things:

Tested in court with his applications for school, college, actual OLD BC, with OLD ink, ect, reasonable explanation of why his SS# indicates he is from a state in which he never lived, and whatever else the legal eagles think is applicable. And the judge decides.

Or, let him appear on Pawn Stars to pawn his BC, and if Rick and his document expert say it is the real deal, and offer him cash for it, I will accept that as proof.

I still have my ORIGINAL BC, born in 1963, The paper is thick and old, the printing is white, the background is black. I imagine this is to make it more difficult to create a fake document. It has a seal embossed on it to confirm it is the original document. It would be very hard to fake and make it look right.

Originally posted by kawika
Obama could have done the same. But he did not.

Why should he?

Technically McCain was not a natural born citizen.

reply to post by kawika

Senator McCain requested that the senate do an investigation and pass a resolution as to his status as a natural born citizen. That is what they did. McCain resolution here

Correct.

The reason for that is that McCain was born overseas, in the Panama Canal Zone which is not U.S. soil. There is a US Law (sorry don't have the reference at my fingertips) that says children born in the Canal Zone after, I think, 1938 are considered NBC if the parents are U. S. citizens. McCain was unfortunately born about 2 years before that date (meaning 1936 if my recollection is correct, and it may not be perfectly so). This means that there COULD be a challenge to McCain's eligibility on those extremely technically grounds.

There is an honest debate whether this technicality makes McCain non-NBC or not. Many say he is NBC on the grounds that he was born overseas to citizen parents. That reasoning certainly makes him a citizen, but the problem is that that citizenship is established by a law passed by Congress, which means he is not 'Natural Born' but is instead 'Naturalized'.

My view is that technically, McCain is not NBC, but the founders never anticipated the 20th century reality of a standing army posted overseas, and it is simply ridiculous to deny McCain the Presidency on the grounds that his parents were serving their country in an official posting overseas.

What the Congress did, in passing the non-binding resolution, was signal to everyone who might be tempted to challenge McCain's eligibility based on this technicality that they would have none of it. To challenge the Electoral College vote in Congress, you need the written objection of a Representative and a Senator. Congress short-circuited that possibility by unanimously announcing that McCain, should he win in the Electoral College, would not be challenged on those grounds (essentially, they agreed with my position ). McCain did not show any documents in the discussion of the resolution, nor was there any discussion. The motion was put, voted on, and approved.

This also had the effect of ensuring his Primary campaign foes could not reasonably attack him on this point. Since Obama and Hillary co-sponsored the resolution they could not attack him on this point either.

Obama could have done the same. But he did not.

Obama was not in the same position as McCain. Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawai'i, which is absolutely, positively, U.S. soil. There was no technicality for him to overcome in this way.

McCain's situation could have caused endless argument about a trivial technicality that should never have existed and did so for only about 24 months and affected a handful of people, only one of which would ever be in a position to be affected by it.

reply to post by Annee

Originally posted by kawika
Obama could have done the same. But he did not.


Why should he?

Technically McCain was not a natural born citizen.

It means born in the country of your parents and both your parents are citizens. The only question was whether the canal zone was US territory or not. Since we were on the hook to defend it, I say it was. And so to the senate.

The people who wrote the constitution understood the meaning of natural born citizen as common knowledge. Schools have deteriorated to the point where it now seems like a ten dollar word and many people would argue over what it means. But it did have a very specific meaning to those who were well read, 200 years ago. It is defined well in "The law of nations" by Vattel, chap 19 section 212. Here is the quote.

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

And here is a link Law of Nations link

reply to post by kawika


I defer to RNAA'S post above.

That info is correct.

Originally posted by kawika
Well, there is a controversy.

Simply because he is black.

Any number of things might do the job.

And the best thing is your birth certificates - just like Obama has shown1

It is possible to get a Hawaii BC without being born there.

not one that states you were born in Hawaii - a fact you ignore!

But I already stated there are 2 proofs I will accept.

But you have no say in the matter!

And most others would also

No they would not, as it is not about any paper Obama releases?

reasonable explanation of why his SS# indicates he is from a state in which he never lived,

how about this for an explanation - SSN's are NOT state based!

Just why do you think that they are?

Originally posted by kawika
It means born in the country of your parents and both your parents are citizens

No it does not mean that - where in the constitution is that stated?

It is defined well in "The law of nations" by Vattel, chap 19 section 212.

Except that is just ONE definition, not the one the USA uses!

reply to post by rnaa

Obama was not in the same position as McCain. Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawai'i, which is absolutely, positively, U.S. soil. There was no technicality for him to overcome in this way.

And that would be a fact except for the questionable BC and the new HI Gov saying that it did not exist.

reply to post by kawika

The people who wrote the constitution understood the meaning of natural born citizen as common knowledge.

Quite so. And it means exactly what it meant in English Common Law, with only the substitution of the word 'Citizen' for the word 'Subject'.

Schools have deteriorated to the point where it now seems like a ten dollar word and many people would argue over what it means. But it did have a very specific meaning to those who were well read, 200 years ago.

I don't believe that schools have 'deteriorated' to the point where they don't know how to teach what is a "Natural Born Citizen". Like you said, it has always been very well understood.

It is defined well in "The law of nations" by Vattel, chap 19 section 212.

Not for the American experience it isn't. It is explained there for the Swiss experience whose legal system is based on Roman Common Law, not British Common Law.

You should continue your reading of de Vattel for a couple of more paragraphs because two paragraphs later he says (chapter 19 section 214 from your link - emphasis mine):

§ 214. Naturalization.(58) A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, — for example, that of holding public offices — and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalization. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.

De Vattel has nothing to offer this discussion. His book was not published in English until years after the Constitution, and the Founding Fathers, if they knew about his work at all, took no notice of it.