Saturday
Nov 07th
| Obama's Birth Certificate - Still Missing |
 |
 |
| Written by Joan Swirsky |
| Sunday, 26 October 2008 16:18 |
 October 26, 2008 Joan Swirsky Last week, during the crucial waning days of the presidential campaign, Obama left for Hawaii to visit his 85-year-old grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, who had broken her hip. In such bad shape was she - in spite of the hospital's sending her home to heal - that Obama told ABC's Robin Roberts, that "I'm still not sure whether she makes it to Election Day."
Filling in for Obama on the campaign trail in Ohio was his wife, Michelle, who told the crowd that granny was doing just fine.
Did Obama have a dual purpose in traveling to Hawaii, the other being to magically produce the birth certificate proving his eligibility to be president? While he's now back on the campaign trail, he has still failed to produce said certificate! After a recent article I wrote, My Mother's Birth Certicate - And Obama's, a number of people e-mailed me with FactCheck.org's "proof" of the certificate. But let's not forget that FactCheck is owned by the Annenberg Foundation, the same foundation that gave millions of dollars to Obama and his unrepentant terrorist pal William Ayers for an "education" project. To me, that makes FactCheck ipso facto the least credible source of factual information.
Infinitely more credible is the research done by, among others, Pennsylvania attorney What else has Obama failed to provide to a public - and an electorate - that deserves to know everything possible about a presidential candidate?
No wonder Obama's critics have called him a Manuchurian Candidate, a Trojan Horse, and a stealth candidate! If he has nothing to hide, why on earth is he still be refusing to come clean with the American people? Answer: he clearly has a lot to hide. THE BERG CASE In August, Mr. Berg lodged a suit against Obama and the Democratic National Committee. On October 4, the accused parties filed a Motion to Dismiss. On October 21, Mr. Berg released the result of his investigation - "Obama & DNC admit all allegations in Berg v. Obama" - in which he said that by failing to answer the questions the lawsuit posed, both Obama and the DNC admitted, by default, that the charges were true. On October 24, U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick threw out Berg's suit, which asked that Obama's name be removed from the November 4 ballot and claimed that if Obama were permitted to run for president and subsequently found to be ineligible, he (Berg) and other voters would be disenfranchised. The judge concluded that Berg's allegations were "too vague and too attenuated." On October 25, Berg announced in a press release that he is immediately appealing the dismissal of his case to the United States Supreme Court. "This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution, Berg said, "If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States - the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world - then who does?" Berg echoed the outrage reverberating throughout the nation at the prospect of Obama so brazenly flouting the U.S. Constitution, the provisions of which are very limited for qualifying a person to run for president: Article II, Section 1: "No Person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States." "For the first time in history," writes journalist Sher Zieve, "U.S. voters are being asked to choose between continuing the Republic or bending to the will of a totalitarian Communist candidate." What will the Supreme Court do? As one e-mailer told me: "The Supreme Court may be very loathe to take this case, given that they're still smarting from being accused of `selecting' a president in 2000 and they won't want to be accused of `deselecting" a president" in 2008." WHAT'S HAPPENING NOW? Big hat tip here to Matt Bruce, a retired fire-rescue captain, who provided the following information. Currently, lawsuits are being filed in nine states - California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington - that are seeking to require Barack Obama to provide Certification of his Birth in the United States, or to be removed or to remove himself from state ballots. Hawaii, the state in which Obama was supposedly born, is seeking judicial authority to force the certifying or decertifying of Obama's qualification to run as a candidate for President as a natural born U.S. citizen. Previously, two lawsuits have failed to force the certifying documents from Obama. Every day, new lawsuits are being lodged. For more information about each lawsuit or on how to start your own, contact:
Steve Marquis, noted above, is a Washington State resident who last Tuesday filed a suit in Washington State Superior Court against Sam Reed, Secretary of State for the State of Washington, demanding that Illinois Sen. Barack Obama be removed from the ballot in Washington unless he can provide verification of his status as a United States citizen. Marquis said that by "resolving, one way or another, the unanswered questions surrounding Obama's citizenship and background would preclude a constitutional crisis and likely civil unrest which would arise should information come to light after the election which shows that the Illinois senator is ineligible to hold the presidency." Are Obama and the DNC guilty of conspiracy, treason, or sedition? According to Webster's New World College Dictionary:
WHAT CAN YOU DO? At this 11th-hour in our election cycle, it is imperative for all activists to act! The following site has information about contacting your elected representative by phone, fax, and e-mail, as well as extensive information about contacting the media -print, electronic, TV and radio. http://www.conservativeusa.org/megalink.htm.
Use the letter below - or your own version - which was written by Frank Salvato, proprietor of http://www.newmedia.us/ and Executive Director of Terrorism Research at the Basics Project (http://www.basicsproject.org/) literally to blitz your representatives, the media, and the Secretaries of State in your home state. Use this link to find out who they are: Remember, this is not partisan! It is to protect the Constitution of the United States against "enemies both foreign and domestic"! Dear ____, Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads: "No Person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States." There are numerous allegations regarding Sen. Barack Obama's claim of natural birth in the U.S., all raising suspicion and doubt as to Obama's actual place of birth and qualification to run for president. Some of the assertions to which Obama "admitted" on Philip J. Berg's suit are:
Philip J. Berg's months-long lawsuit in Federal Court in Philadelphia reached a dramatic plateau as Mr. Obama and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) failed to respond to the court that Mr. Obama is not a natural born U.S. Citizen and therefore not qualified to run for office of President of the U.S. They admitted to Obama's non-qualification by their failure to respond to a 30-day court ordered discovery in which Obama and the DNC were ordered to answer a petition by Berg. Mr. Berg has stated that if the Federal court chooses to dismiss he will appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. This has come to pass. These allegations will not go away until Mr. Obama produces proof to State and federal authorities. If he will not do so voluntarily he must be compelled by every means available. You, as an employee of The People, have sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution against ALL enemies foreign and domestic. We The People are demanding you to make every effort, both public and private, to resolve this fundamental Constitutional question before Election Day, November 4, 2008. Sincerely, [Your Name, Address, and Contact info here] EXERCISE YOUR PRECIOUS RIGHT TO VOTE Despite the threat that Obama and his supporters have leveled at the United States Constitution, we as voters have a fail-safe solution. If Obama continues to refuse to produce an authentic birth certificate, then we voters - on November 4th - can come out by the millions upon millions to end his candidacy simply by voting NO to Obama and Yes to McCain-Palin! Then we can work to get him out of the Senate! Joan Swirsky (http://www.joanswirsky.com/) is a New York-based journalist and author who can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . Trackback(0)
Comments (38)
  written by Kevin, November 20, 2008
You can make spurious attacks against FactCheck.org, but those close-up photos of the birth certificate won't go away. Rather than ask about the bias of FactCheck.org, I ask about the bias of people like you who ignore the obvious facts while spouting baseless speculation, just to forward their political agenda.
 written by Mary Williams , November 20, 2008
'Twas the night before Christmas and all through the house not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse. And it came to pa*s in those days a babe was born in the far-away lands of Kenya, and He will be known as King Obama and He will save 95% of the children in America.
 written by MF Severa, November 22, 2008
A picture of a birth certificate, can't really be authenticated by viewing it on a web page. Get real. Look, if he was born in the US, then he should have NO PROBLEMS with producing it. So, why doesn't he?
written by Kevin, November 24, 2008
You can say what you want to about FactCheck.org, but the close-up photos of Obama's Birth Certificate speak for themselves. While the Annenberg foundation did give a grant to a Chicago school improvement project that Obama was later asked to serve as Chairman of the board on), Annenberg is also one of McCain's largest campaign contributors. And to say that anti-Obama book seller Jerome (Swiftboat) Corsi or Philip (9/11 consipracy theory) Berg are anywhere close to credible redefines the word "credibility". Even a quick look at Berg's so-called legal brief (citing evidence like the TV show Inside Edition and the Italian Wikipedia) and misrepresentations of immigration law should leave any thinking person shaking his head in disbelief. It boggles the mind how little critical thinking is going on in this issue.
Next think the tin foil hats will be saying Obama is from Mars.
written by Kevin, November 25, 2008
If you trust the person who took the photograph, then you can trust the photograph. While photographic manipulation is always possible, in this case it is hardly plausible. I want to say that the Obama Citizenship Denial (OCD) crowd is "grasping at straws" but for lack of substance perhaps "moonbeams" is more apt. What does anybody think would be on a "real" computer generated certificate from Hawaii that is different from the one photographed? There are only three important items: name, date, place of birth. All "real" ones say some place in Hawaii on them. Is anyone doubting that Obama is old enough or that his name is wrong?
 written by KMays, November 26, 2008
On the evening of Nov 6th of this year I came upon an aquantince of mine, who I shall call "TD", who was weeping and crying with fear. I said to him, "T.D., what is the matter?"
He said "do you have your book?". I new I always carry a poket edition of the Book of Mormon so I took it out and he swared me on it. He is a licensed private investigator and a former menber of the Secret Service and preformed computer based forensics, so He said he could never tell any of what he knew that was also known to all the secret service people. I said "Techdude I sware I will never tell." And then I made him his hand on the book and I swore him too, that ever thing he said was the truth. “TD†said this: During the period of roughly February 1986 to mid 1990, I was making frequent trips to Moscow, USSR, in the process of starting a software development joint-venture company with some people from the USSR scientific community. One of the men in charge on the USSR side was a man known to many in the foreign service as “V. M.†He had a wife we will call “T.K.†As the evening wore on, T.K developed a decidedly rough anti-American edge. “Well, I think you are going to be surprised when you get a black president very soon. What if I told you that you will have a black president very soon and he will be a Commanist?†The out-of-the-blue remark was met by our stares. She continued, “Well, you will; and he will be a Commanist.†One of us asked, It sounds like you know something we done know. “Yes, it is true. This is not some idle talk. He is already born and he is educated and being groomed to be president right now. You will be impressed to know that he has gone to the best schools of Presidents. He is what you call “Ivy League†so he looks down his nose at real americans . You done believe me, but he is real and I even know his name. His name is Barack. His mother is wite and his father from Africar. And he going to be your President He has been raised from the cradle to be an athe ist and a islamic Iman and a Commanist. He is being guided every step of the way to be a facist and he will be irresistible to America!†We sat there not knowing what to say. She was obviously very happy that the Commanists were doing this and the elites would be looking down thier noses at America: they would give us a black president and hed be a Commanist to boot. He was from Hawaii. He would go to school in California. He will live in Chicago where he is the illegtemate son of Malcolm X. He was to be elected to the legislature. Have no doubt: he is one of us, a Soviet. We Sovieters regain our strength and become the number one power in the world. " When I heard this I started crying too because I knew the way he told it was true and the Soviets had done what they set out to do in 1961. This chilling incident proves that Soviets knew of Barack from a very early date.
written by MF Severa, November 27, 2008
Birth certificates have a raised seal. You cannot confirm a raised seal, from a photograph. Any official document requested, demands the origional. Personally, I'm not grasping straws. But, I believe in preserving the constitution. California governor, is a good man in my book. However, I would be on the front lines blocking any attempt to run him as president. I maintain what I express. If he is a natural born citizen, what reason is there that he hasn't produced it, except for a photograph?
 written by Beijingyank, December 03, 2008
"He will live in Chicago where he is the illegtemate son of Malcolm X."
Nice try, but it completely bogus. Malcolm X was in the Ministry in 1961. His second daughter was even born that year. At this time he was clean, upright, honest, pure, educated, and a man of the cloth. Had Obama been born in 1946 when Malcolm was doing some pimping in Boston I might ponder the issue. The idea Malcolm was doing the hoochy coochie with Obama's mom in 1960, I have to say without any doubt, like the Book of Mormon, is a fairy tale.
written by KMays, December 03, 2008
You can all way tell a liberal buy the lack of fatual thinking. They all ways bring up some "point" based on emotion all ways and no logical thought.
Consider this..... "At this time he was clean, upright, honest, pure, educated, and a man of the cloth. Had Obama been born in 1946 when Malcolm was doing some pimping in Boston I might ponder the issue." NONE OF THAT is fatual! Is well known the Soviets were perfecting advanced genatic tekniqes as far back as 1930. There a manys taking geatic material from a man with out his knowing. The embro may have been produced many years early it is not hard to freeze and embro. An this liberal makes my point with out knowing. A "test tube baby" is NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN! That is the fact
 written by Tony Lopez-Cisneros, December 04, 2008
Although Hawiian Officials have "vouched" for Barack Obama's Birth Certificate as being True, Genuine, Authentic & Valid;
THAT does NOT In & Of Itself MAKE The "Birth Certificate" that Mr. Obama has Stashed, Holed-up and/or Locked Away in a "state vault" any MORE True, Genuine, Authentic & Valid: EXCEPT or UNLESS It Be RELEASED FOR PUBLIC & PROFESSIONAL AUTHENTICATION & VIEWING BEFORE MR. OBAMA IS "ELECTED" PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY "THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE" THIS 15th OF DECEMBER, 2008 !-- AND THUS MR. OBAMA CAN OFFICIALLY BE SWORN IN AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON JANUARY 20, 2009 ! WHY HAS MR. OBAMA AGGRIVATED FURTHER DOUBT ON THIS MOST GRAVE MATTER OF U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; AND PRE-REQUISITE FOR FULFILLING THE FEDERAL & LAWFUL REQUIREMENTS: FOR LEGALLY BEING ELECTED TO & LEGALLY EXECUTING THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ? WHY HAS HE SPENT OVER $ 800,000.00 IN LEGAL FEES & FUNDS TO DENY HIS "LOCKED IN A STATE VAULT" BIRTH CERTIFICATE FROM PUBLIC SCRUTINY & AUTHENTICATION ? THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEMAND A CLEAR, HONEST, MORAL, ETHICAL & FORTHWITH ANSWER -- ALONG WITH THE PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF THE "LOCKED IN A STATE VAULT" BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA BEFORE DECEMBER 15, 2008: AND MOST DEFINITELY BEFORE JANUARY 20, 2009 ! ANYTHING SHORT OF THE ABOVE DEMAND IS TO COMMIT TREASON AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; THE SEVERAL (50) STATES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; AND THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: ALONG WITH ITS TERRITORIES, POSSESSIONS AND a*sOCIATED STATES (I.E. PUERTO RICO) & ETC.!!! TRUTHFULLY, HONESTLY & RESPECTFULLY YOURS, Tony Lopez-Cisneros 2002/2004 Candidate For Congress, United States House of Representatives, 4th Congressional District, State of Illinois. Website: http://www.lopez-cisnerosin2002.0catch.com E-mail: \n This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it '> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
written by mfsevera, December 07, 2008
Why is it that, the Liberals cry much about this being unconstitutional or, that being unconstitutional? If they are so concerned about the constitution, why aren't they demanding the ORIGIONAL birth certificate. When McCain was thought to be in a grey area, he quickly gave up his BC, and put that to rest quickly and, once and for all. If Obama had NOTHING to hide, he would have given his BC up. But he hasn't. But, the frustrating thing is, we may have a president, that is constitutionally INELIGABLE to be president. If Palin was in Baraks spot, Liberals would be screaming. But, they're not. Why? Because simply, they don't give a crap about the constitution. Only in an agenda. Please prove us wrong Obama and Liberals, give it up. After all, you have nothing to hide, right?
 written by Tom Moore, December 16, 2008
A conservative plan to re-enter the mainstream of American political thought rather than desperately grasping at insane conspiracy theories - Still Missing.
So are most Americans guilty of treason now? It's no wonder you all epically failed at this election. Have fun hanging out with the John Birch Society.
written by MFSevera, December 21, 2008
No, most Americans are not traitors and, no one "failed" in this election. It is plain and simple; present proof of US birth. Obamas people made McCain do it and, he provided the proof. Why hasn't Obama? For me, it's a constitution dillema not a right or left wing problem. Why won't he produce it? It's like declining to take a lie detector test. That automatically is suspicious. He won the election. Im ok with that. He won't produce a valid birth certificate. Im not ok with that.
written by KMays, December 21, 2008
A. Gold: Persons born in the country of two parents, BOTH of whom are Gold Citizens. (see below) Only Gold citizens are eligible for the office of the president.
B. Silver: Persons born in the country of ONE Gold parent, but not both. Silver citizens have all the rights of citizenship EXCEPT for the right to hold office as president. C. Bronze: Persons who have completed the process of “naturalizationâ€. Bronze citizens have not been born in the U.S., but the have all the rights of Silver citizens once they are naturalized. Arnold is a "Bronze" because he was not born in this country. Obama and Jindel are "Silver" because they are born in this country, but not from 2 Gold parents. So they are not eligible to be president. George Bush is "Gold" because he is born in this country, and BOTH his parents are Gold. Demographically, most people in the US are Silver or Bronze. Are you a GOLD CITIZEN? Many people are not. JMays "Proud to be GOLD!"
 written by Liberal double standards, December 23, 2008
The liberals in this country would like the Constitution to be a selective instrument of law. Place a check by the laws they agree with and ignore the one's they don't. Gay's have a Constitutional right to marry while ignoring the " natural born " clause of the Constitution and saying those questioning Mr. Obamas citzenship stautus " grasping at insane conspiracy theories ".
The fact that the Father of Barack was not an American citizen disqualifies him from being President. Next you liberals will be telling me that Putin or the son of can knock an American citizen up and their offspring will be eligible to become thePresident of the United States.
written by Tom Moore, December 27, 2008
Why do we need liberal double standards when we have a fourteenth amendment? If you're born here, you're a naturalized citizen. Yeah, I guess if Putin immigrated her and had a child, that son or daughter would be just as eligible for the Presidency as the child of any other immigrant. Do you honestly think that somehow constitutes an argument?
Slate had a piece that demolished all of these terrible arguments. Do you really think that the CIA and the state of Hawaii are all in on this conspiracy? Do you really take the inconsistent claims of a*sorted anti-Semites and 911 conspiracy theorists more seriously than the actual government that administers birth certificates? If so, you have gone off the deep end and deserve to fade into political irrelevance. A biracial man (or magical negro, or whatever racist garbage your movement is now putting forth) is going to be President next month and there is nothing that you can do about it.
written by RichieRich, December 29, 2008
Naturalized citizen does not equate to "natural born ". Do I think everyone is involved in a conspiracy, no. Do I think groups, organizations, courts and so on are eager to bring down the first black President of the United States and cause a political WWIII, nope.
Your knowledge of the Constitution friend is obviously limited. Further, your knowledge of the subject is small. Barack Hussein Obama, Sr never "immigrated" to the United States hence, never became a U.S. citizen not that means anything in regards to the subject matter. Because your born on American soil does not constitute " natural born ". Are you a citizen of the United States, yes but not " natural born ". If you studied the historical context of the meaning and intention of you would know that. Since you never bothered to do so I guess your stuck with logic such as " anti-Semites ". So what your saying Mr. Moore is that you have no problem with the possibility of foreign dictator's offspring and or offspring of becoming President of the United States. The term " natural born " was intended to prevent exactly that. It was intended to prevent the Presidency from falling into foreign influence. Now tell me how electing a President in which his Father was a citizen of the United Kingdom and a member of the government of Kenya prevents that?. Let me ask you Mr. Moore. How comfortable would you be with Uday Hussein son of dictator Saddam Hussein babysitting your kids?. Thats' pretty much what your insinuating.
written by Tom Moore, December 30, 2008
Um, natural born means you're a citizen from birth. If you have any case law suggesting otherwise, I would be interested to hear it. There is a reason that even the staunch conservatives on the Court dismissed this case without comment.
Obama was not naturalized. He was born here and is a natural born citizen. Your hypothetical about Putin having a child born in the U.S. is just bizarre. I suppose that in an alternate reality where Putin moves the U.S. and has a child with an American citizen, that child could be President some day. What an amazing argument. Last I checked, Uday Hussein wasn't born in the U.S., but if that's how far you have to stretch to make some semblance of an argument, more power to you. But I think that I'll stick with the the Justices of the Supreme Court and the government of Hawaii, rather than the ravings of anti-Semitic, 9/11 denying lunatics who are terrified that a black man will be President next month. Your paranoid rantings about socialism failed to win the election and they will certainly fail to stop Obama from being sworn in. You lost. Get over it.
written by KMays, December 30, 2008
I suspect alot of liberal comments here are from 2nd or 3rd cla*s citizens who are ashamed of thier status so they want to put everyone in the same melting pot. But there are degrees of birth that can never be erased.
Case in Point: Someone says "Yeah, I guess if Putin immigrated her and had a child, that son or daughter would be just as eligible for the Presidency as the child of any other immigrant." That is clearly absurd. Are they trying to say that if Osama Bin Laden and Sadem Hussain moved to Ma*sachusets and got got gay married and adopted a child borne in south Florida that child would be a Gold Citizen? Obviously not. Just shows how ridiculous thier argument is. Proud to be Gold! KMays
written by Tom Moore, December 30, 2008
Are you people serious? Gold citizenship? What clause of the Constitution or court case did you get that garbage from?
Pointing to random people you don't like who could theoretically move here and have a child to one day be President is a terrible argument. Not only is that the worst plan to take over a nation in the world (it's pretty hard to become President in the first place, much less if you are the son of the most hated man in the world), you could say that about any group. David Duke and the members of Westboro Baptist Church are gold citizens whose kids could be President. That doesn't mean they're ineligible. This is your argument summed up: http://www.salon.com/comics/boll/2008/04/03/boll/
written by RichieRich, December 31, 2008
There are numerous letter's from that period in history which sheds light on what " natural born " was intended to mean. John Jay would be one of them. You also have to have an understanding of that period of history to fully understand the Constitution. I'll bet you think there is a Separation of Church and State clause in the Constitution don't you.
The Separation of Church and State is a concept. That concept was never intended to remove religion from government. It was to prevent the government from forming a national religion and legislating law based on religious doctrine. What you have today is an interpretation abomination by none other then the usual suspects, liberals. You have to understand where our forefathers were from to understand why clauses, amendments appear as they do and the thinking behind them. If the Supreme Court gets this case they will have no other alternative but to disqualify Barack Obama, Jr. If the Electoral College allows him to be President they should all be arrested and charged with Fraud. " It is generally agreed that these constitutional provisions mean anyone born on American soil to "parents" who are U.S. citizens is a “natural born citizen†eligible to someday become president or vice-president". Sources; Professor of Law and Philosophy and Co-Director of the University of Illinois's Institute for Law and Philosophy, wikipedia. I'm sure you can find other on-line sources. I'm not your mother. I'll say this one more time. It doesn't matter where Barack Obama, Jr was born. The fact that his Father was not an American Citizen disqualifies him. Doesn't it strike you odd Tom that other then our forefathers that were for lack of better words grand fathered in by the Constitution with this neat little wording " or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution " that every President forward has been the offspring of 2 American citizens. Tell me Tom is there any other legal document with exception to the Constitution President and Vice President requirements that the wording " natural born " appears?.
written by RichieRich, December 31, 2008 Your hypothetical about Putin having a child born in the U.S. is just bizarre. I suppose that in an alternate reality where Putin moves the U.S. and has a child with an American citizen, that child could be President some day. What an amazing argument. What's hypothetical about it. The American people just elected a President who's Father wasn't a citizen of the United States. Not only that, his Father was a government official of Kenya. Putin moves the U.S. and has a child with an American citizen Who say's he or his son has to move. According to your logic she could conceive the child in Russia and give birth in the United States and abbakadabra a " natural born " citizen or one of them could be visiting the United States. I actually find it amazing that I have to convince you as an American of the dangers of allowing a President that is not the offspring of 2 American cictizens. I mean how screwed up is that. You want to talk about " bizarre ".
written by KMays, January 01, 2009
Dr. Orly Taitz has very articulatly pointed out the dangers in not enforcing the law.
See her at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6771521759788800576&ei=Lc5cSZbpMJ-2-wGZ7JnnDA&q=WTP Obama Citizenship Challenge or search "Orly Taitz" on youtube. Dr. Taitz is only a Bronze Citizen, but she shows more patriotism than most Silvers and Golds, sad to say. Dr. Taitz shows clearly that there is a very grave danger that Osama Bin Laiden could become the next President of the United States after Obama, if we do not force the Supere Court to Act Now.
written by Tom Moore, January 02, 2009
Uh, the fourteenth amendment post-dates any letter written by John Jay. None of the forefathers were even alive when that amendment was drafted. The citizenship clause made Obama a citizen at birth and he never had to be naturalized.
The Supreme Court already considered this case and rightfully dismissed it without comment. If you are born here, you are a natural born citizen. You have yet to point to any case law suggesting otherwise. The best thing you have to offer is an ideologically motivated secondary source that (a) you ripped from wikipedia, along with the rest of your drivel and (b) doesn't say what you think it says. It only says that someone born to two citizens is a natural born citizen, not that someone with only one citizen parent isn't. I also find it hilarious that you put so much stock in a letter from John Jay, rather than the actual text of the Constitution, and are engaging in the same mistake that you accuse church-state separationists of making. As for separation of church and state, that is an interpretation of the Establishment Clause offered by Thomas Jefferson in a letter that he wrote to a church. Note that the first amendment doesn't say "establishment of *a* religion," but "establishment of religion." But that really has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Lastly, the forefathers were grandfathered in because they were not born in the United States (it didn't even exist when they were born). Not to mention that the fourteenth amendment didn't exist at the time (but reading the Constitution was never the strongest suit of the American right, as evidenced by the way you all shredded the document during the past eight years). Obama is a loyal, natural born American citizen. He has no British or Kenyan agenda. He is not the son of an Iraqi dictator. He was primarily raised by his mother. He is going to be your President. Put your white hood away and get used to it.
written by RichieRich, January 02, 2009 All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. You see " natural born " anywhere in the above. The fourteenth amendment pertains to citizenship. Congress has alot of citizens, unfortunately many are not " natural born ". Sorry to burst your bubble, not. You have all the symptoms Tom of someone in denial. This is 5th grade material. Barack Obama, Jr knows he is not a " natural born " citizen that's why the DNC and Barack Obama, Jr himself are going to such great lengths to prevent this from coming out. Do you know of any other reason why Barack Obama, Jr would not simply answer the plethora of legal motions in the courts?. The man gives numerous media interviews and one would think with all the legal motions that he would take 5 seconds and hold his birth certificate to the camera. Hell, I'd make copies and autograph them.
written by RichieRich, January 02, 2009
I forgot to address the rest of your intellectual drivel. Case law woud pertain to cases that courts have ruled on. Since no other idiot's but your political party were ignorant enough to not understand what " natural born " means no case law exists on the subject.
You see any case law where a court ruled on whether a red light meant you had to stop?. Separation of Church and State; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Where in the above would one conclude that God was to be absent in Government. the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's "God" entitle them.
written by Tom Moore, January 03, 2009
There are two kinds of citizens: those who are natural-born and those who are naturalized. The fourteenth amendment made Obama a citizen at the time of his birth because he was born in the United States. As such, when you combine the manner in which English common law recognized natural born citizens and the fourteenth amendment, Obama is natural born and did not have to be naturalized.
The hilarious thing is that your misreading of the Natural Born Citizen Clause may also disqualify John McCain. One could argue that John McCain isn't a natural born citizen because he was not born on U.S. soil. However, that would be ridiculous. If you really think that Obama has any allegiance to Kenya or England, you're off your rocker. None of the concerns expressed by Jay apply to him. Obama didn't need to appear in court because the case was dismissed at every level. But now you're switching to a different argument (the Birth Certificate issue) which was clearly addressed by the government that actually verifies birth information. Did you even read the Slate article? Lastly, I have no idea what point you're trying to make by haggling about the first amendment. But I'll humor you and state that the first amendment requires government neutrality towards religion. Religion is a matter of personal conscience in the private sphere and not something with which the state should be entangling itself. You could look up Europe's blood-soaked history or Jefferson's letter if you want to know why this is a good idea. I also don't know why you're quoting the Declaration of Independence, which predates the Constitution. Unlike the Declaration, the Constitution is legally binding and only invokes religion insofar as it limits the state's involvement with it.
written by RichieRich, January 03, 2009 There are two kinds of citizens: those who are natural-born and those who are naturalized. The fourteenth amendment made Obama a citizen at the time of his birth because he was born in the United States. As such, when you combine the manner in which English common law recognized natural born citizens and the fourteenth amendment, Obama is natural born and did not have to be naturalized. The 14th Amendmant reads: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. If this pertained to the Presidency and Vice Presidency then if you were naturalized in the United States you could become President. Then I ask " why can't Arnold Schwarzenegger " become President?. This clause makes no reference to " natural born " nor distinguishes any differnece between born or naturalized. Further makes nor has any merit at all to Section I, Article II. You obviously haven't a clue to what you are talking about. John McCain was born on a American military installation in the Panama Canal Zone and was the offspring of "2 American citizen's". Now if you want to insinuate that because John McCain, Sr. was called to duty to serve his country in the Panama Canal Zone which subsequently led to John Mccain, Jr's birth their as a comparable argument to Barack Obama, Jr. your either retarded or lack any reasonable ability to weigh prudence. John McCain, Jr. also presented his birth certificate immediately to the public when said had become in question. "If you really think that Obama has any allegiance to Kenya or England, you're off your rocker. It does matter what I think nor you. The clause is a preventative measure. I don't like traffic laws either so we should do away with them and a*sume everyone will drive safely?. Why the Supreme Court has dismissed these cases because there has been no substantive Constitutional violation as of yet, in short, he's not the President yet nor has been confirmed. The Supreme Court only rules on constitutional related issue's. If the Electoral College denies Barack Obama, Jr. the Presidency based on he fails to qualify under the " natural born " clause then the case will go to the Supreme Court and he will most certainly lose. "I also don't know why you're quoting the Declaration of Independence, which predates the Constitution. Unlike the Declaration, the Constitution is legally binding and only invokes religion insofar as it limits the state's involvement with it". These are all sequential documents relative to each other. Are you saying that the Bill of Rights is not binding nor a legal probative document?. You just shot yourself in the foot. I only brought up the 1st. Amendment some posts back as a testament to your ignorance. If you want to continue to sound like an idiot find with me. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" = Congress shall legislate "no law" forming a national church, based in religious doctrine or one religion over another. God is not particular of nor favors a religion, nor does the Constitution ban religion or god from Government. This only applies to it's legislative authority. Nowhere in any historical or modern legal document does any reference to a particular religion appear. What does appear is " God ". You have the typical liberal argument Tom which is boring, hypocritical, without fact and always self-serving. You want things to mean one thing when it serves your interest and another when it does not. Your not worthy debating because you simply do not know what your talking about nor have an educated thought. If you want anyone to become President, be governed by those who are morally void, by those who think they are the higher power and judged in a court of law with absolutely no moral conviction, move and go start your own country. " God is as American as baseball and apple pie. Get over it or move. Why stay in the greatest country ever to serve humanity when you know better. Your either a product of public education, work within it's sytem or both. Most likely born in the 1950's early 1960's I'll bet.
written by RichieRich, January 04, 2009
Source: Lawrence B. Solum, University of Illinois College of Law.
What was the original public meaning of the enigmatic phrase that establishes the eligibility for the office of President of the United States? There is general agreement on the core of settled meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose "parents" are citizens of the United States of American is a "natural born citizen. Source: Book Law of Nations “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. Source: Harvard Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe, California Federal Court decision. Based on the original meaning of the Constitution, the Framers' intentions, and subsequent legal and historical precedent, Senator McCain's birth to "parents" who were U.S. citizens, serving on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, makes him a 'natural born citizen' within the meaning of the Constitution,". My reference to John Jay was in support of what prompted the clause. Like many during the Constitutional convention they were concerned about the possibility of foreign influence if Presidents were not " natural born ". There are few modern day liberal's that attempt to disguise the meaning. Most of them are of the opinion that the clause should be done away with but they do know what it means. You know what it means. You also know that Barack Obama, Jr. should be disqualified. We all know what will happen if he is. I don't think the Supreme Court wants to touch this with a 3,000 mile long pole. The powers at be are going to have to find another way to get out of this situation so Barack Obama, Jr can bow out with as little legal ramifications as possible. I have theory of what is going to happen and the ground work for that started a few weeks ago. It's been in the media and I'll leave it at that. I will be very surprised if we see a Barack Obama, Jr inauguration. Very surprised.
written by Tom Moore, January 05, 2009
Wow, you're hostile. Maybe if you calmed down you wouldn't have typed the most ironic phrase on this page: "your ... retarded."
Natural-born Citizen The Fourteenth Amendment references two kinds of citizens: those by birth and those who are naturalized. If you are a citizen at birth, you are natural born. The amendment adds a new means of being a citizen at birth: being born in the U.S., subject to its jurisdiction. Schwarzenegger clearly does not fall into this category. Obama does. Do you really think that Obama was naturalized at some point? When? Seriously, there has never been a point in his life in which he was not a citizen. Courts often interpret laws in light of the purposes behind them. Blocking Obama's presidency serves none of the purposes behind the natural born citizenship clause (which you brought up when you referenced Jay's letter). The Supreme Court will never invalidate Obama's Presidency and he will become the 44th President of the United States. The courts don't want to go near this and only fringe elements of the Republican Party care about it. Your own party leadership wants nothing to do with this issue and cares more about recovering from the devastating electoral defeats that it experienced during the past two elections. Establishment Clause The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence is not. It was signed over a decade before the Constitution was even adopted. We even had a separate government between the two documents. Do you think that the Articles of Confederation are binding as well? You are really revealing your ignorance if you think the Declaration is a legal document on par with the bill of rights, which was properly ratified. The Constitution, which actually governs our nation, does not reference God. It only limits governmental involvement with religion. Why would I want to leave the U.S., when I already live in a nation governed by secular laws? The Constitution even prohibits religious tests for those who hold public office. If you want a theocracy, maybe you should look elsewhere. As for the Establishment Clause only applying to legislative activity, that clause was incorporated against other parts of the government by the Fourteenth Amendment, as is recognized by a strong line of Supreme Court decisions. It also prohibits much more than just a national religion. Note that it doesn't say "no law establishing a religion," but says "no law respecting an establishment of religion." The best interpretation of this clause requires government neutrality towards religion. We live in a pluralistic society with people from a variety of religious backgrounds. Look at European history if you want an example of what happens when the government makes it its business to determine which religious stance is correct. Finally, I did go to a public school. Luckily, that school that taught me about correct apostrophe usage.
written by Tom Moore, January 05, 2009
I just noticed the part of this article that suggests that Obama's grandmother wasn't really facing serious health problems. That's the same grandmother who died before the election.
Compa*sionate conservatism wins again.
written by RichieRich, January 06, 2009
Tom your just another misguided American courtesy of it's public school system.
Ronald Reagen; If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. No sense arguing with you nor your kind.
written by RichieRich, January 07, 2009
For those " seriously " interested in the litigation of the Barack Obama, Jr birth certificate " JOKE ", here are some links to the actual court papers. What you should "note" is that at no time has Barack Obama, Jr nor anyone related to the issue responded to the allegations by claiming or providing evidence that Barack Obama, Jr. qualifies under the " natural born " clause.
http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/berg_ac_fec_opp_emerg_mot.pdf http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/berg_ac_obama_resp_emerg_mot.pdf http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/berg_mem_order_dismiss.pdf What you should also take " note " of why these cases are being dismissed.
 written by Ron Russell, March 02, 2009
I have serious doubts about any resolution of this issue in the American judicial system---doubt if any judge will have the stomach for the challenges the issure presents. If, indeed, there is something out there I believe it will have to come from Kenya. At the present time and under the existing administration in Kenya this will not occur. That said, Kenya is in a very unstable part of the world, with the detoriating situation in Robert Mugabe's kingdom to the west and the pressure of radical Islamic forces to the north and in country. It is not a far-fetched idea that revolution and regime change could occur and a new order established that would not be favorable to Obama. We'll just have to wait and see.
written by Ron Russell, March 10, 2009
Straight to the point---if Obama would just release the originals showing his place of birth this could all be settled--so simple, why doesn't he just do it. Does he have something to hide--starting to look that way to this one.
 written by Dr. Conspiracy, March 30, 2009
You'd think the world was about to descend into chaos because Hawaii automated their vital records system and stopped photocopying paper from the books. Besides the Flat Earth Society (and maybe the faked moon landing), this is got to be the fringe theory with less gas in the tank that any other I know of. I have caught these guys in more lies than I can count.
How can people be so gullible as to be led around by the nose by the likes of Berg, and Orly, and Kidd, and Ed Hale, and Swirsky?
 written by American Birther, November 02, 2009
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States".
Why no media outlet has ever brought in a constitutional expert to discuss the " natural born " clause to settle this issue for the Ameerican people is because they won't and most likely can't. Why, because the definition of " natural born " can easily be found in the clause itself. In short, your " parents " have to be citizens of the United States for their offspring to be considered " natural born ". If you read this closely " No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President ". What this did was those within the borders of the United States " at the time of the Adoption of " would become " legal " citizens of the United States. Their offspring would be " natural born ". The Constitution created legal citizens of the United States. People get confused a little bit because of the order in which " No person except a natural born Citizen" and " or a Citizen of the United States " appear. Their were no constitutional " natural born citizens " prior to the constitution. In simple terms the forefathers had to start somewhere and that somewhere is the Constitution of the United States. So you can see that " at the time of the Adoption of " created legal "citizens" of the United States that would produce " natural born ctizens ". The fact that the Father of President was not an American citizen disqualifies Barack Obama from the Presidency or should have.
Write comment
|
| Last Updated on Friday, 12 June 2009 17:44 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Login Form
Right Side News Survey
 |
 |
Subscribe to our Weekly Newsletter
|
|
http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-is-obamas-birth-certificate-still.html