Following the controversy over the authenticity of Barack Obama's birth certificate can be a bit confusing with all its detailed analysis. Your humble correspondent will leave that up to the experts. However, in response to the charge that Barack Obama is not an American citizen, Obama's Fight the Smears website, quoting FactCheck.Org, has made a bombshell admission...Barack Obama was once a citizen of Kenya. You read that right, Obama had Kenyan citizenship until 1982. Here is the startling admission published in Fight the Smears (emphasis mine):
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. 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.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.”
So according to Fight the Smears itself, Obama's Kenyan citizenship expired on Aug. 4, 1982 meaning he held Kenyan citizenship until that point. This is astounding and so far no mainstream media outlet has reported on it. Will some reporter out there be so bold as to ask Obama if he was a Kenyan citizen until his 21st birthday as his own website concedes?
Until reading of this Kenyan citizenship admission, I thought the lawsuit claimng that Obama was born in Kenya filed by Clinton supporter, Phil Berg, in Philadelphia was of minor import. However, by responding to it in the way it did, the Fight the Smears website has just opened up a big can of worms for Obama in its admission that he was a citizen of Kenya until 1982.
Meanwhile, instead of simply producing the original birth certificate in court and put the matter to rest, the Obama campaign seeks to evade that action by attempting to dismiss the lawsuit entirely. Here is the latest report on this lawsuit from the Phoenixville News:
PHILADELPHIA — Presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee filed a joint motion in federal court Wednesday to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the Illinois senator to prove he's a citizen of the United States.
On Aug. 21, four days before the Democratic National Convention, Lafayette Hill attorney Philip Berg filed suit in Philadelphia seeking to remove the Democratic candidate from the November ballot claiming he was born in Kenya and not in America.
Berg asked the court for a temporary restraining order "prohibiting Obama from being formally confirmed as the Democratic Party nominee for president," according to court papers.
The Federal Election Commission was also named as a defendant in the legal action.
A day after the suit was filed, a federal judge denied the motion for a temporary restraining order.
When rumors emerged last summer questioning whether Obama was born Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii, his campaign posted a certificate of live birth on its Web site.
In a press statement circulated Wednesday by Berg's law office, the attorney insisted the Democratic candidate was born in Africa and thus ineligible to run for president.
"It is obvious that Obama was born in Kenya and does not meet the 'qualifications' to be president of the United States pursuant to our United States Constitution. Obama cannot produce a certified copy of his 'Vault' (version) Birth Certificate from Hawaii because it does not exist," the press release reads.The suit seeks to compel the senator to produce the long version of his original birth certificate.
The motion to dismiss filed Wednesday called the suit's allegations "ridiculous and patently false," and argues the court lacks legal standing to challenge a presidential candidate's qualifications.
While Berg argued the case against Obama on constitutional grounds, Obama's attorney claims Berg must show a "specific and individualized injury" to prove standing in the case rather than a hypothetical one.
Earlier this year, a similar suit brought against Republican presidential candidate John McCain's and the Republican National Committee claimed that McCain wasn't "a natural born" citizen, having been born in the Panama Canal Zone while his father was serving in the military.
That suit was dismissed in July on grounds the plaintiff lacked standing in the case.
A minor lawsuit that seemed to be just a small irritant has now caused the Obama website to respond by admitting that he was once a Kenyan citizen. Where is the MSM on this? Which brave reporter will quote Obama's own website to him? Until now, there has been absolutely no mention in the mainstream media that we have a presidential candidate that once held citizenship with another country.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.”
—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
This is intriguing. If it
September 29, 2008 - 06:49 ET by HermanoThis is intriguing. If it was simply a matter of the "missing" birth certificate, I would say this is a non-issue. But the outstanding lawsuit, if properly filed, puts this in a very different light, IMO. Interestingly enough, all the 0bama campaign would have to do is produce a valid birth certificate - end of the issue. That shouldn't be too hard.
The Newsbusters Comments Crew: Saving the Environment - One Ribeye at a Time! h/t Dr_Liberty
birth certificate was produced more than a month ago
September 29, 2008 - 11:42 ET by nicholas nicklebyHey Hermano,
A lot of people here have commented to ask "Where is Obama's birth certificate?" which I take it is also the thrust of your comment (and since you got the first post in, I'm responding to your comment).
Obama's birth certificate was produced and authenticated over a month ago. (http://www.factcheck...).
So, you're right--it shouldn't be hard to show a birth certificate, Obama showed his--so, as you say, "end of the issue."
»→ nickleby
September 29, 2008 - 11:49 ET by Cool ArrowYou're right. It's just the mechanical rabbit on the greyhound track. Some will chase it and others won't.
I don't think we should question his place of birth or his Muslim faith for that matter.
"I've got a bracelet too" - Barack Obama
Nick
September 29, 2008 - 17:14 ET by well99I have to agree with you.The question of if Obama was a citizen or not came from a hillary supporter.It has never been a issue with me.I can find real faults with Obama without adding any dubious ones.Mark down this day.We agreed on something.I think Armaggedon is coming.
heh
September 29, 2008 - 17:53 ET by nicholas nicklebyha! we should have saved this for Halloween, when it would have been extra-spooky. Quick let's disagree about something! Uh, I think the Mets were most amazing in '86! Go!
Nick
September 29, 2008 - 18:27 ET by well99"I think the Mets were most amazing in '86! Go!" How did you know I was Red Sox fan?This is war and I aint waiting for Congress to declare it!Great series though.
oh, damn
September 29, 2008 - 18:39 ET by nicholas nicklebyoh man--I grew up in a Mets household, but I know a lot of Red Sox fans: I would never have said that so flippantly if I had known. I knew a guy from Boston who, when he was feeling really depressed, would watch a tape of game 6 just to make himself feel even worse. Great series, definitely.
I look forward to the next non-political competition we find ourselves on opposite sides of. Red Sox/Mets 09?
Nick
September 29, 2008 - 20:16 ET by well99As long as it was the Mets.I also was a fan of theirs.Who didnt like Yogi?I didnt feel as bad because it was the Mets that won.I also liked Dave Johnson.They are like the Cubs.A team I always enjoyed watching.Just a note.On game 6.It takes more than one game or one play to lose in the WS.Too much was made of it.Bottom line was they had seven games to win the series and the Mets outplayed them.That would be cool if there was a rematch.
numbn*ts, If Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii...
October 25, 2008 - 13:19 ET by R D Helm...then his original birth certificate still exists.
I was born in 1964 in Atlanta, Georgia. My original birth certificate still exists.
He has yet to produce said certificate, and continues to expend vast sums of money in an effort to resist doing so.
He could clear this whole mess up in about 5 minutes, and would save a bundle of money in the process.
Why hasn't he?
-Dave
In order for wealth to be spread, it first must be seized.
Factcheck is lying. What
October 25, 2008 - 01:14 ET by liberal_bug_zapperFactcheck is lying. What Obama produced is NOT a birth certificate and has been proven to be a forgery. Real certificates of live birth from that time were hand written, and had a lot more information on them. The fact that he can't even provide a REAL birth certificate proves to me that he is not a natural born citizen, and this means, if he wins, I will stop obeying the laws of the US. Any true Americans must stop obeying all laws of the US. We must stand up in mass to defeat the invaders. If we don't, we lose our country for good as Obama's election will prove that Liberals don't need to obey the Constitution... only Conservatives do.
____________________________________________________
"I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." ~ Ayn Rand
lbz, whom do you trust?
October 25, 2008 - 11:46 ET by nicholas nicklebylbz, you don't trust FactCheck.org. Do you trust McCain? Do you trust Sarah Palin? Do you trust Hannity or O'Reilly at FoxNews?
Because none of these people have ever questioned Obama's birth certificate. I'm sure they've seen the facts, and they're not saying it's a forgery or anything--they accept it.
So I think you might want to rethink your plan to become a criminal if the election goes to Obama.
Good morning Nick
October 25, 2008 - 11:58 ET by cocodrieFactcheck is hit and miss at best. Accuracy is not their strong suit.
An answer to the questions, please.
October 25, 2008 - 12:06 ET byCoco,
Do you trust McCain?
Do you trust Sarah Palin?
Do you trust Hannity or O'Reilly at FoxNews?
Übercon
"The voice of dissent must be heard."-Henry Ford
Good afternoon UBER
October 25, 2008 - 12:18 ET by cocodrieI trust only God.
HA!!! Uber I found you!!!
October 25, 2008 - 12:20 ET by TheSterI'll be back.
Ster.
Who do you Trust Uber???
October 25, 2008 - 12:51 ET by TheSterOlby?
Crissy?
Joy Baher?
Michael Moore?
Ster.
uber you don't think
October 25, 2008 - 13:01 ET by porpoiseboyOJ was innocent...do you? i mean he was found "not guilty" by his "peers" AND the glove "didn't fit". right?
Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.
and here I was going to take the weekend off
October 25, 2008 - 12:27 ET by nicholas nicklebyhi coco,
But I didn't defend FactCheck--I accepted LBZ's statement that he thinks FactCheck is lying.
But it's hard for me to imagine that someone who is "mens sana in corpore sano" would think that
a) the people who he normally considers trustworthy (McCain, Palin, O'Reilly, Hannity--fill in the blank with your favorite conservative) have dropped the ball on this; and
b) that somehow the best response to this would be to become a criminal.
(I mean, I understand the urge to say, "I'm not going to fight fair if he's not," but we're not really talking about "fighting fair"--we're talking about upholding the Constitution and the laws. If you really think the Constitution is in trouble, then it makes more sense to fight to uphold the laws, not to declare your intention to break them. LBZ's announcement might just as well have been said by William Ayers--"the government is prosecuting an illegal war in Viet Nam, therefore I will not follow the laws.")
Nick..I'm here!!!
October 25, 2008 - 12:54 ET by TheSterWhat's the point of reference ???
I'm watching football also....
Ster.
Nick
October 25, 2008 - 12:59 ET by cocodrieI neglected to thank you and 99 for bringing up the mets and getting me to t of think of Yogi. Truly a great American and one of the best in baseball. Brings back some good memories.
Hi Nick, Coco!!
October 25, 2008 - 12:02 ET by TheSterIt will never see the light of day. Don't waist your time.
Ster.
Ster
October 25, 2008 - 12:25 ET by cocodrieBarack Hussein is in Hawaii attending to that right now. Kinda like the wolf in Little Red Riding Hood visiting grandma.
Not sure what to think
September 29, 2008 - 07:10 ET by Indiana JoeI've been following this loosely as it's developed. First I heard that there was a question of where he'd been born, although I knew there was an issue with the BC. I would say that the argument that, even if born in Hawaii he still had Kenyan citizenship, isn't much. By American law, if born in America, he's a "natural-born citizen." I'm pretty sure, anyway. I don't know if Mexico considers a Mexican baby born here to also hold Mexican citizenship, but I don't think that effects our laws which (unfortunately) say it's a citizen.
OTOH, if he was born in Kenya, that's a different story, obviously. But, first I heard of that.
The one thing I really don't understand is why they don't just produce the BC. I don't see how that's an unreasonable request. It's a requirement of the office to be a citizen, and proving you meet that requirement should be neither a surprise nor a burden.
Let your voice be heard!
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
That's the point IJ, so far
September 29, 2008 - 07:30 ET by dscottThat's the point IJ, so far Obama has only produced a fake birth certificate to the Daily Kos. The admission of Obama's dual citizenship with Kenya is to throw people off the central issue, his real place of birth by focusing on his father. Obama, as a lawyer, is using a lawyer tactic, dissembling. As long as Obama is NOT forced to produce his real birth certificate, his citizenship is NOT in question. Where do you think they dreamed up the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy?????
BTW-this is the same way illegals are helped by the Sanctuary Cities, Don't Ask, Don't Tell. They are NOT illegal, if you DON'T ask them to prove they AREN'T. The unemployment rolls in CA, Michigan and other Blue States are higher than the national average for a reason. The State Unemployment offices don't use E-Verify to confirm whether the SS# the applicant gives is fake or real, they only use the immigration data base to confirm you are a registered green card holder IF the applicant says they are one.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Sure, I get it
September 29, 2008 - 08:01 ET by Indiana JoeThat's why I find that they won't produce the BC to be so suspicious. For Pete's sake, you have to show one to get a driver's license... well, in this state, anyway. Wait, does Obama even have a driver's license?
And that "don't ask, don't tell" policy you mention is really beautiful, isn't it? You can't get the "wrong" answer if you never ask the question.
And people fall for that? Un-freakin'-real.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
The Don't Ask, Don't Tell
September 29, 2008 - 08:21 ET by dscottThe Don't Ask, Don't Tell ploy is a standard trick of lawyers to obfuscate the real issues. Besides the gays in the military thing, I saw it used by the Family Law Courts, they won't ask certain questions of females in custody hearings and investigations that they will ask of males. E.g. they won't ask a kid did your mother ever hit you, whereas they will with a father. Their over riding policy is "NEVER ask a question you don't want the answer to."
Obama being a lawyer knows how to manipulate the legal system for his own ends.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Yep, knew that one!
September 29, 2008 - 08:24 ET by Indiana Joe"NEVER ask a question you don't want the answer to."
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
»→ dscott
September 29, 2008 - 08:25 ET by Cool ArrowI believe the saying is "Never ask a question you don't already know the answer to"
But your derivation has a lot of merit too. It's the ostrich defense. AKA the Sgt Schultz defense.
"I've got a bracelet too" - Barack Obama
Actually, no, you are
September 29, 2008 - 11:06 ET by amberActually, no, you are wrong. Up until Reagan, if you were a dual citizen, you lost your US citizenship. The US did not allow dual citizenship. Also, his case is very different since he is running for president. The rules are more strict if one of your parents was not a US citizen. According to the law on the books, I do not believe he can legally run for president. His mother was not old enough at the time of his birth for him to qualify since his father was not a US citizen and he held dual citizenship even after he turned 18 (actually tri, since he was adopted by an Indonesian man and taken to live with him, I believe they considered him an Indonesian ctizen, but I am not sure about that one.)
All this means is that he
September 29, 2008 - 07:16 ET by kaekaeAll this means is that he had a Kenyan father and an American mother - and therefore had dual citizenship. It doesn't have anything to do with where he was born. The Constitution doesn't say that the President must never had had citizenship from another country and gave it up (The founding fathers certainly had previous citizenships). "Natural Born" is the key.
I dislike Barack (he won't call Sen. McCain by his title, then I won't call him by his) as much as the next guy, but this is making us look kinda mean-spirited and ignorant.
Current Kenyan law says the father determines if a child is going to have Kenyan citizenship (a potential 2nd citizenship would come from the laws of the mother's country) - this law wasn't in place in 1961, but they may have had a version of it.
We want people to think about the issues not that conservatives are so mean-spirited that they would deny anyone to ever run for President if they had dual citizenship as a child - something they couldn't control.
The key is to remember that Place of Birth and Citizenship don't necessarily go hand in hand - it depends on the laws of the particular country. So please don't link the two unnecessarily.
You could check what laws in Kenya were in place in 1961 re: citizenship to see if perhaps there is evidence that he had to have been born in Kenya in order to get dual citizenship.
Dual Citizenship
September 29, 2008 - 07:25 ET by P.J. GladnickThe issue here isn't whether Obama is an American citizen or not because he is. However, why has the public NEVER been informed that Obama once held dual citizenship? That is a part of his biography that has not been reported by the MSM. Only now does the Obama campaign admit he once held dual citizenship. Biographical information that has been suppessed.
PJ, that's only the one of
September 29, 2008 - 08:32 ET by dscottPJ, that's only the one of his citizenships, he is also Indonesian. When his mother remarried another Muslim, Mr. Sotero, under Indonesian law Barack and his mother became the "property" of Mr. Sotero, a citizen of Indonesia. They both became Indonesians upon marriage.
Furthermore Barack (Obama) Sotero traveled under Indonesian passport to Pakistan. Sorry, but when you use the passport of another country to travel abroad you have declared your citizenship and de facto renounced your dual citizenship with the US, a dual citizenship which was expressly forbidden by both countries.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
BTW - PJ, this also
September 29, 2008 - 09:23 ET by dscottBTW - PJ, this also concerns security clearances. If Barack Obama were to be vetted by the standard process for national security clearances, would he even get any???? His travels to Pakistan would flag him. Wouldn't he be turned down??? Yet, this man wants to be the POTUS, a position which would make him privy to the most closely held sensitive secrets in the entire world!!!! And those secrets are vital to our national security.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Here you go PJ, this is the
October 6, 2008 - 16:07 ET by dscottHere you go PJ, this is the actual lawsuit document alleging Obama is NOT a US citizen: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/13/
It is just as I said, he is Indonesian by virtue of the fact of his use of their passport. Under US law over the age of 18 if you obtain a foreign passport you have renounced your dual citizenship in favor of the other country.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Follow up to Berg's Lawsuit
October 21, 2008 - 14:24 ET by dscottFollow up to Berg's Lawsuit just reported at Free Republic: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2111379/posts
This is a game changer folks.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
dscott... Absolutely nothing
October 21, 2008 - 14:44 ET by bigtimerdscott...
Absolutely nothing is going to happen about any of this...the msm still remain silent...they will continue to do so...no matter what.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
The Supremes need to hear
October 21, 2008 - 20:34 ET by HermanoThe Supremes need to hear this in order for it to go anywhere. Doubt that will happen.
http://theobamafile.com/
I will not obey that man if
October 25, 2008 - 01:21 ET by liberal_bug_zapperI will not obey that man if he gets into office. It's time for a second civil war as far as I am concerned. This one to protect the sanctity of the US Constitution from the Democrats since they treat it as if it were toilet paper.
____________________________________________________
"I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." ~ Ayn Rand
Ah... Someone else talking about secession.
October 25, 2008 - 13:08 ET by Mike BrattonInteresting.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
zapper, it's not just the dems
October 25, 2008 - 13:23 ET by porpoiseboyone of the reasons for the electoral backlash that is predicted to happen on nov 4th is that the repubs in power have not been true to their stated ideals. namely, "the smaller and less intrusive the govt, the better". they have not defended our borders...true we have not been attacked like 9-11 again, but the wave of humantiy that continues to cross in illegally has not abated much. if repubs ever do get back to the conservative tenets and values that they supposedly used to represent, i could someday even see myself registering as one....not likely though based on what i see today. i remain a conservative independant.
cheers!
Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.
Well, you're right of course
September 29, 2008 - 08:09 ET by Indiana JoeThe only real issue to me is the charge that he was actually born in Kenya. That's a new one on me. If true, it would blow any hope of him claiming "natural born" citizenship out of the water.
But it's the first I've heard the charge, and that's all it is right now. Although producing the BC would be a quick, easy, and final way to address it.
So why not do it?
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
"We want people to think
September 29, 2008 - 10:39 ET by ckc1227"We want people to think about the issues not that conservatives are so
mean-spirited that they would deny anyone to ever run for President if
they had dual citizenship as a child - something they couldn't control."
According to this logic, I guess we shouldn't hold being born in another country against people. They couldn't control it, they were children at the time. Sure, it's in the Constitution, but geez, that's mean.
It's not about being mean. That's the same lame excuse folks use in favor of illegal immigration.
""Natural Born" is the key."
It very well may be, but we don't even know for sure that he was natural born. He certainly hasn't proven it, at least not publicly. But we should probably let that slide too. Don't want to be mean or anything.
If a non-US citizen (legal
September 29, 2008 - 18:07 ET by kaekaeIf a non-US citizen (legal or not) had a child here - that baby is not a natural-born citizen; but it is a US citizen (illegals kids may not be - not sure of that). It couldn't run for president, but it could vote.
It is mean-spririted to say that if I chose to marry someone from a different country and if my children who are born in this country had dual citizenship as kids, then my kids are flat out of luck and can never be president.
"Mommy, teacher told us that we could be president when we grow up."
"sorry, honey, you can't because Daddy was (is) a _____. But who wants to be president anyway wouldn't you rather be an astronut?"
Again, I don't want Barack to win but whether he as a child (adult different story) had dual citizenship is a non-issue. There are enough reasons for me to dislike him, this isn't one of them.
I have mine. Where is yours?
September 29, 2008 - 07:28 ET by JoelCTI don't understand this. If you ask me for my birth certificate, I can hand it to you within minutes, provided I can remember the combination to my fire-proof safe. ;)
Where is Obama's? Why can't he produce it? What is the deal here? Did he lose it, or has he never had it? This is so easy to refute, if he will just show it to us. The same thing happened with John Kerry. He could have shut the Swift Boat heroes down by merely releasing all of his military record, but he didn't, which says to me the Swift Boat people were telling the truth, and Kerry wasn't.
Now I am really wondering, is there a real story here? Why doesn't FoxNews get on this?
News suppression on dual citizenship
September 29, 2008 - 07:42 ET by P.J. GladnickAs I stated, the real issue here isn't the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate. I leave that up to the forensic experts to figure out. The real issue here is why, until now, has the fact that Obama once held dual citizenship NOT been reported by the media.
Maybe that's it... he just
September 29, 2008 - 08:45 ET by Hero SquadMaybe that's it... he just can't remember the combination to his safe.
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
Birth certificate easy to get
September 29, 2008 - 11:10 ET by nkviking75"I don't understand this. If you ask me for my birth certificate, I can
hand it to you within minutes, provided I can remember the combination
to my fire-proof safe. ;)"
And if you couldn't, it's very easy to order a new one from either the county or state where you were born, depending on local law.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Ridiculous
September 29, 2008 - 08:46 ET by CrashI'm sorry but this issue makes people look stupid. It's just as bad as those who claim that McCain is not a US citizen because he wasn't born stateside.
Now, issues that cannot be denied by the anointed one are his built in sympathy's toward muslims* and his ultra-liberal views built from marxist philosophy that he learned growing up.
*The reason I know that one cannot just leave a religion is based on my own experience. Raised a christian, yet today I am atheist. I hold favor and sympathy for those with judeo-christian values. And I hold the actions of those who bash christians & jews in contempt. I also despise those who claim not to have a god, but, put their faith in idiotic notions like AGW and deify individuals; like Gore, Obama, Soros, celebrities, the UN, KOS, etc...,
I'm sorry but this issue
September 29, 2008 - 09:04 ET by Dan The Man 2I'm sorry but this issue makes people look stupid. It's just as bad as those who claim that McCain is not a US citizen because he wasn't born stateside.
There is an intersting issue here. Obama has not produced a BC yet, now this may be intentional just to obscure other matters but why hasn't he produced one?
I believe he has not said anything about his dual citizenship because it would have hurt his chances and fueled speculation about him being Muslim before he was picked as Dem canditate.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Citizenship Kane.
September 29, 2008 - 09:22 ET by CrashEven so, I doubt at 21 Obama gave nary a thought about it one way or another (as did most of us during peacetime, regardless of ideology). The problem I have with Obama and all on the left is that they don't ever come out for our country. They never seem proud when America's number one. Those on the left are always too eager to deride our nation at every opportunity (Obama in Berlin). Yet, they never have trouble looking out for their own self interest.
presidential qualifications
September 29, 2008 - 08:52 ET by charlietexasI wonder if Arnold is watching? This is an important issue and should not be minimized. Its the presidency stupid!!!!!! There are few qualifications to be prez.....he should be vetted as to his birthplace...fully (sorry, it wasn't in a manger).
A lawsuit unfortunately is not enough. The federal election commission? Congress? Who should have oversight on this? They are steamrolling the rules as they go.....They are practicing the "do it and they'll have to prove it" routine.
Brave Reporter????
September 29, 2008 - 08:53 ET by Snocrash"Which brave reporter will quote Obama's own website to him? "
uh,...Yeah! Good luck on getting an answer to this one, I'd say the odds of the MSM quoting this back to Barry are about 45:1. Any bets?
***Poster is not a bookie, and won't be taking any real bets.
0bama Citizenship Issue
September 29, 2008 - 09:34 ET by nandrelliThis sounds like a trivial, foolish issue, but if you think it through it could be major.
From what I see, we have a significant possibility of having a person who doesn't satisfy the Constitutional requirement of being a natural-born citizen, being elected President.
What would happen if that occurred, and the truth came out after the election (and before the inauguration)? The Dems, I'm sure, would want Biden to take the office. The Republicans, I'm sure, would want the election invalidated, and to be held a second time.
I doubt there is any law that addresses this possibility (I know the Constitution doesn't, but there is some wording in the Constitution that says Congress can define Presidential succession issues, so there could conceivably be something there). I think the Federal Election Commission should step in and demand that 0bama resolve this immediately (after all, he could get his Birth Certificate within 2 days at most, even if he himself must travel to Hawaii to get it. Besides, he was in Hawaii not too long ago, and this issue had already come up from the Hillary side at the time, so he could have picked it up then).
My fear is that the Republicans would look very foolish if he came up with a legitimate certificate, and I fear the 0bama camp could be setting us up here. The only way I could see it done with no negative impact to our side would be for the judge in the civil suit to order 0bama to produce the certificate to the court, immediately. Fat chance.
Either that, or the Supreme Court could conceivably step in to resolve this issue. Knowing how quickly it moves, we should know by the 2012 election.
The Constitution puts forth few requirements for qualification for election. Another is that the candidate must be at least 35 by inauguration. With the inauguration on Jan 20th, what if 0bama didn't turn 35 until Jan 21st? Would he have run through the primaries and become candidate, or would the Dems have told him "come back when you grow up, kid"? Should we delay the inauguration by a day?
There are requirements listed in the Constitution, but no method of enforcement. Just like with this bailout bill, we are in uncharted territory.
Kenyan Citzenship Allegation
September 29, 2008 - 10:31 ET by P.J. GladnickIf had just been conservative websites alleging that Obama had Kenyan citizenship I wouldn't have even bothered writing this up. However, what makes this VERY SIGNIFICANT is that it is Obama's own "Fight the Smears" website that stated he once held Kenyan citizenship. I am not saying this disqualifies him from being president but this is definitely an IMPORTANT piece of biographical information that has been suppressed...until now.
Kenya
September 29, 2008 - 09:51 ET by GregorovitchThe reason his birth in Kenya came up is from a news report that his family in Kenya swear he was born there, and that his Mother immediately flew to Hawaii to register the birth.
The birth certificate posted by the Daily Kos and passed around was closely examined and was determined a fake. Two questions arose, why is the number at the top right blanked out and why is there no State Seal embedded in the document? It was also thought to be a fake copy from his sister's birth certificate.
As others have said, why hasn't he cleared this up by now if he had nothing to hide?
We know if he was a Republican the 2 faced hypocrites of the MSM would be all over it. It appears they revel in proving they are rather than they are not.
forged Hawiian BC...
September 29, 2008 - 11:29 ET by JohnMWhere's the investigation to identify the source of the forged Hawiian BC?
I REALLY want to know who was behind it... (and no, I don't believe it was Dan Rather.)
Who is the head of the Federal Elections Commission, and why hasn't this doubt been resolved? Is this going to require the intervention of Congress? Let's get some airtime on this - Fox, EIB, others?
We want proof! We want proof! We want proof!
birth certificate?
September 29, 2008 - 10:28 ET by nicholas nicklebyI'm not sure what the issue is here. You ask why the MSM is not talking about his citizenship, and some commenters here are wondering why people aren't investigating Obama's birth certificate.
But a month ago, on Aug 21st, FactCheck.org posted an article examining the birth certificate that shows that Obama was born in Hawaii--http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html. So, the MSM is not asking for his birth certificate, because it's already been checked out. He's an American citizen.
As for him holding dual Kenyan citizenship, that's a little odd--you want to argue that a boy born in Hawaii in 1961 holds citizenship in a country that gained independence in 1963? Maybe if he had claimed it, this would be an interesting story, but he had no political relation with Kenya--so the MSM isn't following this because it's a non-story. (And again, FactCheck.org covered this a month ago, in August: http://www.factcheck...)
Factcheck lies....
September 29, 2008 - 10:57 ET by ScrapironFact check based their article on the same 'proven forgery' birth certificate Hussein O provided to KOS. Hussein O's school registration in Kenya show him as 'Barry' and as an Islamist (according to the Associated 'with terrorist' Press ,democrat/terrorist supporter/lie, spreader article). His father choose his name and his religion and made him a citizen of Kenya. It was also reported than he was born in Kenya and his mother rushed back to Hawaii to register his birth. Only Hussein O can come out with the truth and he's a born liar. 10 verified lies in the 1st debate that won't be reported by the Lame Stream democrat press either.
Old, Retired and glad of it.
FactCheck was the basis of P.J.'s article
September 29, 2008 - 11:06 ET by nicholas nicklebyJust so you know, the part that P.J. quoted from the "Fight the Smears" website which says that Obama could have had dual citizenship was actually from the FactCheck.org article--you can go and read their account of it (which is good enough for P.J. to quote here).
On the other hand, if you would prefer to think up clever puns rather than to learn the truth, more power to you, Scrap.
factcheck has very close
September 29, 2008 - 11:12 ET by amberfactcheck has very close ties with Obama and ayers. I am suspicious of anything they put out and their motivations.
okay
September 29, 2008 - 11:20 ET by nicholas nicklebysure, amber, I'm suspicious of so-called "independent" sites/think tanks, too, but:
a) I've never heard anyone make a creditable claim against FactCheck.org--that is, I've never seen anyone provide any evidence to show that they were in the tank for either candidate.
b) FactCheck.org has been referenced by several of the bloggers on this site--in fact, this very article uses a quote from FactCheck.org!
You can call them
September 29, 2008 - 11:42 ET by amberYou can call them independent all you want, but factcheck is funded by the Annenberg Foundation and guess who was the chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge for 6 years (the largest grant by the annenberg foundation)? Obama... and Ayers served on his board.
QE... wait, what?
September 29, 2008 - 12:02 ET by nicholas nicklebyAmber,
Okay, for the sake of this argument, let's say that the Annenberg Foundation is secretly calling the shots here--they gave Obama a role in the CAC and they fund FactCheck.org--then why have posters here used FactCheck.org before?
In fact, if you remember the 2004 debates, Cheney himself referred to FactCheck.org as the source of correct information. Was Cheney misguided and naive? Shouldn't you be emailing him about this great threat?
(And if you don't trust FactCheck.org, here's the article about Obama's birth certificate from Politifact: http://www.politifac...)
They used it because it fit
September 29, 2008 - 12:28 ET by amberThey used it because it fit their views, not necessarily because it was fact. I have never used them as a source because I don't trust them. They lie and truth to suit their purposes and I never know which they are really doing. If they have a point that I want to check out, I will verify it with another source and use the other source. Just because a liar tells the truth once does not mean we should trust the liar.
true, but the flip side is that sometimes a liar tells the truth
September 29, 2008 - 12:41 ET by nicholas nicklebyAmber, someone who lies can tell the truth, but that doesn't mean we should always trust that liar to do so--you and I agree on that.
But the flip side to that is that sometimes a person who lies does tell the truth--and it's still true even if it is being said by someone who often lies.
So here, FactCheck.org and Politifact agree. You don't trust FactCheck.org, but you accept that they may tell the truth sometimes--and here you have Politifact agreeing with them, which would seem to raise the chances that this is a true story.
Do you agree?
(P.S. And are you saying that the NB team used things from FactCheck.org "because it fit their views"--are you saying that the NB team (or some members of it) are not always truthful?)
I agree, liars tell the
September 29, 2008 - 13:15 ET by amberI agree, liars tell the truth too and it is important to verify if they are telling the truth. I found, in my own searches, the birth certificate was not real. So, it really does not matter if Mother Teresa says it is real, until the US government looks at it and verifies it is his real COLB, I am not saying it is. If / when that happens, I will say it is real, but not before.
I don't think the articles that Newsbuster does here that use factcheck are dishonest, but I do think it is diningenuous to use a source to back your views and laud it as a truthful source when even they (not all posters here admit that) admit it is in the tank for Obama and willing to cover up the truth for him. I wouldn't use them as a source, it would be akin to taking Dan Rather's word for it. Sure, Mr. Rather has done some good reporting (I am sure he has, I am just too young to know) but his last one shot all of his credibility.
I am not saying I do not lie, by the way. Everyone does. That is why it is so important to have multiple sources. Our news media is all messed up because of the AP monopoly. Bloggers and researchers, like the ones here, are doing a good job at turning it around.
what US government officials would you believe?
September 29, 2008 - 14:51 ET by nicholas nicklebyAmber,
Hawai'ian state officials have been in contact with FactCheck.org and Politifact, and they have noted that this is a correct birth certificate. Do you not trust those officials or do you not trust the websites that have reported those contacts with those officials?
No, the real issue is
September 29, 2008 - 13:20 ET by dscottNo, the real issue is accepting Factcheck.org as an imprimatur of total accuracy and to suspend our disbelief. Factcheck.org is fallible because it is run by human beings and the absence of a documented mistake on their part does not give them the imprimatur of infallibility.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Drivers license vs Birth certificate
September 29, 2008 - 10:44 ET by ScrapironThe requirement to present a birth cert only came after Islam murdered 3,000 Americans on 9-11-01. The Islamic murderers had dozens of drivers licenses from a number of states but none had birth certificates. The fact is Hussein O could have a dozen drivers licenses from Il in different names if he obtained them prior to 911. Hussein O was an Islamist when he attended school in Kenya and his records show it. Democrats are so dense they fall to every con who comes along. Bet they buy a lot from door to door sales people and order a lot of unusable free stuff with shipping only $49.95.
Old, Retired and glad of it.
So...a child born outside the USA...
September 29, 2008 - 11:00 ET by...to an American parent(s) is to be considered a citizen of the country he was born, correct? It states clearly in the Constitution of the United States for the qualifications of the President...
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.
Hmmm... this needs to be investigated more thoroughly...If Obama-man was born in Kenya and McCain was born in Panama...wouldn't the discrepancies cancel each other out in the end??? Does it matter anymore? Aren't we far enough along where no one gives a damn?
Or is this going to be another ploy and distraction to keep the media from focusing on the Palin problem?!?
Let the Woman Speak...Free Sarah from the bondage of her handlers!!! She's got to be heard!!!
Ubercon
I don't know about Obama, but...
September 29, 2008 - 11:11 ET by PrairieSkyMcCain, though he was born In Panama, was born on an American military installation, which is considered to be part of the US. Therefore, he is an American by birth. My father-in-law was in the Army stationed in Germany when my husband was born. He was born in a US Army hospital, which thusly makes him an American citizen by birth.
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." President Ronald Reagan, January 20, 1981
So, you're saying...
September 29, 2008 - 11:18 ET byEvery US military base outside the boundaries of the USA is to be considered US sovereign land?
Ubercon
No, it is not...
September 29, 2008 - 11:27 ET by PrairieSkyconsidered as you said, "sovereign land". Americans living and working on an American military installation must obey the local laws of the country in which they are residing. However, the military installation is considered legally a part of the US, and children born there are American citizens. Our government has what are called "Status of Forces Agreements" with every country where an American military installation is located, which spell out the legal agreements between our government and that particular country.
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." President Ronald Reagan, January 20, 1981
SOFA's have nothing to do with citizenship.
September 29, 2008 - 11:38 ET byPSky,
Please show where in a SOFA citizenship is covered. You are a citizen of a particular country only according to its laws on citizenship. The US recognizes the citizenship of a child born outside the USA to a parent who is a US citizen. SOFA's have no bearing whatsoever on citizenship issues. Nice try, though...
Ubercon
Relax, Ubercon...I wasn't referring...
September 29, 2008 - 11:56 ET by PrairieSkyto whether SOFA's agreements covered citizenship. They don't. I was replying to the statement you made about military installations outside the US being "sovereign lands". I took that to mean you were thinking that the laws of the country in which an Amercian military installation is located do not apply to the people living and working on that installation. They do. You are correct in saying that citizenship of children born on an American military installation are not part of SOFA's agreements.
However, I will say again, children born to American parent(s) on an American military installation in a foreign country ARE legally considered American citizens by birth. Period.
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." President Ronald Reagan, January 20, 1981
You don't need a military installation...
September 29, 2008 - 12:12 ET byPSky,
...isn't it a fact you only need one parent as a US citizen in order to claim to be a US citizen?
I'm not trying to argue that McCain or Obama should be pulled off the ticket...we should start allowing all children born to a US citizen to always be considered a US citizen whether born here or elsewhere.
Ubercon
Yes, that is correct...
September 29, 2008 - 12:28 ET by PrairieSkyAs I said in my post, "...children born to American(s)..." meaning at least one parent must be an American. Any child born to parents of whom at least one is an American citizen, IS a legal American citizen, regardless of where in the world they are born.
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." President Ronald Reagan, January 20, 1981
An offshoot...
September 29, 2008 - 11:42 ET byPsky,
...to your comment...
However, the military installation is considered legally a part of the US... would have serious problems with our current view of Gitmo and detainees having "rights".
Ubercon
I don't think...
September 29, 2008 - 12:10 ET by PrairieSkythat the detainees at Gitmo have or should have the rights, legal or otherwise, of an American citizen. Our government considers them to be "unlawful combatants", and are therefore not entitled to such rights and protections and I agree with that position. However, I do know that the government's position is considered controversial by some, and has been challenged in court.
I don't begin to pretend to underestand all of the legal in's and out's of all this, or how Gitmo's status as a military installation based in Cuba affects the legal status of the detainees.
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." President Ronald Reagan, January 20, 1981
The more gray, the better...
September 29, 2008 - 12:18 ET byPSky,
In my opinion, it's a sketchy way to say no to their rights since they are not on "US soil", yet, be able to prosecute them with our laws. That's for another time, another discussion and not meant to derail this topic...Thanks for the comments and discussion.
Ubercon
Panama Canal Zone was a
September 29, 2008 - 11:14 ET by dscottPanama Canal Zone was a territorial possession of the US at the time, thus McCain was born on US soil. There is no discrepancy or dispute about that unchangable fact. People born in Puerto Rico are US Citizens because Puerto Rico is a US Territory, i.e. US soil. Same for Guam, Virgin Islands, etc. In fact, any child born on a US military base outside of the US is born on US soil.
You are just trying to muddy the water with a false equivalency agrument. Get Obama to put the issue to rest, get him to produce his REAL birth certificate, not the fake one he copied to Daily Kos. The fact he so far has REFUSED to do so means he in all probability is NOT a natural born US Citizen as the Constitution demands.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
I've been reading the US Constitution...
September 29, 2008 - 11:28 ET byNo where have I found what you stated. Could you direct me to the passage where it states a person born outside of the boundaries of the USA can be considered a "natural born" citizen if born in a territory, military installation, etc...and will be allowed to run for the office of the Presidency of the USA?
Thanks...
Ubercon
Of course no where in the
September 29, 2008 - 11:44 ET by dscottOf course no where in the Constitution does it define "Natural Born", Congress controls the definition of "natural born". It was an understood definition that natural born means on US soil. The Constitution gave Congress the responsibility of passing laws and definitions to carry out the intent of the Constitution. I'm not going to get into an argument with you over the definition like Clinton played: "define is". Congress and the Courts have said territories, military installations and embassies are US soil, no matter where they might be in the world.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Thought so...
September 29, 2008 - 11:54 ET bydscott,
No worries...I knew you wouldn't be able to find it since it doesn't exist. US soil?
A quick search...
"Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad
and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United
States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship
by reason of birth."
Could you imagine the influx of citizens acquiring birth certificates by being born on a US facility? McAmnesty would allow it.
Ubercon
Okay then...
September 29, 2008 - 14:15 ET by Mr. BishopI have known for some time that persons who are members of the United States military, which give birth to children on military posts, their children are natural born children of the United States.
You ask where?
Here, take a read at this: http://en.wikipedia....
Read down to the section with "Through birth abroad to two United States citizens". Read what that says. Then, if you wish to question the difference between McCain and Obama, read te VERY next section on, "Through birth abroad to one United States citizen". Read the very first line. Obama was very definitely not born on or after November 14, 1986. This much is obvious because in order for him to run for President, he has to be 35, according to the United States Constitution. If he was born on or after 1986, he would only be (at most) 22 years old. Since Obama's father was not a US citizen at the time of Obama's birth, the only way that Obama can lay any claim to being a natural born citizen of the United States, is if he was born in the United States -- period.
As such, his entire ability to actually be elected to the Presidency relies solely on his ability to provide a certified copy of his Birth Certificate, which he has been unable to do as of yet.
By the way, if you have any more questions as to whether McCain is a natural-born citizen of the United States being born in Panama -- here, take a look at what the Senate passed April 30 of this year:
http://leahy.senate....
Note, if you actually read the thing, that every single Constitutional scholar, and every single legal counsel they spoke to, have no doubt, in their mind, that McCain is a US citizen. They quote, not only the line I previously provided to you for, "Through birth abroad to two United States citizens," but they also point to the fact that his father was serving overseas, in a military post, at the time of birth.
THAT is the difference of McCain and Obama -- McCain was definitively born on a US military post, overseas, to two US citizens, one serving in said military post, at the time of birth. Obama was born to one Kenyan, and one US citizen, of which his location of birth, needs to be resolved. If Obama can prove, unequivocally, that he was born in the United States (providing a certified copy of his Birth Certificate, which I can get from Washington at any time, even though I live in Wisconsin), then this matter would be closed and over. His refusal to do so, is what is raising this issue to the level it is currently at.
__________________________________________________________
If homosexuality is genetic, then it must be a birth defect. If it is a birth defect, then stem cell research might provide a cure.
If this was true of Sarah
September 29, 2008 - 11:02 ET by d1carterIf this was true of Sarah Palin would this be in the MSM? That is really the question...
If Obama were born in
September 29, 2008 - 11:21 ET by RogerCfromSDIf Obama were born in Kenya, that wouldn't be a stupid and trivial thing. That would disqualify him from running.
Therefore, he should produce the official BC or be forced to stop running.
Criminy! I've had to show my BC for certain jobs I've applied for, and I'm not running for Prez. At the very least, Barack must show his.
A nation cannot be free without a free, unbiased media. We are not free.
Obama is a citizen if I read the law correctly
September 29, 2008 - 11:25 ET by nkviking75Here's the relevant law:
(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 five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of
fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the
Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the
United States Government or with an international organization as that
term is defined in section 288 of title
22
by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent
is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter
and a member of the household of a person
(A)
honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B)
employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section
288 of title
22,
may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement
of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on
or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become
effective in its present form on that date;
His mother is a US citizen which makes him one, or so it seems to me.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Ordinarily yes, however,
September 29, 2008 - 11:56 ET by dscottOrdinarily yes, however, there are two issues of disagreement, since Obama refuses to show a US birth certificate, there is question if he was even born here. Secondly, both his biological and step fathers were foreign citizens whose respective countries forbade dual citizenship and furthermore whose laws declare that women and children ARE the PROPERTY of the Husband and therefore ARE citizens of their country. Ann Durham forfeited (renounced) her US citizenship under the Laws of both Kenya and Indonesia when she married either time. When Barack Obama was born, he was a citizen of Kenya as even the Fight the Smears website admits. When Barack Obama was adopted by his step father, his name was changed to Barry Sotero and at that point he became an Indoesian citizen and traveled under an Indonesian passport. He is NOT a US CITIZEN.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
this is getting old
September 29, 2008 - 12:10 ET by nicholas nicklebyObama's birth certificate has been shown now for over a month, and it shows that he was born in Hawaii. (http://www.politifac...)
As for Kenya denying dual citizenship, it does deny dual citizenship to adults--at 21, you have to make a decision to keep or reject your Kenyan citizenship. Obama made his decision and remains what he always was: an American citizen.
Similarly, Indonesian law does not recognize dual citizenship over the age of 18. Ergo, if Obama were in Indonesia at the time he turned 18, he would probably have had to decide whether or not to become a citizen.
Therefore, at no time did Obama reject his American citizenship.
Problem here...
September 29, 2008 - 14:25 ET by Mr. BishopIf you actually looked at the Birth Certificate they have supplied there, you will note several things missing from it.
For example, I just had to pick up the Birth Certificates for myself, my wife and my two children so I could re-enlist in the Army. There are several things on those Birth Certificates, that are missing from Obama's, and mine is from Washington, while my wife's and kids' are from Wisconsin...
Signatures from the authorities of the State of Hawaii, as well as an embossed Seal, showing that it is an authentic Birth Certificate. Hell, I'll tell you what. I'll go to my parents' home today, look at my younger brother's Birth Certificate, and verify this should all be there. He WAS born in Hawaii when my father was serving in the US Navy in 1985, and so if it looks nothing like that Birth Certificate, in the respect of having the things that I just stated are missing on "Obama's", then Obama has one hell of a serious problem...
__________________________________________________________
If homosexuality is genetic, then it must be a birth defect. If it is a birth defect, then stem cell research might provide a cure.
no problems--ask Hawai'i
September 29, 2008 - 14:44 ET by nicholas nicklebyThis is all cut-and-paste, so it will look ugly, but:
"The certificate has all the elements the State Department requires for proving citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport: "your
full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth,
sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other
certification of the official custodian of such records."" (http://www.factcheck..., my emphasis on the seal issue.)
From the FactCheck.org update (which might explain why a birth certificate from the 60s looks different than one from the 80s):
"When we asked about the security
borders, which look different from some other examples of Hawaii
certifications of live birth, Kurt said "The borders are generated each
time a certified copy is printed. A citation located on the bottom left
hand corner of the certificate indicates which date the form was
revised." He also confirmed that the information in the short form
birth certificate is sufficient to prove citizenship for "all
reasonable purposes.""
Or, for another question that turns up the same answer: "To verify we did indeed have the correct document, we contacted the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records. "It's a valid Hawaii state birth certificate," spokesman Janice Okubo said June 13, 2008, after we e-mailed her our copy." ( http://www.politifac... )
Ignoring...
September 29, 2008 - 15:26 ET by Mr. BishopI checked your link to Fact Check before... I can't believe that you provided such a link without actually looking at the pictures. The blow up of the "whole" Birth Certificate is NOT the same as the "cuts" they did below. The seal, the signatures... none of them appear on the whole Birth Certificate. Holding it at an angle, would show the emboss -- it doesn't exist -- and the signatures would be on the front of the Birth Certificate -- they don't exist. Obviously, they need to learn how to actually "check facts" of something if they plan on providing pictures.
As such, the Birth Certificate is not valid as proof of birth in the state of Hawaii, nor in the United States. Like I said quite clearly before -- all Obama has to do, is request a new certified copy of his Birth Certificate to put this to rest. Amazingly, only "Fact Check" gets a "copy" of the Birth Certificate, while Obama continues to deny access to it to the media at large?
Yeah, I believe that one... you bet.
__________________________________________________________
If homosexuality is genetic, then it must be a birth defect. If it is a birth defect, then stem cell research might provide a cure.
wasn't ignoring your claims
September 29, 2008 - 15:36 ET by nicholas nicklebyHi Bishop,
I'm confused why you thought I was ignoring your claims. You said that the BC did not have seal or signatures.
I agree that that would be problematic, so I quoted an article that pointed out that it did have seal and signature. So I wasn't ignoring your point--I was directly addressing it.
Now, you contest that the photos of the seal / signature are not proof because they do not appear on the main image of the BC--okay, but you do agree that the site does have pics of a seal and signature. (I'm just stressing that to make clear how I'm addressing your claims, not ignoring them.)
Now, you said that the main pic does not show the signature or seal--that's a good claim, and the people there probably should have taken a picture of the whole reverse side of the BC since that's where the signature is ("it's stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka"). As for the raised seal not being on it, if you click on the picture of the seal, which will open a larger picture of the seal, you can just make out some of the writing that's next to it--or even better, click on the last photo (the one with Honolulu) and you will see the whole thing in a clearer light (http://www.factcheck...).
Did you look at that last photo? Did you see the seal? Do you agree that this BC has everything necessary to prove citizenship?
Nothing on the backside
September 29, 2008 - 17:23 ET by Mr. BishopYes, I did say that the Birth Certificate does not contain any seals or signatures. You have yet to provide a single picture, containing the entirety of the Birth Certificate, showing seals and signatures. How are you not getting this?
Every time you try to show the seals and signatures, not a single image shows it all on one Birth Certificate, as a whole, it only shows cuts of it.
Just do me the favor of explaining the following...
http://www.valeehill...
Note the words on the bottom, "Date accepted by State Registrar".
Now, we look at Obama's...
http://www.factcheck...
Note his says, "Date filed by the Registrar"
Finally, look at the form revision numbers... they are exactly the same. As such, if they were the same, they would have the same words in the same places, except the data for individuals which change. They are not the same however.
Now, I'd like to point out also, that the seal on the example I provided you, clearly shows the seal from the state of Hawaii on it. On Obama's, you can't see it unless you allegedly zoom in. Making a statement like, "They explain it on Fact Check here..." is sheer BS. I've seen my share of Birth Certificates. Without a single exception, each and every single one, you can clearly see the state seal stamped into it. This is through multiple states. Hawaii, Washington, California, Wisconsin, Idaho... this is naming only a few.
Here, another example for your pleasure...
http://i27.tinypic.c...
Would you like for me to find you some more examples of this? Better yet... take the time to explain to me, that how it is through their "thorough" research into the "authenticity" of Obama's Birth Certificate, Fact Check failed to note that apparently only Obama's borders are different from everyone else's Birth Certificate from Hawaii. While you're at it, take the time to explain to me how it is they completely missed the error in the words... I'd also like to hear them explain how it is, that you can see everyone else's state seal on the Birth Certificates clearly in one whole picture, but you just can't see it on Obama's...
I await, breathlessly, your answers to this. Frankly, I'd be surprised if you have one that isn't simply repeating yourself again, and again, and again, that because Fact Check says it's so, it must be...
__________________________________________________________
If homosexuality is genetic, then it must be a birth defect. If it is a birth defect, then stem cell research might provide a cure.
This is the frist time, i EVER heard that missing papers is bad
September 29, 2008 - 17:42 ET by upcountrywaterfor a democrat.
Does 0bama have a USA Passport, yet?
CLIMATE CRISIS
IranianUranium
did you look at that last pic I gave the link to?
September 29, 2008 - 17:50 ET by nicholas nicklebyBishop,
I'm not going to repeat myself by pointing to FactCheck, but I will use your examples.
First, you asked for a BC that had the seal. I provided you with a link that showed the seal. (Did you look at it? Here it is again: http://www.factcheck... you don't really have to zoom in to see it.)
[Oh, damn, you know what--I mis-spoke: I wrote "even better, click on the last photo (the one with Honolulu)"--when what I really meant was, click on the last photo in the series, the one which has the close-up of the word "Honolulu." The link I gave was for the right picture, but I described it wrong when I said it was the last photo--it's really the last in that clump of pictures. Okay, did you go look at the picture now?]
You yourself say that there is a seal, but that you can't see it clearly ("On Obama's, you can't see it unless you zoom in."), but at least we've agreed on that much: the Obama BC that I've provided a link to does have the seal on it. (Seriously, look at the link I provided--it does show the whole BC with the seal. And again, to avoid confusion, here's the direct link to the photo I mean: http://www.factcheck...)
Now, the second piece of data that you demand is the signature, but as you can see, your own examples don't have the signatures on the front either, so you can hardly use that as evidence to invalidate the Obama BC.
I hope we're in agreement on that much.
Now, I can't explain away your one observation about the change in wording from "Date accepted" to "Date filed." (Of course, in my opinion, a slight mistake like that makes something look more real, rather than less--but maybe that's just what the Obama campaign wants you to think. [cue threatening music].)
I don't know--that change could mean something, or it could be a simple mistake when they typed up the original (from which this is copied), or it could be the form they were using for a few years in the 1960s.
(I have to disagree with you slightly on the issue of what "OHSM 1.1 (11/01)" means--you argue that it is the number of the form's revision, whereas I think it must be the number of the reprint's revision; that would explain why the Decosta BC from 1930 looks more or less the same as the 1960 and 1980 BCs (because they were all reprinted in the 2000s)--unless you want to argue that this Birth Certificate form was revised last in 11/1901!)
The last thing I will leave you with is from Jim Geraghty's column from the National Review, from his conversation with Janice Okuba, of the Hawaiian Dept of Health:
"While her office cannot verify the information on a form without the
permission of the certificate holder (Obama), she said "the form is
exactly the same" and it has "all the components of a birth
certificate" record issued by the state. In other words, she sees no
reason to think the version posted on Obama's web site and Daily Kos is
not genuine." (http://campaignspot....)
nn, some MORE stuff
September 29, 2008 - 18:09 ET by upcountrywaterread towards the bottom.
CLIMATE CRISIS
IranianUranium
Wow...
September 29, 2008 - 18:30 ET by Mr. BishopFirst sentence -- not going to use Fact Check. Second sentence -- you use Fact Check. Amazing, yet not altogether unpredictable.
Now, you can attempt to disagree what a revision number means, and you can try that until you are blue in the face. Here is the fact. I have lived for over 30 years. In the over 30 years I have been alive, I have been involved with the military and government for 25 of them. I was born in the military, I served in the military, and I dealth with the state government in Wisconsin and documentation in Wisconsin as well. Revision numbers change things. If a revision number is the same on a document as on another document, all the permanent information is the same -- period. That means, on forms such as on a Birth Certificate, the fields are the same, labeled the same, look the same, and they do not change -- not one bit. That is how you tell if a revision number on a government document is truly an official copy. The same holds true with Birth Certificates. If one revision of a Birth Certificate, matches that of another, then the only differences between the two, are the parts that are pertinent to the people in question. Namely, their personal information. Fields don't change their wording. The 11/01 is the date of the revision... November, 2001. As such, ALL of them should look identical to one another, short of the information changing for the individual person. Obama's is the ONLY one that is different in the Registrar field. Note, the ONLY one. If it's different, then it's not the same form. If it's not the same form, then there is a serious problem. Not a minor problem, not a slightly less then serious problem -- a serious problem.
Evidentally, you have no clue how government documents work, do you? This much is obvious by your statement, "Now, I can't explain away your one observation about the change in wording from "Date accepted" to "Date filed." (Of course, in my opinion, a slight mistake like that makes something look more real, rather than less--but maybe that's just what the Obama campaign wants you to think. [cue threatening music].)" Government documents are not typed up by individuals that just put in what they want as headers. They are forms. They are all uniform. They do not differ in format, whatsoever. If it's different, it's wrong -- period.
I never once said that you can see the seal if you zoom in. I said you see it on " allegedly zoomed" in pictures. There is a difference. That means that unless, as I clearly stated previously, you can provide an image wherein you can see all the information on a Birth Certificate, in one view, and NOT having to piece it together -- then you have no evidence. None. Just the assumption of accuracy from an organization that is saying, "Hey, we checked it -- trust us." I point out, again, that NO ONE, except Fact Check, has seen this alleged document "for real". He (Obama) refuses to release it to the media at large. Doing so would put it under scrutiny. He (Obama) remembers all too clearly, what happened with Dan Rather. He (Obama) doesn't want to subject himself to this. As such, we are not in agreement that the seal exists on his Birth Certificate. I've still not seen the entire Birth Certificate, top to bottom, in one picture, showing the seal clearly.
I also like your attempt to use the words of Janice Okubo as definitive evidence of this being put to rest. Quite the contrary. She says the same thing everyone else is saying -- no one can verify its authenticity with the images that Obama has provided. The mere fact that a government employee for Hawaii would even consider saying it is exactly the same form, with having severe errors in the revision, boggles my mind. Then again, merely assuming that a government employee might not say something to politically put something to rest, in order to get people to leave their candidate alone, would be to completely ignore the past week with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In other words, I throw the BS card. The reason I throw the BS card is because I, and any other current or former government employee, know that a form is just that -- a form. Only the details pertaining specifically to the individual, event, or item in question changes. The wording of each field will never change in the same revision -- period.
Now, if you can actually provide me with photographic evidence of Obama's Birth Certificate, that shows the ENTIRE Birth Certificate in one image, complete with the seal and a flip side with the signatures, that ISN'T from Fact Check, then we can discuss whether or not the Birth Certificate meets the standards of "real" or not.
Frankly, I'm not going to hold my breath on this. I've only seen you post, ad nauseum, Fact Check links as "proof", but no actual proof. Nor can you actually explain an obvious error in wording on the Obama "Birth Certificate" that does not exist because humans do not enter the title of the field -- the program that the state issues to the Department of Health for Birth Certificates does so. Since the program will not simply change the field name for one person because, "Hey -- it's Obama..." you cannot claim simple error.
Good luck explaining this... I'd really like to see something besides what appears to be a Fact Check website hack, posting their links over and over and over and over and over and over to try and gem this as definitive, when it isn't.
__________________________________________________________
If homosexuality is genetic, then it must be a birth defect. If it is a birth defect, then stem cell research might provide a cure.
factcheck no love?
September 29, 2008 - 19:10 ET by nicholas nicklebyI thought we were having this big disagreement because we were looking at different documents--but it turns out that you won't consider the photographic evidence if it's provided by FactCheck.org. (Which is also where the confusion about my use of their picture comes in--when I said I wouldn't use them, I meant I wouldn't rest my case on the things they say, but only on what the pictures proved.)
Since you won't consider a source of evidence that has been used by Cheney, the McCain campaign, and NB staff, I can only speak to any spectators who might be reading this--go check out the picture and decide for yourselves.
Again, here is the full front page of Obama's BC as released by his campaign, as hosted by FactCheck.org: http://www.factcheck... . You can clearly see the seal in this photo, which effectively contests my opponent's claim that you can't see the seal.
(Just to be clear, Bishop, I don't understand why posters, including you, seem so suddenly annoyed over FactCheck.org suddenly--but I've also offered a Politifact link, if that will help: http://www.politifac... --and, as a special prize, here's Okubo again, from that article: "It's a valid Hawaii state birth certificate." What's the problem here? I understand: the wording of the form is different, but the person responsible for the forms doesn't think that's a problem. Maybe that's what that area was titled in the 1960s? I think, if you're still bothered by this, you should email her to ask.)
Suddenly
October 1, 2008 - 11:28 ET by Mr. BishopI've never been supportive of Fact Check. I did a background check of the staff at Fact Check. I know where their allegiences lie with respect to politics. Using them as the definitive source of your arguments, is akin to using NBC as being objective in their discussions on current politics. In other words, it's not going to happen. Instead of questioning why people on Newsbusters hate people who use Fact Check, try researching it a little bit.
Aside from that, try thereafter, checking out the ratio of McCain "fact checks" versus Obama "fact checks". You'll find a ratio of about 4:1, at the very least. Does that mean that McCain "lies" more then Obama? No, it means that "Fact Check" refuses to actually research obvious lies that Obama has told during this campaign. Again, however, it doesn't even address the people in charge, and the staff, being obviously biased against Republicans, with the most simple of research done against them.
Once again, unless you can provide an image that shows the front and back of Obama's Birth Certificate, complete with seal and signatures, all on the same image, without having to "zoom in", not showing us the image as a whole, then you have no argument -- just assertion. Every single image I showed you of Birth Certificates from Hawaii, showed the seal, plain as day on the entire image -- no need to "zoom in". Each one, was the same revision, thus had the exact same border and wording. Obama's is clearly not the same as these, and you neglect to try and even "defend" this. The reason for the obvious ignoring, is because it is impossible to defend a revision that is obviously incorrect. Government forms are all uniform Mr. Nicholas -- period. As such, without addfressing this issue, and figuring out why it is that Obama's revision, which is the same as everyone else's, is different then everyone else's, you've no leg to stand on, whatsoever.
Better yet, convince your buddies at "Fact Check" and in Obama's campaign to simply do the following:
A. Request a brand new, certified copy of his Birth Certificate from the state of Hawaii. This allows him to "keep his own". Make sure this certified copy is sealed.
B. Supply said certified copy of his Birth Certificate, to new outlets, but without breaking a single seal on the Birth Certificate until such time as the Birth Certificate is revealed to the public. This protects the integrity of who supplied the "Birth Certificate", and gives no doubt as to its validity.
Once Obama does this, the issue will be put to rest. I fail to see why it is, that accusations made of Bush a few years ago, that were impossible to prove incorrect, were picked up on news networks, yet simply proving that one's family is lying about where he was born, won't be proven because it's Obama. Let's be clear -- the reason that Obama is not pushing this, is only, and I repeat clearly for you, only, because doing so could quite possibly prove that he is not Constitutionally allowed to run for president. Make no mistake, if Obama was born in Kenya, he was never naturalized as a citizen of the United States. If Obama was never naturalized as a citizen of the United States, and does not hold a green card, he is an illegal alien. Note, this is all speculation, with an emphasis on the word "If". I happen to believe that Obama was born in Hawaii, but his refusal to actually supply his Birth Certificate for verification to anyone but political hacks at "Fact Check", is cause for me to actually begin to wonder. I can't imagine anyone being as stupid as Obama would be, to try and pull out with an utter lie of place of birth, in an effort to usurp power from the US government illegally.
Glad to have this discussion with you, as you have proven nothing more then either a person who works for Fact Check, or an Obama campaign worker, who uses Fact Check, as much as they use DailyKOS. Enjoy the rest of your day. Oh, and FYI: repeating the same claim over and over again, doesn't make it fact. Try learning to read what I said for a change -- I would be astounded if you did. I said, quite clearly, you can never see the seal, except on an "alleged zoom" of the Birth Certificate. Without seeing, the Birth Certificate, as a whole, in one entire image, top to bottom, with the seal, you cannot even begin to say that the image we see on the "zoom" is the same as what we see as a whole. You have yet to address the statement I made concerning the previous examples I provided for you, you can see the seal on the entirety of the Birth Certificates, whereas you cannot on Obama's. The reason is, you cannot address this. It's impossible. You cannot explain it, unless someone from Fact Check gives an idea of what may or may not be the reason. Let me be clear for you, since you can't grasp this on your own -- seals on Birth Certificates are not haphazardly stamped into a Birth Certificate. They are not invisible for people to miss -- they are clearly stamped into Birth Certificates. They are able to be seen on a Birth Certificate without the need to look at it with a magnifying glass, being held at an angle. If you have to do this, it's a forgery -- period.
And yes, you did have a link for Politifact on the Birth Certificate, but guess what's blatently missing from that image... yep, you guessed it -- the seal. Have you nothing new except the same old tired BS your employers are giving you?
__________________________________________________________
If homosexuality is genetic, then it must be a birth defect. If it is a birth defect, then stem cell research might provide a cure.
You've got to believe in the messiah!
October 1, 2008 - 13:15 ET byMrB,
Faith is what this is all about, my dear Mr. Bishop. The Obama-man is the messiah, he does not need to prove to you nor to anyone else for that matter that he is what he is. Do Christians need physical proof of Christ being an actual living breathing human being and also the son of God? No.They believe by way of faith. So, let's just leave this alone and allow the religion of the Obama-man to take hold. Peace and tranquility will overcome you once you start to believe in the change!!!(Heavy sarc-on)
Ubercon
That would be helpful but I
September 29, 2008 - 14:50 ET by dscottThat would be helpful but I believe that has already been done. http://snarkybytes.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/hawaii-birth-certificate-1963.jpg Note the one on the Daily Kos was done on a laser printer on a modern version of the HI birth certificate, notice the TYPING on this one versus the nice clean letters on theirs. You would have thought after the Dan Rather and Mary Mapes espisode of bloggers ferreting out the forgeries of President Bush's national guard papers they would have learned by now. The Daily Kos posting of Obama's certificate is an obvious forgery.
So yes, please look at that one and tell us if it looks anything like this REAL one I have linked to.
If Obama is having difficulty finding his birth certificate, the State of HI is only too happy to make it easy for him to get: http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/vital_records.html Heck, he could even get a letter of verification if he doesn't want his personal info. plastered over the internet for $5. How hard is that Democrats????
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Real?
September 29, 2008 - 15:11 ET by Mr. BishopAs far as a laser printer goes, I know that mine from Washington has been on a Laser printer since 1995, when I had to get my first replacement Birth Certificate. However, it still had on it, the embossed seal providing that it was an authentic and certified Certificate of Birth. It also had the signature of the County Official who issued it, as well as the state official (can't recall which one it is) who is in charge of the Department of Vital Statistics in Washington.
So, having one from a laser printer doesn't disqualify a Birth Certificate from being real, but the lack of seals and such -- does.
__________________________________________________________
If homosexuality is genetic, then it must be a birth defect. If it is a birth defect, then stem cell research might provide a cure.
dscott, what a GREAT link!
September 29, 2008 - 18:40 ET by upcountrywater1962 typewriter, how quaint!! + dan rather LMAO
CLIMATE CRISIS
IranianUranium
THE TROJAN HORSE - OBAMA
September 29, 2008 - 12:06 ET by john5750DOESN'T THE FACT THAT OBAMA HAS ADMITTED TO BEING A KENYAN CITIZEN BOLSTER THE CLAIM THAT HE WAS ACTUALLY BORN IN KENYA, WHICH IS WHAT HIS KENYAN RELATIVES HAVE STATED.
AT THE VERY LEAST, THIS IS PROVING THAT HE HAS BEEN LYING ALL ALONG ABOUT WHERE HE WAS BORN AND WHAT CITIZENSHIPS HE HOLDS.
HE ALSO LIED ABOUT BEING A MUSLIM. HIS SCHOOL RECORDS ARE POSTED ON THE INTERNET SHOWING HE WAS REGISTERED AS AN INDONESIAN MUSLIM.
WHAT ABOUT HIS INDONESIAN CITIZENSHIP AND PASSPORT. WHEN WILL HE SHOW US HIS PASSPORT?
PROBABLY NEVER BECAUSE IT WOULD PROVE HE IS INELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT BECAUSE OF HIS DUAL-CITIZENSHIP.
WHAT'S UP WITH THE FBI, CIA, AND HOMELAND SECURITY? WE HAVE AN INDONESIAN MUSLIM IN OUR MIDST TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE COUNTRY AND THEY SIT ON THEIR USELESS BUTTS.
CAN YOU IMAGINE THE OUTRAGE IF GOV. PALIN WAS ASSOCIATED WITH HAMAS, FARRAKHAN, IRAQI CRIMINALS, TERRORIST BOMBERS AND MURDERERS, BLACK PANTHERS, AND OBAMA'S ELECTION FRAUD ORGANIZATION - ACORN???
There may be something to this, except standing
September 29, 2008 - 12:32 ET by RandogThis guy Berg could be dead on with the citizenship issue, but the problem is his standing. Seldom is being a mere US citizen and registered voter enough to give you standing to sue, particulalrly on an issue of this kind. I think McCain and other ballot-listed candidates are the only ones with standing, maybe also the republican national committee and perhaps also Biden if the messiah wins - since he would become VP elect when the electoral votes are counted (can you say "Biden stole the presidency!!!"? LOL! But, alas, Obama's election would injure them, not (legally but realistically for all time) any ordinary citizen. Recall the court battles of 2000 were captioned "Bush v Gore" or vice versa.
The suit basically alleges he was born in Kenya, the BC is a fake, and even if it were not, B. Hussein's mother was too young under the then naturalization act to confer "Natural born" status on him unless he filed an oath of allegience and renunciation of other citizenships within a short time after he turned 18. He never did that, and subsequently traveled with an Indonesian passport. We might not learn the truth until it is too late. But it certainly makes no sense that he has yet to produce an authenticated BC. One can only reasonably surmise nefarious activity from this failure.
This would certaily be the cover-up and scandal for all time if Hussein-o wins and he turns out to have been ineligible. I would rather his losing make this a moot point than his being sworn into office. Fox News should get all over this and do hourly redux reports of the issue. If it comes up in a debate, I unfortunately do not think McCain will do anything with it but announce it as a non-issue.
Another possibility is a congressional challenge the electoral votes at the time they are opened and counted. This requires the concurrence of a member of both houses.
At some point, with enough heat, all sand turns to glass - My dad
HI County Clerk of Courts
September 29, 2008 - 14:09 ET by Great DebaterConsidering that the County Clerk of Courts should have an original copy of the Birth Certificate (if he was indeed born in HI), I can only conclude one of three things:
1) There's nothing to it, and Team-O is just trying to make Team-McCain waste time on a wild goose chase, or
2) He really was born outside the USA. In that case, would his mother's US citizenship qualify him as a "natural-born citizen?" I don't know if an US court has ever ruled on that question.
3) He was really born in HI, but for whatever reason, a birth certificate was not produced. I was going to say "Well, did his parents claim him as a dependent on their taxes his first few years on this earth?" However, I just remembered, the IRS didn't require SSN's on tax forms for declared dependents until about 1987. Therefore, I personally believe this is the closest to the truth of the 3.
Point two...
September 29, 2008 - 14:50 ET by Mr. BishopNo, Obama's mother's citizenship would not qualify him as a natural-born citizen at birth in another country. Prior to 1986, you had to have 2 parents that were US citizens, in order to be considered a citizen of the United States. After 1986, people with 1 parent that was a US citizen enabled them to be considered US citizens at birth as well. However, that was not a retroactive law, and only applied to people born November 14, 1986 and beyond -- not before.
As such, if he was born in Kenya, he is not a natural born citizen of the United States, and if not -- if he has not completed a naturalization process, not only is he not a US citizen, then he is also an illegal alien... by definition.
__________________________________________________________
If homosexuality is genetic, then it must be a birth defect. If it is a birth defect, then stem cell research might provide a cure.
P.J. I don't think this matters
September 29, 2008 - 15:18 ET by Henry GomezJust because Obama was eligible for Kenyan citizenship because of his father's birth there does not mean he ever affirmed his Kenyan citizenship. I was born in America, technically I can claim Cuban citizenship because my parents were born there. That does not make me a Cuban a citizen. Likewise, there's a lot of Cubans that will be making claims to Spanish citizenship soon because of a new Spanish law that allows the grandchildren of Spaniards born abroad to become Spanish citizens if they wish. Obviously it represents a ticket out for many Cubans on the island.
Biographical Information
September 29, 2008 - 16:11 ET by P.J. GladnickThe point here is that this is biographical information about Obama that has been supressed...until now. I never knew before that he held Kenyan citizenship. I don't think it has any effect on either his American citizenship nor on his qualifications to run for president. However, why were we never told of this Kenyan citizenship before?
and "suppression" means?
September 29, 2008 - 16:46 ET by nicholas nicklebyIf by "supressed" [sic], you mean talked about over a month ago at such sites as FactCheck.org (http://www.factcheck...), then more power to you, P.J.
[Edit: Or how about this for an answer as to why the MSM hasn't widely reported it: a) this wasn't hidden in any way. (This is a general rule--anything becomes interesting if you hide it.) b) this is just another way of saying that his father was Kenyan since he didn't have any real contact with Kenya--if he had served in a foreign military or, heck, had a foreign passport at any time, then, yes, this might be an issue. But as it is, the whoel dual Kenyan citizenship issue boils down to basically that: his father was Kenyan--and we all know that, so it doesn't really need to be talked about more.]
"whoel"? [sic]
September 29, 2008 - 17:51 ET by winston smith"whoel"? [sic]
ha!
September 29, 2008 - 18:02 ET by nicholas nicklebythat's what I get for having second thoughts (and then editing to add them) without giving my comment a second read to catch the errors.
It's usually much more embarrassing when I correct someone's egregious errors and misspell "eggregious"--a helpful hint to avoid that one is to remember that "egregious" does not mean having "egg" on your face.
[Edit: or were you actually asking what I meant? "whoel" should have been "whole."]
Berg Response to Obama/DNC motion to dismiss
September 29, 2008 - 19:34 ET by JaykeI agree with Mr. Berg.
http://www.flds.ws/w...
But I don't hold out much hope for his success in getting the DNC to comply.
The timing seems short.
September 29, 2008 - 21:42 ET by HermanoThe timing seems short. This puts a judge in a very delicate position. If (s)he rules in favor of the plaintiff, then the potential is there to throw the entire presidential election process into chaos in favor of upholding the Constitution. I did not see any indication of requested penalties for non-compliance or damages, but it would not do to have your presidential candidate held in contempt of court or have to pay $400M back to donors. The BC issue seems to be easy enough to get around, if 0bama can produce the certified copy. There is quite a bit of noise on this thread regarding the authenticity of a document viewed by Factcheck.org, but it has occured to me that this issue has not had wide public dissemination via the MSM. While this is certainly not the best foot to be putting forth, the most damning allegation in the petition is that 0bama traveled on an Indonesian passport at the age of 20. This could be construed by the court as a willing renouncement of US citizenship.
I would expect the judge to rule in the favor of the defendant. This could be too much heat for one judge to take.
Thank you for the link to this document.
The Newsbusters Comments Crew: Saving the Environment - One Ribeye at a Time! h/t Dr_Liberty
And that Hermano is the
September 30, 2008 - 07:56 ET by dscottAnd that Hermano is the final nail in Obama's citizenship coffin. At age 20, an adult, he was using an INDONESIAN passport. DUAL CITIZENSHIP between the US and INDONESIA is NOT LAWFUL under either country's laws. Obama had a choice between Kenya, US and Indonesia, he chose the citizenship of his country by accepting their passport.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
If the shoe was on the other foot...
September 30, 2008 - 02:58 ET by OneLoyalAmerican...suppose li'l Barry (d'RAT- IL) was born in Panama to a US Miltary Officer; and his opponent (R-anywhere) had a questionable origin of birth?
However, this entire birth certificate fiasco is a red herring. No American believes a military brat's love child should be denied citizenship.