Obama Born In Kenya? His Grandmother Says Yes

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I wondered about the same thing. To me, the 35-page complaint really comes down to Berg and the judge demanding the three items as part of Berg's discovery process. Nothing else is addressed in the complaint other than a denied motion to dismiss on Obama's behalf.

reply to post by Sonya610


Right. I got that. The point is that if Obama was granted Indonesian status, he wouldn't have been able to revert to natural born citizenship of the United States. Thus compelling him to become a naturalized citizen.

As I said, he couldn't have done all three things and remain a natural born citizen. 1.) Be born in Hawaii. 2.) Be born in Kenya. 3.) Be a natural born US citizen after the fact of being an Indonesian naturalized citizen. Berg makes that exact claim.

Originally posted by Areal51
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

I wondered about the same thing. To me, the 35-page complaint really comes down to Berg and the judge demanding the three items as part of Berg's discovery process. Nothing else is addressed in the complaint other than a denied motion to dismiss on Obama's behalf.

Did you read the doc? I couldn't get the link to post without breaking but it is pretty long. It goes into a pretty wordy explanation about Kenya, Indonesia, etc...

What do you mean by "nothing else is addressed". If they get the three documents requested then I guess everything WOULD have been addressed.

[edit on 15-10-2008 by Sonya610]

reply to post by Sonya610

Yes, I read it. The link was broken but easy to fix.

Still the claims made about Kenya, Indonesia, and Obama's relatives from Kenya, the newspaper articles, and a bunch of other inconsequential stuff, is all tied to Berg's claims. They are not necessarily verifiable.

Which is why Berg's assertion for protections and rights under the Constitution made the difference, in my opinion. Because at least that was immediately verifiable and more compelling to the judge to grant Berg his case.

[edit on 15-10-2008 by Areal51]

Oh, come on, I mean really...
This is the most ridiculous thread I have ever seen.
If it could be proven that he was not born here, do you really think he would have made it past the PUMA's?
No way in hell...
Clinton would have destroyed him in 2 days.
She dug up all possible dirt that was credible on this man, and hurled it at him with a fury.
And what did he do???
Brush it off...

Originally posted by Areal51
Which is why Berg's assertion for protections and rights under the Constitution made the difference, in my opinion. Because at least that was immediately verifiable and more compelling to the judge to grant Berg his case.

Well to me it seems pretty darn simple. If you want to be president it is reasonable to provide definitive proof when asked that you meet the most basic legal requirements.

If he was born in Hawaii at a hospital then it should be VERY easy for him to produce the original paperwork.

reply to post by Sonya610


It is simple. Except that it's not. What I mean is that would prove your citizenship to just any person? Lawyer or not?

I know that I wouldn't.

And thinking about this case some more, it seems that Berg is actually trying to prove that Obama is a naturalized citizen rather than if Obama is a natural born citizen. The discovery documents that the judge and Berg demand are good evidence of that. It's as if Berg has already and completely discounted whether Obama was born in Hawaii or not. The meat of his claim lies with what he alleges as Obama's one time status as an Indonesian citizen.

Again, if Obama was a naturalized Indonesian citizen, he wouldn't have been able to revert to natural born US status.

That's why Berg demands, items 2 and 3:

2. A certified copy of Obama’s Certification of Citizenship;
3. A Certified copy of Obama’s Oath of Allegiance.

Otherwise, item number one would be sufficient to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii.

1. Obama’s “vault” version (certified copy of his “original” long version) Birth Certificate

Yes, now I understand Berg's aims quite clearly.

Berg is claiming that even if Obama was born in Hawaii, Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States, because Obama was a naturalized citizen of Indonesia at some point in time.

[edit on 15-10-2008 by Areal51]

Well lets just assume for the sake of argument he WAS born in the states and can prove it. How do we know that relinquishing his US Citizenship and then reapplying for it would NOT give him natural born status?

I honestly don't know how that works but it seems if you WERE a natural born citizen, they might reinstate that status.

Originally posted by Areal51
The point is that if Obama was granted Indonesian status, he wouldn't have been able to revert to natural born citizenship of the United States.

Are you sure about this? If he was born in the US, I think he could change his citizenship several times and as long as he eventually came back to the US, he would retain his citizenship. You can't take away "natural born".

Source

Loss of citizenship

As a historical matter, U.S. citizenship could be forfeited upon the undertaking of various acts, including naturalization in a foreign state, service in foreign armed forces, and voting in a foreign political election (with a few exceptions, such as municipal and local elections as opposed to presidential and other national elections). However, a line of U.S. Supreme Court decisions beginning with Afroyim v. Rusk constitutionally limited the government's capacity to terminate citizenship to those cases in which an individual engaged in conduct with an intention of abandoning their citizenship. In the wake of administrative practice changes adopted by the U.S. Department of State during the mid 1990s, it is now virtually impossible to lose one's citizenship without expressly renouncing it before a U.S. consular officer.

Did little Barack renounce his US citizenship before a consular officer?

reply to post by Sonya610


Well, that's something that's unclear to me. According to Berg's claims one cannot revert to natural born status in the US after becoming naturalized in another country. One can only apply to become naturalized in the US.

It would be good to have an answer independent of Berg on this issue.

All I want when this is over:

If Obama is vindicated, everyone on this thread who said he is "shady" and lying to go ahead and just quit posting about politics. No one can see into the future and predict what is about to happen in this case, so the only thing that can lead someone in one direction is partisan goggles.

I am looking forward to judgment so all of this can be laid to rest one way or another, but if he is innocent, everyone who jumped the gun on this thread will be remembered by me. I wouldn't post any more political predictions because I will be there.

I just think Berg gives NO proof of anything. I'd like to see where he is getting his information. I think all his claims are just that. Stuff he "thinks" might be true - And he's putting it all out there to force Obama to prove him wrong.

But I'm not sure it's going to work for him. I can't just make a bunch of wild speculative claims about you and submit a lawsuit and force you to prove me wrong. I have to have some seriously good evidence before a judge will even look at it.

Here's more on renunciation of US citizenship for children:

F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN

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

G. IRREVOCABILITY OF RENUNCIATION

Finally, those contemplating a renunciation of U.S. citizenship should understand that the act is irrevocable, except as provided in section 351 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1483), and cannot be canceled or set aside absent successful administrative or judicial appeal. (Section 351(b) of the INA provides that an applicant who renounced his or her U.S. citizenship before the age of eighteen can have that citizenship reinstated if he or she makes that desire known to the Department of State within six months after attaining the age of eighteen. See also Title 22, Code of Federal Regulations, section 50.20).

Renunciation is the most unequivocal way in which a person can manifest an intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Please consider the effects of renouncing U.S. citizenship, described above, before taking this serious and irrevocable action.

Source

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Okay, thanks for that, BH. It just confuses the matter even more for me!

I gave you a star for it.

Anyway, hmm... I'm not sure what to think now.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

In the wake of administrative practice changes adopted by the U.S. Department of State during the mid 1990s, it is now virtually impossible to lose one's citizenship without expressly renouncing it before a U.S. consular officer.

Did little Barack renounce his US citizenship before a consular officer?

That states the rules changed in the 90's. Obama would have renounced is citizenship in the early 70's. Are the laws retroactive?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Thank you. This is the most valid part of this whole stupid argument that I feel will end up blowing up in the GOPs faces. Sure, Berg says he isn't doing this for the GOP but I feel that they are hoping for something to come of this trial. If not, I still believe they may try something stupid before the elections only to have it get shoved right back in their faces.

Bad news for the GOP if they do try this. It will be looked upon as yet another unnecessary attack on this man who is a U.S. citizen.

Whem will the updates be coming out from today's hearing?

Does anyone know if Berg has a website which will be posting the documnets once they are received?

Sorry!

I think, back in 1965 (or whenever they went to Indonesia), Soetoro just brought his family there and signed little Barry up for school and said, yeah, he's a citizen of Indonesia... That's the ticket... that should stick. And it did. For school purposes. Nobody else cared. I don't think he was ever an Indonesian citizen.

Another point was mentioned. How could any of us prove our allegiance? NAnyone have a certificate of Allegiance? Me, neither. I couldn't prove my citizenship, either, except with my birth certificate. And the fact that I have never been issued a passport.

There must be a fairly good way to prove these things (through consulate offices in other countries) and I agree - if ANYTHING was out of sorts with Obama's records, Hillary's team would have found it. I wouldn't trust McCain's camp to find their way out of a paper bag, but sure Hillary or the FEC or some elections official organization would have SOMETHING. Someone besides a disgruntled Hillary fan who happens to be a lawyer.

Great discussion. I gotta go now.

Originally posted by Sonya610

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

In the wake of administrative practice changes adopted by the U.S. Department of State during the mid 1990s, it is now virtually impossible to lose one's citizenship without expressly renouncing it before a U.S. consular officer.

Did little Barack renounce his US citizenship before a consular officer?

That states the rules changed in the 90's. Obama would have renounced is citizenship in the early 70's. Are the laws retroactive?

I guess the big question is this. Did HE renounce it (if it ever was) or did his mother do it? You see, it is a BIG difference and a parent CANNOT renounce a childs citizenship.

Why do you think many pregnant illegals rush here to give birth to their kids? Because once born here they cannot be stripped of their citizenship.

reply to post by Sublime620


But this is only just another layer of shadiness, we still haven't seen the entire Obama Onion.

..and another thing:

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by Alxandro

 

I don't know what's funnier, Obama's verbal faux pas, or your inability to say anything of substance when talking politics.

It's obvious we reside at opposite ends of the comedic spectrum because that Will guy from your avatar, I have yet to chuckle during any of his films.
What I find the funniest is how you still tend to suckup whenever a Super Mod or SO happen to be in the room.

Just an unbiased observation.

If I was running for president, I'd be more than happy to show my birth certificate, vaccination records, drivers license, gun permit, even social security card (kinda hard to steal the identity of someone everyone knows). Hell, I'll even call up Verizon to get my internet surfing record. I'd go for any type of blood test, physical exam, mental exam (ok, maybe I wouldn't do so good on that one). You can see my high school, college, graduate school transcripts. Interview anyone that knows me. Why? Because I have absolutely nothing scandalous to hide!!! So... if Obama has nothing to hide, just get 100 certified copies of every paperwork of his and send them to all the news stations, papers, internet sites, and give a copy to Berg. If he has nothing to hide, why the heck is he fighting Berg's requests? If that was me, I'd invite him out for a couple of beers and pizza and go down memory lane with him with all my stuff...