Originally posted by Aermacchi
1) Clue Number one = When first asked for his vaulted BC, Obama claimed it was lost.
READ HIS BOOK!
Obama claimed in his memoir Dreams from my Father that he had in his possession a copy of his original birth certificate.
I am not going to give you evidence. What I am giving you is clues to establish motive for supressing evidence.
Evidence you and I both know would prove he is guilty of fraud.
You know it and
I know it
It ever occur to you WHY this law was enacted in the firsr place??
Here Ill help you.
It's because SO MANY PEOPLE WERE USING IT TO GET CITIZENSHIP VIA SPURIOUS MEANS!
My parents took an ad out in the Rolling Meadows News Paper to announce my birth but we had moved to another state. They did that for the same reason Obama's parents probably did.
IMPORTANT: You must attach a photocopy of your baby's official state-issued birth certificate; we cannot print your announcement without it.
Originally posted by sueloujo
Originally posted by pteridine
Originally posted by sueloujo
reply to post by pteridine
All what documentation apart from his certification of birth?
when all the following are missing?
Occidental College records - not released.
Columbia Thesis paper - not available, locked down by faculty.
Harvard College records - not released, locked down by faculty.
Selective Service Registration - not released.
Medical records - not released (only a one-page report).
Illinois State Senate schedule - 'not available.'
Law practice client list - not released.
Certified Copy of original Birth certificate - not released.
Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth - not released.
Harvard Law Review articles published - None.
University of Chicago scholarly articles - None.
Record of Baptism-- Not released or 'not available.'
Illinois State Senate records--'not available.
As I remember, none of the above list has anything to do with eligibility to be President. His birth location seems to be the point of the discussion and the state of Hawaii has provided the required certificate. The newspaper published the notice of his birth in the vital statistics section. It would appear that the natural citizenship requirements have been met.
Err ..if you care to actually read the list at least two of the above list would clarify the point in question. The others would actually be proof of name changes, adoption and lots of other unanswered questions relevent to his past.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by hosta420
YES.....McCain was born in Panama.
Imagine, IF he had been elected....well, I seriously doubt there'd be this much 'chatter'.....because, it seems.....only the 'right wing' wish to complain about the 'other' guy.....
The democratic party tend to have a bit more class......
Originally posted by Dbriefed
It's the duty of all military officers to defend the constitution, and uphold it as well. If they're not going behind closed doors and reviewing recent events and the constitution, they're not abiding by the oath they took.
I would hope they do this regardless of political party, race, or gender.
If officers are not defending the constitution, they're not fulfilling their primary role.
Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Yeah, you'll find proof under the slimy rocky next to you. Who cares where Obama was born?....like that makes a freakin' difference!
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
No he wasnt and could not have been according to Indonesian and US laws at the time.
Originally posted by Jenna
Yes, that is what the laws are now. With the law you have to look at what it said when he was born and when he was in Indonesia, not what it says now. Many laws were vastly different in 1961 than they are now. Not all the laws that have been changed were retroactive to include 1961.
SEC. 349. (a) From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by—
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person : Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of a naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday
source (PDF source)
I think perhaps you and Converge may be under the impression that I am arguing that he lost citizenship. I am not. I am just attempting to show why the claims in the lawsuits have been made. This is the angle they are arguing from, and while I don't agree with them, I'm trying to look at it from all sides here just as I have done in every thread about this topic.
None of us know all the facts about the situation so none of us know the full truth. Yet another reason why I wish the courts would hear a case so that the whole matter can be settled once and for all.
Originally posted by converge
I don't agree with that point of view.
Just because we and the people who are asking to see his original birth certificate don't know all the facts (as it's obvious by now) or even the law, doesn't mean their request is reasonable or makes sense. It has, in fact, the adverse effect: it hurts their case.
Curiosity is not a valid legal argument.
Originally posted by Jenna
Those who have filed the lawsuits have put a lot more time into looking at the laws than either of us
The judges that have dismissed have done so because of lack of standing and lack of jurisdiction, not because those who filed were ignorant of the laws.
None of them as far as I am aware have been dismissed as being frivolous or as being mere curiosity.
We therefore find that Plaintiff’s attempt to use these statutes to gain standing to pursue his Natural Born Citizen Clause claim are frivolous and not worthy of discussion. - Judge Surrick's opinion (source)
U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick had denied Berg's request for a temporary restraining order on Aug. 22 but had not ruled on the merits of the suit until yesterday. ...
Surrick ruled that Berg's attempts to use certain laws to gain standing to pursue his claim that Obama was not a natural-born citizen were "frivolous and not worthy of discussion." source
None of them have been filed out of mere curiosity
and I doubt much would have been made of it here had none of those lawsuits been filed to begin with.
That is entirely reasonable, though some would have us believe otherwise.
Originally posted by pstrron
Why are so many people attacking Obama via his COB when the courts and congress say it is fine? However, he is disqualified because he was an Indonesian citizen holding an Indonesian passport according to the Constitution. Can he hold dual citizenship and be POTUS...no.
Nowhere in the Constitution, or US law, natural born citizen is defined. And as far as I know the Supreme Court never had to rule on a dual citizenship situation regarding the status of natural born citizen.