Major General says president's eligibility needs proof

Originally posted by vkey08
If the Federal Courts (on the district level) and the Supreme Court are not in a position to hear this because of jurisdiction, then who would be hypothetically?

In theory lower Courts have the jurisdiction to order Obama's vital records to be inspected.

From Hawaii's Revised Statutes §338-18 (Disclosure of records):

The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:

(9) A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction

You must realize that the Court first has to accept a person's legal argument (merit) and acknowledge that that person has a legitimate legal interest (standing) in inspecting someone's vital records.

By law vital records are sealed and can't be disclosed to anyone unless he or she is a relative, an authorized agent by the registrant, or has a Court order for example.

Most likely the Courts have been rejecting all the lawsuits because either they don't have standing, merit or both; or because the Courts find the request to inspect Obama's vital records frivolous in the sense that Obama has already presented a valid proof of citizenship and state and federal officials have vouched for it.

There would have to be tangible evidence that would demonstrate or point to Obama not being born in the United States for the Courts to consider the request.

As of now, there is either no evidence of the sort or all the lawsuits have failed to point it out. My bet is on the first.

[edit on 1-3-2009 by converge]

Originally posted by pstrron
I agree with you there but the question then remains, did he give up his US citizenship to gain an Indonesian citizenship or did Indonesia consider him Indonesian by blood?

US law doesn't allow minors to lose their citizenship whether or not by action or naturalization of their parents.

See this and this post for more information.

I do not remember a what age he held the Indonesian passport but if it was after the age of 18 he was no longer a US citizen as the US does not allow duel citizenship unless its a special case.

I don't know with what age he held Indonesian passport either, but as far as I'm aware he left Indonesia when he was 10. Did he even have an Indonesian passport or was it a theory that he had because he couldn't have entered Pakistan with a US passport?

No one has actually demonstrated that Obama couldn't have used his US passport to travel to Pakistan.

The people putting forward this theory never substantiate it, or simply claim Pakistan was under strict military regime. Yes, it probably was under military regime, but in the 1980s Pakistan was also an ally of the United States.


You say US law doesn't allow dual citizenship (unless it's a special case). That is not true. US law doesn't care about dual citizenship, nor does it make you choose one over the other.

A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth. U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship.

Moreover, even if Obama had used a foreign passport:

Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship.

source

reply to post by converge


thank you for that explanation

It made sense and cleared up my only lingering question



[edit on 1-3-2009 by vkey08]

Originally posted by Afrosamurai
SO again, come up with another reason besides you hate black people. .

You know why no one answers you afro! You only voted for him BECAUSE HE IS BLACK! Do you think any of us give a damn

NO!

So shut up you presumptuous racist we're all sick of hearing you whine about racism! Call the ACLU! Call Jessie! Call Sharpton! Call your Mommy

If you think they hate him because he is Black,,

SO WHAT!

Now whatcha gonna say? Huh?

Originally posted by Aermacchi


What evidence? a COLB?

1) Clue Number one = When first asked for his vaulted BC, Obama claimed it was lost.

FACT = He lied

2) Clue Number two = When it was made known one existed and we requested it, it took 6 months before one was finally being shown and the daily Kos admitted it was a fraud.

3) Clue number 3 = Too take attention off of himself Obama's camp started asking McCain questions bout his birth and found he was born in another country Panama where a full investigation insisted upon by Obama was carried out. McCain not being one to deny the American people showed a COLB. That wasn't good enough even though it had the exact same info on the Vaulted BC, McCain authorized his Vaulted BC to be disclosed on the internet.

4) Clue Number 5 = At the behest of a law suit pending by Andy Martin requesting to see the Vaulted BC to find out if there was one on record for Obama at the Dept of Health Hawaii, Obama makes trip to Kenya, then returns to Hawaii then Lo-and Behold State Dept official Fukino comes fourth for a press conference setting up the mood of this conference as if he was very busy and annoyed he had to answer this request again when it have never been answered to begin with. He came out and said in a terse voice that Barack Obama did in fact have a vaulted BC on record but that we couldn't see it, even though it would have or should have been the same info given on the COLB which by now Obama had posted another one THIS time having what looked like a seal and all the neccessary factors in determining it is real under personal scrutiny.

[snip]

Everyone KNOWS what we want to know is on that vaulted BC and Obama has done EVERYTHING a person guilty of hiding something would do from stonewalling to slight of hand tricks but STILL NO ONE BUT NO ONE has seen his vaulted BC and you know why???

Because he wasn't Born in the U.S.

THAT's WHY!


[snip]

Anyone can make a phoney COLB. The fact that he refuses to show us his Vaulted when there is nothing on it we would not have seen otherwise should be more than understood by a Harvard Lawyer, it is also why he was so quick to all of a sudden help John McCain to resolve his own problem with his BC so that McCain would be reluctant to attack Obama on the same issue otherwise,, he would have.

I don't have any doubt what so ever that Obama's vaulted BC says he was born somewhere else just like when we found out where my Girlfriend was really born. Hers was different than her COLB's and so is Obama's

he is a crook and a liar and you'd think after eight years of Bush,

You would know better

This is a the situation. The man is now President of the US. How anyone can swallow the excuses of him not providing full documentation in a timely fashion is beyond me.

And similarly, GW Bush became President when there was overwhelming evidence of vote tampering in Florida in 2000. That problem fell to the wayside too.


Mike F

Originally posted by converge
you have - at times - gone to great lengths to criticize me for assuming what you think but can you honestly say that those who filed the lawsuits have put more time into looking at the laws than either of us?

On the contrary, I have yet to criticize you for anything. And yes I can honestly say they have put more time looking at laws than either of us. Are you aware of the amount of time it takes to completely research the laws before filing a lawsuit? I am. And I can say with a good deal of certainty that it is highly unlikely that you have spent as much time looking at each and every single relevant law and any differences between what was in effect in 1961 compared to now as someone who has filed a lawsuit.

It's not a matter of just looking at laws that are clearly about the topic of your lawsuit, there is also the matter of looking at laws that might possibly be linked in some way and there are also previous cases that deal with similar subject matter that have to be read and the opinions of the judges from those cases. Now, have you done all of that? Can you honestly say that you have looked at each law from 1961 to now and any and all changes in between? Have you looked at laws that may only partially pertain to the subject? Have you looked at any and all relevant cases? Have you read every opinion from any and all relevant cases?

One thing I'll tell you however is that from reading Berg's lawsuit it is quite apparent that he didn't put as much thought looking into the laws as he should have.

Agreed. Berg's case had several flaws in it that were the result of rushing through the research in order to file quickly. That was a fairly large mistake on his part. But not every case that has been filed was filed by Berg. I don't think that we should take one case and act as though it is completely identical to every other case on the matter.

In any case, and in regards to the cases in the Supreme Court, I don't think you can make that assessment because the lawsuits that have been dismissed have been dismissed without any comments.

They gave the reasoning for dismissal. Or does that not count as a comment?

Once more I don't see how you can know the motives for all of these lawsuits.

Just as I don't see how you can know that any of them were filed out of mere curiosity.

I don't think we should evaluate the validity of something based on the amount of attention it receives.

Neither do I. If that were the case then no one would still be questioning his COLB since it has gotten plenty of attention.

It would be entirely reasonable if Obama had never presented any proof of citizenship, but he has.

You missed my point. The Constitution and the laws should be upheld regardless of who is in the Oval Office. It doesn't matter if it is Obama, Bush, or whichever former president you care to name. They should still be upheld and that is an entirely reasonable request.

Originally posted by Jenna
You missed my point. The Constitution and the laws should be upheld regardless of who is in the Oval Office. It doesn't matter if it is Obama, Bush, or whichever former president you care to name. They should still be upheld and that is an entirely reasonable request.

Yes, Obama isn't above the law but he isn't below it either. Vital records are private information, and not to be disclosed without lawful reasons or orders.

I believe the United States Constitution also contemplates Obama's right to privacy among other rights.

The problem here is that some people aren't comfortable with the evidence Obama has presented. Unfortunately for those people their opinions or feelings are irrelevant in face of legal authority.

[edit on 1-3-2009 by converge]

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by EYEOFEAGLE
If you can't show the people of this country your original birth certificate then you do not deserve to be in that house...

You don't speak for the people. The people have spoken, to the tune of 69 million of them, and they are satisfied that Obama is a natural born citizen. You are in a very pathetic minority.

Originally posted by xyankee
Does anyone have documents showing when he changed his name to Barry S., how long he kept that name and when he changed it back to Barrack Hussein Obama?

Your a piece of work. You are actually making my job easier. Keep it up please.

And as for Obama, I will never believe anything that man has to say. Ever!
Look at his background, A community organizer to senator, to president???

Look at the people he is associated with, the people who helped him buy his house, the people who put him in politics, the damn state he came out of as a politician. CAPITAL CORRUPTION!!!

If I were in his shoes and had that kind of history why not plaster the damn birth certificate all over everything? He is hiding something and everyone who defends him knows it.

He was not born in this country, he did not register for the draft, he lied on his application to practice law. He claimed he had never held any other names in any other countries, ever. That is falsifying a federal document. If he would do that, what makes you think it would not lie about his birth certificate?


Eye of Eagle

Originally posted by Afrosamurai
Once again, the document you claim "proves" he was an Indonisian native... SAYS HE WS BORN IN HAWAII! Get over it, a black man is in office no matter how much you hate black people.

He may have lied to get there. What do you think about that?


Eye of Eagle

He may have lied to get there. What do you think about that?

This is where the whole theory breaks down, because it requires that he (and his family and all their friends, and the entire HI state government, and even the paper that printed his birth announcement) have been lying since he was an infant solely so he could run for President 48 years later.

It simply makes no logical sense.

That, or that someone with a time machine went back to 1961 just to fake his BC, which also makes no logical sense.

The whole idea is simply goofy, and I have to wonder how many people promoting the idea actually believe it, and how many are just indulging in a little "lets play pretend" in the hopes that the recent election will magically be undone on a technical foul

Originally posted by xmotex

He may have lied to get there. What do you think about that?

This is where the whole theory breaks down, because it requires that he (and his family and all their friends, and the entire HI state government, and even the paper that printed his birth announcement) have been lying since he was an infant solely so he could run for President 48 years later.

It simply makes no logical sense.

That, or that someone with a time machine went back to 1961 just to fake his BC, which also makes no logical sense.

The whole idea is simply goofy, and I have to wonder how many people promoting the idea actually believe it, and how many are just indulging in a little "lets play pretend" in the hopes that the recent election will magically be undone on a technical foul

You would be absolutly amazed at his ability and the resources Obama had at hand to spin what ever needed to be spun. You are right in a since, the COLB approach is filled with many many speed bumps.

What the people want and deserve is a fair hearing in front of a congressional jury with any and all evidence both pro and con laid out in court for the jury to decide, not a judge who was appointed!!!!

For those of us who demand this, there is another way to represent this case to a court to ask again for it to be heard.

There is a document that should be available where he applied for a license to practice law in the state of Ill. An this document was a question asking whether or not he has ever held any other names or allias'. I have a funny feeling he answered no on this question!!!

I have tried to find it but have come up empty on my sources to search.

Do I have any one here who would like to try and find that document. If we can find it, and he answered no, that will give more that enough reason of doubt and motive to have a formal hearing on this issue. I also think it is a federal document. Presidential candidates should not fib on federal documents.


Want another way non-believers, find this damn document.


Eye of Eagle

This is an exercise in futility, even if some how the supreme court ruled he is ineligible, the democrats would still be in power Biden / Pelosi if you think that is better than Obama you need to give your head a shake.
And a stunt like that would divide this country like never before, there would be riots like in the 60's.

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Originally posted by Afrosamurai
SO again, come up with another reason besides you hate black people. .

You know why no one answers you afro! You only voted for him BECAUSE HE IS BLACK! Do you think any of us give a damn

NO!

So shut up you presumptuous racist we're all sick of hearing you whine about racism! Call the ACLU! Call Jessie! Call Sharpton! Call your Mommy

If you think they hate him because he is Black,,

SO WHAT!

Now whatcha gonna say? Huh?

I'm not really sure what your histrionics have to do with this situation.

Could you please check your emotions and let's get back to the subject at hand please?

Thank you.

[edit on 1-3-2009 by HunkaHunka]

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
This is an exercise in futility, even if some how the supreme court ruled he is ineligible, the democrats would still be in power Biden / Pelosi if you think that is better than Obama you need to give your head a shake.
And a stunt like that would divide this country like never before, there would be riots like in the 60's.

So if this is just a stunt, and it turns out to be true that he did indeed lie and forge documents and all of the above and below, do you think he should stay in office?

reply to post by HunkaHunka


I like your tone, can you comment on the federal document to practice law question? This may have some merrit to it.


Eye of Eagle

Originally posted by EYEOFEAGLE
What the people want and deserve is a fair hearing in front of a congressional jury with any and all evidence both pro and con laid out in court for the jury to decide, not a judge who was appointed!!!!

Wait, Congressional hearing? That's not what you guys wanted last time I checked. It seems like you're already preemptively rejecting a possible unfavorable verdict a judge would give your case.

Another indication that some of you will never be happy, or accept the evidence, no matter how much of it or on under whose legal authority it is presented.

And people don't deserve a hearing in front of a Congressional jury, because there is no dispute that would require Congress to act or pass judgment.

Yes there are lawsuits pending contesting Obama's eligibility, but those are not matters for Congressional inquires, most certainly not at this point when there is not even one single lawsuit being accepted by lower or the Supreme courts.

At most we could argue that Congress already passed judgment: they approved Barack Obama.

There is a document that should be available where he applied for a license to practice law in the state of Ill. ...

Do I have any one here who would like to try and find that document. If we can find it, and he answered no, that will give more that enough reason of doubt and motive to have a formal hearing on this issue.

You're talking about the Illinois Bar Application. You perhaps are not aware of it, but that accusation does not make sense. Why?

According to the Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois, the “full former name(s)” field is reserved for names which have previously appeared on the Illinois Master Roll of Attorneys and is NOT meant to include any names adoption prior to obtaining a license to practice law in Illinois.

A telephone call to the ARDC's offices confirmed that particular interpretation of the information on the commission's Web site.

Therefore, the only way that Barack Hussein Obama's Attorney Registration form would include the names "Barry Soetoro" and "Barry Dunham" would be if he originally became licensed to practice law in Illinois under those names and changed it through the ARDC afterward. For example, Michelle Obama's Attorney Registration information clearly shows her maiden name, Michelle Lavaughn Robinson, in the "full former name(s)" field. So, according to the ARDC, I think it is fair to say that Barack Obama was under no obligation to include any other names on his registration form.

source

[edit on 1-3-2009 by converge]

Originally posted by Aermacchi
And to the REPUBLIC for which it stands! REPUBLIC REPUBLIC REPUBLIC

You can call it whatever you want. As I said, FUNCTIONALLY, we are a Democracy, because all of the things that supposedly "make" us a "Republic", even the makeup and interpretation of our Constitution, are 100% dependent on majority rule by vote.


de·moc·ra·cy

1 a: government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections 2: a political unit that has a democratic government 3capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States 4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges Edit: (We Hold These Truths To Be Self-Evident, *blah blah*, That All Men Are Created Equal)

re·pub·lic

1 a (1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1): a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c: a usually specified republican government of a political unit 2: a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity 3: a constituent political and territorial unit of the former nations of Czechoslovakia, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or Yugoslavia

Both from this source.

According to the dictionary definition, you can't have a real Republic without a voting body to elect your representatives. The vote is a democratic process. Therefore all Republics, if they truly fit the dictionary definition, are functionally Democracies.

You can get as mouthy as you want but that doesn't make you right and it sure as hell makes you look foolish because if you think that it helps your ability to persuade anyone,, '
'
It Doesn't.

Are you even able to post without making things personal? Do you consider it your personal mission to come to every Obama thread and leave big, fat, steaming turds all over it?

How much are you getting paid to post here? And if you're not getting paid, can I suggest therapy? You seem a little fantasy-prone with violent tendencies. Might wanna check up on that before you find yourself walking into a public building with a loaded gun and a death wish.

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Originally posted by Afrosamurai
SO again, come up with another reason besides you hate black people. .

You know why no one answers you afro! You only voted for him BECAUSE HE IS BLACK! Do you think any of us give a damn

NO!

So shut up you presumptuous racist we're all sick of hearing you whine about racism! Call the ACLU! Call Jessie! Call Sharpton! Call your Mommy

If you think they hate him because he is Black,,

SO WHAT!

Now whatcha gonna say? Huh?

I'd say that, like sleeping with your own sister and eating human babies, that kind of attitude/belief system/world view doesn't fly any more.

We're a young, stupid nation easily led by our emotions rather than logic. It's time to grow up and move toward a better future for everyone.

you can try,but you can't talk sense or law to an obamatron. they have an excuse for every situation.
i need an obamatron to post a court decision ,stating that he has proven citizenship. not a dismissal.. a real full decision. like mc cain did.
no excuses..do your homework,and show me where it is.
and i dont wanna see an article by some liberal,who only sees it your way. i want to see the court papers WITH A DECISION ON IT.
I WILL ALSO ACCEPT,IN ORDER TO SEE IT YOUR WAY,SOME SORT OF RECORD.
THESE WILL DO NICELY:
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.

OTHERWISE YOU HAVE NO STANDING,PROOF REQUIRED
another little thing that bothers me is this


who paid for obama's harvard education?
and i need to know why he spends hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep his life sealed? the most tranparent administration ever. hah,you bought that one hook line and sinker.
so lets stop the arguing ,and flash some proof

[edit on 1-3-2009 by Spectre0o0]

Originally posted by Spectre0o0
you can try,but you can't talk sense or law to an obamatron. they have an excuse for every situation.

I'm going to ignore your stereotypes and name-calling and address the, albeit few, serious questions you pose.

There's a difference between excuses and arguments. If you can't discern between the two, then there's no point in trying to understand what I'm going to write next.

i need an obamatron to post a court decision ,stating that he has proven citizenship. not a dismissal.. a real full decision. like mc cain did.

McCain's citizenship was never at cause. Neither was Obama's - well, if you discount the crazy few who think he's not even a citizen. This is about natural born citizenship, not simply US citizenship.

By the way, McCain posted a court decision stating that he has proven citizenship? Would you share with us that court decision?

no excuses..do your homework,and show me where it is. ...

OTHERWISE YOU HAVE NO STANDING,PROOF REQUIRED

You have it backwards: it is you, the people who dispute his natural born citizenship that have to do your homework and present the evidence to support your argument.

Despite whatever beliefs you and others might have, for all legal purposes, Obama is currently the President of the United States. Nor only that but he previously served as a US Senator. A requirement for being a Senator is being a US citizen for at least 9 years (Article I §3 of the US Constitution).

State and federal officials have, explicitly and implicitly vouched not only for his citizenship but his natural born citizenship.

You are the ones contesting his citizenship so the burden of proof falls on you, not the other way around.

Even if you don't agree with this logical principle, 8 US Code §1481(b) says:

(b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. source

You can kick, scream and demand whatever you'd like but legally the burden of proof falls on your side of the argument.

[edit on 1-3-2009 by converge]