AP Headline from 2004? "Kenyan-born Obama"

If we take a sober step back, and set aside the "Obama birth place" controversies (or contrived controversies), and view the larger picture from a detached mindset, we encounter two important "take-aways" from this and other related discussions.

ONE - There has been an effort to scrub or otherwise spike news material that may cast doubt on the birth-origin of Mr. Obama.

TWO - We are appropriately reminded that Mr. Obama sprung onto the national political scene not because he handily won an election for the Senate, but because his opposition lost.


Conspiracy-minded people need to pragmatically connect interesting dots so that our theories evolve from the realm of speculation into the world of fact. These are two such dots of importance that will contribute toward that fruitful evolution.

reply to post by Scooby Doo


And... This is simply a report. This is 3rd grade material. Why doesn't every American know their rights? See how stupid we let ourselves get. What mattered was the citizenship of his parent(s). Done!

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 30% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -10. This is the fourth straight day the Approval Index has been in negative double digits (see trends).

I mean this has to say something as well...

reply to post by JBA2848


Wow. Great find! Good job!

I ran across this one yesterday while researching Kogelo, the village where Obama's family lives.

Kogelo

Kogelo is a village in Kenya where United States of America President Barack Obama father was born and raised up.

They have him being RAISED in Kenya as well.

More African pride, I suspect. I can't fault them for being proud. Having a "son of Kenya" attain the highest position in the world must be a thrill for the small village.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


no they have his father being raised in Kenya, which is what that article is about, Obama Sr..

reply to post by vkey08


Sorry, I thought I had run across another source yesterday that claimed he was born there, but I can't find it. I could have just read it wrong.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by vkey08

 

Sorry, I thought I had run across another source yesterday that claimed he was born there, but I can't find it. I could have just read it wrong.

s'ok, where the rumors are running rampant, it's just best to point out sometimes where there are tangible facts. (I had to reread it twice if that helps LOL)

This is a no win regardless of where he was born, because you will never know for sure.

Fact is; he is the president and a birth certificate can be issued for anyone showing them to be born in the USA or Canada etc. It's paper work and the paper work alone means nothing unless there is collaborating evidence to support it.

Governments issue birth certificates to conceal the origin of foreign nationals and have for the past 60 years.

It's a waste of time and energy to pursue this birth certificate angle, there are more important issues on the table.

Originally posted by vkey08
reply to post by whatukno

 

On that you are correct, but the courts through the due process (and I sincerely hope one way or the other it IS the courts that decide this) DO have the right to ask to see that document.

No, they don't. Will you please read the Constitution of The United States?

The Courts have NO jurisdiction in the matter of Presidential eligibility!

Originally posted by rnaa

Originally posted by vkey08
reply to post by whatukno

 

On that you are correct, but the courts through the due process (and I sincerely hope one way or the other it IS the courts that decide this) DO have the right to ask to see that document.

No, they don't. Will you please read the Constitution of The United States?

The Courts have NO jurisdiction in the matter of Presidential eligibility!

From Australia you can tell me that our courts have no constitutional power over that? A few Federal Judges disagree with you, as they rule on constitutional issues all the time. Yo have a very skewed view from Down Under of our legal system..

While it may be true that a local or state judge may not be able to rule, a sitting Federal Court judge can. And of course at that point, it can be appealed ot the last authority on the subject the Supreme Court.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by rnaa

 

First I want to thank you for proving my point that people from all over the world are interested in the Birth Certificate issue.

Here you are posting all the way from Australia the land down under weighing in on your take on the U.S. Constitution and Court System.

I am guessing you have learned about all these things discussing them with your Australian President Fosters Lager.

You guess wrong.

I am "a Natural Born American Citizen", born and bred in the US of A. Educated in the US of A. Worked in the US of A. In fact, I was physically in the US of A just last month.

I have, however, married a beautiful Australian woman and have had the privilege of living here for the last few years.

Because here in the United States of America the President must be a natural born citizen to be eligible for office.

I know. Better than you, it seems.

Here in the United States the President is afraid to reveal his actual signed sealed original long form birth certificate that displays where he was born definitely and is the only definitive document that can display 100% where he was born. Here in the United States the President tries to avoid having to comply with the law and obstructs justice with teams and teams of lawyers.

No. Failure to show you something he has no obligation to show you and which you have no right to see is not fear. It is simply ignoring you.

Naturally that is very suspicious and well to be honest the fact that a foreign person such as yourself has such a keen and apparently vehement interest in the subject does suggest that in fact there is an international conspiracy afoot since you too are advocating that Constitutional Standards and Evidentiary Standards not be met.

Again, no. See my reply above, your assumptions are leading you down the path of silliness. In fact, you are the one that is displaying a complete lack of understanding of the Constitution.

The President has obviously failed to prove his natural born citizenship since he hides the one document that would be the only document that legally establishes him as a natural born citizen.

It’s pretty simple, kind of like the people who want to accept lesser evidentiary standards as absolute proof of something those lesser instruments don’t establish absolute proof of.

In fact, he has proved his natural born citizenship beyond any doubt. Not just 'beyond reasonable doubt', but beyond any doubt. Your doubt is not reasonable, it is not even unreasonable, it is irrational.

Your insistence on "the one document that would be the only document that legally establishes him as a natural born citizen" is based on such a misunderstanding of official record keeping and legal certification that it is breathtaking. The birth certificate he has provided is IT.

Your irrational insistence on this really demonstrates your 'hidden' agenda. You wanted a BC that showed where he was born, and when it was pointed out that his BC does indeed show where he was born, you wanted finger and footprints. Whatever.

The Powers That Be have you so tied up in knots obsessing over this thing that you can't see the other real crap going on. Why aren't you out in the street demanding that the Patriot Act be repealed? The guys that brought you that piece of drek are the same one's that are poisoning your mind with this Birth Certificate lie. You are playing right into their hands.

Thanks for posting and have an other Fosters on me mate!

Thanks but no thanks.

Australians don't drink Foster's (and neither do I) , that is just the crap beer that they sell to gullible Americans (except when it is packaged as "Crown Lager", but that is another conspiracy story altogether).

Cooper's is one of the worlds finest beers, period.

reply to post by rnaa


Well then if you're from here how do you not know how our legal system works.???

I'm not originally from the USA, (granted I've lived here 95% of my life) and even I know the basics of the system.. NOT ONE PERSON read again NOT ONE PERSON is above the law.

Also it says nowhere in the constitution that courts have no jurisdiction over the President.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Doc Tesla

 

Please do, In fact please SOMEONE set me up with an on camera interview with Orly Taitz. Ill put this Birther business to bed.

No you won't.

She'll still be talking about absolutely nothing at all after 5 hours.

You won't even get a chance to ask a question. I mean have you not even seen the footage that exists?

Originally posted by vkey08

Originally posted by rnaa

Originally posted by vkey08
reply to post by whatukno

 

On that you are correct, but the courts through the due process (and I sincerely hope one way or the other it IS the courts that decide this) DO have the right to ask to see that document.

No, they don't. Will you please read the Constitution of The United States?

The Courts have NO jurisdiction in the matter of Presidential eligibility!

From Australia you can tell me that our courts have no constitutional power over that? A few Federal Judges disagree with you, as they rule on constitutional issues all the time. Yo have a very skewed view from Down Under of our legal system..

While it may be true that a local or state judge may not be able to rule, a sitting Federal Court judge can. And of course at that point, it can be appealed ot the last authority on the subject the Supreme Court.

Yes, I can, because I am American and actually studied the Constitution when I was in school, in America.

No court, local, state, or federal has any jurisdiction over determining the eligibility or non-eligibility of the President of the United States.

That is the sole responsibility of Congress.

Here is an analysis of the situation: Eligibility lawsuits are unConstitutional?

reply to post by rnaa


Once again the fact remains that Barack Obama is petrified to show is original long form raised seal birth certificate in a Court of Law.

Once again the fact remains the same that he is spending millions of dollars and hiring dozens upon dozens of attorneys all over the nation to keep from having to show this document in dozens of court cases filed across the land.

Once again it is obvious that he is hiding something.

Once again it's obvious his most aredent supporters don't care.

I myself know fully well that in due course Justice will prevail and the truth will come out.

One thing is for certain if there was not something incredibly damaging and incriminating on the Birth Certificate he would have shown it a long time ago.

Thanks for posting my Americanfile friend.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Once again the fact remains that Barack Obama is petrified to show is original long form raised seal birth certificate in a Court of Law.

I don't know but maybe he doesn't want to feed the trolls? Perhaps his elitist "netiquette" is more refined that that of us plebs?

My good chezz puff!

We got the data now some one forward this to Gleen Beck.

Now I can shave my beard once he is out of office!

Originally posted by vkey08
reply to post by rnaa

 

Well then if you're from here how do you not know how our legal system works.???

I'm not originally from the USA, (granted I've lived here 95% of my life) and even I know the basics of the system.. NOT ONE PERSON read again NOT ONE PERSON is above the law.

Also it says nowhere in the constitution that courts have no jurisdiction over the President.

I didn't say the Court has no jurisdiction over the President or that he is above the law. I said the Court has no jurisdiction over determining Presidential eligibility, and that is simple fact.

Perhaps that is why you are so tied up in knots over this. You read something and don't understand what it is saying. Your personal filter bias is masking out the words that are there and you are seeing only what you want to see.

The Constitution gives that jurisdiction to the Congress through the electoral college process and certification of the vote. Congress has made laws defining the procedural rules of the certification, which includes a provision for filing objections to the process or the eligibility of the candidates. There is no room for the involvement of any Court in this process.

As each State determines how the Electoral College members are chosen, they may well have additional requirements for proof of eligibility to get on the ballot. If your favorite Secretary of State has failed to effectively carry out their obligations, you may have an argument with them, but charging the SoS with malfeasance in office isn't going to change the certification.

The certification was granted at all levels of government in a Constitutional manner. BH Obama has been sworn in and is the sitting President. The only way to remove a sitting President is via impeachment which is a trial in the Senate, nothing to do with the Courts except that a Supreme Court Justice presides over the trial.

reply to post by rnaa


I love being accused of reading without understanding. What I do understand is there is nowhere in the document itself, nor in the articles of confederation that actually state that a Federal Court cannot rule on a lawsuit brought by a private citizen against the Government or the POTUS.

No the court would never be able to strip him of his power, but a court could rule in favor of the plaintiff, demand that all supporting documentation be provided to the court for it's inspection, and then rule on any punitive damages. Congress, if the lawsuit was decided in favor of a plaintiff would be stupid not to take that into consideration.

So on one hand yes you are correct the court cannot strip him of his position, but the court can fine his rear, make judgment against him and pass those findings on to the House.

Originally posted by vkey08
reply to post by rnaa

 

I love being accused of reading without understanding. What I do understand is there is nowhere in the document itself, nor in the articles of confederation that actually state that a Federal Court cannot rule on a lawsuit brought by a private citizen against the Government or the POTUS.

True, I think. However I do seem to remember lots of lawsuits against various Presidents that were delayed until they were out of office. I can't remember if it was done out of politeness or because there was a question about it.

I'm pretty sure it is well established that POTUS cannot be sued. It has to the the Government, or the Department or whatever.

No the court would never be able to strip him of his power, but a court could rule in favor of the plaintiff, demand that all supporting documentation be provided to the court for it's inspection, and then rule on any punitive damages. Congress, if the lawsuit was decided in favor of a plaintiff would be stupid not to take that into consideration.

Only if the plaintiff has a case that the court has jurisdiction over; otherwise the plaintiff won't get in the door. Notice all the Summary Judgments that Orly's cases are getting? That is the judge telling her that she doesn't have an actionable case.

If the plaintiff does get the case into court, they still have to demonstrate that somehow Obama's birth certificate is somehow a supporting document.

Let's say for a moment that somebody sues a Secretary of State somewhere for not validating the eligibility before letting Obama on the State ballot, and a Judge somewhere allows it to go to trial.

The existence or non-existence of Obama's birth certificate is irrelevant to the case at hand. It simply has nothing to do with the SoS failure to do her duty.

So on one hand yes you are correct the court cannot strip him of his position, but the court can fine his rear, make judgment against him and pass those findings on to the House.

No it can't. Because he hasn't done anything to bring him to the attention of the court that the Birth Certificate or what ever document you want him to provide this week, can resolve. Period. There is just no way that a court can constitutionally have anything whatsoever to do with deciding on the eligibility of the President.


[edit on 19/10/2009 by rnaa]