Court won't review Obama's eligibility to serve!

Yeah, yous are right, this is getting old.... rofl over 200 posts and 7 flags? Well, it was a good run with a sad outcome for me. Oh well. Win some lose some.

You guys want something to talk about, check my sig for that latest story on Diebold. Sickening. That's where the flags need to be, if I may shamelessly say so.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Edited read True American's post wrong, I'm very happy your signing off respectfully, good show.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by Lokey13]

Originally posted by redhatty
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

I remember it being mentioned in one of Donofrio's discussions, but had not looked into it deeply. Public Law 95-432 may actually be a stronger point in the Obama situation.

(Reported to House from the Committee on the Judiciary with amendment, H. Rept. 95-1493)

Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to repeal specified provisions depriving persons of their United States nationality and citizenship in the following circumstances (1) a person, born outside the United States to parents one of whom was not a United States citizen, who failed to come to and reside in the United States; (2) a person who having dual nationality sought the benefits of his non-United States nationality; (3) a person who voted or participated in a foreign election; (4) a person who was convicted of desertion from the United States military; (5) a naturalized citizen who resided outside the United States for a specified period of time; and (6) a minor's parents' expatriation.

Emphasis mine.

Question 1: Would using a passport from another country you have the ability to get one from (i.e. the questionable Indonesian Passport) be considered "seeking the benefits of non-US nationality?"

Question 2: Would Obama's campaigning for his cousin Odinga, be considered participating in a foreign election?

I reference this law since it is one that is referenced in the Elg case link you provided, BH

I hope you don't mind me answering this when your question was directed at Benevolent Heretic.

In Afroyim v. Rusk, it was charged that Afroyam lost his American citizenship by voting in the Israeli elections after emigrating there.
However the court ruled that a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act mandating automatic loss of citizenship for voting in a foreign election was invalid. Other, similar provisions providing for loss of citizenship for serving in a foreign army, or even swearing allegiance to a foreign country, were similarly invalid unless the action was accompanied by an intent to give up US citizenship.

As voting in a foreign election without intent to relinquish citizenship is not sufficient to cause loss of such citizenship, I believe it is safe to presume that such apparent campaigning as Obama is said to have done would not cause loss of citizenship either.

Current American citizenship law appears to be heavily biased against citizens losing their citizenship unless it is their intent to relinquish it. To prove one did not intend to relinquish citizenship, one has only to affirm that lack of intention to a consular officer.
One must be eighteen or over, and not under duress, to renounce American citizenship.

No mention is made in Section 349 of using a passport from another country. I believe that makes it safe to assume that use of such a passport would not be an impediment to one's American citizenship.

POTENTIALLY EXPATRIATING ACTS

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:

1. obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);
2. taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);
3. entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);
4. accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);
5. formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);
6. formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only under strict, narrow statutory conditions) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);
7. conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).

It seems that even if Obama renounced his American citizenship in Indonesia, (which was only ever a speculation,) gained an Indonesian passport and travelled on it, (also only speculation,) and campaigned in a Kenyan election, (yet to be proven,) the most important factor in his retention of citizenship is his clearly demonstrated intent to retain such citizenship.

I rest my case.

Originally posted by redhatty
Donofrio claimed that dual-citizenship AT-BIRTH, precluded Obama from being a "Natural-Born Citizen." Never once does Donofrio claim that Obama was not born in Hawaii, and Obama's own websites have admitted that yes, he did have dual-citizenship at birth.

But since SCOTUS chose not to hear the case, we will not - at this time - know if Donofrio's arguments are correct in their conclusions.

If the court decided not hear the case, it means Donofrio's arguments are incorrect in their premise.

Originally posted by Avenginggecko


Seems more like a condemnation of those who deny the truth when it's standing in front of them, waving its arms and screaming their names hysterically.

The simple facts are this:

There is no creditable, court-admissable evidence to prove he wasn't born in Hawaii or later renounced his citizenship in Indonesia. I don't care if you're Democrat, Republican, or Independent, and neither does the law. It will not entertain right-wing blogs and fringe sites as creditable sources.

I thought, like most Americans, that Obama would simply present a copy of his real, original birth certificate, and that would be that. Yet, here we are, more than twenty months after Obama announced his candidacy for the Presidency, and weeks after the election, and Obama still refuses to show his real birth certificate!

First and foremost, YOU are NOT a Judge. You might think speaking as one may garner the respect that goes with the job regarding such legalese as we often see in court room hearings, the evidence almost always shows up during discovery. You saying there is no proof to show he wasn't born in Hawaii is tantamount to the logical fallacy of proving a negative. You see there is no credible evidence to prove he wasn't born in Ohio, or Wisconsin either. You are presumptuous saying what a court will and will not allow as evidence. The FACT is, you have NO idea moreover, the idea that some of this may come from a "Right wing blog" is again another logical fallacy. The website hosting such information and their particular political ideology whether it is believed to be "BS" by you and the rest of the liberals in here is moot. The Fact is if what you are saying is true, then one can change the actual credibility of an otherwise credible source of information, and just by posting it to a Right Wing Blog, does not relinquish its earned respect and credibility merely by moving it to a website you don't agree with.

It is thinking like that which tells me with more certainty, that I am right, you are NOT a Judge nor should you give up your day job to become one.

* The highest court of the nation has set a precedent of what they will do with these cases: they will not entertain them.

Actually, what the SCOTUS did in this case was the most cowardly act of juris imprudence I have ever seen and most likely one of the worst decisions in supreme courts history. The idea they didn't even make a comment on why it wasn't worthy of a something as simple as sending a deuces tecum to that hospital where Obama eventually recorded an alleged BC is because they simply had no excuse NOT to hear it. What they did was unthinkable, I worked with the campaign and saw first hand some of the things they were doing and believe it or not, ONE of them was for us to go out and post nit picky posts about Barack, like those you see in this thread. The idea was to burn it out FAST with over kill and superfluous attacks on him so much so that anyone would just see it as a right wing or GOP agenda thing. For instance, when someone mentions the fraudulent, fake COLB's that were first said to be original BC's but were only photo shopped facsimiles of a COLB, they got busted on a few major discrepancies. The Obama camp is quick about having his own so called experts call it a fraud knowing the guy they had doing this was setting himself up to be discovered a fraud himself. That way any other legitimate "experts" would be given no creedence to thier allegations as this would be "Just another GOP Nut Job" .

The Fact is however, their have been people with doctorates, Phd's examining all the so called evidence of Barack Obama's BC and the FACT is, they ARE fake and always have been because those posted on a left wing website owned by Obama's constituents, colleagues and various mesmerized members and mindless militants under the influence of the "Obama Phenomena" who are so infatuated with the elusive one they call "the one" need to get over that first before any of you can say anything half way objective.

* The premise of this 'conspiracy' is ridiculous. It would involve so many people from different nations, levels of government, and political views over such a long period of time that the plausibility of it being real is zilch.

Yeah about the same odds, Darwin's debunked theory of evolution happened the way he postulated it did. Yet here you are defending Obama with all the self righteousness of a religious zealot and YOU haven't seen the best evidence yet have you? Nope.

You are no different than all the other unknowing agents of the huge conspiracy of those who argue this quagmire in blind devotion to Barack Obama, complicit in the conspiracy to ridicule those who oppose his stone walling with extreme prejudice. Yet I know for a bonafide fact, none of you have seen his vaulted BC.

BUT THERE IS MORE!

None of you, knows anyone who has seen it either and those you know who know others higher up the political landscape, have seen the vaulted BC. In fact, even those in the newspapers such as Fukina and the DOH who say they have seen it, we must believe by faith. This is why it is so important a Judge sees it, but not only sees it but substantiates Obama's testimony, he was born in Hawaii by affirming it does in fact say he was born in (hospital) in what (country) in what (state) etc. So here we are now, from the very first time Obama was asked about proving his birth place, one would expect that when you are applying for the highest office in the land, you make the qualification standards as high and as strictly enforced as possible and you make damn sure that the references you give for the job including the documents for same, are the very BEST you can get your hands on and NOT something almost everyone in the U.S. has manipulated Hospitals into making for a few bucks known as a COLB so your illegal aliens with children can slide through the cracks getting extra aid and welfare.

You make sure you don't use something that every Identity thief in the country will tell you is a cake walk to get and then use to establish a more entrenched civilian background and that first document they get all the rest with, like drivers licenses etc,. IS the Certificate Of Live Birth.

What the supreme court did was asinine and just plane STUPID!

This makes it that much easier to fake your eligibility in what is constitutionally mandated as a REQUIREMENT for anyone running for POTUS, they get the genuine article called the Vaulted BC. 9 months ago when Obama was asked for it, he scoffed and snubbed those who had a hunch about this guy and some didn't take it lightly. Some wanted to know why he was taking so long to show it. Then one day the pressure was getting to the public relations fiction faction of factcheck.org, and they had to do something. So they pulled out this pathetic excuse for what SHOULD have been his BC but wasn't. They said it was nevertheless and it is interesting to see the archived web pages that have had so many re-writes explaining away Obama's bluffing, smoke screens, using all the cloak and dagger subterfuge one could expect from a Harvard Lawyer up to his neck in sheep dip. Do any of you know how long it had taken after Obama was first asked to produce some proof of who he was before he made his first attempt to sneak the first counterfeit BC by us? Take a guess.

It took so long that Ted Kennedy even had to make the suggestion as HE never seen his BC either and ya know what else,

HE STILL HAS NEVER SEEN IT.

Nor has anyone else in the DNC.

Your argument that information and or documents hosted on right wing websites as having no credibility for that reason is the same one I can make for Obama's BC being on a Left wingers website where their is more compelling an argument for motive and agenda being Factcheck.org and places like it that have been exposed as dis info websites for the Obamanoids Grand Master himself.

An unclear and confusing tape of Obama's grandmother is hearsay because her testimony is not taken during trial. It is also unreliable circumstantial evidence because it is ambiguous and the interviewer had an agenda.

Unclear? That's debatable. confusing tape of Obama's grandmother? I wasn't confused and the alleged tape recording being taken outside of the court room doesn't invalidate its source as proof prima facie evidence either. A formality of sorts that could be corroborated more than a few ways, not taking that much effort but would make this tape part of the tapestry in the overall picture of Obama's extraordinary reluctant defiance to capitulate with drop dead honesty and full self disclosure.

A school form from Indonesia is unreliable circumstantial evidence because it does not clearly indicate that Barak gave up his citizenship in Indonesia. I'll say this again: all of the evidence is hearsay or circumstantial. Hearsay is not permissable in a court of law and for circumstantial evidence to be valid it must be from a creditable source (i.e. unambiguous and without an agenda or motive to discredit the defendant). Also, if circumstantial evidence does not clearly establish the situation, or it shows that more than one possibilities had an equal or greater chance of occurring, it is not considered legally admissable.

By itself it is unreliable but it DOES indicate a connect the dots picture of the man and the many many too hard to ignore clues, when strung all together end to end, paint a pretty compelling argument that Barack Obama is not only ineligible, to be POTUS, but that he tried desperately to the tune of over half a million dollars to get that and most other areas of his life and past, sealed and hidden from us without recourse. This is why, all you Obama supporters sound so disingenuous, simply because we know as much as you know about this man and that ain't much. For you to suggest the BC should be a last resort document in case all other avenues to assist in Obama's perjury fail, is the kind of logic, one would expect in anyone aiding and abetting a criminal while not knowing it. Oh YOU COULD know it like those of us honest enough to say we haven't seen the BC so it is,, what's that word you used??? Oh yeah,,

HEARSAY!

He has provided a COLB, which shows more than enough information to prove he was born in Hawaii. A COLB is considered reliable evidence in a court of law because it is a government document.

No careful, there,, let me explain why it is hearsay.


Under Hawaiian law, it is possible (both legally and illegally) for a person to have been born out of state, yet have a birth certificate on file in the Department of Health.


1. From Hawaii's official Department of Health, Vital Records webpage: "Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country" (applies to adopted children).


2. A parent may register an in-state birth in lieu of certification by a hospital of birth under HRS 338-5.


3. Hawaiian law expressly provides for registration of out-of-state births under HRS 338-17.8. A foreign birth presumably would have been recorded by the American consular of the country of birth, and presumably that would be reflected on the Hawaiian birth certificate.


4. Hawaiian law, however, expressly acknowledges that its system is subject to error. See, for example, HRS 338-17.


5. Hawaiian law expressly provides for verification in lieu of certified copy of a birth certificate under HRS 338-14.3.


6. Even the Hawaii Department of Home Lands does not accept a certified copy of a birth certificate as conclusive evidence for its homestead program. From its web site: "In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."


That October 31, 2008 statement says that Dr. Fukino "has personally seen and verified that the Hawaii's State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures." That statement does not, however, verify that Obama was born in Hawaii, and as explained above, under Hawaiian policies and procedures it is quite possible that Hawaii may have a birth record of a person not born in Hawaii.

Obama has refused to disclose the vault copy of his Hawaiian birth certificate. This raises the question whether he himself has established that he is eligible to be President.

To date, no state or federal election official, nor any government authority, has verified that he ever established conclusively that he meets the eligibility standard under the Constitution. Now ask yourself after reading this, is Obama this proud he ends up looking like a damn fool especially considering that If the burden of proof were on him, perhaps as it should be for the highest office of any individual in America, the more-than-dozen lawsuits challenging his eligibility would be unnecessary but besides that is the fact he never showed anyone the real one ever and THAT is what needs to be proven and HE is the one with the burden, NOT us.

Had he disclosed his vault copy in the Berg v. Obama lawsuit that would have constituted "res judicata", and put a stop to other lawsuits about the BC being filed. Without res judicata (meaning, the matter is adjudged and settled conclusively) he or government officials will need to defend other lawsuits, and believe me when I say this. He will be seeing an avalanche of them coming very soon from what I have been hearing around the halls of justice.

officials in the state of Hawaii where Obama was allegedly born, won't reveal what's on Obama's original birth certificate. All they have said is that they have it. They have not said "where" Obama was born or "when" Obama was born, or even to whom. You would think whatever hospital The One was born at would be bragging up a storm about the fact that he was born there That's exactly right. And you'd also think that anyone who knew him growing up or during college would do the same .

Hospitals you can check yourself, the main two hospitals claimed that definitely existed are above and both have no record of Obama or Mother Ann in either of them.

• The Queen’s Medical Center - Honolulu, Hawaii Obama claims as his birth hospital
  
• Kapi’ olani Medical Center Obama’s sister claims Barack Obama born here
  
• Honolulu Shriners Hospital Never a patient Mom or Obama
  
• Straub Clinic & Hospital Never a patient Mom or Obama
  
• Hawaii Health Systems Corporation - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
  
• Cancer Institute of Maui - Wailuku, Hawaii No Comment ???
  
• Kuakini Hospital - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
  Rehabilitation Hospital of the Pacific - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
  
• St. Francis Healthcare System of Hawaii - Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
  
• Straub Heatlh - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
  
• Tripler Medical Center - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
  
• Wahiawa General Hospital - Wahiawa, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
  
• 
  Wilcox Memorial Hospital - Lihue, Kauai, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
  

Hawaii grants birth certificates to people born in other nations! If you or I want a copy, they produce the document that you see on Obama’s site. Why then many ask does Obama currently have a forgery on his site? Another mystery that needs to be answered. That is NOT the one that has what we need to see to have Obama become President of the United States.

To become President of the United States one must be a natural born citizen - this is the one that someone born outside of the United States would obviously spend hundreds of thousands $$ to prevent us from seeing his birth certificate, just as Barack Obama has done.

The same school form from Indonesia shows he was from Hawaii, which is circumstanstial; however, it is unlikely that his step-father would lie to Indonesia about him being born in the states - he had no motive to lie about Barak's birthplace. If anything, he would have put his birthplace as Indonesia.

All of the people born in Korea, Kenya, Mongolia, Australia and who also have Hawaiian birth certificates also have REAL birth certificates.
This does not mean they were born in Hawaii.

Get it?



[edit on 9-12-2008 by Aermacchi]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by stander
Perkins vs. Elg.

Edit:

The Elg case is not, strictly speaking, a dual citizenship case, since the court's assumption was that once Elg had reached adulthood, she had the right to choose US citizenship instead of (not in addition to) Swedish citizenship -- i.e., that this right had not been taken away from her by actions her parents had taken when she was a child.

So, this isn't really precedent after all. She didn't have Swedish citizenship at birth.

The details of the Elg case, namely the Bancroft Treaties, makes it really different from Obama's case.

It appears that the dual citizenship issue has never been used in the past to dispute the eligibility of a presidential candidate. The Justices are obviously not bound in their decision by precedences, even though their opinions would very likely mentioned them.

I think that the dual citizenship obstacle on the road to the White House is something that Donofrio sees independently from the Constitution, because it's really hard to locate the derivative within the framework. But Donofrio's argument is not entirely illogical, because the Oath of Allegiance for Naturalized Citizens starts with
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen . . ."

On the other hand, diapers-wearing President-maybes should be protected from the effects of unreasonable generalization of amended ideas.

It's all weird stuff . . .

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Leo Donofrio: What a [snip] . I hear they use that term out that way.





Mod Edit - removed profanity

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 10-12-2008 by elevatedone]

ha ha ha ha ARE YOU SURPRISED?
look heres what "we" do
stop worrying about OBAMA
let him stay...
just decide to
not obey any of US.corps De' Facto laws
dont pay any of US.corps De' Facto taxes
basically MOVE ON and become our own nation asside from
US.corps De' Facto jurisdiction
a good ol' fashioned Revolt

Originally posted by GRANDWORLDDRAMA
ha ha ha ha ARE YOU SURPRISED?
look heres what "we" do
stop worrying about OBAMA
let him stay...
just decide to
not obey any of US.corps De' Facto laws
dont pay any of US.corps De' Facto taxes
basically MOVE ON and become our own nation asside from
US.corps De' Facto jurisdiction
a good ol' fashioned Revolt

I can just see the headlines splashed across newspapers all around the world if this happens:

" Americans are Revolting"

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Hospitals you can check yourself, the main two hospitals claimed that definitely existed are above and both have no record of Obama or Mother Ann in either of them.




The Queen’s Medical Center - Honolulu, Hawaii Obama claims as his birth hospital

Kapi’ olani Medical Center Obama’s sister claims Barack Obama born here

Honolulu Shriners Hospital Never a patient Mom or Obama

Straub Clinic & Hospital Never a patient Mom or Obama

Hawaii Health Systems Corporation - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama

Cancer Institute of Maui - Wailuku, Hawaii No Comment ???

Kuakini Hospital - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
Rehabilitation Hospital of the Pacific - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama

St. Francis Healthcare System of Hawaii - Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama

Straub Heatlh - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama

Tripler Medical Center - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama

Wahiawa General Hospital - Wahiawa, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama


Wilcox Memorial Hospital - Lihue, Kauai, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama

Aermachhi who are you trying to fool?

You can't just go ask a hospital about patients records!

That's a HIPPA violation in the worst way!



And you took all that time write that post!

[edit on 10-12-2008 by HunkaHunka]

reply to post by Aermacchi

First and foremost, YOU are NOT a Judge. You might think speaking as one may garner the respect that goes with the job regarding such legalese as we often see in court room hearings, the evidence almost always shows up during discovery. You saying there is no proof to show he wasn't born in Hawaii is tantamount to the logical fallacy of proving a negative. You see there is no credible evidence to prove he wasn't born in Ohio, or Wisconsin either.

Haha, exactly my point! In a court of law for a case to have merit the plaintiff must provide enough evidence to be heard in the first place. The plaintiffs don’t have any evidence a judge could take seriously. You also conveniently ignored the fact that I listed credible evidence that he was born in Hawaii. You also chose to concentrate on the “right wing blog” aspect of the argument and ignore my explanations of why their evidence is ridiculous.

Actually, what the SCOTUS did in this case was the most cowardly act of juris imprudence I have ever seen and most likely one of the worst decisions in supreme courts history.

The supreme court is populated by people who know law and the Constitution far better than you do, friend, and by your own logic you have absolutely no authority to speak on the subject when the highest authorities of our law have already spoken.

The Fact is however, their have been people with doctorates, Phd's examining all the so called evidence of Barack Obama's BC and the FACT is, they ARE fake and always have been because those posted on a left wing website owned by Obama's constituents, colleagues and various mesmerized members and mindless militants under the influence of the "Obama Phenomena" who are so infatuated with the elusive one they call "the one" need to get over that first before any of you can say anything half way objective.

Edited: Misunderstood at first. Why don't you find and provide PROOF that these people are PhD holding experts in examing government documents, forgeries, and birth certificates. I'd like you to provide solid, identifying information so that I too can research their identities. I'll be waiting.

Yeah about the same odds, Darwin's debunked theory of evolution happened the way he postulated it did. Yet here you are defending Obama with all the self righteousness of a religious zealot and YOU haven't seen the best evidence yet have you? Nope.

Talk about logical fallacy: Darwin has a theory. Detractor’s of Obama have a theory. Darwin’s theory has been modified over time. Therefore, Obama’s birthplace theory will change over time? Yeah, nice logic there.

Your argument that information and or documents hosted on right wing websites as having no credibility for that reason is the same one I can make for Obama's BC being on a Left wingers website where their is more compelling an argument for motive and agenda being Factcheck.org and places like it that have been exposed as dis info websites for the Obamanoids Grand Master himself.

I don’t remember exactly me saying that the only reason their evidence wasn’t credible was because it was from a right wing blog. I believe I went to further explain why the evidence is ridiculous. Please, continue your angry tirade…

prima facie
at first glance, on the first appearance. In legal contexts prima facie evidence is considered sufficient to establish a claim in the absence of counter-evidence; hence, in this context prima facie evidence is relatively strong.

I’m sorry, but you’ve apparently confused the term prima facie with something else, because the tape is not ‘relatively strong’ evidence, as pointed out many times.

No careful, there,, let me explain why it is hearsay.


Under Hawaiian law, it is possible (both legally and illegally) for a person to have been born out of state, yet have a birth certificate on file in the Department of Health.

I’m not going to go in to this because obviously you haven’t read the other threads explaining how Hawaiin laws have changed. And no, a COLB isn’t hearsay. A statement taken out of court by an individual is hearsay. A document of COLB can not be hearsay. Sorry.

All of the people born in Korea, Kenya, Mongolia, Australia and who also have Hawaiian birth certificates also have REAL birth certificates.
This does not mean they were born in Hawaii.

Get it?

Do your research on the laws and statutes in effect at the time of his birth. They have changed. Sorry you weren’t able to research this on one of the many threads on this site. Next time, I suggest you take a little more time to get the facts and a little less trying to make others look foolish because you hate Obama so much.


[edit on 10-12-2008 by Avenginggecko]

WTG Court!!! This is just a bunch of witch hunting. The courts won't be bought and they are not going to waste their time and resources dealing with something that could cause serious harm to the country. If the Repugnant Ones wanted to make this an issue they should have tried to do so a long time ago.

I would say the same thing if McCain was president elect. Once a guy is elected I could care less. There is more than enough time to gather evidence before the people of America make their choice for president. Be prepared for eight years of a liberal president. Those of us on the left had to stomach eight years of the smirking chimp. Our guy can't screw things up any more than yours did.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Aermachhi who are you trying to fool?

You can't just go ask a hospital about patients records!

That's a HIPPA violation in the worst way!

And you took all that time write that post!

[edit on 10-12-2008 by HunkaHunka]

And even more to write this one my friend. Ill answer this for both you and the poster below your post, the one who thinks he knows so much and like you,, do NOT.

"To the Believer, no proof is necessary...To the non-Believer, no proof is possible." But in a court of law, WE Deserve the Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing BUT the Truth
And that is why the SCOTUS doesn't want to hear this case because like most of you obamaniacs, you won't like it so you do everything to keep it from coming out from manufactured evidence to ridiculing us just for asking and asking yet none of this is going to help Obama in the end he will remain a crooked dishonest coward who like George Bush before him Got in Office because the supreme Court Screwed up again.

Typical of them I guess when you consider the liberals are now as bad as the Nazis having been the reason millions die in this country each year in abortion "Killinincs"

Are "incidental disclosures" allowed under the Privacy Rule?

Yes!

What "incidental disclosures" are allowed under the Privacy Rule?

Incidental disclosures are permitted only to the extent that reasonable and appropriate safeguards have been applied and the minimum necessary standard has been implemented. Disclosure of patient names outside of patient hospital rooms is the minimum necessary.

May staff release a patients information to family or friends calling to ask about a patient?

If the patient is an in-bed patient, staff must check to see whether that patient has opted out of the facility directory prior to releasing any information about the patient.

If the patient has not opted out, staff should use their professional judgment before releasing any information. Staff should be satisfied that the inquiring person has the authority to receive that patient's information. This is not a hard thing to come by when you do what I do for a living but that is besides the point, if you wanted to know this information their are a myriad of ways to get it and by the way the Constitution says nothing about that however their is a consequence for giving this information out isn't there? Oh yeah now lets see here what kind of thing might happen?
Well there was that time George Clooney had his given out and the 40 people didn't even go to jail, in fact they didn't even lose their jobs.

Now what do you think it takes for someone with the right code to get into a database and have the info sent to them say any hospital third party billing agent could get that info and do you know what it would be worth to someone like Berg or Alan Keyes?

Yes quite a lot of money and enough to want to suffer a suspension from work with pay not to mention the reward but here is why I set up the bait using the Hippa you cite as a straw man which you have graciously been so "clever" enough to furnish the response I had anticipated someone would. Since this is the second time i have used this one, Ill try to use less legal vernacular as that might make you assume some more ridiculous accusations regarding my legal acumen and I just can't handle my sides splitting after just consuming a sumptuous flaming filet of Fiak peking style




Obama “has the political instincts of a Chicago thug. - Former President Bill Clinton”

One can see this in the voter fraud of ACORN and the intimidation used in the caucuses in the primaries. and now the same thing with the Ill Governor. Obama is a product of the Daley Political Machine who wanted change, those who know about Chicago Politics and who have seen this man ruin the Illinois economy putting it 40 Billion in debt redistributing the wealth know when it comes to the way Chicago politics are run,

some things never change

We must maintain our level of civility against that thug mentality that has marshalled itself in favor of Obama so Ill refrain from refuting your post so rife with ugliness and ad-hom but I must say I found it rather hilarious you think you know so much more about the law in this regard than I do. Perhaps sometime in the future you will find out how wrong you are but without revealing who we are we must maintain a modicum of faith in what each other has to say and you haven't said much.

Obama is with the DSA, not the DNC, which joined with the CPUSA in 2000 to push a member between the two to President. What this means is that Obama is not a Democrat, even though the DSA is a wing of the DNC, and the CPUSA is a member of the DNC, they are not the DNC. What this does mean, is that he is part of a move to convert the USA into another form of Government, and the DNC knew this, and refused to inform their members of what was going on.


The difference between Obama and McCain is that in McCain's case, it was formally investigated and Obama's case has not been investigated. So, let's see all the evidence and decide is their something we need to know that in this troubled time we shouldn't cover all the bases and make damn sure we are doing ALL we can as citizens ensuring that all i's are dotted and the T's are crossed? After all we have been through this past eight years, don't I have a,, no,, don't WE have a right to know the truth first hand rather than through some third party cog in the system at the DOH? Isn't it rather un-fair of this man to claim Americans who do not want to redistribute the wealth in the form of taxes are selfish and his VP saying we are not patriotic when we have just given them a 750 billion dollar loan interest free? Do we not deserve at least the most honest effort to have this issue done with using the ONLY way to prove it? If you say no, than who are you to say I should agree when my standards for qualifying for the man that can nuke another country by pressing a button are one lousy document away from getting the job. One 10 minute task in not having to waste the supremes time with what all have said is frivolity, except the supreme court.

They didn't call it that now did they?

www.youtube.com...

Then we have this www.youtube.com...

Then the visits to the middle east where he was telling hamas about all those cozy free nights in the Lincoln bedroom will be part of their new relationship? Was this how he got all that money? Or was it that other guy from the middle east the one Billionaire (besides Oprah) that admittedly paid for his Harvard Law School tuition. Bet that guy expects nothing in return huh?

the FDIC, which is now following election returns, is guaranteeing $139 billion of General Electric Capital debt. That’s General Electric Capital, as in General Electric, which is the parent company of MSNBC, CNBC, NBC. Now,

View Video newsbusters.org...

Obama hires 3 top law firms (undoubtedly expensive) to fight 17 lawsuits when showing the vaulted BC would have saved close to half a million dollars.


This is in his argument for the Electoral College.

is from an essay entitled: “A Further View of the Constitution of the Senate in Relation to its Capacity as a Court for the Trial of Impeachments.”

“These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, BUT CHIEFLY FROM THE DESIRE IN FOREIGN POWERS TO GAIN AN IMPROPER ASCENDANT IN OUR COUNCILS. HOW COULD THEY BETTER GRATIFY THIS, THAN BY RAISING A CREATURE OF THEIR OWN TO THE CHIEF MAGISTRACY OF THE UNION ” “It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing [the office of the President] filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue.”

Do you know who said that? - Alexander Hamilton.

In fairness to Hamilton, Clinton and Obama weren’t around in 1788.

www.constitution.org...

And now we have an Elector in California challenging Obama with this lawsuit.

See how the Constitution works?

Why should anyone consider this whackjob's case? He's nuts, people. Nuts. Barack Obama is an American citizen. He was born in Hawaii after World War II. His mother says so, and I take her at her word. The State of Hawaii says so, and I certainly take them at their word.

Obama's birth in Hawaii has been confirmed by whatever department of public records there holds his birth certificate. I know some similar right-wing conspiracy whackjobs think it's fake, but we're talking about right-wing conspiracy whackjobs who think ANYTHING they don't agree with is fake, even if it's written-in-stone authentic, unless it's an obviously forged document concerning uranium ore from Nigeria being shipped to Saddam. Then it's authentic, right?

I know some have argued that he should release his birth certificate for examination. Why should he? Why would you? I certainly would not, under any circumstances except applying for a passport. It's a private document which could easily be used for identity theft. He's not hiding anything, folks. He's trying to protect his privacy, same as you and I would do.

Is there ANY evidence, ANYWHERE, that he was born in Kenya or anywhere else? I haven't seen any. Just the arguments of a few ultra-partisan nutjobs. Christ, someone will sue over just about anything these days. Doesn't mean it's a real issue!

I have a friend who hold triple citizenship. His father is an Israeli Jew, his mother is a British citizen, and he was born in New York City. Therefore, he holds simultaneous U.S., British, and Israeli citizenship. Deal with it.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I know that in Texas you must pay a registration fee when you run for any political office in local or state government, but I don't know if you must pay some federal governmental entity for running as President. The registration is to provide proof that you are legally eligible (not a felon or illegal, etc) to hold office, well why would the SUPREME COURT not wish to verify that Obama's birth certificate is legitimate to provide proof of his citizenship as an American? It seems to me that verification MUST be made to meet the Constitutional requirement of natural birth citizenship...
Less than that is amazingly stupid to me. So I ask the obvious question 'What is the SC afraid of?' Additionally, is Obama afraid of releasing his certificate because it's fake, or shows nationality elsewhere?
Indonesia already claims his as a citizen so is he or is he not a US citizen by birth?

I expect the SC does not want to interfere with the elections yet it did so in the 2000 elections without a care in the world...so what is the issue of 'non interference?' I think there is something wrong here and the people of the United States are being hoodwinked by nearly everyone in Congress/Senate the White House and the Court...perhaps we are slowly returning to those glorious days of February 1933 before the Reichstag fire and the rise of the (well you know...).

If Obama is a US citizen he should be PROUD of it and show his birth records...unless he really isn't eligiblel and therefore I want to know why he doesn't have a 'green card' ???

TEXAS

There is absolutely no credible evidence that Barrack Hussein Obama was born anywhere but in Hawaii.

The rest of the crap you all spew around is just that, C R A P.

You cite sources that can not back up what they claim. You cite so called ambassadors, that can not be found. Noo ne can be located that actually talked with his grandmother, this is nothing but third hand bull manure.

People make this stuff up, so called "alternative" new sources run with the "story" and fools like you all believe it.

Face it, most of you would be comfortable wearing s a sheet, and chanting Klan slogans. You just can't stand the fact that a "'n-word'" got elected. So, you will believe anything, no matter how far fetched, to fit your belief pattern that he has no business in office.

It's possible that even Obama himself doesn't know where he was born.
One thing is for sure, it certainly isn't a slam dunk case that he was born in the US.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Maybe it is time to try another approach.

Obama has a passport.

Condi Rice should be asked if she can confirm or deny:
1. that the birth certificate submitted for Obama's passport is a legitimate copy of his birth certificate as required by State Department regulations and not just a certificate that a certificate is on file, and
2. that it proves he was born in Hawaii.

Secretary Rice doesn't have to release it, just certify that Senators have to play by the same rules as the rest of us when requesting a passport AND more importantly confirm that she is living her oath of office to defend the Constitution when there is a question about the eligibility of a President-Elect and she should have evidence in her custody to settle the issue.

reply to post by Avenginggecko


It has been a long time since the Supreme Court, or anyone else in the government, gave a [snip] about what the law said, unless they were trying to promote the idea that they were actually following it. If they say they want someone to be president, it doesn' t matter if its a mongoloid, or a raving lunatic, it's all perfectly legal, we checked. Just go about your biz.

Originally posted by danx

Originally posted by Gregarious
So even if he was born in Hawaii, which I do not know for a fact, he could not be a citizen because of her. That was the law at his birth date. You don't apparently read the laws, let alone understand what they mean.

You’re wrong. Anyone born in the United States, regardless of the nationality or citizenship of the parents, is a US citizen at birth. [edit: except children of foreign diplomats]

I apologize, I did not make myself clear. I did not state that he was born here, and not a citizen because of her, I stated that he could not be a citizen because of HER, if she was elsewhere, because of her age, and the requirement that she live here five years before, and after. If he was born to anyone in HI, he would be a citizen. I stated I do not know he was born here for a fact. He has stonewalled and refused to document it properly. And because of his reticence, he has spent half a million on lawyers/fees. And that doesn't raise your eyebrows? You are either really gullible, or you so much want to believe in your messiah. Or you are a liar, plain and simple. So, can you tell us, which is it?



[edit on 9-12-2008 by danx]

[edit on 11-12-2008 by Gregarious]