# Pending case concerning Obama citizenship



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Anyone heard of this case? I just received the info in an e-mail. I knew there was some debate over where he was born but I did NOT know he was still refusing to provide a birth certificate.

http://uk.youtube.com:80/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Ya know, I just googled this subject. Only ONE article from a somewhat mainstream news source (Washington Times) comes up. Fancy that, mainstream media ignoring a potentially negative issue pertaining to Obama.

Hmmmm................

They bring up some good points. If hes in fact a citizen, why wouldn't he just produce the evidence that makes this issue go away? I mean, if you KNOW your innocent, wouldn't you just provide the evidence to prove them wrong? I would.
If he is in fact a legal candidate, why isn't he counter-sueing? This has to qualify as slander and libel.

Smells a bit rank to me boys.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

http://www.obamacrimes.com/attachments/ ... plaint.pdf


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

Hate to burst your bubble, but the Washington Times is NOT a mainstream source. It's a right-wing fringe rag.

They're not covering it because it's BS.

It would require _nobody_ to be minding the store when it comes to citizenship, which clearly isn't true. McCain was born on a military base in Panama, and there was even a review of his eligibility.

I'm so tired of the "He's un-American" line of attack I could uke:. They did it to Kerry, Clinton, and Dukakis too. This ad-hominem has to stop!


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

omegax said:


> McCain was born on a military base in Panama, and there was even a review of his eligibility.


Yes it was, and he produced the documentation when it came under review. Obama hasnt done so.

I personaly think it would be HILARIOUS if your guys precious "messiah" got pinched for this.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

You don't think the Democratic party checked into this? You don't think Hillary's people checked into this? Just because he hasn't shown proof to you, personally, doesn't mean it hasn't been proven. What it would require to have him secretly not be a citizen would be impossible. It would require getting past Hillary, which, as ruthless as she can be, NEVER would have happened. It would be the FIRST line of attack against him, not just a whisper campaign. He would have been outed before the Iowa caucus.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

And I would think that our Obama loving media would be ALL OVER IT if this allegation had been proven wrong. They havent, so obviously it hasnt.


----------



## willythekid (Jan 21, 2008)

I can see why some on the right would love to believe this... it would be about the only way McCain could win at this point. (If North Dakota is getting close to voting Democrat, people must be fed up with Republican rule) This should be posted under"yet another right-wing conspiracy theory, it's their only hope."


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

barebackjack said:


> And I would think that our Obama loving media would be ALL OVER IT if this allegation had been proven wrong. They havent, so obviously it hasnt.


Even _if_ the media were 100% for Obama, Hillary sure wasn't. It's just not possible.

The reason he doesn't just "prove it" is that he's not going to make an issue out of something that only people who were never going to vote for him in the first place believe.

You could call the Honolulu County courthouse and ask them if they had a birth certificate on file for Obama yourself. Of course, they won't be able to send a copy to you, but they may be able to tell you if it exists... I'd wager nobody who's inclined to believe this will bother doing any leg-work.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

willythekid said:


> (If North Dakota is getting close to voting Democrat, people must be fed up with Republican rule)


What?!

Look at our representation in the house and senate. Farmers like voting democrat.


----------



## willythekid (Jan 21, 2008)

Are you confused barebackjack?

North Dakota joined the Union in November 1889, one of four states admitted in the first part of that month, the busiest period of new-statehood creation in U.S. history. North Dakota has participated in 29 presidential elections, voting Republican in 24 of them. Of the five times it went "blue," only 1916 (Woodrow Wilson's second-term victory) was not a landslide for the Democratic candidate. As a result, North Dakota is a very safe state for the Republicans in presidential elections although, oddly, both senators and the one U.S. representative are currently all Democrats. In 2004, George Bush defeated John Kerry by a 63% to 35% margin. The state's population of about 650,000 is little changed from what it was in 1920. As a result, North Dakota is one of seven states with the minimum three electoral votes.

North Dakota hasn't voted for a Democrat President since 1964, and the time before that was 1936. In the last 10 elections North Dakota has voted Republican. We are talking about a presidential candidate here, not our representation in the house and senate....


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Willy, you're forgetting the republicans haven't "ruled" since 2006. I freely admit Bush has no one to blame but himself prior to that...but not now. What was the price of gas prior to 2006? We can sling mud any direction you want to, but your side has ruled for almost 2 years. :wink:

I find it interesting that all I did was provide a topic and ask a question, and it appears Jack and LT are the only ones who actually looked into it. The Obama supporters opted not to. I guess you've decided he's above reproach. 

It seems to me that is the pattern surrounding him. People prefer not to look too closely.....and I'm not sure why.

I agree with Omegax that the DNC would've/should've looked into this 2 years ago, and I'm certain they have, but that only makes it more surprising to me that he doesn't produce it...and even make a production of it when he does. He seems to invite a lot of potential criticism, and the media is more than willing to let it slide.

Omegax wrote:


> The reason he doesn't just "prove it" is that he's not going to make an issue out of something that only people who were never going to vote for him in the first place believe.


That sounds perfectly plausible, but one look at the actual document posted by LT shows on September 24 Obama's defense and the DNC filed motions to dismiss, IN LIEU OF FILING AN ANSWER. Page4, line #5.

How much easier..and CHEAPER would it have been to file the birth certificate instead?

It's all scary to me. The media is supposed to like politicians like union leaders like corporations. Like cats like dogs. Like Barney Frank likes girls.

I wish instead of a new debate tonight they would replay the democratic primary debates. Clinton, Biden and Edwards did a MUCH better job of holding Obama accountable than the media has yet.....and that makes me sick! uke:

And if anyone thinks I want this to be true, think again. Have you given any thought to what would happen if this close to electing the first African-American president he was removed from the ballot due to a legal manuever?

I posted simply to allow some others do some leg work for me and prove it false. I'm even more curious now since that hasn't happened. 

Omegax also wrote:


> Hate to burst your bubble, but the Washington Times is NOT a mainstream source. It's a right-wing fringe rag


.

Just curious what constitutes a mainstream source, in your opinion. My understanding of where you're coming from here will help us both in future discussions.

But if you check Jack's post again I think you'll see his point was he couldn't find any mention of the topic on any of the more "mainstream sources".


----------



## willythekid (Jan 21, 2008)

Here's some "legwork"


----------



## willythekid (Jan 21, 2008)

here's some more.....

By John Crewdson

Just when you thought it was safe to turn on the TV......

It took some weeks to settle the ultimately irrelevant and immaterial question of whether Arizona Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, was eligible to become president. Irrelevant and immaterial because, should McCain win the election, can you imagine the courts invalidating his triumph by declaring him constitutionally ineligible to hold the office to which he had just been elected? Been down that road, as I recall.

Nevertheless, senators from both parties (Patrick Leahy and Tom Coburn) and constitutional scholars of the left and right (Lawrence Tribe and Theodore Olsen) examined the law and the facts and announced that McCain, who was born to American parents in a U.S. naval hospital in the U.S.-administered Panama Canal Zone, met the Second Amendment's requirement that a president must be a "natural-born citizen."

The Constitution doesn't define "natural-born citizen;" as generations of jurists have pointed out, much of that document's brilliance lies in its ambiguity. But a little research showed that the question had actually been asked and answered way back in 1790, when the very first Congress passed a statute declaring that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be borne beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States." The Senate unanimously passed a resolution recognizing that "John Sidney McCain III is a natural-born citizen." On to more important things.

Or so we thought.

Now making the Internet rounds is a posting questioning whether McCain's presumptive Democratic opponent, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is a natural-born citizen and therefore constitutionally qualified to be president. I suppose it was only a matter of time.

Anyway, this particular post, whose authorship is unclear, suggests that Obama is "not legally a U.S. natural-born citizen under to the law on the books at the time of his birth...". According to the poster, if only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of birth, the citizen-parent "must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16." Obama's father, of course, was not an American citizen, having been born in Kenya. That leaves his mother, who was a natural-born citizen, but who was only 18 when Obama was born, on August 4, 1961. In the poster's opinion, Obama fails the constitutional test because his citizen-mother had not resided in the U.S. for five years after the age of 16--not old enough, at the time of Obama's birth, "to qualify her son for automatic U.S. citizenship."

Now pay strict attention, because I'm only going to explain this once: Is Barack Obama a natural-born citizen of the United States and therefore eligible to become president? The answer is yes, according to Ron Gotcher, a noted California immigration lawyer and The Swamp's resident expert on presidential eligibility.

"The poster's confusion," Gotcher writes, "is over the concepts of jus sanguinis and jus soli." Under jus sanguinis, a person's citizenship is transmitted "by the blood" - by inheritance from his or her parents or grandparents. In the United States, we recognize citizenship through parentage in a number of cases.

But it is not necessary to look to the statutes that deal with citizenship through jus sanguinis, since Senator Obama's citizenship derives from jus soli - citizenship through place of birth.

According to Gotcher, "The Fourteenth Amendment commands that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States , and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

"This was clarified by the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, which provided that 'All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power are declared to be citizens of the United States.'"

"Senator Obama was born in the State of Hawaii two years after it became a state on Aug.21, 1959 As such, he acquired United States citizenship automatically at birth. While it is not necessary to go into all of the other legal errors contained in the posting (and there are many), the simple fact is that, with rare exceptions (children of diplomats), everyone born in the United States is a citizen of the United States at birth."

But what about the age of Obama's mother? Remember jus soli--citizenship through place of birth? (c'mon--there IS going to be a quiz). In that case--which happens to be Obama's case--the age of the parents has nothing to do with anything. Under jus soli even the children of illegal aliens are U.S. citizens at birth--just ask the pregnant women from Mexico near the end of their third trimester who try to sneak across the border in hopes their child will be born in a San Diego hospital and leave with a U.S. birth certificate clutched in his or her tiny hand.

Except for the children of diplomats, every child born in the U.S. is a natural-born U.S. citizen, period. The parents could be citizens themselves, could be from France, could be Coneheads. Nothing else matters. Only if the child is born OUTSIDE the United States to one citizen-parent does the issue of the parents' age, citizenship, or whatever, come into play.

"All that matters is that the child is born here, " Gotcher says. "This is the reason that you are hearing so much fuss in Congress about changing the law that grants 'birthright citizenship.'" But even such a law, however unlikely to pass, would not be retroactive. If Barack Obama wins the presidential election he can begin choosing the furniture for the Oval Office without watching for immigration agents over his shoulder.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Thanks Willy

You beat me to it...

I can see we have lots of google "experts" here..

A short (read 5 second) search online I found the following:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/polit ... zen_y.html

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barack ... itizen.htm

*sigh* Is it November 3rd yet? I can hear the fat lady clearing her throat.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Good work, Willy. THAT is what I was hoping for. Thank you.

As to the certificate, I've seen that pic also. It's on his website and factcheck.org, and I imagine several others. Just can't find why it isn't in the Court of the Judge who is asking for it?


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Thanks , Ryan. The info is much the same in all the posted links, with the main common denominator being that he's a citizen because he was born in Hawaii. But we knew that, and it's a slam dunk if that's the case.

I wasn't aware of how vague the citizenship rules were. It's definitely not as simple as some would have us believe. I learned something from you 2 on this.

I'd offer to pay you back, but I know you wouldn't listen :wink: :lol:

Thanks again,

Dan :beer:


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12956.htm

It might take some time to read the whole article but it's worth the read.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Great post, Dog! It explains why the atty in the original post mentioned 2 different versions of certificates.

Like Barebackjack said, it does smell a bit rank...because the more I learn the harder it is to understand why they refuse to provide whatever it takes to end the confusion........unless they really DO have something to hide.

It'll come out eventually....the truth, I mean. Whatever it is.

Thanks for the help!

:beer:


----------

