Posted on 08/10/2010 5:20:59 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Over twenty-five percent of Americans, say that President Obama's 49th birthday is not this week. A poll called “where were you really born that day?” summoned this up into question.
The persistent theory boosted heavily by conservative activists that Obama was not born in Hawaii, but that he was born outside of the country of the U.S. The CNN/Opinion research Corp. survey said 27 percent of responsive people doubt that Obama's father is telling the truth or that his birth certificate is real. 42% have no doubts, 29% said he probably was born in Hawaii, but couldn't give a sure answer. Democrats backed Obama more than Republicans. 14 percent of Republicans said he was NOT born in the United States. This issue began over Obama in the 2008 presidential campaign and has become a topic of interest with Rush Limbaugh and the so called 'Birther' movement. Hawaii has already released a “certified” copy of Obama's birth certificate. The 1961 archives of two local newspapers in Hawaii also show his birth announcements! Snopes.com has also checked into it.
Related Sources:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Totally untrue statement. TOTALLY UNTRUE. (LIE) He released nothing, others produced a forged Certification of Live Birth. No one has produced a shred of evidence of what hospital he was born in, who the physician that delivered him was and because of the lack of an original birth certificate we don't even know for sure what his real name is/was. FACT.
“Are we the only people that even realize this? “
The process is being managed by experts in the fields of PR, propaganda, and shaping public opinion. It’s being done well, so it’s no surprise.
When The 0ne pulls some magic document out, there will be four or so days of nonstop coverage then it will never be mentioned again (imo) except for the “these people are nuts” articles about the Birthers.
“and even though he has certainly has his citizenship reinstated,”
So there is yet another withheld document, or he never had it re-instated.
There would be naturalization documents.
Since I’m sure that you can’t provide a citation of the U.S. Constitution or appropriate case law, I’d have to say that you are incorrect. I am quite amazed at how the Birther Brigades claim to be such defenders of the Constitution, but are more than willing to conjure up all sorts of extra Constitutional methods to remove a sitting Presidents. Do you fall in that category, or are you just confused how the Constitution works in the current circumstances?
His mother was a jackal!
Oops, though I don’t disagree with you, I forgot the silly insult!
Um, you spongehead!
:)
Very possile
I’m stating my opinion. You are perfectly free to agree or disagree. I would love to hear any evidence that anyone in a position of authority agrees with your view. I wonder why no challenge on this point was not made by John McCain, the Republican Party, any of the 50 States, the Electoral College, the Congress, the Vice President after the 2008 election and before the Inaguration? Perhaps they don’t agree with you.
Your tedious insults do nothing to support your view, rather they make you look rather silly. But, please, do continue.
I would think that he would have taken steps to undo and paper up his citizenship problems. His actions suggest that he has gone to incredible lengths to keep certain facts and documents from the American people. I’m just guessing about all this, which is what everyone else is doing too. I’m just honest enough to admit it.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html
British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.
In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.
Obama’s British citizenship was short-lived. On Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:
1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963...
2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
As a citizen of the UKC who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UKC status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), it follows that Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship after 1963.
In his book, Dreams from my Father, Mr. Obama admits that his father was a Kenyan and never held American citizenship, therefore, there is no way that our de facto president is a natural born citizen. Snopes is a lefty couple that live in a trailer and Factcheck is funded by the same people that hired Mr. Obama and Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers in Chicago. Nice try, though!
Obama, Bill Ayers, and FactCheck.Org: All Have Ties To Annenberg Foundation
http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2008/10/obama-bill-ayers-and-factcheckorg-all-have-ties-to-annenberg-foundation/
Annenberg Challenge Recognizes Chicago School Reform With $49.2 Million Grant
http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/1987-95/94-084.html
There is nothing wrong with your point of view, especially from an original intent perspective, which was, after all, specially aimed at those who might bear allegiance to the King of Great Britain. And you are quite right that Barack Obama II is the acknowledged son of Barack Obama Senior, a British subject with all that follows from that fact. No one, including Barack Obama himself would disagree with that.
I am just pointing out that our legal system, our politicians, and our Constitutional scholars take a different contemporary view that anyone born on the soil of the United States, regardless of the citizenship status of the parents, are natural born citizens. Now, we have know ruling that specifically addresses this issue in regard to Presidential eligibility and until someone with standing brings a case, we may never know.
That’s just the unfortunate state of affairs that we find ourselves in today. I don’t like the fact that Obama is President. I supported McCain with my vote and my pocketbook even though I have not cared for him for years. But, I did understand the consequences and we are now having to live with those consequences.
There is no magic undo button. Your arguments have merit, but I don’t think that they would every prevail in court. The 2012 election is only remedy available to us.
For the record troll. Marxists like Bill Ayers and Barack Obama had taken over functions of the Annenberg Foundation using its money to fund leftist causes.
So what. None of those actions make an ineligible person magically eligible. If he's not eligible to the office, he cannot hold it.
The actions of the VP and Congress concern the votes, not the eligibility of the candidate. The Constitution doesn't require the Chief Justice, or anyone else to administer the oath, merely that it be taken before entering into the office. It's not a coronation ceremony, but it is a ceremony, not a Constitutionally significant action, except in so far as it satisfies one of the requirements laid out for being President. The counting of electoral college votes satisfies another group of requirements. Bu the bedrock requirement of being 35 or older and being a Natural Born Citizen still must be satisfied or the person is not and can never be President.
So if your theory is correct, we have usurper in office, not a President. Impeachment is for Presidents, not usurpers.
“I wonder why no challenge on this point was not made by John McCain, the Republican Party, any of the 50 States, the Electoral College, the Congress, the Vice President after the 2008 election and before the Inaguration? Perhaps they don’t agree with you.”
Actually, mass confusion. Some insight
The issue of vetting was discussed in several of the suits. An interesting article or book can be written on the collapse and failure of the vetting process in this election. Try some research on your own - really not too difficult, you just have to set aside your prejudices.
Briefly it seems as though nobody knew what to do, misinformation, bad advise, confusion and a news media that would never investigate anything about this candidate - merely gush about how wonderful he was.
A person not eligible cannot be a President, let alone a sitting one. Not eligible means not President.
True, but like many foundations, it's original purpose and the intentions of its founders have been perverted by left leaning "management" of the foundation.
It's one that promulgated by a lot of people on this site who are not "Obama's people."
So, were any of these plantiffs granted standing. I think not. In fact, I believe that we are currently at 71 suits, all of which have been dismissed. I have followed this closely since 2008. I was prepared to believe the born in Kenya theories, but have since come to the conclusion that there’s no there there.
As for these lawsuits, they illustrate my point. The courts are not going to let any of these go forward, they don’t want to touch it with a ten foot pole. The politicians, likewise. None of them, including the Republicans value the Constitution above their own political careers. I would suggest that where we disagree is that I think that the people who count knew what they would need to do to stop Obama’s candidacy, they just chose not to do it. Now that he is installed in office, the only Constitutional remedy left is impeachment. The Congress is not about to do that, so we can only look to the 2012 elections.
I’m not prejudiced about all of this, I just think that most of these objections are wrong on the facts and are not going to go anywhere as a matter of practicality. I’ll revise my opinion when I see evidence that warrants.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.