Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Blogger admits Hawaii birth certificate forgery, subverting Obama claims (Uh-oh)
Israel Insider ^ | 3 July 2008 | Reuven Koret

Posted on 07/03/2008 4:35:19 PM PDT by SE Mom

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 7,381-7,4007,401-7,4207,421-7,440 ... 9,641-9,646 next last
To: STARWISE
His game is scary at best.

The plan,from the look of his actions, is to advance socialism,power to his party while attacking capitalism every way he can.

To do it he needs both houses, a willing press, but most important 50% plus numbers in the rat polling machine.

Once his numbers drop below 50% he endangers rat reelection since this is an empty core party. With no solid core, no internal guiding beliefs other than pure unadulterated power, he can't last once he gets unpopular.

Endangering the reelection chances of either House or Senate members is the only thing the lemmings in both bodies will not stand for.

They will allow anything else.

To get there we have to provide the transparency he promised yet "forgot".

We have to show the public how he goes before them once a week and tries to recreate the "hope and "change" the errors of the previous week.

Example, his obvious attacks on capitalism and the economy of the U.S. by placing health care,further busting the budget, and every other agenda before fixing the economy did not go unnoticed by many who voted for him. His numbers will suffer when that happens.

Answer: tell Wall Street he is thinking about cutting taxes on them,--problem solved. Will that ever happen--doubtful--does it accomplish this weeks numbers game? Can he turf his way back to popularity? For a while. His side are incredibly stupid. They will fall for anything for a while but sooner or sooner he will be toast.

Once his numbers fall below 50% he will be a lame duck Socialist. Either that or the eligibility question will be outed.

7,401 posted on 03/15/2009 6:33:11 AM PDT by rodguy911 (HOME OF THE FREE BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE--GO SARAHCUDA !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7394 | View Replies]

To: BonRad
Related???

(no link)

Obama part of group locked up at Russian airport // U.S. delegation stripped of passports as guards demand to inspect plane
Chicago Sun-Times (IL) - Monday, August 29, 2005
Author: Lynn Sweet, Sun-Times Washington Bureau chi
WASHINGTON — Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) were not allowed to leave a Russian airport Sunday and were locked in a room briefly.

The incident prevented their departure for about three hours, but Obama told the Sun-Times “it ended up not being a very big deal.”

The senators had their passports seized by local officials at an airport in Perm. Obama said the officials demanded, unsuccessfully, to inspect the DC-9 military aircraft being used by the congressional delegation for the trip.

‘It wasn’t the gulag’

“We were in a lounge with a locked door at one point,” Obama said. “It wasn’t the gulag.”

Obama , who will meet with Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko today in Kiev, is on his first foreign visit as senator. He said he was never concerned that the group would be taken into custody, because after all, “we are a couple of U.S. senators.”

Although he was on a first-time diplomatic mission, Obama has traveled extensively, spending part of his youth in Indonesia and visiting Kenya, where his father was born. He noted that as a back- packing college student he had “a lot less leverage than this time.”

Obama , a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Lugar, its chairman, left Wednesday for a trip to inspect sites where nuclear and biological weapons are slated to be destroyed in Russia , Ukraine and Azerbaijan. On Sunday, the U.S. group was scheduled to fly from Perm to Kiev, Ukraine. But border guards wanted proof that the group’s aircraft — which Obama said looked like a “mini-Air Force One” — was really an official U.S. government plane, which would be exempt from an inspection.

Robert Gibbs, Obama ‘s spokesman traveling with him, said in an e-mail that “the border guards took our passports and demanded to inspect our aircraft, which we refused. We were moved to a room to wait.”

“At one point they were demanding to inspect virtually everything, including the gifts their representatives at the missile facility had given us.” The border guard said “they were acting on the authority of the FSB,” the Russian intelligence agency.

(snip)

7,402 posted on 03/15/2009 8:15:09 AM PDT by maggief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7390 | View Replies]

To: All
There is a lot of debate back and forth in here about law and background. Perhaps the best legal argument I've seen has been presented in Washington state:


Smmary Of Arguments
December 10, 2008
Broe v. Reed
Washington State Supreme Court
Cause No. 8-2-473-8

[…]

Federal Law, Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution provides: No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

[…]

ARGUMENTS

Barack Obama is ineligible for the office of the presidency because he is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States. Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution provides:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. “Natural born citizen” means a person born in the United States to parents that were both citizens, and to children born out of the United States to parents that were both citizens, provided that no citizenship would be allowed for a person whose father was not a resident of the United States. Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, First Congress, Sess. II, Chapter 3, Section I, approved March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103.\

Compare with the Fourteenth Amendment: All 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. “Natural born citizens” continues to mean a person born in the United States to parents that were both citizens, and arguably to people born outside of the United States to parents who were both citizens, provided that the father was a resident of the United States. The Amendment also provides that persons “naturalized” and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens [not “natural born citizens”].

THEREFORE, at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment, you were either a “natural born citizen” or, if you had citizenship, it was obtained through a process of naturalization, as established by federal Acts of Naturalization, Immigration and Nationality. A child born overseas, of an American citizen and a foreign national is not a “natural born citizen,” and the child’s citizenship can only be established by a process of naturalization.

A child born in the United States of an American citizen and a foreign national is also not a “natural born citizen” if the child obtained citizenship of another nation automatically at the time of his birth.

The 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 [italics added] if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth [italics added].” The legislative history of the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant, according to the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment, exclusive jurisdiction. A subject of the British Crown, for instance, could claim that jurisdiction was proper only under the Crown.

Barack Obama has failed to establish that he is an American citizen. Barack Obama readily admits the following facts: 1. He was born in 1961. 2. His mother was an American citizen. 3. His father was a Kenyan citizen.

To establish American citizenship, Sen. Obama must prove one of two things:

1. He was born on American soil, and was not subject to any other jurisdiction;
2. He was naturalized pursuant to the immigration laws of the United States.

At the time of his birth, he was automatically a British citizen, pursuant to the The British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5). Consequently, the United States did not have exclusive jurisdiction, and he is disqualified from automatic citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. He has failed to demonstrate that he was actually born in Hawaii.

Barack Obama has submitted the following to establish his birth in Hawaii:

1. A Certification of Live Birth (not a Certificate of Live Birth) purportedly from the state of Hawaii; 2. The affidavit of an Hawaiian official who claims that he has seen a “birth certificate.”

While these may be legally sufficient to register a birth in Hawaii, neither is sufficient to establish that he was born on American soil.

Hawaii, under HRS 338-17.8 allows for the registration of births to parents who gave birth while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii [emphasis added] and who declare the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

Because HRS 338-17.8 exists, a Certification of Live Birth in the form provided by Barack Obama is insufficient to establish native birth. Instead, he must produce a Certificate of Live Birth, which sets forth his name, his mother’s name, his father’s name, the hospital where he was born, the attending physician, and which includes his mother’s signature, the attending physician’s signature, and the signature of another witness.

As a matter of law, there is no official Hawaiian “birth certificate” – there is only the Certification of Live Birth, and the Certificate of Live Birth.

As of the present moment, Barack Obama has not produced a single piece of evidence demonstrating that he was born on U.S. soil. Even his birth announcement in the Hawaiian press is inconclusive, given that he was born in August of 1961, and the article was published in August, 1962, and at that time, his father was already back in Kenya.

Corroborating evidence as to his birth and citizenship allegiances could be established by the production of his passport, and his college transcripts, none of which can be obtained because Barack Obama has hired several law firms to make sure that such records remained sealed.

In the meantime, informal polling of the hospitals in Hawaii have received responses from all of the hospitals in Honolulu reporting that they have no records for Stanley Ann Dunham, Barack’s mother, or Barack Hussein Obama. On the other side of the world, however, Barack’s paternal grandmother has stated that she was present at his birth in the Coastal Hospital of Mombasa, Kenya. The Kenyan Ambassador to the United States has said that a memorial is being placed at the site of Barack Obama’s birth in Mombasa, Kenya.

In addition, because Barack Obama was adopted by his mother’s second husband, Lolo Soetoro, he obtained Indonesian citizenship as well. Because of his multiple citizenships, Barack Obama does not have automatic citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Barack Obama has never demonstrated that he was naturalized as an American citizen, which requires a residency period, a test, and an oath of allegiance.

Barack Obama is not qualified under 8 U.S.C. §1401(g). In 1986, Congress amended the statute, replacing the phrase “ten years, at least five” with “five years, at least two.” Pub. L. No. 99-653, § 12, 100 Stat. 3655 (1986), now codified at 8 U.S.C.§ 1401(g). The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act also replaced the “residence” requirement, found in the earlier Nationality Act of 1940, with a requirement of “physical presence” for transmission of citizenship to a child born abroad. See Drozd, v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 155 F.3d 871 at 87( 2nd Cir.1998) (citing to the Nationality Act of 1940, ch.876, § 201(g), 54 Stat. 1137, 1139). That change in language “compel[s] a strict adherence to the plain terms of the Act.” Id. Further, the change from “ten years, at least five” years to “five years at least two” applies only to those born after 1986. U.S. v. Flores-Villar, 497 F. Supp. 2d 1160, 1162-64 (S.D. Cal. 2007) aff’d, 536 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2008). The amendment had no retroactive application that would change the legal analysis for Senator Obama.

Barack Obama did not qualify for automatic citizenship under the INA of 1952. Barack’s mother gave birth at age 18. The INA of 1952 simply disqualified children that were born to mothers who were less than 19 because of the five years of continuous residency requirement after age 14. Because Sen. Obama has not established that he was born in the United States, he cannot claim automatic citizenship, and can only establish his citizenship by means of naturalization (process described above). There is no record of Barack ever naturalizing as an American citizen.

BARACK OBAMA HAS NEVER ESTABLISHED THAT HE IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. Barack Obama did not run under his legal name Barack Hussein Obama is not the legal name of the candidate, and Sen. Obama has failed to produce any evidence of a legal name change from Barry Soetoro to Barack Hussein Obama. Sometime in the 1960’s, Barack was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, and obtained the legal name Barry Soetoro and Indonesian citizenship. When a person is adopted, a new birth certificate issues in the name of the adopted father, establishing the legal name of the child in the name of the father, and establishing the citizenship of the child in the citizenship of the father. Barack Obama has never produced a single piece of evidence demonstrating a legal name change from his adopted name Barry Soetoro to his name at birth, Barack Hussein Obama. Obama is in direct violation of Washington statute RCW 29A.24.060(3), which provides that “no candidate may . . use a nickname designed intentionally to mislead voters.” Barack Obama’s candidacy is a violation of WAC 434-215-012, which requires that declarations of candidacy contain the following affirmation:

I declare that this information is, to the best of my knowledge, true. I also swear, or affirm, that I will support the Constitution and laws of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington. Senator Obama either failed to sign such a document, or has misled the Secretary of State as to the affirmation in paragraph 2 of the required Declaration of Candidacy which declares that “and, at the time of filing this declaration, I am legally qualified to assume office if elected.”

7,403 posted on 03/15/2009 9:05:49 AM PDT by SloopJohnB (It it wasn't for Double Standards, the Left would have no standards at all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
No surprise, but the chronology doesn't agree with "Dreams." According to the book, when BO, Sr. was expelled from  secondary school, his father got him a clerk's job in Mombasa. When he got himself fired from that job, Onyango, who, according to the book was living in Alego at the time,  told him "to go away." So BO, Sr. went to Nairobi....where he married Kezia, and Roy was born in 1958.

But, according to Gloria Hagberg, her husband worked for USIS in Nairobi from 1956 to 1959, and while living in the house provided by USIS during that period, Hussein Onyango Obama was their cook, and his son, BO, Sr., visited him there.

So, contrary to the author's statement that "Many of these points have been corroborated in Barack Obama’s journey of discovery of his Kenyan roots Dreams From My Father," well no, they haven't. The points are contradicted, not corroborated --  but I doubt that like most writers eager to burn incense at the altar of Barack, Dana Seidenberg actually bothered to read the book.



7,404 posted on 03/15/2009 10:08:20 AM PDT by browardchad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7386 | View Replies]

To: rodguy911
Looking at child's earlobes is the only 100per cent indication apart from a DNA test to determine paternity of a child.

If both parents have attached earlobes then the child will definitely inherit these. if they both have detatched "dangly" earlobes then the child will inherit detatched ones. If one parent has attatched and the other has detatched then the child can inherit either (although the attatched earlobes are the more dominant gene so this would appear more likely). This is currently the most accurate way to determine a child's paternity other than taking a DNA sample

SOURCE


7,405 posted on 03/15/2009 3:35:16 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7399 | View Replies]

To: rodguy911
...now if you enlarge this image of Mark Nedesandjo, the son of Ruth and obama snr, it appears Mark inherited his father's ears...zero didn't.

nothing conclusive, just very interesting...

7,406 posted on 03/15/2009 3:40:31 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7399 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

NOthing surprises me any more.


7,407 posted on 03/15/2009 3:42:11 PM PDT by rodguy911 (HOME OF THE FREE BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE--GO SARAHCUDA !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7406 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
Ruh Roh...
7,408 posted on 03/15/2009 6:56:21 PM PDT by April Lexington (Study the constitution so you know what they are taking away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7405 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

One doesn’t need to be a biologist to see that “b” is closer to “a” than “c.”


7,409 posted on 03/15/2009 6:57:10 PM PDT by April Lexington (Study the constitution so you know what they are taking away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7405 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
The sad part is that Malcolm was an American citizen. A red white and blue COMMUNIST citizen of the United States of America. So... if its true, Ol Floppy Ears is rightfully POTUS.
7,410 posted on 03/15/2009 7:00:23 PM PDT by April Lexington (Study the constitution so you know what they are taking away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7405 | View Replies]

To: April Lexington

the malcolm x project at columbia university...

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/ccbh/mxp/nationofislam.html

...probably kept obama busy at Columbia, and that’s why the records are sealed.


7,411 posted on 03/15/2009 7:09:00 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7409 | View Replies]

To: April Lexington

...not at all..all the more reason to suspect he was born anywhere other than the US. Malcolm would have been ruined had his infidelity been exposed.

I would suggest Ghana. That’s where his connections were.


7,412 posted on 03/15/2009 7:11:55 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7410 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

I thin you are on to something.


7,413 posted on 03/15/2009 7:12:24 PM PDT by April Lexington (Study the constitution so you know what they are taking away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7411 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

Why would Malcolm have been ruined if infidelity exposed? I thought these folks were a giant gang bang...


7,414 posted on 03/15/2009 7:13:37 PM PDT by April Lexington (Study the constitution so you know what they are taking away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7412 | View Replies]

To: April Lexington

go back aways...and read on...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2040486/posts?q=1&;page=7351#7356


7,415 posted on 03/15/2009 7:20:27 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7413 | View Replies]

To: April Lexington

Elijah Muhammad wouldn’t have liked it one bit...

http://www.nathanielturner.com/malcolmxletter.htm


7,416 posted on 03/15/2009 7:26:48 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7414 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

That morph always gets me .. it’s so eerie.


7,417 posted on 03/15/2009 9:57:58 PM PDT by STARWISE (They (LIBS-STILL) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war- Richard Miniter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7385 | View Replies]

To: rodguy911

Good polling article

###

*snip*

“Recent Gallup data echo these concerns. That polling shows that there are deep-seated, underlying economic concerns. Eighty-three percent say they are worried that the steps Mr. Obama is taking to fix the economy may not work and the economy will get worse.

Eighty-two percent say they are worried about the amount of money being added to the deficit. Seventy-eight percent are worried about inflation growing, and 69% say they are worried about the increasing role of the government in the U.S. economy.”

More here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html?mod=googlenews_wsj


7,418 posted on 03/15/2009 10:12:16 PM PDT by STARWISE (They (LIBS-STILL) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war- Richard Miniter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7401 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire; BulletBobCo; seekthetruth; Kevmo; gunnyg; television is just wrong; jcsjcm; BP2; ...

The Natural Born Citizen Blog Is Now Restricted

###

There exists a statute enacted by Congress wherein it exercised Constitutional authority to challenge the credentials of, and/or remove, a sitting President found to be a usurper by failing to possess Article 2 Section 1 qualifications for holding the office of President of the United States.

The Statute exists in the District of Columbia Code, the same Code which includes the United States Constitution.

District of Columbia Code Section 16-3501 states:

§ 16-3501. Persons against whom issued; civil action.

A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.

This is the only statute in the entire body of United States federal law which specifically provides for removing all officers of the United States located in the District of Columbia, whether appointed or elected.

In Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17, Congress was given broad sweeping authority over every possible legal case involving offices of the Government of the United States located in the District of Columbia. The office of President of the United States is in the District of Columbia and is certainly governed by the United States Constitution. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 states:

“The Congress shall have Power To… exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States…”

Due to a little thing called “SEPARATION OF POWERS”, Congress is the only branch which has the authority to remove a sitting President. For a comprehensive review of this issue, please see my prior series of posts entitled, Quo Warranto Legal Brief: part 1, part 2, and part 3.

Since Barack Obama received the requisite number of electoral votes and has been sworn in as President, his eligibility for that office can only be challenged by Congress.

Congress, via the DC Code quo warranto statute, has exercised that authority to challenge the sitting President’s eligibility by authorizing exactly one specific court - the District Court for the District of Columbia - with the power of carrying out the ministerial task of holding a trial of fact concerning questions as to the President’s eligibility to hold the office of President.

Section 16-3544 of the DC Code provides for a jury trial as to all issues of fact on this issue of Presidential eligibility. The provisions of 16-3502 also provide the only means available under the law where an action to challenge President Obama’s qualifications can be instituted without the acquiescence of any Judge or Justice.

Every prior attempt to have this issue litigated has been squashed by a plethora of justices on grounds of personal standing, subject matter jurisdiction, or, as to SCOTUS, unknown reasons.

So the DC Code should be the center of attention for all concerned about POTUS eligibility questions.

While there are many law suits pending in a multiplicity of jurisdictions around the United States, not one of those law suits has availed itself of the District of Columbia Code’s quo warranto statute, the only statute which specifically provides for a trial as to the issue of whether the President of the United States is eligible to the office of President.

Because all of these law suits are a distraction from the exclusive Constitutional means available to any new or pending litigant on this issue, I am restricting this blog’s content and all discussion therein to issues concerning the DC Code quo warranto statute and to issues concerning Constitutional qualifications for President.

I am doing this to keep the light shining on what I feel - as an attorney - is the very truth of the law. I have worked hard to gain people’s faith in my legal analysis, and I’ve tried to keep the discussion of this blog pure and free from spin and sensation so as to educate my readers as to the cold hard facts of the law and to its limitations which we must abide by if we are to preserve our Constitution.

Moreover, I have never taken any donations for this effort and I never will.

From now on, I will not allow comments to be posted which mention the names of, or which identify in any way with, law suits and/or attorneys, who refuse to acknowledge the applicable authority of the DC Code quo warranto statute. I wish the other attorneys no ill will. I just don’t have faith in their tactics.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/15/the-natural-born-citizen-blog-is-now-restricted/


7,419 posted on 03/15/2009 11:59:57 PM PDT by STARWISE (They (LIBS-STILL) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war- Richard Miniter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7418 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
I feel like I'm living in a dream world. WHAY in the hell were the "merkin pipl" thinking when they elected this guy? Maybe they had him confused with Bill Cosby or some other normal person. Obama is SOOOO far beyond the Pale.

I'm beginning to agree with the Europeans that Americans are really a bunch of very stupid, uneducated, un- worldly morons who live for their stomachs and sex organs.

We have a HUGE problem in this country and it isn't just Obama...

7,420 posted on 03/16/2009 7:40:06 AM PDT by April Lexington (Study the constitution so you know what they are taking away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7415 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 7,381-7,4007,401-7,4207,421-7,440 ... 9,641-9,646 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson