Is Obama A Natural Born Citizen?

The birth certificate doesn't prove that Obama was born in Hawaii. A delayed registration of birth may be the reason that the Gov. of Hawaii refuses to release the birth certificate.

As provided by Hawaii law (HRS §§338-15, 338-29.5) a birth certificate may be requested as follows:

Any person born in Hawaii who is one year old or older and whose birth has not been previously registered in Hawaii, or that person’s parent, guardian, next of kin, or older person acting for that person and having knowledge of the facts of birth may request the registration of a late certificate of birth, except that an application will not be accepted for a deceased person.

http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/latereg.html

 

Literally, Ladies & Gentlemen. John McCain & Sarah Palin are against Social Security & Medicare. After all, they are "socialist" programs.

 

wrong again
Obama: "McCain will cut your Social Security."
Democrats aren't without a classic theme of their own: "Republican Y wants to cut Social Security benefits for our seniors." John Kerry used something like that against George W. Bush in 2004. It wasn't true then and it hasn't gotten any more true in the past four years. But that hasn't stopped Obama from claiming that McCain wants to cut benefits in half.

McCain did support Bush's Social Security plan. But that plan would not have cut benefits at all. Everybody who gets a check now, or who is nearing retirement, would have remained in the current system. For younger workers who retire in the future, Bush proposed to slow the rate at which benefits grow – keeping pace with the rise of prices but not with the faster rise in wages, as is now the case. Compared with what today's retirees get, that's a smaller increase, not a reduction.

Obama also claimed that if McCain had his way, "millions" who rely on Social Security would have seen their investments disappearing in the recent stock market turmoil. He referred to "elderly women" at risk of poverty and said families would be scrambling to support "grandmothers and grandfathers." Balderdash. The Bush plan, which McCain embraced, would not have allowed anybody born before 1950 to have private accounts, so nobody retired on Social Security today could possibly be relying on private accounts for even a small portion of his or her benefit check. For younger workers, the accounts would have been voluntary anyway.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_whoppers_of_2008.html

 

Funny how you posted factcheck.org, but when it was posted in the thread regarding Obama's natural born citizenship, you ignored it.

 

In other words, that commentary was added by the author, not explicitly mentioned in the constitution.

 

Well, actually, no. Mia conveniently excised most of George's post, but here is what George actually said:

I wonder why it is so hard to accept two very straightforward, explicit tenets of the Constitution - Article I, Section 3, and Amendment 20?

 

Factcheck is a great site, and im sure they totally believe they have the real deal BC. Im just not convinced. He wouldn't present it to the judge. So as North so conveniently pointed out in one of these threads, The judge admitted the evidence to be true in the berg case, but found him(berg), not in direct harm because of it, therefore throwing out the case.

Maybe i should be a bit concerned about factchecks information though. Didnt i read somewhere that Obama had some kind of affiliation with the organization at some point in time?

Ah! I found it. I don't know if its true, and im not claiming it to be, but heres what i read recently, you folks decide if Factcheck is biased. Seems Good ole Bill Ayers and Obama both worked for the organization that runs fackcheck.

http://politics.gearlive.com/filibustersoup/article/q308-factcheckorg-and-barack-obama/

 

<<Sigh>>. Simply, it doesn't appear you can understand this, so you're not to be faulted, I guess.

THE JUDGE DID NOT ADMIT THE ALLEGATIONS ARE TRUE. The Judge properly ruled on the basis he was legally required to do - ALL such cases make a legal assumption the allegations are true, and MUST rule on the grounds of standing and jurisdiction.

Let me once again repeat the notion:

Further, as also said a million time, this loon's complaint is frivolous, and worthless. Such cases are disposed of properly under a Motion Rule 12(b)(6), which goes to standing and jurisdiction:

It's much like me saying Obama once looked at the camera cross-eyed, and hypnotized the entire planet. I raise a "complaint for injunctive relief" to stay the election. I then proceed to draw on everything from Hammurabi's Code to Village Precepts of the Elders from Madagascar to make the case. It's a pile of crap, legally speaking. It is meritless. It MUST be presumed true, legally speaking, and ruled on the basis of standing alone.

Please - read, re-read, and chew on this, Simply, because your continued refusal to simply read the judge's Memorandum leads you to continue to make ridiculously false statements. You continue to try to grab at air, and there's nothing there.

 

North Your brain is too complex for your own good, in your case this is not a compliment, you tend to complicate the simple.

According to the ruling were the allegations true? If the answer is yes, then thats all im saying. Its not me thats failing to comprehend here.

 

Birth Certificates are the weak link of US immigration and fraud is rampant.

False Birth Certificates Let Immigrants Outwit System
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990DE5D61F3DF93AA15756C0A9669C8B63

 

This is hysterical. The guy can't understand the meaning of the word "must" and "presume" in "must presume the truth, and rule on the basis of jurisdiction and standing."

Let me help, hopefully for a final time.

You say I have 18 eyes on my head.

You say it, never having seen me - you live under the ocean.

The law says I must presume what you're saying is true.

But rule on the basis that you make the claim, never having seen me.


I understand it is extremely difficult for you to understand - and you're not alone. The law can be bizarre, a logical thing that belies obvious logic, at times.

But your complete inability to understand doesn't alter a thing.

The Judge made no ruling that the allegations are true - only that he must make a working presumption of truth, and go to the law in deciding the ability to raise a claim in the first place.

Believe what you will, Simply - it's a waste of time to try to explain these very fundamental things to you. Perhaps others have found this legal discussion of interest, and if so, I'm glad I spent some time in going through it.

 

Agreed. The lawsuit wasn't dismissed on the merits.

The case itself is interesting. But it's only speculation that Obama was born in Kenya and may be an illegal alien.

Obama's mother could have brought him to Hawaii from Kenya and filed a delayed registration of birth. So Obama's birth certificate would be 'valid'

I doubt believe that any lawsuit has a chance unless there is absolute proof.

It's possible that Obama could be impeached (if elected) shold it be found that his birth certificate is false and he knew about it. But even that is unlikely as the House is controlled by the dems

 

No answer?

Perhaps because you aren't actually looking for proof?

But that's OK, two can play that game. I'll flip the argument. Please PROVE he was born outside the United states.... I'll wait.

 

I honestly don't give a crap about what land he fell out of his mothers fetus on. That law wasn't made to prevent people like Obama from becoming president.

 

simplyg123 doesn't post when proof and evidence are right there. Simplyg justs ignores it, like yesterday with all the "days" thing.

I posted the proof, Simplyg read it and just logged off. Then came back when it was a different subject being discussed in the thread.

 

So it was only meant to prevent "bad" people from becoming President?

Your arguement sounds biased. It didn't specify what type of person or anything else like that, if you aren't born on US soil or land considered part of the US, then you can't be President period. We can't pick and choose who the law applies to here....

 

Hahaha, only in your parallel universe. For the rest of us a birth certificate can get you everything from a driver's license to government aid.

So tell me something.... do you BELIEVE that is what Obama did or not? Because if you don't actually believe that you are just trying to sew doubt where there is none and you know it.

You have had all your attempts at tryign to discredit obvious evidence debunked and are now bottom feeding by just throwing out random theories hoping something sticks.

 

Bogart - please don't take this as an insult, because I don't mean it this way; I really have no idea what your understanding is or isn't of the law.

Rulings either literally or treated as Rule 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss are geared towards the timely dismissal of nonsense/frivolous claims in federal court. They're the cheapest, easiest, quickest objection to raise, and it is routinely used to deal with the 1000's of whack job lawsuits that take place daily. So, Defendants raised a 12(b)(6) MTD. As I earlier posted, the court said:

or,

The bold, basically: None of us have any time for this ridiculous shit, legally speaking. The actual text from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) is:

To validate its ruling on lack of standing, based on the fact that Berg's assertion of "injury" cannot be made "participle, concrete and individualized," the District Court rightly relies on the Supreme Court's ruling in Lujan:

And, that's that. A dead claim, like 1000's of other like claims daily (to include Hollander, the same type of frivolous claim attempted against McCain's candidacy).

 

I am fairly certain that the founding father's intent was to insure that America would not fall into the hands of a foreign rule again; at the time, England primarily I would imagine.

It's a good idea to keep that part of the Constitution intact.

Now, here is an interesting twist on the Constitutional requirement that the President AND the Vice President both be Natural Born Citizens.

If you look at the line of succession. The President, The Vice President and then the Speaker of the House. It is entirely possible to be President of the United States of America after only having been a citizen of the US for 7 years.

The requirements for a US Congressman being a member of Congress is that they be a citizen for just 7 years.

So, the bigger question is. If the President and VP die, retire, etc., and the Speaker becomes President. Can they run for an elected term at the completion of the term they've served?

NO.

Strange paradox.

 

To the person who left this wonderful rep:

Ummmm, where in my post did I state my opinion on whether or not I support these assumptions that Obama may not be a citizen?

I simply said:

I never stated that I agreed with the lawsuit. I was simply stating that IF, yes IF, the allegations were true, we can't pick and choose who the law applies to. Please stop assuming opinion when giving out rep....