Obama birth story spreading in newspapers
- Thread starter lynnf
- Start date
I think the reason why Obama isn't showing his birth certificate is because he is busy trying to set up some crappy cabinet and getting ready to be the president instead of trying to satisfy some far righters who won't even believe him even if he shows it.
Admit it, every one of you. You STILL won't believe it if he goes on live television on every channel and shows the entire world the thing.
Admit it, every one of you. You STILL won't believe it if he goes on live television on every channel and shows the entire world the thing.
Of course you can say that.
I don't think it is ridiculous at all. A person who is not a natural born US citizen can do anything else in America but be President. That is very reasonable minimum requirement to be president of the USA. What so ridiculous about it anyway? Nothing is ridiculous about it. The commander and chief of the USA should without a doubt have loyalties to America first and foremost. Obama won't even respect the flag of the USA for crying out loud during the national anthem. He is not qualified in any way to be president.
I think the real reason he hasn't buried his grandmother yet is he doesn't give a crap about her. Admit it, you will bow down at Obama's feet when he passes by you. Maybe you can be the next Lewinsky, or in Obama's case the next Sinclair.
Matt Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 47,707
That makes no sense. All he has to do is place a 15 second phone call to any Hawaiian official and say "release it". And that would be the end of it.
Sometimes the rumors are worse than the truth, especially if no one is speaking the truth. Until he comes out with the original birth certificate then there will continue to be valid concerns about whether or not he was really born here. If the original birth certificate says it was, then that's all we can do unless someone else has substantial concrete beyond-a-reasonable doubt proof.
But if the original birth certificate indicates he was born here that is good enough for me (again unless other credible evidence disproves it- but I don't see any of that).
It's funny how quick some of you are to jump to conclusions like I support what Obama does because I don't believe this bullshit. No, I'm simply calling on this crap because I believe it is only hurting the movement. All I can tell you now is that we only lost supporters through this nonsense. I've read many comments on blogs and articles that discuss this, and I always see the comments that call Ron Paul or his supporters as nuts, delusional, and decorative tinfoil hat wearers when they spread this around or simply refuse to see reality.
Pete
Member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,350
TRANSLATION: "I voted for Obama."
Well, maybe not, but why are you caving so easily seeing as Obama appears to be ineligible even if he WAS born in Hawaii, because his father was African? Yes, he would be a native citizen, but not a natural-born one for purposes of running for President.
Maybe the African father doesn't count if his birth certificate listed the father as 'Unknown'. Ouch, that would hurt politically, and the Father's Day jokes would be merciless, but I suppose we could say that he passes the 'natural-born' test for all intents and purposes.
Then we come to his adoption by Lolo Soetoro, and Barky's Indonesian period. He was registered in an Indonesian school under the name 'Barry Soetoro' with his nationality given as Indonesian. OK, maybe mom and stepdad lied in order to get him into the school. But what if he registered at Columbia University as Indonesian Barry Soetoro? Would that change your mind any? Of course, we will not know soon because his school records are sealed.
Obama's Indonesian citizenship may not matter, either, because US citizenship is such that, once acquired, it requires an active renunciation to get rid of it. I mean, you have to go into a US consulate and sign a declaration. So, I guess I'm allowing that Obama's citizenship could be interpreted as being 'natural-born', but not without a little examination.
It is clear that the Founders intended that our Presidents be unequivocally American, not foreigners or multinationals. I would say that their intention would even disallow persons who were long-term residents of another country, though that would have to be ruled on.
What are these "new generations of the world and the coasts"? Are you accusing us in flyover country of being behind the curve? I'll have you know that we have plenty of hinterlanders who see the Constitution as a 'living, breathing document' or the less flowery 'just a goddamned piece of paper', thank you.
Pepsi
Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2007
- Messages
- 1,034
Or maybe it's the other way around, they are using him to get those positions of office.
Pepsi
Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2007
- Messages
- 1,034
Supreme Court likely to dismiss lawsuits over Obama's citizenship
Lower courts have rejected claims that Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen and thus cannot hold the office of president
Reporting from Washington -- Undaunted by the Nov. 4 election results, several persistent plaintiffs have pursued lawsuits asserting that Barack Obama is constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of president because they say he is not a natural-born citizen. Their claims were rejected in lower courts, but they have filed motions and appeals to the Supreme Court.
What do these lawsuits say?
One filed by Philip J. Berg, a lawyer in Lafayette Hill, Pa., asserts that Obama was born in Kenya, even though the president-elect has a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii showing he was born there Aug. 4, 1961. A second, filed by Leo C. Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J., asserts that neither Obama nor his vanquished opponent, Sen. John McCain, are natural-born citizens. (McCain was born Aug. 29, 1936, in what was then the U.S.-controlled Panama Canal Zone.)
"Even if it were proved [Obama] was born in Hawaii," he is not a natural-born citizen, Donofrio claims, because Obama's father was born in Kenya. But under U.S. law, people born in the U.S. are natural-born citizens.
Berg sued Obama, while Donofrio sued New Jersey's secretary of state. Initially, the lawsuits sought a court order to remove Obama's name from the ballot. Since early November, they have lodged appeals and motions saying that courts should intervene to block Obama from becoming president.
The court receives about 150 appeals a week, and all but a fraction are rejected without discussion by the justices. Donofrio's is likely to be denied without comment today; Berg's will probably meet the same fate.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-citizen8-2008dec08,0,6500899.story
Lower courts have rejected claims that Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen and thus cannot hold the office of president
Reporting from Washington -- Undaunted by the Nov. 4 election results, several persistent plaintiffs have pursued lawsuits asserting that Barack Obama is constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of president because they say he is not a natural-born citizen. Their claims were rejected in lower courts, but they have filed motions and appeals to the Supreme Court.
What do these lawsuits say?
One filed by Philip J. Berg, a lawyer in Lafayette Hill, Pa., asserts that Obama was born in Kenya, even though the president-elect has a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii showing he was born there Aug. 4, 1961. A second, filed by Leo C. Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J., asserts that neither Obama nor his vanquished opponent, Sen. John McCain, are natural-born citizens. (McCain was born Aug. 29, 1936, in what was then the U.S.-controlled Panama Canal Zone.)
"Even if it were proved [Obama] was born in Hawaii," he is not a natural-born citizen, Donofrio claims, because Obama's father was born in Kenya. But under U.S. law, people born in the U.S. are natural-born citizens.
Berg sued Obama, while Donofrio sued New Jersey's secretary of state. Initially, the lawsuits sought a court order to remove Obama's name from the ballot. Since early November, they have lodged appeals and motions saying that courts should intervene to block Obama from becoming president.
The court receives about 150 appeals a week, and all but a fraction are rejected without discussion by the justices. Donofrio's is likely to be denied without comment today; Berg's will probably meet the same fate.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-citizen8-2008dec08,0,6500899.story
Matt Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 47,707
Billy Cunningham was talking about it a lot on his radio show tonight (Sunday night). He took over Drudge's show.
Pepsi
Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2007
- Messages
- 1,034
purplechoe
Member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2007
- Messages
- 8,971
Is that right? You can get a certificate of live birth even if children were born in other countries? If that's the case than it proves nothing in way of Obama being a US natural born citizen.
Yep, you can in Hawaii.
Doktor_Jeep
Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2008
- Messages
- 943
You'd think he was born in a manger.
phoenixrising
Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2007
- Messages
- 531
this is far from over!!!
follow leo's blog:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
listen to plainsradio.com...several of the people presenting suit are on ...including leo & cort
also go to :http://www.freedommarch.org/
joe thunder is going to release a full 90 min. video of the press conf on 12/8...that you WON'T find on msm!!
WROTNOWSKI APPLICATION REFERRED TO FULL COURT BY JUSTICE SCALIA - DISTRIBUTED FOR CONFERENCE ON DEC 12 - SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF TO BE SUBMITTED TOMORROW
Posted in Uncategorized on December 8, 2008 by naturalborncitizen PRESS RELEASE: 12.08.08 7:20 pm
Cort Wrotnowski’s emergency application for a stay and/or injunction as to the Electoral College meeting on Dec. 15 was today referred to the full Court by the Honorable Associate Justice Anotonin Scalia. It has been distributed for Conference of Friday December 12. The official case name is WROTNOWSKI v. BYSIEWICZ, United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A469.
The Wrotnowski Supreme Court application was prepared by Leo Donofrio, Esq. and is centered on the same issue from Donofrio’s case which was discussed by the Supreme Court in its conference of December 5 - whether Barack Obama is not eligible to the office of President due to the fact that he was a British citizen at the time of his birth.
Tomorrow, Dec. 9 - Cort Wrotnowski will submit a supplemental brief concerning the newly discovered ineligibility of twenty-first President Chester Arthur due to his having been born as a British subject. This is relevant to the case at hand in that Justice Gray - who wrote the seminal opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark - was appointed by Chester Arthur.
The Wong Kim Ark case involves an important historical opinion that SCOTUS Justices will certainly consider as to the Obama natural born citizen issue.
The recent discovery calls into question the motivations of both Arthur and Gray since Arthur’s father was a British subject not naturalized at the time of Chester’s birth. In fact, William Arthur was not naturalized until 1843, fourteen years after Chester was born. In the light of historical retrospection, Justice Gray’s decision in Wong Kim Ark seems tailor made to the circumstances of Arthur’s birth.
Chester Arthur was born in 1829. The 14th Amendment wasn’t ratified until 1868, and Wong Kim Ark was decided in 1898. But under United States law in 1829 it’s not clear that Arthur would have even been considered a United States citizen at the time of his birth, let alone a “natural born citizen” eligible to be President. At best, he would have been a dual citizen of Great Britain and the United States.
It was proved earlier this week, by various articles in the Brooklyn Eagle printed circa 1880, and other authorities, that when Arthur was on the campaign trail as Garfield’s running mate he lied many times about his father’s emigration record, his parents’ life in Canada before coming to the United States, and his father’s age. Chester also burned his papers and falsified his birth year. It appears now that he was doing so to conceal the POTUS eligibility issue.
Every other President (who didn’t become eligible under the Article 2, Section 1 grandfather clause) was born to American citizen parents in the United States. The fact that he was a British subject at birth was first reported on Friday Dec. 5.
It must now be questioned whether the relationship between Chester Arthur and Justice Gray was influenced by Arthur’s eligibility problems and whether those issues effected Gray’s opinion and vote in Wong Kim Ark.
It must also be considered that the integrity of Justice Gray’s SCOTUS appointment might have been called into question if Chester Arthur’s POTUS ineligibility issues had become known.
All of the above is relevant to the issue of whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen in that the core Supreme Court opinion in Wong Kim Ark must now be re-evaluated in lieu of the fact that the Justice who wrote the opinion was appointed by Chester Arthur.
Leo Donofrio will accompany Cort Wrotnowski to Washington D.C. tomorrow and both will be available for comment at 11:00 AM on the steps of the Supreme Court. This is not a rally, protest or vigil. If the media would like to discuss this historical brief and the issues discussed above, Donofrio and Wrotnowski will be available to answer any questions thereto.
Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.
Cort Wrotnowski
follow leo's blog:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
listen to plainsradio.com...several of the people presenting suit are on ...including leo & cort
also go to :http://www.freedommarch.org/
joe thunder is going to release a full 90 min. video of the press conf on 12/8...that you WON'T find on msm!!
WROTNOWSKI APPLICATION REFERRED TO FULL COURT BY JUSTICE SCALIA - DISTRIBUTED FOR CONFERENCE ON DEC 12 - SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF TO BE SUBMITTED TOMORROW
Posted in Uncategorized on December 8, 2008 by naturalborncitizen PRESS RELEASE: 12.08.08 7:20 pm
Cort Wrotnowski’s emergency application for a stay and/or injunction as to the Electoral College meeting on Dec. 15 was today referred to the full Court by the Honorable Associate Justice Anotonin Scalia. It has been distributed for Conference of Friday December 12. The official case name is WROTNOWSKI v. BYSIEWICZ, United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A469.
The Wrotnowski Supreme Court application was prepared by Leo Donofrio, Esq. and is centered on the same issue from Donofrio’s case which was discussed by the Supreme Court in its conference of December 5 - whether Barack Obama is not eligible to the office of President due to the fact that he was a British citizen at the time of his birth.
Tomorrow, Dec. 9 - Cort Wrotnowski will submit a supplemental brief concerning the newly discovered ineligibility of twenty-first President Chester Arthur due to his having been born as a British subject. This is relevant to the case at hand in that Justice Gray - who wrote the seminal opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark - was appointed by Chester Arthur.
The Wong Kim Ark case involves an important historical opinion that SCOTUS Justices will certainly consider as to the Obama natural born citizen issue.
The recent discovery calls into question the motivations of both Arthur and Gray since Arthur’s father was a British subject not naturalized at the time of Chester’s birth. In fact, William Arthur was not naturalized until 1843, fourteen years after Chester was born. In the light of historical retrospection, Justice Gray’s decision in Wong Kim Ark seems tailor made to the circumstances of Arthur’s birth.
Chester Arthur was born in 1829. The 14th Amendment wasn’t ratified until 1868, and Wong Kim Ark was decided in 1898. But under United States law in 1829 it’s not clear that Arthur would have even been considered a United States citizen at the time of his birth, let alone a “natural born citizen” eligible to be President. At best, he would have been a dual citizen of Great Britain and the United States.
It was proved earlier this week, by various articles in the Brooklyn Eagle printed circa 1880, and other authorities, that when Arthur was on the campaign trail as Garfield’s running mate he lied many times about his father’s emigration record, his parents’ life in Canada before coming to the United States, and his father’s age. Chester also burned his papers and falsified his birth year. It appears now that he was doing so to conceal the POTUS eligibility issue.
Every other President (who didn’t become eligible under the Article 2, Section 1 grandfather clause) was born to American citizen parents in the United States. The fact that he was a British subject at birth was first reported on Friday Dec. 5.
It must now be questioned whether the relationship between Chester Arthur and Justice Gray was influenced by Arthur’s eligibility problems and whether those issues effected Gray’s opinion and vote in Wong Kim Ark.
It must also be considered that the integrity of Justice Gray’s SCOTUS appointment might have been called into question if Chester Arthur’s POTUS ineligibility issues had become known.
All of the above is relevant to the issue of whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen in that the core Supreme Court opinion in Wong Kim Ark must now be re-evaluated in lieu of the fact that the Justice who wrote the opinion was appointed by Chester Arthur.
Leo Donofrio will accompany Cort Wrotnowski to Washington D.C. tomorrow and both will be available for comment at 11:00 AM on the steps of the Supreme Court. This is not a rally, protest or vigil. If the media would like to discuss this historical brief and the issues discussed above, Donofrio and Wrotnowski will be available to answer any questions thereto.
Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.
Cort Wrotnowski
^
Donofrio is taking the wrong angle here. It does not matter if Obama was a natrual born British citizen if he were born in the USA because that would make him a natural born US citizen as well!
Where Obama was born is crucial in deciding if he meets the natural born requirement the Constitution specifies for serving as President of the USA. I firmly believe he was born in Kenya and proving that would without a doubt disqualify him from being president. Donofrio is barking up the wrong tree. I unfortunately don't think it is by accident either. They are trying to shoot down the weakest argument and then say Obama's natural born status has been dealt with when it hasn't in the least.
Donofrio is taking the wrong angle here. It does not matter if Obama was a natrual born British citizen if he were born in the USA because that would make him a natural born US citizen as well!
Where Obama was born is crucial in deciding if he meets the natural born requirement the Constitution specifies for serving as President of the USA. I firmly believe he was born in Kenya and proving that would without a doubt disqualify him from being president. Donofrio is barking up the wrong tree. I unfortunately don't think it is by accident either. They are trying to shoot down the weakest argument and then say Obama's natural born status has been dealt with when it hasn't in the least.
BeFranklin
Member
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,096
No it wouldn't. We have the same law roots, and the definition of natural born is the same. Under our common legal heritiage, if a son is born in a foreign country from the father's country, the father's parentage takes precedence over where he is born.
You can't have two different fathers, so you can't be natural born to two different countries.
he wasn't? (i thought that's all they had in kenya)
phoenixrising
Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2007
- Messages
- 531
rickyj....you are confusing the definition of natural born citizen w/citizen. donofrio's case AND corts...are rightfully pursuing the natural born aspect which is the one distinction of being prez vs any other gov. position.
PLUS leo just this past week exposed some incredible evidence re; arthur...you gotta go read the blog--seriously
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Similar threads
