Thomas Lucente: Is Obama a natural-born citizen?
Published Jan. 4, 2008
The most underreported story of 2008 has to be the continuing saga of a few brave souls who are working through the courts to force President-elect Barack Obama to prove his citizenship.
In fact, a report from The Associated Press dismissed the whole thing as nothing but Internet conspiracy theories.
This lack of coverage is just the latest example of why I have mostly lost hope for the mainstream media in the United States.
Thanks to the lack of media coverage, many of you reading this may be unaware of the multitude of lawsuits challenging Obama's citizenship and his legal right to be president.
The Framers, when putting together our Constitution, inserted Article 2, Section 1, Clause 4, which tells us. "No Person except a natural born Citizen ... shall be eligible to the Office of President." The same clause prevents Austrian-born California Gov. Arnold A. Schwarzenegger from being president.
There have been at least 17 lawsuits filed in state and federal courts alleging that Obama does not meet the Constitutional requirement of being a natural-born citizen.
The lawsuits filed all have varying theories on Obama's citizenship, including that he was not born in the United States, that he became a citizen of Indonesia when he was adopted, or that he had dual citizenship at birth, which means he was not a natural-born citizen.
The lawsuit with which I am most familiar was filed in a federal court in Pennsylvania by Philip Berg, a Democrat.
That lawsuit alleges that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya. Berg says he has a recording of Obama's grandmother, Sarah Obama, saying she was present when Obama was born in Kenya.
Berg further claims that Obama himself and other members of his family have made conflicting statements as to where he was born. Additionally, Kenyan officials have said Obama was born in Kenya.
Much of the controversy surrounds Obama's birth certificate. The state of Hawaii has refused to release the long-form or "vault" copy of the birth certificate. Obama also has refused to release the long-form copy.
Back in June, the campaign did release a short-form certificate, which is a certificate created by Hawaii that says the long-form certificate is on file. However, according to Berg, the campaign only released the short-form certificate to The Daily Kos, a left-wing blog, and FactCheck.org, a pro-Obama organization. Additionally, Berg has called the short-form certificate a forgery.
Berg brought the case to the U.S. Supreme Court and was initially denied by Justices David Souter and Anthony Kennedy before submitting his petition to Justice Antonin Scalia.
The Supreme Court has scheduled two conferences on the case, one for Friday and a second one for Jan. 16, four days before Obama will take office.
I do not know if Obama is a natural-born citizen. My instincts tell me that it would have been difficult for him to hide that fact for so long. However, citizenship law can be very murky and Obama's reticence on the matter is disturbing.
I know from personal experience that when dealing with duel citizenship issues, birth certificates are usually filed in both countries. The state of Hawaii's statement that it has a birth certificate on file does nothing in solving the mystery of where Obama was born. It merely tells us his birth was recorded in Hawaii.
The whole controversy might be nothing more than a crazy conspiracy theory. Then again, it might be a valid argument.
The whole matter could easily be settled by the state of Hawaii releasing the long-form certificate, something the Supreme Court can force if it accepts the case for arguments.
There is much at stake here. This is a serious constitutional question. If we find out later that Obama was not a natural-born citizen, then everything he did as president, treaties, laws, executive orders, etc., would be invalid.
The candidates spent more than $1 billion and two years vying for the job. Would it not make sense to give lawyers an afternoon arguing the issue in front of the Supreme Court? That is the least we could do to make sure the person taking the oath of office actually meets the requirements.
The Constitution demands nothing less.
http://www.limaohio.com/articles/obama_32715___article.html/born_certificate.html
__________________________________________
An anaonymous poster left this comment on the dangers of the media in general and I wanted to bring it to your attention:
You are so correct, Miss Anonymous. I am seeing the media as second only to terrorists as a danger to our nation. Can I post it?
Hi Sam,
Just wanted to share my email I sent to http://www.journalism.org
Objectivity in Journalism
Dear Mr. Rosenstiel,
A couple of weeks ago I saw your segment on C-span; you were talking to other Journalist about how the news is reported. I am a citizen of the United States of America. I love the freedom I have in my country. I believe if you’re given a job to do, you give your employer their money’s worth for your services. I think the Average American Citizen has a lot of trust in people, until some one does something stupid to break that trust. I am 52 years old and I remember news stories from yesteryear. I know about history and wars my family and friends were in and I believe most average citizen over 50 years do as well. As I watch the news and I mean the Mainstream Media, CNN, CBS, NBC, and ABC Etc. I can not understand how American Journalists could sell out their own Country and yes they have. All we ask as Americans is that you tell us the truth of what’s happening in the news and in return we watch your news channel and it keeps your ratings high. In an age of Internet when we can seek our own information, we can verify what is being relayed to us. We are also coming to know the mainstream Journalist do not report the news and we do see bias, especially if they think “if we don’t know about it we won’t miss it”. Please don’t under estimate the average citizen. Thanks to the mainstream media, I don’t have all the facts that a real Journalist should be reporting, but I do know that the mainstream media controlled the election this year so that their choice for President would win. One Journalist was so naive he even said in front of a camera he was doing everything he could to make sure Barrack Obama was our next president.
Before your show aired on C-span, I recorded 5 hours of C-span because they were going to cover the US Supreme court regarding Barrack Obama’s Birth Certificate. When I went back to view it, 3 hours were missing. Normally I would of thought I did something wrong when I recorded it but other people online were asking what happen to the 3 hours. We were censored. Had it not been for that incident I would have never seen your show that day. Right now there are countless lawsuits hitting the US Supreme Courts, and making it to Conference. The Supreme Court has been taking these to Conference instead of putting them down to lower courts because this is considered a Constitutional Crisis to not have a qualified President, and I ask you where is our mainstream media. Even without the birth certificate he is still disqualified. Natural born is not just about the soil you are born on it is parents citizenship as well. His father was African and not American. Case should be closed! And the media could have properly vetted the candidate; they could have made it known and the public could have demanded a qualified choice. The people deserve to choose from at least 2 qualified candidates and they didn’t even have one as McCain wasn’t born on US soil. The media has shown their true colors and has lost all respect that is why ratings are down. My daughter will change the channel or turn off the TV when the news comes on stating that she refuses to listen to them until they tell the truth, and she is tired of them ruining the economy by reminding everyone how bad it is in every segment. Keeping people from spending and investing which could help immensely.
The Steady drip and Obama crimes (linked below), are not professional Journalist, they are your average American citizen that love their country and defend the United States of America, they are not alone there are millions of others. When my Grandmother was still alive, she loved to read the tabloid newspapers at the grocery store check out stands and I would tell her, Grandma don’t believe everything you read in those magazines. The really funny thing is that the Tabloids are reporting what’s really happening right now!
What scares me is this is not the first time a country has experienced media control (whether by government or their own doing doesn’t matter). Google happens to control censorship for China’s Communist Government. They are unable to search for Freedom, Democracy, or any other terms that their government doesn’t want them to know about http://idexer.com/2008/11/28/google-invoking-chinese-censorship.html.
This is reason enough not to support Google, but they have already begun censoring our own searches. I have looked for stories about Obama and his connection with Google. Google was one of the largest campaign supporters http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/10/google-ceo-endo.html and I have found that some WebPages and stories are vanishing from Google’s results like Atlas Shrugs http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/12/google-ban-upda.html. When I search in Alta Vista the stories will appear. Nazi German is a good example of media control http://webhome.idirect.com/~andyt/hitler.html no one should ever again have that kind of control over the media or the public. In my opinion it’s going to take a lot of work for the public to trust the mainstream media. We want honest and truthful Journalism not the personal opinions of the Journalist, bribes, threats or the people who control their pay.
Thank you for your time
(Proud to be an American)
The following web addresses will help you better understand what I have found searching for truth:
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com and http://www.obamacrimes.com
16 hours ago
8 comments:
MESSAGE TO EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS:
When counting the electoral votes, either Congress finds by 1/8/09 that Obama, not being an Article II “natural born citizen”, fails to qualify as President whereupon Biden becomes the full fledged President under 3 USC 19 (free to pick his own VP such as Hillary) or thereafter defers to the Supreme Court to enjoin Obama’s inauguration with Biden becoming only Acting President under the 20th Amendment until a new President is duly determined.
The preferable choice, at least for the Democrats, should seem obvious.
CHALLENGE, CAN ANYONE PROVE THIS WRONG?:–
1. Constitution Article II requires USA President to be “natural born citizen”.
2. BHO’s website admits his dad was Kenyan/British, not American, citizen when BHO was born.
3. BHO is therefore not a “natural born citizen” (irrespective of Hawaiian birth or whether he may be a 14th Amendment “citizen” of USA) — confirmed in the Senate’s own McCain qualification resolution (that both parents must be citizens of USA) co-authored by BHO.
4. Supreme Court has already docketed two upcoming conferences, 1/9/09 and 1/16/09 — between dates Congress counts electoral votes (1/8/09) and Presidential inauguration (1/20/09) — to address Berg Case and fashion relief on BHO’s eligibility to be President.
5. Since the fact of BHO's dad being Kenyan/British not in dispute, Supreme Court rules on Summary Judgment to enjoin BHO’s inauguration as President.
6. Therefore, BHO is not inaugurated as President.
7. Vice President Elect Biden is inaugurated Acting President under the 20th Amendment to serve until new President is determined — the procedure for which determination to be set out by Congress and/or the Supreme Court so long as in conformance with the Constitution.
ANSWER TO ABOVE CHALLENGE
IF, when counting the electoral votes, Congress WERE TO find by 1/8/09 that Obama -- not being an Article II “natural born citizen” (father Kenyan/British, not American) -- fails to qualify as President, Biden would become the full fledged President under 3 USC 19 (free to pick his own VP such as Hillary) AND THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR DEFERRAL TO THE SUPREME COURT to enjoin Obama’s inauguration relegating Biden to being merely Acting President under the 20th Amendment until a new President were duly determined.
(The preferable choice, at least for the Democrats, would seem obvious.)
Hi!
I have been following the issue of President-Elect Obama's alleged place of birth and alleged natural born citizen status with great interest.
I live in Vermont where the majority of voters voted for Mr. Obama. We have NO representative to U.S. Congress who is Republican.
U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders won the Democratic primary in 2004, then went on the November ballot as an Independent. U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy is a Democrat. We only have one Representative to the U.S. House in Congress because our population is so small at around 620,000 residents.
U.S. Representative Peter Welch is a Democrat, but went on the ballot as Democrat-Republian, and was advertised by most major media as "running un-opposed" which was total fraud because there were 6 candidates on the ballot. I believe his status in Congress is as a Democrat.
None of our Vermont representatives can be counted on to address any issue that would put any Democrat in a bad position.
There is probably no chance what-so-ever that any Vermont representative to Congress would respond to my e-mail, or anyone elses', asking for the revelation of Barack Obama's long form birth certificate, because he is a Democrat.
Vermonters who are not Democrats allegedly have NO representation in the U.S. Congress!
Yesterday I took a much closer look at the "Certification of Live Birth" going around the internet.
In the lower right hand corner there is a legal notice:
[HRS 338-13(b), 338-19]
HRS means Hawaii Revised Statutes.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov
HRS 338-13(b)
Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department, shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF
338-16, 338-17, 338-18.
338-16(a) Birth certificates registered one year or more after the date of birth, and certificates which have been altered after being filed with the department of health, shall contain the date of the late filing and the date of the alteration and be marked distinctly "late" or "altered"
(e) "late" means ONE YEAR OR MORE
AFTER THE DATE OF BIRTH
338-17 Late or altered certificate as evidence.
The probative value of a "late" or "altered" certificate SHALL be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence.
338-18 Disclosure of records.
(a) it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records
(b) unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest
338-19 the department of health is authorized to prepare typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies of any records and files in its office, which by reason of age, usage, or otherwise are in such condition that they can no longer be....used...to certify to the correctness of such copies.
Now, look at one of the "Certification of Live Birth' certificates floating around the internet, see the lower right hand corner:
[HRS 338-13(b), 338-19]
and ask yourself,
do you,
as a registered voter,
have legal standing
to require the U.S. Congress and the Electoral College,
under 338-17 "the probative value of a "late" or "altered" certificate SHALL be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence"
to DEMAND that they determine if this certificate floating around the internet really belongs to Barack Obama, and has he intended it to be on the internet so that Voters can rely on it, and has he intended it to be on the internet as evidence that he is qualified to be elected President; and if so, how many alterations has his original birth certificate had, how late was it filed,
and how many other alterations and certificates have there been, and what were the legal notices of HRS codes that applied to each successive certificate issued?
Is Barack Hussein Obama a natural born citizen; and are the people who are saying that this certificate is "fake",
doing so because it is NOT fake,
and that in reality,
it is EVIDENCE;
is it in fact prima facie evidence
that it is altered, and may have been filed a year or more after his birth,
and that it MIGHT NOT BE THE ONLY ONE, that this certificate may be based on a previous altered certificate that may be based on a previous altered certificate,
and that the layers may have
gradually diluted the material facts, and that each successive certificate may have different legal notices of different HRS statutes?
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov
there are MANY HRS statutes regarding certificate of birth
and
birth certificate.
Hawaii issues birth certificates for persons born in a foreign country!
Everytime Hawaii issues a NEW certificate of birth, they SEAL the former certificate!
For THRILLING READING,
Hawaii Revised Statutes:
HRS 338-20.5
(a) the department of health shall establish a Hawaii certificate of birth for a person born in a foreign country
HRS 578-14
(b) if a new birth certificate is issued, the original birth certificate shall be sealed
HRS 338-41
(b) any certificate of Hawaii birth issued heretofore under or by virtue of any evidence overcome by competent evidence of nonidentitfication. 4 U.S.D.C. Haw. 258. Certificate not controlling.
HRS 338-17.7 Establishment of NEW certificates of birth
(a)(5)for a person born in this State, Upon request of a Law enforcement agency certifying that a NEW birth certificate showing different information would provide for the safety of the birth registrant (b) When a NEW certificate of birth is established under this section, it shall be substituted for the ORIGINAL certificate of birth.
Previous Acts of Hawaii making residents U.S. Citizens repealed by McCarren-Walter Act
June 27, 1952, 66 Stat 166 and the present provisions are
8 U.S.C.A. 1435(a).
Birth certificates by the Territory of Hawaii are NOT controlling. 35 Ops 69.
Hawaii Revised Statutes (continued)
HRS 338-6
Local agent to prepare birth certificate (a) if neither parent of the newborn child is able to file information and the birth is unattended (like a woman in New York city giving birth in a Taxi Cab and her husband is in another state at a business conference, and the woman calls her mother or mother and law and asks her to call the local vital statistics agent to report the birth; this statute section has legitimate purposes but could be abused)...the agent can use information from ANY person providing it, therefore a child could be born in a foreign country and the child's mother could call someone in Hawaii and ask them to report the birth and state that the parents are not available or able to do so themselves at that time.
Now look again at Barack Obama's alleged "Certification of Live Birth". It states his date of birth as August 4, 1961 and it states that the Registrar received the information on August 8, 1961. It is possible that Barack Obama's mother flew to Hawaii after he was born in a foreign country.
It is possible that Barack Obama was NOT born in Kenya, and NOT born in Hawaii!
How is that?
Hawaii Revised Statutes
HRS 338-20.5 (a) the department of health shall establish a Hawaii certificate of birth for a person born in a foreign country...(3)(G) true or PROBABLE COUNTRY OF BIRTH...(4)(b) the NEW certificate of birth shall show the true OR PROBABLE FOREIGN COUNTRY OF BIRTH
If Barack Obama's original, or one of a succession of altered certificates, showed birth in a country somewhere between Kenya and Hawaii, suppose in a taxi cab between airports between flights (how many stops does it take to get from Kenya to Hawaii?, how many hold-overs, how many delays?)
then his mother allegedly divorced and re-married,
which requires a NEW RECORD OF ADOPTION
HRS 578-14
Record of Adoption
(a) The department shall cause to be made a NEW record of the BIRTH
in the name of the individual, AS FIXED OR CHANGED BY THE DECREE
(b) If a NEW BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED, THE ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE SHALL BE SEALED.
HRS 338-17.8
Certificates for children born out of State.
(a) Upon application of an adult
OR the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a BIRTH CERTIFICATE for such ADULT
OR MINOR, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual WHILE LIVING WITHOUT THE TERRITORY OR STATE OF HAWAII had DECLARED the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceeding the birth
...
(b) proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in ANY MANNER that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt ANY RULES pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates
The above makes it absolutely clear that Hawaii Revised Statutes for birth certificates and certificates of birth
are AMBIGUOUS
and UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE
and
OVERBROAD.
SHALL the Supreme Court of the United States overturn, repeal, void or ORDER amendments to Hawaii Revised Statutes regarding birth certificates and certificates of birth
because they may aid and abet child trafficking, organized crime, child prostitution, child pornography and/or terrorism
because they are so unconstitutionally vague and so overbroad that they may
be abused and
used to transport children
from "probable" foreign countries
to Hawaii
where "upon application of an adult OR the legal parents"
a new certificate of birth may be
issued, and the original sealed,
and then the new one altered,
and the previous one sealed,
etc.
Oh, and then there are the HRS sections for "foundlings", if you just happen to find a baby and want to call in and get a certificate of birh, and list a probable foreign country of birth, so authorities won't go looking for a local parent whose child is missing....
Even if you don't care about whether or not Barack Obama is a natural born citizen,
how many missing children are there, and how many children are transported across state lines by people claiming to be their parent,
and does organized crime
take advantage of Hawaii birth certificate laws,
oh,
did organized crime have their
own Lobbyists promote these?
SHALL the Supreme Court of the United States strike down and repeal Hawaii birth certificate and certificate of birth laws because they are unconstitutional
and deprive voters of material facts necessary to be certain that the 44th President of the United States is a natural born citizen?
I pray that an attorney who is a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of the United States will file a petition and as the Court the above questions.
Ms. Cris Ericson
http://crisericson.com
http://crisericson.wordpress.com
Big thumbs up, Cris! If the rest of American would do their homework we wouldn't have this problem.
SEE: http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/01/obamas-online-birth-certificate-is-not.html
I do agree with all you are saying the MSM is not reporting the news. I am 67 and remember when we did not have a TV we had the radio and when something important came on my grandfather whom I lived with would raise his hand and say "Hark" and we were quite while he listened to the news. Now we have tv and Internet so there is no "hark" but we are not getting the news like in yesteryear. All the MSM are not reporters they are lemmings and just following what they are told to say. I used to be pould of factual reporting of anything. Obama must think he is King as no one is reporting information like Steadydripe and www.oilforimmigrants.org these two websites is where I find correct information about our lives and how it will effect us and our grandchildren. Right now it is very scary if Obama gets in the White house he cannot sign any orders and any treaties. He is a usuper. He has no authortiy at all
God bless you. My 68th birthday was yesterday. We grew up when honorable people prevailed. We would be surprised if a journalist or a politician were dishonest. Now we are surrounded by crooks and con-men.
Um are you saying that politicians of that era were not dishonest?
I love when people talk about the good ole days like things were perfect back then. Well I guess they were if you were a white educated male.
Of course there were dishonest politicians. But they were rare and the were all city people. Elected officials from small town and rural areas couldn't get away with being dishonest.
No, things were not perfect. However personal integrity and honorable behavior were the usual traits of most people.
As to you comment about "white males" it was the white males who did most of the work and paid most of the bills. However, equality is one of the things that is an improvement over the "good old days".
Post a Comment