72 replies to this topic

[suspire]

For the sane, I'd just recommend not feeding the troll, err, Luv2increase, any further.

suspire, I noticed that you were unable to reduce the proposition to 25 words or less. I would love to see it done. Even 50 words would really be appreciated.

It is too easy to copy trash from somewhere and post it here. A waste of electrons, a sign of some effort and analysis would be appreciated.

Apparently Obama has sufficiently answered and passed any questions or issues that the FEC or the government has on his citizenship/birth, or, well, the FEC wouldn't have filed a dismissal against Berg (and would be all over Obama to provide appropriate documents) and the Justice Department would be involved. Why he hasn't bothered with Berg: Because he has a track record of being a total nutjob--it'd be like asking why Bush and Cheney didn't answer Berg's accusations of a conspiracy in 9/11. Because they had nothing to do with it and they don't answer every nutjob's legal case levied on them. End of story.

[luv2increase]

Apparently Obama has sufficiently answered and passed any questions or issues that the FEC or the government has on his citizenship/birth, or, well, the FEC wouldn't have filed a dismissal against Berg (and would be all over Obama to provide appropriate documents) and the Justice Department would be involved.

This isn't over. The case is not dismissed. Why did the FEC and Obama's attorneys file a Motion to Dismiss instead of just providing Obama's birth certificate?

Plaintiff Phil J. Berg filed two motions today (October 23, 2008) seeking an expedited resolution in Berg v. Obama. (PDF's of the motions are attached below.)

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA and THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE

This motion argues that the facts have been established that Barack Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be elected or serve as President of the United States, and that the Court should issue a summary judgment as follows:

* That Barack Hussein Obama a/k/a Barry Hussein Obama a/k/a Barack Dunham a/k/a Barry Dunham a/k/a Barack Soetoro a/k/a Barry Soetoro is not a “natural born” or “naturalized” United States citizen.
* That he is ineligible to run for and/or serve as President of the United States.
* That the Democratic National Committee be enjoined from naming Barack Hussein Obama, et al as the Democratic Presidential Candidate on the ballot.
* That the Democratic National Committee and Barack Hussein Obama, et al are enjoined from any further campaigning on behalf of Barack Hussein Obama, et al for Office of the Presidency.
* That Barack Hussein Obama’s, et al name be removed from any and all ballots for the Office of the President of the United States.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION REQUESTING AN EXPEDITED RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This motion requests that the court:

* Grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
* Order that Defendants Response to Plaintiff=s Motion is to be filed and served upon Plaintiff by a specified date.
* Order that a Ruling, Hearing and/or Resolution be set for a specific date.

http://www.obamacrimes.com

Why he hasn't bothered with Berg: Because he has a track record of being a total nutjob

That is attacking the person rather than the issue suspire. That doesn't fly in a court of law. It is also a very weak argument because it fails to address the issue 100%. Here is a man with substantial evidence proving Obama is not a "natural born citizen" and trying to uphold the Constitution of our great country, and here you are calling him a nut-job as if that makes his claims baseless. Listen, all Obama would have to do is turn in his birth certificate, and all this would go away. Would you just not get a driver's license because they ask for a birth certificate in order to get one? Would you spend millions of dollars just to not have to turn in your birth certificate when it would cost you Zero Dollars to just comply and turn it in? Obama's attorneys are asking to postpone his turning in of his birth certificate until after the election. What makes the difference if Obama has nothing to hide. Obama is the nutjob here because it is insane to not just turn in his birth certificate. Think how terribly bad this is hurting him because now millions of Americans know about this going on.

[suspire]

Apparently Obama has sufficiently answered and passed any questions or issues that the FEC or the government has on his citizenship/birth, or, well, the FEC wouldn't have filed a dismissal against Berg (and would be all over Obama to provide appropriate documents) and the Justice Department would be involved.

This isn't over. The case is not dismissed. Why did the FEC and Obama's attorneys file a Motion to Dismiss instead of just providing Obama's birth certificate?

Plaintiff Phil J. Berg filed two motions today (October 23, 2008) seeking an expedited resolution in Berg v. Obama. (PDF's of the motions are attached below.)

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA and THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE

This motion argues that the facts have been established that Barack Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be elected or serve as President of the United States, and that the Court should issue a summary judgment as follows:

* That Barack Hussein Obama a/k/a Barry Hussein Obama a/k/a Barack Dunham a/k/a Barry Dunham a/k/a Barack Soetoro a/k/a Barry Soetoro is not a “natural born” or “naturalized” United States citizen.
* That he is ineligible to run for and/or serve as President of the United States.
* That the Democratic National Committee be enjoined from naming Barack Hussein Obama, et al as the Democratic Presidential Candidate on the ballot.
* That the Democratic National Committee and Barack Hussein Obama, et al are enjoined from any further campaigning on behalf of Barack Hussein Obama, et al for Office of the Presidency.
* That Barack Hussein Obama’s, et al name be removed from any and all ballots for the Office of the President of the United States.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION REQUESTING AN EXPEDITED RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This motion requests that the court:

* Grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
* Order that Defendants Response to Plaintiff=s Motion is to be filed and served upon Plaintiff by a specified date.
* Order that a Ruling, Hearing and/or Resolution be set for a specific date.

http://www.obamacrimes.com

Why he hasn't bothered with Berg: Because he has a track record of being a total nutjob

That is attacking the person rather than the issue suspire. That doesn't fly in a court of law. It is also a very weak argument because it fails to address the issue 100%. Here is a man with substantial evidence proving Obama is not a "natural born citizen" and trying to uphold the Constitution of our great country, and here you are calling him a nut-job as if that makes his claims baseless. Listen, all Obama would have to do is turn in his birth certificate, and all this would go away. Would you just not get a driver's license because they ask for a birth certificate in order to get one? Would you spend millions of dollars just to not have to turn in your birth certificate when it would cost you Zero Dollars to just comply and turn it in? Obama's attorneys are asking to postpone his turning in of his birth certificate until after the election. What makes the difference if Obama has nothing to hide. Obama is the nutjob here because it is insane to not just turn in his birth certificate. Think how terribly bad this is hurting him because now millions of Americans know about this going on.

Let me put it simply: He hasn't "turned it in" to Berg for the same reason Bush and Cheney won't turn themselves into Berg: Who the $@$&% is Berg to demand his birth certificate or to demand Cheney and Bush's arrest for 9/11? And as for not turning it into the Court that Berg filed the case in? The Court has not demanded it: Berg has simply filed a case with them asking them to demand it. Obama's lawyers have responded to Berg's demand within the Court with a dismissal, which is the right way to handle a nutjob--you do not feed them or the next one and the next one and the next one will continue to crop up. Clearly all requirements by the FEC and the federal government have been satisfied with regards to Obama's citizenship.

If a person acts consistently in a pattern that supports a position, it is not attacking the man's character: ie, if a man kills another man, it is not an attack on his character to call him a murderer. In Berg's case, his track record of trying to have world leaders arrest Cheney and Bush, disbar Scalia, Thomas, and O'Connor on the Supreme Court, etc is the pattern of a man who is clearly insane. Therefore, to call him a nutjob is not an insult--it is an appropriate label.

And as much as you might wish it, it isn't hurting him with millions of Americans. A few right-wing extremists believe in this stuff and that's about it. Otherwise, obviously, millions of Americans would be filing similar cases out of sheer fear that a non-citizen was going to possibly win the White House.

[RighteousReason]

Who the $@$&% is Berg to demand his birth certificate

Yeah! You tell me just what right does he have to stand up for the Constitution?

[suspire]

Who the $@$&% is Berg to demand his birth certificate

Yeah! You tell me just what right does he have to stand up for the Constitution?

The point, that you seemed to miss, was that who is Berg to demand that another citizen's birth certificate be handed over to him? It's like me demanding your birth certificate be handed over to me.

In the same vein, who is Berg to demand that Bush and Cheney be arrested for 9/11? Who are the dozens, if not hundreds, perhaps thousands of American citizens who file frivolous law suits against Bush and the U.S. government each year? Are their request/demands obeyed? No, most times the response is: Dismissal. The same way Barack Obama's lawyers and the FEC have filed for...dismissal.

If there is a real point of contention, then the federal government, the Justice Department, the FEC, etc would demand further verification from the State of Hawaii (which has ALREADY verified that the Birth Certificate is valid).

That's it. There isn't anything more I can say. If you guys still want to maintain this farce, go ahead. But at some point there has to be a basic level of substance to a topic for it to still qualify in "Politics & Law" and not be relegated to off-topic, entirely.

[luv2increase]

Who the $@$&% is Berg to demand his birth certificate

Yeah! You tell me just what right does he have to stand up for the Constitution?

The point, that you seemed to miss, was that who is Berg to demand that another citizen's birth certificate be handed over to him? It's like me demanding your birth certificate be handed over to me.

In the same vein, who is Berg to demand that Bush and Cheney be arrested for 9/11? Who are the dozens, if not hundreds, perhaps thousands of American citizens who file frivolous law suits against Bush and the U.S. government each year? Are their request/demands obeyed? No, most times the response is: Dismissal. The same way Barack Obama's lawyers and the FEC have filed for...dismissal.

If there is a real point of contention, then the federal government, the Justice Department, the FEC, etc would demand further verification from the State of Hawaii (which has ALREADY verified that the Birth Certificate is valid).

That's it. There isn't anything more I can say. If you guys still want to maintain this farce, go ahead. But at some point there has to be a basic level of substance to a topic for it to still qualify in "Politics & Law" and not be relegated to off-topic, entirely.

suspire, if you don't think it odd in the least that some of Obama's family members claim they witnessed his birth in Kenya, the birth certifcates Obama posted on the internet were deemed frauds, Obama can post a birth certificate on the internet yet cannot hand one in to a court of law, and Obama's sister claimed Obama was born at a different hospital in Honolulu as Obama claimed, then I think you are blinded. You are putting "blind" faith in Obama as if he were the messiah, and everything he speaks is true. Do you not know how corrupt politicians are, and what makes you believe Obama is any different when clearly his actions as a Senator in the Illinois Senate and his actions as a US Senator are clearly different that what he says he is going to do as President???

There are many petitions going around signed by "American citizens" demanding that Obama hand in his birth certificate into a court of law. Also, just for your information, the State of Hawaii never verified Obama's birth there. Where did you get that information?

Obama is doing himself and the American people a disservice by holding out in turning in his birth certificate. There are no if, ands, or buts about it.


Remember, myself and Berg aren't the only ones demanding his birth certificate. You know why Obama can't turn one in; it is because he doesn't have one. It is "my" right as an American citizen, and Berg's right as an American citizen to request Obama's birth certificate whether you like it or not.

[david ellis]

Sure David.


Obama was born in Kenya, therefore he is not a natural-born citizen, and hence can't be President of the United States.

Lets see, McCain was born in Panama, so he too can't be president of the United States. Is that true?

[david ellis]

Why he hasn't bothered with Berg: Because he has a track record of being a total nutjob

That is attacking the person rather than the issue suspire. That doesn't fly in a court of law. It is also a very weak argument because it fails to address the issue 100%.

luv2increase, you again fail to understand "ad hominem". If suspire had only said Berg was a nutjob, it would be an "ad hominem" fallacy. But suspire's other statements proved Berg was a nutjob, so as a proven fact it would fly in a court of law. Your duty in logic would be to prove that suspire's statements proving Berg was a nutjob were false. Then you would have successfully defended against suspire's statement. You lost that argument.

You really should spend some time on this "ad hominem" fallacy and maybe the other fallacies too. The last time we discussed this, we went around and around, and I gave up that time.(remember my Ferengi comment about no profit)

[luv2increase]

You really should spend some time on this "ad hominem" fallacy and maybe the other fallacies too.

You really should spend time on staying on topic. Anyways, it does not matter who Berg tried to sue etc...; that is not evidence to dismiss in a court of law. Berg has an extensive list of credentials; he isn't your average Joe six-pack attorney. Besides, he is not the only one bringing Obama to court. Face it, Obama can't provide a "long form" birth certificate because he doesn't have one. It would take him 3-4 days to get one from the State of Hawaii if he lost his btw. He is in Hawaii right now so why not pick one up, right? All he has is a "short form" birth certificate posted on the internet which even that has been proven erroneous.

Also, the Panama canal zone is perfectly fine. You must not have read up on it. Being born in Hawaii is fine also, but only "if you are born in Hawaii". Being born in Kenya is not ok. There is no organization set up to do background information on a Presidential candidate as of yet. Hopefully, after Obama gets convicted of Civil and Criminal charges due to his escapade of illegally running for President of the US, that will most certainly change. Look it up; there is no organization set to do background checks on the candidates. It is a shame the DNC didn't do its due diligence in checking this out beforehand. This is sad for those Obama supporters which want him to be President and those who have given the crook money.


Fact is fact david, there is no reason to spend millions of dollars to fight the turning in of something so simple as a birth certificate. That isn't asking a lot in the least. Obama could easily put out this fire, but instead he is choosing to fuel it.

[RighteousReason]

It's like me demanding your birth certificate be handed over to me.

Just because you are a presidential candidate doesn't mean I should be allowed to ask for your birth certificate! This is NOWHERE in the Constitution!

[luv2increase]

I don't know how I missed it, but folks there is now a fourth lawsuit against Obama's citizenship in the state of Virginia!

Great News
written by Wild Bill, October 22, 2008
The Virginia lawsuit (actually a Petition for Writ of Mandamus) was filed today. Ironically, we almost missed filing and serving due to the thousands of people downtown today to see Obama speak. In even better news, the Honorable Walter W. Stout III, the chief judge, granted our motion for an emergency hearing and set a briefing schedule. We were required to serve the Board of Elections a copy of the schedule today (which we did). We must file our brief and all supporting evidence on Friday. The Board of Elections has until the 28th to file a response. We may file a reply on the 29th and the hearing will be held on the 30th at 1:30p.m.
We did send copies of the suit and orders to the local media, but unlike some people, we are more interested in pursuing the legal battle, not whoring ourselves out to the media. For that same reason we are not setting up a website or soliciting donations.
We will let you know how things progress.

http://peoplespassio...ts/Virginia.htm



This is getting even better.

[david ellis]

You really should spend some time on this "ad hominem" fallacy and maybe the other fallacies too.

You really should spend time on staying on topic. Anyways, it does not matter who Berg tried to sue etc...; that is not evidence to dismiss in a court of law. Berg has an extensive list of credentials; he isn't your average Joe six-pack attorney. Besides, he is not the only one bringing Obama to court.

All I have got to say is that we have to start improving our school systems. Logic, law, history and economics should be part of the high school curriculum. Real classes not pablum. If not done, we will be ruled by demagogues for sure.

As before, I see little profit in this exchange, I was hoping that you could learn something about "ad hominen". You are getting close, but not there yet. Your rebutal to the proposition that Berg was a nut-job was weak, But maybe a smart move not to try to rebut all the stupid stuff Berg has done.

I hope you would consider the illogic of tagging me for not staying on subject. I was writing about your post and the logic of your post. Why isn't it on subject to point out that you are being illogical about your subject? I am trying to help you improve, so we can have better discussions. I think you didn't want to talk about logic, so you used the "change the subject" arguing technique. This is squirrely stuff, because nothing gets pinned down ever. No progress is made, no minds meet the challenges presented, everything remains as it was before everything was said. As I said before, no profit. Nothing gained by me or you. I thought respectful exchange was a big improvement, but it seems that respect for the rules of logic is required. The moderators are smart enough to avoid entering that cage, so I see little hope for meaningful debate.

Warning-I am going off subject here.

I have gained a few things and maybe they are not so small. I understand you better. You luv2increase are a person who means well, but is very fearful that the goose that lays the golden egg will be destroyed by liberals. All I can do is assure you that liberals are fellow countrymen who want pretty much the same things. But lower and lower taxes is a fallacy. You have to have taxes to provide the services that make us a first world country. The country needs a balanced budget and the last and only recent man to do that was a liberal. And the golden goose that you worry about can take care of itself. The money it spends on lobbying is always returned 10 times over. And you can also believe with all your heart, that the increased profits always go back to the golden goose. Giving the gold to the masses is illogical. You know that. So don't worry about corporations, worry about yourself and your tax bill.

[luv2increase]

so I see little hope for meaningful debate.

If you think that Obama not being eligible of being the President of the United States is not important, then I think you need to re-evaluate a few things. This could potentially be the biggest election scam in US history. It is extraordinarily huge!

Whether you could care less about the preresiquites to be President outlined by our great forefathers via the Constitution or not, there is something to learn from this. Obama is either just dumb for not turning in his birth certificate, or he is a liar to the greatest extreme; either of these two things should disqualify him for his quest of being President.

Do you not seriously think that he is losing votes over this? Think about it, www.obamacrimes.com has had over 12 million viewers about this, all of youtubes videos about this tally over 1 million, all the websites on the internet have to bring in a substantial amount of material, the local news of the areas where the lawsuits are being filed bring in more viewers, Berg has been on over 50 radio programs across the US talking about that and challenging Obama to turn-in his birth certificate, and the people being told about this through the people who have heard about this could tally a huge number. All in all, I would say that close to 70-100 million Americans have heard about this. If you think Obama doesn't realize that this makes him look bad, think again. Obama is not a stupid guy; he is actually extremely intelligent. In reality though, it proves that he is guilty because in no way could someone look at this in a way which would make Obama more likable and increases his chances of getting a vote from said person!

Bottom line is that if Obama had nothing to hide, he would have turned in his birth certificate as requested. By him holding out, it is a sign of guilt. This will cause him to have an attributes of being untrustworthy and/or a liar.

[b]Ultimately, it will hurt the number of votes he will receive because anyone which thinks logical would wonder why in the world he is holding out.

[suspire]

Who the $@$&% is Berg to demand his birth certificate

Yeah! You tell me just what right does he have to stand up for the Constitution?

The point, that you seemed to miss, was that who is Berg to demand that another citizen's birth certificate be handed over to him? It's like me demanding your birth certificate be handed over to me.

In the same vein, who is Berg to demand that Bush and Cheney be arrested for 9/11? Who are the dozens, if not hundreds, perhaps thousands of American citizens who file frivolous law suits against Bush and the U.S. government each year? Are their request/demands obeyed? No, most times the response is: Dismissal. The same way Barack Obama's lawyers and the FEC have filed for...dismissal.

If there is a real point of contention, then the federal government, the Justice Department, the FEC, etc would demand further verification from the State of Hawaii (which has ALREADY verified that the Birth Certificate is valid).

That's it. There isn't anything more I can say. If you guys still want to maintain this farce, go ahead. But at some point there has to be a basic level of substance to a topic for it to still qualify in "Politics & Law" and not be relegated to off-topic, entirely.

suspire, if you don't think it odd in the least that some of Obama's family members claim they witnessed his birth in Kenya, the birth certifcates Obama posted on the internet were deemed frauds, Obama can post a birth certificate on the internet yet cannot hand one in to a court of law, and Obama's sister claimed Obama was born at a different hospital in Honolulu as Obama claimed, then I think you are blinded. You are putting "blind" faith in Obama as if he were the messiah, and everything he speaks is true. Do you not know how corrupt politicians are, and what makes you believe Obama is any different when clearly his actions as a Senator in the Illinois Senate and his actions as a US Senator are clearly different that what he says he is going to do as President???

There are many petitions going around signed by "American citizens" demanding that Obama hand in his birth certificate into a court of law. Also, just for your information, the State of Hawaii never verified Obama's birth there. Where did you get that information?

Obama is doing himself and the American people a disservice by holding out in turning in his birth certificate. There are no if, ands, or buts about it.


Remember, myself and Berg aren't the only ones demanding his birth certificate. You know why Obama can't turn one in; it is because he doesn't have one. It is "my" right as an American citizen, and Berg's right as an American citizen to request Obama's birth certificate whether you like it or not.

1) Did you see, in a reputable and major news source/outlet, that the family member was quoted (via tape/video/etc) claiming Obama was born in Kenya? The only thing I've heard is Berg's claims of having some audio tape of Obama's grandmother saying he was born in Kenya...and having yet to release it to the media. Huh. For a guy so eager to prove Obama isn't a U.S. citizen, he sure has been slow to do anything with this tape. Maaaaybe, he's just milking the moment for all the money he can get. Beyond Berg's claim, all I hear is the echo chamber repeating Berg's claim and citing one another. However, even if some relative made some claim...

2) Anyone, including family members, can be prone to odd fits of emotion, including jealousy--wouldn't put it past some of them to lie about where Obama was born for various motivations. Obama's family wouldn't be the first presidential family to cause major trouble for either a candidate or a sitting president.

3) Obama's birth certificate were deemed forgeries? By whom? Which experts? Was it the "internet experts" who "proved" their "credentials" online? There is a difference between the "I'm a forgery expert, but um, I'm really 45 years old, a virgin and bunk bed in my mother's basement with my bestess buddy" expert and the "I'm a FBI counterfeit expert and I've determined that Obama's birth certificate is a forgery and spoke about it on 60 Minutes." Somehow, you know, with all these top notch forgery experts out there, with the FBI, and various police departments around the U.S. and all of them able to look up Obama's birth certificate easily online, I'd sorta, kinda, maybe think one of them would, you know, be on a top news outlet with their story. And if that weren't enough, I've looked up this issue in detail and "seen" some of these "experts" and then seen their arguments be debunked by other "experts". So yeah.

4) I am not sure how a man who thinks 9/11 was one huge vast conspiracy by the White House and the U.S. Government, and by Bush and Cheney specifically, who files RICO cases against Bush and Cheney and who calls on "all world leaders to arrest Bush and Cheney for 9/11" is not, well, a nutjob. And it is not ad hominem to attack him on these points; lawyers do it all the time in court cases. It goes, as they say, to the credibility of the individual making the argument. Berg's credibility is zero. Hell, Berg is a huge Clinton supporter and instead of trying to prop up his arguments in order to secure her nomination, Clinton ran in the opposite direction from Berg, because she knew his ideas were so insane.

5) Berg's case has been dismissed. Just Google it. Like hundreds and thousands of frivolous lawsuits and cases every year. The response to madmen is not to capitulate, because they will never be satisfied: You provide one thing for them, and then they'll ask for the next, and the next, and the next. Obama and the DNC filed for a dismissal, because that's how such stupidity is always handled. That's how the U.S. government, Bush and Cheney handled Berg previously as well. It isn't like the U.S. government went: "Well, shit, there are a ton of U.S. citizens who don't believe 9/11 was done by terrorists, so we'll just let them access all of Ground Zero and the Pentagon and the Pennsylvania site and do their own investigations in the name of the truth. Thousands of American citizens died here, so they are entitled to do their own home brew investigations." Um. No. They are handled by law enforcement organizations. The debunking of the myths was left to various other sources. Same here: Barack Obama doesn't need to go around and debunk every Joe Schmoe with access to 50 bucks to file a case against him: the FEC has checked him out, the State of Hawaii has backed it up, etc. It's over and done with.

6) Here is the bit about the State of Hawaii confirming the validity of Obama's birth certificate: http://www.politifac...ficate-part-ii/ and here is Factcheck.org talking about it, too: http://www.factcheck...in_the_usa.html

The latter explains the whole short form versus long form controversy as well.

Unlike you right wingers, I don't put blind faith in anyone and no one is my messiah; I am happily an atheist and skeptical of all politicians. I do like Barack Obama better than John McCain, partially because I feel McCain has lost his way and gone off the reservation since 2000. I also prefer Obama's policies, including tax, health and foreign. But I don't go to extremes and believe in every radical theory that supports my world view or political affiliation, or I'd be your polar opposite and be a 9/11 Truther-type (pretty much the left wing version of a lot of the stuff you post on these boards, luv2increase).

Basically, almost all of this stuff stems from one or two sources. Berg reminds me of Ahmed Chalabi, the thoroughly debunked source of much of the WMD "intelligence" on Iraq. Chalabi and a few other sources kept repeating this stuff and repeating this stuff and repeating this stuff, and along with folks like Cheney and a couple of others, it just blew up. It was an echo chamber--all sound can be traced to a single nonsensical source. You should watch Bill Moyers and "Buying The War" for a lesson in this: http://www.pbs.org/m.../btw/watch.html

The arguments you keep parroting are arguments all coming from the same polluted well.

So unless you have a major news outlet, some major, reliable, credible news source that runs the story on how Barack Obama's birth certificate is a forgery or he isn't a U.S. citizen, there is nothing left to argue. The entire basis of your position is a few crackjobs and their kool-aid drinking followers on the internet.

You know what, I take that back. You don't need to get a credible or reliable news source to run the story on Obama's birth certificate for me to be a believer. If you even get Fox News, the propaganda wing of the Republican Party, to run a news story on it, I'll sit up and pay attention. It has to be a news story, as in: "Fox News reports that sources at the FEC/FBI/Justice Department/whoever are now investigating Barack Obama's birth certificate for possible forgery..." If that comes out, I'll be happy to entertain this discussion again. An opinion piece by Sean Hannity where he has Crazy Corsi on spouting his conspiracy theories or one of the other opinion folks hinting that there might be something to the story doesn't count, because that's just subtle (or not so subtle) disinformation. It has to be a real piece on Fox News (or any other major outlet--NY Times, WSJ, BBC, CNN, etc).

That said, you know, I really think you're on to something. You and Berg and other true patriots are demanding Obama's birth certificate and since the courts aren't listening to you, I think you should do the right thing. I recommend that Super-Duper-Really-Extra-Real-True-Blue-Red-Blooded-Patriots should take action! I mean, I am sure you're the type of real man, unlike us wussy liberals, to defend this nation! You are positive Obama is not an American citizen. So he is violating the Constitution and has broken various laws by committing fraud, creating forgeries, etc. For the sake of America, nay the world, I think you and your buddy Berg should go out there and arrest Obama! You know, a citizen's arrest for all the crimes he has committed! What would the Founding Fathers do? They wouldn't take this lying down! Go out there, put your money where your mouth is, and arrest him for his massive and vast conspiracy. Do it for your country, man. You're a true patriot. While you're at it, you might want to recruit Savage and biknut to the cause--they seem like really, super-duper-cool patriots from, you know, the Real America, those cutesty, folksy little pockets of Extra-Real (with pepperoni) America where men still love their guns, their whiskey and their sisters.

Come on. You should go out and arrest Obama. I am not kidding. This has got to be one of the most heinous crimes ever to be perpetuated on the American people in our entire history and you, you alone, have the proof! If good men do nothing in the face of evil, how will America survive?

[luv2increase]

5) Berg's case has been dismissed. Just Google it.

I can't find it. Can you source it please? Thank you.

[luv2increase]

Does anyone know how easy it is to make a fake birth certificate like Obama did? Here's how.

[luv2increase]

Come on. You should go out and arrest Obama. I am not kidding.

They are already saying that criminal charges will be brought upon Obama if this turns out as being true.

This has got to be one of the most heinous crimes ever to be perpetuated on the American people in our entire history and you, you alone, have the proof! If good men do nothing in the face of evil

Hold on now. This was brought to my attention by someone I know. I researched it. I seen information on Adobe Photoshop that the people who made Obama's cert for him used. I read up on the court cases going on. So, how can you say that I alone have the proof? Are you kidding me? That doesn't make any sense at all.

How will America survive?

Can you elaborate on that one? I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that if Obama is elected and subsequently found out not to be eligible due to not being a "natural born citizen" that he should still be allowed to be President, and we shouldn't uphold the Constitution?

5) Berg's case has been dismissed. Just Google it.

Can you post that information. I can't find it on Google. Post your source please. Thank you.



I think you need to quit turning your anger about this whole issue upon me for being the whistleblower and bringing it to light here. It isn't my fault Obama is being dumb and fueling the fire by not just turning it in. I've calculated that over 100 million Americans have had this brought to their attention now. There are only two logical explanations for Obama's actions in regards to these lawsuits brought against him; either he is guilty, or he is extremely dumb because this will ultimately hurt him at the polls.

[suspire]

5) Berg's case has been dismissed. Just Google it.

Can you post that information. I can't find it on Google. Post your source please. Thank you.



I think you need to quit turning your anger about this whole issue upon me for being the whistleblower and bringing it to light here. It isn't my fault Obama is being dumb and fueling the fire by not just turning it in. I've calculated that over 100 million Americans have had this brought to their attention now. There are only two logical explanations for Obama's actions in regards to these lawsuits brought against him; either he is guilty, or he is extremely dumb because this will ultimately hurt him at the polls.

Request for information: http://www.philly.co...rom_ballot.html

And I am not angry. I am amused. You're like the Loose Change guys, running around with videos and all sorts of "evidence" and crazy numbers and claims. It is kinda funny, though I guess, kind of sad, too. But really, this will hurt him at the polls? Hah--the only people who buy this stuff are folks who wouldn't have voted for him, anyway. There are probably more Americans who believe that Obama fulfills the various traits and prophecies of the anti-Christ (yes, there is a tiny minority of Americans who actually believe this). 100 million Americans have had this brought to their attention? Hah. By that same monkey math, I figure 100 trillion Americans are gonna vote for Obama! Googoly goo!

[RighteousReason]

Berg's case has been dismissed.

U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick rejected Philip Berg's suit saying any harm was "too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters."


Yeah!

Hey- Fuck the Constitution! Who needs that old rag, anyway?

It doesn't matter a damn what is written in the Constitution- all judges should just completely ignore that old "out of touch" document, and just make decision on what they think is "fair".

[Iam Empathy]

Judge tosses lawsuit challenging Obama citizenship

http://apnews.myway..../D941NCJG0.html

Oct 25, 3:37 PM (ET)

PHILADELPHIA (AP) - A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's qualifications to be president.

U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick on Friday night rejected the suit by attorney Philip J. Berg, who alleged that Obama was not a U.S. citizen and therefore ineligible for the presidency. Berg claimed that Obama is either a citizen of his father's native Kenya or became a citizen of Indonesia after he moved there as a boy.

Obama was born in Hawaii to an American mother and a Kenyan father. His parents divorced and his mother married an Indonesian man.

Internet-fueled conspiracy theories question whether Obama is a "natural-born citizen" as required by the Constitution for a presidential candidate and whether he lost his citizenship while living abroad.

Surrick ruled that Berg lacked standing to bring the case, saying any harm from an allegedly ineligible candidate was "too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters."

[luv2increase]

Philip J. Berg is Appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court as Obama is "NOT" qualified to be President of the United States Lawsuit Against Obama Dismissed from Philadelphia Federal Court
For Immediate Release: - 10/25/08 - Contact Info at end.

UPDATE: Ruling attached at end. It's a really poor copy, but it is all we have for the moment. Willl put up a better copy when we get one.

(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/25/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that he is immediately appealing the dismissal of his case to the United States Supreme Court. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.

Berg said, "I am totally disappointed by Judge Surrick's decision and, for all citizens of the United States, I am immediately appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States - the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world - then who does?

So, anyone can just claim to be eligible for congress or the presidency without having their legal status, age or citizenship questioned.

According to Judge Surrick, we the people have no right to police the eligibility requirements under the U.S. Constitution.

What happened to ‘...Government of the people, by the people, for the people,...’ Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address 1863.

We must legally prevent Obama, the unqualified candidate, from taking the Office of the Presidency of the United States,” Berg said.

Our website obamacrimes.com now has 71.8 + million hits. We are urging all to spread the word of our website – and forward to your local newspapers and radio and TV stations.

Berg again stressed his position regarding the urgency of this case as, “we” the people, are heading to a “Constitutional Crisis” if this case is not resolved forthwith.

http://www.obamacrimes.com


This is just a normal process. Let's see what the US Supreme Court has to say about this.

[Lazarus Long]

I noticed you ignored it when I posted the law on this matter before Luv and that you are still ignoring the law with respect to citizenship, just as is Berg. Another reason the judge threw this out is because it is baseless in fact but why bother crediting the claim at all if there is no reason to even accept a review is probably how the judge sees it.

I posted this before.

More importantly these character assassination claims are totally irrelevant and nonsense. All it demonstrates is how little most people know of our own laws and the Constitution.

Try reading the 14th Amendment since that is where all the governing law lies.

http://www.usconstit...sttop_citi.html

If you're going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must. To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States. To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born. Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.

Natural-born citizen

Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "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." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

* Anyone born inside the United States
* Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
* Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
* Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
* Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
* A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

Is anyone now arguing that his mother is not a citizen who has lived inside the US for more than 5 years?

I find that when panicked the right wing will totally misinterpret law, it reminds me of the Intelligent Design debate. The current argument over Obama's citizenship is another example of allowing popular mythology to be an excuse for shredding the Constitution. Anyone who even takes a few minutes to actually READ the law will find this is a complete Red Herring of an issue.

[Lazarus Long]

I should amend one thing; the desire to misinterpret the law is not uniquely right wing. I find that when panicked most sides will either grossly distort the Constitution while trying to hide behind it or simply discard it as inconvenient and seek to shred it.

What I admire and respect the most about the document is that it has withstood the test of time in this respect through an intrinsic simplicity and elegance that has allowed it to remain true to its core values while evolving through amendment. The process has not been perfect but it has been worthy of respect.

[RighteousReason]

hmm... interesting point about the 14th amendment. i'm definitely no expert on constitutional law.

why has nobody brought this up?

at least you looked into the facts instead of blindly attacking the guy who asked the question...

Edited by Savage, 26 October 2008 - 07:13 PM.

[TianZi]

Stop the press! Three people have filed lawsuits challenging Obama's status as a "natural born" US citizen! Not one, or two, but THREE! I mean, what harder evidence could you ask for?

Since we all know that the mere filing of a lawsuit is proof positive to it being a meritorious claim, I thought I'd add this additional lawsuit filed against Obama (he's obviously either "Satan" or a member of his "staff" in the eyes of certain people):


UNITED STATES v. SATAN AND HIS STAFF
W.D.Pa., 1971

United States District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.
UNITED STATES ex rel. Gerald MAYO
v.
SATAN AND HIS STAFF.
Misc. No. 5357.

Dec. 3, 1971.


Gerald Mayo, pro se.1

MEMORANDUM ORDER
WEBER, District Judge.
Plaintiff, alleging jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §241, 28 U.S.C. §1343, and 42 U.S.C. §1983 prays for leave to file a complaint for violation of his civil rights in forma pauperis. He alleges that Satan has on numerous occasions caused plaintiff misery and unwarranted threats, against the will of plaintiff, that Satan has placed deliberate obstacles in his path and has caused plaintiff's downfall.

Plaintiff alleges that by reason of these acts Satan has deprived him of his constitutional rights.

We feel that the application to file and proceed in forma pauperis2 must be denied. Even if plaintiff's complaint reveals a prima facie3 recital of the infringement of the civil rights of a citizen of the United States, the Court has serious doubts that the complaint reveals a cause of action upon which relief can be granted by the court. We question whether plaintiff may obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant in this judicial district.4 The complaint contains no allegation of residence in this district. While the official reports disclose no case where this defendant has appeared as defendant there is an unofficial account of a trial in New Hampshire where this defendant filed an action of mortgage foreclosure as plaintiff.5 The defendant in that action was represented by the preeminent advocate of that day, and raised the defense that the plaintiff was a foreign prince with no standing to sue in an American Court. This defense was overcome by overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Whether or not this would raise an estoppel in the present case we are unable to determine at this time.

If such action were to be allowed we would also face the question of whether it may be maintained as a class action. It appears to meet the requirements of Fed.R. of Civ.P. 23 that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, there are questions of law and fact common to the class, and the claims of the representative party is typical of the claims of the class. We cannot now determine if the representative party will fairly protect the interests of the class.6

We note that the plaintiff has failed to include with his complaint the required form of instructions for the United States Marshal for directions as to service of process.7

For the foregoing reasons we must exercise our discretion to refuse the prayer of plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis.

It is ordered that the complaint be given a miscellaneous docket number and leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied.

W.D.Pa., 1971
U. S. ex rel. Mayo v. Satan and his Staff
54 F.R.D. 282

[luv2increase]

I noticed you ignored it when I posted the law on this matter before Luv and that you are still ignoring the law with respect to citizenship, just as is Berg. Another reason the judge threw this out is because it is baseless in fact but why bother crediting the claim at all if there is no reason to even accept a review is probably how the judge sees it.

No, I believe I proved you wrong when you tried to spew this the first time around.

Barack Obama is not legally a U.S. natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between "December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986." Presidential office requires a natural-born citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. citizen parents, which of course is what exempts John McCain though he was born in the Panama Canal. US Law very clearly stipulates: "If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16." Barack Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama's mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which means though she had been a U.S. citizen for 10 years, (or citizen perhaps because of Hawaii being a territory) the mother fails the test for being so for at least 5 years **prior to** Barack Obama's birth, but *after* age 16. It doesn't matter *after* . In essence, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. citizenship. At most, there were only 2 years elapsed since his mother turned 16 at the time of Barack Obama's birth when she was 18 in Hawaii. His mother would have needed to have been 16+5=21 years old, at the time of Barack Obama's birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen. As aforementioned, she was a young college student at the time and was not. Barack Obama was already 3 years old at that time his mother would have needed to have waited to have him as the only U.S. Citizen parent. Obama instead should have been naturalized, but even then, that would still disqualify him from holding the office.

*** Naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of President.

*** Though Barack Obama was sent back to Hawaii at age 10, all the other info does not matter because his mother is the one who needed to have been a U.S. citizen for 10 years prior to his birth on August 4, 1961, with 5 of those years being after age 16. Further, Obama may have had to have remained in the country for some time to protect any citizenship he would have had, rather than living in Indonesia. Now you can see why Obama's aides stopped his speech about how we technically have more than 50 states,because it would have led to this discovery. This is very clear cut and a blaring violation of U.S. election law. I think the Gov. of California would be very interested in knowing this if Obama were elected President without being a natural-born U.S. citizen, and it would set precedence.

http://www.snopes.co...ama/citizen.asp



Lazarus, I'm glad you are starting to realize that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. I'm starting to get that feeling from you.

[Lazarus Long]

First of all you are trying to assert the rule of ex post facto to a situation in which it does not apply. The issue of citizenship and a right to hold office does not apply to when Obama was born but to when he is running for office, which I believe we can all agree is right now.

Second, I would really love to see a test case on such a discriminatory law *if* it ever existed but the fact that it doesn't exist any longer is perhaps because it is unconstitutional on its face.

Third, nothing you are claiming denies the basic tenet that Obama is a natural born citizen of the US today (under the present law), whether he was born in Hawaii or outer Mongolia; which still doesn't make him the Manchurian Candidate you are suggesting.

Fourth, you are not addressing an issue of citizenship for the child but age discrimination against the rights of the mother AND the child. The qualification of the mother's residency as an adult, where she was born (which happens to trump the residency issue BTW) and the number of years after she gave birth is a red herring. As a native born American citizen she is not subject to the residency requirement as you are trying to assert and she passed into her adulthood from birth (in Kansas BTW) within the US borders, which the territory of Hawaii was considered to be even prior to statehood.

What you have been doing is trying to cherry pick the law through a careful parsing of the text and a misapplication in any case.

Try posting the entire text of the law and then look carefully to see if ANY of it applies favorably to the mother, not if some of it doesn't and then you will find that the issue you are raising is entirely moot. The court doesn't weigh this kind of argument against the defendant.

The burden of disproof of citizenship is on the state or the claimant, not the *assumed* citizen under our Constitution. Any evidence to support the individual's claim of citizenship would outweigh a tenuous claim to the contrary. No judge in his right mind wants this case as it is more likely to render him/her an idiot before history rather than a legal scholar.

Barack Obama is not legally a U.S. natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between "December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986

Berg and others need to understand that this case cannot be made on either parsed fine print of outdated and probably unconstitutional law but under the PRESENT law on the books (as bad or good as that law might be). Obama has committed no crime and he is under no obligation to make the claimant's case for him. No court has deposed him on this matter nor asked for evidence. Berg is so off the deep end on this that he will drown in it.

I see no reference to actual text of the federal statutes you cite here, with the full citation of the applicable sections. When you make a legal case try putting the full text on the table before attempting to assert someone has to enforce yours or anyone else's misinterpretation of it. If as you say the argument is about a law that no longer exists ( you admitted this to be case implicitly already) then the issue is not merely moot it is tantamount to harassment and the only thing protecting Berg from a anti-defamation suit is probably the fact that Obama probably doesn't want to credit him even that much.

Fifth, As a point of fact I think we should look at the actual text of the 14th Amendment since that obviously predates even Obama's mothers birth.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction there of, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

and the rule with respect to the Presidency is Article II Section 1 of the Constitution

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.

Sixth; here is the full text of the GOVERNING LAW for the matter as it is written AND ENFORCED today.

Title 8 of the US Code, Section 1401

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
© a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

So one more point in this specious case; aside from the burden of proof being on Berg (and you) not Obama, aside from the fact that your case has no merit under present law; trying to make a case like this under now obsolete law is like trying to deny the vote to former slaves after the civil war on the basis of the fact that they were property not citizens at the time of their birth. Not only do the facts lack merit but the rationale is without legal or moral merit too.

The issue is not whether Obama was a natural born citizen under a now outdated law at the time of his birth, it is whether he is a natural born citizen under the law of the land TODAY when he is running for office. You have already admitted this to be the case. So in the words of the court:

Case closed.

[luv2increase]

Stop the press! Three people have filed lawsuits challenging Obama's status as a "natural born" US citizen! Not one, or two, but THREE! I mean, what harder evidence could you ask for?

Since we all know that the mere filing of a lawsuit is proof positive to it being a meritorious claim, I thought I'd add this additional lawsuit filed against Obama (he's obviously either "Satan" or a member of his "staff" in the eyes of certain people):

Hey buddy, I am just stating facts of what is going on. Don't shoot the messenger. There are actually 4 lawsuits now btw. The most important one, IMO, is now heading to the US Supreme Court which almost guarantees it will get more exposure before election day . I never once claimed that just because there are 4 lawsuits that it makes Obama guilty. I am looking at all the facts and making my decision based wholly on the said facts.


My question to you is if you've even read anything in this entire thread to make a statement as you have here? It seems as though you missed all the points make, sadly. Due you diligence and read before you made statements such as this if you want to be taken seriously next time.

Edited by luv2increase, 26 October 2008 - 09:13 PM.

[luv2increase]

Case closed.

Most definitely not... I was just making a rebuttal to your flawed logic. It is based on the time when a person is born. Look it up.


Anyways, if Obama even was born in Hawaii or was a "natural born citizen" because his mom was as you state, it doesn't matter. Obama lost his citizenship when he moved to Indonesia. At the time, Indonesia didn't offer dual citizenships, therefore Obama forfeited his US citizenship if he even had one at the time. Obama never reapplied for his US citizenship. Obama has never even registered for Selective Service as if required for citizens because he is not a citizen.


If Obama was born in Hawaii which he wasn't ---> he is not a "natural born citizen" because he lost it when he moved to Indonesia

If Obama wasn't born in Hawaii ---> it doesn't matter because he moved to Indonesia

Either way, he is not a US citizen and therefore may be facing the possibility of deportation if all this pans out against him.

Edited by luv2increase, 26 October 2008 - 09:27 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

Most definitely not... I was just making a rebuttal to your flawed logic. It is based on the time when a person is born. Look it up.

I did but anyway the burden is on YOU to prove a case not on others to make your case or disprove it. Look up burden of proof because so far you haven't met it..

Anyways, if Obama even was born in Hawaii or was a "natural born citizen" because his mom was as you state, it doesn't matter. Obama lost his citizenship when he moved to Indonesia. At the time, Indonesia didn't offer dual citizenships, therefore Obama forfeited his US citizenship if he even had one at the time. Obama never reapplied for his US citizenship. Obama has never even registered for Selective Service as if required for citizens because he is not a citizen.

Of course it matters. It takes a judicial decision with cause to lose a citizenship. You don't lose it because you travel abroad as a minor or as a adult. This is not yet a banana republic or some archaic satrap, you don't *lose* your citizenship because you leave the territory of the US except through a renunciation of citizenship or a violation of relevant law, like taking service in a foreign government. And even that won't violate it or a hell of a lot of lobbyists for the oil companies would have lost their citizenship a long time ago. No American citizen can lose their citizenship by *caveat* without considerable *due process* that annoying little thing that so many seem to forget is guaranteed by the Constitution.

Please before making up any more laws would you mind first citing Code, Statute and section for reference as well as providing a link because all the laws of the land are now on the internet and public record so if such laws as you suggest exist you should be able to find them.

If Obama was born in Hawaii which he wasn't ---> he is not a "natural born citizen" because he lost it when he moved to Indonesia

Irrelevant and an erroneous interpretation of law and fact. Where do you get these ideas?

If Obama wasn't born in Hawaii ---> it doesn't matter because he moved to Indonesia

Again irrelevant and an erroneous interpretation of law and fact.

Either way, he is not a US citizen and therefore may be facing the possibility of deportation if all this pans out against him.

Either way not even your conclusion has merit. He is not subject to deportation and he certainly is a citizen and even if he wasn't he would still be entitled to more due process than you are realizing to defend his interests. The burden of proof is still on you and the state not on him.

BTW could you please provide real evidence of him being subject to Selective Service first and second not registering before engaging in mere slander.
http://hyerstandard....ctive-services/

Barack Hussein Obama registered at a post office in Hawaii. The effective registration date was September 4, 1980.

His registration number is 61-1125539-1.

Daniel Amon
Public Affairs Specialist

If you were correct in the first assumption then he didn't have to register but since you are wrong and the Federal government recognizes his citizenship the subject should be put to rest. He did register and he is a citizen eligible for office.

I am astounded at the level of hysteria and hyperbole being thrown at this man.

For the record when Obama turned 18 and was living in Hawaii he didn't Have to apply for citizenship he already was a citizen. BTW did yo bother to see if he had been granted a passport for any of his travels even as a minor?

I got my first passport when I was 14 and my son got his when he was 6.

I should also say that I decided to respond to this thread not because I expect you to rationally examine the evidence but I figured it was wrong to let the totally erroneous and unsubstantial claims being made go unchallenged at all.