Reward Offered for Obama's birth certificate

CANADIEN · May 1, 2009

He may yet have to as the case is still very much alive.
It's interesting that Judge Robertson refers to Obama as being 'Native Born.' I mean, he has seen the documentation? If he has then possibly he might wish to explain what all is in it that allows him to make a determination without listening to the case and seeing the evidence. Unless of course, like everybody else, he has not, and, like some here, just bases what he wishes to be fact on assumption, a dangerous thing to do when one is in a position of power.

Imagine that. A judge knowing that a LEGAL document constitute a LEGAL proof of what is stated on it. And recognizing a frivolous lawsuit when a lawyer who loses his case in a court goes to another court trying the same thing using a different approach.

Well well, we can't have a judge understanding the law, now can we?

Edited May 1, 2009 by CANADIEN

CANADIEN · May 1, 2009

Evidently, those who have brought this matter forward in a court of law have no knowledge of any such examination. And, if you have proof, then let's see it.

Evendently, those who are bringing the issue to court, especially those who do it again and again and again in different courts trying different approaches have little understanding of the law.

Like each and every candidate, Barack Obama had to sweear an affidavit stating that he met the qualifications to become President of the United States. He has gone further, and released a legal document stating he was born in Honolulu.

The people who are now wasting court time are the ones who have to show evidence that Obama lied under oath, not the other way around. And they don't get to cry foul when judges state, correctly, that they do not meet the requirements set by the State of Hawaii as to whom they will release a certification or certificate of birth of another individual.

Dealing in assumptions is not proof of anything and, that is what the entire issue is all about.

The assumption here is yours, the assumption that people have to jump in hoops to prove what has already been proven, just because some lunatics refuse to join the realm of reality.

KrustyKidd · May 1, 2009

Imagine that. A judge knowing that a LEGAL document constitute a LEGAL proof of what is stated on it. And recognizing a frivolous lawsuit when a lawyer who loses his case in a court goes to another court trying the same thing using a different approach.
Well well, we can't have a judge understanding rhe law, bow can we?

A real Judge is a lawyer and lawyers never state a certainty unless they are willing to lay their reputation, carrear and, everything they have on that determination. As the Judge was not at Obama's birth and, he is only going by a document submitted by a state employee 45 years later, he can only strongly believe as there is no way that he knows.

In order to be certan beyond a reasonable doubt, one must see all the evidence, not take a side prior to based on a simple and possibly flawed belief.

Edit: In addition, given the gravity of the issue, the best document avialable should be posed for examination rather than the most easily produced. After all, if somehow, some proof is later produced that shows he is not natural born, then everything he has done up until that time can be challenged, even the election itself. To me, that is certainly worth a better than lame examination of everything don't you? After all, Palin has the doctor, time of her birth and the hospital as well as those in attendfence, we have only a piece of paper produced 45 years after the fact for Obama.

Edited May 1, 2009 by KrustyKidd

CANADIEN · May 1, 2009

Which people would that be? I doubt any of them even saw the document he is being asked to produce. And now, a small group of people wish to make sure the constitution is being adhered to by seeing a simple document an, it seems the entire US government, legal system and, people such as yourself are against that little piece of paper being looked at closely,
Unless of course, you can name a document expert who has verified this certificate. After all, this isn't a certification for running a moped, it's the President of the USA and everybody is just assuming?

The U.S. Constitution states that a candidate to the Presidency has to be natural born. Barack Obama has sworn an affidavit, swearing he meets all the requirements, as required by law, and has made public a legal document stating he was born in Hawaii.

The Court system has rejected attempts to force the State of Hawaii to break its own law and provide access toor copies of vital records to people who do not fall within the categories specified by law. It has also in one question rejected what is actually harassment though lawsuit, that is going from court to court in the hope of finding judges who will forget what the law is and what their job is.

Edited May 1, 2009 by CANADIEN

KrustyKidd · May 1, 2009

The U.S. Constitution states that a candidate to the Presidency has to be natural born. Barack Obama has sworn an affidavit, swearing he meets all the requirements, as required by law, and has made public a legal document stating he was born in Hawaii.
The Court system has rejected attempts to force the State of Hawaii to break its own law and provide access toor copies of vital records to people who do not fall within the categories specified by law. It has also in one question rejected what is actually harassment though lawsuit, that is going from court to court in the hope of finding judges who will forget what the law is and what their job is.

And through all this you don't for one second wonder why he won't release the origional document for examination. Incredible.

All it would take is for two years from now some picture of his mother at a hospital in Kenya with a baby in her arms to send the entire free world into turmoil. And that possibility is better than asking Obama to produce the original.

Talk about setting one's self up for a far right wing backlash.

CANADIEN · May 1, 2009

A real Judge is a lawyer and lawyers never state a certainty unless they are willing to lay their reputation, carrear and, everything they have on that determination. As the Judge was not at Obama's birth and, he is only going by a document submitted by a state employee 45 years later, he can only strongly believe as there is no way that he knows.

:lol:

Edit: In addition, given the gravity of the issue, the best document avialable should be posed for examination rather than the most easily produced. After all, if somehow, some proof is later produced that shows he is not natural born, then everything he has done up until that time can be challenged, even the election itself. To me, that is certainly worth a better than lame examination of everything don't you? After all, Palin has the doctor, time of her birth and the hospital as well as those in attendfence, we have only a piece of paper produced 45 years after the fact for Obama.

Looks like we have a new law theory. The legality of a document produced according to the rules of laws can be challenged and the State can be compelled to violate its own laws on the ground that some people claim, without producing any credible evidence whatsoever, that the document is based on a forgery and they may same day maybe, perhaps, possibly, who knows provide the evidence they are not currently providing.

KrustyKidd · May 1, 2009

:lol:
Looks like we have a new law theory. The legality of a document produced according to the rules of laws can be challenged and the State can be compelled to violate its own laws on the ground that some people claim, without producing any credible evidence whatsoever, that the document is based on a forgery and they may same day maybe, perhaps, possibly, who knows provide the evidence they are not currently providing.

No, the new theory is, that given the ramifications and the decades old document involved, a two year old certification from a state employee does not satisfy those who wish the President of the US to prove he is natural born. So, it looks like we have a new court system known as the internet discussion board of law. No document has been produced legally to support or refute the case as it has not yet come to a complete trial where the documents have been examined. That's the point. Some people want proof and, they don't accept a virtual copy given the gravity of the repercussions. That you don't understand their concern and, the ramifications if this is not 100% certain given the ease of which the unrefutable proof can be attained is strange. As I said, if anything comes up, every action, decision, dollar spent is out the window.

And, it can go on for years. Appeal after appeal, African certificates may show up, a photo, a few witnesses. Even if they're out to lunch why not just show the origional and put it to bed.

CANADIEN · May 1, 2009

And through all this you don't for one second wonder why he won't release the origional document for examination. Incredible.
All it would take is for two years from now some picture of his mother at a hospital in Kenya with a baby in her arms to send the entire free world into turmoil. And that possibility is better than asking Obama to produce the original.

Talk about setting one's self up for a far right wing backlash.

You convinced me. The Supreme Court of the United States should ORDER the State of Hawaii to take the birth certification from its file, in the presence of the Justices of the Court, the Governor of Hawaii, the Vice-President, each and everyone of the people who have filed a court claim, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, the Majority and Minority Leaders in both Houses, and the media.

It should also order that the certificate be brought to Washington, accompanied by a detachment of marines, that it be examined by forensic analysis experts (at least three, in case one has been brought by the Obama campaign), in the presence of all the people mentioned above. If the experts state that the document is authentic, the court should direct the FBI to check the finances of the experts.

Once that's done, the Court should order than each and every person whose name appears on the document and is still alive to testify, before it, that they indeed signed the document or did what it said they did. Their finances too should be examined.

Then, and only then, the Court should issue a statement that they BELIEVE that Barack Obama was born in hawaii. After all, they were not there. So, as experts at law, they know they should not state as a fact something they cannot prove.

After all, it is possible that someone, some day, will come public stating, and proving, that she saw Sarah Obama's mother walk in the hospital with the baby, hide for a few hours, then start running hysterically though the corridors screaming and demanding to know why nobody took care her her and baby Barack for five days after the birth. We know that's more plausible than Obama's releasing the original.

Edited May 1, 2009 by CANADIEN

CANADIEN · May 1, 2009

No, the new theory is, that given the ramifications and the decades old document involved, a two year old certification from a state employee does not satisfy those who wish the President of the US to prove he is natural born. So, it looks like we have a new court system known as the internet discussion board of law. No document has been produced legally(...)

Except a certification produced legally...

And that's not a legal theory. A legal theory is based (at least loosely), on the law. The theory we have here is that every lunatic whim should be entertained just because...

Edited May 1, 2009 by CANADIEN

KrustyKidd · May 1, 2009

You convinced me. The Supreme Court of the United States should ORDER the State of Hawaii to take the birth certification from its file, in the presence of the Justices of the Court, the Governor of Hawaii, the Vice-President, each and everyone of the people who have filed a court claim, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, the Majority and Minority Leaders in both Houses, and the media.
It should also order that the certificate be brought to Washington, accompanied by a detachment of marines, that it be examined by forensic analysis experts (at least three, in case one has been brought by the Obama campaign), in the presence of all the people mentioned above. If the experts state that the document is authentic, the court should direct the FBI to check the finances of the experts.

Once that's done, the Court should order than each and every person whose name appears on the document and is still alive to testify, before it, that they indeed signed the document or did what it said they did. Their finances too should be examined.

Once that''s done, and provided that the Court is satisfied that the document is indeed 47 years old, has not been tampered with, and that it is all the signatures and all it's supposed to have on it, it should politely ask Barack Obama to invoke article 3 of the 25th amendment and submits to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House his written delaration that he is unable to discharge his duty (which would make the Vice-President Acting President). This should last until such a time that he has provided for examination, in the same manner stated before, proof that he qualifies under the residency requirement, documents proving it being rental or house purchase agreements, receipts for rents ofr property taxes, affidavits sworn by everybody still alive who had lived within 300 years of each buiilding in the U.S. where he alledgedly lived.

And once that's done, we will still don't know for sure that his mother didn't give birth in Kenya then came to Hawaii and managed to fool every government and hospital staff she came though. After all, it is possible that someone, some day, will come public stating, and proving, that she saw Sarah Obama's mother walk in the hospital with the baby, hide for a few hours, then start running hysterically though the corridors screaming and demanding to know why nobody took care her her and baby Barack for five days after the birth. We know that's more plausible than Obama's releasing the original.

Simpler still, why not just produce the document and put the entire matter in Obama's favor for good beyond a reasonable doubt.

Why the obfuscation? It is only a piece of paper that will cease all credible detractors.

CANADIEN · May 1, 2009

That you don't understand their concern and, the ramifications if this is not 100% certain given the ease of which the unrefutable proof can be attained is strange.

Or course I do not understand their concerns. It's lunacy. And what you do not not understand (or wilfully ignore), is that they will NEVER be satisfied, they will ALWAYS come with something new.

CANADIEN · May 1, 2009

Simpler still, why not just produce the document and put the entire matter in Obama's favor for good beyond a reasonable doubt.
Why the obfuscation? It is only a piece of paper that will cease all credible detractors.

There is no reasonable doubt. Only rantings from the lunatic fringe, with no shreds of credible evidence.

The burden of proving things beyond a reasonable doubt belongs to those who claim wrong doings, since those wrongdoings would be clearly criminal in nature. The Office of the President of the United States is too important to have people who have provided LEGAL PROOF they qualify for the office been forced to jump through hoops every time some conspiracy nuts utter their latest nonsense.

And if you believe the detractors would just cease and desist, I have a nice parcel of swamp land to sell you in Florida. Heck, I'll give it for free.

Edited May 1, 2009 by CANADIEN

KrustyKidd · May 1, 2009

Or course I do not understand their concerns. It's lunacy. And what you do not not understand (or wilfully ignore), is that they will NEVER be satisfied, they will ALWAYS come with something new.

Oh I understand that many of them will never be happy however, this cooperation is quite easy to comply with and, is reasonable in my mind. Given all the evidence, these people would have no leg to satnd on as far as myself and, the majority of normal people. Myself, I believe he is a natural born American however, given the ease with which he can provide all the evidence yet refuses to do so is bullshit.

And, rather than closing a door, it leaves it open for his entire term. Sort of like the Bush Florida election thing with the possibility of a photo or witness appearing rather than a court verdict waiting to nullify every decision and action he accomplishes between Jan 20 and whenever.

And he does not provide the document to show the world he does not have to or, he is afraid, or it is incriminating or, he is just being a bitch? It costs more to defend and propagandize than it does to fly the damm thing out for examination.

CANADIEN · May 1, 2009

Oh I understand that many of them will never be happy however, this cooperation is quite easy to comply with and, is reasonable in my mind. Given all the evidence, these people would have no leg to satnd on as far as myself and, the majority of normal people. Myself, I believe he is a natural born American however, given the ease with which he can provide all the evidence yet refuses to do so is bullshit.

What is bullshit is YOUR refusal to admit that he had already submitted evidence, in the form of a legal document that fulfill the requirement to prove one's name, date and place of birth.

And he does not provide the document to show the world he does not have to or, he is afraid, or it is incriminating or, he is just being a bitch? It costs more to defend and propagandize than it does to fly the damm thing out for examination.

He does not provide the document or a copy bbbbecause:

a - he had already done what was required by law, and beyond

b- there is no logical or legal reason why he should be compelled to

KrustyKidd · May 1, 2009

What is bullshit is YOUR refusal to admit that he had already submitted evidence, in the form of a legal document that fulfill the requirement to prove one's name, date and place of birth.

Snopes was given access to the secondary 2007 BC. They are not a court BTW no matter what you think.

CANADIEN

He does not provide the document or a copy bbbbecause:
a - he had already done what was required by law, and beyond

b- there is no logical or legal reason why he should be compelled to

Please explain what 'beyond' means. And, I gave you the logical reason which is that everything he does between now and if an when a photo comes up that pl;aces his mother with a black bably in her arms with anything other than Hawaii in the background can possibly trash the entire USA for that period of time. He didn't submit squat to any court. A thing was posted on an internet site which is not a court of law as I explained earlier.

Now, why do you suppose he does not put this all to rest by confronting this in a court?

Edited May 1, 2009 by KrustyKidd

CANADIEN · May 1, 2009

Snopes was given access to the secondary 2007 BC. They are not a court BTW no matter what you think
CANADIEN

Please explain what 'beyond' means. And, I gave you the logical reason which is that everything he does between now and if an when a photo comes up that pl;aces his mother with a black bably in her arms with anything other than Hawaii in the background can possibly trash the entire USA for that period of time. He didn't submit squat to any court. A thing was posted on an internet site which is not a court of law as I explained earlier.

Now, why do you suppose he does not put this all to rest by confronting this in a court?

I do not think that websites are court of laws. That you mistakenly assume I believe this to be the case proves how little you understand.

The certification is, in and by itself, a legal proof of the birth. If a court of law asked: "Prove that you were born in Hawaii" and he submitted a birth certification similar to the one he submitted, the court would have to accept the document submitted unless it determined that there is reason to suspect that:

a - the document submitted is a forgery, that is it is not a certification, in which case it would be a criminal matter and the border of proof would belong to the party claiming the forgery

b - the certification the government files is a forgery, or false information was provided when the certificate was provided; same as a

c - the government agency did not follow its procedures when issuing the certification.

The court cases launched by the lunatics seeked to either;

a - force the State of Hawaii to give them access to the certificate or provide them with a copy of the certificate or a certification, or make the certificate, a copy thereof or a certification publicly available. The Courts dismissed all such cases on the ground that the plaintiffs had no legal standing to make such a request under Hawaiian law. In fact, the law FORBIDS the State of Hawaii to do such a thing, and a court cannot logically compel someone to break the law.

b - force Barack Obama to submit a copy of the certificate or the certificate itself to the Court. The Courts dismissed all such cases. Which proves they did not see any reason for them to order Obama to provide them with any documents; in other words, the cases had no merit.

As for the idea that you found a logical reason why Obama should have to jump into hoops in the vain hope of satusfying the lunatics... give me a break. The "if and when" argument is nothing but logical. It's in fact arguing that the President of the United States should act based on the possibility that somebody will one day produce a proof of something that has not been proved, for which there is not even a credible evidence, that can only be explained though the most ridiculous conspiracy theory in recent years, and that is disproved by all the credible evidence.

Might as well suggest that Barack Obama resigns here and now, since the lunatic will never be convinced and there will always be someone to say "OK, there's something in there that looks authentic, but what if it's still a fake prepared at the time by the hospital/the government/whoever with the right signatures so it can fool even experts, and one day someone may come with a photo of mommy Obama and her new born in Kenya".

Edited May 1, 2009 by CANADIEN

JerrySeinfeld · May 2, 2009

I love this topic. Why? Because it's a chance to see all the left wing 9-11 conspiracy theorists' heads explode.

jbg · May 3, 2009

What we have here is a combination of sore losers, right-winginuts and racists, who just cannot accept the Barck Obama won fair and square. And the usual assortment of conspiracy theorists.

I'd say the scam artists are those who are putting Obama's mug on everything from coins to mugs. They are making huge profits from simple minded lefties who think buying trinkets will allow them to own a piece of Obama. Sad really.

I didn't vote for the man but I'm constrained to agree. Further, the election was the time and place to thrash this out. Even though the Constitution spells out qualification for assuming the office of President no Court is going to venture into the affairs of a co-equal branch.

This dead horse should not be flogged further.

Do you believe that Obama would have been allowed to become President if he didn't meet the constitutional requirements?

Actually no one would deign to stop him once he's elected. The Courts have a tradition of avoiding ruling on "political questions" or issues best left to a coordinate branch of government.

I love this topic. Why? Because it's a chance to see all the left wing 9-11 conspiracy theorists' heads explode.

Justice is poetic sometimes. I try to be rational on both left and right issues even though politically I am a left-winger, close to being a non-violent extremist.

KrustyKidd · May 4, 2009

I do not think that websites are court of laws. That you mistakenly assume I believe this to be the case proves how little you understand.

No, I understand as you said not one post ago;

What is bullshit is YOUR refusal to admit that he had already submitted evidence, in the form of a legal document that fulfill the requirement to prove one's name, date and place of birth.

Submitted to an internet site owned by the Annenberg Foundation which is the group he used to head along with the terrorist Ayers. So, no court of law has seen it nor, has heard the case in it's entirety as it has never been submitted.

Might as well suggest that Barack Obama resigns here and now, since the lunatic will never be convinced and there will always be someone to say "OK, there's something in there that looks authentic, but what if it's still a fake prepared at the time by the hospital/the government/whoever with the right signatures so it can fool even experts, and one day someone may come with a photo of mommy Obama and her new born in Kenya".

No. As this is only the first of a few showing the origional would be a start. As his father was Kenyan he held dual citizenship, and later, he became an Indonesian citizen and there is no nullification docs he has a lot of catching up to do in order to clarify who he is and what countries he belongs to. As there is a verified visit of Kenya by his mother around the time of his birth, three separate hospitals in two countries that he and his relatives say he was born in and no record of him changing his nationality from Kenyan to US, US to Indonesian and then back to US you can understand some people wish to clarify this matter to be sure that he is even a US citizen rather than Indonesian or Kenyan. That there is criticism of those who have a question or two of his US citizenship when his Kenyan and Indonesian citizenship is undisputed strikes me strange.

Then again, Bush lied yet you cannot quote one of them so, not so strange.

CANADIEN · May 4, 2009

Edited for clarifications

Submitted to an internet site owned by the
Annenberg Foundation which is the group he used to head along with the terrorist Ayers.

The Annenberg Foundation has provided founding for a number of SEPARATE groups, charities and political study institute. These include 18 distinct projects under the Annenberg Challenge, launched in the 1990's to support initiatives aimed at improving public education. Barack obama sat on the Board of the Chicago Challenge (not the Annenberg Foundation) along with the terrorist Ayers and a number of people from academia, the education sector and business interests (I don't use Wikepedia that often, but they have a complete list of people who sat on the Chicago Challenge at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Annenberg_Challenge).

Factcheck.org is a Web site operated by the Annenberg Public Policy Centre, a program of the University of Pennsylvania that was established thanks to a grant fron the Annenberg Foundation, but is part of the University and is not managed by the Foundation.

A look at the Annenberg Foundation website as opposed to websites with weard names, would have revealed that. BTW, the foundation was founded by Walter Annenberg, a media moghul who became U.S. ambassador to the UK under Nixon and later introduced Ronald Reagan to Margaret Thatcher. His (now deceased) widow publicly supported Senator McCain during the last campaign. The pro-Obama bias is there for all to see.

So, no court of law has seen itnor, has heard the case in it's entirety as it has never been submitted.

A dozen FAILED attempts to compel the State of Hawaii to illegally provide access to the certificate in their records are not enough for you? The document that the Obama campaign made public was a valid official proof of the existence of a birth certificate in the records of the State of hawaii that states that Brack Obama II was born in Honolulu in 1961. This document would constitute sufficient proof of Obama's Hawaiian birth if submitted in any court of law.

Which is unlikely to happen because courts will not waste any more time than necessary on frivolous lawsuits.

No. As this is only the first of a few showing the origional would be a start. As his father was Kenyan he held dual citizenship, and later, he became an Indonesian citizen and there is no nullification docs he has a lot of catching up to do in order to clarify who he is and what countries he belongs to. As there is a verified visit of Kenya by his mother around the time of his birth, three separate hospitals in two countries that he and his relatives say he was born in and no record of him changing his nationality from Kenyan to US, US to Indonesian and then back to US you can understand some people wish to clarify this matter to be sure that he is even a US citizen rather than Indonesian or Kenyan. That there is criticism of those who have a question or two of his US citizenship when his Kenyan and Indonesian citizenship is undisputed strikes me strange.

It is a KNOWN fact that , under Kenyian laws, dual citizens (which Obama was at birth) automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship at 21 unless they renounce their other (in this case American citizenship). It's up to the conspiracy nutcases to provide evidence that he renounced his U.S. citizenship.

As for the claim he lost his American citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen and moved to Indonesia, this is not the case under American law. There are claims that he became an Indonesian citizen, but the "evidence" is circumstantial at best. Besides, if there was any reason for him to believe that he had lost his U.S. citizenship while in Indonesia, don't you think he would not have just taken the necessary steps to become a U.S. citizen again; after all, the U.S. Constitution says nothing about dual citizenship. But hey, it's a lot simplier to believe that he forged a birth certification but forgot to forge an application to regain his U.S. citizenship as well.

There are claims that some family members have stated that he was born in Kenya. Those claims are for the most part based on taped interviews of poor quality and what is heard varies depending on who is listening. As for the claim that Barack himself "admitted" to a Kenyian birth... pleeeeaaaase. Like the Clinton campaign and the McCain campaign would not have pounced on that one within 2 hours of such a statement. Like the mainstream media would not have picked up on it.

Those who have launched court cases have FAILED because, like any "good" conspiracy theorist, all they have is a wild imagination, rthe belief that if things did not turn out the way they wanted it must bbbe beecause someone did something wrong, and the belief that somehow 2+2=5.

It is not a coincidence that the head lunatic, Philip J. Berg, was also bbbehind a failed attempt to have George Bush and co. stand trial for blowing up the WTC. At least, his delusions are bi-partisan. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Then again, Bush lied yet you cannot quote one of them so, not so strange.

Let's see. I point you to the web page FROM THE WHITE HOUSE, and that's not enough. I point you to the very line, and that not good enough.

So here are the words (and you can go to the posting where I included the link, and check for yourself):

THE PRESIDENT: The United States of America does not torture. And that's important for people around the world to understand.

Edited May 4, 2009 by CANADIEN

jbg · May 5, 2009

Canadien -

Don't waste your breath fighting over the number of angels that fit on the head of a pin. Clearly, Obama is an American by any generally accepted definition. Quibbling over the technicalities of a Constitutional provision designed to knock out Tories and Alexander Hamilton from ever being President is besides the point.

KrustyKidd · May 5, 2009

Edited for clarifications
A look at the Annenberg Foundation website as opposed to websites with weard names, would have revealed that. BTW, the foundation was founded by Walter Annenberg, a media moghul who became U.S. ambassador to the UK under Nixon and later introduced Ronald Reagan to Margaret Thatcher. His (now deceased) widow publicly supported Senator McCain during the last campaign. The pro-Obama bias is there for all to see.

Oh I see. The foundation is totally impartial towards people they have given fifty million dollars to.

A dozen FAILED attempts to compel the State of Hawaii to illegally provide access to the certificate in their records are not enough for you? The document that the Obama campaign made public was a valid official proof of the existence of a birth certificate in the records of the State of hawaii that states that Brack Obama II was born in Honolulu in 1961. This document would constitute sufficient proof of Obama's Hawaiian birth if submitted in any court of law.

How about the cases that are still open and request that given the circumstances, ask for proof in a court of law rather than on an internet site funded by the same people that funded Obama?

Which is unlikely to happen because courts will not waste any more time than necessary on frivolous lawsuits.

A piece of paper is all it takes to shut this down. Instead, millions of dollars are being spent to prosecute and defend so please, spare me the friviality argument.

It is a KNOWN fact that , under Kenyian laws, dual citizens (which Obama was at birth) automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship at 21 unless they renounce their other (in this case American citizenship). It's up to the conspiracy nutcases to provide evidence that he renounced his U.S. citizenship.

Is it? To you, it was a well known fact that Obama's mother would give birth to a citizen if born outside the US yet you were wrong. She had to be a year older for this to occur. To you, it is a well known fact that you assume so many things yet have no proof such as what hospital Obama was born at, comparing his lack of hospital and attending doctor to Palin which I provided all the details in a moment. Even McCain provided his original birth certificate. You also said that Obama provided his birth certificate as evidence but he did not, instead simply placing it on his website. You assume he provided a valid birth certificate to become a senator and a residential candidate yet, I have found no evidence of this.

See, you assume all and when somebody actually wants to see it, they are refused. That is my entire point. Everybody assumes yet there is no solid proof save an internet site run by the same people that handed Obama and Ayers millions. An organization very unlikely to wish the embarrassment that they were handing that kind of money out to a terrorist and an illegal hence are very unlikely to be impartial in a worst case scenario and, more than likely bending over backwards to be positive in Obama's favor.

As for the claim he lost his American citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen and moved to Indonesia, this is not the case under American law. There are claims that he became an Indonesian citizen, but the "evidence" is circumstantial at best. Besides, if there was any reason for him to believe that he had lost his U.S. citizenship while in Indonesia, don't you think he would not have just taken the necessary steps to become a U.S. citizen again; after all, the U.S. Constitution says nothing about dual citizenship. But hey, it's a lot simplier to believe that he forged a birth certification but forgot to forge an application to regain his U.S. citizenship as well.

Actually, I don't claim that rather, threw that out to show that this is so muddled that any concrete proof rather than simple assumptions would clear it up a bit. And, the people of the US would be a little better off knowing that their president holds no dual citizenship, or, draw attention to it and the actions or assurances he is providing to quell any concerns. So, in a trade negotiation or the ludicrous scenario of war, when he is called upon to bomb Kenya or Indonesia what side of the fence is he going to land on?

There are claims that some family members have stated that he was born in Kenya. Those claims are for the most part based on taped interviews of poor quality and what is heard varies depending on who is listening. As for the claim that Barack himself "admitted" to a Kenyian birth... pleeeeaaaase. Like the Clinton campaign and the McCain campaign would not have pounced on that one within 2 hours of such a statement. Like the mainstream media would not have picked up on it.

There you go again, assuming. What they would have, or, not would have is not relevent to seeing the President's birth certificate. Possibly (if we are assuming like you often do) they felt they had him beat and that any action to discredit his being an American (when everybody just assumed he was) would create a backlash that would hurt them more.

He must be a natural born citizen and, has not proven it. Everybody just assumes and these people want proof. Surely, it is not too much to ask the leader of the free world to prove he was born in the US?

Those who have launched court cases have FAILED because, like any "good" conspiracy theorist, all they have is a wild imagination, rthe belief that if things did not turn out the way they wanted it must bbbe beecause someone did something wrong, and the belief that somehow 2+2=5.

Actually, as I said, I believe he is American however, there is a possibility he is not, given all the moves his mother made, the different nationalities his father and adopted father had. These people have every right to ask him to clear it up.

It is not a coincidence that the head lunatic, Philip J. Berg, was also bbbehind a failed attempt to have George Bush and co. stand trial for blowing up the WTC. At least, his delusions are bi-partisan. :lol:

He wants to see a piece of paper. You are happy in your assume world. Who is crazy?

Let's see. I point you to the web page FROM THE WHITE HOUSE, and that's not enough. I point you to the very line, and that not good enough.

And it is not enough that you didn't read my response from before which is that the actions were legal interrogation techniques at the time this statement occurred hence your quote is crap proof. Come to think of it, you haven't proved anything except that you assume a lot of things.

KrustyKidd · May 5, 2009

JPG

Clearly, Obama is an American by any generally accepted definition.

Whenever I read the word 'clearly' in an argument, I always know it is not so clear. So please, now is your opportunity to show how clear it is by showing the original document to me or, an agent whom I would accept an impartial examination of that document.

Him, being where he is, without ever showing this document to a hostile or impartial body is not so clear.

Oleg Bach · May 5, 2009

It would not matter if a document was presented that countered their constitution - no one regards or respects the law down there anyway..it's a non-issue.

CANADIEN · May 5, 2009

Is it? To you, it was a well known fact that Obama's mother would give birth to a citizen if born outside the US yet you were wrong.

I have admitted it, my reading of that particcular piece of legislation was fauty, and I corrected myself. I have made another mistake as well... wasting my time with a conspiracy nut.

No longer. When you have something that looks like the shadow of an evidence of any the stupid claims espouses by the lunatics (that he was born in Kenya, that he was never a U.S. citizen, that he has lost his citizenship, that he currently holds Kenan and or Indonesian citizenship, that an independant fact checking think-thank is not to be trusted because they received funding from the same source that funded dozen of political research and education advocacy programs including one Obama was involved with, that just providing in a court of law the information he has made public would shut the imbeciles up), I may waste my time commenting. Until then, feel free to defy logic without me.

and it is not enough that you didn't read my response from before which is that the actions were legal interrogation techniques at the time this statement occurred hence your quote is crap proof.

In the ewal world, torture techniques are torture techniques, no matter how legal one declares them to be.

I used to be content to just think Bush did n't know what he was talking about. Not now that the White House has relased memos detailing some approved interrogation techniques that constitute tortures.