Obama Birth Certificate Controversy

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]Sifu wrote:
tedro wrote:
The Supreme Court’s Hottest Potato

http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/p_hollrah/2009/01202009.htm

There is a glaring hole in the argument put forward in this article. I’ll show you.

“If Obama was born in Kenya, as charged, he would have been born a British subject, his father?s nationality, and remains a British subject today.”

"Obama traveled to Indonesia to see his mother and from there to Pakistan for three weeks. Unfortunately for Obama, Pakistan was then on the U.S. State Department?s no-travel list, making it impossible to travel to Pakistan on a U.S. passport.

The only reasonable alternative is that Obama traveled on an Indonesian passport, a document that could be obtained only by an Indonesian citizen. In that event, Obama would be an Indonesian citizen today."

Under British law, British subjects are not allowed to renounce their British citizenship. This is the law that the British used after the revolution to stop American ships and conscript their crewmen into the Royal navy, which caused the war of 1812.

If through Obama’s father and or birth in Kenya Obama is a British citizen he will be for life. If that is the case he could have a British passport or he could have been on his fathers passport. Pakistan is a British commonwealth country. So it could be possible that Obama got into Pakistan on a British passport. [/quote]

You are talking out of your arse, you can renounce British citizenship by making a declaration to the Home Secretary.

Here is a link to the form that you would need to fill out

http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/applicationforms/nationality/form_rn.pdf

Though if he is British does that mean we have taken back over to dig you out of the mess you have got yourselves into?

102

[quote]Professor X wrote:
tedro wrote:
eddie407 wrote:
I’m so glad I don’t look at this politics page much on this site. I never imagined the
extent of wishful thinking that could prevail in people’s minds.

Comparisons between this birth certificate accusation and the Bush v. Gore decision in 2000 are ludicrous. Bush v. Gore was a very controversial decision that the Supreme Court specifically excluded from consideration as a precedent for future cases (so it can’t be used against one of their guys later?).

This birth certificate bullshit, and the suggestion that Justice Roberts failure to read the Presidential Oath accurately means that Obama isn’t really President are the pathetic flailings of mental weakness. Oh, and about Socialism invading the government’s structure, Bush already did that, but it was socialism for Wall Street.

Saying the Oath accurately was indeed an issue, as the constitution is very clear that it must be said word for word. This problem was rectified when he retook the oath yesterday and is now a non-issue.

The birth certificate controversy on the other hand is a huge issue as Obama is yet to ascertain his eligibility based on the natural born citizen clause. Instead of proving his eligibility, he has chosen to spend upwards of a million dollars on legal fees to prevent anyone from seeing the documents that would prove his eligibility, or lack thereof.

For all the rhetoric he has been spouting recently about transparency, he sure is being very secretive about his origins and citizenship status. It just doesn’t make any sense to spend a million dollars when all he has to do is show a simple document.

LOL. 4 years of this?[/quote]

Not necessarily. There are a few ways this could be put to rest. One would involve Obama voluntarily allowing his vault copy to be examined, which isn’t going to happen. Another way would be sometime in the next four years a legal challenge to see what is on his vault copy succeeds. That is not looking too likely either.

A third way would be for one or more of the fifty states to enact a new law requiring a presidential candidate to provide proof that he meets the constitutional requirements worded in such a way that he will have to release his vault copy to run for reelection or if they could even word it in such a way that he will have to prove that he is eligible now.

Something that I don’t think a lot of people understand about this issue is this. As matters stand right now there is no official body responsible for ensuring that presidential candidates meet the legal requirements to be president. Right now it is done purely on the honor system.

The birth certificate that Obama has provided can be issued based upon the honor system. If you read the law that certificate does not even require that the baby that it was issued to be born in the state of Hawaii.

This was posted earlier in this thread.

Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the childs birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence. The parents would be issued a Certification of Live Birth.

Professor X you are an intelligent reasonable person, surely you must be able to understand that Obama’s spending a lot of money fighting to keep his vault copy birth certificate secret is going to make people wonder what he has to hide.

Especially when it is the vault copy that contains the information that is pertinent as to whether or not he is eligible to be president.

If this truly is just a partisan hack job why doesn’t he just put it to rest?

103

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
tedro wrote:
The Supreme Court’s Hottest Potato

http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/p_hollrah/2009/01202009.htm

There is a glaring hole in the argument put forward in this article. I’ll show you.

“If Obama was born in Kenya, as charged, he would have been born a British subject, his father?s nationality, and remains a British subject today.”

"Obama traveled to Indonesia to see his mother and from there to Pakistan for three weeks. Unfortunately for Obama, Pakistan was then on the U.S. State Department?s no-travel list, making it impossible to travel to Pakistan on a U.S. passport.

The only reasonable alternative is that Obama traveled on an Indonesian passport, a document that could be obtained only by an Indonesian citizen. In that event, Obama would be an Indonesian citizen today."

Under British law, British subjects are not allowed to renounce their British citizenship. This is the law that the British used after the revolution to stop American ships and conscript their crewmen into the Royal navy, which caused the war of 1812.

If through Obama’s father and or birth in Kenya Obama is a British citizen he will be for life. If that is the case he could have a British passport or he could have been on his fathers passport. Pakistan is a British commonwealth country. So it could be possible that Obama got into Pakistan on a British passport.

You are talking out of your arse, you can renounce British citizenship by making a declaration to the Home Secretary.

Here is a link to the form that you would need to fill out

http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/applicationforms/nationality/form_rn.pdf

Though if he is British does that mean we have taken back over to dig you out of the mess you have got yourselves into?[/quote]

I am not talking out of my arse at all. Sure they have obviously now amended the law, but that form is dated April 2008 and the only other date on it refers to the nationalities act of 1981. So it looks like the law changed after the dates in question.

Also the law requires that you fill out the form and send it in to the Home Secretary. So without that you can retain British citizenship. I am right you are wrong.

104

You stated

This is not correct, as I have clearly pointed out. You are therefore not right.

Yes had he renounced his nationality there would be a paper trail but equally were he a British National there would also be a paper trail. Which, one of the people trying to do him down would have uncovered; therefore showing that your point is not only wrong, it is moot.

105

As for the 1981 act it was to tidy up some problems that were outstanding from the 1948 act.

It allowed women to pass on nationality in the same way as men for instance, it also removed the automatic assumption of nationality by a British Nationals wife finally it tidied up the status of some of the colonies (indirectly it was also one of the causes of the Falklands war.)

In fact you have been able to renounce your citizenship of Britain since 1870 so unless you are claiming that Obama is 138 you have no argument at all and are continuing to look like a total prat.

106

[quote]
The birth certificate controversy on the other hand is a huge issue as Obama is yet to ascertain his eligibility based on the natural born citizen clause. Instead of proving his eligibility, he has chosen to spend upwards of a million dollars on legal fees to prevent anyone from seeing the documents that would prove his eligibility, or lack thereof.

For all the rhetoric he has been spouting recently about transparency, he sure is being very secretive about his origins and citizenship status. It just doesn’t make any sense to spend a million dollars when all he has to do is show a simple document.[/quote]

You see it as a huge issue, and I think it is as well. However, to the general population it is a fringe conspiracy theory, Joseph Farah’s petition notwithstanding. Nor don’t think the poll done by the New Media Journal is accurate.

I would say their 50% that are concerned about the issue are mostly part of the 40 of Americans that didn’t vote. If it is true, then why was he still elected? 50% of Americans just got concerned about it within the last month?

What’s a million dollars to the president of the US. Wouldn’t it be so much more valuable to the democratic party if, after a major effort, conservatives were to get this before a judge, then Obama’s lawyers whip out the real deal after some pious crap about regretfully wasting time dealing with the haters in our society. That’s what the major network take would be on it.

107

[quote]Professor X wrote:
tedro wrote:
eddie407 wrote:
I’m so glad I don’t look at this politics page much on this site. I never imagined the
extent of wishful thinking that could prevail in people’s minds.

Comparisons between this birth certificate accusation and the Bush v. Gore decision in 2000 are ludicrous. Bush v. Gore was a very controversial decision that the Supreme Court specifically excluded from consideration as a precedent for future cases (so it can’t be used against one of their guys later?).

This birth certificate bullshit, and the suggestion that Justice Roberts failure to read the Presidential Oath accurately means that Obama isn’t really President are the pathetic flailings of mental weakness. Oh, and about Socialism invading the government’s structure, Bush already did that, but it was socialism for Wall Street.

Saying the Oath accurately was indeed an issue, as the constitution is very clear that it must be said word for word. This problem was rectified when he retook the oath yesterday and is now a non-issue.

The birth certificate controversy on the other hand is a huge issue as Obama is yet to ascertain his eligibility based on the natural born citizen clause. Instead of proving his eligibility, he has chosen to spend upwards of a million dollars on legal fees to prevent anyone from seeing the documents that would prove his eligibility, or lack thereof.

For all the rhetoric he has been spouting recently about transparency, he sure is being very secretive about his origins and citizenship status. It just doesn’t make any sense to spend a million dollars when all he has to do is show a simple document.

LOL. 4 years of this?[/quote]

LOL, I sure hope so!