OBAMA is being sued for Lying about he being Native Born (Putin, campaign)

[mommytotwo]

Originally Posted by KantLockeMeIn

It's not about what makes sense... it's about what the laws were at the time. And the law said that if a US citizen and a non-citizen had a baby on non-US soil, the mother had to be at least 19 years old to pass on her citizenship to the child.

Section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S.C. §1401(b), Matter of S-F-and G-, 2 I & N

Wow! It still doesn't make sense, even if it is the law. Sorry...... Not all laws make sense.

[KantLockeMeIn]

Originally Posted by mommytotwo

Wow! It still doesn't make sense, even if it is the law. Sorry...... Not all laws make sense.

Agreed. There's a law against spitting on the capitol lawn in Richmond, VA... and another one that prohibits cars from driving down one of the main roads after 6 PM because it would scare the horses during the horse & buggy days.

But it sure would be interesting to see this one played out in court.

[mommytotwo]

I just googled that law you mentioned up there.

All I could find in a few seconds of searching on the net were references to the current lawsuit against Obama which is the topic of this thread.

I am going to ask my brother in law to look this up and explain it to me. He is an attorney.

One thing I opened up during my 10 second search, was the copy of the lawsuit, which appears to allege that Obama may have been born in Kenya on August 4, 1961. It goes on to say that "There are records of a "registry of birth" for Obama, on or about August 8, 1961 in the public records office in Hawaii."

Let me tell you something. I used to work in a town clerk's office where we registered 5,000 births per year. I don't think we EVER registered a birth 4 days after it took place. Things just don't work that fast.

Back in the old days, it was more common.

However, that being said, if there is ONE thing on this thread that makes me disbelieve this whole thing as a load of garbage, is the theory that a kid could be born in KENYA, or ANYWHERE OUTSIDE HAWAII, and it woudl be registerd in Hawaii FOUR DAYS LATER.

There is paperwork to be done here, people. Unless we are ready to say that Obama or his parents or grandparents are lying about his date of birth in general. There is simply no way that he could have been born in Kenya on 8/4 and his birth be registered in Hawaii on 8/8. This would not be possible. No Way.

And I ask all of you conspiracy theorists, WHY would they have lied back then about the date of birth if he was born in Kenya and they were registering it in Hawaii? They had no IDEA that this kid would eventually grow up and maybe become president of the US......

[mommytotwo]

Originally Posted by KantLockeMeIn

Agreed. There's a law against spitting on the capitol lawn in Richmond, VA... and another one that prohibits cars from driving down one of the main roads after 6 PM because it would scare the horses during the horse & buggy days.

But it sure would be interesting to see this one played out in court.

Yes, yes it would be interesting. Good night!!

[Brian.Pearson]

I never thought this kind of thing would ever be a factor. If Obama wins the election, and citizenship is not proven, then who is acting president? Biden?

[Icy Tea]

This was mentioned about 3 months ago. If they have anything they better get it out NOW. But I do think Obama is too secretive about many things. He won't release his college records, his health records( okay I know a VERY brief health report was released but McCain released everything), and his birth certificate was sketchy at best.
We don't need a Whitewater style investigation 6 months into the Obama presidency assuming he gets elected.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by Brian.Pearson

That's not his birth certificate. It is a secondary source, not a primary one, which would be Certificate of Live Birth. The one you linked to is "Certification of Live Birth." We need the real one.

It is as primary and as real a source as the state of Hawaii issues. It is exactly what will be sent to anyone born in that state who requests a copy of his or her birth certficate. It has the same signatures, it has the same raised seal, it has the same state endorsement of authenticity, and it carries the same full legal weight as the documentation of birth available to any citizen born in Hawaii. Perhaps Phillip Berg can also sue to remove the voting rights of all those whose claim to citizenship is based upon having been born in that state.

And while we're on the subject of Mr. Berg, let's note that it is in fact the document linked to that his suit claims is a forgery. And what sort of documentation has Berg offered? He claims that three forensic experts have concluded that the document is a fake. Who are his three experts? So far they appear actually to be two bloggers, neither of whom has any verifiable credentials as a forensic expert. One has been identified by name, Ron Polarik, and it is claimed that he holds a PhD in Instructional Media, that he specializes in computer graphics, and that he has 20 years experience working with computers, printers, and typewriters. While some have tried, that name and bio have not yet been connected to any actual living individual. The second apparent expert is known only as TechDude, a poster at AtlasShrugs2000 who claims to be a member of every forensics group known to mankind, and also claims that leftists have tried to imtimidate him in his work by vandalizing his car and by leaving a mutilated dead rabbit on his doorstep. Berg has now claimed that TechDude is actually NOT one of his experts. He has not however revealed who any of them are beyond Ron Polarik. And what document is it that these experts claim to be a forgery? The analyses of both Polarik and TechDude were of a scanned image posted earlier this year at Daily KOS. Neither of these experts has ever had access to the actual document provided by the state of Hawaii, as factcheck.org did.

Pending further developments in this lawsuit (should there actually be any), we would seem to be left to choose between credibility based upon the full faith and credit of the state of Hawaii on the one hand, and credibility based on the say-so of a partisan who fronts for the writings of a couple of unidentified and uncredentialed internet personnae on the other. People will have to call them as they see them, I guess.

On a related note, once one has US citizenship, the laws of other nations don't actually matter. There is really only one way to lose US citizenship, and that it is to present one's self in a competent venue and state of mind, and then to voluntarily assert and confirm one's intention of renouncing that citizenship. The Department of State is the arbiter in such matters, and its administrative standards establish a STRONG presumption that despite any other acts, individuals wish to retain US citizenship up until the point where they in fact present themselves and offer such a competent and voluntary assertion and confirmation.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by KantLockeMeIn

The laws of today don't apply, rather the laws of the time period in question. During that timeframe Indonesia did not recognize dual citizenship. At that time he would have had to renounce his Indonesian citizenship by the age of 21.
.

The only law that is appicable is US law. If Obama was recognized at the time of birth as a US citizens, nothing that any other country does, or that his parents do before adulthood, can negate that. If in additioin to citizenship, he was born in territory under the direct jurisdiction of the USA, he is eligible to serve as president after attaining the age of 35.

A country can recognize anything it chooses to recognize, but it has no power to nullify a another country's recognition of citizenship. Indonsia can refuse to reecognize a dual citizenship has having any validity while in Indonesia, but it cannot force the US to refuse to recognize the citizenship of a person that has a valid claim to US citizenship. If the US says he has a claim to US citizenship, there is nothing Indonesia can do to negate that.

Adults can unwittingly do things abroad that could affect their claim on US citizenship, but nothing done by a minor or his parents or guardians can ever result in a loss of claim to US citizenship. Thge mere fact that an American has a legal right to assume citizenship of another country does not affect US citizenship unliess the US citizenship is renounced. My father retained a legal claim to Irish nationality, based on birth of a grandparent, but the US never required that he renounce that right in order to retain my US citizenship.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by mommytotwo

Let me tell you something. I used to work in a town clerk's office where we registered 5,000 births per year. I don't think we EVER registered a birth 4 days after it took place. Things just don't work that fast.

Back in the old days, it was more common.

Without computers? Yeah, it took a lot more time.

In 1961, about 1/5 of Americans were born at home, and not in a hospital, and births were registered by mid-wives, when it was convenient for them, especially in rural counties where the county seat might be require quite a trip, and there were no interstate highways through that area.

Originally Posted by mommytotwo

However, that being said, if there is ONE thing on this thread that makes me disbelieve this whole thing as a load of garbage, is the theory that a kid could be born in KENYA, or ANYWHERE OUTSIDE HAWAII, and it woudl be registerd in Hawaii FOUR DAYS LATER.

Not if it was a fraudulent registration and the original paperwork was altered or contained false information.

Originally Posted by mommytotwo

There is paperwork to be done here, people. Unless we are ready to say that Obama or his parents or grandparents are lying about his date of birth in general. There is simply no way that he could have been born in Kenya on 8/4 and his birth be registered in Hawaii on 8/8. This would not be possible. No Way.

It certainly is possible.

We're talking 1961 Hawaii, a very rural state that had only been a state for 2 or 3 years at the time, and of course, knowing a few well connected people willing to help you makes anything possible.

Originally Posted by mommytotwo

And I ask all of you conspiracy theorists, WHY would they have lied back then about the date of birth if he was born in Kenya and they were registering it in Hawaii? They had no IDEA that this kid would eventually grow up and maybe become president of the US......

Being president has nothing to do with it. If you discovered that the citizenship status of your child might be in question because of the circumstances of his birth, you'd go to any lengths to ensure he had citizenship, even if it meant exaggerating the truth quite a bit and falsifying information on documents.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by KantLockeMeIn

It's not about what makes sense... it's about what the laws were at the time.

This is a questionable claim. The Constitution does not define natural-born citizen. Such status has been defined by a long series of statutes and revisions to statutes, many of which have operated concurrently and many of which have operated retroactively. Sen. Obama is not running for President in 1952. He is running for President in 2008. The only natural-born status that is relevant is that which applies to him today. He would certainly appear to have it by virtue of a Hawaiian birth certificate, the laws of registry of that state having not been found in contravention of relevant federal statute, either at the time of Hawaii's admission to statehood or at any time since. Even under the various unlikely and undocumented scenarios suggested by such as Mr. Berg, there do not appear to be any that would lead to an alternate conclusion.