WWTBAM Bored

A new lawsuit has been filed against the Secretary of State of California seeking to bar her from certifying the presidential election results until verification of Obama's status as a natural born citizen is obtained. The suit has been brought by Alan Keyes who was on the ballot in California as the Presidential candidate of America's Independent Party (the logo for this party appears as my avatar). If anyone has standing to bring a suit of this nature, I would think that it would be a candidate for the same office. Here is the suit: http://www.soundinvestments.us/files/fi ... _bowen.pdf

Personally, I hope Obama does produce his certificate of live birth so that we can everyone can move on. I would hate to see a Constitutional crisis erupt if Obama is found ineligible for the office.

Ooooohhhhhh.....haven't heard from ol' Alan Keyes in a while:

I never understand where you all think he was born if not in the U.S. A cave in Afghanistan, perhaps?

danielh41 wrote:Personally, I hope Obama does produce his certificate of live birth so that we can everyone can move on.

Yeah, it's clear that you want everyone to just move on. Too bad everyone else won't follow your admirable example.

danielh41 wrote:A new lawsuit has been filed against the Secretary of State of California seeking to bar her from certifying the presidential election results until verification of Obama's status as a natural born citizen is obtained. The suit has been brought by Alan Keyes who was on the ballot in California as the Presidential candidate of America's Independent Party (the logo for this party appears as my avatar). If anyone has standing to bring a suit of this nature, I would think that it would be a candidate for the same office. Here is the suit: http://www.soundinvestments.us/files/fi ... _bowen.pdf

Personally, I hope Obama does produce his certificate of live birth so that we can everyone can move on. I would hate to see a Constitutional crisis erupt if Obama is found ineligible for the office.

According to the case TheCalvinator found, he wouldn't have standing in Texas because he waited until after he lost the election to file the lawsuit. --Bob

danielh41 wrote:I would hate to see a Constitutional crisis erupt if Obama is found ineligible for the office.

Would you hate it? Really?


To quote John McCain from his recent Leno appearance: "I just think the last thing America wants is a sore loser."

madamemeisha wrote:I never understand where you all think he was born if not in the U.S. A cave in Afghanistan, perhaps?

There is at least a shred of evidence that he was born in Kenya, not Hawaii. I have no reason to believe that evidence - and I don't support this suit at all. If he was in fact born in Hawaii there should be a contemporaneous birth certificate that he has been unable or unwilling to produce.

gotribego26 wrote:

madamemeisha wrote:I never understand where you all think he was born if not in the U.S. A cave in Afghanistan, perhaps?

There is at least a shred of evidence that he was born in Kenya, not Hawaii. I have no reason to believe that evidence - and I don't support this suit at all. If he was in fact born in Hawaii there should be a contemporaneous birth certificate that he has been unable or unwilling to produce.

It's on his Web site. It has been for months. And I believe someone found a contemporaneous story in the Honolulu newspaper mentioning his birth. --Bob

Daniel, Daniel, Daniel,

You are starting to sound very much like the 'old' SSS, trolling various blogs to find anything that might seem to discredit the people with whom you disagree, while not exercising any judgment at all in deciding what you will post. SSS stopped his 'Republican Family Values' posts (in which he would cite cases involving misbehaving Republicans and attempt to tar all Republicans with the same brush) when he finally came to realize that the 'mainstream media' has an agenda of its own and will favor/fawn over its preferred candidates to the detriment of others (it helped that his preferred candidate finally happened to be on the losing end of media bias). But while SSS does post a lot of 'Obama is evil' stuff, he does, at least, know when NOT to post something that is truly absurd-- like your post that began this thread, in which you bring up-- again-- an allegation against Obama that was not only debunked months ago, but the documentation that debunks it was posted in this forum (and elsewhere). Your recent posting about 'Liberals' (the gay activists who were trashing religious services) was more typical of the 'old' SSS, but it is part of the same pattern.

Some people on the Bored ignore political posts entirely, out of principle, preferring not to become involved in any of them (kind of, 'don't talk about money, religion or politics with friends'). Others of us (sometimes) find something of interest in political posts, and are occasionally interested in debating issues that are raised. But your political posts have, sadly, gone well over the edge, and now seem entirely sunk, far in the deep end. For example, your 'Liberals' post cited an article that did not, at any point, mention 'Liberals,' nor did any 'Liberals,' anywhere, advocate or support the actions described in that article, and while everyone (I am certain) on this Bored would have shared your revulsion at the actions described in that article, you pretty much managed to antagonize people who might otherwise have been your allies by running off on some weird tangent, linking those actions to 'Liberals' who had nothing to do with those actions. Similarly, in this thread, you are hashing up allegations about Obama that were discredited MONTHS ago, and the documentation refuting those stupid allegations has been posted in this Bored (and elsewhere).

You are certainly entitled to your beliefs and your opinions, but if you want anyone to take you or your beliefs or opinions seriously, you might try being a bit more judicious in your selection of what you post. Anyone can make a mistake, anyone can be wrong from time to time, but really, when you post nonsense, and persist in doing it, you just look silly, so that even if the underlying ideas behind your arguments are valid, you end up refuting them yourself.

Please, stop it.

wintergreen48 wrote:Daniel, Daniel, Daniel,...

rec, rec, rec, and rec some more.

Well said, wg.

Bob78164 wrote:It's on his Web site. It has been for months. And I believe someone found a contemporaneous story in the Honolulu newspaper mentioning his birth. --Bob

What is on his website is a report, printed on a laser printer, and supposedly certified by the local registrar. A legal document of proof I guess, but far from some original document that has been around since he was born.

As far as the newspaper article. It was printed 9 days after he was born and did not indicate a location of the birth.

I'm not saying any of the above are false, they just don't make for solid undeniable evidence.

Myself, I would prefer he open up his college records to let us see what he didn't want us to see.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:It's on his Web site. It has been for months. And I believe someone found a contemporaneous story in the Honolulu newspaper mentioning his birth. --Bob

What is on his website is a report, printed on a laser printer, and supposedly certified by the local registrar. A legal document of proof I guess, but far from some original document that has been around since he was born.

I needed a copy of my birth certificate several years ago. (my mother had never given it to me & couldn't find it) The copy provided by the city clerk (keeper of such records in New York State at the time) bore no resemblance to the original document, being reproduced on the current form. Given that few states have the funds to convert these records to digital, my guess that this is what happened here.

BackInTex wrote:As far as the newspaper article. It was printed 9 days after he was born and did not indicate a location of the birth.

In Albany, the local paper just published the birth announcements for late April. I think 9 days is pretty good.

I thought this had already been debunked as well. And I shall consider it so.

Another question, since I'm ignorant. If you're born in a foreign country to a US citizen, you're a US citizen, correct? Which terminology applies?

From wikipedia: Through birth abroad to one United States citizen
For persons born on or after November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true:[4]

One of the person's parents was a U.S. citizen when the person in question was born;
The citizen parent lived at least 5 years in the United States before his or her child's birth;
A minimum of 2 of these 5 years in the United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday

Beebs52 wrote:I thought this had already been debunked as well. And I shall consider it so.

Another question, since I'm ignorant. If you're born in a foreign country to a US citizen, you're a US citizen, correct? Which terminology applies?

Apparently not "natural born".

Another question, since I'm ignorant. If you're born in a foreign country to a US citizen, you're a US citizen, correct? Which terminology applies?

Yes! But it goes by whatever the law was at the time of the birth (they change sometimes.)

This is the possible loophole the challengers wish to exploit (IIRC!): The US citizen parent must have resided in the US for at least 10 years -- including 5 years after reaching the age of 16. Since Stanley Ann was 18 years old when Barack was born, she wasn't old enough to meet that requirement.

Snopes take here.

Beebs52 wrote:Another question, since I'm ignorant. If you're born in a foreign country to a US citizen, you're a US citizen, correct? Which terminology applies?

We've had this conversation before and some have told me my understanding is wrong.

I am such a person - I was born in a Spanish hospital - my father was a naval officer born in IL, my mother was also born in IL. At birth I was not a citizen of the US. I was eligible to be a naturalized citizen if my guardians wanted me to become one up until the age of majority. My family returned to the US when I was 18 months old - I was naturalized about a year later (I was naturalized about 3 hours before JFK was assassinated).

My parents were told at the time it was not clear whether I was eligible to be president - the clause on this reads.

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;

Immigration law refers to "native-born" and "naturalized" citizens - the meaning of natural born citizen is not clear. I knew an immigration lawyer about 10 years ago - he told me he believed that a court would hold a person in my situation would be eligible to serve as president.

I did not ask if this would be different if there was only one American parent.

After further research at the INS site and a few others I can't figure why I was naturalized. I suspect the laws were different then - but everything I read now says I have been a citizen from birth. I will ask my parents but I think perhaps they naturalized me in order to renounce Spanish citizenship.

I did find that it is not clear whether I qualify as a "natural-born" citizen - its appears likely I would, but it has not been settled.

wintergreen48 wrote:Daniel, Daniel, Daniel,

You are starting to sound very much like the 'old' SSS, trolling various blogs to find anything that might seem to discredit the people with whom you disagree, while not exercising any judgment at all in deciding what you will post. SSS stopped his 'Republican Family Values' posts (in which he would cite cases involving misbehaving Republicans and attempt to tar all Republicans with the same brush) when he finally came to realize that the 'mainstream media' has an agenda of its own and will favor/fawn over its preferred candidates to the detriment of others (it helped that his preferred candidate finally happened to be on the losing end of media bias). But while SSS does post a lot of 'Obama is evil' stuff, he does, at least, know when NOT to post something that is truly absurd-- like your post that began this thread, in which you bring up-- again-- an allegation against Obama that was not only debunked months ago, but the documentation that debunks it was posted in this forum (and elsewhere). Your recent posting about 'Liberals' (the gay activists who were trashing religious services) was more typical of the 'old' SSS, but it is part of the same pattern.

I believe that the suit in Pennsylvania has been granted cert by the Supreme Court to see if a private citizen has standing to challenge Obama's (or any candidate's) natural born status. The Supreme Court has been reluctant to allow lawsuits against Presidents due to the nuisance value as well as the problems inherent in discovery (it was Clinton's deposition that got him in trouble). So from a strictly legal standpoint, it is an interesting question as to how, and under what conditions, anyone could challenge a presidential candidate (or president elect or president).

Having said this, I think it's ludicrous to think that a very pregnant woman would fly all the way to Kenya in 1961 to have a baby when the father had not shown much in the way of potential paternal instincts while he was here. And even if this happened, Obama's mother was an American citizen, which would make him a natural born citizen in any event. I would venture that there are a lot of people in their 40's and older who might have trouble producing copies of their birth certificates if pressed, owing as much to slipshod recordkeeping in many hospitals as to anything else.

I still think that there has been a lot to Obama's past that has conveniently been ignored by the press, including the state senate records that have disappeared, his college records (it's interesting that the press can track down people who can attest to Sarah Palin's lack of apparent scholarship but not to Obama's stay in college which occurred in far more prestigious colleges at the same time), and his medical records. But other than the technical legal issue involved of standing (and ripeness), the current citizenship challenges seem to be a classic case of barking up the wrong tree at the wrong time.

gotribego26 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote: ... Snipped text - and bold added...
I am such a person - I was born in a Spanish hospital - my father was a naval officer born in IL, my mother was also born in IL. At birth I was not a citizen of the US. I was eligible to be a naturalized citizen if my guardians wanted me to become one up until the age of majority. My family returned to the US when I was 18 months old - I was naturalized about a year later (I was naturalized about 3 hours before JFK was assassinated).

... Snippted Text...

Attention all JFK Assassination Researchers - a new data point has appeared that may be useful in supporting your theories.

I think it is important to note that they speak the very same language in both Spain and Cuba. Plus there seems to be an armed forces connection as well - part of the coup? And what is up with an unneccesary naturalization - could it be to distract attention from what was about to occur? Finally, you neglect to mention where you were naturalized, was that because it took place at Dealey Plaza, by any chance?

---Jay

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:It's on his Web site. It has been for months. And I believe someone found a contemporaneous story in the Honolulu newspaper mentioning his birth. --Bob

What is on his website is a report, printed on a laser printer, and supposedly certified by the local registrar. A legal document of proof I guess, but far from some original document that has been around since he was born.

As far as the newspaper article. It was printed 9 days after he was born and did not indicate a location of the birth.

I really don't think at 9 days old they knew he would want to be president and that they should print a fake article to make it look like he was born in Hawaii. If it was printed 9 days after he was born, especially back then, it most likely means he was born in the Honolulu area.

And I agree with eyegor, the copy I get today looks nothing like the original. I can get a full copy or a short copy, and those look different from each other. But I promise you, I was born in CT regardless of what the documentation looks like. Documents change, originals get lost, there is nothing sinister about it...

sunflower wrote:I really don't think at 9 days old they knew he would want to be president and that they should print a fake article to make it look like he was born in Hawaii. If it was printed 9 days after he was born, especially back then, it most likely means he was born in the Honolulu area.

Not that I necessarily believe this story, but wasn't there a Kenyan relative who insisted he was born there? Of course they didn't know he would want to be President at the time of his birth, but what if she was just trying to establish plain, old citizenship?

Estonut wrote:

sunflower wrote:I really don't think at 9 days old they knew he would want to be president and that they should print a fake article to make it look like he was born in Hawaii. If it was printed 9 days after he was born, especially back then, it most likely means he was born in the Honolulu area.

Not that I necessarily believe this story, but wasn't there a Kenyan relative who insisted he was born there? Of course they didn't know he would want to be President at the time of his birth, but what if she was just trying to establish plain, old citizenship?

With an American parent, he'd have dual citizenship...I'm pretty sure the only point of potential contention is the "natural born" vs "naturalized" part. And at that time they'd have no reason to try to do a massive cover up.

My college rommate was born in Australia, she has dual citizenship in Australia and the US because her mom was a US citizen (her dad was not).

Maybe I'm misunderstanding it, but I'm just not overthinking it either. I'm sure the people who matter have seen the relevant documentation and verified it to their satisfaction. I didn't vote for him but I'm not going to cling to some idea that he might not be a citizen and therefore someone else can be president. He's going to be president...no recounts or anything else to hope for, just accept the reality!!

sunflower wrote:
And I agree with eyegor, the copy I get today looks nothing like the original. I can get a full copy or a short copy, and those look different from each other. But I promise you, I was born in CT regardless of what the documentation looks like. Documents change, originals get lost, there is nothing sinister about it...

My birth certificate looks totally fake. It's amended since I was adopted, so most of the fields are blank and there's no doctor's signature, etc, etc. I've forgotten for what, but there was some place a long time ago that refused to accept it. I now keep a copy of my adoption decree with it in my safe.

wintergreen48 wrote:Daniel, Daniel, Daniel,

Anyone can make a mistake, anyone can be wrong from time to time, but really, when you post nonsense, and persist in doing it, you just look silly, so that even if the underlying ideas behind your arguments are valid, you end up refuting them yourself.

Please, stop it.

that is all

I did post something about the whole Obama birth certificate controversy before the election thinking that there was a chance that it might be an "October Surprise" as had been discussed earlier on the board. When that didn't go anywhere, and when I found out more about the person who filed the suit (thanks Mel), I didn't give it any more thought. My interest was only raised now because someone I greatly admire and respect has brought a similar suit in California. And yes, I did read the petition, and there seems to be some merit to the case. Alan Keyes talked more about this on a conference call. I suspect that there will be some audio of this Nov. 18th call posted to http://www.keyesarchives.com/audio.php by tomorrow. If you listen long enough, you will even get to hear my voice.