See, this is the problem with the endless circle of paranoia. When people trash stupid stories like this it's because the libruls don't want this information to get out. When the media examines it and decides it's meritless and doesn't report on it, it's the librul media at work. When a federal judge reviews the case and tosses it as frivolous, it's just a librul judge covering things up. Ridiculous.
See, this is the problem with the endless circle of paranoia. When people trash stupid stories like this it's because the libruls don't want this information to get out. When the media examines it and decides it's meritless and doesn't report on it, it's the librul media at work. When a federal judge reviews the case and tosses it as frivolous, it's just a librul judge covering things up. Ridiculous.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
There is a lot of ridiculousness here, but I think in a different way.
For one, anybody raises questions about Obama and his fans come forth rabidly to shout down the person.
Another, and this should far more atention - we apparently have no real system in place to ensure that candidates meet electoral/Constitutional requirments. I have searched and been unable to find where we have any system of serious verification.
The FEC sends out a form, a loose type of affidavit, where the candidate signs that they meet the qualifications. I find this ridiculously lame. *I meet them because I say so*; is this for real?
Assertions that the media have investigated this and proven it false are ridiculous. Any claims that looking at a 2007 computer print-out of a facsimilie birth certificate, void of much info, lay the matter to rest are disengenuous.
Hawaii issues two types of birth certificates. One is the normal type BC we think of when a child is born in a hospital. The other is a "call-in" BC - yes - you can just call-in and report a birth and get an official BC. I have been unable to determine if the facsimilie, like Obama has produced, will reflect which type of Hawaiian BC it is based upon. Likely, there is no distiction. Given that there is a Kenyan BC (taking the attorney at his word) who's to say his mother didn't fly in after his birth and do ythe *call-in* BC?
Reading the article closely, it appears that the judge dismised the case soley because of Berg's claims that he had standing. I.e., the underlying merits of the case remain unaddressed. There are claims of an official Kenyan BC, that his relatives confirm he was born in Kenya, and other details of citizenship law. I see no good reason to outright dismiss these, and no one has yet put forth any reason that they should be. Just vacuous claims that anybody questioning Obama is a tinfoil loon etc. (Must not question!).
Claims that others must "prove" that Obama is not a US citizen? Ridiculous, he is running for Prez, the burden is upon him. Moreover, it is often said that you can't prove a negative, yet that is exactly what they demand. Looks to me like Berg is trying to prove it (claims of Kenyan BC etc), yet the Obama fans hoot it down without looking, even while they demand evidence? Ridiculous. We all know the easy and proper course is produce the *real* BC, the one that records his birth - the original. If the hospital claims to have lost it - why can't that be said?
Beyond the question of the BC, we have the subsequent questions of losing US citizenship (if he ever rightfully had it). I struggled with the rules we had in the 80's and by getting another country's passport you did lose US citizenship. I had an oportunity to get a French passport but had to forgo it or lose my US citizenship (it would have made working in Europe far far easier, I had to settle for a Greencard over there).
Birth announcement in a newpapers, are you F'n kidding me? You can call those in, or the newpapers could have picked it from a *call-in* BC. In no way is that determinitive.
We need a better system to ensure to our candidate are indeed qualfied, and I think it would be better for all if the issue was reasonably/satisfactorily resolved.
Fern
Ozoned
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2004
- 5,578
- 0
- 0
We have such a system. It is called the supreme court. The eligibility requirements of a candidate or a president have never been tested in the scotus. There is some language in the 20th amendment about the president elect failing to qualify The DNC is responsible for vetting their candidates, the Rnc theirs. If one wants to sue them or obama or Mccain on this issue, they must show injury. That could happen after the election for Obama,,, or Mccain.
Anybody can run, not anybody can serve. The law is the law. Got to respect that.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
The RNC/DNC are private entities. IMO, the government should be responsible for ensuring the candidates qualifications right off from the get-go.
While I would watch with interest if the SCOTUS took this up, if the SCOTUS ruled against Obama it would cause all sorts of problems I don't welcome.
Fern
Fern, once again I'm disappointed in you. First of all, you are not using 'prove a negative' correctly. This is in no way that case. What we are trying to determine the veracity of is the positive statement "Obama is a natural born US citizen". You should be working to disprove the positive, something that not a single person has been able to come within a country mile of doing, due to the complete and utter lack of countervailing evidence.
As for the rest of your post, your information is simply wrong. This shows me that you did not read the previous posts in this thread very well before replying. You could not simply call in a newspaper report, so no, I am not fucking kidding you. The reports published in the papers came directly from the Hawaii Office of Vital Statistics. Neither Obama's parents or anyone else could call into the paper and report the birth. (this was mentioned earlier in this thread) Furthermore, to get a 'call in' birth certificate you still need notorized documents by a midwife, prenatal care records, etc... etc. Very similar to what a hospital has. The swift reporting in the very next edition of the paper strongly indicates this information was gotten directly from the hospital, not from a family that would be sent out to collect paperwork. What's funny is that all this information came from a pro-Clinton opposition researcher who was actually trying to dig up dirt on Obama when she found it. She was trying to sink him, but inadvertently destroyed her own argument.
Also, the act of having a passport for another country when you have dual citizenship does NOT invalidate your US citizenship. I have no idea of your circumstances when you were applying for a French passport, but they don't apply to Obama.
Maybe the reason why these claims get 'hooted down' by Obama supporters is because they are so pathetic, so transparently desperate, and so devoid of supporting evidence that people are sick of having to treat every burbling spittle covered pronouncement against Obama as a serious charge deserving of serious consideration. Maybe people would take them more seriously if we haven't previously been asked to take seriously if he is a Muslim, a socialist, a terrorist, a racist, a black liberation theologen, etc.... etc under the vapid disguise of 'raising the question'.
It's called the boy who cried wolf, and you fools are reaping the whirlwind.
On the other hand if you ever do end up with any legitimate evidence for Obama not being a US citizen, I would love to see it. I won't hold my breath though.
It's like one of those puzzles, how many things can you find wrong with this post?
1) Non-citizens can go to school in Indonesia -- case in point, the state school Obama went to was originally intended for the Dutch (and Indonesia nobility). Also Catholic school he went to before that wasn't state run.
2) AFAIK, it's never been illegal for a US citizen to travel to any country. The State Department often will discourage travel to certain countries, but I'm unaware of any law that made travel to Pakistan illegal. Prove me wrong and find me that law.
3) It's never been proved Obama had an Indonesian passport. He apparently traveled there on his US passport.
4) A foreign government cannot remove an US citizen's citizenship. If Indonesia issued Regan a passport during the 80s, would that suddenly make him a non-citizen? The only way to lose it is through the direct actions of the US citizen, often done in concert and/or the knowledge of the US government. I also doubt whether children can have their citizenship removed by their parents, and even more doubtful that Obama's non-US citizen step-father would have been able to do so.
On a side note, the short form certificate of birth from the Hawaii State Department fulfills all legal requirements for any birth certificate. The reference number appearing on Obama's birth certificate can be, and has been cross referenced with the state. Obama says he's a citizen. The state of Hawaii says he's a citizen. Who else do you want to say it?
GodlessAstronomer
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2007
- 17,009
- 5
- 0
You don't get it eski. You're dealing with fantasy-prone individuals. Evidence against the conspiracy is merely part of the conspiracy. They are banking on an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Evidence will either support their theory (that Obama is not a legal citizen) or the evidence will be written off as unreliable or part of the conspiracy.
Have a look at any of the conspiracy threads on this forum, they all follow the same pattern.
Were you a French citizen at the time? US passport law most certainly doesn't now, and I have never heard of being unable to have two passports if a dual citizen before, ever. It wouldn't even make any rational sense, why recognize dual citizenship if you can't allow that person to behave as a dual citizen?
Yes, the creationists pull the same stunt. It works because it confuses people. "Baffle 'em with bullshit is the Republican motto."
-Robert
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
See bolded
I'm going back over this thread to see what I've missed. Found this offered as proof of debunking. Read below and follow the link to Obama's 1961 BC. Guess, what it ain't his 1961 BC, it's PC version printed out 2007. Now, they're just flat-out wrong and that goes beyond being a sloppy error.
Snope/Factcheck etc are claimed to have debunked this, but even a superficial look at their work shows how shoddy it is. Too much BS and factually erroneous stuff offered up with supremem confidenc eas proof to suit me.
Do you agree their assertion is a factual error?
Fern
Out of curiosity, an old piece of paper that appears to be an authentic hospital birth certificate from the 60s would serve as proof, but a modern document provided by the State of Hawaii, from their existing computer systems, isn't sufficient? One of those "shoddy online works" held the document in hand, saw the embossed seal, and verified with the appropriate state government agency that the document was legitimate. It's proof enough for a court of law, and while that might not be enough for the conspiracy theorists, that's good enough for me.
We're in the 21st century. Ask someone for proof and they go to a computer and dig it up from the appropriate sources. The same goes for birth certificates. Instead of trying to find a piece of paper through two marriages, a household that moved overseas multiple times, from Hawaii to Washington back to Hawaii, then to Indonesia before going back to Hawaii and possibly back to Indonesia before coming back to Hawaii, can you blame the campaign for just going to the State for a copy of the birth certificate? I have enough trouble finding my own stuff after moving once across town.
Of course, even if a piece of paper turned up, the crazies would instantly claim the paper was a fake, that the doctor's signature needed to verified, and every nurse present would have to sign an affidavit attesting to their presence before they'd leap onto their next reason why Obama isn't who he says he is.
We're in the 21st century. Ask someone for proof and they go to a computer and dig it up from the appropriate sources. The same goes for birth certificates. Instead of trying to find a piece of paper through two marriages, a household that moved overseas multiple times, from Hawaii to Washington back to Hawaii, then to Indonesia before going back to Hawaii and possibly back to Indonesia before coming back to Hawaii, can you blame the campaign for just going to the State for a copy of the birth certificate? I have enough trouble finding my own stuff after moving once across town.
Of course, even if a piece of paper turned up, the crazies would instantly claim the paper was a fake, that the doctor's signature needed to verified, and every nurse present would have to sign an affidavit attesting to their presence before they'd leap onto their next reason why Obama isn't who he says he is.
Ozoned
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2004
- 5,578
- 0
- 0
It wasn't true in the 80's either (from first-hand experience).
You had to know who to talk to and how...
According to the US Passport Agency, you are correct...but if you contacted the State Department directly within 30 days of accepting citizenship in another country, you could simply state that you in no way intended to relinquish your US citizenship, and if the country wasn't on the list of US enemies you would be allowed dual citizenship.
However, even today, in order to accept US citizenship you MUST relinquish all others.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
A reliable non-partisan source that inspected the actual physical document
Oh wait, but let me guess... they're in on the conspiracy, right? :roll:
OutHouse
Lifer
- Jun 5, 2000
- 36,410
- 616
- 126
The judge dismissed the case because the Berg didnt have standing. wtf does that mean? he is a former deputy attorney general for Pennsylvania. is a life long democrat, a avid Hillary supporter and a paid up member of the NAACP. so who would have standing????
the case was not dismissed due to the merits of the questions being asked the court said the guy asking them doesn't have enough standing to ask them.... WTF does that mean??
Let's see... The state says that: 1) "[The] copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding," 2) "copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original," and 3) "copies shall be competent evidence in all courts of the State with like force and effect as the original."
Last I checked state law trumps school districts. As the Vic mentioned, it depends on the state. Unless you're living in Hawaii or tried to use a document produced by the Hawaiian State Government, your personal experiences here are largely irrelevant to this discussion.
Also with regards to the Berg v. Obama et al , IANAL but the suit was dismissed not only because of lack of standing but also because of a lack of claim. To have successfully brought a suit, before the merit of his suit even gets discussed, Berg would have needed to established that he was the correct party to sue and that under the law there was some action that needed to take place. Neither one of those took place, so they didn't even consider the merits of the suit. In fact, for the purposes of this case (because the motions to dismiss were facial and not factual), the judge took "the well-pleaded facts of the complaint as true and must draw all inferences in a manner most favorable to the plaintiff." Even after looking at it this way, the judge chose to toss the case.
Arguing the merits of the case is like trying to figure out how well Berg can dance. You've got to get into the party before you can dance. Berg not only failed to get in, he didn't even have an invite.
OutHouse
Lifer
- Jun 5, 2000
- 36,410
- 616
- 126
I am talking about the certificate of live birth that the hospital gave us when our kids were born. the ones where they put the babies feet prints on the paper. those are called certificates of live birth and in some states birth certificates issued by the state also has at the top of the birth certificate "certificate of live birth". the one given to us by the hospital IS NOT a legal document and can not be used as such.
using the term "certificate of live birth" on both documents is what is causing the confusion.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
What pisses me off if that it's stupid-ass conspiracy theorist nonsense. The more it's debunked, the more the tinfoil morons tighten their beanies.
Not only that, but it's pure hypocrisy as well. Where's McCain's birth certificate? Oh, that's right, he hasn't presented his because he was born in fscking Panama.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter