President Elect Prevaricator
Apparently there are a slew of law suits (some still active yet many dismissed) out there still challenging that Barrack Hussein Obama – President Elect – is a natural born citizen. I still believe that if President Elect Obama is discovered to have been born in Kenya or that there is something funky about his Hawaiian birth certificate that BHO is still eligible on legal terms to have been elected President because his mother is a natural born citizen.
I praise the American citizens trying to discover the truth. If or when (probably never) the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decides to force the showing of the original birth certificate, I suspect it flashed a light on just how much a liar Obama is. He did not show his birth certificate history to be public knowledge because he would be declared ineligible. As with the bleak lack of Mainstream Media vetting about BHO’s past and present associations, the birth certificate could demonstrate him a deceptive prevaricator of the worst kind.
The information could have placed a big snag in the mind of the voters as to the integrity of Barack Hussein Obama thus leading to the election of a McCain/Palin Presidency instead of the current outcome.
Why do I believe the voters could have been swayed? I was watching Fox and Friends this morning and they showed a clip of Bill Ayers in an interview that was post Election 2008. The purpose of the interview was to re-promote the old terrorist’s book that was released in 2001. Fox and Friends pointed out there is a new afterward or epilogue (or whatever) at the end of the book praising BHO as one of his family friends.
HELLO! BHO in the 2008 campaign over and over again claimed to have barely known Bill Ayers and that BHO was like eight years old when Ayers perpetrated destruction on the American government up to and including the Marxist take-over of America that would included a Cambodia Khmer Rouge like purge (meaning genocide) of American citizens that did not agree with or could hamper the Ayers’ vision of an American Marxist revolution.
Ayers’ expression of friendship with President Elect Obama is an example of Obama prevarication. It is the kind of prevarication if understood by the Independent voters who placed Obama in office quite possibly would have voted another way.
Again the birth certificate issue is a non-issue as far as legality; however a ray of truth may shine a light on what to expect from the lips of Barack Hussein Obama for the next four years.
God have mercy on America’s soul.
JRH 11/14/08
Comments
So much has been debated about whether or not Barack H. Obama II is or is not a Natural Born US citizen. The problem is that so many people are totally uninformed as to the law as it existed in 1961 as it relates to the transmission of citizenship to a child born outside the US or its Outlying Possessions (OLP).
In an effort to clear the air, to get the FACTS out so people can clearly see the issue without opining or guessing as to the legalities, allow me to pontificate a bit. For the record, I am a recently retired Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent, with more than 25 years experience. Part of that experience is understanding and comprehending immigration and nationality law which is at the center of this issue. In short, I know a "little bit" about what I speak of.
In 1961, as opposed to TODAY, Section 301(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (INA) required the following: A child being born to one alien parent (ie. Non Citizen) and one citizen parent in a marital relationship, required that the sole US citizen parent to have resided in the United States for a period of ten years, five of which must have been over the age of 14. Today's version of the law has somewhat different residency requirements for the US citizen parent. But the law, as it applied on August 4, 1961, required ten years presence, five after the age of 14.
Barack Hussein Obama I (dad), was a citizen and national of Kenya. He was not, nor had never been, a United States citizen. Ergo, he is the "alien" parent in this scenario. Stanley Ann Dunham (mom) was a US citizen by virtue of having been born in the US. At the time of Barack Hussein Obama II's birth on August 4, 1961, Ms. Dunham was 18 years old, having been born in November of 1942. As such, if Barack Hussein Obama II was born outside the US or its Outlying Possessions, on August 4, 1961, then Ms. Dunham could not transmit her citizenship to her son because she failed to have accumulated the necessary physical presence requirements that the LAW (that pesky and inconvenient thing that oftentimes gets in the way of "change") demanded.
The earliest in which Ms. Dunham could have transmitted her citizenship to a child born outside the US would have been when she was 19 years of age, which was in November of 1961 and NOT in August of 1961, when Obama was born.
It's that simple. If he was born in Kenya, or anywhere else for that matter, other than the US or its OLP's, then he is not, nor can never be, eligible to hold the office of President of the United States of America inasmuch as he does not, nor never can, fulfill the requirements of Article II, Clause V of the Constitution of the United States. It's not an optional thing, regardless of whether or not someone thinks it's fair or not. It's the law, that pesky, recurring inconvenience that seems to get in the way, time and time again.
Now, the question remains to be answered if he was born in Kenya or not. The State of Hawaii has weighed in and states that there is a record of Mr. Obama's birth on file in the Department of Vital Statistics. However, THAT is not enough. There are two entirely different and distinct birth documents issued by the State of Hawaii. The first is a Certificate of Live Birth which is the traditional birth certificate we all are familiar with for children born IN Hawaii.
Then there is a different document entitled Certification of Live Birth, which is issued to children born OUTSIDE of Hawaii but whose birth is registered in Hawaii pursuant to a quaint and scarcely known Hawaiian law, Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8. This law allows for the registration of a birth in Hawaii for a child who was born OUTSIDE Hawaii to parents who, for the year immediately preceding the child's birth, claimed Hawaii as their principle place of residence.
Dunham and Obama Sr. both resided in Hawaii for the year immediately preceding Senator Obama's birth. Ergo sum, his birth, even if it occurred in Kenya, could legally be registered in Hawaii, and a Certification of Live Birth could have been issued, giving the uninitiated the impression that he was born in Hawaii when in fact, he was not.
It is misleading when the State of Hawaii states that they have examined Obama's birth record and it is valid. It could very well be the case. The ISSUE however, is whether or not he was born in Hawaii as he claims, or if he was born in Kenya. There is of course, a plausible scenario in which he could've been born in Kenya and yet have his birth recorded in Hawaii as having been born in Hawaii when in fact he was not. It's quite simple actually. His mother could have lied. That's right. Ann Dunham could have given birth in Kenya, brought Obama back with her to the US and then fraudulently registered the birth in Hawaii. Is it likely? Who knows? Is it possible? As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle has written: Once you have eliminated what is impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, is possible.
In this case, anything is possible. And it's so unfortunate that all but one relative on Ms. Dunham's side of the family are deceased. His maternal grandmother, who he conveniently just visited in Hawaii, is the one living relative that could possibly shed light on this subject. A simple question asking her if her daughter went to Kenya prior to Barack's birth would end the speculation, assuming of course, her response is truthful. And therein lies the rub. With so much fraud being perpetrated by the DailyKOS, Stop the Smears, and others, it's difficult to believe anything at this point.
And isn't it oh so convenient that Obama goes to Hawaii on October 23, 2008 and the Hawaiian Department of Health, after his visit to Hawaii, issues the statement that the document they have is legitimate. The wording of their statement leaves a lot to be desired. It's a non answer to a question. Yes, the document is valid. And? Was he born in Hawaii?????? Silence.
The now infamous document posted on Stop the Smears and the DailyKOS, which has been determined to be a forgery by no fewer than three court certified Forensic Document Examiners, was a Certification of Live Birth and NOT a Certificate of Live Birth or Birth Certificate. However, in an effort to obfuscate the issue, the term "Birth Certificate" has been used interchangeably with "Certification of Live Birth".
Assuming that Mr. Obama has a legitimate Certification of Live Birth, the question must be asked: "Why post a forgery?" The answer is as follows:
A. There does not exist a legitimate, authentic birth document for Obama showing birth anywhere in the US.
OR
B. He does have a legitimate Certification of Live Birth issued by the State of Hawaii. However, that document shows his place of birth as being in Mombassa, Kenya and NOT in Hawaii as the forged copy claims.
What is troubling and frustrating is that Obama can, and has had the ability to do so for quite some time, resolve this matter by simply providing a certified copy of his authentic birth document. The only reason that is reasonable for his failure to do so is that he simply doesn't have a document that shows he was born in the US. His documents all show birth in Kenya.
As to his Indonesian passport, that, in and of itself, is problematic for Obama. In order to have obtained Indonesian citizenship, which is the only way one legitimately gets an Indonesian passport, he must have renounced his US citizenship, assuming for a moment, that he was, in fact a US citizen at any time. The fact that he renounced his US citizenship in order to obtain citizenship in Indonesian also makes him ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States under Article II, Clause V of the Constitution of the United States.
Look. The facts and the law, are just that, the facts and the law. Wishing it wasn't so, being upset that the law is the way it was in 1961, wishing that people wouldn't bring that pesky inconvenient issue of the law, won't change a thing. Mr. Obama, like it or not, whether you think it's fair or not, if born outside the US, is NOT, nor never can be, eligible to hold the office of President of the United States. Period. End of discussion.
IF, in fact, he was born in Kenya, as it appears he very well was, then his continued candidacy and the acceptance of campaign funds and donations, is a fraud. Furthermore, this issue is likely to throw this country into a Constitutional crisis, the likes of which we have never seen, making the elections of 2000 and 2004 look tame by comparison. And don't you think Obama knows whether or not he was born in the US or not?
He wrote a book entitled "The Audacity of Hope". Perhaps it should have been entitled "The Audacity of Ambition".
This is a viable case you have laid out StrangeTruth; however the laws are just sketchy enough that a Supreme Court might have to provide a definitive ruling.
For clarity's sake I need to make it known that I am nor ever have been a support of Barack Hussein Obama. In fact after November 4, 2008 a sense of dread swept my being pondering the future of America.
Saying that, because momma Obama was a natural born citizen and an effort was made to register the Leftist BHO in Hawaii, I believe that makes him a natural born citizen.
If I am wrong then Glory to God.
The thing that irritates me is that BHO has purposely covered up much of his past so that voters did not make an informed decision on November 4. I am further irritated that the Republicans and the McCain campaign failed to capitalize on all the unanswered enigma's of which the "birth ceritificate" issue is one of many.
Of course you realize it there is a miracle and the Supreme Court actually reviews the data concerning BHO's birth certificate and swings to Berg's contention, it will only invalidate BHO's ability to be President. BHO's duly elected running Vice-President Elect Joe Biden would be named President.
At the end of it all Barack Hussein Obama was elected by the voters of the USA because in their minds (the BHO swing voters) the economy became the focal point of the last few weeks of the election. McCains failure to bring up other issues was his downfall.
God have mercy on America.
Should Barack Obama be declared to be ineligible to be president, it is interesting to consider who would be president. Perhaps even more interesting or more correctly, frightening, is what may happen if he is not properly vetted even at this late date and allowed to take office as President unchallenged.
If BO is removed as President Elect before he takes the oath, then the electors are free to select anyone from any political party they choose. They may simply elect Hillary Clinton by default or they may question if she would indeed have been the democratic nominee, had BO not been a candidate. However, if BO were removed as President after he has taken the oath of office in January, Biden would become the President.
This second scenario has grave national security issues with respect to the interim before Biden is sworn in as President, which make it absolutely imperative that the issues of eligibility be resolved before Obama is sworn in as President. Be warned, our Founding Fathers faced certain death and the destruction of our fledgling nation, had they failed. It is only with the immense sacrifice of their hard won victory and the concomitant rare wisdom they each gained from their divinely guided lives, that they prepared in the United States Constitution, the best possible path for freedom to take root for their own and future generations, provided we could hold on to it. So again, be warned America! Most certainly these dedicated, heroic, liberty loving, and doubtless God fearing men were no fools. As we can see in the events of today, they have warned us well.
It is imperative to realize that there are not just one, but three separate, distinct and equally disqualifying eligibility issues BO has not yet been held to account on or properly vetted for. This failing, which has been permitted by a ludicrous lack of checks and balances for eligibility, has so far been ignored by the major media, the DNC, the state of Illinois, the U.S. Senate in particular and apparently every sworn member of every government entity in America, who are all duty bound by their sworn oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution.
1. BO has not provided proof he is 'natural born' citizen of the United States by producing a valid vault 'Certificate of Live Birth' just as any natural born U.S. citizen can easily do. Not possessing one, could be why BO has failed to produce a valid vault 'Certificate of Live Birth' as opposed to the fatally flawed Hawaiian 'Certification of Live Birth', which allows that he may be foreign born to a state resident and then brought to HI within one year of his birth. Therefore the HI 'Certification of Live Birth' does not satisfy the Constitutional requirement that the president be a 'natural born' U.S. citizen and must be wholly rejected as proof.
2. BO has failed to refute evidence documenting he became a legal citizen of Indonesia, which required that he renounce all other citizenship. Furthermore BO has not produced a certified copy of 'the oath of allegiance' taken between the time he was 19 to 21 at a Consulate, U.S. Embassy or the like. Nor is there any indication after moving to the U.S. that BO ever applied for or been granted even 'naturalized' U.S. citizenship, which none the less would still not satisfy the requirements to be president set out in the U.S. Constitution.
Actually if BO is not even a naturalized U.S. citizen, he is instead by law an illegal alien, subject to deportation either to Indonesia where he is alleged to be a citizen or Kenya, where it is alleged he was born. By law, his name was changed to Barry Soetoro by his Indonesian step father, Mr. Lolo Soetoro. BO further allegedly failed to acknowledge using names other than Barack Hussein Obama on his Illinois Bar Application, which in addition to Barry Soetoro should also include utilizing Barry Obama, Barack Dunham, and Barry Dunham. Such a blatant lie would merit disbarment; a penalty generally imposed for being unfit to practice law, untrustworthy with a client's interests, or engaging in fraud to impede justice.
Certainly these are not characteristics that we seek in a president, however they would be consistent with the flawed character of someone willing to perpetuate the worst hoax in American history for his own personal empowerment or worse yet, those of an improperly vetted enemy agent seeking political office to access and breech our national security defenses. Both very real possibilities are each capable of creating a very dangerous constitutional crisis. The military is both duty and honor bound to not obey an illegal order, and any order issued by BO as Commander and Chief could be considered an illegal order. Similarly civilian government personnel would find any executive order or law affixed by his hand to be questionable and last but not least, American citizens would rightfully be in full outright revolt.
3. BO is not legally eligible to be president based on the applicable 1961 Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 301(g) as amended (INA), which by law due to his father not being a U.S. citizen and the extensive time his mother was abroad in light of her age, prevents her from passing on her U.S. citizenship to BO.
It is especially disconcerting that to date, even the courts have declined to consider whether or not BO is eligible by having dismissed several law suites on legal technicalities, rather than consider the merits of the evidence. Please recall that Mr. Berg's case, even as the former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, former candidate for Governor and US Senate in Democratic Primaries, was dismissed solely by the District Court by means of being declined 'standing' with the court.
We shall see if a increasingly properly informed citizenry by way of the Internet and the Supreme Court of The United States will be as lenient with the law of the land regarding eligibility for the office of President of the United States, that being the U.S. Constitution.
BHO has not provided a valid Birth Certificate from Hawaii; however the Governor of Hawaii has gone out on a limb to say that there is indeed a valid Birth Certificate. Then the Governor enigmatically sealed the Birth Certificate from public scrutiny. I sense it would take a lot to convince SCOTUS to question the word of sitting Governor without proof of lying.
There never have been formal adoption papers found on BHO concerning Indonesia. It is merely presumed an adoption took place because BHO's school papers have him listed as Sotero as a last name. Again another sketchy item to move SCOTUS without further documentation.
Now the 1961 law you refer to may indeed be the key to convince SCOTUS to move on your first two points because that is a matter of documentation that BHO would have to prove or at least it would seem so to me.
I suspect SCOTUS will hear none of it though. I suspect SCOTUS will take the easy way out rather than their duty of examining the law constitutionally due to the domestic social unrest and confusion a ruling against President Elect Obama would produce.
That is just my thought. It would be kind of cool though to see BHO removed before he even got started.
I understand that SCOTUS has agreed to place one of the many law suits concerning Obama's citizenship status on a conference docket that select a few out of thousands of requests for SCOTUS to here a case. I also understand there was a bit of SCOTUS inner conflict about the suit that was decided upon.
Apparently Justice Souter was the first to look at the paperwork and dismissed it out of hand. Then Justice Thomas took a look and placed it on a Conference doctet in early December to decide if it will be included among the thousands ofother cases requesting a hearing. It takes four Justices to place a case on a hearing docket.