Birthers and the Obama Conspiracy

[DeletedUser]

Warning, again, I'm not a lawyer, nor have I had the time to read every single post in this thread. However, I did try to check up some of the claims by going to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories
read it briefly, then click on one US supreme court case, saw the newspaper publishing of barrack obama's birth and the birth certificate.

I believe the concern the "birthers" cite in regards to his mother is the stipulation that "For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child."

There have been questions raised about the length of time she spent out of the country, after she turned 14, but before B.O was birthed.

That is why they say the LOCATION of his birth is vital to his eligibility

Where was that clause of transmit U.S. citizenship? According to the news paper publishing birth, Obama was born in Hawaii. (FRE 902(6) for self authenticating document of newspaper) Even if that is not enough, there was a certified copy of Obama's birth certificate, such copy, is fine under FRE 901(b)(7), FRE 902(4). If such evidence is enough for the court, I don't see why people still continue to question the validity of Obama's eligibility to become president.

If they're correct, and she was outside the country too much in the critical years after her 14th birthday, do you really think it's beyond the realm of possibly that a young mother would Lie, or bribe someone, in order for her child to have an american citizenship?

Warning, following will be a bit messy as I c/p pages and citations from web so web font size, color, etc. will be messed up and I am not going to bother to fix them all.

It does not matter whether or not she did that, Obama was born in Hawaii, with certified birth certificate and newspaper report of birth to confirm that claim. a U.S supreme court ruling already made that argument moot. InUnited States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

the court held "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,"169 U. S. 654
The parents of Wong were not even U.S. citizens. Furthermore
The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. 88 U. S. 422;Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 624, 116 U. S. 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States,@ 91 U. S. 270, 91 U. S. 274. 169 U.S. 654

Morph, they're wrong because it is not a true argument. If she was a U.S. citizen, it doesn't matter how long she was away from the U.S., the child is automatically determined to be a natural-born U.S. citizen.

Although I think that's generally correct, I think a presidential candidate also need to spend xx years in U.S.A. I need to double check on that and I don't have time to do that.

It isn't that she was out of the US too much after the age of 14. She had him when she was 18, so she had only lived in the US for 4 years after she turned 14. As long as he was born in Hawaii, that doesn't matter because he would be a natural born citizen.


I wouldn't be real surprised if they eventually figure out that all of the confusion came from the fact that he had another wife at that time, and she did live in Kenya.

Might be, but I think some people just want to believe so hard in something that they refuse to look at some answers that proved them wrong already.

Why doesn't Obama just show us the Birth Certificate? Why is it that big of a deal, just show it at News conference and be done with it.

According to Wiki site, Obama did do that and after he provided a certified "short" form, more conspiracy theories arise. I guess for those people, if path A to destination (deny Obama presidency) is blocked, then you raise other possibilities. Instead, once Obama proved (and providing certified birth certain did that) he is a citizen born in Hawaii (an no evidence to the contrary that Obama renounced his citizenship), the burden is on the "birther" to prove why Obama is not qualified, rather than hounding Obama campaign to provide evidence that their ludicrous theories are wrong. The burden of proof are on the birther side to provide evidence to backup their claim, the burden IS NOT on Obama to prove otherwise.

Here is an analogy

A filed a suit against B in court, alleging B hits A in the face on 1/1/2001 in the west. A provides nothing else in the complaint. B answered the complaint and replied that he cannot possibily be at the west on 1/1/2001 as he was way too busy in tribalwars.net on 1/1/2001 dodging thousands of attacks and provided thousands of report proving he was actively dodging and stuck in front of computer in tribalwars.net. B move for dismissal.

Now, A, those birther, keep on saying B proved nothing, he can't be at tribalwars.net because of various conspiracy theories, B has to be at the west.....

B, is like Obama in this case, provided his certified birth certificate, etc. proving he was indeed in tribalwars.net on that day and too busy to do anything else.

Did A provide hospital report of his injury? Nope. Did A provide any other affidavi, witness deposition? Nope, nothing, nada. Yet A still persist and say B hits him and the court shoudl rule in A's favor........

 

[DeletedUser]

There's a difference between the birth certificate and the one he presents. the one he presents basically says "I am a human being and am born" not saying his true citizenship.

 

[DeletedUser]

Adelei, that 'certification of live birth' isn't any sort of birth certificate. He hasn't shown anyone his birth certificate, what he's shown is a Form that indicates a Birth Certificate exists.

Not according to the state department. Not according to the passport office. Not according to the Ethiopian government. Not according to CIS.

Please show me any proof of your statement.

 

[DeletedUser]

I had not closely examined the document, and took for granted information I had been able to find. The examples of the document I had previously seen were apparently not full scans, leaving information in the borders out.

In actuality, the form posted in post #123 clearly lists the form number, and the fact that it constitutes prima facie evidence of the birth, and location.

Provided that that form is authentic, and unaltered. That is enough to settle any doubt.

Making those assumptions, and With the birth location being in the Hawaiian Islands. The eligibity of his mother to pass along citizenship is moot, because he was born on US soil, ergo automatic Citizenship

 

[DeletedUser]

Hmmm,Well with this concern apparently put to rest,I'm wondering if the next line of inquiry will center on whether Barack Obama's mother was a shape shifting jackal or not.

 

[DeletedUser]

You know, this has been fun, but let's end it:

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_1.jpg

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_2.jpg

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_3.jpg

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_4.jpg

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_6.jpg

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_7.jpg

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_8.jpg

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_9.jpg

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/ObamaBirthStarBulletin.jpg

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/obama-1961-birth-announcement-from-honolulu-advertiser0000.gif

http://www.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birthann.jpg

http://www.politifact.com/media/files/obamadriving.jpg

http://www.politifact.com/media/files/obamamarriage.jpg

http://www.kxma.com/News/Politics/291624.asp


http://www.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birthann.jpg

 

[DeletedUser]

I repeat. If he was born in Kenya, it doesn't matter. His mother is an American citizen, so he is a natural born American citizen.

For crying out loud .. how much plainer does this need to be said. IT DOESN"T MATTER! Elmyr has already stated that a few times in the first page or 2.

Besides no one really cares hmy:

 

[DeletedUser]

My article for presidential requirements says BOTH parents. Is the article from the gov site wrong????

Here is another one that says both parents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen

[edit] Legislation and executive branch policy

The requirements for citizenship, and its very definition in American statute law, have changed since the Constitution was ratified in 1788. Congress first recognized the citizenship of children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, stating that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."[5] To date, the Naturalization Act of 1790 has been the only U.S. law explicitly conferring statutory "natural born" citizenship. In 1795, Congress removed the words "natural born" from the law; the Naturalization Act of 1795 says only that foreign-born children of American parents "shall be considered as citizens of the United States."[6]
All persons born in the United States, except those not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government (such as children of ambassadors or other foreign diplomats) are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment.[7] Additionally, under sections 301–309 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (restated in sections 1401–1409 of Title 8 of the United States Code), current U.S. law defines numerous other categories of individuals born abroad, as well as people born in most U.S. territories and possessions, as being "nationals and citizens of the United States at birth."[8] The phrase "natural born citizen," however, does not appear in the current statutes dealing with citizenship at birth.
The law governing the citizenship of children born outside the U.S. to one or more U.S.-citizen parents has varied considerably over time.[9] Current U.S. statutes define various categories of individuals born overseas as "citizens at birth," including (for example) all persons "born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person."[10]
The definition of the "United States", for nationality purposes, was expanded in 1952 to add Guam, and in 1986 it was expanded again to include the Northern Mariana Islands. Persons born in these territories (in addition to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands) currently acquire U.S. citizenship at birth on the same terms as persons born in other parts of the United States. The category of "outlying possessions of the United States" (whose inhabitants generally have U.S. "nationality" but not U.S. "citizenship") is now restricted to American Samoa and Swains Island.[11]
Regarding people born at U.S. military bases in foreign countries, current U.S. State Department policy (as codified in the department's Foreign Affairs Manual) reads:

Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."[12]
​

The foregoing section of the FAM only addresses citizenship by jus soli: In short, what is the geographic scope of the "United States"? This does not affect citizenship via jus sanguinis, i.e. those who are born abroad to U.S. citizens and who otherwise meet the qualifications for statutory citizenship.[13] The State Department also asserts that "the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes."[14] This position seems to be at odds with the fact that Congress in 1790 felt it could confer natural born citizenship on those born abroad to American parents. Ultimately, it will take a Supreme Court decision to settle the matter once an American citizen born abroad runs for and wins the presidency.

another one:

Was Obama born in U.S.?






Toolbox

Print

Email link

Submit a letter

ShareThis





Published: July 23, 2009


By the requirements set forth in the 'Law of the Land,' our U.S. Constitution, a person is eligible for the office of U.S. President if they are 35 years of age and a natural born citizen.

What is a 'natural born citizen?' In a case involving John McCain's birth in Panama, a natural born citizen must be born of either 2 U.S. citizens or born on U.S. soil. Neither of these situations has been met by Mr. Obama.

His mother was a U.S. citizen; his father a Kenyan citizen. That doesn't work. He claims to have been born in Hawaii. While there's a 'certificate of live birth,' such a document could have been acquired by anyone in Hawaii at that time, since Hawaii after joining the Union allowed births from other countries to have U.S. live birth certificates.

My, Obama has been asked by thousands of people to provide substantial proof – an actual birth certificate. Neither Mr. Obama, the Democratic Party, nor his supposed birth hospital in Hawaii have provided such proof despite continuous requests.

Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook filed a lawsuit on July 8 in federal court and asked for conscientious objector status and a preliminary injunction based upon the belief that President Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States. Thus, he is ineligible to serve as president of the United States and commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces. Days later, his orders for deployment were revoked. Why? All they had to do was present the birth certificate, but there isn't one.

Obama's Kenyan grandmother has even gone on the record to say that Obama was born in Kenya. That she saw it with her own two eyes. Why would grandma lie?

If anyone had any substantial proof that Obama was born in the U.S, they could be $10,000 richer. Joseph Farah of World Net Daily is offering this reward for evidence that Obama was born here. To date, there have been no takers.

America, you've been duped again. Blinded by the good feelings that Obama's change agenda brought, you bought his failed economic plan which threatens to destroy our country financially. You bought that he won't increase the taxes of those who make less than $250,000 "by one dime." Oh he might not tax you directly, but he will tax you. He must in order to pay for his healthcare proposals in Congress.

You're being lied to. You know the old saying, 'If a politicians lips are moving, then he's lying.' Obama, Democrats, and the national media are covering up Obama's illegitimacy.

Let me tell you who the bell tolls for Mr. Obama, it tolls for thee.

Milton DeGeorge

West Burke

and last:
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.


Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

• Anyone born inside the United States *
• Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
• Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
• Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
• Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
• A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.


All these agree , IF he wasnt born in the U.S.A. , he isnt a natural born citizen that is why the birth certificate issue came up and that is the debate.

 

[DeletedUser]

What is the source for this? You don't list any of your references and the 2nd post looks like something from a blog, which is not a credible reference.

Also, HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII. The Supreme Court accepts that, Hawaii accepts that, journalists have accepted that. Quit listening to Limbaugh and Dobbs who haven't bothered to do any investigative journalism on their own and instead go on tv and radio to put forth conspiracy theories. Why do they do this? Because it is good for ratings.

 

[DeletedUser]

sorry, sources are added. I do not know the truth but I do know he doesnt qualifie as a natural born citizen unless he was born in hawaii, was he??? I dont know.

 

[DeletedUser]

How can you not know? Have you seen the birth certificate that every government agency in this nation accepts as proof of the location of his birth and status of his citizenship? It is posted in this thread. It is posted on several sites quoted and referenced. Does he have to mail you an original copy? This is the problem with crap like this. Until every nutjob actually holds the original BC in their hand they won't believe it. Even then I am pretty sure a significant portion of them will claim it is fake. They believe because they want to believe.

Do you know what I would like to see proof of? I would like to see proof that the people that believe there is a conspiracy in this matter aren't on psychiatric medication or that they should not be on such. My mailbox awaits for the results of their mental examinations. I will adamantly believe until I see proof in triplicate, all original documents, signed in blood with DNA test done by 4 separate labs, a sworn notarized statement from each individual that they aren't insane, 3 forms of ID, a pap smear or rectal exam and 2 brain scans taken 6 months apart that every person that is desperately hanging onto this rubbish is completely and totally bonkers.

Also, as references you have Wikipedia, the 2nd post is from a blog (still no reference there), and a site put up by some guy named Steve Mount (not the government and not even an organization). Just some guy so just as trustworthy as a blog. Steve Mount also says "All research done for the USConstitution.net site was done by me. All opinions are mine and mine alone, with the exception of messages posted by others in the Message Board." Nice references.

 

[DeletedUser]

OK here is another site from a person who agrees w/ you but also agrees he can only be a natural born citizen if he was born in Hawaii .

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama_citizen.htm

 

[DeletedUser]

Jim, what part of he was born in Hawaii are you not understanding. I assume you are not blind as you are reading and typing on the forum. Maybe you would care to scroll back and see the BC and go to the Fact Check site referenced multiple times as they have examined the document. Maybe you would care to look at the 48 year old birth announcement listing his parents home address in Hawaii. Why are you harping on whether or not he was born in Hawaii when the evidence clearly supports that he was. It is your burden of proof to provide evidence that he was not.

 

[DeletedUser]

Why doesnt he just provide the original birth certificate and put this all to rest, instead of a short form certificate of live birth, does not that make u want to doubt???

And are u also saying his grandma lied??

This is a fact:

While there's a 'certificate of live birth,' such a document could have been acquired by anyone in Hawaii at that time, since Hawaii after joining the Union allowed births from other countries to have U.S. live birth certificates.

My, Obama has been asked by thousands of people to provide substantial proof – an actual birth certificate. Neither Mr. Obama, the Democratic Party, nor his supposed birth hospital in Hawaii have provided such proof despite continuous requests.



You make a good point and he very well could have been born there but have u ever seen a fake id???

 

[DeletedUser]

No it doesn't. I can't even get a long form birth certificate in my state. They only give me the option of the short form. I would rather Obama be concentrating on the economy and the war than running around showing every person (note I said person because no government agency nor political party has challenged its authenticity) his birth certificate when they won't believe him anyways.

Have you heard of innocent until proven guilty? Something the justice system is based on in this country. The burden of proof lies with the doubters. Please start providing evidence he was born elsewhere instead of demanding further proof from Obama. He has supplied evidence of his birth time and time again, it has been investigated, it has been put to rest. Or do you think you know something the Supreme Court does not?

Here is how ridiculous the courts view these claims:

WASHINGTON - A federal judge today threw out a lawsuit questioning President Barack Obama's citizenship, lambasting the case as a waste of the court's time and suggesting the plaintiff's attorney may have to compensate the president's lawyer.
In an argument popular on the Internet and taken seriously practically nowhere else, Obama's critics argue he is ineligible to be president because he is not a "natural-born citizen" as the Constitution requires.
In response last summer, Obama's campaign posted his Hawaiian birth certificate on its Web site. But the lawsuit argues it is a fake and that Obama was actually born in his father's homeland of Kenya, even though Hawaiian officials have said the document is authentic.
"This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do," U.S. District Judge James Robertson said in his written opinion.
The lawsuit didn't even use Obama's legal name but called him "Barry Soetoro," the name he went by while attending elementary school in Indonesia. It's one of many that has been filed claiming Obama is ineligible to serve as president.
Robertson ordered plaintiff's attorney John Hemenway of Colorado Springs, Colo., to show why he hasn't violated court rules barring frivolous and harassing cases and shouldn't have to pay Obama's attorney, Bob Bauer, for his time arguing that the case should be thrown out.

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/ma...t-questioning-obama-citizenshi/news-breaking/

Do you know how frivolous a case has to be for the court to order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's attorney fees? Ridiculously frivolous and unfounded.

 

[DeletedUser]

I hope you are right because if down the road someone does provide proof that he wasn 't born in Hawaii , it would be the biggest scandal in world history.

but the Lady who spilled her Mcdonald 's coffee got her day in court, now u tell me which one was more frivilous.

 

[DeletedUser]

According to the courts the Obama lawsuit was. So you tell me which one is more frivolous. As I said, for the court to throw out a case and order plaintiff to pay defendant's attorney fees it's got to be a case founded on dog turds. You made my point for me. Thank you.

 

[DeletedUser]

ok u win

on a side note: show me proof that his mom was in college in hawaii at the time of his birth, that would work

 

[DeletedUser]

You do realize he was born the first week of August, in Hawaii, where it is very hot. Do you really think she was attending college during the summer break when she was 9 months pregnant?

Anyways, this would convince you why? Because a transcript from a college is harder to fake than a legally accepted birth certificate? You are grasping at straws now.

 

[DeletedUser]

Jim, I posted 16 links showing the birth certificate in a variety of poses, newspaper clippings from the newspaper in Hawaii announcing his birth, and other documents. You obviously didn't care to click on any of them, so go back and check them.

Click Here ---> http://forum.the-west.net/showpost.php?p=275147&postcount=128