POL MSNBC/NBC Obama Birth Certificate

I was wondering if anyone has heard this on the media outlets yet..............



Duo take Obama birth challenge to Court

Posted: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 11:57 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: Courts, 2008 Obama


From NBC’s Pete Williams
When the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court meet on Dec. 5th, in their regular private conference to decide which cases to hear, two lawsuits that have captivated a segment of the blogosphere will be up for discussion.

Both urge the court to consider claims that President-elect Obama is not qualified to be president, because he is not a natural-born American citizen.

Persistent concerns about the qualifications of both major party candidates rank among the oddest aspects of 2008's historic campaign.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution provides that "No person except a natural born citizen" is eligible to be president. John McCain's status was questioned because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone and various theories have been advanced to cast doubt on Obama's.

Lawsuits over the inclusion of their names on state general-election ballots popped up around the country and were quickly dispensed with by local courts. But two challengers have pursued their cases to the Supreme Court.

Pennsylvania lawyer Philip Berg claims that the circumstances of Obama's birth are vague and that he may have been born in Kenya. Obama's mother, Berg asserts, later flew to Hawaii to register the birth.

Leo Donofrio, a New Jersey lawyer, contends that election officials in his state failed to ensure that only legally qualified candidates were placed on the ballot. Obama may have been born in the United States, Donofrio argues, but "natural born" status depends on both parents being American citizens. Obama's father was Kenyan.

The justices are unlikely to take up these cases for a host of reasons, not the least of which is the invitation to overturn the results of an election in which more than 66 million Americans voted for Obama. An equally high hurdle is the issue of whether Berg or Donofrio have the legal right to sue claiming a violation of the Constitution.

More at:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/26/1689515.aspx

peacewithin said:

I was wondering if anyone has heard this on the media outlets yet..............



Duo take Obama birth challenge to Court

Posted: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 11:57 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: Courts, 2008 Obama


From NBC’s Pete Williams
When the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court meet on Dec. 5th, in their regular private conference to decide which cases to hear, two lawsuits that have captivated a segment of the blogosphere will be up for discussion.

Both urge the court to consider claims that President-elect Obama is not qualified to be president, because he is not a natural-born American citizen.

Persistent concerns about the qualifications of both major party candidates rank among the oddest aspects of 2008's historic campaign.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution provides that "No person except a natural born citizen" is eligible to be president. John McCain's status was questioned because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone and various theories have been advanced to cast doubt on Obama's.

Lawsuits over the inclusion of their names on state general-election ballots popped up around the country and were quickly dispensed with by local courts. But two challengers have pursued their cases to the Supreme Court.

Pennsylvania lawyer Philip Berg claims that the circumstances of Obama's birth are vague and that he may have been born in Kenya. Obama's mother, Berg asserts, later flew to Hawaii to register the birth.

Leo Donofrio, a New Jersey lawyer, contends that election officials in his state failed to ensure that only legally qualified candidates were placed on the ballot. Obama may have been born in the United States, Donofrio argues, but "natural born" status depends on both parents being American citizens. Obama's father was Kenyan.

The justices are unlikely to take up these cases for a host of reasons, not the least of which is the invitation to overturn the results of an election in which more than 66 million Americans voted for Obama. An equally high hurdle is the issue of whether Berg or Donofrio have the legal right to sue claiming a violation of the Constitution.
More at:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/26/1689515.aspx

Click to expand...

Say WHAT?????

US CITIZENS---"may not have the right" to take any legal action when they feel the Consitution is being violated????!!!!?????

It sounds like either the writer of the article, or the SCOTUS itself, is actually questioning whether just a plain John Q. Citizen like these 2 guys even has the RIGHT to question whether the US Constitution is being followed or not---HUH? If the CITIZENs can't appeal for redress of grievances, the greatest possible grievance being denied the rights our Constitution enumerates--not GIVES, enumerates---then WHAT is left to guarantee we can say anything at ALL, anyway, if the Constitution is just simply....IGNORED...by our polititicans and judges? If we the people can't counter that in some way, the Constitution is already a meaningless piece of paper.

peacewithin said:

I was wondering if anyone has heard this on the media outlets yet..............


The justices are unlikely to take up these cases for a host of reasons, not the least of which is the invitation to overturn the results of an election in which more than 66 million Americans voted for Obama. An equally high hurdle is the issue of whether Berg or Donofrio have the legal right to sue claiming a violation of the Constitution.

More at:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/26/1689515.aspx

Click to expand...

Hate to say I told ya so......

When I read the article I couldn't help but feel like we were set up. Neither presidential candidate was born in the US. If McCain would have won, the dems would be filing this lawsuit.

peacewithin said:

The justices are unlikely to take up these cases for a host of reasons, not the least of which is the invitation to overturn the results of an election in which more than 66 million Americans voted for Obama.

Click to expand...

So WHY should that be a reason? Over half the homes in America have a gun in their possession http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=126, yet the SCOTUS heard the DC case not long ago.

They should, no, they NEED, to hear this case.

changed said:

When I read the article I couldn't help but feel like we were set up. Neither presidential candidate was born in the US. If McCain would have won, the dems would be filing this lawsuit.

Click to expand...

changed,

IIRC there was a lawsuit filled against McCain a few years ago, he produced all the requested documents and won.

Fisher

Here is McCains certificate of live birth.

Wikipedia has a good read on the issue, and links to court cases:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen

Originally Posted by peacewithin View Post
I was wondering if anyone has heard this on the media outlets yet..............


The justices are unlikely to take up these cases for a host of reasons, not the least of which is the invitation to overturn the results of an election in which more than 66 million Americans voted for Obama. An equally high hurdle is the issue of whether Berg or Donofrio have the legal right to sue claiming a violation of the Constitution.

More at:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...6/1689515.aspx

Click to expand...

They best consider the 240 million who DIDN'T vote for him.
This isn't mob rule - it is a constitutional republic.

If this is pushed aside as no one has the right to question him and the people in this country don't stand up in arms over this - then all hope is forever lost in any power of the constitution.

One of the dead give a ways is his fathers race is given a African just get a Dictionary and lookup the word African. African is not a race its used as a generalization of the people or thing's from of the continent.

By now he must have a good fake made up

that will pass muster. He's had months since his campaign's cert was exposed as a fraud. The electoral college won't send any birth certificate he gives them to analysts (forensic experts), but will accept what they get if it looks right. There are examples of proper certs online, and other information is easy enough to get. With the kind of money running the big O show, this is trivia.

Time to move on.

almost ready said:

that will pass muster. He's had months since his campaign's cert was exposed as a fraud. The electoral college won't send any birth certificate he gives them to analysts (forensic experts), but will accept what they get if it looks right. There are examples of proper certs online, and other information is easy enough to get. With the kind of money running the big O show, this is trivia.

Time to move on.

Click to expand...

You betcha. He will have one, real or not. I hope nobody seriously has their hopes up over this issue that it will play out against Obama.

Wow I so don't want to speak my mind right now.

<-Definitely doesn't

CRodgers said:

<-Definitely doesn't

Click to expand...

Ewwwwwww. Didja have to?

No but it felt right.

This is much ado about nothing. As anyone can plainly see, his birth certificate is quite legit.





Malone

From the article:

The justices are unlikely to take up these cases for a host of reasons, not the least of which is the invitation to overturn the results of an election in which more than 66 million Americans voted for Obama. An equally high hurdle is the issue of whether Berg or Donofrio have the legal right to sue claiming a violation of the Constitution.

Click to expand...

First, this is just childishness: "...to overturn the results of an election in which more than 66 million Americans voted for Obama." Tripe. There is no number of US voters placing their votes for Obama, which will change whether or not he is qualified to hold the office. Would Pete Williams be arguing in this manner if Obama had one by one vote, then it turned out that vote was placed by a convicted felon, ineligible to vote? I mean, the only fact he is stating here is "Gosh, a whole lot of people sure like him." That doesn't make law, neither is it relevant to the law in question.


Then there is: "the issue of whether Berg or Donofrio have the legal right to sue claiming a violation of the Constitution."

That's been settled over and over again. They don't.

Say WHAT?????

US CITIZENS---"may not have the right" to take any legal action when they feel the Consitution is being violated??

It sounds like either the writer of the article, or the SCOTUS itself, is actually questioning whether just a plain John Q. Citizen like these 2 guys even has the RIGHT to question whether the US Constitution is being followed or not---HUH?

Click to expand...

Nope they don't. Not in this matter. (Explain in a minute)

If McCain would have won, the dems would be filing this lawsuit.

Click to expand...

It IS a Dem who filed the lawsuit! Phillip Berg is a Democrat. He filed the suit because Obama getting the nomination, though unqualified, took away his chance to vote for his candidate of choice; Hillary Clinton.

Besides, the Dems DID try to stop McCain, by claiming he was born in Panama. In fact, he was; however, he was born on-base, to military parents, serving abroad, and for this purpose, military bases on foreign soil are still considered US territory. Case dismissed.

Explanation: Start with this:
Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In short, if the Constitution doesn't give the job to the Federal Govt, or the States, THEN and only then does the job (and authority, or legal standing) of enforcing the Constitution fall to the people. And here is why it doesn't "fall to the people":
The job is given to Congress, mostly the Senate. They are also given permission to legislate the authority for this job to another entity.

Both the 12th amendment, and the 20th amendment, which superseded most of the 12th provide for this:
"or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; " Basically that says Joe Biden becomes President.

Now the other reason he threw it out is this:

regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.

Click to expand...

This is just plain ridiculous thinking. The idea a President who, it turns out, is unqualified to sign law, carry out law, sign treaties, or command troops, "does not result in an injury in fact to voters" is just plain deranged.


So how is it determined that the President has "failed to qualify" ? Well, one place is on Dec. 15th, in the Senate. On that day the Senate receives the electoral ballots from the states, counts them, and then "certifies" the election. Technically it is only then that Obama, or whoever actually becomes the President-elect.

Can the Senate look at whether or not a candidate is qualified? Sure they can. In fact each of the four times the courts have decided a citizen has "no standing" to sue in this, they have said it is the Senate's or Congress' job to legislate to whom they choose. Obviously Congress has the authority to do it themselves, if they hold the power to pass it on.

So the Senate can look into it.
"Federal courts typically reject claims of legal standing based simply on a litigant's status as a voter or taxpayer." They have four times, so far, three times since 1999 alone.


Normally the Supreme Court doesn't hear evidence, or make decisions based upon evidence. They make decisions on process, and the meaning of law. So far, no court has heard the evidence in this case. The only thing that has been decided is whether the plaintiff can bring the suit. That is something the federal courts have ruled on, 4 times up, 4 times thrown down.

So why did Justice Suiter put this on the list for their Dec. 5 discussion? Here is what I think he has in mind..

There is a way for a judge to hear and rule on the evidence in a case, even when the plaintiff does not have standing to file it. So far the lower courts have refused to exercise this option, preferring to just rule with the precedent. The option is that if the judge sees a compelling reason to (Or if a higher court orders him to), a judge can hear the evidence though the plaintiff has no standing.

All I can think of is that perhaps Justice Suiter has decided a President who is unqualified to sign law, carry out law, sign treaties, command our troops, may be just that "compelling reason". And if he can get 4 other Supremes to go along, the case might be returned to the lower court with an order to hear the actual evidence in the case.

Now, I read of this option about a week before Judge Surrick ruled on Berg's case. I just spent 2 hours trying to find a link, where it is discussed, and have had no luck. If someone else can find it, please post a link.

Thanks.

Someone succinctly said, “Obama has spent over $800,000 and several months fighting to avoid presenting a $10 copy of a long-form birth certificate” begging the ultimate question, why?.


Justice Clarence Thomas and the Obama factor



By Dave Bertrand

The Obama "conspiracy theory" is reaching new heights beyond anyone's comprehension...or at least the comprehension of those that voted for this dynamic man. Dynamic in the sense that our Supreme Court on December 5th, will either put this all to rest and the voters will continue to believe in their messiah, or it will turn this country upside down. With many lawsuits backing-up and Justice Clarence Thomas now coming forth to unravel the dynamics of this conspiracy, our constitution is in crisis, but this is also an opportunity for the "World President" Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetero, Dunham or whatever his name is to forge ahead with his quote unquote, "International Order" which means "The New World Order."

But that's just ridiculous thinking and there's no way our government would allow a non-citizen to scam his way into the presidency?? And of course Bill Clinton "did not have sex with that woman," or George H. Bush didn't mean that "read my lips...no new taxes" was just a slip of the tongue, and Nixon was truthful when he said that he was "not a crook." Every president has lied and this president-elect may be slicker than willy himself, or more than any president we have ever had.

Simple enough for president-elect Obama to put this all to rest himself, is to provide his college records, medical records and the super secret vault birth certificate that is being kept under seal of being (possibly), the biggest embarrassment of this country's history and a major let-down to the African/American community that deserve a president, much like the charisma that Obama displays. Should he get a "free pass" if he is lying? In my opinion...this whole Obama conspiracy cannot be contained by both the corporate media and both the republican and democratic parties, and like most conspiracies....the "powers at be" will just get to the point with the American people and say, "so what!! What are you going to do about it??"

"Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetero, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham and Barry Dunham are all names that our president-elect has been known to use throughout his life."

"It has been shown that in 1981 Obama traveled to Pakistan using an Indonesian passport. At the time of his travels to Indonesia, Obama was twenty years old. He was well aware he maintained his Indonesian citizenship, and had yet to regain his United States citizenship. Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship."

"The Obama campaign took great delight in pointing out that John McCain ranked 894th out of a graduating class of 899 at the U.S. Naval Academy. However do you know where Mr. Obama ranked in his graduating class at Occidental, Columbia or Harvard? You don’t know because Obama would not release any of his school records."

"A case that challenges President-elect Barack Obama’s name on the 2008 election ballot citing questions over his citizenship has been scheduled for a “conference” at the U.S. Supreme Court." [Scheduled for December 5th, 2008]

READ FULL TEXT BELOW

***************************

http://trafficalertusa.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!F220F6323E68E50C!571.entry

Is the President-Elect blackmail-able over his birth certificate?
By Michael Gaynor

It IS cause for concern that the President-Elect is hiding his birth certificate and the logical questions presenting themselves are, why is the President-Elect hiding his birth certificate?, and Is the President-Elect blackmail-able over his birth certificate?

I submit that there is a legitimate public interest in the birth certificate of the President-Elect.

Is the truth about his birth what he wrote in his autobiography, Dreams from My Father, or what he said at the last Alfred E. Smith dinner, or something else?

Is America at risk because the President-Elect is determined to conceal his birth certificate?

Professor Matthew J. Franck feels oppressed over the interest in President-Elect Obama's birth certificate.

Professor Franck, in a National Review Online Bench memo titled "Dear Lord, Make It Stop":

"It's a week after the election, and I'm still getting e-mails that holler about how Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he's not a 'natural born citizen' under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. Enough already!

"Last winter, even the New York Times was suckered into taking seriously the loopy theory that John McCain is not a natural born citizen because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. As I explained then, his parentage sufficed no matter where he was born, since his parents were U.S. citizens.

"So too with Obama. All indications are that he was born in Hawaii in 1961. The state authorities say they have his birth certificate (though the fact that a modern printout of an electronic record has been made available rather than a photocopy of the 1961 original has sent some people round the bend).

"And what if Obama was not born in the U.S. but instead, as some claim, in Kenya? Well, his mother was an American citizen, and as UCLA law prof and blogger Eugene Volokh explained to the Chicago Tribune, the applicable statutes about foreign birth with one U.S. citizen parent are on Obama's side here."

With all due respect to Professor Franck (and that is plenty), there is more to this than perhaps a legal issue as to whether a child of one United States citizen born abroad is eligible to serve a President of the United States (which should be determined based on principle, not personality). The President-Elect chose to hide his birth certificate instead of to produce it for public inspection. THAT is strange.

How many Presidents of the United States have hidden their birth certificate?

I am not aware of any.

How many presidential candidates have hidden their birth certificates?

To the best of my knowledge, only...THE ONE.

At the Alfred E. Smith dinner this year, then presidential candidate Obama said that he was born on Krypton and sent to earth by his father Jor-El.

Perhaps the truth is stranger than that.

Would a smart politician hide his or her birth certificate if there was nothing problematic about it?

The answer is no.

Such hiding instills or increases doubt about the candidate in some voters and it is in a candidate's best interests to eliminate such doubt if the truth is good.

So, it seems that the President-Elect elected to hide his birth certificate because there is something troublesome about it becoming generally known, and more important than allaying suspicion.

Professor Franck concluded his Bench Memo: "Give it up and get on with life. Barack Obama is going to become president on January 20, 2009. He won, fair and square, an office he is eligible to occupy. So stop with the fetid, fervid, fevered e-mails, okay?"

It may well be that the President-Elect is eligible to occupy the Oval Office, but without examining that birth certificate, how can Professor Franck assure us that the President-Elect "won, fair and square"?

A November 21, 2008 post by "Nice Deb" titled "Kenyan Ambassador: Obama's Birthplace "Already Well Known In Kenya" suggests that the President-Elect lied about his birthplace and while I don't care per se where he was born, I do care about lying.

"Nice Deb":

"I wasn't going to say any more about the Obama birth certificate controversy, but I found this intriguing.

"Mike in the Morning, a radio talk show out of Detroit MI, (of all places!), decided to call the Kenyan embassy a little over a week ago, and talk about the reaction in Kenya to Obama's victory in the 2008 Presidential election. I think it was meant to be a light hearted interview...it doesn't seem like they went into this with the intention of making headlines. They started off talking to a secretary, but were eventually patched through to the Kenyan Ambassador, H.E. Peter Ogego.

"The pertinent part of the audio starts at 2:35.

"My impression is that the question about Obama's birthplace was meant as a joke... not to be taken seriously. But His Excellency Peter Ogego answered it seriously, and frankly.

"A few things to consider in case you're thinking this was some sort of prank:

1. The audio of this conversation (the first part of the call can be heard, here) is posted at the WRIF radio station's website. I doubt the station would put its reputation and FCC radio license on the line for a hoax.

2. That sure sounds like H.E. Peter Ogego's voice. Compare here.

3. Listen to the genuine surprise of the talk show hosts after the call.The only argument that detractors can convincingly make, is that the Ambassador and most, if not all of Kenya's citizen's, including Obama's Kenyan grandmother, (who claims to have witnessed his birth), are mistaken about this.

"WND reports:

'At least two of his relatives in Kenya claim to have been present at his birth in Mombasa, Kenya. In addition, the Obama machine has scoffed at requests to see the form of the Hawaiian birth certificate that includes the specific hospital in which the delivery took place. The form released by the campaign does not include that information, leading to suspicions Obama might have been one of the foreign-born babies of the 1960s who were, nonetheless, provided birth certificates by the state of Hawaii.'

"And:

"'Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child's birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence,' the document said. 'The only way to know where Senator Obama was actually born is to view Senator Obama's original birth certificate from 1961 that shows the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor that delivered him.'"

Americans regularly receive tax and medical information about their President.

It is NOT too much to expect a presidential candidate to provide his or her birth certificate.

It IS cause for concern that the President-Elect is hiding his birth certificate and the logical questions presenting themselves are, Why is the President-Elect hiding his birth certificate?, and Is the President-Elect blackmail-able over his birth certificate?

© Michael Gaynor

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/gaynor/081126

While the whole thing about the birth certificate is interesting, there is evidence that BO did not fill out a Selective Service form as required by law. The law states that if you don't fill one out, you can never hold a Federal job. If it is proved that he does have a Birth certificate, no one will ever be able to get traction on the draft thing.

See http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/11/exclusive_did_n.html
for futher info.

So do you suppose we will know anything by next Friday, Dec. 5th? Shouldn't we at least know if the case will be heard by then?

FarmerJohn said:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

Click to expand...

Question: How did they get it when no one else can? That in and of itself raises suspicions cause there are active lawsuits to produce the actual document and the 'O' team flat out refuses. Yet, a website can get it.

factcheck is a known "front" for making sure the "facts" as Obama wants them to be are espoused as "factual" whether they are or not.

Kris

What would be the motivation for republican-funded Annenberg FactCheck.org to misrepresent facts? Perhaps you should consider the possibility that the facts happen to be in Obama's favor, rather than that then seem to do so is part of some dark conspiracy.

If I were in Obama's shoes I certainly wouldn't be loaning my copy out to the first person who asked. I'd give access to a selected few and then let my enemies waste their energies flailing around. Another example of superior strategy, don't you think?

FJ

FarmerJohn said:

What would be the motivation for republican-funded Annenberg FactCheck.org to misrepresent facts? Perhaps you should consider the possibility that the facts happen to be in Obama's favor, rather than that then seem to do so is part of some dark conspiracy.

If I were in Obama's shoes I certainly wouldn't be loaning my copy out to the first person who asked. I'd give access to a selected few and then let my enemies waste their energies flailing around. Another example of superior strategy, don't you think?

FJ

Click to expand...

Actually, I believe the judge in the first Berg case ordered Obama to produce the birth certificate. The fact that he didn't, and instead chose to let a judgement be entered against him and then APPEAL to a higher court is HIGHLY suspicous. Why spend the time and money when all he has to do is comply with a judges order? This isn't the rabid repubs expending the effort. These are Citizens.