Like I said this is a non issue. As soon as Obama produces his original birth certificate it is game over.

LOL. The only unrest going on here or anywhere in the world about Obama's birth certicate is in your obsessive, vivid imagination

besides the birth certificate question, pro poker player leo denofrio (former law practioner) has laucnhed a layered case with the supreme court that now appears on the docket for discussion on in december. for it to appear on the docket, it means the supreme court have decided it is worth talking about.

essentially, he is arguing that EVEN IF obama finally shows his birth certificate, and it says born in hawaii, he is still ineligible due the the requirement of natural born citizen not necessarily being fulfilled, due to obamas changes of citizenship and circumstances during his lifetime. the supreme court are hearing the issue, so even they accept there is potentially some issue. incidentally, berg's case will go before a supreme court consisting of 5 republicans and 4 democrats but tbh is case is far weaker than either keyes or particularly denofrio (who also argues mccain is also ineligble, and also roger calero who should not have been on the ballot either). denofrio's case is the one to watch - his case is not reliant on a birth certificate.

this is not a racist issue - alan keyes is black and has launched a case. several just-elected Electors have launched a case. a former assistant attorney general, berg has launched a case. media that covered this story painted berg as an idiot, they omitted his credentials....former assistant attorney general should at least hve been mentioned before they attack his credibility.

and aside from any of the above, people are gradually realising that the promise of change meant nothing of the sort, hence his administration picks consisting largely of clinton advisors. the robert rubin selection is hilarious - this guy is responsible for the repeal of the glass-steagall act - ie he contributed greatly to the current financial mess.


Dear Obama supporters, was Obama promising change we could believe in or change we needed to small contributors or big donors, which donated to the Obama for America Fund and then the Obama Victory Fund and then forced the Obama campaign to open a third fund, the Committee for Change, so that donors which had already donated tens of thousands of dollars could donate tens of thousands of dollars more?

Ask yourself, just what did these big donors hope to get?

I mean, Obama supporters may not have thought about this but bipartisanship and unity and making Washington work are all things that the private sector may have been hoping for. Corporations need a government willing to unite and not engage in partisanship so that gridlock does not prevent deregulations and bills which benefit Big Business from being stalled.

We cant have that next big bailout being stalled in the House or Senate now, can we?

Lets be honest. Delusions of grandeur, visions of hope and change, filled the hearts and minds of Americas electorate and Americans having been through Bush gladly bought into these delusions.

Donwarro, this was all very interesting six months ago but Obama published his certificate of birth showing he was born in Hawaii, online in June.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/10/obama_mccain_us_citizens.html

The right-wing conservative websites who incidentally have no connection to the Republican campaign immediately said it must be a fake. Well I never what a surprising retort.

Even if Obama had been born outside the US he would still be a US citizen because his mother was a US citizen. So those with an agenda then changed the goalposts to say if he had been born outside the US, the legal status in 1961, required one parent to live in the US at least five years after the age of 14, and since his mother was 3 months short of 19 when he was born that would make him ineligible.
When it was pointed out that subsequent acts of Congress relaxed the requirement to two years after the age of 14. Congress made the law retroactive to 1952. They then changed the goalposts completely by saying Congress had no authority to pass laws, at this point most sensible people lost the will to live.

There is no provisions in the original constitution about air travel. That does not prevent Congress making civil aviation laws. So why would they be prevented by the original constitution from making up to date citizenship laws?

There is nothing wrong with getting information from sources outwith the mainstream media but this stuff is from far right conservative organisations trying to create news in order to drum up publicity. If any legal challenges were from the McCain Republican campaign it would have a degree of credibility. But it is not, it's from people starting frivolous lawsuits and then expecting the media to report the news, which they have generated for their own ends. Anyone can file a lawsuit it does not make it newsworthy. You mention a case at the Supreme Court, it is only there because they appealed to the Supreme Court after losing the case.

DO YOU DENY THERE ARE COURT CASES?

simple question. since its listed on supreme court docket - yes there are. the mainstream ignoring it means nothing.

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm

this is denofrio's case on the docket. it says:

Nov 19 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008.

actually ur right it is on appeal, but he has followed all the right channels. but even an appeal can be turned down outright - they have chose do discuss the matter, as per above quote. so therefore i feel safe concluding that the supreme court deems it worthy of discussion.

so why has this case been fast tracked to conference? you think they normally get there that fast if they're a non-issue?

clearly they want to resolve the matter one way or another before the electoral college meets 10 days after the supreme court conference.

another point. if obama had citizenship of indonesia, whilst living there, he could not have maintained dual-citizenship status with usa, as neither country allowed this with regard to the other. this means upon regaining his american citizenship, he would be a naturalized citizen and not a natural born citizen.

incidentally, it is on record that obama travelled to pakistan in 1981. what passport did he enter that country with? seeing as their was a ban on americans entering pakistan at the time, by pakistan...

this is not the extent of the argument. his eligibility is actually in question from a number of different angles.

he never won the election - have you missed the threads on this??

he won the popular vote. this is not the election, no matter what the media tells you. read. learn.

OK Don the President-Elect who is not really the President-Elect who has been appointing his cabinet who will not really be the cabinet because some wacky websites say he will not be President even when he is the next President. Rather than focus on some vague conspiracies a challenge for you. You provide a NAME for who you forecast will be inaugurated the next president and I will provide one and we will bump the thread 20/01/09 and each concede who was right.

I go for Barack Obama.

ok fair challenge. i will go for chuck baldwin. laugh all you like :)

i will be here 20th january to congratulate you, or to collect my congratulations, whichever the case may be :)

The point I was making was lawsuits on their own does not make it worthy of news coverage. If the lawsuit was upheld that is worthy of news coverage not the lawsuit. Here is the other point of view from the stuff you are quoting. Including a copy of the birth announcement from the Honolulu Advertiser, 1961.


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

birth announcement??

so where is the doctor who delivered him. the nurses. anyone that was there??

Don, it's a birth announcement in a local newspaper. I suppose if the doctors and midwifes did not sign below the announcement in the local newspaper that they were there. How can we be sure. However, I never see them verifying that they were there in my local newspaper.

an announcment in the paper is not evidence. how do you conclude it is?

evidence, is an birth certificate but not exclusively, and paper trail of citizenship throughout his life, and also the interpretation of the supreme court of the current state of law with regard to the constitution and subsequent amendments.

compelling evidence that someone at the time wanted people to think he was born there. this could have been for personal family reasons.

Maybe they were anticipating he might be a Presidential candidate one day, Don. The son of an African goat herder being an obvious candidate.

incidentally, the nypost confirmed obama is related to cheney, and is not the nobody you think he is

so have you read any of the actual writs yet, to see for yourself what the actual argument is? have you actually read anything?

regrettably i think it will shortly kick off in the us - if it escalates this issue could divide the country further. im sure you agree that is possible if one of these cases is upheld, regardless of your feelings at to how likely that is.

no, the electoral college does.