Is Barack Obama an Illegal Immigrant?
Is Barack Obama an Illegal Immigrant?
UPDATE: 10-25-08 - The federal judge dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that Berg, an ordinary U.S. citizen, does not have legal standing to challenge the eligibility of a presidential candidate, despite the lack of (and refusal to provide) evidence that Obama is eligible according to the U.S. Constitution. Berg says he will challenge this case up to the Supreme Court, if necessary.
Some questions still remain: If "ordinary" citizens do not have legal standing to uphold the Constitution, which is a product of the People that establishes our government and the laws we live by and under, then who does? And why has the Obama campaign refused to release any of the documents that can permanently put the issue to rest?
(End Update)
Amidst the excitement in this election year about a fairly unknown candidate and his promise to the People of “change,” it appears one of the most fundamental aspects of his candidacy has been overlooked by nearly everyone involved. There is currently a civil suit pending in the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania challenging the legality of Barack Obama’s candidacy for the president of the United States. What’s the charge? Apparently, Senator Obama has yet to produce the documents required to prove he is a natural born citizen, and lawyer Philip J. Berg alleges that they most likely do not exist.
Philip J. Berg is a lawyer and a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania. He is also a life-long Democrat and was a Hillary Clinton supporter during this year’s Democrat primaries. Nevertheless, he claims to be filing this lawsuit in order to protect the integrity of the Democrat Party as well as the American People.
Berg’s lawsuit focuses on several points of contention. First he claims that there is evidence that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and his birth was registered in Hawaii upon return to the state. Berg alleges that Obama’s paternal grandmother and other relatives have claimed he was born in Kenya in 1961 and that there may be hospital records in Mombasa, Kenya that verify his birth occurred there. Berg says Barack’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, made a trip to Kenya while she was pregnant and was unable to fly home because she was in the late term of her pregnancy. Berg claims that once the child – Barack Hussein Obama II – was born, the family then flew back to Hawaii and registered his birth with the state offices.
If this is true, Berg says that Barack Obama was not a “natural born” citizen because laws at the time did not confer citizenship on a child born of a non-citizen and a citizen if the “citizen” parent had not established their citizenship for at least five years after the age of 14. Barack’s mother was only 18 years old when Barack was born and therefore could not have met this requirement.
Berg goes on to another point that appears to also have legitimacy. When Mrs. Dunham remarried to Lolo Soetoro, they both took up residence in Indonesia – Soetoro’s native country. At the time, Indonesia did not recognize dual citizenship. In order for a child to attend public schools in Indonesia, they must be a citizen of the country. Barack Obama has openly stated that he spent four years of his childhood in the country and attended school there. Berg claims that his school application lists his name as “Barry Soetoro” and his citizenship as “Indonesia.” If he was indeed adopted or claimed by Lolo Soetoro under Indonesian law, then Obama would have lost his United States citizenship. Upon returning to the United States, he would have to have filed paperwork to become either a naturalized citizen or take an oath of allegiance before his twenty-first birthday to regain his citizenship. Berg alleges that these documents either do not exist or have not been provided because Barack Obama never regained his citizenship.
Even if Obama was naturalized, he is not eligible for the presidency according to Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States. The president must be a “natural born” citizen.
If he was an Indonesian citizen and paperwork was not filed on his behalf upon returning to the United States, then he is an illegal alien.
Berg concedes that if Obama simply provided any of the documents that would prove his allegations wrong, he would have no choice but to end his lawsuit. The defendant in the case, Barack Obama (and the Democratic National Committee), has not provided the requested documents that would clear up any issues about citizenship. Instead, the defendants’ lawyers have filed a motion to dismiss the case altogether. The judge has yet to rule on the dismissal. In the formal response to the dismissal that was filed, Berg asks that the court order the requested documents be presented by October 15, 2008.
Barack Obama and the DNC can easily resolve the case by simply presenting the requested documents. By trying to dismiss the case, they make it appear worse than it may actually be. Both parties are now waiting on the judge’s ruling for dismissal. If the case is dismissed, it still leaves the questions unanswered. The only proof of citizenship that Obama has publicly provided is a birth certificate he allegedly obtained from Hawaii in 2007. No news outlet or journalist has yet to see the official documents – or at least publicly acknowledge that they have. The only exception is FactCheck.org, which claims they have physically inspected the birth certificate and it is authentic. But a closer look at their website shows that their “sources” for the story was an application form, a request form, and a story that claims Obama’s birth certificate proves his name is not Mohammed and he is not a Muslim.
Nonetheless, this raises several more questions. If the issue of Barack Obama’s citizenship was being questioned, why would only the FactCheck.org website be shown the document? At first, when the question of Barack’s citizenship was raised, they claimed that he was absolutely a citizen even though they did not see the actual document – just a digitally scanned copy of it. When further questions were raised about forgery, again, only FactCheck.org was able to inspect it in person. No other news outlet or journalist has claimed that they have seen the birth certificate in person and can verify that it is a legitimate document. Even if the birth certificate is authentic, as FactCheck.org claims, it would not prove his citizenship if Berg's allegations about Obama's Indonesian citizenship are correct.
Another question would be, why won’t the Obama campaign simply allow any news agency to inspect his birth certificate and have a qualified expert analyze it for authenticity which can be verified by Hawaiian officials? Why won’t they simply provide the evidence for the civil suit instead of stalling proceedings and filing motions for dismissal? If they have nothing to hide, then why try their best to appear to be hiding something? All of these questions can be very easily settled by simply complying with the court or by disclosing the proper documents to the media.
Barack Obama has chosen to do neither – and again we find ourselves asking a question that appears to be very common lately:
What is Barack Obama trying to hide?
Watch the video here:
Philip J. Berg Explains Lawsuit
Philip J. Berg's Website on the lawsuit:
Sources:
Berg v. Obama et al
Report on Obama Birth Certificate Forgery
Born in the U.S.A.
The Constitution of the United States
*For more articles by this author, click here.
Submitted by - alien |
- barack obama |
- Barry Soetoro |
- berg |
- Berg v Obama |
- birth certificate |
- born |
- citizen |
- citizenship |
- constitution |
- crimes |
- hawaii |
- illegal |
- immigrant |
- Indonesia |
- Kenya |
- lawsuit |
- National and Local News |
- natural born |
- Obama |
- obamacrimes.com |
- Philip Berg |
- president |
Related Articles
- Barack Obama's Birth Certificate - Proof of Citizenship?
- McCain and Obama May Both Be Ineligible To Be President Based On Not Being Natural Born Americans
- Obama's Birth Certificate: Allegations Regarding Barack's Citizenship
- obamacrimes.com - Official Web Site of the Official Lawsuit In The Obama Citizenship Court Case - Berg Vs Obama
- Patriot Brigade Talk Radio Network - Launching New Lawsuit Against Barack H. Obama - The Right Way!
- Login or register to post comments |
- 775 reads |
- Email this page |
- Printer-friendly version |
- Publius's Xombytes |
Grasping At Strwas
This argument has been debunked months ago. Here is a picture of his birth certificate:
http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg
This is about as good as the McCain was born in Panama so isn't qualified argument. If any of this was true it would have been brought out my campaign operatives a long time ago. Trust me, Hillary left no stone unturned.
Grasping at Comprehension
Actually, this argument has not been "debunked months ago." You are simply referring to a birth certificate that has been proven to "exist." That does not make it authentic and it does not prove that Obama is a U.S. citizen.
Why don't you try reading the lawsuit to see what the allegations are? Then explain to me why Obama has yet to release his documents so that they can be verified.
*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.
Factcheck.org is says that Obama's birth certificate is real
You link to several sources, including Factcheck.org. From that site:
"FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false."
So why are you even posting these allegations again? Every time you mention the lawsuit, you qualify Berg's statements with words like "claims," "alleges," "appears to be," etc. (I give you credit for adding these words, since they point out that these are the allegations of ONE person.)
Anybody can claim anything. I can claim I'm Napoleon Bonaparte, but that doesn't make it so. Even if Berg is a Democrat, you say he was a Hillary Clinton supporter... there are plenty of Clinton supporters who still detest Obama and wish to see him lose.
According to Factcheck, the documents HAVE been examined, and they seem to feel the case is closed.
So do I.
Yes, and if you read the
Yes, and if you read the FactCheck.org website, you will not see anything that proves Obama is a legal and natural born citizen of the United States. What they claim to have held is his birth certificate - and they are the only ones who claim to have physically "touched" it. Why would Obama release his BC to only a "fact-checking" website? Why not provide it to the courts so that the issue can be put to rest? Or to the rest of the media for that matter?
Regardless, even if the BC is authentic, it does not mean he is still a legal citizen. Perhaps you missed the rest of the allegations made in the lawsuit. You and FactCheck.org can "feel the case is closed" all you want, but until the court rules on the matter, it isn't.
And mentioning the word "claim" is what you do when discussing a lawsuit until the case is decided. If I said these things were "fact," I would be wrong. You know, kind of like what you're doing when you claim that these allegations have been proven to be incorrect.
*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.
Sorry,
I'm not interested in going around semantic circles or engaging in legalistic arguments about far-fetched hypothetical scenarios about what might have possibly happened if certain improbable conditions existed under a full moon. Or in spending my time to read some wacko's lawsuit.
You suggest I check out some more of the "allegations" in the lawsuit... sorry, not interested. They are just that: allegations. This guy and some of the other conspiracy mongers seem to feel that if they throw enough sh!t at the wall, some of it might possibly stick.
You can theorize and speculate all you want, but Factcheck.org has always seemed a credible site to me. And as they say: "The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A."
As far as some of the more diehard conspiracy theorists, Factcheck says, "We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat."
Maybe you should get out the Reynolds Wrap, Pub!
Well, by not choosing to
Well, by not choosing to look into the allegations of the lawsuit, you fail to understand the lawsuit. Berg has presented documents to the court that support his allegations and has issued subpoenas for other documents. The court granted him legal standing for the case, so it is not just a matter of a "conspiracy theorist" making absurd allegations.
You can choose to ignore the proceedings all you want, but the facts still remain. If Obama has nothing to hide, he can easily provide the documents in question. If FactCheck.org is correct, then Obama can prove that Berg is a nutjob and the case will be over.
Obama has not done so. Instead, his lawyers filed for a dismissal on a technicality - which is still pending. You can belittle me all you want, but the court case is real, it has not been ruled on, and I am merely reporting it and giving my thoughts on it. If Berg is correct about the laws he cites, then I think his questions about Obama's citizenship are entirely reasonable. But I wouldn't expect somebody like you to understand a reasonable argument.
*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.
Nice
Sounds a nice, lovely juicy story! +1!
Make Money. Join XOMBA!
My writings here
My profile here
My Xomba blog
In a perfect world
I would have an infinite amount of time to check into every allegation, etc... but I don't. So I do what most other people do: I rely on a select number of sources that I feel are reliable, and Factcheck.org is one of them.
If there was even a shred of credibility to this birth certificate dust-up, don't you think McCain (or more likely Palin) would be all over it, bringing it up in speeches to further indicate that Obama is unAmerican, a foreigner, not like the rest of us, etc.?
Maybe the McCain staff has decided the matter doesn't have any merit. Or maybe they don't want attention on McCain's birth, which some people have questioned (I don't think there's much basis to those, either).
So, it's not true because
So, it's not true because other people have not talked about it publicly? That's some pretty solid logic.
Yes, McCain's citizenship was also questioned. But it was decided that U.S. laws conferred citizenship to someone born in his situation. In the Berg case, if what he alleges is found to be true, then the laws do not support Obama's claim as a natural born citizen eligible for the presidency. It's quite simple and we will soon find out what the court decides.
That's what I will be waiting for...not FactCheck.org's analysis of a birth certificate.
*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.
Logic
It wasn't meant as proof of logic, but my point was, are you disagreeing that McCain wouldn't use this issue if it had any validity to it? Don't you think an Obama opponent would bring up that issue if it had any validity at all.
Again, all you can say about Berg is that he "alleges" something. There must be thousands of lawsuits in the courts at any given time with various allegations, yet for some reason you choose to believe this one.
You might want to start making that tinfoil hat now.
Idlewild... Let me see if I
Idlewild...
Let me see if I have this right. I wrote this Xombyte to shed some light on a lawsuit that could have some massive implications on this year's election and the state of our Union if it is held up. You have claimed that this is all tin-foil nonsense while stating this:
"You suggest I check out some more of the 'allegations' in the lawsuit... sorry, not interested."
If you're "not interested" in learning about the allegations in the lawsuit, then why are you trying to dispute it and claim that it's nonsense? Don't you think you're being just a little bit (or a lot) ignorant since you have obviously not taken the time to read the actual lawsuit? It's more than just a birth certificate that is in question here.
After I pointed out the fact that you cannot understand the suit without reading it, you go on to say this:
"In a perfect world I would have an infinite amount of time to check into every allegation, etc... but I don't."
Well, I had some time and I did check on the allegations. If they are determined by the court to be valid legal arguments, then Obama will be ordered to turn over the documents in question. Just because you don't have the time to learn about the allegations does not mean they are invalid. And if you're going to argue about whether the case is valid or not, don't you think you should at least read it first? It may be common practice for you, but I do not formulate my opinions based on the opinions of others. That's why I took the time to read the actual lawsuit. You should try it.
This next comment is just inane:
"Again, all you can say about Berg is that he 'alleges' something. There must be thousands of lawsuits in the courts at any given time with various allegations, yet for some reason you choose to believe this one."
There may very well be "thousands of lawsuits" around the country this very minute, but what do they have to do with this presidential election? I chose to write about this lawsuit because it has some very serious and relevant allegations against Obama that could have a great effect on this election and this country. The possibility of a presidential front-runner actually being ineligible for the presidency is pretty big news. (And Berg has made these allegations fully knowing about defamation, counter-suits, and other possible consequences...he was a Deputy Attorney General in Pennsylvania.) If it is eventually decided by the courts that Obama is in fact eligible, then this will no longer be an issue. Until then, it is very reasonable and relevant for me to "believe" this lawsuit (whatever that means) and to write about it.
Deciding whether the allegations are true is not up to me. The court and the documents in question will determine the outcome, whatever that may be.
*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.
To clarify...
If you had any proof this claim was true, you'd have presented it. But it sounds like you aren't even sure the claim has any merit... and yet you're expecting other people to dig around and spend their time reading a conspiracy theory lawsuit by a disgruntled Clinton supporter.
Since you're willing to put so much time into checking this matter out, and feel it's so worthy of people's time and interest, I suggest you continue with your research, and get back to us if you find out this claim has any merit.
Until then, I'm satisfied with the conclusion of Factcheck.org and other parties that have decided that the birth certificate is real.
You're just not getting it...try reading the lawsuit
Well, sure...that's a great way for you to avoid the truth - that you are too lazy to do your own research on the matter, while at the same time claiming that the lawsuit is invalid.
I gave an overview of the lawsuit and gave you the link to all of the proceedings up to this point. You chose not to read them. If you're not even going to read them and decide for yourself whether the case has merit, then you have no legitimate say in the matter. If you're going to rely on FactCheck.org's analysis of a birth certificate, then you're not going to have any clue about the rest of the case that was explained in this article. As I said, a birth certificate does not determine whether or not Obama is still a citizen today and whether he is eligible for the presidency.
Try reading the article again and try reading the lawsuit. Your arguments have little to do with the lawsuit and you're making yourself look pretty ignorant and foolish.
(As much time as you've spent commenting on this article without knowing what the hell you're talking about, you could have read the suit by now.)
*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.
Sooooooo
Is this the first time we will have a pres not born in the US? Assuming of course that the allegations about Barack are true.
Well, if the allegations are
Well, if the allegations are in fact true, then he would not be eligible to be president. We'd have quite a scandal on our hands. Who knows what kind of chaos it would create.
*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.
This is not an issue that
This is not an issue that concerns me too much, I must admit. And since both candidates' eligibility for the presidency have been accepted by the State Department, it is highly unlikely that anything will come of the lawsuit. Quite honestly, I wouldn't really care, anyway, if either of them were found out to be ineligible on a mere technicality.
What concerns me most is which candidate will be the better choice for president.
↑ Grab this Headline Animator
It doesn't concern you that
It doesn't concern you that a presidential candidate could possibly be found to be a fraud? That he may actually be an illegal immigrant? That's quite a statement.
How can a candidate be a "better choice" if he is ineligible to serve according to the Constitution?
*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.
No, not really
His ineligibility would be based on the laws at the time of his birth, as opposed to the current laws. I just don't see that as particularly important. How would that really make a difference in his ability to govern?
Now, if a huge scandal broke after he was elected, that, of course, is another story. But since I see that scenario being about as likely as Ralph Nader winning the election, I don't think I'll give it too much thought.
↑ Grab this Headline Animator
This is quite an admission,
This is quite an admission, kjhack. You apparently don't seem to care about laws and their importance...I find that a bit troubling.
The laws at the time of Barack's birth and his return to Hawaii are not irrelevant because of when they were passed or when they were in effect. Unless there were subsequent laws passed that repealed the previous laws, then they are still the law and they were the law when the said events occurred. And if Obama did not comply with the law, then he violated the law and may have consequently changed the status of his citizenship. That matters today. The Constitution describes the requirements for president. If you do not meet those requirements, then you cannot be president. It's quite simple. The ability to govern is really a moot point. Your ability doesn't matter if you can't meet the basic requirements by law.
Ignoring it because it just doesn't seem important to you isn't exactly how the system works.
*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.
I don't mind admitting that one bit
I guess I'm just more concerned with the really important matters, like the economy. They could have both been born on another planet, for all I care. Screw stupid laws.
↑ Grab this Headline Animator
UPDATE: Berg v. Obama headed to Appeals Court
See "update" at top of article.
*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.
.
.