Obama not natural born citizen, update!

[galtgulch]

Link to worldnetdaily article with many links :

http://tinyurl.com/6mo9zx

Either he is or he isn't!

Either the Constitution matters or it doesn't!

Either you care or you don't!

There are no contradictions in the universe.

galt

Edited December 10, 2008 by galtgulch

[Chris Grieb]

Galt; Thank you for helping save the country. Without you where would we be. Thank you! NOT!

[BaalChatzaf]

Link to worldnetdaily article with many links :

http://tinyurl.com/6mo9zx

Either he is or he isn't!

Either the Constitution matters or it doesn't!

Either you care or you don't!

There are no contradictions in the universe.

galt

The Constitution is mulch, Gulch. It has been so since the 17-th amendment. Fortunately parts of the Bill of Rights are still operative. For how long? In the mean time, rejoice.

Pres-E Obama's citizenship will not be challenged in court. That is the bottom line. Unless fate intervenes he will be sworn in on Jan. 20 of next year. Suck it up. Live with it. His electors were chosen by the voting public fair and square. Get used to it.

And do not speak of the Constitution as though it were axiomatic or true a priori. It isn't. It was made up out of whole cloth by people who put their pants on one leg at a time.

You are too intelligent to be a crack-pot. Stop it!

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited December 10, 2008 by BaalChatzaf

[Alfonso Jones]

Galt -

Do you REALLY think that if the sort of allegations you are posting had any solid documentation behind them that some organiation such as the Fox News Channel would not have picked them up and trumpeted them at high volume, with high frequency?

Really?

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Brant Gaede]

If the Supreme Court actually tried to stop the Obama momentum to the swearing in it would all but self-destruct as an institution. Not one Justice is that stupid. The Court is a political body too. No, Obama will get to play his hand to the extent of his ostensible if not real power as President. All Presidents do. He is already being pushed down a certain path. He is only an extension of the Clinton, Bush, Bush, and McCain axis. This is bad because the economy is being horribly damaged by the medicine that is being forced down its throat. This will continue. 10 - 20 years of deep inflationary recession and the US all but a third world country with a blown up city or two. I hope it's not worse than that, for there is a credible scenario that literally could stop this country dead in its tracks. No electricity, water, food, etc., just massive suffering and death. I'm talking about EMP from a nuclear bomb exploded at altitude. It would likely come from Iran, Pakistan or a deranged self-destructing Russia. My only point is none of our leaders seem to have a clue about how important it is to actually defend this country, not even after 9-11.

--Brant

Edited December 10, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[galtgulch]

Galt -

Do you REALLY think that if the sort of allegations you are posting had any solid documentation behind them that some organiation such as the Fox News Channel would not have picked them up and trumpeted them at high volume, with high frequency?

Really?

Bill P (Alfonso)

Bill P. ,

I think that the Constitution should be respected and is from time to time. It is one reason Nathaniel Branden never threw his hat in the ring to become president. Schwarzenegger also was disqualified because he is not a natural born citizen.

Who knows why Fox decided not to run with the story? Perhaps they had concerns about whether they would loose advertising if they did? That is why the Supreme Court justices are chosen for life so they needn't be concerned and could be objective. But of course they realize that given Obama's popularity, that even if he were not eligible because he was born in Kenya, if that is the case, or was a British subject given his father's being a British citizen, that they would still be reluctant to upset the apple cart if it might lead to chaos in the streets all across the country.

Despite Obama's choices so far being not to the left I still dread what he has in mind to do once in office which could lead to far worse than a few overturned buses and broken store windows, e.g. currency collapse, hyperinflationary depression, military interventions overseas, socialized medicine, a little fascism thrown in, etc.

Anyway it is always good to read your reactions to my posts.

By the way, the Citizens for Liberty membership was 95351 this morning and is now 95601. That is roughly an increase of 600 since Monday alone. We may be witnessing the beginning of this movement mushrooming. I cannot vouch for the rationality of everyone in this movement. I know some are very religious. But even here in the Objectivist realm we have some doozies too. Still they share a profound concern with the direction of our country and its deviance from Constitutional limits by the government.

People have been losing confidence in our leaders after the corruption scandals in recent months and the colossal blunders by Bush. Perhaps the time is ripe for a checking of our premises. We may have an opportunity here.

galt

[Alfonso Jones]

Galt -

Do you REALLY think that if the sort of allegations you are posting had any solid documentation behind them that some organiation such as the Fox News Channel would not have picked them up and trumpeted them at high volume, with high frequency?

Really?

Bill P (Alfonso)

Bill P. ,

I think that the Constitution should be respected and is from time to time. It is one reason Nathaniel Branden never threw his hat in the ring to become president. Schwarzenegger also was disqualified because he is not a natural born citizen.

Who knows why Fox decided not to run with the story? Perhaps they had concerns about whether they would loose advertising if they did? That is why the Supreme Court justices are chosen for life so they needn't be concerned and could be objective. But of course they realize that given Obama's popularity, that even if he were not eligible because he was born in Kenya, if that is the case, or was a British subject given his father's being a British citizen, that they would still be reluctant to upset the apple cart if it might lead to chaos in the streets all across the country.

Despite Obama's choices so far being not to the left I still dread what he has in mind to do once in office which could lead to far worse than a few overturned buses and broken store windows, e.g. currency collapse, hyperinflationary depression, military interventions overseas, socialized medicine, a little fascism thrown in, etc.

Anyway it is always good to read your reactions to my posts.

By the way, the Citizens for Liberty membership was 95351 this morning and is now 95601. That is roughly an increase of 600 since Monday alone. We may be witnessing the beginning of this movement mushrooming. I cannot vouch for the rationality of everyone in this movement. I know some are very religious. But even here in the Objectivist realm we have some doozies too. Still they share a profound concern with the direction of our country and its deviance from Constitutional limits by the government.

People have been losing confidence in our leaders after the corruption scandals in recent months and the colossal blunders by Bush. Perhaps the time is ripe for a checking of our premises. We may have an opportunity here.

galt

Galt -

You just don't get it, do you?

You aren't presenting facts - just silly innuendo! How does a misstatement from Bill Richardson have any relevance? Where are the FACTS which support your position? You have totally failed to supply same. To cite James Corsi (I checked out one of your links recently) as an authority - this is just not responsible. I couldn't find anything of substance - just lots of "what if" type reasoning.

If you have ACTUAL FACTS - present them. The fact that actual documentation isn't featured nightly on one or more newscasts tells a lot.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[galtgulch]

<<<"Galt -

Do you REALLY think that if the sort of allegations you are posting had any solid documentation behind them that some organiation such as the Fox News Channel would not have picked them up and trumpeted them at high volume, with high frequency?

Really?

Bill P (Alfonso)

Galt -

You just don't get it, do you?

You aren't presenting facts - just silly innuendo! How does a misstatement from Bill Richardson have any relevance? Where are the FACTS which support your position? You have totally failed to supply same. To cite James Corsi (I checked out one of your links recently) as an authority - this is just not responsible. I couldn't find anything of substance - just lots of "what if" type reasoning.

If you have ACTUAL FACTS - present them. The fact that actual documentation isn't featured nightly on one or more newscasts tells a lot.

Bill P (Alfonso)">>>

Bill P.,

As I understand it the burden of proof is primarily on B.H. Obama to prove that he is a natural born citizen of the U.S.

It is not up to me to prove that he isn't. The vetting process has not been carried out satisfactorily. We are just required to assume that Obama has submitted evidence to document his natural born citizenship. All we are asking is for Obama to provide the proof that is Constitutionally required.

Instead you contend, in the absence of Obama fulfilling his Constitutional obligation, that it is up to anyone questioning his eligibility to disprove his eligibility.

Who doesn't get it?

galt

www.campaignforliberty.com membership 95,649

Edited December 11, 2008 by galtgulch

[Chris Grieb]

Galt; In answer to your question of "who doesn't get it?". The answer is you. You sir are the best case for not getting involved with the Campaign for Liberty.

[galtgulch]

Galt; In answer to your question of "who doesn't get it?". The answer is you. You sir are the best case for not getting involved with the Campaign for Liberty.

Chris,

And your explicit reason is?

And your idea of a solution is?

Just what or whom are you counting on?

www.campaignforliberty.com membership this morning is 95715

It is certainly growing faster than the Objectivist "movement" is.

Your argument has to rise above the ad hominem level to qualify as rational.

What have you got against me? That I posted that there is doubt about Obama's eligibility?

You may not take the Constitution seriously, nor do those who were supposed to vet Obama in the first place, nor does either major party, nor do many on the Supreme Court, but the numbers of those who do is growing to defend us from domestic enemies like Bernanke and Paulson and Obama.

galt

[BaalChatzaf]

Galt; In answer to your question of "who doesn't get it?". The answer is you. You sir are the best case for not getting involved with the Campaign for Liberty.

Chris,

And your explicit reason is?

And your idea of a solution is?

Just what or whom are you counting on?

In order of writing:

1. Your judgment resembles that of a crackpot.

2. Revolution leading to the utter destruction of the current political system. The outcome will probably be worse than we currently have.

3. The people in their despair and terminal frustration. When death becomes preferable to the tyranny, changes will come.

Until then all we will have are slow changes and fiddling the system.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Chris Grieb]

Galt; I don't think Obama has been responsibly accused. I don't think Obama has to prove a negative. Bill P who I have not met except at OL has looked at your postings and doesn't find them credible.

To take one question that has occurred to me is there any evidence that Obama's mother was ever in Kenya? No one seems to dispute that his mother was an American citizen. If Obama was born in Hawaii Obama is an American citizen.

Galt; I remember your postings before the GOP convention in which in my opinion you were predicting Ron Paul's nomination. I thought this indicated you were out of touch with reality. These postings indicate the same thing.

Edited December 11, 2008 by Chris Grieb

[Alfonso Jones]

Galt -

You are young (in spirit - I have no idea of your chronological age). You are enthusiastic. These are strengths.

Stay grounded in facts, in reality. How could you expect Obama to respond to out-of-context "accusations?" Consider what you know about Objectivism. If I accuse you, today, of being a murderer and embezzler (I am NOT doing so!), how might you respond?

"Who do you say I murdered? When?"

I respond: "I don't have to provide that. It is your responsibility. Prove you are not a murderer! Prove you are not an embezzler."

You might be understandably frustrated. How can you refute an arbitrary assertion, you perhaps respond.

Before you pretend that Obama has a big obligation to prove some things about his birth, it might be good for you to both:

1) Indicate specifically why he has that obligation. Don't just say "the constitution." EXACTLY WHERE do we say that the burden of proof is here.

2) Indicate some sort of probable cause for believing that Obama is not qualified constitutionally.

I haven't seen you do either of these two.

Bill P (Alfonso) - who enjoys your enthusiasm, and looks forward to it becoming more grounded in the facts of reality

[Darrell Hougen]

I don't understand why everyone is attacking Galt over this. I think there is a real question about Obama's eligibility to be president. Unfortunately, the Constitution does not require a candidate to prove his eligibility and, as far as I know, there is no law requiring it either. A candidate has to get on the ballot in each state which means that he must file the proper paperwork with each state. What that paperwork is undoubtedly varies from state to state and may or may not include any requirement that a candidate actually prove his citizenship. In fact, I don't think that most states actually require any proof. Therefore, it is basically up to the voters to check out the candidates if they think there is a problem or that the problem is worth worrying about.

As far as Obama is concerned, this problem goes beyond his birth certificate. I haven't really investigated the issue, but it is my understanding that Obama has refused to release other documents that might establish or call into question his eligibility such as his application to attend Havard, driver's license, Social Security, Selective Service, etc. Presumably, he would have had to prove his citizenship or eligibility at some point along the line or at least announce his nationality. For example, he might be listed as an Indonesian on his application to attend Harvard. That might not prove anything and I don't know about the veracity of these complaints. but his status does seem questionable and it is hard to understand why he doesn't do anything to try to clarify things. If simply releasing his Hawaiian birth certificate would clear things up, why doesn't he do it? I think it is very legitimate to ask him to do it and I don't understand attacking people that are trying to get him to do it.

Darrell

[Chris Grieb]

Darrell; I repeat my question. Does anyone have any evidence that Obama's mother was ever in Kenya. Obama may have this weird idea that he has a private life. More power to him. Some of the people on OL believe in privacy only for themselves.

[Brant Gaede]

Darrell; I repeat my question. Does anyone have any evidence that Obama's mother was ever in Kenya. Obama may have this weird idea that he has a private life. More power to him. Some of the people on OL believe in privacy only for themselves.

Chris, you are writing as if there were some moral imperative that this subject be avoided. The rational position is nothing is going to come of it short-term at least, but nothing we talk about here will have any bearing on the matter regardless.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I smell a rat.

Chris's mother is from Kenya...

Michael

[syrakusos]

Either he is or he isn't!

Either the Constitution matters or it doesn't!

Either you care or you don't!

There are no contradictions in the universe.

galt

Hillary Clinton

John McCain

Bob Barr

Robert S. Mueller III

The State of Israel

Rush Limbaugh

No one can prove anything. A young guy comes out of nowhere. Maybe it's not Kenya that's the problem. Maybe it's Tau Ceti or Epsilon Eridani. See, the thing is that Obama's father is not really a "Negro" African. His tribe, the Luo, are Niliatic: they come from the upper Nile and are linked to ancient Egypt.

Did you know that the government of Egypt refuses to allow even non-invasive measurements of the Sphynx? See, we are in the Age of Aquarius. 2000 years ago, we went from the Age of the Ram (Aries) to the Age of the Fish (Pisces), hence Jesus is both "the Lamb" and also the fish symbol ICHTHYOS: "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour" in Greek. It is the precession of the equinox. Astronomy books -- real science, not astrology -- still refer to the vernal equinox as "the peripoint of Aries" even though it is now the peripoint of Aquarius. Well.... if you walk the peripoint backwards against the precession, you get to LEO -- the Lion image of the Sphynx -- 10,000 years ago, at the very end of the last Ice Age. Is that when Earth was visited by the beings who imparted a great infusion of knowledge to us visited Egypt?

It is not a matter at all of Pres-E. Barack Obama being an "alien" but exactly a question of what kind of alien?

... not a "natural born" citizen? Well, duh... There is no birth certificate! What does that imply?

Edited December 12, 2008 by Michael E. Marotta

[galtgulch]

Galt -

Before you pretend that Obama has a big obligation to prove some things about his birth, it might be good for you to both:

1) Indicate specifically why he has that obligation. Don't just say "the constitution." EXACTLY WHERE do we say that the burden of proof is here.

2) Indicate some sort of probable cause for believing that Obama is not qualified constitutionally.

I haven't seen you do either of these two.

Bill P (Alfonso) - who enjoys your enthusiasm, and looks forward to it becoming more grounded in the facts of reality

Bill P.,

I am surprised you are evidently unaware that in Article II Section I paragraph five the Constitution states: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; etc."

It is not clear just how the person seeking eligibility is to fulfill this requirement nor who or what entity will be responsible for seeing to it that the person is properly vetted by ascertaining whether the documents provided to certify "natural birth" are valid. I believe that subsequent statutes have dealt with this and that there is a mechanism in place. I have no reason to believe that in the present case that Obama has been properly vetted.

I just brought this issue before the OL community to make you aware that the question has been raised and is still being pressed by a number of entities. I presume they want the Constitution to be adhered to and that some or all of them are also opposed to Obama being president for a variety of reasons.

I wonder if an amendment to the constitution changing this would pass?

I assume that those who voted for Obama couldn't care less whether he is natural born or not.

I think that if he is not he should have disqualified himself a long time ago. I assume that he is a power luster with a hidden agenda and a wolf in sheeps clothing. I am sorry that the Supreme Court refuses to uphold the Constitution but that is not news.

I will watch the celebration of the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party at Fanueil Hall in Boston this Sunday

http://www.bostonteaparty08.com/

and will continue to engage in doing my share to pass the torch in the efforts of the Campaign For Liberty to restore the Republic although it may take years to accomplish. Ron Paul, despite his shortcomings and religiosity, has ignited this movement which promises to keep growing among the young at heart and liberty lovers. I will endeavor to include a woman's right to choose among them.

www.campaignforliberty.com membership 95845

Notice how the numbers keep growing!

galt

Edited December 12, 2008 by galtgulch

[Alfonso Jones]

Galt -

Before you pretend that Obama has a big obligation to prove some things about his birth, it might be good for you to both:

1) Indicate specifically why he has that obligation. Don't just say "the constitution." EXACTLY WHERE do we say that the burden of proof is here.

2) Indicate some sort of probable cause for believing that Obama is not qualified constitutionally.

I haven't seen you do either of these two.

Bill P (Alfonso) - who enjoys your enthusiasm, and looks forward to it becoming more grounded in the facts of reality

Bill P.,

I am surprised you are evidently unaware that in Article II Section I paragraph five the Constitution states: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; etc."

It is not clear just how the person seeking eligibility is to fulfill this requirement nor who or what entity will be responsible for seeing to it that the person is properly vetted by ascertaining whether the documents provided to certify "natural birth" are valid. I believe that subsequent statutes have dealt with this and that there is a mechanism in place. I have no reason to believe that in the present case that Obama has been properly vetted.

I just brought this issue before the OL community to make you aware that the question has been raised and is still being pressed by a number of entities. I presume they want the Constitution to be adhered to and that some or all of them are also opposed to Obama being president for a variety of reasons.

I wonder if an amendment to the constitution changing this would pass?

I assume that those who voted for Obama couldn't care less whether he is natural born or not.

I think that if he is not he should have disqualified himself a long time ago. I assume that he is a power luster with a hidden agenda and a wolf in sheeps clothing. I am sorry that the Supreme Court refuses to uphold the Constitution but that is not news.

I will watch the celebration of the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party at Fanueil Hall in Boston this Sunday

http://www.bostonteaparty08.com/

and will continue to engage in doing my share to pass the torch in the efforts of the Campaign For Liberty to restore the Republic although it may take years to accomplish. Ron Paul, despite his shortcomings and religiosity, has ignited this movement which promises to keep growing among the young at heart and liberty lovers. I will endeavor to include a woman's right to choose among them.

www.campaignforliberty.com membership 95845

Notice how the numbers keep growing!

galt

It is really getting silly now! You have yet to indicate an answer to #1 - why Obama has to provide proof. Of course, we all know about the content of the United States Constitution, and it is silly of you to suggest otherwise. Your comment on this suggests your purpose is not serious. The question is why Obama has to preemptively provide proof beyond what he has already provided. Can you show us that in the U.S. Constitution? Specifically? I'm guessing that the reason you have not attempted to do so already, when specifically asked, is that you know you cannot do so.

Of course, you have also totally failed to address #2.

So, you have not addressed 1 or 2. I guess the inference is that you have no valid point, but that you are happy to raise an uproar.

Bill P (Alfonso)

Edited December 12, 2008 by Bill P

[Brant Gaede]

It is not proof that is required but disproof which relates to documents unavailable to the public and so long as so that's that, Jack!

--Brant

Edited December 12, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Chris Grieb]

I have posted my final comment on this matter on my OL blog.

[syrakusos]

I believe that subsequent statutes have dealt with this and that there is a mechanism in place.

"I believe that subsequent statutes have dealt with this and that there is a mechanism in place. "

Really? I doubt that. If you think there is a law, go find it... or show us where someone else has found one.

It is the responsibility of the Electoral College to vet the presidential candidates. They do that when they vote on December 15, 2008.

I imagined, what would it be like if Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm were to campaign for the presidency? Everyone knows that she was born in Canada (Vancouver, BC). Suppose, she had the records sealed and then tried to claim that she was really a natural born American citizen. How far would that have gotten? In the modern world, it is difficult to do much that does not leave a paper trail. Inconsistencies would have been discovered in a myriad of documents.

There is no "vetting" process defined by law. Basically, you run for office and if anyone else has a problem with that, they take it to a court of competent jurisdiction -- assuming that they have standing. In fact, I ran for Congress in 1992 as a Libertarian. I also ran for office (and won election) as a Republican Party precinct delegate in an open primary in August 2006. It was my statement that I was qualified. Period. 1992 was a long time ago, and maybe my memory is incomplete, but I never submitted any birth certificate or identity papers or anything like that. You got a problem with me? Take to a court of competent jurisdiction, assuming that you have standing.

Edited December 12, 2008 by Michael E. Marotta