THE Obama lawsuit to follow

Why are we talking about Berg here?

The thread was started to talk about Donofrio.

This is the lawsuit that has teeth.
This suit has the best chance of being heard by the SCOTUS and the one that has the best chance of making Obama cough up the goods.

If people riot over the fact that the media gave this guy a pass, A PASS THAT IS IN EFFECT EVEN TO THIS VERY DAY, it is the media's fault for providing biased coverage and insufficient information.

We are a nation of idiots in case none of you noticed.
Brainless Sheeple prime for the shearing.
Our days as a prosperous nation are over.
Anarchy, famine and misery are what our future holds.
 
I am so sick of people reminding us that he is black! WHO CARES? This isn't what this is about!!!!!!!

ya and hes only half black, dont forget he is also half white... so why cant we refer to him as a white president???
 
ya and hes only half black, dont forget he is also half white... so why cant we refer to him as a white president???


We could always refer to him as my ole mom use to refer to the little black boy who lived down the street from us when I was a kid.
She use to call him the little sun tan boy.
Bob.
 
Because he can relate personally to both races and understands them.
Because of the color of his skin? Or because he's The One? :rolleyes:

He isn't even descended from slaves, so your claim is invalid.

I've got news for you, Cokehead doesn't understand jack sh!t when it comes to the plight of the black man. He's a pretender.
 
He got 95% of the black vote so they certainly think he's one of them.
 
How about we just not make race an issue.
If you have to say anything, just call him Hawaiian.
 
This is why i stay outta politics, i never vote, because so many people are running around telling me this an that, i dont believe none of it, i thought electing a president was supposed to be a good thing?
 
You might wanna check your history on that. Thomas hardly had it "easy". It is arguable at best, weather Marshall had to "overcome more obstacles in his life" then Thomas.

You should read Thomas' book, My Grandfather's Son.

Well, I suppose debatable, but it is pretty clear that without Marshall there is a pretty good chance there wouldn't have been a Clarence Thomas. And of course, Marshall certainly had to overcome true segregation, the whole sitting in the back of the bus, separate entrances, different hotels, etc.

But I will read your book (although your suggestion is an autobiography isn't it?) if you read my suggestion... Thurgood Marshall: America Revolutionary. A wonderful biography of his life including a great recounting of Brown v. Board of Education which he won. And also it doesn't 'white wash' him - but shows him as a man with a drinking problem, womanizing tendencies and as an outspoken critic of black militancy and nonviolent demonstrations.
 
I just listened to the argument presented by Leo C. Donofrio regarding the eligibility of the Presidential candidates. I can't think of a credible argument to dispute it.

It's not the "he was born in Kenya" conspiracy kind of thing either. It's very simple, very logical, and it's based on undisputed facts. It's not simply an issue of manufacturing a birth certificate.

I can still imagine an activist court deciding against it, but that would take some real intellectual contortion to do so.

you can listen to the interview:
http://www.lanlamphere.com/public/2008/11/19/leo-donofrio-appearing-tonight-on-overnight-am/

Realplayer.
 
It's not the "he was born in Kenya" conspiracy kind of thing either. It's very simple, very logical, and it's based on undisputed facts. It's not simply an issue of manufacturing a birth certificate.

And what makes it all the better, Obama admitted it. And this guy is a Constitutional Scholar.:shifty:

That's what all his lefty buddies wanted him to do in school, to study up on Constitutional Law. How ironic, eh?
 
It'd be really interesting if some liberals or Obama supporters would like to argue this on the basis of law (not name calling). I can't think of a decent argument that undermines the one Donofrio has presented.
 
Don't hold your breath. All you get back is vile indignation. I've been on a few boards arguing the issue and the left is getting clobbered on this but the right is saying let it go because they are afraid of the riots.

I've been saying a civil war has been brewing for years. Let's get it over with. Obama is just flash point in all this.
 
Well, you're right about the blame.
This issue guy tried to bring this before the court PRIOR to the election, and he was challenging BOTH candidates eligibility. If anything negative were to come of this, it wouldn't be the fault of Donofrio, but the people who obstructed this examination and assault on the constitution.

I wouldn't be shocked if the court simply "redefines" natural born citizen though.
 
I believe in US Code you only have to be born in the United States to be a natural citizen. If you qualify under that umbrella, question of parentage goes away...

The whole thing about a British father seems a bit like interpreting the constitution's 'loophole' for the founding fathers, since none of them were 'born' in the United States. The framers made a loophole that stated if you were a citizen of the United States at the time of ratification, then you would qualify to be president (as well as hold other citizenship rights). Otherwise Washington, Jefferson, Adams, etc. couldn't have been president because they were British citizens when they were born... the thing that mr Donofiro goes into about the founding fathers never meant for a child of a British father to be the president seems really odd...

However, I do believe that the first (and best) qualification for natural born citizen is to be born on US Soil. Obama certainly qualifies. The other points in the law are for special situations - mostly having to do with Native Americans and children of military parents.

Now, the subject to jurisdiction part may be up for grabs, I will make a phone call... ;)

§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
(note - only one needs to be true to be a natural citizen of the United States)
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person 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;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
 
Just to clarify, I genuinely hope that this entire pursuit turns out to be a waste of time. I think if this were to be true, it would be disastrous for the country.

With that said, why don't you have a real discussion about this, Johnny? There's clearly "smoke" here, what part of it do you dismiss? Best I can tell, this would be a rather simple issue for Obama to resolve and have taken off the table. What possible motivation might he have for not doing so? While I think the charge is outrageous, I'm unable to think of a reasonable explanation to defend the Obama campaign.

It's very simple. Obama was born "naturally" in Hawaii, USA, therefore he is a "natural born citizen" of the United States. NOTHING can take that away from him. Since his father is from Kenya, he also has dual citizenship. But this does NOT negate Obama's "natural born citizen" status since British law cannot trump US law. All the rest of the argument about ".....citizen, at the time of adoption of this constitution....." is merely smoke and mirrors attempting to distract from the facts.

But good luck with that. I'm looking forward to future books about how all of you lunatics on the extreme far right were taken to the cleaners by the perpetuators of these false charges. "Get Rich by Duping Whackos EVERY FOUR YEARS!"

:bowrofl:
 
I believe in US Code you only have to be born in the United States to be a natural citizen. If you qualify under that umbrella, question of parentage goes away...

Yep, thanks Fox. I never thought I'd have to rely on something I remembered from like, what, the 3rd grade? :rolleyes:
 
Hey Johnny -
Let's set up a fund for getting Obama out of office... I am sure we could come up with something -

So, if any of you would like to send money - please look into our website - Fox and Johnny need money now.com

We will be taking pay pal
 
However, I do believe that the first (and best) qualification for natural born citizen is to be born on US Soil. Obama certainly qualifies.

Oh really? Where's your proof?

I'll save you the trouble.

Fact-Check and FightTheSmears have posted Obama's COLB. YadaYadaYada.

Try this on for size.

For all the Obama people that feel his COLB proves he is a natural born citizen...

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscur...-0017_0008.HTM

[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

So much for your "certainly qualifies".:rolleyes:

You don't have to be born in Hawaii to get a Hawaiian Birth Certificate. B*owned*
 
But, he was born in Hawaii.

Ah, that's right - you believe he wasn't ... ahhhh....

Good luck with burden of proof there... It will be on your side's table, not Obama's.

Remember - send money - fox and johnny need money now.com

We also have a post office box where we accept checks and small bills...

Fox and Johnny Need Money Now
P.O. Box 0001
I'll believe anything, CO 80301

We are working hard to make this a tax deductible contribution :)
 
There is a very valid, constitutional argument here. Let's not just dismiss it out of hand. And, for the sake of ease of reading, I'll try to frame this in layman terms, and not legalese.

For the sake of discussion, let's just presume that Obama was born in Hawaii and not in Kenya, or that he has a Hawaii birth certificate that satisfies most people.

Now my understanding of the argument is this:
His mother is a citizen of the United States, but his father was a citizen of Kenya. This imparts dual-citizenship upon him at birth. It's an unprecedented situation in American history. The sons of immigrants (who have become citizens) can be natural citizens, but the argument is that the son of an alien can't be.

I believe in US Code you only have to be born in the United States to be a natural citizen. If you qualify under that umbrella, question of parentage goes away..
This starts getting into some tricky law. The 14th amendment I think you're referring to was put in place in the 1800s as a way to ensure the freed slaves were given citizenship. But bringing that up only confuses the matter more.

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."


Frankly, are Mexican Anchor babies eligible to be the President, born of foreign alien parents, but birthed on American soil.
.

... the thing that mr Donofiro goes into about the founding fathers never meant for a child of a British father to be the president seems really odd...
It doesn't sound odd at all. The "loophole" as you call it, or the grandfather clause, completely makes sense. How can you establish a new government that requires office holders be natural born citizens IF the country hasn't been founded yet? You'd have to establish a grandfather clause like that less you'd have... infants in office? Absurd.

However, I do believe that the first (and best) qualification for natural born citizen is to be born on US Soil. Obama certainly qualifies.
The constitution makes it pretty clear that they wanted the President to be independent of other countries. So you think they'd support a someone, presumable, born with dual-citizenship?

And I think there's a difference between a natural citizen, a naturalized citizen, and a natural born citizen.
 
Time for some clarification here.
Both sides of this issue think they are right, when obviously only one can be.
Now, some question needs to be asked, and answered.
To date, has a proven, valid, birth certificate for Obama ever been presented to anyone in authority, that is qualified to prove it's authanticity?
Has it been proven to be an actual, original birth cetificate, and not a photocopy?
Who was the issueing government that presented the certificate for it's authenticity?
Has that government's credibility ,with respect to this birth certificate, been challanged?
Where is the original birth certificate presently?
It would appear that until these questions are answered, no one wins this debate.
I also think that if Obama has not presented the original for varification, he will be the loser in all of this.
If he has presented the original, then that should be sufficient for all.
Bob.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top