REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Out2Lunch Still Running Away From The Fascists!

POSTED BY: OUT2THEBLACK
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 10:23
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 7876
PAGE 1 of 4

Sunday, November 9, 2008 5:57 AM

OUT2THEBLACK


Subject: Two BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA ; WE THE PEOPLE - USA TODAY FULL PAGE Article

Pass this one on far and wide. It's the truth. Produce or withdraw.


Friday, November 7, 2008

BREAKING: Two Developments

NUMBER ONE

If The Supreme Court Decides...?

At this point, Supreme Court Justice David Souter's Clerk informed Philip J. Berg, the lawyer who brought the case against Obama, that his petition for an injunction to stay the November 4th election was denied, but the Clerk also required the defendants to respond to the Writ of Certiorari (which requires the concurrence of four Justices) by December 1. At that time, Mr. Obama must present to the Court an authentic birth certificate, after which Mr. Berg will respond.

If Obama fails to do that, it is sure to inspire the skepticism of the Justices, who are unaccustomed to being defied. They will have to decide what to do about a president-elect who refuses to prove his natural-born citizenship.

"I can see a unanimous Court (en banc) decertifying the election if Obama refuses to produce his birth certificate," says Raymond S. Kraft, an attorney and writer. "They cannot do otherwise without abandoning all credibility as guardians of the Constitution. Even the most liberal justices, however loathe they may to do this, still consider themselves guardians of the Constitution. The Court is very jealous of its power - even over presidents, even over presidents-elect."

Also remember that on December 13, the Electoral College meets to casts its votes. If it has been determined that Mr. Obama is an illegal alien and therefore ineligible to become President of the United States, the Electors will be duty-bound to honor the Constitution.

NUMBER TWO

Draft of WTP full-page ad to be published in
USA TODAY the week of November 10, 2008:

An Open Letter to Barack Obama:


Are you a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S.?

Are you legally qualified to hold the Office of President?


Dear Mr. Obama:

On October 24, 2008, a federal judge granted your request to dismiss a lawsuit by Citizen Philip Berg, who challenged your qualifications under the "Natural Born Citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution to legally hold the office of President of the United States of America.

Mr. Berg presented factual evidence to the Court in support of his claim that you are either a citizen of your father's native Kenya by birth, or that you became a citizen of Indonesia, relinquishing your prior citizenship when you moved there with your mother in 1967.

In your response to the lawsuit, you neither denied Mr. Berg's claims nor submitted any evidence which would refute his assertions. Instead, you argued that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to determine the question of your legal eligibility because Mr. Berg lacked "standing."

Astonishingly, the judge agreed, simply saying, "[Mr. Berg] would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary [sic] in living memory."

Unfortunately, your response to the legal claim was clearly evasive and strikingly out of character, suggesting you may, in fact, lack a critical Constitutional qualification necessary to assume the Office of President: i.e., that you are not a "natural born" citizen of the United States or one who has relinquished his American citizenship.

Before you can exercise any of the powers of the United States, you must prove that you have fully satisfied each and every eligibility requirement that the Constitution mandates for any individual's exercise of those powers.

Regardless of the tactics chosen in defending yourself against the Berg lawsuit, significant questions regarding your legal capacity to hold this nation's highest office have been put forth publicly, and you have failed to directly refute them with documentary evidence that is routinely available to any bona fide, natural born U.S. Citizen.

As one who has ventured into the fray of public service of his own volition, seeking to possess the vast powers of the Office of President, it is not unreasonable to demand that you produce evidence of your citizenship to answer the questions and allay the concerns of the People. Indeed, as the one seeking the office, you are under a moral, legal, and fiduciary duty to proffer such evidence to establish your qualifications as explicitly mandated by Article II of the Constitution.

Should you proceed to assume the office of the President of the United States as anything but a bona fide natural born citizen of the United States that has not relinquished that citizenship, you would be inviting a national disaster, placing our Republic at great risk from untold consequences. For example:

· Neither the Electoral College on December 15, nor the House of Representatives on January 6 would be able to elect you, except as a poseur - a usurper;

· As a usurper, you would be unable to take the required "Oath or Affirmation" of office on January 20 without committing the crime of perjury or false swearing, for being ineligible for the Office of the President you cannot faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States;

· Your every act in the usurped Office of the President would be a criminal offense as an act under color of law that would subject the People to the deprivation of their constitutional rights, and entitling you to no obedience whatsoever from the People;

· as a usurper acting in the guise of the President you could not function as the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy and of the militia of the several states, as such forces would be under no legal obligation to remain obedient to you;

· No one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch would be required to obey any of your proclamations, executive orders or directives, as such orders would be legally VOID;

· Your appointment of Ambassadors and Judges to the Supreme Court would be VOID ab initio (i.e., from the beginning), no matter what subsequent actions the Senate might take as well as rendering any such acts by such appointed officials void as well;

· Congress would not be able to pass any new laws because they would not be able to acquire the signature of a bona fide President, rendering all such legislation legally VOID;

· As a usurper, Congress would be unable to remove you from the Office of the President on Impeachment, inviting certain political chaos including a potential for armed conflicts within the General Government or among the States and the People to effect the removal of such a usurper.

As an attorney and sitting U.S. Senator, I'm sure you agree that our Constitution is the cornerstone of our system of governance. It is the very foundation of our system of Law and Order – indeed, it is the supreme law of the land. I'm sure you also agree that its precise language was no accident and cannot be ignored if Individual, unalienable, natural Rights, Freedoms and Liberties are to be protected and preserved.

As our next potential President, you have a high-order obligation to the Constitution (and to those who have fought and died for our Freedom) that extends far beyond that of securing a majority of the votes of the Electoral College. No matter your promises of change and prosperity, your heartfelt intent or the widespread support you have garnered in seeking the highest Office of the Land, the integrity of the Republic and Rule of Law cannot, -- must not -- be put at risk, by allowing a constitutionally unqualified person to sit, as a usurper, in the Office of the President.

No matter the level of practical difficulty, embarrassment or disruption of the nation's business, we must -- above all -- honor and protect the Constitution and the divine, unalienable, Individual Rights it guarantees, including the Right to a President who is a natural born citizen of the United States of America that has not relinquished his American citizenship. Our nation has endured similar disruptions in the past, and will weather this crisis as well. Indeed, it is both yours and the People's mutual respect for, and commitment to, the Constitution and Rule of Law that insures the perpetuation of Liberty.

As a long time defender of my state and federal Constitutions, and in consideration of the lack of sufficient evidence needed to establish your credentials as President, I am compelled to lodge this Petition for Redress of Grievances and public challenge to you.

Make no mistake: This issue IS a Constitutional crisis. Although it will not be easy for you, your family or our Republic, you have it within your ability to halt this escalating crisis by either producing the certified documents establishing beyond question your qualifications to hold the Office of President, or by immediately withdrawing yourself from the Electoral College process.

With due respect, I hereby request that you deliver the following documents to Mr. Berg and myself at the National Press Club in Washington, DC at noon on Monday, November 17, 2008:

(a) a certified copy of your "vault" (original long version) birth certificate;
(b) certified copies of all reissued and sealed birth certificates in the names
Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham
and Barry Dunham;
(c) a certified copy of your Certification of Citizenship;
(d) a certified copy of your Oath of Allegiance taken upon age of maturity;
(e) certified copies of your admission forms for Occidental College, Columbia
University and Harvard Law School; and
(f) certified copies of any court orders or legal documents changing your name
from Barry Soetoro.

In the alternative, in defense of the Constitution, and in honor of the Republic and that for which it stands, please announce before such time your withdrawal from the 2008 Presidential election process.

"In a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 469-471.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,


Robert L. Schulz,
Founder and Chairman, We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc.

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/misc2008/Obama-USA-TODAY-a
d.htm



--

"...The authentic human being is one of us who instinctively knows what he should not do, and, in addition, he will balk at doing it. He will refuse to do it, even if this brings down dread consequences to him and to those whom he loves. This, to me, is the ultimately heroic trait of ordinary people; they say no to the tyrant and they calmly take the consequences of this resistance. Their deeds may be small, and almost always unnoticed, unmarked by history. Their names are not remembered, nor did these authentic humans expect their names to be remembered. I see their authenticity in an odd way: not in their willingness to perform great heroic deeds but in their quiet refusals. In essence, they cannot be compelled to be what they are not."
~~Philip K. Dick

WHOA !...

That Last Paragraph !

What a Browncoat-y thing to Say...

Have to discover the proper attribution for that !

EDIT : It's Philip K. Dick ! Should've known it was a Sci-Fi guy ; Knew I'd seen it somewhere before , just couldn't recall exactly where...

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 9, 2008 8:40 AM

RIGHTEOUS9


I'll ask you guys again.

if this story had any legs whatsoever, then wouldn't Limbaugh be screaming about it, wouldn't Hannity, wouldn't the entirety of Fox News be repeating it ad nauseum?

They have this information, and they aren't running with it? Really? Really?

Oh, I know!!! Fox news is in the tank for Obama! Fair and Balanced my ASS!!! Fucking lbrul media!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 9, 2008 9:24 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


dbl

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 9, 2008 9:41 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Berg's case said that Obama "gave up" his citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen. REALLY??? One "gives up" citizenship when a parent marries a foreigner? He's shittin' us!

AFA the Writ of Certiorari... you guys have got this all bass-akwards. The Writ is a request for the Supreme Court to review a lower Court's decision. This is what a "cert" means in detail
Quote:
... certiorari is the writ that an appellate court issues to a lower court in order to review its judgment for legal error and review, where no appeal is available as a matter of right. Since the Judiciary Act of 1925, most cases cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court as a matter of right; therefore, a party who wants that court to review a decision of a federal or state court files a "petition for writ of certiorari" in the Supreme Court. If the Court grants the petition (see Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States), the case is scheduled for the filing of briefs and for oral argument. Four of the nine Justices are required to grant a writ of certiorari, referred to as the "rule of four." The great majority of cases brought to the Supreme Court are denied certiorari (approximately 7,500 petitions are presented each year, but just 80 to 150 are typically granted), because the Supreme Court is generally careful to choose only cases in which it has jurisdiction and which it considers sufficiently important (especially cases involving deep constitutional questions) to merit the use of its limited resources. The granting of a writ does not necessarily mean that the Supreme Court has found anything wrong with the decision of the lower court. Granting a writ of certiorari means merely that four of the Justices think that the circumstances described in the petition are sufficient to warrant the full Court reviewing the case and the lower court's action. Conversely, the legal effect of the Supreme Court's denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari is commonly misunderstood as meaning that the Supreme Court approves the decision of a lower court. However, such a denial "imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case, as the bar has been told many times." Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (1995). In particular, a denial of a writ of certiorari means that no binding precedent is created, and that the lower court's decision is authoritative only within its region of jurisdiction

www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2120843/posts

In any case, here is the status of the case and what it means:
Quote:
No. 08-570
Title:
Philip J. Berg, Petitioner
v.
Barack Obama, et al.
Docketed: October 31, 2008
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Case Nos.: (08-4340) Rule 11

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)
The writ was FILED. It is required that the SUPREME COURT respond by Dec 1 whether or not it will DENY HEARING the writ or not.
Quote:
Oct 31 2008 Application (08A391) for an injunction pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.

Nov 3 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Philip J. Berg filed.

]Nov 3 2008 Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter.
In other words, the injunction was denied.
/ www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 9, 2008 12:25 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Subject: Two BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA ; WE THE PEOPLE - USA TODAY FULL PAGE Article


This is not a USA Today article. It is a full page AD taken out by wethepeoplefoundation. Let's not confuse an advertisement with legitimate journalism.

As I understand it, legal challenges to both McCain's and Obama's citizenship eligibility were ultimately dismissed in courts because the petitioners had "no legal standing." What you do for McCain, you gotta do for Obama. Fair is fair.



--------------------------
Dr. Horrible Karaoke


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 9, 2008 1:05 PM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Subject: Two BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA ; WE THE PEOPLE - USA TODAY FULL PAGE Article


This is not a USA Today article. It is a full page AD taken out by wethepeoplefoundation. Let's not confuse an advertisement with legitimate journalism.

As I understand it, legal challenges to both McCain's and Obama's citizenship eligibility were ultimately dismissed in courts because the petitioners had "no legal standing." What you do for McCain, you gotta do for Obama. Fair is fair.





Is that why Obama-san was one of the sponsors of a Resolution declaring that the Senate recognized McCain as
a natural-born Citizen ?

Which has not really been in particular doubt...

McCain's parents were both U.S. Citizens , and McCain was born in a U.S. Territory , Panama Canal Zone...

I can tell how far you got into the article...

Did you not get this far :

"...Draft of WTP full-page ad
to be published in USA TODAY the week of November 10, 2008:..." ?

I do know there's a difference between an article that's PAID and noted to be an article of Advertisement versus a straight news article...That's part of my journalistic experience...

What you see was passed on to me , and I in turn passed it verbatim , with the exception of the note of attribution re: Philip K. Dick quote...



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 9, 2008 1:12 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


O2B -That's just conspiracy bullshit, man.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 9, 2008 1:17 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:

--

"...The authentic human being is one of us who instinctively knows what he should not do, and, in addition, he will balk at doing it. He will refuse to do it, even if this brings down dread consequences to him and to those whom he loves. This, to me, is the ultimately heroic trait of ordinary people; they say no to the tyrant and they calmly take the consequences of this resistance. Their deeds may be small, and almost always unnoticed, unmarked by history. Their names are not remembered, nor did these authentic humans expect their names to be remembered. I see their authenticity in an odd way: not in their willingness to perform great heroic deeds but in their quiet refusals. In essence, they cannot be compelled to be what they are not."
~~Philip K. Dick

WHOA !...

That Last Paragraph !

What a Browncoat-y thing to Say...

Have to discover the proper attribution for that !

EDIT : It's Philip K. Dick ! Should've known it was a Sci-Fi guy ; Knew I'd seen it somewhere before , just couldn't recall exactly where...

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/


OTTB - What I find even more salient in terms of Obama's victory and the right's inability to accept it, is what Philip K. Dick said right before the part you quoted:

"Do not assume that order and stability are always good, in a society or in a universe. The old, the ossified, must always give way to new life and the birth of new things. Before the new things can be born the old must perish. This is a dangerous realization, because it tells us that we must eventually part with much of what is familiar to us. And that hurts. But that is part of the script of life. Unless we can psychologically accommodate change, we ourselves begin to die, inwardly. What I am saying is that objects, customs, habits, and ways of life must perish so that the authentic human being can live. And it is the authentic human being who matters most, the viable, elastic organism which can bounce back, absorb, and deal with the new…"

An excerpt from "How to Build a Universe That Doesn't Fall Apart Two Days Later" by Philip K. Dick:

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 9, 2008 1:38 PM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Actually, Pizz

The right HAS accepted it. Much more easily then the Left did when Bush won.

Its now a wait-and-see game.

What will Obama do?

Will he make it?

Will the center hold?

Can we finally put to rest years of hate on both sides?

Will we come together as a country?

Are we all strong enough to move forward, or will we just enter the same cycle again?

Is this the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning?




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 9, 2008 1:40 PM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


But... if this is any indication,

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/09/obama.churches.ap/index.html

We are royally screwed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 9, 2008 1:43 PM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:

OTTB - What I find even more salient in terms of Obama's victory and the right's inability to accept it, is what Philip K. Dick said right before the part you quoted:

"Do not assume that order and stability are always good, in a society or in a universe. The old, the ossified, must always give way to new life and the birth of new things. Before the new things can be born the old must perish. This is a dangerous realization, because it tells us that we must eventually part with much of what is familiar to us. And that hurts. But that is part of the script of life. Unless we can psychologically accommodate change, we ourselves begin to die, inwardly. What I am saying is that objects, customs, habits, and ways of life must perish so that the authentic human being can live. And it is the authentic human being who matters most, the viable, elastic organism which can bounce back, absorb, and deal with the new…"

An excerpt from "How to Build a Universe That Doesn't Fall Apart Two Days Later" by Philip K. Dick:


Thanks for your service...Also a good bit to quote !

That's what is great about Science Fiction...It's a chance to examine situations relevant to our present world in the context of another...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 9, 2008 1:49 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
The right HAS accepted it.

This is acceptance, is it?


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 9, 2008 2:09 PM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
The right HAS accepted it.

This is acceptance, is it?



Yes , it is...

We accept what is right , according to the Constitution .

If it's not Constitutional , then it can't be right .

It doesn't get simpler than that .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 9, 2008 2:15 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I take it you speak as a Supreme Court Justice.

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

Or is this just another huffy self-important drama-queen post ?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 9, 2008 2:20 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


...Do you know what the definition of doublethink is?


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 9, 2008 2:23 PM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Boy, Rue,

Have you always been this snarky?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 9, 2008 2:25 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


No. Have you ?

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

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 9, 2008 2:33 PM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
...Do you know what the definition of doublethink is?




Sure I do...Doesn't everyone ?

Little Sister is Watching Us...She thinks it's cute !

So many years on , and Folk still imbibe the Kool-Aid...

Time will tell , though...

If there's anything not amiss in this country , one would hope it's the Supreme Court...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 9, 2008 2:47 PM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
But... if this is any indication,

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/09/obama.churches.ap/index.html

We are royally screwed.


What about this article is objectionable? All I found was people celebrating a milestone. Am I missing something?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 9, 2008 2:50 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
So many years on , and Folk still imbibe the Kool-Aid... Time will tell , though..
I fully agree with the sentiment, but not the thought behind it.

Because it's an ELEMENT!

Has it occurred to you that your fascination with gold is an attempt to cling to an immutable value? (Speaking of ossified...) Hasn't life, or Philip Dick, taught you that nothing is immutable?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 9, 2008 2:52 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Sure I do...

Ah. So you see it as a virtue, then.
Well, I'm sure reality will adjust to what's in your head, or your head will adjust depending on the reality, or whatever it is you're after.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 9, 2008 2:52 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
What about this article is objectionable? All I found was people celebrating a milestone. Am I missing something?
Wulf is the victim of black on white racism. I kid you not. he has a very sore spot about anything having to do with blacks.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 9, 2008 3:01 PM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
What about this article is objectionable? All I found was people celebrating a milestone. Am I missing something?
Wulf is the victim of black on white racism. I kid you not. he has a very sore spot about anything having to do with blacks.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.


I.. don't know what to say.

Politely ignoring his post would be the correct response? That doesn't feel right...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 9, 2008 3:13 PM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
So many years on , and Folk still imbibe the Kool-Aid... Time will tell , though..
I fully agree with the sentiment, but not the thought behind it.

Because it's an ELEMENT!

Has it occurred to you that your fascination with gold is an attempt to cling to an immutable value? (Speaking of ossified...) Hasn't life, or Philip Dick, taught you that nothing is immutable?



You're wrong , as you so often are...

Kool-Aid is NOT an element...

Cyanide ; it's NOT an element , either...

Cyanide is a compound , a Nitrogen atom triple-bonded to a Carbon atom...

Some 'chemist' you turn out to be...

Ossification is not all bad...Particularly , in matters like having a brain-case with something worth holding , within...

At least in what is known of this Universe , a great many things ARE Immutable...

You and any old random Dick , or any old random ruetard , can't change that...

Isn't P-R kinda cute ?

She gets along so well , considering her challenges , and she does seem to get a charge from tagging along with the delusional
'big people'...

Hey , I don't have more of a fascination with gold than you have with little rectangles of cotton rag...It's just that , over time , the gold has been more esteemed as currency than little bits of inked cotton...


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 9, 2008 3:24 PM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
What about this article is objectionable? All I found was people celebrating a milestone. Am I missing something?
Wulf is the victim of black on white racism. I kid you not. he has a very sore spot about anything having to do with blacks.



I.. don't know what to say.

Politely ignoring his post would be the correct response? That doesn't feel right...


Don't let any pontifications by 'rue' , or sicky-nym , mislead you...

This is about the best they can ever manage to do...

Obfuscate , obstruct , misquote , intentionally mislead...

Best just to let it pass...

Intelligent dialogue seems beyond their reach...

The little clique that is their domain delights in passing judgment on folk before gathering a good smattering of facts , or seeking an understanding , or even some kind of common ground...

Stick around long enough , you'll see that it's exactly that way...

Maybe that's the thing that is immutable...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 9, 2008 3:41 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Are you feeling just a tad defensive ?

You have to remember that the fault is yours though, b/c you mistook an AD for an explanation and completely got the facts wrong.

Be that as it may, I have a bridge to sell you ... for real.

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

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 9, 2008 3:43 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I have a bridge to sell you ...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 9, 2008 6:21 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Might wanna check the registration info on that supposed Foundation there, folks...

I'd be awful illuminating to some of you, I bet.

Follow the MONEY, people.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 9, 2008 6:32 PM

OUT2THEBLACK




Certiorari
n. (sersh-oh-rare-ee) a writ (order) of a higher court to a lower court to send all the documents in a case to it so the higher court can review the lower court's decision. Certiorari is most commonly used by the U.S. Supreme Court, which is selective about which cases it will hear on appeal. To appeal to the Supreme Court one applies to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which it grants at its discretion and only when at least three members believe that the case involves a sufficiently significant federal question in the public interest. By denying such a writ the Supreme Court says it will let the lower court decision stand, particularly if it conforms to accepted precedents (previously decided cases).

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

"...Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s Clerk informed Philip J. Berg, the lawyer who brought the case against Obama, that his petition for an injunction to stay the November 4th election was denied, but the Clerk also required the Defendants to respond to the Writ of Certiorari (which requires the concurrence of four Justices) by December 1. At that time, Mr. Obama must present to the Court an authentic birth certificate, after which Mr. Berg will respond..."

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

That's going to be an " Interesting Day "...




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 9, 2008 7:38 PM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
I'll ask you guys again.

if this story had any legs whatsoever, then wouldn't Limbaugh be screaming about it, wouldn't Hannity, wouldn't the entirety of Fox News be repeating it ad nauseum?

They have this information, and they aren't running with it? Really? Really?



I don't believe that anyone who's examined the history of this issue really feels like running with it...

If it turns out to be true , it is very sad for our country , no matter which 'side' one is on .

No , the 'entirety' of Fox News has not been repeating it 'ad nauseum'...

K.Leigh in Toledo did check it out a bit , though :



It IS a Fox News story...

Sorry for taking so long to get around to answering your questions...The P-Nutters want to hog all the bandwidth...

Whatever happens , I wish everyone PEACE with it...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 9, 2008 8:07 PM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
O2B -That's just conspiracy bullshit, man.

---------------------------------


Okay !

Whatever...

http://exposingliberallies.blogspot.com/2008/11/supreme-court-demands-
obamas-birth.html

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


"...Even today, Nov 5th, been very busy coordinating with lawyers across the country who are picking up this baton and running with it. It is not over. Not even. Here is a rough explanation and functional chronology. Following on the heels of two major lawsuits aimed at Obama directly in Pennsylvania, then Hawaii, I in Washington, followed quickly by other citizens in their respective states who sued the complicit or at best oblivious Secretaries of States for dereliction of duty; Ohio, then Virginia, Connecticut, Texas, Connecticut, California – There are others and there is no master command – all grass roots with each of us helping each other as we could. One thing was common, we each demanded to know if Obama has proof of US citizenship or withhold certification of electors for Obama..."

=======================

Obama and our coming constitutional crisis
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Professor Ellis Washington, currently a professor of law and political science at Savannah State University, former editor at the Michigan Law Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute, is a graduate of John Marshall Law School

Posted: November 08, 2008

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80435

'...Here are some of the unanswered issues hanging over the head of President-elect Barack Obama and the question of his American citizenship cited in an earlier article by WND news editor Drew Zahn:

The allegation that Obama was born in Kenya to parents unable to automatically grant him American citizenship;


The allegation that Obama was made a citizen of Indonesia as a child and that he retained foreign citizenship into adulthood without recording an oath of allegiance to regain any theoretical American citizenship;


The allegation that Obama's birth certificate was a forgery and that he may not be an eligible, natural-born citizen;


The allegation that Obama was not born an American citizen; lost any hypothetical American citizenship he had as a child; that Obama may not now be an American citizen and even if he is, may hold dual citizenships with other countries. If any, much less all, of these allegations are true, the suit claims, Obama cannot constitutionally serve as president.


The allegations that "Obama's grandmother on his father's side, half brother and half sister claim Obama was born in Kenya," the suit states."Reports reflect Obama's mother went to Kenya during her pregnancy; however, she was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of pregnancy, which apparently was a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight. Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew to Hawaii and registered Obama's birth."


The claim could not be verified by WND inquiries to Hawaiian hospitals, since state law bars the hospitals from releasing medical records to the public;


Even if Obama produced authenticated proof of his birth in Hawaii, however, the suit claims that the U.S. Nationality Act of 1940 provided that minors lose their American citizenship when their parents expatriate. Since Obama's mother married an Indonesian citizen and moved to Indonesia, the suit claims, she forfeited both her and Barack's American citizenship.


Unfortunately, just 10 days before the election, a court of appeals judge threw out Berg's lawsuit challenging the veracity of Obama's U.S. citizenship status on technical grounds. Judge R. Barclay Surrick, a Jimmy Carter-appointed judge, amazingly (and with a tinge of irony), stated his opinion in part:

In a 34-page memorandum that accompanied the court order, the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick concludes that ordinary citizens can't sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office.
Surrick defers to Congress, saying that the legislature could determine "that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution's eligibility requirements for the Presidency," but that it would take new laws to grant individual citizens that ability.

"Until that time," Surrick says, "voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring."

Judge Surrick, quoting from Hollander, concludes, "The alleged harm to voters stemming from a presidential candidate's failure to satisfy the eligibility requirements of the Natural Born Citizen Clause is not concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury."

Constitutionally speaking, Judge Surrick's reasoning is completely illogical and a total dereliction of his duty as a judge to substantively address this most vital constitutional controversy. Instead, in a gutless manner, Surrick dismissed Berg's complaint 10 days before the elections on a technicality of standing, which to any rational person begs the question: If Philip J. Berg as an American citizen, a respected Democratic operative and former attorney general of Pennsylvania doesn't have the "standing" to bring this type of lawsuit against Obama, then who in America does have standing? The good judge in all 34 pages of legal mumbo jumbo didn't bother to answer this pivotal question.

...That Berg's complaint is not "concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury" is an amazing admission by any person that went to law school and even more so given the fact that Surrick is a respected appellate judge! '



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 9, 2008 8:48 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


AgentRouka:Don't let O2B mislead you.
Quote:
Don't let any pontifications by 'rue' , or sicky-nym , mislead you... This is about the best they can ever manage to do... Obfuscate , obstruct , misquote , intentionally mislead...
What Wulf said was..
Quote:
However, I did grow up white in a ghetto. Believe me when I tell you that its not all cutesy like 8 Mile. I have the scars to this day from that time. ...
You misunderstand. I grew up WHITE, in a BLACK ghetto. Big difference.

www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=35603

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 9, 2008 9:03 PM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
AgentRouka:Don't let O2B mislead you.
Quote:
Don't let any pontifications by 'rue' , or sicky-nym , mislead you... This is about the best they can ever manage to do... Obfuscate , obstruct , misquote , intentionally mislead...
What Wulf said was..
Quote:
However, I did grow up white in a ghetto. Believe me when I tell you that its not all cutesy like 8 Mile. I have the scars to this day from that time. ...
You misunderstand. I grew up WHITE, in a BLACK ghetto. Big difference.

www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=35603

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.



While I thank both you and O2B, I think I'll wait for clarification from Wulfenstar himself, should he have the time and inclination. Seems like the course least prone to misinterpretation.

Cheers,
AR

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 9, 2008 9:31 PM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:


While I thank both you and O2B, I think I'll wait for clarification from Wulfenstar himself, should he have the time and inclination. Seems like the course least prone to misinterpretation.

Cheers,
AR


FWIW , you're welcome...

You're doing the right thing , and it seems fair-minded...

That's the best to be expected from anyone here...

Demand the best , accept nothing less , and you're always more likely to find what you seek .

Seconded...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 9, 2008 9:44 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
http://exposingliberallies.blogspot.com/2008/11/supreme-court-demands-
obamas-birth.html

Look! I can post blog sources, too!
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5652
This one is really quite fascinating, but for those who don't have time, here's the crux:
"After 9-11 the Federal and State governments started work on the Real ID Act, which became law in 2005. The Real ID act was meant to tighten up the ubiquitous state Drivers License documents and process for obtaining these IDs - which we all know are used to gain access to commercial flights across this country... Part of the Real ID act was efforts by states to tighten up the documents used to get the IDs - things like birth certificates. Many things were changed so as to make sure state processes could not be easily gamed by terrorists to get drivers licenses, etc.
"...look at the Obama Colb of 2007... We see a much crisper background, a more brilliant background pattern, possibly paper that is part cloth (since the seal imprint is very faint and can only be detected with image color processing). The border is now a pattern more reminiscent of what might be found on paper money. What we see are lots of new security features.
"...that is how 9-11 caused HI to overhaul their vital records system, which led them to upgrade to a new COLB format and impose tighter processes surrounding it. These new processes include restrictions on how this information is distributed to third parties - another factor conspiracy nuts claim is evidence of a cover up."

Next.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 9, 2008 9:51 PM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Even if Obama produced authenticated proof of his birth in Hawaii, however, the suit claims that the U.S. Nationality Act of 1940 provided that minors lose their American citizenship when their parents expatriate. Since Obama's mother married an Indonesian citizen and moved to Indonesia, the suit claims, she forfeited both her and Barack's American citizenship.




DID she expatriate, though, officially? Does the mere act of marrying and moving automatically mean she forfeited her citizenship and that of her son?

***

ETA: I googled a little ("Obama mother expatriated") and this is the first thing I found. I cannot vouch for credibility but it seems reasonable enough.

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/2008/10/did-obama-beco
m.html

The gist seems to be that the cited law does not actually support Berg's claim, as mainly women married before 1922 automatically lost their citizenship.

Thoughts?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 9, 2008 9:55 PM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
FWIW , you're welcome...

You're doing the right thing , and it seems fair-minded...

That's the best to be expected from anyone here...

Demand the best , accept nothing less , and you're always more likely to find what you seek .

Seconded...


Thank you very much. I do try to live up to my own ideals of.. fairness, I guess, and objectivity. If only it were as easy to live up to my ideals of being knowledgable. Alas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 9, 2008 10:05 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


You know, I'm just going to point this out again, because a few people seem to be missing the significance. To obtain a passport a birth certificate must be produced, and they don't just look at it there where you're applying, they staple it to your application and send it off. The certificate is checked, the social security number is checked, records are checked, a passport is issued, and everything is mailed back to you. If you are not a citizen, you don't get a passport. And all these records and such are things that the federal government has access to. From my experience with the process, a US passport is pretty much the ultimate proof of US citizenship. They check everything.
Barack Obama has a passport. He must, or he wouldn't have gotten back into the country after his trip overseas this year, or indeed any other year, but I point out this year because it's recent, and high profile. Passport. Citizen. I don't know how this could be more clear.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 9, 2008 10:46 PM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

DID she expatriate, though, officially? Does the mere act of marrying and moving automatically mean she forfeited her citizenship and that of her son?

***

ETA: I googled a little ("Obama mother expatriated") and this is the first thing I found. I cannot vouch for credibility but it seems reasonable enough.

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/2008/10/did-obama-beco
m.html

The gist seems to be that the cited law does not actually support Berg's claim, as mainly women married before 1922 automatically lost their citizenship.

Thoughts?


Of course , Law dated that far back might be less relevant...

The gist of the Berg case seems to be that Stanley Ann Dunham , Barack's mother , was married to Mr. Obama , a Kenyan National , and that Barack was born in Mombasa , Kenya...

Subsequently , she traveled to Hawaii , where she lived for a time , before meeting Lolo Soetoro , an Indonesian citizen...

After she married Soetoro , Mr. Soetoro adopted 'Barry' , as he was known , and enrolled him in school as Barry Soetoro...

What is apparently problematic , is that neither Indonesian law , nor the American law then existing , would have allowed 'Barry' to retain a
'dual' citizenship status...

...And , since he was 'adopted' by Indonesian citizen Lolo Soetoro , and Barry's mother was married to Mr. Soetoro , then apparently Barry's somewhat dubious hold on U.S. Citizenship would have been compromised...

I feel fairly certain that Barry neither knew nor cared , back then , that this might become problematic to his future political aspirations in the United States :

"...The DNC has nominated Obama as the Democratic candidate for President of the United States. There are many unanswered questions regarding Obama’s citizenship status:

1. Is Obama a “natural born” United States citizen?

2. Is Obama a “naturalized” United States citizen?

3. Is Obama a citizen of Indonesia?

If the answer to the first question is “yes” then Obama meets the citizenship requirements to be President. On the other hand, if the answer to the first question is “no” and the answer to the second or third question is “yes”, Obama is not eligible to be President.

...Plaintiff has learned through extensive investigation that Obama is not a “natural born” citizen. Plaintiff learned that Obama was born at Coast Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya located in Coast Province. Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen and Obama’s mother a United States citizen who was not old enough and did not reside in the United States long enough to register Obama’s birth in Hawaii as a “natural born” United States citizen.

...Under the laws in effect between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986 (Obama was born in 1961), a child born outside of the United States to one citizen parent could acquire “natural born” United States citizenship if the United States citizen parent had been physically present in the United States for ten (10) years prior to the child’s birth, five (5) of those years being after age fourteen (14). Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952; United States of America v. Cervantes-Nava, 281 F.3d 501 (2002), Drozd v. I.N.S., 155 F.3d 81, 85-88 (2d Cir.1998). Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born in Kenya and therefore, did not meet the age and residency requirements for her child to have acquired “natural born” United States citizenship. Therefore, Obama may not be considered a “natural born” United States citizen. There is no indication that Obama is a naturalized citizen either."

...There are still further complicated issues regarding this problem , but time constraints will not allow me to explore anything more at the present moment...

I sincerely hope and wish the best for all parties concerned with this matter , but considering that I've been twice sworn to uphold the Constitution , I must defer to the judgment of SCOTUS on this...And , I hope that they give the matter all due examination .

The part that is most troubling is that many folk may be disappointed with whatever happens , and they may not have taken measures themselves , to understand the particulars involved , prior to rendering their personal reactions or judgments...

My hope is basically that no one gets hurt...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 10, 2008 5:07 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


What exactly am I clarifying?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 10, 2008 7:02 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
While I thank both you and O2B, I think I'll wait for clarification from Wulfenstar himself, should he have the time and inclination. Seems like the course least prone to misinterpretation.
Of course. This is just my interpretation of what Wulf said and of his reactions. Should he choose to explain more fully, that would be best.
Quote:
What exactly am I clarifying?
I suppose the question is: What do you see so problematic in a church full of celebratory African Americans, and why? But best between you and Agent....


---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 10, 2008 7:07 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
Passport. Citizen. I don't know how this could be more clear.
Absolutely. Since we just got our passports I know all about that. Obama has produced his birth certificate several times. It's about time this side issue is laid to rest, because producing it ONE MORE time isn't going to change anyone's mind if they choose not to accept the evidence.


---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 10, 2008 7:18 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Btw, CNN has changed the title of the article in question..

It used to read "God has vindicated the black folk."

My point about us being screwed is this:

We ARE at a defining moment in American history. Should we choose the correct path, and use this moment to relate to one another as AMERICANS, not as Black, White, Hispanic, ect.. we might have a chance. We could actually make it a society where your ACTIONS, and your CHARACTER, determine your lot in life. Not skin color alone.

But reading this article...it seems to me that its being touted as soley a win for black folk.

That they are NOW proud to be an American.

I keep saying this, and I feel like a lonely bell-ringer, but...People, we can use this as a true springboard to a better society. Not one based on political manuvering, or get-back-at-cha garbage, but as a means of actually moving forward.

Blacks can use this as a way of getting off their asses and growing up. Loose the attitude and the chip on the shoulder mindset that have held them back. They can start pulling themselves up.

There are honestly no more exscuse.

Whites can now use this to build a better society, one based on actions and character. We can accept that we have a shared future.

As a people, Americans don't have much history. We dont have many pillars holding up our society.

We have our ideals and the actions of the people.

If we ruin this, and let it go...if we instead use it as another EXSCUSE to continue divisive and ruinous back-biting and blame-making, do we really deserve to continue?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 10, 2008 8:08 AM

STORYMARK


My god... people are still going on about this stupid birth certificate thing?

How sad.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 10, 2008 8:49 AM

AGENTROUKA


Wulf-

Thank you for clarifying your position.

I didn't see the headline you described, though considering the phrase is used several times in the article as a quote of individuals, I suspext it had been used as a quote, rather than a "neutral" description in the earlier headline, too.


That said, I wonder whether you really object to African Americans celebrating this as a milestone in their particular history. (Or the media reporting this aspect of the nation's reaction, in particular.) Do you really expect them to ignore the fact that it IS a milestone, considering the racial history within living memory?

I also don't find anything racially divisive in the article separate from the fact that they are celebrating what many thought was impossible. In fact, if you wanted, you could read the article to support your hopes.



I do not feel qualified to discuss the subject more deeply than that, though, not living there and not having any first-hand experience. Not to mention the separate thread on the subject.

But again, thanks for clarifying.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 10, 2008 9:08 AM

HERO


Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
My god... people are still going on about this stupid birth certificate thing?

How sad.

Yeah...this thing was settled weeks ago. Heck, you can by copies of his birth certificate on Ebay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/1-00-Silver-Certificate-57A-s-44th-President-Obama
_W0QQitemZ250321403690QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item250321403690&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1205%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318





H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 10, 2008 9:11 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
and they may not have taken measures themselves , to understand the particulars involved , prior to rendering their personal reactions or judgments...

*deep breath*
Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, to an American mother and a Kenyan father. At that time, Kenya was still a British Colony. It had been declared that any child with a father who was a citizen of the British colonies would have automatic citizenship, therefore he was born with dual citizenship, one by virtue of his birthplace, another by virtue of his father. I think it was one or two years later that Kenya became independent, and all citizens of the British colonies who were born in Kenya were declared Kenyan citizens. Likewise, any child whose father was becoming an automatic Kenyan citizen was also declared to have Kenyan citizenship. Barack Obama was now a citizen of both the United States and Kenya. Now Kenya, while recognizing dual citizenship for minors, will not recognize it for adults. A child of dual citizenship must renounce his other citizenship to retain his Kenyan citizenship when he comes of age. Barack Obama lost his Kenyan citizenship on his twenty-first birthday, having not declared to them he wanted sole citizenship. I think this is the root of a lot of the confusion, that he did in fact hold Kenyan citizenship at one time.
Okay, the next bit is a little fuzzy, because there's a bit of conjecture, but it appears that Barack Obama was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather at the age of five, at least by the laws of Indonesia. All children five and under adopted by Indonesian fathers gained automatic Indonesian citizenship. While living in Indonesia, it would have been very difficult for him to attend school there as a non-citizen, so it's likely he was one, under the laws of that country having been adopted by a citizen, hence the using of the father's last name. Indonesia does not recognize dual citizenship, so by their view he would have no other citizenship. However, and this is important, the United States does recognize dual citizenship, so in our view from over here he would have remained a citizen, no matter what the government he was living under wanted to think. His mother, who was likely living there under a green card of marriage and/or employment, would also remain a U.S. citizen. This, I think, has also caused confusion, as according to Indonesia no dual citizenship existed. But the laws of Indonesia do not govern the United States.
So, at the age of ten Barack Obama was back in the U.S. and now had three citizenships. As I said the Kenyan one became null and void when he turned twenty-one. The Indonesian citizenship likely became void when he was about fifteen, as their law states that citizens living abroad for more that five years must declare their intent to return or lose their citizenship. It is possible that he did retain his citizenship to be able to more easily visit his mother, who had returned to Indonesia. In this case it would likely have lapsed after her death in 1995.
Throughout the course of this quite colorful and amazing life, the citizenship declared by birth would not have lapsed. Why? Because the United States is just cool like that, that's why. Anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen, with the sole exception of a diplomat's child. Anyone born on U.S. soil retains their citizenship for life, cannot be denaturalized, except through their own actions. From http://www.visalaw.com those actions are:
1. Being naturalized in a foreign country, upon the person’s own application made after reaching 18 years of age;
2. Making an oath or other declaration of allegiance to a foreign country or division thereof, again, after reaching 18 years of age;
3. Serving in the armed forces of a foreign country if those armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the US, or if the person serves as an officer;
4. Working for the government of a foreign country if the person also obtains nationality in that country, or if to work in such a position an oath or other declaration of allegiance is required;
5. Making a formal renunciation of US citizenship before a US consular officer or diplomat in a foreign country;
6. Making a formal written statement of renunciation during a state of war, if the Attorney General approves the renunciation as not contrary to US national defense; and
7. Committing an act of treason against the US, or attempting by force or the use of arms to overthrow the government of the US. Renunciation by this means can be accomplished only after a court has found the person guilty.

No, I don't understand any particulars at all.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 10, 2008 9:16 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Thats it.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER FOR PRESIDENT 2012!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 10, 2008 9:33 AM

HERO


Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER FOR PRESIDENT 2012!

Who?

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 10, 2008 7:03 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Thats it.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER FOR PRESIDENT 2012!



A FAR better choice that McCain or Bush

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:56 - 44 posts
Thread of Trump Appointments / Other Changes of Scenery...
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:51 - 48 posts
Where Will The American Exodus Go?
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:25 - 1 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, November 27, 2024 23:34 - 4775 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:47 - 7510 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:06 - 21 posts
Ellen Page is a Dude Now
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:05 - 238 posts
Bald F*ck MAGICALLY "Fixes" Del Rio Migrant Invasion... By Releasing All Of Them Into The U.S.
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:03 - 41 posts
Why does THUGR shit up the board by bumping his pointless threads?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:43 - 32 posts
Joe Rogan: Bro, do I have to sue CNN?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:41 - 7 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:36 - 4845 posts
Biden will be replaced
Wed, November 27, 2024 15:06 - 13 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL