Tags
2008 Election, Barack Obama, birth certificate, citizenship, District Court, kenya, legally qualified, Presidential Election 2008, qualified, Supreme Court, U.S. Citizen, u.s. constitution
ELECTION 2008
Supremes asked to halt Tuesday’s vote
Constitutional crisis feared over Obama’s ‘qualifications’
Posted: October 30, 2008
11:00 pm Eastern© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Democratic attorney Philip Berg had filed a lawsuit alleging Obama is ineligible to be president because of possible birth in Kenya, but as WND reported, a federal judge dismissed the complaint claiming Berg lacks standing to bring the action.
The 34-page memorandum that accompanied the court order from Judge R. Barclay Surrick concluded ordinary citizens can’t sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office.
Instead, Surrick said Congress 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.”
Berg has maintained that uncertainty about how the U.S. does enforce the requirements of presidency may result in a constitutional crisis should an ineligible candidate win the office.
In a statement today, Berg said he is applying to Justice David Souter for an “Immediate Injunction to Stay the Presidential Election of November 4, 2008.”
“I am hopeful that the U.S. Supreme Court will grant the injunction pending a review of this case to avoid a constitutional crisis by insisting that Obama produce certified documentation that he is or is not a “natural born” citizen and if he cannot produce documentation that Obama be removed from the ballot for president,” Berg said.
“We must legally prevent Obama, the unqualified candidate, from taking the office of the presidency of the United States,” Berg said.
The issue of Obama’s eligibility first got traction among Internet bloggers and later was heightened when several campaigns were launched to determine whether a “certificate of live birth” posted on the Internet by the Obama campaign was valid.
The issue gained more attention when Berg told radio talk show icon Michael Savage he had an admission from Obama’s grandmather that she was at his birth – in Kenya.
“This is a question of who has standing to stand up for our Constitution,” Berg told Jeff Schreiber of America’s Right blog. “If I don’t have standing, if you don’t have standing, if your neighbor doesn’t have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States – the most powerful man in the entire world – is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?”
As WND reported, Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court in August, alleging Obama is not a natural-born citizen and is thus ineligible to serve as president of the United States. Berg demanded that Obama provide documentation to the court to verify that the candidate was born in Hawaii, as Obama contends, and not in Kenya, as Berg believes.
Dare Something Worthy Today Too! 
A couple of things. First, the election is going on as planned. The Supreme Court did no halt it.
Second, the allegation that Obama was born in Kenya is still absurd. The grandmother says something about being present when he was born, but it is not clear that she understood the question.
Besides, this is not evidence.
IF Obama had been born in Kenya, there would be a record of his mother arriving in Kenya in the archives of the Kenya government.
I assume that they call the Kenyan government department or agency that checks arrivals the Immigration Department. Whatever they call it, all governments record arrivals and departures. And they are likely maintain those records and have them open as public documents, as we do in the USA.
The critics of Obama, who allege that he was born in Kenya, have not shown anything like this. All they would have to do is to go to those files in Kenya and show that Obama’s mother had been in Kenya in 1961. They have not presented any such document.
I listened to the tape and it is not clear that Obama’s grandmother understood the question. The translator (who is also apparently a relative) says repeatedly that Obama was born in Hawaii.
The officials in Hawaii say he was born in Hawaii.
The certificate of live birth has been accepted as legal proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii by a court in Virginia. (Yesterday. See: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2123806/posts)
Unless you can PROVE that Obama was born in Kenya, this is an absurd claim.
And so is the claim that the governor of Hawaii, who is a Republican, ordered that Obama’s birth certificate be sealed. (She didn’t, that was simply mis-reporting by a group claiming to be a news agency. The facts are that all birth records are sealed. She made no special order to seal.)
After Berg, several other cases against Obama on the natural born citizen issue were brought in other states. There were several cases.
While some of them just did what the Berg case did, which was to rule that Berge had no standing to sue, some of the others looked at the “evidence” – and concluded that the stuff was absurd.
In Ohio, for example the judge (magistrate) said:
“(Neal) presented no witnesses but himself. From that testimony, it is abundantly clear that the allegations in [Neal]’s complaint concerning “questions” about Senator Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen” are derived from Internet sources, the accuracy of which has not been demonstrated to either Defendant Brunner or this Magistrate … Given the paucity of evidence… this Magistrate cannot conclude that Defendant Brunner has abused her discretion in failing to launch an investigation into Senator Obama’s qualifications to hold the office of President of the United States. ” See:
http://www.oxfordpress.com/hp/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/10/31/ws103108obamasuit.html
In Virginia, which was just ruled on yesterday, the judge went further and said that the certificate of live birth was good proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, and there was NO proof presented that he was born anywhere else.
Here is a report from a web posting that is not official, of course, but it seems accurate mainly because the fellow who posted it was AGAINST Obama. He is disappointed, but accepts the ruling. You can find this post at : (
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2123806/posts)
(Note that sometimes the author correctly puts COLB correctly and sometimes he types it as CLOB, but he means certificate of live birth throughout.)
Quotes:
The Court made the following findings:
1. The Certification of Live Birth presented to the court is unquestionably authentic.
The court noted that the certification had a raised seal from the state of Hawaii, had a stamp bearing the signature of the registrar of vital statistics. The court found “wholly unpersuasive” any of the internet claims that the birth certificate was altered in any way. Furthermore, the document itself was accompanied by an affidavit from the State Health Director (of Hawaii) verifying that the document is an authentic certification of live birth. The court held that there could be no doubt that the document was authentic unless one believed that the state of Hawaii’s health department were in on an elaborate and complex conspiracy – and that there is not a shred of evidence that this is the case.
2. The Certification of Live Birth establishes that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen.
The affidavit of the State Health Director states that the information on the CLOB is identical to the information on the “vault” copy of the birth certificate, and that both documents establish that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu. The Court noted that the CLOB is valid for all citizenship purposes. The court noted our argument that the COLB is not valid for determining citizenship, but referred us to Hawaiian law that states otherwise. “There is no difference between a certificate and a certification of live birth in the eyes of the state. For instance, either can be used to confirm U.S. citizenship to obtain a passport or state ID.” The court found that Hawaiian law makes the COLB valid for all purposes with the exception of determining native Hawaiian heritage for certain state and federal benefits. The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii, the “place of birth” line on the COLB would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors.
3. For that reason, 8 U.S.C. §1401(g), which at the relevant time provided as follows:
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: ***(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 ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:…..
is irrelevant to this matter, as Mr. Obama was conclusively born in Hawaii.
4. Mr. Obama did hold dual citizenship in the U.S. and Kenya until he became an adult. When Barack Obama Jr. was born Kenya was a British colony. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children: “British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.” In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UK. Obama’s UK citizenship became an Kenyan citizenship on Dec. 12, 1963, when Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. The court noted that Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:
1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…
2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
Thus the court held that as a citizen of the UK who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UK status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), thus Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship in 1963.
However, the court further held that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya. The court held that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama has ever renounced his U.S. citizenship or sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.
The court held that there was no legal requirement that Mr. Obama renounce his Kenyan citizenship or affirm his U.S. citizenship in order to maintain his status as a natural born citizen.
5. Mr. Obama did not lose his U.S. Citizenship based on the acts of his parents, including adoption by an Indonesian citizen. The Court held that no action taken by the parents of an American child can strip that child of his citizenship. The court cited to the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Sections 349 and 355, which was in effect in the late 1960s when Obama went to Indonesia, and which stated that a minor does not lose his US citizenship upon the naturalization of his parents or any other actions of his parents, so long as the minor returns to the US and establishes permanent US residency before the age of 21. Thus the adoption of Obama did not serve to strip him of his U.S. citizenship. The fact that Indonesian law does not allow dual citizenship is irrelevant, as U.S. law controls. Furthermore, the Court held that traveling on a foreign passport does not strip an American of his citizenship. The Court noted first that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama traveled on an Indonesian passport (Mr. Berg and others we reached out to for evidence never provided any evidence of this claim or any other of the claims we could have used some proof of.) Nonetheless, the court held that such travel does not divest an American of his citizenship.
The Court makes other holdings and findings that I won’t bother you with here. Needless to say, the decision is wholly against us. The court finds the claims against Mr. Obama’s citizenship “wholly unpersuasive and bordering on the frivolous, especially in light of the complete absence of any first-hand evidence on any critical issue” and further classifies it as “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort, fueled by nothing than internet rumor and those who truly want to believe egging each other on.”
I like the part about “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort.”
LikeLike
BREAKING NEWS: LISTEN TO SARAH OBAMA TAPE CONFIRMING KENYA BIRTH OF BARACK OBAMA
LISTEN TO AUDIO of this Sunday, November 2, 2008: http://www.americasright.com/2008/11/sarah-obama-tapes.html
Excerpt from Affidavits w/ audio tape that were presented to the U.S. Supreme Court by Phillip J. Berg(see full transcript below):
EXCERPT FROM AFFIDAVITS W/ AUDIO TAPE THAT WERE PRESENTED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT BY PHILLIP J. BERG (found at his website: www.*bamacrimes.com)
Bishop McRae asked Ms. Obama specifically, “Were you present when your grandson Barack Obama was born in Kenya?” This was asked to her in translation twice, and both times she specifically replied, “Yes”. It appeared Ms. Obama’s relatives and her grandson, handling the translating, had obviously been versed to counter such facts with the purported information from the American news media that Obama was born in Hawaii. Despite this, Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama was very adamant that her grandson, Senator Barack Hussein Obama, was born in Kenya, and that she was present and witnessed his birth in Kenya, not the United States. When Ms. Obama’s grandson attempted to counter his grandmother’s clear responses to the question, verifying the birth of Senator Obama in Kenya, Bishop McRae asked her grandson, how she could be present at Barack Obama’s birth if the Senator was born in Hawaii, but the grandson would not answer the question, instead he repeatedly tried to insert that, “No, No, No. He was born in the United States!” But during the conversation, Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama never changed her reply that she was in deed present when Senator Barack Obama was born in Kenya. A copy of the Tape transcript is attached hereto as EXHIBIT “A”.
I left Kisumu City and traveled to Mombosa, Kenya. I interviewed personnel at the hospital in which Senator Obama was born in Kenya. I then had meetings with the Provincial Civil Registrar. I learned there were records of Ann Dunham giving birth to Barack Hussein Obama, III in Mombosa, Kenya on August 4, 1961. I spoke directly with an Official, the Principal Registrar, who openly confirmed the birthing records of Senator Barack H. Obama, Jr. and his mother were present, however, the file on Barack H. Obama, Jr. was classified and profiled. The Official explained Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. birth in Kenya is top secret. I was further instructed to go to the Attorney General’s Office and to the Minister in Charge of Immigration if I wanted further information.
Second, Ronald McRae’s affidavit:
Since Senator Obama’s birth was reportedly in 1961, birth records may or may not be available, so I felt it very important to obtain the testimony of his grandmother as a first hand witness, since it is commonly known throughout Kenya, and especially around the Kisumu area, that Sarah Obama was present when Barack Obama, Jr. was born in Kenya.
Accordingly, on Thursday, October 16, 2008 Reverend Kweli Shuhubia, an evangelist with our ministries in Kenya traveled to Kogello and located Ms. Sarah Obama at her home, see the attached email, attached as Exhibit “4”.
SEE ORIGINALS HERE: http://www.obamacrimes.com website of Attorney Phillip J. Berg who presented this to the U.S. Supreme Court
LISTEN TO AUDIO of this Sunday, November 2, 2008 http://www.americasright.com/2008/11/sarah-obama-tapes.html The “Sarah Obama Tape”
WHAT WOULD CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS LOOK LIKE IF OBAMA IS LYING ABOUT BIRTH CERTIFICATE:
Excerpt from http://www.americasright.com/2008/10/gaining-perspective-on-surrick-standing.html
By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Attorney who has argued cases before the Supreme Court. Weds. Oct 29, 2008
What are some of those consequences?
LikeLike
More Bad News Today:
RealClearPolitics
Obama McCain Spread
RCP National Average 51.2 44.2 Obama +7.0
Favorable Ratings +17.0 +9.3 Obama +7.7
Intrade Market Odds 90.7 10.0
Electoral College
RCP Electoral Count 278 132 Obama +146
No Toss Up States 338 200 Obama +138
Battleground States
Florida 48.5 46.0 Obama +2.5
North Carolina 47.8 47.8 Tie
Virginia 50.0 45.8 Obama +4.2
Ohio 49.3 45.0 Obama +4.3
Missouri 47.2 47.6 McCain +0.4
Colorado 50.5 45.0 Obama +5.5
Nevada 49.6 43.4 Obama +6.2
LA Times
Nov. 3
Final Rove electoral map sees large Obama win over McCain
Well, the final day before the official presidential voting and the final version of Karl Rove’s exclusive national electoral map sees a strong victory for Barack Obama, gaining the most electoral votes since Bill Clinton’s lopsided win over Bob Dole in 1996.
According to the research of compiled state polls by Karl Rove & Co., the hypothetical electoral college numbers suggest an Obama win over the Republican ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin of 338 electoral votes to 200.
For the final report, Rove has allocated each state to the candidate leading there in state polls today.
According to these calculations, Obama takes hard-fought Florida. But McCain edges ahead in Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota and North Carolina.
Rove notes that Obama and McCain are in dead heats in North Carolina and Missouri, but the most recent polls over the weekend show a trend toward the Republican ticket. “Florida, too, could end up in McCain’s column,” Rove adds, “since he’s benefited from recent movement in the state.” But it’s not enough for the Arizona senator to capture the necessary 270.
For an explanation of the research methodology and for a chart showing the study’s movements week by week since July 1, click on the Read more line below. The Ticket’s appreciation to Rove & Co. for its permission to publish these polls simultaneously throughout the recent hotly contested months.
–Andrew Malcolm
The Street.Com
Polls: Obama First, McCain Second
11/03/08 – 05:01 PM EST
Eight national presidential polls released Monday put Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) behind Sen. Barack Obama (D., Ill.) in the race for the White House Tuesday. McCain loses in every poll by an average of more than seven points, confirming predictions by many pundits of a McCain loss in the popular vote.
McCain’s only chance for a win would be an unlikely scenario similar to 2000 when President Bush upset Al Gore by winning the electoral college. However, the swing state polls show McCain is in the hole there as well, and any upset scenario forces a focus on the several big states — Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia.
Ohio has served as an accurate predictor of the presidential race since 1960. Despite McCain focusing on the home state of Joe the Plumber, he has fallen behind in Ohio in most presidential polls. The most favorable poll for McCain, conducted by Fox, has McCain tied with Obama. The poll least favorable to McCain’s chances, Quinnipiac, has him down seven points.
Monday, November 3, 2008 – 10:28 AM EST
New poll: Obama leads by 10 points in Pa.
Pittsburgh Business Times
A new poll finds Democrat Barack Obama holding a substantial lead over Republican John McCain in Pennsylvania, as the two candidates campaign down to the wire Monday.
The final pre-election poll from Quinnipiac University shows Obama with a 10-point lead over McCain. Obama leads 52 percent to 42 percent, the poll found, compared to last week’s poll, which showed Obama with a slightly larger lead of 11 points, with 53 percent to McCain’s 41 percent.
Obama also leads McCain in Ohio by seven percentage points, 50 percent to 43 percent. The other swing state in Quinnipiac’s poll, Florida, is still too close to call, the poll found.
The poll surveyed likely voters between Oct. 27 and Nov. 3.
Poll Shows Obama Deflected Recent Attacks
Republicans Challenged Democrat on Taxes, Readiness and Crisis Management
Monday, November 3, 2008; Page A09
With one day to go, Democrat Barack Obama appears to have rebuffed recent GOP efforts to label him as “too liberal” or too big a gamble.
The new Washington Post-ABC News tracking poll puts Obama well out in front over Republican John McCain and finds that Obama has firmly reestablished his advantage on handling the economy, beaten back a challenge on taxes and has an edge in terms of perceptions about which candidate would better deal with an unexpected major crisis.
November 2, 2008, 7:00 PM
CBS Poll: Obama Maintains 13 Point Lead
Posted by Brian Montopoli| 138
With two days left until the presidential election, Barack Obama continues to lead John McCain by 13 points among likely voters, 54 percent to 41 percent, a new CBS News poll finds. The margin in the new poll, released Sunday, is identical to that in a CBS News poll released Saturday.
As the number of undecided voters has dwindled, so has the number that says their minds can still change. More than nine in 10 of each candidate’s voters now say they have made up their minds about who to vote for and are not likely to change. Just seven percent of Obama voters and 8 percent of McCain voters say they still might change their minds.
With two days to go, only 8 percent of likely voters are uncommitted – either they have not yet chosen a candidate, or their minds could still change. Nearly all of these uncommitted voters say they plan to vote.
ABC News
Daily Tracking Poll: Not Just Economy and Bush; Palin Is Trouble for McCain Too
Obama Leads McCain 54-43 in Latest ABC News/Washington Post Poll
ANALYSIS by GARY LANGER
Nov. 3, 2008
Barack Obama’s strong close in the 2008 campaign has been boosted by more than the shell-shocked economy and the Bush legacy. There’s also Sarah Palin, and the concern she incites, especially among voters who are worried about John McCain’s age.
More PhotosForty-six percent of likely voters now say having Palin on the ticket makes them less likely to support McCain — up 14 points in just the past month and more than double what it was in early September. And among those who call the candidates’ age an important factor in their vote, more, 61 percent, say Palin makes them less likely to back McCain.
Nat Public Radio
All Things Considered, November 2, 2008 · The final Pew Research Center poll of the 2008 presidential election gives Barack Obama a 49 to 42 percent lead over his rival, John McCain. Though still a significant lead, it’s suddenly a much tighter race than Obama’s 15-point lead from last week.
There are two things closing the gap, says Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center. First, McCain has made some gains among whites, independents and middle-income voters. But the other boost he’s enjoying comes from narrowing the pool of responses from registered voters to likely voters.
Typically, Republican voters tend to vote more regularly than some Democratic voting groups — particularly young people and blacks, Kohut says. So while turnout is up among those groups, it’s also up across the board — giving Republicans a boost when the poll focuses on likely voters.
It may not be as strong as a week ago, but Obama’s lead in the Pew poll agrees with several national polls that have him ahead by a 5-point average.
“This is a pretty substantial lead,” Kohut says. “We haven’t had a lead for a candidate this substantial since 1996, when President Clinton was leading Sen. Dole in the final weekend of the campaign.”
But that’s not the only poll data leaning in Obama’s favor.
The strength of each candidate’s support among likely voters has historically been a significant indicator of a race’s outcome. According to the Pew poll, 36 percent of likely voters say they strongly support Obama, while only 24 percent say they are strong supporters of McCain.
“Typically,” Kohut says, “if we look back to elections going back to 1960, invariably the candidate with the stronger support wins the election.”
LikeLike