Obama's citizenship brought into question...
 

A friend of mine has informed me that Obama's citizenship has been brought into question recently. From what I gather, the two things Obama has refused to release are his birth certificate and his college transcripts.

Apparently Philip J. Berg, former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, is claiming that Obama's grandmother admitted that he was born in Kenya, thus making him ineligible for presidency.

I'm admittedly not as up on politics as some, but this story is intriguing to me.

You can listen to an interview with Philip J. Berg as heard on Michael Savage's show at the following site: Phil Berg discusses lawsuit against Obama.

I listened, and I gather Savage tends to overreact and is strongly conservative, but Mr. Berg does seem to have an interesting case.

Do you think Philip Berg's case is valid, or is it likely just a conspiracy theory that is likely to drag Obama through the mud?

Conspiracy case. Obama has released his birth certificate, I believe there's scans of it floating around on the internet.

My general mantra has been "If Obama is accused of something, it's more likely to be true of McCain." That's true in this case as well. McCain was born in the canal zone, and there's a plausible (though, I think, ultimately unsuccessful) argument to be made that the way in which he gained citizenship does not make him a natural born citizen.

Your friend was wrong and its pretty sad that you didn't do a simple google search to verify the veracity of your claims.

Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii was a state at the time of his birth. He has released his birth certificate. I have no idea if he released his college information but what college you go to has NOTHING to do with being a non-naturalized citizen.

At the same time John McCain was born in Panama when his parents were stationed there. He was not born in a US state but due to the laws is considered a US citizenship without going through the naturalization process.

They are both eligible and next time please do a simple fact check before you spout off unsubstantiated rumors.

QFT. Btw, I believe the legalese for McCain's status is "statutory citizenship," which is why he is allowed to run for president. It's not exactly the same as native-born citizenship (which IS what Obama has, btw), but that's more a matter of semantics than anything, at this point. The obvious thing is that neither of them are naturalized citizens, so they're covered in that respect.

On the other hand, what would the impact have been if Obama had been the one born in the Panama Canal Zone (or some other such region), instead of McCain? Even more hooting calls of his "unAmericanness," I'm QUITE sure. :rolleyes:

His birth certificate, afaik, has been put up on his website. But here's a quick link.

Fight the Smears: The Truth About Barack?s Birth Certificate

Paranoia is over there ->

Hopefully people will come across this thread so that all of their concerns about Senator Obama's birth certificate can be put to rest.

FactCheck.org: Born in the U.S.A.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama...ertificate.asp

Your friend got Rove'd. They are making up shit in hopes that something will stick...

How anyone would believe that the DNC would allow a presidential candidate to make it to within a week of election day when he/she wasn't eligible is laughable. Come on people!

Well, over the last eight years, Democrats have done dumber things. Hopefully those days are behind us now.

On a side note, I was watching the local Australian news the other night - the US correspondent was deep in Republican territory and people were saying things on camera about Obama, like "he is a muslim", "he swore his oath on the Koran", "he is a terrorist". After that, I was almost surprised not to hear "he's black". I'm amazed that there are people who swallow rumour like it is the truth. Personally I think these people already know who they are voting for and are clutching at *anything* to re-enforce their (slanted) view.

Living where I do (Kentucky), I see a LOT of this. Half-assed excuses and illogical reasoning to avoid saying straight up, "I'm not voting for a black man." Not so much where I live (Louisville), but definitely out in the state.

a poll of 550 Texas voters showed that 23% think he's a Muslim.

Is that really true, or do they just use that as an excuse not to vote for the black guy?

They use it as an excuse not to say they won't vote for the black guy. Now instead of black guys coming and stealing your daughters, it's Muslims.

Mr. J. Mellow,

I think you have been sufficiently berated so I see no further need to chastise you further. To tell you the truth, I wouldn't chastise you anyway. I mean, what the heck. Anyhow, this campaign season I have gone with the approach that if it sounds wacky, and I did not witness it with my own eyes, then it probably is wacky. This includes Obama being a Muslim, being the best friend of Bill Ayres, and being born outside the U.S. What I have witnessed with my own eyes was Obama sitting in the pew in front of Rev. Wright.

As for McCain, I did not actually seen his seven houses, but I have seen enough evidence to assume that the houses are there. And there's never been any denial.

By the way, Barry Goldwater ran for President in 1964 (I think it was 1964) and he was born in Arizona before it became a state. So some of this stuff about candidates' places of birth is not unprecedented.

Your Buddy,
Galileo Smith

the level of disinformation coming mostly from the right in this campaign is pretty amazing, not because there's more of it, but because the context has changed around the conservatives such that what they've done with some effect now has turned against them.

what it looks like at this point is the republicans in the form of the mc-cain campaign are driving at considerable speed toward a very large wall. while it is still possible that the voting population of the united states could be seized with an unfortunate phase of collective dementia and go against all expectations and elect another republican (such thoughts are the consequence of bush getting a second term, which still astonishes me), it does not seem likely.

if thats the case, it'll be interesting to see how the republicans try to regroup.
one thing that's clear is the "permanent republican majorities" that rove et al were talking about a few years ago has not turned out to be terribly permanent.
i am reminded of a previous thousand year prediction, but it seems churlish to go with it.
no-one wants to be a churl.
no-one wants to know what being a churl might entail.
it doesn't sound good, whatever it is.

If using race didn't work, the Rove Smear machine wouldn't use it. In 2000, they got the 527's to imply (or accuse, you decide) that McCain had an interracial love child. In 2008, they hit the jackpot with an actual living, breathing, non-white candidate. The job was so easy for them (and yet they've managed to screw up the smear)

I don't think they screwed it up, the economy dropping in the shitter actually brought real issues to the forefront. The race would be closer if it weren't for the economy. Remember that McCain was ahead in the polls right before the Sept crash...

the tactic is transparent. if the right refers to itself as "us" it follows that obama has to be situated as "not one of us"---all the predicates the mc-cain people have tried to hang on obama function in the same way.

it points once again to the centrality of identity to conservative political language.
and that language--and everything that has been built around it--is what is pulling the republicans into a void.
if they loose this election--and i think they will (and badly)--i think you'll see the republicans undertake a fundamental rethinking of their strategy, of the nature and direction of their coalition.
i think this will be a good thing for the entirety of the american political system.

nothing is less democratic than political claims articulated as matters of identity.

While the economy crash didn't help McCain and has helped lead to the blowout numbers we are seeing his lead was due to the post convention bounce.


http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp200...2008-solid.png

Look at Obama's numbers there is a trend. Right at convention time his numbers dropped but it rebounded to the same spot. I and i'm sure most people looking back will refer to this as a convention bounce.

Not a factor in my voting so I don't care, but the below may apply to Obama as well as McCain.

This is what I wanted to comment on, because there is no chance of even a plausible argument to this. I figure this info will help you. I don't truly care one way about McCain or Obama in this aspect. But the info maybe helpful to you. This was stuff I learned in 11th grade.

If you are born overseas and both of your parents are natural born US citizens and have lived in the US, you are a US citizen..... this could be McCain.

All persons born in the United States, except those not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government (such as children of foreign diplomats) are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. Persons born in the United States, and persons born on foreign soil to two U.S. parents, are born American citizens and are classified as citizens at birth under 8 USC 1401... this could and does include illegal immigrants who have their children born here.

If you are born in a "organized and incorporated territory of the United States", you are a US natural born citizen..... Barry Goldwater, Obama.

The only argument that neither Constitutionally cannot run because of citizenry would be if one had not lived in the US 14 years as a resident. Since both have..... this should not really be an issue.

Natural-born citizen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I prefer intelligent response to Internet search queries, and while I did try a Google search or two, the results weren't really that impressive either way.

The basis for this statement was that if he were a foreign student and receiving financial aid or other help, it might show up in his college records or writings.

I don't consider myself to have spouted off anything. I made a post asking a simple question. I find it a bit disheartening that you recommend Internet search queries to informed discussion, but that's neither here nor there. This forum seems to have more negativity and inflammatory comments of late than it used to. Not sure why, but it doesn't really encourage discussion. Given that, perhaps search queries and results are the ideal path to an answer.

It's not even the economy that will cause McCain to lose by a massive landslide {if you believe polls}.

The fact that McCain is from the same party as one of the most umpopular presidents of all time, is a factor. And McCain not distancing himself from that president really hurt him.

The fact McCain seems out of touch with reality a times and has problems relating to the average citizen, while his opponent has a charisma and can put on a great show that he can relate, has hurt McCain fa more than the economy.

The fact McCain doesn't come through and show a true economic plan that can work, again hurts him.

But the biggest hurt is that McCain for whatever reason, runs this campaign like he wants to lose is the major factor.

I think if he had a better economic plan, could relate better had distanced himself FAR from Bush and showed more compassion for the people, this election would be far closer than the blowout it will be.

IMO, ignorant rumors perpetuated by extremists with an agenda are not deserving of a discussion beyond stating the simple fact that they are ignorant rumors perpetuated by extremists.

Sorry if you find that negative and inflammatory.

The fundamental weirdness here is that you think that discussion is the best way to determine FACT. Facts aren't a matter of discussion or assertion. I know that over the last eight years we've had many assertions treated as fact, but that doesn't actually make it so.

Now: interpretation, analysis, reaction... Those are good discussion starters.

I considered this forum to be a better place to go for facts than Google searches. And after reading pan6467's post explaining citizenship laws, I am confident I was right. It took a few replies, but eventually we got there. :)

Thanks!

Should we discuss this one next.

It is in today's edition of Weekly World News, the supermarket tabloid that claims to be the "world's only reliable news" (Michael Savage makes the same claim about his radio show).

OCTOBER SURPRISE: ALIEN ENDORSES MCCAIN!

http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/wp-co...dorse_full.jpg

Weekly World News|The World’s Only Reliable News!

This story "is intriguing to me" so here is my discussion question:

Why would an alien endorse an old white jingoistic hawkish conservative over a young multi-cultural socialist pacifist who would give aliens the benefits of our social safety net and talk to their leader w/o pre-conditions.

NO......it can't be true!

Actually i prefer personal research as apposed to uninformed discussion which is what you were doing.

Should I start a thread on John McCain being an Manchurian candidate that was brainwashed as a POW? I can say what ever I want but without facts to back up my claims it is merely an uninformed discussion (also known as rumor mongering and gossip).

Thanks Pan. Sadly, lawyers know that much of what you learned in 11th grade is false. The courts have never definitively stated that 'natural-born citizen' means 'citizen at birth'. Most people believe this is the case, but for the contrarians:

By basic standards of statutory interpretation, if Congress changes the wording of a statute, it must be changing the meaning of the statute. Therefore, Congress changed its mind, and so citizens born abroad are not to be considered 'natural-born'.

If I recall correctly, he has the additional problem that Congress only passed a law making the children of US citizens born in the canal zones citizens themselves after McCain was born. Meaning that McCain was not a citizen when he was born.

Like I've said, I don't think these arguments work (and I don't think any court would toss out McCain as president based on these arguments). But they're not ridiculous arguments as far as legal arguments go.

See also this post by Prof. Jack Balkin for a summary of an argument a strict constructionist might make:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/05/w...ds-living.html

All the legal scholars I have listened to define "natural-born citizen" as a citizen who did not have to go through the naturalization process. The fact that John McCain is running and Barry Goldwater ran would back up that finding.

Thats' a big issue. I am interested in the end result. You provided worth resource of interview but it's hard to say who is right.

Came in late... but unfortunately my father gets tons of email chains like these and I always have to refute them.

Basically if you hear ANYTHING about Obama.. or any other politician that raises a red flag for you go to FactCheck.org. They are an independent group that is very quick to research and prove/disprove any political hack job.

Just like there are people who believe Elvis is still alive, there will be people who think Obama was born outside of the US. The irony is that usually Obama supporters make this a headline issue. Why? Because Obama gains political points every time the nature of his birth is discussed rather than any of his failed policies. If Obama supporters dropped this issue, it would fall into obscurity.

Yes, it's Obama supporters who are to blame for questions about his citizenship. :rolleyes:

Just like liberals are most responsible for Palin being in the media so much, notice that when you folks took your month off, that Palin was not in the news? Off course you won't see the conection, but Like I said many times if liberals left Palin alone she would fade, similarly if liberals drop the "birther" thing it would fade also. You have no idea of the things that really concern conservatives.

That's right, liberals did get Palin that job at Fox.

"Sarah Palin" - Google News

Yeah, Palin-free month had mixed results. She only popped up in about 12,767 sources in February according to a Google News search.

It continues...


Huckabee Explains Obama's "Different Worldview": "Our Communities Were Filled With Rotary Clubs, Not Madrassas" | Media Matters for America

It's all pretty ridiculous, that thing with Huckabee. Obama's father became an atheist before he met his mother, and his mother was essentially an agnostic and a daughter of nonpracticing Baptists and Methodists.

Unless Wikipedia lies, of course. Who knows who is telling the truth anymore, right?

Right, ace.

Those birther bills introduced by Republicans in 11 state legislatures are the liberals fault! :eek:

Ga. latest state to propose "birther" bill - CBS News