UPDATE
Andy Martin sent two e-mails concerning the original blog that follows the dashed line:
1.Well, actually, "response due December 1" is only a citation of the SC Rules which call for a reply in 30 days. There is no time limit on action by the court.
2. The injunction was denied. The SC online docket is not the best, but a subsequent entry using the search under docket number confirms denial.
The original blog follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A poster to this blog has noted that the calendar of the Supreme Court is readily available here. The calendar clearly states this concerning Berg v. Obama here:
>Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)
Oct 31 2008 Application (08A391) for an injunction pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
I am not an attorney but I looked up the term certiorari on Wikipedia:
"A writ of certiorari currently means an order by a higher court directing a lower court to send the record in a given case for review."
So that means that the Supreme Court will decide on whether to review the Berg case on December 1. As well, an application for an injunction was filed pending disposition of the petitition for the writ of certiorari.
It does not seem to mean that there has been a court order requiring that Obama provide the vault copy birth certificate. Kick me if I'm wrong, but the Supreme Court calendar seems pretty clear. The decision on certiorari is required by December 1, the request for an injunction is pending a positive decision on the writ, which is also due December 1. That means that at this point nothing is due from Obama, and unless the Supreme Court grants the writ of certiorari, the case dies.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Terminate Your Newspaper Subscription, Turn Off TV News, Reform Republican Party, Press Talk Radio To Focus
Dear Friends: The recent election cycle has convinced me that the post-modern press, to include television and radio news, magazines, newspapers and weeklies do not provide informed analysis or factual evidence. Consuming them is worse than ignoring them. I have sworn off all paid information sources save one. I no longer watch television news.
As well, the Republican Party needs to be put on notice that its recent emphasis on special interests and big government is not acceptable and that there are enough advocates of limited government, sound money and responsible administration to prevent the Republican Party's further progress unless these views become fundamental to it. Under the Bush administration, the Republican Party reinvented Progressivism, and its culmination has been the socialization of banking, the opposite of anything small government advocates believe. It is good that the inflationary, big government policies of the Republican Party have been punished.
The question now is how to reinvent America. The talk radio gurus who have been emphasizing partisanship and criticizing the Democrats' tactical steps are focusing on hate instead of vision. Republicans, including talk radio, should be working on the creation of a new vision that will reassert Jacksonian Democracy, laissez faire, limited government and terminate the corrupt, poverty-inducing, thuggish Progressivism that guides the Bush Republicans and the Democrats.
Attacking the Obama administation now is a waste of time. The Bush administration destroyed the "conservative" vision of Ronald Reagan. Without a new game plan, the Republicans will remain permanently on the sidelines. The new game plan has to revolve around freedom. And it must address the conservatives' failures: their refusal to staunch insipid programs like the Department of Energy and the Department of Education; their inability to cut government; their dancing to Wall Street's flute at every chance; their inability to stick to the principles of honest government and laissez faire; and their reliance on monetary expansion to stimulate stock market and real estate bubbles at the expense of healthy, competitive industry.
Republicans need to create a vision and explain why their recent past has been an utter failure. Only then can they become electable again. And if they can't appeal to small business, ambitious young people, hard workers and believers in the American dream, then they deserve to fail.
As well, the Republican Party needs to be put on notice that its recent emphasis on special interests and big government is not acceptable and that there are enough advocates of limited government, sound money and responsible administration to prevent the Republican Party's further progress unless these views become fundamental to it. Under the Bush administration, the Republican Party reinvented Progressivism, and its culmination has been the socialization of banking, the opposite of anything small government advocates believe. It is good that the inflationary, big government policies of the Republican Party have been punished.
The question now is how to reinvent America. The talk radio gurus who have been emphasizing partisanship and criticizing the Democrats' tactical steps are focusing on hate instead of vision. Republicans, including talk radio, should be working on the creation of a new vision that will reassert Jacksonian Democracy, laissez faire, limited government and terminate the corrupt, poverty-inducing, thuggish Progressivism that guides the Bush Republicans and the Democrats.
Attacking the Obama administation now is a waste of time. The Bush administration destroyed the "conservative" vision of Ronald Reagan. Without a new game plan, the Republicans will remain permanently on the sidelines. The new game plan has to revolve around freedom. And it must address the conservatives' failures: their refusal to staunch insipid programs like the Department of Energy and the Department of Education; their inability to cut government; their dancing to Wall Street's flute at every chance; their inability to stick to the principles of honest government and laissez faire; and their reliance on monetary expansion to stimulate stock market and real estate bubbles at the expense of healthy, competitive industry.
Republicans need to create a vision and explain why their recent past has been an utter failure. Only then can they become electable again. And if they can't appeal to small business, ambitious young people, hard workers and believers in the American dream, then they deserve to fail.
Is Phil Berg's Souter Writ of Certiorari Real?
I had previously blogged about an Atlas Shrugs report that Supreme Court Justice Souter has issued a Writ of Certiorai requiring President-elect Obama to produce the vault copy of his birth certificate. In an e-mail, Andy Martin questions Phil Berg's claim that there is a court order:
>I would be very chary of repeating Mr. Berg's claims that there is a Supreme Court order to produce a BC. Berg has repeatedly been caught lying and encouraging the dissemination or false and/or inaccurate information. I don't know if he is in fact a scam artist, but he has undoubtedly tried to scam a lot of people with false claims. I doubt the Souter order exists; I asked for a copy and got nothing. Forewarned is forearmed. There is a massive gap between aggressive advocacy and nonsense or plain lying. Berg is on the wrong side of the divide.
Andy Martin
>I would be very chary of repeating Mr. Berg's claims that there is a Supreme Court order to produce a BC. Berg has repeatedly been caught lying and encouraging the dissemination or false and/or inaccurate information. I don't know if he is in fact a scam artist, but he has undoubtedly tried to scam a lot of people with false claims. I doubt the Souter order exists; I asked for a copy and got nothing. Forewarned is forearmed. There is a massive gap between aggressive advocacy and nonsense or plain lying. Berg is on the wrong side of the divide.
Andy Martin
SMR Strauss on the Birth Certificate Question
Andy Martin comments on the following:
I, of course, have never questioned that he was born in Hawai'i. Until I see evidence to the contrary I will keep my mouth shut (unlike Mr. Berg).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A poster to an earlier blog below, SMRStrauss, indicates that a Virginia Court, basing its decision on the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Sections 349 and 355, has held that Obama's Indonesian and Kenyan citizenship do not invalidate his status of natural born citizen. Presumably, President-elect Obama continues to fight revealing his birth certificate for another reason, possibly Andy Martin's explanation that there is an issue involving the identity of President-elect Obama's father. Martin has heard rumor or obtained evidence that Obama's true father is Franklin Marshall Davis. It would seem easier to reveal the birth certificate than to fight revealing in court, and some explanation along these lines seems probable to me. Also, there is the matter of Obama's sealed medical records. I'm not enough of an attorney to comment on the citizenship issue. I think a bigger problem is the unwillingness of the pissant media to probe these questions, but anyone who reads my blog knows this well.
>First, the certification of live birth is a valid document showing that the birth certificate exists in the files. It has now been accepted by at least one court.
Then, on the absurd claim that Obama was born in Kenya:
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.
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. But they have nothing.
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. In any case, it is not evidence. She could be referring to Barak Obama senior, Obama’s father, who certainly was born in Kenya.
The officials in Hawaii say he was born in Hawaii. They have seen his birth certificate in his file. Thus they are confirming the certification. And, they have no reason to lie.
The certificate (or certification, whatever) of live birth has been accepted as legal proof of Obama's birth in Hawaii by a court in Virginia. (Monday. See: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2123806/posts)
After Berg, several other cases against Obama on the natural born citizen issue were brought in other states.
While most of them just did what the Berg case did, which was to rule that Berg had no standing to sue, some of the others looked at the “evidence” - and concluded that the stuff was absurd. This is important. It is no longer possible to claim that the courts have refused to look at the evidence and merely dismissed the cases on technical grounds. They did look at the evidence, and found it wanting.
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 Monday, 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.”
Repeat: “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.”
I, of course, have never questioned that he was born in Hawai'i. Until I see evidence to the contrary I will keep my mouth shut (unlike Mr. Berg).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A poster to an earlier blog below, SMRStrauss, indicates that a Virginia Court, basing its decision on the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Sections 349 and 355, has held that Obama's Indonesian and Kenyan citizenship do not invalidate his status of natural born citizen. Presumably, President-elect Obama continues to fight revealing his birth certificate for another reason, possibly Andy Martin's explanation that there is an issue involving the identity of President-elect Obama's father. Martin has heard rumor or obtained evidence that Obama's true father is Franklin Marshall Davis. It would seem easier to reveal the birth certificate than to fight revealing in court, and some explanation along these lines seems probable to me. Also, there is the matter of Obama's sealed medical records. I'm not enough of an attorney to comment on the citizenship issue. I think a bigger problem is the unwillingness of the pissant media to probe these questions, but anyone who reads my blog knows this well.
>First, the certification of live birth is a valid document showing that the birth certificate exists in the files. It has now been accepted by at least one court.
Then, on the absurd claim that Obama was born in Kenya:
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.
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. But they have nothing.
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. In any case, it is not evidence. She could be referring to Barak Obama senior, Obama’s father, who certainly was born in Kenya.
The officials in Hawaii say he was born in Hawaii. They have seen his birth certificate in his file. Thus they are confirming the certification. And, they have no reason to lie.
The certificate (or certification, whatever) of live birth has been accepted as legal proof of Obama's birth in Hawaii by a court in Virginia. (Monday. See: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2123806/posts)
After Berg, several other cases against Obama on the natural born citizen issue were brought in other states.
While most of them just did what the Berg case did, which was to rule that Berg had no standing to sue, some of the others looked at the “evidence” - and concluded that the stuff was absurd. This is important. It is no longer possible to claim that the courts have refused to look at the evidence and merely dismissed the cases on technical grounds. They did look at the evidence, and found it wanting.
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 Monday, 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.”
Repeat: “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.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
