http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214
"...A separate WND investigation into Obama's birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren't originally there.
The Berg lawsuit contends there is enough truth in the various reports to conclude, "Unfortunately, Obama is not a 'natural born' citizen."
The suit alleges that while records exist of a "registry of birth" for Obama in Hawaii (filed four days after his claimed birthday), no records exist of his mother's stay in any Hawaii hospital, suggesting she may have given birth elsewhere and filed the registration shortly thereafter on American soil.
"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.
However, there doesn't seem to be any evidence Ann Dunham expatriated. Also, consulting citizenship experts contend that if Obama indeed obtained Indonesian citizenship, it simply would not have been recognized by the U.S., but the presidential candidate would retain his American citizenship.
Even after her divorce and return to the U.S., the suit says, "Obama's mother failed to take the oath in order to regain her U.S. Citizenship. Therefore, Obama would not have been able to regain his U.S. Citizenship until he turned 18 years (and) after he took the oath of allegiance."
"Since the oath of allegiance would have been entered in the records of the appropriate embassy, legation, consulate, court or the Attorney General, if Plaintiff is incorrect, then Obama should be able to produce in Court a certified copy of the proceedings, including a copy of the oath administered," the suit states.
The lawsuit then claims an investigation has shown that in 1981, "Obama traveled to Pakistan using his Indonesian passport. At the time of travels to Indonesia, Obama was 20 years old. He was well aware he maintained his Indonesia citizenship, and failed to regain his United States citizenship. … Even if Obama maintained his United States Citizenship, which he failed to do, he also carries citizenships in Kenya and Indonesia. Obama has divided loyalties with foreign countries. Thus, Obama carries multiple citizenships and is ineligible to run for President of the United States."
A WND investigation could not find any proof Obama used an Indonesian passport to travel to Pakistan. However, WND noted that Pakistan in 1981 was under military rule and that it was difficult for U.S. citizens to travel to the country without assistance – meaning, it would have been easier to enter Pakistan on an Indonesian passport.
Berg claims his lawsuit is necessary, not only to protect the Constitution, but also to protect the integrity of the Democratic Party.
"If the DNC officers and/or leaders had performed one ounce of due diligence, we would not find ourselves in this emergency predicament, one week away from making a person the nominee who has lost their citizenship," said Berg in his press release. "The injunctive relief must be granted because failing to do so, (the DNC's) inaction defrauds everyone who voted in the Democratic Primary."
Comments (9)
But now WND is leading the charge to demand to see a birth certificate they've already seen and verified.
My question is, are they lying now? Or were they lying then?
That story was on the certificate of live birth, Blackmon, which is NOT a BIRTH CERTIFICATE. The question still remains "Where is the Birth Certificate?". Just show us the Birth Certificate Mr Soetoero!
Actually, the COLB he posted IS a valid BC, according to the State of Hawaii.
http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html
"Asked for more information about the short-form versus long-form birth documents, Okubo said the Health Department "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate."
"The birth certificate form has been modified over the years and decades to conform to national standards and models," she said.
Okubo also emphasized the certification form "contains all the information needed by all federal government agencies for transactions requiring a birth certificate."
She added that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state's current certification of live birth "as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements."
This is a completely unambiguous statement of the validity of Obama's COLB.
The COLB is a legal document.
Lots of questions arose when it first appeared on the internet about its authenticity.
No one was knowledgeable of the laws of Hawaii that issued such documents.
After learning Hawaii does issue such documents for persons born out of the State of Hawaii, the issue of its authenticity became moot, unimportant to the question about his place of birth.
This very document has never been shown for verification in a real process, but its meaningless anyway.
The issue that matters can only be ascertained for a Birth Certificate.
A Birth Certificate shows the weight and length of the new born.
Along with the Hospital and Doctor's name.
Just the normal everyday information all are accustomed to providing in many situations for documenting who we are.
The refusal to show such simple information points out guilt and lies coming from such actions.
It is not normal to spend about a million dollars to keep from showing such a routine document as a Birth Certificate.
The refusal to show it proves guilt.
There can be no doubt Obama is not eligible by his own admission in refusal to show such everyday information.
We have a fraud in the White House folks
blah bla blahblahblah.
carpenturr1 "We have a fraud in the White House folks"
After I sifted thru all the misdirection in your statement, that's what it boils down to.
Unfortunately for you, it doesn't look like the Court of Public Opinion will reverse its 2008 decision in 2012. You'll have to deal with the Usurper until 2017.
"Unfortunately for you, it doesn't look like the Court of Public Opinion will reverse its 2008 decision in 2012. You'll have to deal with the Usurper until 2017."
As I said before, and you agreed. By 2012 there will be tougher Eligibility Verification Legislation that will not be ignored by any state electoral board officials. i.e. No more simply accepting a signature next to "I am eligible"
Either he runs and proves he is eligable to the satisfaction of the election boards and in the process proving his eligibility to everyone, or he decides not to run!
Well, redkite, you may have said that, but you didn't say that the verification procedure would overturn current law.
His Hawaiian COLB is legal tender in all 50 states. He doesn't have to show them the web version. The only thing he has to do is show it when he applies for candidacy.
You haven't yet show why your opinion of his COLB should supercede the government's opinion. Your opinion of the COLB is in direct conflict with the government's opinion.
Which of you makes the final decision about its veracity?
I think carpenturr1 made a very good post. Plus, if Pres. Obama IS a legal US citizen, I want to know how he got into places a US citizen shouldn't have been allowed to travel to.