So i guess then that America is afraid that the goverment of Kenya will control through her puppet the U.S?

Such technicalities make the world facepalm.

In addition, 1961 bc's would have typed lettering. Obama's factcheck one is in Helvetica. The laser printer on the bottom of it is spec'd at OSHM 1.1 laser from 2001. They did not have laser printers in 61. In addition, if save the bc and open in a hex editor it clearly states Adobe Photoshop CS3 in the code with a time stamp. The same one also shows a distinct lightness compared to the background when applied with a high pass filter.

Your sources are Youtube and Obamacrimes while citing a case that was thrown out...

Your back up for experience is the Beta club, national honor society, and volunteering for the library... (Which is funny cause we have a;; three in common.)

Jeez I support the opposing argument better in my posts (before I tear them apart) than you do when you are seriously defending them.

When you're in the real world, and you need smart, capable people to work for you and be loyal or you need to sell big ticket items this illogical reasoning isn't going to fly.

You are a smart guy, you can do better: collect your thoughts, organize them, and check them to see if they are going to be relative and significant to your audience.

Even though Keys may have standing, that does not mean the SC court will take this case. The SC throws out appeals and such all the time; they do not hear all cases. The fact of the matter is, Keys has to have substantial evidence that there is a real doubt, not just some conspiracy cooked up by Freepers and Redstaters. What do we have so far?

1) Obama's Grandma. Reading the transcript it does not say at all what Berg claimed, and even points to the fact that the grandma obviously has no idea what he is asking through the translator. This will have no standing in court and will be dismissed/impeached by the defense quickly

2) Allegations that the long form are wrong

3) A guy, who may or may not, have Kenya birth information. He is/was in the UK trying to get amnesty there and claims he has documents. They have not been produced. They will have to be before it gets to the SC.

If you really think the SC will hear this based on this evidence, you are wrong. This would not even make it past a grand jury (if one was used in such a case).

As to being born on soil outside the US, it is obvious what the founding fathers ment. I am tired of dregging this up, please everyone read this. THIS IS WHAT THE EARLY AMERICANS THOUGHT OF IT:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen

"Congress first recognized the citizenship of children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, under the first naturalization law: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." (See ref. for the Act of 1795)"

So, if you talk about "doing what the founding fathers wanted" and "protecting the constitution" this is what it is. Obama, by the founding father's and early america's standards, is a natural born citizen even if he is born in Kenya. Because, as we all know, the people who have this lawsuit want the spirit of the constitution followed right?

Lastly, on Indonesia, because this will surely come up again, here is the definitive rule on REVOKING US citizenship:

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html

"

A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:

1. appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer,
2. in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and
3. sign an oath of renunciation

Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described above have no legal effect. Because of the provisions of section 349(a)(5), Americans cannot effectively renounce their citizenship by mail, through an agent, or while in the United States. In fact, U.S. courts have held certain attempts to renounce U.S. citizenship to be ineffective on a variety of grounds, as discussed below.

C. REQUIREMENT - RENOUNCE ALL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES

In the case of Colon v. U.S. Department of State , 2 F.Supp.2d 43 (1998), plaintiff was a United States citizen and resident of Puerto Rico, who executed an oath of renunciation before a consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in Santo Domingo. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected Colon’s petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Secretary of State to approve a Certificate of Loss of Nationality in the case because the plaintiff wanted to retain one of the primary benefits of U.S. citizenship while claiming he was not a U.S. citizen. The Court described the plaintiff as a person, "claiming to renounce all rights and privileges of United States citizenship, [while] Plaintiff wants to continue to exercise one of the fundamental rights of citizenship, namely to travel freely throughout the world and when he wants to, return and reside in the United States." See also Jose Fufi Santori v. United States of America , 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 16299 (1994) for a similar case.

A person who wants to renounce U.S. citizenship cannot decide to retain some of the privileges of citizenship, as this would be logically inconsistent with the concept of renunciation. Thus, such a person can be said to lack a full understanding of renouncing citizenship and/or lack the necessary intent to renounce citizenship, and the Department of State will not approve a loss of citizenship in such instances.

D. DUAL NATIONALITY / STATELESSNESS

Persons intending to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware that, unless they already possess a foreign nationality, they may be rendered stateless and, thus, lack the protection of any government. They may also have difficulty traveling as they may not be entitled to a passport from any country. Even if they were not stateless, they would still be required to obtain a visa to travel to the United States, or show that they are eligible for admission pursuant to the terms of the Visa Waiver Pilot Program (VWPP). If found ineligible for a visa or the VWPP to come to the U.S., a renunciant, under certain circumstances, could be barred from entering the United States. Nonetheless, renunciation of U.S. citizenship may not prevent a foreign country from deporting that individual back to the United States in some non-citizen status.

E. TAX & MILITARY OBLIGATIONS /NO ESCAPE FROM PROSECUTION

Also, persons who wish to renounce U.S. citizenship should also be aware that the fact that a person has renounced U.S. citizenship may have no effect whatsoever on his or her U.S. tax or military service obligations (contact the Internal Revenue Service or U.S. Selective Service for more information). In addition, the act of renouncing U.S. citizenship will not allow persons to avoid possible prosecution for crimes which they may have committed in the United States, or escape the repayment of financial obligations previously incurred in the United States or incurred as United States citizens abroad.

F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN

Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.

G. IRREVOCABILITY OF RENUNCIATION

Finally, those contemplating a renunciation of U.S. citizenship should understand that the act is irrevocable, except as provided in section 351 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1483), and cannot be canceled or set aside absent successful administrative or judicial appeal. (Section 351(b) of the INA provides that an applicant who renounced his or her U.S. citizenship before the age of eighteen can have that citizenship reinstated if he or she makes that desire known to the Department of State within six months after attaining the age of eighteen. See also Title 22, Code of Federal Regulations, section 50.20).

Renunciation is the most unequivocal way in which a person can manifest an intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Please consider the effects of renouncing U.S. citizenship, described above, before taking this serious and irrevocable action. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact:"

Ok, now we have seen that to get rid of his citizenship he has to not only have a good reason, but he HIMSELF has to convince an embassy employee of his wish to renounce citizenship, his parents cannot do it for him. Then, there has to be signatures. A minor can do this, but I find it a very difficult case that would allow for a minor of his age (8) to make this case because he would not be able to prove he has full understanding and would have undue influence (from parents). Lastly, he is not a citizen at all if he ever renounced, he could not vote or hold any office. You do realize that people undergo background checks for public office, this would have come up.

So, to lose his citzenship, he has to give it up IN THIS MANNER or IT DOES NOT LEGALLY COUNT.

The end. If you can not refute all these points, there is no way this case will not be laughed out of the SC, much less heard.

who cares?

if you let someones birthplace influence your opinion of them, then youre an idiot.

 So what I gathered from this post is... If someone murders someone but you like the guy you should let him go!

wtf?

 indeed wtf?

i dont understand? my post was saying that someones birthplace does not neccessarily impact who they are, i dont see how Obama bring born outside the us should be a problem for people. where does my post mention murder?

Your sources are Youtube and Obamacrimes while citing a case that was thrown out...

Dismissed due to lack of standing, which says nothing about the facts or merits of the case. All the ruling means is that Bergman does not have the right to bring the matter to court, but Keyes does.

I worded the records part poorly, I was pointing out your use of immigration for his mom.

And I'll point out my use of immigration was correct. That's who stamps your passport when you re-enter the country, though they are referred to now as US customs and border patrol, which I think is part of homeland security.

The Supreme Court never has to take a case. The chief justice has to preside over Presidential Impeachment hearings - but that is just the CJ not the U.S.S.C.

Wrong, they must take cases in which they have original jurisdiction that are filed with them. The cases they refuse is a refusal to hear the  appeal and they let the lower court ruling stand.

Honestly, are you really in pre-law or did you just think that sounded better then history or poly sci major?