Posted on 06/19/2009 5:16:14 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
Lots of things are unconstitutional yet still operate with federal/state authority. The Fed is a prime example and we don’t have legal standing to challenge it either.
I don’t like him and don’t respect him. He’s a fraud. He usurped the office. He also probably stole the election via ACORN.
However, Obama is the president, unconstitutionally so or not, as a result of being sworn into office by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Someday declaring the Fed unconstitutional doesn’t change the fact that it is currently operating with full authority.
The strength of the Primer is that it avoids issues and assumptions which are unsubstantiated or unnecessary; and focuses instead on basic core facts that Obama supporters (at least the informed and intellectually honest ones) have difficulty overcoming. If anything, the Primer bends over backwards and concedes points to Obama supporters, so that those points do not become needless distractions.
Prior to Wong Kim Ark (1898), some authorities were saying that anyone born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen and thus presumably a natural born citizen as well. But the preponderance of legal precedent prior to 1898 favored the birthers' viewpoint that natural born citizen means U.S.-born to U.S.-citizen parents.
After 1898, the tide turned. To many legal experts, the Supreme Court, in Wong Kim Ark, seemed to redefine "natural born citizen", making the Founding Fathers' original intent moot. The preponderance of legal precedent and the prevailing legal consensus today (all based on Wong Kim Ark) is that anyone born in the U.S., even a child born of illegal immigrants, is a natural born citizen. Birthers need to face up to this harsh reality in a credible manner. The Primer tries to do just that.
As I see it, the only way to challenge the currently-prevailing legal consensus is to challenge its root, which is the Wong Kim Ark decision. We now have historical evidence that the Wong Kim Ark ruling was bogus. If Wong Kim Ark falls, the entire legal framework, on which the "Obama is a natural born citizen" theory is based, collapses.
I disagree. If he knowingly used false information on a fake birth certificate, it doesn’t get much worse than that. If he did that, he would do anything and cannot be trusted. PERIOD. It does matter.
Yes, it matters from a legal and moral perspective. It’s wrong and it’s a crime. However, it seems to be outside the intended scope/audience of the primer.
May I suggest the addition of a brief statement of scope and/or intended audience?
I too was unclear that the intended focus is on the legal interpretations of natural-born citizen.
Nothing personal Stephen, but since when is committing felony document fraud, "irrelevant?" You said that "The Primer does not make any assumption, one way or the other, as to the validity of such belief."
Then why do you repeat, ad nauseum, that Pbama was born in Hawaii? I counted about six times in a row where you said that. You made it as a statement of fact. Sorry, but you just stuck your foot in your mouth with that comment.
Sorry, but "NO," the really and truly important issue is that we have a criminal in the White House who has committed forgery, document fraud, Internet fraud, and voter fraud on a massive scale, among other illegal actitities that he has committed, both vefore and after becoming POTUS, and THAT is why he needs to be removed from the Office of President: an office that he has thoroughly disgraced, and an affront to the US Constitution that he has shredded, and he should abolsutely be charged for these offenses and given a choice, with an hour to think it over, if he wishes to resign respectfully, or be removed from office the hard way.
And you have the audacity to state the following?
Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the President must have never, at any point in his life, committed any crime such as fraud.
OBama has been refering to Amemendment 14 as his justification for being eligible. But, in that same Amendment, it states that a man must be of good, moral character, tobecome a citizen. I'm sure that this qualification is staed also for persons seeking the PResidency. I knw, for a fact, that a Presiedent can be impeached for behavior unbecoming of a President.
Stephen, it's statements like yours that we do not need to Brush my comments off at your own peril. We've already seen other articles on this subject that are more accurate, cogent, and timely. Yours breaks no new ground.
Regardless of what you got right, it is those things that you got wrong, statements that are misleading, inaccurate, picayune, and insufficient, that make this article not exactly in the best interests of this forum or this country.
We've had our fill of one-sided opinion pieces that come across as being the definitive word on the "Obama birth issue." Sorry, but that's my opinion on it and does not reflect the forum as a whole
No. If he is not a natural born citizen, he is a usurper of the office, not the president as defined by our Constitution. The Chief Justice could swear him a thousand times and it wouldn't change that fact. And, if the truth comes out that Obama was not born in Hawaii, every act since that bogus swearing in will be of no effect and void.
Exactly.
If the facts were ever made public via every media, the whole country would be screaming for his birth certificate and records.
Polarik, the poster was seeking to continue the stealth deceit that ‘there is a lot of technical stuff people can point to but bottom line our turd-in-chief affirmative action figure is eligible through it all.’ THAT LIE is what is at the heart of this sort of essay, for buried in the apparent negatives is the great lie that ‘all technicalities aside, he was born in Hawaii and is therefore eligible’. Satan never spits a complete lie at humans, he always sprinkles his lies into a few clearly offered truths, allowing the ‘hope&change’ mind to deduce a lie as valid, all technicalities aside.
You will also note that the poster is a registered n00b, perhaps the author of the stealth deceit.
You have very stealthily avoided the issue of the affirmative action fraud violating the very oath he presumed to take, because he violated the Constitution when he presented a forgery as his proof of eligibility ... he and apparently you do not see protecting and defending the Constitutional contract between we the people and the federal oligarchy as a vital point to address. Your primer was a very clever sham, and addition to the scam being played by the affirmative action figure-in-chief.
The possibility that Obama electronically altered his COLB is an interesting theory
It isn't an interesting theory, it is an easily verifiable fact.
I have a simple method method for proving how it was done.
The simple test
Get one paper with the same background as Hawaii’s COLB
Scan it
Using a photoshop program type all the information on Obama’s COLB into a white background select the text with the Magic wand tool then cut and paste it onto the scan of that image
Merge the layers.
Then using the original sheet of paper and an word processor type (Using a Laserjet) the exact same info onto the original sheet of paper
scan it as well.
Then compare the two images with Obama’s COLB's from the daily Kos, Fcatcheck.org and Fight the Smears and see which one of your's appears to be the same as those he claims are real.
To date no Obama supporter has dared to post the results of this simple test for one simple reason.
It shows exactly why all the online versions of Obama’s COLB are a forgeries produced with photoshop.
I invite you to try this method as well.
I believe it proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that Obama's COLB is a photoshop forgery, because this method shows those distorted areas and halos that are only found in (poorly done) photoshopped images like Obama's.
Rather that throw out the proven point that Obama's COLB is a forged document, we should be asking why someone who is not a natural born citizen has been allowed to become president based upon a single forged document created for the election process.
Exactly what I was mentioning, and thanks for succinctly restating it.
He sounded a lot like Donofrio who did not want Obama removed from office. These posters who talk only about “settling the natural-born citizenship issue” have no desire to kick ZERO to the curb. They just want the honor and glory of being the one who helped “set the precident in the Supreme Court.”
AND/OR, they are in it for the money.
Thee isn’t a lawyer in existence who is fully committed to pursuing all possible legal alternatives for getting ZERO removed from office ASAP. NONE. Not Berg. Not Taitz. Not Apuzzo. Not Hememway. Nada.
If I’m wrong, then point one out to me. I’d love to meet him or her.
I posted this primer. The author joined FR at my invitation. He didn’t post it to deceive you. He absolutely does want to see Obama removed from office, which is clear in his discussion of quo warranto. The claim that he is only interested in legal precedent is false and possibly disingenuous.
Leo Donofrio did more to help the birther cause than anyone else, with the exception of Polarik, whose work I respect tremendously. Leo spent his own time and money preparing motion after motion for his case and Cort’s and took them all the way to the SCOTUS in his desire to see the usurper dethroned. To say that he doesn’t want Obama removed from office is utterly false and totally misrepresentative.
What have you or I (Polarik excluded) done to further this cause besides bitch on this forum? While the scope and intent of Stephen’s primer may not suit you personally, he should be commended for his effort to frame the issue for Obama supporters in a way that they can grasp. Birthers aren’t the intended audience. We’re already convinced! My family and friends, who think this issue is crazy, read this primer and finally get it. Now they’re getting involved. That’s progress.
I can appreciate being offended by the comment that the forgery is an interesting theory but is irrelevant. Polarik’s work is not theory and CERTAINLY not irrelevant, but attacking Stephen’s motive and accusing him of having ulterior motives isn’t fair or honest.
Damn, just damn!
Look, I’m not forcing you to recognize him, but he is holding the office of POTUS, whether as a usurper or as an NBC.
There is no settled precedent for this situation. It is not established fact that every law he signed would be repealed or become void. It is likely that his executive orders would be void, but there are arguments on both sides regarding the laws that congress passed.
The author 'framed the issue' in a way to give Obama supporters an out for their lying POIE, by inserting just enough falsehood--sounding genuine--to imply that Barry has shown he was born in Hawaii regardless of what the other 'ancillary issues' may be. Sorry, that is deceit, plain and simple.
I have not stated that I believe the author is 'only interested in legal precedent'; strike one
I have not stated that the author doesn't want Barry removed from office ... many sleazy lawyers could care less about authenticity, just doing their job; strike two
Your non sequitur of questioning what I have done other than write opinions on this forum aside, "... attacking Stephen’s motive and accusing him of having ulterior motives isn’t fair or honest" is a contradiction for why there is even a free forum! Strike three
Discernment is not 'choosing between one lie or another for which to believe in.' Have you ever read the lesson Jesus taught regarding 'a little leaven leaveneth the whole loaf?'
The primer wasn’t written to be a definitive piece. It wasn’t even written for birthers. It was written to frame the issue for Obama supporters and those who know very little, if anything, about the NBC issue. Sometimes it is helpful to set aside explosive issues for the sake of furthering discussion about the matter. This primer does that nicely. Getting someone interested in the birther cause goes a long way toward being able to inform them of the more serious matters and then enlisting their help, which is what we need - to convince those who don’t already know. The way to get the whole country screaming with us is to open a dialogue not to stamp our feet and stubbornly fold our arms. How is that helpful? How is shredding Stephen’s primer, which isn’t even intended for us, going to convince anyone that we have valid points?
Is your goal truly to convince others that this issue has merit and should be investigated and heard by the SCOTUS or is it to be right on all counts no matter what?
I spent a great deal of time reading this document. Before I became a database administrator, I started out my career in IT as a technical writer and editor. I have extensive experience in writing technical documentation for an intended audience with a narrow scope. You fail to recognize that the purpose of the primer is not to convince you, but to convince those who know little, if anything, about the natural-born citizen issue.
... inserting just enough falsehood--sounding genuine--to imply that Barry has shown he was born in Hawaii ...
The author states clearly that even if Obama's birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii, Obama's eligibility is still in doubt. From the primer:
21. If President Obama's birth certificate shows conclusively that he was born in Hawaii, would it end the eligibility controversy?
Definitely not! ... Regardless of what his birth certificate says, Obama's presidential eligibility will never be settled or resolved, until the Supreme Court decides ...
Sorry, that is deceit, plain and simple.
I will take that comment to mean that you didn't thoroughly read the document.
strike one, strike two, strike three
My comment was to both you and Polarik, not just you, so can the stikes. It's unnecessary and insulting. Polarik made the comment about establishing legal precedent, not you. Polarik, not you, made the comment that neither the author nor Donofrio wanted Obama removed from office.
Questioning what you have done to further the birther cause has nothing to do with the purpose of FreeRepublic. By the way, I included myself in that question. Certainly you have the right to speak your mind and come to your own conclusions about the primer. My point is that tearing down and attacking instead of being constructive doesn't help open a dialogue with anyone. Where I erred was in assuming that opening a discussion with anti-birthers was something you wanted.
Discernment is not 'choosing between one lie or another for which to believe in.' Have you ever read the lesson Jesus taught regarding 'a little leaven leaveneth the whole loaf?'
Having a narrow scope and an intended audience is not asking anyone to choose between one lie or another. The author didn't "sprinkle lies" with the intent to deceive. Setting aside explosive or unproven issues in order to further discussion with a group of people who are uninformed about very basic points is not deception.
Jesus also taught that the pharisees were so focused on the technicalities of the law that they failed to practice justice, mercy, and faith.
You're entitled to you to your opinions about the primer, as am I. I will use it to inform and enlist help from family, friends, and acquaintances who currently dismiss the importance of the NBC issue. I'll not ask you to do the same. I will continue to defend both Polarik's work and Stephen's work because I think they are both important.
The author never said, not one single time, that Obama was born in Hawaii. Every instance of a statement regarding Obama's birth in Hawaii was prefaced with an if or was in reference to what someone other than the author believes. He made no such statements of fact. On the contrary, he made a concerted effort to be clear that there is considerable doubt as to whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii.
You may not see it, but Tounchen is playing an intentionally twisted game of semantics here, putting qualifiers on things that do not need to be qualified, like “prove” and “verify” and “believe,” which is classic LEFTIST LIBERAL DISINFORMATION. He repeatedly uses the term, “believe,” as a meaningless qualifier. Nobody can say what another person “believes” on any given day.
Think Clinton, vis-a-vis Lewinsky:
“I did not have SEX with that woman,” (Was Bubba defining SEX for the purposes of his impeachment proceedings, and did he BELIEVE that he did not have sex? A lie is a lie.).
It is the same old baloney that I got from the trolls who would say things like, “Well you haven’t proven anything,” and “You haven’t seen the document,” and “Only a forensic document examiner can do that,” and so on. His intent should be obvious, really, as he keeps setting up one straw man after another with the intent to have us believe that Obama was born in Hawaii.
EVERYONE knows the straw men of the Left in regards to anything that Obama is hiding. They begin something like this:
“Well, if X is true about Obama, don’t you think that Hillary would have known? Don’t you think that she would have done Y”
These are the “Don’t you think” rhetorical questions I mentioned in my review.
They are similar to Socratic reasoning where A is the premise, B is the qualifier, and C is the conclusion. Note how I use his actual statements below:
A. The State of Hawaii would not have knowingly issued a Hawaiian birth certificate to anyone born outside of Hawaii.
B. The President’s original 1961 birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii.
C. Therefore, the President was born in Hawaii.
Now, here are all of his “Obama was born in Hawaii” quotes [along with my comments in brackets]:
1. President Obama has published, on the Internet, a digital photograph of a computer-generated short-form Certification of Life Birth. [Premise: a Hawaiian document that says he was born in Hawaii +1]
2. The President’s original 1961 birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii.[Another premise +2]
3. Birthers do not dispute either of these two facts. [another iteration of the same claim +3]
3. Nonetheless, there is little doubt that President Obama’s original Hawaiian birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii. [another iteration of the same claim +4]
4. Under the laws that were in effect in Hawaii when Barack Obama was born, the State of Hawaii would not have knowingly issued a Hawaiian birth certificate to anyone born outside of Hawaii.[the Hawaiian straw man +5]
5. Under this Act, Hawaiian birth certificates were issued only to individuals who were believed to be born in Hawaii. [another iteration of the Hawaiian Hawaiian straw man +6]
6. A subsequent law, enacted in 1955, reaffirmed the fact that Hawaiian birth certificates were given only to individuals who were believed to be Hawaii-born. [another iteration of the Hawaiian straw man +7]
7. In 1961, the State of Hawaii would not have issued a birth certificate to Barack Obama unless the State believed he was born in Hawaii. [another iteration of the Hawaiian straw man +8]
8. Barack Obama’s original 1961 typewritten birth certificate undoubtedly says he was born in Hawaii. [another iteration of the same claim +9]
9. Barack Obama’s original Hawaiian birth certificate, by its mere existence, shows that the State of Hawaii believed he was born in Hawaii. [Conclusion: reached by knocking down all of the straw men. +10]
That’s TEN repetitions of the same argument, or nine too many.
I rest my case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.