Posted on 06/19/2009 5:16:14 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
Based on the actual facts and time line, I think the odds that he was born in Hawaii are slim and none and slim left town.
And, most importantly,
D) you wish to have an intimate relationship with the IRS, DHS and other assorted Obama Thugs that will be alerted to deal with your terrorist inclinations.
______________
LOL LOL, Now that’s funny!!! and probably damn true too.
So if it’s a lie meant for those who only understand lies, why is it here? If it isn’t meant for us, it seems to me it wouldn’t be much use to anyone since their world is so parsed and such a game of semantics, do we really need to understand THEIR POV...because they sure as heck ain’t never gonna understand ours.
The author is not using leftist, liberal, disinformation techniques. You and I have a fundamental disagreement about that and we are likely not to resolve that particular dispute. The document is written in Q&A format which is commonly used to speak to readers who hold one or more opinions that are posed as questions. You pose their opinion as a question. Then you stipulate in the answer that even if they're correct on two points, the third point is still in doubt and cannot be resolved until some event takes place. It's a classic strategy to convince the reader to consider other possibilities. It's not disinformation by any stretch.
In every one of those statements, the author underlines the word "says" for emphasis, indicating that it is questionable.
It is true that Hawaii wouldn't have knowingly and intentionally issued a birth certificate for Obama if they didn't believe that he was born there. To suggest otherwise is to imply that Hawaii knowingly and intentionally issued fraudulent birth certificates. That's a key premise to set up the argument that just because Hawaii issued a valid birth certificate that doesn't mean that Obama couldn't have actually been born in Kenya. It helps to convince those who believe that Obama couldn't have gotten a valid driver's license, passport, college admission, marriage certificate, whatever, without a valid Hawaiian birth certificate. And there are those who dismiss the question of eligibility based solely on their belief that Obama couldn't have gone all these years without proper documentation.
That's the whole point. A valid birth certificate, issued in good faith by Hawaii, still doesn't resolve with certainty the question of where Obama was really born. Then the author goes on the make the point, that in the end it really doesn't matter where he was born because he had dual citizenship at birth and that is also cause for doubt about his eligibility.
If there is a Hawaiian long-form birth certificate, and that's a huge "if," then it likely does say that Obama was born in Hawaii. Otherwise there would be no purpose for Hawaii to hold it on record. Another concession on the author's part to convince the reader that while it may be true, it still doesn't matter.
Case not closed. It's a hung jury.
I think that Polarik is correct about this.
As I said much earlier, this article is useful for what it focuses on, but somewhat lacking in other respects. What it usefully focuses on is the history of the term “natural born citizen” in legal cases and influential writings. Even that may need a bit of tidying up or correction, but it is useful in itself.
It is not the immediate concern of this essay whether or not the COLB is a forgery. That is a vital question, but it is not immediately relevant to the discussion here.
What I think is needed is a bit of tidying up and cleaning up, and a little less speculation about what an “original birth certificate” which no one has ever seen may say, if it exists at all. Also, as I said in my earlier post, history suggests that Hawaii was not all that reluctant to grant birth certificates to Asians and others who were actually foreign born, because of the peculiar history of this territory/state, and because of the large number of Asian residents and prospective voters.
Polarik offers a few other corrections or suggestions in earlier posts. I think that Touchen should read those carefully and consider them. It still seems to me that he has a very useful contribution here, but that it needs some cleaning up and revision to separate speculation from fact and concentrate on the main point—the constitutional meaning of “natural born citizen.”
I haven’t read Polarik’s earlier post since it first appeared on this thread, but as I recall there was just one point he makes that I would also clarify. He says that the Constitution grants citizens the basic rights as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, including Life, Liberty, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms and defend yourself, your family, and your neighbors, and so on.
That’s true in a sense, that the Constitution gives us those rights, but the Founders actually said that the Contitution recognizes these rights as God-given and “inalienable.” So, one could argue, these rights cannot legitimately be taken away even by a constitutional amendment.
I think this argument can be worked out, since Polarik and Touchen are really focused on two different aspects of the birth certificate problem.
OTOH, Hawaii seems to have indeed intentionally issued questionable and/or fraudulent birth certificates for decades. It is a key explanatory factor of Barry’s original anti-American milieu.
It's not a lie. It's here because I found it useful and thought others might too. I've tried to inform my friends and family, some of whom are liberals, about the core issues of the eligibility questions. Thus far, they have dismissed it as Internet rumor and urban legend. After reading this primer, they are open to the possibility that Obama may not be eligible to hold the office. The more people we can convince that there is merit to this discussion, the better our chances of gaining support.
do we really need to understand THEIR POV
No, you don't need to consider anyone else's point of view. If you don't want to convince them that the issue has merit, then don't use it as a reference. It's your choice. You can believe it's an intentional lie and a conspiracy to spread disinformation or you can believe the author intended it as a tool to open a dialogue with anti-birthers.
I've made my arguments for the document's purpose and usefulness. Polarik has made his. Come to whatever conclusion you want.
That's why I posted it.
It is not the immediate concern of this essay whether or not the COLB is a forgery.
Correct. However it seems to some that if the document isn't all encompassing in its considerations, then it becomes useless.
I think this argument can be worked out, since Polarik and Touchen are really focused on two different aspects of the birth certificate problem.
I don't think so. Polarik believes the author is a liar and intends to deceive. I don't expect the author to get beyond that and I wouldn't ask him to do so. At this point, I'm sorry I invited him to FR, not because I believe I made a mistake in judgment but for dragging him into a fight that he didn't ask for and can't possibly win.
It is what it is.
Yeah, Hawaii intentionally committed fraud. Those Hawaiians are unpatriotic and fostered Obama’s anti-Americanism. /sarc
Congress has no power to define who is or is not a natural born citizen, for purposes of Art. II sec. 1. Changing the definition would be changing the Constitution. They only have the power to make a uniform rule of naturalization.
I don't know if they realized that when the changed their 1790 law in 1795, to read "citizen" instead of "natural born citizen" or not. But it seems possible that they realized they had overstepped their bounds, and moved to (quietly) correct the error.
This about it, if they could change the meaning of "Natural Born Citizen", unilaterally, they could change the meaning of "freedom of the press", "freedom of speech", and of "arms", just as easily.
That's not to say they could not pass Constitutional amendment defining "Natural Born Citizen", but that would need to go through the full ratification process and be submitted to the states for ratification.
You are confounding two separate things. There is no minimum age for passing on "natural born citizenship". The law on age of the parent concerns births outside the US, where one parent is not a US citizen. But it only affects "citizenship", since "born outside the country and to one non US parent" precludes natural born citizenship anyway, by either criteria.
And remember Congress can not define by law "natural born citizen". They are the ones who wrote the parental age laws.
WHEN ARE WE GOING TO SEE OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE?
When a chill wind blows from the depths of Hell.
Are you seriously that unfamiliar with the corruption surrounding Hawaii’s birth-records program? Hawaii’s corrupt judges and corrupt birth record system fostered the anti-American activities of the Dunham-Davis family. cf Sun Yat Sen
Assuming she gave birth outside the country, then yes, not only is he not a natural born citizen, he's not a citizen at all, unless later naturalized, but in that event he's clearly not natural born, and thus is not eligible to the office of President.
But I don't think Title 8 U.S.C. § 1401 used the term "natural-born". It certainly does not do so now.
It says:
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 five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;
The notes accompanying that section state:
1986—Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 99–653 substituted “five years, at least two” for “ten years, at least five”.
Pinging to #101; then please read to end of page. Controversy going on here.
So does that mean that "a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (8 U.S.C. § 1401, paragraph (a)) is not a natural born citizen, either?
Agreed, on all points.
Then who can? If Congress is tasked by the Constitution with rules for naturalization then don't they first have to define who doesn't need to be naturalized?
Yes, Obama’s father was a Kenyan (at the time of Obama’s birth- a British colony).
Let’s see Obama’s passports, Indonesian school records, Occidental College school records AND the original birth certificate.
You really need to start at post #82 to understand the full aspects of the controversy.
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.