Posted on 01/23/2011 11:13:48 AM PST by pissant
The new Republican House majority leader says he doesn't think questions about President Barack Obama's citizenship should play a role in the discussion of policy matters.
Two years into the Obama administration, so-called birthers continue to argue that Obama isn't a natural-born citizen and that he hasn't proved he's constitutionally qualified to be president. Birth records in Hawaii haven't dissuaded them.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor says he believes Obama is a citizen and that most Americans are beyond that question.
(Excerpt) Read more at salon.com ...
Amen!
I haven’t been on Hillbuzz myself, but I think they’re pretty in tune with the research over there so they may have mentioned some of my work.
It will be interesting to see what Rush and Hannity do with it now that the Hawaii AG came in to rescue Abercrombie by claiming that “certified copies” of the records can’t be disclosed. That doesn’t explain Abercrombie’s statement that his investigation had found something written down in the archives, when asked about how the search for the birth certificate was going.
Rush suspected that it was more games on the part of Obama’s handlers but pointed out that something royally stinks when the governor’s comments contradict the former DOH director’s public statements, and when the governor claims the record of Obama’s birth is in some written document in the archives rather than in the microfilms at the HDOH.
The more that people are informed about the discrepancies, the more they will realize that we need a legal investigation.
We can get a legal investigation of Obama and his records if we can get one state to sign into law a bill like the one suggested at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/final-short-form-eligibility-bill1.pdf . That would open the floodgates on the FACTS, which is what Obama is afraid of.
I’m sure the people over at Hillbuzz would be interested in supporting this kind of bill not only because the facts coming out would open things up for a Hillary candidacy (since Obama would probably not run in 2012 if such a bill was passed; it would expose too much criminal activity), but also because it would support the rule of law, which is something they (like a lot of us) know is critical, from first-hand experience.
If you post over at Hillbuzz maybe you could bring this suggested bill to their attention so they can pitch in on the effort to get a state to pass something like this, for the sake of the whole country. That would be fantastic! =)
I guess Eric Cantor is not an Obama Birther, but an Obama Supporter.....
Need to kick the Liberal RINOs out
I believe fervently that Obama is a citizen. I am a bit curious, though, as to which country he is a citizen of.
They are not really RINOs. Their views and contortions are, in fact, the Republican Party.
I don’t have much faith in Republicans anymore. If they aren’t conservative and have the balls, which they can borrow some from our female leaders, then all bets are off.
Many of them will have to be primaried and thrown out in ‘12. TPs leadership should replace the current cowardly leadershiT.
Pardon my French, I have no patience for dumb cowards who are extending 0h0m0’s power and invincibility.
I would be grateful for your reaction to this reply I posted yesterday:
The situation as I see it in a nutshell is that there is no affirmative proof of birth anywhere except Hawaii. That is, there is affirmative proof of birth in Hawaii. Please note, I did not say there is conclusive proof of birth in Hawaii merely that there is evidence thereof. So whoever gets to decide this issue would have to say that the mere anomalous nature of Obama’s refusal to authorize disclosure of the birth certificate is somehow evidence that he was born elsewhere than in Hawaii merely because his refusal to release his birth certificate is strange and runs counter to human experience and suggests that the man has something to hide. I know of no forum that admits to substituting motive for evidence. I know of no forum which says that in the absence of any evidence we will overrule contrary evidence because of motive, in this case the presumed motive to hide ineligibility if he is in fact ineligible.
I use the expression “forum” because it is not at all clear to me that it is the federal courts alone who have jurisdiction to decide this issue. It might be that the matter is conclusively decided by the secretaries of every state certifying elections, or by the legislatures, or by the House of Representatives, where the president of the Senate, all of whom play some role in the election of United States presidents. It is the House and the Senate which have jurisdiction over impeachments (although the Chief Justice presides) and not the Supreme Court. This is no doubt partly because it was contemplated by the founders that the removal of the president for high crimes and misdemeanors was partially a political proceeding and not a justiciable one.
So we see that the nature of impeachment is somehow different from a proceeding based on in eligibility of a sitting president-or maybe not.
The Constitution does not provide explicitly for a body to adjudicate eligibility after the president was sworn in. Please see the 20th amendment quoted in part:
3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
Once the failure of the President-elect to qualify is determined, the Constitution creates a responsibility and power in the Congress to sort it out. One can draw intriguing inferences from this about the intent of the framers of this amendment in 1933, but nothing is clear or sure and it does not necessarily mean that one can extrapolate from this to an argument over eligibility after the president is sworn in and say that the Congress shall act as it sees fit. Furthermore, the amendment merely assumes the existence of a failure to qualify and not the test or the forum.
So when we ask the question, “what if,” about what we might find in the Hawaii vault and the implications of the existence or nonexistence of certain documents like a longform birth certificate, we have to think, are we asking a political question, a legal question, constitutional question? And if were asking any of these questions we must next ask, who is decide it, a judge, the electors, the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court, or the court of public opinion?
Once we determine all of these things, somebody can weigh the evidence or the absence of evidence and apply presumptions of law and decide whether motive should overcome proof.
it’s all about the correct questions being asked.
“Many of them will have to be primaried and thrown out in ‘12. TPs leadership should replace the current cowardly leadershi[p].”
Post of the day. I am so sick of Republicans who try to talk like TEA partiers—or at least pretend they ‘heard’ the TEA party message—and then act like DC Old Boys. Enough. Primary every last one of them, and put TEA party game-changers in their place. If congress doesn’t get shaken ***completely*** up soon, it will be too late.
Most Americans think that Social Security is a "trust fund", the "Federal Reserve" is a government entity, and incandescent light bulbs cause hurricanes.
None of these things are true, Eric the Tool.
I don’t think there’s anything that would prohibit the US House from investigating. It would be nice if they would. But Issa has already said he’s not going to, so we need another route. We have nothing to hold over Issa’s head; he’s got a full plate already; and the media-political cabal in DC makes it a bad place to try to get courageous, sensible action. Sort of like trying to get Chicago politicians to go hard on the mafia. Not gonna happen.
And the state route is the way to fix not just the Obama instance but the actual SYSTEM, which is a much-needed long-term solution. Congress can’t decide how the states can choose their electors, nor can it interpret the Constitution or force the courts take a particular case that requires a definition of “natural born citizen”. So the states are the ideal place for this to happen.
Politically speaking, the good guys in Congress need to focus on undoing the damage Obama has already wrought. That’s what we ALL elected them to do, and they are the ones who can do that. The reasons some people give for opposing the eligibility issue is that it is distracting Congress from “more important things”. If the battle over eligibility takes place in state legislatures it’s not threatening to those who sympathize with the issue but don’t think it should be a priority for Congress.
The bill I’ve suggested would require all the evidence, including any evidence of tampering or forgery, to be publicly disclosed and submitted to the courts who have to apply evidentiary standards, etc. There is legal accountability for judicial ethics breaches. That’s more accountability than we’ll ever get for Congress or its investigations.
About the other part: The State of Hawaii never says that forged or manipulated documents are determinative. It has its own laws and rules and only records which comply with those laws and rules are considered probative. And the HDOH has indirectly confirmed that Obama’s BC was amended in 2006 which makes it NOT legally probative/valid. So if only genuine, legally-valid BC’s have to be given full faith and credit by other states, a forgery or non-probative BC such as the HDOH says Obama has would not have to be probative in another state either.
There was a county in New Jersey (?) where the person in charge of the county’s vital records was paid money to create false birth certificates for illegals. The birth certificates had the seals they needed and everything would have looked legitimate even though the claims were totally false and the bureaucrat knew it all along. The federal government 5 years later was still not accepting ANY birth certificates from that county as determinative.
If another state got birth certificates from that county they would have to give full faith and credit to the birth certificate being officially from that office. But that doesn’t mean that another state could not require more proof of the facts claimed on the BC, or more proof that the official BC was not tampered with.
So nothing in the Constitution says that another state can’t ask for transaction logs which would let them know if a BC was in compliance with the originating state’s requirements for legally valid BC’s. If the transaction logs revealed that BC was only created when the person was 20 years old, for instance, then it would bring up the question of why it was not marked as “late”, if that was required by state law.
If the BC is in compliance with state laws it is supposed to be given full faith and credit by other states, but another state has the right to ask for documents which show whether the BC shows any signs of forgery or tampering.
I’ll respond more later since I’m headed out the door right now, but I would say that we have evidence that both the HDOH and Abercrombie are contradicting themselves, breaking laws, and deceiving the public. That is positive evidence that something is wrong.
And Hawaii has NEVER said they have LEGALLY VALID records for Obama. They HAVE said indirectly in official communications that they DON’T. So if we go just by what the HDOH has actually said, we would conclude that Obama has an amended BC that is not legally valid. Nothing Fukino has said contradicts that, although she IMPLIED that they have legally valid vital record for him, and everybody considered that conclusive because she never DIRECTLY said the records were non-valid. She did say it indirectly though.
At this point it is too late to get Obama out before 2012. The process of appeals would take too long. What we can do now is keep him from getting in again by states requiring disclosure of birth and citizenship documents and the transaction logs which would reveal any forgery or tampering. If Obama runs again and submits forged documents there would already be a built-in court case to discover and rule on that.
So passing these state eligibility bills is what we can do, giving the courts jurisdiction to decide what has to be decided judicially and creating a situation where Obama cannot get on a ballot unless he files suit in court and thus forces the courts to address the issue.
Oops. I typed too long. I’m off...
Show us the document and it will go away
Hawaii Act to Regulate Names 1860
But that doesn’t mean that another state could not require more proof of the facts claimed on the BC, or more proof that the official BC was not tampered with.
Actually, that's exactly what it does mean. It means that one state cannot subject to its own scrutiny the official acts of another state.
The courts have already indicated that they are not going to carry the ball on this issue. The federal legislative branch (House or Senate) has the power to subpoena the materials that will clarify things, but if they decline to use their power to do so, the rest of us are just sh*t out of luck. A final possibility would be action by the Hawaiian state leglislature, but that doesn't seem likely either.
It really is all up to Boehner and Issa. If they feel that Obama was born in Hawaii as the state of Hawaii claims, then that will be the end of the matter. At some point we have to assume that maybe they know what they're talking about and we're chasing an invisible rabbit.
If Boehner and Issa don't act, then this will be remembered like the second gunman on the grassy knoll.
Diagram for proof of natural Born
I agree! All the Rs (starting with Boehner) all falling into the same trap...someone in the MSM gets all chummy and says “Birthers are crazy, aren’t they? You believe the President was born in Hawaii, don’t you?”
And then the Republican gets all flustered cause they don’t want to look “crazy” in an interview...so they immediately agree! (Cause it’s soooo important that the MSM “like” them and they’re afraid they won’t get invited to the “right” parties if they upset the “wrong” people.)
Turn it around and ask the interviewer why they don’t address their questions to Barack Hussein Obama since he’s the one who won’t sign the release to allow his birth certificate and college records to been seen.
Eric Cantor is a member of CFR. He is an insider with the elites.
No one questions his citizenship - we're all certain he's a U.S. Citizen. George Soros and Arnold Schwartzenegger are U.S. citizens, but they're not eligible for the office of POTUS.
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.