Posted on 03/01/2010 3:51:30 AM PST by patlin
There are many in the press today caricaturing me as a "conspiracy theorist" simply because I, like millions of other Americans, insist on actually seeing proof of Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility.
I've never alleged a conspiracy. Obama was given a free pass by an opponent who had his own eligibility issues. Not much of a conspiracy necessary – especially with Obama accountable only to a fawning press and scared-of-their-shadows Republicans.
But "conspiracy theorist" is an easy epithet to hurl.
One good question to ask, the next time you hear someone call me that name, is this: "Who is Joseph Farah conspiring with?"
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
OK
Now that is very weird. So maybe Dr. West didn’t deliver the baby himself but was just in the loop?
Uh, yeah, many Indian tribes were very clearly not under the jurisdiciton of the United States in the 1800s. We made treaties with them for a reason.
More like and highly likely that silly Buffalo women embellished the story that gave cover to Obama’s lies.
The only determining factor so far has been procedure not merit or facts of any case. We know the alleged COLB has never been presented in court, so there's no way for any court to make a factual determination of birth. What you claim is only based on is faith and fiction.
The Attorney General of Hawaii, Mark J. Bennett, a Republican has confirmed that his office reviewed and approved Dr. Fukino’s news release statement on Obama’s birth status.
Fukino made critical errors. She pulled a little sleight of hand by changing her terminology in the birth statement. Now she's no longer talking about the original birth certificate. She's no longer claming that she personally verified the facts of her statement. She's no longer claiming that the facts of her statement are in accordance with the law. And for good reason. She can't. In responding to public requests, the DOH said they couldn't legally disclose ANY information from Obama's birth certificate. If true, then Fukino could not legally cite the original BC as verifying Obama was born in Hawaii ... but for good reason, because it doesn't verify this claim.
The July 2009 claim is based on unidentified vital records for which there's no establishment of reliability. Second, Fukino claims that these unspecified records verify Obama is a "natural-born American citizen." The problem is there's no official Hawaii vital record that makes such a declaration nor is there such as thing as a 'natural-born American citizen." Without identifying the documents and presenting them for inspection, any legal value is imaginary.
As to the involvement of the AG, this has been disputed. Responses from the AG's office to public requests have denied what you claim.
If he did he doesn't confirm it anymore. The State of Hawaii refuses to backup or comment on Fukino's statement.
That Indiana state court opinion doesn't stand as anything for the county. The case never went to trial on the merits. It's flawed in it's conclusion. It's not worth the paper it's written, and will not have any bearing in the cases that may come in the future or in the cases that are still active against Obama.”
That's what bothers us. This utter disrespect for the law when it won't tell you what you want to hear. Court decisions are not only worth the paper they're written on, they are absolutely valid until reversed. Denial of that fact simply removes one from the realm of serious conversation.
The logical decision basis used in Arkeney comes directly from the Supreme Court. It is conventional wisdom at this point and will be repeated in any similar cases.
And, for the thousandth time, dismissal of a case is consideration of its merits. It means the case “as stated” had none. Your actual complaint is that no one to date has been able to articulate a case in a manner that has procedural validity. I can sympathize with your frustration in that regard, but it's a hurdle every issue ever adjudicated had to pass.
Here is some of that utter disrespect for the law of yours when it won’t tell you what you want to hear:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/11/13/indiana-appellate-court-reinvents-nbc-definition/
Hey CON, The United States Supreme Court has never given a ruling or a opinion on the natural born citizenship clause.
I'm suppose to take the word from an Indiana court opinion that could come out of an Alice and Wonderland story when it didn't even go to trial? Here's the background on the state judges that you hold sooooo high in esteem:
...you think are making Constitutional opinions as binding for the country:
Judge Brown addresses family issues and substance abuse. Judge May background is in insurance defense and personal injury litigation. Judge Crone founded a program that minority students law related field and founded a South Bend commission in the status of African-American male coalition against drugs.
Oh yeah, they are the "best Constitutional scholars" in the United States. LoL! They even quote an INS case that is just silly to do:
Which says "...see also, e.g., Diaz-Salazar v. I.N.S., 700 F.2d 1156, 1160 (7th Cir. 1983) (noting in its recitation of the facts that despite the fact father was not a citizen of the United States, he had children who were “natural-born citizens of the United States”)"
http://openjurist.org/700/f2d/1156
Where did these "great constitutional scholars" originally get their unsupported natural born citizen statement from....?
They got it from an INS deportation case that was quoted in their dismissal which was erroneously accepted as fact at face value by the sitting circuit Judge Cudahy, appointed by Jimmy Carter, that was irrelevant to his deportation case. The NBC statement probably originally came from some ill-informed paralegal who worked for the lawyer for the illegal alien.
You're the one not grounded in reality by taking this Indiana case as being the decider on the issue.
The logical decision basis used in Arkeney comes directly from the Supreme Court. It is conventional wisdom at this point and will be repeated in any similar cases.
It does not! The Indiana court even admitted to the Supreme Court DID NOT in their 1898 opinion say Wong Ark was a natural born citizen because Ark was not.
He knows. He’s just being obstinate. Don’t feed him.
Yes, that Indiana court opinion is Swiss cheese.
14 We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial.
The Attorney General of Hawaii, Mark J. Bennett, a Republican has confirmed that his office reviewed and approved Dr. Fukino’s news release statement on Obama’s birth status.
If he did he doesn’t confirm it anymore. The State of Hawaii refuses to backup or comment on Fukino’s statement.
—
The Attorney General in Hawaii has independent subpoena power and under Hawaii statutues he can subpoena Obama’s long form, vault copy, Certificate of Live Birth any time that he wants to. He hasn’t taken that action in the two years that this issue has been in the public consciousness.
Red Steel’s comment above is a characterization of what a Deputy Attorney General might have written in an email in response to a “birther” web site inquiry. There are no direct quotes from the Deputy Attorney General, only the interpretation of what she might have actually said as a “refusal to corroborate or back” Fukino’s statement.
Its just as correct to say that “THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE HAS REFUSED TO DISAVOW CHIYOME FUKINO’s STATEMENT THAT BARACK OBAMA IS A NATURAL BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN.”
For example, a “no comment” can be interpreted as a “refusal to corroborate:”
The following is from the Post and Email website with my additions in parenthesis.
HI Attorney General’s office refuses to corroborate (And refuses to disavow) Obama’s HI Birth
WON’T DEFEND (or attack) FUKINO’S STATEMENT THAT HE IS “NATURAL-BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN”
While political momentum is building within the Democratic Party from coast to coast to make the issue of Obama’s claims to be born in Hawaii a litmus test for its political opponents in the 2010 general elections for Congress, a key component in such a strategy has been undermined by the Hawaii Attorney General’s Office.
In correspondence with The Post & Email, Jill T. Nagamine, Deputy Attorney General for the State of Hawaii, has made it clear that her office will not corroborate or back in any way the July 27, 2009 Statement of Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, which declared Obama Hawaiian-born and a “natural-born American citizen.”
The stunning admission was made in an email sent to the Editor of this paper yesterday evening.
The implications of this denial are catastrophic for the Democratic strategy.
The Hawaii Attorney General’s office has the duty to prosecute the laws of the State. Mark J. Bennett, the current Attorney General, was appointed to the office by Governor Lingle on Jan. 3, 2003. He is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney General for Honolulu, and a graduate of Cornell’s Law School. Bennett is the first Republican to hold the office in 40 years.
According to published reports, Dr. Fukino has admitted that her July 27th statement received the verbal approval of the HI Attorney General, who “o.k.’d it.”
In an attempt to corroborate the contents of Dr. Fukino’s statement and understand better the value of that testimony, I put the following two questions to Nagamine, as a member of the press.
I am seeking some information in response to 2 questions I have. Please understand that your response(s) or non-response will be quoted by our paper.
Q. 1: Does the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health have any statutory duty or authority to define the citizenship status of anyone whose vital record(s) are kept by that department?
Q.2: According to the legal references employed by your office, what is the defition of a “natural-born citizen” of the United States of America?
I put my question to the Deputy Attorney General to avoid putting the Attorney General in a situation of a conflict of interest, if he in fact, did, as Dr. Fukino claims, advise her regarding her July statement.
Nagamine, in response, asserted that any answer to such questions given by her office would represent a conflict of interest for her office. And that is an explicit admission that Dr. Fukino had no statutory authority nor duty to make such a statement, and that the Attorney General’s office will not stand behind Fukino’s claim that Obama is a “natural-born American citizen.” It is such, because if Fukino’s declaration had legal weight of any kind, surely a response to my questions would have corroborated that without such a conflict-of-interest scenario. You only have a conflict if the Fukino claim would not be supported by a Nagamine response.
In December, the Department of Health for the State of Hawaii issued its own dossier of excuses as to why they are also refusing to confirm, by documentation, the July Statement to Dr. Fukino.
Ironically, and quite oblivious to these developments, the Democratic Party in Tennessee issued a missive berating that state’s Republican Lt. Governor, Ron Ramsey, who yesterday publicly denied that he was certain of Obama’s birth-story claims:
Tennessee Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey today questioned the president’s citizenship, offering further proof that the Republican leadership in the General Assembly is out of touch with real Tennesseans.
“I don’t know whether President Obama is a citizen of the United States or not,”
..Ramsey reportedly told the Nashville Republican’s First Tuesday Club after it was suggested that no one running for president be put on a Tennessee ballot unless proof of natural born citizenship is provided.
Mr. Ramsey would rather pander to a far-right wing group of conspiracy theorists than govern in a pragmatic approach that most Tennesseans expect from their political leaders.
Quite irrationally, the Democratic Party is now asserting an undocumented claim as political “truth” and doubt concerning the veracity of such an unsupported claim as a “conspiracy theory,” which indeed is more evidence of the Party’s withdrawal from a Main Street notion of reality.
The Post & Email recently published a report explaining why the electronic image promoted by the Obama campaign of a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth is in fact a crude forgery and has been recognized as such for nearly two years.
In October, the Hawaii Attorney General’s office also refused to take a public stand on what the term “natural born citizen” means, raising further doubt about the value of any counsel offered by the Attorney General to the Fukino statement.
The Post & Email notes, furthermore, that the term “natural-born” is more commonly the medical term for a natural birth; whereas “natural born” is the constitutional term meaning born on U.S. Soil of two U.S. citizen parents.
Furthermore, the court of Indiana is tacitly acknowledging that native born v. natural born citizens are NOT the same in the lexicon and usage used by the Supreme Court that many of the Obots here claim are the same in meaning.
That Indiana state court opinion doesn’t stand as anything for the county. The case never went to trial on the merits. It’s flawed in it’s conclusion. It’s not worth the paper it’s written, and will not have any bearing in the cases that may come in the future or in the cases that are still active against Obama.
As of now there is no Obama eligibility case on the docket for the US Supreme Court for 2010.
As you well know, Congress does not control definition of the Constitutional provisions.
It does not! The Indiana court even admitted to the Supreme Court DID NOT in their 1898 opinion say Wong Ark was a natural born citizen because Ark was not.”
Wong Kim Ark was not asked to specifically decide that. But did you miss the wholesale lifting of text from the Ark decision that clearly leads to no other conclusion?
Why would that surprise anybody: One flawed court reaching into the flawed obiter dictum of another court for its own flawed obiter dictum.
And Witch Doctor delivered the baby (not a question).
| > As you well know, Congress does not control > definition of the Constitutional provisions. I fully know this. And yet, they've tried nearly 30 times to re-define “Natural Born Citizen” since the 1870s. Certainly Congress must think it's something other than is commonly (and mistakenly) believed by most of the After-Birthers here, hence the confusion even in Congress on Obama's NBC status as a British Subject. Here's a look at the first attempt to, by extending the |
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.
