Posted on 07/23/2008 12:40:56 PM PDT by Polarik
I still get the error with your link.
Could be an issue with my computer, I think ???
Anyway, gotta head to work now.
Have a SUPER day! :)
.
Gum - I do mistype - but most can decode my goofs
And no - I have not shot anyone this week
But it’s only Thursday
The reality is, no one with any real expersite, experience, knoweledge or credentials has ever said certificate is phony!
There are 10,000 internet rumors, all from unnamed people or people with no credentials claiming certificate is phony. Each one builds on another. It’s all the sort of thing that normally starts with “My girlfriend’s mother’s brother’s hairdresser’s cousin’s friend heard on Oprah that.....”
For example, there was a posting that Obama had to have been born somewhere in North America, but not Hawaii, because:
1. A friend of his mother’s said in TV interview that Obama’s mother brought him to her house in Washington State three weeks after he was born.
2. There were no direct Seattle-Honolulu flights at that time (1961)
3. Airlines wouldn’t let infant on aircraft.
Everyone started screamning IT’S PROOF, IT’S PROOF, IT’S PROOF!
Reality is:
1. Interviewee said “a few weeks,” not “three weeks.” That could have been three weeks or 20 weeks.
2. Northwest Orient Airlines (now Northwest Airlines) had been flying Seattle-Honolulu nonstop since 1948!
3. Babies have been flying since the 1930s.
Remember, No one with any credentials at all has said any Obama certificate in forgery. It’s all internet gurus with NO expeirence in forensic documents. Researchers have now even found birth announcement in local newspaper.
This is all BS to keep us away from focusisng on real issue, Obamsa’s extreme liberalsim.
That I gotta see. Have a link?
Is it 1922 or 1933. There is a change in the air.It smells like. . .
. . .burning flesh. . .a wind from the future. . .
McCain is not heaven, but an innoculation against hell.
One candidate is endorsed by Iran, Syria, Libya, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Hamas, Weathermen Alumni Association, Charles Manson Society (FreeMansonry), Truthers, MoveOn, Acorn, Media Matters, New York Times, and the drooling Poppin Fresh Chris Matthews. . . .
Do we by our inaction put the Little Corporal on that triumphant march as Chancellor, Satan in a suit, wanting just a little liebensraum. . . .
When we coulda settled for strong defense and domestic heartburn, shall we then burn the books, the Bibles, the shining city on the hill. . . .
For without a military (oh, and that's first to go), without our guns (he's mocked them and criticized the DC ruling), without God (and he's a Christian???--no, he's a false-flag Muslim), how do we fight evil. . . .
With spitballs?
I don’t think devolve mistypes at all.
I know I can’t chew guns and walk at the same time.
But, maybe that is just me ^-^
 |
 |
That will be registration only. That is what the DNA database is for :)
Aye! The week is young...
She also said that she showed Stanley Ann how to change a diaper.
Just how many weeks do you suppose it would take Stanley Ann to figure out how to change a diaper?
Do you seriously expect us to believe she'd still need to be shown after having the kid floating around the house for 20 weeks???
OK - I'm in for $100 too!! ........... FRegards
It doesn't appear to be such an open issue to the United States Senate (which, according to the GPO, is the government reference point for the current meaning of the Constitution). (My emphasis added)
Here's what they have to say about it:
Clause 5. No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been Fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
QUALIFICATIONS
All Presidents since and including Martin Van Buren were born in the United States subsequent to the Declaration of Independence. The principal issue with regard to the qualifications set out in this clause is whether a child born abroad of American parents is ‘‘a natural born citizen’’ in the sense of the clause. Such a child is a citizen as a consequence of statute.
100 Whatever the term ‘‘natural born’’ means, it no doubt does not include a person who is ‘‘naturalized.’’ Thus, the answer to the question might be seen to turn on the interpretation of the first sentence of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, providing that ‘‘[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States’’ are citizens. 101 Significantly, however, Congress, in which a number of Framers sat, provided in the Naturalization act of 1790 that ‘‘the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, . . . shall be considered as natural born citizens . . . .’’
102 This phrasing followed the literal terms of British statutes, beginning in 1350, under which persons born abroad, whose parents were both British subjects, would enjoy the same rights of inheritance as those born in England; beginning with laws in 1709 and 1731, these statutes expressly provided that such persons were natural-born subjects of the crown.
103 There is reason to believe, therefore, that the phrase includes persons who become citizens at birth by statute because of their status in being born abroad of American citizens.
104 Whether the Supreme Court would decide the issue should it ever arise in a ‘‘case or controversy’’—as well as how it might decide it—can only be speculated about.
I have left out all the legal cases they cite. You can find them at the entry (starting on page 27) at the link: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/012.pdf
(You’ll note that there can be no dispute about what the original framers of the Constitution intended. Quite a number of them were still alive and in Congress when they wrote the 1790 statute, some three years after adoption of the Constitution. So how the Supreme Court would decide the case seems heavily canted to one side.)
Um, no. IF your parents are married, AND one of them is a foreign national, AND you are born in that foreign national's country, you are a citizen of that country, not an American by birth.
Not quite. The correct formulation is IF you are born outside the United States AND one of your parents is a United States citizen AND your parents are married AND your United States citizen parent meets the physical presence and residence requirements, you are a citizen of the United States by statute.
Here’s the link: http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_828.html
But that is the November 14, 1986 version of the rules. Wikipedia notes that different rules apply for persons born abroad to one U.S. citizen before that date. It goes on to note United States law on this subject changed multiple times throughout the twentieth century, and the law as it existed at the time of the individual's birth controls.
Link: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law#Through_birth_abroad_to_one_United_States_citizen)
So, do you have links to the specific law in effect when Senator Obama was born?
(Not that it is any more than academic exercise since another poster to this thread has supplied a link to the Obama birth notice in the local Hawaiian newspaper, thereby giving further weight to the claim he was born in Hawaii.)
Ggod grief!
Its polarik.blogtownhall.com!
Thanks for noting it.
I don't have one handy. David does.
(Not that it is any more than academic exercise since another poster to this thread has supplied a link to the Obama birth notice in the local Hawaiian newspaper, thereby giving further weight to the claim he was born in Hawaii.)
Yeah, no one who'd commit a felony by forging a birth certificate would have the motivation, or the access to a print shop to fake a piece of newsprint.
It's not like anything important, such as staying out of prison, or control of the world's richest country or being the commander-in-chief of the most powerful military in history or anything important like that hangs in the balance...
Mr & Mrs. Barack Obama? NOT! If they lied about their marital status, can they be trusted to tell the truth about their son born out-of-wedlock?
Speaking of which, there are separate, more stringent rules about children born out-of-wedlock. This following is not a quote from statute, but from FindLaw.Com: For children born abroad since 14 November 1986 to a married couple consisting of one US citizen and one non-citizen, the American parent must have been "physically present" in the US for a total of at least five years prior to the birth of the child. Further, at least two years out of this five-year period must have been after the parent reached age 14 (e.g., no good if you lived in the US from birth till age five, then left the country never to return).
From 24 December 1952 to 14 November 1986, the minimum requirement was ten years (five years of which had to have been after the parent's 14th birthday).
If Baby Barack was indeed a bastard, then his mother is disqualified as an American citizen.
The waters of the Euphrates would be cut off.
***I don’t know much about islamic prophecies, but this one you point out is VERY familiar. From the Bible, Revelation 16:12-15
12 The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river, the Euphrates; and its water was dried up, so that the way would be prepared for the kings from the east. 13 And I saw coming out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits like frogs; 14 for they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them together for the war of the great day of God, the Almighty. 15 (“Behold, I am coming like a thief. Blessed is the one who stays awake and keeps his clothes, so that he will not walk about naked and men will not see his shame.”) 16 And they gathered them together to the place which in Hebrew is called Har-Magedon.
Ok, I’m actually laughing out loud, so I’m generating a LOL. I usually don’t bother with that overused cliche unless I really do Laugh Out Loud.
Source here
That a Hildabeast operative found the newspaper birth announcement paradoxically adds more credence in my mind.
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.