Posted on 09/21/2009 11:32:45 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
Let this post be fair warning… Leo Donofrio is now interested in the birth certificate… so that we can finally prove Obama was born in Hawaii and stop the never ending circus surrounding BIGFOOT – an official long form birth certificate for President Obama.
The nation faces a crucial legal question:
How can a person who admits to having been born a British citizen – governed at birth by British law – be a natural born citizen of the United States?
This is a very serious legal question. Obama's father was never a US citizen and was never permanently domiciled in the US. The leading Supreme Court decision in Wong Kim Ark indicates that the native born son of an alien is not natural born. There is no conspiracy theory attached to this question. Let's state it another way:
Can a person who is at birth a dual citizen be considered a natural born citizen for purposes of meeting the Constitution’s requirements to be POTUS?
That is in no way a conspiracy theory. The US State department web site - now run by Obama – tells us that dual citizens owe allegiance to both nations and that while on the soil of the foreign nation that nation has a greater claim to the person than the US. It is certainly not trivial for US citizens to ask whether dual citizenship at birth means a person is not a “natural born citizen” of the US.
But as long as the never ending search for Bigfoot continues to obscure the real legal question, the true issue here will not only be attached to the conspiracy theory, it will be ridiculed as well.
Because of the conundrum, this blog will now also be concerned with an investigation into the vital records of President Obama as well as an intense focus upon the activities of the Hawaii Department of Health and the Hawaii Office of Information Practices. I hope to one day put these officials under oath and cross-examine them thoroughly.
I have always believed that Obama was born in Hawaii and I expect this investigation will reveal that he was. Upon proving that he was born in Hawaii, we may uncover details which indicate that Obama and Hawaii government officials purposely used the birth certificate issue to distract the nation from his British birth problems. If a smokescreen can be made clear, the nation will better comprehend the Constitutional blasphemy inherent in the 2008 POTUS election and the current White House resident.
Should our investigation prove that he wasn’t born in Hawaii, I will be very surprised, but I am certainly open to that conclusion.
I have written this post as a preview to some very interesting research – documents and letters issued by the State of Hawaii – which have not been made public yet. I will be making those public very soon as they are the product of researchers I am working with. Stay tuned. It’s going to get interesting.
That's got nothing to do with the point you are supposedly refuting.
"Forensic Document analysis:..."
Polarik is not a forensic document examiner. He's not an expert at all. He's an internet crank who is only believed by the birthers because he says what they want to hear. If he said otherwise they wouldn't give him the time of day.
I repeat: You are repeating birther distortions. None of them make the existing COLB go away, or change the fact that it says he was born in Honolulu.
In case you hadn’t seen it, this is a reply Leo made to his a commenter today for emphasis (Leo finally becomes a “BC birther” even as he claims to still believe Obama was born in HI only to avoid being called a conspiracy nut):
Leo as “Ed.”:
[Ed. Once the State of Hawaii got involved in this fiasco, they opened themselves up to scrutiny and now that they have, the focus switched from the COLB to Hawaii. Understand that in reality, it’s the State of Hawaii who has validated Obama’s eligibility not Factcheck.org. The factcheck fiasco was not going to stem the tide so they enlisted Hawaii officials to help them.
That’s what this blog is going after. When you try to cover up things, then things sometimes bite you in the ass. I am sure that Hawaii will be putting lotion on their ass soon enough by the time we get through with them at this blog. Please pass it on. I want alot of attention on this blog in the next few days so that when I unleash this new evidence, people will be waitiing to pounce in the blogosphere.
Where there’s smoke there’s one of two things (or both) -
1. a fire
2. something hidden by the smoke]
“The “as much” it refers to is a natural born citizen, so that hardly helps you out. “
Nope, doesn’t say that. It says as much a citizen, not as much a NBC.
Just saying so doesn't make it true. The Supreme Court says you are wrong.
"A Natural Born Citizen is just what it says it is."
That's right, just what it says it is. Notice how nothing in those three words says anything about a parent's citizenship status?
"You’re mistaking it for Native Born or some other concoction."
You are inventing a distinction that simply doesn't exist.
Re-read please. As I already said, the citizen it is "as much" as, is a natural born citizen. That means it is a natural born citizen too.
The Constitution recognizes only two classes of American citizens: Natural born and Naturalized. This third class of citizen, "native born" or "just plain citizen" is nothing more than Birther mythology.
Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844)"Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen."
"The entire silence of the constitution in regard to it, furnishes a strong confirmation, not only that the existing law of the states was entirely uniform, but that there was no intention to abrogate or change it. The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. "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," &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution ? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the ' the colonies and in the states, under the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen."
Judging by the polls posted at Facebook, the “birthers” have been in the majority for about a month. (and Obama has been declared “the worst president ever.”)
The links have been provided numerous times and you have seen them on more than one occasion, yet you try to dissemble. Stick closely to your axelgreasy talking points now ...
“Just saying so doesn’t make it true. The Supreme Court says you are wrong. “
No, it doesn’t.
” Notice how nothing in those three words says anything about a parent’s citizenship status? “
That part was understood. I can be no other way.
On a side note...
You would have to completely ignorant to believe that “anyone” born in the USA to foreign parents/parent would be a NBC. That’s the stuff fools are made of.
With all due respect.
Again with the unsupported assertions. You can't make your point that way, sorry.
The decisions have been cited. They are there to read on this thread. If you choose not to, that's up to you, but don't look so foolish as to come and tell me they don't say what they clearly say.
“. As I already said, the citizen it is “as much” as, is a natural born citizen. That means it is a natural born citizen too”
An apple is as much a food as an orange. But, it is still not an orange.
Read the cites posted on this thread.
So, without referencing Ron Polarik at all, I can tell you the first exhibit Barry tried to claim as a genuine CoLB lacked a raised, despite the image apparently showing the date stamp on the other side bleeding through to the front. Then, when the missing raised seal was pointed out to your lying affirmative action bastard, a raised seal was added to the first fraud posted at fightthesmears Obama website. So why should anyone trust what Barry posts as the thrid exhibit, or trust anything you obamanoids assert at FR?
“Read the cites posted on this thread.”
I have. You are wrong. The posts don’t apply. They’re tortured.
You mean we can't party like it's 1788? Dang!
Don’t give the dissembling creeps any respect, they aren’t due any. They cannot even acknowledge that Barry signed onto requirements for McCain that he himself could not meet by his own assertion of his father being a Kenyan at birth and he himself having British citizenship at birth. These lying disrupters are here for the purpose of fomenting as much anger and confusion as they can generate. They not only do not repsect the Constitution, they do not actually respect Freerepublic.com. They are due no respect.
Go ahead and prove it.
LOL. We can in most cases!
Just not about search and seizure (fortunately), income taxes (unfortunately), 18 year olds voting and mid-term pay increases for members of Congress!
Most of the Constitution is unaffected by the amendments, and “Founder’s intent” and orginalism matters a great deal. I think the only sticky-wicket is how the amendments are or should be incorporated to the states, which is a whole other mess...
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.