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.
It's very unlikely unless JimRob takes a position on the level and tone of discourse that will be allowed on FR on this issue. I considered myself a "birther" until just a few days ago. When I started commenting on Orly Taitz's incompetence, unprofessionalism, and self-promotion, I was soundly kicked to the curb of "birtherdome." Then personal attacks and taunting began. Mostly, I ignore it. Sometimes, I report it.
It seems that most, not all, birthers simply don't want to engage in reasonable conversation to discuss the facts and circumstances. Once you dispute their claims, they resort to name calling and personal attacks. It's pathetic "group-think" at its worst and reflects poorly on all FReepers because liberal sites extract and post the most ridiculous and/or hateful comments from the birther threads to present FReepers as crazies.
If people can’t have a devil’s advocate chit chat without name calling, then their claims would seem quite weak, I would think.
good luck proving he was born in hawaii
sounds like you are trying to quick jump over one of the fundamental items 0bama has paid over $1m to keep concealed.
i say let’s take a nice, detailed look into everything he is trying to keep hidden.
i, for one, won’t give an inch and demand the Constitution be upheld (silly me)
If he was born in Hawaii, he is in fact ‘natural born’.
Whether Kenya recognizes him as a citizen of Kenya, or of the UK, or not, is immaterial.
Once he has US citizenship, it cannot be renounced until
he is 18, and then only in the presence of US consular officals, not by his parents on his behalf, nor by a foreign
bureaucrat. Adoption by foreign nationals or posession of a
foreign passport do not jepoardize his citizenship. If he served in the Indonesian Army, on the other hand, you would have a case since this is specifically cited as an act of
renunciation.
If he in fact renounced in front of a US consular official, then the fact that he did so would be in the State Dept files and could be discovered. I haven’t yet heard of such a discovery, but I find it difficult to imagine that noone
has sought to have it disclosed.
So, these “real and legitimate” questions are fairly easily disposed of in the light of US law.
Don’t be offended by the term Birther, think of it this way:
B = Birth Certificate
I = is
R = Required
T = to
H = Honestly
E = Elect
R = Representative
Nevertheless, I remain hopeful.
Perhaps if the latest Taitz suit is tossed on Oct. 5th it will become apparent that a new tone is needed here.
On a side note...
I've developed a working theory over the years that on any topic or issue, the more unhinged and irrational any group of advocates behave, the less factual or demonstrable support there is for what they advocate.
So far this has seemed to hold true in life.
Nope. I’m not trying to jump over anything. I’m just posting Leo Donofrio’s new-found position on the birth certificate. He has previously not taken an interest in the birth certificate.
I fully support the position that Obama should disclose all of his records, that he is hiding something, that he is ineligible to be POTUS, and that he is in general and in practice a liar and a thug.
I, too, want to see the Constitution upheld. That’s why I’m working on my own complaint (and hopefully lawsuit) in Texas to force the Tx SOS and Texas Democratic Party to obtain a ruling from the courts on Obama’s eligibility.
Well, until someone can prove he wasn’t born in Hawaii, there is no way this issue will be heard on the merits of claims that he was born in Kenya. I just don’t think discovery will be obtained in a lawsuit. If he was born in Kenya, the court will need conclusive proof to consider the issue. Even then, the court may not have jurisdiction to hear the matter.
Personally, I think Obama knew all of this. He taught Constitutional Law. Who better to subvert the law on a technicality than a (cough, gag) Constitutional scholar?
I am confused...
As a result of Wong Kim Ark’s U.S. citizenship being confirmed by the Supreme Court, three of his four sons were subsequently recognized as U.S. citizens and allowed to come to the United States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
Haven’t heard from you lately. What say you?
This is all well and good, Leo, if you believe he was born in HI. I, for one, don’t believe he was born in HI. I rather suspect he was born in Kenya. Granted, I base that on the fact he has not seen fit to provide an original BC from the State of HI that would put is birth in that state. In fact, he has apparently spent over a million dollars (by some estimates) in legal fees to keep anyone from seeing any of the documentation from his past; his BC, school and college records, passport records, etc.
You are correct, though. This IS a critical Constitutional issue and deserves a full and complete hearing and resolution.
Even IF he was born in Hawaii, his father is not a US Citizen, and his mother was not BACK in the US for the required number of years prior to her 14 birthday for him to be a US Citizen.
That contends that he is a Kenyan citizen, hence a British Subject. We did not have dual citizenship with Great Britian in 1961, so he did not qualify at birth to be a US Citizen.
Who would’ve thought that America would be destroyed by a possible foreigner, as Congress silently witnesses its demise.
My contention is he was born in Kenya, and here are the stats:
You’re Confused?
I’m Confused.
I just tried going through it at:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
It’s only about 50 pages.
The lawyer contends that the results of Wong Kim Ark, say that even if he was born in the US, he is not a US citizen (Natural Born), even tho he was born in SF. His parents were not US citizens. Yet the supreme court says he is a citizen because he was born in SF.
How does that help his case? I presumed that not to be the case. If one parent was not a US citizen, Kenyan, and the other was not in the United States 5 years after her 14th birthday (SADO), he was not a natural born citizen.
I see discrepancy in his argument.
I contend his birthplace is Kenay, that the Lucas Smith BC is genuine, and the COLB shown by FactCheck is a forgery, and the correct COLB shows as such.
http://axj.puntoforo.com/viewtopic.php?t=2536&sid=8903cffcea191d07d67781a24664d53b
if he was a teacher he doesn’t know shit!
“...and his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen...”Justice Gray does a very revealing compare and contrast here:
- he compares two children
- on the one hand, he mentions the US born child of a resident alien
- on the other hand, he mentions the “natural-born” child of a citizen
Do you see the difference?
Donofrio is emphasizing the wrong part. The Justice compares two children who differ with respect to the citizenship of the parents, because that's the issue he's explaining. His point though is *what they have in common*, despite parentage, and what they have in commmon is that one is "as much a citizen" as citizen as the other.
Donofrio's misreading emphasizes the non-essential part of the sentence, and to believe that his reading is somehow legal he has to believe that this one sentence fragment somehow overrules the rest of Wong where it clearly says otherwise.
Others have already posted excerpts so I won't do it again, but Wong leaves no doubt that a person born in the US is a "natural born" citizen.
So let’s ask the question, why do you accept that BC rather than the COLB along with the supporting statements made by the Hawaiian state govt and the microfilm records of birth announcements?
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.