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.
i’m a firm believer of this theory ,too. what did obeyme say when his deal w/Rezko on his house became public? didn’t he say “a boneheaded mistake”.... watch the bammer come up with something similar and try to worm his way out of it and say.”awwwww, come on, guys.... give me break, i was only 17 “...
yuk yuk roflmao
LOL. you do that everytime
“strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”
What part of “that issue is a natural-born subject” are you having problems with?
My view of the law is that there are two and only two types of US citizenship, natural born or naturalized. Justice Scalia agrees with this view, and he is a conservative and a Constitutional sholar.
From Scalia’s concurrence in Miller v. Albright:
The Constitution “contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898).
In this passage from United States v. Wong Kim Ark
It shows that natural born was not addressed
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
How do we know he hasn’t served in a foreign army or for a foreign government? /s
Leo:
Good luck in your attempt to obtain an authentic birth certificate.
Of course, one does not require a BC to conclude O’s father was an alien. That point was in the public realm far in advance of the election. Any other name on the BC as father is dramatically inconsistent with the fact the mother was married, as well as the 1961 newspaper announcement.
The belief O’s parentage was not a patent disqualification according to the “modern view” was confirmed by the acceptance of O at the January 9, 2009 Joint Session of Congress (with all of its legal staff and lawyer politicians) and finally by the entire USSC (guardians of the Constitution all).
Not a factual setting that offers timely relief; at least, not before the end of O’s third term. But good luck, nonetheless.
By the way, if the birth certificate indicates O was born outside of the U.S., its game over.
thanks for your explanations on this post. I did not understand you turning on the issue and I don’t believe you have.
You are focusing on what is more distinguishable as a matter of relevance.
Post on.
The listed COLB was from FactCheck, not from the Obama Admin. to begin with. Next it was shown forensically to be a fake. Next the words from Hawaii were parsed, they were lawyerized, they never stated they had the long form birth certificate, just that they had the origonal COLB. We know that in 1961, there were 4 different ways to get a Certification (not Certificate) of Live birth, and 3 of those 4 ways do not involve being born in the Hawaiian Islands.
I can provide links for them refuting each item I specified if you can’t find them.
I won't go into the flaws as I have seen you on this subject plenty and you are aware of the contra points.
We do need a long form and then I want to see his life records for the period of 16 - 33 years.
I am curious and have told my friends to leave me to my one conspiracy that I will ever indulge in, probably for the rest of my life.
See the thing is, usually when something looks amiss, it is. In fact, people who come up with these half hearted attempts to demonstrate validity of their story, usually make it worse for themselves, than it would have been, had they simply fessed up.
They compound it with flowery statements that only invite further questions.
Anyway, my 2 cents, not quite a penny after taxes.
No need to respond, I understand the direction you are headed.
Since the Birther movement started getting traction in this forum, many FReepers present themselves as crazies, the liberal sites simply highlight the craziness. BTW, you are not wrong about Orly Taitz. Incompetent, unprofessional, and self-promoting are right on the money, and I would add dishonest to that list.
If you are so skeptical of, say the official pronouncements by the state of Hawaii, why would you be so trustful of a single document without any official support that is being presented by an individual that may have a history of fraud?
You are correct.
Some of them are downright paranoid. Freepers who have been here for the better part of a decade or more accused of being "moles". Yeah, that's it! I joined up in 2001 and proceeded to post more than 11,000 replies to establish my conservative bona fides just waiting for the opportunity to troll Birther threads and belittle Orly Taitz.
Sigh... The jig is up. My crafty ruse has been found out.
Good grief....I keep hearing this canard about $1 million dollars.
I do know that 0bama spent over a million on legal counsel in the last few years (which prominent politician hasn’t?).
But I still haven’t seen any evidence that the totality of this sum was spent specifically on this issue of his birth status (the best response I got so far was for ME to file a FOIA request to get the answer).
In all honestly, although he has been challenged in court roughly a dozen times on this issue, all have been dismissed after no more than a short a filing from the Feds or his legal team (read into that what you will).
The question remains that I have. What exactly did he spend a $million+ on? If you get served with a lawsuit, you have to respond. 0bama has every time, and every time he has won (again, feel free to go Orly-theorist on why).
I fail to see how he spent over a million on this. He was sued, he responded with a short brief, he won. Where exactly is the million dollar plus bill?
In my opinion, his legal bills were probably more directly at defending his many campaign violations and scare tactics...nothing to do with his birth.
Can anyone send me to a site that actually shows this seven figure sum was actually spent on specifically this issue? I might be impressed or persuaded then.
Born here good.
Not born in the USA bad.
That sums it up IMO.
From Scalia’s concurrence in Miller v. Albright:
The Constitution “contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898).
Nice try, so their are two sources of citizenship, at birth or by naturalization, which only answers the citizenship question not the NBC question. Wong Kim Ark did not address or answer the NBC question, and in fact sidestepped it.
A foundling is a citizen at birth if no evidence to the contrary is found by the time the child is 21 years of age, not knowing either parent, does that make the foundling a NBC eligible to be President of the USA? The fact remains this definition needs to be addressed and the controversy resolved. Is Bobby Jidahl as a citizen at birth born to two immigrants an NBC? Do you think Democrats would contest his election to VP or President? Don't we as voters taxpayers, citizens and owners of this nation deserve a clear and concise answer?
Amazing how Dinofrio seemed to leave off that crucial passage.
Kim Wong Ark is clear that a child of a foreign national born here is a natural-born subject.
Justice Scalia’s view that there are only two types of citizenship is supported by the law and the U.S. Constitution.
One is either a natural born citizen; by the natural act of being born they became a U.S. citizen - or a naturalized citizen; via a legal naturalization process to confer citizenship.
Didn't address the issue? It clearly said that the child of a foreign national born under U.S. jurisdiction is a “natural-born subject” of the United States.
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.