One of the docs posted by Obama's lackies that is in dispute is called a "Certification of Live Birth"....NOT a "Certificate of Live Birth". You need glasses. Here, I'll post it nice and big for you. Read slowly and carefully.
Posted on 04/11/2011 7:20:09 PM PDT by bray
“What these people need to be looking at is WHY such a supposedly wacky issue has taken root and won’t die?”
Because, of course, it’s NOT a “wacky” issue.
I am still digesting your other points but you are just a little premature to imply that the definition of NBC has been settled by Ankeny. First, the opinion was a dismissal on grounds other than resolution of NBC. The NBC language is mere dicta. Meaningless.
Second, even if the NBC analysis had been dispositive to the outcome of the case, it is only state court decision and has no force at the federal level, where surely any truly final adjudication must occur.
Third, the decision arguably misapplies Wong Kim Ark, and has other analytical defects, such that any federal decision, thoroughly researched and decided dispassionately, might well come out completely differently. Which is why it is an unfair disparagement of eligibility doubters to sweep them all aside as intellect-challenged pests, when in fact the issue, even to the most fair and serious-minded, is anything but settled.
As for the tape of the Kenyan grandma, I have heard it myself, and I do not remember it the way you do, at all. Maybe I’m having a senior moment, but I recall her handlers as doing all the damage control after she slipped up and identified the birthplace as Kenya. I do not know the language (Luo, is it?), but if you can direct me to an undamaged copy of the full audio, I would appreciate it. If nothing else, I would like to clear up this apparent discrepancy in my recollection.
Having said all that, please realize that I totally agree with your evaluation of Trump’s role in all this. I was one of the very first to call him a deliberate spoiler, and whether the eligible doubters are right or wrong, that is exactly how I see him using this issue, to peel off an excitable, single-issue voting block, thus disabling a GOP win in 2012.
Therefore, for all our differences in experience and perception, I must ask that we all be kind to one another and avoid, just this one time, the long-standing tradition of conservatives shooting their own. We need to resist being dazzled by Donald, and rally behind a candidate whose conservatism is genuine and time-tested, and that would certainly not be Trump.
Nobody is being dazzled by the Donald other than his courage to stand up to the hurricane coming his way. We are simply asking the same very valid questions and would like to know why they are not being answered clearly and completly.
Pray for Ameirca
“I am still digesting your other points but you are just a little premature to imply that the definition of NBC has been settled by Ankeny.”
The point is any other court, state or Federal, will rule the same way. If you dont get it, you either havent read or havent understood the courts reasoning, which is clear, simple and based on precedent. Citizen at time of birth is what ‘natural-born citizen’ means, and when you combine that with Wong Kim ark, you get a clear and simple result. “Third, the decision arguably misapplies Wong Kim Ark” - wrong, the root of the NBC argument is a disagreement WITH Wong Kim Ark’s implications. Attempts to use semantics or misreadings of other court rulings , like Happersett, will fail in front of any real judge who looks at the whole law and not just some snippets that are convenient for birthers. Arguing the point is arguing against 100+ year old precedents and IMHO is fruitless as courts will not agree.
Obama was not the first President with a foreigner for a Dad.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2703612/posts
The full audio for the interview is available via the links I shared. The transcript follows the audio.
“han his courage to stand up to the hurricane coming his way.”
Republicans propose a budget that will save us from fiscal ruin and Democrats call them - Ryan and others - baby-killers who want women to die and who are taking away the healthcare for the elderly.
You cant get any worse than that - and that’s response to a real serious budget.
The Ryan budget took far more courage than shooting your mouth on the BC issue. Trump wont ever get it that bad.
Well, that's the tactic that Obama used in his state senator race. He got Jack Ryans divorce records unsealed by a court is L.A. Why can't Donald clear the field too, using the same tactic?
Well, I was very much against the Harriet Miers deal, so I agreed with Ann on that. Miers was pushed by Laura Bush and some of Bush’s more liberal advisers. And after doing a good deal of investigating, I concluded that Miers was pro-abortion, and that she was not really the Evangelical that she pretended to be, but more of a professional feminist.
I think Bush finally realized that it was a mistake. She was a personal friend, and Bush could sometimes be a sucker for personal friends, but she was not a suitable candidate for the court.
The fascist combination would never threaten “all these guys” with direct harm. No, no! Instead they will cause a cousin to disappear as has happened with Michele Malkin.
My good FRiend, as a practicing attorney, I stand before real world judges quite often, and while some of them (perhaps those who did not ascend to the bench on merit or who did not make Law Review) can be unduly affected by dicta, most judges I work with are quite competent and thus principally concerned with holdings, i.e., that group of magic words that tells you what the court’s actual decision is in the specific fact pattern before the court on that particular day.
In the case of Wong Kim Ark (WKA hereinafter), we find the court, after spending precious ink on it’s general musings over the question of NBC, finally returns to earth with a very narrow holding that has absolutely no bearing on whether someone in Obama’s specific set of facts constitutes an NBC. The money quote is here:
“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”
As you can see, the actual holding only addresses generic citizenship and the minimal requirements of parental citizenship for entering that class. It does not address how one enters the specialized subclass of “natural born.”
Therefore, while some future SCOTUS may yet decide those details, and may well draw from the WKA dicta whatever it sees fit to that end, there is nothing to overturn. The holding just doesn’t go there. Sorry.
As for Arthur Chester, there is more than one side to that story. In fact, I find it disconcerting that the Ankeny court could miss such easily accessible information. Indeed, Chester’s intriguing story makes the case that openly declaring the mixed citizenship of one’s parents was a positive hazard to presidential aspirations. The reason his defective parentage was held to be a rumor is that he purposefully destroyed evidence of his father’s heritage, so that it could never be more than a rumor. However, his deceit was posthumously exposed by naturalization records revealing that his father’s naturalization came many years after Arthur’s birth. You may not like the source, but the following makes for compelling reading, and you should, as an apologist for anti-birtherism, at least be aware of the material:
So you see, in the only potential precedent case that matches Obama’s, the solution of the candidate was obfuscation, the destroying or hiding of records. In that sense, the precedent does match the new situation. However, it is truly doubtful that any sober judge, looking at the matter dispassionately, would find that precedent helpful to Obama’s case.
One of the docs posted by Obama's lackies that is in dispute is called a "Certification of Live Birth"....NOT a "Certificate of Live Birth". You need glasses. Here, I'll post it nice and big for you. Read slowly and carefully.
What’s with the sarcasm?
Too many people are deliberately trying to confuse the issue by naming things incorrectly. I figured you might be “one of them”, especially because you’ve been hanging around here since 2005 and should know the difference.
I keep lightly abreast of the BC issue, but tend to go for reading the budget and economy threads in much more detail.
” Instead they will cause a cousin to disappear as has happened with Michele Malkin.”
That was my first thought when I heard her on TV over the weekend telling about it. I wondered if that thought had crossed her mind as well. Many of us still think Glenn Beck had threats made against his family. He once said, not long ago, that at any given time, there are about 15 death threats against him (or his family, I suspect). For as radical as some think he is, I really believe there’s a lot more he wants to talk about but feels he dare not.
“Google is your friend.”
Well, not really. But that’s another story for another thread.
I would love the karmic justice of Trump revealing the Obama Fraud and getting him disqualified. Payback is a bitch.
All of what you say is very plausible (even, IMHO, true).
However, again, none of it has anything to do with the political significance of the birther issue, which is what I fault Ann Coulter and other “political analysts” for not picking up on.
Back to your point, though, I can tell you from going through several presidential elections on this very board, the people who don’t understand how a third-party candidate can affect the election have no interest in exploring the perspective you lay out. They don’t view their vote as resulting in a particular and certain result for the country; they see it only as a “statement,” “sending a message,” etc. that they can “feel good about” and “allows them to sleep at night.”
I know I’ll be in here trying my damnest to point out the flaws in a Perot redux. But I don’t think those who already don’t care about the actual result of the election will listen any more than they did in years past.
And if it looks like a “third” party candidate is actually DISPLACING or REPLACING the GOP candidate -— thus, is no longer really a “third” party candidate and, thus, is able to win -— then that will be another matter.
But you and I are talking about two different things. You are focusing on what Trump is doing/not doing. For purposes of this thread, I am focusing on why political analysts should account for, not dismiss, the phenom that is labeled “birtherism.”
you know, I had a feeling about that line too... now that Google is funding global warming alarmists I have to say, no, google’s friends of the left. Gotta fix that.
so your new friend - bing:
“I know I’ll be in here trying my damnest to point out the flaws in a Perot redux. But I don’t think those who already don’t care about the actual result of the election will listen any more than they did in years past.”
You’re very right, and it’s beyond dismaying that so many view elections, especially Presidential ones, as you said - to make a statement, prove a point, etc., like it’s a game of one-upmanship. It’s NOT - this election more than any other (’08 was also a tragedy). We have got to WIN, whatever or whomever it takes - to get rid of this nightmare before he completes the destruction of our Republic. I’m convinced we won’t get another chance - if we’re even lucky enough to HOLD a free election in 2012. Many things can be tweaked and changed later, but the defeat of b. hussein obama is ALL that counts right now. It’s deadly serious, not a game or contest of egos and degrees of conservative purity.
For those who say they’d rather not vote at all than vote for (insert whatever name here) - if BHO gets re-elected, they will likely get their wish - only it won’t be a choice next time, maybe ever again. That’s what’s at stake here.
Anyone who runs on a third party ticket in ‘12 does so knowing what the outcome will be, so let’s work on a good primary to get the toughest candidate with the broadest appeal and strongest chance of defeating that #@&*! in the white house.
Well, there have also been some troubling privacy and info-sharing (with Obamaites) issues as well.
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.