BC? Big Deal. He's still not a Constitutional Natural Born Citizen

The Radio Patriot ^ | April 27, 2011 | Andrea Shea King

[patriotgal1787]

. . . . .

So, Donald Trump is the new Ross Perot.

What we saw this morning is The Donald being played by the White House as the spoiler -- or the third candidate who will hand the election back to Obama in '12.

Look, first of all, it has never been about the birth certificate.  Let me repeat that for those of you who are just catching up: It's NEVER been about the birth certificate.  Even though the media and Trump have stayed focused on that, it's nothing more than a sideshow.  A diversion from the real issue.

It is about the constitution, and the fact that under the Constitution, Obama is not a natural born citizen.  He cannot be, because his father was Kenyan and a British subject.

So now that Obama has shown us "the birth certificate" we can go back to doing the work of the American people?  Where have I heard that before?

This is a hoax, folks.  A cruel hoax, and there's not a soul in Washington DC who will uphold their sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution. Members of Congress were briefed about the matter in early 2009 when the Congressional Research Service issued a 14-page memo about Obama's eligibility question.  What the memo told them was that the vetting process was the responsibility of the states and the electors. So what did Congress do?

Congress breathed a collective sigh of relief and went back to their knitting, conveniently ignoring the oath they took to protect and defend the Constitution.

Trump has a HUGE ego.  We can all agree on that. Obama knows it too. Just as he played to the egos of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in pushing through his healthcare legislation, assuring them he would be there to help them shepherd it through (translation: ram it down our throats), he went into hiding, letting them do all the dirty, sweaty, heavy pushing.  And it cost them their party and their majority in the House. But Queen Nancy was strutting through the streets cloaked in ermine on the day it was signed.

It's Obama's modus operandi.  Seize and capitalize on the weakness of the opposition.  Use their egos, play them by appealing to their ego.

Well, Obama got a two-fer today. By producing a birth certificate (legitimate or otherwise), he now can say "let's put it behind us" and move forward to "more important issues".

Obama has also legitimized Trump, making The Donald seem larger than life, powerful enough to force him to "show his birth certificate".

See, the only way Obama knows he can win reelection in '12 is if a third candidate splits the vote.  And that's exactly what Trump will do, to the Republicans' detriment. Obama knows it, so he's giving Trump the credibility he needs to propel him forward.

(We're going to get into this issue with Elizabeth Letchworth, our Capitol Hill Insider, on tonight's radio program.)

Check back here during the day as I update this post with further observations. Meanwhile, Devvy Kidd weighs in with hers of this morning's circus act:

If it's real. Born in a hospital that won't confirm the birth. How convenient it pops up now with nothing new on it about his parentage and no doctor listed. This alleged BC was signed off by some flunky on Monday in Hawaii. They must have flown it to the White House in a jet to be released this morning in Washington, DC. It shows his father as Obama, Sr., and provides the proof that he was born with dual citizenship since his father was a Kenyan national under British citizenship at the time of Obama/Soetoro's birth.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

Recall back in January, former Hawaii elections clerk, Tim Adams, signed a sworn affidavit that there was no long form BC: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=254401

"Former Hawaii elections clerk Tim Adams has now signed an affidavit swearing he was told by hissupervisors in Hawaii that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Barack Obama Jr. in Hawaii and that neither Queens Medical Center nor Kapi'olani Medical Center in Honolulu had any record of Obama having been born in their medical facilities."

Here is another BC of a woman who had twins the day after Obama/Soeotro; same hospital: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=105347

Note the certification at the bottom of hers has the doctor's name - missing from this newly minted one.

Also, the "new" one just released by the White House is the same green paper as the old short form. Mrs. Nordyke's is black background. Guess what? Mine is white with black ink which I obtained 40 years ago for travel purposes.

Jerome Corsi's book comes out in two weeks....we shall see. I'm betting on his impeccable research. For those who might not remember, he wrote the book that "swift boated" John Kerry and destroyed his chances for the White House.

Next will be the forensic folks looking at this suddenly released BC that will make The Donald - what? Oh, so happy because he can move on to more important issues? What a game.

Obama - Maybe a Citizen of the United States but Not a "natural born Citizen" of the United States

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-maybe-citizen-of-united-states.html

The Natural Born Citizen Clause of Our U.S. Constitution Requires that Both of the Child’s Parents Be U.S. Citizens At the Time of Birth http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html

[freekitty]

His is cropped.

[freekitty]

The one I saw does not look like the twins. It has been cropped.

[Coyotehockey]

The data structure and the form are identical. Don’t forget that you are looking at copies - one of which was done 50 years ago. I don’t think it is reasonable that the copies would look exactly same. For one thing the technology has changed.

[Fred Nerks]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2702976/posts?page=1566#1566

[Gondring]

I guess you were looking at one of the fakes that have floated around...?

[Captain Kirk]

You can use “letters.” I prefer the language of the document itself. Unfortunately, the fuzzy language on citizenship does not help much; hence, we need to look to other souces including the Arthur precedent (which is against you) and the most recent court rulings since U.S v. Kim Wong Ark (which are also against you)

[frogjerk]

You can use “letters.” I prefer the language of the document itself. Unfortunately, the fuzzy language on citizenship does not help much; hence, we need to look to other souces including the Arthur precedent (which is against you) and the most recent court rulings since U.S v. Kim Wong Ark (which are also against you)

Since the language is fuzzy in itself as you admit you need to go back to the Founders original intent which is displayed in the letter from John Jay to George Washington as a huge hint as to what was intended. The so-called precedent of Arthur is weak at best because your assertion is that because the question wasn't brought up that was an admission of it was OK. That will not do.

Let me look up the case you are talking about as well and I will get back to you.

[Captain Kirk]

The so-called precedent of Arthur is weak at best because your assertion is that because the question wasn't brought up that was an admission of it was OK.

You are evading the larger issue. IMHO, you have two altenratives to account for why they didn't bring it up, One: either voters in 1880 were very, very stupid compared to today's voters. I contend that just the opposite is true. If you reject that alternative, IMHO, you have only one left: they didn't bring it up because they didn't think it had any bearing on his eligibility. If true, that would shot to hell any claim that your definition was the "accpeted" default definition in American history of "natural born."

Which of these positions do you subscribe to? If you have a third position for why they didn't bring it up, please explain and justify.

[Captain Kirk]

As you investigate the Kim Wong case, you might want to pay attention to the highlighted endorsement of Coke (my highlight). Could the ruling be any more obvious?

"The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’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.’"