Posted on 07/03/2013 9:04:28 AM PDT by FreedomOutpost
We know that John Brennan got the head job of the Central Intelligence Agency. However, as we stated in a previous article, by obtaining the records of Barack Obama he may well show that Obama is not eligible to be President.
Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/07/does-the-cia-director-have-barack-obamas-records-that-prove-he-is-ineligible-to-be-president/#ixzz2XzxgGS3K
Everything I have posted has been backed up with 100% documentation.
There's no challenging the certainty of a fool. He's absolutely convinced that what he thinks is correct, BECAUSE he thinks it's correct.
He thinks his position is "backed up" because he takes selective misquotes, out of context quotes, and truncated meanings which support his position in his own mind, and he then assumes everyone else possess the same sort of selective blindness that he does. His argument's look sensible to him, because he has trained himself to look past anything which does not fit his preconceived notions.
Again, he possesses the certainty of a fool. (And the methodology of one.)
You are indeed a wonder of obfuscation. That it requires a birth certificate to GET a US Passport is obviously of no consequence to your argument.
Are you simply blind to the inconsistencies of your own arguments? Or are you only too well aware of them?
That's a good description of what you've done.
Project much?
In this case, I simply don't do the things you accused me of, and you do.
In spite of being accused of it, I haven't taken selective misquotes, out of context quotes, and truncated meanings. On the contrary, I've considered the question from every point of view and admitted and considered every piece of evidence, and placed it in proper perspective with every other piece of evidence.
I've even talked at length about the pieces that superficially appear to support your position, and why they don't or are contradicted by the far better evidence.
Let me ask you a question.
This is hypothetical, now. And there's an easy answer. You don't have to think too hard.
You just have to read the background on several people, and then answer the simple question at the end.
Gentleman #1. We will call this man "Adam." "A" for "Adam."
"Adam" is not one of the major Founders. He is not known to have been particularly close to any major Founder. He's not a lawyer, but he is interested in the law. He is a historian, and a doctor, which shows he is generally intelligent. But he is not a lawyer, so he therefore, certainly can not be considered a "legal expert" of any kind. He is interested in the law because he was recently defeated in an election.
He makes his case, and his views are voted down 36 to 1 by our national leaders, including James Madison, the Father of our Constitution, and 5 other signers of the Constitution.
Gentleman #2 - we will call him "Benjamin" - is a well-recognized national leader. In fact, he is considered to be one of the half-dozen or so most important Founders of the United States of America.
Not only was he present at the Constitutional Convention, he was one of the prime movers.
In fact, without "Benjamin," we might well not have our Constitution at all, because he labored long and hard promoting its adoption in one of the most important States.
"Benjamin" is also known to have been in close and regular contact with many of the other major Founders and Framers.
Gentleman #3. We will name Gentleman #3 "Charles." "C" for "Charles."
"Charles" is a judge. He is obviously a man of some ability, because he has been trusted with judicial decisions spanning several counties. His duties have to do with state law. They do not have to do with national law.
"Charles" is a good guy, but he has no known personal or professional connection with any of the major Founders or Framers of the country.
"Charles" writes a book on state law which is generally well-regarded. In fact, it is reprinted and used for some decades by some of the lawyers in his particular state.
In his book, in spite of the fact that his book is on stae law and he has no national law duties, he makes a comment on what he believe the national law to be.
His comment is unsupported by any reference to any specific national law or principle. It is simply stated as fact, or as believed fact. But no statute is quoted to support it. No common law precedent is quoted to support it. And no court case is quoted to support it.
Gentleman #4. We'll call this man "Daniel."
"Daniel" is another one of the prime movers among the Founders and Framers. In fact, he is so important to the framing of our Constitution that he will be known to history as the "Father of the Constitution."
Like "Benjamin," "Daniel" is also known to have been in close and regular contact with other major Founders and Framers.
Gentleman #5. We'll call him "Edward."
"Edward" is also an important Founder, though not as widely recognized as "Benjamin" and "Daniel."
"Edward" becomes Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court just 13 years after the Constitution is ratified, and remains Chief Justice for almost 35 years. His influence on the Supreme Court and the nation is so great that he is known to history as "the Great Chief Justice."
Gentleman #6. "Francis" is an early American lawyer and a recognized legal expert.
"Francis" was born in Philadelphia. His family roots in America date back to at least 1686, when his grandfather moved permanently to America to escape religious persecution in England.
"Francis" had just turned 17 when the Declaration of Independence was announced. His family took the side of the Loyalists. In fact, his stepfather, the mayor of Philadelphia, led the Loyalist cause in the city. As a result, there was likely some question about "Francis'" commitment to the new country.
But there is far, far more to "Francis"' story.
Decades earlier, "Francis"' grandfather had hired a young man to do a printing job for him. It was the young man's very first attempt at the printing business.
The young man would go on to become an expert printer, and one of our nation's most important Founders. He was present at our Constitutional Convention, and was one of its prime leaders. His name was Benjamin Franklin.
And he became a good friend and mentor of young "Francis" as well.
Since it was impossible at the moment to launch a legal career in America, "Francis" went to study law in England. After 8 months, he cut short his studies there in order to return permanently to America and his native city of Philadelphia, as the war was now winding down. Before returning, however, he journeyed from England to Paris to visit with Benjamin Franklin.
There "Francis" jumped in to help build the new nation. He was promptly admitted to the bar as an American lawyer. He was elected to the Pennsylvania State Assembly in 1787, the same year as our Constitutional Convention.
That same year he participated, for months, as a member of Ben Franklin's "Society for Political Inquiries." This was an arm of the central group of core Revolutionaries and American leaders who had conducted the Revolutionary War. In the months leading up to our Constitutional Convention, they met each week in Franklin's home and discussed many of the issues, important to the new nation, that were likely to come up at the Constitutional Convention.
"Francis" was an active member of the group, and served as sort of a consultant on the issue of immigration, by giving a presentation to the Society on that topic.
Another important member of the Society was George Washington, who would preside over the Constitutional Convention. Washington would become our first President and be known to history as "the father of the country."
And "Francis" became so close as to be called a "favorite" of General Washington. After Washington became President, he offered to post of United States Attorney General to the young lawyer - more than once - but "Francis" declined each time, eventually accepting the post of United States District Attorney for Pennsylvania, which was still a position of important national legal responsibilities.
"Francis," of course, was present in Philadelphia during the Constitutional Convention, and was personally close during that time to at least two of its main leaders - Washington and Franklin - and undoubtedly had personal contact with them during the months in which the Convention deliberated.
But "Francis" was well acquainted with more members of the Constitutional Convention than just Washington and Franklin. Other members of the Society included Robert Morris, Gouverneur Morris, James Wilson (later one of our first Supreme Court Justices), and George Clymer. He also knew Jared Ingersoll, who was a delegate, and Thomas Paine, who wasn't.
So "Francis" was well acquainted, personally, with at least SEVEN of the 40 men signed the Constitution. By himself, he personally knew close to 20% of the Constitution's signers, possibly more.
"Francis" was such an important member of Franklin's Society that when Dr. Franklin died, "Francis" inherited the Society's minutes, which he donated to the Philadelphia Library.
"Francis" went on to become one of the new nation's most prominent legal experts. In 1825, he authored an expert work on the Constitution of the United States which became, for decades, a standard textbook on Constitutional law at West Point and other universities. His book remains important enough today that the entire text can be found at Constitution.org.
Now, the question:
Which of the above six gentlemen are the most credible authorities on the Constitution of the United States, and on the opinions of our Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitution, and which are the least credible?
It should be easy to give them a rough rank from most credible to least credible. If you can't do that, you can at least divide them into two camps: Those who are credible representatives of the Founders' and Framers' opinions, and those who had little connection or are not credible representatives of the Founders' and Framers' opinions.
Hint: Their credibility has nothing to do with whether you or I personally like or dislike any specific thing they ever said.
Sorry:
There “Francis” jumped in to help build the new nation.
should read:
After returning to America, “Francis” jumped in to help build the new nation.
Another tidbit: Ben Franklin’s home, where the Society for Political Inquiries met each week, was 3 blocks from the site where the Constitutional Convention convened.
In those days, Philadelphia had a total population of only 40,000.
“How to apply for a passport without a birth certificate:”
http://traveltips.usatoday.com/apply-passport-birth-certificate-13275.html
It appears that you have forgotten that the state of Hawaii has issued three “Certified Letters of Verification in Lieu of Certified Copy” for Barack Obama’s original Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth: one was issued for the state of Arizona; one for Kansas and one for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
Under Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, the public records of a state are accepted in every other state and by the federal government.
Cities, counties and states issue birth certificates. Those political entities are much less capable of confirming personal information than the federal government. Birth certificates are therefore less reliable than passports for establishing citizenship and identity. That is why under federal law, a U.S. Passport is Primary Evidence and a birth certificate is Secondary Evidence of citizenship and identity.
An Article 2, Section 1 example is Dwight David Eisenhower who was a home birth in Denison, Texas and he was never issued any official proof of birth. When he was in his sixties, Ike got a birth certificate issued on the words of his brother David and his wife Mamie as to the facts of his birth.
I think we can all agree that Eisenhower did a fair bit of foreign travel prior to being issued a birth certificate!
Can you envision Barack Obama being issued a birth certificate today on the affirmations of Maya Soetoro-Ng and Michelle Obama?
More on that Eisenhower BC.
http://www.whale.to/b/eisenhower1.html
“Dwight D. Eisenhower could have never imagined that information he gave an INS agent at Ellis Island would come back to posthumously haunt him 85 years later. As detailed in an Ellis Island passenger manifest, on September 27, 1924, returning from Cristobal, Canal Zone on the USS Cristobal, Maj. Dwight D. Eisenhower made two declarations to Customs Officials: 1) that he was “34 years of age,” and 2) that he was born in “Tyler, Texas.””
“Based on his published birthdate, Eisenhower was only 33 years of age on Sept. 27, 1924. This may seem insignificant, though no one reaches the age of 34 until one’s 34th birthday. It has always been that way. So why did he misstate his age, or was he just confused?”
JW:”Especially if their going on and on about it only played to my advantage politically.”
OK, let me get this straight. You are proposing that Obama continues this battle only because it is politically expedient to do so. You don’t believe there is any real problems with his background that make him ineligible for the office of POTUS.
Don’t you suppose that the majority of “birthers” also believe that continuing this fight is politically expedient (let alone a service to the country at large). It seems to be your opinion that birthers are continuing to fight a battle that is distracting the country from the real battles? If that is your cause, then why attack birthers on the substance of their claims instead of espousing the importance of these other battles to be fought.
I propose that your time is much better spent leading people against the real corruptions of this POTUS that you believe are of greatest import rather than dismissing the efforts of those who oppose on “lesser” platforms. Why not leave that work up to the Obots and Fogblowers??
I would expect that fellow Freepers would be more willing to hear your voice if it were speaking out vehemently against the Obama crimes that you have found to be worthy of pursuit. Your argumentative behavior causes many on these threads to question your fundamental intentions...
In the link in post #207, they mention that one of the two forms to fill out, the DS 10, needs to be filled out by someone who was alive at the time of the applicants birth, and had a close relationship to the applicant.
(Dwight Eisenhower’s relatives attested to his birth here; Dwight had need of his b.c. when he was in his sixties.
He didn’t get baptized till 1953 (!) )
I see a wall of text, and I don’t bother reading it. Given still that it comes from you, the best move is not to read it anyway.
Oh yes, i'm aware that it can be done, one can find the information on that same link I sent you.
Not. The. Point.
That it CAN be done does not speak to the fact that it is not normal for it to be done that way. You are attempting to use the exception to obfuscate the rule.
Again, here you are seeking to muddy, not to clarify.
Is this bit of trivia relevant to something? I must have missed it.
No. Here's what I'm saying.
There is no "battle" for Obama.
There's no "public relations issue" for him to manage. There hasn't been for more than two years.
There have only been a small but noisy group of people going around making his opponents look like fools, and distracting his enemies from the things that matter, and the points on which he's actually vulnerable.
If I were Obama, and the birthers didn't exist, I'd be at least halfway tempted to invent them.
Not that I think Obama is actually behind the birthers. I don't. But they are nothing more than a friendly wind that blows happily in his direction.
I'm not sure there are even any lawsuits in which Obama is even a party any more.
If there are, then he or one of his minions, long ago, has simply said to the lawyers, "Yeah. Just deal with the legal stuff on this lawsuit, okay?"
And they may have even said, "They're asking for a copy of the birth certificate. Just file dismissals and stuff instead. That'll do the job legally without actually killing the birthers oof. We don't actually want these nutcases to really go away. It's too nice for us to have them around filing this stuff and distracting people."
Don’t you suppose that the majority of “birthers” also believe that continuing this fight is politically expedient (let alone a service to the country at large). It seems to be your opinion that birthers are continuing to fight a battle that is distracting the country from the real battles?
There are at least two kinds of birthers: Those who understand the score and keep playing for their own reasons, and those who don't understand the game.
I'm sure there are a lot of birthers who haven't followed the points made by myself and other realists. Maybe they've even told themselves, "You don't have to read the stuff those people write. They're EEVIL!!"
Unfortunately, that's a real good way to cut yourself off from the truth.
In any event, I'm sure there are quite a few sincere birthers. Most of them, probably. Especially including those who don't follow the issue closely and haven't done the research and haven't read both sides, and who just buy the line that anyone who doesn't agree with the meme is from Satan.
There are others who I'm convinced know the score damn well. These are the people who've created dozens of fallacious arguments, and continued to push them even after the fallacies have been revealed. They're the people who have ignored, brushed aside and even tried to discredit all of the best sources of information.
These include our Founding Fathers, those who were close to them, all of our early national legal experts such as William Rawle, the US Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justices, the major conservative Constitutional foundations such as Heritage.org and many others, as well as those who've done the best analyses of the birth certificate claims, including John Woodman and Prof. Ricardo de Queiroz on the "forgery" side of things.
In the place of all of the best authorities, they've substituted people like David Ramsay (who was voted down 36 to 1 by Father of the Constitution, half a dozen other Framers and the other members of our first House, Samuel Roberts (who was a judge over several counties but had no national legal responsibilities or authority at all), and quack "experts" who made a whole series forgery claims that have been thoroughly disproven.
Like the one I mentioned earlier in the thread who made a claim of "impossibility" that had been clearly stated NOT to be impossible at all in the specification document published way back in 1999.
If that is your cause, then why attack birthers on the substance of their claims instead of espousing the importance of these other battles to be fought.
Because I really don't like lies, and I don't like con men, and I don't like seeing fellow conservatives being made fools of and taken advantage of, which is exactly what is happening here.
Also because in the course of discussing this issue, I've become an expert on it. This is one subject that I know now. And I know it and understand it much better than I do (for example) the NSA scandal or Benghazi or any one of a number of things that are the real issues.
Another aspect is that there don't really seem to be that many people besides myself who actually do understand the issue that well.
I didn't knee-jerk-reaction this. My understanding of it has been developed through tons of reading and discussion over the past two years. I've read and understood the points made by, as far as I can tell, all the major players on both sides. And I've gone to the original sources to see what these people are talking about, and found out which ones are right and which ones aren't.
I propose that your time is much better spent leading people against the real corruptions of this POTUS that you believe are of greatest import rather than dismissing the efforts of those who oppose on “lesser” platforms. Why not leave that work up to the Obots and Fogblowers??
Because conservatives are being taken advantage of. And because I am attached to the Constitution and to the truth.
I would expect that fellow Freepers would be more willing to hear your voice if it were speaking out vehemently against the Obama crimes that you have found to be worthy of pursuit. Your argumentative behavior causes many on these threads to question your fundamental intentions...
I definitely do speak out on other issues from time to time. But a lot of Obama's abuses are well enough known, and well enough commented on, that there's not really that much I can add except, "Me too."
In those instances, I don't find that "me too" posts are very much of a contribution. And I'm not going to just write down "me too" in order to try and prove my conservative credentials to people who are so attached to the birther meme that they wouldn't believe anything I said anyway. I'm not a performing dog, and the research I've posted and on occasion linked to referring to the work of others is certainly tight enough, for those who investigate it with a halfway open mind, that it's self-authenticating.
In other words, the points I make are verifiable. You or anyone else can go and read original documents that I refer to in their context and see that I'm not misrepresenting sources or misquoting people. And you can also do your own investigation and see that when I accuse someone of having committed a fallacy, or chosen the least authoritative sources possible because the most authoritative sources completely contradict them, that is actually the case.
If you have any trouble finding original sources, ask me and I can provide them.
As far as being argumentative, I started out in a non-argumentative way. On pretty much a daily basis for the past two years, I've been called the worst of names and accused of the worst of crimes. I've routinely and repeatedly been called an "Obot," a "traitor," a "shill," a "liar," and a dozen more things I can't even remember.
In other words, my good-faith efforts at discussion were met with the most brutal Alinsky-style tactics (if I understand the term correctly) on the part of birthers that were possible to conduct over the internet.
I finally got tired of it and decided to fight back.
All of that brings me to another couple of reasons for doing what I have done.
1. I'm not going to just submit to the bastards, the mob, who want to corrupt our history and our law and misrepresent our Founding Fathers and our Constitution, and (frankly) who have viciously slandered and falsely me and others now for two years, and who continue to try and mislead my fellow conservatives.
2. There don't seem to be that many people besides myself who are willing to put up with the gauntlet just for the sake of standing up for our Constitution and our Founding Fathers and our history and the truth.
Yes, there are some. There are certainly some good folks here at FR. Mr Rogers and 4Zoltan and Kansas58 and a few others come to mind. Those perhaps at the top because they've commented a bit more recently than some others.
But there don't seem to be as many of those as there are of people who (in spite of the fact that they can't or don't do their own research and can't refute the realistic points that have been made) are willing to jump in and join the mob of thugs, who say black is white and white is black just because they say so, and by God, if you disagree, they're going to call you as many vile names as they can and maybe, just maybe, beat your ass if they ever get the chance.
I hope that helps explain my position.
Not really, I only added you because Nero had.
I thought it was a funny article on conspiracy theories and how minor inconsistencies can be made to look sinister.
The same author has a great (by great I mean ridiculous) theory about President George H. W. Bush.
Okay. Let's nail this down.
You refuse to answer the question, because there is only one possible answer, and that answer will reveal you to the entire world as a complete charlatan and a complete hypocrite, because your position is the exact opposite of the only possible answer.
It will also reveal you as a false accuser, and therefore as a liar, because it will show that I'm not guilty of the thing you accuse me of, and you yourself are.
Here is my own answer to the hypothetical question I posed:
Adam - Has no credibility at all as a representative of the views of the Founders, Framers and early national leaders. In fact, on the topic in question, his views are clearly the OPPOSITE of those of our Founders, Framers and early national leaders.
Benjamin - Highly credible. Being one of the top Founders and Framers, he obviously is very likely to represent the views of those Founders and Framers.
Charles - Definitely has credibility in regard to state law, but not so much credibility in regard to national law or the views of the Framers or Founders.
Daniel - As "Father of the Constitution," he almost certainly represents our Founders' and Framers' views.
Edward - Also highly credible.
Francis - Has a great deal of credibility.
Personally, I would rank them as follows. This is completely without regard to whatever it was they said.
1) Daniel.
2) Benjamin.
3) Francis, narrowly over Edward.
4) Edward.
5) Charles - but the drop here from Edward is a pretty big one. As the "Great Chief Justice" of the nation for 35 years, Edward is vastly more authoritative on national law than a several-counties judge who gives no rationale or precedent for his statement.
6) Adam - and the drop from Charles is also a big one.
In short, Daniel, Benjamin, Francis and Edward are all credible sources for the opinions of the Founders and Framers. Charles has little authority, and Adam has none at all.
Now, of course, for the real names, which you know very well.
The first 4 are (in order of my judgment of their authority): James Madison, Father of the Constitution and our 4th President; Alexander Hamilton; William Rawle; and John Marshall.
They are 4 of the key figures who clearly support the historical understanding of the meaning of natural born citizen. Yes, I know you'll say Marshall supports your view, in a case about how to treat Americans residing abroad, in which the term "natural born" is never mentioned even once. And you'll say that he doesn't support my view, even though it's pretty clear that he read all of Bayard's exposition on the Constitution and agreed fully with him about what "natural born citizen" meant. We've been over this many times before.
The two remaining figures are literally the strongest thing you have from early America, and they are astonishingly weak.
They are literally the two major linchpins of your claim, from all of early America.
The better of the two is Samuel Roberts, who has little authority, and the other is David Ramsay, who has none at all.
No, it's very clear here exactly who is misrepresenting our history and our Founding Fathers, and who is not.
You might also be interested in DiogenesLamps’ refusal to answer the question in 205.
After he tried to argue that getting a passport without a birth certificate was somehow comparable to the NORMAL process for doing it, I lost interest in reading any further.
Yes, Conspiracy minded people see conspiracies in any sort of inconsistency. One of the funnies political cartoons I ever saw was back in the 1990s. It illustrated a couple of guys dressed up in black "Militia" outfits, contemplating a single sock in the dryer.
They concluded that the "missing" sock must be the product of an evil conspiracy.
Sometimes independent action by groups with mutual interests can have the appearance of being a conspiracy without actual conspiratorial coordination. The "ACLU", the "People for the American way", as well as the "Southern Poverty Law center", can all work to achieve the same goal without actual coordination between them.
Not a conspiracy, but produces the same results as if it had been.
Another wall of text. Not interesting.
You asked a question somewhere in all that muck? Perhaps if it wasn’t camouflaged by all the idiocy surrounding it, I might have contemplated it or something.
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.