Posted on 09/13/2010 5:23:17 PM PDT by RobinMasters
Lingle may have plausible deniability if she didn’t see the BC herself. If she had seen the BC herself and knew that it was not legally valid, she could DEFINITELY be charged with violation of the Federal General False Statement Act for that one.
Plus, her story totally contradicts both what Fukino claimed about the process and what Fukino claimed about what was on the BC. As Edge919 has noted, this statement by Lingle actually leaves a person with no reason to believe anything that comes out of Lingle’s mouth, since what she’s said is so easily documented as false.
But there are embedded transaction logs that would reveal when and what changes were made.
The Department of State and Joe Biden as head of the Foreign Relations Committee already know, for instance, how Obama’s passport records were sanitized. That may be why Biden was chosen to be VP even though his gaffes would give any ticket partner heartburn.
Do you agree that the Cloward-Piven Plan is a conspiracy?
” Boehner is a bowel movement.”
Hey, we agree on something ;-)
I also believe Obama is hiding a criminal past.
1) credit identity theft
2)Fraudulently obtained student loans.
” I kind of like the Constitution “
I even remember when we HAD one.
It's not simply a matter of personal preference. I've found several very serious holes in the logic used by the court. Plus, the bottom line is that they don't declare Obama to be a natural born citizen, they don't say that he was born in Hawaii and they don't say that his alleged COLB is genuine. The meat of that decision was procedural in saying the governor couldn't legally be expected to vet the eligibility of presidential candidates.
But now hopefully you’ll at least understand that Minor v Happersett was a pre-nineteenth amendment women’s suffrage case and Wong Kim Ark was a born citizen/Chinese Exclusion Act case. Neither had anything to do with eligibility to be president.
You're undermining the Indiana court's rationale for citing phantom 'guidance' from the dicta from these cases. You can't have it both ways.
bet this statement takes its place in history: kinda like Nixon's: "I am not a crook"(?).
I agree with you, it'll happen.
We just have to give the poor, underprivileged and victimized Child-in-Chief the benefit of the doubt. How can he plaster his BC on his forehead if he doesn't have one in the first place?
The Brilliant One doesn't have any education records either. Transparency is code word for racism, dontcha know?
Obama’s humanity is self-evident, just as the natural born status of other presidents was **SELF-EVIDENT**!
Since Obama has no army of relatives, friends, and neighbors who would be **HONORED** to testify of his natural born status ( as with other presidents) it is reasonable to ask for a paper trail of his origins and past citizenship(s).
What they're doing is trying to confuse the issue and make a statement in support of a belief without actually committing themselves to making a definitive statement about Obama. Just in setting up their argument for natural born citizenship, they purposely misconstrued the plaintiff's argument.
"As to President Obama‟s status, the most common argument has been waged by members of the so-called “birther” movement who suggest that the President was not born in the United States; they support their argument by pointing to “the President‟s alleged refusal to disclose publicly an „official birth certificate‟ that is satisfactory to [the birthers].”"
... "The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on constitutional interpretation. Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs‟ argument is that “[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there‟s a very clear distinction between a „citizen of the United States‟ and a „natural born Citizen,‟ and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.”"
The plaintiffs didn't make a 'different' legal argument, they made several legal arguments. Evidently the court has amnesia because only a couple of pages earlier in the same decision, they said ...
"Plaintiffs raise nine issues ..." and "Specifically, Plaintiffs appear to argue that the Governor did not comply with this duty because: ... (B) neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible to hold the office of President because neither were “born naturally within any Article IV State of the 50 United States of America . . . .”"
So, by the time you understand that the plaintiffs DID make an argument that Obama wasn't born within any of the 50 United States, it's hard to reconcile that the court could rule him to be a natural born citizen on the basis of being born 'within the borders of the United States' when there's no legal proof to support this part of the requirement.
Further, the court seems to think that being 'born in the allegiance of the United States' simply means being born within the borders, but that's not what the Constitution says. Remember, the preamble says, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity ..." This is significant because it doesn't promise membership to the "Union" of the United States on the basis of being born within the borders, but by being born to one of the People of the United States. 'Our posterity' is a reference to the children of those people ... IOW, this is recognizing that the People of the United States are those who declared Independence from England and the children of those people ... its citizens.
This is also what Wong Kim Ark was referring to when it cited the dicta about being born in the allegiance to the United States. It was acknowledging that at the founding of this country, you could be born within the borders of the United States and still be considered a 'natural-born British subject' OR you could be born a 'natural-born citizen' depending on whether your allegiance was to the United States or England. The children of such persons naturally follow the citizenship status of the parents.
What Justice Gray had to do was figure out if the 14th amendment was able to override natural allegiance the parents, and he built a case around English common law, but only to the point of saying that the 14th amendment followed the English principal of birth on the country's soil ... which is still debatable because there are exceptions allowed through the subject clause in the 14th amendment. Regardless, WKA did not redefine Minor's definition of natural born citizen ... which it cited ... "all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, ..." The Indiana Appeals Court either failed to read this or intentionally avoided it, yet they acknowledged that the WKA decision did NOT declare its plaintiff to be a natural born citizen. This leaves rational people scratching their heads wondering how the Hoosier Hillbillies could then divine so-called guidance on what a natural born citizen is OUTSIDE of the very specific definition that was cited by the same case. They were not only wrong, but they were badly wrong.
Actually, we seem to agree on ALMOST everything.
I think he’s human. It looks like he has two kids that call him Daddy.
I also think he is Kenyan. He has a wife that said his home country is Kenya. He keeps making trips back to Kenya for some reason.
So, I’m going with his Family and behavior on this one. They know him better than you or I do.
> “Then where did the penumbras and emanations that made it illegal for the states to protect their unborn citizens come from if they were not playing with and changing definitions?”
.
Mostly from the news media, and school teachers.
If you have evidence of other sources, feel free to expand on this.
Don’t mind LorenC.
LorenC is a hired gun; a paid disruptor, that invaded FR in 2006 long enough to make 3 posts, then evaporated for two years until it became obvious that Obama the candidate was not a citizen of the U.S. and thus not eligible to become president, at which time the Android Disruptor LorenC was reactivated.
Since then LorenC has posted solely on that subject.
Alinsky is LorenC’s god.
> “None of those cases had anything to do with ARTICLE TWO, SECTION ONE of the CONSTITUTION: eligibility to be President of the United States.”
.
They had everything to do with affirming the only and accepted definition of the term “Natural Born Citizen” as used in Article II.
You are of course free to feign ignorance of that fact if necessary to draw your pay check, but be advised we are all well aware of what you are, and what your mission is.
Do you realize that LorenC was personally hired and commissioned by Cass Sundsteen?
Give some respek baby!
I noticed that too ;-)
LOL!!
Ooh. I didn’t know that. I guess I’ll give due respek. lol
>>Are you sure you didn’t mean sectoid?
>
>See, that’s the problem: until Obama agrees to a simple DNA test, we can’t even know WHICH kind of alien he might secretly be.
>
>It’s just a simple cheek swab. No time or expense for him whatsoever. And yet he steadfastly refuses to provide this little thing for the Americans who simply want to know for certain that the Constitution is being followed and their President is an eligible human.
LOL - Best laugh of the morning; thank you.
But, if you want to be technical there is not Constitutional requirement that the President be human, only a natural born citizen who is 35 years of age and of those at least 14 have been spent in the US.
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.