It is called evading the issue.
Posted on 09/13/2010 5:23:17 PM PDT by RobinMasters
For more than two years now, I have given Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt.
That may be hard to fathom for some because of my admittedly relentless and tireless pursuit of the truth about his origins and his constitutional eligibility for office.
After all, I am the guy who has posted this question on billboards across America: "Where's the birth certificate?"
But I really have given Obama the benefit of the doubt until now. I have asked the questions and directed the investigative reporting that has changed America's political landscape on the eligibility question. WND conducted the first national poll on this subject 15 months ago. Back then, we were shocked that 50 percent of Americans knew there was a controversy about his birth certificate and his eligibility – because WND is the only news organization in the country that pursued the story. Today, the latest polls show 58 percent of Americans don't believe Obama's story and suspect he is not eligible to serve.
That is a big shift in public opinion in a short period of time.
During that time, despite suggestions to the contrary, I never accused Obama of being born elsewhere. I never concluded he is constitutionally ineligible. I avoided speculation on what we might find if Obama ever did willingly and openly release his records as other presidents and presidential candidates have.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
> “Whether this issue ever goes anywhere is in the hands of Speaker Boehner and the GOP leadership.”
.
Both of which we already know are essentially Foreign Agents working against the US.
Boehner is a bowel movement.
That’s not the rule that was in effect at the time of his birth. The supreme court has changed the definition of “natural born” many many times over the years.
And who will ask the MSM how they could produce a full dossier on complete unknown Joe the plumber Wurzelbacher in 24 hours and fail to vet Baraq in 24 months of the campaign.
He may have been born in Hawaii. I don’t know. But I do know he has a reason why he refuses to release is birth certificate. I would love to know what it is.
* April 22, 2010, 8:34 AM ET
Arizona House to Obama: No Birth Certificate, No Ballot
By Ashby Jones
arizonaBirthers rejoice! After a string of court defeats, you’ve got yourself a small but real win.
The Arizona House approved a bill Wednesday that would require presidential candidates to show his or her birth certificate in order to be on the state’s ballot.
In other words, if President Obama wants to appear on the Arizona ballot in 2012, he just might have to produce his birth certificate. Click here for the story from Fox News; here for a squib from New York magazine.
The House approved the measure on a 31-29 vote after four Republicans joined all of the Democrats in opposing it. The measure still faces a Senate vote.
It would require U.S. presidential candidates who want to appear on the Arizona ballot to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president.
The White House was not amused. “This is a question that has been answered exhaustively,” White House spokesman Bill Burton told CNN. “I can’t imagine Arizona voters think their tax dollars are well served by a legislature that is less focused on their lives than in fringe right-wing radio conspiracy theories.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/04/22/arizona-house-to-obama-no-birth-certificate-no-ballot/
The Arizona Senate rejected that bill and if it had passed both Houses and been signed into law by the Governor, Obama would have simply presented his short form Certification of Live Birth from Hawaii because the bill didn’t specify any particular proof of birth.
In order to get on the ballot in Arizona in 2008, Obama signed a statement saying that he was a “natural born citizen of the United States.” If that statement was inaccurate, he could have been charged with a crime.
Here’s a link to a scanned copy of the state of Arizona form that he signed:
http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/arizona-election-nomination-papers-barack-obama-signed-statement-he-is-a-natural-born-citizen2.pdf
> “That’s not the rule that was in effect at the time of his birth. The supreme court has changed the definition of “natural born” many many times over the years.”
.
Absolutely false on both counts!
Where do you get this nonsense?
The Supreme Court does not set nor change definitions of anything.
This is exactly why we should also demand to know whether Obama is secretly an alien reptoid. Because we've seen no proof that he's actually genetically human.
I'm not saying Obama is a shapeshifting alien; I simply don't know. You can't say for certain that he's not, because he hasn't proven squat on the subject. He's been in office nearly two years, and has refused to take a simple DNA test that would put all questions about his humanity to rest. And without a birth certificate, how do we know his parents were human? What is he hiding?
Simply show it bammy! It will all be over and you can quit the legal battles to keep your past secret. End it, if you’re legal you have nothing to fear.
It is my belief that a better route to go is for a prosecuting attorney (District Attorney, state Attorney General, US Attorney or Special Counsel) to subpoena the original, vault copy, long form birth certificate. Such a release, without Obama’s permission is permitted under Hawaii law.
Why no one has subpoenaed the birth certificate as a part of a Grand Jury investigation is very strange.
He is an ILLEGAL ALIEN....
More “Sven”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2588550/posts?page=9#9
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2588564/posts?page=17#17
To: RobinMasters
Chris Strunk deserves credit for exposing Obama’s ineligibility.
Without Strunk’s FOIA release of SAD Soetoro’s 1968 passport renewal application, then we would (not) have the ammunition we need to expose Obama as an usurper.
17 posted on Monday, September 13, 2010 5:44:12 PM by SvenMagnussen
(Well, okay, but isn’t Mr. Strunk a bit of a loon?! I’m one to talk!!!)
The supreme courts sets precedent and interprets the law. Essentially their interpretations ARE the same as law. That’s why it’s so important to pick the right judges.
You're always the pied piper of the foolish and king of the straw man.
Absolutely false on both counts!
Where do you get this nonsense?
The Supreme Court does not set nor change definitions of anything.
I think that it would be great if the Supreme Court would rule (”stare decisis”) on whether there is a differece between a “natural born citizen” under Article 1, Section 2 and a “born citizen” under the 14th Amendment.
The fact that the current Supreme Court has rejected hearing any of eight appeals of Obama eligibility lawsuits leads me to believe that a majority of the current court feels that “born citizens” and “natural born citizens” are identical, but who knows?
It is called evading the issue.
> “The Article 2, Section 1 definition of natural born citizen has never been tested in a Court of law.”
.
It was not ‘tested’ but it was affirmed three times in the Federal courts in a short period, two of those in the Supreme Court. In each case the accepted definition was read into the record.
Wow, do you have links to the polls? I didn’t think the number was that high.
On FR, this percentage is likely greater than 92%:
CNN poll on Obama: 6 of 10 doubt U.S. birth story
"A new poll by CNN, whose editorial commentary largely supports President Obama and his policies, delivered some bad news on his apparent birthday today: 6 of 10 people are uncertain the president was even born in the United States.
The poll was taken July 16-21 of 1,018 adults, including 335 Democrats and 285 Republicans. It has a margin of error of 3 percentage points."....
CNN even over-polled Democrats...as usual.
Here are three cases that used the accepted definition (as per Vattel):
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
And later,
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
“In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:
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 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.
On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term ‘natural born citizen.’ “
.
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.