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 ...
“FREE THE LONG FORM!”
Funny, but Gov. Lingle told an outright lie. Neither her department of health nor state issued a news release saying Obama was born in Kapiolani Hospital. Why do you think her comments are credible??
This comment is disingenuous and moot. Minor v. Happersett cites Art.II Sec. 1 immediately before giving its definition of natural born citizen.
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” [n7] and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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.”
If Minor v Happersett had anything at all to do with eligibility to be president of the United States, I’m sure that the current Supreme Court would have used it as a precedent to grant cert to any of the eight Obama eligibility lawsuits that have already reached them for conferences.
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), was a United States Supreme Court case appealed from the Supreme Court of Missouri concerning the Missouri law which ordained “Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote.”
Virginia Minor, a leader of the women’s suffrage movement in Missouri, alleged that the refusal of Reese Happersett, a Missouri state registrar, to allow her to register to vote was an infringement of her civil rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
His father was not a citizen of the USA. Therefore, he does not have unquestioned and sole allegiance to the USA, as the framers determined was necessary to be President. Therefore, he is not, never was, and never will be, eligible to legitimately hold the office of President of the USA. This is a known fact, and the only fact necessary to determine his ineligibility for the presidency.
Unfortunately, the stupid people are learning the hard way, right along with the rest of us, just why having such a usurper in the highest office is a great danger to the USA and its citizens.
Funny, but Gov. Lingle told an outright lie. Neither her department of health nor state issued a news release saying Obama was born in Kapiolani Hospital. Why do you think her comments are credible??
Nobody, and I truly mean NOBODY of any political note has called Governor Lingle a “liar” and intelligent people fully understand the appropriate context of what she was saying:
When Dr. Fukino reported back to the governor, she mentioned that the birth certificate said “Kapi’olani Medical Center” as the birth hospital.
As long as the Republican administration in Hawaii continues to back Obama on his birth there 100% there’s not much that can happen.
The real question remains: why would a Republican Governor who endorsed John McCain and delivered one of Sarah Palin’s endorsement speeches at the Republican National Convention lie for a leftist Democrat like Barack Obama?
Right. It's a definition of natural born citizen tied directly with Art. II Sec. I. This same dicta was quoted in Wong Kim Ark.
Obama’s birth certificate is irrelevant to the issue of his eligibility for the office of President. It doesn’t matter where he was born, whether in Kenya, Hawaii, or the west wing of the White Hut, or on another planet.
His father was not a citizen of the USA. Therefore, he does not have unquestioned and sole allegiance to the USA, as the framers determined was necessary to be President. Therefore, he is not, never was, and never will be, eligible to legitimately hold the office of President of the USA. This is a known fact, and the only fact necessary to determine his ineligibility for the presidency.
Unfortunately, the stupid people are learning the hard way, right along with the rest of us, just why having such a usurper in the highest office is a great danger to the USA and its citizens.
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [the Supreme Court of the United States in their 1898 decision in the case of U.S. v.] Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels,” Nov. 12, 2009
No, actually no parsing of words is required to see that she lied. Her statement is factually untrue despite a declaration in positive form.
When Dr. Fukino reported back to the governor, she mentioned that the birth certificate said “Kapi’olani Medical Center” as the birth hospital.
Feel free to provide your evidence of this.
The real question remains: why would a Republican Governor who endorsed John McCain and delivered one of Sarah Palin’s endorsement speeches at the Republican National Convention lie for a leftist Democrat like Barack Obama?
Because the lie was made AFTER Obama became president and because the lack of documentary proof to support Obama's claim of eligibility is a black eye for Lingle's state.
The Indiana appeals court is right when it says those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.” Obama, being born to a foreign national, was not born in the allegiance of the United States. This is probably why that same court avoided saying that Obama is a natural born citizen.
Right. It’s a definition of natural born citizen tied directly with Art. II Sec. I. This same dicta was quoted in Wong Kim Ark.
Defintion of dicta:
The part of a judicial opinion which is merely a judge’s editorializing and does not directly address the specifics of the case at bar; extraneous material which is merely informative or explanatory.
Dicta are judicial opinions expressed by the judges on points that do not necessarily arise in the case.
Dicta are regarded as of little authority, on account of the manner in which they are delivered; it frequently happening that they are given without much reflection, at the bar, without previous examination.
As one judge said, ‘If general dicta in cases turning on special circumstances are to be considered as establishing the law, nothing is yet settled, or can be long settled. What I have said or written, out of the case trying, or shall say or write, under such circumstances, maybe taken as my opinion at the time, without argument or full consideration; but I will never consider myself bound by it when the point is fairly trying and fully argued and considered. And I protest against any person considering such obiter dicta as my deliberate opinion.’ And another said it is ‘great misfortune that dicta are taken down from judges, perhaps incorrectly, and then cited as absolute propositions.’”
The definition of NBC used by Minor v. Happersett and Wong Kim Ark is ABOUT presidential eligibility. I just showed that. Second, you have no room to whine about dicta not carrying the force of law and then turn around and quote a state appeals court using even less relevant dicta (that they admit is wrong in their footnotes) as if it DOES carry the force of law. If you think it's wrong, then you're admitting the Indiana Appeals Court was wrong.
The definition of NBC used by Minor v. Happersett and Wong Kim Ark is ABOUT presidential eligibility. I just showed that. Second, you have no room to whine about dicta not carrying the force of law and then turn around and quote a state appeals court using even less relevant dicta (that they admit is wrong in their footnotes) as if it DOES carry the force of law. If you think it’s wrong, then you’re admitting the Indiana Appeals Court was wrong.
The Opinion in Minor v Happersett:
The Supreme Court of Missouri upheld the Missouri voting legislation saying that the limitation of suffrage to male citizens was not an infringement of Minor’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The United States Supreme Court in a unanimous decision affirmed and upheld the lower court’s ruling on the basis that the Fourteenth Amendment does not add to the privileges or immunities of a citizen, and that historically “citizen” and “eligible voter” have not been synonymous. Since the United States Constitution did not provide suffrage for women, the Fourteenth Amendment did not confer that right. The court’s decision had nothing to do with whether women were considered persons under the Fourteenth Amendment; the court ruled that they were clearly persons and citizens. It rested solely on the lack of provisions within the Constitution for women’s suffrage.
The subsequent ratification of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution rendered Minor v Happersett moot.
The Opinion in US v Wong Kim Ark
In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child’s birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.
The issue in Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels was whether Barack Hussein Obama II and John Sidney McCain qualified for Indiana’s Electoral College votes as natural born citizens. The decision in Ankeny directely related to presidential eligibility.
Just because YOU think that the decision in Ankeny was decided incorrectly doesn’t make it so. That’s why we have appeals courts. Ankeny was appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court and upheld. It was not appealed further to the federal courts.
Obama coming out in favor of the Ground Zero mosque cemented the perception among a lot of people previously willing to give him the benefit of a doubt. Very damaging.
As usual, you resort to ad hominem insults and deflection. I repeat. The definition of natural born citizen is ABOUT presidential eligibility as it was linked DIRECTLY to the requirements in Art. II Sec. I. The fact that the Indiana appeals court overlooked this very specific definition shows what incompetent boobs the judges are. What they cited doesn't not support their conclusions, which they admitted in their footnotes when they acknowledge that WKA found no one to be a natural born citizen, especially not on the basis of the phantom 'guidance' they divined from the decision.
As usual, you resort to ad hominem insults and deflection. I repeat. The definition of natural born citizen is ABOUT presidential eligibility as it was linked DIRECTLY to the requirements in Art. II Sec. I. The fact that the Indiana appeals court overlooked this very specific definition shows what incompetent boobs the judges are. What they cited doesn’t not support their conclusions, which they admitted in their footnotes when they acknowledge that WKA found no one to be a natural born citizen, especially not on the basis of the phantom ‘guidance’ they divined from the decision.
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.
what records do people want, they’ve given Obama,FBI,CIA over 2 yrs the make, change any records there were.
Frustrating isn't it. We know the left has many operatives. Is all this ignorance agitprop? Some of it certainly is. We on FR have come to know the trolls, who are ready with the seminar blogger list of responses - Wong Kim Ark, our law is based on English Common Law, Vattel didn't mean what he said because he used French, Indiana's Supreme Court amended the Constitution, ...
We must patiently continue to explain the truth. If the public can't understand, we will understand that our society has become so numbed by a poor education system and by having become dependent upon the federal teat that we are no longer capable of sustaining John Marshall's “nation of laws, and not of men.”
Chief Justice Morrison Waite, in Minor v. Happersett, provided the definition again, this time the citation used on our own government website in its annotated Constitution, and used by Horace Gray in Wong Kim Ark, to allow no uncertainty about who were natural born citizens - and Wong Kim, a “Native born citizen of the U.S.,” exactly the term used by Barack to define his own citizenship, was explicitly a “citizen,” not natural born, because, while born on our soil, his parents were not citizens.
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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.”
Frustrating isn't it. We know the left has many operatives. Is all this ignorance agitprop? Some of it certainly is. We on FR have come to know the trolls, who are ready with the seminar blogger list of responses - Wong Kim Ark, our law is based on English Common Law, Vattel didn't mean what he said because he used French, Indiana's Supreme Court amended the Constitution, ...
We must patiently continue to explain the truth. If the public can't understand, we will understand that our society has become so numbed by a poor education system and by having become dependent upon the federal teat that we are no longer capable of sustaining John Marshall's “nation of laws, and not of men.”
Chief Justice Morrison Waite, in Minor v. Happersett, provided the definition again, this time the citation used on our own government website in its annotated Constitution, and used by Horace Gray in Wong Kim Ark, to allow no uncertainty about who were natural born citizens - and Wong Kim, a “Native born citizen of the U.S.,” exactly the term used by Barack to define his own citizenship, was explicitly a “citizen,” not natural born, because, while born on our soil, his parents were not citizens.
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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.”
James777 doesn't care about winning points, or explaining, or truth. His/her job is to obfuscate; there has been nothing new for months now. Initially, she was useful because whomever provided her talking points pointed at confusing aspects of the history of the term natural born citizen. Again, she doesn't care. That is not her objective. She uses Alinsky’s fifth rule “ridicule is man's most potent weapon” only when semantic tricks don't work, or when responding to someone who is particularly clear. The concise and clear answers are what she needs to undermine. Eventually, one way or another, Obama will disappear and his supporters will go back into the woodwork, or to their taxpayer funded union jobs.
There’s more that should be known. We CAN say that Obama failed to qualify by Jan 20, 2009 and that the Constitution thus forbids him to “act as President”, which only Joe Biden can do.
The reasons why we can say this are at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/the-summary-cnn-doesnt-want-you-to-see/
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.