Posted on 03/01/2010 3:51:30 AM PST by patlin
There are many in the press today caricaturing me as a "conspiracy theorist" simply because I, like millions of other Americans, insist on actually seeing proof of Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility.
I've never alleged a conspiracy. Obama was given a free pass by an opponent who had his own eligibility issues. Not much of a conspiracy necessary – especially with Obama accountable only to a fawning press and scared-of-their-shadows Republicans.
But "conspiracy theorist" is an easy epithet to hurl.
One good question to ask, the next time you hear someone call me that name, is this: "Who is Joseph Farah conspiring with?"
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Was that slave being held in the halls of Congress because that is where the testimony from the Census was being given in post #264.
The law often moves slowly.
So do some minds.
LOL that story is such BS that I’m not even going to comment on it.
Not so fast DRONE, the report goes on and since you had to bring the ‘race card’ into the discussion, I feel obligated to correct your error in interpreting that which you have not completely researched before answering so ignorantly:
Mr. SCHADE. I have taken the official 3,231,000 of 1790 as a basis for my calculation, giving them an annual increase of 1.38 per cent, the most favorable of any country. By that calculation I have shown you that our population, had there been no immigration since 1790, would. in 1890, have been about 25,000,000 instead of 64,000,000.
Senator HALE. Your figures, from 1790 to 1890, would show the native population, including the blacks, to be 25,000,000?
> Mr. SCHADE. Yes, sir.
From MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
...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
Which parrallels very closely the language in Vattel's "Law of Nations" section 212
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens
... hey, just what are you trying to insinuate? ;)
> Anchor babies are the result of a judge conveniently
> ignoring the phrase “...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
As well as every president since at least 1948.
That’s not suprising. A person was being held as a slave as late as 1902 when the 13th Amendment had been ratified in 1865 because they “didn’t get the memo.”
Was that slave being held in the halls of Congress because that is where the testimony from the Census was being given in post #264.
The law often moves slowly.
So do some minds.
Yes, I agree with you that some minds do indeed move slowly.
Probably a waste of time, but if you truly don't understand us, here goes.
Many of us work with the law. We understand that the law, whatever its imperfections, is a process designed to do specific things. It has to be that for any semblance of objectivity, without which it is random chaos and cannot fulfill the critical role it has played in the development of Western civilization, Judeo-Christian civilization, or whatever else you choose to call it. It is the formality, transparency and rigor of the law, and the respect that engenders, that distinguishes its quality, good or bad, in whatever parts of the world you choose to look.
I've posted this before, but I think it illustrates the point nicely. It's a famous scene from “A Man for All Seasons.”
“William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ‘round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”
We respect the law and what it is designed to do. We therefore have no choice but to face its realities. Indeed, facing reality in any field of endeavor is a primary attribute of conservatism. And the legal realities here are clear. None of the cases brought to court to date meet the definitional standards necessary to go anywhere. From a legal perspective, they are a self-evident waste of time. That's why they have all been dismissed for similar reasons. That's why they all will be dismissed. No matter how passionately one may believe Obama is not eligible, one’s own personal belief does not constitute a legally actionable case. Nor should it. That would directly attack the objectivity the law requires to protect us all from its abuse.
I'm sure you don't believe it, but I read everything you folks cite. But again, conservatism is nothing if it is not about facing reality. And the reality is that the COLB Obama has placed on the Internet is identical to a valid form of documentation Hawaii provides upon request. The reality is that Hawaiian officials are under no legal obligation to protect a forgery they know is false. States routinely disavow fraudulent state documents. Hawaii has not done that. Indeed, the state has confirmed his Hawaiian birth. Simply refusing to acknowledge that does not constitute a meaningful legal basis for anything. And I have read Polarik’s work on the COLB. It's garbage. He doesn't have the professional background to be doing what he claims, he's been ripped apart by people who do, and he's not around anymore for obvious reasons. Believe it if you want, but again, it's not a meaningful legal basis for anything.
And as far as the two-parent NBC objection goes, simple reality rears its head again. The COLB everyone claims is a forgery establishes that Obama’s father is a non-citizen. He admitted that himself in his book. There's no fraud there. Everyone knew he had a non-citizen father before the election. It was a matter of public record. There's a reason no legal scholar, no state election official, no political opponent, no elector, nor Vice-President Cheney objected. There's a reason the Supreme Court has declined to accept the opportunity to review any of these cases. It's not because they're all fools or knaves or in on it. It's because, whatever you may think the Founding Fathers intended, it's considered a settled issue by now. So Apuzzo can write about Vattel all he wants, file all the cases he wants, and it's not going anywhere. Sorry, but it's not.
We get it that you don't like Obama. I didn't vote for him, and I hope he loses in 2012. But he is the President. We respect that fact, not his policies. We think this whole issue is irrational, and therefore ignoble in the vitriol it focuses on the law when it can't get its way, which it never will. I'm not covering up for anyone. I'm just honestly telling you this is a nonstarter that will never go anywhere. And to call judges traitors for doing what they are supposed to in upholding the law is wrong.
So that's who we are.
> Anchor babies are the result of a judge conveniently
> ignoring the phrase “...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
As well as every president since at least 1948.
That’s nice, thanks for sharing.
The Minor decision told us that the definition of natural born citizen was extraconstitutional. If it was somehow defined by the 14th amendment, seems like they had the perfect opportunity to say so. Wong reinforces that idea by not declaring the child in question to be a natural born citizen, which the Ankeny case admits despite claiming the decision gave them guidance to think otherwise. And the Ankeny opinion of Wong is toothless because Obama’s birth details are not legally established.
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh -- never mind.
The Minor decision told us that the definition of natural born citizen was extraconstitutional. If it was somehow defined by the 14th amendment, seems like they had the perfect opportunity to say so. Wong reinforces that idea by not declaring the child in question to be a natural born citizen, which the Ankeny case admits despite claiming the decision gave them guidance to think otherwise. And the Ankeny opinion of Wong is toothless because Obama’s birth details are not legally established.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
http://spotlight.vitals.com/2009/07/dr-chiyome-fukino-confirms-president-obamas-natural-citizenship/
The Attorney General of Hawaii, Mark J. Bennett, a Republican has confirmed that his office reviewed and approved Dr. Fukino’s news release statement on Obama’s birth status.
If and until the Ankeney decision is appealed to a higher court and unless it is reversed, it stands as the only specific legal opinion on Obama’s Natural Born Citizenship yet rendered.
From your link: ... Dr. West served the medical community in many other ways: as Kapi`olani Hospital’s Chief of Staff for a number of years, as president of the Hawaii Medical Association in 1963....
That biography of Dr. Rodney West that you linked to did not exist in January of 2009. I know, I looked all over Web then. It's part of the effort to re-write history or mislead the reader. You'll notice that it doesn't say when or how Dr. West played Chief of Staff at Kapi'olani hospital or that he retired in 1956. It's a written vagary to lie or to mislead the reader.
Here's an honest bio not tinged by political BS by the left. The screen shot below of Dr. West's bio was taken only hours after that women from Buffalo story broke where it states Dr West stopped delivering babies in 1956.
"And other things, he retired from the practice of medicine." Then in 1963, West became the president of the Hawaiian Medical Association. From 1975, and he founded and presided over the American College of Physician Executives.
There's actually a lot of evidence that it's a forgery.
First, McCain says it's fake. He didn't produce it. It surfaced when some guy sued McCain and submitted into evidence, claiming McCain was ineligible because he was born in Colon and not the canal zone. McCain's lawyers denied its authenticity.
Second, McCain claims to have been born on the base in the canal zone, and he privately showed his real BC to a Washington Post reporter, who says it confirms his story. His birth on the base was also announced in the local military paper, further corroborating McCain's story.
Yes. They weren't released by McCain, but rather, people who were trying to get him disqualified from the GOP primary.
|
> The only persons who aren’t “subject to the jurisdiction > thereof” are those with diplomatic immunity. Oh, really?! Let's dispel that little After-Birther myth right now!
“Indians ... although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more ‘born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children ... born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.” Elk v. Wilkins (1884) See FRANCIS PAUL PRUCHA, AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY IN CRISIS 343-44 (University of Oklahoma Press 1964) on the 14th Amendment’s non-application to Indian people. Also, an 1870 Senate report concluded that the 14th Amendment did not extend to Indian people, for they were not within the jurisdiction of the United States as the Amendment required. This non-inclusion of the American Indians was adjusted for by a Congressional action — the 1924 Citizenship ACT. Yeah, sorry After-Birthers! Congress just must KNOW something you don't (or at least what you After-Birthers just choose to ignore) ... AND ... while we're on the topic of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, let's look at a more MODERN piece of BIPARTISAN Legislation written to "redefine" “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to adjust the "Natural Born Citizen" Eligibility requirement for the office of the President:
To define the term `natural born Citizen' as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President.
|
That Indiana state court opinion doesn't stand as anything for the county. The case never went to trial on the merits. It's flawed in it's conclusion. It's not worth the paper it's written, and will not have any bearing in the cases that may come in the future or in the cases that are still active against Obama.
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.