--> "The document you posted recently (was it only yesterday?). That I said I think is authentic. Maybe you could post it on this thread?"
He could be correct.
Posted on 01/26/2011 5:57:29 AM PST by Reaganite Republican
--> "The document you posted recently (was it only yesterday?). That I said I think is authentic. Maybe you could post it on this thread?"
He could be correct.
Do you know how the BO campaign got America to believe the birth certificate image was for real, legally? ...Political advertising!
The ‘Fight the Smears’ web page with the image of a birth document is a political advertisement and conforms with U.S. Code 441.d, Publication and distribution of statements and solicitations. This code section deals with campaign funding, reporting and other parameters but does not require the material to be truthful by the person advertising. Political advertising is legal even if the advertiser does not tell the truth. In Edenfield v. Fane (91-1594), 507 U.S. 761 (1993), the Supreme Court said this in regard to the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and advertising;
“But the general rule is that the speaker and the audience, not the government, assess the value of the information presented.”
The campaign threw up an eye-catching wizardry of a political advertisement displaying graphics for visual impression, displaying statements of impression such as ‘native born’ and the candidate’s status as a ‘citizen by the 14th Amendment’ and solicitations of impressions to ‘donate now’ and tell others, all for the truth about the candidate.
The state of Hawaii has not ever stated that the online image was issued by them as the ‘issuing authority’ of a genuine ‘identification document’. The political ad by the campaign did not provide any further information verifying that the image came from the Hawaii Department of Health, Vital Records. The original online newspaper and fact checking organizations (L.A. Times, Daily Kos, Annenberg Political FactCheck, Politifact) who received the image from the campaign said they received the image from the campaign.
So therefore, the online image of the birth document means nothing...
...except that many many Americans were duped into believing the image was for real including our own state and national public officials!
http://jbjd.org/2011/01/03/de-coder-rings-1of2/
Everyone,
Let your state and national representatives and senators know this too!
Any other questions?
There you have the entire Natural Born Citizen argument.
Now enter the "Birthers," who rightly point out that Obama has not proven Hawaiian Birth. We cannot prove that he was foreign born. He cannot prove that he is Hawaiian born.
Which brings us back to the fundamental importance of Article II, and the question, "Can a dual citizen be a Natural Born Citizen?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQm91-w-uYs
Bergs case rests in part on the Indonesian citizenship Obama gained when he was adopted by Lolo.
Only an obot would dispute that glaring fact. And yes, it IS a fact.
“Can a dual citizen be a Natural Born Citizen?”
No.
See this article by Collins from the time of Chester A. Arthur. After reading this, Arthur may well have made the final decision to burn all of his documents before his death. Which in fact he did do.
High five!
LOL
Americans bought an advertisement campaign... LOL
Makes ya want to scream doesn’t it?
That's very nice, but it has nothing to do with the argument that Obama can't be president because his father wasn't a US citizen.
Yes. Doesn't that have to be the rule? Otherwise, we cede control over our own candidates to the laws of other countries.
Look, the eligibility of someone to be President must be based on our laws, not on the laws of another nation. Otherwise, you give other nations a veto power over who can run for President. Suppose Palin wins the nomination, and Iran passes a law declaring her an Iranian citizen. That makes her a dual citizen, and hence....ineligible?
The most you could do is make a so-called "dual citizen" ineligible if, under the citizenship laws of the U.S., that person could also be considered a citizen of another country. But you just can't have a "no dual citizen" law, or other nations will have a field day messing with us.
Sorry, there's no way that is true. Either you have a faulty memory, or you ladies are lying. I don't know which.
No one, repeat, no one, prior to the Fall of 2008, claimed that natural born status required two citizen parents. Period.
Why did no know bring up the two-citizen parent requirement when Spiro Agnew was a vice presidential candidate? Or better yet, Michael Dukakis? Both men had at least one non-citizen parent.
Or better yet, how come not a single person raised the issue until AFTER Obama was elected? It was both well-known that he was running AND that his father wasn't a citizen. And yet, no one thought that might be a problem until after he was elected.
Sorry, ladies. Your story just doesn't pass the smell test.
------------------------------------------------------------
"No one, repeat, no one, prior to the Fall of 2008, claimed that natural born status required two citizen parents. Period.
Really?
I see your still stuck on the big lie there curiosity. [1][2]. You've clearly got a severe case of revisionisthistory-itis
The two citizen parent argument was discussed in the public arena in the Summer of 2008 (that's prior to the Fall) regarding Barry. Further, the two citizen parent argument was discussed in the public arena in the Spring of 2008 with regards to McCain.
All one has to due, is Google: two citizen parents "natural born citizen" between the dates of Jan 1, 2008–Aug 24, 2008 [the day prior to the DNC nomination] gives (according to Google) "About 21,900 results" with many familiar sites listed. [Edit: Now the results are 21,500]
In fact, add "obama" and remove "mccain" from the search results and you'll see people were discussing this issue prior to June 2008, which is when it appears the discussions involving Barry, two citizen parents and "Natural Born Citizen" really took off.
Using "-mccain obama two citizen parents "natural born citizen"" and "Jan 1, 2008–May 31, 2008" gives 761 results. [Edit: now gives 740 results]
FURTHERMORE...the two citizen parent definition was reiterated by many in government over the years. For example:
| John Bingham, "father" of the 14th Amendment, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, REAFFIRMED the definition known to the framers by reiterating Vattel's definition...not once, but TWICE during Congressional discussions of Citizenship pertaining to the upcoming 14th Amendment! "All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians." (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).
“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))" |
No Congressman offered up a counter argument, EITHER TIME, to Congressman Bingham's reiterating the two citizen parent definition for Natural Born Citizen. They ALL knew what it meant.
"THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (A case on citizenship and domicile. Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel six (6) times by name, and "law of nations" ten (10) times.) SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel) |
It isn't.
I am sure that Team Obama researched the Arthur case very thoroughly before they decided to try and end-run Article II. We have lived through an anti-constitutional coup. I fear that all that is left to us in the short term is damage control.
Ironically, the Constitution Team Obama violated now protects him!
Thank you.
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President...”
See the word “OR”. Yea, thats a differentiation.
Another Freeper, LorenC, has already done that. He found not a single example of a thread dating from before the election making the argument. I checked his work and found it to be accurate.
I am certain it was discussed here before the fall of 2008.
I'm afraid your memory is failing you, my dear, because it simply wasn't.
I don’t remember exactly when Berg and Donofrio first filed their lawsuits but I beleive think at least one of them may have been filed before September 2008
That would be Berg, whose lawsuit is solely based on Obama's birth place and does not make the two-citizen-parent argument.
But the word "native" doesn't appear in the passage, so how can the latter possibly be making a distinction "natural born" and "native born?"
Your scenario explains Barak Obama’s 1971 Christmas visit.
I believe that the Dunhams paid off Barak Obama to adopt/re-adopt Barry back. That it was necvessary to reorganize Barry’s “paperwork.”
There is absolutely no other explanation for Barak’s visit.
Now, here’s the mystery. Why would Senior fly halfway across the world to make his only visit to his son at this moment in time? Remember, this was in the era before the deregulation of the airlines. Round-trip airplane tickets from Kenya to Hawaii must have cost a small fortune even by American standards — much less third-world Kenyan standards. The Dunhams surely paid for the airline tickets. We know they paid for an apartment in their building for the month that Senior was in town, and were undoubtedly providing him with some walking-around money.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!The sad truth is Senior spent most of his time partying with with his old snack bar buddies from the University of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie and Pake Zane.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How about those the social events ol’ Neil recalls the happy family attending?
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.