Okay, so all we can say is that it wasn't happening within the public domain. Our basic point still stands.
If it really were a common opinion that a person born in the USA needed two citizen parents to be considered natural born, lots of pundits would have been making that argument in public before the election.
But they weren't. That's a pretty good indication that someone just decided to make it once it became clear that the born-in-Kenya story wasn't gaining any traction.
Well all you can prove is from what you can see on the net today, and thats problematic given the fact that HUGE volumes of information have been scrubbed from the net.
First of all, FreeRepublic hasn't been scrubbed, and every birther argument that gains any traction at all on the blogosphere gets posted here within minutes. So if it wasn't posted here, it's pretty darned unlikely it was anywhwere in the public domain.
Plus, if you suspect it was posted somewhere else and then scrubbed, that's what a wayback machine is for.
I know for dead certain I was talking to my mother in law about it all in the summer of 08 because we got into quite a rif over it, and part of my argument was that we didn’t know who this guy was, and whats a man with a Kenyan father doing running for POTUS.
So why weren't you making the argument in public? Why weren't you on the birther threads pointing out that it didn't matter where he was born? It's pretty hard to believe that you would be getting into passionate arguments in private about it but for some reason not making the same argument here.
What the HELL is the point of nitpicking this?
The point is that we have a legal system based on precedent. If you want to interpret the Constitution a certain way, you need to show that intepretation has some history, that you didn't make it up out of whole cloth.
The fact that NO ONE in public was interpreting "natural born citizen" to absolutely require both birth in the USA AND citizen parents before Nov. 2008 suggets it is a false interpretation that was made up by someone around that time.
WHAT
IS
YOUR
POINT
?
Hello?
Answer me these, if the political party engaging in this sort of behavior as it did with Obama, an organization seen to have ANTHORITY, and an OBLIGATION to do things legally DOES NOT DO IT, who do you refer that to?
Who has the authority to take that case up?
Who has the authority to bring it to which official body? At what level of Government?
Who has the authority to challenge it?
Which official body has that legal responsiblity to DEAL with it?
Answers: There ARE NONE.
So you are foisting the responsiblity onto the citizens, the posters at Free Republic to do this duty. With No authority to make claims, to refute claims, to deal with claims, to even bring legal actions to court regarding such claims??!??!?! We the people don’t even have STANDING to challenge it! Thats been proven over 60 times in courts across the country in the past two years.
WTF.
I am NOT buying your logic (if you can call the assinine crap you and LorenC are pulling logic at all).
We have found that multiple laws have been broken. We are also finding that the Court system is utterly unwilling or unable to deal with it.
THIS IS A WEAKNESS OF OUR SYSTEM, yet you seem to be blaming FReepers for somehow not doing enough, or not doing it in a timely enough manner?
Do NOT try to feed me that sort of Bull Sh!t. Do not try to feed ANY of us here that. We are doing what we can to be responsible citizens, and in that have come to find ourselves more or less powerless to AFFECT it. We talk about it, we discuss it, we investigate it, we make it public as much as we can, but we are still helpless to change it, other than at a voting booth in November every two years. And then we are given a few choices which may or may not do a damn thing to fix it.
No, your whole point is a Make Wrong Game.
That is your ONLY purpose. Make FReepers wrong, ‘they didn’t find bla bla bla, before bla bla bla, so therefore it wasn’t and never should be an issue, bla bla bla’.
You serve no purpose here.
The ONLY thing you are doing is playing a game, and one that has no possible winners. Even when the REAL current issue is smacking you in the face, all you want to do is sift through tens of thousands of posts on who knows how many websites to make a point that is IRRELEVANT to the issues we are facing today?
Give me a flippin break.
Go back to your playground and sand box, not only are you and LorenC not credible in what you are pointlessly trying to do, you make yourselves a part of the problems of the past instead of addressing our collective needs as Americans Citizens TODAY.
If you aren’t going to be a part of the solution, and instead pick the scabs of the past then ****off.
I recomend the zot.
July 1, 2008 and there were earlier threads as well:
Yes, I have seen that quoted before as the law of the land in 1961. Now it may well conflict with many assumptions about what a “natural born” citizen is, but it appears that according to the law prevailing in 1961 that even if Obama WAS born in Hawaii or any other US state, he was not a US citizen at birth because his father was not a citizen and with only one parent (his mother) as citizen she needed to have resided in the USA for “minimum ten years, five of which must be after the age of 16”..... it may be a very strange way for the law to have been written, to say that an natural born US citizen who is under the age of 21 may not give birth to a natural born US citizen if the father is not a US citizen, but isn’t that what the text of this law implies???? Are there any FReeper lawyers who care to give their analysis of the law prevailing in 1961 on the citizenship status of a baby born to a US citizen mother and a foreign citizen father??
“US Law very clearly states: ‘. . . If only one parent is a U.S. Citizen at the time of one’s birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for minimum ten years, five of which must be after the age of 16.’ Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. Citizen is a fact.
Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born. This means even though she had been a U.S. Citizen for 10 years, (or citizen of Hawaii being a territory), his mother fails the test for at-least-5-years- prior-to Barack Obama’s birth, but-after-age-16.”
108 posted on Tue Jul 01 2008 17:44:32 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by Enchante (OBAMA: “That’s not the Wesley Clark I knew!”)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2039352/posts?q=1&;page=108