Posted on 11/22/2008 9:08:58 PM PST by Polarik
Polarik has no reason to respond to your rude and crude remarks.
I wouldn’t.
You’re not a nice person.
Here is the link you posted to me:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38677
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2136816/posts?page=400#400
Here is the link you posted to Beckwith earlier which I didn’t see:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2136816/posts?page=381#381
Obviously, the link you gave me to follow was incorrect.
So you are gonna blame me for YOUR mistake?
You have responded to my remarks.
It’s a shame that a tireless archivist like yourself has chosen to defend a charlatan. Have you no morals? Your birth certificate conspiracy is unraveling. Have you seen these recent quotes from Janice Okubo?
— When we spoke to a spokeswoman for the Hawaii Department of Health, she said too much was being made of the difference between the so-called “long” and “short” forms.
“They’re just words,” said spokeswoman Janice Okubo. “That (what was posted on the Internet) is considered a birth certificate from the State of Hawaii.”
“There’s only one form of birth certificate,” she said, and it’s been the same since the 1980s. Birth certificates evolve over the decades, she said, and there are no doubt differences between the way birth certificates looked when Obama was born and now.
“When you request a birth certificate, the one you get looks exactly like the one posted on his site,” she said. “That’s the birth certificate.”
As for the theory that Obama’s original birth certificate might show he was foreign born, Okubo said the “Certification of Live Birth” would say so. Obama’s does not. Again, it says he was born in Honolulu. —
I saw the Politifact article. They lied about the DHHL website saying that they will accept a COLB now. You pointed out that Hawaii changed all of their websites between June 8 and June 18 to now include the COLB. Before then, they ONLY accepted long-form BCs. Hawaii is covering their a** here. End of story.
The COLB that is alleged to exist, but does not, and the image of it that is alleged to be genuine, but is not, represents a form that Hawaii introduced in Nov. 2001 (not in the 1980’s). It says so right on the COLB form.
No one on this planet has ever seen a real COLB for Obama because there is none.
It is also worthy of note that (a) Okubo does not know what Vital Records does or does not do, (b) Hollyfield misquoted her more than once, and (c) the last statement from Okubo is that “there is no way to tell what that is,” referring, of course, to the COLB “scan image.”
Besides, have what’s his/her face find one single shred of evidence that Hawaii actually produced this document. Janice Okubo never said anything to that effect. Plus Alvin Onaka trumps Janice Okubo.
He/she cannot produce anything since Hawaii never produced anything even closely resembling the piece of trash posted online.
Lest we forget, Factcheck is a part of the forgery scam, so anyone who references Factcheck is obviously clueless.
Everyone's a liar in your world. Politifact, FactCheck, now the State of Hawaii. And you make these allegations, as usual, with no proof. Everyone's lying, except you. What is in this for you? Why do you believe fellow conservatives are stupid enough to believe you?
The COLB that is alleged to exist, but does not, and the image of it that is alleged to be genuine, but is not, represents a form that Hawaii introduced in Nov. 2001 (not in the 1980’s). It says so right on the COLB form.
Oh, for the love of cheese and crackers, it clearly says it was revised in November of 2001, not introduced.
I'm not even going to continue going step-by-step with you. It is utterly pointless.
Lest we forget, Factcheck is a part of the forgery scam, so anyone who references Factcheck is obviously clueless.
The publication is Politifact, not Factcheck, (which was founded by the Annenbergs, friend of the Reagan and William Smith families and proud and loyal Republicans for years.) But you'll come up with some cockamamie reason why Politifact is not to be believed.
You are no expert. You are certainly not a PhD. Your report has been debunked by an actual PhD, with actual credentials, who knows how to write a concise report.
You do the conservative party no favors - and should you ever attach "Dr." or "PhD" to your name in a legal capacity, I will personally make it my business to see that you are prosecuted and brought to justice. I despise liars - and I hate charlatans.
For the love of conservatism, stop this nonsense. We have plenty of ammunition against Obama without weakening our movement with your claptrap.
Because he is a liar. There is no way around it. Now add in the fact that he manufactures evidence, ..., and what else can you call him?
hmmmmm......by your own words, you are stating the 'birthers' case re Obama.
No, the link wasn't incorrect. You wanted to know why WND sent experts to validate Obama's CoLB while others did not, and I suggest you ask him.
If you want a real answer rather than just play games, ask those that can provide a real answer.
Here's a place to start
link followed by:
Scroll down to the bottom of the page to email Joesph Farah
I received those cases and opinions from attorneys practicing in the federal courts system.
I will be forwarding your post to them for their comment and I promise I will reply to you and post their opinion in this thread when they reply. They usually reply to my emails within a day.
I do agree with your statement, "only a case dealing specifically with the issue can settle it for you and some others," although I would have put a period after the word "it."
The implication of your statement, however, is that you don't need, "a case dealing specifically with the issue...." I guess you have already made up your mind.
Are you an attorney?
Cheers . . .
You might find http://www.politijab.com a fruitful place to discuss this.
Personally, I would like a SCOTUS ruling on the issue (the likelihood of ever occurring is zero, due to the issue of standing) to settle the matter, but in the meantime, I have decided that it makes no sense to think that the State of Hawaii is participating in the kind of massive fraud it would have to be a part of if it were the case Obama was not born in Honolulu.
I am not one of those who automatically say that the concerns about his eligibility are not valid. And I don't say that now. What I do say is that the same reasons for which one can legitimately be wary of the online COLB apply to the wariness one ought to use with regard to "Polarik" and his theories.
I do not wish to get into battles with anyone. I am interested in the truth. I abhor the nastiness on both sides and will not participate in it. If you visit Politijab and register so that you can read everything, you may or may not be able to stomach the attitude of some people there. But others are civil and will not abuse your intelligence by insulting you and telling you that you are a nutcase. There are also other sites that explain the reasons for many people having concluded that the more likely scenario is that he was indeed born in Honolulu.
With regard to your private e-mail to me, this is an informal forum. The lack of perfection is generally understood to be a feature of this type of communication vehicle.
I am supportive of all reasonable attempts to get at the truth, but I cannot support anonymous, foul-mouthed posters whose claims are unverifiable. Believing such people is as bad as swallowing whole whatever the Anti-American in Chief offers.
Sincerely wishing you peace and a Joyous Fourth!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 654 (1898) states as follows:
The constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words 'citizen of the United States' and 'natural-born citizen of the United States.' By the original constitution, every representative in congress is required to have been 'seven years a citizen of the United States,' and every senator to have been 'nine years a citizen of the United States'; and '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.' Article 2, § 1. The fourteenth article of amendment, besides declaring that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside,' also declares that 'no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' And the fifteenth article of amendment declares that 'the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any state, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.'
The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that 'all persons born r naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.' Amend. art. 14. In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417, 422, 5 Sup. Ct. 935; Boyd v. U. S., 116 U. S. 616, 624, 625, 6 Sup. Ct. 524; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 8 Sup. Ct. 564. The language of the constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent, Comm. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. U. S., 91 U. S. 270, 274.
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 655 (1898) states as follows:
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: 'The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.' And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.
In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said: 'There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several states each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes.' 'There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.' 124 U. S. 478, 8 Sup. Ct. 569.
II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance—also called 'ligealty,' 'obedience,' 'faith,' or 'power'—of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king's allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,—as expressed in the maxim, 'Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,'—and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 661-662 (1898) states as follows:
In McCreery v. Somerville (1824) 9 Wheat. 354, which concernedt he title to land in the state of Maryland, it was assumed that children born in that state of an alien who was still living, and who had not been naturalized, were 'native-born citizens of the United States';
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 662-663 (1898) states as follows: (key passage)
In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: 'All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.' 'We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.' 1 Abb. (U. S.) 28, 40, 41, Fed. Cas. No. 16,151.
And again: 'The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born; and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance was born.' Kilham v. Ward (1806) Id. 236, 265.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 327 (1939) states as follows:
Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907. Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906 and her father was naturalized here in that year.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 349-350 (1939) states as follows:
The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 57 S.Ct. 461, 81 L.Ed. 617, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants.
Explanation: By Elg's father becoming a U.S. citizen by naturalization in 1906, Elg's mother received a derivative U.S. citizenship by being married to Elg's father.
Mathematical Equation:
Born to 2 U.S. Citizen Parents (+) Born in the U.S. Mainland = Natural Born Citizen of the U.S.
I archive stuff I find on the Net or that is sent to me in The Obama File, an opposition website. I am not encumbered by any requirement to be fair and balanced. I am obliged to avoid ugly rumors and anti-social expression.
I don't write the stuff. I cherry-pick it and archive it, unedited. The overwhelming number of items in the archive are from mainstream media sources and what I believe are reliable, if partisan, blogs. I make every attempt to provide attribution and/or links to the original source. Many of the items in the archive have multiple sources/links.
I have no personal opinions on this stuff. 98% of what's on my website, and what I post here comes from a source other than myself. The other 2% consists of my comments, usually for amplification or outrage, and is clearly identified by blue italics.
My purpose in posting here is to share the information I have archived on The Obama File and to mine for new/additional information.
Have I ever expressed an opinion here -- undoubtedly, but rarely. (I think).
I have what I have. If you have a better source of information I would update my website in a heartbeat.
But to express my personal opinion, or to give a damn about anyone else's personal opinion is a a waste of time and distracts from my mission. Opinion is just that -- opinion. I want a source. I want a link.
Now, I understand that there are people that want a place where they can engage in social discussion and speculation, and that's wonderful. I spend 6 to 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, at what I do and I just don't have time for it.
You can accept what I post here as valuable or crap, but unless you have a source/link that will evolve what I have to a higher level of correctness and completeness, respectfully, I'm just not interested.
You know what they say about opinions.
Re: 429 posted on Friday, July 03, 2009 7:14:25 AM by Beckwith
I draw the opposite conclusion: Born within the kingdom/country = natural born. Can’t be any clearer than it is in the text you posted. You actually make my case. Thanks.
Re: 430 posted on Friday, July 03, 2009 8:43:53 AM by Beckwith
Until a presidential campaign in which there is a contested candidate and a case at the Supreme Court, the issue will remain unresolved. Since you’re not interested in discussion, I will say no more to you.
You despise liars? Bwahahahahaha ... you maroon, you’re even lying to say you despise liars! How much does David Axelrod pay for the services of a whore like you? ... Or do you get you check from Soros?
You might want to read the pinged post, it addresses your repeated mistaken impression of Elg and Ark.
I do not agree that standing is the issue, it is the means by which the criminally complicit Roberts court and other feredal courts are avoiding direct dealing with the racially charged issue.
Thus obama is nothing more than an affirmative action hire unqualified and without proof of eligibility ... he is a racial appointment whose criminal behavior is an insult to black people in America. Worshipping his ability to remain in place despite his criminality only makes it worse.
Non-Sequitur purposely conflates native born and natural born, to twist the ruyling in the court ruling to fit the non-sequitur ‘only two forms of citizen, naturalized or natural born’.
I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at. Look at this quote he posted from the Ark decision: "Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king." If we accept that as true then that means that Obama is a natural born citizen, regardless of his father's citizenship, in that he was born in Hawaii and his father was not a diplomat of enemy alien. Right there that supports what I've been saying. They he quotes Justice Swayne: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together." Again, supports what I've been saying.
In the Elg case, only one parent is clearly identified as having U.S. citizenship. The mother's citizenship is never stated. Elg has natural born citizenship because she was born here, regardless of parent's status.
So where, exactly, is my impression of the Elg and Ark cases incorrect?
See #437 ... your purposeful conflating of native born and natrual born.
There is no difference. And neither decision says that there is.
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.