Posted on 01/05/2009 2:03:24 PM PST by autumnraine
Yes it does. Have you not even looked at it? It clearly states Honolulu as the place of birth.
Those who argue it isn’t legit claim it doesn’t give the specifics on location that one would find on the full form , such as hospital, thus, it is not valid. (for the record, I disagree and think some are really stretching.)
Yes, well, I agree with you that this is an absurd argument. How could the name of the hospital and attending physician possibly be relevant to his citizenship status? Of course, it is not.
-------------------- NO ARTICLE 2 THEN NO AMENDMENT 16 --------------------
Count yourself lucky. You didn't have to endure a full page of his prefabricated sophistry.
Great, then he should have no problem presenting a hard copy of this document to the joint session of Congress on January 9th, and to any court of law where his qualifications are being challenged.
But he won't for fear of perjury because that document has been altered and is a forgery.
Unless the hospital on the certificate is in Kenya and the attending physician is a Kenyan. Any college professor should know that -- even in Seattle.
Uh, Honolulu, Hawaii, is not in Kenya. Any idiot should know that.
If Congress, or a court, were to ask him to see it, I am sure he would show it to them. Thus far, this has not happened. It is also very unlikely to happen given the sheer implausibility of the notion that he was born anywhere other than Honolulu, Hawaii.
The son of a British subject is not a natural born American citizen either, regardless of where the child is born, but there appear to be lots of posters trying to erase that truth in order to fudge up a pass for their chosen almost black candidate. That son of a British subject could be, probably would be, a citizen, but would be the exact example of what the writers of the Constitution wanted ineligible by their specifying only natural born citizen need apply.
Show where it says that in the Constitution.
Prior to 1982, anyone requesting a certification of live birth and depositing a copy of their actual certificate of birth long form but not born in Hawaii would be issued a certifiction of live birth stating place of birth as Honolulu. It is instructive of the Obamanoids that they keep trying to use that deception on a site like FreeRepublic where more than mere leftist assertion, actual data, is common. More than one example of the pattern has been posted here int he last two months. [Do you, Polarik, or Lucy T, have access to that imagery from past threads or that long thread on which Polairk posted his final report on the forged COLB? Time to bury this lie with the documentation, and I don’t have access on this slow system I use.] The Obamanoids don’t expect anyone to question their lying. It must be frustrating for these Axelrod sycophants.
The term was well understood to mean American citizen parents by men like John Jay, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson. A father of foreign loyalty was to be avoided, thus the inclusion of the phrase 'natural born citizen'. In Jay's letter to Washington and Jefferson's writing of the Virginia state Constitution, a man of divided loyalties through his father was not a natural born citizen. Quotes showing their understanding of the term have been posted numerous times on threads where you have posted, so we may assume you've read them. [MHGinTN, Beckwith, would one of you post those quotes again for this professional deceiver?]
Why do you, professor, continue to try that deceit? Show us where the term 'arms' is defined in the Constitution. Show us where the meaning of 'Church' is explained in the Constitution. Show us where the term press is defined in the Constitution. You cannot, but the understanding of those terms has Historical context which may be readily consulted. That you don't like the meaning drawn from History is very 'liberal' of you, Oregonian.
So what kind of citizen would he be? Clearly the 14th Amendment makes him a citizen from brith. And clearly he is not naturalized. So what legal category would his citizenship fall under if not natural born?
That son of a British subject could be, probably would be, a citizen, exact example of what the writers of the Constitution wanted ineligible by their specifying only natural born citizen need apply.
Please cite the specific passage in the Constitution where sons of British subjects are excluded from natural born citizenship status.
That is simply not true. Stop making stuff up.
I defy you to find a single instance in which one of these men states that the American-born son of a British subject is excluded from natural-born citizenship status.
Until you find such a quote, it is you who is guilty of idiotic misdirection.
What is not true about it, Obamanoid?
Everything.
I also suggest you cut out the name calling. It only makes you look childish.
In typical leftists style, you never answer any questions posed to you but continue to repeat your own idiotic queries. There are two types of common citizenship, naturalized or born here. But these are not natural born citizens according to what the term meant when the frmamers included it in the Constitution. It is interesting that you Obama worshippers keep tryng to sell this lie that there are only two types of citizens. Is it related to your desire to have anchor babies build the leftists numbers, or is it a flaw in your leftists’ agenda to amnesty the tens of millions of illegal invaders?
It must frustrate your leftist mind that you cannot demand respect for your leftist sycophancy at FreeRepublic and get your way. I will name you as I see fit and let readers decide the balance.
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.