Posted on 09/16/2010 10:33:25 PM PDT by STARWISE
The very least that poster should do is write in and explain why they did it...it was evidently to show that the original footprint may have had it’s origin on a babyguide type of website. That much, I would have understood.
To remain silent, is cowardly.Can’t blame the Mods, the poster simply asked for the removal of the image, and the Mod complied with the request.
God bless Maj. Gen. Vallely
Obama claims that Obama Sr. was his father. But...Without the long form birth certificate we can't know for certain.
Post #45
MUST read in its entirety
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2590828/posts?page=45#45
__________________________
I know that many poster’s here do not want to believe it but the bottom line is that in Obama’s case, if the controlling court record finds that he was born in Hawaii, he will be held eligible to hold the office—if the record is Kenya, he is not eligible. That simple.
(There is no doubt in my view, that the clear record at present demonstrates that he was in fact born in Kenya—however the ultimate Constitutional decision will depend on a Court record so a careful legal job needs to be done obtaining and introducing admissible evidence to support that factual view.)
~ ~ ~ ~
Thank you very much for your legal insight, David, .
I pray the truth comes out and the official and viable individual and/or class and approach, with standing, in which that will happen occurs .. and soon.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that 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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
The decision does not address Obama's birth circumstances and so can't be used to either prove or disprove his citizenship status. (I'm sure you know that but thought you'd give it another try anyway.)
Only if you think one parent or the other must dominate.
See also 49!!!
Ditto. I just want to make sure the blue print was the fake and not the other way around. Not that we'll ever know who it belongs to...
Without DNA, we can't know for certain.
Good point. But...Am I correct that there is sometimes a difference between what is legal fatherhood under the law and DNA fatherhood?
The context doesn't change the definition, except that you didn't include all of it. After that part that says, "For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts," it says, "It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens." They don't say that they can resolve the doubts, just that there's no reason to try as they have a defintion for which there is no doubt. If they didn't have such a definition, then they would have to figure out how to resolve an alternate definition.
The decision does not address Obama's birth circumstances and so can't be used to either prove or disprove his citizenship status.
Sorry, but you're wrong. This does address Obama's birth circumstance in that the definition for which there is no doubt precludes Obama from being a natural born citizen. What you don't seem to understand is that Minor v. Happersett was argued well after the ratification of the 14th amendment. The significance is that if the courts thought it redefined natural born citizenship, this would have been the perfect opportunity for them to say so. It would have been easy for them to say the 14th amendment solved whatever doubts they have, but instead, they tell us quite clearly that it does not, for the only definition of NBC with no doubt is defined OUTSIDE of the Constitution.
“...so a careful legal job needs to be done obtaining and introducing admissible evidence to support that factual view.”
I have been studying the OIP Opinion letter that Hawaii has sent me and others time and again when we have requested records deemed to be bundled with Obama’s vital records. It can be viewed here: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:EqOmX2_Y4S8J:hawaii.gov/oip/opinionletters/opinion%252090-23.pdf+definition+%22tangible+interest%22+hawaii&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgIuNLE8YJZlyDI6vSJ5z4c-Htl29mfgyR-ux77P_lMTcHsI27-VUrvGozRX0-doJoaNO9PJjfI8UN9cJOgIii-HKGF0eceAjwvtx8rloknkB1qXwD6wT5piU0KInIiyCI5uX3R&sig=AHIEtbSYG2T0WLBLGPX19cbXAamtEPCcWw
It says: “Those who don’t stand in the relationship to the registrant required by section 338-18(b), Hawaii Revised Statutes, may inspect a particular vital statistic record if the DOH is satisfied that the information is “necessary for the determination of personal or property rights.”
This means there is a path for an ordinary citizen or member of the military to demonstrate tangible interest in Obama’s vital records. People have been asking to view them for the wrong reason. Here is the download link for the application for certified copies: http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/pdf/birth.pdf
A person must list a valid reason for requesting a vital record, and they must demonstrate a tangible interest in that record. Because there is no SCOTUS approved definition for a natural born citizen—viewing Obama’s record to determine whether he is one or not, is not a valid reason. Even if it were released to a person, it would not determine whether or not he was a natural born citizen without SCOTUS intervention.
***A PERSON REQUESTING TO SEE OBAMA’S VITAL RECORDS MUST STATE THAT THEY WANT TO VERIFY THAT HE MEETS THE CONSTITUTIONAL AGE REQUIREMENT.***
There is no dispute no confusion over what the Constitutional age restriction means. If Obama was 34, a soldier could refuse to follow his orders knowing they are “palpably illegal” as the Lakin judge said was the requirement. ‘Palpably’ means someone with the ‘commonest of knowledge’ could determine it was an illegal order. It is a soldier’s right to refuse a palpably illegal order therefore a soldier has a tangible interest in accessing Obama’s vital records. A soldier’s enlistment contract states it is their right to refuse an illegal order and that would be proof of tangible interest.
Furthermore, the Patriot Act allows the President to issue a wiretap on a U.S. citizen for 15 days without a warrant.
The Fourth Amendment states that is a U.S. citizen’s personal right to be secure from unreasonable search, etc.. However, if the president was not eligible because he did not meet the age requirement, a person would not be secure from unreasonable search and seizure, etc...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/
A personal right includes the right to privacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rights.
Therefore, every U.S. citizen has a tangible interest in accessing Obama’s vital records for the purpose of verifying he meets the Constitutional age requirement.
People have been asking to view his vital records for an irrelevant reason. The HDOH expects a valid reason to be listed. Verifying Obama’s ‘Date of Birth’ is a valid reason.
In fact, because Obama’s vital records have almost certainly been amended—he could fail to meet the age requirement for lack of a credible birth record.
If using this reason to demonstrate ‘tangible interest’ resulted in producing his birth records, they could then be used to argue a case that would define “natural born citizenship” in front of SCOTUS.
Anyway, for what it’s worth—I believe we’ve all been approaching this the wrong way. That’s my .02¢.
Could be true .. do you know if this approach has
been attempted ?
For the love and preservation of America, how long ... how much longer !!!????
No, I don’t know if anyone’s tried this approach. I didn’t even know there was a path to accessing his records without an approved relationship. In fact, I never hear about any of these incompetent lawyers trying to directly apply for a copy of Obama’s vital records. Of course that doesn’t surprise me because I don’t really trust any of them.
The DOH only accepts cashier’s checks and money orders. I plan on getting two money orders tomorrow and applying for the vital records of ‘Barack Hussein Obama II’ and ‘Barrack Houssein Obama II.’
After reading the Lakin ruling, it’s evident that Obama’s vital records are likely in under Barrack Houssein Obama II. that’s the name used in a legal ruling, whoever typed it up must have seen it written like that somewhere.
And what is likely “embarrassing” is that the vital records indicate a foreign birth. Not illegal since there is no legal definition for natural born citizen, but embarrassing since he lied about it.
They are $10 per certified copy. I would love if someone else would give it a try with me if you have the $20 to spare... But regardless, I am going to give it a shot.
Just pulled from the web a presentation that Arizona i.e. Gov. Brewer should challenge the eligibility authority of the POTUSA to act against Arizona. It seems Arizona would have ‘standing’ for such a challenge. Any one know about this?
Greta says he was born in Hawaii so end of discussion. (sarc)
Bless you, for your perseverence! You have
been dogged. Keep us posted .. ;)
thanks starwise, i will=)
Well put!
It is his fathers citizenship which makes Obama illegitimate to the office he holds. That’s why they keep talking about mommy.
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.