Posted on 04/28/2011 4:14:46 PM PDT by Music Producer
No. I am not referring to the documents SeeBS faked. Bush actually unsealed his military records and they showed that he performed his military service adequately. Even after this action, the left continued to insist that Bush got special treatment during his service and that the official military records were "faked."
If they lie to violate the constitution, which Roosevelt and Wilson did, it was actually worse than lying for personal benefit. If you think that Obama is the only one who is shamelessly unethical and power-mad, you haven't read much about either of these men.
Must have!
Unfortunately, there have been worse names than that...
Sorry, but that is not the way the HIPAA law works. You can write a book describing every detail of your hospitalization and surgery, but without your written permission to authorize disclosure, the hospital can't say a thing. Silly, but that's the way the law is written.
My assertion is based on how most plea bargains work.
You're asserting that there exists some sort of conspiracy involving 0bama, the state of Hawaii, a hospital there and possibly a large number of people, starting in 1961, to claim that 0bama is ineligible to serve as president.
You then compound that by suggesting, without any proof, that a spectacular event occurred in a court case involving someone who volunteered himself to be a test case concerning the same.
I'm asserting an event that probably took place, and using background garnered by studying how most criminal cases are resolved in the USA (something like 80% to 85% of all criminal cases end in plea bargains). You're asserting that two grand conspiracies took place. Which sounds more credible?
I think you're right to use quotes. Wasn't it alleged that the documents, although duly filed by the proper personnel, were completed untruthfully under political coercion? That is "fudged", more than "faked." I suppose your point stands that minds are hard to change on either side.
If Obama had nothing to hide, why would he risk the suspicion of having the birth certificate be released through the White House instead of directly from the hospital in Hawaii?
Indeed, but we're supposed to be better than that. As far as we are concerned the birther issue should be off the table. It is over, resolved... even if we don't like the outcome, the facts are the facts. Now that 0bama has so graciously removed that weapon from his arsenal we can hammer him on his complete and total ineptness in handling the presidency.
I would include Johnson, Ford, Clinton and Obama.
I disagree. This pdf doesn't really answer anything, as I see it. It's true that many of the objections raised seem spurious. I was impressed by the fact that it's layered, but as a naif in these matters, I had to accept the notion that scanning could account for it. I mean, I do search Google Books. In fact the observation that "none" was split into two layers argues for it being a scanning artifact, since the "e" was darker.
But what about that background? Surely this is not original! Look at the way it's melded around three edges with the apparent cut at the binding. This is clearly, by gestalt perception, not a photostatic image of some physical document. But why not? Why alter the background? I remain very disturbed by this particular point.
“It is over, resolved... even if we don’t like the outcome, the facts are the facts.”
If that weren’t so pitiful, it would be hilarious!
First, the image itself is not even physically possible. I dare anyone to produce a scan of a single sheet from a bound volume that looks anything like that. It is not a scan, copy, or photograph of anything real—and Obama knew that before he released it.
And, second, how could it be “over” when nobody has brought the “natural born citizen” requirement to the forefront? He’s not eligible, and he knows it.
Now that The Donald is satisfied with the level of free publicity he received about the birth certificate, it appears we need another “celebrity” to shout about the NBC clause.
From what I could see, it looks like this is a scan of a document that probably no longer exists in physical form. Most states no longer keep paper records of things like birth certificates anymore simply because it is too much trouble. I know that in the case of my children, both born after 2008, there is no paper birth certificate per se. When I requested a certified birth certificate for both of them, I got an officially-stamped piece of paper that had the information that would have been recorded on a birth certificate. The document 0bama presented looks like it was originally stored on microfiche, so at best we'll get a picture of what the original certificate actually looked like, but not the original piece of paper.
Please cite which provision of federal law that would make 0bama not qualify as a natural born citizen. The US government doesn't make a distinction when it comes to citzenship outside of a birth citizen or a naturalized citizen. Do you have evidence that 0bama was naturalized? Because outside of the 14th amendment, someone born in the USA, to a mother who was a citizen and thus here legally, is a citzen.
Both parents need to be US citizens at the time of birth for the child to be natural born.
That's what I want to know. What part of the law says this?
And this, from the author of the 14th Amendment:
John Bingham stated in the House of Representatives in 1862: Who are natural-born citizens but those born in the Republic? […] [P]ersons 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.[13] He reiterated his statement in 1866: 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.[14]
U.S. Code: Title 8, 1401 doesn't mention this at all.
Sorry man, we just have to accept it. Way back when this first started, I wanted it to be true. I prayed it would be true. I hoped it would be true. That's how much I wish it was true. But there's so much overwhelming evidence that it is not true that we can't continue believing it anymore.
“We rightfully dismiss such people as charlatans.”
Referring to Vattel is comparable to being “loony left”?
Boiling it down to the key point:
[quote]
... primary source: Emmerich de Vattel’s “Law of Nations.” In “Law of Nations,” Vattel defined a natural born citizen as one who is born on our soil to citizen parents... Barack Obama’s father was never a US citizen, so it doesn’t matter if Junior had been born in the Oval Office, swaddled in the American flag, and nursed by Betsy Ross. He has been constitutionally ineligible since the day he was born, and he has already lost that argument before it is ever publicly started...”
[unquote]
[unquote]
“Part of me still thinks and hopes that Trump is simply biding his time with the evidence that Obama just handed him on a silver platter...”
Doubtful I’d say. The radio/FoxNews circuit appears to be roped in now.
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.