Posted on 07/21/2009 3:42:26 PM PDT by real_patriotic_american
Now you are just playing stupid to be stubborn and try to get a rise out posters ... Marshall cited Vattel’s defintion in Marshall’s ruling. I’m through with you tonight.
The agent changed Obamas file???
which agent? which file?
And while your at it Mr. President, show us your Occidental College records where you enrolled as Barry Soetoro and as a foreign student.
Great post.
The issue is not nationality or even citizenship, it is whether Barack Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, aka Barry Dunham; aka Barry Obama meets the hightest standard of natural born citizen. But we understand why you would wan tot oblur the requirements for the affirmative action figure liar-in-chief.
See what I mean, it is an obamanoid/liberal game.
Let’s play it a few ways since it’s a hypothetical.
1) All the guys admit to not wearing a condom and to having sex with her and they all admit that they could be the one.
2) None of the guys will admit to being the father.
And then there’s an angle on the hypothetical (with a change in initial conditions):
3) The woman was the victim of a rape by a foreigner but nothing else changes (birth by US citizen woman on American soil).
4) The woman truly doesn’t know who the father is (because she was blind drunk) but other people swear it’s a foreigner because they saw them together. (you can also tweak this one by having the foreign male claiming paternity even though the woman denies it)
I bring this up in a way because the whole issue of ‘legitimacy’ used to be applied to any child born out of wedlock but our ideas about these things have clearly changed over the last few decades. But it’s still a useful exercise to examine it.
My hypothetical isn’t about Obama.
There are other sources out there. Google them.
Remember, Ann was their only child and Barry was their only grandchild. The idea that Ann and her parents broke off their relationship over the marriage is not supported by any evidence.
I agree, and I don't think it likely that they broke off their relationship, and I never asserted that.
Rather, I think it's plausible that the relationship grew strained and Ann didn't want to be so close to either her parents or husband. The most pluasible interpretation of the facts is that she just wanted to get away from everyone. What other possible reason would she have to go to Seattle?
To the contrary, I think it very likely that her parents were in fact paying her bills in Seattle, since she had no other apparent source of support.
I wouldn't rule it out, but there's nothing to rule out the possibility that she paid her bills with a part time job.
I have not contended that Obama Jr. was born in Kenya.
Most people obcessed with this birth certificate controversy fervently believe he was.
Reasonable speculation would suggest he was born in Hawaii, given the facts that his parents were UH students in 1960-1961, that her parents lived in Honolulu and I believe the newspaper birth announcements are genuine.
That's more than reasonable speculation. It's preponderance of evidence.
The birth announcements gave the address of a UH professor in the Hawaii Kai area, which I think is probably where Obama, Sr. was living during the summer before classes started back up. I have serious doubts as to whether Obama Sr. and Ann ever set up house together; perhaps they did for a brief period immediately after the marriage.
I agree with you.
However, the notion that Obama Jr. was born in Hawaii is only speculation, however reasonable, because he refuses to provide the evidence in any legal proceeding.
Please name a single US president to have provided such evidence.
There are less likely possibilities that we cannot exclude, such as being born in Washington or over the border in Canada or at sea.
Scenarios of a Canadian or at-sea birth are so implausible that any reasonble person can easily dismiss them.
Or even Kenya, as unlikely as that appears to me. We know the existence of a Hawaiian birth certificate does not preclude the possibility of birth elsewhere, at least without examining the information on the face of the long-form birth certificate,
Not true. A short-form birth clearly lists the place of birth.
given the peculiarities of Hawaii law and procedures of birth certificates at that time.
What peculiarities?
And we have the strange appearance of Ann and the newborn infant Barry showing up in Seattle apparently in late August 1961 or thereabouts.
I'm not sure why you believe this to be so strange, given that she had lots of friends in Seattle.
Nevertheless, even though the facts suggest it is likely he was born in Hawaii, I find it offensive that a candidate for the highest office in our republic feels that he does not have to provide any evidence of his constitutional eligibility beyond his own signature on a piece of paper.
Can you name a single candidate for office who has done anything more than that?
We deserve more from our highest public servant. When John McCain was challenged in a legal proceeding on a similar issue, he simply submitted his birth certificate as evidence into court.
Not true.
That is the type of openness we expect from someone who wants to be the most powerful person in our land.
Then work to pass a law requiring candidates to present birth certificates to some legal authority. I would support such a law. With regard to Obama, it's a moot point now, as there is no legal obligation for him to present anything to anyone.
As I said, an objective assessment of the facts suggests he was likely born in Hawaii. But the fact that he is defending so many lawsuits in so many different jurisdictions asserting various legal theories using procedural defenses is itself a fact that should be taken into account, and that tends to make the less likely theories of his birth more likely.
If he's got a suit filed against him, he has to respond. The simplest way to get a suit against you dismissed is to respond on grounds related to standing or jurisdiction.
And I can tell you, anyone who thinks defending all these suits against Obama and the DNC, even on procedural grounds, in these different jurisdictions is not expensive is not a lawyer and is not familiar with law firms or civil litigation.
Lawayers often work for free to help their politician friends. Also, lots of these routine briefs would be covered under retainer, so there's no incrimental cost to Obama.
LOL. So you're telling me the questionare requires the applicant to list all the nicknames he's used in his entire life? Get real.
Also, let me just reiterate. I want Obama out of office right now. He is the worst thing that ever happened to this country and I don't even care if we have to fabricate a fake birth certificate ourselves to accomplish this. I just want him out. I deem him that serious a threat to the future of our nation.
So, don't give me your BS insinuations.
But I disagree with some of the other freepers here that those being skeptical about the whole birth ceritificate thing have some evil agenda. I think they have just examined it and see it as a losing proposition and that's a fair point. If it does us more harm in the long run than good we have to question whether it needs to be pursued. There's nothing wrong with discussing it anyway.
And personally, I have yet to see any convincing evidence that he was born elsewhere. I do find it very curious why they would provide a COLB instead of a proper birth certificate. But before I come up with a bunch of wild scenarios about what's going on, I would prefer to see the birth certificate first. That's reasonable.
Then once we see his BC then we can work the angles that his father wasn't a citizen thus he (BO) doesn't qualify as natural born. But I think that would be a tougher sell to the public. I question whether the average person would perceive him to be illegitimate if he was born on American soil because his father is Kenyan. Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. I just don't know. And it does matter what the average Joe thinks.
Depends. Did she write in a the father one of the 21 US horney guys or the one foreign exchange student? If she duped the foreign kid, then Junior is up a creek because he will have dual citizenship and loyalty to another country even if he never met papa. If she named the US kid with the rich daddy then there’s going to be DNA testing out the wahzoo and most conveniently tests results will likely get rich kid out of a sticky situation and a judge will strike his name from the BC. If she named the poor kid who is the bench warmer, then no questions will ever be asked and they’ll live happily ever after and maybe see Junior in the Oval Office.
Tell me, if you were to put this list in order of priority from one to ten, what would it look:
- Stopping Socialized medicine.
- Pushing the government out of the private sector.
- Keeping missile defense moving forward (by this I mean not selling out the the Russians).
- Strengthening the US dollar.
- Frantically tromping the brakes on new spending.
- Getting the porkulus repealed.
- Spreading and encouraging Liberty in the world.
- Trying to populate Congress with something other than RINOs and Democrats.
- Push for real energy independence.
- Making sure the President was born in Hawaii before growing up in the a world of Leftists.
The last point is hardly the only battle. The question is whether or not it's the most effective one.
What's wrong with the COLB? It clearly lists the place of birth, its contents are certified by the State to be true, and it's good enough for the State Department to get a passport. What more do you need?
Thank you for your reply.
Now, I have to question this. Let's say the kid has grown up without ever knowing his father was a foreigner. The kid has never thought of himself as anything other than an American citizen and in his own heart and mind he is completely loyal to only the USA. How can anybody realistically claim he has loyalty to another country?
And I think in my scenario, what gets put on the birth ceritificate under father is 'Unknown'. So, according to the official document the child has an unknown father. I only threw the football team with the one foreigner in there to cloud the issue properly. If it's unknown, can we call into question the child's citizenship and/or loyalty?
Okey dokey. Here's Sun Yat-Sen's Hawaiian BC. http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/hawaiian-birth-certificate-its-a-fake
Well, I was unaware of this. I've never seen one. I'm just saying... I think I am a fairly intelligent person with brief spells of rationality. I don't think of myself as a right wing lunatic or anything. I don't do conspiracies. I'm definitely not on anybody's side here but my own. I hate everybody pretty much equally, yourself and every other poster on this thread included. But I have never heard of a COLB. When I saw that thing the first time I was like 'well that doesn't look like any birth certificate I ever saw'. That's all. It's not the document that gets filled out when the child is born, this is clear. Or things have changed an awful lot in the States since I was last there.
Is it ok if I have never seen one? Does that disturb you? Does it piss you off somehow? I'm sorry about that, fellow (or whatever you are).
And I don't need anything except for my country not to be ruined by some socialist sh1thead running amok in the White House. If he's a natural citizen so be it. I still want him out of the office though.
The baby born on us soil to an
American Citizen is a US citizen.
If unwed at time of birth to decide if a child had two USC parents I would guess one would apply standards for passing citizenship by father to a child born outside (and outside of wedlock) of the US. The father must be a citizen. There must be clear and convincing proof of a blood relationship with the child. He must acknowledge the child under oath (or have a competent court declare such)and agree to provide financial support until the child is 18 years old.(unless the father is dead) The child must also be legitimized under laws of residence of the father before the child is 18.
see 8 USC 1409
Our founding fathers.
Ok. Well what we have here though is 'citizen' singular. Not plural. As in parent (i.e. mother- which you're always going to have present at the birth- no getting around that one) and not parents.
I guess if you think about it you can see where I am going. Here in this example, all that is needed is the woman to be an American citizen and the father to be unknown in order for the child to be perceived as natural born.
Let's say it (the question of where the child's father has been born) is never drawn into question (for the sake of argument) during the child's life and the child really doesn't have a clue who his father is but his mother suspects there is a small chance it could be that Mexican guy she slept with in Acapulco that time (or whatever). Would the child be able to run for POTUS? If the public found out the mother had slept with the pool boy in Acapulco 9 months prior to the child's birth, would it be reasonable of the public to demand some sort of proof that the father wasn't Mexican? Would the child's loyalties even be an issue?
What I'm digging at here is to find out what our perceptions are about what makes a person a legitimate citizen or not. This has to be done in an example not about Obama in order for us to be a little bit objective about it. Then once we figure out how we perceive this question and its possible answers we can begin to see how it relates to the President and how the public will perceive this whole thing and what is reasonable for someone to question and what not.
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.