Posted on 07/21/2009 3:42:26 PM PDT by real_patriotic_american
In a quest that is seen as wacky, way out there and as bitter partisan politics by some,the issue of Obama not showing his birth certificate to prove he is a naturalized American citizen continues. Is this really just some conspiracy theory along the lines of 9/11 truthers and alien cover ups? At first glance it seems like it. But surprisingly many American’s seem to actually believe there is some possibility of truth in this claim that Obama is not a citizen. WND continues to run stories on it but most recently a congressman’s town hall meeting became overwhelmed with the issue.
Many people will immediately jump up and say “Obama produced a birth certificate, what more do you want?” Apparently Obama provided a certificate of live birth (COLB) which is not the same as a long form birth certificate. The long form birth certificate should provide evidence that can be corroborated. The COLB provided on factcheck.org does not show a hospital, doctor’s name or anything else that can be checked, just a time and city. This COLB can also be obtained by non citizens.
Obama could easily release his long form birth certificate but hasn’t. Just to stop people from talking about it and to show that he has the most transparent administration, you think he would.
Many liberals, moderates and even some conservatives will probably read this and just say “get over it already.” There is a time to let things go and personally I already have. Not because I don’t think it’s important but because I think Obama will never release this information and even if it is true that he is not a natural citizen, that nothing will change. But should people just get over this? If it is true, it is the biggest scam in history. People never got over Bush’s decision to go to war with Iraq, should everyone just forget about this issue?
The argument could easily be made that if Obama does not qualify to be president than all of the bills he signed and executive orders he issued would have to be undone. This is very important but would cause huge upheaval. I don’t know if the American people would be able to handle this kind of event and the ramifications of the loss in trust of the government. It doesn’t mean the truth shouldn’t be fully investigated though but I sincerely doubt it ever will be
Thanks for the ping.
Your answer doesn't even make any sense.
Our founding fathers what?
I'm asking you not Tom Jefferson. I'm asking how realistically speaking (and when someone uses realistically speaking they generally mean 'laying all other arguments aside and getting right down to the nitty gritty') how can the child be described as having loyalties to another country when no such loyalty exists in the child's heart and mind? Just because? Just because it fits the agenda here or what? BS. I don't buy it. If the child isn't loyal to another country he isn't loyal to another country. He doesn't magically become disloyal to the USA just because his unknown parent is suddenly discovered to be Canadian.
And the question still stands even on a hypothetical planet where the USA and Earth has never existed. Lets say we're in China and trying to figure out if a boy is Chinese or not and we don't know if his father was Korean or not (i.e. the Founding Fathers and Constitution don't apply). The same process still stands. And I'm not talking about the legal technicality here. I'm talking about realistically.
Zero’s international law firm Perkin’s Coie: (see letterhead)
http://wnd.com/images/misc/hemenwaytwo.jpg
Federal Election Commission records listing the Obama for America campaign fund disbursements Jan-Mar 2009, scroll down to Perkin’s Coie
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2009/Q1/C00431445/B_PAYEE_C00431445.html
$688,316.42 was paid to Perkins Coie. This was from January to March 2009.
The campaign also compensated Perkins Coie for legal services between Oct. 16, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2008 to the tune of $378,375.52
I’d estimate Zero has payed out nearly $1.5 million dollars on these suits.
Today on youtube, the citizens in Delaware video...in the comment section there’s a typical debate raging...I argued with a paid Obot who kept throwing out legal speak, propoganda and outright lies by the name of Qwertyman who was constantly posting on the forum, and also wanted proof that all of this money was given to Perkins Coie for the birther suits. Of course, he had no proof to counter these amounts weren’t used for the suits. What else would such large amounts be for?
He claimed the lawyers were working pro bono. LOL
Seems to me common sense that over 45 cases now with constant delays, at state, federal and SCOTUS, quite a bit of money is being spent.
It’s the same conspiracy of common sense that says Zero should have presented the online image COLB in court to stop these cases (res judicata) from the very beginning.
Yet the Obots stand by legal speak “He’s not required to disclose anything until discovery.”
or
“There’s no legal requirement to have him show his long form.”
Yet the time, money of the court, lawyers, the public relations gaffe of a questioning populace, the morale of the troops, the very essence of the Presidency in question continues...???
Oh yeah, I smell blood.
Such information should be available from the State Department that handles passports and exit and re-entry information.
There is no evidence when Zero changed his name from Barry Soetoro either. That whole transperancy thing again huh?
What’s wrong with the COLB??
You’re seriously asking this question??
Stop wasting people’s time.
Lets take this silliness a little further, according to the current perverted interpretation of the 14th amendment, children born in the us to two illegal aliens are citizens of the US. Should they be able to run for President of the US? IN my book they should not even be citizens as they should not gain from the illegal acts of their parents. They should be citizens of their parents country. Run for President? Surely you jest, we have the right to control the CINC of our Armies, the leader of our nation, that is why our wise white male founding fathers put the Natural Born Citizen clause in the Constitution, so liberals down the road could not try and rationalize stupid ideas like near foreigners being President. The line has to be drawn somewhere and I think they are in the right place and should be enforced.
The idea that Ann moved away to give her husband the cold shoulder should strike anyone who has read the various news reports and interviews touching on their relationship as nonsense. More likely, from everything we know about the relationship, is that he disrespected her and tossed her aside, perhaps months before she gave birth. She was probably humiliated and it may well have been her parents' idea to have her go back to Seattle.
Please name a single US president to have provided such evidence.
A disingenuous, intellectually dishonest point. Name a major party candidate in any US presidential election in the modern era other than McCain and Obama where being a natural born citizen was raised as a campaign issue and prompted the filing of lawsuits.
but there's nothing to rule out the possibility that she paid her bills with a part time job.
Except for the babysitting problem. The babysitter said she sat for him at night while Ann attended night classes. See the article I cited in my previous post.
That's more than reasonable speculation. It's preponderance of evidence.
Based on incomplete evidence. The key piece of evidence on which one could base a conclusion, the information set forth on the long-form birth certificate, has been withheld.
Scenarios of a Canadian or at-sea birth are so implausible that any reasonble person can easily dismiss them.
Perhaps we would be in a position to dismiss the other possibilities if we could see the information on the long-form birth certificate, such as in which hospital he was born and who was the doctor who delivered him.
Not true. A short-form birth clearly lists the place of birth.
Except that all we have are purported images of a COLB on a friendly website. And what was the basis for the place of birth? Did Barry's grandmother go in and claim that he was born at home? Who knows? These questions would be settled by the long-form birth certificate.
What peculiarities?
The possibility that at that time a Hawaii resident could register a child born outside Hawaii or purportedly born at home has already been discussed at length. Google it.
I'm not sure why you believe this to be so strange, given that she had lots of friends in Seattle.
The eyebrow-raising part is that someone would transport a newborn infant from Honolulu to Seattle. But that is obvious, so you are being disingenuous again.
Can you name a single candidate for office who has done anything more than that?
Again, an intellectually dishonest point. As to what other modern major party presidential candidate besides McCain has this been an issue?
Not true.
McCain's birth certificate was in fact submitted in evidence, and you can see it here at an anti-McCain website:
http://panamajohn.dominates.us/articles/McCain_Certificate_1_1936x2.jpg
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.
Your argument is a false choice. It's not either-or. Yes, we need the law clarified at the state levels to require reasonable evidence of eligibility prior to having a candidate's name placed on a ballot. But that has nothing to do with whether the American people should reasonably expect our highest public servant to demonstrate candor and openness on such a point. And it has nothing to do whether under current law, properly interpreted, a plaintiff such as an ordinary American taxpayer, a rival presidential candidate, a presidential elector, or a commissioned officer has the standing to require a demonstration of constitutional eligibility.
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.
Trying to pass off constitutional questions of presidential eligibility, and the related questions of standing to raise a particular constitutional issue, as some kind of "routine brief" is nonsense and again, intellectually dishonest.
This isn't even in the same league as a routine issue you might have local election law counsel retained in order to handle.
Anyone who thinks that Obama and the DNC have not engaged leading constitutional lawyers to provide advice on this, and is not centrally managing all of these local counsel through lead counsel, and that lead counsel does not vet every single document that goes out in every one of these proceedings in every jurisdiction against Obama and the DNC, is fooling themselves. It is inconceivable that Obama, the DNC and their lawyers are not fully prepared with their research and arguments on the merits, as well as all of the conceivable standing challenges.
Litigating constitutional issues with high quality counsel is expensive. The idea that this is all "pro bono" or covered by routine "retainers" is laughable.
Oh but that info was already taken care of by Barry and the boys..
Let’s visit more “conspiracy” websites:
McCain, Hillary passport files accessed, Zero’s 3 times:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/20/obama.passport/index.html
Zero’s former CIA goon and current advisor behind breach:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/22/passport.files/index.html
Loose ends silenced:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/apr/19/key-witness-in-passport-fraud-case-fatally-shot/
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0408/512644.html
McCain’s and Hillary’s passport files were accessed as well to cover tracks, while Obama’s was accessed 3 times...Specifically what in Zero’s passport files was scrubbed???
16th paragraph down from this source:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ackyapAMTtMY
Passport Application
The State Department’s inquiry began March 20 after a reporter asked about the breach of Obama’s records. After senior management researched the incidents surrounding Obama, they decided to examine whether Clinton’s and McCain’s records had been breached. Yesterday morning, it became clear that they had, McCormack said.
The State Department said the only document kept in an individual’s passport file is the application package. The application form includes information such as place of birth and Social Security number. The passport system has between 180 million and 200 million applications in its database.
``Passport files do not contain travel information, such as visa and entry stamps, from previous passports,’’ State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said. ``Almost all passport files contain only a passport application form as submitted by the applicant.’’
Never mind all, just a series of coincidences, move along.
Take out the usurper and the dems will be seriously damaged, their credibility shot. It is an effective one.
4 June 1940
“I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone.
At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty's Government-every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation.
The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength.
Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail.
We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France,
we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.”
Winston Churchill
The only place in the Elg decision where natural born is cited is the following as mentioned from a lower court ruling which the SCOTUS neither affirmed nor used in their ruling:
[[ Fifth. The cross-petition of Miss Elg, upon which certiorari was granted in No. 455, is addressed to the part of the decree below which dismissed the bill of complaint as against the Secretary of State. The dismissal was upon the ground that the court would not undertake by mandamus to compel the issuance of a passport or control by means of a declaratory judgment the discretion of the Secretary of State. But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg "solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship." The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants
Page 307 U. S. 350
(Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg "to be a natural born citizen of the United States," and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport, but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship. ]]
You can see that the SCOTUS was not declaring Elg to be a natural born citizen, even stating in the SCOTUS ruling that the lower court had made that ruling but the SCOTUS would rule only that she had not lost her American citizenship.
The Aetna Life v Howarth case was cited as the reasonable establishment of a controversy the SCOTUS should undertake to settle between the Secretary and Miss Elg.
The case is significant because it delved into the reality of native born and native born American citizen parents.
[[Perkins v Elg: In a comprehensive review of the principles and authorities governing the decision in that case-that a child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States-the Court adverted to the 'inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship. …
And the mere fact that the plaintiff may have acquired Swedish citizenship by virtue of the operation of Swedish law, on the resumption of that citizenship by her parents, does not compel the conclusion that she has lost her own citizenship acquired under our law. As at birth she became a citizen of the United State …
Citing the in Steinkauler's Case, 1875, the issue of native son was raised … ‘Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen’ … his Prussian born father who had naturalized, took him to Germany but if the boy at age 21 returned and reasserted his citizenship he would be eligible for election to president since he was once a native born son and both parents were American citizens at his birth …
Secretary Evarts gave a similar instruction in 1880 with respect to a native citizen of Danish parentage [the citizenship defined as native born not natural born with the foreign citizenship of parents cited] who having been taken abroad at an early age claimed American citizenship on attaining his majority, saying:4 'He lost no time when he attained the age of majority, in declaring that he claimed the United States as his country and that he considered himself a citizen. ]]
The arguments in Elg boiled down to ‘explicit Rights of citizenship are not to be destroyed by an ambiguity’ … note rights of citizenship is not stated as natural born citizenship.
"... unfortunately, not Justice John Bingham writing for the majority. His opinion on what the Constitution means is no more binding than your's or mine." Um, I cited the words of Bingham because he is considered to be the most noted expert on naturalization and natural born citizenship having virtually written the 14th Amend. I would trust his comprehension of the phrase 'natural born citizen' more than yours or mine.
There are at least three ways American citizenship can be defined: by naturalization of legal statute; by being born on American soil (native born as with the Danish case cited in Elg); natural born, as a child born on MAerican soil having American citizen parents at birth. That is the real value of the Elg case, that it discussed three ways citizenship can be established.
Meant to ping you folks to the discussion of the SCOTUS cases. I just finished listening to Andrea’s program discussing the major applying to wave based upon Obama not being able to issue legitimate orders.
“The eyebrow-raising part is that someone would transport a newborn infant from Honolulu to Seattle.”
Is this more or less eyebrow raising than someone transporting the same newborn from Kenya to Seattle?
"Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading." United States v Prudder, 424 F. 2d 1021(5thCir. 1970),cert. denied, 400 U.S. 831 (1970)
So when is Eric Holder going to tell Obama he has to show us his Long Form Birth Certificate?
Obama Adviser
TAC President and Chief Executive Officer John O. Brennan is an informal foreign policy adviser to Obama's campaign. Jim Flynn, a spokesman for the company, didn't immediately return a call today seeking comment on Brennan's role in the campaign.
...
The department briefed Obama's office on the matter when senior management became aware of the incidents. The senator from Illinois learned of the breach the night of March 20. Campaign spokesman Bill Burton called for a thorough investigation. ``We demand to know who looked at Senator Obama's passport file, for what purpose, and why it took so long for them to reveal this security breach,'' Burton said. ]]
Sounds like feigned outrage don'tchaknow! Brennan is now the official security adviser to Barry in the White HOuse. Criminal acts have rewards with the criminal enterprise democreats.
Correction: “The case is significant because it delved into the reality of native born and native born American citizen parents” should read, “The case is significant because it delved into the reality of native born and native born also with American citizen parents.”
“The application form includes information such as place of birth and Social Security number.”
Now why in the world would this be accessed? LOL
Oh, it is catching up to Obama all right. Who would have imagined, a mere six months into his presidency, that even black Americans would start to have doubts? But I read that callers to Al Sharpton’s radio show are starting to complain about lack of jobs and broken promises. If I were Obama, I would be very, VERY worried right now.
“You make a very good point. Of the 12 Presidents after WW2, Obama ranks 10th when comparing approval ratings after 6 months. He is even below Carter. It may indeed be the beginning of the end of Obama’s time in office.
You wrote-
“I think it will catch up to him too. I’m one who’s glad it’s taking a while, though. I know Obama is doing damage, and I don’t minimize that. Otoh, if the birth certificate issue had reached critical mass too soon, people would have shrugged it off, imho—even if it turned out he was born in Kenya. If it hits the fan after his approval has gone low enough and people are sufficiently fed up about the economy and his nationalized healthcare boondoggle, it could have much greater and lasting results.””
Easy. Jeez. You can't even ask a question around here nowadays. It's a hypothetical.
I don't think a person born of two foreigners on US soil would have the right to run for President. I think that is pretty clear. I think it gets more blurred once those two parents are both naturalized before the child's birth. The two people are the same genetically. The only difference is they have now taken the citizenship test, met the requirements for citizenship and sworn loyalty to the USA, been awarded citizenship by the relevent bureaucracy that does that. If I am not mistaken, their child would be completely legal to run for president because the child would be born of two American citizens on American soil (even though those two citizens were actually born in another country).
Where I'm digging at here is- lets say in this instance where the child is technically legal the parents have always taken the child back to the 'home country' once a year to visit relatives and experience his 'native culture'. I would present to you that there would be more questions of that child's actual loyalty because of its active immersion into the other culture than with my example of a child with an unknown father (who is actually a foreigner).
So, the legal technicality does not protect the country in that instance. The child would be completely legal but less loyal than a somewhat less legal child whose loyalty had no such questions.
Right: ‘look, a charging, angry bear ... and by the way I own a teddy bear but it doesn’t look anything like the live bear who is about to ...’
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.
