Posted on 04/13/2011 12:43:16 AM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour
I understand the general nuance of the birther argument. And I see there's more than one prevailing theory.
While I still have a hard time believing Osama was born in Kenya. I am warming to the idea he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, became an Indonesian citizen and most likely obtained an Indonesian passport which allowed his travels to Pakistan and beyond. As well as possibly entering college in the US as a foreign student. And I'm sure there was a Muslim thing going on too... much proof of that is already out there and not in dispute.
He applied and was awarded foreign student aid, student aid from his home country (Indonesia) at the time, etc... maybe he claimed a Kenyan birth, British Father/Subject to obtain student aid that way... very plausible and would certainly explain his reluctance to release his college paperwork.
And all of that could be done with a Hawaiian birth and a sealed B/C due to the adoption, Hawaiian laws and subsequent re-issuance of the B/C.
Anyway, lets focus on Trump.
Is he throwing the hail mary pass of the century with this claim?
Does he have something he's not yet releasing or talking specifically about?
Strategic planning at work here, the mother of all October surprises?
Possibly telegraphing to Osama, that I found your dirty little secret, I have it and your day is coming?
Blackmail?
Or is he just such a massive ego maniac, that he's let it go so far to his head he's lost touch with reality, has nothing and somehow thinks all of this is an extension of his reality show?
If Trump has nothing, produces nothing, ends up blowing all this media hype he's churned into a boil... that window comes and goes the media will eviscerate him, intentionally, for no other reason than to seek revenge upon him, discredit him even further and remind others not to mess with them, the media.
What does he gain, he needs to be take seriously in certain circles to at least keep his TV shows going, and money flowing into his pockets... that's Hollywood, the media, etc... why risk the only thing he has left over a Geraldo-esq Al Capone's Vault stunt?
It don't make any sense... none of it does honestly...
Now... for almost three years piles and piles of investigators from political campaigns, parties, WND, PI's hired by attorneys suing for records, and I'm sure some groups we've yet to even hear about...etc, etc... why do we think that Trump will find what they couldn't?
Now, If any of you don't think for a minute that the DNC hasn't been looking as well your a fool. While they publicly ridicule and scoff at the idea I am 110% positive they too have been digging... just in case it all turns out to be true.
No one seriously doubts that the media failed to vet this guy, but I find it hard to believe that in some room, somewhere, some serious top level journalist, editor or party elder has done a quality investigation just to make sure its not true.
To risk the destruction of the DNC... I would image that even the liberals in the media wouldn't want that. And throwing one guy under the bus to save the party is not out of the question for libs and the media, its happened before.
What would make Osama any different, why risk the literal destruction of the political party they worship for this one guy, who's frankly not even a very good liberal, by liberal standards... even his healthcare nightmare isn't what 90% of those who voted for him wanted, they were after full on cradle to grave commie care. Which while it is a disaster, its not full bore socialized medicine. And it looks as if the Repubs can defund it if they wanted to, so again what's he gotten the DNC and the MSM, why would they risk it all for one lackluster center-center-left-liberal?
There liberals yes, their ideologically driven yes, but I find it hard to believe that not one serious journalist guy or gal employed by the likes of the NY Times can't see or think far enough ahead to realize that no matter how absurd they think it might be. That if true it would destroy the entire DNC, their Saint Osama and create a Constitutional Crisis in this country that could possibly tear it apart.
I don't buy it... even dictators understand the idea of the endgame.
So I ask, what's the deal... why is Trump raising nine kinds of hell, what does he have?
Or is has he just lost it?
The last thing we need going into a presidential campaign is another loon-bat on the loose, running from TV camera to TV camera talking up issues. Taking away from our serious choice, if we even have one...
You know the media will eat that up and spend as much time and energy as humanly possible making sure he's on TV babbling on and on about God only knows what, while wearing a shower curtain with noodle strainer on his head.
We all better hope Trump has something.
If not and he drags this out until the middle of the campaign it will be a guaranteed 4 more years of Osama. And if Trump crashes and burns in too dramatic of a fashion he could impact House and Senate races. We could lose more seats in the Senate and lose the House.
Its not out of the realm of possibility.
That is a complete crock, and utter falsehood, and repeating it over and over can't and won't ever make it true. I KNOW you could travel to Pakistan on a US passport at around that time, and I know it because I did it. I do believe, however, that when OBAMA went there he traveled on his Indonesian passport. But if he had had a US passport, it would have worked just fine. I just don't think he had one.
What makes me suspicious is the bullying tactic of the Donald that IF the Republicans do not ‘pick’ him he might run as Independent... That means whatever votes he can pick left and right will leave BamBamKennedy sitting high and mighty in the ‘catbird's seat.
The Donald is as neck deep in liberal politics as any high playing liberal and he sure is not itching much about whose campaigns he has supposedly had to feather in order to keep his business opportunities afloat.
BamBamKennedy has NO memory as to where he was born and it sure is sleazy the ‘I am’ manner in which he ducks and HIDES everything about his past. I remember what the left did to Joe the Plumber just for NOT gushing over BamBamKennedy's planned redistribution of this nation's wealth.
I am also most suspicious given it was old Hillry that birthed the ‘birthers’. AND it was for her political purposes that it got birthed. BUT the political climate, (talk about man made climate), was NOT allowing for any questioning of anything BamBamKennedy else the most feared epithet would be necklaced about anyone who said a discouraging word.
There is NO doubt BamBamKennedy is hiding something, what I have NO clue. But I do not trust that the Donald is doing what he is doing for the interest and the good of this nation. Whatever his purposes are, they are first and foremost self serving.
born June 14, 1946 in Queens, New York, NY (Meets the Jus Soli Requirement)
Parents were
Frederick Christ Trump, born October 11, 1905 in Queens, NY, died June 1999 in Queens, NY
Mary Ann MacLeod, born May 10, 1912 in SCOTLAND, died August 7, 2000 in Queens, NY. Arrived in US October 5, 1935. Naturalized as a US Citizen March 10, 1942.
Both parents were US Citizens at the time of his birth (Meets the Jus Sanguinis Requirement)
Donald Trump is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN unlike Comrade Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama.
Who is your favorite candidate in 2012?
Senate Deals With McCain’s CitizenshipThe Senate is expected to this week weigh in that Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, is in fact a natural-born American citizen, thus eligible to be president under the Constitution.
A nonbinding resolution trying to clarify the status of Mr. McCain is headed for the floor after the Judiciary Committee approved it last week.
Democratic leaders were mulling whether to simply rush the resolution through as part of a package of bills without opposition or allow senators to express their views over the intersection of the Constitution’s vague natural-born requirement and Mr. McCain’s birth in the Panama Canal Zone while his father, a naval officer, was stationed there.
There were no hearings. There was no fact finding. They even tried to sneak the non-binding resolution into a bill in the dark of night. All they did was vote on a resolution.
save for a later read
Yes, there IS. The very quote I displayed is in the article that I linked to following quote.
All you had to do was scroll.
"congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a “natural born citizen,” no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama’s claim to a Hawaiian birth."
Yes, it was there, deep in the article about 0bama. That one sentence that incorrectly uses the word ‘hearings.’ That’s the kind of sloppy reporting WND does. There were no hearings.
Has ANYONE come up with a plausible excuse for withholding
the birth certificate, assuming there is one, other then it having damnable information that would disqualify him for POTUS?
All of this rubbish out of Fukino about all original
birth certificates being destroyed, or whatever, is all just
smoke and mirrors.
Yes, there is smoke OK, and no doubt, plenty of fire.
Again, I’m not convinced that anything in Obama’s records proves anything negative. My wanting him to release all of his documents are not for the goal of catching him in a crime.
He needs to release his records to prove his eligibility.
I’m less suspicious that he was born outside the United States and I’m more suspicious that he’s trying to show the American people that the US Constitution means nothing.
Well, to me it DOES mean something.
That I can agree with.
Keep it up ASA Vet. This is simply another misleading lead story, perhaps to overwhelm readers with storylines.
That our framers, whose lives and families depended upon protection by laws founded in a Constitution, not by a King or Queen, insisted that our leader have inherited allegiance to our new form of government is more than reasonable. A secret Royalist could have weakend the economy, and called in the troops of his true patron to take over the weakened nation. That may be what Obama is doing. But, as you said, he fails the allegiance requirment. He was born to a parent who was never a citizen, and who certainly never held sole allegiance to our republic, as 14th Amendment Bingham required.
Is Free Republic crawling with Obots? To appear to have greater numbers than their opponent is one of Alinsky’s rules. It is no suprise that such a forum supporting freedom would be under attack. One benefit is that we get to know their tactics and their tools very well. Obama supporter’s arguments are seldom new. But we need to respond to them patiently, not because they will change their minds, but because there are many others who will read, and ferret the truth. The truth can be made clear. I dare say you do a better job of making it short than I do; please do keep it up.
Bump for further reading.
Barry O. tried to pass of something that was inconsistent with what the rest of have and know to be a “Birth Certificate”.
The so called COLB has many flaws with it:
The best part and even more confusing is why he didn't release any of the three Birth Certificates we know already existed before 2007.
Those were most certainly BC’s and not a COLB. There is no reason to create confusion but, for the fact he is hiding something. That something will be discovered, though and this is a long process. “I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school. It’s a short piece, with a photograph of him. No mention is made of my mother or me, and I’m left to wonder whether the omission was intentional on my father’s part, in anticipation of his long departure. Perhaps the reporter failed to ask personal questions, intimidated by my father’s imperious manner; or perhaps it was an editorial decision, not part of the simple story that they were looking for. I wonder, too, whether the omission caused a fight between my parents.” From “Dreams From My Father” (Pg. 26 last paragraph) So with all these Birth Certificates lying around, why did he feel it necessary to produce a "Certification of Live Birth" that is inconsistent with a Birth Certificate and wholly lacking all of the information you would find, in you know, a Birth Certificate? He seemed to have some emotional attachment to the Birth Certificate found among his mother’s belongings. Why wouldn’t he just slap that one up, for all the world to see? It seemed important that he found a document that is called a “Birth Certificate” and it is highly unlikely he would not know what one looks like.
Hope no one brings up some house fire that vaporized his BC. That was in 1972 and none of the documents listed here would have been affected by that “fishy” event.
The issue of Natural Born Citizen was brought against John McCain long before Barrack was nominated to the DNC as a Presidential Candidate.
In fact, in order to place McCain on the ballot, the United States Senate went so far as to craft the Senate Resolution 511 proclaiming John McCain a Natural Born Citizen.
There is a cloud over Barrack's birth, to be sure. But the fact that still remains is his birth was of a divided nationality British and American. One is wholly one thing or another but not completely two things at the same time.
Senate Resolution 511
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;
Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;
Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;
Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;
Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
Now, let us take this simple and explore its hidden meaning.
Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;
They apparently have read the Constitution and have zeroed in on one clause that no law or legislative body has the right to amend.
Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
The term ‘natural born citizen’ is not defined, however other rulings by the Supreme Court, Congress, and other writings from such as John Bingham, do define what a ‘natural born citizen’ is. For sake of space I will only quote the following.
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 parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_Z…
Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;
So the Senate decided to make assumptions and attempt to pass a ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ on the same. We have already seen from the prior statement that they claimed to have no knowledge of the meaning, and its definition.
Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;
So the Senate decided to make assumptions and attempt to pass a ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ on the same. We have already seen from the prior statement that they have no knowledge of the meaning, and its definition.
Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;
It sounds nice, but means nothing? Some fluff but again means nothing.
Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and
Whom are they referring to, that was born ‘outside’ the United States and who deemed them eligible?
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
So the Senate gave by law, what nature failed to do. Would that not be a ‘naturalized’ citizenship?
So the Senate deemed that two (2) American or US Citizen parents was an essential to the definition of a ‘natural born citizen’ that was not defined in the Constitution. So how did they deem that the issue was being born outside the jurisdiction of the United States if they had no definition or requirements of what ‘constituted’ a ‘natural born citizen?’ It seems like they know the definition, but are hoping the American public doesn’t. There is but one defintion that a ‘natural born citizen’ has to have citizen parents and being born in country and that is Vattel’s Law of Nations.
As I refered to SR 511. SR511 is a non-binding, non-lawful understanding, that can not be held as a LAW. Being such, a non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that cannot progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion.This type of resolution is often used to express the body’s approval or disapproval of something which they cannot otherwise vote on, due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution.
Again, I will note: being protected by a constitution.
“Simple resolutions do not require the approval of the other house nor the signature of the President, and they do not have the force of law.”
The reason I make this point is that for the chance that John Mccain would have actually won the 2008 Presidential election. The issue of his eligibility not only would have been brought up, but would have stated congressional hearings, the likes of Watergate all over again. The Congress would have in no time instituted articles of impeachment and the motion would have been approved. Then the Senate would have their chance to remove John McCain, however since they already have voted with their ‘Gentlemen’s Agreement’, regardless how the vote went. A non-binding, non-lawful resolution that trumps the United States Constitution could be waved in front of the American public, and John McCain, could go back in the corner, stick his thumb in his pie, and exclaim “Oh, what a good boy am I.”
Senate Resolution 511, was an attempt to circumvent the United States Constitution, and amend the ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Clause of which there has NEVER been an amendment or change too.
More then just a non-binding resolution, SR511 defined John McCain’s eligibility based on being born of US Parents [NOTE the plural] but outside the country. Therefore the only alternative based on THEIR wording is ‘born in country’. They did not change the requirement of two (2) US parents.
Where is there a definition as to a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ based on parents [again plural] and born in country? Vattel’s Law of Nations.
Why if John McCain was held to these requirements, was Barack Obama not held of being born of US Parents [plural] and in the United States.
Barack Obama has admitted that not only was his father a foreign national, but that he himself was a British Subject at birth. A British Subject is a foreign national and how can a foreign national be a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as required by the United States Constitution?
McCain 'birthers': ABC, CBS, NBC, FactCheck, N.Y. Times
Eligibility issue was huge in 2008 when Obama opponent was focus of attentionIn addition to media scrutiny, McCain testified before a U.S. Senate committee and produced his long-form birth certificate for inspection.
My apologies! I didn't know a committee had ever been formed or that he submitted his LFBC to them. One of the reasons I didn't think that was because of this...
Then, on April 11, 2008, the Wall Street Journal's Law Blog published a piece noting that Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., introduced a non-binding resolution expressing McCain qualifies as a natural-born citizen under terms of the Constitution.
That is something that doesn't require a hearing, a committee or anything at all. It's the typical Senate Circus meaningless BS that they pull.
That article, BTW, is recent and shows the amazing hypocrisy of the MSM and Dem pols listing all the goons who were ready to attack McCain on his eligibility even after the Sen. resolution. It shows just how biased factcheck.org is who are the only ones who claim to have seen 0bummer's paper COLB.
Keep it up!
I do not have a favorite yet. I am not interested in the losers from 2008 campaign, or any of those testing the political waters. I like Sarah, and I know the 'reason' she pulled old lord McCain through his last reelection, but, it caused grave doubts that she really knows what a two timer he really is.
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.