Posted on 07/12/2008 10:17:41 AM PDT by MindBender26
Look at another angle. If Obama is not an America citizen, he must be an illegal alien. That not only disqualifies him the presidency. It means he cannot be a US senator. Furthermore, he has committed various felonies and is subject to deportation.
I’m overwhelmed by my brillanceeee. Guess I’ll just have to live with the curse.
But seriesly. If we somehow get Osama disqualified before the election the democrats can pull a Torricelli and put Hillary up as their candidate.
Assuming Obama wins the presidency and we pull this off all h*ll would break loose.
I am all for that.
Bottom line, if the public elected Obama and he was subsequently disqualified, you would have a breakdown in law, order and society that would make the Watts riots look like a Sunday School picnic.
In Early December, 1960, the FBI went to Nixon (WHO AS VICE PRESIDENT, WAS THEN PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE!!!) and showed him irrefutable evidence that Mayor Daley had stuffed the Chicago ballot boxes enough to steal the Illinois vote from Nixon and give it to Kennedy.
Nixon said, “No, file it away. The country thinks they elected Kennedy. If I won this way, it would be an ungovernable country.”
Birth certificate? I don need no stinkin birth certificate! I was immaculantly conceived to save the America God and Reverend Wright has damned. Fall on your knees and worship me, honkies!
This is BS. Clinton’s Culinary Workers lawsuit in Las Vegas last January went start to finish in a few short weeks. Courts will expedite when a deadline is looming.
Only because both sides wanted an answer on a small matter covering a small geogrpahical area.
This is a 6-10 year matter whacko matter.
“He says his background includes a lot of investigations into forgeries.”
Most of the world’s greatest and most prolific counterfeiters could make the exact same claim...that doesn’t mean I’d put a lot of stock in anything they had to say regarding the validity of any given document.
////////
so forget about what he says about himself and look at the way he compares the two birth certificates. When you look at detailed comparisons—they do not look the same. Further there are a couple more state of hawaii birth certificates that I have seen that look like standard birth certificate shown. Further, this author is only the latest of half a dozen researchers to look at obama’s birth certificate in detail and found problems with it.
Obama’s birth certificate isn’t right.
As is claiming/demanding that a state release information to the public that it deems private, such as an original birth certificate. FOIA doesn't apply to states, each of which (Federalism and all that jazz) is free to make their own rules with respect to protecting the privacy of the citizens born there.
Yes, and the most masterful practitioner of that black art is none other than Obama, himself.
Don't get me wrong....I'm not at all dismissing the issue, but keep in mind, you're not actually asking me to, "look at the way he compares the two birth certificates,", but rather to, "look at the way he compares digital images of the two certificates as viewed online."
Big difference...and while I don't doubt that Obama campaing is dishonest enough to foist a false BC out there for public consumption, I also believe they're deceitful enough to have had a good reason to intentionally do so.
Put simply, if Obama were an honest, open person he would not run for President if he knew he was not qualified to do so. Likewise, if he was open and honest, and knew he was qualified, he would be straight forward in dispeling whatever rumors there were through full disclosure.
The only logical conclusions one might draw are:
1. Obama is unqualified for the presidency and is trying to fake it, or...
2. He is fully qualified and believes he can obtain some advantage from muddying the waters regarding his qualifications, or...
3. Between him and his entire campaign staff, there is not a single person that really knows if he is actually qualified and are trying to buy time until they can figure it out, and the longer it takes the more incentive they have to find or generate documentation to establish that he is (qualified).
At this point, I've not seen enough to dismiss any one of those possibilities, although #3 seems by far the least likely, and between #1 and #2, the actions of his campaign thus far, seem to me more consistent with #2...again, I'm not ruling any of them out, but if #2 is the case, one must reallyexplore the motivation for doing so. The most logical, and dangerous end I can see or them is that if they can just get this issue into the mainstream a bit further then issue full disclosure, they will undermine the credibility of virtually any future opposition to any Obama initiative. Just get used to the quote, "The people that are criticizing this bill/action/summit/executive order are the exact same group of fringe paranoids that tried to tell us President Obama was not born in Hawaii back during the '08 campaign."
Well, why don’t we make it a fact of life that he can’t run unless he produces a verified, certified and true birth certificate?
Who says we have to go to court?????
I assume you're referring to the disqualification of opponents' petitions by Obama in the IL State Senate race, and/or the unsealing of Jack Ryan's divorce records by a judge in the U.S. Senate race.
Who accomplished the petition disqualification? Obama. Who was responsible for the court case on the divorce records? A Chicago newspaper(s), most likely at the urging of the Obama campaign. Who was the impetus for both efforts? The opposing candidate.
The point is, if any of these "theories" about Obama's ineligibility to serve as POTUS are true, it's McCain (and Hillary before him) who has/have the staff, the money, and the motivation to pursue it. He/she hasn't, so either both of them are idiots who don't deserve to be elected, or there's no "there" there.
USC Title 8 provides many other ways than being born within the bounds of the 50 states to be considered a “natural born” citizen.
***What is USC Title 8, where can we read it for ourselves, and how does it apply here?
He qualifies under at least two of them. His mother was a citizen and had lived in the US for at least 5 years, for example.
***What is the other one?
Though every president and vice president to date (as of 2008) has either been a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, or else born in a U.S. state or Washington D.C. a number of presidential candidates have been born elsewhere.
Barry Goldwater, who ran as the Republican party nominee in 1964, was born in Arizona while it was still a U.S. territory. Although Arizona was not a state, it was a fully organized and incorporated territory of the United States.
George Romney, who ran for the Republican party nomination in 1968, was born in Mexico to U.S. parents. Romney’s grandfather emigrated to Mexico in 1886 with his three wives and children after Utah outlawed polygamy. Romney’s parents retained their U.S. citizenship and returned to the United States in 1912. Romney was 32 years old when he arrived in Michigan.
John McCain, who ran for the Republican party nomination in 2000 and is the presumptive Republican nominee in 2008, was born at the Coco Solo U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone to U.S. parents. Although the Panama Canal Zone was not considered to be part of the United States, federal law states that “Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States”.
Al Gore was born in Washington, D.C. This is considered a “State” for the purposes of the Immigration and Nationalization Act 8 USC Section 1101(a)(36) as are Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands according to the same section. Washington D.C. is explicitly considered NOT a U.S. State according to the 23rd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution but the same argument as to why Goldwater amd Obama are “natural-born citizens” applies to Gore as well.
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”
Anyone born inside the United States
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
***OBAMA***Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
“”””OBAMA*** Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405) (SEE BELOW), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.
The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was “declared” to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms “natural-born” or “citizen at birth” are missing from this section.
In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): “a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person.”
§ 1405. Persons born in Hawaii
A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.
***OBAMA**** A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth.
A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.
***OBAMA***Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
“”””OBAMA*** Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
***One of these is if Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii, the other is if he was. This whole episode is based upon the possibility that he wasn’t born in Hawaii, so only 1 of them would apply. I have seen other commentary that Obama’s mother doesn’t meet a 5-year provision, perhaps that’s the provision they’re talking about.
I'm not an attorney, just an amateur genealogist researcher. All states have an online source for vital records, and I don't know of one that will release records for a living individual except to, as you put it, "parties" (for some, it's restricted to the "party in question, and no one else) -- with proof in the form of a notarized statement, in most cases. Even in the case of older records (deemed "genealogical" since the subjects are assumed to have outlived the normal lifespan) the record applicant is usually asked to state a relationship to the person on the certificate.
In addition, the specific and personal US Census record images cannot, by law, be released until 72 years after each census.
With ID theft as rampant as it is, I definitely don't see a problem with states protecting privacy, and those railing against state privacy laws such as Hawaii's should, perhaps, stop and think of the scenario of their own personal records, plastered all over the internet.
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.