When and How will the Obama Birth Certificate Forgery story break into the MSM? [Vanity]

Kevmo | August 7, 2008 | Kevmo

[Kevmo]

When and How will the Obama Birth Certificate Forgery story break into the MSM? How do we get this out? Will we need to start filing lawsuits in each individual state?

Post your suppositions and activist suggestions here.

[null and void]

At least one thing argues that the original intent was to exclude foreign born American nationals from high office.

It wasn't until 1790 that they passed a law exempting their own children and children of other members of "the club"'s (e.g. children of diplomats stationed abroad) from the strict requirement of US soil birth.

Note that this is NOT a constitutional amendment.

The original Constitution is intact, and still the supreme law of the land.

[null and void]

Perhaps I can offer an alternative scenario: the Birth Certificate is not a forgery, but just computer enhanced for readibility/clarity. The original may have been damaged somehow or faded and someone decided to "clean it up" using image software.

Is that possible?

Certainly.

It's simpler to file for a replacement. It takes all of an hour or so tops, and costs less than $50. You can hold the crisp certified genuine document in you hands in less than a week.

Compare the McCain BC, an unquestioned old wrinkly stained document and all the controversy that's caused, to the low resolution altered Obama BC, and all the certainty that's generated.

Yeah. It's possible the Obama camp simply spent endless hours cleaning up a valid document.

[libravoter]

I think that the case with McCain is different because he was born in Canal Zone (not Panama) and it was considered US territory.

Nope. He was born at a local Panamanian hospital -- near -- the Canal Zone, but not in it.

[null and void]

I bring up these points to assert there are plenty of GOOD reasons not to elect Barack Obama without arguing over the authenticity of his birth certificate.

I agree.

And you are quite welcome to pursue all of them.

I have chosen to devote my run time to this, as ineligibility to hold the office is an absolute defense against an Obama presidency.

Where he stands or fails to stand on any given issue? Well, he only needs to snow enough voters (with the fawning help of the tingle legged MSM) long enough to get their votes...

[libravoter]

Welcome to the internet Kevmo. Have a good evening.

Kevmo's join date is two years before yours, so he clearly knew -something- about the internet before you. ;->

[9YearLurker]

You’ve both read more on this than I, but the little I’ve seen of Blackstone suggests that ‘natural born’ referred to those who would be classified as citizens by birth, because it is assumed that they would have been born into a natural allegiance to the state, and what has changed over time in the US is who legally would be so classified.

The logic would have gone from ‘if A, then B and if B, then C’ to ‘if A1, then B and if B, then C’.

[libravoter]

It doesn’t matter where Obama was born, for unless both known parents were US citizens or he father is completely unknown to anyone — he is not “natural born” as that term was used when the Constitution was adopted.

That is the opposite of what everyone's been arguing in CERTIFIGATE land. Some argue he is, some he isn't, but it's been posted (and linked to source material) over and over that one US citizen parent can definitely be enough to make the child a citizen at birth.

[null and void]

The flip side is also true.

One foreign national parent can make the baby a foreign national.

The devil is in the details.

Let’s keep him in the details and out of the White House...

[null and void]

You’ve both read more on this than I

*shrug*

I've learned a lot from David and Gatún.

[sport]

Either when the Clintons tell them to or Hell freezes over.

[bvw]

That's a reasonable understanding, except for a couple of important nuances. "Natural born" is better read as "born into a natural allegiance". Just the place birth alone does not completely establish that. For example one may be born into a known family of traitors -- take for example a possible son of Benedict Arnold. I doubt that the he would have been found eligible under the "natural born" clause, because loyalty by birth to his father would be assumed at the same or greater level than loyalty by birth to the sovereign. Although if that same theoretical son had himself fought courageously in the Revolution or the War of 1812 -- maybe. Why? Because later events in the son's life were a proof where the loyalty by birth lay. Without that proof, the son of a traitor's status is dubious. Others might not even accept that as proof, and find the son not "born to a natural allegiance".

But what of the case of a son of a father (or mother) who never was a citizen? In that case I think there is not way for the son to make a proof greater than what will always be the allegiance to his father's (or mother's) country.

That is my read of the extended discussion in Blackstone.

And that is the first nuance.

The second is that the Founder's, clearly did not fully accept the Blackstone/English common law take on "natural born", where it can be read as accepting just the place of birth as a determination in perpetuity. That is, just because children were born in the colonies, prior to the Constitution or the Revolution did not make them forever British subjects. Viz the War of 1812.

[9YearLurker]

I would assume ‘natural born’ to be considered a necessary (for purposes of establishing a standard) but not in itself sufficient basis for establishing such an allegiance—but it is of course the one in the Constitution.

[Though we all know immigrants with as great or greater an allegiance to this country as many native (natural born) citizens.]

[bvw]

I almost have to ignore your post, because you brought in a patent falsehood when you said "the opposite of what everyone's been arguing".

I argue for myself and you for yourself. Neither of us can presume to speak for everyone.

The most significant issue is whether Obama is "natural born" -- that is a different thing from "citizenship".

All "natural born" are citizens, but not all citizens are natural born. And by the applicable US Code at Obama's birth, he would not be citizen just because even his mother was a citizen, he would have to have been born in the US. That US Code puts stricter requirements on age of the mother and how long she has been in the US.

Interesting that Obama's own statement on the FightTheSmears website claims he a *citizen* under the 14th Amendment! Yet the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with anything in regard to Obama's situation.

[bvw]

We are each and all born into a world with natural loyalties — at birth — to parents and to place. Those loyalties can be at odds. “Natural Born” means those circumstances of birth where the born allegiance is not at odds. For example a child of American’s on temporary travel abroad would have no natural allegiance to France, or Kenya — his or her allegiance would be to the permanent residence of his parents and where the child grows up.

[9YearLurker]

That’s definitely the crux of the issue and maybe I just have to read deeper into Blackstone’s, because it’s that exclusivity of loyalty that I haven’t so much seen articulated.

[9YearLurker]

That sleight of hand re: the 14th Amendment on Obama’s site is one of the most cynical and suspect bits on there.

[9YearLurker]

I’m thinking what’s up is the Clintons using what they’ve got on him with this to force him to take her on as his veep.

That would be bad news for McCain in my view, but what I think they’ll press for over the next 7-10 days.

[Moby Grape]

It won’t...they MSN will NOT hurt their man.

[libravoter]

I almost have to ignore your post, because you brought in a patent falsehood when you said "the opposite of what everyone's been arguing".

___________________________

Aw, don't go ignoring me. I'm not a "post & flee" type. And I try never to post just to hear myself type or to cause a kerfuffle.

And you're right to caution again using the term "everyone" on freerepublic. There is no everybody here.

That said, I get 100% the difference between "natural born" and "citizenship" (naturalized or other). And the argument you summarize -- whether his mother's age prevent him from being a citizen at birth if born outside the USA -- is the one I said everyone's been arguing.

In my post to you, I was responding to your posting "It doesn't matter where Obama was born, for unless both known parents were US citizens or the father is completely unknown to anyone — he is not “natural born” as that term was used when the Constitution was adopted."

It looked to me as if you were saying it was impossible to be natural born outside the USA unless both parents were citizens. Did you mean impossible as she was too young?

[usmcobra]

We have seen COLB document of the same vintage and they are crystal clear in their borders, laser sharp even.

Obama has all the earmarks of a bad forgery maybe even one that was xeroxed.