Posted on 08/07/2008 8:42:20 PM PDT by 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.
It would be a big story.
Are you speculating, or do you have a source?
Or maybe he opposed his prior agreement.
Never and nowhere.
All of this might make for interesting conversation, but it has absolutely nothing to do with anything contained in the Constitutional requirement for natural-born citizenship.
There are only two paths to American citizenship- naturalization and citizenship from birth. If you fall into the latter category, than you meet the requirement for running for President. There simply are no other categories.
Translation service: " perhaps not compelling evidence at this point in time:" really means "cockamamie conspiracy theories that had more holes than a platter of swiss cheese and had zero factual evidence to back them up".
We went through that obvious lack of real evidence in the 4,000 post thread created by the 'report' that claimed (falsely) that a Kos poster 'admitted' to making a fake COLB (he admitted no such thing). we were told that a key reason to be suspicious about Obama's birth was that there was no birth announcement in the papers in Hawaii ... and then it turned up.
There is a 100% certainty that Obama was born in Hawaii.
You are falling into the trap of the false dichotomy if you think there is a contradiction.
I think you should stop posting for a while and let Citizen Blade explain how citizenship laws work. He’s got it right.
1) “There are only two paths to American citizenship- naturalization and citizenship from birth.”
2) There are two paths to acquiring citizenship by birth: By blood (all people born whose parents are US citizens, subject to laws of Congress, are also US citizens at birth) and by birthplace (all people born in US and under the jurisdiction thereof are citizens).
“We have a law from 1790 which defines natural-born to include someone born abroad to an American citizen. As I mentioned, many of the FF were in Congress at the time. With this law being passed so close to the date of adoption of the Constitution, by many of the people who actually drafted the Constitution, that is a very good showing of the original intent behind the natural-born clause: i.e., that it is meant to cover everyone who is an American citizen at birth, rather than through naturalization.”
Yes, this is the clearly correct understanding of the term natural-born citizen.
Whenever Hillary decides it’s time...probably right before the convention.
How about his complete Military records including his complete pay, medical and dental records?
That shows he was in the military and was offered to counter the Democrat's claims that he was AWOL when he should have been drilling. None of that is proof he was a natural born U.S. citizen though.
Oh, Citizen of the World! Reagan's meaning was not Obama's. Reagan meant that we are all citizens or the world. Obama meant that he was a citizen of the world.
1000% correct, Eagleton-san.
That's a very common understanding, but not true -- the few cases that touched upon "natural born" have made it clear that the term is more nuanced.
There simply are no other categories.
Back to argument by punctuation point!
The democrats didn’t ask if he was a citizen, did they?
They asked if he was guilty of a crime under the UCMJ.
They knew he was a natural born citizen because such birth information is included in your Military records especially those of a Commissioned Officer in our Armed Forces.
Let’s look at what you said:
As to by blood, You nailed it! Well PARTS of it anyway... “whose parents are US citizens” parentS plural, BOTH parentS. As we all know and agree, one parent wasn’t an American therefore, this cannot apply. (More later about how even having both birth parents Americans still might not suffice to be legally regarded as a ‘natural born’ citizen).
His only path to being a citizen is to have been born in the US, and since
no valid BC has been produced,
AND
his Kenyan in-laws have claimed to be there when he was born in Kenya,
AND
Barack himself apparently said his mother was in Kenya 72 hours before he was born, AND
Airlines routinely bared late term women from long over water flights,
AND
the first sighting of itty-bitty baby Barack was 2500 away from his alleged birthplace,
AND
the newspaper birth announcement is of such low quality that it looks like it was set in more than one typeface
I’m not at all convinced he was born in Honolulu. Therefore I question his status as a ‘natural born citizen’ based on birthplace.
I do understand that you are quite happy to accept a electronic presentation of an altered document as Gospel Truth, I have higher standards. (At least with regards to legal documents!)
And we haven’t even gotten in to the deep woods yet: What EXACTLY does the term ‘natural born citizen’ mean?
Neither congress nor the courts have clearly defined it.
Last election cycle Sen. Claire McCaskill was sufficiently worried about this very point that she introduced a bill to declare McCain, Panamanian born of two American parents, qualified.
It still isn’t all clear.
The bill never passed as a law, only as a “sense of the senate”
Meant to include you in the previous post (#235), in case I missed anything or got something wrong.
Thank you my dear Freeper Friend, null and void, for picking up the fight. I was going to jump in but you are excellent.
SC Swamp Fox, you have a heck of a lot learning in front of you.
I will say this, but you will not understand it: McCain was born in Colón, Republic of Panama. Period.
You need to instruct yourself between the Republic of Panama and what was the Canal Zone. It is the difference between Tijuana, Mexico, and San Diego, California, USA.
Entender?
Entiendes?
They don't line up so as to "spell the name". Some aberrations line up with some of the edges of the letters in her name. For things like fingerprints, there are official standards for how many matching points are required to declare that a fingerprint was in fact that of a particular person, rather than just a coincidental partial match. Here there are no such standards, but prudence would suggest making an effort to ascertain whether the partial matches could be coincidental.
Hey Tex Pete, you need to do a little reading.
Thank you, null and void.
Que mo sabe.
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.