Posted on 12/01/2008 3:37:54 PM PST by ml/nj
It seems that one of the axioms of Sacramento politics is this: If you can't get something done, the next best thing is to succeed in blaming the other party. [Big snip]
Speaking of mail: It's the rumor that won't go away. I continue to get e-mails about why mainstream media are not pursuing the challenge to the authenticity of President-elect Barack Obama's citizenship. The answer is that this allegation has been vetted and debunked.
As this began to circulate on the right-wing blogosphere last spring, the Obama campaign posted a copy of his birth certificate on the Internet for the world to see. While it is true that Hawaiian officials have not made the document public because of privacy laws, the state's health director said she and the registrar of vital statistics have personally inspected his birth certificate and can vouch for its authenticity. That pretty much amounts to "case closed" for anyone but the conspiracy theorists who are convinced that Obama was born in Kenya and his mother fraudulently applied for a Hawaii birth certificate. Even if this were true - it seems rather silly to engage this argument, but here goes - I can't imagine anyone being able to put together sufficient evidence to invalidate a birth certificate that has been in the official vault for 47 years.
That certificate states that Barack Hussein Obama II was born in Honolulu at 7:24 p.m. on Aug. 4, 1961. And, yes, Hawaii had achieved statehood by then, contrary to some versions of this rumor.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
There must be some conflict of information that can’t be explained
1. The father isn’t who we have been told
2. A home birth- problamatic because both Obama, his sister , and his grandmoher in Kenya give three different accounts of his birth but all 3 were in hospitals - three different ones
of course thse two don’t exclude him from taking office
3. place of birth is not in the US
What do you think of the Selective Service Registration- that seems to have died down but I thought there were 10 or 15 errors/evidence of forgery on that as well- consistent with having been done after the fact -either to cover up the fact that he never registered, or to try to be consistent with the forged COLB’s that were public earlier
Definitely not acting like an innocent man.
Did you read the Constitution?
I believe it is up to those who doubt a candidate is a natural born citizen to prove he is not natural born. The Constitution does not require a candidate prove he is natural born.
99% of the elected officials in HI are RATs. Do you need any other explanation re their failure to act on the matter?
ML/NJ
I like your interpretation. Are you qualifed, sure. You're in. Great stuff.
The constitution doesn't have to addreess who does what. It outlines the qualification. Election officials accept filings and they have a job to do.
I may not be the brightest one around either.
I would love to see him declared inelegible.
If he is legal or not is overshadowed by the power and money they have, along with the media in their pocket.Don’t see it happening.
‘I believe if you read the US Constitution you will find there is a requirement that the US President BE a natural born citizen, but there is NO requirement he PROVE he is such.’
Hey, Bill Clinton, how ya doin’ sweetheart?!!!! Who knew YOU were a FReeper!!!!
What is it about the future perfect (”shall have failed”) that you do not understand?
I said: “I believe it is up to those who doubt a candidate is a natural born citizen to prove he is not natural born. The Constitution does not require a candidate prove he is natural born.”
According to the Constitution (20th Amendment): “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify”
The President elect is the president elected by the electors, not a candidate. Therefore, if a President elect is not a natural born citizen (or at least 35 years of age, or resided in the US for 14 years) “then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified.”
ML/NJ
Thats the problem - its still in the vault.
Honestly, there is a group think out there amongst reporters. This doesn’t fit their preconceived narrative.
***Let’s ask someone who is a reporter? Why is it, Salena?
BTT.
FR’s Polarik, Dr. Ron Polarik, will be a guest on Lan Lamphere’s show tonight.
At 11PM EST; 10PM CST, Listen Here:
Many thanks, LucyT
Ping
Joe Thunder Show was on,,,?,,,still listenin’...
This computer doesn’t have the capacity to listen, so I’m sorry to say I don’t know.
Leo C. Donofrio was on,,,same topic...;0)
Agreed, however there are two legal concepts that I believe that the Supreme Court would apply to the “natural born” clause.
1) Jus Solis: The law of place (persons physically born with in the US and not excluded by an exemption)
2) Jus Sanguinis: The law of blood (persons born to two US citizens abroad who meet the US residentancy requirements, if required at the time)
I believe that the Supreme Court would hold a person who meets one of these requirements as being “natural born” because citizenship is automatic at birth.
However I believe that a child born abroad to only one US citizen would not be considered “natural born” because citizenship is not automatic and the child has choices as to which country they will become a citizen.
I hate nationality law.
Anyone sworn to uphold the Constitution is responsible.
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.