Posted on 02/22/2009 5:02:19 PM PST by patriotgal1787
WASHINGTON – A U.S. senator has weighed in on the continuing controversy over Barack Obama's eligibility for office by saying he has never seen proof the new president was actually born in Hawaii.
"Well, his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven't seen any birth certificate," Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., told constituents in Cullman County. "You have to be born in America to be president."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
The original will always stay in the vault in Hawaii. He can ask for a copy, and the COLB that he posted on the internet is exactly what you get when you ask for one.
Why is he spending hundreds of thousands
I have not seen a shred of evidence that he's spent a dime on this case.
BTW. Have been thinking: In teaching as other professions there is a law requiring an individual to report someone who breaks a law dealing with a child.
Is there any type of law that would require a public official to report an individual that is manipulating the law for their own gain. ....A clerk perhaps in the record bureau required to report someone using the clerk’s office to circumvent the law.
No, it's your link that's Bullsh!t. English Common law and Supreme Court case law are very clear that a person born in the US to non-citizen parents is a natural born citizen so long as he is subject to US jurisdiction when he is born.
It's all laid out here:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2008/12/natural-born-citizen/
Obammy is a fraud..
Shelby has come a long way. He voted against Bork.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2008/12/natural-born-citizen/
This website doesn't even reference Perkins v. Elg, the key Supreme Court case in this matter. Therefore, your statement that it's ALL laid out is incorrect on its face.
It's really all laid out here:
http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Get used to it, Obama is an usurper, whether you like it or not, or whether you agree with it or not.
curiosity:”Any story in WorldNutDaily has about the same probability of being true as your typical story published in Weekly World News.”
The original story was actually reported by Cullman Times (Cullman, Alabama):
http://www.cullmantimes.com/breakingnews/local_story_052203445.html
Misdirection — that’s your favorite tactic.
James Madison died over 100 years before the relevant Supreme Court findings.
>>> a person born in the US to non-citizen parents is a natural born citizen so long as he is subject to US jurisdiction when he is born.
Oh really? Can you cite any SCOTUS cases on this?!
Granting citizenship to illegal alien babies, as of the last few presidents (including Bush — grrr), is an Executive branch amnesty — via the State Department mostly. Neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever decided one way or the other on that issue, so the Executive branch has made their own interpretation, and has decided to allow them citizenship (certainly NOT Natural Born Citizenship), which, IMO, it does not have the Constitutional right to do.
Furthermore, the 14th Amendment was added to grant citizenship to slaves that were freed by the 13th Amendment since they were born on U.S. soil. It most definitely was NOT intended or envisioned so that women could travel thousands of miles (as transportation back then was a VERY risky endeavor), enter our country without going through Customs or any other type of Passport or Visa process, just to “break their water” on our sovereign soil in order for their child to become a “Natural Born Citizen”.
Please put the bong pipe down and start making some intelligent statements for once ...
Sorry. Gave you the wrong link. This is the right one:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/the-great-mother-of-all-natural-born-citizen-quotation-pages/
You will note that Perkins is addressed therein.
Three comments:
1) FYI, Perkins v. Elg isn't a SCOTUS case. It's an appeals court case. I'm only pointing this out so we have our facts straight. Despite being only an appeals cour decision, it's still binding precedent, since it was never overturned by SCOTUS. In fact, it was cited in later SCOTUS decisions. Again, I'm just pointing this out to make sure we get the facts straight, not to deminish the importance of the case, which I accept as binding precedent.
2) Nothing in the Perkins case supports the birther claim that one needs two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.
3) Perkins contradicts the claims of some birthers that dual citizenship negates natural born status. From the link above:
"And the mere fact that the plaintiff [Elg] may have acquired Swedish citizenship by virtue of the operation of Swedish law on the resumption of that citizenship by her parents does not compel the conclusion that she has lost her own citizenship acquired under our law….
"The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [page 350] ….. declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States,'"
Please all....do not forget that electronic forensic experts have deconstructed the “COLB” on Factcheck.org and said it is a forgery using 2007 graphic elements.
Sandra Ramsey Lines said exactly that.
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
James Madison, May 22, 1789, House of Representatives
Was it too much to ask WHY he kept silent about this during the campaign?
This web site lays it out nicely:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/the-great-mother-of-all-natural-born-citizen-quotation-pages/
Granting citizenship to illegal alien babies, as of the last few presidents (including Bush — grrr), is an Executive branch amnesty — via the State Department mostly.
I agree that the question of whether US-born babies of illegal aliens are US citizens has not been definitively settled in the courts. That's because it is unlcear whether such babies are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US.
However, neither of Obama's parents was an illegal alien. His mother was a citizen, and his father was here legally and was not a diplomat. That makes it undeniable that Obama was subject to US jurisdiction when born.
It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.
I agree with this.
Wikipedia-speak:
racism = criticizing Obama
partiotism = dissent from Bush and his policies and hoping the US loses a war
It’s not even printed, so it’s not even useful for cleaning up after my dog with.
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.