Posted on 07/26/2009 1:54:24 PM PDT by joeu01
Ann Coulter agrees with Rivera and Huck(ster)abee that Obama's birth certificate is not issue. Says "the issue was dealt with". These so-called "conservative leaders" Coulter and Huckabee are way behind the curve....
Video: http://www.breitbart.tv/ann-coulter-birthers-are-wrong/
You said — Couldn’t we still turn it around on them by pointing out that Obama paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid producing a perfectly innocent birth certificate...just to hurt the Republicans?
—
He doesn’t have to do it that way. All he has to do is “let it slip” and appear to be “out of his control” and then it gets exposed. He didn’t do it, but someone else did (maybe he tells his attorneys... “let this case go...”) and it gets out...
Then it’s not him doing it, it’s a court...
—
And let’s say that there is something embarrassing in there, like his mother put down that his daddy is “unknown”... and Obama then says to the public that he was trying to spare his family’s image on this fact and *now* the Republicans have done “their dastardly deed” (... LOL... doncha know...), and it all backfires on the Republicans when the public becomes outraged that a personal matter as “daddy unknown” is “exposed” and now everyone is feeling sorry for him... LOL...
Ann’s wrogn on this. Wehre is teh birth certificate? How does she account for a member of teh Kenyan government (a Cabinet minister) recently saying Obama was born there?
If there is a birth certificate, it would only take BO a couple of minutes to sign a letter to teh Hawaii Secretary of State asking that it be released. The release of it would pretty much end the issue. So why won’t he do that?
Remember: the simplest explanation that covers all the facts.
Exactly. And for me, what this is all boiling down to is that I want to see the signatures of the attending doctors and nurses on the document. That will be the only "proof" I will accept. ANYTHING other than that, and Obamis claim of Hawaiian birth will still only remain a "claim".
Actually, it absolutely matters because it has not been decided at law that you need two US Citizens as parents to be a Natural Born Citizen or two US NATURAL BORN citzens, etc...
Some of the legal arguments have centered on HIS UK citizenship aspect - and he might NEVER have had UK citizenship.
There are various steps up the ladder. If he isn’t even a US citizen you don’t have to get to the Natural Born part of it - which will be the most difficult part of it to decide since it is not set in stone - or rather - legal precedent.
To decide whether he is a US citizen you have to look at whether he was born a bastard IF born outside of the US.
I don’t have a problem with high-profile GOP leaders walking away from it w/o concrete info. However, we should keep this corrosive buzz going for no other reason that it helps undermine 0bama.
Don't know what the BC is, but it is important to know where Obama was born and one of the best objective sources for that information is the birth certificate. And here's why it's important:
Stanley Ann was 18 when she gave birth to Obama in 1961, and whether a person is a U.S. citizen at birth is governed by 8 U.S.C. section 1401, "Nationals and citizens of the United States at birth," legislation enacted by Congress in 1952. (All laws enacted by Congress are published in the United States Code or U.S.C.)
Section 1401 provides:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(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;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
The relevant paragraph is found in section 1401(g). People cite paragraph (g) to claim that Obama is a U.S. citizen by birth regardless of where he was born. Stanley Ann, a U.S. citizen and 18 when Obama was born in 1961, met the first requirement by living at least five years in the United States, and she met the second requirement since least two of the five years she had lived in the U.S. before Obama was born were after she turned 14.Under paragraph (g) and this analysis, Obama acquired U.S. citizenship by virtue of his mother's U.S. citizenship regardless of where he was born -- Kenya, Malaysia, it doesn't matter.
However, Congress amended section 1401 in 1986. It amended paragraph (g) by substituting "fives years at least two" for "ten years at least five." Just as importantly, Congress decided that the amendment only applies to persons born on or after November 14, 1986. See Public Law 99-653.
So, under the law in 1961, if Obama was born outside the United States and Stanley Ann was not at least 19 at the time of his birth, he's not a U.S. citizen.
And this is why the answer to the question of where he was born, and thus what it says on his birth certificate, are so important.
Are you aware that Lou Dobbs reported that HI officials (of course) now claim the COLB is lost or destroyed just after or because of the switch to an electronic birth record system. I have been predicting this would happen from the beginning
Hell lady, you can be a natural born citizen even if your mother has no idea who your father was. The 14th Amendment makes that very clear. FYI, there are plenty of babies born these days with NO FATHER on the birth certificate at all.
Keep Digging..there is an out of wedlock provision.
http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html
And for the person that said Obama’s UK citizenship doesn’t matter..even the video on Taitz site says it matters. They just didn’t take into account that Obama was born a bastard -( unless Ann went to Kenya to have a customary marriage-) and therefore couldn’t be a UK citizen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEnaAZrYqQI
The law is not decided about natural born status requiring TWO US CITIZENS IF BORN ON US SOIL. It is subject to judicial interpretation.
AC must be getting threats....”do not support the BC issue....or no guest spots on programs”
I think AC has traded credibility for face time...
The Huckster does have a point- If Obama were not eligible to be president, the Clinton machine would have ferreted it out. That has got to be the single biggest argument against Obama not being a natural born citizen.
Obama may not know who is REAL father is..but the purported information to this day is that Obama SR is the father and he was a UK citizen.
show me the case that clearly outlines the same exact conditions as Obama. I would like to see it.
I sense this as well. Ann and Rush aren’t touching it. Rush has teams of people behind him and Ann is/was a lawyer.
I agree with Coulter about Hillary - she certainly knows. Hillary co-signed Senate Res. 511 wherein “born of parents who are citizens’ was right up front. http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html We can save the analysis of why Hillary didn't challenge him for another discussion - I can think of lots of scenarios - but the key is that our constitution requires that the president and vice president, and only those offices, to be filled by ‘natural born citizens’ - born of the soil of parents who are themselves citizens.
I like Coulter, but she isn't infallible. I have learned that lawyers, while the Latin terms and sometimes stilted grammatical constructions can be daunting, often wing it, and hope the reader will not follow their flawed logic. That is probably why Lexis and Nexus, and publishers of legal volumes do well. There is lots and lots of case law, but there have been few cases in 200 years where the issue of natural born citizenship was germane. Lawyers often decide what their conclusion must be to be paid, and go looking for case law to support their conclusions - like the scientists whose salaries depend upon supporting global warming dogma. Perhaps someone should suggest to Coulter that she go back and read the prevailing decision by Chief Justice Marshall in The Venus!
Of course, Coulter was only referring to the birth certificate. She did not misdefine natural born citizen, or claim that citizenship was sufficient for presidential eligibility. Perhap she infers, along with Leo Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo that the documents are being saved to embarass those caught up with forensic examination of the certifications displayed on the web, along with his military registration. The real issue is natural born citizenship. Obama has sworn that he is natural born. There is no doubt that he knows what that means. There is strong evidence that he would like that provision to be changed. It hasn't been changed, and he entered the arena swearing he was qualified. That issue must be resolved by the courts. Legal discovery will expose the documents, and I too think it likely that some documents will appear.
Who could be surprised at anything Geraldo says, or a black acolyte from Columbia, or Lindsey Grammnisty?
Ann is correct as usual.
ping for later
LLS
Yeah... Bush’s National Guard story really cost those pesky dims huh.
LLS
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.