Posted on 10/22/2009 12:46:04 PM PDT by pissant
(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Three-in-ten Americans think their current head of state was not born in the United States, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 70 per cent of respondents believe Barack Obama was born in the U.S., while 30 per cent do not.
While only 13 per cent of Democratic Party supporters believe Obama was not born in the U.S., the proportion rises to 25 per cent among Independents and 51 per cent among Republican Party backers.
In American elections, candidates require 270 votes in the Electoral College to win the White House. In November 2008, Democratic nominee Obama secured a majority of electoral votes, defeating Republican candidate John McCain. In January, Obama became the first African American president in U.S. history.
Article II of the U.S. Constitution establishes that only "natural born" American citizens are eligible to become presidents.
Last year, the Obama campaign team released a Certification of Live Birth, which states that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on Aug. 4, 1961. The State of Hawaii only allows for the release of an original birth certificate under "extenuating circumstances."
Earlier this month, former House majority leader Tom Delay discussed his views on Obama’s birth, saying, "Why wouldn’t the president of the United States show the American people his birth certificate? You have to show a birth certificate to play Little League baseball. It’s a question that should be answered. It’s in the Constitution that you have to be a natural born citizen of the United States to be president."
(Excerpt) Read more at angus-reid.com ...
You believe as I do.
So?...Given the levels of literacy in the U.S., these 30% are that percentage of the population that can read and use the Internet.
By the way, I have completely lost trust in our conservative media. Obama’s eligibility has proven to me that these loudmouths are not men ( and a few women) of courage. When tyranny comes they will roll right over and willing spit shine the jack boats on our necks.
You damn straight
And they seem to take great pleasure at informing us that there isn’t any legal remedy. They tell us that we just have to tolerate the usurper.
But ‘We the people’ must have standing, no one else will stand up and defend the Constitution.
Absolutely - this is why it is so evident that the founders intended to use Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen.
Chester Arthur was not a NBC and neither is Obama.
Actually, I believe him to be a lying Muslim marxist bisexual crackhead quisling thug.
Even the milquetoast self ID’d republicans know Obama is a fraud. Too bad you can’t convince your comrades otherwise, eh?
Works for me.
Because Arthur said as much in his only interview on the subject. You should really familiarize yourself with the historical record before spouting off. The information was already given to you upthread.
Which Democrats, specifically "knew that"? Name one. Where in the public record is it recorded they "knew that." Quote and cite please.
Or, alternatively, retract.
He lived with his wealthy grandparents at their “upscale condo”, not with his mother.
I've taken you suggestion and created a poll at the altfreerepublic forum.
Not only has the tape "gone missing" but Keyes himself doesn't even remember this exchange.
I read the Donofrio piece that everyone has been relying upon to claim that the Arthur precedent is no precedent at all because Arthur supposedly lied about when his father was naturalized and nobody bothered to check it out, and I must say that, while Arthur clearly told some lies, he did not say *anything* about when his father was naturalized.
Arthur’s statements came when he was accused of having been born in Ireland (not Canada) and not arriving in the U.S. until he was 14. Arthur said that his father was 18 when he came to the U.S. from Ireland (his father was actually 22, so it was a minor lie), that his mother was a Vermonter that had never left the U.S. (not true, since she lived in Canada for a few years, but given that the accusation was that Arthur was born in Ireland, maybe Arthur’s point was that she had never been more thana couple of hundred miles from Vermont), and that his father was 40 when he was born (he was 33). So Arthur told some lies, maybe material, maybe not, but if there’s anything in that long piece that quotes Arthur lying about *when his father was naturalized* please direct me to it.
Democrats claimed that Arthur and his family arrived in America when he was 14, and we’re supposed to believe that they assumed that Arthur’s father had been naturalized *before Arthur was born*? And Arthur turned 14 in 1843, which was the exact year in which Arthur’s father became a naturalized citizen; either the Democrats claimed that Arthur arrived at age 14 because they knew he couldn’t have arrived sooner because they knew his father had been naturalized that year (as they would have found out had they looked at naturalization records), or it’s a huge coincidence. And throw in the fact that where Arthur was born would be irrelevant to his citizenship at birth unless his father was a foreign subject when Arthur was born and it seems to me that the Democrats that claimed that Arthur was not a natural-born citizen because he was born in Ireland or Canada had to have known (or at the very least assumed) that Arthur’s father was not a U.S. citizen when Arthur was born.
Let me put it this way: I am not convinced that Obama is a NBC, and I publicly state that the reason for my uncertainty as to Obama’s qualifications is the lack of documentary evidence that he was born in U.S. territory and the anecdotal evidence that he was born in Kenya. Now, knowing what you know about my position, could you possibly claim that I am not aware that Obama’s father was a foreign subject when Obama was born? Of course not, because if I believed that Obama’s father was a U.S. citizen when Obama was born Obama would be an NBC even had he been born in Kenya. Thus, it would not be reasonable for someone 130 years from now to claim that I believed that someone that was a U.S. citizen at birth would not be an NBC unless his father was a citizen when such person was born, and that the reason why I never said that Obama’s father being a foreigner meant that Obama was not an NBC even if had been born in Hawaii was tgat I thought that Obama’s father was a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama’s birth. Now, someone 130 years from now could claim that I was mistaken regarding the definition of NBC, just as you and some other of our fellow FReepers do today, but such future critics would not be able to say that the Obama case does not constitute evidence that I believed that the parents’ citizenship status was dispositive in determining whether someone is a NBC. Well, the same applies to the persons that claimed in 1880 that Arthur was not a NBC because he was born in Canada or Ireland. Maybe they were wrong in believing that Arthur’s father being a foreign subject when Arthur was born was not by itself proof that Arthur was not a NBC, but they couldn’t have believed that Arthur’s father was a U.S. citizen when Arthur was born.
Yes, it most certainly does. Read the subsections titled “Historical Context,” “Chester’s Lies,” and “Fateful Facts.” Even the author of the authoritative biography of Chester Arthur was surprised to learn the information that Leo uncovered.
I think I understand what you are missing with regard to Chester’s lies. You claim that it would have been easy for researchers in 1880 to find Chester’s father’s naturalization records. That would be true IF they knew where to begin their research. They didn’t. Chester’s father’s naturalization records were on file in Washington County, New York. Naturalization records were not centrally stored at the Library of Congress at that time.
Since Chester lied about his father’s history, 1880 researchers wouldn’t know at which port he arrived because they didn’t know about his time in Canada. Remember that they were claiming that Chester was born in Ireland and didn’t arrive in the U.S. until 1843. Chester refuted that claim by establishing that he was born in Vermont. He also claimed that his father had been in the U.S. since he was 18, married a few years later and that his family hadn’t left Vermont since the marriage.
Once Chester established his birth in Vermont and affirmed his father’s residence in the U.S. for many years prior to Chester’s birth, researchers would not know (or even think) to look for naturalization records in NY for 1843. Why would they? Chester had just proven his birth in Vermont in 1829 which would inherently establish his father’s presence in the U.S. in at least 1829 and logically for many years prior due to his marriage and the birth of his other four children.
If anyone still doubted the year of his father’s naturalization, which is unlikely, they’d be looking for records for a different time period in a different state and possibly port-of-entry records from the wrong location.
Chester’s lies and Hinman’s focus on the Ireland birth prevented anyone from discovering the real issue.
I believed that [if] [sic] Obama’s father was a U.S. citizen when Obama was born Obama would be an NBC even had he been born in Kenya.
That's nice. Do you believe in unicorns also?
You forgot to name and cite source of a contemporary Democrat who said Arthur was born in Vermont before his father was naturalized.
Probably because there ain't any.
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.