Posted on 08/24/2010 6:37:15 PM PDT by RobinMasters
The State Department is maintaining a "counter-misinformation" page on an America.gov blog that attempts to "debunk a conspiracy theory" that President Obama was not born in the United States, as if the topic were equivalent to believing space aliens visit Earth in flying saucers.
However, in the attempt to debunk the Obama birth-certificate controversy, the State Department author confirmed Obama was a dual citizen of the U.K. and the U.S. from 1961 to 1963 and a dual citizen of Kenya and the U.S. from 1963 to 1982, because his father was a Kenyan citizen when Obama was born in 1961.
In a number of court cases challenging Obama's eligibility, dual citizenship has been raised as a factor that could compromise his "natural born" status under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. The cases argue dual citizenship would make Obama ineligible even if documentary evidence were shown the public, such as the hospital-issued long-form birth certificate that indicates the place of his birth and the name of the attending physician.
The entry "The Obama Birth Controversy" was written by Todd Leventhal, identified as the chief of the Counter-Misinformation Team for the U.S. Department of State. The office appears to have been established "to provide information about false and misleading stories in the Middle East," as described in a biography of Leventhal published on the U.S. Public Diplomacy website.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
You can't have delusions of grandeur when your opponent doesn't even try to make a contrary point. Yet again you support my argument for me by saying, "It was a way to force members of Congress to go on record as to whether they were birthers or not." You're admitting here that democrats are focusing on place of birth and not Obama's foreign national father. I get the feeling you don't understand how a debate works. I'm glad to teach you whenever you can focus.
Do you need a hanky?? I haven’t seen this much whining the last time Obama went on an anti-Fox news rant. I explained, and obviously you ignored, that Obama’s presence on the ballot was strictly on the basis of a self-declaration and there was no evidence anyone verified his credentials. You don’t refute that, but instead you simply resort to drama-queen rhetoric. Your point is hollow. No competent authority has declared Obama to be a natural born citizen in compliance with the Constitution. Whether anyone objected or not is circular logic. Getting away with fooling people doesn’t mean the huckster has been authenticated as legitimate.
Didn’t verify his credentials? Do you think ANYONE involved in politics didn’t KNOW his father wasn’t a US citizen? Do you think there is a state DA that doesn’t currently know about the birther claims?
And is the Indiana court incompetent? If so, what evidence do you have to back up your internet blather?
You can blow as much smoke as you want on the Internet, but has any birther convinced ANY competent authority of their claims?
Answer: No. Not one, anywhere.
Squeal as much as you want, but you cannot produce a single person in a position of responsibility that will back up what you post - which is why you cannot get any court to look at your case. They try not to take cases from nuts...
Wrong. He did when he cited Minor v. Happersett. "all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." This definition does not extend to anyone but those born in the country of citizen parents. Period.
Just becaue the 14th amendment establishes his citizenship does not mean that the common law argument doesn't do it as well.
Nonsense. The common law argument was used in support of the court's view on the 14th amendment. And the court specifically cited the 14th amendment citizenship phrase as being the decisive factor, not common law.
What you cited on the law of England from the decision doesn't make WKA a natural born citizen, nor did the North Carolina citation even mention the term natural born citizen. Don't make this so easy. The person striking out is you.
It sure is a crying shame then that you didn’t bother to record any of that before it became a politically popular issue here on FR.
Then your tale would like like something other than a transparent effort to patronize the true believers with an “I was at Woodstock!” story.
Never said anyone did or didn't. I said there's NO EVIDENCE that anyone verified his credentials. Speculating about what people think they know is not the same as checking credentials.
And is the Indiana court incompetent?
Do faithers take Obama's birth myth as gospel?? Hell yes, they're incompetent. I've proved that several times to you. Do you have long-term memory problem??
If so, what evidence do you have to back up your internet blather?
Like downplaying Vattel's Law of Nations as "an eighteenth century treatise," ignoring that it's frequently cited for guidance by the SCOTUS. Then they call quotes from the authors of the 14th amendment, "various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate" as if it has no constructive purpose in divining the intent of the 14th amendment. Then mysteriously they cite Minor's definition of natural born citizen and somehow conclude, "Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen." In their footnote to this comment, they say, "Note that the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom." This acknowledges that Minor's definition of natural born citizen contemplates that BOTH parents must be citizens. The court exposes its incompetence by leaving off the last part of the Minor passage it quoted which says, "It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens." Well obviously they left this off because it undermines their claim that somehow the issue is left open. Moreover, they undermine their claim of guidance from WKA by footnoting that WKA wasn't declared to be a natural born citizen. At the end of their decision, they say again, "The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century." Now how exactly is that different from quoting, "Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896 ..." in supporting their nonsense claim that NBS is somehow equivalent to NBC?? And the biggest tip off of incompetence is the court's insistence on using pejorative political jargon, " As to President Obama‟s status, the most common argument has been waged by members of the so-called “birther” movement who suggest that the President was not born in the United States; they support their argument by pointing to “the President‟s alleged refusal to disclose publicly an „official birth certificate‟ that is satisfactory to [the birthers].”
...and they are a complicit in these High Crimes, RATS and the other skirt wearers, the Pubies.
Apparently, the argument depends on the assertion that "natural born citizen" means something other than "citizen by birth". What the distinction might be is beyond me.
Faithers? Do you also have a name ("Moonies", perhaps) for people who believe that Neil Armstrong took one small step on the moon rather than on a studio set in Arizona?
What’s worse is that None of my old friends remember me asking them to bring their photos downtown Waikiki to see this guy
I wish I remembered everyone I asked, it would have been only 6 people or so, and I am not in touch with them all anyways, so...
It is impossible to prove, and I genuinely dont remember the guys name who I spoke to
But I absolutely remember because I was going to go back with pictures, and i remember most of what we talked about, too; he was born in mombassa, raised in Indonesia, living in Hawaii with people other than his parents, that he wanted to be president
I’d pass any polygraph.
I wonder why that is?
Howdy Race,
Not sure what part of this conversation I was pinged for, but as to why this usually doesn’t come up re Constitutional discussions is it isn’t hard evidence, it is simply your belief in who you met. I’m sure you would pass a poly, you believe it. The polygraph determines what you believe to be true, not hard evidence as to who that person was. If you believe 100% you met a young Obama, you will pass a polygraph but it wouldn’t be evidence that could change be admissible, especially after this amount of time.
It is just what you believe, yes another piece, but nothing that will change anything legally.
In explaining why you think the Indiana court incompetent, you prove your own folly.
They ridicule relying on Vattel for NBC because A) it first appeared AFTER the Constitution was written, and B) in multiple rulings, the Supreme Court has said the USA looks to English common law for the meaning of NBC, not Vattel. Thus, they would have been legally insane to suddenly overturn the Supreme Court & reason and accept the idea that Vattel was the source of NBC.
Various citations of the debate on the 14th are NOT legal precedence. Supreme Court rulings ARE. IN a Congressional debate, anything can and will be said to convince others to vote - but that doesn’t determine what is written in the final document nor the legal meaning. If the Supreme Court says it means X, then an appeal to a Congressional debate doesn’t matter - it has already been decided.
Nor is there evidence that what one person said was binding on what Congress intended, since there were other quotes from others in the debate that contradicted it.
You are the one wrong on Minor. The Minor decision specifically refused to address the issue of someone born of alien parents. To take a sentence fragment and ignore the paragraph it is in is gross incompetence, and it is what YOU do. The Indiana Court did what every other court will do, and what the Supreme Court did in WKA, and say Minor left the question open.
And yes, the Courts DO give greater weight to common law that to philosophical books. Vattel was not a book on English or American law, and even admits in the same section that birthers use that his thoughts are not used by all nations everywhere. Yes, ALL COURTS will use Supreme Court rulings as more authoritative than a sentence from Congressional debate or a European book. That isn’t incompetence. Expecting anything else is insanity.
There is a reason no one is contesting the Indiana ruling. 49 states COULD object, and not one does. Think about it.
“I said there’s NO EVIDENCE that anyone verified his credentials. Speculating about what people think they know is not the same as checking credentials.”
It isn’t speculating to note that everyone knew Obama’s father wasn’t a US citizen. It was highly publicized by the candidate. Your problem is that it has been accepted law for over 100 years that an alien parent is irrelevant to being a NBC, so no state objected. Nor did any Party, and candidate, any DA, any legislature, etc.
You're comparing Obama's jpg of an alleged birth certificate to being the same as walking on the moon?? Weird.
A) Where does it say that in their ruling?? B) Wrong as I've proven several times.
Thus, they would have been legally insane to suddenly overturn the Supreme Court & reason and accept the idea that Vattel was the source of NBC.
They are legally insane because they made a claim that isn't supported by the case they cited.
It isn’t speculating to note that everyone knew Obama’s father wasn’t a US citizen.
Sure it is. You don't know this to be true. You're making an assumption. Second, what people really don't know and understand is that the Supreme Court said in MULTIPLE cases INCLUDING WKA, that the parents must be citizens for the child to be a natural born citizen. It's in writing and even the Hoosier hillbilly court admits the truth through their footnotes.
I cannot argue with a person who can’t read English. Sorry. I’ve posted links, I’ve cited large passages, I’ve pointed out that the entire legal world accepts my version...and you just squeeze your eyes shut and refuse to see.
Believe what you want. If you & your friends get to court, you will lose. 100% of the time. The courts have little use for crazy people, which is why your side has lost every time - usually without a hearing, since the courts think you are insane.
Anyone who believes a passage written in 1797 was the source for a phrase found in a document written in 1787 is just insane...or are you a Time Lord? Either way, you’ll get tossed out of court.
Cheap insults are the resort of those who can't justify their failures. Thanks for showing your true colors.
Anyone who believes a passage written in 1797 was the source for a phrase found in a document written in 1787 is just insane...or are you a Time Lord?
The so-called 'passage' wasn't written in 1797. What you're really arguing is that a translation from 1797 is the ONLY way the founders would think a definition of natural citizenship at birth = natural born citizen, which is simply an ignorant argument. Second, if what you think is true, then why did Justice Waite explain that his definition of natural born citizen was "the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar." In essence you're calling the Supreme Court stupid because of your errant assumption.
I don't know what wording you mean.
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution..."
The only thing that applies to later generations is they be a "natural born citizen".
Hey, you aren't supposed to point out such obvious absurdities in the Birther belief system. You must be an Obot.
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.