Posted on 04/20/2011 12:17:50 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
For the first time, Rep. Michele Bachmann – who is actively considering a run for the White House in 2012 -- has said that the birth certificate President Obama has released to the public puts an end to the "birther" issue. It came when I showed her the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth published on FactCheck.org.
It happened this morning on “GMA.” Here’s the key exchange:
Stephanopoulos: Last night you were on Fox News suggesting the president should come forward with his birth certificate as well --
Bachmann: Well, what I have said about that is, I was asked a question about that and Republicans are constantly asked to vouch for the authenticity of the birth certificate. The only one who can is the clerk of court in the county where someone is born and that’s where people should go. Don’t ask Republicans, go ask the clerk of court.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.abcnews.com ...
True enough, however they aren’t trying to make it easy to differentiate them. Quite the opposite actually.
Under which law? If Obama was adopted by his step-father, then one would have to go to court to settle the matter.
Bachmann: Yeah, there you go. Because that is not the main issue facing the United States right now.
Exactly the right answer.
Fact Check is not the operative agency. The State of Hawaii is.
All Fact Check did was to say, we saw it, it sure looked official, here are some more pictures, and note the raised seal. Which, of course, proves nothing either way. But forgery only works when the recipient of the forged document is not in a position to check it independently.
If it's genuine, the State of Hawaii can confirm it. If it's forged, they were remiss in failing to notify the Bush Department of Justice in 2008 (ask Republican ex-Governor Linda Lingle). But they didn't, because they certified it, and they know it's a true abstract of what is in their files.
If you want to prove Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, you will have to prove he bought the State of Hawaii. Don't waste your time contesting document authenticity or reading threads by document quacks.
That is a bunch of B.S.
Definition of a Fact:
1) Something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2) Something known to exist or to have happened: pulled it from Obama’s web site and NOT the state of Hawaii.
Based off what YOU are saying is that fact check is just lead around by the nose by politicians?
Now if you look at their other investigations, and they take great pride on getting to the TRUTH (except when it comes to the leftist agenda) instead of just reporting what is said. Please spare with your rubbish!
It’s not up to me to prove where Obama was born. Obama has to prove to the U.S. Constitution that he was born in the U.S.
Obama has FAILED to do that. Once again....,
A Certificate of Live Birth is NOT a Birth Certificate
A newspaper add is NOT a Birth Certificate?
If Obama was born in Hawaii, then why did he spend over 2 million dollars in legal fees to fight the release????
Why has Obama sealed all his school records?
Anyone with half an objective brain understands Obama is hiding something. Chances are he is probably born in Kenya. Nonetheless, Obama could end this very easily by showing the displaying the long term birth certificate. Instead he fights it in court.... Your anger should be directed at Obama for not displaying his long term Birth Certificate.
The only Quacks here are people like you keep spitting out bunch of malarky on behalf of Obama.
My point is, Obama says the State of Hawaii says he was born there. And the State of Hawaii hasn't said he wasn't.
And so the question is, did the State of Hawaii say he was born there?? If they didn't, no forgery, no matter how good, could succeed, could it?
You have to prove that they didn't say he was born there, that they lied that he was born there, or that they were fooled! The presumption in any court of law would be that the document presented is genuine. And a confirmation by the issuing agency would settle that question, absent compelling evidence to the contrary. And that's after you've achieved standing
! LOL! What a waste of time is birferism!
The fact you defend document quacks proves you just don't understand the problem.
I advise you follow the lead of your betters, starting with Michele.
If Obama was born in Hawaii, then why did he spend over 2 million dollars in legal fees to fight the release????
Just because you read it on the internet doesn't make it true. Please post a .xlsx with a detailed breakdown.
“Just because you read it on the internet doesn’t make it true.”
Ditto when a politician or even a State says something. So once again where is the long term Birth Certificate? After all, like you said, just because they said it does not mean it’s true right? Do you think a court of law operates with out evidence? So far we have nothing from Obama.
LOL! Of course you do not want to believe the 2 million dollars because that torpedo everything you are saying. You can’t defend it.
I don’t know the leftist Goons you are listening to, but you need to quit listening to their B.S.
I find it funny how you don’t wonder why Obama will not just produce his long term Birth Certificate? Moreover, the fact that he is fighting this in court does not signal to you in any way that Obama is possibly hiding something? It’s amazing how you want to ignore the all the facts about Obama. Noticed to how your silent about Obama’s school records being sealed too.
This issue will not go away, as you hope it does, until Obama releases his long term Birth Certificate.
One more point. Obama has Perkins Coie that is defending him from multiple law suits over his birth certificate. That is a fact.
Why would Obama spend 2.6 million dollars to hide the release instead of $10 or so to release the long term Birth Certificate to the public? I’m amazed you are willing to ignore this fact.
Here is some more evidence that yes there was a court case and many cases.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94409
Now again please tell me how it makes more sense to pay lots of legal fees instead of $10 or so dollars for the long term Birth Certificate and release it to the public? Obama could easily win all his law suits for next to nothing. How does mathematically make any sense????
I KNOW YOU KNOW THIS... ANYONE WITH HALF OBJECTIVE BRAIN UNDERSTANDS THIS.
Given the amount of traction the birther lawsuits have achieved in the courts, I'd be surprised if the tab for Zero's defense was as much as two thousand dollars. Bear in mind, he spent around $720m on the 2008 campaign. Only about $1.2m of that was for all legal services combined. That's a sixth of a percent!
In any case, it doesn't matter, because the courts don't get to decide. It takes 67 senators to remove a sitting president. Zero stands or falls on his performance in office, not his eligibility. There are no magic bullets.
The fact that Obama spends that money tells you he is not born here. There is no other conclusion.
Yes you maybe right that we have a gutless, corrupt, chicken $hit Senate that would never do it. We already know they are more concerned with protecting their political a$$, than upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States. This is why the Tea Party exist.
Like I said this issue will not go away. Only Obama can end it.
The DNC in March of this year admitted he had spent over 2.6 Million dollars....
That does not add up. All Obama has to do is release a long Term Birth Certificate to the Public at around 10 or so dollars. That’s it! I know you know I’m right.
It is highly likely we have an imposter in the White House. We are probably facing a constitutional crisis. You are crazy if you do not think people will not be raising hell about it.
It will invite a ton of lawsuits, possible successions of States if nothing is done, and I can ONLY imagine what it will do for people in the military. They are obeying orders from an imposter???? I’m sorry but the military will not stand for it. Furthermore, what about the military men that were sent to prison because they challenged Obama’s eligibility. They will all be released.
The Senate will have to face it, or they will face a possible revolt. Especially, when people are paying $5 gas and you have high levels of unemployment from a corrupt government body in Washington DC.
Oh and you honestly think the Candidates are going to sit silent about it. They will call for an immediate disqualification of Obama. I would bet Trump will be leading the way.
Don’t forget talk radio along with the Internet. The U.S. Senate I’m sure wants to ignore this, but they will not be able to. It’s too explosive. The rats in the media and press are going to look really stupid too.
So where is the long form BC and how does BO being born in Hawaii automatically qualify him as a NBC? There are criteria in the constitution which it does not seem he meets... having to do with his Father not being a citizen and his mother being of such a young age. That all aside... why not show the long form BC? What’s up with that? Why not produce the documents? Why? Why? Why? Some concerned citizens would like to know.
Why do you continue to lie on these threads..the Supreme Court said natural born citizens are born to citizen parents.
The Supreme Court said the law of nations is law in the United States since the Founding.
The Law of Nations is written in the Constitution.
Stop spreading lies on free republic.
I really do not want to post things to make you look silly..because you are a veteran..but..the bowels in my hard drive are packed..they want to be unleashed.
Natural born citizens are born from citizen parents...not an alien who has not naturalized before the birth of the child.
WE understand your situation..but..they cannot be president.
I don’t know if the forms are any different based on how the record got into the computer system.
“Why do you continue to lie on these threads..the Supreme Court said natural born citizens are born to citizen parents.”
The Supreme Court has argued at length in WKA - prior to 1900 - that the meaning of natural born citizen is found in the meaning of the legal phrase natural born subject - a phrase known to all the Founders.
“There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”
You argue it is based on a phrase found in Vattel in a translation made 10 years AFTER the Constitution was written - which makes you an idiot.
“The Supreme Court said the law of nations is law in the United States since the Founding.”
Yes. But they were NOT referring to Vattel’s book. The Law of Nations refers to international law - it is about the law between nations, and how various nations interpret law, not about US law. Not surprising, since many books were written about it before the USA existed.
“Public international law concerns the structure and conduct of sovereign states; analogous entities, such as the Holy See; and intergovernmental organizations. To a lesser degree, international law also may affect multinational corporations and individuals, an impact increasingly evolving beyond domestic legal interpretation and enforcement. Public international law has increased in use and importance vastly over the twentieth century, due to the increase in global trade, armed conflict[citation needed], environmental deterioration on a worldwide scale, awareness of human rights violations, rapid and vast increases in international transportation and a boom in global communications.
The field of study combines two main branches: the law of nations (jus gentium) and international agreements and conventions (jus inter gentes), which have different theoretical foundations and should not be confused.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_international_law
I’m sorry you don’t understand basic terms of law, and refuse to learn. I know you glom on to anything involving Vattel, and choose to remain ignorant of everything else. And that is why your side gets its butt handed to it in court. You bring cases without the faintest clue about what the law says - and has said, for hundreds of years before Obama was born.
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”
Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW, pg. 258 (1826)
“The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President… The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ”
Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844)
“The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, (it is. in fact,made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural—home-born—and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien—foreign-born—making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former. …” ‘
Attorney General Bates, Opinion of Citizenship, (1862)
Documents received by the are marked “Received” with the date received or “Accepted” with the date accepted if there is corroborating witness attestation with the document(s) or “Filed” if the Court issues an Order to file a document.
Obama’s COLB was “Filed” after a Court Order was issued.
Documents received are marked “Received.”
Documents marked “Accepted” are only accepted after corroborating witness attestation as to the veracity of the document are examined and accepted by the registrar. Otherwise the document is rejected or marked “Received.”
Documents marked “Filed” are only filed after a Court Order instructs the registrar to file the record with the information contained in the Order.
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.