Posted on 10/21/2011 7:03:48 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
Say what you will about the birthers, but don’t call them partisan.
The people who brought you the Barack Obama birth-certificate hullabaloo now have a new target: Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a man often speculated to be the next Republican vice presidential nominee. While they’re at it, they also have Bobby Jindal, the Republican governor of Louisiana and perhaps a future presidential candidate, in their sights.
The good news for the birthers is that this suggests they were going after Obama, whose father was a Kenyan national, not because of the president’s political party. The bad news is that this supports the suspicion that they were going after Obama because of his race.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Hey, I have a solar company that needs a bail out.....
*******
Kapiolani Hospital, President Obama's "birth" Hospital?
1. It has been about 6 months and counting since President Obama "released" his so-called long form birth certificate, but yet, Kapiolani Hospital officials have not come out and confirmed that Kapiolani Hospital is President Obama's birth hospital as stated on that long form birth certificate. Why is that?
Is the answer a simple one: There are no Obama records at Kapiolani Hospital to release and verify because Obama was NOT born there in Aug. 1961 as Obama claims?
2. Social Security controversy: As most of us know, we can easily and quickly get a copy of our original Social Security application by simply requesting one from Social Security and paying a small fee.
So why doesn't President Obama put a quick end to this Social Security Connecticut number controversy by simply getting a copy of his original Social Security application by simply requesting one from Social Security, paying a small fee, and releasing it to the public like he released his so-called long form birth certificate about 6 months ago on April 27, 2011?
As I see it, it looks like we are going through this entire long presidential campaign without President Obama addressing the controversies of his long form birth certificate and his Connecticut Social Security number, controversies that he could settle tomorrow if he wanted to. Sad. Very sad.
Why doesn't some mainstream reporter simply get the courage to confront President Obama about these controversies between now and election day Nov. 2012? They are a bunch of cowards,that is why.
NOTE: If you take President Obama's word that he was born at Kapiolani Hospital in Aug. 1961, then I have a successful solar company in Nevada I would like for you to buy.
3. If President Obama was born at Kapiolani Hospital, why don't Kapiolani officials let tourists see the room where Obama's mother stayed when she was in the hospital?
Letting tourists look at the room where Obama's mother stayed would not violate any medical record confidential rules as I see it.
Again, the answer could be a simple one: President Obama's mother did not spend one day at Kapiolani Hospital way back in Aug. 1961, and so there is no room to show tourists where she stayed in Aug. 1961.
4. Yes, if Obama's mother did indeed give birth to President Obama in Aug. 1961, then let's challenge Kapiolani to let people look at the room where Obama's mother supposedly stayed when in the hospital in Aug. 1961.
We all know that Kapiolani hospital won't let us look at such a room, because there was no such room: Obama's mother was never in that hospital in Aug. 1961, and Kapiolani officials know it.
So then all of the blacks that are descendants from slaves that were NOT citizens are by your definition NOT “natural Born”
What do you think the 14th Amendment was about. It was to correct THAT problem. GET IT?
It is a simple concept. If you are a citizen at the time you were born, then you are a natural born citizen. If you become a citizen at some point later in life, you are a naturalized citizen. There are ONLY two types of US citizenship: natural born and naturalized and only nbc’s are eligible to be POTUS. Only nbc’s are eligible to be POTUS.
Btw, we also know who are...another troll giving out misinformation in an effort to weaken our chances in the 2012 election by keeping one of our best conservatives off the ticket.
OOPS!!!
Presidents born as British subjectsThe following Presidents were born British subjects before the establishment of the United States:
George Washington
John Adams
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
James Monroe
John Quincy Adams
Andrew Jackson
William Henry Harrison
The following Presidents were born British subjects, as well as American citizens, after the establishment of the United States:
Chester A. Arthur[9]
Barack Obama[10]
What the Compost and little Pansy Milbank say is irrelevant.
You are confusing citizenship with eligibility, as all the slow-learners do, so I built a chart to help your understanding:
http://theobamafile.com/NaturalBornChart.htm
Sorry a faked birth certificate is a reason to pursue. Plus the multiple SS#’s.
But not on the flimsy arguements you have been making.
I haven't seen much support for any Republican candidate among the birthers (except maybe Donald Trump). I'm seeing more and more threads that say something along the lines of "don't support Republican candidates until they question Obama's eligibility."
wrong
Welcome to FR! Are you a retread?
I suggest you get off your high horse before you fall flat on your face.
I could care less about your ridiculous straw man arguement that supposes some people agree with your definition of NBC. Just because the issue has not been decided but avoided does not mean they agree with you. If thats your logic, you fail.
Where in the Constitution is citizen mentioned, or defined?
Also the 14th amendment does not clearly give citizenship muchj less Natural Born Citizenship to person born in the US to alien parents.
....What Law Requires Birthright Citizenship? Is automatic birthright citizenship for children of all legal and illegal aliens expressly required by the U.S. Constitution? On its face, the answer is “no.” No language in the Constitution specifically addresses how the children of foreigners must be dealt with in regards to citizenship. The 14th Amendment confers citizenship through “naturalization” or by birth to persons “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, but provides no guidance on when an alien is to be regarded as subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The next question, then, is whether any statute enacted by Congress specifically directs the granting of citizenship to children born in the United States to illegal aliens. Again, the answer is “no.” The executive branch’s birthright citizenship policy is not based on any federal regulation. One might say that the practice has become policy without becoming law.
Because the current policy has not been taken through the standard legislative or regulatory processes, it has become official practice without any input from the American public or their elected representatives. A recent survey found that only 33 percent of Americans support the practice of granting automatic citizenship to children born to illegal aliens.22.....
What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”44.....
.....
http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship
If you are present on US soil, you are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Again, well settled and accepted basic law. If it was different, then there are hundreds of thousands of illegally held prisoners in our country. I strongly suggest you read the entire WKA SCOTUS case. It addresses and answers both the birthright citizenship issue and the ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ issue.
The problem that birthers have is that not only does nobody outside of their fantasyland agree with their discredited theory, but the rule of law from the Constitution to SCOTUS caselaw to Federal statute to state law in all 50 states all hold that jus soli citizenship is used in the US. It is also well settled law for over the past century that if you are a citizen at birth, you are a natural born citizen.
Illegal is illegal...you are no different than the obots.
Btw, we also know who are...another troll giving out misinformation in an effort to weaken our chances in the 2012 election by keeping one of our best conservatives off the ticket.
Btw, what makes a conservative? Conserving the Constitution. You fail based on your definition of both US citizenship types and NBC.
Go back to fogbow...
Baloney Kim Wong Ark did no such thing. Apparently you did not even glance at the link I gave you or you are ignoring it.. 8 USC 1401 Does not define Natural Born Citizenship, What is its title?
......If you are present on US soil, you are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Again, well settled and accepted basic law. If it was different, then there are hundreds of thousands of illegally held prisoners in our country. I strongly suggest you read the entire WKA SCOTUS case. It addresses and answers both the birthright citizenship issue and the ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ issue...
I suggest you go back and read it again. It says nothing about children of illegal aliens or of temporary visitors. What does it say about NBC for eligibility to be President? The link I gave you shows very plainly the controversy over 14th amendment jurisdiction, you are refusing to look at it because it doesn't help your obvious agenda.
,,,,,,,,The problem that birthers have is that not only does nobody outside of their fantasyland agree with their discredited theory, but the rule of law from the Constitution to SCOTUS caselaw to Federal statute to state law in all 50 states all hold that jus soli citizenship is used in the US. It is also well settled law for over the past century that if you are a citizen at birth, you are a natural born citizen.....
No it is not well settled that a person born to alien parents in the US is a citizen at birth or a Natural Born Citizen. See Minor v Happersett
While you claim the law is settled, why would Justia, a legal reference website change references to Minor v Happersett? Since they are trying to it, then does not the case prove that NBC requires both parents to be citizens.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2795647/posts
try and sell your baloney someplace else it won't work here. So are you a retread?
Birthers have zero legal basis for their completely discredited theory. They blame some giant conspiracy for their inability make any progress for their misguided efforts in either the legislative or judicial branches of both federal and state governments. Birthers sound like a bunch of liberals to me!
You need to read beyond the title of a book to know it's contents, and you need to read beyond the title to know the text of 8 U.S.C 1401. That section of the United States Code has been cited thousand of times since 1952 in defining citizenship and nbc.The first clause of section 1401 states that if a person is born in the US, that person is a citizen. If you are a born citizen, then you are a nbc. Whether you and your birther buddies want to acknowledge that legal truism or remain in birther fantasyland is up to you. The entire US judiciary, legislative branches and everyone outside of birtherland use that definition.
The sole issue in Minor v Happersett was whether women gained the right to vote pursuant to the 14th Amendment. Any text in the decision regarding citizenship is pure dicta and cannot be used for precedent in a subsequent case. SCOTUS even in the decision states it is not resolving any citizenship issue. WKA decided 20 years later resolved the nbc issue and has been leading precedent for the past 100+ years. Chief Justice Howard Taft (and former Republican President) in 1927 referred to WKA as a “learned and very useful opinion.” WKA is case that has been cited approvingly and favorably thousands of time on the nbc issue and Minor has NEVER been cited for the definition of nbc.
It is time conservatives unite to defeat Obama. This birther garbage is not only a distraction, it also is being used to wrongly sidetrack one of our candidates (Marco Rubio) from running on the Presidential ticket next year. Birthers are only helping re-elect Obama with their bogus argument.
points out exactly the errors you make.
.... First, they argue that the definition of a “natural-born citizen” given by the Court is dicta and therefore not binding precedent. But they are wrong......
...The lack of any reference to “natural born” Citizen in Wong Kim Ark’s question presented and holding is critical given that in the opinion itself, the Court said that “[the child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” Hence, the Court held that Wong, a person born of aliens in the United States, was a “citizen,” since he was “as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen." Indeed, the Court acknowledged that one type of national character is a “citizen,” who is born in the country to “an alien,” and the other type is a “natural born citizen,” who is born in the country to “a citizen.”...
I am quite familiar with the Mcarran-Walther Immigration Act of 1952 (effective 12-24-52). So we are to let a foundling of unknown parentage be considered a Natural Born Citizen and become President of the US? I see you have the liberal talking points down pat and you still won't answer my question are you a retread? What was your previous screen name? Since everything is so crystal clear to you why the attempts by Congress to change the requirement of NBC to be President? It does not make sense. Why the Justia tampering? Why the hidden school passport and other records? Why the failure to show a BC until he could no longer ignore it and then presented a false BC? Where there is smoke there is fire.
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.