Posted on 12/03/2008 8:14:35 AM PST by Scythian
This birth certificate issue has been going on for some time now and for those hoping for some kind of dramatic outcome you are in for another big disappointment.
First, there is always the chance that there is a valid birth certificate proving Obama to be a US citizen.
Second, enough time has passed such that the Obama cult has manufactured and installed a phony certificate that will re-route us back up to option 1 above, he will have a valid certificate. Who do you think works in these kinds of government offices? They're all democrats.
Third, no court is going to force Obama to prove himself to be a citizen, the burden is on those making the accusation that he is not a citizen. A criminal doesn't have to prove he didn't commit a crime, the state has to prove that he did.
=================================
Flame on, and sorry for the Vanity, but this is driving me nutz, this issue gets my hopes up but then common sense dashes my hope on the rocks, and this now is a daily occurrence. You are going to find a valid certificate at the end of this road if you are lucky enough to get a judge to demand it, and that is very unlikely, whether the certificate be real or phony it won't matter, and will never be able to proven either way.
Thanks for the background. Interesting...
History seems to be repeating itself.
http://www.genealogue.com/2005/06/our-canadian-president.html
Chester Alan Arthur Our Canadian President?
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U. S. Constitution states that “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.” Could a man born in Canada have slipped into the White House through deception?
Chester Alan Arthur (he pronounced his middle name al-AN) was, according to the official account, born in Fairfield, Vermont, Oct. 5, 1830, the son of Reverend William and Malvina (Stone) Arthur (his gravestone confirms this date). One biographer, Thomas C. Reeves, has concluded that he was born a year earlier—on Oct. 5, 1829— and that Arthur changed the date “no doubt out of simple vanity.”1
Changing his year of birth is forgivable (Arthur was well beyond the age requirement for the presidency); but could he have changed his place of birth as well? Arthur P. Hinman thought so. Hinman, a New York lawyer, brought the issue to the attention of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle in a letter early in August, 1880, while Arthur was yet a candidate for the Vice-Presidency. Arthur evidently had flip-flopped on the issue in the past. One article, dated August 13, quotes a leading Republican in a way reminiscent of more recent campaigns: “Why in —— don’t the General come out and say where he was born, and put an end to all this mystery.”
Hinman first theorized that General Arthur was born “in Belfast or Aberdeen,” before his parents emigrated to America. Arthur could easily dismiss this theory, for he had always maintained that his father emigrated at eighteen years of age—before he married and had children.
Hinman pushed on. The following story appeared in the New York Times of Dec. 22, 1880:
MATERIAL FOR A DEMOCRATIC LIE
ST. ALBANS, Vt., Dec. 21.—A stranger arrived here a few days ago, and registered at the American House as A. P. Hinman, of New-York. Since then he has been very busy in the adjoining town of Fairfield, ostensibly collecting materials for a biography of Vice-President-elect Arthur. He has privately stated to leading Democratic citizens, however, that he is employed by the Democratic National Committee to obtain evidence to show that Gen. Arthur is an unnaturalized foreigner. He claims to have discovered that Gen. Arthur was born in Canada, instead of Fairfield; that his name is Chester Allen instead of Chester Abell [sic]; that he was 50 years old in July instead of October, as has been stated, and generally that he is an alien and ineligible to the office of Vice-President.
Arthur Hinman would publish a book, How A British Subject Became President of the United States, the substance of which was related in a Brooklyn Daily Eagle article dated June 2, 1884:
The main charge of the book is that William Chester Alan Arthur was born in Dunham Flats, Canada, on [sic] March, 1828, and that he represented himself to have been born at North Fairfield, Vermont, the birthplace of a younger brother, Chester Abell Arthur, who was born in 1830, and died a year later. It is stated that in 1834 when another son was born he received the name of William Arthur, Jr., and then the name William was dropped by William Chester Alan Arthur, and he was henceforth known as Chester Alan Arthur. The records, copies of which are given, show that in 1845 Chester Alan Arthur entered Union College, stating his age to be 16.
Reeves dismisses Hinman’s theory, while admitting that President Arthur lied about his age. He cites the Arthur family Bible, held at the Library of Congress, which gives the President’s year of birth as 1829, and makes no mention of a child named “Chester Abell.”2
Notes:
1Thomas C. Reeves, Gentleman Boss: the life of Chester Alan Arthur (New York: Knopf, 1975), p. 5.
2Ibid., p. 435. Reeves notes that the doctor who delivered the President was named Chester Abell.
After Garfield was shot, the country closed ranks around Arthur, who wasn't that controversial a figure (though his old cronies hated his support for civil service reform).
More here: Our Canadian President?
One article, dated August 13, quotes a leading Republican in a way reminiscent of more recent campaigns: “Why in —— don’t the General come out and say where he was born, and put an end to all this mystery.”
The individuals bringing these suits, if heard, will be able to subpoena documents and witnesses. This is the only way, absent a guilty plea, anyone presents evidence in court. No one will be forcing Obama to prove himself a citizen.
Point three is moot.
I opened a thread because I find this interesting.
Maybe Obama will be the Second Foreign-Born President in History
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2142451/posts
Ted Hayes BTTT!!!
Is this your opinion or can you cite something else supporting this?
I don’t see why that would be so; in fact, if he is proven to be ineligible and removed, it will show that our system is working. If a cloud remains for his whole presidency, that will be much worse.
A cloud will remain during Obama’s entire presidency, no matter what.
He’s been doing it on many threads.
I've pinged Jim Robinson, the Master, on this denigration of Free Republic, on a half dozen occasions......but he seems to be content to let this site become a laughingstock by allowing all this conspiracy crap to continue. Damn shame, it is.
Well, Donofrio argues that Obama was ineligible the minute he was born to a father who was a British subject.
Donofrio is incorrect. British common law does not override US law. As stated in post #174, that is the actual law defining what is a ‘natural born citizen’, it does not make one ineligible because one parent is a subject of another nation. A professional poker player is not exactly someone who to put faith in. I am very curious what Justice Thomas says on the matter if it gets to him.
There is a large question as to how he got into Pakistan in 1971 during martial law and a Pakistani civil war with the eventual Bangladeshi provinces, when only people from Moslem countries or the Soviet Union were being admitted.
While you’re at it, could you check Myrrh123? S/he (I checked I think yesterday) signed up very recently to post soley on the side of 0bama. And has msent a couple of really weird freepmails.
If that is so, who is forking over all this money? Somewhere today I read it’s over one million already. His own money? If not his own personal wealth, whose? The DNC, since they’re also part of the lawsuit/s?
What’s this I keep hearing about zero being a “Harvard Magna.” Where’s the proof since no proof seems to exist about anything else at all pertaining to zero.
In my view, zero has zero credibility at all.
What candidate in his right mind would have/know of such a document and shilly shally about presenting it?
and...
One who has something else besides birthplace on it that he doesn’t want known?
***************
I agree; it’s not just the place of birth that bothers zero — and I suspect it’s the name of the father. I really doubt this Barack Obama senior was the father. I see absolutely no resemblance whatsoever while zero does bear resemblance to the likes of Malcolm X and Frank Marshall, the commie.
I hear ya. Would you hire me if I told you I had a Bachelor’s Degree in engineering, put it on my resume but refused to show it to you? I’m thinking no!!!!
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.