Posted on 12/09/2008 6:32:38 AM PST by Mobile Vulgus
Well. I am sure that this is going to anger some of you. But, I have to say it anyway…
OK, I have basically stayed silent about this whole Obama birth certificate dust up until now because I have been trying to resolve the dichotomy in my mind between being a Constitutional constructionist and a pragmatist. But, at long last I have realized that the two really aren't as much at odds as it might seem. In fact, I found my answer in the words of Thomas Jefferson -- as well as Madison, Franklin and a few others, but we'll stick with Jefferson quotes for the sake of a sharply focused discussion.
I have discovered that Thomas Jefferson has already told us upon which side we as conservatives should descend over the question concerning Barack Obama's birth certificate and his eligibility for the office of president of the United States. Mister Jefferson would tell you all to shut up, accept cruel fate, and get ready to claim Barack Obama as the 44th president of the United States of America.
That's right, forget about it. Move on. Nothing to see here.
Before you get your Constitutional shorts in a bunch, I absolutely agree with you that we are a nation of laws and not men. Jefferson did too, once saying that we must consider what the original intent of the Constitution was before we rush into a decision and the original intent in this case was clearly to make sure every president was a natural born citizen of this country before being eligible to run for that highest of offices. ("The Constitution on which our Union rests, shall be administered ... according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of its adoption -- a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated [for it]..."-- Thomas Jefferson)
The simple reason that the founders wanted the president to be a natural born citizen was because they were keen students of history. The phrase "let history be our guide" was not just a trope. The founders knew well the many instances when a foreign ruler had entered a country and, using that country's own laws and customs, immorally proclaimed himself the ruler of a subjugated nation. The founders wanted to prevent that possibility and also wanted to make sure that there were no divided loyalties in an American president, that the welfare of the USA would be first and foremost in the mind of anyone elected to that office. What better way than to preclude the foreign born?
So, yes, the proscriptions against the foreign born candidate are important and should not be cast aside. We should never knowingly present a candidate not born as a citizen of the U.S. Further, we should take pains to verify the provenance of every candidate's claim to natural citizenship.
But... and you knew the “but” was coming. There is an original intent that rises above the Constitution itself. In fact, there are a few, but one in particular comes to bear here...
Read the rest at Publiusforum.com...
Bravo to your absolutely correct points about Zero the empty suit that he is indeed a “Manchurian Candidate”, correction, a “Mansourian” candidate. Mohammed Al-Mansour funneled money to Barack Obama, foreign Muslim student at Columbia and then at Harvard, to pay for his education. The money came from one Ibn-Talaweed. You will remember him as being from the House of Saud (the Saudi Royal family) who offerred $10 Mil to NYC after 9/11, along with the statement that “America should acknowledge that 9/11 happened” because America had dissed Islam. Rudy Giuliani told Talaweed to stuff it and go pound sand, or whatever else he pounds.
The unrevealed vault copy of the birth certificate may show Obama to have been born in Hawaii, perhaps, but he would be described as a Kenyan national, a British subject. As such, not “natural born” in ANY prior Amendment or preceding known description of the meaning of “natural born”. He could not be President, period.
We can now add to this Saudi connection one Valerie Jarrett, an Iranian born member of the Chicago Housing authority and property investor in her own right, pals with Rezko, Mayor Daley and senior personal advisor to Obama. A little searching might reveal the Iranian connections of Ms. Jarrett. How far is all this from the newly arrested Governor Blajovech, and indeed from Obama. Obama is a foreigner, a Marxist, a crook and a usurper. Yes, the Constitutional requirement must be pursued to all ends. Marxist doctrine requires ignoring the rule of law, first and foremost. The Founding Fathers did not want someone with foreign ties to be in charge of a whole branch of government. Their first fear was from England, and/or Spain or any other ascendant power of that day. This still applies today. He/She must be “natural born” , that is, a citizen by right of the law of nature- born to two US citizens and on US soil. You are so right that the massive efforts to obscure his background and history is worthy of immediate distrust. Who is pulling this puppet’s strings?
The "natural born" provision is designed to protect us, even today. Since the adoption of the Constitution, history has shown what happens when a "foreign born" or dual-loyalty citizen takes over a country;
A Corsican named Napoleon Bonaparte took over France and led that country into ruin and political chaos.
A Austrian named Adolf Hitler took over Germany and led that country and the world into a war which led to the deaths of millions, totally destroyed Germany and left it divided for 45 years.
So it's obvious what happens when a "foreign born" citizen takes over a country and if Jefferson saw the last 200 years of history, he'd change his mind and support the "natural born" provision because it prevents another "Napoleon Bonaparte" or "Adolf Hitler" from ever coming to power, at least in the United States.
Certainly, knowingly violating the constitution would be considered a “high crime and misdmeanor” except to a democrat majority senate and house! If the courts do not enforce the constitution, then it is lost!
I tend to agree with your post, but as you have already been informed, Hawaii didn’t confirm anything with regards to the certificate Obama provided factcheck.org et. al. As you are now aware, Hawaii allowed (allows?) the filing of a record of birth that occurred outside the state, even outside the country. So what the Hawaii state board of health have “certified” is that they have a record of birth on file and nothing more.
However you raise a good point, if only by implication, that I think should be clarified here. (Hopefully those putting all their eggs in the “birth certificate basket” are reading this portion). Whatever Obama, or anyone else authorized by him produces at this point will automatically be assumed to be a forgery. So the question of, “Why doesn’t he just release the original” is really a moot point at this point.
Let me repeat: The question of, “Why doesn’t he just release the original?” is moot.
Why is it moot? Because:
a) No one at this point would ever trust anything he “released” anyway. There’d be some “expert” somewhere who would come out of the woodwork and find “faults” with images of newly released certificates, ad infinitum. Maybe not the same “experts” today questioning the images at factcheck.org, but there’d be someone, somewhere, who just isn’t convinced, thus fueling the “conspiracy”.
b) Even Obama himself cannot release the “long form, vault copy”. The “experts” debunking his images now even admit that. The form for requesting a copy of one’s birth certificate from Hawaii does not have the option for releasing this so called “long form”.
Given a and b above, and the points that you raised (he’s been able to get jobs before this, get a driver’s license, get a SS card, etc, all things one needs a valid BC to get), it’s pretty likely that what was produced on the Internet was indeed a valid BC, for all intents and purposes. The “experts” notwithsdanding. (Also, it’s relevant to point out that some of these “experts” are 9/11 “truthers”, so one should take that with a grain of salt)
The BC’ers, if we may so abbreviate such a group now, still have one “Ace in the Hole” though, and that is by some miracle one of the active court cases still ongoing as of today succeeds, then the “long form” can be produced, and produced by a party not associated with Obama, so then the question could finally be resolved to the satisfaction of everyone.
But again, one should really note a) and b) above and seriously ask oneself, “Will the only thing that satisfies me be the courts intervening?” Because if so, at this point, such a person cannot ask, “Why doesn’t he just release the long form and be done with it?” because it’s obvious such a person wouldn’t trust anything released by him anyway, and he (Obama) can’t release the “long form” to begin with.
The will of the people of Jefferson’s day was reflected in the wording of the Constitution. They did not want anyone with foreign ties to be President. Period. Fear of the mob did not ever guide our new nation. About which see: The Whiskey Rebellion. Please tell us how ignoring the Constitution out of fear of mob response is any different than Mexico allowing Maximillian to take over?
You, sir, sound like a man who might have a plan. I’m all ears.
So, the threat of rioting—racial or otherwise—is sufficient for you to turn your back on a basic tenet of the US Constitution? If you can, try to carry that opinion to its logical conclusion.
Bears repeating, over and over...
Precisely and that was indeed the point of the process to keep out FADS from changing the Constitution.
Ravenstar
LOL, talk about a self-contradictory paragraph! The 1960 election was stolen, so obviously the "will of the people" was NOT heard. I mean, it's one or the other....
Congress will immediately propose a constitutional amendment to “fix the problem”, and in this day and age the amendment will be quickly ratified by enough states to take effect. Biden then appoints Obama as vice president, then resigns, allowing His Highness to take the throne again.
Such an Amendment would be fought in every state court in the nation with lawsuits. The Amendment would have to be ratified by 38 states(3/4 majority) before it becomes part of the Constitution and many times that process takes years. Nothing is "quickly ratified" when it comes to the Constitution.
Biden appointing Obama VP after he's proven ineligible would be political suicide for the Democrats in 2010 and 2012 and they know it.
You’ve been watching too many fictional movies...
The pendulum swings in American politics. The Constitution still remains. What is needed is to have our culture go back to our Creator God as the divine founder of our country and the maintainer of the same.
It’s not so much about politics and/or the Constitution, but more about recognizing God in our country (and in our politics and in our Republican Party) just like the founding fathers did when appealing to God to help them. This is what gives the *real power* (i.e., God, Himself) behind the Constitution. It’s the God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of the Christian faith and belief and of the Savior, Jesus Christ — that people need to appeal to, not the Constitution and not to arms.
Without this very same Creator God of the Bible that the founding fathers appealed to in their struggle, there will be nothing gained (by any other means)...
In grand FR fashion, without reading the entire article (redundant eh?). I will have to surmise that if TJ would believe as you claim, that it is because he would be polishing his tools with which he would soon water the tree of liberty.
Interesting, and I could find nothing on google. I have a sneaking suspicion there is no process.
Sadly, it appears that most people have no clue we are a Republic, and I suspect if asked they couldn’t tell you what that means anyway.
Alright. You seem to be like those in Donofrio's camp. It's difficult keeping all the theories together, but they seem to be generally:
It doesn't matter if he was born on US soil or not, he can't be a "natural born citizen" if he has one parent from another country.
He wasn't born in Hawaii because we have no objective proof to say he was born there. (addressed in the post you responded to on this thread).
At any rate, it's not lookin too good if one puts one's hopes in a "foreign national status"/"fake birth certificate" to bring him down. At least not that I can see. Please do educate me though if I'm wrong somewhere.
Appreciate your assessment.You are incorrect on the “vault copy”, not being available to Obama.Under Hawaiian law, the “named person” on the vault copy is the ONLY person who can get a copy of the original Certificate of Birth (COB)on file with Hawaii records and stats! Anyone else requests this info— they get a Cerification of Live Birth (COLB). The COLB does not contain all the info on the vault copy, including the nationality of the father. You are right in that a Hawaiian resident could have a birth certificate from Romania on file in Hawaii and a COLB that says this. The problem is that the COLB that Obama put on the net is a proven forgery- multiply proven by certified experts (similar to the Dan Rather episode with Bush).
Obama can clear this question up in a day. But by so doing, he would eliminate himself from his own carefully planned usurpation of power. There are very few states that have “Certification of Live Birth” available to public records requests. In most states, copies of birth certificates are a matter of public record, accessible to anyone. No SS # on the cert in any case, nowadays.
Facts are sticky commodities. We live in an era of marketed “factoids”! What is a “factoid”— something that is “like a fact”. There is, of course no such thing. A fact is a fact. Thanks for your observations.
SCOTUS should take the case(s), but they are not beyond fear of the mob coming after them. Much in history supports this behaviour in the Court. Oh yeah, and the Clintons knew all about Obama on this in the oppo research. And they could come into play in all of this (or may be in action all ready- sub rosa).
During the Progressive Era – as calculated in a congressional study printed six decades later – only two more states were needed to call a convention for an amendment to mandate direct election of U.S. Senators.[8] The looming mandate from the states helped break resistance in the U.S. Senate, which had several times refused to follow the House of Representatives in support of letting the voters rather than state legislators elect U.S. Senators. The states submitted a total of at least 29 applications for a convention call (by other counts 31). Under such pressure the measure was approved by Congress in May 1912 and ratified one year later as the 17th Amendment.[9][10]
I think you underestimate the forces that would come to bear on the situation.
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.