Posted on 02/05/2009 7:52:01 PM PST by MindBender26
Obama Born In The U.S. ? New Facts Say; “Probably Not!”
Let me be the first to admit that I have been a constant debunker of the “Obama Born Overseas” stories. How could it be possible? How could the DNC, Hillary, Edwards, the RNC, McCain, Romney, AP, BBC, ABC, FNC, etc, (and every 100th listing in the DC phone book) not have checked this out to its last level of possibility?
Well, it appears that they didn’t! Everyone assumed “the other guy did it.”
Forget for the moment all the clues left by the high-priced Obama and DNC legal teams. They are huge.
Obama and the DNC always argue “standing.” They could eliminate every legal challenge in 5 minutes by simply producing a certified copy of the original long-form birth certificate. Throw in the testimony of the Hawaii Registrar of Documents, a few retired FBI chief document examiners, and the doctor who delivered him for good measure.
If they did that in two or three courts of record, in light of the obvious media coverage it would receive, every other court nationwide would accept the precedence and the cases would all be over.
But they don’t. They keep telling the courts, “please don’t hear this case.” No proof of any kind. Just the legalese argument that the plaintiffs have no standing before that court.
That’s so overreaching, it’s like buying a refinery to get a 3000 mile oil change! And one day, some court is going to say…. “Show me the money, er,. ah, I mean, Show me the documents!”
But there is a second, and perhaps new point!
Where is that doctor who delivered him, or the midwife?
Stop and think. The delivery of a half Negro – half Caucasian baby was rare anyhere in 1961. Oriental babies were common in Hawaii of course, but a half Negro-half Caucasian baby with the funny name of Barrack Obama, in Hawaii? In 1961?
Even of you were a Republican, if you delivered a future President of the United States, wouldn’t you call some newspaper somewhere with your story. Or if you were the assistant obstetrician, or the anesthesiologist, or the scrub nurse?
What about the circulating nurse, or the pediatrician, one of a dozen nurses on the 24 hour-a-day shifts in the nursery, one of many nurses on the ward where Mrs. Obama would have stayed for three days, a records registrar, a technician of any kind, hell, even the janitor!
What about the clerks, ambulance drivers….. somebody ?!?!?!
Anybody ?!?!?!
Wouldn’t someone have been yelling their “credit” for this from the rooftops???? The date when he was born is (supposedly) known. Certainly all these (supposed) people would know where they were working then!
Where is somebody, anybody, who was there or even remembers the birth?
Sherlock Holmes once solved a case by noticing the dog that DID NOT bark.
Is this the same situation?
Becasue there is no difference between being a citizen, either at birth or naturalized, *except* for eligibility to the office of President. There is NO LAW, passed by Congress, defining Natural Born Citizen. If you have a referance to one, post the link to it.
I can't prove the negative that there is no such law, but logically there cannot be, for the Congress cannot define the meaning of a Constitutional term, for purposes of the Constitution. Otherwise they could change the meaning of Constitutional provisions without bothering with the amendment process. If they can do that, we don't have a written Constitution at all, just something to be reinterpreted as Congress desires. The could define "arms" to mean "swords and knives..well maybe not knives" for example. And then proceed to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms
...
Oh wait they do that anyway, but they do it by ignoring the second amendment, not redefining it's terms.
Or if by "the law" you mean the case law as well as the statute law, then the same is still true. The Courts have hinted at definitions in dicta, but since they have not heard a case on eligibility to the office of President (on the merits), they haven't actually defined it.
You are right, Congress has passed no law creating a difference between “citizen by birth” and “natural born citizen”. So why do you keep insisting that they are different things?
You said "lawsuits" not filings. Filings are part of lawsuits or cases.
They have no power to create natural born citizens, only naturalized ones. Thus persons not meeting whatever the common law criteria for "natural born citizen", such as the child of a citizen mother and a non-citizen father, born outside the country, could be a citizen at birth under the law as it now exists and as it existed when Obama was born, but the common law would have that child not be a natural born citizen.
I appreciate your explanations.
Well, they haven't looked at the issue. As you say, they may not, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a "truth" to the issue, nor that we can't comment on it.
Congress does have the power to decide how citizenship is conferred. But that doesn't matter if Obama was born in Hawaii, because then these other things you bring up are irrelevant. You are talking about a child born outside the US.
If Obama was born in the US then he is a natural born citizen. His father or mother or Congress have nothing to do with it.
How do you think the lawsuits get dismissed, for whatever reason? Do you think judges sit at a desk, review the day’s stack of complaints, and rubber stamp them “meritorious” or “frivolous”?
What do any lawsuit filed against Bush or the amount of time Bush (or Obama) spent in court have to do with this? This issue is legal fees associated with defending lawsuits.
You obviously have no clue of legal procedure.
A defense is required once a complaint is filed, unless the defendant doesn’t mind being defaulted or the defendant’s attorney doesn’t mind a legal malpractice suit. You are putting the cart before horse.
Lawsuits don’t get tossed unless the plaintiff fails to prosecute or the defendant succeeds on a motion to dismiss - which requires time and expense.
Actually the Constitutional language is "eligible *to* the office". I would think that would include running for it. But then again, no one "ran" for the office in the early days, and the electors were better known in their states than the candidates in some cases. And people voted for the electors, not for the candidates.
In any event, we need laws, at both the state and national level, requiring candidates for federal office to document their eligibility for the office for which they are running. Why would/should the country have it's time wasted by a candidate not eligible to the office?
Out of a family the size of Obama’s,you know many would sell him out.I would be willing to chip in. Heh
Any child born anywhere inside the British Empire regardless of parentage was considered a British subject. British common law does not translate into U.S. law. And citing dictum from Wong v. U.S. does not make your point; the case did not settle the natural born citizen issue.
You’ll have to define what “huge sums of money means.” Also, I wasn’t the one advocating that claim. I simply pointed out the typical events involved with defending a lawsuit - whether it is ultimately dismissed or not. Defending a lawsuit entails costs - and if he had to defend 20 or so cases across the country and up through the appellate court system, the costs would add up. My position is that any costs associated with defending these cases (including the cost of lost trust of many of the American citizens) is larger than necessary, unless there is something to hide.
As I’ve also pointed out, I don’t know the number of these cases in which he’s actually been named a defendant. If he is named, he’d have to defend them or lose by default. If he is not named, then he obviously would not have to do anything.
Bottom line: I have no idea what he’s spent defending any lawsuits that he has been named in and I really don’t care. If he was as transparent as he claims, he’d have released the so-called vault copy long ago.
You answered your own question: for passports for one. Also, many employers require it. I’m guessing, but probably to enter the armed forces. To be admitted to some, if not all, State Bar Associations. To obtain security clearances for at least some federal jobs (except POTUS, apparently). Since being a “natural born citizen” is required in order to be POTUS, it should be required but probably is not. I’m sure there are other reasons. Hope that answers your question.
Marxist Moron.
He signed up only to argue this issue.
to : 4d Chiefly Archaic. To serve as; in the capacity or part of; as, to take one to witness. "Water to his drink." Chaucer. "Wilt thou have this man to thy wedded husband?" Book of Common Prayer
I admit, I wasn't very familiar with hospitals selling data at all. A quick google doesn't help much - only an article about JCAHO selling deidentified data and hospitals protesting. I have no data on whether this was done in 1961.
My dad is 97, in good mental health, and delivered hundreds, if not thousands, of babies in the sixty years he practiced medicine. I will admit, he could not remember the names of specific children or even their parents today. His mind is fine, his memory is “sketchy.”
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.