Posted on 07/30/2009 5:06:48 PM PDT by curiosity
Several readers have written over the past few days taking us to task for dismissing so-called birthers as lunatics without bothering to refute their claims. We reluctantly concede their point. The birthers have managed to sow confusion in the minds of some who are not lunatics, and for the latter group’s benefit it is worth clarifying matters.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
When you come down off of whatever mind altering drug you’re on, re-read this thread and see what a fool you’ve made of yourself.
Sorry, can’t see a single thing wrong with it... Karma has nothing to do with the Bible or Jesus’ teachings and is not derived from it nor is it copied from it, but is made up out of whole-cloth and purely invented and from Hinduism...
There a lot of people in this country who do not know the identity of their father. What if it was sperm donation to lesbian couple or a single mother, etc.
Rsponsibility has its priveledges...they can be most anything they strive for but not President of my country until they change the law. Good luck on that. Lets see a kid from a single illegal alien mama who crossed the border illegally dropped her kid got a real BC for him/her went home and the kid comes back at 21 puts in 14 years and runs for President..would that be acceptable to you?
Well, I don’t think the founding fathers would be happy with our Congress who does not read the bills they vote for and other misc. things. But there was quite a bit of fighting etc that went on back then, too.
I look to the act of 1790 to see what was on their minds. There is a poster here who claims the passage of that law violated the Constitution and that is why the definition didn’t show in 1795.
However, some of the people involved with 1790 law were the same people involved with drawing up the Constitution - including the President who signed it into law. You can take the natural born citizen definition in that law and look at the first part of the law that defines citizen. Why define it if born overseas and not if born in country. Because it was already defined in their minds??? An alien could be a citizen and that citizen could confer natural born status if child was born overseas if it met their conditions. So why can that citizen confer status overseas but not in country???? Because they could confer it???
SO they did attempt it. Unclear why they took it out.
Maybe there are some notes they made that explain it.
This is just one way to look at it among many ways.
How many at SCOTUS think the C. is a living breathing document? Those are the people that may loosen the reigns of natural born citizenship.
Just because he quoted him does not mean he accepted his idea of natural born citizenship.
People use the word karma all the time as a synonym for retribution, so your ignorance trips you as usual.
“In the meantime, the general public is reading what the State of Hawaii says about Obama being born in Hawaii and that he is a natural-born American citizen”
And that is precisely why they did it, and Obama allowed it, even though Fukino has absolutely no authority to come to that conclusion UNLESS his Daddy was a US citizen.
Someone argued that she actually meant natural born citizen of HAWAII. I doubt that is what she meant but she might try to claim that when it starts to bite her in the butt.
Main Entry: kar·ma
Function: noun
Etymology: Sanskrit karma fate, work
Date: 1827
1 often capitalized : the force generated by a person’s actions held in Hinduism and Buddhism to perpetuate transmigration and in its ethical consequences to determine the nature of the person’s next existence
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/karma
Squirm all you want; you know that you are dead wrong, but you’ll never give up. Seen you pull this crap on so many issues before, its old hat.
You missed the point..probably on purpose.
It does say born in Hawaii. Obama SR lied on the marriage application IF THERE WAS A MARRIAGE APPLICATION. No one has seen it. This was punishable by prison and he might have been thrown out of the country. Even so, he lied.
What makes you think they wouldn’t lie about where he was born.
They are telling the goverment he was born in Hawaii..by their own words. It doesn’t mean he way born in Hawaii only that they said he was born in Hawaii.
Has anyone found the birth announcement in the paper of the Nordyke Twins?
Please reread. The last sentence of the quote says:
"Ann Dunham did not have to be present for this statement or even in the country."
I think that there is something to this birth certificate issue — it certainly smells EXTREMELY fishy to me — and that analysis at westernjournalism.com did a good job of meticulously consolidating all of the gaping holes in Obama’s so-called “proof” that he is a natural-born citizen.
But at the same time, I am perfectly open to contrasting information, assuming that it is valid information. I’m no conspiracy theorist. I am a constitutionalist — specifically, Article II Section I in this case.
In short: Man did land on the moon. 9/11 was caused by islamic terrorists. KFC Chicken doesn’t make black men impotent (yes, that is actually a real conspiracy theory). And Obama might or might not be a natural-born citizen of Hawaii.
For me, a BC1 birth certificate would clear everything up and the issue would absolutely be dead. I would definitely NOT then claim that the BC1 is fake (I don’t even care if the existing Certification of Live Birth is fake or real; this is irrelevant to the fact that this form does not prove natural-born citizenship.) Nor would I try to shift the offensive to some other conspiracy. I am not “out to get” anybody here. I would approach the issue in exactly the same way if it were a white GOP President who had the same allegations and evidence brought up against him. Has nothing to do with race, political party or ideology.
I don’t mind being proved wrong. And I do think that, on both sides of the issue, you need to fight allegations with facts. The libs try to laugh us off, marginalize and stigmatize us as “birthers” (chosen to lump us in with “truthers”) and crazy nuts spouting a lot of B.S., rather than actually provide factual information that would quash our claims. On the other side of the coin, I see a lot of posts in this thread that do essentially the same thing, simply calling Taranto’s article a lot of B.S. and offering nothing more in the way of facts to dispute his claims point-by-point.
So, I am just thinking: Can anyone refute his claims that birthers have “misrepresented the law”? I point to that section of the article specifically, since I am not versed enough in the law to know if he’s right. The rest of the article, where he points to FactCheck.org and CNN as his sources to claim that “Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii,” is easily refuted by pointing to the fact that the Certification of Live Birth, by its very nature, demonstrates nothing of the sort.
Can anyone provide some sharp counterpoints to Taranto’s “misrepresented the law” claims?
Thanks.
You said — Someone argued that she actually meant natural born citizen of HAWAII. I doubt that is what she meant but she might try to claim that when it starts to bite her in the butt.
—
No, the Statement from the State of Hawaii was precisely worded to avoid the meaning in relation to “Hawaii” and was *specifically* worded to mean for the USA...
Hawaii’s statement said “natural-born American citizen”... which to me (and I’m going to bet all average Americans) means for the “USA”...
—
And in all this, what I do see here, is that there are a certain number of posters who will find any reason, no matter how obscure and how ridiculous to *avoid* the plain and ordinary meaning of what the State of Hawaii said.
Now, the ordinary and average Joe is going to read this in “plain English” and understand what it means... It’s only the ones who don’t want to take it that way who will look for anything and everything to avoid that understanding...
The Wong Kim Ark case has a brief summary of the various pieces of legislation. He may be correct that there was objection to conferring "natural born" status to a person born off US soil. It would be interesting to read the Congressional record debating passage of the Acts of 1790 and 1795.
Citizenship, at least, was conferable by citizen parents from 1790-1802, and from 1855-. The way I read this, a foreign-born child after 1802 would also obtain US citizenship from a parent, provided the parents' citizenship was acquired in or before 1802.
It thus clearly appears that, during the half century intervening between 1802 and 1855, there was no legislation whatever for the citizenship of children born abroad, during that period, of American parents who had not become citizens of the United States before the act of 1802; and that the act of 1855, like every other act of congress upon the subject, has, by express proviso, restricted the right of citizenship, thereby conferred upon foreign-born children of American citizens, to those children themselves, unless they became residents of the United States.
-- Why define it if born overseas and not if born in country. -- There was no question that a child born of two citizens, in country, is a natural born citizen. And at the time, there were MANY examples of people born in the country to non-citizens, and those people were NOT citizens.
I have already said that I prefer the strictest interpretation. I don’t think that is what will happen.
The Living Breathing Document people will probably bastardize the definition..especially if the Wise Latina has her way.
Actually, I think that exactly the opposite will happen. The huge media firestorm (and I have NEVER in all my life seen such a "push" from newspaper and other media types to "sell" the "legitimacy" of ANY topic compared to this) will actually draw REASONABLE people to educate themselves about the topic, and once that is done, they too will begin to question. It's called "methinks they doth protest too much".
"I would say that you better *hurry up* with that court case or else, everyone else in the general public is going to forget that there is even a court case at all..."
No court case needed, just a notarized statement from the Director of Public Records in Hawaii, or the presentation of a notarized copy of the original long form birth certificate. Neither of these is unreasonable, and the longer Obama delays, the worse for him.
— Why define it if born overseas and not if born in country. — There was no question that a child born of two citizens, in country, is a natural born citizen. And at the time, there were MANY examples of people born in the country to non-citizens, and those people were NOT citizens.
Think about what you just said. It hinges on the definition of citizen. They defined it in the first part of the act..and an alien could be a citizen.
So born of two citizens..not necessarily two natural born citizens.
If that is the interpretation that SCOTUS chooses then Obamanazi could not be a natural born citizen as his father was not a citzen but a child born of two aliens who have become citizens could be President whether or not born on US soil.
Have you noticed that not a single *potential* conservative candidate for the Office of President of the United States (i.e., “future”) is saying *one word* about the “Obama birth certificate” being a viable issue? They don’t dare do it... LOL...
So, I’m proposing a “litmus test” on how we can eliminate potential Presidential Candidates from consideration (i.e., we “know” they are not going to run in the future...)... all we have to do is see if they consider the “Obama birth certificate” a viable issue to discuss or not. If they do... then you *know* that they have no intentions on running for President... :-)
I think one could bet on that in in Las Vegas and win a bundle...
Right, so in your fantasy world, the state of Hawaii would just take anyone's word for it that their kid was state. LOL.
You should let the state department know that.
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.