Posted on 07/30/2009 8:35:25 PM PDT by Edward Watson
The entire birther argument, that Obama was actually born in Kenya instead of the US, making him ineligible for holding the office of the President of the US, is a spurious argument. It plays into Obama and the liberals hands - they want this to continue since it makes regular conservatives and opponents into fringe wackos.
Not one of us would've looked harder at his legitimacy than Hilary Clinton and the entire Clinton smear machine during the Democratic primaries. That magic bullet would've given Hilary the presidency - and yet nada, bupkis.
There are many valid reasons to oppose Obama and the liberals, but his birthplace isn't one of them.
About time! He’s a retread - I remember his comments from before. There’s a few more here, too.
“Any amateur can demonstrate it’s a fraud.”
Well, nobody *has* convincingly demonstrated it’s a fraud. We get bogus ‘proof by assertion’ claims. Besides, the COLB is just 1 of seven pieces of evidence.
1. Common sense - Stanley Dunham and Barack Obama Sr lived, met and were students in Honolulu. That was there hometown. As students, they had little money, so the natural conclusion would be that they would have very likely had their baby in Honolulu.
2. Marriage in Feb (shotgun wedding?), baby in August; honeymoon was on another hawaiian island; if they were going to travel anywhere else, THAT would have been the time to do it.
3. Newspaper announcement of birth one week after birth, Aug 4. Two newspapers had birth announcements on Aug 13 and Aug 14th, and they were in turn gotten from State of Hawaii records office ...
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/ObamaBirthStarBulletin.jpg
4. Family recollections that he was born in Honolulu.
5. The COLB - The Certification of Live Birth, that people get from the State of Hawaii when they request birth records. This document has an embossed seal and stamp and is sufficient documentation for getting a passport or a drivers license. The COLB ...
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_6.jpg
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_2.jpg
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_3.jpg
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_4.jpg
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_6.jpg
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_7.jpg
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_8.jpg
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_9.jpg
6. Obama obtained US passports for overseas travel. He needed valid birth certification that proved US citizenship to do so. While the above COLB is from 2007, he needed a prior one to get his passport to go to Kenya.
7. State officials from Hawaii vouched for his birth records being on file and him being born in Hawaii.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/27/AR2009072703114.html
Unless he gave up his citizenship of his own free will as an adult.
Don't you want to see his college and passport records to see if he did that?
I am referring to the definition of “natural born” as it applies to the constitutional requirement.
“Generally accepted” as in having been defined by precedent, a decision by a court which other courts would recognize.
That Obama is an untrustworthy individual who it would be imprudent to elect (which we already know to our cost) has no bearing on this.
So, was his dad a US citizen? Surely you can answer that little question.
Should we just check and see if he floats?
No. Let’s see if he’s qualified to be President. Evidence.
“SOURCE??? how ya like dat.
You produce a source for a change. You won’t read ours.”
Easy. 14th amendment. Wong Kim Ark case. Common sense as to the difference between “natural born” and “naturalized”. Complete absense of third category of citizenship, i.e. born citizen but not natural born, anywhere in U.S. law (and don’t throw that “native born” nonsense at me).
“Because there are no “sources” that will say that a child not born to two citizens is a NBC.”
Not so. SCOTUS opinion in Wong Kim Ark and after make clear that someone born in the US to foreign parents is a natural-born US citizen.
More on the common equivalence between ‘natural-born citizen’ and ‘citizen at time of birth’ in this briefing concerning McCain’s eligibility:
http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/Judiciary/McCainAnalysis.pdf
“If the Panama Canal Zone was sovereign
U.S. territory at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, then that fact alone would make him a
“natural born” citizen under the well-established principle that “natural born” citizenship
includes birth within the territory and allegiance of the United States. See, e.g., Wong Kim Ark,
169 U.S. at 655-66. The Fourteenth Amendment expressly enshrines this connection between
birthplace and citizenship in the text of the Constitution. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 (”All
persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States .... “) (emphases added). Premising “natural born” citizenship on
the character of the territory in which one is born is rooted in the common-law understanding
that persons born within the British kingdom and under loyalty to the British Crown-including
most of the Framers themselves, who were born in the American colonies-were deemed
“natural born subjects.” See, e.g., 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws a/England
354 (Legal Classics Library 1983) (1765) (”Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the
dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the
allegiance of the king .... “).”
Awww, I want to see if he floats!
If his dad is not a US citizen, he is not a NBC. Any 5th grader knows that.
It’s not about “my choir” being bigger than “your choir”, or even that a couple of Freepers shouldn’t be able to have a good ol’, knock-down, drag out argument, but when so much logic, reasoning, and fact brings all questions of an issue to an irrefutable conclusion, it’s just nuts to continue arguing the indefensible.
What I don’t understand is why some people here accept things like the alleged Obama COLB as factual evidence, when in fact, it’s nothing more than a jpeg image on a computer screen. Need I mention that that image was thoroughly debunked as a fake on this very website, and in painstaking detail?
Let’s just stick with the Obama COLB for a moment.
I read Ron Polarik’s forensic report on that image. I found that some of the minute details he brought up were too microscopic to convince most people, but far too many of his other discoveries were too glaring for me to ignore.
It wasn’t only the forensic report on that “document” that caused me to doubt its validity, but also the way in which it was presented, and who was given access to the alleged original.
If indeed, this “document” was the solid evidence that Mr. Obama was indeed eligible to assume the office of President, then why wasn’t it shown to qualified experts for verification, or even members of Congress? Why was FactCheck.org (a subsidiary of the Annenberg Foundation) the only group allowed to actually touch and photograph it?
Why is Obama’s father’s race listed as “African” on the alleged COLB, when the correct racial designation in the pre-pc days of 1961 was “negro”?
Why was the serial number blacked out on the jpeg image, but shown in the photographs of the “same” document, months later?
Why was the border on that “document” different than other Hawaiian COLBs produced in the same year?
Why are the fold lines missing on the jpeg image, but clearly shown on the photographs?
Why didn’t the seal of Hawaii show up on the photos, but not on the jpeg?
Why hasn’t Obama allowed competent and expert examination of the alleged COLB since it was photographed, and since millions of Americans have been questioning its authenticity? He’s had many months to do this, and it would have taken much of the steam out of this controversy if he had, provided of course that it checked out as real.
See where I’m going here? There are just far too many inconsistencies with this one piece of alleged evidence for any rational person to discount, or to ignore.
And, those are only a few out-points about that one aspect of this whole issue. There are many, many more that I could elaborate on.
Not one thing about this entire controversy adds up to a common sense, rational answer. Not one. Nothing presented as proof of legitimacy by Obama and his backers has stood up to scrutiny, or simple reasoning.
I suppose that I assume that others on this forum have read through all of the arguments and reasoning on this issue that I have, so I then find it odd that they come to the conclusions they do. In fact, I know that a lot have, but simply reject the sound reasoning and arguments they read.
Keep your head in the sand - I think your ‘source’ is there.
This only matters if there is a standard under which you could question his eligibility on those grounds. There isn’t any.
“So, was his dad a US citizen?.”
No, he wasnt. See #489.
Then any 5th grader should be able to find me some documentation for that. Or maybe even you can.
Hmm,
Maybe I should retake 5th grade ? I don’t know that.
I don’t think most other lawyers and judges know that either, theres definitely a hole in US legal education.
“Easy. 14th amendment. Wong Kim Ark case. Common sense as to the difference between “natural born” and “naturalized”. Complete absense of third category of citizenship, i.e. born citizen but not natural born, anywhere in U.S. law (and don’t throw that “native born” nonsense at me).”
Nope, not a good source. Does not make the case for being Natural Born unless there are two citizen parents. Try again.
We?! Our beloved ... site? We?!! Hahahaha!
screenombre
Since Jun 3, 2009
“Trucker and New Yorker are both in the dictionary, not the made up word birther..”
Oh, for pete’s sake. It’s a made up word which follows a long-established tradition in real words. And no, it wouldn’t follow that birthers are those who give birth. Just as New Yorkers are people who use New York, although fryers are those who use frying pans. Birthers are those who care about birth, specifically Obama’s birth.
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.
