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.
Correct.
The consolation in this is that old standby of conservatives, perspective.
Things have indeed been worse, in any sense you want to bring up. And as Adam Smith said, there is a lot of ruin in a nation. And this one can take a whole heck of a lot more damage than this.
Cheer up, its not that bad. And whats bad can be fixed. Even in the most unlikely places.
We had a nasty liberal overreach in San Francisco when the leftist school board threw out the JROTC program. We thought it was gone. But we organized a petition drive and got a proposition demanding its reinstatement, and last year it won. And now JROTC is back, the leftists defeated, in San Francisco.
Thanks for the link, btw. The statement is from Olsen and Tribe, in the context of rendering an opinion as to McCain's status as a natural born citizen. As such, it had no need to clarify or disambiguate "both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within a nation's territory and allegiance" as to whether or not the condition "to parents who were citizens" applied to "born within a nation's territory and allegiance."
I accept that the natural read is as you assert, all people born within a nation's territory and allegiance are natural born citizens. But that statement isn't necessary to reach the conclusion they do.
I notice that they also render an opinion that Obama is a natural born citizen by dint of being born in Hawaii, but absent from their assertion is any consideration of the difference in parentage between Obama and McCain.
They imply, without directly asserting, that McCain would have been a natural born citizen even if his parents were not citizens. But their conclusion urgently emphasizes that McCain's parents were citizens, while not even mentioning the "Panama is US territory" aspect:
... the Framers did not intend to exclude a person from the office of the President simply because he or she was born to US citizens serving in the US military outside of the continental United States; Senator McCain is certainly not the hypothetical "Foreigner" who John Jay and George Washington were concerned might usurp the role of Commander in Chief.
Do you know of any similar opinion or analysis, by Olson, Tribe, or some other scholar, that probes "natural born citizen" in light of a person's father being a citizen of a foreign land? I've been asserting that no such thing was done with Obama, but I wasn't aware such an effort was taken up for McCain, so there might well be one for Obama too.
Secondly, do you know how many times we all have heard that specious reasoning that if there was something amiss, the Clintons would have found it? Your reasoning is as follows: 1. The Clintons find out all things that are to their advantage. 2. Obama's lack of elibility would have been to their advantage. 3. They did not find that out. 4. It's false.
Your logic is impeccable, but obviously premise 1 is wrong.
“You can argue all you like that the jpeg image of his alleged COLB is “evidence” of his US citizenship, but it is only a short form abstract that doesn’t measure up to the legal requirements for hard evidence.”
1) It’s not a jpeg but a photograph of an actual paper document with state of hawaii stamp and raised seal.
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_3.jpg
2) The COLB DOES measure up to legal requirements for birth certification for passports, drivers licenses etc.
I dont know why birther repeat this junk baloney, people are using the COLB to get passports *every day*.
“First of all, if it’s so real and indisputable, he should have had it inspected by competent, expert document examiners from the moment he produced it.”
Fair enough. But why doesnt WND reporter ask Gibbs for the COLB? Then there is nothing for state of hawaii to do?
” Instead, what we have is the “word” of a select few individuals from a proven Obama ally organization who “swear” that what they inspected and photographed is the real thing.”
We dont have their word, we have photographs.
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_2.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
“If you accept that, then your standard for evidence is sub-standard. FactCheck.org is in no way qualified to make judgments on what they saw, and the photographs they took only add to the suspicion of fraud”
oh puleeeeze ... they took photographs, its bizarre to fall into that conspiracy mindset trap, where evidence you dont like is ‘fraud’.
” because they clearly don’t match the jpeg image of the COLB that is reported to be one and the same document.”
Not true.
“Everything presented by the anti-birther side thus far has failed to meet the legal standard of solid evidence”
Not true. Everything presented by the birther side thus far has failed to meet the legal standard of solid evidence.
heard not a shred of evidence for Obama being born anywhere else but Hawaii. Yet the COLB *would* hold up in a court of law unless you got a forensic expert to prove it was a forgery. The state of Hawaii officials statement would be admissible, she would be someone in a position to testify. And the Honolulu newspaper announcement would also be admissible evidence.
“Understand this. Whether you accept this sub-standard “evidence” or not”
Why the scare quotes. it’s evidence not ‘evidence’.
“, is immaterial to the controversy at large.”
Then why are you up in arms about it? Obama was born in Hawaii, that’s pretty clear. Why fight against the logical conclusion of multiple pieces of evidence if its not even determinative of anything?
” This thing is gaining traction and getting bigger and bigger because of everything I’ve told you.”
- It’s getting bigger because Obama and the liberal MSM wanted a distraction. Its not getting more traction.
“Whether you like it or not, a growing number of Americans will continue to demand that Obama put an end to this by releasing his personal documents.”
I am all for getting more documents out of Obama, but that doesnt mean he wasnt born in Hawaii. There is more evidence for Obama being born in Hawaii than ever before.
“He will eventually either come clean with the public, or he will resign because of the pressure against him to do so.”
That’s a crack-pipe-dream.
I took "quixotic" to be a fairly honest observation that didn't reflect badly at all on the substance or merit of your line of argument. Quixotic has more than one meaning, and I took it in the line of "not realistic, not practical," and reflecting more on the audience than on the presenter.
One can go into federal court, and want to argue to the jury that Miller's indictment was quashed, and that it would have be re-quashed if there had been a finding that a short barrel shotgun had a use in the militia. That is, in fact, what the Miller case says. However, presenting such an argument is quixotic, because the judge will refuse you to present it to a jury.
So too with the issue of natural born citizenship. You and I might be perfectly correct, but it the powers that be refuse to hear, then that's that.
Just because they have the government offices does not make them right.
I'm not as concerned as who holds the office for 4/8 years. What bugs me is the persistent dereliction by Congress (this is but one example, see too failure to timely draft legislation creating Military Tribunals, even though they KNEW they had to, lest the executive-created ones be found unconstitutional), and the ignorant, indifferent, selfish character of the people.
Screw it. It can't go to hell fast enough to suit me. I'll defend my house, my family, my neighborhood, but beyond that, I frankly lost my give-a-damn.
“Do you know of any similar opinion or analysis, by Olson, Tribe, or some other scholar, that probes “natural born citizen” in light of a person’s father being a citizen of a foreign land? I’ve been asserting that no such thing was done with Obama”
You may be right on that. I am not aware of any brief. Googling only brings up the ‘birther’ stuff and a few law profs with opinions. eg. Volokh conspiracy is a good place for this.
The thing is, most folks (ie law profs) think it is such a slam-dunk that they feel it would be unnecessary. In other words, The US Senate bothered to examine this for McCain but not Obama, and the implications for Obama are that birthright citizenship by being born in Hawaii makes one eligible, end of story.
It would be nice for federal courts to rule substantively on this. OTOH, I am sure it would be 9-0 for “14th amendment birthright citizens are natural-born citizens” at SCOTUS.
“I’m sure that the Indonesian citizenshit”
Quite the typo!
Peace out, bro.
This forum is for Conservatives. Not for limp-dicked little panty-wearing log-cabin republican cowards that wipe their ass with the Constitution of the United States of America.
“This forum is for Conservatives.”
Does it include or exclude those conservatives who dont believe the fairy tale that Obama wasnt born in Hawaii?
That’s the acid test. This thread was simply telling people to accept that Obama was born in Hawaii and focus on more productive issues in opposing Obama.
We dont need limp-dicked little panty-wearing conspiracy nutters obsessing over fairy tale scenarios ruining a hard-core reality-based conservatives response to Obama’s socialist agenda.
Might be best to let it fester without an answer. The time to take it up is past, and no judge in his or her right mind is going to touch it.
I've noticed that Congress, even though there is H.R. 1503, has avoided direct mention of the question of natural born citizenship in the case one or both parents are not citizens. The bill only requires making certain evidence available, but does not express any sentiment (or even a hint that there is an issue beyond locale of birth) about how that evidence is to be used.
IOW, not only are the courts avoiding the question, so is Congress. Or, when a question is brought up, it's about being born in Hawaii, without any reference whatsoever to parentage.
Probably laying a precedent and groundwork for the eventual ascension to presidency, of a child born in the US, to Mexican citizens. The objective is to eradicate the sense of nationalism, and removing generation-based criteria for leadership facilitates that.
You are a coward.
Heh. I make more comments there, than I do here.
Your search - site:volokh.con "natural born" - did not match any documents.
Your search - site:volokh.con "natural-born" - did not match any documents.
Your search - site:volokh.con "natural born" - did not match any documents.
Your search - site:volokh.con "natural-born" - did not match any documents.
Birth cert is just one facet of his life that is concealed. Maybe don’t just focus on his bc. Focus on ALL his records that he doesn’t want anyone to see.
I’m no conspiracy theorist, however there is definately smoething fishy about this guy.
He can’t/won’t produce a birth certificate... so that means either A) he doesn’t have one, or B) the one he has has information on it that contradicts something he’s claimed.
Since Fauxbama’s (Barry’s) father could not possibly have met the requirements for Barry to even be considered a Natural Born Citizen, even if he was born in Hawaii, which he may have been for all I know or care... This still leaves Fauxbama unconstitutionally able to be President.
However, will this ever be dealt with by the powers that be? Nope, short of the people of the united states literally marching on washington and shutting the city down completely until Fauxbama proves he’s a natural born citizen, nothing will be done.
That’s the simple reality of it.
Accept what you will. Believe what you like, and whoever you like, if what you’ve seen and heard is good enough for you.
As for myself, and a great many others, there’s simply been no conclusive evidence put forth by Mr. Obama to prove his US citizenship, and a preponderance of probable cause to compel us to continue demanding the release of his root documents.
I know that you’re well satisfied that Obama is a US citizen, and I believe that you’ve had more than ample exposure to all of the arguments from the Birther side, yet remain tethered to the belief that he’s legitimate, so I’ll refrain from trying to change your mind about this issue at this point.
Feel free to give myself and others who do not share your viewpoint the same courtesy.
This is what I’m thinking is the case on this... his father wasn’t who his story claims it is.
The man he claims to be his biological father is the real problem with him claiming to be a ‘natural born citizen’.
His father does not meet the requirements for Fauxbama to be a natural born citizen, if his father was indeed a man named Obama. Doesn’t matter if he was born in Hawaii, even if he was, he would be the child of a parent who would not meet the criteria to have a child that meets the “natural born citizen” criteria.
I think something else is in play, and that being who he’s claimed is his daddy, may indeed not be.
“I took “quixotic” to be a fairly honest observation that didn’t reflect badly at all on the substance or merit of your line of argument. Quixotic has more than one meaning, and I took it in the line of “not realistic, not practical,” and reflecting more on the audience than on the presenter.”
Indeed. There are a lot of Supreme Court rulings that we know will just go a certain way, whether we approve of them or not.
It may be ‘quixotic’ to try to get Roe v Wade overturned soon, or a Right to Life Constitutional Amendment passed, or change how SCOTUS will treat birthright citizenship wrt illegal aliens, etc. Doesnt mean its a wrong position, but one has to be realistic about outcomes.
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.
