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.
“the ignorant, indifferent, selfish character of the people.
“
Now THAT is also a conservative principle ! People have always been like this. There is just a whole lot wrong with human nature and always has been. History shows no particular degradation or enhancement of virtue. There is no point getting exercised by that at all.
Conservatism, by one definition, is a philosophy of working with the grain of human nature, as opposed to the alternative, which insists on systems that require virtue, or else.
“** Big deal. Everybody lies on their papers.**
Thank you for admitting what you really are, **a liar***LOL”
Did you actually read my post, or just scan it? That was me pretending to be a liberal Obama defender. You and I both know that’s what they’ll say. Heck, it’s probably what they’re already saying.
He has Hawaiian paperwork. That does not mean he was born on the island.
Most of the debates revolve around McCain. I'm still perusing, but this, from Blackstone, prompts a question.
The meaning of "natural born." - February 29, 2008
But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.
A child born off of British soil and of a British father is deemed a natural-born British subject. Can that child ALSO be a natural-born US citizen?
Can a person be a natural born citizen of more than one country?
You are a name-caller.
Yes Minors can.
“The files may contain additional information including original copies of the associated documents, the report added. Such documents include birth certificates, naturalization certificates, or oaths of allegiance for U.S.-born persons who adopted the citizenship of a foreign country as minors. “
To give further context along with Obama’s OWN ADMISSIONS:
“The passport files include personally identifiable information such as the applicants name, gender, social security number, date and place of birth, and passport number, according to the inspector general report.
The files may contain additional information including original copies of the associated documents, the report added. Such documents include birth certificates, naturalization certificates, or oaths of allegiance for U.S.-born persons who adopted the citizenship of a foreign country as minors.
The Obama campaign acknowledged at its Fight the Smears Web site that Obama was a foreign national until the age of 18, by virtue of his fathers British then Kenyan citizenship.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982, the Web site stated.
Fight the Smears attempted to debunk rumors that Obama was not a U.S. citizen by producing a 2007 computer-generated copy of his certification of live birth. “
All from: http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/brennan_passport_breach/2009/01/12/170430.html
You can not hold dual citizenship and be a Natural Born Citizen.
I disagree. I think the "virtue quotient" of populations is subject to variation over time, for many reasons. One can see this in microcosms, such as cities (NYC, Cleveland), and also in civilizations.
My conscious experience is limited to the past 45 years or so, and much has changed in that time, and not for the better as regards the virtues of honesty, hard work, and simple education.
I've spent considerable time studying legal writings from various eras, and find the quality of legislative and judicial activity to have varied. Not to say everything produced today represents a downward trend, just that on the whole, the people don't grasp "the way things work." I believe that the decline parallels closely the emergence of radio and television.
F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html
Thanks. It would be helpful if our 'birther' friends would stop dancing around the question and acknowledge some of the basic facts that are concludable from the evidence: Obama got state of Hawaii birth records in AUGUST 1961.
That does not mean he was born on the island.
It's not a 100% lock, but surely 99% of the Aug 1961 birth announcements in the Honolulu paper, if not 100%, were from babies born in Honolulu hospitals and reported through those channels. Against that probability we have these theories that someone could just 'phone it in'. Maybe.
But lets assume we are admitting the 1% possibility. Well, we are back to: What evidence exists that has him born anywhere ELSE? Do YOU have anything? I've asked at least 4 other on this threads and so far .... nothing. Not a single scrap of evidence for Obama being born anywhere but Honolulu Hawaii. It looks less like a 1% possibility and more like a 1 in a million.
Not as far as the U.S. goes. Because the founders did not want someone leading the country with divided loyalties, which a dual citizen of course by its very nature does. You can’t be a Natural Born Citizen if you held dual Citizenship.
The announcements came from the office of Vital Statistics, not from the hospitals I thought.
FWIW you called Godebert a "limp-dicked little panty-wearing conspiracy nutter"
I believe that reference was targeted at everyone here who has questions about Obama's pedigree.
You can call me whatever names you want, but I'm not going to rest until Obama comes through on his promise of "transparency".
You and Bill Maher and Nancy Peolosi and Michael Moore and company can ridicule us "nutters" all you want, but our numbers are growing.
The author at the site you posted says:
“The legislative definition of ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ [in the 14th amendment] was defined as ‘Not owing allegiance to anybody else.’”
I’d like to know what his source for that is. I’ve certainly never understood being under the jurisdiction of U.S. laws means to have no possible allegiance to any other country. Are not resident aliens and illegal aliens alike subject to U.S. laws when they’re here? Did not Wong Kim Ark and Elg alike upturn this view, if it ever existed?
He also goes on to ask why born citizens don’t have to pass through the same requirements as naturalized citizens, meaning why can born citizens have split allegiances and be “natural” while the naturalized have to plead loyalty to the U.S. in order to become citizens. Duh. Because born citizens are citizens by right, not by provisional concession by the government.
Speaking of right, the author goes on at length about Natural Law, which is where he loses me completely. I personally don’t find anything more “natural” about blood than soil. If anything, I’d think the earth, the dirt, the domain, the “homeland,” is more central to the heart of the state than its individual subjects.
But I digress. The idea is that to be “natural,” citizenship cannot be by decree. Has to be automatic. And we’re to believe blood is more automatic than soil. First of all, we do not live under Natural Law. We live under man-made laws. That’s an important distinction. Natural Law is for God and the philosophers to keep. The rest of us live in the real world.
Secondly, it’s not as if blood babies don’t need any man-made laws to come into being. In order to be a U.S. citizen, there has to be a U.S., and there was no U.S. before the Constitution was ratified. Ipso facto, the prerogatives of the father pass onto the son by virtue of man-made laws.
“I believe that reference was targeted at everyone here who has questions about Obama’s pedigree.” Wrong. those who have ‘questions’ about Obama is not the issue. There is polite discussion between many who have different views.
Then there are those who attack others simply for having a realistic view of where Obama was born. A ‘nutter’ is someone who calls everyone who disagrees with their pet theory on this a member of some O-bot conspiracy. It’s assinine. IN my case hilariously untrue. But I wont back down on my POV just because someone calls me names.
The phrase “limp-dicked little panty-wearing... “ is one that Godebert originated and you need to ask him what it means.
“The announcements came from the office of Vital Statistics, not from the hospitals I thought”
Right. So you are agreeing the Obama had gotten birth records filed in Aug 1961 with the State of Hawaii, right?
I never said he didn’t.
I said that just because he had a Hawaii COLB that did not prove his NBC status, and did not mean he was actually born in the islands. All that COLB says is that he has Hawaiian papers. It does not mean he was born there or is an American citizen, and had never been a Dual citizen. Dual Citizen means you can’t be a Natural Born Citizen, and Obama himself admitted that very thing on his Fight the Smears website.
He is constitutionally ineligible. By his own admission.
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.