Posted on 08/02/2009 4:56:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
And then one of our moderators spotted this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18018714/Fake-Obama-Kenya-birth-certificate
It has several clues, but also there's this question:
Who is E. F. Lavender?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=earth+friendly+lavender&aq=f&oq=&aqi
Earth Friendly Lavender detergent?
First of all, I didn't intentionally misrepresent you comments. I thought, from my reading of your post, that you were claiming that the fact that Obama's mother was a certain had some kind of bearing on his citizenship status. My apologies if I misunderstood your point.
Also, I wouldn't go as far as to say US v. Ark doesn't contribute to a definition of the term, "natural born citizen". While it doesn't specifically define the term of art, it does go at great lengths in the majority opinion to give that term some context. Also, as I mentioned to another poster, the dissent in US v. Ark also shines some light on what "natural born" may mean. I would invite you to read Fuller's dissent and pay particular attention to this part where he cticises the majority opinion...
Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not."
He's acquiescing that Ark, while born to two foreign nationals, is eligible to be president and he's also lamenting the fact that a child who may be born to two US citizens, but while overseas, will not. That's pretty compelling evidence, and certainly evidence that any court ruling on this kind of issue would seriously take under advisement.
I am personalty of the opinion that, as you point out, the framers didn't intend to allow children born to parents owing allegiance to a foreign king to be president, even if that birth occurred on US soil, and if the parents where under the jurisdiction of the US therein. But, that is an opinion and the matter is far from settled law.
You said, "No person born with an allegiance to a foreign sovereign can lawfully serve as Commander-in-Chief of the United States."
But, in point of fact it's happening right now and it's completely legal. There is a wide divide between how laws should be interpreted and how they are interpreted. In this instance, SCOTUS - when denying a writ of certiorari Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells - is signaling where they come down on the matter. It doesn't make it right, but it does make it the law of the land, for now.
Postings from Thon taken down?
The australian BC - look closely at the lack of letter distortion where the letter, both from the form and typed, overlay the fold marks. I don’t care how flat you got the letter, with that well defined fold lines, you’d get distorted lettering.
Look at the lack of distortion of the letters from the form and typed where they overlay the fold marks. There are significant folding and there should be equivalent letter distortions.
Look at the lack of distortion of letters, both from the form and typed, where they overlay the ‘fold’ marks on the Bomford BC. They are not deformed as they should be if the document was folded as suggested by the fold marks.
I believe it is reflected in his climbing disapproval numbers. I think the American public is seeing a pattern that implies that Obama is not as trustworthy as many thought before the election or that their need to absolve themselves of racial guilt really was a bad idea in the face of such incompetence and/or corruption.
I don't know what poll you are talking about but I sincerely question polls on this question. Take your own poll and compare. You might be surprised. We can't use the Establishment's polls when the entire elite is against the release of the BC.
Corsi’s trip to Kenya?
“Does it sound like I have an open mind now?”
It sounds like you have a quick mind.: )
Thanks for taking the time to sum up all the issues you have raised. They are valuable questions in this discussion.
Thank you for taking the time to bring me up to speed on all the conflict surrounding Taitz. I am troubled by it all. At the same time, I have empathy for her maligned circumstances.
I hope she is not just hurting people and hurting the case as Berg suggests. I wonder how Major Cook feels about her. Even if she filed papers in court about his employment w/o going to the EEOC, I take it that the process is not ruined for him to appeal correctly the unjust actions taken against him.
I hope this document is not fake.
What a mess. :(
He and his little pal, both signed up today, are banned. They were most assuredly DUers pretending to be from where ever they pretended to be from.
Just a note, I typed in E.F. Hutton,,, came up with Edward Frances .... so,,, E.F. Lavender could be Edward Frances Lavender
It appears that the australian document is a fake. Starting at post 1390, by PA Engineer, in this thread http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2307402/posts?q=1&;page=1351
his daughter found that the australian document will break up into layers in photoshop elements. the layers are latter shown in post 1444.
Here's a little thought-exercize:
If someone were "to produce his REAL long form birth certificate," what do we think the obotz would do?
Personally, I think they'd quickly realize that since they could not force it to disappear, and could not disprove it on the merits, they would fall back on a massive "security by obscurity" gambit, along the lines of that hackneyed old plot line in which the good guy is battling with the evil beast that looks identical (or nearly identical), forcing the friendlies to stand back unable to act.
In the realm of documents, it would be relatively economical (given beaucoup deep pockets to reach into for "supplies") to come up with a plethora of "nearly identical" documents.
In fact, if they're even slightly brighter than a rock, they'd have anticipated the probable eventuality of disclosure, and prepare numerous "nearly identical" documents at their leisure, perhaps planting some in "deep cover" source positions so as to plausibly claim that "THIS is the REAL one."
The logic of course fails at "face value" (to "coin" a phrase ;) It would be tantamount to my claiming that the five dollar bill in your pocket is counterfeit -- and, asserting that I can PROVE it to be bogus -- because I hold here in MY hand a "nearly identical" bill (why, even the SIGNATURES match!), but, there are enough DIFFERENCES (different colored stamps, different dates, names of reserve bank offices, etc.), to "prove" that at least ONE of them is not real.
I could then fish out a few MORE bills from my pocket, feign shock, and exclaim, "Oh, my ghauwdde! Look at how MANY fakes there are flooding the place! Clearly, we MUST dismiss ALL of these things as OBVIOUS fakes!"
I'm having a bit of a deja vu moment, oddly enough. It's as if SOMETHING is reminding me of this hypothetical scenario. Oh, well, I'm sure it's just a coffee deficiency and lack of sleep. Let's all move along now, and Obey Bill O'Reilly.
Wow, another really ODD thing. I've got this weird urge to rush out and buy some loofah... and falafel.
Weird! Go figure.
I’m not an expert on the subject. According to the young woman both parents were Soviet citizens. She was born in a US hospital. Therefore, she retains dual citizenship.
Citizenship details are worked out in Status of Forces Agreements between sovereign nations—they are usually reciprocal.
I cannot speak for what was agreed upon by the old USSR and USA. But, in W. Germany (and I expect it also applies to the new united Germany), a foreign national born in either country held that country’s citizensship as well as that of his/her parents.
I would bet money that our arrangement with Germany was and is pretty much standard among all the nations with which we maintained diplomatic relations.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.
However, any child born on “US soil” is considered “native born”. This includes being born in a US military hospital—or emgbassy/consulate—in Germany or any other country. That is why McCain could run for president even though he was born in a US military hospital in the Panama Canal Zone.
When the issue of The Marxist Onada’s actual country of birth came up during the election the left,and its willing accomplices in the MSM, tried to make an issue of McCain’s qualification to run for president. As usual the left lied about the actual situation and the media simply printed what they were told.
Holding dual citizenship does not disqualify an American from running for president so long as he/she was born on “American soil” and is therefore “Native born”.
Really, the citizenship requirement to run for president is has been around for a long time. Up until Onada, it had not occured to an unqualified American to run for the office.
But then, along comes Onada and the left. To hell with that they said. Anyone should be allowed to run for the US presidency—you know just like anyone can run for the Chinese Politbureau, the Russian premiership or French Prime Minister (I’m being snide here).
Up until Onada and his gang of commies came along, there was not even a formal vetting process in place to insure the presidential candidates were “native born”. Why? Aspiring presidential candidates had retained at least some modicum of honor. It would not have occured to them to willy nilly ignore a clear and important Constitutional requirement.
Wow, you’ve got a lot of study and research to do WRT this subject. You are wrong on several points.
Do you recognize how profound that is...that 26% of the country has some question as to the eligibility of the President of the United States (by place of origin...not by the legitimacy of the election)? That has got to be a first in US history. If you are frustrated or think this distraction has no meaning, ruminate on those words a bit...
I think you may be miss reading my post a bit.
Four things I do believe;
-Obama should show us his BC.
- We should demand that Obama show us his BC.
- Obama may not be Hawaiian born.
- Obama may be Hawaiian born and he may be using this BC thingy as a distraction and as a way of discrediting his opponents as he attempts to destroy the country.
My question for you: Do you realize how profound it is that 74%(assuming the poll is correct) of the country is stupid enough not to care if Obama shows us his BC?
Yes. But I'd have thought that anytime in the past 10 years. Frankly, I'm surprised that the percentage is any more than 5-10% of the public, at the most.
Considering how the SRM is excoreating anybody who even has the position, "I know he was born in Hawaii, but I'd still like to see the BC," I wonder how high the percentage really is.
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.