Posted on 10/07/2009 11:23:53 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
By Alan Keyes
October 7, 2009
Loyal to Liberty
I just received a call from Orly Taitz, my attorney in the case seeking proof of Obama's eligibility for the Office of President of the United States. Judge Carter has released a statement declaring that the dates he set for the hearing and trial on the eligibility issue are confirmed, and it will move forward as scheduled. Apparently he was not swayed by the Obama lawyer's arguments.
The bottom line of this claim is that, then, not a single officer of government in the US, in any branch, or at any level of governance, has any positive obligation to uphold one of the simplest and clearest provisions of our Constitution and their sworn duty to the same.
That position, which of course is now held by almost our entire legal and political class, is at the core of what is causing the destruction of our free republic.
It's also killing millions of Americans. The exact same view is held by the legal and political establishment concerning the sworn Constitutional duty to protect innocent human life.
The main purpose for the existence of human government, according to the founders of this republic, has been utterly lawyered away.
Okay, who reported bam bam’s birth
Not relevant to his eligibility.
Sure it is revelant. Since you know everything, just tell us? What hospital did it come from?
Additionally, based on the link you provided, you have to accept the newspaper conspiracy theory to believe it’s possible for him to have a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth under the program terminated in 1972 — because that program was to “register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii.”
Missing troll: WOSG
Thanks. I was reading and writing as you wrote that. I agree.
Because he actually cared about the sanctity of the Office of the Presidency and his own perceived legitimacy?
You are wasting your time with Non-Sequitur, he is a troll of long staning here on these threads. His only purpose is to do exactly what he is doing, disrupt the posters and any examination of information to those interesed.
He is without a doubt a liberal.
Note of clarification:
My opponents’ assertion is that NO ONE is responsible for keeping their oath and upholding one of the simplest and clearest provisions of our Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the Land.
My position, as always, is that ALL have the duty to keep that oath.
Okay. First there's the COLB which shows birth in Hawaii, and that the birth was registered within 4 days. A COLB that says the birth was in the US and registered within a year of birth is good enough to prove US birth to the State Department. If it's good enough for the State Department, it's good enough for me.
Okay, but I didn't see a hard copy. So, you say, maybe the internet image and factcheck photos are forged. Maybe. So we look for corroborating evidence. And what do we find? Two things: 1) The statements by the Hawaii DOH, verifying that the vital records say birth in Hawaii 2) birth anouncements in the papers, within days of the birth, based on data received directly from the DOH. That corroborates that his birth was registered within days. So we know the state records say he was born in Hawaii, and that the birth was registered in less than a year, facts that are good enough for the State Department to prove US birth.
On top of that, there's the sheer implausibility he was born anywhere else. The idea that his mom, in her last trimester of pregnancy, flew to Kenya to give birth is so absurd that anyone who believes it needs a psychiatric evaluation. Furthermore, there's the complete lack of evidence he was born anywhere other than Hawaii.
I'm sorry, but the above is proof beyond reasonable doubt of Hawaiian birth to any rational person.
| http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/hawnbirth.html
Who is Eligible to Apply for the Issuance of a Late Birth Certificate in Lieu of a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth?
The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii. The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program was terminated in 1972, during the statehood era.
If the amendment request is subsequently withdrawn, all documents received in support of the amendment will be returned. If the requestor elects to proceed with the application for registration of a late certificate of birth, the documentary evidence submitted in support of registration will be reviewed and evaluated for adequacy. If the application is approved, a late birth certificate will be issued and the original Certificate of Hawaiian Birth issued to the applicant must be surrendered to, for cancellation by, the Department of Health. No filing fee is charged for the late birth certificate. |
|
Name |
Location of Birth |
Birth Cert # |
Date/Time Born |
|
Barack Hussein Obama II |
Kapiolani Medical Center |
151-61-10641 |
Aug. 4, 1961 7:24 pm |
|
Susan Elizabeth Nordyke |
Kapiolani Medical Center |
151-61-10637 |
Aug. 5, 1961 2:12 pm |
|
Gretchen Carter Nordyke |
Kapiolani Medical Center |
151-61-10638 |
Aug. 5, 1961 2:17 pm |
Are the gulags with their psychiatric wards ready for us yet?
>>> Okay. First there’s the COLB which shows birth in Hawaii, and that the birth was registered within 4 days.
Registered ... or backdated, based upon affidavits from mom?
Welcome. You are added.
No, that's not my position. Everyone who took an oath to uphold the Constitution has a duty to do so. But not every alleged breach of every constitutional duty can be remedied by a lawsuit in court. Sometimes, the remedy is with the Congress or the voters.
“People who take it as an article of faith that Bambi isn’t a natural born citizen no matter what evidence is presented.”
If His dad was not an American citizen, He is not a Natural Born Citizen. That’s the only reason people would like to see the birth certificate. Either His father wasn’t a citizen at His birth, or He’s lying about who His father is.
Do you know that His father was not Obama Sr? That would be the only way He could be a NBC. Of course that would make him a liar.
I never claimed it was. I always make it clear that this is not “either/or.” It’s “all of the above.”
“So sorry you are incorrect the proviso (provided) only goes to military or govt service (A&B) of 8 USC 1401 (g)only that part is retroactive not the change in 10 years 5 after age of 14. “
No, if the entire passage were not retroactive, it would have said so in the “effective date” as it did pertaining to 23(d)
Sorry ask any immigration attorney or agent, or consult any citizenship chart you are wrong,
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1227910730.shtml
FYI, you were not alone:
.....My error came in misreading the last sentence in 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g):
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of Title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of Title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;
I foolishly read the last sentence as applying to the entire provision, § 1401(g); but the last sentence refers to the “proviso,” and thus just to the clause that begins with “Provided.” Public Law 89-770 enacted both the “Provided” and the last sentence mentioning the “proviso,” without repeating the first clause — this supports the view that the “proviso” refers only to the “Provided” clause.
Moreover, the change to “at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years” was made by Public Law 99-653, Nov. 14, 1986, which was enacted after the “Provided” clause and the last sentence were added: “SEC. 12. Section 301(g) (8 U.S.C. 1401(g)) is amended by striking out ‘ten years, at least five’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘five years, at least two.’” Two years later, the Immigration Technical Corrections Act of 1988, Public Law 100-525, Oct. 24, 1988, provided:
(r) EFFECTIVE DATES. — INAA [the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1986 (Public Law 99-653)] is further amended by adding at the end the following new section:
“EFFECTIVE DATES
“SEC. 23....
“(d) The amendment made by section 12 shall apply to persons born on or after November 14, 1986.
So, as I now read 8 U.S.C. § 1401, “a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States” before Nov. 14, 1986 is a natural-born citizen only if the citizen parent “was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years” — the same rule that was in place in the early 1960s. See also United States v. Flores-Villar, 497 F. Supp. 2d 1160, 1162-64 (S.D. Cal. 2007) (taking the same view and concluding the change from ten years/five years to five years/two years only applied to people born after 1986), aff’d, 536 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2008) (so assuming but not discussing it in detail); Rico-Ibarra v. Mukasey, 281 Fed. Appx. 694, 695 n.1 (9th Cir. 2008) (not precedential).....
Simple really, they installed a foreigner as president. They gave him aid in his efforts to take over this country.
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.