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.
And you're demanding that he prove a negative.
No, there is no burden on Obama to do anything at this point.
Look, you can't just throw stuff out there and say it has to be a certain way, just because you say so. This is the basic point both I and NS are making here.
Where is the law? If you want to claim Obama has to fork over a specific document, show the law that says that very thing. If you want to claim he has the burden of proof, show the law that says that. Otherwise, you shouldn't make those kinds of claims. That's all.
So where does the Constitution outline what candidates have to do to prove their natural-born citizenship requirements?
There is no reason why there should be any outline of what a natural born citizen is in the constitution, the framers understood the concept well enough that they were not afraid of a pretender sneaking into the office of the presidency.
What has happened her is treason on a scale that it boggles the mind, not only was a fraud allowed to run for office but the entire party that he represented was perfectly willing to allow him to lie his way into office because they knew they didn't have anyone else to run and win.
Huh? Barry is the one who is being asked to prove he *is* NBC. The “birthers” are the ones who are being asked to prove a negative—with evidence to which they are denied access.
“Remember that COLB”
Now that is funny.
How about show us the long form?
He’s a troll, best thing is to just ignore them. As you will find there are several here misleading people and disrupting. Non-intellegent is just one of them, as is olddeckhand.
Here’s a pretty good summary:
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/hannigan/eligibility%20summary.pdf
HI statue 338-17.8 states:
(a) [§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory
or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol06_ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.
HTM
The Certification of Live Birth (COLB) could be issued to
a) people without documented proof of birth in Hawaii “whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii,” and
b) that this document could be amended by foreign citizens (“a person born in a foreign country”).
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/hawnbirth.html
Unlike other states, Hawaii’s COLB does not prove that a citizen was actually born in Hawaii if the citizen COLB was issued between the years of 1911 – 1972. The long form needs to be provided to prove natural born citizenship. The long form provides the name of the hospital, doctor’s name and signature, registrar signature, Parent’s signature etc. Additionally, Box 7e, of the long form, states “Country and State or Foreign Country.” It is the contents of this box that will confirm the President’s country or origin and thus status of edibility.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=101483
Exactly correct.
Exactly correct.
When he signed up for FI aid at college and claimed he was not a US citizen.
The easy to understand words of our Constitution have been posted on this thread repeatedly. I can't help it if you choose to ignore them.
"No person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible to the Office of President...."
There would be more than a few bricks thrown if that were to happen.
So, are we to surrender our Constitution out of fear of those who would threaten violence and insurrection?
And he's shown a birth certificate. And what happened was a pile of scenarios were concocted--that the birth certificate is a fake, that he lost his citizenship when Lolo adopted him, that he applied to Occidental as a foreign student, that he traveled to Pakistan under an Indonesian passport because there was a travel ban and so on--and then a demand that he prove none of them happened.
The “birthers” are the ones who are being asked to prove a negative—with evidence to which they are denied access.
Do you really believe that the law supports the idea that a suspicion that something might have happened supports an unrestricted troll through all of someone's personal documents?
You backed in a corner? Answer the issue or move along. I am not running in your silly circles this morning.
LOL. An “unrestricted troll” is allowed here, that’s for sure!
Oh no! No one can get away with providing the State Department a website address to see a image of their birth certificate. You have to hand it over in hard copy.
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.