Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

My final thought on the birther issue
Red State ^ | February 14, 2010 | Erick Erickson

Posted on 02/15/2010 2:06:27 AM PST by FTJM

A lot of you have asked if I’ve gotten any more emails. Below the fold, a compilation of emails that have come in. But above the fold, my final word.

Based on the facts, it is very clear that President Obama is our lawfully elected President and the Office of President of the United States of America requires that though we may disagree with him and oppose him, we recognize and respect his position as President — a position entrusted to him by 69,456,897 voting Americans, or 52.9% of the popular vote.

As early at 1350, the British Parliament approved statutes recognizing the rule of jus sanguinis, under which citizens may pass their citizenship by descent to their children at birth, regardless of place. Similarly, in the its first naturalization statute, Congress declared that ‘the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.’ 1 Stat. 104 (1790) . . . . Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s discussion in Wong Kim Ark (1898), a majority of commentators today argue that the Presidential Eligibility Clause incorporates both the common-law and English statutory principles, and that therefore, Michigan Governor George Romney, who was born to American parents outside of the United States, was eligible to seek the Presidency in 1968.

Meese, Edward, Heritage Guide to the Constitution, p. 190 (2005).

Even were the American public to fall under the belief that Barack Obama was born in a foreign country and 49 years ago his associates fabricated a narrative, a birth record, and placed birth announcements in both the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star Bulletin on August 4, 1961, to ensure that 49 years later he could become President of the United States, it is undisputed that Barack Obama’s mother is and has always been an American citizen. Therefore Barack Obama is and has always been an American citizen.

The leaps of logic and reason to arrive at such a conspiracy are unbefitting the credibility of anyone and not worthy of further discussion. Notwithstanding the same, no American should ever sanction what would amount to a judicial coup — the removal of the President of the United States after 52.9% of the American public instructed their Electoral College representatives to place their votes for him. The time to even be willing to entertain these issues from those who claim a conspiracy has long past.

A conservative movement worthy of leading this nation must be willing to cast aside those who, for whatever reason, cannot and will not be persuaded that the President is our legitimately, constitutionally elected President.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; eligibility; fraud; ineligibility; naturalborncitizen; obama; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-228 next last
To: F15Eagle

He could easily produce the long form birth certificate. The reason why he doesn’t is because it’s in his political best interests not to. When your political enemies are making complete fools of themselves, why stop them.

I am surprised the “birthers” aren’t on Obama’s payroll.


41 posted on 02/15/2010 3:59:41 AM PST by eaglescout1998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: FTJM
in the its first naturalization statute, Congress declared that ‘the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.’ 1 Stat. 104 (1790)

Now that's interesting.

42 posted on 02/15/2010 4:00:22 AM PST by ctdonath2 (Pelosi is practically President; the Obama is just her talk show host.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FTJM

The legitimacy of his presidency is an issue. I dont want to see it addressed by the Tea Party Movement or up and coming Conservatives. This would only be played out again and again by the MSM and labeled as conspiracy kooks. Instead, lets elect those who will demand answers. Then maybe, just maybe, BHO, Reid, Pelosi, Axelrod and all others involved in this massive fraud can rot in a cell. AMEN


43 posted on 02/15/2010 4:04:59 AM PST by mouse1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle

The only other person I can possibly think of that knows the real story is Rep. Neil Abercrombie (now running for Gov. of HI). He has bragged on several occasions what good buddies he and BHO Sr. were. If Abercrombie is elected we need to keep an eye on him ‘cuz he could really fix this whole BC issue.


44 posted on 02/15/2010 4:08:52 AM PST by bjorn14 (Woe to those who call evil good and good evil. Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom
then it should be decided by the courts and not a bunch of websites

The courts are not in charge of everything, in fact, their unconstitutional role in elections is already too big.

This issue was decided by a special Joint Session of Congress on January 5, 2008, with Richard B. Cheney of Wyoming presiding.

That was the legal, constitutional venue for hearing this issue. Any Member of Congress or any Senator had the perfect right to raise this issue, which had been fully discussed, here and elsewhere, beforehand.

None did, and President of the Senate Cheney signed the papers.

End of story.

45 posted on 02/15/2010 4:09:50 AM PST by Jim Noble (Hu's the communist?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle
My currently favorite theory is that the long form shows a different daddy for some reason. If it was Frank Davis it would be hysterical since then there would be no NBC issues. Really makes me wonder what is worth all the $$$$ to hide. Mrs. Mad says 0 is hiding things just to be hiding them and cause a distraction.

In any case now I demand to know the truth simply for satisfaction.

46 posted on 02/15/2010 4:10:17 AM PST by mad_as_he$$ (usff.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Comment #47 Removed by Moderator

To: nathanbedford
I am compelled to agree that there is still plenty of room to maintain that, in the absence of the original birth certificate and supporting documents, if any, the matter remains open.

As a matter of intellectual curiosity, perhaps.

As a constitutional matter, the issue was closed when the special Joint Session of Congress convened for the purpose of, among other things, hearing objections to certifying the election, heard none.

As far as the Constitution is concerned, the matter was closed when the President of the Senate signed the papers.

48 posted on 02/15/2010 4:14:00 AM PST by Jim Noble (Hu's the communist?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle

There are many who believe Obama has put his granny in hiding and that the whole funeral was a staged event, further more those that witnessed Obama scattering the ashes claimed they were not consistent with what cremated human remains resemble, nor the amount.

There is still the other supposed witness to Obamas birth in Kenya a nurse in Mombasa that has been put into protective custody by Scotland Yard.

How many years will pass before the sealed intelligence document are opened to the public on “rumors” such as these? There are foreign intelligence assets abroad that have documented evidence proving or dis-proving these events.

I suppose if there was a deal made we could get the facts from them. Or we could say please...


49 posted on 02/15/2010 4:15:22 AM PST by Eye of Unk ("Either you are with us or you are for the terrorists." ~~George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

Comment #50 Removed by Moderator

To: FTJM

It is irrelevant where the usurper, B. Soetero, was born. He has already acknowledged that one of this parents was NOT an American citizen... thereby invalidating his claim as being a natural-born citizen.
In addition, there have been indications that B. Soetero self-identified as a foreign student when he was at Columbia U. and Occidental College. This documents that, as an adult, he did not consider himself to be a natural-born citizen of the United States of America.


51 posted on 02/15/2010 4:23:24 AM PST by mason-dixon (As Mason said to Dixon, you have to draw the line somewhere.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #52 Removed by Moderator

To: Jim Noble

Not so sure about that. Fruit of a tainted tree is still a potent legal theory in this country.


53 posted on 02/15/2010 4:24:56 AM PST by mad_as_he$$ (usff.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: FTJM

“69,456,897 voting Americans”

You won’t arrive at truth by counting noses.


54 posted on 02/15/2010 4:25:33 AM PST by RoadTest (The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple. Ps. 119:130)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
Congress declared that ‘the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.’ 1 Stat. 104 (1790)
Ah, yes...the old cut and paste...Let's see what 5 minutes on the Net shows...
A Legal History of Chinese-Americans FEDERAL STATUTES/LAWS
An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, March 26, 1790.
Snip..."the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." (1 Stat. 104). Repealed on January 29, 1795 by An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore on that subject." (1 Stat. 414).
So much for his due diligence.
55 posted on 02/15/2010 4:26:42 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: FTJM
we recognize and respect his position as President — a position entrusted to him by 69,456,897 voting Americans, or 52.9% of the popular vote.>

Why must we recognize one who is holding an office illegally? Why must we respect one who has not earned any respect?

What we have is a real-life Manchurian Candidate residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, who gained that position via ACORN fraud and phony campaign promises (lies), so that morons who believed he'd pay their mortgage, fill their gas tanks and give them some of his "stash" pulled the lever for him.

I can never respect such a pResident, and will always resist anything he says or does knowing that he does NOT represent the best interests of America.

56 posted on 02/15/2010 4:26:51 AM PST by thecraw (God allows evil. God allowed Barry to usurp the highest office in the land. God will not be mocked.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
Agreed.

It is closed also as a practical matter because there is simply no energy behind the cause. It is closed as a juridical matter because I cannot conceive of a scenario in which the court will not sidestep this matter as a political question or as a question more properly determined by the legislative branch under the Constitution, as you point out.

There is however a faint hope that enough states might pass legislation requiring production of documents cause Obama some difficulty in his quest for reelection. This is however only the faintest of hope.

The matter is effectively dead without dramatic, extrinsic evidence of his birth outside of the states. But this is a wholly different matter and the facts do not warrant denigrating the whole of the "birther" movement as crazy or racist. But even that reservation is a losing argument in the battleground of popular ideas.


57 posted on 02/15/2010 4:27:41 AM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

“children of citizens of the United States”

Meaning BOTH PARENTS?


58 posted on 02/15/2010 4:29:04 AM PST by DaveTesla (You can fool some of the people some of the time......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$
Not so sure about that. Fruit of a tainted tree is still a potent legal theory in this country.

So is popular sovereignty.

If the founders had thought it wise to make the Supreme Court a French Cour de Cassation, I'm sure they would have.

They designed a very clever system. They insisted the electoral votes be opened and counted in public, with the previous Vice-President in the chair, for a reason. I'm sure it wasn't that they thought Congress had nothing else to do.

They also didn't involve the courts in elections, and that was for a VERY good reason.

59 posted on 02/15/2010 4:30:06 AM PST by Jim Noble (Hu's the communist?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
We agree to a point!!
60 posted on 02/15/2010 4:31:43 AM PST by mad_as_he$$ (usff.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-228 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson