Posted on 03/27/2011 4:10:35 PM PDT by Red Steel
Donald Trump’s calls this week for President Barack Obama to release his birth certificate prompted negative reactions from pundits who would like to turn the tables on Trump and say, “You’re fired.”
However, Trump’s comments, made most recently in an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, also garnered support from those who wonder why Obama has not supplied documentation of where he was born.
Trump rekindled the longtime controversy Wednesday on ABC’s “The View” when he said Obama was “probably” born in the United States, but he wants the president to prove it with a birth certificate.
As for the critics, Brian Lowry of Variety got personal. “More than anything, Trump looks like a buffoon — an egomaniac hopelessly addicted to the spotlight, floating the prospect of a presidential run to a gullible media to boost interest in himself and ‘Celebrity Apprentice,’" Lowry wrote on the magazine’s website.
“Moreover, he seems in complete denial about the fact that his NBC show crested some time ago. Seriously, 8 million viewers or so is ‘through the roof?’ Only if the ceiling is about three inches above your head.”
David Weigel of Slate magazine took up Trump’s challenge to show him a photo of Obama as a child. “I've seen 14-year-old,” Trump said. “I've seen 13-year-old. I haven't seen early pictures." Weigel’s column includes a photo of Obama as a child that appeared on the cover of Time magazine in 2008.
-snip-
Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie, a friend of Obama's parents in Hawaii who said he remembers when the future president was born, first vowed to produce an original copy of the president's birth certificate this year.
But he abandoned those efforts because it is against state law to release private documents, CNN quoted his spokeswoman as saying.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
You SHOULD have to prove it. But it is not required. By any state.
Go figure....
Oh, yeah!
Why didn’t you name it and provide a link to more info on it then?
“The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of governments” hence “subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives.” Accordingly, “[a]ll persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”
[the natural born citizenship clause] “assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.”
The [14th] amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’
US v Wong Kim Ark (1898)
Odinga took her by surprise and the last couple of years haven't looked very good on the Klown.
But I am open for a gentleman’s bet. If Hillary runs for president in 2012, I will buy you a case of beer. If she doesn’t, you buy me one. Fair?
Why don't we make it really interesting?
A couple of houses in Detroit?
Wait, a case of beer is more interesting and you are on.
Thanks! That clearly makes the distinction between a native born citizen and a natural born citizen.
YES!
I am hoping this will get the entire thing out in the open or he will announce that “In great respect for my family I have decided to not run for re-election”!
Let’s TRUMP that Obummer! LOL
Case of Hamms it is.
I can second that statement, completely!
You asked, Laz, what’s up with Jamese. Yes indeed, he IS here to defend Obama. For instance, just Saturday, I think it was, he ***repeated*** his tired old lie re: Obama and his having passed an evaluation to receive a Security Clearance. Laz, this never happened, and in fact it has been repeatedly explained to Jamese that it COULDN’T happen. I.e.: there is no way on earth Obama could pass even the most basic, lowest level security clearance evaluation.
This is something I know a lot about. My ex was (and is) a big wheel defense contractor (including Top Secret stuff for DARPA). Early in our marriage he had to undergo a security clearance evaluation—and he was periodically evaluated from that time onward. Unless you’ve been through it, Laz, you simply cannot imagine the scope and depth and rigor of the background check. It is NOT easy to pass. As a result I, among others, have explained to Jamese that Obama could not even begin to kinda sorta maybe get to first base on actually receiving a security clearance—none of which stops Jamese from lying about it on FR.
Here’s what I wrote to him the other day:
“[Jamese], Obama was briefed NOT because he passed even the most basic security clearance evaluation—he couldn’t, and I speak from experience—but because there was a good chance he would become POTUS. It’s untenable to have a POTUS completely in the dark about national security issues, so CIA briefings are routine/the rule, once the field thins out and it’s possible to say, ‘One of these individuals will beyond all doubt be the next POTUS’.
Jamese, this has been explained to you before. When you repeat false information (i.e.: when you cite a briefing as evidence that Obama cleared some type of security clearance hurdle—which he did not and could not) you indicate that you are either dense or shamefully dishonest. I don’t know which it is. If you are too thick to comprehend this, then I apologize for accusing you of lying. If you do understand it but repeat the lie anyway, then shame on you.
Contrary to what you may have been indoctrinated with, integrity matters. Continual lying on FR doesn’t strengthen your point; it singles you out as a liar, pure and simple.”
If you’d like the link, Laz, I could find the one where Jamese ridicules Red Steel for making the same point I just made above, and where Jamese uses the fact that Obama received briefings to ‘prove’ that he passed a security clearance evaluation.
The bottom line bieng that Jamese does indeed use FR to shill for Obama—and that includes telling the same lies on O’s behalf that Jamese has been corrected on in the past. I don’t think that’s true to the spirit and purpose of FR, but what do I know...right?
Just to give you the two most prominent show-stoppers: Obama’s admitted cocaine use and his longstanding association with known terrorist Ayers. Either would derail a security clearance background check dead in its tracks. There’s more, of course, but you get the idea. The only security clearance Obama could have qualified for is the lollipop and rainbow clearance in Jamese’s liberalism-addled mind; case closed.
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.5065/pub_detail.asp
thanks for the link! great article! we’re always proud of you, d.
Lawyer Donofrio brings news from the 14th Amendment Front. Thanks to bitt for an excellent link and a great read.
Amazing week. We finally get some street cred and from The Donald? Who could have foreseen that? The first figure with national media stature to ask the question! Hopefully, this will embolden at least SOME of our elected representatives to join the fight to save the Constitution.
Thanks bitt.
How about when they go knocking on the doors of all the neighbors that never knew him? ;-)
You must account for where you were and what you were doing in each and every month of your timeline, in that investigation. He can’t do that!
The places he’s been and associations he’s had would raise so many red flags...
I don’t know if the agents investigating him would die laughing or take him out back and cap him. [Note: I am not advocating violence against anyone. I leave that to the union thugs in WI.] Either way, there’d be no security clearance in The Won’s past, present or future.
I’m still trying to figure out if the SP is mentally challenged or just plain vile. Using FR to shill for Obama is one thing. Repeating lies over and over, after being politely but definitively corrected, is something else. I was hoping there for a minute he had finally come to Laz’ attention. Time will tell.
Thanks for the ping!
(shuffles feet) Aweeee.. Thanks! You should see what I have been doing over at Politico tonight. Muahahaha Its been hysterical fun LOL
http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=1&subcatid=1&threadid=5260426&start=1¤tPage=1
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.