We now have the media of an one-party state.
I was watching ABC’s George Stephanopoulos interviewing Donald Trump about the birth certificate issue.
It struck me how much more Stephanopoulos sounded like an Obama staff member than an independent and objective journalist.
Continuing his crusade to save Obama from the dustbin of history, Stephanopoulos, on Good Morning America, waved a copy of Obama’s alleged Certification of Live Birth at Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN).
He demanded that she renounce her recent heresy of questioning Obama’s eligibility to be President by swearing an oath to the purity of her thoughts in order for her to be considered an acceptable contender for the Republican presidential nomination.
Read More at Canada Free Press by Lawrence Sellin, Canada Free Press
Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.
Follow @WestJournalism
Loading ...
Old George Constantinople is a fine fair and Balance gentleman, isn't he?
I know it ;;;;Stephanopoulos but where is his birth certificate from with a alphabet name like that. He has a bunch of Clinton secrets that he won't tell either. I bet if Hillary won in 2012 this guy would be back in the White House ASAP
Why throw away credibility unless it will no longer be needed? If it wasn't enough to try and BS the public that a person can have foreign parents and be a natural born citizen, to refuse to produce what every real hospital birth has to prove even birthright coitizenship is completely dishonest. I guess when you deal with people who are that desperate to hide their crime it is simply common sense to prepare for a fight when you corner them. George S. go join your pack of traitors with the money you so worship and leave us to the business of setting the record straight and protecting our constitution.
Since the meaning of Natural Born in America at the time the Constitution was written referred only to the place of birth and not to the parents, a US-born person can have one or two foreign parents and still be a Natural Born Citizen.
“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President …"—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
A hospital birth record is not an official birth certificate and some hospitals have not retained their birth records of 40 or more years ago. A state birth certificate is an official birth certificate and in Hawaii the official birth certificate is known as the Certification of Live Birth. That is the birth certificate that Obama has already shown, and it is the birth certificate that thousands of people in Hawaii use to prove their birth in the USA to get US passports every year. And THREE Republican officials in Hawaii have confirmed the facts on Obama's birth certificate.
Oh, by the way, NO president has ever shown his hospital birth record. Eisenhower showed a birth certificate, but it was NOT the original birth certificate issued at his birth. All other presidents except for Obama showed no birth certificate at all during their election campaign or while they were in office (Some were added to presidential libraries after the president was out of office.)
"Since the meaning of Natural Born in America at the time the Constitution was written referred only to the place of birth"
FACTS Ellen. You always start out with these statements that are false then try to build into them what outcome you desire. Time and again you do this as if repeating it will somehow make it true.
You can read the entire historical investigation here http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-ci… In it @ p10 is Blackstone's own views on citizenship under the English law and he too states both parents MUST be citizens loyal to the king before the child is automatically a subject without divided loyalties.
Honestly, ellen, your con game has been busted.
My own investigation, looking at the writings of John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and, yes, John Jay showed that no one of them ever used the phrase Natural Born to refer to the parents of a citizen–only to citizenship due to the place of birth. The PLACE.
Puzo1 is wrong, and the US Congress, which confirmed Obama's election unanimously, is right.
Blackstone said that Every child born in Britain, including the children of aliens, even aliens who were only in Britain a short while, was a Natural Born Subject. In this Blackstone used the phrase Natural Born just the way that John Adams, James Madison and all the others did–to refer to citizenship due to the place of birth. It is you who are lying about Blackstone.
Here is what Blackstone said:
“The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is alien.” http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/
(And the minor exceptions referred to in “generally speaking” refers to the children of foreign diplomats.)
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President …"—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
" NO president has ever shown his hospital birth record" Where did you come up with that claim? What does that even have to do with Obama not being eligible and protected from a legal trial based on evidence or congressional investigation seeking hard copy of any evidence at all that supports his claim? NOTHING. Saying there needs to be a current investigation of every previous president's credentials or Obama's can't be investigated is preposterous.
Obama refuses to claim he is NBC. He says he is "native born" and refuses to prove even that and hires attys to thwart a trial. Now you stand up and claim even what he dares not. That alone undermines any credibility you think you have.
Obama has provided the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii, and the facts on it were confirmed by Three Republican officials in Hawaii. Bush did not provide a birth certificate AT ALL, nor did Clinton, Bush41, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, JFK, etc. (Eisenhower did, but it was not the original birth certificate.)
I never said that the place of birth of Bush or JFK or any of them have to be investigated. I said that Obama provided far more proof than they did of his place of birth and hence does not have to be investigated, and that the belief that he was born in Kenya or in any other country than the US is simply based on birther lies such as the lie that Obama's Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya (when the transcript shows that she said that he was born in Hawaii and in another interview she said that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama's place of birth was in a letter from Hawaii.)
"NO president has ever shown his hospital birth record" Where did you come up with that claim?"
The fact that none did and John McCain actively refused to publish his birth certificate (yes he actually did flatly refuse) aught to be a clue . And no McCain never presented his BC to the senate hearing on his eligibility either.
"Obama refuses to claim he is NBC. He says he is "native born" and refuses to prove even that and hires attys to thwart a trial."
Oh brother.
Steinkauler's case of the 1860s, quoted in Perkins vs Elg 1939
"Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States;"
Quoting another case
"Secretary William M. Evarts, in 1879, in an instruction to our Minister to Germany with respect to the status of the brothers Boisseliers who were born in the United States of German parentage said: [Footnote 3]
"Their rights rest on the organic law of the United States. . . . Their father, it is true, took them to Schleswig when they were quite young, the one four and the other two years old. They lived there many years, but during all those years they were minors, and during their minority they returned to the United States, and now, when both have attained their majority, they declare for their native allegiance and submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the country where they were born and of which they are native citizens."
There is a long history of case law going back to the beginning of the United states, and before into inglish common law right back to Calvins Case, that native born citizens are the same as natural born citizens, and the citizenship of their parents does not come onto it. This was affirmed in November 2009 in Alkeny vs Daniels, a case which dealt specifically with Obama himself.
"Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens."
Barack Obama is a legal NBC in all respects. Now fight the guy on his policies and not stupid smears.
Oh and The vast majority of Pro government laywers in the Birther cases were District Attorneys. no cost to Obama.
suranis,
Why the need to deceive? You quote the narrative about Steinkauler as cited in Perkins v Elg, but you left out the important part (i.e. "The facts were these: one Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis.")
Why can't you present an honest argument?
If this was an isolated incident, perhaps it could be overlooked as an unintentional simple error, but that is not the case. In the very next paragraph you attempt to infer that the Boisseliers were born here of foreigners. That is not the case. It is evident from the complete text that their father had been naturalized.
Whether or not the father, Carl Gerhard Boisselier, may by his continued residence in Schleswig have resumed his original nationality and renounced his American citizenship is a question which I do not now undertake to determine nor is its determination deemed essential to the present question."
Nope, I was just showing that Foreign citizenship did not affect the sons born natural citizenship. But the father in Steinkauler DID renounce his US citizenship, his Dual Citizenship son could become president;
Bosselier's Father did not and could be considered both a US and German citizen (proving once again that Foreign and US citizenship can coexist in the same person);
And the Parents of the Woman Elg DID renounce their citizenship and the ruling of Elg was that their foreign citizenship had no effect on their daughters born citizenship.
Yeah, sure, I'm really deceiving the issue by leaving stuff out, and you are just a mine of transparency…
I didn't deliberately leave it out. The point I was making is that people who were described as eligible to be president were described as "Native Born Citizens" 150 years ago. Since the Constutution specifies only natural born citizens can be president, then Native born Citizens were considered the exact same as Natural Born Citizens. QED.
But since you want to get technical and show the COMPLETE story, I'll indulge you It also states that dual citizens can be president since the child was born a citizen of both the US and Germany. I know you really don't want to go there because that blows another of your theories regarding Obama out of the water but there it is.
Not only that but his father took him back to Germany when he was a child and renounced his US citizenship and the child was now living in Germany under German law. So living under a foreign land in your childhood under another citizenship law Dosent matter either.
This native born dual citizen of the united states currently living abroad with the citizenship of the country can be president of the United states.
Yeah I was really desperate to deceive by not to showing the full facts here. Idiot.
So you are claiming that Obama gets a pass on qualifying because….everyone thinks so? Let's let a jury decide the facts Suranis or is that too unfair?
Who said he got a pass? He published his Birth certificate, something no other presidential candidate ever did. It was validated by the DOH of the state, AND its republican Governer even as she campaigned for John McCain. There was a total of 76 cases brought against his eligibility, with120 rulings. The Indiana supreme court ruled specifically on his Eligibility and gave leave to appeal their decision to the Supreme court, which the plaintiffs never acted upon. It has been before the Supreme Court of the United States 20 times.
His eligibility has had its day in court.
His opponent didn't even bother releasing his birth cert and no-one cared even as they screamed at Obama to really really really do it, really.
No other president in history has had to endure the scrutiny over his life Obama has had to endure. Eisenhower never even got a birth certificate till the beginning of his campaign when he was in his 50s. Ronald Reagen's birth wasn't even registered till he was 31 years of age.
He has had his mother slandered, his wife insulted, his family accused of vile crimes and every aspect of his life has been picked over like ravens picking on carrion. And the guy stands there and just does his job. if I was in his shoes there would be a lot of people in real trouble just for what people like you have said about his mother, who is not alive to defend herself.
Innocent public officials from Hawaii have had to endure constant harassment just for doing their job. They have been called liars even as they just go about doing their jobs and repeating the same truth again and again and again. And they probably didn't even vote for Obama.
And the thing is, for you, every mundane thing requires 3 levels of proof, while every ludicrous claim from the Birther gods is accepted by you without question.
The guy was born in Hawai'i. Get over it.
Oh one final thing. The 12th amendment says that the VP has the same eligibility requirements as the president himself.
Spiro Agnew was born to an American woman and a Greek immigrant who was not naturalized at the time of his birth. He used his background to campaign for the VP slot and won the position as President Nixon's Vice President without anyone raising a peep about his eligibility, despite the fact that his fathers non naturalization was well known.
Glass houses.
So your point is if one criminal gets away then the law is obsolete? I get that too, do you?
make that 2 as Chester Arthur served as president and included his fathers naturalization certificate, proving hos father naturalized 10 years after his birth, to the library of congress. Go and have a look yourself if you want. He certainly didn't see anything troubling about his parentage.
That's not of course including people that ran for the presidency and lost, but who's parents had not been naturalized. (of which a few names have been pointed out to me but I cant remember offhand.
Point is that this was not seen as an issue by anyone till someone made it up out of whole cloth around the middle of July 2008. Remember "What makes America great is that anyone born here can be President"
I do.
A_pen says, "Obama refuses to claim he is NBC."
Why would you say that? He even put it in writing for you. Wanna see it?
http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12…
Lookee there…he even had it notarized for you.
Why throw away credibility unless it will no longer be needed?
So who in AZ has the balls to challenge Don Bivens for accepting a statement that has been proved a lie? Certainly not Don or anyone in that state so far has questioned the validity of thay claim, WHY?
I guess AZ isn't all it cracks itself up to be.
Maybe they haven't questioned its validity because they, like this guy…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20090120…
…understand that it is valid.
Then why can't the supporting evidence be subpoenaed? Oh, no standing, Obama's word is gold. I see.
John McCain would have had standing. He chose not to challenge this.
You're not suggesting that McCain didn't know that President Obama's father was not a US citizen…are you? Or that even McCain is in on the conspiracy?
Yes, a copy of his Birth and vital records could be released by court order though section G of 338-18 of Hawai'in statute. Based on the quality of Birther lawyers as evidenced by the Birther record in court so far, good luck on that one.
You think fraud on this level is a joke? I might remind you that the result of this denial of the first amendment right to redress has not escaped the eyes of high ranking military, former CIA, FBI, LEO's, thousands of military both active and non and millions of Americans who have not sat on their behinds idly watching this fraud culminate in a massive theft and bankrupting of America. I'd be wondering just how long this will go before it falls apart and justice is served if I were you.
High ranking Military? Might I remind you that Terry Lakin's name is a curse on real American military men's lips right now. The guy is blue falcon and his grandstanding (after he took his pre deployment leave) cost your troops overseas the best of care, the care he was trained to give.
Not only that but his brother Greg Lakin was asked live on a radio show why Lakin hadn't gotten a long form from the DOH for his Hawai'in born daughter. Greg replied he had tried like crazy to get one but he couldn't. That means the guy deliberately invited his own court marshal and imprisonment and dismissal, AND deserted his comrades in arms, BY ASKING FOR SOMETHING HE KNEW WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO GET. Not only is the guy a dishonorable and selfish blue falcon, he is an idiot.
And as for the quality of the lawyers mentioned, there has been 76 cases before the courts 120 rulings. 20 supreme court appeals and a ruling specifically on the merits of President Obama's eligibility. All have gone against you and the the cases presented by your side were declared as "incomprehensible" "frivolous" and "wholly without merit" That's the caliber of Laywers that get sucked into your idea of fraud. If they were any good don't you think they might have found a way around standing after 40 cases or so?
In Indiana the supreme court chose to rule on President Obama's eligibility on its merits. here is the link to the ruling http://www.scribd.com/doc/22488868/ANKENY-v-GOVER…
I urge anyone in anyway interested in this issue to read it because it is an excellent judgment that goes through 250 years of case law in the united states as relates to eligibility. Its so comprehensive that the birther lawyers didn't dare appeal to the US Supreme Court. What it says is clear. And if you don't believe me, Professor Eugene Volokh wrote, "The decision is Ankeny v. Governor, handed down last Thursday. The opinion is pretty detailed, and is the only substantive opinion I know of in a case challenging President Obama’s eligibility (since the other cases, including the ones that assert that he wasn’t born within the U.S., have been rejected on procedural grounds, such as ones related to standing). The court’s reasoning strikes me as quite persuasive."
What did they rule? "Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."
Read it yourself and make up your own mind.
There is no fraud. President Obama is legally the President of the United States.
Have a great day.
suranis,
Do you ever stop lying? Did you take the time to watch the recent AC360 report in which it was clearly stated that it was possible to get a copy of the long form? If Lakin was not able to get a copy of his daughter's long form, it was because the Hawaii DOH broke the law. The law clearly says "shall" not "may". If you know anyithng about interpretation of the law, the word "shall" is equivalent to "must".
"In Indiana the supreme court chose to rule on President Obama's eligibility "
The Indiana Court of Appeals is an intermediate appellate court. It is not the "supreme court" for the State of Indiana in name or jurisdiction. The dicta presented by that court was grandstanding. It was not necessary in order to dispose of the case. No honest legal scholar will ever point to that court's decision for support. Further, the Indiana Court of Appeals completely ignore domicile of the father. You can't use Ark for support while ignoring the stipulated facts that the Court used to develope thier opinion. =>Then again, since it is merely obiter dictum, it doesn't really matter.
"Do you ever stop lying? Did you take the time to watch the recent AC360 report in which it was clearly stated that it was possible to get a copy of the long form?"
It stated that you could get, though a FOIA request, a NON CERTIFIED PHOTOCOPY of your vital records. Which takes months and is a legal batle all the way where you have to prove exactly why you want it. That photocopy has exactly legal value in determining anything, certainly not citizenship. It was also stated in the AC360 that the DOH strongly discourages people from going that route because its difficult, takes months and the paper you get at the end has no legal value whatsoever.They also stated that the COLB is a full legal document that is actually useful.
"The law clearly says "shall" not "may". If you know anyithng about interpretation of the law, the word "shall" is equivalent to "must". "
Ok, lets look at the law. and unlike you I sah provide the fuill relevent text, rather than one word
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol06_ch…
"§338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, OR the contents of any certificate, OR any part thereof."
See that word OR? It means that the dept can chose to give one or the other of the options. So it can give "part thereof" if it wants to. You can request it of it but what you get is up to them
This is affirmed by
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol06_ch…
" §338-18 Disclosure of records. (a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part OR BY RULES ADOPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.
(b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:"
I capitalized the part that is relevent. First there is that word OR again. Second it states that the dept can limit disclosure to any forms it wants. Such as "short forms."
As for Alkeny Vs Daniels they appealed all the way to the Indiana supreme court, which affirmed the lower courts decision and denied their appeal. That means the Indiana Supreme court agreed with the verdict. And the only ones that deny the validity of the decision are the types that have their cases dismissed as "frivolous" "incomprehensible" and "wholly without merit". You know, Birther lawyers.
And the fact is that this is the one case that rules on Obamas eligibility on the merits. Does anyone thing for a microsecond that if it had gone your way you would be dismissing the verdict as irrelevant?
The court rules on the merits of the case presented to them and they ruled in favour of President Obama, and this case WILL be cited in all future cases on the subject of presidential eligibility. All your crying about it will not change that.
This is why you will never prove me lying, Red. You use one word to prove your case, I use the entire paragraph.
That was a DISMISSAL idiot not a "ruling". It was wrongly based on Wong Kim Ark in which British commonlaw is misrepresented. In FACT Blackstone clealy discussed the common law citizenship which indeed requires TWO CITIZEN PARENTS to be considered "of allegiance" at birth. If I thought you would read all the case law I've read in the last two years I'd post it but clearly at this hour there is no point in starting classes. You either know now or you are only here as a TROLL.
Get with the program not the propaganda.
"In FACT Blackstone clealy discussed the common law citizenship which indeed requires TWO CITIZEN PARENTS to be considered "of allegiance" at birth. "
Oh did he really?
"The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject. The thing itself, or substantial part of it, is founded in reason and the nature of government; the name and the form are derived to us from our Gothic ancestors….
Allegiance, both express and implied, is however distinguished by the law into two sorts or species, the one natural, the other local; the former being also perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king’s protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themselves."
It appears the real Blackstone would like to have a word or two with you. hell this is the first time I've ever seen a birther dare try and cite Blackstone as supporting Jus Sanguinus.
Want some more opinions?
"Attorney General Edward Bates, Opinion on Citizenship (1862)
The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, (it is. in fact,made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural—home-born—and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien—foreign-born—making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former. …
And our Constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.
If this be a true principle, and I do not doubt it, it follows that every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen; and he who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchisement strong enough to override the “natural born” right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive …
And so strongly was Congress impressed with the great legal fact that the child takes its political status in the nation where it is born, that it was found necessary to pass a law to prevent the alienage of children of our known fellow-citizens who happen to be born in foreign countries. The act of February 10, 1855, 10 Statutes, 604, provides that “persons,” (not white persons,) ” persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, however, That the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States.”
Attorney General Edward Bates, Opinion of Attorney General Bates on Citizenship (1852)."
" I am quite clear in the opinion that children born in the United States of alien parents, who have never been naturalized, are native-born citizens of the United States
Citizenship of Children Born in the United States of Alien Parents, 10 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 328, 1862 WL 1393 (U.S.A.G.), available on Westlaw (paid subscription)."
Etc etc etc. I have loads of these, and they all lead to one thing. However sadly for you, If you do a google search the first time anyone starts saying that you needed 2 parents to be an NBC was July 2008.
"If I thought you would read all the case law I've read in the last two years I'd post it"
Meaning you have read the select paragraphs Mario Apuzzo, a dual citizen laywer that was censured for filing a frivolous appeal and very narrowly avoided sanctions, put up on his site. Its quite funny but if you actually read the cases a lot of those citations come from the opinion of the side that LOST those cases. Which means jack all in terms of actual law.
For instance
"Barry v Mercein 46 U. S.(1847) Case Footnote 4:
The plaintiff in error being of legeance to the crown of England,HIS CHILD, THOUGH BORN IN THE UNITED STATES during his father’s temporary residence therein–22 months & 20 days–not withstanding its mother be an American citizen,is not a citizen of the United States. It IS INCAPICITATE BY ITS INFANCY from making any present election,FOLLOWS THE LEGEANCE OF ITS FATHER, PARTUS SEQUITUR PATREM,and is a British subject. "
Sounds persuasive doesn't it. The problem is that the court REJECTED this argument. This argument LOST. Therefore it is legally not true, and if you read the case you will find that out. But if you just leave it there people will think that's a persuasive argument. It isn't, its a losing argument as its simply not true under US law.
And by the way, Obama would be an NBC even under Vattel. He was born on soil with blood relatives who were citizens and with one parent (peres was gender neutral at the time) who was a citizen. Unlike you, I have the word of an actual FRENCH lawyer who reads and admires Vattel in the original french on that one.
I'll leave it to the reader to find which of our cases was the most persuasive.
The constitution is in English. I read it and comprehend the difference between citizens eligible to all other offices except the highest. You obviously don't and try to obfuscate that very very simple fact . No case has ever been the focus of defining a NBC. The courts always rule narrowly and on precise issues. In all the cases there is only one citizenship status never challenged because it is not a case that can be brought legitimately. What you see are immigration cases. You can not extrapolate citizen into NBC no matter how high you pile your papers. BTW, the court publishes dissent for a reason and it isn't to belittle the opinions. That is why Mario includes both. Thorogh is not blind to the views held by others. Show the censure. IT"S BS and you know it as it was dropped because it was an abuse. That's the way you might try to work but it doesn't wash.
"""You think fraud on this level is a joke?…….I'd be wondering just how long this will go before it falls apart and justice is served if I were you."""
No. Fraud on this level would not be a joke. What's also not funny are claims of fraud in the absence of evidence of fraud.
And what's really not funny is seeing embarrassingly misinformed people whipping embarrassingly uninformed people into a "Second Amendment remedy" frenzy.
There is a mountain of evidence supporting the claim the COLB "Obama" offered up is of no value. Just read the HI statutes. I've posted them here and they are available on several "eligibility" coverage sites. There is a document issued in HI that several others born before at about the same time and after "Obama" that is conclusive proof which is what must be produced. To date that document has been produced by only one person, Lucas Smith, and it came from Kenya. Now who is misinformed? This matter is well suited for a trial but for some reason no court will allow it. So now we have a man of dubious character as well as not eligible under the constitution. NBC doesn't mean "born a citizen" either. In any event, the misinformation is what you spread not what has been fully researched and placed before numerous courts.
"""There is a mountain of evidence supporting the claim the COLB "Obama" offered up is of no value. Just read the HI statutes."""
You mean like this one….that says the "certified copy" that he has produced "shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original"? http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch…
Lucas Smith?…you crack me up. So the folks "in on the conspiracy" (which at this point would have to include the very people who would issue the so-called long form that you guys are clamoring for)…decided to make a fake Hawaiian COLB for Obama….and they went to all the trouble to change the place of birth from Kenya to Hawaii, but they decided to go ahead and leave the exact Date and Time of Birth from the "original" Kenyan BC??? Now THAT….is funny.
BTW, the founders clearly stated what our rights were and they need no whipping into frenzy. The only people who need fear the second amendment are those who seek to overthrow the constitution. I suppose you will now claim a reason to disarm people is because you fear them. That would be coming straight from a guilty conscience. The people are not "slugs" or "stupid" or any other label a public servant in a hissy fit might call them. Get used to it.
Ellen; Little help for you, My friend in Hawaii went into the office in that state and there is a book listing all births from the beginning of time, guess what Barry is in the book for the date and year of the chosen one. So she read something about it in a paper somewhere and went in and there it was. It is just a index of sort and the masses here will not except it , but maybe you should find out a little more about this. Just saying. Good luck and it ain't over till the original comes out. Just saying and this is the least thing I worry about Barry and his calculated destruction of my fine country.
By the way, it is not true that Obama has not claimed he is a natural born citizen. In fact, when he filed as candidate in the primarie, in most states, he had to swear under penalty of perjury that he was eligible for the office he sought. And that means he swore that he was a natural born citizen.
IMO the press does dishonor themselves by even talking about birthers. They are a freak show and should be ignored like a little child with a temper tantrum. As a parent know that if you ignore the tantrum, the child will stop.
What are you a anti rocket scientist. The birth certificate is not the problem, the problem is Barry is performing a calculated destruction of the fine country I live in. The parental advice you also recommend is not 100 percent successful, so I take issue with that also.
"They are a freak show"
And Barry's pink panty cross-dressing weinie eatin' military ain't?
Obamacare Is Getting More Illegal Daily, Yikeess, For Real News Story Read The Canada Free Press, Yippee, George Soros Bought The Demo Party And Runs It With His Soros Empire Media, However They Have Never Met A Donald Trump/Sarah Palin Duo Nov Election 2012, God Bless America And Lt Col Terry Lakin Who Needs Our Help Now.
I have this from the PUMA Lori Starfelt, who tried to prove that Obama was NOT born in Hawaii, and found the contrary.
“In 1961, the hospitals would take their new birth certificates to Vital Records. At the end of the week, Vital Records would post a sheet that for the newspaper to pick up that contained births, deaths, marriages and divorces. The Advertiser routinely printed this information in their Sunday edition. This is not a paid announcement that his grandmother could arrange. This is information that comes from Vital Records – we know this because this particular section reflects those records. They didn’t have a provision for paid, one sentence announcement that would be included in the Vital Records. At the time, if a child was born outside a hospital, the family would have 30 days to apply for a birth certificate and Vital Records would expect to see prenatal care records, or pediatrician records of the first check up, etc. They’d also want the notarized statement from the mid-wife. Of course, they can apply later but that would noted as a different kind of birth certificate. I think TD has already addressed that. This information was received by Vital Records the first week of his birth = that suggests the hospital.”
Let me repeat: “At the time, if a child was born outside a hospital, the family would have 30 days to apply for a birth certificate and Vital Records would expect to see prenatal care records, or pediatrician records of the first check up, etc. They’d also want the notarized statement from the mid-wife.”
Act 96 of the hawii code as enacted at the time
"AN ACT
To Provide For The Issuance Of Certificates Of Hawaiian Birth.
Be it Enacted by the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii:
ACT 96.
AN ACT
To PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF HAWAIIAN BIRTH.
Be it Enacted by the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii:
SECTION 1. The Secretary of Hawaii may, whenever satisfied that any person was born within the Hawaiian Islands, cause to be issued to such person a certificate showing such fact. The Secretary, with the approval of the Governor, may make such regulations respecting the form of application and certificates, the method of proof, kind of evidence, and time, place and manner of hearing, and all other matters and circumstances connected with such application, proof and hearing as to him may appear necessary, and such regulations, when so approved and published once a week for three successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation published in the Territory, shall have the force of law, and such publication shall be deemed legal notice to all persons. The Secretary may furnish the form of such applications and certificates. All applications shall be by sworn petition, in which the party shall set forth circumstantially all the facts upon which his application rests, and shall be accompanied by sworn affidavits of witnesses. The Secretary and such persons as he may designate and appoint may examine, under oath, any applicant or person cognizant of the facts regarding any application and for that purpose he and they are hereby authorized and empowered to administer oaths, subpoena and compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of books and papers, punish for contempts and, generally, to exercise the same authority with regard to their special jurisdiction as is by law conferred on District Magistrates.
SECTION 2. Any applicant or any person, who shall give or offer any false testimony, oral or written, under oath, in support or respect of any application for a certificate under the provisions of the foregoing Section, shall be deemed guilty of perjury and shall be punishable accordingly. "
In addition, Hawai'in law 338-05 and 338-06 states that a grandparent could not have made the application for a delayed birth, only the parents could have.
"§338-5 Compulsory registration of births. Within the time prescribed by the department of health, a certificate of every birth shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred, by the administrator or designated representative of the birthing facility, or physician, or midwife, or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the PARENTS."
Its really nice to have facts on your side rather than innuendo. You should try it sometime lil'red
" the census happens every 4 years"
While I may be the biggest critic here of birthers, Suranis, and typically agree with most of your points, it doesn't help your argument when you make claims that obviously are false and then insult others on top of it.
The U.S. Census is conducted–as mandated by Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution–every 10 years: "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."
James,
suranis has no problem with lying. As anyone who followed my comments at Dr. Conspiraciy's site knows, I did not call Dr. Conspiracy a liar.
Dr. Con made the comment that he found my comments to be "offensive and irrational". I told Dr. Con that I found some of his comments to be offensive and irrational too. -For that, he banned me.
Dr. Conspiracy like to have full control of the message. He has been caught deleting entire discussions in order to control the message.
On many occasions Dr. Conspiracy has behaved like a child. He expects to insult those with whom he disagrees, but will ban a user for returning the exact same insult. I think he created his site in order to control the message.
Thank you for coming to my defense. I know that wouldn't be popular among those at Dr. Con's. I appreciate you're integrity. It's nice to see that someone on the "other side" can engage in respectful discussion, and understand that reasonable people can disagree.
Thanks.
Here are the links to the comments:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/04/hairbraine…
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/04/hairbraine…
Thanks, Red. Sadly, there are too many people on both sides who are far too willing to substitute lying and insults for reasoned debate.
" I think he created his site in order to control the message."
Could be–unfortunately there seems to be a lot of that, too, in the blogosphere. Here I'll give a bit of credit where due–this site has never censored me, though I disagree with the majority of posts and comments on it.
Of course maybe that's because I increase reader participation from people who want to tell me I'm an idiot.
You know Lil'Red, if you are going to act all high and mighty, kindly provide the FULL conversation
" Lil' Red: Does the State of Hawaii get to decide what the minimum proof is? They never did in the past. All Hawaii did, in creating their COLB, is comply with the federal law that defines what is needed to get a passport. Is the evidence necessary to get a passport the same as that to hold the office of Commander in Chief. One would think that the necessary evidence would be commensurate with the objective.
Could you please provide a link to the State Department determination? Was it a State Department determination that was made before or after Obama controlled the State Department?"
Dr. Conspiracy April 24, 2011 at 4:28 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote) #
There is no constitutional or statutory standard stating an evidentiary requirement for Presidential eligibility. Therefore your question about “what is needed…to hold the office of Commander in Chief?” is meaningless.
The State Department passport requirements go back before Obama became President, but the current link goes to a more recent, and more stringent standard that went into effect April 1. The COLB meets both standards.
I find your innuendo that the State Department under Obama changed the rules to match Hawaii’s certificate to be offensive and irrational.
Lil' Red April 24, 2011 at 4:32 pm Lil' Red(Quote) #
And I find a lot of things that you state to be offensive and irrational. Welcome to the debate.
Dr. Conspiracy April 24, 2011 at 4:46 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote) #
Welcome to the door. You’re banned."
You called him a liar, he banned you. That's the truth.
As for your childish "Suranis has no problem with lying." You have yet to catch me on a lie, dear. If you had you would have been all over me like white on rice. You tried your damndest but somehow I always came up with links to back up what I said and you couldn't argue. Oddly quite a lot of the time the links I came up with were the same links you used, because like the Doc C think you always leave out the context or the phrase that explained the full meaning of the exchange. This was signified by you slinking off and never replying when I refuted you. We can see examples on this comment thread here.
The fact is, I'm an Irish native and have only spent a few months in the USA total. I've never hidden that. How come I know more about US history, US law and US stuff in general than you who grew up there? That is the thing that makes me extremely sad. Why on earth is that? Don't you have any pride in your real history rather than relying on making stuff up?
Regardless, I'm not going to hang around here too much longer and in a few days I'll have forgotten you ever existed.
Oh yeah. Alkeny Vs Daniels. You never commented on that but slinked off.
Most interesting. The US certainly breaks from international custom in that regard. In any case, thanks for the correction.
I don't see Lil'red coughing up a link to the prior census data of Spiro Agnew's dad though, and since he confirmed my reading of the census data I don't have to provide a damn thing.
Sorry about that.
Just re-read and re-thought that.
Think I'm starting to get lysdexic.
Oh goodness, thats ok, my friend. I'm horribly Dyslexic and I misread things like that all the time. I could tell you some horror stories of the stupid stuff I've come out with only to realism that I've misread everything. *blush*
Respect and have a great day
Oh, right! Sorry 'bout that….I meant this guy… http://thesantosrepublic.com/multimedia/photogall…
I've no idea how he is ever going to live THAT down…
Normally when a child is born in a foreign country, these two facts are present. There is either a US visa on a foreign passport or the child is entered on the mother's US passport. AND, there is no birth certificate in a US State (or in some cases, US city or county).
The exact reverse happened with Obama. There is NO 1961 US visa or he being entered on his mother's US passport (which would surely have been found by now, unless the US State Department is part of the conspiracy both now and during the Bush Administration). And there IS an official birth certificate from Hawaii which lists Obama's place of birth as Honolulu.
For the latter not to be true (1) THREE Republican officials in Hawaii would have to be lying; AND (2) The officials in Hawaii in 1961 would have had to have been fooled by a lie that Obama was born in Hawaii. But we know that (2) would have been virtually impossible because the rules in Hawaii called for a signed witness statement whenever there was a claim of a birth outside of Hawaii.
Ellen This is getting old and repeating the same stuff over and over is only a total waste of your time. Your obsession with this subject is just about as equal to the never going to believe it no matter what he produces side of the debate. We know he is not going to release the original and yes he has a paper that is certified by the State of Hawaii. Yes what you say is true, but going into to the visa, foreign passport, 1961 factual know laws and regulations, then assuming that it was adhered to 100% is just about as crazy as the ones that don't believe he was born in Hawaii. There are basic facts that we know for sure and that is the ones that have visually been seen.
1. Certification Of Live Birth Stamped by The official of the State.
2. The book that is located at the entrance of the place that stores all the "Originals". It is a index of all births registered at that office. This book is available for all to read. It just has the Name of the person and the date of birth, some pages has more information than others. I don't know when this book was printed and it is printed from a computer file. It does have Barry's name in it. Someone told me the book is not available now. So my guess is they got tired of showing it. who knows.
3. Birth announcements in the local papers.
Case closed, that is it, all other is just speculation, internet rumor or political talking points. Move along nothing to see here situation. So we do know one thing and I will tell you this every time. There will always be birthiers as there will always be truthiers as there will always be people that think JFK was taken out by the Mob or the CIA.
Re: "Someone told me the book is not available now."
It is still available. The AP saw it and photographed it.
I agree that there will always be birthers. I do not write to convince them. I only write on the chance that there are people who have not made up their minds who may visit this site and others like it.
right ellen, you're a real jewel. keep up the good work spinning .
A simple test: Find me any citation in a law review or court case from 1900 to the present that says those born in the US are not natural born citizens.
As for birth certificates, Reagan got his in 1942. He was born in 1911. A doctor siigned it. Do you think the doctor remembered the birth 31 years later? No way. By the way, it isn't recorded that Eisenhower ever even showed the b.c. to anyone. here's the fact, Obama is the ONLY President to EVER show his bkirth certificate to the American people.
I don't understand why tthe birthers even bother. According to them Obama is a terrible President, yet rather than make their case based on what he has done in office, they waste their time over stuff from 50 years ago. So, if that's the best argument you can make, then he must be doing a pretty good job. All I know is I have made a TON of money by buying stocks right after Obama was inaugurated. If you birthers are too wrapped up in your silly hatreds to have profited from the Obama bull market, tough nougies for you.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://1.bp.b…