Nobody cares what you think.
Posted on 04/28/2013 6:58:04 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
Senior Director of Institutional Giving for NPR Betsy Liley said it is still a question of whether or not Barack Obama was born in the United States. She clearly is heard talking about a coverup, keeping the birther issue out of the news because it was “political” and even indicating that there was monkey business going on in Hawaii concerning Obama’s birth certificate. Listen to the brief audio below and see for yourself. Birthers are not just on the right. There are clearly birthers on the left, they just want to cover up the truth.
You're too kind IMO. He's nothing more than a USC 8 citizen in my book. An alien student here on a student visa was the father. No way can his offspring be a natural born citizen.
...if your citizenship requires positive law to make it valid...
And USC 8 is definitely positive law!
Thanks for letting me know. I’ll type louder. ;-)
You're crazy. I absolutely stand by those words! They are exactly right.
Unless you can demonstrate that your so-called authorities were Delegates or ratifiers, it is nothing else. The ONLY people who can opine on the meaning of Article II are the delegates and ratifiers of it. Ex post facto Lawyers are crap evidence.
Okay. So by your own judgment, all of your quoting David Ramsay, and Samuel Roberts, and Representative John Bingham, and Emer de Vattel, and Senator Lyman Trumbull, and Minor v. Happersett is all "crap evidence," since (in your judgment) none of these are able to opine on the meaning of Article II of the Constitution.
In fact, your OWN opinion on Article II (which is pretty much all you've presented) is "crap," since you weren't a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, or a ratifier.
Well, on that one point, perhaps we can agree.
If YOU quote the overwhelmingly voted-down David Ramsay (36 to 1),
Jeff just can't help working an argumentum ad numerum fallacy into his argument.
Ah, but he was voted down - UNANIMOUSLY - by a total of SIX signers of the Constitution. James Madison, Abraham Baldwin, Daniel Carroll, George Clymer, Thomas Fitzsimons, and Nicholas Gilman.
And you've already said his opinion was "crap evidence," anyway. Remember?
By the way, that group represents more than one-seventh of those who signed the Constitution, and they were absolutely unanimous. No delegate to the Constitution Convention voted in support of Ramsay's claims.
So in fact, every delegate to the Constitution who ever voted on whether it took citizen parents to make a citizen, voted that it DIDN'T.
the infinitely obscure little judge Samuel Roberts,
And the Entire Supreme court of Pennsylvania! Compiled at the behest of the Entire Pennsylvania State Legislature!
Absolute and total BS.
We've already documented in this thread that you LIED about my having "lied" regarding Bingham.
And we've documented TWO OTHER previous FALSEHOODS that you told in the same thread where you first accused me.
So now we can document ANOTHER FALSEHOOD.
Roberts' book absolutely DID NOT represent the views of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. There is not the SLIGHTEST evidence that it did.
It was simply Roberts' own opinion, and it wasn't backed up by any other authority or legal citation at all.
In fact, it is odd that Roberts makes the claim, since he says in the same book:
The colonists retain all the rights which pertained to them prior to their emigration; and are subject to the same laws, so far as those laws are suitable to their situation. Of consequence the common law has always been in force in Pennsylvania; and also so much of the English Statute law, enacted previous to the settlement as was convenient, and adapted to the circumstances of the country.
Shortly after the revolution an Act of Assembly was passed, reviving the acts of assembly passed before the revolution; and declaring that the common law, and such of the Statute laws of England, as have been heretofore in force shall be and continue in force; with certain exceptions specified in the act. These relate to the oaths of allegiance to the king of England; the acknowledgment of any authority in the heirs, or devisees of William Penn, or any other person whomsoever as governor; the laws relative to the number of members of Assembly, the time of election, and the qualification of electors; the English statutes relating to treason, or misprison of treason, and such laws and acts of assembly as declared ordered, or directed any thing inconsistent with the then existing constitution of the Commonwealth.
You continue to bleat:
Do you think for one moment that if the book was incorrect that some one of these people would not have stood up and said so? Face it, it was a prominent LAW BOOK in the State of Pennsylvania. It was in such high demand that they had to print a SECOND ADDITION. (1847)
Someone DID stand up and say so, in no uncertain terms.
Close associate of Benjamin Franklin and George Washington and several other signers of the Constitution, and widely-recognized national-level early legal expert William Rawle, who was from the same State as little judge Roberts:
The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths, accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.
Oh, but according to you, Roberts' opinion was "crap evidence" anyway.
John Marshall opining on a side matter (the degree to which US citizens permanently residing in England should be treated as US citizens, versus the degree to which they should be counted as members of English society...
The Assumption being that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court does not know what he is talking about when he is discussing a "side matter". (which it was not. It was the very heart of the case. )
It had nothing to do with the definition of "natural born citizen." At all. In fact, the entire case does not use the phrase "natural born" even one time.
As opposed to United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which uses the phrase "natural born" or "natural-born" some THIRTY-FIVE times in the Opinion, and an additional ten times in the dissent, for a grand total of FORTY-FIVE times.
That is the sense in which Marshall's statement is a complete and absolute "side matter" to the topic of the meaning of "natural born citizen."
- and using a translation of Vattel that doesn't even include the words "natural born citizens"),
A trivial and irrelevant point even if true, which it is not. It has already been demonstrated that in 1785, an American Translator of a Treaty with France translated "Sujet naturels" as "Natural born Subjects."
Do you have absolute evidence that that American translator of the treaty, and the people who made the treaty (including the Frenchmen) were delegates to the Constitutional Convention? Because if they weren't, according to you, that's all just "crap evidence."
or some anonymous letter writer to a newspaper, who himself says he's not sure whether he's right or not - why, that's good evidence.
To a Newspaper in Virginia, where the nom de plume "Publius" was well known, and in any case, the letter accurately represented the position of Ambassador John Armstrong and the Madison Government at that time.
Surely you're not trying to quote some anonymous writer to a newspaper, who HIMSELF said he was not at all sure his opinion was correct, as real evidence for your position?
Remember, there's no good evidence whatsoever that this unsure person was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention.
And as noted, even "Publius" wasn't sure of the doctrine he was espousing:
These ideas are suggested with a considerable diffidence - the case of James McClure is clearly a nice one - and even if I had not the best reasons to ascribe the purest motives to general Armstrong in this transaction, still there is that dubious complexion in the case which might lead me to think, that a very honest and enlightened man might honestly differ with me on the occasion.
Hmmmm. What does "diffidence" mean?
1. Distrust; want of confidence; any doubt of the power, ability or disposition of others. It is said there was a general diffidence of the strength and resources of the nation, and of the sincerity of the king.
2. More generally, distrust of ones self; want of confidence in our own power, competency, correctness or wisdom; a doubt respecting some personal qualification. We speak or write with diffidence, when we doubt our ability to speak or write correctly or to the satisfaction of others. The effect of diffidence is some degree of reserve, modesty, timidity or bashfulness. Hence,
3. Modest reserve; a moderate degree of timidity or bashfulness; as, he addressed the audience or the prince with diffidence. You also left out the Letter from James Monroe explicitly stating that a man born in the US Was NOT an American, but rather an Englishman. You also left out commentary from Bushrod Washington (George's nephew) Benjamin Franklin, James Wilson, and a whole host of others. You simply don't care about what is true and what is not.
So the writer doesn't trust his own judgment. Even Publius wasn't confident he was correct, because he said he suggested these ideas with A CONSIDERABLE DIFFIDENCE.
As for whether Publius' letter (which claimed McClure was not a citizen), it was ABSOLUTELY CONTRADICTED BY THE MADISON ADMINISTRATION, which promptly declared McClure to be a citizen, ON THE SOLE BASIS OF HIS BIRTH IN CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA.
Your double standard of evidence, where the flimsiest of evidence supposedly makes your case, and where the strongest and best evidence available is supposedly worthless, is a clear illustration of that fact.
You don't PRESENT any strong evidence! All your arguments keep coming back to Lawyers repeating HEARSAY!!! And then Subsequent Court cites of these same Lawyers!
The evidence I've presented is far stronger than ANYTHING you've ever come up with.
You have only ONE example of an actual Delegate on your side, and even THAT example is misconstrued as a stark construction, which it is not.
That's not true. SIX actual delegates voted down Ramsay's claim that it took citizen parents to make a citizen. That's ONE-SEVENTH of the Constitutional Convention.
And of course we have Madison's statement against Ramsay, saying that both parentage and place of birth were significant when it came to the allegiance that determines citizenship, but PLACE OF BIRTH is "THE MOST CERTAIN" and is "WHAT APPLIES IN THE UNITED STATES."
Plus, we have the further ACTION of the Madison Administration, later, in declaring James McClure to be a citizen of the United States ON THE SOLE BASIS THAT HE WAS BORN IN CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA.
So once again, Madison, the Father of the Constitution, contradicts you.
How many actual delegates do you have making the case for your BOGUS, NONSENSE, BS CLAIM?
Zero. Not a single one.
So. Aside from having established that, we've established in this one thread FOUR separate, clear FALSEHOODS or LIES told by you, just RECENTLY.
We can keep going if you like.
Would you describe yourself as a "Constitutionalist?" As a "Conservative?" As a "Libertarian?" As an "Independent?" Do you think Barack Hussein Obama is a good or worthy President?
In other words, are you in some sort of concordance with my present proposal that it would be wisest for "us" to remove top priority from issues of "forgery," and "constitutional illegitimacy" and concentrate instead on victory in '14?
I am taking this view on strictly pragmatic grounds. Although I believe Barack Hussein Obama to be the political equivalent of some sort of anti-Christ, I think we are stuck with the illegitimate SOB until 2016, and if the Republic is to be saved from further damage at his hands, he must be subjected to a House and Senate that will work to tie those Marxist hands in his last two years.
What is your evaluation of the merits of my idea?
Conservative. Barack Obama is a horrible President.
I also believe that he was able to successfully demagogue the eligibility issue to do what liberals do best, play the victim.
In politics when you win 317 times in a row, you look like a winner and your opposition looks like losers.
The eligibility issue helped him with two groups of immigrant American voters who also have their citizenship status challenged, Latinos and Asians. Those are two ethnic/racial groups who have never been particularly fond of blacks but they gave Obama 72 and 73 percent of their votes respectively in 2012. The eligibility issue certainly wasn’t the only reason for that increase in support, but it was one reason.
Now let me return the favor, can you name one hard core, paleo-conservative member of Congress who has called for a congressional investigation into Obama’s eligibility?
Can you name one well known constitutionalist attorney who has argued an eligibility lawsuit or appeal?
Why hasn’t the Republican national committee or its candidates: Mc Cain, Palin, Romney or Ryan submitted an amicus brief in support of any eligibility lawsuit?
I agree with you 100% that destroying what minuscule chance Barry Soetoro has at a positive legacy should be the objective for 2014 and beyond.
Ditto. He's hardly even a President. More of a golfer-in-chief. Can't pass a budget. Can't even present a budget on time. Wants to pick and choose which laws he enforces. But when he actually does stuff, it's awful.
I also believe that he was able to successfully demagogue the eligibility issue to do what liberals do best, play the victim.
I agree.
Now let me return the favor, can you name one hard core, paleo-conservative member of Congress who has called for a congressional investigation into Obama’s eligibility?
There are none. The issue has no credibility in mainstream media or in Congress. It is laughable that some of the birther-believers here think (or at least claim) that anyone is being "paid" to debunk their BS. The mainstream doesn't care. The House of Representatives voted unanimously, liberals, moderates and conservatives alike, on a resolution in 2009 that recognized Hawaii as Obama's birthplace.
Can you name one well known constitutionalist attorney who has argued an eligibility lawsuit or appeal?
There is none. And that's because the Constitutional claims are all absolute, total BS. And we've shown that here. We can keep beating it to death, of course. And... we probably will. Because there are people here pushing it like it's the Holy Grail. But there is just no real evidence to support the birth BS Constitutional claim.
I agree with you 100% that destroying what minuscule chance Barry Soetoro has at a positive legacy should be the objective for 2014 and beyond.
Absolutely. Hit him on Obamacare. Destroy it. Dismantle it. Hit him on his administration's refusal to enforce laws like DOMA. Hit him on the economy. Hit him on the FACT that he has spent far more time on golfing and vacations than in meetings on the economy, of any kind. Hit him on his ridiculous gun control proposals that do nothing but infringe the rights of the law abiding citizens. Get as many conservatives into Congress as possible next year, and make his last two years a nice long lame-duck golfing vacation.
Amen!
Well, ya got me there. That is precisely why IMNVHO, this entire issue is a coordinated and massive distraction that is part and parcel of the hoax.
Yes. He was ineligible to have run.
Yes. The documentation is forged.
Yes. He is the POTUS.
Yes. The Republic is afflicted with Cognitive Dissonance.
Perhaps the best possible course of action, IMNVHO, is exerting the maximum damage control possible by severely limiting Reggie's boyfriend's options in his last two years in office after '14.
I sincerely suggest that every FReeper try ignoring Obama for 24 hours at a time. After all, he's not running in '16. Let's work on getting the most conservative candidate running in our districts into any and every office, with the most important being the Congressional representation in both house and Senate. Or if the boring bullshiite of Committee work (and let me assure you from personal experience, it is) is not for you, at the very least make sure all the "conservative" blowhards at your lodge or country club bar get registered and get their "conservative" butts to the polls.
Shocking as it may seem, only somewhat more than half of registered Republicans voted, and there is a huge HUGE pool of unregistered voters. Victory is quite possible, but there's not a hell of a lot of time. '14 is 7 months away.
And what, in this statement, informs us that the document posted is a certified copy of the original? Sure, Hawaii HAS the document. Nothing controversial about that statement at all. But that statement is not saying they showed it to us.
Hawaii's "state policies and procedures" (as with every other state) is to LIE about birth certificates relating to adoption.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the ORIGINAL vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen.”
Two problems with this statement.
1. Dr. Chiyome Fukino has not a F***ing clue as to the correct meaning of "natural born citizen".
2. A public statement does not constitute legal proof of anything.
“We hope that issuing certified copies of the ORIGINAL Certificate of Live Birth to President Obama will end the numerous inquiries related to his birth in Hawai’i,” Hawai’ii Health Director Loretta Fuddy said. “I have seen the ORIGINAL records filed at the Department of Health and ATTEST to the AUTHENTICITY of the certified copies the department provided to the President that further PROVE THE FACT that he was born in Hawai’i.”
She says she provided Barack Obama with certified copies of the original certificate. She also says SHE has seen the original records. None of this equals a legal standard of proof.
You want my attention? Submit certified copies to State Election officials with a Hawaii state seal attesting that they are "true and correct copies" of the "original" birth certificate. You add the words "or abstract thereof" and you have just blown the document's credibility.
Now you may say that this is an unreasonable standard of proof, and I will counter that it is the NORMAL standard of proof, especially for a guy that spent much of his life telling everyone that he was born in Kenya.
And what has been overlooked in this discussion? Not even the paltry attempt at proof which you have cited above was submitted to the State Election officials who should have been responsible for verifying eligibility. Again, the only proof *THEY* Saw, was an OPINION by Nancy Pelosi.
You cannot get around this. STATE ELECTION OFFICIALS FAILED to do their jobs!
And with this, you clarify completely what you are. A pragmatist who is unconcerned with principle, and wholly concerned with winning. I am well familiar with this group. It is well represented throughout the Republican party, and most Republicans who oppose any discussion of Obama's eligibility fall into this group. It is why you have so many numbers to cite.
Now of course you will take offense at my characterization of your group as being "unconcerned with principle", but this does, in fact, happen to accurately represent the observable facts. Most of you simply rationalize yourselves into believing that there is nothing to any of this, and as a result of this rationalization you are content to characterize us stubborn and recalcitrant types as being "Nuts", "Kooks", and "Conspiracy mongers", because it fits the narrative you wish to believe. You really don't care whether this is true or not, just as you don't really care what is the truth regarding Founders' intent in Article II. You are motivated by whatever happens to be politically expedient, meaning "math."
So at least now we understand each other.
Yep, you are correct. I do indeed prefer to be a pragmatic winner to being a principled loser. Winners get to implement their principles into policy.
For example, Barack Obama has already nominated and had confirmed two Supreme Court Justices and 179 federal judges to lifetime appointments. They will be operationalizing their version of principle for a generation.
No, most of those here who don't agree with your BS look at the facts, listen to the arguments, see people like you making bogus claims again and again, and conclude based on the amount of absolute BS that you spew that you are nuts, kooks, and conspiracy mongers.
Because that is exactly, precisely and absolutely what you are. Actually, if anything, those words are too kind for you, since you attack your fellow conservatives, divide, distract, and stain the reputations of those of us who are sane, simply by the stench of your association.
But we'll go with those terms for now.
You really don't care whether this is true or not, just as you don't really care what is the truth regarding Founders' intent in Article II. You are motivated by whatever happens to be politically expedient, meaning "math."
If you had the slightest concern about the Founders' intent, then you would be accurately representing their intent, instead of constantly preaching the words of people like David Ramsay, who was unanimously told to sit down and shut up by all six signers of the Constitution who happened to be present.
Well, see here, is where I disagree with you. We don't support principles because of some subjective whim, we support them because an enduring edifice cannot exist without them. Obama's version of principle is not going to last for a generation. It very likely won't last for a decade.
Apart from that, had we all gotten on the "He hasn't PROVEN he was born in this Country!" bandwagon back in 2008, he might never have gotten the chance to let the media win the election for him. It is unfortunate indeed that John McCain happened to be born outside of the country, (A fact of which I, and I think MOST primary voters were unaware at the time.) because had we a candidate for which this was not an issue, he could possibly have successfully contested Obama's name on the various state ballots.
We were just too gentlemanly regarding a candidate who mostly won his previous elections with dirty tricks and ballot exclusions.
And you talk about winning being the important thing.
The GOP is a bunch of bed-wetting pussies. Cowards to the last one.
Nobody cares what you think.
Really.
So now you've given up on even trying to argue your BS. Smart move, really.
I would be very supportive of eligibility skeptics convincing a judge to issue a court order for inspection of the vault copy Certificate of Live Birth or convincing a House Committee Chair to issue a congressional subpoena for the original document or convincing a prosecutor to convene a grand jury investigation into possible forgery or vital record tampering, just so we can finally put this issue out of its misery. But no one has gotten around to taking those steps toward resolution. They prefer filing civil suit after civil suit, into the hundreds.
When people are emotionally upset about a perceived loss, they sue. When people have been actually hurt, they file criminal charges against their assailant.
You have your interpretation of the Hawaiian officials’ statements and Letters of Verification and literally hundreds of Triers of Fact have had their interpretations.
I agree with Sarah Palin:
Question: “Do you question his faith and citizenship?”
Palin’s response: “I don’t, and those are distractions. What we’re concerned about is the economy. And we’re concerned about the policies coming out of his administration and what he believes in terms of big government or private sector. So, no, the faith, the birth certificate, others can engage in that kind of conversation. It’s distracting. It gets annoying and let’s just stick with what really matters.”—2/16/11
Multiple Obama Birth Certificates Surface In Alabama Eligibility Case
Yeah, I prefer winning elections to losing thm, sue me!
Well played, Sir.
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.