Posted on 08/09/2011 6:10:13 PM PDT by rxsid
Edited on 08/09/2011 6:11:45 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
When the White House posted online an image of President Obama's purported long-form birth certificate, it also linked to the previously circulated "Certification of Live Birth," the short-form version that had been presented as the only birth documentation available.
However, the short-form certificate to which the White House linked April 27 was a forgery, claims computer expert Ron Polland, Ph.D., who says he made the image himself.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
What? You found the only tool in your bag is a hammer and all your problems must therefore be nails? Your argument as been refuted, yet here you are persistent in it. Were Madison's comment the law of the land it would have made citizens of Slaves and Indians, yet we know for a fact they were not until they were manumitted and/or naturalized.
You simply don't seem to comprehend that the facts contradict the only quote (and that offhand) you have in support of your position. The seating of Mr. Smith to the US congress not only did not repeal article II, it did not even address it.
So you ask for my evidence, I provide it (PhD in instructional systems, not in computer, not in document forensics) and now I’m a troll because you “know his expertise”? Why don’t YOU provide evidence of his expertise in document forensics? Or is your will to believe all the proof you ever need?
He said place was the most important criteria of allegiance, and what applies in the United States. Self evident.
Sheesh. Go read it carefully. It addresses criteria for allegiance, and unequivocally states place is the most important and what applies in the United States.
You want to argue “Ok, he says place is the most important and what applies in the United States, but he really meant that only for Congress, not for any other office?”
So glad you can read his mind in retrospect, and know that he didn’t really mean what he so clearly declared.
I fell for that claim until someone pointed out the evidence that it was false. McCain was indeed born outside the United States proper, but he was not born outside of a United States Military Hospital as has been alleged all over the internet. There is a fake birth certificate floating around on the net showing him as being born in a Panamanian Hospital, but this document was fabricated. His real birth certificate is not available online because he has not released it. He has shown it to a few people, but that is all.
It is indeed a pathetic type of person who continuously tries to sell an unsellable theory.
By your logic, the fact that women were not made citizens invalidates “chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,” since women were part of the people and yet could not vote.
You have also set up a strawman - I never claimed “law of the land” as there was no clear law on the books at that time on “natural born” - rather it was a continuation of English Common Law, on which much US law is based. Posters were discussing insight into the Founders’ idea of Natural Born. I provided James Madison’s clearly stated opinions on Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinus.
You don’t want to accept it? Fine, you can believe that a preexisting book by the Swiss De Vattel is more important than clear statements by the Father of the US Constitution.
At this point Obama can be defeated only by his own policies - and he does everything in his power to defeat himself. He might be a "disposable President" who is installed for one term to do a specific task, no holds barred, and then he is set aside. Obama doesn't really like governing anyway.
This is the most reasonable argument I have heard as to why the birth certificate/eligibility issue might be not worth pursuing. If others had the intellectual perspicacity and civil grace to make such an argument, they would not be mistaken for Obama sympathizers or Obot Trolls.
I respect this argument, but I do not completely agree with it. I regard it as our job and duty to educated the ignorant public, and to spread the meme of Obama's illegitimacy. If the Nation crashes as I am horrified that it might, it is important for people to view Obama as a negative example of violating the Article II requirements. At least he would then serve some useful purpose.
Sometimes selling failures works well. Obama for example.
Extremely Extreme Extremist was going around claiming that both parents must be Natural Born Citizens back in 2009.
He accepted correction then that this was a ludicrous criteria that would render just about every American ineligible.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2307163/replies?c=16
I have had it pointed out to me that the "Colon" birth story is a hoax, and that the McCain birth certificate floating around the net is a fabrication. I was pointed to a link from a well known newspaper (Washington times or post I think) that shows McCain has never released his birth certificate for public viewing. At the moment I don't have the link, but if you search my posts for the word "Colon" I bet you can find the link I saw. (I'm not exactly sure how to do that myself or I would do it for you.)
In any case, I urge you to consider the allegation that McCain was born outside of a Military hospital as suspect unless you come up with some information which demonstrates it to be true.
Yes, James Madison's offhand comment trumps all the delegates and Legislatures of the 13 states combined. He was dictator you know.
Slaves and Indians put the lie to your theory.
Not at all. McCain's ONLY claim to citizenship is through his parents. That this meets the "natural born citizen" standard is what the constitution has meant all along. (As further stipulated in the "Naturalization act of 1790." That a Unanimous Senate would confirm this simply reinforces the point that this is the central requirement of the condition.
Lame Cherry had an interesting piece today,
*Into the bowels of Obama*
Link: http://lamecherry.blogspot.com/2011/08/into-bowels-of-obama.html
You have one comment that seemingly supports your point, and we have dozens that refute it. And you still have not addressed the fact that were Madison's offhand comment true, Slaves and Indians would have been citizens. They meet his criteria, but lo and behold they were not citizens! Your argument is rebuked by fact.
The alinskyesque tactics of this breed of axelsleazy insulters gives them away. They donn their obamanoid kneepads and gleefully march off to the Internet to defend their bastard pResident. At FR, we’ve addressed this same misdirection garbage so many times, it is not worth wasting time with these obaaaaamanoids. The owner of FR has stated unexquivocally that there are no Obama supporters at FR. Let them sleaze along until someone notices how obviously twisted they are.
Why would he set himself up for any questions if he was born on the base as you say?
We are not ignorant enough to fall for your fallacy of substitution. The topic being discussed by Madison was that of "CITIZEN", not "Natural born citizen." As the founders themselves demonstrated by making an exception for themselves, NONE of them were "NATURAL BORN CITIZENS" and that included Congressman Smith, whom Madison was defending.
I mean, what background could James Madison, the principal author of the Constitution, have for really understanding what the phrase "natural born citizen" means?
You are again substituting the term of art "Natural born citizen" for that of "Citizen." The distinction between which is manifested by the fact that Article II uses both terms rather than one. James Madison was not arguing "natural born citizen", he was arguing just basic citizenship. (No one older than 14 years of age was a "natural born citizen" at this time.) Even then, his next statement is an appeal to Jus Sanguinus.
"Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony."
Were his argument of "place" enough, there would be no need for an appeal to the man's right by blood. (ancestors) Madison asserts "Jus Soli" yet immediately invokes "Jus Sanguinus."
What's his credentials and claim for knowledge to try to usurp what thousands of birthers and Corsi and WND readers all KNOW as fact?
Firstly, you are intentionally misleading people about what it is he is claiming, and secondly you are overlooking the fact that subsequent generations have the advantage of Hindsight and access to knowledge he didn't posses. Thirdly you are overlooking the fact that his argument appealed not to the soil, but to his rights by descent.(blood) You are in fact, trying to twist Madison's argument from it's purpose in a futile and pathetic attempt to serve your own.
I look forward to your reply because I enjoy beating on the stupid and ignorant who are none the less smug and arrogant in their false certainty.
It was the Washington Post reporter he supposedly showed it to.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1403.html
“Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904
(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.
(b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States”
That law only grants citizenship, not NBC. So, playing along with whichever story of McCain being born somewhere in Panama and his father being stationed there, he’d be a US citizen but still not eligible for POTUS.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2304917/posts?q=1&;page=201
Let the freepers decide for themselves. Danae posted a 2007 document claiming it to be a 2000 document. She apologized to Polarik but didn’t post it to Polarik because she didn’t know that pinging All isn’t pinging to all. Polarik “quit” FR soon after. She acted like a third grader on his opus thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2312169/posts
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.