According to some "FReepers", any one of these people would be eligible for POTUS....if they're born here:
Posted on 07/03/2008 4:35:19 PM PDT by SE Mom
Jay McKinnon, a self-described Department of Homeland Security-trained document specialist, has implicated himself in the production of fraudulent Hawaii birth certificate images similar to the one endorsed as genuine by the Barack Obama campaign, and appearing on the same blog entry where the supposedly authentic document appears.
The evidence of forgery and manipulation of images of official documents, triggered by Israel Insider's revelation of the collection of Hawaii birth certificate images on the Photobucket site and the detective work of independent investigative journalists and imaging professionals in the three weeks since the publication of the images, implicate the Daily Kos, an extreme left blog site, and the Obama campaign, in misleading the public with official-looking but manipulated document images of doubtful provenance.
The perceived unreliability of the image has provoked petitions and widespread demands for Obama to submit for objective inspection the paper versions of the "birth certificate" he claimed in his book Dreams from My Father was in his possession, as well as the paper version of the Certificate of Live Birth for which the image on the Daily Kos and the Obama "Fight the Smears" website was supposedly generated.
Without a valid birth certificate, Obama cannot prove he fulfills the "natural born citizen" requirement of the Constitution, throwing into doubt his eligibility to run for President.
McKinnon, who says he is 25-30 years old, operates a website called OpenDNA.com and uses the OpenDNA screen name on various web sites and blogs, including his comments and diary on The Daily Kos. In recent years he has divided his time between Long Beach, California and Vancouver, British Columbia. He is a Democratic political activist, frequent contributor to the left wing Daily Kos blog, and a fervent Barack Obama supporter.
(Excerpt) Read more at web.israelinsider.com ...
Yep :)
I’ve searched and searched, I have asked many other Freepers that have stated his parents were not citizens when he was born and I have yet to get a definitive answer. If they weren’t citizens when he was born, in my book, he is not eligible, end of story, and it doesn’t matter what country they came from, but until I have proof they weren’t, I will consider him a contender in the future.
“You’re absolutely transparent and obvious; aren’t you ashamed of yourself?”
The conversation thus far -
rodguy911: Isn’t it odd that there are no pictures of Obama’s mom when she was pregnant?
Me: So what? There are no pictures of any of the other 2012 Presidential candidates’ moms when they were pregnant.
Others: TROLL!!!
Please fill me in on which part of this I should be ashamed of. I’m not the one using Alinsky tactics.
It makes Rubio a native-born citizen. According to most interpretations of the founders' intent, he does not meet the requirement of natural born citizenship since his parents were not citizens at the time of his birth.
------------------------------------------------------------
Correct. It's inconceivable that the framers would have considered a dual national who owes dual allegiance at birth to be considered a "natural born Citizen." The mere thought, in 1787 America, would have been absurd.
Yup, it’s a troll obot.
Had my run in with it here some time back:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2739306/posts?page=547#547
This is the last time I’m going to bother replying to you.
It’s obvious what you are, feeble protestations from you notwithstanding.
Regarding photos of other presidents as babies with their parents, I am sure and certain many could be found, if someone wanted to take the time, which I do not.
If you think other presidents have no baby/toddler photos with their parents, PROVE IT! Until then, shut up.
Why do I think this troll has yet another screen name, and probably lives in Washington State, maybe Seattle area.
Hmmm. ?
According to some "FReepers", any one of these people would be eligible for POTUS....if they're born here:
Hmmm - the concern of the founders was ALLEGIANCE. And it is absurd to believe that the allegiance of Rubio’s parents was with any nation but the USA, having been exiled from Cuba.
The Constitution is ABSOLUTELY silent on the definition of Natural Born. Therefore, when searching for a definition to inform us in regards to this phrase used in the Constitution, but not defined there, we must look for guidance in the common, if not universal, useage/knowledge of the time.
Considering that Blackstone’s legal commentaries is the second (to the Bible) most frequently cited source in the politically related correspondence of the founding fathers, we should then look there to inform us as to the founder’s common understanding of the term:
“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 allegiance, 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 ligament, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject.”
Again, Blackstone’s major concern in defining the term is to allegiance (and he explores this further in situations of ambassadors and such). We see the same concern for allegiance in the correspondance of the founders. I think we can confidently conclude that allegiance of the parents is of primary importance. Again, the allegiance of Rubio’s parent was obviously to the USA, not to Cuba. Unless you want to make the argument that their allegiance was to the etherial Free Cuba, and I won’t dispute that assertion. However, if this allegiance to an etherial kingdom is disqualification to the presidency, then almost every US president held office illegally; including Washington and Lincoln, because most of the presidents, and most definitely Washington and Lincoln, claimed their FIRST allegance was to the Kingdom of Heaven.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=fHJiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=CncNAAAAIBAJ&pg=5377,210718&dq=natural+born+citizen&hl=en
The candidate for President today can be the son of a foreigner..
True. Why, then, would they not have been very concerned about someone who was born with FOREIGN allegiance? They were, which is why they put in the "strong check" against that foreign intrigue.
Even the modern day State Department rules discusses the problems associated with dual citizenship:
7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86563.pdf(e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.
...
the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that dual nationality is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both." See Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952).
And this...
US State Department Services Dual Nationalityhttp://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html... The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance.
However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there...
The framers would not have considered the new citizens of the republic to be analogous to the subjects of the British crown.
For one thing, most subjects were never eligible to be the King (or Queen). However, all natural born Citizens would be eligible if they meet the age and residency requirements.
Furthermore, in 1787, English Subjects owed perpetual allegiance to the King whereas natural law (i.e. Law of Nations) tells us that citizens may "quit" their country and citizenship.
When the Deceleration of Independence and the Constitution were written, English subjects could not renounce their allegiance to the one sovereign, the crown:
"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. Natural allegiance is therefore a debt of gratitude; which cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered, by any change of time, place, or circumstance, nor by any thing but the united concurrence of the legislature. An Englishman who removes to France, or to China, owes the same allegiance to the king of England there as at home, and twenty years hence as well as now. For it is a principle of universal law, that the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by swearing allegiance to another, put off or discharge his natural allegiance to the former: for this natural allegiance was intrinsic, and primitive, and antecedent to the other; and cannot be devested without the concurrent act of that prince to whom it was first due. Indeed the natural-born subject of one prince, to whom he owes allegiance, may be entangled by subjecting himself absolutely to another; but it is his own act that brings him into these straits and difficulties, of owing service to two masters; and it is unreasonable that, by such voluntary act of his own, he should be able at pleasure to unloose those bands, by which he is connected to his natural prince."William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357--58, 361--62
How, then, did they declare their Independence from the King if they owed a perpetual allegiance to the crown that could not be "forfeited, cancelled, or altered" under English Common law?
They used the principles found in natural law. Vattel states, in the Law of Nations (which is based on natural law), that citizens may renounce (or quit) their citizenship, and thus allegiance, to a country:
"Chapter XIX: Of Our Native Country And Several Things That Relate To ItThe founders could never have written the Declaration of Independence had they relied upon English Common law.
§ 220. Whether a person may quit his country.... 1. The children are bound by natural ties to the society in which they were born; they are under an obligation to show themselves grateful for the protection it has afforded to their fathers … They ought, therefore, to love it, as we have already shown, to express a just gratitude to it, and requite its services as far as possible, by serving it in turn … But every man is born free; and the son of a citizen … may examine whether it be convenient for him to join the society for which he was destined by his birth. If he does not find it advantageous to remain in it, he is at liberty to quit it ..."
The problems associated with dual nationals, those that owe allegiance to two countries should be obvious.
One example of the issues surrounding dual nationality is the case of Boston born Ugo Da Prato who's father had naturalized prior to his birth. A Senator and the state department had to get involved because had the son been born before the father was naturalized, Italian law would have required the son to serve in the (Italian) military.
By the way, if they had relied upon England's common law (which incorporated some natural law as well) by what authority did they declare their independence from the mother country if their common law expressly forbade it?
Marco Rubio was not born with dual citizenship nor dual allegiance, to my knowledge. His parents, at the time of his birth, owed their allegiance to the USA - ONLY.
Re: ‘By the way, if they had relied upon England’s common law (which incorporated some natural law as well) by what authority did they declare their independence from the mother country if their common law expressly forbade it?”
This is a red herring - and I suspect you know it. I never claimed that they relied on British Common Law - simply that they relied on Blackstone’s definition of Natural Born - a definition with which they were all well aquainted. I.e. We currently don’t tediously reference Webster’s for each word we use in debate, conversation or communication. We rely on a common understanding of the language between ourselves and our audience. Such is obviously the case in the use of Natural Born Citizen in the Constitution - since it is not expressly defined, the framers relied on the common understanding of the definition of the word, and since contemporaneous correspondence between the framers referenced Blackstone so often, we can confidently cite his definition of the phrase - not as a legal construct, but simply as the definition of the term.
Every other argument used to define the term either uses much later (50 - 100 yrs) definitions, or uses sources less frequently mentioned (Vattel) in the founders’ correspondence.
With no specific mention of which meaning was intended (and they were certainly aware of the differences), and since we both agree that allegiance was the primary concern, and since Blackstone’s definition deals directly and primarily with allegiance, our best assumption is that Blackstone’s was the common definition at the time.
Original meaning, my friend, and the best evidence of the original meaning of the founders says Rubio is eligible for the presidency. Unless, of course, Mama Rubio used a spinal block during childbirth, which would mean Marco was not “natural born” :)
Don’t be so anxious to deny Obama legitimacy that you deny others their rightful claims. There are other, more sound and fruitful avenues. For instance, Obama’s father obviously did not owe his allegiance to the USA - hang your hat on allegiance, not a fine straining of the thin soup, Vattel vs Blackstone. Neither would view Obama as a natural born citizen.
I assume that whoever put out the videos knows a bit more than he’s revealing at the moment.
who paid for all his expensive education,
_________________
student loans for the affirmative action foreign student
What about Punahou. Someone paid for that. Very expensive school. And his trips back and forth from Indonsia to HI.
He most likely got into Occidental merely by graduating from a exclusive private HI high school and playing the foreign student card. It probably wasn't until Columbia that Frank Davis began pulling strings. I simply don't believe zero was groomed for anything before Columbia.
http://saturdaybriefing.outrigger.com/chairman_briefing/school-choice-helped-launch-barack-obama%e2%80%99s-success/
Okay, I checked the website. First of all, it’s a drooling, trembling and fawning obeisance to 0bama. So therefore automatically in the “Propaganda” file. IOW, only believable if it can be verified independently with authentic documentation. Here are the quotes referencing Punahou and claimed scholarship. Oh, and considering he states as fact stuff that is known to be made up, I see no reason to accept his word about scholarship or anything else. Or the words of a couple of classmates who were no doubt coached etc. Sheesh.
Barack Obama’s links to Hawaii are many and deep. He was born August 4, 1961, at Kapi‘olani Medical Center in Honolulu. His father was a Kenyan who had come here to study at the University of Hawaii. His mother, Ann Dunham, was a Kansas-born U.H. student whose parents lived in Honolulu. After his parents’ 1963 divorce, he spent several years in Indonesia with his mother and new stepfather before returning to Hawaii in 1971 at age 10 to live with his maternal grandparents in Honolulu. He enrolled in Punahou School, a private K-12 institution near Waikiki, founded by missionaries in 1841.
I knew his grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, who sadly passed away just two days before the election. Madelyn was a vice president at the Bank of Hawaii. She was a very competent, accurate, and no-nonsense woman who handled several escrow closings on real estate transactions with which I was involved. No matter how complicated the deal was, I always knew that if Madelyn handled the escrow details, everything would be in order.
Madelyn’s boss was the bank’s CEO, Frank Manaut, who served with me as a trustee of Punahou School. It seems likely that Madelyn’s connection with Frank played a role in Barack’s enrollment at Punahou with a scholarship.
Zero has two left hands - one in his lap and one holding hands with whatshisface. Don't know the purpose of the photoshop, but it's been faked. Besides that, who would want a wookie kiss, ewww!
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.