Posted on 06/27/2009 6:13:50 AM PDT by Polarik
In a recent press conference, Les Kinsolving of World Net Daily finally got to ask the question that we've all wanted to ask Obama, "Why won't you show us your real birth certificate?" Press Secretary Gibbs response was startling. He said that the Obama Administration had put a copy of it, one with a raised Seal, on the Internet. That response, more than any other mentioned to date, should have gotten people to their feet shouting, "NO, it's NOT a real birth certificate!" Or, at least, it's not the long-form original.
In effect, Obama, by way of his Press Secretary, just admitted to committing felony document fraud as what is posted on the Internet is a forgery, a false government identification document in violation of Federal statutes.
However, there is another school of thought, a group most notably headed by Leo Donofrio, who, upon hearing that question and Gibbs' reply, would have gotten to their feet shouting, "NO, it's Obama's British Citizenship, stupid! To Hell with the birth certificate." According to Donofrio, the fact that Obama committed felony document fraud is not only irrelevant, but is "–without a doubt - a conspiracy theory of epic proportions.
"Nobody can deny that it’s a textbook conspiracy theory. Regardless of whether he has a genuine long form BC saying he was born in Hawaii, the concept that the COLB is a forgery would certainly concern a vast conspiracy to defraud the American people. Conspiracies do exist, but they have a very bad reputation and the media can spin them as kookery with ease."
After pursuing the document fraud arument for over a year, I have encountered many people who, at first glance, seem to be earnest-sounding individuals who also believe that Obama should not have been elected President. Ar first, they appear to be on the same side as the "Birthers," but, unlike those who want to see Obama's real, original birth certificate, they go out of their way to do everything in their poweer to dissuade anyone from wanting to see Obama's real, original birth certificate. If I've seen it once, I've seen it a thousand times. There is no other issue that bothers them more than the prospect of Obama having to release his actual birth certificate.
And, when yhey reach the point where it seems like the push to see it is actually gaining traction, they come out even harder than before, mercilessly cracking on Birthers as fools and wingnuts, which is exactly what Obama trolls have done for over a year now.
I submit to you, and I have the experience to make this statement, that Obama and his Campaign did not, by accident, admit that, when Obama was born, his father, Obama Sr., was a British citizen. NO way, Jose. Almost everything that Obama and his minions have done to date, has been deliberate and planned. That tidbit in Factcheck about his father's citizenship was not an "Oops" at all. It was a big, fat, smelly red herring, and the people who are pushing the British Citizenship argument to the exclusion of all other arguments -- particularly, the fake COLB -- are blowing smoke up your tailpipe.
Mr. Donofrio's lastest skreed is about Kinsolving's question and how "WND dropped the balla" with respect to Donofrio's pet theory. Leo insists that Kinsolving should have asked Gibbs the following question:
"During the election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was “governed” by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell the American people how a natural born citizen of the United States can be governed – at birth – by British law?"
OK, for the last time, I'm going to break this issue down, as I see it for what it really is, so that everyone clearly understands the implications of pursuing the British citizenship route to challenging the "natural-born status" of Barack Obama, to the exclusion of all other actions taken.
To begin with, Leo Donofrio argues that what is on Obama's original birth certificate is irrelevant and that even hinting that the Internet COLB is bogus is a stupid conspiracy theory. According to the British citizen strategy, Obama admitted he was a dual citizen at birth and that eligibility advocates have simply questioned whether that makes him ineligible to be President under Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
Stop right here. Do not go any further until I reread these previous declarations:
Obama's original birth certificate is irrelevant.
Obama admits he was a British citizen at birth.
Eligibility advocates SIMPLY questioned if he is Constitutionally eligible to be President.
In other words, this is tantamiunt to saying it's an academic exercize in Constituional Law. Removing OBama from office is not the isue at all. Donofrio has made that point clear. It's all about setting a legal precident for a centuries-old Constitutional question that has been sideskirted by every court since.
OK, O'll go along for the ride.
let's say the judge rules that the Framers of the Constitution intended Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the US Constitution to exclude dual citizenship. Does this mean that Obama knew he was ineligible? What Obama knew or did not know is irrelevant. The definition of NBC as it applied to dual citizenship at birth was never made. The precident did not exist. No harm. No foul.
Now what? There is no precident for what happens next. Does everything revert back to a previous date? What date?
None of the above. You know that the ruling will be appealed refardless of which way it goes. If it goes against the Plaintiff, you are not going to get it overturned by SCOTUS. You many not even get a hearing on it.
By the time it would go to SCOTUS, there's a better than even chance that Sotomayer will be sitting on the bench. You already know which way she's going to vote.
OK, I'll play along here and imagine what happens if it is upheld? What would SCOTUS do? They will say that Congress should have raised this issue during the cerification of the Electoral Count. The Court will then say it does not have the power to remove a sitting President - only Congress does. Then what? Obama sits on the sidelines and let Biden run things while Congress figures out what to do next?
Notic that the question of divided loyalties hasn't come up once in this discussion. Remember, THAT was the sole purpose of making someone who was born with dual citizenship ineligible to be President! If Obama had British citizenship at birth, he didn't have to swear allegiance to the Queen. Does it even make sense to talk about loyalties for a newborn, or now as an adult in already serving as President.
It does where Obama is concerned.
It should now come as no surprise to anyone that Obama has more loyalties to our enemies than he does to our allies. Obama has more loyalties to the Middle Eastern World than to the Western World. Obama has more loyalties to Dar al-Islam than to Dar al-Harb. Obama has more loyalties to his foreign investors than to his domestic supporters.
Yet what seemed like a big Constitutional crisis at first now seems to have fizzled out. Now, through all of these mashinations Obama gets a pass on ever having to show where he was born, when he was born, and to whom he was born.
What if Obama is actually the son of someone else? What if his father was born to Malcolm X or Frank Marshall Davis, as some theorize? Too bad, because you will never know that without seeing Obama's original birth certificate.
So, let's recap. Here are the two tenets of the British Citizenship makes Obama ineligible argument:
Obama's original birth certificate is irrelevant.
Obama admitted he was a British citizen at birth.
Obama is, therefore, a natual-born British citizen and is Constitutionally ineligible according to Article 2 Section 1.
Right?
WRONG!
If this court case should actually make it as far as the Supreme Court, and if it looks like he is going to lose the case, Obama will make a startling announcement!
Obama announces that the reason why he was withholding his original birth certificate is because he didn't want anyone to know that his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and his father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., WERE NEVER MARRIED!!!!
Game over, Donofrio!
Prior to 1983, British nationality was transmitted from the father through one generation only, and ONLY if the parents were married in accordance with English Law.
In other words, folks, Obama was not a British citizen at birth. Obama might have been born with no citizenship at all if he was born in Kenya. and not Hawaii.
However, since the people who are pushing this strategy so hard, to the exclusion of evey other strategy, have said that his birth certificate is irrelevant and would make no effort to obtain it, Obama walks, free and clear.
Oh, I'm sure that he'll get tons of sympathy from the vast majority (if not all) of his fan base because they don't believe that marriage is even necessary to have a child.
This is the reason why we must continue to push Obama to release, not only his long-form "vault" certificate, but also the very same Certification of Live Birth that he had claimed to have made and posted on the Internet.
With the birth certificate, and if his parents were married and if he was born outside the US, then he was not a citizn at birth at all, let alone a natural born one.
Under US law at the time, if his parents were not married, then he was a US citizen at birth. It's only if they were married, and their divorce papers say they were, and he was born outside the US, Kenya or Canada it doesn't matter, then he was not a citizen at birth at all, and would only be a citizen now if he was later naturalized. But if he was naturalized, or not a citizen, then he's not eligible.
US citizen, if born in Hawaii, but still not a “Natural-born” citizen.
If born in Kenya, then No, he would not be a US citizen at birth.
If they were married, then he’s not a “natural-born citizen” due to dual citizenship.
Either way you slice it, he still comes up empty.
But, the place of birth is irrelevant to the felony document fraud.
Not if the document is a forgery and/or altered.
Anyone who says, “I’ll do it.”
Well, maybe. Citizen for sure, under the law at the time, (and today as well if had been born under current law). But, Natural Born Citizen within the meaning and intent of the Art. II clause in the Constitution?
Congress can define who is eligible to be naturalized, as that is the only power over citizenship granted to them, they cannot redefine "natural born citizen", for purposes of the Constitution, anymore than they can define "speech", "religion", or "arms".
No, we need not, and should not. Congres has no power to define Constitutional terms. They mean what they meant when the document was written.
But logically anyone whose citizenship rests on a law passed by Congress, except insofar as that law is duplicative of the definition at the time the Constitution was written, cannot be "natural born", because Congress only has the power to "Establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization".
We can't have Congress redefining the terms in the Constitution, unless that document explicitly gives them the power to do so, otherwise much mischief could they make.
When a cold wind blows from the depths of Hell.
Or possibly when the vault is blown open by a North Korean Nuke.
So why did they get divorced?
Indeed. But is Fraud a high crime or misdomeaner. Clearly if he was a Republican, it would rise to that level. But he's a 'Rat, with the 'Rats in control of Congress. He'd never even be impeached, let alone convicted and removed.
If born in Kenya, then No, he would not be a US citizen at birth.
If born outside the US, to an unwed mother, then under the law, he'd be a citizen at birth. The residence requirement for a US parent only applies to married parents. For bastards, the mother only need be a citizen of the US. But that's for "citizen at birth. Not necessarily "natural born".
But he didn't forge the CoLB out of embarassment that his parents were not married. Heck that would have given him more street cred in some circles, and more sympathy in others. It's only worth the effort, and the risk, if a real CoLB, or the Long Form Certificate of Live Birth indicates an ineligibility. IMHO only of course.
Looking at all the possibilities of a definition leaves us with the gut feeling that this guy ain't. But he's got a legal team for every angle, and his PR campaign is trailing smoke like a line of WWII destroyers, so our shooting is very difficult, and the lawsuit torpedoes we have launched at the SOB have so far been legally way off target.
IMHO, as I have expressed to the occasional derision of us Freepers, we have to back-track and create the state laws that will demand documentary evidence of eligibility. Then at least someone will have the "standing" to sue.
In the meantime, we've got a clear case of forgery on our hands,too, but are having a hard time even getting that to court.
The left has a fervent belief in the Hegelian Dialectic as improved by one K. Marx. "Created Chaos," is an ideal they seek so that they, the creators, are the only ones who can bring a resolution forward. This is driving everyone crazy, because that is exactly what it is intended to do while Obama and his cronies abuse the power given to them in the last election, whether they stood for election fraudulently, or not.
I agree that needs to be done, either at the state or federal level. Both would be best. Belt and suspenders sort of deal.
But meanwhile, we are stuck with an ineligible occupant, a usurper, who has changed so much in only five months, that I fear after 48 months will have done so much damage, that there would be little to no hope of recovery by normal "legal" means.
Which is exactly what I said would happen if the dual citizenship issue is pursued to its logical conclusion, with Obama breaking the news that his parents were not married, and therefore, tossing in the crapper, the automatic citizenship arguments for both countries!
We just cannot prove if this guy is ineligible or not. There certainly is a very rational basis to think that he is. However, we definitely do know that forgery has taken place; that a fraud has been perpetrated.
At the risk of boring you guys to death, I repeat that our opinions, theories, and unearthed facts on this sordid and dangerous affair need coordination from on high ... a leader. How about Ambassador Bolton?
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.