Posted on 10/02/2009 11:46:39 AM PDT by crosstimbers
Agreed!
There it sits, staring everybody right in the face ... no tilting at windmills, no nutty lawyer-dentists, no e-bay scam artists necessary.
All these wild theories and drawn-out “investigations.” I’m beginning to wonder just who the “trolls” on this issue really are. Perhaps it’s the ones, always the same ones, who run down every blind alley screaming “troll” at anyone who points that out?
The Constitution is what makes the distinction, therefore the Constitution is all that matters. There is a very persuasive case to be made, under original intent, that Barack Obama does not meet the standard of natural-born citizen required by the Constitution due to his nonresident alien father.
I guess that just doesn’t generate enough blog hits or something. So FR gets inundated by online aliases, daily dribblng out some new something-or-other being “investigated” that drags on for as long as people pay it any attention. Oooh, Leo’s in hiding and afraid for his life, oooh Miss Piggie’s down at the county courthouse again, ooh a JPEG of a birth record isn’t “authentic.” Phffft.
Sorry for the rant. This all just seems so contrived.
If a US mother gets a sperm donation from a foreign donor or if a US family adopts a foreign baby, is the child barred from being US president? The founders didn't contemplate these things.
Obama hung his statement that he was “governed” by the 1948 BNA at birth out there like a slow softball pitch. He was actually screaming “I am obviously not a natural born citizen, but I dare you to challenge me because I will call you a racist!”
But the guy lies all the time, taught constitutional law and is surrounded by the best Democrat lawyers money can buy. I am not going to believe anything he says without proof, especially something that lawyers call an unforced “stipulation against interest”.
Obama didn't have to have his campaign put out that he was a 1948 BNA British subject (with protective distance from having himself make the claim).
Why would he do it when it obviously would appear to hurt him?
After observing the man these past two years I am virtually certain he knows he has an ace up his sleeve that will save him from being declared a dual citizen.
So far that ace seems to be that the entire US Congress and the political and media elites just don't care about or haven't bothered to look into the BNA issue. It is complicated and Wong is easy to twist into a conflation of the definition of citizen and natural born citizen.
But maybe the real ace is that Obama knows fully well that his father was a bigamist because BO II has been close to Kezia for 25 years and may know that she was legally married to his father in Kenya in 1957 and might even have documentation from Kezia to prove it. Obama would know that under the 1948 BNA, his father couldn't pass dual citizenship to him as a bigamist if the marriage to SADO was performed in a country where bigamy was illegal.
What better way to distract opponents from investigating a suspicious HI home birth or evidence of a Kenyan birth than to waive the red flag of the 1948 in front of the opposition and incite them to charge!
While inviting a 1948 BNA challenge Obama is fighting tooth and nail to prevent revelation of SOMETHING in his original HI vital records. Where do you think Obama thinks he is vulnerable?
Hopefully Judge Carter will allow discovery tomorrow that will reveal the image the HI vital birth record.
Obama’s legal father was a nonresident alien, which means that Obama does not fulfill the meaning of natural-born citizen in the Constitution under original intent. No foreign law need be invoked at all. Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was not a U.S. citizen, had no permanent domicil here and was not a resident alien as a result.
Legal father means paternity under the law, just in case you feel the need to squirt out from under that one by claiming illegitimacy.
I’ll repeat again, there is no need for the bizzarre theories and wild goose chases you all seem so determined to perpetuate.
No need at all. It’s right there, staring us all in the face.
Maybe for child support, but not for US or British nationality then or now. A recent US court refused to recognize the US citizenship without nationalization of a foreign-born child whose mother was an unmarried foreign national and whose US citizen father later acknowledged the child.
The 1948 BNA has similar rules for the children of unmarried or bigamously married foreign women who bear children in foreign countries to British citizens.
Paternity does not convey legal citizenship meaning nationality meaning subject to sovereignty.
See Miller v. Albright:
As I said, the fact that Barack Obama’s father was not a United States citizen is sufficient to make the case that he was not a natural-born citizen.
The rest is superfluous ,,, where he was born, what citizenship his father held, how old his mother was, or even whether or not his parents were married. There is ample documentation of legal paternity.
HIPAA only allows the release of private medical information if authorized by the person that information involves.
______________
Oh goody. So that means that when the Obongo cronies say my doctor has to give them my medical records to feed into their national data base, he and I can tell them to stick it up their as&? Good! Because I have no intention of giving them crap. I paid for every doctor visit and my insurance with my money. They have no right to those records and they will never get them. NEVER!!!
You are a troll. Get lost
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.