Posted on 05/03/2010 8:16:27 PM PDT by jbjd
...The other day, azgo sent me the portion of the U.S. Code that deals with federal campaign spending and disclosure. Sure enough, the campaign spending and disclosure requirements in the law correspond to changes in Mr. Obama’s legal status (candidate vs. nominee vs. President) which are reflected in the evolving ‘credit’ language we previously noted in the FTS footer. azgo summed up the federal requirements perfectly: “So, therefore, is it safe to say the OFA/DNC BC page is just a paid advertisement?”
Yep; that’s exactly what FTS is. And Mr. Gibbs confirmed as much, in a line from the ABC News article on that press conference which Susman and Stefan omitted from their NYT fluff piece. Asked why the issue of Mr. Obama’s birthplace keeps coming up, he replied: “Because for $15 you can get an internet address and say whatever you want.”
I have to admit, I could not have reported this fact any better myself.
(Excerpt) Read more at jbjd.wordpress.com ...
So if the Fight the Smears page with the so-called ‘birth certificate’ is just an ad, can Obama be sued for false advertising, OR is there a possibility of suing under the FOIA and/or FEC rules to see the source documentation for the advertisement??
gnip
Ain't that the truth...
Jess Henig has an M.A. in English Literature.
Joe Miller has a Ph. D. in Political Philosophy.
Those two are completely unqualified to perform any kind of forensic examination of any document, and FactCheck.org knows it — and so do Henig and Miller.
Leo D. has no idea who is BO’s father because like the rest of us, he has not seen original birth documents. (Of course, this begs the question: on what documentary basis were members of the D party able to ascertain BO is a NBC before swearing he was, to state election officials (in applicable states) to get them to print his name on election ballots?) And no matter how many times, in how many ways Leo supports his theory a NBC cannot be a ‘dual citizen’ - law review articles (which laypeople might not realize, have no precedential value) and the like - until a federal court of appeals rules on the definition of NBC, in a case directly on point; Leo’s voluminous diatribes on the issue remain just that, a theory.
Wanna put a tag line on comments which evidence you know what you are talking about, make it this: No legal definition of NBC exists where a federal appeals court has failed to rule on that definition in a case directly on point. (Further, once held, no such legal definition can be applied to the facts in BO’s case without original documentation establishing these facts.)
While there (obviously) isn't a SCOTUS decision as to what the term "natural born citizen" means with specific regard to the POTUS requirement in AII,S1,C5...there is clear historical reference to the term's definition.
In 1787, there was only 1 known definition available to the framers regarding citizen's who were natural born. That of Vattel's.
Vattel's definition was reaffirmed by founder Ramsay in 1789 in his A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789)
The same definition was referenced in the dicta of many early SCOTUS cases as well.
"THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss
The New Englander And Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845) states: "The expression ‘citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states."
John Bingham, "father" of the 14th Amendment, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, reaffirmed the definition known to the framers by saying this:
commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))">
At this point, all indications, himself, factcheck, fightthesmears, books, divorce documents, etc (no matter how weak they may be) point to Sr. being his birth father. Of course bigamy laws come into play, but again, nobody knows for certain his previous marriage status as it's never been adjudicated in a court of law.
Therefore, knowing what is known, I believe the question is perfect, succinct.
How can a Natural Born Citizen's status be "governed" by Great Britain?
Can you find a single instance in which they or Factcheck claimed to have conducted such an examination?
And while you're at it, can you name a single US president who ever submitted his birth certificate to a forensic document examiner?
Isn't that the point of the pictures they posted?? What good is it to call yourself Factcheck if you don't have the required skills to check facts??
And while you're at it, can you name a single US president who ever submitted his birth certificate to a forensic document examiner?
Name another sittng U.S. president who posted a redacted jpg on a Web site to contend he was born in the United States.
Can you find a single instance in which they or Factcheck claimed to have conducted such an examination?
And while you're at it, can you name a single US president who ever submitted his birth certificate to a forensic document examiner?
---------------------------------------
Sure, I'll do you homework for you today:
Born in the U.S.A.
August 21, 2008
Updated: November 1, 2008
The truth about Obama's birth certificate.
Recently FactCheck representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate, and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago. We can assure readers that the certificate does bear a raised seal, and that it's stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka (who uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates). We even brought home a few photographs.And they go on. Your two "document experts", that the sheeple are resting their faith and trust upon are: an M.A. in English Literature and a (Mr. document "holder") Ph. D. in Political Philosophy.
The Obama birth certificate, held by FactCheck writer Joe MillerThe certificate has all the elements the State Department requires for proving citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport: "your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records." The names, date and place of birth, and filing date are all evident on the scanned version, and you can see the seal above. The document is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response. The scan released by the campaign shows halos around the black text, making it look (to some) as though the text might have been pasted on top of an image of security paper. But the document itself has no such halos, nor do the close-up photos we took of it. We conclude that the halo seen in the image produced by the campaign is a digital artifact from the scanning process.
....
As for any other president submitting a copy of their original b.c. to a forensic examiner...I'll answer your question with a question, when else...in the course of this country's history, has a president's Constitutionally eligibility ever been called into question by the general public?
I'm feeling generous today, so I'll answer that for ya: Never.
Now it's my turn to question you.
How can someone born a subject to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England be considered a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S. as intended by the framers, and thus eligible to be our Commander in Chief of the armed forces?
"FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We [Ms. MA in English Lit and Mr. Ph.D. in Political Philosophy] conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship."(i.e. "citizenship" but not "natural born citizenship", of course).
Typical ‘Leo-esque’ reply. Bold, underlined, as if rant makes right. To make your point, you cite (student run) law review articles; and quote the Constitutional interpretation of a 19th century Congressperson as to what was the 18th century intention of the Drafters. Until you write, “While there (obviously) isn’t a SCOTUS decision as to what the term “natural born citizen” means with specific regard to the POTUS requirement in AII,S1,C5...” And that is precisely my point. The rest is dicta, which has no precedential value in a court of law. As to what “beef” I have with Leo, well, let me tell you. Given my exhaustive dedication to educate my readers as to how our political process works and, where it is broken, how to fix it; I resent having to redirect so much energy to correcting the error filled hyperbolic rants of others whose insistence they are right is based on how loudly they shout or how many people they can trick into believing they have something legally significant to say.
It does not matter whether Annenberg Political Fact Check has recognized documents experts on staff; and whether these experts claimed to have certified any documents. Because APFC has no privity to the American people. That is, no legal relationship exists that would obligate them to tell us the truth; or raise in us an expectation they would. Any focus on BO is futile; concentrate on how the people who swore he was eligible arrived at that conclusion. If they failed to ascertain he was a NBC before swearing he was to state election officials in applicable states, to get them to print his name on the ballot; that’s election fraud. And once those people are outed for that fraud, BO becomes attached to the fraud. This is the route to Impeachment: election fraud, and not Constitutional ineligibility per se.
"FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate."
Anyone see anything wrong with this statement? Anyone? Bueller?
They state that they saw, touched, examined and photographed the "original birth certificate"
It's impossible (in their Chicago office) to have done that examination with the "original birth certificate." That original would not leave the vaults in HI. At best, they might be able to "examine" a COPY of the original long form.
Furthermore, what they are looking at looks NOTHING like an original, 1961, long form birth cert from HI.
Those two factcheckers that all believers are relying on are 100% full of SH%$!
lol, your a funny, bitter dude.
He’s a usurper. How does someone who isn’t a President, get impeached as a President?
Technically, the factcheckers might be right if Obama’s June 2007 COLB turned out to be the first official birth certificate he ever had from the state of Hawaii.
Plural? Really?
As I clearly stated, they are HISTORICAL references ("there is clear historical reference to the term's definition. ") to the SAME definition known by the framers...that of the ONLY definition known at that time.
According to you, the genius blogger, these historical references from the SCOTUS, from a founder and from the author of the 14th Amendment are meaningless.
Yeah. Brilliant.
/s
True indeed.
The one on the left chased my car once.
The only way they would be telling the "truth" is if HI really has absolutely no original record of any kind from any year on file. Then, in their Chicago office they created one for him. Sure, then they are holding "the original."
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.
