Pooh-poohing Pulitzer

jbjd ^ | 05/03/10 | jbjd

[rxsid]

lol. probably not for very long I would imagine.

[edge919]

I can’t begrudge them if Obama never had a long form certificate. Somewhere it was suggested that his birth may not have been completely filed until 2006 or 2007, as such there would be no long-form certificate and perhaps nothing on file with the DOH except some affadavits and information on the database. If the June 2007, alleged COLB is the first hard copy of any such certificate to be issued by the state of Hawaii, then it could theoretically be the original birth certificate ... except that it doesn’t have a legitimate certificate number.

[Eaker]

The only thing that saved me was that she couldn’t turn to the right!

[BP2]

> Can you find a single instance in which they or Factcheck claimed to have conducted such an examination?

It’s SO good to see you finally come around and acknowledge that FactCheck's so-called review of Obama’s COLB is absolute bullsh!t.

Curiosity, it's sad to see you've had NO curiosity about Obama's Eligibility up to this point. You’re a little late to the party, but it’s great to see you FINALLY come to your senses.

> And while you’re at it, can you name a single US president who ever submitted his birth certificate to a forensic document examiner?

Can you tell us of an American president (the son of a British subject) that has warranted the need to do so — or is that too RACIST for your Liberal sensitivities to dare honestly ask yourself such a question?

[rxsid]

"To make your point, you cite (student run) law review articles

Of course, your referring to this historical reference (to the meaning of the term NBC) that I cited:

The "New Englander [actual title of the publication], 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."

From where, did you get the idea that the 1945 edition of the New Englander was A) Student run, and B) a "law review?"

University of Pennsylvania Law Review - First law review stated in 1852. (That's 7 years AFTER the 1845 New Englander article).

Albany Law School was the first institution to produce a student edited legal periodical. During the academic year of 1875—1876 - Albany Law Journal was published weekly. (That's 30 years AFTER the 1845 New Englander article).

[rxsid]

nice!

[rxsid]

"If the June 2007, alleged COLB is the first hard copy of any such certificate to be issued by the state of Hawaii, then it could theoretically be the original birth certificate "

Right. But again, if that is to be his "original" (something in HI in 2007), then the factcheck folks, in an office in Chicago could not possibly be looking at / holding that 2007 original. They would have a copy of it. Whatever it is. A copy. Not the original (of anything) like they claim.

[stephenjohnbanker]

Thanks foe a good history lesson.

[stephenjohnbanker]

Obama has a sordid past, by any American standards. We should demand EVERYTHING on his past to be produced

[jbjd]

Again, prototypical ‘Leo-esque’ response. Disagree with a critic? Cue the ridicule and name calling... (See, for example, Leo’s posting of a photograph of the SCOTUS, superimposed with the word, “WUSSY.”)

[jbjd]

Again, too much attention to BO. (Your question indicates you are still trying to prove a negative or, that BO lied. You cannot prove he lied, unless you know the truth.) Rather, reporters should ask Mr. Gibbs for what reason he directed press questions related to whether BO is Constitutionally eligible for POTUS; to campaign advertising paid for by the candidate. Then, ask Mr. Gibbs on what documentary basis Nancy Pelosi swore Mr. Obama was Constitutionally eligible for POTUS (in order to get state election officials in applicable states to print his name on general election ballots).

[jbjd]

Someone who is not President is not subject to Impeachment. Someone lawfully elected by the Electors as President; which process is ratified by Congress; and who is subsequently sworn into office by the CJ of the SCOTUS, all in accordance with the procedures spelled out in the Constitution, is the President. (Please try to keep in mind, no provision of any law, state or federal, or the U.S. Constitution requires the Electors or the Congress or the SCOTUS to vet the candidate qua President as to Constitutional eligibility. And this is precisely the reason that eligibility per se cannot be the basis for Impeachment. However, fraud in relation to establishing eligibility so as to get onto the ballot, which is a crime, is an Impeachable offense.

[edge919]

Again, too much attention to BO. (Your question indicates you are still trying to prove a negative or, that BO lied. You cannot prove he lied, unless you know the truth.)

Wrong. I'm intent on proving he is party to fraud. I don't care whether he knowingly lied. The document purported to be his birth certificate can be confirmed as genuine or not, and after making jokes about his birth certificate over the weekend, he can't exactly plead ignorance.

Rather, reporters should ask Mr. Gibbs for what reason he directed press questions related to whether BO is Constitutionally eligible for POTUS; to campaign advertising paid for by the candidate.

Because it was a way to make it public?? Who is going to pursue such an angle??

Then, ask Mr. Gibbs on what documentary basis Nancy Pelosi swore Mr. Obama was Constitutionally eligible for POTUS (in order to get state election officials in applicable states to print his name on general election ballots).

He'll say they made a birth certificate available to the public. What then?? You seem to be forgetting that campaign staff Tommy Vietor also e-mailed a jpg to at least one bona fide reporter, Amy Hollyfield at the St. Petersburg Times, so it's not like it was only presented as political advertisement.

[edge919]

Right. But again, if that is to be his "original" (something in HI in 2007), then the factcheck folks, in an office in Chicago could not possibly be looking at / holding that 2007 original. They would have a copy of it. Whatever it is. A copy. Not the original (of anything) like they claim.

I'm not sure that part is worth quibbling over. Legally a COLB is supposed to be an abstract of the original birth certificate. Even with the Nordyke certificate you posted, that is just a copy and not the original. 'Original' can mean different things and we can only assume what these amateur factcheckers meant.

[x]

The "New Englander [actual title of the publication], 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."

Reading that, it's not clear that Obama is excluded from holding office. The question is whether he does "owe allegiance by birth" to another country because his presumed father wasn't born here.

I don't think you can assume that someone whose parent may have been born abroad necessarily owes that country his allegiance. Wilson and Hoover, both had mothers born in other countries, but the law of the time made their mothers citizens upon marrying and removed any "allegiance" that they or their children might have to Britain or Canada.

Your quote is taken from "Massachusetts and South Carolina," an article about whether free Negroes can be citizens of the United States. That's a question that was resolved by the 14th Amendment. In any case, the article isn't really about natural born citizenship. That's just something that comes up in a very long discussion of citizenship as it relates to free Blacks.

[rxsid]

How can someone born a subject to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England, NOT have allegiance owed AT birth to a foreign country?

[rxsid]

lol. of course, no-one can ridicule but you...right? Especially, after you initiate it.

Your "disdain" for Leo wouldn't be because of the attention Leo (& his blog) gets, now would it?

[rxsid]

Because someone manages to "elude" (or is "shielded" by the state run media) not being fully vetted as to their Constitutional qualifications, doesn't make them any less a usurper.

A usurper is just that...a usurper, no matter how they managed to become one.

[x]

Do you really think that if a Kenyan showed up in Britain claiming that his father was a "British subject" that he'd be let in?

British subjects born in Kenya became Kenyans under the Kenyan constitution in 1963. Hence they didn't owe allegiance to the Queen any longer -- certainly not after Kenya became a republic.

Obama didn't register as a Kenyan subject so he lost whatever claim he had to Kenyan citizenship. British citizenship is something he couldn't claim.

Does some theoretical obligation of allegiance to the Queen at birth disqualify Obama from being President of the United States? Good luck proving that in court. You'll need it.

[rxsid]

Who said anything about Kenyan citizenship? Trying to subvert the issue?

He was born a British subject. No amount of wishing that were not true is going to change that. The only way he isn't born a British subject, is if Sr. wasn't his legal father at birth.

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

Factcheck.org goes on to say this about Obama Sr., Jr. and the British Nationality Act of 1948:

In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html

 

He was born a British subject. There's not a chance in the world the framers would have intended someone born with foreign allegiance owed, to be considered a Natural Born citizen. Furthermore, there was simply no other definition available to them in 1787. Born in country, to citizen parentS.