Posted on 05/03/2010 8:16:27 PM PDT by jbjd
Post grandfather clause, of course.
They were all born with allegiance owed to Britain.
Furthermore, there was simply no other definition available to them in 1787. Born in country, to citizen parentS.
Not true. For Blackstone, "natural born subject" (or citizen) simply meant "native born citizen."
And why exactly do you think there is a need to do so with Obama any other president?
You mention his being the son of a British subject has something to do with it. Can you tell me what, exactly?
They were all born with allegiance owed to Britain.
--------------
Of course, see my post 41.
Furthermore, there was simply no other definition available to them in 1787. Born in country, to citizen parentS.
Not true. For Blackstone, "natural born subject" (or citizen) simply meant "native born citizen."
----------------
I was unware that the framers considered a subject to a monarchy to be equivalent to a citizen of a Constitutional republic. That's something!
They were all born with allegiance owed to Britain.
---------------
Furthermore, just why do you think they had to put a "grandfather" clause in the very requirement to begin with? Could it be, because they knew that none of them met the definition for "Natural Born Citizen?"
Of course, they knew they didn't meet that requirement. Soooooooo, they grandfathered themselves in.
LOL. You don't need a specialized degree to make the observations they make. Anyone with eyes and half a brain could do it.
Let's take a look at them. They report the following:
we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago.
All they are saying is that the piece of paper exists, it has three dimensions, and resides at the campaign headquarters. Do you really think someone has to be a professional forensic examiner to conclude that?
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).
To make that conclusion, all that is required is vision and the ability to read English, skills even philosophy and English Lit majors possess.
The 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.
Nope. Don't need to be a document expert to observe that.
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.
Still nothing that requires a professional document examiner. Reading on:
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.
You don't even need to be literate to make that observation.
We conclude that the halo seen in the image produced by the campaign is a digital artifact from the scanning process.
Okay, here you actually need to have some skills in logic to draw such a conclusion. But still, no need for any specialized forensic training.
So tell me, why do you find it so damning that they aren't professional document examiners?
Wrong again. (Obviously, you have not been reading my blog.) State A’sG have the discretion whether to investigate and then, to prosecute election fraud. Getting them to exercise this discretion is the hurdle to overcome, since the actual case for fraud has been pulled together for them, in the citizen complaints of election fraud. But, the purpose of getting the A’sG to proceed on the citizen complaints; is to alert Congress, time to introduce Articles of Impeachment to conduct the formal investigation into the legal status of the man in the Oval Office given assurances from the D’s, he is Constitutionally eligible for the job. Getting reporters to highlight the issue could result in Articles of Impeachment either directly or, by causing state A’sG to exercise their discretion to proceed with investigations into the citizen complaints already filed with their offices. (Or, reporters could re-investigate and re-constitute the overwhelmingly strong circumstantial cases for election fraud already compiled and posted on my blog...)
No; this is precisely why I have such disdain for his work. Because people actually believe he knows what he is talking about, notwithstanding he suffers defeat after defeat in the legal arena. And whenever I catch him in a legal error he merely changes what he wrote previously, without admitting his mistake. Then, he calls me names, just like you did. (My favorite example of his falsely identifying an error in my work was in conjunction with my proposed strategy for gaining standing in federal court, for those who wanted to bring ‘eligibility’ cases in federal court. He wrongly instructed his readers I was foolishly recommending a federal court action could be sustained using the cause of action “declaratory judgment,” misinforming them, the federal courts could not issue ‘advisory opinions’; when, in fact, the case I proposed was based on the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act which law as its name indicates is intended for use in the federal court.)
But calling the SCOTUS “WUSSY” because he misapplied the cause of action called Mandamus and could not find a court to accept his flawed legal analysis; rates right up there, too.
An informed citizenry is our best defense against tyranny. Temper tantrums and histrionics may entertain the masses but they cannot provide the civic education that will offset the ‘usurpation’ of rights by those with a superior knowledge about how our political process works.
How many times have the stupid Obots here said that thing at "Fight the Smears" is a genuine COLB? I've said more times than I can remember, anyone can lie online without consequences, and that is just what Obama has done by lying from his Donkey butt.
|
>And why exactly do you think there is a need to do so with Obama any other president? Well, it's obvious since you don't trust the Obama’s FactCheck so-called birth certificate, either. As such, the need is obvious. Again, Curiosity ... it's good to see you finally come to your senses, but we can't hold your hand to teach you the importance of a chain-of-evidence, as well as the Framers’ understanding on a subject's Allegiance to the crown. |
They didn't just lie online. Tommy Vietor sent out the original jpg(s) to the St. Petersburg Times in addition to factlack and other Obama-friendly sites. There's an outside chance it was sent to another bona fide reporter or two.
You can add Obama campaign spokesman Ben Labolt to the list who lied to the LA Times in 2008.
Barack Obama's birth certificate revealed here
(UPDATE: Alan Keyes stoked the Obama birth certificate controversy anew in February 2009. See Ticket coverage here.)
-snip-
The Obama campaign has provided at The Ticket's request what it says is a copy of the Illinois senator's official birth certificate, reproduced here, showing he was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961, at 7:24 p.m., which means he was late for dinner, just like a politician.
Ben LaBolt, an Obama campaign spokesman, sent the following reaction to The Ticket:
"I can confirm that that is Sen. Obama's birth certificate."
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/obama-birth.html
Yes, anytime a document is in doubt, contact the press secretary for an official confirmation.
Why do you trust their abilities and objectiveness?
You obviously trust their abilities in identifying a fraudulent document, as well as their integrity — Why?
Hey Red, I hear you. But I have spoken to people I would not call “stupid Obots” - I don’t call names, anyway - who genuinely are unaware that 1) Fact Check is formally Annenberg Political Fact Check, wholly funded by BO’s former employer (at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge); or 2) the D party is just a club, and anything appearing on the club web site is paid advertising. But the reason I liked Mr. Gibbs’ quote so much is this. The best evidence that BO is a fraud comes directly from the word of mouth of his supporters. WH Counsel Bob Bauer tells Judge Robertson to trust his client is for real because APFC says he is, but not because Nancy Pelosi signed those Certifications of Nomination she submitted to state election officials to get them to print his name on the ballot, swearing he is Constitutionally qualified for the job; Kathy Hensley delivers the names of candidates for the ballot to the SC election commission, who refuse to accept the list without eligibility Certification so Ms. Hensley scribbles down, everyone is eligible (including BO); or Boyd Richie swears BO is eligible but refuses citizen requests to produce documents establishing the basis for that Certification, violating TX Open Records law. (All of this conduct is spelled out throughout my blog.)
Asside from his ridiculous "WUSSY" comment that your obessing over, what else about his "work" is he so terrible incorrect about so as to cause you all this trama?
Your document experts are nothing put political hacks working in his Chicago elections office otherwise known as "factcheck." Sure, looking at their "ORIGINAL" looks and aweful like the Nordyke twin's 1961 long form. Matter of fact, they look identical. Although, I'm having a bit of difficulty reading the Dr.'s name that signed the long form. Oh, and the name of the hospital isn't very legible on the MA in English lit's short form there. Apparently "my English" is really bad. Any idea what those items say?
Yet more lies. If anyone thinks that that (alleged) short form certification of live birth is an official "birth certificate", I've got some amazing swampland, er...I mean ocean front property in Malibu for sale for 10 bucks an acre! Get it while the gettin's good!
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.