Skip to comments.Paul Ryan Has News For The Birthers: He’s Not One Of Them
Posted on 10/06/2012 12:09:40 PM PDT by Kleon
click here to read article
So know I’m a foreigner? Because I made the observation that folks would whine? LOL
No you’re homophones, Rudie.
I’m sure a lot of information will come out later. The goal right now is to win the election.
This quote is irrelevant to presidential eligibility. The same decision already acknowledged that the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. The same decision limits the operation of the 14th amendment to the children of resident aliens who have permanent residence and domicil in the U.S. The same decision specifies Minor v. Happersett defined NBC as birth in the country to citizen parents.
I didn’t say anything about so-called “birtherism” ... whatever that is supposed to be. Ryan and Romney have legal standing. Obama is not eligible. This would be very simple if they simply follow Supreme Court precedent.
Its the fathers foreign birth thingy...
Hes been told to worry about the challenge by Obama to the foreign birth of Willards dad, George Romney...
Romney should release his college transcripts the day before their next debate. :)
I agree. We can’t prove anything - so might as well accept the fact that he was born in Hawaii. Even if he wasn’t. This is a side issue - there are bigger fish to fry. Besides, its way too late to do anything about it except vote him out of office.
A document Produced by Barack Obama and Co. Not an official governmental agency. For some reason, the Official governmental agency won’t produce a document. Not even for official business. Funny that.
Yes there is. The fact that Stanley Ann showed up in Seattle in late August. It has been pointed out that no Airline would have allowed the baby to fly so soon after it was born. That pretty much proves Obama could not have been born in Hawaii on August 4, 1960.
The prevailing legal opinion is that a US citizen is either born or naturalized.
The prevailing opinion used to be that the world was flat. Citing as proof the fact that a lot of people believe something is known as the fallacy of "argumentum ad populum." I have little doubt that the prevailing legal opinion is that birth within our boundaries makes one a "natural born citizen", but I also have little doubt that this opinion is simply wrong, and is based on a faulty interpretation of the Wong Kim Ark decision, the 14th amendment, and the Original Common law.
One has to do actual research to realize that the founders didn't accept this blanket definition. There were many thousands of British Loyalists who were born after July 4, 1776 that were not considered American citizens by either the founders or the British. THOUSANDS. Their very existence refutes the stupid theory.
Apparently we need a law exempting all Presidential candidates from any privacy laws relating to their eligibility. A Sane person would have assumed that this legal condition was already implicit in our laws based on the need to conform to constitutional law, but apparently a petty little rump state privacy law has more power than Article II in our brilliant legal minds of today.
No one wants to hear about your stupid "categories". Obviously citizens can be in plenty of different catagories, such as young or old, Male or Female, Black or White, Democrat or Republican.
Some citizens are "natural" and others are citizens as a result of man made laws, such as Barack Obama.
“The Constitution describes only three types of US citizen. Currently one is either natural born or naturalized. There is no fourth category.”
It doesn’t appear that you can count. Why should we believe that you can understand the Constitution?
The quote is relevant because it shows that the 14th & NBC ARE THE SAME citizenship.
But then, there is a reason why birthers lose every time they go to court. And here is the reason: They’re WRONG.
Natural born citizenship is the American phrasing of Natural Born Subject, as the WKA decision goes on to discuss at length. I realize you are incapable of understanding sentences, paragraphs, and, heaven forbid, pages. For those who are not, here is the WKA decision:
Don’t hold your breath.
There is, however, a first hand account of his birth - in Mombasa, Kenya, by his paternal grandmother.
Would a grannie lie?
Well, you can believe what you want. But there is no requirement that a candidate's father be a "natural citizen [whatever that is.]" Please prove me wrong -- other FReepers' posts will not, however, count as proof.
We have two forms of proof that Stanely Ann was in Seattle in august of 1961. (School registration records, and Testimony of her Friend Susan Blake, saying so.)
This is circumstantial evidence that Stanley was in North America, not in Hawaii, before the baby was born. Stanley Ann had TWO relatives living in North America. Ralph Dunham (her dad's brother, living in North West Washington State) and Eleanor Birkebeile-Dunham, Dad's half sister, living in Canada, and having recently lost her own two infant boys. )
Which is more probable? That a girl with an embarrassing pregnancy is sent off to live with a Relative till the child is born, or that a girl immediately leaves her support structure in Hawaii, and flies thousands of miles with a newborn just to go to school? (With all the expenses that entailed.) How would Stanley have paid for any of this?
I will point out that Barack Sr.'s INS records claim it was their intent to give the baby up for adoption. I suspect it was difficult to get an interracial baby adopted in 1961, and Stanley was left with no choice but to keep him.
I don't know what is the truth for sure, but one scenario makes far more sense than the "Official" version of what happened, but it ends up with Barry very likely being born in Canada, so it's a death sentence to his eligibility.