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
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.
It's been an ongoing effort since before Nov of 2008, and no one has been able to 'disqualify' him yet.
This is just like the Death penalty. People keep saying we should get rid of it because it costs so much to use it. The only reason it costs so much is because opponents have forced the costs up so high by pushing for ridiculous appeals processes that have no real bearing on guilt or innocence, but are often based on legal technicalities.
This should be a no brainer. Obama has been hiding behind Hawaii's privacy laws since this began. Privacy laws should not be allowed to hinder a Constitutional requirement, but in the upside down illogical world of the legal system, apparently a state law trumps constitutional law.
Hawaii has yet to produce anything that would stand up to scrutiny in a court of law. Apparently it's too much to ask for an actual document in our legal system of today, At least for this guy. For anyone else, courts would have demanded it I think.
Besides, its way too late to do anything about it except vote him out of officeSpot on!
And to add my two-cents worth:
That is the crux of the issue. It matters not one iota if obama is a NBC type "citizen" or not.
Why? Because whether you believe obama is qualified or not, there should never be *any* doubt as to the qualifications of presidential candidates when this particular requirement is laughably easy to prove. Given the reasonable doubts that exist in obama's case, it should warrant a thorough forensic investigation (FBI? Secret Service?) to determine the truth as best as it can be determined. That has not happened. Also, there exists no one at the local, county, state or federal level (in a position of appropriate authority) who has expressed any interest in actually pursuing this forensically, rather than simply taking the DNC's word for it.
And to reinforce your point, if there was someone in a position who actually *could* do something about it -and- started *right now*, it would likely be dragged out until after the election for anything to happen.
So let's just vote the goober out of office and be done with him.
That you can see. It is my argument that one of the biggest problems this nation faces is the fact that the Media and Entertainment industries are completely in the hands of Liberal Left-Wing Union Democrats from New York and Los Angeles, and that nothing gets through to the public without going through their filter of what they will allow.
Media bias is killing the nation. If it can be demonstrated that the media did not do their job or worse, lied, in vetting this candidate, then it will further damage the credibility of our Liberal News sources.
I count that as a serious plus.
The current liberal media need to be destroyed, and demonstrating that they are a pack of liberal liars and partisans is useful in accomplishing this.
Hawaii has weird birth certificate laws, and they are easily exploitable for this sort of corruption.
James Monroe, July 4, 1795.
A Mr Eldred was lately apprehended at Marseilles and sent here under guard upon a charge of having given intelligence to the British of some movement in the French fleet. Upon inquiry I found he had my passport granted too upon the most substantial documents proving him to be an American citizen; but I likewise found that in truth he was not an American citizen, for although born in America yet he was not there in the course of our revolution but in England, nor had he been there since. From what I hear of him, he is not a person of mischevious disposition nor one who would be apt to commit the offence charged upon him, but yet I do not see how I can officially interfere in his behalf, for when once a principle is departed from, it ceases to be a principle.
Not likely, but being misinterpreted in her answer to a leading and confusing question? Yup.
Obama was not born in Kenya. Neither Barack Sr, nor Stanley Ann could afford to travel to Kenya and back. Barack Sr. had to work as a pineapple picker during the summer just to feed himself. Nobody flew them to Kenya. Barry just made that sh*t up because he was either wishfully thinking, or because he thought it helped his career. The evidence doesn't point to Kenya at all.
Do you really want to see the proof? It's quite extensive, and you may not want to wade through it.
Prior to 1922, Women's citizenship was automatically the same as her husband upon marriage. It wasn't until the passage of the "Cable Act" and subsequently the "Women's citizenship act of 1934" that women could pass on citizenship themselves.
If women could not pass on citizenship prior to 1922, how could the citizenship of the child be derived from any but the father? Note my tagline. "Partus Sequitur Patrem."
This is a legal principle that citizenship derives from the father. It is so old that even the Latin word for Country ("Patria") means "Land of my Father." (Latin word for father is "Pater." ) "Patriot" is derived from the Latin word for "father."
More later, if you are actually interested.
Sorry once again.
You are the one who doesn’t understand the problem.
See post 63 for additional help.
look it up in the Constitution. it is a good read. \\
So he was born in Seattle according to you, or do you suppose his mom DROVE HIM from Kenya to Seattle?
Do people have a natural right to bear arms or is that just man made law?
Didn't say he was born in Seattle. Don't know where he was born. Might have been Hawaii, but there is a good bit of circumstantial evidence to indicate it was in Canada. It is very unlikely that he was born in Kenya though. You should actually try to understand what I write.
Do people have a natural right to bear arms or is that just man made law?
People have a natural right to defend themselves. Indeed, even unarmed people will try to stop a knife attack with their arms. It is an instinctive and inherent characteristic of people to try and protect themselves from those who would do them harm, so I would have to say Yes, people have a natural right to bear arms, which is a subset of their natural right to defend themselves.
You've asked me this before. Why do you find it relevant to the argument regarding who is a "natural" citizen.
Ryan announces that while he’s not a Birther, they bring up some good points, and the Pubbies lose 5 million votes immediately. Only a fanatic would demand Romney and Ryan say one word about it except to say they believe Obama is a full American citizen. Saying anything else would be suicidal.
It is relevant to your false dichotomy that something is either natural law or man made law. The laws of a free Republic should ALWAYS reflect our best understanding of natural law.
Kenya, Canada? Any port in the storm of your irrelevance I guess. Maybe if you concoct more conspiracy theories about who his REAL father actually is FINALLY you birthers will be taken seriously!
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.
My 4th great grandfather Stephen and his father and generations before them were born in the US...
But those 2 men were Loyalists ...
In 1784 Stephen married in Montreal a woman who had been born in the US and was the descendant of generations of “US citizens”
But her parents and grandparents were Loyalists..
They settled in Ontario (Upper Canada) and had children...
Was their son William my 3rd great grandfather born in Ontario, Canada, an American or a Canadian ???
Eventhough his parents and grandparents were all born in the US ...
William married a woman who was born in America in 1815 of again generations of Americans (this time Rebel/Patriot ancestors)
They children were all born in Canada...
Was their son Guy my 2nd great grandfather an American or a Canadian ???
See how complicated it gets if ya let it ??
Could William or Guy have been president of the US ???
Eventhough William fought for the British in the War of 1812 ???
I forgot that, but now that you mention it. I really got a charge out of CA Rep McClintock saying that is how he knew Ozero was born in HI by the little ads in the newspapers when he was born. I was rolling on the floor over that since that was the ruse all the foreigners used to get HI Birth certs.
If/when asked, I would think that the best answer for Ryan and Romney would be “Isn’t that YOUR job as the media to find out? Right now we’re a little busy with an election to prepare for.”
My copies of the Constitution are explicit as to eligibility for POTUSA in Article 2 Section 5 as ‘No person except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;......’. Notice the word ‘or’ which was applicable only to persons at the time of adoption of the Constitution. It is clear to me by this wording that the Founders were very discriminating between a ‘natural born citizen’ and an ordinary ‘citizen’. To further separate their two categories the Founders only required Congress persons to be simply ‘citizens’. No person or court can change the words in my copies of the Constitution.
I am not a 100% Ryan or any other politician’s water boy as to what is fact and/or truth. I have lived in the USA through the great depression and WWII and have my own opinion as to how the world spins. My current spinning for Romney and Ryan could come to a stop if I gather they can not accept the logic/reasoning of sincere people as to blowholes in Obama’s history.
And under the Constitution there were three types of US citizen, those at the time of the adoption, those who were natural born, and those who are naturalized. Of the three only naturalized citizens are ineligible. There is no other category of US citizen. Currently one is either born a citizen or one must be naturalized as a citizen.
The Supreme Court recognized two classes of citizens who are not naturalized but who may be citizens by birth. One class were those children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. The other class, the court said, is recognized by “some authorities” as citizens by being born in the country without reference to the citizenship of the parents. The first class were citizens with no doubts, while the second class have doubts about their citizenship that would need to be resolved. Only ONE of these two classes was characterized as natural-born citizens: those born to citizen parents. They said this in rejecting an argument based on a woman claiming her citizenship via the 14th amendment. By rejecting that argument, the court exclusively charactered those born to citizen parents as natural-born citizens. There would have been no doubts she satisfied the lesser requirements of the 14th amendment because she was obviously born in the U.S., but the court categorically said her citizenship (and by context, ALL persons born in the country to citizen parents) was NOT conferred through the 14th amendment. That exclusion makes the NBC definition exclusive and materially distinct from 14th amendment citizenship by birth. They used this definition to specifically satisfy the meaning of the term natural-born citizen in Article II in the Constitution, which is why 40 years later, the SCOTUS cited this decision specifically as precedent on presidential eligibility.
That is obviously your opinion of what it meant. The prevailing legal opinion is that of US citizens, only naturalized citizens are not natural born. The Constitution clearly only envisions three types of US citizen.
I think we are getting close with you admitting to three types of citizens. What needs to be clear is my belief that there is an intentional difference between a ‘US citizen’ and a ‘natural born citizen’ as explicitly given the Constitution in/for one specific case.
There are three and only three and there has only ever been three and thatbhas been my argument for YEARS. One category are all now deceased. The remaining two are naturalized and natural born. Any US citizen who was not naturalized, but who became a citizen via the natural act of being born is a natural born citizen.
Currently there are two and only two ways of attaining US citizenship, being born a citizen or being naturalized as a citizen.
"The words "shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922", as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired."Notice the part that is underlined ... it's talking about restoring the citizenship status of "whichever" status existed prior ... thus this language establishes a clear operational and statutory distinction between "native-born" or "natural-born." Here's a link:
As I stated before we are, I think, getting closer. I don’t believe the history of the Constitution or the Constitution words support same exact meaning to being ‘born a citizen’ and being a ‘natural born citizen’. My interest in this started in the 2nd grade in the 1920s. It took a few years of looking at the Constitution to convince me that my childhood thoughts of becoming POTUSA were not realizable because I was born of immigrant, not yet naturalized parents.
I think you better have the cold water of reality thrown in you face. Listen closely: NOBODY !!! in the Romney camp is going to bring this subject up. NOBODY!!!! So get off it. And get a life.
Why don’t you run for president and find out? I guarantee you nobody will stop you or inquire about your parents. Because nobody but a very small contingent of the population called Birthers cares.
How dare you bring rational thoughts to an emotional discussion. Let Donald Trump be the leader of the birthers. Obama can be beat without this distraction.
Where is native born mentioned in the Constitution?
If I understand your argument correctly, you think there are only two types of citizens: naturalized and natural-born.
US government (INS) published the following document: http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html
This document makes a distinction between a native-born and a natural-born citizen (in three places):
1) “The repatriation provisions of these two most recent enactments also apply to a native- and natural-born citizen woman who expatriated herself by marriage to an alien racially ineligible to citizenship, a category of expatriate not covered by the earlier 1936 legislation...”
2) “The words “shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922”, as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired....”
3) “The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status if naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen, as determined by her status prior to loss. “
And where is native born mentioned in the Constitution?
In 1795 the Naturalization Act from 1790 was changed and children born abroad to US citizen parents were considered as citizens (at birth). It is obvious that early legislators made distinction between the phrases: “citizen at birth” vs. “natural-born citizen”.
Why would they change the language of the law if two phrases had the same meaning?
Ask Obama campaign - they claimed Obama was a native-born citizen.
US government makes a distinction between a naturalized, native-born and a natural-born citizen.
How about you - do you think that there is a difference between a native-born and a natural-born citizen?
Reflecting on what has happened as to Obama you could be right. As for me running for POTUSA, as a child the thought occurred but was cancelled when I learned more about the Constitution. The change of heart didn’t bother me much. At least I was able to serve the Nation in the Pacific during WWII. My only and older brother who was in the same birth eligibility situation is buried in the Punch Bowl. Just mentioning these facts to show that there are many of us so called ‘birthers’ who have an abiding belief and trust in the Constitution as intended by the Founders.
Don’t you think inventing a category of citizenship not mentioned in the Constitution would be Judicial activism?
Equivalent language is used all the time. And someone born abroad with 2 US citizen parents IS considered a NBC - see John McCain.
Please feel free to coment on my post #93.
Why does US government consider native-born and natural-born citizens as different categories?
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.