Posted on 11/14/2012 8:14:02 AM PST by DiogenesLamp
They've made various statements regarding this, and all of them had weasel words incorporated into them. They said they had some sort of a record in their files, but they leave off the fact that Hawaii has some really peculiar birth certificate laws that actually allows someone to get a Hawaiian birth certificate even if they weren't born there.
Here is a man who claims to have been born in Brisbane Australia, but also claims to have a Hawaiian birth certificate. There is evidence that Hawaii has long been running a birth certificate ring for citizens of Pacific Rim nations that want American citizenship. The Cold Case Posse claims to have many examples of people born elsewhere having Hawaiian birth certificates. Hawaii's authentications are far less credulous than are those of any other state.
But all of this is beside the point. We have yet to see anything which has been officially certified by Hawaii as his birth certificate. The one from the White House web site does not follow a proper chain of custody and so therefore ought not be regarded as credible unless and until Hawaii releases a certified copy or specifically authenticates the one he is exhibiting.
The legal grounds that are inadequate are printed right on the COLB: "this copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding."
It may serve that purpose legally, but it does not serve that purpose factually. We are talking about the truth here, not about Legal/Court procedure. As I have pointed out many times, I have two birth certificates. One of them is the truth, and the other one is legal.
If the stakes are the Presidency, State officials should be concerned with getting to what is the actual truth, not what the ritual kabuki dance of legal process says.
He wasn't president when they were born. He was probably a nobody.
My thoughts, too. Pray, Pray, Pray...Jesus is still on the throne. He is the Ruler of ALL the nations. The government is upon His shoulders. The Father WILL continue to bless HIS children.
The point of this entire thread is that he MIGHT have been defeated without having to rely on the now discredited theory that the ballot box would save us. (I always thought that he might pull this out by hook and crook.)
If Obama has a real, bonified, certified, and official Hawaiian birth certificate, then presenting it to the State election officials would have changed nothing. (Worst case.) If on the other hand, there is something wrong with his original birth document (My favorite theory is that it might be a born at home affidavit) then HOLD THE PHONE! That changes everything. His credibility would not survive the scrutiny if it turned out not to be absolutely unassailable. (best case.)
Obama's ongoing reluctance to submit a copy to any court of law, (in his defense in George, or even to prevent a guy from going to prison) leaves me thinking that he is bluffing and we should have long past demanded to see his cards.
So on the one hand, Ho hum, no big deal, and on the other hand we NAIL HIM TO THE WALL, repeal everything he has done, and possibly send a bunch of his cronies to prison and you think this was a bad strategy to try?
What, the risk/reward not great enough for ya?
A desire to know the truth is the only possession no one can take away from a person, and IMHO it is the greatest treasure on earth.
The definition of “natural born Citizen” is relatively easy.
It means you do not rely on any man made law for your citizenship - period. This is because your citizen is ‘natural’ and ‘from birth’ (born). Notice the phrase ‘FROM birth’. To be a natural born citizen you must ALWAYS have been a citizen.
So many talking head have screwed this definition up that is sickening. Bret Barret for Fox was the worst. Citing that citizen of Pueto Rico were natural born citizens. No. They are clearly not. They are born as naturalized citizens. The law says so. And they are naturalized AT BIRTH.
obumpa
Because his FATHER naturalized a year AFTER James was born.
You have no historical source which says any such thing.
This is typical birtherism. Decide first what spin you want to give to history. Then, claim that that's the way it is, in spite of the fact that you have no evidence to support what you say.
Let's look at what we DO have, shall we?
We have a letter from the Madison administration, signed by James Monroe.
The letter says what it says. It doesn't say what you claim it says. It says what it ACTUALLY says.
And this is what it says:
I quote, in fact, from a posting of the text here at FR, back in September.
Like almost everything birther, it's been gone over before. And, of course, denied by birthers. Why? Because facts don't matter to a birther.
Here it is:
"Sir
I have the honor to enclose several affidavits and certificates just handed to me by Mr. Cheves the Representative in Congress from the City of Charleston proving that James McClure now detained in France as a British Prisoner of War was born in Charleston since the Revolution. To these Papers is annexed a Certificate of W[illiam] Johnson Esq. one of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States before whom the affidavits were taken stating “that agreeable to the laws and usage of the United States, the said affidavits and Certificates are sufficient to establish the fact that James M McClure above named is a Citizen of the United States.” As such he must be considered by this Government. You will therefore interpose your good offices in his behalf and obtain his release from confinement as soon as possible.
I have [the honor] James Monroe"
You're not at liberty to simply claim the affidavits said a particular thing without producing REAL EVIDENCE that that's what they said.
But we know what the precise purpose of those affidavits was (and hence have a very good indication of what the CONTENTS of those affidavits was) because Monroe tells us:
"I have the honor to enclose several affidavits and certificates just handed to me by Mr. Cheves the Representative in Congress from the City of Charleston proving that..."
Proving that... what? Proving that James McClure's father was an American citizen?
NO.
"...proving that James McClure now detained in France as a British Prisoner of War was born in Charleston since the Revolution.
That's it. That's what the attached affidavits proved.
They proved that JAMES MCCLURE WAS BORN IN CHARLESTON SINCE THE REVOLUTION.
Was such fact, without any consideration as to the citizenship of McClure's father, sufficient to make him a United States citizen? Monroe tells us:
"To these Papers is annexed a Certificate of W[illiam] Johnson Esq. one of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States before whom the affidavits were taken stating “that agreeable to the laws and usage of the United States, the said affidavits and Certificates are sufficient to establish the fact that James M McClure above named is a Citizen of the United States."
So Madison's government consulted with the United States Supreme Court, and got a letter from Supreme Court Justice Johnson which said that the affidavits and certificates THAT PROVED THAT MCCLURE WAS BORN IN CHARLESTON SINCE THE REVOLUTION were SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE FACT THAT MCCLURE WAS A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES.
If you disagree, then produce your DOCUMENTATION that says, in direct contradiction to the letter from the US government, that the US government considered the citizenship of McClure's father to be a deciding factor. Or, if you can't do that, then apologize for making a false claim.
But you can't do the first, and you won't do the second.
Why? Because THE FACTS DON'T MATTER TO BIRTHERS LIKE YOURSELF. It doesn't matter what the facts are. You will still claim that your false claims are true.
If I wanted to waste my time on it, we could undoubtedly go on with example after example of this. But taking just the first example that comes up, and showing what BS it is, is good enough for purposes of illustration.
Until then you are BO's best friends, as you foul all efforts against him with your rantings.
You’re misunderstanding the part about saying being born since the Revolution. Those children whose parents adhered to U.S. loyalty were recognized as U.S. citizens and those who adhered to British loyalty were recognized as British subjects. Had McClure been born before the Revolution, then it wouldn’t have mattered because there were different rules in effect prior. You also seem to be missing the part of what you quoted that says “agreeable to the laws and usage of the United States” ... IOW, U.S. law has to be considered and not English common law which most Obots think is what makes birth on U.S. soil sufficient to be a natural born citizen. The SCOTUS said it’s not ... and several times over.
It’s quite clear.
James McClure was born on US soil SINCE the Revolution.
Such fact, without any regard at all as to the citizenship of his parents, made him a US citizen.
In fact, it made him a natural born US citizen.
You’re right that there was a different rule shortly before the Revolution. If a person was born in the United States shortly before the Revolution, and his parents carried him back to Britain, they had chosen British citizenship for themselves and for their children. If that child didn’t act promptly to return to the United States upon reaching adulthood, he was deemed to have accepted that adoption of British citizenship. But he had a right to return to the United States and take up American citizenship (if he made that choice promptly) because he was born here.
Right. It's not being disputed. It's whether he's a citizen or not. That's why the quote talks about applicable laws. He was only a natural-born citizen if his father was a citizen when he was born in the country.
Why did Obama post a fake birth certificate on White House web site? How do you explain that one, genius?
In fact, watch very carefully the consequences of bringing up the James McClure case.
JAMES MCCLURE WAS BORN IN SOUTH CAROLINA ON THE 21ST OF APRIL, 1785, TO A BRITISH FATHER.
At that time, the United States had separated from England and declared a new country.
THEREFORE, IF THE BIRTHER CLAIM IS CORRECT, HE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN BORN A UNITED STATES CITIZEN.
If (and I say IF) the birther claim is correct, then MCCLURE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE BECOME A NATURALIZED US CITIZEN IN FEBRUARY 1786, WHEN HIS FATHER NATURALIZED.
Right?
And if he was NOT born a US citizen, THEN ANY USE OF HIS BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES to establish his citizenship IS COMPLETELY, ABSOLUTELY WRONG AND ABSURD.
And yet... what does James Monroe say in his letter? What REASON does Monroe give that McClure is a United States citizen?
IT IS THAT HE WAS BORN IN SOUTH CAROLINA.
This is IMPOSSIBLE as evidence... IF the birther claim is correct.
The only possible logical conclusion, then, is:
THE BIRTHER CLAIM IS NOT CORRECT.
And that conclusion has on it the stamp of approval of not one but TWO of our most important Founding Fathers and early Presidents: James Madison and James Monroe.
Therefore, the case of James McClure is NOT evidence FOR the birther claim that it takes citizen parents to make a natural born citizen.
It is direct evidence AGAINST the claim, because it clearly establishes THAT BIRTH, BY ITSELF, WITHOUT THE PERSON HAVING HAD A US CITIZEN PARENT, IS ENOUGH TO MAKE THAT PERSON A UNITED STATES CITIZEN.
Ah yes. The inevitable "But what about X?" And then you answer X (even though it's been covered many times before), and birthers say, "But what about Y?" "But what about Z?" But what about "AZQ?"
I've already mentioned that I'm not going to waste my time here going over things that have already been gone over many times before. I'm not playing that sucker's game.
There's plenty of info on that and every other birther argument. Go and look it up.
Again, think through this. If this were not the case, then Monroe and Madison could NOT have used McClure's birth in the United States as evidence for his US citizenship... because he would have been BORN a British citizen, and not a US citizen at all.
If birth alone were not sufficient to give McClure US citizenship, then he would have been a British baby living in the United States for the first 10 months of his life, and his birth here would have been irrelevant. It would not have been the thing mentioned in the letter. The letter instead would have said, "The accompanying affidavits establish that his father naturalized as a United States citizen while James was an infant here, and THAT fact makes him a US citizen."
But that's not what the letter said.
The letter said: The accompanying affidavits prove that James was BORN IN SOUTH CAROLINA AFTER THE REVOLUTION.
And furthermore, we have a letter from our Supreme Court that officially establishes that THAT FACT makes James McClure a US citizen.
Orly Taitz understood everything clearly and continues to bring the truth to light. She deserves our full support in using the court system to get out the truth.
Here we have a letter written by someone using a pseudonym (and it could have been anybody in the country) who gave an opinion that McClure was not a citizen.
The Madison administration responded to the situation by declaring McClure a citizen. So we know the position of the US government. And this is the ONLY statement of the US government in the matter.
Birthers claim that James McClure's US citizenship depended on his father being a US citizen.
But at the time McClure was born, his father was not a US citizen at all.
According to the birther theory, McClure would have been born a British baby on US soil. If that were true, then the US government could not and would not have named his place of birth as evidence for his US citizenship.
And yet not only did they name his place of birth as being what gave him US citizenship, it's the ONLY thing they named.
So the McClure case is not evidence FOR birtherism, it's evidence AGAINST birtherism.
See discussion in this thread, including posts 228, 230, 231, 232, 234, and 236.
The probable Birthist comeback would be that McClure was that magical category they have invented: a citizen who is neither naturalized nor natural-born.
They hold strictly that someone born on US soil may be a citizen, but cannot be a natural-born citizen unless their parents were also born on US soil.
The fact that this third category of being neither naturalized nor natural is unknown in law is meaningless to them.
Doesn’t matter anymore.
We know who he is, son of FMD.
We know every document in his life is trash. He probably had a Kenya BC created for him by his dad. Again, every document is trash.
We now have exceeded critical mass. We have millions of illegal immigrants voting for him, and our society, 51 percent, are now communist believers on the dole.
So it doesn’t matter. We have a Communist country now. Constitution is now meaningless. The law is men and what they say it is. Ask John Roberts.
We are going to watch it go broke. This is why people are collecting gold and bullets.
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.