Posted on 08/05/2008 4:41:40 AM PDT by Neville72
LMAO!
Bubba must be mad as hell, he knows the media isn't going to report this but he dropped the hint anyway. Wonder what he will say in a week or so if no one reports on this.
Is it easy to change original birth certificates? Do you just contact the state's or county's Office of Vital Records to do so? Does it require a court order? Is there a statute of limitations on such changes (e.g., changing a baby's given name after a couple of days of reconsideration), or can this be done at any time, on a whim?
When my ex-wife was adopted at 6, a new BC was issued as if the adoptive parents had “given birth.” The records of her previous connection were completely, and quite legally, expunged. I think it’s probable that there is no “hidden” “real” BC. But who knows what happened in Indonesia...
Correct. And if he knows he is not eligible, he would do anything to conceal this fact.
The problem is that if something isn’t made of this subject now, as long as it has taken to uncover other things that has been scrubbed (such as some of his school records being “eaten by bugs”), he could waltz into office.
Also correct. And the MSM won't even look at this matter until one of Hillary's operatives brings it up at the convention.
I do, however, like "the bugs ate my records" better than "the dog ate my homework". It is more credible.
bumpski! pingski!
Thank you for the important ping and your FR dedication. FRegards ....
Yes, speculation is a luxury - The real issue here is, at the very least, a forged document was presented as a legal one by a candidate for the presidency of the United States of America.
The clause (if you really want to call it that....) does nothing more than authorize Congress to "define and punish ... Offences against" it.
Yet why give the general government that authority unless they were already bound by it?
The law of nature, when applied to states or political societies, receives a new name, that of the law of nations. This law, important in all states, is of peculiar importance in free ones. The States of America are certainly entitled to this dignified appellation.
James Wilson, Of the Law of Nations, Lectures on Law
-----
Further, it's pretty clear that the "Law of Nations" does not refer to any specific body of internationally promulgated law;
True. The Law of Nations is the basis FOR international law.
[From the above link:]
The opinions of many concerning the law of nations have been very vague and unsatisfactory; and if such have been the opinions, we have little reason to be surprised, that the conduct of nations has too often been diametrically opposite to the law, by which it ought to have been regulated.
-----
It is, further, quite clear that the context of the term as used in the clause you cite is much different from any questions of Obama's citizenship.
Congress has no authority to decide who will or will not be a citizen, that is determined by the circumstances of a person's birth. The Law of Nations is the guideline Congress must follow when that birth occurs. The father's citizenship determines the citizenship of the child, and Obama's father was not a US citizen.
Why is the term 'natural-born citizen' so hard for people to understand?
-----
James Wilson argued in 1774 that the American colonies should be free from the rule of British lawmakers in his widely read Considerations on the Nature and Extent of the Legislative Authority of the British Parliament. His writing soon led to involvement in the planning for American independence. He represented Pennsylvania at the Continental Congress from 1775 to 1776, and 1782 to 1783, and signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776.
He later became an associate justice on the US Supreme Court, and, in the same year, was made the first law professor of the University of Pennsylvania.
With all due respect, I'll take Justice James Wilson's opinion over yours.
Thanks for the information. I find it interesting, and troubling, that birth records can be destroyed (and not just sealed by a court).
There is a dissenting opinion about Techdudes conclusion.
#
Joseph Cannon // August 5, 2008 at 6:12 am
My credentials are that I’ve been using Photoshop as an illustrator and graphic artist since it first came out. That was quite few years ago. If TD contacts me, I’ll explain how to contact the guy who ran the ad agency that introduced me to that program, and he’ll also describe some of the things I’ve been paid to do over the years.
That said, I’m always running into people who know things that I don’t. As Churchill once put it, I am always willing to learn, even if I don’t like being taught.
People like Joe are ridiculous. I’ve devoted many hours each day for months to making sure Obama does not get the nomination. Nobody paid me for that. In fact, I’ve lost a lot of money doing this work.
My record is out in the open.
And yet he thinks that I consider Obama my “Messiah,” simply becaue i think he’s wrong on ONE issue. The PUMA folks are becoming almost as paranoid and fanatical as the Kossacks.
I’ll continue to attack Obama on every other front. But this birth certificate stuff? If this thing pans out — great. But I don’t think it will.
Even a technical expert who can pass a voir dire examination in court cannot simply testify “I’m an expert. Take my word for it.” Usually, a jury will want to hear more than that. The expert must explain HOW he came to his conclusions if he wants to persuade his listeners.
Experts have been known to make mistakes, especially when the “want to believe” factor impairs judgment. Elsewhere, I’ve mentioned the case of Bruce Maccabee, a physicist and photo expert employed by the Navy and the NSA. His credentials are superb. But the fact remains that he “verified” UFO photos that were later proven to be fakes. I could also mention famed historian Hugh Trevor-Roper, who authenticated the “Hitler Diaries,” later proven to be a hoax.
You could probably come up with several similar examples.
These controversies are never a matter of battling resumes. They are matters of battling arguments. It comes down to replicable experiment.
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. So is an ad hominem argument.
Look, I’m going to give it one more try. But if I don’t see letters — if all I find are blobs — then I’ll publish blobs on my site.
On the other hand, I’ll always be open to ANYONE who can tell me how to transform those blobs into legibility. That’s fair, isn’t it?
I think Techdude’s behavior has been odd. He writes as though anyone can follow his instructions, yet his instructions are maddeningly unclear. He doesn’t even tell us what program he used! And he simply refuses to show (WITHOUT OVERLAYS) the results, so we can test the legibility for ourselves.
That’s not science.
But then Barry could have gotten the same COLB for himself, even if he was born in Kenya (which I don’t believe he was). The way I read it is Maya could not get a COLB from Hawaii so this expert is full of it.
Great pic there, Phil.
bump! bump! bump! y’all ...
That’s the number one piece of evidence that this is all baloney. The lack of interest from serious news outlets with conservative/Republican leanings is another. When littlegreenfootballs and FR broke the Memogate story, the major media outlets all jumped on board immediately, even though many were generally anti-Bush, anti-Republican. There was real evidence, and no major media outlet wanted to get caught failing to get in early on what would obviously become a huge story. They’re ignoring this one because there’s no evidence that it’s anything but a kooky conspiracy theory being circulated by kooky right wing ideologues. Believing all these wild tales of Obama’s
“fake” birth certificate is akin to believing the CBS memo was real.
Again, you have to consider that "the law of nations" is more a philosophical position -- a generally accepted sense, shareed among nations, of what is right and wrong. But as the FindLaw discussion points out, the practical aspects of that position were not precise. Probably the best (relatively) recent example would be the Nuremburg trials following WWII. It was quite clear that real crimes had been committed by the Nazis, althoug there was no established body of international law that actually codified those crimes. In that case, the general sense of "criminal activity" would have been justified by the "law of nations."
Congress has no authority to decide who will or will not be a citizen, that is determined by the circumstances of a person's birth.
That's a false assertion. In the present context, Congress passed the law governing the definition of a U.S. citizen, as codified at USC 8.1401.
Amen.
ML/NJ
Does the name John Edwards mean anything to you?
ML/NJ
Edwards is a pathetic has-been. He currently holds no public office, is not a candidate for any office, and is obviously not on the possible VP list. Why should the media or anyone else pay any attention to him? A lot of people would just like to leave his dying wife alone, to spend whatever time she has left with her two young children. And the poor children will be left with John as their only parent when Elizabeth dies. What purpose would be served by a tabloidy media circus pointing out the obvious about John’s extracurricular activities?
Does the name Newt Gingrich mean anything to you?
ML/NJ
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.