Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Chasm dividing Americans over birth certificate widens
WND ^ | November 28, 2008

Posted on 11/28/2008 9:00:33 PM PST by ckilmer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-284 last
To: Aurorales

You said — “I now know what your issue is in this mess. It has nothing to do with fighting for our Constitution. You actually don’t believe BO is ineligible and don’t want anyone to find out.”

You *think* you know what my issue is in the mess..., but apparently you don’t. I’ll state it clearly, as I have posted many times in the past and before the elections, too.

It’s very clear that John McCain was able to produce a birth certificate when he was questioned about the issue. And likewise, Obama should do the same thing. He has refused.

I’ve also posted that when Obama spends hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawyers and court costs to prevent anyone from seeing his birth certificate, which is only about a $10 document — that this tells you that there is something seriously wrong in that document that he doesn’t want the public to see.

And I’ve also posted that it’s the courts that need to come down with a decision on this matter as nothing else will really effect any results (not petitions or hollaring about it or whatever). It’s going to take a court decision. I don’t know if there is really going to be a court decision over the matter, though (compelling him to show it...).

And finally, I’ve also said that Obama’s refusal to show the birth certificate will result in “lawsuits without end” as every piece of legislation is challenged by someone whom it affects, because they can claim that Obama doesn’t have the legal authority to sign such legislation or that there isn’t a President in office with the authority to veto legislation either, so there isn’t a “balance of powers” in place like the Constitution requires.

Now, that’s what I think... LOL...

And then you said — “I can find no other reason for your complete disregard for our Nation and our laws.”

Well, that might be a valid statement from you if I did have “complete disregard for our Nation and our laws” — but since that’s not my position, it’s an invalid statement...


251 posted on 11/29/2008 6:59:33 AM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: Aurorales
Good comment.

Barack Hussein Obama is hiding something. If a person wants a job that has citizenship requirement, then it makes only sense is for that person to produce the proof. Otherwise anyone can lie about it.

252 posted on 11/29/2008 7:06:52 AM PST by apocalypto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: bricklayer
"When all is won, why do I picture blackbart standing in front of the line saying...”I KNEW we could do it!” You know how folks like to jump on the bandwagon of a winning team, like they've been there all along. Kinda' like I expect the libs to give credit to themselves and Obama for the victory in Iraq. By the way, I like that you write "When all is won...". Positive attitudes such as yours is what helps keep this old vet fighting!
253 posted on 11/29/2008 8:27:39 AM PST by USAF70 (I'm a bitter clinger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
I was definitely being a bit snarky with you in my first statement, but I meant no harm. I've been charged up about some of the more negative posts on this thread tonight. Sorry about that.

Thank you. I accept your apology. :)

254 posted on 11/29/2008 9:18:05 AM PST by 1_Rain_Drop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
"And as I see it, the judgement of God is coming upon this nation, regardless of what you think or try to do. Remember, the founding fathers said that they couldn’t found this nation absent the help of Almighty God — and likewise — you’re not going to stop the judgement of God, upon this nation, no matter how good your intentions are, if the majority are against you and the judgement of God comes because of that."

I have to search the Bible because I don't recall the details**. The gist is, God was going to destroy the earth again but because one man prayed/interceded, God didn't do it. I think He only destroyed the city.

God did it once, He can do it again. It is up to us to pray and ask and listen to Him.

We know that history repeats itself. We have Germany. Let's learn from their mistakes and work on changing the obvious outcome. At least half of America is not blind.

**Maybe it was the pillar of salt story.

255 posted on 11/29/2008 9:43:02 AM PST by 1_Rain_Drop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: 1_Rain_Drop

You said — “I have to search the Bible because I don’t recall the details**. The gist is, God was going to destroy the earth again but because one man prayed/interceded, God didn’t do it. I think He only destroyed the city.”

I’m not sure which one you’re talking about, but this reminds me of Abraham talking to the Lord when the Lord told him that he was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (in Genesis 18).

Abraham pleaded for the Lord not to destroy the righteous along with the unrighteous. Abraham pleaded to not destroy it if there were 50 righteous there. The Lord agreed. Then Abraham said if there are 45, then again 40, then again 30, then again 20, then again 10 righteous. The Lord agreed to it all.

However, when it came to the time for destroying these towns, all that happened was that the angels (sent from the Lord) simply removed the righteous from the city, so the rest could be destroyed. Only four righteous were removed (Lot, his wife and his two daughters). And furthermore, the angel said that until Lot and the others were removed, he could not destroy the towns. In fact the town of Zoar was spared from destruction, because Lot hid out there (asking the angel if he could do that). Lot was told that the town would be spared on his account.

That’s as close as I can come to something...


256 posted on 11/29/2008 9:55:31 AM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: TheThinker
If a child’s parent’s foreign citizenship, under the laws of that nation, descends to the child at birth, what effect, if any, does that have on the child’s “natural born citizen” status?

(my words)Here again, I would argue nothing, if born on U.S. soil.

Perhaps I am discounting the descent question too much. One parent would have to be American and at least 18 to confer citizenship to a child, in my mind, along with being born on American soil. So when foreign citizenship comes into question, I suppose that the number of years the child spent in a foreign country would be most important in determining which nationality is determinant.

257 posted on 11/29/2008 9:58:05 AM PST by TheThinker (It is the natural tendency of government to gravitate towards tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: TheThinker

There are arguments that make sense, but there are also many laws involved that would have to inform the Supreme Court’s ruling if it took this case.

There are many, many laws and precedents on *citizenship.* However, very little of it, as far as I can see, in any way contemplates how that analysis goes to *eligibility to serve as President.* IOW, it’s simply not clear that a case that talks about whether a person is a citizen at birth automatically encompasses the status of “natural born citizen” as well.

If “natural born citizen” is determined SOLELY by birthplace, then John McCain is not a “natural born citizen.”

If “natural born citizen” is determined, either in whole or in part, by citizenship by descent (the citizenship of one or both parents passes to the child at birth), then John McCain is a natural born citizen.

If citizenship by descent is *necessary,* in whole or in part, to being a “natural born citizen,” then, regardless of birthplace, Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen” would then depend on whether laws at the time provided for citizenship by descent from his mother (a U.S. citizen), his father (a non-U.S. citizen, assuming his father is BHO I), or whether the law required that a “natural born citizen” receiving U.S. citizenship by descent from *both* parents.

None of this, as far as I can tell, and I am no particular scholar in this area of the law, is settled, nor has the Supreme Court had the opportunity to settle it in the context of an actual fact pattern-—where not only is there (arguably) a legal cognizable controversy raised by the facts, but the candidate about whom there is such controversy actually won the election and, therefore, the constitutional harm of seating an ineligible President is actually imminent.

My point is: yes, there are lines of reasoning that make sense, but there is also a lot of more or less relevant law and caselaw to account for. Including, perhaps, foreign law, as it may be relevant what citizenship Obama’s father had and how it may be renounced, if, e.g., that were necessary.


258 posted on 11/29/2008 10:45:12 AM PST by fightinJAG (TWO BIG BUSH TAX CUTS EXPIRE AT THE END OF 2008. Happy New Year, love, President Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
Yes, that's the one. Also they were told not to look back. Lot's wife did and she turned into a pillar of salt.

The reason I find this story important is because it shows that prayer can change the outcome even if it is predestined.

I'm standing on God's Word and the Constitution. That's all. That's all I have.

259 posted on 11/29/2008 10:50:56 AM PST by 1_Rain_Drop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: TheThinker

I don’t think there’s any doubt that all Americans are harmed if the constitutional standard is not met and vouchsafed to us. Also, there is intrinsic “constitutional harm” in seating an ineligible President.

That said, one of the great problems here is that there is no procedure or process for vetting the nominee. At this point, it seems to be left solely to the haphazards of politics. However, even if a congresscritter or an elector got up the gumption to challenge a President-elect’s qualifications, the procedure for that is not clear, the *standard* is merely implied, and the remedy (who has standing to challenge the result or compliance and on what grounds) obviously is unclear.


260 posted on 11/29/2008 11:04:18 AM PST by fightinJAG (TWO BIG BUSH TAX CUTS EXPIRE AT THE END OF 2008. Happy New Year, love, President Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA

It isn’t timely until after the Electoral College votes, and Obama becomes President elect. Until then, the 20th Amendment doesn’t apply. There is no Constitutional authority to knock him out of the office until he is President elect. None.

If he committed fraud to gain the Dim nomination, then he theoretically could be impeached, but that would only be operative after he becomes President. Fat chance Pelosi would allow it in the coming session of Congress.

So, the time for the USSC to rule is between Dec 15 and Jan 20. That’s the window. Before 12/15 and it’s not timely. After Jan 20th and the Court has no authority over the matter of qualification.


261 posted on 11/29/2008 11:20:38 AM PST by savedbygrace (SECURE THE BORDERS FIRST (I'M YELLING ON PURPOSE))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Aurorales
Things got a little heated last night and quite few people said things they should not have. Me included. For some reason I don't like being called a coward. However, I did get out of line and I am sorry about it.

Bart.

262 posted on 11/29/2008 11:22:20 AM PST by blackbart.223 (I live in Northern Nevada. Reid doesn't represent me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
Perhaps Obama will be seated as president but what has to happen is that this issue of what natural born citizenship means and how it applies to presidential candidates must go forward in order to avoid this problem in the future. This fight has to go forward not only to challenge Obama's eligibility but more importantly to serve the Constitution so we don't have a string of presidents who are actually ineligible as the founders envisioned. I think you would agree with me.

It appears to be a very complicated process but worth it. There are many on FR who would rather not even try to define natural born citizenship but avoiding this fight really is disrespectful to all those who fought for this country and died specifically for the survival of America and its Constitution. To let this issue die would be such a betrayal. Sure, we all have to live together but we all have to live by the law and be judged equally by it.

263 posted on 11/29/2008 11:24:16 AM PST by TheThinker (It is the natural tendency of government to gravitate towards tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: blackbart.223
A detroit radio station called the Kenyan embassy after the election of Obama. After a a few minutes they get through to the ambassador of Kenya.

The ambassador of Kenya says that obama was born in Kenya and that his birth place has become a national shrine.

Listen to the recording here

The quote is around 12:35, so if you don’t have time to listen to the whole thing, you can jump ahead.
The transcript reads:

Radio Jockey: President elect Obama's birth place over in Kenya -- is that going to be a national spot where he was born

Ambassador Peter Ogego: its already an attraction. his paternal grandmother is still alive

Radio Jockey:But his birth place...they'll put up a marker there

Ambassdor Peter Ogego: It would depend on the government. Its already well known.

Here is an abridged Utube version of the the radio interview. So you can hear just the relevant parts.

It can be reasonably pointed out that the DJ was trying to entrap the Ambassador and that the Ambassador fell into his trap.
However, if you listen to the long version of the radio interview --you’ll notice he used the same strategy on two different occasions and the ambassador gently brushed him off.

First, he tried to force the ambassador to sing the Kenyan national anthem. The ambassador referred him to the kenyan website.

Second he tried to push the ambassador into saying something about maybe Kenya becoming the 51st state. Again the ambassador said that Kenya was a sovereign country. ie No.

He used the same technique on the question of Obama’s birth place. This time the ambassador said yes.

Because the ambassador answered no in the two previous examples -- you can't say that the ambassdor was either a fool or ill advised.

Finally, you might ask well doesn't he know that saying Obama is born in Kenya would make trouble for Obama? The answer there is why should he be concerned? He has heard no suggestion in the mainstream media that there might be a problem there. So to say what is already well known--as he says--would be no problem.

Here is a utube video of Ambassador Peter Ogego speaking at a conference. Ambassador of Kenya H.E. Peter Ogego To verify that the voice on the radio is Ambassador Ogego-- compare the radio voice with the DJ to the voice on the Utube that goes with Ambassador Ogego. Ambassador Peter Ogego is introduced a bit after minute 18..

They are the same.


Subsequently, the Kenyan ambassador said that he meant Obama's father was born in Kenya. However, when pressed about Obama's birth place:

"I don't know," he said with a tone of irritation. "You should ask your government. I know his father is Kenyan."

However, that's not what the original transcript suggests. Further, here is a video of Obama's grandmother saying that Obama is born in Kenya


The Arnold would have run for president long ago and likely won if he were a "natural born" american. He's not. He's naturalized. So he can't run. And he knows it. (though there were some trial balloons sent up a couple years back about changing the law--that went nowhere.)

Like the Arnold, Obama looks to be a naturalized citizen--but maybe he's not even that.

In any case the supreme court--at Justice Thomas instigation-- is taking up the issue Dec 5
264 posted on 11/29/2008 11:27:47 AM PST by ckilmer (Phi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
"What the hell? I stand up and take the criticism like a man, apologize for any misbehavior, and you want to piss on me?"

I don't want to start this again. I was out of line but you were as well. The fact is we shouldn't fighting each other. That's what the left wants after all.

Bart.

265 posted on 11/29/2008 11:38:27 AM PST by blackbart.223 (I live in Northern Nevada. Reid doesn't represent me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace

If the SCOTUS decides on 12/5 to take up the matter, they could simply require Obama to produce an authentic birth certificate by a date certain. It would then be available within the window of which you write.

Frankly, I don’t see getting the 4 votes necessary, but all 9 justices, regardless of political persuasion, should have an interest in whether the winner of the general election for President of the United states has the basic qualifications to serve.

All Obama has to do is produce an authentic birth certificate, not COLB, and the matter is closed, assuming he was borh in HI.


266 posted on 11/29/2008 11:38:48 AM PST by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

He is hoping to stall long enough for the Electoral College to meet and elect him president, and in his way of thinking he will be bullet proof.


267 posted on 11/29/2008 11:39:14 AM PST by BooBoo1000 (Some times I wake up grumpy, other times I let her sleep/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

Thanks for the post. This is stuff I know about already. What amazes me is most of the public doesn’t know or even seems to care.


268 posted on 11/29/2008 11:41:56 AM PST by blackbart.223 (I live in Northern Nevada. Reid doesn't represent me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: Doofer
Who's them?

Re-read my post to you.

269 posted on 11/29/2008 1:47:39 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: blackbart.223

Agreed.

Peace...


270 posted on 11/29/2008 2:32:19 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

We will start off on a better foot next time.


271 posted on 11/29/2008 2:44:15 PM PST by blackbart.223 (I live in Northern Nevada. Reid doesn't represent me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Some posts are so well rendered, and contain so many excellent points, that they're something like a smorgasbord. You feel compelled to come back and comment a second time.

Your post reads more like an article, and it deserves further comment. From your post:

[[[ "All that is really (most) relevant here is that he must be a natural born US citizen to Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS, the documentation should be provided (by court order, if need be) to prove that status or lack thereof.

If he lacks being a Natural Born Citizen, he is Constitutionally ineligible to be POTUS--all quibbling aside about exactly what that takes to be a Natural Born Citizen.

Donofrio's case, also questioning McCain's status, does two things by so doing.

First, it makes both candidates subject to the same level of Constitutional scrutiny as to eligibility, and second, removes the question of sheer partisan politics or racism, making the whole substantiative issue one of Constitutional eligibility." ]]]

Donofrio's case is by far the safest path for the SC to uncover the truth, because it removes the pall (however undeserved) of political partisanship or favoritism. The Natural Born Citizen bona fides of at least three candidates on the 2008 ballot are in question in Donofrio's suit.

We all remember how the SC was roundly criticized by the left for "selecting" George Bush in the 2000 election, though they did no such thing. Donofrio shrewdly, and rightly, questioned the constitutional qualifications of the Democrat, the Republican, and the foreign Commie. The air cover that provides should at least alleviate any reluctance on the SC's part to re-visit another election debacle.

There is still a lingering question in some people's minds about whether the Justices will want to touch this hot potato, even with political air cover. I'm not a legal scholar of any sort, but from what I've read about the legal construction of this case, and the clear existence of a constitutional question of great importance, I think they'll take it.

December 5th can't get here fast enough for me.

272 posted on 11/29/2008 3:07:48 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

I make good points to argue yours and you ignore them.

You have cherry picked at my comments to you and wrote info on them that had nothing to do with the initial argument.

Finally when you can’t come up with an argument you write some wishy washy words about how this court stuff will go nowhere, but that you agree Obama is in the wrong.

I pray to God everyday about this issue. I do not believe you have the God playbook on this anymore than I do.
In other words you have no idea how this all will play out.

And for the last time, I will use my right to bear arms if I feel I need to protect myself, my family, my property and if need be my Nation.


273 posted on 11/29/2008 3:22:43 PM PST by Aurorales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: blackbart.223

Apology accepted. I know you did not target your posts at me.

I get a little heated when I am up late at night as well.
This whole nightmare is so upsetting that I can’t see how we could keep all this light and friendly.


274 posted on 11/29/2008 3:25:09 PM PST by Aurorales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: Aurorales
"I get a little heated when I am up late at night as well. This whole nightmare is so upsetting that I can’t see how we could keep all this light and friendly."

I patched it up with windflier. Hope I spelled that correctly. Any way we don't need to be fighting with each other. There are bigger fish to fry.

Bart.

275 posted on 11/29/2008 3:35:49 PM PST by blackbart.223 (I live in Northern Nevada. Reid doesn't represent me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer; All

One time ping to all who may be interested in this development:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2140156/posts?page=1


276 posted on 11/29/2008 4:03:34 PM PST by fightinJAG (TWO BIG BUSH TAX CUTS EXPIRE AT THE END OF 2008. Happy New Year, love, President Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Good point.


277 posted on 11/29/2008 4:15:17 PM PST by Lumper20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Lumper20

Bart’s alright. We’ve gotten past things now.


278 posted on 11/29/2008 4:23:05 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: TheThinker

I agree with you that this area of the law needs to be more settled.

We are living in a day and age of unprecedented mobility and serial relationships-—and many other things that guarantee that in the future we need a better way to determine and settle and challenge the eligibility of a person who will be President.

This the perfect case for the Supreme Court to take, since both major party candidates have unusual fact patterns re their citizenship status. Although the only one actually at issue is Obama (because he won), the Court could give guidance in dicta on McCain’s situation. That would be very helpful.

And we need the Court to tell us how this matter can be raised, by whom it can be raised and where, and how it gets remedied if need be.


279 posted on 11/29/2008 4:32:33 PM PST by fightinJAG (TWO BIG BUSH TAX CUTS EXPIRE AT THE END OF 2008. Happy New Year, love, President Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
Who's them?

Re-read my post to you.

Once you've done that, write to your elected representatives and inform them that it's their constitutional duty to demand all of the facts regarding Obama's "natural born citizen" bona fides.

In my case that would be Senator's Durban and I believe still Obama along with Represenitive Jesse Jackson, Jr. and they'll just file any letter I write to them here.

Photobucket

280 posted on 11/29/2008 6:14:26 PM PST by Doofer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Good to hear.


281 posted on 11/29/2008 6:46:34 PM PST by Lumper20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: abenaki

I had to submit my BC to get a passport. Do Senators have to get passports to travel or is their diplomatic status a trump of that?


282 posted on 11/29/2008 11:20:36 PM PST by rfreedom4u (Political correctness is a form of censorship!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: apocalypto

You raise a good point. Suppose any one of us really wanted a plum job that had a requirement that one show a certain document, like a birth certificate. Fighting the requirement would certainly result in not being chosen for the position. Also, it would indicate red flags to the hiring party that we were hiding something. I was once in a position to hire people and I would not have gone with someone showing such suspicion.

Though in today’s America, many bosses would take a photocopy of a phony matricular card and have you flipping burgers by noon...


283 posted on 11/29/2008 11:25:22 PM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: mountn man

Some people really get worked up here on FR. Not following “protocol” seems to be their biggest pantie twister.
I’m frustrated that this is not getting out like it should. They are blowing off any kind of talk about this in the media except on the Net. Unless people en mass start screaming foul, Mr. Obama will be sworn in. It’s also too bad that Shawn Hannity and Matt Drudge won’t even touch this subject.


284 posted on 12/01/2008 8:44:18 AM PST by Rainwave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-284 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson