Posted on 07/03/2011 4:28:11 AM PDT by HMS Surprise
Fact-checkers are welcome to peruse my post titled Natural-born Citizens if they at any time doubt my previous sentiments concerning the “birther” issue…
I have never relished the notion that a sitting President, duly-elected, would ever be bounced from office because of something beyond his or her control, but that doesn’t mean we can ignore facts. Ignoring the facts is exactly what has delivered this nation to the brink of disaster.
Before the release of Obama’s alleged long-form birth certificate I was of the opinion that the President was on much firmer ground legally if such a document was never released.
Why? Because, dear comrade, much more germane to the establishment of “natural-born” bona fides is the citizenship of the parents, not the place of birth. Since Obama’s likely father was Barack Sr., it was probable that the long-form birth certificate would actually establish once and for all that Barack Jr., although still probably a U.S. citizen, was ineligible to be President.
(Excerpt) Read more at teapartytribune.com ...
OK, let’s talk about fraud then. Do you doubt that the White House has released a manufactured document? If you do it can only be because you have done zero homework, or refuse to. And by the way, you’re completely wrong about the definition of natural-born citizen too. All that matters is what that phrase meant at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. If you can’t grasp that, I don’t know what else to tell you.
I have never pushed either, and I would not. It’s ridiculous to think that among the pool of eligible “natural-born” candidates we can’t find a person sufficiently talented to run the government of this country.
I assume everyone knows by now, or they are in complete denial.
Your post is foolishness. Scotus cannnot change the definition of a phrase, and that’s all that matters. What did “natural-born” mean before the Constitution was adopted? Regardless, you ARE MISSING THE POINT. The White House has released a FRAUDULENT DOCUMENT... omg.
Oh, good. He'll be leaving shortly, then?
I suspect soon. In time for Hillary to get a primary campaign up and running. This is Twilight Zone stuff, but to look at the evidence is to know the truth, as unbelievable as it may seem.
Omg... So what would you have me do then? Pretend like this is not happening? I reall am at a loss with the thinking that goes on here. Is the point to only do those things which affect outcomes? Or can we know ALL truth, regardless of its efficacy? I am not arguing that Obama SHOULD be kicked out of the White House, I am giving INFORMATION. Do whatever you want with it.
Please accept my apology. I misread your post.
______________________________________________________________
No problem.
Thanks!
Works for me ... we have 310,000,000 others to pick from.
As far as the LFBC being fraudulent, who says so?
First thing you learn as a lawyer or reporter is to ask “who says so” and in this case, it's nobody significant.
We can discuss, back and forth all day long whether or not Mr. Obama meets the constitutional requirements to be President of the United States. The reality is, no matter whether he meets those requirements or not, the Supreme Court of the United States is not going to remove him from office… and if you dispute that, you must certainly agree that the Supreme Court is not going to do so before Inauguration Day, 2013. Therefore, our focus must be on ensuring his defeat in the 2012 General Election, not depending on some highly doubtful court action to remove him from office.
Even if Mr. Obama was to be removed from office, we would only get Joe Biden as his successor. All the staffers, all the Cabinet Secretaries, all the left-wing appointed decision-making bureaucrats at the various boards and commissions would stay in place. As it affects the average citizen, the removal of Obama and his replacement with Mr. Biden would not be a significant change. Certainly we would be happy, but the policies of the Obama-Biden-Pelosi-Reid cabal would stay in place. The afterglow of Obama’s removal would be short-lived, and will be nothing but a bitter aftertaste if we do not defeat that cabal in the 2012 General Elections.
On the issue of law, let me speak for a moment to the legal difficulties of removing Mr. Obama from office. First, there is the issue of whether the Supreme Court would even believe that it had the power to remove a sitting president. The Court might well decide that if someone could prove that Mr. Obama was not constitutionally qualified, the only constitutional way for him to be removed from office would be the Senate impeachment process.
Even if the case were to proceed forward to either a SCOTUS case or an impeachment matter before the Senate, they would have to have overwhelming clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Obama was born outside the United States. I have searched for that evidence, as have many others including numerous highly experienced investigators, journalists etc. and it simply does not exist.
Is there clear and convincing evidence that he IS a natural born citizen? No. But that is not enough. There would have to be clear, convincing an absolutely unequivocal evidence that he is not a natural born citizen and that he has knowingly lied to us about it for all his adult life. Reported comments that he is “of this country (Kenya)” by relatives, suppose evaluations by forensic document examiners, and other such evidence, even if true, do not come anywhere near the requirement of being clear and convincing evidence.
You are free to disagree, but please accept the reality that no Supreme Court or Senate is ever going to remove a president from office on anything less than incontrovertible documentary evidence and personal testimony by reliable, unimpeachable witnesses willing to testify in open court that he was born in such a way or such a place that he is not a US citizen. That degree of evidence simply does not exist.... and even if it did, the Senate weenies would never have the political will to utilize it to remove our first (second?) Black President from office.
Forget trying to split the legal baby on the issue of what does “native born” means in a differentiation from “natural born.” The body of law demonstrates overwhelmingly that the courts recognize the overriding concept of two classes of citizenship. One is “natural,” the other is “naturalized.” “Naturalized” simply means to be made “as if natural” by an operation of law not circumstances, (such as the application for citizenship process) as opposed to being a citizen at the moment of one’s birth, i.e. “naturally.” Anyone can argue all day long in opposition to that, but in reality in the year 2011, that's how any court is going to decide. Lawyers can argue the Earth is flat, too, with equal results.
Yes, I'm well aware of all the evidence of his application for scholarships self describing himself as a foreign citizen, his traveling to the Middle East with something other than a US passport and all the other indicators that the issue of US citizenship was at best a matter of “convenience” for him. That is not nearly enough to remove him from office. Likewise, any argument that he is not a natural born citizen because his father was a British subject at the time of his birth is of very dubious legal foundation and new decision on it would ever become ripe before the Supreme Court within the next 3 to 4 years.
Of course, the most interesting point of all about Obama’s citizenship is that if he is not a natural born citizen, , that is not a US citizen at all as he never went to any naturalization process… but that is an issue for another time.
In considering the above, whether you agree or disagree, please remember the overriding facts, absent the type of evidence which does not exist, SCOTUS is never going to remove a sitting president. SCOTUS would undoubtedly follow a long-established legal precedent, and simply check the ball down the field, and refer the entire matter to the House and Senate for possible consideration of the impeachment process. And if anything was to be done, Obama and the other members of his coven would certainly delay the process for at least 2 to 3 years, well past the all-important 2012 General Election.... And again of course, even if Obama were to be removed, with Biden then in place, unfortunately cutting the head off the snake would not destroy the beast.
So the “wooden stake through the heart” issue simply becomes; we are mad as hell, not so much about his constitutional qualifications to hold office, but rather what the SOB has done in office! If we cannot get him out of office before January 20, 2013, how do we ensure that he is not president for one moment after high noon on that date.
One of the most important things to remember is what actually happens during elections.
Neither we Conservatives, nor the Liberals decide the General Election. The reality is that, even if there was an 8 x 10 glossy of him shooting Santa Claus on Christmas Eve, 40% of the electorate but still vote for Mr. Obama.
The Republican nominated candidate will also receive at least 40% of the vote, assuming he is not seen as drooling during the presidential debates.
The remaining 20% of the vote, the so-called swing voters, are the people who decide every election! To give you an idea how significant this is, please remember that in 1980, in what was often described as an “earthquake election” the late Ronald Reagan only received 51% of the vote. In 1984, when the choices were between Mr. Reagan and the far-left Mr. Mondale, President Reagan only got 58% of the vote. That's how important each 10th of a percentage point is among those all-important swing voters.
The swing voters could care less about the Constitutional issues. Those who are concerned with those issues are already in our camp. It is “yesterday's” issue.
You never win elections by trying to argue yesterday's issues. The classic example of this was the 1998 midterm congressional election. Mr. Clinton had been caught with his pants down regarding Ms. Lewinsky, and even admitted his guilt. Unfortunately the Republican national party decided to make that the centerpiece of their campaign, rather than the day-to-day issues that affected American citizens in their homes. That mistake cost us at least 42 seats in the House, numerous seats in the Senate, and forced the architect of that plan, Newt Gingrich, not just to resign his position as Speaker of the House but even from his Congressional seat as well.
The 2012 General Election is critically important to the future, even the continued existence, of the United States. Considering everything he is done in his 2 1/2 years in office, imagine how much bad he could do if he knew that another four years in office, and was not worried about reelection!
With that understood, the issue then becomes how do we nominate the most conservative electable candidate for the office of president in 2012. It does us no good to nominate some loudmouth, bomb-throwing candidate who will lose “gloriously”… but also extremely convincingly. Equally important, we must convince the Republican National Committee to never again nominate another candidate like Bob Dole. Dole is a nice guy, a war hero, a reliable party Republican, and about as exciting as watching paint dry. Like McCain 12 years later, the Dole versus Clinton election was lost before the campaign really began. The vast majority of voters, the ones who never really looked at the issues, saw Clinton as kind of a “nice guy,” someone who could be a father figure without being overly oppressive. On the other hand, Dole was perceived, as McCain was, as harkening back to a long past generation, reminding everyone of an angry old man sitting on the porch, screaming at the kids to get off his lawn.
Beyond any other consideration, Dole was nominated in 1996 simply because he was a good, reliable “party man” and in the words of the Republican leadership in Washington, it was “Bob's turn.”
So the operative question becomes, how do we ensure that a reliable Conservative is nominated and elected. Failure to do either will be disaster for the country. Nominate a kook who attracts only the far-right wing of the party, and we will get the votes of only the far-right wing of the party. Elections are not a time to try to educate the voters as to what they should think and believe. We have to accept the fact that a majority of the voters are not as conservative as we are, and in all probability we will not get an electable nominee as conservative as we are.
On the other hand, nominate a candidate who is nothing but a RINO, and we only get, and best, partial relief from Obamaism. I
Please remember that the ONLY thing that counts is victory in the general election. Victory in the primary with a candidate who only ensures Obama’s reelection is simply helping Obama get reelected. You may not like that reality, but third-party candidates, protest votes and other foolishness should have been left behind after we chose the sixth grade class president. Please remember; anything that does not help ensure Obama’s defeat in 2012 is in fact helping Obama get reelected in 2012. It's like President Bush said regarding the War on Terrorism. You're either with us or against us. There is no middle ground.
The issue of Obama’s constitutional qualifications will not help us win any votes with the 20% election-deciding swing voters. Those who have serious concerns about his constitutional qualifications are already in the 40% who will vote with us. Those of us who do not care about his constitutional qualifications are already in the 40% who already get a tingle up their leg (or another unnameable body part) each time he speaks, and would vote for him again even if he was proven to be the Manchurian Candidate.
The 20% who will decide the election will cast their votes based on their belief as to whether or not Obama’s policies will help them or hurt them in their personal lives. The reality favors us in this case. They have seen and will continue to see that Obama’s financial and economic policies are disaster. “Blame Bush for everything” has run its course and people are beginning to pin the tail on the true donkey. They have seen, or will have seen by election time, that Obama’s foreign policies are an equally disastrous descent into far-left “blame Israel for everything” anti-Semitic hate coupled with his belief that America should be nothing more than an equal member of the world community, not the “bright shining light on the hill” as we have been in the past. They will see, or if they have not seen, that it is our responsibility to ensure that they do see that Obama’s entire domestic policy is nothing more than race-baiting class warfare. The “white guilt” that many voters felt in the 2008 general election will have been replaced by a realization that Obama’s playing upon our hugely overwrought racial guilt in order to be elected only set us up for a further declining decay of American society and our economic base.
But remember, it's not the constitutional issue that will convince voters of this. The 2012 General Election will be won, and the country saved, when the 20% swing voters realize that Obama is not acting in their best interests, and that they can safely depend upon the Republican nominee to do so.
The numbers are trending very much toward our ability to win convincingly in 2012, but any numerical advantage can be lost in a moment. We should be especially encouraged, that when questioned about reelecting Obama, approximately 25% of the voters described themselves as “undecided.” Historically, undecided voters break 80% against the incumbent. But don't be lulled into any sense of complacency by these polls. Polls can change in a moment, and we can be guaranteed that Obama will do things close to the election to try to swing the vote in his favor. Any poll you see now is simply being promoted by a news organization in the hopes of boosting ratings. No poll is ever reliably accurate until a few days before the election, and even then they can be very wrong. On election eve, 1980, Reagan and Carter were neck and neck race according to the polls. A week before the election in 2000, Bush was way ahead, and then the drunken driver story hit the headlines. Although it's always better to be ahead than behind, take no solace in the current polls. They are never anywhere near predicted this far out from election.
What does this all lead up to? It's very simple. We must never depend on the constitutional issue to help us win 2012. We must work hard, very hard, right now to ensure the nomination of a strong electable conservative. The words “strong” and “electable” are equally important. The candidate must be a strongly conservative as can pass muster with the general population, but at the same time must not be so conservative as to be red meat for the liberals who would use his strong conservatism to scare the voters.
2012 is very winnable, and therefore the country can be saved. In many ways, we face challenges no less daunting than the Minutemen of Lexington and Concord... and our contributions will be no less significant than the men who wintered-over with Washington at Valley Forge.
If you want your country back, ignore everything else other than the nomination and election of an strong electable conservative in 2012. Anything else is throwing our votes away... and throwing our votes away is helping Obama throw our country away.
Blah! Blah! Blah! Every talking point is straight from the DOJ.
Personally, I will NOT stop defending the Constitution and the rule of law.
In the end a law degree and law license will be worthless, because the law will only mean what the fascist oligarchy wants it to mean.
Some of us, perhaps dreamers, want his name sullied not by inference , but with a giant-sized asterisk in American History which says: *It was determined in in early 2012 that the former President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, was not eligible to stand for re-election.
Mr. Obama, rather than face the prospect of a long and costly trial over his alleged felonious activities, met secretly in an extraordinary closed door session of Congress and the Supreme Court held at the underground compound in Virginia reserved for nuclear attack on the United States and reached what is now known as the " Executive Surety Treaty." (see p. 1537) The Treaty remains sealed for 99 years (January 1, 2111), but will be administered by a special 15 member Joint Council of Elder Statesmen (JCES) selected by of all the Congress and the Court.
The JCES has issued only one public statement (see p.1541) which stipulates that the former President will be afforded none of the benefits heretofore granted other former Presidents, will be classified as a legal alien and will be free to lead a private life unfettered by any future criminal or civil charges related to his one term of office.
Big social club is it? Facts are not subject to consensus.
People treat Leo Donofrio as if he is an authority on the subject. He is not. He is a blogger, amateur poker player, sometime musician and an individual who despite somehow passing the bar and possessing a license to practice law, has never succeeded in any legal case.
Interestingly enough, NO ONE has succeeded in a legal case. The merits never seem to reach the inside of a court room because the courts seem to be of the opinion that no person is injured from having an illegitimate President. And THAT is the kind of bullshit that makes people DETEST the legal system. It is evidence of a faulty system of justice, rather than a poorly brought claim. The Judiciary has long become pompous and arrogant, and completely unconcerned about right and wrong even to the extent of thwarting the will of the people. If one good thing may come from the collapse of this nation it will be the deposement of these arrogant @sshole judges and the lawyers that fellate them.
His "analysis" enjoy the support of no one outside of the birther circus, outside of people who want so desperately for there to be something, anything, that will magically and instantly nullify the Obama Presidency.
Have you ever heard of a thing called "Appeal to Authority"? It is the fallacy argument that your position is correct because some "Authority" says so. Donofrio's work stands on it's own merits and does not need validation from other "Authority" types. Anyway, I have seen in the past, other scholarly studies on this issue that question Obama's Eligibility. The first one I could find was this article by Notre Dame President
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/110227
Donofrio's views are supported by no reputable conservative politician, commentator or conservative legal foundation.
And this proves what? That it is wrong, or that they are afraid of it? You are trying to use the fallacy of "False Choice" to make us believe that the reason prominent people don't push the issue is because it is wrong. I think prominent people don't push it for the same reason that no court will recognize standing. They are TERRIFIED of being responsible for burning down the cities if Obama supporters (A map of which pretty much matches a map of the nation's rat population.) started rioting. People should have thought of that before they pushed this @sshole on the rest of us.
Prominent people are likewise TERRIFIED of receiving the Sarah Palin treatment. Constant unfair attacks alleging racism and corruption. (even people here are CONSTANTLY insinuating racism.) Damage enough to the career of ANY politician, true or not. Who wants to go through THAT? With the media in charge of the airwaves, it is a political loser.
“Rogers v. Bellei provides another fact. In that case, the Supreme court ruled that being the child of one American Citizen isn’t enough to be a ‘Natural born citizen.’ Bellei LOST his citizenship because he didn’t reside in the United States long enough. A ‘Natural born citizen’ could NOT lose his citizenship through inaction.”
Did you even read that case? The issue was that Bellei “does not come within the Fourteenth Amendment’s definition of citizens as those ‘born or naturalized in the United States’”. Where did the Court say Bellei is not a “natural-born citizen”? Where do they say being a natural-born citizen depends upon parentage?
The term “natural-born citizen” appears twice in the decision. First, it appears in a quote of the Naturalization Act of 1790. Second, it appears in:
“Apart from the passing reference to the ‘natural born Citizen’ in the Constitution’s Art. II, § 1, cl. 5, we have, in the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, 14 Stat. 27, the first statutory recognition and concomitant formal definition of the citizenship status of the native born”.
Got that? The first recognition of the citizenship status of the native born is the “passing reference to the ‘natural born Citizen’ in the Constitution’s Art. II, § 1, cl. 5”.
“The claim that both one’s parents must be US citizens has never been required by the SCOTUS and would not be.”
Has never been required by the SCOTUS for what? What is it you’re referring to here, exactly?
I have repeatedly stated that our legal system takes what is considered to be a couple of fallacies (Fallacy of Authority, and fallacy of Tu Quoque) and turns them into a methodology. Precedent is the notion that because some "authority" decided a case a certain way for one litigant, similar cases must always therefore be decided the same way, regardless whether the "precedent" decision was correct or not. Flaws are built right into the legal system, and they are proud of the fact!
Science and Engineering requires that arguments be built from "first principles" and not rely on the unproven pronouncements of other Scientists or Engineers. I sometimes suspect it would be doing the world a service to eradicate all the legal case books so lawyers and judges could only reference the laws themselves, and not be persuaded by previous judges doing their thinking for them.
No, and Jim Crow existed despite the law. It took good people to eradicate it, and it's still not completely gone. It will take good people to eradicate the Legacy of Obama even if he DOES get thrown from office.
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.