Skip to comments.Beware Birth Certificate Hopefuls - You are in for quite a suprise (vanity)
Posted on 12/03/2008 8:14:35 AM PST by Scythian
This birth certificate issue has been going on for some time now and for those hoping for some kind of dramatic outcome you are in for another big disappointment.
First, there is always the chance that there is a valid birth certificate proving Obama to be a US citizen.
Second, enough time has passed such that the Obama cult has manufactured and installed a phony certificate that will re-route us back up to option 1 above, he will have a valid certificate. Who do you think works in these kinds of government offices? They're all democrats.
Third, no court is going to force Obama to prove himself to be a citizen, the burden is on those making the accusation that he is not a citizen. A criminal doesn't have to prove he didn't commit a crime, the state has to prove that he did.
Flame on, and sorry for the Vanity, but this is driving me nutz, this issue gets my hopes up but then common sense dashes my hope on the rocks, and this now is a daily occurrence. You are going to find a valid certificate at the end of this road if you are lucky enough to get a judge to demand it, and that is very unlikely, whether the certificate be real or phony it won't matter, and will never be able to proven either way.
Thanks for the background. Interesting...
History seems to be repeating itself.
Chester Alan Arthur Our Canadian President?
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U. S. Constitution states that “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.” Could a man born in Canada have slipped into the White House through deception?
Chester Alan Arthur (he pronounced his middle name al-AN) was, according to the official account, born in Fairfield, Vermont, Oct. 5, 1830, the son of Reverend William and Malvina (Stone) Arthur (his gravestone confirms this date). One biographer, Thomas C. Reeves, has concluded that he was born a year earlieron Oct. 5, 1829 and that Arthur changed the date “no doubt out of simple vanity.”1
Changing his year of birth is forgivable (Arthur was well beyond the age requirement for the presidency); but could he have changed his place of birth as well? Arthur P. Hinman thought so. Hinman, a New York lawyer, brought the issue to the attention of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle in a letter early in August, 1880, while Arthur was yet a candidate for the Vice-Presidency. Arthur evidently had flip-flopped on the issue in the past. One article, dated August 13, quotes a leading Republican in a way reminiscent of more recent campaigns: “Why in don’t the General come out and say where he was born, and put an end to all this mystery.”
Hinman first theorized that General Arthur was born “in Belfast or Aberdeen,” before his parents emigrated to America. Arthur could easily dismiss this theory, for he had always maintained that his father emigrated at eighteen years of agebefore he married and had children.
Hinman pushed on. The following story appeared in the New York Times of Dec. 22, 1880:
MATERIAL FOR A DEMOCRATIC LIE
ST. ALBANS, Vt., Dec. 21.A stranger arrived here a few days ago, and registered at the American House as A. P. Hinman, of New-York. Since then he has been very busy in the adjoining town of Fairfield, ostensibly collecting materials for a biography of Vice-President-elect Arthur. He has privately stated to leading Democratic citizens, however, that he is employed by the Democratic National Committee to obtain evidence to show that Gen. Arthur is an unnaturalized foreigner. He claims to have discovered that Gen. Arthur was born in Canada, instead of Fairfield; that his name is Chester Allen instead of Chester Abell [sic]; that he was 50 years old in July instead of October, as has been stated, and generally that he is an alien and ineligible to the office of Vice-President.
Arthur Hinman would publish a book, How A British Subject Became President of the United States, the substance of which was related in a Brooklyn Daily Eagle article dated June 2, 1884:
The main charge of the book is that William Chester Alan Arthur was born in Dunham Flats, Canada, on [sic] March, 1828, and that he represented himself to have been born at North Fairfield, Vermont, the birthplace of a younger brother, Chester Abell Arthur, who was born in 1830, and died a year later. It is stated that in 1834 when another son was born he received the name of William Arthur, Jr., and then the name William was dropped by William Chester Alan Arthur, and he was henceforth known as Chester Alan Arthur. The records, copies of which are given, show that in 1845 Chester Alan Arthur entered Union College, stating his age to be 16.
Reeves dismisses Hinman’s theory, while admitting that President Arthur lied about his age. He cites the Arthur family Bible, held at the Library of Congress, which gives the President’s year of birth as 1829, and makes no mention of a child named “Chester Abell.”2
1Thomas C. Reeves, Gentleman Boss: the life of Chester Alan Arthur (New York: Knopf, 1975), p. 5.
2Ibid., p. 435. Reeves notes that the doctor who delivered the President was named Chester Abell.
After Garfield was shot, the country closed ranks around Arthur, who wasn't that controversial a figure (though his old cronies hated his support for civil service reform).
More here: Our Canadian President?
One article, dated August 13, quotes a leading Republican in a way reminiscent of more recent campaigns: Why in dont the General come out and say where he was born, and put an end to all this mystery.
The individuals bringing these suits, if heard, will be able to subpoena documents and witnesses. This is the only way, absent a guilty plea, anyone presents evidence in court. No one will be forcing Obama to prove himself a citizen.
Point three is moot.
I opened a thread because I find this interesting.
Maybe Obama will be the Second Foreign-Born President in History
Ted Hayes BTTT!!!
Is this your opinion or can you cite something else supporting this?
I don’t see why that would be so; in fact, if he is proven to be ineligible and removed, it will show that our system is working. If a cloud remains for his whole presidency, that will be much worse.
A cloud will remain during Obama’s entire presidency, no matter what.
He’s been doing it on many threads.
I've pinged Jim Robinson, the Master, on this denigration of Free Republic, on a half dozen occasions......but he seems to be content to let this site become a laughingstock by allowing all this conspiracy crap to continue. Damn shame, it is.
Well, Donofrio argues that Obama was ineligible the minute he was born to a father who was a British subject.
Donofrio is incorrect. British common law does not override US law. As stated in post #174, that is the actual law defining what is a ‘natural born citizen’, it does not make one ineligible because one parent is a subject of another nation. A professional poker player is not exactly someone who to put faith in. I am very curious what Justice Thomas says on the matter if it gets to him.
There is a large question as to how he got into Pakistan in 1971 during martial law and a Pakistani civil war with the eventual Bangladeshi provinces, when only people from Moslem countries or the Soviet Union were being admitted.
While you’re at it, could you check Myrrh123? S/he (I checked I think yesterday) signed up very recently to post soley on the side of 0bama. And has msent a couple of really weird freepmails.
If that is so, who is forking over all this money? Somewhere today I read it’s over one million already. His own money? If not his own personal wealth, whose? The DNC, since they’re also part of the lawsuit/s?
What’s this I keep hearing about zero being a “Harvard Magna.” Where’s the proof since no proof seems to exist about anything else at all pertaining to zero.
In my view, zero has zero credibility at all.
What candidate in his right mind would have/know of such a document and shilly shally about presenting it?
One who has something else besides birthplace on it that he doesn’t want known?
I agree; it’s not just the place of birth that bothers zero — and I suspect it’s the name of the father. I really doubt this Barack Obama senior was the father. I see absolutely no resemblance whatsoever while zero does bear resemblance to the likes of Malcolm X and Frank Marshall, the commie.
I hear ya. Would you hire me if I told you I had a Bachelor’s Degree in engineering, put it on my resume but refused to show it to you? I’m thinking no!!!!
Thanks, Kevmo. Hey, melancholy, look here!
I have stated in the past that I believe that this whole BC thing is a setup for a constitutional crisis by the democRATS. The opportunity to force a constitutional convention where they are holding the upper hand.
Democrats control both houses of the legislature in 23 states; Republicans in 15 and 11 are split. This adds up to 49 states because Nebraska's legislature is nonpartisan.
With a constitutional convention they could do as was done in 1787 and generate a completely new document. Get it ratified by 3/4's of the states (of which they have 2/3's already) and poof, health care is a right, guns are illegal, presidential term limits are gone, "natural born" is gone and "naturalized" is in for president, and on and on. That's the real goal here...the crisis is the means to the goal.
228 posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2008 11:46:29 AM by Ouderkirk
I think you're right. IMO the Constitution was always the target.
383 posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2008 3:35:49 PM by Fred Nerks
I’d love Ted to announce his candidacy....just to watch Jesse Jackson, etal, have a total meltdown. They would NOT know what to do with him.
And the upside? He’s AN AWESOME GUY WHO DESERVES MORE ATTENTION! /yelling
Its a lot worse that a constitutional crisis. Its a bloody coup which may need a response of arms from the American People as freemen and freewomen.
Holy crap, could that scenario be possible??
I am not hoping for any particular outcome except that the Constitutional mandate is upheld and the truth is exposed.
I will support those who question the legal status of Obama until his right to the office is verified.
Like any law and what is written in the Constitution, there may be a deal of research and considered opinions about the various amendments to come. Eventually there will be a hard and fast requirement for anyone who then puts their name forward on a ballot for the Presidency.
There is a silver lining to this whole business. Thank heaven for the First Amendment to the Constitution. Nobody can stop us discussing this subject. Even the screaming, jeering, "stop it, stop it, enough already" ninnies of the left. I am referring to the other websites.
Yes, possible; even probable. Wonder if a few prescience Germans asked the same question before WWII while the remainder of the sheeple willingly climbed into boxcars and went quietly into the 'showers'.
You’re welcome, Iowan.
And the states start balkanizing the USA imediately. The one time they can secede legally is during a convention.
Dems pull this and I'm out and into the states that opt out IMMEDIATELY. Screw the credit ramifications, screw the property, I'll wash dishes if I have to do that in order to make it in the old American states.
No citation available from myself. It is just something I heard or read. It makes sense, but if someone says it is incorrect, I can’t argue the point.
Still, I’ll wager 0bama is found to be a citizen.
In 1787 The states’ representatives to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia were only authorized to amend the Articles of Confederation, the representatives held secret, closed-door sessions and wrote a new constitution.
I think that by the time the potential secession states knew what hit them....it would be too late.
Donofrio case is scheduled for conference with all 9 Justices on Dec 5.
What’s at stake here is no longer how to solve domestic problems such as the economy, health care, energy, etc. It’s Freedom, Stupid.
A self-acclaimed Constitutional professor, no less, is shredding the Constitution. He is a Marxist from a Party that will run the country into the ground. He will undermine our ability to use our resources and preserve the only superpower. He and his allies will leak information about how we track and deal with terrorists and will make laws to restrict our ability to do so. He will try to resurrect the defeated Communism that this country is held responsible for obliterating. We will never be forgiven for this victory by the Left.
I dont believe that talking will resolve anything. We have the impossible task of combating the revision of history, perpetrated everyday by the MSM, academia and the global Left.
It’s very unfortunate that our peace and tranquility are in the balance; however, defending freedom has never been free.
To me the whole purpose of the Constitutional birth requirement was about mistrust. Is there anything rational in suggesting that a Finnish-born Professor with 10 Phds is not okay, but a Virginia-born drunken illiterate who works in a donkey-stable instead is?
What was in question was loyalty, trust. And wouldn’t you know it, those who love America now question Obama. The Constitution was prescient.
Trust, it’s all about trust. Obama is betraying the spirit of the constitution. It’s not even really a legal-logical issue, but a moral one. The man is keeping something as easy as 1+1=2 locked up as if it were the Coca-Cola formula. Many are debating pixels, the worthiness of COLBS, but as there is no real hard logic in the particular constitutional provision, (and the founding fathers must’ve known it) it is the spirit of it that must count. And the spirit of it is to be mistrustful, because whereas a foreign born can be even better mentally-equipped to serve as president it is more likely (though of course not certain) that his loyalties might not be right.
I cannot read anything else into the provision than mistrust. That’s the spirit of it and IMHO that’s what the supremes should consider and consequently demand to see the original BC.
But I’m not sitting on a bench in Washington. In fact I’m not even American.
Well, O.J. Simpson got off but became synonymous with “Travesty of Justice”... I fear that Obama will get off as well... but as far as I’m concerned, he will always be Mr. Coca-Cola-Formula Birth Certificate. He has already betrayed TRUST. If not the letter of the Constitution, certainly the spirit of it.
Nobody in his right mind retains the services of expensive law firms to hide 1+1=2. Nobody, nowhere, no how!
Read the inaugural addresses of the past presidents, all of them, Republican and Democrat alike, and all talk about extra-judicial things like courage, honor, charity, goodness, hope, new visions, etc.
When he’s sworn in, let Obama just make his oath and be gone, because he has no right to go beyond the letter of the law. Let him read the condominium rules for the State of Kansas.
The country wanted a leader of men and got itself a client of lawyers.
That’s quite a list.
The problem of standing is really what stands in the way of seeing Obambam’s birth certifigate. Dean Eastman of Chapman law school says that this is unfortunately the problem with all these lawsuits and he’s a Constitutional lawyer that would most likely be sympathetic to protecting the Constitution above all other considerations. The ironic thing is that these are the judiciary’s own rules of standing and I bet the process to change them would be quite difficult. If it weren’t, Eastman would give these lawsuits a chance.
Standing; MY FOOT! It’s the Constitution and the country we’re talking about.
Can’t they think that if they don’t do the right thing, they may hav a disaster on their hands? Aren’t they American?
Ginsburg may be born in five places and got put together as a liberal robot in the SC.
Post # 174 covers who can be a US citizen. It does not cover NATRAL BORN CITIZEN.
Post # 174 covers who can be a US citizen. It does not cover NATRAL BORN CITIZEN.
I feel the same way.
I just get the sinking feeling that the very rules that protect our politicians from challenges from the common folk are the same ones that Barack is hiding behind to attain the Presidency.
Whoever is behind Obama has very deep pockets and legal resources galore to exploit this loophole.
That is really scary and it could be exactly what is going on. Thank you LucyT.
We know that Obama has a US Passport, courtesy of a little scandal a few months where a contractor poked into the passport files of Obama, Clinton and McCain. If Obama had presented fraudulent document to get a passport, there’s got to be a federal crime in there. That would be serious enough for impeachment, I think. But before ANY of that could happen, there would have to be some evidence of the crime. And there isn’t any, zip, zero, zilch. (Granny Sarah did not say the president elect was born in Kenya, she said “my son...Obama” was. Go read Berg’s transcript.)
So if there is no evidence, why are we having this conversation in the first place? Answer: Hawaii is not really a state.