Posted on 02/25/2010 9:41:28 PM PST by bogusname
I can’t speak for all of you out there reading this, but I sure do get a lot of concurrence from the readers of CFP articles regarding the absolute necessity to establish the validity of one Barack Hussein Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen” of the United States in accordance with the requirements as set down in Article 2 of the U. S. Constitution; Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly notwithstanding.
It seems that with each passing day more news is presented of cases of challenges from every corner of this country. Many of these cases have met with Judicial intransigence from the lethargic or shady decisions of many judges at many levels of our society all the way up the chain of command. But even so, there always seems to be some still pending a full hearing of even an open discussion which gives me, at least, the feeling of ‘what’s going on with this birth business’?
But as in life in these ever surprising United States, every now and then a bright light suddenly shines on a brilliant new attempt to solve a riddle or stalemate.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Very interesting, maybe one day we will know the truth!
In general, we know much of the truth. Obama’s COLB is fraudulent.
It isn’t what we know, it is what we can prove.
No, it's not doubtful at all. The issuing agency can't confirm it because they aren't allowed by law to divulge protected information. That would be true whether it was real or not.
The document, like any birth certificate, is prima facie proof. It doesn't required the issuing agency issue a separate confirmation. That's exactly the purpose of the document itself.
In order for Obama's "birth certificate" to be accepted as a legal "fact" — it MUST appear in Court. It NEVER has.
As the Certification says very clearly:
NOT
"This COPY OF A copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding."
This is false. Hawaiian statutes give the director of the Department of Health plenty of broad discertionary authority to confirm it, as well as the Uniform Information Practices Act. Plus, if it's legit, the issuing agency doesn't have to divulge anything that isn't already divulged.
The document, like any birth certificate, is prima facie proof. It doesn't required the issuing agency issue a separate confirmation. That's exactly the purpose of the document itself.
This is true only if the document is visibly legitimate. The reason it's never been presented to a bona fide reporter is obvious - - it won't pass the smell test (figurative, not literal). It's why factyokels.org carefully took pictures to create the illusion that the document was legit, but in doing so revealed more clues to forgery, such as an out-of-sequence certificate number. No, this alleged document will never see the light of day if Obama can help it. He wouldn't dare.
Great post and oh so true.
You don't know what you are talking about. By that reasoning, you could never use your birth certificate to get a passport unless some court first approved your certificate. Obvious nonsense.
bump
Great point. Obama’s alleged COLB was issued in June 2007. He has obviously traveled before that and had a pre-existing passport. Certainly he did not use this document to get a passport. So, not only has the alleged COLB not been shown to a court, it’s also not been shown to the state department, which has trained staff who would know what to look for to tell is such a document was legit or not. We need to see the birth certificate mentioned in his book, because it may be the document he uses to travel overseas. What does it say?
| > You don't know what you are talking about. By that > reasoning, you could never use your birth certificate to > get a passport unless some court first approved your > certificate. Obvious nonsense. Very true — you MUST submit a CERTIFIED copy of a “birth certificate” to the State Department to get a Passport — at least the first time. I just had to get two Passports for the kiddos. You submit a CERTIFIED HARD COPY of the “birth certificate,” and the State Department mails it back to you upon completion. However, a Certified HARD COPY of Obama’s “birth certificate” has NEVER appeared in Court. If you go back and look at DNC attorney responses BEFORE the Inauguration, they always referenced the COLB that appeared on FactCheck. A certified hard copy has never appeared in front of a Judge to be accepted as a legal “fact”.
|
PING
Funny how these days the truth in many area’s comes from CFP, me thinks they see through HBO
1) To be president requires jus soli - born in the country - and jus sanguinis - born of citizen parents.
2) Obama told us in two books and on his website that he was born to a British subject - not a citizen - and was thus himself a British subject by the British Nationality Act of 1948. That event makes him a natural born subject of the Crown.
QED (That is what was to be demonstrated) A natural born citizen is “born in the country to citizen parents.” Every senator assented to that definition in 2008. Judge Michael Chertoff made the "two citizen parents" statement when he signed a supporting statement to Senate Res 511. Legislators will cover their behinds, but are protected from lies - unfortunately. Obama and Bob Bauer (Anita Dunn's husband) can delay release of documents for ever, or until the public doesn't care. We have the most important Constitutional information we need, from Obama himself. Chasing documents is a dead end.
There does not need to be the discovery of a birth certificate. It wouldn't hurt, but it isn't necessary. Reaching discovery can be stalled by complicit (frightened) district judges. Obama told us he was in violation of the Constitution. Just because McCain is suddenly uncertain about the meaning of natural born citizen doesn't mean Tea Party members, or Hillary supporters (Berg), or even libertarians need be. This is government "by the people" as our legislators are finding out.
If Obama doesn't immediately resign, which is what I anticipate, the demand for documents will come out. If there are other criminal charges the demand for documents will come out. If he suddenly discovers that his father was not Obama I, the demand for documents will come out. But Obama himself provided the direct path to his removal, perhaps presuming that he and his supporters had already so weakened constitutional interpretation that people would say “Oh, OK; perhaps one citizen parent is enough.”
Not only is natural born citizenship defined in Vattel, the most cited legal reference during the writing of our Constituion, and until after 1821, it was a standard introduced to Parliament in 1580 and confirmed by Lord Coke in Calvin's case in 1608 “...any person born with the king's dominion beame the king's subject at birth, provided that his parents were at the time under the actual obedience of the king.” This was English common law when our Constitution was written. Our founders cited Vattel because, I believe, it was a more general statement and our nation would elect its kings, requiring particular scrutiny of a candidate's allegiances. But don't bother with the wild goose chases suggested by Obots based upon our presumed adherence to Blackstone - English common law.
Impressive knowledge of history and law you have there. Are you an attorney, a historian?
I agree with you but there is a populist political component to the ‘contest’. You mentioned a weakening resolve to strictly interpret the constitution. Donofrio I believe is still pursuing your angle of attack but there is enormous populist political weight in the fact that Obama is delaying that simple document.
With Climategate, Obamacare, Government Motors, deflation, high unemployment and a slew of other painful developments culminating in a resultant anger I have not witnessed ever, I think the public boiling over to this issue is emminent. The history and law here seems as vapor for now, but the weight of public anger can catalyze recognition of history and application of the law.
Look how many scientists have come out in the open against AGW since the unauthorized release of the East Anglia emails, documents and data.
So it is with this ineligibility issue. Judges, politicians snd media pundits are ‘afraid’ to talk of the BC or of the Kenyan-born/British subject revelation and relevance.
But as soon as the BC is pryed out from the vault, the cowards of today will be bold legal warriors.
Hence we need the drama of the BC played out.
Could Republican and Democratic parties in each state require a presidential candidate to present his long form birth certificate---he could be required to attach it to his application form in each state---BEFORE he could put his name on the presidential primary ballot?
That is, I don't see how state and federal lawmakers could object to how political parties decide who can and who cannot put their names on primary ballots.
My point is this: If political parties passed their own rules that required presidential candidates to present their long form birth certificates before the candidates could put their names on the primary ballot, then we might NOT need state lawmakers to pass questionable and possibly unconstitutional laws that require presidential candidates to present long form birth certificates before they could put their names on the November 2012 presidential ballot.
Yes. In my opinion, the political party primary is the key first place to require a presidential candidate to present a long form birth certificate, because political parties and state election officials seem to have more control over the political primaries than they do over federal elections.
As I see it, it may be too late---and there is the danger that the law will be challenged and declared unconstitutional by the courts---for a state to wait until a presidential candidate applies to put his name on the November 2012 presidential ballot before requiring a presidential candidate to present his long form birth certificate.
So to be safe and to make sure that a presidential candidate is required to publicly present his long form birth certificate, let's look at the political party presidential primary as the first key place to demand presidential candidates to present their long form birth certificates.
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.
