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

Skip to comments.

Clever Legislators in Arizona Hit on New Way to Find Obama’s Birth Truth
CFP ^ | February 25, 2010 | Jerry McConnell

Posted on 02/25/2010 9:41:28 PM PST by bogusname

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-76 last
To: Hostage

I gotchya and I apologize. I was at work and getting ready to leave when I read your post quickly and it in that hurried state I saw it as contrary and snapped back a reply. As I was drivering home it was reprocessed. My fault.

Peace


51 posted on 02/26/2010 4:35:51 AM PST by bogusname (Banish All Liberals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

Good Point!


52 posted on 02/26/2010 5:56:08 AM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

Well-put.


53 posted on 02/26/2010 6:21:02 AM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: SMM48

“It is not law yet. It’s making it’s way through the state senate.”

The stories have said that this passed a committee which had 40 republicans (out of 90 total state legislators). Republicans have the majority in both Houses in Arizona, so there’s a real good chance this could pass.


54 posted on 02/26/2010 6:23:46 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: bogusname

This is all well and good HOWEVER...
This (elligebility/lack of basic documentation)has been a hot topic (for Freepers) for 2 years now and “we” appear no closer now than prior to the ‘08 election.
Forgeries have been uncovered, voids spotlighted, dots connected, and billboards erected. Yet the unenquiring minds have only to say “he posted his birth certificate” and whatever the nuance or evidence, the issue is sidelined as another “birther” rant.

Now what is it about the arguements that doesn’t seem to get through to the Limbaughs, O’Reilys, Hannitys, and Becks? How is it that they are content to just laugh it off and trash whatever is said? This is as much (un)settled as MMGW was yet to the media pundits it’s like the proverbial third rail of investigative broadcasting.
You would think that a very basic life history of Obama highlighting what is NOT known would make for pretty decent ratings.
I just hate to think that conservative media is so compromised as to bury this issue but it just seems so. Otherwise, there must be some overwhelming evidence, that they are uniquely privy to, which globally renders all contrary arguements moot.

Will someone please share that silver bullet? Moving this discussion further is like alcoholic recovery - you must admit that there is a problem. Why is it that the Becks et al cannot/will not admit to this one?


55 posted on 02/26/2010 7:01:47 AM PST by bossmechanic (If all else fails, hit it with a hammer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

I haven’t been there, but I have kin in Pecos (Pay-cuss).
http://www.texasescapes.com/TOWNS/Mentone_Texas/Mentone.htm


56 posted on 02/26/2010 7:15:03 AM PST by Deaf Smith (When a Texan takes his chances, chances will be taken that's for sure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz; All

Dawg,

I'm not sure what Orly's Latest Poopies (or prior poopies for that matter) has to do with Kerchner or Apuzzo in the 3rd Circuit, or any ongoing quo warranto case, but it's good to see you haven't lost faith in the Grand Jury process.

But the point is moot, in that an actual copy of Obama’s “birth certificate” has never appeared in front of a judge to be established as a Fact in a court room.

Amazing when you think about it that perhaps only two people have actually seen Obama's COLB.


57 posted on 02/26/2010 7:36:56 AM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Hostage; All

The long form ‘Certification of Live Birth’ is merely a technicality to get at the real issue.

BINGO. That's when the fireworks begin ;)

I mean ... c'mon ...

In order for Obama's "birth certificate" to be accepted as a legal "fact" —
as HRS 338-13(b) and 338.19 permits — the "birth certificate" should
at least have the common courtesy to appear in Court. It NEVER has.

As the Certification says very clearly:

“This copy serves as prima facia evidence

NOT

"This COPY OF A copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding."


58 posted on 02/26/2010 7:50:40 AM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie
"If he tries to go around it there needs to be lawsuits immediately."

Why would he try to get around it? He'd satisfy it by simply providing the document that was posted on the internet.

59 posted on 02/26/2010 8:00:52 AM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mlo
Why would he try to get around it? He'd satisfy it by simply providing the document that was posted on the internet.

That's extremely doubtful, especially since the issuing agency can't confirm if it's real or not.

60 posted on 02/26/2010 8:31:16 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: MamaDearest

Very interesting, maybe one day we will know the truth!


61 posted on 02/26/2010 8:38:05 AM PST by blackie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: blackie

In general, we know much of the truth. Obama’s COLB is fraudulent.


62 posted on 02/26/2010 8:44:08 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: edge919

It isn’t what we know, it is what we can prove.


63 posted on 02/26/2010 9:02:00 AM PST by blackie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: edge919
"That's extremely doubtful, especially since the issuing agency can't confirm if it's real or not."

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.

64 posted on 02/26/2010 9:05:23 AM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: mlo; All

> He'd satisfy it by simply providing the document that was posted on the internet.

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:

“This copy serves as prima facia evidence

NOT

"This COPY OF A copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding."

65 posted on 02/26/2010 9:16:15 AM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: mlo
The issuing agency can't confirm it because they aren't allowed by law to divulge protected information.

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.

66 posted on 02/26/2010 9:18:52 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: BP2

Great post and oh so true.


67 posted on 02/26/2010 9:19:41 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: BP2
"In order for Obama's "birth certificate" to be accepted as a legal "fact" — it MUST appear in Court. It NEVER has."

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.

68 posted on 02/26/2010 9:26:18 AM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: bogusname

bump


69 posted on 02/26/2010 9:27:31 AM PST by tutstar (Baptist Ping list - freepmail me to get on or off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlo

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?


70 posted on 02/26/2010 9:29:56 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: mlo; All

> 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”.



71 posted on 02/26/2010 9:38:18 AM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: taraytarah

PING


72 posted on 02/26/2010 10:11:02 AM PST by kingattax (99 % of liberals give the rest a bad name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: MamaDearest

Funny how these days the truth in many area’s comes from CFP, me thinks they see through HBO


73 posted on 02/26/2010 12:09:43 PM PST by JustPiper (I won't fall in line against my beliefs~ I won't argue with you because my opinion differs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
Hostage and Bogusname, I think we agree that there is uncertainty around Obama’s elibility. Let's understand the reasoning which guides me, but which is not the only way to reach the same end, and I am suggesting that we take the direct path.

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.

74 posted on 02/26/2010 4:30:28 PM PST by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding

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.


75 posted on 02/26/2010 9:30:49 PM PST by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie
How about this idea:

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.

76 posted on 02/26/2010 9:49:20 PM PST by john mirse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-76 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