Posted on 01/20/2011 12:21:07 PM PST by DontTreadOnMe2009
Honestly it beats the heck out of me. I can only guess. That guess is that Neil discovered that there is no long form, and is now backpedaling and trying to cover his tracks. In addition, I believe he got the word from a friend of a friend in Chicago who knows Valerie Jarrett that he needs to STFU about it. But Barry isn’t shining his a$$ and making it all sparklie and glamorous... so Neil is just going to take care of it himself. Thats my tongue and cheek way of saying, Barry hasn’t yet made it worth Neil’s time to STFU about it. Yet.
I honestly believe that Obama does not have a Certificate of Live Birth, he has a certification of live birth which was generated by a Late filed birth Registration giving him Hawaiian and US citizenship fradulently, along with an untold number of foreign babies. Now Barry may well have been born in a pineapple patch (which I dount, the Mongeese in those fields are FIERCE) and is a legitimate NBC, but he can’t prove it because of the fraud Hawaii was committing at the time.
Neil is getting schooled on Hawaiian immigration, and an education with regard to those same foreign born babies with US Citizenship who have no right to it.
Neil is about to get a really bad migraine, because if THAT fraud is exposed, and the extent of it made public, the ramifications are HUGE. It will be much like Puerto Rico having to re-issue all its birth certificates a couple years ago. Doable, but still doesn’t address all the foreginers running around with US citizenship obtained through fraud. That would be one BIG migraine.
From: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2660291/posts?page=137
Here is my cut at this question.
I will digress back to the actual words in Article II - “natural born Citizen”. Note - no hyphen and the C is capitalized. Citizen as a capitalized term is a defined term. It meant a Citizen of the of the states. So you do have be a Citizen to be president. AND you had to be a ‘natural born’ Citizen. So to be eligible from an Article II you have to be a (current) Citizen.
This is why the fuss over the ‘definition’ of ‘natural born Citizen’ is really bogus. Citizen IS defined - hence why it is Capitalized. Any legal person will tell you capitalized terms are explicitly defined entities and that is the case in the Constitution.
Now ‘natural born’. First note - no hyphen. It is not a special term or special word or unique phrase. The are not capitalized so the framers did not provide specific or unique definitions of these words. So lets look at each of these common adjectives to determine what they intended.
Lets use this website for answers:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/
‘natural’
I think there is a definition that fits the Constitutional context:
“Not acquired; inherent:”
‘born’
Again - there is a definition that fits:
“possessing or appearing to have possessed certain qualities from birth” (note - “from birth”)
So we can replace ‘natural born Citizen’ with
‘inherent Citizen from birth’
and we have the same meaning.
So the Article II of the Constitution requires you to be:
A. A Citizen. A CURRENT Citizen.
B. A Citizen whose status was inherent and not acquired (i.e. naturalized - sorry Arnold)
C. A Citizen ‘FROM BIRTH’. Note - not AT birth as many indicated - FROM BIRTH.
Thus if Obama ever gave up his US Citizenship in total after the age of 18 then he is no longer a) a Citizen at that point in time and b) no longer a ‘natural born Citizen’ since you must retain your status ‘from birth’ just as a common dictionary says.
In summary:
The Framers did not ‘define’ ‘natural born Citizen’ (no hyphen, Capital C) because they did NOT need to. If you read those three words AS THEY SHOULD BE READ the meaning is clear. It is above.
I have a real long form, so I know exactly where it is supposed to ne. Hoewever, why mark it out? A number that has been posted elsewhere... why mark that out? The far more relevant information is in the details of the form, not in the file number. The file number has been public knowledge for years now.
I have seen this one before, I seem to remember it surfacing about the time of the Kenyan one as a demonstration of how easy it was to forge on of these things on the internet. Thats what I remember. I believe that pic is a forgery.
That’s not really true. That’s wishful thinking. The article said Top Ten Obama Investigation Targets. This is a quote from the beginning of the article: “Here are the Top 10 areas ripe for investigation for Issa and other congressional Republicans:” These are the Human Events writer’s suggestions FOR them.
Yes it may well be as it has no provenance ...
Just like the COLB
but it suggests how it might have been done, the application, back in 1961.
I don’t know
No one knows.
And 99% of the media ain’t talking about it nor will the EVER talk about it.
(The Kenyan Parliament IS talking about it but no one cares ...)
True ‘nough!
The question should be asked of Okubo, IF that is your Hawaii laws and procedures, why was it not held up and done in Obama’s case ? since there are eye witnesses who can testify that Obama was born in Kenya, and most of the Kenyan Parliament says that Obama was born there, and there is a Kenyan birth certificate that states that he was born there.
Yes, Okubo, should be ask then ? why is there conflicting evidence and eye witnesses that makes her claim invalid ?
Is Janice Okubo making the outlandish statement that Obama’s own grandmother, and the Kenyan Parliament are lying ?
Come on Janice Okubo, Main Stream Media, Democrat Obama operatives, come on , answer the question ? is Obama’s Grandmother and the Kenyan Parliament lying ?
It would also be good if any conservative American who was born outside of the US and yet has a Hawaii birth certificate would come forward.
I see you are still cutting and pasting and have nothing of substance to add to the discussion. I suggest you STFU and go back to liberal land and join your zotted friends there.
I’m sorry to see that you are PMSing. Perhaps tomorrow will be a brighter day for you.
I have not seen that comment. Where is it?
Posted on FR a day or two ago
Must search rather than guess.
Perhaps now that the Republicans control the House of Representatives, Ms. Okubo will be subpoenaed to testify before a House Committee, under oath, and answer those questions.
It would also be good if any conservative American who was born outside of the US and yet has a Hawaii birth certificate would come forward.
Excellent suggestions ...
Ha!
Still looking and googling ...
Trooooll Bot
Now that was fun! Thanks for the giggle.
Yes, well, it all boils down to the same thing. Was he born in the United States or not.
If having been physically born in the USA, he would have to loose his citizenship by the action of a parent, or by an act of implied renunciation , or by direct renunciation itself.All of these require evidence of intent. Maybe it could be there but doubtful.
So it really boils down to “Where was he born?” and if he was born in the USA, “was his citizenship directly or vicariously subsequently renounced with intent?”
Pretty straight forward.
Well, can we see this “certificate”.
I mean, like, hold it in our hands?
Why not?
After 3 years of waiting why not ???
And why not the long form too ???
Oh, Lil’ Jameseeeeee says something useful about every 10,000 posts. Whew! Jamese: gotta avoid being zotted so I can keep on getting dat Soros cash!
Thank you, Red Steel, thank you kindly.
No dice.
That provision of the law wasn't passed until 1982. Obama's birth was registered with the state in 1961. Furthermore, there was no provision under the law in effect in 1961 that allowed for the registration of foreign births.
Try again.
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.