Thursday, July 30, 2009

Birthers: yes the press is pushing this one, but they can because the GOP is grounded in such things, remember Swift Boats?

Liberal blogger Mike Stark filmed an online video that portrayed eleven Republican members of Congress as being evasive when asked whether or not they believe President Obama is an American citizen. In it, Stark attempted to prove that Republican politicians are held hostage by conservative conspiracy theorists (Snip) A closer look at the video reveals that much of the seemingly incriminating footage is the result of selective video editing, falsification of identities, and outright mischaracterization.
Lucianne.com News Forum - Thread

So the official GOP is the left is making this issue up, but read the right wing blogger responses:

Reply 2 - Posted by: nocuol, 7/30/2009 2:11:37 AM     (No. 5732199)

I am sorry that those of us who do doubt that Obama was born in the United States are looked upon as kooks. If he was, then it would be easy to produce a legitimate long-form birth certificate, not this shortened certificate of live birth which doesn't prove anything. Why would Obama make the decision to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid releasing a state birth certificate and other documentation, such as educational records that would settle this question?


Reply 3 - Posted by: Country Boy, 7/30/2009 2:42:40 AM     (No. 5732210)

The MSM has gave up news reporting long ago, and wouldn't know how to report a news event if their lives depended on it. They are experts in spin, not in facts. So, I will help them out. Here are three facts:

1) The Constitution requires that the POTUS be a Natural Born Citizen

2) Barack Obama Jr. admits that his father was not an American citizen

"As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children."

3) Natural born, as defined by our Founders in the Federalist Papers and Vattel's the Law of Nations (http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.htm), is someone born of TWO United States Citizens:

"natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"

- Emerich de Vattel, 1758. Book I, chapter 19, § 212. Of the citizens and natives, the Law of Nations.

***
Spin removed, facts reported, the news is obama is not eligible to be President of the United States.


Reply 4 - Posted by: jond, 7/30/2009 3:04:07 AM     (No. 5732218)

BHO would not (as the article maintains) have have to submit his documents to any court. All he has to do is put them on a web site. He already tried that once, and probably found the results unsatisfactory.


Reply 5 - Posted by: check26, 7/30/2009 3:19:00 AM     (No. 5732227)

No effing way. This "birther" issue is all about your ilk not being able to accept the result of the last election. Period.


Reply 6 - Posted by: PLPointer67, 7/30/2009 3:28:19 AM     (No. 5732233)

Many thanks to #3 and #2.

I think #5 forgot the /s.


Reply 7 - Posted by: modampII, 7/30/2009 3:58:04 AM     (No. 5732248)

Right on #3, ironically when tele one was running for the Senate, his opponent, Atty. Ryan, had a good lead, all at once, his "private" divorce records were aired, shot him out of the saddle. Now, if it's okay to air anothers private records, why isn't it okay, for us to ask for tele ones private records, college papers, who sponsored him to college, to the Senate, who is "grooming" him, who is paying almost a million, to keep his Legal birth certificate from being aired. We small a rat, here, for sure. As the old lady said once, "Where's the Beef"? Just keep asking, if he's an
American born citizen, simply prove it, with the long form of his birth certificate. Whoever is grooming him, wants America brought to its' knees, and it seems to be working! We know nothing about tele one, except for that sham bio, ayers allegedly wrote for him, to deter questions!!


Reply 8 - Posted by: Catherine, 7/30/2009 4:44:40 AM     (No. 5732263)

As I heard the story, even if Obama was born in Hawaii, his mother had renounced her American citizenship and that gave Obama dual citizenship. I've read all over the place that he renounced his kenyan citizenship at age 21. So if he weren't a Kenyan citizen, why would he renounce it? Just a thought.

I guess these posts above are democrats trying to disgrace the GOP?
Blogged with the Flock Browser
Blogged with the Flock Browser

2 comments:

smrstrauss said...

Who says that a Natural Born Citizen requires two citizen parents?

The constitution does not define Natural Born, but Natural Born was commonly used in the laws of the US Colonies before the Revolution, and it meant that someone became a citizen of the colony and a subject of Britain merely by being born in the colony. This was regardless of the number of parents who were subjects or citizens.

This is what Natural Born refers to. It refers to the laws of citizenship at the time. It does not refer to the theories of Vattel, a Swiss philosopher, who was considered an expert in international law, but not an expert on citizenship or government. Vattel, for example, after defining what a Native citizen was (the term Natural Born did not appear in a translation of Vattel until 100 years after the Constitution), then did not recommend that the leader of a nation should be a Natural Born Citizen or a Native-Born Citizen, or a citizen at all. He cited many kings and emperors who came from other countries than the ones that they ruled, and he never said that this was a bad thing.

There is no evidence that the writers of the Constitution followed Vattel. They did not follow him on his recommendation that every country should establish a state religion and force everyone to join it.

So where does Native Born come from? From the law, and not from Vattel.

What did the law say? This is what Blackstone said (and he was very popular reading among the writers of the Constitution, who were mainly lawyers): “The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is alien.” http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/

(And the minor exceptions referred to in “generally speaking” refers to the children of foreign diplomats.) To be clear, Blackstone says that Natural Born subjects (and in the USA, Natural Born Citizens) are those that are born in the country regardless of the number of citizen parents.

And this is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

smrstrauss said...

Re: "Founders in the Federalist Papers"

I did a search on Citizen and Natural in the Federalist Papers adn there is NO mention of Natural Born Citizen much less a definition of Natural Born Citizen, much less something that indicates a Natural Born Citizen requires two US parents.

Only Vattel said that two citizen parents are required. Blackstone, however, said that Natural Born means born in the country, regardless of the number of parents.