Hawaii governor announces 'exact' place of Obama birth. No wonder there is confusion!

Originally posted by kozmo
OH, my bad... You're refering to the COLB that was photographed by FactCheck... that Annenberg, Obama campaign website. I thought you were talking about the obviously fake one that was originally presented as a scan. And yeah, I mean I've NEVER seen more than ONE embosser before.

I'm sure that the state of HI's ONLY embosser is under guarded security 24/7 right? COme on! My cousin's wife works for the State AG's office as a lawyer, she has 2 state seal embossers right on her desk at home.

Long Form Barack... it's the only way!

You are too funny. This is part of the reason you birthers look a little bit on the 'crazy' side.

I have no problem believing and embossed seal could be replicated. I am sure the president has access to the kinds of resources that would make a metal stamp. That is kind of the point. If he wanted a good forgery, I am sure he could make one. A 3D embossed stamp would not be impossible at all to get...

HOWEVER...

That is not the argument being presented here, is it?

First 'There is no embossed seal on it so it must be fake!'

Then 'Well it has an ebossed seal but even that is fake because it was made in photoshop.'

Then 'It is really a 3 dimensional indent in the paper? Oh yeah photosop does that too so it is still fake.'

Now you 'Oh well they could just emboss it then so it is still fake.'

Yeah, ok.

Still waiting for someone to explain to me the photoshop thing but hey, you moved on to the next goalpost shift already. If you think it is fooling anyone into thinking you are interested in any truth, then cool.

Originally posted by whatukno
The only thing that the OPs of these threads are looking to do is create more drama over a already completely debunked conspiracy theory.

Come on, it is one of their best tactics. You have a poster like Anon whos starts a thread with old, debunked, rehashed info that has about 20 other threads on it already and then you insist there is something to this because it will not go away.

I believe the US Supreme Court has not "ruled" on NBC for one reason and one reason only. That is because Natural Born Citizen is the same as Natural Rights, given to us under the Constitution. I think this was the full intent of our forefathers.

When questioning on why the US Supreme Court has not ruled on the matter, it is because no direct Constitutional challenges have been directly put for before the courts.

The discussions on previous presidents holds one thing very clear.

Charles Pinckney in 1800 said the presidential eligibility clause was designed “to insure … attachment to the country.” President Washington warned a “passionate attachment of one nation for another, produces a variety of evils,” and goes on to say:

Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation, of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill- will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld.

And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearance of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

Owing allegiance to another country is something that is convened by birthright, understood to be given by the father.

Regardless of what state a person is born in, if they have, or owe allegiance to another country by virtue of the given birthright - this was deemed as exclusionary throughout history.

The US SUpreme Court has no reason to rule on the definition of Natural Born Citizen, as it has remained understood throughout the years, as can be evidenced in their discussion of the topic.

This is why I state repeatedly that any item becomes known as it is defined, if it is repeatedly defined in the same way, which the term Natural Born Citizen has. It has never been defined in any other way.

We also have one modern day discussion which broaches the exact topic:

EXCERPT OF SECRETARY CHERTOFF TESTIMONY FROM APRIL 2, 2008:

Chairman Leahy. We will come back to that. I would mention one other thing, if I might, Senator Specter. Let me just ask this: I believe--and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President. I fully believe he does. I have never had any question in my mind that he meets our constitutional requirement. You are a former Federal judge. You are the
head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind--I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?

Secretary Chertoff. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen. Chairman Leahy. That is mine, too. Thank you.
url for document: leahy.senate.gov...

This was a comment heard during the hearing on John McCain's NBC status, and resulted in SR511 being passed.

RESOLUTION

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ of the United States;

Whereas the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to American citizens serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’;

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved,

That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ under


Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.),
Chairman, Committee On The Judiciary,
On The Introduction Of A Senate Resolution
April 10, 2008

www.scribd.com...

Please note that throughout the text outlined above the term citizens is plural.


Of particular note is the mention of the First Congress definition of NBC, that was later removed.

Some can point to that removal and make the claim that since it was removed it becomes irrelevant. This, of course, is not the case. It can also be understood that it was removed simply because it was redundant and the definition was understood, and appears to still be understood today.

In the cases that have gone to the US Supreme Court with regards to Obama's legitimacy, not ONE of those cases has been heard on merits, but was denied based on standing, alone.

The only persons with the ability to challenge the presidents standing would be Congress. Obviously, with the current members of congress being in the favor of Democrats, there is no way this will be passed as a resolution to go to the US Supreme Court as a challenge.

Therefore, the possibility of ever having a "ruling" from the US Supreme Court on this issue is slim to none. This does not rule out the fact that it is a legitimate question, and one that weighs heavily on some peoples' minds. Nearly half the people in the US believe that Obama is inelligible to be president.

It is not a matter of race or any other issues other than what is Constitutionally right and lawful under natural law, and the potential problems that were feared greatly by the founders of this country by having a person with an attachment to another nation.

The children have a natural attachment to the society in which they are born: being obliged to acknowledge the protection it has granted to their fathers, they are obliged to it in a great measure for their birth and education. … We have just observed that they have a right to enter into the society of which their fathers were members. But every man born free, the son of a citizen, arrived at years of discretion, may examine whether it be convenient for him to join in the society for which he was destined by his birth.

federalistblog.us...

In continuing from my last post, I will go so far as to say the staements made on this website are true:
fightthesmears.com...

The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.

The difference remains - the term Native Citizen is not the same as Natural Born Citizen.

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. 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.

Again, referring back the the previous post that I made regarding Natural Law and a person that owes allegiance to another country, one can reasonably conclude that by birthright, Obama owes allegiance to another country by the birthright passed down to him by his father.

Allegiance is the point of topic.

What exactly is allegiance?

Dictionary: al·le·giance
n.
Loyalty or the obligation of loyalty, as to a nation, sovereign, or cause. See synonyms at fidelity.

Thesaurus: allegiance
Faithfulness or devotion to a person, a cause, obligations, or duties: constancy, faithfulness, fealty, fidelity, loyalty, steadfastness. See continue/stop/pause, obligation.

www.answers.com...

One can easily understand that allegiance is not only something that was somewhat tangible as was seen in the British context, as in owing allegiance and responsibility to a leader, but more in the way our forefathers thought of it - as an emotional state of mind.

Owing allegiance to your country of origin is an explary example that can easily be found on the many videos and statements made by the president and his wife, along with members of his "country of origin". It is understood that allegiance is in the birthright that is passed from the father to a son.

Langdon Cheves, in February of 1814:

The children have a natural attachment to the society in which they are born: being obliged to acknowledge the protection it has granted to their fathers, they are obliged to it in a great measure for their birth and education. … We have just observed that they have a right to enter into the society of which their fathers were members. But every man born free, the son of a citizen, arrived at years of discretion, may examine whether it be convenient for him to join in the society for which he was destined by his birth.

federalistblog.us...

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

This statement was added at some point after the argument was brought up about dual citizenships.

Even this statement, when viewed in the context that the law speaks of dual citizenships and other allegiances, it is obvious that regardless of the dual citizenship clause, allegiance is the primary issue.

This statement confirmed the principle of partus sequitur patrem: that Obama Jr.’s Kenyan/British citizenship was passed to him by his father, who was in the US on a student visa and never naturalized as a US citizen.

www.thepostemail.com...

Witness Dr. John Fonte opined: “Dual allegiance violates a core American principle of equality of citizenship.”

Later in the hearing, Dr. Eastman, when asked “what about the children of legal permanent residents, temporary visitors or tourists on tourist visas, temporary workers and illegal aliens?” answered:

I don’t think, as an original matter, their understanding was that it would include any of those classifications…this allegiance-owing type of jurisdiction that we’re talking about meant that they really could have only a single citizenship. And the fact that they were children and therefore owed allegiance through their parents to a different sovereign, whether the parents were here legally or illegally, temporarily or permanently, did not alter the fact that that was the kind of sovereign jurisdiction that was envisioned in the 14th amendment.

None of the participants of the hearing affirmed that either birthright or dual citizenship was Constitutional, merely that both were common practice.

Whether or not he claimed the citizenship or not is not at the core of the issue, because the argument can be made that he has, does, and continues to view Kenya as his Nation of Birth or his Homeland emotionally, in other words - allegiance.

The allegiance he owes in obvious in his compassions for another country to which his father passed his birthright to him.

Michelle Obama: Barack Obama is a Kenyan and America is too mean

www.youtube.com...

Michelle Obama let slip that Kenya is Obama's Home Country

fromtheold.com...

The internet is run rampant with stories like the above because it is an emotional issue, one that strikes at the very core of the Constitution and those that stand behind it.

I pledge allegiance to the the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.



[edit on 9-5-2010 by Libertygal]

Originally posted by Libertygal
In continuing from my last post, I will go so far as to say the staements made on this website are true:
fightthesmears.com...

The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.

The difference remains - the term Native Citizen is not the same as Natural Born Citizen.

What exactly are you trying to argue here? What you seem to think is all over the place. Do you think he was born in Hawaii as the above seems to state?

Originally posted by Libertygal
I also said I didn't have any further answers than what I said, but I would bargain that once the births began in this country, and they became Natural Born US citizens, that I seriously doubt Irish Law could be deemed to supercede US Law, hence negating the argument of dual citizenship.

Where do you get this notion from?

Ok forgive my words of error. Once the family began being born in the US, they were Natural Born Citizens. You get the point.

Ah, I get it now. The children born to these Irish immigrants were natural born citizens because they were born within the US, just like Obama is a natural born citizen because he was born in the US. Thanks for clearing that up.

A Natural Born Citizen is simply a person who is a citizen because of birth, rather than becoming a citizen later. Many years ago you were not a citizen unless you were born to two parents who were citizens. This has changed over the years, and is the source of the confusion over the meaning of natural born.

I disagree that this has changed over the years. Being Natural Born doesn't change over the years, like you said, you either are or you are not, there is no in between.

Of course the rulings on who is a citizen at birth have changed. Don't you know your own country's history? Citizenship used to be passed down through the father, and the mother was considered an American citizen by virtue of living in America and being married to an American citizen. But eventually lawmakers realised women were humans too, not just chattels, and then citizenship could be passed down through the mother. A later ruling decided that all born in America, apart from a few exceptions, were citizens. This could change again to stop babies being born American citizens just because the foreign mother crosses the border to give birth.

It has never been ruled on by the Supreme Court because the exact circumstances resulting in a person being born a citizen can change depending on laws passed.

And where did you get this notion?

From studying much history on both international and American law.

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by Libertygal
I also said I didn't have any further answers than what I said, but I would bargain that once the births began in this country, and they became Natural Born US citizens, that I seriously doubt Irish Law could be deemed to supercede US Law, hence negating the argument of dual citizenship.

Where do you get this notion from?

Ok forgive my words of error. Once the family began being born in the US, they were Natural Born Citizens. You get the point.

Ah, I get it now. The children born to these Irish immigrants were natural born citizens because they were born within the US, just like Obama is a natural born citizen because he was born in the US. Thanks for clearing that up.

That is incorrect. Obama was born to one parent that was a citizen, not two.

Children born to Irish immigrants became citizens. Children born *those* children were Natural Born.

You intentionally tried to muddy those waters. Tsk. Tsk.

You know as well as I do that the topic on Kennedy was about his great grandparents, grandparents, and then parents and their alleged Irish dual citizenship.

Really, it is off topic, but I still answered the questions.

A Natural Born Citizen is simply a person who is a citizen because of birth, rather than becoming a citizen later. Many years ago you were not a citizen unless you were born to two parents who were citizens. This has changed over the years, and is the source of the confusion over the meaning of natural born.

I disagree that this has changed over the years. Being Natural Born doesn't change over the years, like you said, you either are or you are not, there is no in between.

Of course the rulings on who is a citizen at birth have changed. Don't you know your own country's history? Citizenship used to be passed down through the father, and the mother was considered an American citizen by virtue of living in America and being married to an American citizen. But eventually lawmakers realised women were humans too, not just chattels, and then citizenship could be passed down through the mother A later ruling decided that all born in America, apart from a few exceptions, were citizens. This could change again to stop babies being born American citizens just because the foreign mother crosses the border to give birth.

Again, you are attempting to muddy the waters. I never stated Obama was not a citizen. In fact, I support that he is. Citizenship laws certainly have changed over the years. Natural Born, and the understanding of that, never has.

Read it again: I disagree that this has changed over the years. Being Natural Born doesn't change over the years, like you said, you either are or you are not, there is no in between.

Citizenship is still passed down from the father, but in an attempt to clear things up a little, lets just state that in 1961 when Obama was born, citizenship was passed down by the father. Obama was, and still is, a British National. He also gained by birth, Kenyan citizenship in 1963 by the same act that governed him at birth. He did not claim, to our knowledge, his Kenyan citizenship. He is not required to claim his British citizenship, it still stands that he is.

A later ruling decided that all born in America, apart from a few exceptions, were citizens.

A later ruling. Citizens.

A later ruling has no standing, as he is a citizen.

He is still not a Natural Born Citizen.

It has never been ruled on by the Supreme Court because the exact circumstances resulting in a person being born a citizen can change depending on laws passed.

And where did you get this notion?

From studying much history on both international and American law.

Well, then provide some topics supporting that for discussion, as I have. Or, is this an "only the bithers have to provide anything of substance" discussion?



[edit on 9-5-2010 by Libertygal]

reply to post by Libertygal


Obviously Libertygal is ignoring me and that is just fine.

I am not sure that I have seen anything funnier than this around here lately. You have a thread full of people insisting he was born in Kenya all cheering Libertygal on and according to Libertygal, they are all full of crap. Oh the tangled webs we weave...

Originally posted by Libertygal


Well, then provide some topics supporting that for discussion, as I have. Or, is this an "only the bithers have to provide anything of substance" discussion?

Apparently so when you put people who bring links with verifiable facts to the discussion on ignore. How can anyone seriously pretend they are looking for the truth when the only people they acknowledge are the ones that they think they can argue with. Why not acknowledge every bit of opposing information? Anon has taught his disciples well as his threads are full of him just ignoring anyone with facts or contradictory evidence. And so the birther movement trudges on, hiding from facts and then crying they never get to see any.

reply to post by Libertygal

So I take it you are quite happy to admit Obama was born in America to an American citizen?

You agree that Obama was born a citizen of the United States?

Your only quibble is that only one of his parents had American citizenship?

So all you lack is the understanding that Natural Born has always meant having citizenship by right of birth, the rulings conveying exactly how that right is earned having changed over the years.

reply to post by Kailassa


I think I made it rather clear in the above postings. I don't feel like repeating things, or feel the need to be "schooled".

The simple fact of the matter is, he can never be considered a Natural Born Citizen.