theres no question that it ws FABRICATED...DIGITALLY...."mechanically" if you will, and thats ILLEGAL!in and of itself
Posted on 04/27/2011 6:46:49 PM PDT by geraldmcg
At long last, Barack Obama Jr. released his long form birth certificate today, clearly proving he is NOT a natural born citizen. So, why has there been virtually no call in the Senate to begin impeachment proceedings? And why are so many news reporters acting as if all Obama needed to substantiate he was a Natural Born Citizen was to prove he was born in the U.S.A?
The U.S. Constitution and U.S. law, as of the time of Obama Junior’s birth, still required a President to have a father (pictured top left) who was a U.S. citizen. Clearly Obama’s father was a British citizen, as clearly shown on the very document Obama released.
Still not convinced? Let’s take a refresher course in U.S. history. Our founding fathers didn’t want any U.S. President to have mixed loyalties so they required that both parents of a President be U.S. citizens in order to qualify their son or daughter to be a Natural Born U.S. Citizen. Period. Simple. Not complicated.
Here’s the exact language of the Naturalization Act of 1790, passed by the first U.S. Congress: “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…”
So there you have it. Obama is not eligible to be U.S. President and needs to be impeached and convicted quickly to avoid a constitutional crisis and to follow rule of law.
Bottom line: It doesn’t matter if Obama was born in Hawaii, which was actually a U.S. Territory at the time of Obama’s birth and not yet a U.S. state. What does matter is that Obama Jr.’s dad Obama Sr. was not a U.S. citizen and thus rendering his son’s Presidential aspirations patently illegal.
Need more proof? The founding fathers put the definition in writing from the defining documents of their day. Founding father John Jay used the definition of “natural born Citizen” straight from The Law of Nations (Vattel) that states: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…” (Vattel in Book 1, Sec 212)
What’s old is new again...
Sheesh...
Because not everyone agrees with the definition of natural born citizen you pieced together in 2008.
No you’ve done it. Soon the hordes will be here telling us all how the Constitution is a fluid document and the FF didn’t mean what they clearly wrote.
Try again.
Obama was born in ‘61, Hawaii became a state in ‘59, or am I missing something?
Sez who? When citing “US constitution and Law” it’s usually helpful to include minor details like say a citations to the Constitution, or The United States code, or even a supreme court decision supporting your thesis.
Otherwise it’s simply wishful thinking on your part.
der reader didn’t release a long form birth certificate. der reader released a transparently forged certificate of live birth.
I think talking heads and corrupt judges will make sure he is an NBC by hook or by crook. The Constitution rarely if ever matters to these fools.
Hawaii was not a state in 1961??
Think he’s referring to his father.
“I think talking heads and corrupt judges will make sure he is an NBC by hook or by crook.”
Sadly that applies to fellow posters right here on FR as well. All the (oft-mistaken) legalese and none of the ‘intent’. Oh well...guess none of the other things the Founding Fathers said, wrote, inferred and clearly meant when they created the country’s core docs are meaningless as well. Lets PARTY!
Don't stop him, he's on a roll.
And *that* is why I’ve been so frustrated with this entire story from the start.
What is everyone looking for with the BC? Proof that he’s not qualified to be POTUS? We already know that! It doesn’t matter what his BC says because his dad wasn’t an American. He can be a citizen, but not a NBC.
He is not, and never has been, qualified for the position.
So why did he bother to go through 3 years and over a million dollars to hide his BC in the first place? (And it’s this obfuscation that fuels the Birther fires.)
IMHO, it has nothing to do with where he was born. It is my guess that he lied and claimed to be an Indonesian citizen to get funding for college. He’s covering up fraud.
(Thank you.)
Don't impeachment proceedings begin in the House?
“Meanwhile, let us understand that every media writer who has with unbearable condescension stated that the birthers are whack-jobs because the birth issue was resolved by the release of the certification of live birth in 2008 has been shown to be a despicable liar or at best stone-cold indifferent to the truth. If the birth issue was resolved in 2008, then why did Obama release the birth certificate today? If the birth issue was resolved in 2008, then why did Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie try to get the birth certificate released in early 2011, and wasn’t able to do so, because Obama was still refusing at that point to allow his birth certificate to be released? The answer is that the birth issue was NOT resolved in 2008. The people who have been complaining for the last two and half years that the birth certificate has not been released have been proved right, and the people who have been oh-so-knowingly declaring for the last two and a half years that the birth certificate has already been released have been shown to be lying apparatchiks. “
You are right. I have noticed they mix a brew of word gymnastics to get around the clear meaning of NBC clause in the Constitution. There is no reason for the clause if everybody qualifies. The framers clearly meant to limit this to people that had no divided loyalties. We are screwed. Lets party....!!!!
All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the states in which they live.
I based my position as a birther on two points:
1. He was not born in Hawaii ( 25% )
2. His father was not a citizen (75%)
Apparently, he WAS born in Hawaii.
That is assuming the birth certificate is not a fraud.
It IS apparent that his father was not a US citizen.
btt
You'll notice that some letters are in the first picture, but not the second, like the K in "Kenya" and the first three letters of "none." This is because they were too light or incomplete and weren't recognized by the scanner.
There is no evidence that someone crafted this. Whoever scanned it probably had no idea it was creating multiple layers.
That really gets me. Thier intent couldnt be clearer but all these ‘conservatives’ suddenly invoke the spirit of Bill Clinton and “what the meaning of ‘is’ is” word games.
Well, every man has the right to be a fool. Personal choice and all that. And speaking of fools...
Just noticed I goofed ;)...Should read
“Oh well...guess none of the other things the Founding Fathers said, wrote, inferred and clearly meant when they created the country’s core docs are meaningful as well. Lets PARTY!”
Get over it. You're not a lawyer. Focus on the real issues of the lousy economy and Obama's failure as a president...
All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the states in which they live.
So?
“Think he’s referring to his father.”
_____________________
Has nothing to do with the father.
The father was apparently Kenyan, and
I do not recall anyone even suggesting that
his father was Hawaiian.
Why wasn't it clear when he was a Senator and constantly mentioned as a potential candidate? Or during the Democratic primary?
Simply amazing
It was to the many of us not intent on electing a Marxist. Not so clear to those intent on supporting him. Not my fault they have an agenda and reading difficulties.
We need the Donald to get on this natural born citizen aspect..
He was the only one with guts enough to make him cough up his bc.
the definition isn’t unclear in the least.
a natural born citizen is someone born in the country, of two citizens at the time of their birth.
if only one parent is a citizen, then the person is a normal citizen... naturalized... not a natural born citizen
this concept was old when the Constitution was written. you’re lack of understanding is yours, not some murkiness in the definition
If you're doing corrections, it should be "implied," not "inferred."
please show me, in the Constitution, the definition of the word ‘independence’
you won’t find it. it was, and is, in common use.
Noted! Thank you.
Folks can argue over the definition of the phrase, Natural Born Citizen, but the fact is, there is a condition of group membership that the Framers were attempting to codify in the US Constitution in Article II, Section I, by using that phrase.
They wanted to protect our country from ever having someone with divided loyalties from ever attaining the office of president (for obvious reasons).
To accomplish this, they set the bar for citizenship of president higher than for any other federal office named in the Constitution. Nowhere else in the Constitution will you find that a federal officer MUST be a Natural Born Citizen.
The Framers didn’t just pull that phrase out of thin air, either. That phrase was well known to educated people of the time, and it was universally understood to mean, one who is born on the soil of their country to two citizen parents of that same country.
It’s a simple concept, whose meaning has been muddied by time, and the corruption of our laws and language.
The original intent of the Framers has never been in question about this.
actually, we needed the long form as official record of his father’s citizenship at the time of his birth. up to this point, it was only hearsay.
now that we have the document, now ask... how can you be a natural born citizen if both parents weren’t citizens?
(page 246)
And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.
(pg 250)
6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/Lynch_v_Clarke_1844_ocr.pdf
you do understand the difference between naturalized and a natural born citizen, don’t you?
Ok, I’ll try to explain this a little clearer.... I believe he is saying that his father was not American, so because of that reason alone, O does not qualify under the requirements of the constitution.
Ask The Donald if he believes his own children are ineligible for the presidency due to their "divided loyalties."
No, it doesn't. There is no such legally binding definition.
“The Framers didn’t just pull that phrase out of thin air, either. That phrase was well known to educated people of the time, and it was universally understood to mean, one who is born on the soil of their country to two citizen parents of that same country.”
Not true. The phrase NBC existed prior to the Constitution, and it existed as the American version of natural born subject. At independence, every NBS became a NBC.
Vattel never used the phrase ‘natural born citizen’, nor did the Founder’s use his phrase and require the President to be “indigenous”.
you’re pretty funny.
you’re going on about someone being a citizen is completely irrelevant to the qualifications to become president.
all natural born citizens are citizens...
but not all citizens are natural born citizens.
there is a difference. do your homework, champ
The reason no impeachment hearings have started is because even though we have the house it no longer represents us..puking now must stop what a friggin sham...
You has some.
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.