Skip to comments.
IMPEACH OBAMA NOW! Long Form Birth Certificate Proves he is NOT Natural Born Citizen
WebToday ^
| 04-27-11
| WebToday
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)
TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; History; Politics
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; impeach; lawofnations; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; obama; obamasenior; politics
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-125 next last
To: Mr Rogers
maybe you don’t realize... a person born of a british citizen is ‘british by descent’.
this is why both parents are to be American citizens upon birth in order to insure natural born status.
John Bingham stated in the House of Representatives in 1862:
Who are natural-born citizens but those born in the Republic? […] [P]ersons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.[13]
He reiterated his statement in 1866:
Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.[14]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Born_Citizen_Clause#Legal_opinions
81
posted on
04/27/2011 9:18:08 PM PDT
by
sten
(fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
To: MeshugeMikey
I think you are onto something HUGE in the layers of the PDF... I was unable to find any more than one layer, so I checked the document Properties under the Adobe Reader File menu. According to the properties, this document was created on 4/27/2011 12:09:24 PM... What time does the properties say your PDF was created.
82
posted on
04/27/2011 9:18:14 PM PDT
by
DCBurgess58
(In a Capitalist society, men exploit other men. In a Communist society it's exactly the opposite.)
To: geraldmcg
83
posted on
04/27/2011 9:31:33 PM PDT
by
cruise_missile
(Obummer dumber than a teleprompter.)
To: MeshugeMikey
To: sten
“if you’re opinion were accurate, then any citizen would be eligible to be president.”
No. Go read and learn what a “naturalized citizen” is before posting further drivel.
85
posted on
04/27/2011 9:43:40 PM PDT
by
Mr Rogers
(Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
To: sten
The Founders used a well known and standard legal term: natural born citizen. That term did NOT require two citizen parents. Ever.
John Bingham was wrong.
86
posted on
04/27/2011 9:45:41 PM PDT
by
Mr Rogers
(Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
To: Lou Budvis
Don’t slander Vattel. He never wrote about natural born citizens. Birthers take his quote out of context, mis-translate it, and then pretend he supports their ridiculous claims.
Vattel was innocent. Birthers are not.
87
posted on
04/27/2011 9:49:16 PM PDT
by
Mr Rogers
(Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
To: Sprite518
thus is another KICKER for those at all familar with taking a CLOSE look at any inage on a computer monitor <
the Anit Alasing DOES NOT MATCH! why? Two Different Sources....one a SCAN OF THE SIGNATURE the other source Non ANti Aliased TYPE directly from COMPUTER MORE TO FOLLOW
To: Sprite518
thus is another KICKER for those at all familar with taking a CLOSE look at any inage on a computer monitor <
the Anit Alasing DOES NOT MATCH! why? Two Different Sources....one a SCAN OF THE SIGNATURE the other source Non ANti Aliased TYPE directly from COMPUTER MORE TO FOLLOW
To: geraldmcg
“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.”
You have obviously done some amazing ground breaking research on the topic.
To: trumandogz
understand it that Hawaii was given statehood in 1959
the B.C. s a horribly flawed Fraud...and he can be busted for that if anyonehas the GUTS to so do!
To: trumandogz
understand it that Hawaii was given statehood in 1959
the B.C. s a horribly flawed Fraud...and he can be busted for that if anyonehas the GUTS to so do!
To: MeshugeMikey
“understand it that Hawaii was given statehood in 1959”
How could that be, when the article states that Hawaii was just a territory in 1961?
To: Mr Rogers; All
Note to the forum: I already called Mr Rogers on this obvious omission earlier but he ignored me and continues to post this drivel.
(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.”
It is interesting that you omitted the sentence that immediately follows that statement.
"It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question."
94
posted on
04/28/2011 2:33:12 AM PDT
by
TigersEye
(Who crashed the markets on 9/15/08 and why?)
To: Mr Rogers; All
Note to the forum: I already called Mr Rogers on this obvious omission earlier but he ignored me and continues to post this drivel.
(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.”
It is interesting that you omitted the sentence that immediately follows that statement.
"It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question."
95
posted on
04/28/2011 2:34:18 AM PDT
by
TigersEye
(Who crashed the markets on 9/15/08 and why?)
To: sten
96
posted on
04/28/2011 3:00:10 AM PDT
by
bobjam
To: sten
To: TigersEye
I”m sorry TigersEye isn’t very bright. In saying “It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question.”, the judge is NOT saying that he isn’t GIVING a judicial decision now (in 1844). He is remarking that it is remarkable no one had contested the meaning for the previous 50 years.
One sentence later, the judge goes on to say:
“This circumstance itself, in regard to a point which must have occurred so often in the administration of justice, furnishes a strong inference that there has never been any doubt but that the common law rule [birth making one a NBC] was the law of the land.”
Not only was the judge not casting doubt on the principle, but he was showing that the principle was completely understood and accepted across the land.
98
posted on
04/28/2011 6:15:30 AM PDT
by
Mr Rogers
(Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
To: CWW
“Focus on the real issues of the lousy economy and Obama’s failure as a president...”
I think too many people are just lazy and don't want to do that.
To: SoothingDave
Try again.
I'm more interested in the dual citizenship....
100
posted on
04/28/2011 6:26:44 AM PDT
by
ForAmerica
(Conservative Christian Black Man!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-125 next 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson