Posted on 06/24/2011 6:25:19 AM PDT by Ordinary_American
In a February 13, 1818 letter to H. Niles, John Adams wrote:
“But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was affected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations…This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution.“
The first “shots” of the Second American Revolution have not been fired, but the battle lines have been drawn.
There is now a radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the American people.
Petitioning the current Congress for the redress of grievances is futile. Members of Congress have turned a deaf ear to the voices of their constituents.
The present occupiers of the US Government openly violate the Constitution, are hopelessly corrupt and politically correct, have brought us to the brink of bankruptcy, have opened our borders to illegal immigration and have permitted a fifth column promoting Sharia law to infiltrate our society.
They can no longer be trusted as guardians of our posterity.
Not a week goes by without yet another document analyst claiming that his Certificate of Live Birth presented by Obama at his press conference on April 27, 2011 is a forgery.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Logic applied to the Actions of Stanley Dunham? Really? She was a nut case if there ever was one. The official story is, she meets a guy in Russian class, immediately gets pregnant by him, waits till February to marry him, Has the baby in August and splits a couple of weeks later to move to Washington, and doesn't see him again till 1971?
Maybe they were married. He wanted to remain in the United States, so as the Spouse of an American he has that advantage, Stanley needed to explain why her child was going to be black (in theory) So Barack could solve that problem for her. I see Divorce Records, but I haven't seen a Marriage certificate. If the state can produce the one, they ought to be able to produce the other. Why have we not seen it?
As for the doctor who delivered him, I thought he was dead.
Yes, he's dead, but documents (birth certificates) he signed are legal affidavits.
What are you really looking for? Do you believe everyone connected to the Hawaii Dept. of Health is involved in a fraud, going public with saying Obama was born in Hawaii?
You don't call it fraud when it's Legal and S.O.P. (Standard Operating Practice.) Every state creates fake or Amended birth certificates for Adopted Children. They are Official Legal Documents that attest to things which are not true. (Such as Father and Mother.) You won't be able to tell if you are looking at a real or amended birth certificate UNLESS they show you the original. How do I know this? *I* am adopted, and *I* have a copy of both the original AND the Modified "OFFICIAL" certificate. State officials are bared by law from disclosing the fact of an Adoption. So Yeah, I'm suspecting Hawaiian Officials aren't giving us the truth.
I think that is really stretching the imagination. His long form BC looks just like other ones from that time. I’m not sure what else you want.
It looks nothing like birth certificates from that time. Copies from that time period say " A True and Correct Copy of the Original record..." not "Abstract of the record on file..."
And if Hillary was afraid to “out” him because she would lose the black vote, how about all the Republicans? What were they afraid of?
You mean John McCain? He was the Republican running against him. Of What was he afraid? We find out AFTER he wins the nomination that *HE* wasn't born in the United States, which is what most silly Americans think is the requirement. He dared not bring up the question of eligibility, because it would have backfired worse on him than Obama.
Was every Secretary of State in the country afraid to raise the question about his eligibility?
The Federal Secretary of State has nothing to do with this. Each State has it's own secretary of state, but they are not ostensibly involved in the normal ballot process. That is handled by the various state election boards and they just did things the way they had always done them. They accepted the statement of the Party Chairman (Nancy Pelosi) that Barack was eligible, and they asked for no further proof.
If someone has proof that his birth certificates were fake, who should they tell?
Who knows? There is all sorts of proof that his image file is fake, but unless it's extremely compelling, nobody is going to pay attention to it. The media would ordinarily verify and report, but they only do that to Republicans. (Remember Dan Rather and the Texas National Guard memos?)
Wasn't there a recent story claiming he told his classmates in Indonesia that he would be King of Indonesia some day?
I haven’t noticed a response to either of my questions.
“Is someone you care about born with a foreign parent?”
and
“Are you aware that prior to 1920 women gained automatic American citizenship upon marriage to an American male?”
It is perfectly feasible to have children born on US soil of one or even two non-citizen parents, who never, ever hold any citizenship except for US citizenship.
IloveSara2012 said the same thing. Your argument seems to be that because the parent country doesn't want them, they must therefore be American. That logic doesn't sound right.
That post removed might be related to me reporting that a lot of childish nuisance keywords were added to this thread.
I hadn’t gotten to reading far enough so I don’t know what it said, but it could be the obot who peppered this thread also wrote that post, and is now gone. The admin cleaned up the mess (thanks!)
This is where most birthers, apparently including yourself, flunk the most basic of logic.
Slaves and Indians dude. Apply that basic Jus Soli logic and explain why they were not only not "natural born citizens" but not even citizens at all!
No place but Article II.
So - bottom line. Obama is president and will be until 2012.
Slaves and Indians dude. A direct real world violation of your jus soli theory.
“#1) there were numerous ineligibility threads on FR - yet not one mentioned that the standard in Article II section 1 was “born in country of two citizen parents”. 0bama was the focus of a great deal of interest.”
“Early ineligibility arguments focused on dual citizenship or that he was “really” born in Kenya.
Only after the election was it that ‘everyone who is Constitutionally literate should know’ that the standard
under Article II section 1 is “born in country of citizen parents”.
-1 (DU talk)
For telling lies.
I have read where RedSteel has debunked your myths before to lots of trolls but maybe not directly to you.
Here are a few where the ‘TWO CITIZENS AND BORN IN THE USA’ before the election. Mind you that it wasn’t until later in 2008 that we even knew Barry Soetoro would be the nominee over Mrs. Clinton, and that most discussions about ‘natural born Citizen’ was about McCain, and nobody could even talk about Obama’s middle name Hussein without being called a racist.
Yes, basically, most of the buzz was about Obama’s forged “Certification of Live Birth” and the question of whether he WAS born in Kenya.
However, there were dicussions, and the same old crap distractions from the anti-Constitutionalists.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2047869/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2066207/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2036922/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2039352/posts
From Freeper Spunky
“There’s no doubt his mother was a citizen, so does it even matter where he was born?”
Yes it does matter. There were/are laws governing this. It depends on which year you were born.
Obama was born in 1961 and the below was the law covering that year.
4. December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986
If, at the time of your birth, both your parents were U.S. citizens and at least one had a prior residence in
the United States, you automatically acquired U.S. citizenship with no conditions for retaining it.
If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United
States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16. There are no conditions
placed on retaining this type of citizenship. If your one U.S. citizen parent is your father and you were
born outside of marriage, the same rules apply if your father legally legitimated you before your 21st
birthday and you were unmarried at the time. If legitimation occurred after November 14, 1986, your father
must have established paternity prior to your 18th birthday, either by acknowledgment or by court order, and
must have stated in writing that he would support you financially until your 18th birthday.
If by chance Barack Obama’s mother gave birth to him in Kenya she did not meet the 5 year residency in the
U.S. after the age of 16 because she was 18 when she gave birth.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2039352/posts
To: Red Steel
Obama is trying to lower the bar over what constitutes qualifications to the Presidency of the United States.
The lowest possible bar he can set is meeting the Constitutional requirements for being a native born
citizen. This is the standard we are now arguing over.
All additional qualifications of temprement, experience, ability, philosophy, corruptability and resume are
being conveniently forgotten while we argue whether or not he is meets the Constitutional bar. Then when it
is proven that he does, he will pretend that that eliminates any possible objection anybody might have to him
being President of the United States.
8 posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 4:14:27 PM by gridlock (Al Gore wants YOU to live like the Flintstones
while HE lives like the Jetsons.)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2039352/posts?page=8#8
+++++++++++++++++++++++
To: Red Steel; pissant; Calpernia
Got the following in an e-mail afew days ago. I’m not a lawyer or an expert on election oe citizenship law. I
found it fascinating, but have no way of knowing if there’s anything to it...
...............
Subject: Obama May Be Illegal To Be Elected President!
This came from a USNA alumnus. It’ll be interesting to see how the media handle this...
Barack Obama is not a legal U.S. natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his
birth, which falls between December 24, 1952, to November 13, 1986. Federal Law requires that the office of
President requires a natural-born citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. Citizen parents. This is what
exempts John McCain, though he was born in the US Panama Canal Zone.
US Law very clearly states: ‘. . . If only one parent is a U.S. Citizen at the time of one’s birth, that
parent must have resided in the United States for minimum ten years, five of which must be after the age of
16.’ Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. Citizen is a fact.
Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born. This means even though she had been a U.S. Citizen for 10
years, (or citizen of Hawaii being a territory), his mother fails the test for at-least-5-years- prior-to
Barack Obama’s birth, but-after-age-16.
In essence, Mother alone is not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. Citizenship. At most, 2
years elapsed from his mother turning 16 to the time of Barack Obama’s birth when she was 18. His mother
would have needed to have been 16 + 5 = 21 years old at the time of Barack Obama’s birth for him to be a
natural-born citizen. Barack Obama was already 3 years old at the time his mother would have needed to be to
allow him natural citizenship from his only U.S. Citizen parent. Obama should have been naturalized as a
citizen . . but that would disqualify him from holding the office.
The Constitution clearly declares: Naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of President.
Though Barack Obama was sent back to Hawaii at age 10, any other information does not matter because his
mother is the one who must fulfill the requirement to be a U.S. Citzen for 10 years prior to his birth on
August 4, 1961, with 5 of those years being after age 16.
Further, Obama may have had to have remained in the USA for some time frame to protect any citizenship he
might have had, rather than living in Indonesia. This is very clear cut and a glaring violation of U.S.
Election law. I think the Governor Schwarzenegger of California should be very interested in discovering if
Obama is allowed to be elected President without being a natural-born U.S. Citizen, since this would set a
precedent. Stay tuned to your TV sets because I suspect some of this information will be leaking through over
the next several days.
18 posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 4:24:10 PM by smoothsailing
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2039352/posts?page=18#18
To: smoothsailing
Yes, I have seen that quoted before as the law of the land in 1961. Now it may well conflict with many
assumptions about what a “natural born” citizen is, but it appears that according to the law prevailing in
1961 that even if Obama WAS born in Hawaii or any other US state, he was not a US citizen at birth because
his father was not a citizen and with only one parent (his mother) as citizen she needed to have resided in
the USA for “minimum ten years, five of which must be after the age of 16”..... it may be a very strange way
for the law to have been written, to say that an natural born US citizen who is under the age of 21 may not
give birth to a natural born US citizen if the father is not a US citizen, but isn’t that what the text of
this law implies???? Are there any FReeper lawyers who care to give their analysis of the law prevailing in
1961 on the citizenship status of a baby born to a US citizen mother and a foreign citizen father??
“US Law very clearly states: ‘. . . If only one parent is a U.S. Citizen at the time of one’s birth, that
parent must have resided in the United States for minimum ten years, five of which must be after the age of
16.’ Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. Citizen is a fact.
Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born. This means even though she had been a U.S. Citizen for 10
years, (or citizen of Hawaii being a territory), his mother fails the test for at-least-5-years- prior-to
Barack Obama’s birth, but-after-age-16.”
108 posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 6:44:32 PM by Enchante (OBAMA: “That’s not the Wesley Clark I knew!”)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2039352/posts?page=108#108
To: All
Hey, all, for a moment leaving aside the issue of the birth certificate itself, please consider what
Smoothsailing has quoted (see #108 above) — EVEN IF Barack Obama were to produce a perfectly valid birth
certificate that didn’t raise any other problems, how is he construed as a “natural born” citizen under the
US law that prevailed in 1961 if it is indeed what Smoothsailing and others have quoted??
I don’t know how the legal and constitutional issues are settled on this, but the text of the law quoted in
#108 and above seems to be unequivocal that “Stanley Dunham” (Barack’s mother) at the tender age of 18 could
not give birth to a “natural born” US citizen with the father as a foreign national????
If that is the correct understanding of the law prevailing at that time, how has this not already become an
huge issue?
If that is not what the law said in 1961, has someone explained this issue adequately?
I am not a lawyer, obviously, just a mystified citizen.
Is Barack Obama a natural born US citizen or not???
[fwiw, I think that would be a strange outcome, at variance with most citizens’ expectations and assumptions,
but the law is not about what we expect or assume - there should be a FACT of the matter about whether or not
Barack Obama was/is a natural born US citizen - it seems that the law of that time did not allow a US citizen
mother UNDER THE AGE OF 21 to give birth to a natural born citizen baby if conceived with a foreign national
father?? Considering that most all/rights and privileges of adulthood in those days did not start until age
21 this may have been quite intentional with those who drafted and passed this law?]
111 posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 6:57:06 PM by Enchante (OBAMA: “That’s not the Wesley Clark I knew!”)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2039352/posts?page=111#111
To: RipSawyer
I thought the term was “natural” born citizen, which would be different than “native” born citizen.
To: Slapshot68
I find this whole topic to be bogus but fun to read. But your point, It doesn’t say both of his parents have
to be, it just says “children of citizens.”
Citizens is plural, as in both mother and father. It does not read, child or children of a citizen, singular.
36 posted on Thursday, June 26, 2008 4:36:46 PM by Phantom Lord (Fall on to your knees for the Phantom Lord)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2036922/posts?page=36#36
To: 2ndDivisionVet
In one or more of the other threads over the past few weeks on this topic the laws regarding the natural
citizen thing has been hammered indept. Sorry I can’t provide a link.
I guess I wonder if this is such a problem or even a remote possibility then why hasn’t one of the other
interested parties found out the answer? I feel like if Obama isn’t a natural born citizen as required that
the pressure would have been put on him to drop out of the campaign and give the nomination to Hillary.
Does anyone think that with the influence that some of the others have that someone acting in their interest
could make a call or two to someone in the HI government and have them take a look in the official records
and if Obama didn’t qualify as a natual citizen then the word could quitely be wispered into Obama’s ear to
drop out or suffer the embarrassment? Now on with my tin foil hat... LOL.
54 posted on Thursday, June 26, 2008 4:51:53 PM by deport ( ——Cue Spooky Music-—)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2036922/posts?page=54#54
To: dascallie
Is it based on honor?
We have requirements to become President of the United States. Who verifies those requirements? Is it based
on the candidates honor, or do we have a committee that checks out all the details?
Have we ever had a case where someone might not meet those requirements and keeps the facts hidden?
13 posted on Saturday, July 19, 2008 12:00:34 AM by FreeAtlanta (Search for Folding Project - Join FR Team
36120)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2047869/posts?page=13#13
To: dascallie
These issues should be clarified. The original, unchanged birth certificate for any candidate for POTUS -
Obama and McCain’ should be public record. Also, both parents have to be American citizens and the candidate
has to be born in this country.
Questions have been raised about the eligibility of both candidates, especially Obama, and there should be no
problem in verifying the information. What if Obama’s mother had renounced her citizenship? For McCain, being
born on a US military base is not the same as being born in the USA. In view of the outlandish decisions by
the Supreme Court, it would come as no surprise if it said McCain did not meet the criteria.
45 posted on Saturday, July 19, 2008 10:44:18 AM by Dante3
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2047869/posts?page=45#45
To: Dante3
“For McCain, being born on a US military base is not the same as being born in the USA. In view of the
outlandish decisions by the Supreme Court, it would come as no surprise if it said McCain did not meet the
criteria.
But BOTH of his parents were US citizens, unlike Obama.
This issue also came up in 1968, when George Romney (Mitt’s dad) ran for the GOP nomination. George Romney
was born in Mexico of American parents. The consensus then was that the fact that both parents were US
citizens meant that he qualified as “natural-born,” even though he was born outside the US.
48 posted on Saturday, July 19, 2008 11:48:31 AM by cookcounty (Obama reach across the aisle? He’s so far to
the left, he’ll need a roadmap to FIND the aisle.)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2047869/posts?page=48#48
To: cookcounty
For everyone running for POTUS - not just Obama and McCain - original birth certificates and parents’
citizenship status should be released to the public.
In Obama’s case there are several questions, in McCain’s there is the question of him born in a foreign
country. Considering some of the controversial interpretations made by the Supreme Court, it might decide
against McCain.
There is no question if both parents of a candidate are citizens AND he is born in the United States. If not,
then it needs clarification. I would not want a POTUS who holds dual citizenship.
50 posted on Saturday, July 19, 2008 1:20:53 PM by Dante3
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2047869/posts?page=50#50
http://www.theurbangrind.net/?p=2790
No. Oklahoma was the best chance in my opinion and the release of that image file sapped the winds from her sails. Also I think the governor was being bribed with Federal grants to make it go away.
As for the truth, somewhere down the road someone will discover it, probably years from now. It won’t help. Until the Supreme Court sets out a legal definitive definition of natural-born citizen, nothing will change.
The Supreme Court is not the decider of truth. They are the decider of what the police forces will enforce.
“I haven’t said that there were no discussions of his eligibility before the election.
I said that the definition of “born in country of citizen parents” - something that supposedly we all should know to be Constitutionally literate - was not mentioned on said eligibility threads until AFTER the election.
All that has been shown so far - time after time - are dual citizenship arguments.
They are not the same.
Obviously.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2739306/posts?page=222#222
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. A natural born Citizen can not be a dual national. They are the same arguement.
Dual Nationality
The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth.
A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.
Intent can be shown by the person’s statements or conduct.The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance.
However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship.Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship.
http://web.archive.org/web/20060114035952/http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html
He holds the office. (Like a kidnapper. :) ) Just for kicks and grins, i'll say that he will hold the office until approximately July 20, 2012, based on that passage from revelations that someone quoted. :)
3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?
5 ¶ And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
-
I think forcing him off the ballot unless he shows an original document is one sure fire way to make sure he doesn't get reelected.
Will the state secretaries just assume eligibility because he is now the s_itting pResident? If one or two state election committees demand proof of eligibility before accepting his registry for the primaries, would that have any significance to the average obotsky? ... I can see the posts at FR now: ‘How daft can you birfers be, demanding proof of eligibility? He’s already the sworn-in president!’, and ‘If he was eligible, he would never have been sworn in,’ or, ‘Since unJustice Roberts (the pirate) swore him in he’s eligible. Get over it ... eat crow ... concentrate on his policies and record.’
Very well done!!
Uh oh is right, and I’m not sure.
Good question.... past posting history always tells the real story.
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.