Posted on 07/19/2009 6:49:59 AM PDT by PurpleMountains
Fair-minded people are still baffled by Obamas refusal to clear up the continuing controversy over his birthplace, and by his determination to stop every attempt to delve into this matter through harassment and costly litigation. He is reported to have spent over a million dollars in legal fees fighting the determination of this issue.
His relatives have testified that he was born in Kenya, but not under oath. His original birth certificate has been withheld; what are we to believe? Our Constitution clearly states that a person born on foreign soil when only one parent is a USA citizen cannot become President.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...
It won’t go away unless he wants to provide the information that is being requested. None of it hard to provide.
Bookmark.
Why has no one asked him directly about this topic during a press conference? I realize that during a town hall he’ll just get the questions that were screened, but all it takes is for a reporter to stand up and ask for it. When he begins to dance around the question, hold his feet to the fire and have him produce it for verification.
A person born on US soil is not a natural born citizen if both parents were not citizens - not necessarily natural born ones themselves - naturalized would do, but they must BOTH be citizens of the US.
Not exactly.
When he leaves office, some tiny village in Kenya is going to put up a sign that says “Birthplace of Barack Obama.”
“Our Constitution clearly states that a person born on foreign soil when only one parent is a USA citizen cannot become President.”
not quite....
“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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
It wont go away unless he wants to provide the information that is being requested. None of it hard to provide.
I saw someone on another forum try to say that Obama couldn’t release his original BC based on Hawaii law.
That’s BS, he’s the only one that CAN RELEASE by Hawaii law, correct?
Our Constitution clearly states that a person born on foreign soil when only one parent is a USA citizen cannot become President.
Not exactly.
I thought one person could pass it based on living here so many years and being over the age of 18, blah blah blah.
Which from all accounts Obama’s mother didn’t meet these requirements.
The law states that. The Constitution is silent on the definition of a natural born citizen.
“A person born on US soil is not a natural born citizen if both parents were not citizens - not necessarily natural born ones themselves - naturalized would do, but they must BOTH be citizens of the US.”
Reread what I said, which was the effect of the Constitutional restriction.
I totally agree. But I’m so burned by his type that even if he were to whip it out at this late date, I would always wonder if it, too, is a perfectly aged-looking fraud. If it could be independently verified by the world’s highest-ranking, apolitical document fraud expert, then I might think about believing it. (Sorry for my jaded attitude!)
I saw someone on another forum try to say that Obama couldnt release his original BC based on Hawaii law.
______________________________
Ha - must’ve been the same person who called into talk radio and stated Obama was raised in Kansas by a white family.
But what I want to know is why is this story getting legs now? What changed?
You misstate the case. It’s not all about his birthplace. It’s about his eligibility for the Presidency under the Constitution. His father was not even a resident alien in the United States; he was a British citizen of the colony of Kenya. That is pertinent, and has a great deal of bearing on the matter, moreso perhaps than where Barack Obama was born.
That is why so much time and effort, and such smokescreening, to keep people thinking it’s all about a birth certificate. It’s not all about a birth certificate. He’s got an obvious problem, as far as being natural born as required, a problem that is a matter of public record, available for all to see. Concealing his birth certificate could very well be masterful sleight of hand, to take focus off of this obvious problem.
But, no President in my lifetime has been immune to rancorous calls for disclosure, of medical records, of college transcripts, you name it. Obama does not get a pass. Keep the pressure up, certainly. Just don’t misconstrue this as the be-all and end-all of determining his eligibility. Because, it’s not.
But what I want to know is why is this story getting legs now? What changed?
Well, then the next step in discerning its definiton is to read all writings about the topic contemporary to that time period. Read about what exactly LED to that proviso. Like other early American terms and words, its meaning for the founders can, and most likely has, been determined.
Think about it? 1 million dollars to shackle talk radio. That’s a cheap price tag.
Someone I know is convinced he will wait until this goes mainstream and whips into a frenzy, then he will pull out all the necessary documentation currently sealed and blame it on Evil Republicans because ‘that’s all they’ve got’- just prior to election time. Money is no object for Obama - he’s got plenty of it and will continue to have access to it.
If the above doesn't happen there may be hell to pay.
Under Happersett, a natural born citizen is clarified to mean born citizen without a doubt. Doubt entered the picture due to Obama being born a British citizen under The British Nationality Act of 1948, in effect at the time of his birth. He cannot be, as a state of nature, considered a born citizen of the United States, when he was born British.
The difference between the birth certificate issue and File Gate is that this controversy has an easy and definitive solution. It does not have to be a matter of who you believe. The birth certificate will resolve the issue.
That's a very well-trodden step. Searching FR alone would provide a mountain of set legal precedent, the John Jay letters, the Law of Nations, etcetera. You've got some catching up to do.
ping
The hidden long form, college records, college finance records, college application, selective service records, travel documents (passport used for travel during his college years), application for the Illinois Bar, his entire Illinois State Senate records, peripheral relationships regarding the unsolved murder of the TUCC choir director, etc.
This needs to be taken on by a well-known, objective, and authoritative entity.
The reset button needs to be built, tested, and PUSHED! Who will it be?
.
Don’t miss ‘Do you fear Obama?’. http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12999
Powerful stuff. This author answers the question, ‘why isn’t anybody doing anything’.
.
.
Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these states when the Constitution of the United States was adopted became ipso facto a citizen -- a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was consequently one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that
"No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,"
and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
very good statement of the case.....in fact one of the best I’ve seen, since it doesn’t ramble afield.
This brave little Russian refugee lady has put her life on hold- and in danger to try to save YOUR country. She flies all over the U.S. serving papers, giving speeches, meeting with various officials and giving interviews. This involves great expense, and it is reported that Dr. Orly is over $8,000 in debt from using her own funds in her fight to prove Obama's ineligibility. She needs researchers, lawyers and other volunteers. Please do what you can to help her. Help her keep the pressure on! http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/ Dr. Orly has taken as her new associate the renouned attorney, Stephen Pidgeon. ( http://stephenpidgeon.com/ http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=2816)
.
Dr. Orly website and PayPal:
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/
Stephen Pidgeon information (Dr. Orly’s new assistant)
http://stephenpidgeon.com/
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=2816
.
The “rambling afield” as you so aptly put it, is being deliberately interjected, imho. Muddy the waters, keep ‘em chasing their tails.
If she really is on to something she should be getting help right and left and where is Berg these days?
Bergs busy cuttin a deal with the Obama people.
THANKS FOR link, i made paypal donation.
How ironic that we can investigate Cheney for defending the country but can’t see Obama’s requirements. I swear this is like Alice in Wonderland only I would call in Alice in Obamaland
Tell me more please i can’t believe it.
Pray that Judge Carter will uphold the law, and hold BO to the Constitutional Requirements to be President.
Bergs busy cuttin a deal with the Obama people.
except for during the earliest days of his prominence, I’ve always considered that he might well have been the earliest ringer.....
“You’ve got some catching up to do.”
I was merely responding to a poster. He/she is the one who needs to catch up.
Yep, and per the 1948 British Colony Act, anyone born of a British citizen is automatically a British citizen too.
So it doesn't matter if Zero was born on the desk of the Oval Office. He's still unqualified and even admitted he had dual-citizenship on his campaign website.
My apologies, then.
It has the effect of making the public debate about personalities, about the credibility of the attorneys and their respective lawsuits. I can't honestly say any of them are highly credible. I had high hopes for the one in Washinton State, Broe v. Reed, but if the inundation of blog-floggers is any indication, he's thrown his hat in with Orly Taitz, a complete wackjob from the get-go. There is one FReeper in particular, who donated her time and gave Taitz free web hosting, that can tell a hair-raising tale about this woman.
Another piece of the puzzle is the money that all this generates, for websites, for blogs, for previously-unknown internet "radio shows" run by demonstrable liars who were pursuing Bigfoot, lol, prior to hopping onto the "birther" bandwagon. They don't want it resolved, their livelihood would go away.
Yes, I'm talking about Ed Hale of "Plains Radio." He claimed one of these nutty "attorneys" (Donofrio) had been kidnapped by "Islamofascists" and furthermore claimed that Sue Myrick (R-NC) was coming onto his show to validate it ... all a lie, to generate traffic to his site. FR has been inundated by this sort of crap; as a matter of fact, there are several spam posts on this thread along those lines.
I'm sure I'll get flamed for posting this, but it really needs saying. Discredit and disavow these leeches. They do FR a disservice, and they serve to make anyone who wants to get to the bottom of the whole thing look nutty by association.
A website that has been "scrubbed," by the way. FightTheSmears is no more. Plenty of screen captures around still, though.
ditto to your every word.....the video I watched on youtube with Orly Taitz and the Major in a free-for-all (to see) presser took away the last illusion I was under re her.....if her performance in Court even vaguely resembles what I saw, any Judge (regardless his/her loyalty to Law and America) should swat her on her buns and say thanks for filing. She might mean well, but is thoroughly incable in public, and her filings definitely ‘ramble afield’, much to America’s detriment.
I agree completely.
Outside of her much-balleyhooed eligibility lawsuits, she’s also working with Jamie Gorelick, did you know that?
Well, then, you might want to reverse charges for the PayPal donation you just made to Orly Taitz.
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.