Obama has lost eligibility issue

WND -- World Net Daily ^ | August 10, 2010 | Joseph Farah

[stevenl77]

Just as Richard Nixon lost the battle of Watergate because of cover-up and stonewalling, Barack Obama has lost the battle over his constitutional eligibility for the same sins.

With the latest CNN poll showing only 42 percent of Americans definitively persuaded that he was born in the U.S., those who claimed this wasn't a "winning issue" have been proven wrong.

Not only is it a winning issue, it is the only issue that can effectively undo the nightmare of the Obama era in one fell swoop.

There would be no need for repealing Obamacare if it turns out his presidency was a sham from the beginning.

There would be no need to wait until Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan retire or die to see them replaced on the Supreme Court if it turns out his presidency was a sham from the beginning.

There would be no need to wring our hands in hopes that future congresses and future presidents might roll back all of the damage Obama has inflicted on America if it turns out his presidency was sham from the beginning.

There would be no need to wait until 2011 in hopes that a new Republican majority might impeach Obama if it turns out his presidency was a sham from the beginning.

There would be no need to wait until 2012 for another chance to replace Obama if it turns out his presidency was a sham from the beginning.

That's why this issue is so important.

[rambo316]

But a majority of the people cannot be indefinitely ignored.

Oh no, what do you think has been going on since the RATS took control of congress and the Usurper took the White House?

Pelosi:We have to pass healthcare so that you can see what's in it.

[fr_freak]

Oh, BTW, if it were true, Winston Churchill would have been forever excluded from the Presidency, even if his parents moved to America and his father took citizenship papers before Winston was born in, say, Maryland.

Yes, that is correct. You say it like it is a bad thing. Quite frankly, the fact that Winston Churchill became the Prime Minister of the UK demonstrates exactly why this particular aspect of the Constitution is in place; we do not want someone who does not consider the USA to be his first and only loyalty to be the Commander-in-Chief and the Chief Executive of the US.

Obama is actually a good example of why the "natural born" clause should be enforced with an iron fist. It is quite obvious that even if Obama fit the Constitutional definition of a natural-born citizen, he is not, in fact, American in his world view, nor in his loyalties, nor in his sympathies. In fact, he is quite hostile to all things American. This was exactly what the Founders tried to avoid, knowing full well that the sheer volume of immigrants to the country would produce a high number of citizens who still had ties and loyalties to other nations, and would act on their behalf first. So they put this clause in the Constitution to prevent a president who used the power of his office to act on behalf of a foreign power, even at the expense of the USA. The "natural-born" requirement should be the most rigidly applied requirement of office. It is only the legalistic word-parsing of people more interested in lawyerly wrangling rather than patriotic duty that suppresses the common sense outrage that all Americans should feel about having a foreign agent as president.

[bjorn14]

Rumor has it he even claimed he was born in Mombasa in a televised TV debate with Alan Keyes during their Senate race. Sadly, that too has gone missing like most of his records.

[stevenl77]

I do think the “one parent not being a citizen” argument is a waste of time to the extent of trying to get him removed from office. I would raise the argument, but I wouldn’t be making it the primary focus like the people suing are doing. Everyone in Congress knew where his father had citizenship before he was nominated and the issue was brought up early. And there’s no way in hell that he’ll be impeached for it. If it was uncovered definitively that he wasn’t born in the U.S. or lost his citizenship and lied about it, he most certainly would be impeached for it. That’s why that should be the focus. Furthermore, there is no definition of the term in the constitution. Evidence as to how some early politicians used the term and its meaning is persuasive only. The Court has the ultimate authority to define the term since it’s not defined in the constitution, and it has not done so in a binding matter, and it’s free not to interpret it to require both parents being citizens if and when it ever decides to tackle the issue.

[wideminded]

There would be no need for repealing Obamacare if it turns out his presidency was a sham from the beginning.

Wrong.

There would be no need to wait until Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan retire or die to see them replaced on the Supreme Court if it turns out his presidency was a sham from the beginning.

Wrong again.

[DaveTesla]

Center column 3rd paragraph down:

Source:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=2
>! you have to turn to page 1291 !>

Bingham states: I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill],
which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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… . . – John Bingham, framer of the 14 amendment in the United States House on March 9, 1866”

Charles Pinckney
Signer of the United States Constitution, Governor of South
Carolina. Senator and a member of the House of Representatives.
“Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born
citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established
jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are
themselves citizens of the United States.”
(I have more if you would like.)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1952 The Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S. Code Section 1401 (b).

"Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

"(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

"(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one
of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States, who prior to the birth of such person, was
physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than
ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.

Since Ms. Dunham was only 18 at the time that means she Does NOT transfer citizenship to Mr. Obama.
http://www.aca.ch/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=366&Itemid=44

[philman_36]

From the article...only 42 percent of Americans definitively persuaded that he was born in the U.S.
Seems pretty straightforward. 48% have doubts as to where he was born.
It's a shame they don't have a poll asking if Americans thought he was a natural born citizen.
I guess that would be giving too much away and giving CNN too much credit.

What’s gaining traction is the possibility of Obama not being born in Hawaii and/or his citizenship being lost when he moved to Indonesia. That’s what the CNN poll was about with over half the country not being fully convinced of where Obama was born.

41. Do you think Barack Obama was definitely born in the United States, probably born in the United States, probably born in another country, or definitely born in another country?

Nothing in the CNN poll about losing his citizenship that I can find. Got link?

[bjorn14]

I don’t think he served enough time in the Senate to earn that pension. I believe the minimum is 5 years.

[philman_36]

You’re tedious and repetitive.

[rambo316]

....and I wonder who it is that Mr. Farah has been talking to of the fence sitters on this issue. I pray that they stop fence sitting and start reporting the truth. Eerily could it be the Communist News Network (CNN) that starts to break this story? It seems that they have been talking about it as of late. I wonder why. Might it be to gain some credibility back? Foxnews will not touch this story. It made me sick how Beck brought up “Dreams of my Father” last night and didn’t even talk about what a fraud the book is, instead he started talking about himself and his father; I thought he was going to start his crying routine.

[philman_36]

Wrong.
Wrong again.

How or why is his statement wrong?
Just stating "it's wrong" doesn't automatically make it so.

[philman_36]

Still waiting...
But when you’ve had previous presidents with a single parent not a U.S. citizen, the argument becomes a waste of time.

I note that you use the plural when stating that previous presidents were not natural born citizens. Was there someone else besides Chester Arthur or was he just an aberration?

[lentulusgracchus]

Sadly, that too has gone missing like most of his records.

Yeah, I saw a Honolulu newspaper article after it had been "cleaned up" by Zero's staff in 2006 (formal correction)..... that's what gave me the idea that he'd put it out himself (and it was immediately reinforced by wifey's repeating it "by mistake" -- to no news coverage by the obedient and ductile MSM).

Stories on this subject are like the proverbial Buddhist stone that makes no ripples ..... we are so ill-served by those lying wretches that call themselves newspapermen.

[BobP]

...Id like to see his presidential pension and his US Senate pension stripped if he failed to show actual proof he was born here.

I'd like to see this ASAP:

Obama says goodbye outside the White House

[stevenl77]

Wideminded:
I agree with you as to the quoted lines from the article. The idea that the Supreme Court would rule that two of its own justices needed to leave if Obama was impeached and removed for fraud is a joke. Same with healthcare reform and other legislation he signed into law. It’s not like the Supreme Court is going to invalidate all the legislation if it turns out Obama lied about his citizenship and was never qualified to be president and Congress booted him out. It would never happen. It reflects the way he thinks it should be, not what would really happen.

[philman_36]

The idea that the Supreme Court would rule that two of its own justices needed to leave if Obama was impeached and removed for fraud is a joke.
Why is it a joke? Simply saying it would be one doesn't make it one.

It’s not like the Supreme Court is going to invalidate all the legislation if it turns out Obama lied about his citizenship and was never qualified to be president and Congress booted him out.
Then what would happen to all of the legislation that was signed into law during his term? Wouldn't all of the bills he signed be unlawful? Would his appointments be legal if he held the office illegally?

It would never happen.
That is your opinion, which you're entitled to.

It reflects the way he thinks it should be, not what would really happen.
Your comments reflect the way you think it should will be without any substantiation whatsoever except your opinion.

[Brytani]

It never happened, complete rumor.

Freeper Eternal Vigilance works for Keyes and personally asked him about the rumor. Keyes says it never happened and he has no idea where the rumor originated from.

Btw, if Obama had made such a statement, don’t you think Keyes himself would have used it in one of his eligibility lawsuits?

I’m not jumping on you and please do not take it as I am but what hurts us (Birthers - and I fall into that group!) are all the rumors that are passed off as fact and spread around to show how stupid. nuts, crazy, tin-foil hat laden we are.

[wideminded]

How or why is his statement wrong?
Just stating "it's wrong" doesn't automatically make it so.

It's late and I was hoping to avoid spelling it out, but there is a relevant principle of law called the De Facto Officer Doctrine, which has been recognized by the Supreme Court:

"The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person's appointment or election to office is deficient. ... "The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office." - link

Because of this, even if Obama's right to hold office is held to be invalid by the highest court, this will not automatically nullify any laws and executive orders he has signed up to that point or remove any Supreme Court justices he has nominated that were confirmed.

[stevenl77]

Philman —

Would you kindly be quiet. You’re attacking every sentence I compose because I unintentionally made you feel stupid while trying to help you. Grow up.

[1-Eagle]

Not only is it a winning issue, it is the....only.... issue that can effectively undo the nightmare of the Obama era in one fell swoop.

Well thats all fine and good and any Socialist getting kicked out under any conditions has got to be a good thing, but I would beg to differ with the overall premise about the "winning issue". The bigger issue is not Obama, per se, but the creeping Marxist effort that is pushing our Republic toward the edge of the cliff. I think it is inaccurate and terribly short sighted to deal only with an "Obama Era" when the larger problem is an "American Socialist Era" which must be dealt with.

Certainly, the Democrats will try to write off his loss in 2012 by putting the "birthers" and "Tea Partiers" to blame, rather than acknowledging the real reason which is simply that: Socialism stinks, it doesn't work, it isn't Constitutional, and we don't want it. This is the genuine "Winning Issue".

Our Republic has, to date, survived several Marxist leaning Administrations, including FDR, Carter, Clinton, and now Obama, but each has left permanent Marxist/Socialist programs behind, almost as if they were purposely laying down individual foundation blocks for the construction of a new Marxist State. FDR left us with mandatory Social Security, Carter gave us Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac which mandated banks make risky loans.

Obama is hoping to cap that off with a forced Government Healthcare System, the same system Hilary Clinton spent millions of tax dollars trying to create.

So, anyway, ok, Obama is going to lose. Whether it is in "one fell swoop" or not doesn't really matter. Actually, Obama may prove useful if he were to hang around awhile. Like Clinton, he has done a terrific job of waking up the sleeping conservative giant in this country, and hopefully we will see the results in November. The Democrats, themselves, will want to get him off the ballot by the time 2012 comes around, Hilary is already making some noise in that direction.

But whatever happens, we can't afford to let all of this come down to a dispute over a birth certificate... it is Communism itself that is the real enemy. When Obama is pushed out, another FDR/Carter/Clinton/Obama marxist puppet will just attempt to move up to take his place.

So, again, what we actually need is an end to the American Socialist Era, or whatever you want to call it. If we do not begin to fight this fight in much the same way as Gov. Cristie in NJ, by slashing spending however "painful" it may be, dismantling the socialist programs, and reducing these incredible tax rates that are stifling the economy, we are going to lose our Constitutional Republic. One could certainly argue we have, largely, already lost it, and now we are faced with the monumental task of restoring it.

Such measures as heavy spending cuts and tax reduction should then, obviously, be followed by a gradual termination of all dependency on the Federal Government. (with the usual exception of National Defense.)

If that means putting up tolls on all major highways, charging parents for school costs... whatever it takes. We have got to get the Federal government back into its proper Constitutional role by weaning off the States from Federally collected tax dollars.

I think we are on the brink of losing this fight, however, because the worst damage left behind by each succeeding Marxist Administration has been on the SCOTUS. When we lose the Supreme Court, we will have lost the last legal guardian of our Constitutional Republic. Every election resulting in decisive majorities for the Marxists will mean accelerated Marxism until the Constitution will be finally and completely reduced to a simple "living document" that will mean whatever they want it to mean, whenever they want it to mean it.

So when are we going to wake up and smell the coffee? This battle has been going on for decades. This is not an issue for "one election." Our Republic has been under attack from within by determined Marxists since the Great Depression landed F.D. Roosevelt an opportunity to begin laying the first foundations of it, while the Soviets infiltrated his administration and began work to destabilize our country circa 1940. (ref: Yuri Bezmenov )