Skip to comments.Republican congressman questions Obama’s ‘validity’
Posted on 06/19/2013 10:08:18 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
A Republican congressman is reviving the birther conspiracy and calling on Congress to revisit key issues that he says test the presidents validity.
When pressed by conservative radio host Rick Wiles last week, South Carolina Rep. Jeff Duncan played along with a conspiracy dubbed by Wiles as the original scandal: President Obamas phony identification papers.
Duncan, who chairs the House Homeland Security Oversight Subcommittee, went on to suggest that investigations into President Obamas place of birth was an issue deserving of the Supreme Courts attention.
WILES: But if we know theyre lying about all these other things, why not go back and say, well maybe the first scandal was a lie, too?
DUNCAN: There you go. Im all with you. Lets go back and revisit some of these things because Americans have questions about not only the IRS scandal but also about the presidents validity.
(Excerpt) Read more at tv.msnbc.com ...
South Carolina - home of the first shots of CW I.
MSNBC just continuing its role in the palace guard media.
Maybe more the Red Shirt security detail that accompanied Kirk in the original Star Trek.
(They usually did not come back...)
So called “birthers” have not engaged in any conspiracy, they question Obama’s eligibility.
Deportation not necessary, just relocate him to Rat Island, Alaska for the rest of his term.
How about Guam. I hear it might “tip over and sink”
For anyone with a spare fifteen minutes, I highly recommend listening to Carl Gallups yesterday talking about this Scandal of Scandals.
The CCP is not idle.
I’m constantly amazed at how the term “birther” turns anyone asking a very reasonable question into a tinfoil-hatted lunatic. How did they do that?
Every normal American wants to know the details of their President’s birth and upbringing. Was he born in the United States (there are doubts), was he a legal citizen of Indonesia (possibly), was he born of citizen parents and therefore a “natural born citizen” under the definition widely accepted at the time the Constitution was written (doubtful)? These are all fair and honest questions!
But throw out the term “birther” and everybody ducks and tries to change the subject. Bullfinch!
Call me a “birther” and answer the damn questions!!
Yes Faithhopecharity, you may have recently registered here, and may not have seen the reliable drumming of presumed originalists at FR clouding the first issue, but you are absolutely correct. Being born a British subject, because his father was British, was anathema to our founders and framers - and they said so clearly:
Our first congressional historian, a doctor and prolific author, explained citizenship concisely in his pamphlet form 1789, “A Dissertation On The Manner of Acquiring The Character and Privileges Of A Citizen Of The United States”
None can claim citizenship as a birth-right, but such as have been born since the declaration of independence, for this obvious reason: no man can be born a citizen of a state or government, which did not exist at the time of his birth. Citizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken a part in the late revolution: but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens.”<,/b>
Later, in 1814, Chief Justice John Marshall clarified the common-law (there are intentionally not definitions in the Constitution, as explained by James Madison; definitions depend upon our common language and common-law a the time of the founders), in The Venus, 12 U.S. 253:
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
The common-law definition was turned to positive law, law which has never been modified, interpreting Article II Section1, in Chief Justice Morrison Waite's definition. The common-law definition was used in a dozen cases before Minor v. Happersett, but cited after precedence was established by Chief Justice Waite at least twenty times in supreme court cases after 1875.
Why didn't anyone notice? Because George Soros’ chief information officer (computer IT manger) at Center for American Progress, Carl Malamud, and his good friend, and Center for American Progress fellow Tim Stanley, who founded Justia.com, edited those supreme court files to “munge” the citations to Minor v. Happpersett. These days most people use computers to search for keywords and Justia.com is the largest free and “open” Internet archive of Supreme Court cases. Those exploring free and on line resources would not see the citations to Minor v. Happersett and assume there was not positive law, just twenty or so instances of “dictum” quoting the common law cited by Justice Marshall from Vattel’s Law of Nations (the most cited legal resource in US jurisprudence between 1779 and 1821, and our first law book at our first law school). From Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162:
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.
That will forever be our law. Today there has been political agreement to ignore the Constitution - by both parties. It is no accident that the Republican mainstream has floated candidates for 2016 all of whom are fail Article II Section 1: Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, and Nikki Haley. (Why is because they were complicit in burying Article II Section 1 in protecting Obama, but that is for another thread) The Democrats tried to amend Article II four times between 2000 and 2007, twice by Conyers, once each by Menendez and Frank. Republicans tried to make Schwarzenegger eligible with an Orin Hatch amendment, and attempts by Rorhabacher and Nickles, none of which amendments to Article II, nor any other, has passed out of congress.
While Limbaugh hit the target with “low-information society”, we can keep trying. When citizens realize how unfamiliar our government has become they will pay more attention to why our framers insisted upon a president, and even included in our naturalization law, sole allegiance to our Nation, and allegiance at birth for anyone wishing to become president.
Revive what? The eligibility scandal is, was and will continue to be very much alive.
Probably because the maintenance contract for our state department's records facility was awarded to a security firm whose CEO, former CIA Chief of Station in Riyadh John Brennan, who is now our CIA Director, is a Sunni Muslim, converted in the late 1990s with several CIA agents in attendance. Those records were famously “cauterized” (Condoleezza Rice's description), in 2008, and the culprit, Brennan's employee, murdered shortly thereafter. Apparently, there are no longer records, though that is most likely the “official” position. It would be unusual for an intelligence agency, or form, or even a police department, to store physical records without first creating a digital archive at a different location.
All else is baloney.
What’s the name of the murdered individual who cauterized the records?
L. Quarles Harris.
Yes By and By, (who has figured out quickly who SiezetheCarp is). Obama, in addition, according to Percy Sutton (see the YouTube interview) attorney for Malcolm X, Louis Farrakhan, The Muslim Brotherhood, Charles Rangel, and President of the Manhattan Borough for a decade or so, had his education subsidized by the Saudi Royal Family beginning with Occidental, through admission to Harvard Law, after Al-Waleed bin Talal contributed twenty million dollars to Harvard.
Vernon Jarrett, Valerie's father-in-law, wrote about Saudi investment of twenty million in the education of minorities in the US in the Chicago Trib in 1979, the year Obama began at Occidental. The manager of those investments was Percy's old friend, a founder of the Black Panthers when he was known as Don Warden, and counsel to the Saudi Family when he became Khalid al Mansour in the early 70s, and after graduating from Berkeley's Boalt Hall. And yes, Vernon Jarrett was one of Frank Marshall Davis’ oldest friends, from childhood, through both of them writing for the communist press in Chicago, and continuing when Davis moved to escape FBI surveillance in Hawaii in the late 40s.
Bin-Talal controls over 90% of Saudi investments through his Kingdom Holdings. He is the largest external stockholder in News Corp (Fox News and the WSJ), and one of the largest in AIG, Citibank, Cisco, Apple, ... This is about big money and big religious wars - take your pick.
Examine any of Obama’s acts, from assisting with the removal of Mubarak, Kaddafi, and Abbas, to killing competitors for our energy business, to suppressing criticism of Islam by enforcing Sharia blasphemy laws in our intelligence and military agencies and opening the door for Afghan and Saudi immigration.
Obama is why our framers and founders insisted, in our Constitution, that our president be born to parents with sole allegiance to our nation, as stated in our naturalization oath, a nation of laws and not men like every monarchy. Our president's parents must have been citizens.
Obama, and only one other, Chester Arthur (thanks Leo Donofrio), was born an alien, a subject of the crown. Obama, didn't lie about it. He was never questioned by Congress, most likely because McCain was ineligible. Everyone knew there were issues, or Hillary, Obama, and Leahy wouldn't have sponsored two bills in 2008 to claim McCain should be deemed eligible, SB 2678 Feb, and SR 511, April. That is why the Republicans offer up one after another, Jindal, Rubio, Cruz, Haley, potential candidate born to alien parents. You don't think Hillary will suddenly remember Chief Justice Waite, or Chief Justice Jay, or Chief Justice Marshall, or Chief Justice Evans Hughes, if she finds the race close in 2016?
I believe you mean his purported long form Birth Certificate. (In previous discussions here, "COLB" has generally stood for the short form "Certification of Live Birth," several fraudulent images of which have also been produced on various web sites.) Although an amateur might be able to detect the forgery, the Arpaio Cold Case Posse had a well respected Certified Forensic Document Examiner analyze the image of the purported BC placed on the the White House web site and he came to the same conclusion. Make Zullo, the lead investigator for the Cold Case Posse, has explained in detail his findings of forgery in several videos.
The State Dept has custody of Obama’s passport records. Rep. Duncan chairs an oversight committee of Homeland Security. Homeland Security is the custodian of America’s immigration records.
Only an immigrant would fake a U.S. birth certificate. Since Rep. Duncan has the means to investigate Obama’s immigration records, why doesn’t he?