Free Republic

How very typical of a lying leftists, to demand proof of a negative! Some of you Obamanoids are becoming unhinged, and it is so amusing to witness.

How very leftists, to twist the issue as you have tried to do. What can you cite as proof this fraud was born in Hawaii? Since the document the fraud has used to try and claim he was born in Hawaii has been shown inadequate to prove where he was actually born, what can you cite as proof? And how does where he was born remove the reality of his British subject citizenship through his father at birth, a fact the man has freely admitted on his website?

Thank you for the ping!

Whom has appointed you the defender of FreeRepublic’s reputation? There is a brown tint to your nose, connected to the Obamessiah, but it has a distinctly nasty smell.

Newbie, which ought carry the greater weight, an official release on paper from the department or the hearsay from an employee working under the director? I think that is what ‘plausible deniability’ is made of, an official release contradicted by a verbal assertion by an underling. Very clintonesque I’d say, very deceitful.

You, like most Obamanoid apologists, seem given to making assertions which are hollow, at best: “As to the courts, they recognize only two categories of citizen: natural born and naturalized. There is no third category.” Since the courts have never ruled on a case of Presidential ineligibility based upon the natural born citizen issue, but have used the term in other rulings, I’d say your opinion is no more valid than mine of Thomas Jefferson’s. But you do have a persistent deceitful energy to champion your Obamessiah. Are we now going to contemplate citizenship SCOTUS cases, as your next level of misdirection? Others in your obscene platoon seem to jump there when they are exposed as obfuscators.

Kerping to you, since I borrowed from your recent post to another on another thread.

Mister Polarik, do you have the images of those 'other' certifications of live birth from Hawaii which also show born in Honalulu, like the one for the famous Chinese fellow?

Let's see is if I can post this from another thread:

Importance of the newly located Dunham/Obama Sr divorce decree in proving ineligibility
Tuesday, January 06, 2009 1:34:29 AM · 806 of 829 MHGinTN to Will88

The founders were concerned with people who had divided loyalties. The founders presumed this divided nature could come through fathers not American citizens:

The “natural born” Clause’s origins have been traced to a July 25, 1787 letter from John Jay to the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, George Washington. Jay wrote, “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

Thomas Jefferson wrote Virginia’s birthright law of 1777 requiring the father to be a citizen. “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.“

“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN.” Vattel, Citizens and Nations,” par. 212

From the Federalist Papers website:

The Supreme Court operates under the precedent of Marbury v. Madison, in which it asserted (without subsequent refutation by the legislative or executive branches) that it is the role of the Supreme Court to declare what the language of the Constitution means.

There are exactly zero decisions by the Supreme Court in the history of this country that are on point. No definition of the term “natural born citizen” has ever been provided. The founders of the country, and the framers and ratifiers of the Constitution, were more or less all well-versed in the major (read influential) philosophical and political texts of the day. These included de Vattel’s 1758 masterpiece “Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns Congress or the Executive.

According to de Vattel, “[t]he natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” This provides a positive definition of the exact term “natural born citizen” that leaves no wiggle room, rendering it perfect for use in a founding document like the U.S. Constitution.

No wonder there is no discussion of what the term means. Each and every one of the founders was well aware of de Vattel’s apparently authoritative definition, such that no such discussion was needed. In the same passage, de Vattel also flatly states that if a person is born in a given country of a father who is a foreigner, “it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” This provides a precise example of a person who does not qualify as a natural born citizen that, in the case of Barack Obama, is not only directly on point, but unfortunately for him, damning.

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 805 | View Replies

Now, Obamanoid liberal professor, how about answering the questions posed to you.

It must frustrate your leftist mind that you cannot demand respect for your leftist sycophancy at FreeRepublic and get your way. I will name you as I see fit and let readers decide the balance.

In typical leftists style, you never answer any questions posed to you but continue to repeat your own idiotic queries. There are two types of common citizenship, naturalized or born here. But these are not natural born citizens according to what the term meant when the frmamers included it in the Constitution. It is interesting that you Obama worshippers keep tryng to sell this lie that there are only two types of citizens. Is it related to your desire to have anchor babies build the leftists numbers, or is it a flaw in your leftists’ agenda to amnesty the tens of millions of illegal invaders?

What is not true about it, Obamanoid?

Pure dumb leftist misdirection, professor. You can read the quotes from the men who wrote the Constitution as well as anyone else, but you continue to try this idiotic misdirection. Not becoming for a professed to try such deceit!

The term was well understood to mean American citizen parents by men like John Jay, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson. A father of foreign loyalty was to be avoided, thus the inclusion of the phrase 'natural born citizen'. In Jay's letter to Washington and Jefferson's writing of the Virginia state Constitution, a man of divided loyalties through his father was not a natural born citizen. Quotes showing their understanding of the term have been posted numerous times on threads where you have posted, so we may assume you've read them. [MHGinTN, Beckwith, would one of you post those quotes again for this professional deceiver?]

Why do you, professor, continue to try that deceit? Show us where the term 'arms' is defined in the Constitution. Show us where the meaning of 'Church' is explained in the Constitution. Show us where the term press is defined in the Constitution. You cannot, but the understanding of those terms has Historical context which may be readily consulted. That you don't like the meaning drawn from History is very 'liberal' of you, Oregonian.

Prior to 1982, anyone requesting a certification of live birth and depositing a copy of their actual certificate of birth long form but not born in Hawaii would be issued a certifiction of live birth stating place of birth as Honolulu. It is instructive of the Obamanoids that they keep trying to use that deception on a site like FreeRepublic where more than mere leftist assertion, actual data, is common. More than one example of the pattern has been posted here int he last two months. [Do you, Polarik, or Lucy T, have access to that imagery from past threads or that long thread on which Polairk posted his final report on the forged COLB? Time to bury this lie with the documentation, and I don’t have access on this slow system I use.] The Obamanoids don’t expect anyone to question their lying. It must be frustrating for these Axelrod sycophants.

The son of a British subject is not a natural born American citizen either, regardless of where the child is born, but there appear to be lots of posters trying to erase that truth in order to fudge up a pass for their chosen almost black candidate. That son of a British subject could be, probably would be, a citizen, but would be the exact example of what the writers of the Constitution wanted ineligible by their specifying only natural born citizen need apply.

Is that poster the one who tried preaching Bible lessons that the poster wasn’t even familiar with while trying to use them analogously and got called on his/her abject ignorance of the Bible?

You need this moment of amusement.

Ha ha hah ha. Very good analogy, but it is only humorous to actual conservative freepers. The stealth Obama worshipping ACORNs working FreeRepublic lately won’t get it.

Seen this one?

Seen this one?

The man is a fraud. He has had an army of attorneys and detective finding and burying his history since he first ran for office in Illinois. The effort appears to have heated up when he decided to run for president. His own admission at his website that his father was a British subject and that he also was born a British citizen means that he is not a natural born citizen because the framers wanted only American loyalties for Presidents not split loyalties, as in dual citizenship. The man may have even more than one citizenship he’s used in his adult life, which further proves his divided loyalties. He is, however, a typical democrat.