Posted on 01/30/2009 12:56:39 PM PST by sarah p
i have a question. (actually, i have lots of questions!)
what or who was it that first questioned obama's place of birth?
i am trying to figure out the original source of this info. it seems to me that the key accusation of his kenyan birth came from some who either knew or speculated that his mother traveled to kenya in the summer of 1961. it is certainly a reasonable hypothesis, but is there any evidence or reference that someone can site as to the first person that claimed this?
i think that philip berg was the first to claim that obama's mother traveled to kenya. does anyone recall if he actually was the first and, if so, what he based this claim on?
before you all start calling me an obot, here me out.
I BELIEVE THAT OBAMA IS CONSTITUTIONALLY INELIGIBLE TO BE POTUS, regardless of where he was born because his father was never a US citizen.
it is possible that the kenyan birth theory could have been started to divert our attention from the obvious and well documented fact that obama is not a nbc because his father was a foreign national.
this birth certificate issue has been twisted by the media and others, resulting in anyone who questioned his eligibility to be labeled as "wacko conspiracy theorists, racists, etc. this has resulted in the loss of credibility of this issue in the public eye and hinders otherwise intelligent citizens from looking further into the details of this case.
it is a safe assumption that a harvard trained constitutional lawyer, such as obama, would know the definition of nbc and how he is not one.
of course, i still think it's possible that he was born in kenya. i just think it is easy to get lost in all of the evidence and theories. it would be a good idea for us to step back, look at the big picture and try to determine how this whole mess began.
good bless america! thanks to all who still want to protect our constitution.
remmbur its bettur two luk gud then two bea gode.
ibtz
Here, I will use capital letters so that you can all understand me and see that I am serious.
“indylindy”, I am trying to understand your hostility towards me.
To ask where this issue originated is a relevant question and not just some kind of vanity post. I have been following this since August 2008 and I have done a lot of research on this. Sure, I am a new poster, but that does not mean that I don’t know what I am talking about.
There is a lot of strong, circumstantial evidence that supports the hypothesis that Obama is not a nbc. However, we have much less solid evidence to support this. That does not mean that the hypothesis is wrong, it just means we need more data to be taken seriously. If he is truly ineligible, Obama has had a significant headstart at hiding the evidence. He also has the advantage of knowing what incriminating evidence exists. Those of us that seek the truth are looking for needles in a very large and well protected haystack.
One obvious solution is to obtain the vault bc through legal means. In the mean time, those of us that seek that truth need to band together and find the evidence that we need.
Trying to find a solid reference as to who starting asking about Obama’s natural born status and what they based this on is an important part of finding the truth.
Thanks for the luv luvadavi!
Are you claiming that it is not written in the Constitution that the POTUS has to be a natural born citizen? It clearly states “natural born citizen”, not just any citizen.
Also, this is the only place in the Constitution that makes a differentiation between a citizen and a natural born citizen. This was clearly done on purpose. Obama knows this, which is probably one of the reasons that he has only responded to the birthplace issue and referred to his colb.
He has never replied to the question of his natural born status that is related to the citizenship of his father.
“It is also helpful to know that there is a direct, significant inverse relationship between the use of the terms, “wingnut,” and “tin-foil conspiracy,” and the IQ of the individual using them, and the steength of the relationship is a function of how many times an individual uses these terms.”
That is a very good point. I like the way that you think!
It is also ironic that the individuals using those terms are actually the one’s that are buying into the conspiracy.
I have the links at my post 69.
-PJ
Please cite where in the Constitution (or in established U.S. Law) is "Natural Born Citizen" defined as being born of two U.S. citizens?
Also, this is the only place in the Constitution that makes a differentiation between a citizen and a natural born citizen.
Again, please cite where this is written in the Constitution. Blog entries don't count.
I won't be holding my breath.
-PJ
I don’t need your capital letters, dear.
You are arrogant as you think you are a first in this. Your questions could have been answered by checking the history from the beginning right here on FR by people who have worked at this for a long time.
We don’t need a vanity by someone who joined here in the last month.
I like the initial report better. Short, simple ~ “I was there when......” Or did she perhaps say “Oh, yes, I knew him when Sese Seko Nkuku Ngbendu wa Za Banga ruled Congo”?
President-Elect Barry Davis Jr likely started questioning the circumstances of his birth and conception in his teens.
Hope this helps.
The loophole does not exonerate the individual from producing documents when challenged to do so.
Simply affirming legal status is not sufficient because there are criminal provisions under law for making false statements. The Constitutional laws anticipated the potential for fraud or it would not have provided penalty.
Under a legal challenge the question of law should be settled by simply producing proper documentation to prove qualification.
If the loophole is just the question of what is considered a proper document, or who the documentation should be presented to I find no comfort in a complete avoidance of the question. The Constitution clearly states natural born citizen. The PotUS is held to the highest civic standards.
If Obama is proud to be an American citizen by birth, he shouldn’t be ashamed to produce whatever documentation necessary to satisfy the people or their appointed agents.
Your welcome. And ‘Welcome to the fight—this time I know our side will win.” (Paul Henreid, ‘Casablanca’)
In this case, federal courts are being extorted into making these rulings in favor of Obama by threatening rioting and bloodshed if the "First Black President" is removed from office.
Yes, they are actually fueling the conspiracy. They are basically not smart enough to know that they are part of it or what constitutes a conspiracy. Basically, they call anything that finds fault with Obama, like breaking the law and deliberately hiding his past, is a conspiracy.
All of these ludicrous excuses and outright lies that Obama supporters and allegedly "nonpartisan" groups like Politifact make for Obama's behavior -- the benign "explanations" about Rev. Wright and Trinity Church are enough to turn your stomach -- are part of one, really big conspiracy: Making Obama into "the Messiah" -- the President who can do no wrong.
Thanks for the links. I knew that Politifact was involved, too.
“Please cite where in the Constitution (or in established U.S. Law) is “Natural Born Citizen” defined as being born of two U.S. citizens?”
Why don’t you post were it says in the Constitution (or any other US law) that every single word must be defined by law for something to be interpretable. For example, are the words “the” and “born” defined by law? By your definition, no one has to obey a law if all of the words are not specifically defined.
Obviously, there are words that have commonly understood definitions. At the time that the Constitution was written, the definition for natural born citizen was understood.
The framers also modeled the Constitution after Emmerich de Vattel’s “The Law of Nations”, in which it is clearly defined. In Chapter XIX, paragraph 212, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot 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.”
Now I will address your next question.
Me: “Also, this is the only place in the Constitution that makes a differentiation between a citizen and a natural born citizen.”
you: “Again, please cite where this is written in the Constitution. Blog entries don’t count.
I won’t be holding my breath.”
In order for me to do this, I would have to post the entire Constitution, highlighting every instance of the word “citizen” and the single time “natural born” appears. Obviously, I am not going to do this, so I will cite the Constitution itself and let those who are truly interested to check it out on their own.
I am sorry, but it seems to me that you are the arrogant one.
I never claimed to be the first to address these questions. Further, I see nothing wrong with engaging in conversations about these issues with anyone who is interested. If you are not interested, than you do not have to participate.
Finally, I am not your dear. The people who call me that treat me with respect.
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.