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.
You wrote: “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?”
my reply: Why don’t you cite were it says in the Constitution (or any other US law) that every single word must be defined for a law to be enforced. For example, are the words “the” and “where” defined by law? By your definition, a law is not valid unless every words is specifically defined.
Obviously, there are words that have commonly understood meanings. At the time that the Constitution was written, the definition for natural born citizen was understood.
Also, the framers 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.”
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.”
my reply: 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.
In before the zot?
And I thought IBTZ was the sound of a troll getting zapped, like a bug zapper.
Sarah Obama doesn't speak Swahili. Or English. She speaks Luo. If was bogus 'evidemce' like that which got Berg laughed out of court.
Not really. If you believe that he wasn't born in Hawaii then shouldn't you have some evidence to back that up?
FreeAtlanta and I are the lawful American citizens, demanding a simple piece of documentation from a possible felon, who claims the right to rule us.
As we saw during the impeachment wars of Bill Clinton, an unprosecuted felon can quite comfortably occupy the most powerful office in the world, the U.S. presidency, and the cowardly lions of the federal court system will do nothing about it.
Your arguments against the birthers (of which I am not one) would be more credible if you'd give a mere nodding acknowledgement to the fact that The Big Wagyu ain't coughed up dick in the way of documentation.
That WAS a cute story that the Obaminions ran the other day about the school teacher who remembered every utterance of The Messiah when He was just a Fledging Godlette - don't you agree? ;-)
It was the fact that the courts are laughable when it comes to holding the ruling classes accountable ("our Norman betters", so aptly put in The Adventures of Robin Hood) that got the Berg cases shuffled out the back door.
Now, the federal courts are REAL tough when it comes to mouthy Saxon dogs like us Freepers.
So, have your Norman masters told you when they're coming for us, Non-Sequitur? Is it going to be this year? Next year?
They can't have us running around, exercising our Right to Free Speech, like we did during the Clinton years. :-)
Because we respect each other. We try to communicate with each other effectively and clearly.
I don't lower myself because of other's poor behavior. I would hate to see such an attitude become common on Free Republic.
As I understand it, Sarah Obama said words to the effect that he was a "son of the village" (in English translation) in a BBC story. And that's been taken by many to mean "native of the village." But that's a leap.
There is also a rather strange interview with an "Anabaptist Bishop" who claims she was trying to say Obama was born in Kenya and the family were trying to shut her up. It's anybody's guess what's going on there.
After that interview in the same clip, you can see part of the original interview, presumably with the BBC. The people who put the clip together are trying to say, based on Latin roots, that Sarah Obama was saying that her husband's grandson was a native of the village. But really, how likely is it that an East African language would have Latin or Indo-European roots?
It's not clear that Sarah Obama ever actually said Barack Obama was born in Kenya. If she did, she's also made other questionable statements about family history.
Was her husband tortured by the English? Did he fight off animals with his stick? Did Stanley Dunham try to get Barack Sr. dismissed from the university? Did Barack Sr. tearfully appeal to the Kenyan family to save his marriage? Some of these things may be true -- it's more likely that Kenyans would fight lions armed only with a stick than Americans would -- but all of them?
I get the impression that stories tend to grow in an oral environment. Without established records, people embellish them, work themselves into the events, and give them the details they think those stories deserve.
And I've yet to see any evidence for making the leap to concluding that Obama was born in Mombasa, a coastal city quite far from the family's own village.
And why should he agree to your demands? You say he is a possible felon. Shouldn't you provide proof to back that accusation up?
Your arguments against the birthers (of which I am not one) would be more credible if you'd give a mere nodding acknowledgement to the fact that The Big Wagyu ain't coughed up dick in the way of documentation.
And your claim not to be a birther would have more credibility if you could cough up documentation showing Obama wasn't born in Hawaii yourself.
That WAS a cute story that the Obaminions ran the other day about the school teacher who remembered every utterance of The Messiah when He was just a Fledging Godlette - don't you agree?
Didn't see it.
Yup. That and selective quoting. The website I linked to has a link to the tape of the full conversation. After I listened to it, I could not believe how dishonest the transcript is. The obamaconspiracy website puts it best:
"When one listens to the complete recording it becomes unavoidably clear that Obama’s step grandmother says that her grandson was born in Hawaii, in America."
The when she talks about being present at Obama's birth, it's pretty clear from the context she's talking about Obama Sr, not Jr.
And yet, with all this evidence, Freepers are still repeating the lies of Berg. Very sad.
If Obama is not a native-born citizen, he's committed any number of felonies. If you hadn't noticed, our government at all levels has been generating new "felony" laws at an astronomical rate. If you need a concrete example to wrap your mind around, look no further than "Scooter" Libby.
And your claim not to be a birther would have more credibility if you could cough up documentation showing Obama wasn't born in Hawaii yourself.
I could if your master would produce some actual birth documentation... ;-)
Nice try.
If he's not a native born citizen then there should be evidence of that.
I could if your master would produce some actual birth documentation... ;-)
So in other words you have nothing. And you wonder why your cases get laughed out of court.
The cases aren't "laughed out of court".
The judicial branch of the federal government fears to exercise its power, as it feared to exercise its power in the Bill Clinton perjury, obstruction of justice and witness tampering felonies.
Or are you denying that Clinton committed felonies, too?
You have to remember that the Taney court's fear of dealing with the slavery issue was a major cause of the bloodshed of the Civil War. Justice delayed is justice denied. Are we to see a repeat from the mounting insolence of the ruling Democrats? Tax evasion, refusal to answer valid claims of the peasants, spending tax dollars (wrung from those same peasants) profligately while lying about the eventual disposition of the stolen funds, etc., etc., etc.
I was going to post to you the other day that arguing with you reminds me of arguing with another (former) Freeper - sinkspur.
Ol' sinkie - he ALWAYS had the ready comeback in defense of government tyranny and skulduggery. You're apparently an excellent Padawan learner... ;-)
That's been a pretty accurate description of their record to date.
The judicial branch of the federal government fears to exercise its power, as it feared to exercise its power in the Bill Clinton perjury, obstruction of justice and witness tampering felonies.
Just because they laugh your cases out of court doesn't mean they fear to exercise their power. If they did that then we wouldn't have half the problem decisions we've had to date.
You have to remember that the Taney court's fear of dealing with the slavery issue was a major cause of the bloodshed of the Civil War.
I have heard the Dred Scott decision described in many ways, but 'fear of dealing with slavery' isn't one of them. The Scott v. Sanford decision opened up slavery to territories where federal law had forbidden it, denied blacks citizenship or any rights, and followed Taney's conviction that slavery was right and proper throughout the country. Taney wasn't interested in limiting slavery, he certainly didn't act out of fear
Ol' sinkie - he ALWAYS had the ready comeback in defense of government tyranny and skulduggery.
Skullduggery? You can put the whole skulduggery issue to rest by providing solid evidence that Obama isn't a natural born citizen. But you can't.
You can put the whole issue to rest by providing solid evidence that Obama is a natural born citizen. But you can’t.
(fixed it for you.)
You have repeatedly stated this backwards. The responsibility is on the applicant to prove he is qualifed. In this case, it is more evident when the applicant controls the access to the source document to prove that he is or isn’t qualified. How would I priove he is not qualified when he is restricting my access to the evidence?
Bullshit. No other presidential candidate has been forced to provide proof that he or she was born in the U.S. Obama has done nothing different. So if you don't think he was born in Hawaii like he says then trot out some evidence showing he's lying. Provide something casting doubt on what he says. THEN you can go to court and make a case and force him to respond. Until then, you've got nothing.
He said he was. What have you got showing he's lying?
I think the historical argument is a good one. Let's don't ever do anything we haven't done before, so that when new situations arise, we can paralize ourselves and let things go on unchallenged.
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.