Obama’s ineligibility: Our Lexington and Concord moment is coming

Canada Free Press ^ | June 24, 2011 | Lawrence Sellin

[Ordinary_American]

In a February 13, 1818 letter to H. Niles, John Adams wrote:

“But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was affected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations…This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution.“

The first “shots” of the Second American Revolution have not been fired, but the battle lines have been drawn.

There is now a radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the American people.

Petitioning the current Congress for the redress of grievances is futile. Members of Congress have turned a deaf ear to the voices of their constituents.

The present occupiers of the US Government openly violate the Constitution, are hopelessly corrupt and politically correct, have brought us to the brink of bankruptcy, have opened our borders to illegal immigration and have permitted a fifth column promoting Sharia law to infiltrate our society.

They can no longer be trusted as guardians of our posterity.

Not a week goes by without yet another document analyst claiming that his Certificate of Live Birth presented by Obama at his press conference on April 27, 2011 is a forgery.

[Vendome]

LOL

Loren C.’s twin?

[allmendream]

Well aware of it. It was when I looked at the Constitution and concluded that only natural born or naturalized citizens have any basis in the Constitution - and the candidacy of 0bama didn't make me change my opinion.

So why didn't anyone here on Free Republic advance the idea that “born in country of two citizen parents” was the standard under Article II section 1 before the election - if it was something that ‘everyone knows’ and that they learned in ‘High School civics class’?

Do you find it likely that this is something most of us were or should have been aware of, and yet not a single post on Free Republic advanced that idea?

I don't find it likely at all.

[smedley64]

"You had three years to convince people that the short form was “obviously fake” and yet nobody important seems convinced...."

"...You had three years to convince birthers that the short form was obviously legit, and yet still, plenty of people don't believe you...."

"...Do you plan on doing anything different in showing that the long form is also “obviously fake”?

Do you plan on doing anything different in showing that the long form is obviously true?

"...Do you expect a different result after doing the same thing?"

Do you?

"...How does declaration that the forms produced are fake advance the argument that 'born of two citizen parents in country' is the standard under Article II section 1?"

How does declaring that the forms produced are real advance the argument that "born of two citizen parents in country" is NOT the standard for Article 2 Section 1?

[allmendream]

All the FREEPER posts on that thread talked about how maybe the newspaper announcements were a hoax ‘like the Dan Rather memos’ and how maybe he was really born in Kenya.

Not a single post advanced the idea that the standard under Article II Section 1 was “born in country of two citizen parents”.

Not a single one.

Now how likely do you think it is that this is something ‘everyone should know’ something they should have learned in ‘High School civics class’ and yet not a single person advanced that argument until after the election?

[Ratman83]

The original post has it in it, people may not have keyed on it but it was there.

[Emperor Palpatine]

It has nothing to do with where he was born. He could have been born in the middle of Times Square for all I care.

However, to be a natural-born citizen BOTH parents must be citizens at the time of one’s birth.

Daddy was born in Kenya, at that time part of the British Empire. Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was a Subject of the Crown.

That means his son is NOT a natural-born citizen, and thus is constitutionally ineligible to hold the Office of President of the United States.

Capisce?

[allmendream]

Ah, so you have no good answers. As I suspected.

Only a fanatic fringe at this point, easily ignored, still thinks that both COLB’s are fake.

One cannot “prove” a document is real anymore that someone can prove a negative. One must either say that the document is as expected, or has evidence of fraud. So far none of the “evidence” presented has convinced anyone not already convinced.

No, I don't expect anything different. I fully expected birthers to say that any form produced was “obviously fake” and they didn't disappoint me! I warned that any candidate who thought this issue was a “Trump” card was doomed - and I was again shown to be correct.

It doesn't. That is my point. All the focus on “Where is the Birth Certificate?” was a mistake - and declarations that the documents are fake DETRACTS from rather than enhances the argument that “born in country of two citizen parents” is the standard.

That is why I humbly suggest that any who advanced the “Where is the Birth Certificate?” argument have a steaming pile of fetid crow to eat.

[so_real]

Well ... I have a very, very long post history to go through before I could tell you the exact date I first made that statement here on FR. And I probably didn't make it using my own words -- I probably quoted the words of Rep Bingham from the days he authored the 14th Amendment. I don't want to take credit where it's not due. I'm afraid I don't have a precise answer to your question.

I can tell you that up to the election I was pretty focused on the republican side of the coin dealing with the "McCain" hand we were being dealt. Candidate Obama was a political unknown. He really should not have stood much of a chance against Clinton; so he was effectively off my radar for a good chunk of time. Then you have to take into account that little was known about Obama across the board. We were scrambling to discern his position on various topics only to discover the only stand he took consistently was to vote "present". Certainly his parental situation was not the first troubling circumstance that rose to our attention.

We did, however, wait on the edge of our seats for the Supreme Court to refuse to swear Obama into office. So the issue had been exposed and discussed prior to then. That still does not give you an exact date, but it's a ballpark feeling for when the issue was understood and taking hold.

Without doing the post history examination, all I can really say is that I was here. I said my piece as the facts were made known to me. And that, from a Constitutional perspective, it doesn't matter when the evidence of usurpation is uncovered. Whether today, yesterday, or tomorrow is irrelevant. If the Constitution matters to us, we address the problem when it is made known to us.

There are still folks out there that are Constitutionally illiterate. They don't know what they haven't been taught or researched for themselves. It takes time for them to get up to speed. And I won't throw them under the bus for not understanding the issue on day one, as you are. But we're working on catching them up, and we're happy to do so. The Constitution serves us all.

I hope the tipping point comes before the next election. That is the cleanest way to undo Obama's illegal Supreme Court appointments which we'll otherwise be stuck with long after he's gone. But the only way to press that tipping point is to keep talking ... loudly. So that is what we do. We care about the Constitution and we're not going anywhere -- at least not until we're hauled off to the gulag!

[allmendream]

Hate to go all “Missouri” on you..... SHOW ME.

The search term “citizen parents” turned up nothing.

And why didn't anyone ‘key’ on it?

I mean if it was something that everybody should know, that they should have learned in High School - why didn't a single FReeper ever advance that argument until after the election?

[Ratman83]

Barack Obama Jr. is born on August 4, 1961, allegedly in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Stanley Ann Dunham (1942-1995). Ann Dunham (who understandably dropped the “Stanley”) married Obama’s father, Barack Obama Sr. (1936-1982), on February 2, 1961. Obama, Sr., an African Muslim by birth, but an atheist by admission, already had two children with a woman in Kenya named Kezia (b. 1938). It is likely, however, that Obama, Sr. was not legally married to Kezia (their marriage was only a tribal marriage), making his marriage to Dunham (if there was a marriage) legal. (Obama and Kezia eventually re-unite after he separates from Ann Dunham, and Kezia bears two more of his children.) [1,3,7,289,299,324]

If Obama, Jr. was born in Hawaii, he was both an American and a Kenyan citizen because his father was a Kenyan. If he was born in Hawaii, Obama’s Kenyan citizenship expired when he turned age 21. If Obama later became a citizen of Indonesia by virtue of being adopted by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro, Obama lost his Kenyan and/or American citizenship at the point of adoption, because Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship. [219,258]

[Notary Sojac]

we're going to have to do the hard work of campaigning and voting the bastard out.

Exactly, and that's what some of the birthers here don't want to accept.

They seem to think that if they can just get a few more articles published, somehow a magic skyhook is going to swing down from the clouds, punch through the ceiling of the Oval Office, and yank Obama's sorry ass right out from behind his desk.

Not Gonna Happen!

[allmendream]

So we were all, until after the election, “Constitutionally illiterate”?

You seem to take the position that only a “Constitutional illiterate” would not know that the standard under Article II section 1 was “born in country of two citizen parents”.

Apparently from the time 0bama secured the nomination until after the election not a single FReeper showed the ‘Constitutional literacy’ to advance the argument that the 0bama didn't meet the standard.

I don't find that at all likely.

How likely do you think it is?

[allmendream]

Nowhere in there is it suggested that the standard under Article II section 1 is “born in country of two citizen parents”. It all has to do with what other citizenships he may or may not have had at birth. The Denofrio argument.

Still not “born in country of two citizen parents”, but nice try.

[Notary Sojac]

since we failed to discuss certain aspects of Obama's ineligibility then, then the discussion should be entirely over now

By all means, continue the discussion, I wouldn't dream of trying to stop you.

But the prospect of getting Obama out of the WH other than by losing the election? Yeah. That is over. Over.

[bioqubit]

so was Hitler. By German law, Hitler was not eligible to be Chancellor of Germany because Hitler was born in Austria. But those in power at the time, played a similar game of ramming him through the German electoral process.

The parallels continue. That is why bo must be stopped.

[Rebelbase]

In comparison to pre-revolutionary times were are in the early 1760’s.

[wintertime]

7:27:42 -7:25:23= 2minutes and 19 seconds!

Wow! How much are you paid to sit and wait for these eligibility threads?

[wintertime]

and cut the numbers of birthers in half
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So?....Now instead of 70% of the American voters having doubts about Obama’s eligibility it is now **more** than ONE IN THREE!

Hint: That is **still** a problem for Obama.

And....The issue isn't going away.

[little jeremiah]

It’s a job - the question is, is it hourly, weekly or monthly, or by the comment? Of course, he likes his job, too.

[so_real]

No. I said "There are still folks out there that are Constitutionally illiterate." I did not say "we all were". You are putting words in my mouth. I have no idea if you are Constitutionally illiterate or not. There is also "willfully ignorant" to consider.

Rep. Bingham is on the record in 1862 as having stated "There is not a textbook referred to in any court which does not recognise the principle that I assert" with respect to his understanding of citizenship. At that point in U.S. history, one would be considered Constitutionally illiterate with regard to the aspects of citizenship for not understanding the requirements for the Executive Office.

I'm sure that understanding did not die out in 1862, or in 1866 when Bingham reiterated his understanding of citizenship during the 14th Amendment discussion. I don't think it has even died out today. I have numerous FRiends and friends that understand jus soli and jus sanguinis perfectly well. But clearly we've gone from 100% understanding to something considerably less over the last 150 or so years.