Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Now we are finally getting somewhere. Just like Obama is ineligible technically because his fathers British Nationality 'governed' his birth status in 1961, Ted Cruz is ineligible too. Fox News has confirmed it and rightly so. Sean Hannity made a huge blunder the other day and declared Ted Cruz a natural born citizen because he was born to a American mother in Canada. He was so wrong. Cruz is a 14th Amendment U.S. 'statutory' (not natural born) citizen which is something completely different than a Article 2 Section 1 Constitutional natural born Citizen which is explicitly designed only for the presidency by the framers.
... which begs the question of just why you overlapped them.
Why didn’t you just put two separate circles floating by their lonesomes? That would be more in keeping with your apparent belief, that there is no significance to any overlap, that it’s meaningless to the point of never, EVER having been named.
Of course it does.
Which is a correct understanding of natural born citizen.
At least one of two things is required. Birth on US soil, or birth to citizen parents.
YOu have both? Good for you. But it only takes either one.
Because that would imply that there do not exist any persons who are born on US soil and have citizen parents.
And that is not a representation of reality.
The existing diagram is.
What shall we call ourselves, those of us born in the country to two citizen parents, us nameless folk in that hole you created? I've just wracked my poor little brain and can't come up with a thing, bless my heart. /s
Forgive those of us with intelligences inferior to yours, for thinking that you just didn't know what a Venn diagram was.
Justice Scalia’s comments about jus soli were made in oral arguments in an immigration appeal before the Supreme Court. Those comments were not made in the “I don’t know” conversation with Larry Klayman.
Justice Scalia: … I mean, isn’t it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England?
They did not want that.
They wanted natural born Americans.
Plaintiff’s Attorney [Ms.]. Davis: Yes, by the same token…
Justice Scalia: That is jus soli, isn’t it?
[Ms.] Davis: By the same token, one could say that the provision would apply now to ensure that Congress can’t apply suspect classifications to keep certain individuals from aspiring to those offices.
Justice Scalia: Well, maybe.
I’m just referring to the meaning of natural born within the Constitution.
I don’t think you’re disagreeing.
It requires jus soli, doesn’t it?
I'm embarrassed to say that in over ten years I have never been aware of moderators, or thought of what they could offer. Now I will follow your suggestion.
This is a “head-banging” exercise, but one of the few truly free exercises of the 1st Amendment available both for a dialogue, and to inform those too busy surviving to learn about constitutional law, or about our founders’ motivations.
I can now see why our pundits step carefully. We saw what those with control can do to enemies. I will never forget the Scooter Libby travesty, unfortunately on G.W.’s watch. The justice department brought charges after Powell's deputy, Richard Armitage, had confessed. I suspect that was a shot across the bow. No one can defend himself from a corrupt Justice Department, but we can still - so far - talk about it here.
The clue is, as someone noted in a prior note referring to Scalia, that when they refuse to discuss Chief Justice Marshall, or Chief Justice Waite, or Chief Justice Evans Hughes, or Perkins v. Elg, or..., they are afraid. They have lots to fear.
After pondering the forces behind all this subterfuge for over five years the fog has cleared from the most plausible hypothesis, best described by James Carville; Follow the money!. That innocent revelation by an octogenarian, but quite lucid attorney, Percy Sutton, whose integrity has never been doubted or questioned, was on the mark. Obama has had Alwaleed bin-Talal as a patron since at least his Occidental days, and very likely before that. The intersection of Wahhabi recruiter Don Warden/Khalid al-Mansour/attorney for forty years to the Saudis, Vernon Jarrett, Frank Marshall Davis, Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Percy Sutton and his clients, Malcolm X, Louis Farrakhan, The Muslim Brotherhood, and dozens of lessor known figures is the key.
Many of those who ideologically defend Obama from questionable eligibility are only now seeing that every action can be explained by his allegiance to Wahhabi Islam-The Muslim Brotherhood. The wealth of the Saudi Royal Family comes, in large part, from our dependence upon their petroleum. Their survival from threatening Baathist Sadaam Hussein, from The Islamic Republic that was Iran before Jimmy Carter banished the reformer, the last Shah, and radical Imams led by Khomeini destroyed blossoming democracy, and even from the Saudi supported “extremist” elements of Wahhabism, Salafists and Al Qaeda, is Obama’s charter. That explains “Al Quds” John Brennan, and peaceful Jihad Hagel, and Susan Rice and Samantha Power.
I don't know enough about what Soros gets from funding what amounts to the resurgence of the Sunni Caliphate to understand his strategy, but just as he betrayed other Jews in Hungary as a teenager, he seems to have no attachment to our founding principles or citizenry.
I do have the perspective of having listened during two years of Don Warden's presence in Berkeley, at Boalt Hall getting his law degree, to have heard the master plan. Warden had a weekly radio program which was all about the primacy of the Black race, about the only true God, Allah, and what I now recognize as Islamic Jihad. Warden's facility explaining a history of domination by evil white men was impressive, and I, in the sciences, didn't know enough to be critical. There is little difference between Warden/al-Mansour’s diatribes and Wright's. except that Warden included Islam in his diatribes against both white men and the West.
Warden, while he was helping found the Black Panthers, was already a Wahhabi convert. On commercial radio he was exhorting blacks to kill white women “Allah wants you to.” This was about the time of the Zebra killings in the Bay Area, but Warden was never publicly connected to them. He was opening a law office with bin-Talal as key partner. His early activities as counsel to the Saudi Royal Family, reporting to bin-Talal, was recruiting for Wahhabism in US prisons. Vernon Jarret (yes, Valerie's father-in-law) wrote about an interview with al-Mansour, who was representing the Saudi funding of educational programs for American Blacks and Hispanics. Now we know that al-Mansour has been managing funding of Wahhabi Mosques and Madrassas both in the US and in North Africa. (Jarrett's article was published by and in his employer's Chicago Tribune, but has now been scrubbed. It was uncovered by a former New York journalist, Frank Mieli, who was in turn discovered by Jack Cashill.)
Bin-Talal went on to buy majority public ownership of News Corp, owner of Fox News and the WSJ, a major holder of Citibank and AIG, Cisco, Apple, GE, Siemens, and dozens of other corporations. He funded what is now the largest department in Harvard's divinity school, the “Alwaleed bin-Talal Center for Islamic Study”, and has now extended it to Georgetown, American University, Cambridge, and several other Universities. Money is power.
Whether the white house golfer is or is not a Wahhabi Muslim is irrelevant. All of his actions confirm that innocent and honest recollection by Percy Sutton of having helped al-Mansour to gain Obama’s admission to Harvard Law, admission which may have been expedited by a donation of twenty million dollars to Harvard in 1986-87 by bin-Talal, about the time Barry was admitted. It was Percy who explained to the New York local interviewer that Prince bin-Talal was Obama’s patron. Percy saw that as success, and perhaps he was correct. The question remains for whom it will be a success in the long run. With Obama's allegiance to, using John Bingham's eloquent rephrasing of the natural born citizen requirement, Saudi patrons, all of his actions can be understood. Since the power granted by his access through Prince bin-Talal to our tax money, and by the usurpation of the executive office, is enormous, it is not likely that some honest broker will appear with the power to explain the truth. But we can understand it, and if enough of our Constitution survives, insist on preserving, protecting and defending what remains, and perhaps even restoring the meanings explained by its framers.
There was also a question as to whether VP Charles Curtis, was born in Topeka, Kansas Territory, as claimed, which was in the part subject to US jurisdiction, or whether he was born on the nearby sovereign Kaw Indian reservation of his mother (i.e. born as an “Indian not taxed”). This might have meant that Curtis was not born on US soil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Curtis
Leo Donofrio, IIRC, pointed numerous actions initiated by Curtis during his legislative career which could be seen as retroactively negating his potential lack of NBC status and insulating him from any challenges.
Is it possible that Obama is a member of the Saudi royal family? Could his real father have been related to King Faisal?
I guess we'll never know for sure.
Norman and Nathan Asing were adopted by their stepdad, Albert Roloos. I got a certified driver’s abstract for Norman under the name Norman Roloos. His BC under the name Norman Asing is not legally valid; it is supposed to be sealed (which in the case of a different test subject meant that the non-valid “birth-parents” birth certificate was NOT listed in the birth index. Yet both Norman and Nathan Asing are listed in the 1960-64 birth index.
The birth index HAS been falsified to include cherry-picked non-valid BC’s.
I would have to dig out my phone records, emails that I don’t currently have access to, and very old Freepmails in order to prove who I spoke to but it’s not going to change anybody’s mind anyway. I’ve said repeatedly that it was the filing by Scott Tepper, on behalf of the Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee, which convinced me that my theory is a “duh” kind of conclusion - one that any lawyer would immediately recognize, like the George Zimmerman prosecution admitting that they didn’t have any hospital records for Witness 8 conceding the fact that she perjured herself when she swore that she missed Trayvon’s funeral because she was hospitalized at the time. Admission by silence when legally required to produce evidence or answers is standard legal reasoning/evidence.
Only Tepper knew the exact request to make, in order to get a verification signed AND INITIALED by Onaka, and stamped with a raised seal. The key: don’t ask for any birth facts to be verified. Don’t ask for the standard legal language used to authenticate a copy. (Why not? Because he knew Onaka had verified the non-validity of the HI BC and the fact that the White House image is a forgery.)
What is stunningly obvious, though, is that Tepper told the HDOH that he was requesting verification because the birth facts, the validity of the record, and the genuineness of the White House image were critical in their lawsuit - AND THEN HE DDN’T REQUEST THAT ANY OF THAT STUFF ACTUALLY BE VERIFIED!! lol.
So why do YOU say he didn’t ask for verification of the very things he said were critical?
“As for Fremont, absolutely no challenge that I could find any record of. After reading about him, I looked.
“He ran for President, and lost. But there is no sign anyone ever cared that he was the son of an obvious Frenchman who only wanted to leave the United States and get back to France. Or that anyone ever had the slightest idea that he was thereby ineligible to the Presidency.”
Jeff Winston, you missed the fact that Fremont’s biological father was not his legal father. Fremont’s legal parents were both NBC. Under international law at the time a child does not receive nationality from a father outside of wedlock and all children born in legal marriage are children of the marriage whether biological or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Fr%C3%A9mont
Frémont’s mother, Anne Beverley Whiting, was the youngest daughter of socially prominent Virginia planter Col. Thomas Whiting. The colonel died when Anne was less than a year old. Her mother married Samuel Cary, who soon exhausted most of the Whiting estate. At age 17 Anne married Major John Pryor, a wealthy Richmond resident in his early 60s. In 1810 Pryor hired Charles Fremon, a French immigrant who had fought with the Royalists during the French Revolution, to tutor his wife. In July 1811 Pryor learned that his wife and Fremon were having an affair. Confronted by Pryor, the couple left Richmond together on July 10, 1811, creating a scandal that shook city society.[6] Pryor published a divorce petition in the Virginia Patriot, in which he charged that his wife had “for some time past indulged in criminal intercourse.” Mrs. Pryor and Fremon moved first to Norfolk, Virginia, to live as man and wife (though unmarried); they later settled in Savannah, Georgia. Mrs. Pryor financed the trip and purchase of a house in Savannah by selling recently inherited slaves valued at $1,900. When the Virginia House of Delegates refused Mr. Pryor’s divorce petition, it was impossible for the couple to marry. In Savannah, Mrs. Pryor took in boarders while Fremon taught French and dancing. On January 21, 1813, their first child, John Charles Fremon, was born.[7] The son was born out of wedlock, a serious social handicap.
Let me ask you a question and be honest in your answer. Do you like the idea that for a U.S. president to be eligible for the presidency, he has to strictly have two U.S. Citizen parents prior to his birth?
Nice try, but Pryor was never Fremont’s father. Not in name, not in fact, not in anything.
In fact, it is doubtful that either one ever even saw or met the other.
Not to belabor the obvious, but FREMONT was Fremont’s father.
And absolutely everyone knew it.
Wow. You are just so desperate to try and twist the Constitution and history, aren’t you? You guys will go to just about any length imaginable, even insisting that someone who was not in any way related to another person, who never acted as a father to that person in any way, and who (as far as we know) never even MET that person was that person’s “father.”
Unbelievable.
And you say it’s because of “international law.” You insist that only NATURAL law can make a person a natural born citizen, but when you have a person whose NATURAL AND BIOLOGICAL father was clearly a Frenchman, whose FUNCTIONAL father was clearly a Frenchman, whose IDENTIFIED father was clearly a Frenchman and whose NAMED father was clearly a Frenchman, you then claim that the law of “natural born citizenship” made some COMPLETELY UNRELATED PERSON several states over in Virginia the kid’s father!
Your claims are simply FALSE. Virtually no one has ever agreed with them, throughout all of American history. The few who have (Ramsay, for instance) have been promptly overruled.
Your view has ALWAYS been (at best) a way-out-on-the-fringe view... except for the very vast stretches of American history in which it wasn’t even perceived to exist at all.
I frankly don't care one way or the other. It makes no difference at all to me.
I care what the Founders thought and meant. I care that people like you are twisting the Constitution and our history.
And I also care that they are doing it in the name of conservatism.
So in other words, John Fremont was a natural born Citizen eligible to run for president and Jeff Winston was obfuscating that fact?
You state:
“I care what the Founders thought and meant”
Do you honestly think the founders wanted a future president to be born with ties to a foreign sovereignty, especially Great Britain, a country America fought against for it’s independence? Use common sense and think rationally.
I frankly don’t care one way or the other. It makes no difference at all to me.
ROTFLOL.
Liar. Of course you care. But on the other side.
He has no common sense and will never think rationally. Leftist POS trolls are here to push an agenda, not to think rationally.
>> “All I’m saying is that in two plus years with the Republicans in control of the House of Representatives, not one single minute of congressional committee hearing time has been devoted to Article II, Section 1 eligibility.” <<
.
That is why Jim Eason always called them the Wee Publicans.
They have Obama’s back.
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.