Does The CIA Director Have Barack Obama’s Records That Prove He Is Ineligible To Be President?

FreedomOutpost.com ^ | 07-03-2013 | Leon Puissuger

[FreedomOutpost]

We know that John Brennan got the head job of the Central Intelligence Agency. However, as we stated in a previous article, by obtaining the records of Barack Obama he may well show that Obama is not eligible to be President.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/07/does-the-cia-director-have-barack-obamas-records-that-prove-he-is-ineligible-to-be-president/#ixzz2XzxgGS3K

[DiogenesLamp]

As noted many times, Roberts was an obscure judge in charge of several COUNTIES in Pennsylvania.

Trisham, I want you to note how Jeff had earlier said that we had absolutely NO FACTS on our side, but when presented with one, he immediately attempts to dismiss it as trivial or inconsequential, not at all embarrassed by his previous assertion that there were NO FACTS AT ALL.

Even in his attempt to dismiss the fact which he previously claimed we did not have, he is being dishonest. He attempts to portray it as a trivial work by an Obscure judge in Pennyslvania, but he leaves out a lot of salient details which color it very differently. Here is the front page of the book from which that quote came.

The Book is a compilation of the work done by the Entire Supreme Court of Pennsylvania at the direction of the State Legislature of Pennsylvania. Here is the Act passed by the Pennsylvania legislature ordering the Pennsylvania Supreme court to undertake this task.

Here is the final portion of the letter which those judges sent to the State Legislature of Pennsylvania in which they explained what they had done.

The Book was of extreme importance within the State of Pennsylvania, and was widely used as a reference by all Pennsylvanian courts for decades. It was so popular, they printed a second edition in 1847.

Furthermore, I will point out that The Constitution was Written in Philadelphia, which was at that time the Nation's Capitol, and no body of people knew better what was the meaning of Article II "natural born citizen" than did those delegates and representatives from Pennsylvania. That was the center of the Nation's legal system in 1787, and those Judges of the Supreme court of Pennyslvania were delegates and Representatives.

In addition, Samuel Roberts was trained by William Lewis, who was a member of the Pennsylvania legislature in 1787, and who ought to know very well what was the meaning of the Constitution when it was ratified by Pennsylvania in 1787.

Pennsylvania also included in it's first State Constitution (Ben Franklin was President of the Pennsylvania constitutional convention. ) an acknowledgement that the son of a citizen would automatically be a voter.

I could go on and on about who was who, and who did what in Early Pennsylvania legal history, but the salient point of my response is that Jeff Winston Deliberately, and with malicious intent, attempts to deceive people about the Provenance of this book, and the nature of it's importance in the most Prominent Legal system in Early US History. Philadelphia WAS the most prominent legal system of the United States at this time in our History.

Jeff first attempts to deny the existence of disputing evidence, and when he can no longer deny, attempts to lie about it's origin and it's scope of importance. Again, Jeff is intellectually dishonest, and though i've demonstrated once more that he is deliberately dishonest, the next time the topic comes up, he'll simply repeat his false claims again. (The Book is a nothing, Samuel Roberts is a nobody, the Book was NOT the work of the Entire Supreme court of Pennsylvania. The book is NOT evidence.)

Now it has taken me quite a long time to find all the images and links, but Jeff's lies? They require no effort whatsoever, and that's how he does it. He makes me work to disprove the lies which he tells effortlessly. Jeff has seen this information several times, but he persists in sticking to his propaganda.

Now are you getting a better idea of why a person would get fed up attempting to reason with him?

[novemberslady]

The doj only has what the CIA FBI and NSA wants it to have.

[novemberslady]

Of course Hillary and bill had control of everything first.

[mountainlion]

The doj only has what the CIA FBI and NSA wants it to have.

Or what Barry wants them to have.

[mountainlion]

Of course Hillary and bill had control of everything first.

Hillary and Bill were pikers next to today technology and spying capabilities.

[Southack]

Who do think backed 0bama to get him into the White House?!

Look up “Business International Corporation” and go to the CIA section.

[novemberslady]

well, even barry didn't get everything on his Christmas list.
...probably doesn't know it yet though.

[mountainlion]

well, even barry didn't get everything on his Christmas list.
...probably doesn't know it yet though.

Barry's handlers get most of what they want.

[DiogenesLamp]

Every single thing I've ever posted here was absolutely true,

And that's part of the LIE! It's not that what you post isn't true, it's that you deceptively claim IT SUPPORTS YOUR ARGUMENT WHEN IT DOES NOT!

Again, your quoting of the opinion of the Marquee de Lafayette's Aide, is an example of this. Why on God's earth would you regard the French Aide of a French National as a SOURCE on the meaning of Article II "natural born citizen?" He was neither a delegate, a representative, a founder, or even a Judge, yet you keep CITING that silly bastard as proof that you are right! And then there's that SPANISH guy you keep citing! Again, no delegate, no Representative, no Judge, and no founder, yet you cite him anyway! And these are just two examples among many ( I could probably come up with a dozen examples of you doing this.) of you misrepresenting someone as a knowledgeable source, or misrepresenting their meaning as supporting you.

unless an honest mistake (not often, but I'm sure it's happened), in which case I've promptly acknowledged and corrected it and not repeated the claim.

You are either deluded, or a pathological liar, who happens to believe his own lies. Given how artfully you have truncated quotes so as to change their meaning, I'm voting for Deliberate and knowing liar.

[novemberslady]

barry's handlers get most of what they want

It looks that way doesn't it?

[DiogenesLamp]

And here is one of those Idiot wall of text that Jeff keeps posting, the response to which would take six or seven hours of research and writing. A person could argue one of those cites, but a dozen or more?

And to what point? Once you've taken apart each of his cites, he simply ignores that he has been proven wrong, claims he is right anyway, and posts them all over again!

Take this one for example. Jeff wrote:

The First Congress (1790):

"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens."

Our very first Congress specified that the overseas-born children of US citizens "shall be considered as natural born Citizens."

Jeff has had his silly ass beaten metaphorically on this a dozen times, yet here he is posting this same misrepresentation, and he SPECIFICALLY truncates out the portion of his quote which CONTRADICTS HIS CLAIM.

And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:

The Naturalization act of 1790, explicitly states that the children of a Foreign Father cannot be a citizen AT ALL, let alone a "natural born citizen."

Jeff also intentionally omits the fact that the words "natural born citizen" were expressly repealed in the Subsequent Naturalization act of 1795. A tacit admission that Congress exceeded it's power of "naturalization" by attempting to confer "natural" citizenship, to which the very act of requiring a law, makes of it non-natural.

Jeff has been rebutted on this point dozens of times, but he keeps posting it as though he hasn't been proven to be deceptive and wrong.

He is like a retard who keeps repeating some inane statement, as if repetition will turn it from false to true.

[DiogenesLamp]

"What did you do on the forth of July daddy?"

"I spent hours arguing with a dishonest idiot on the internet."

Not going to do it anymore today.

[trisham]

I’m glad that you both care so strongly about this issue, but I sincerely hope that your future discussions will be a tribute to the patriotism of this site, rather than an embarrassment. At the moment, I am perhaps more envious of the energy with which you pursue this conversation. Perhaps you might consider applying some of that energy to our Freepathon thread? We have some wonderful FReepers there, and it’s for a very good cause.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3039141/posts?page=125

[Jeff Winston]

Even in his attempt to dismiss the fact which he previously claimed we did not have, he is being dishonest.

Sorry, no, I'm not.

He attempts to portray it as a trivial work by an Obscure judge in Pennyslvania, but he leaves out a lot of salient details which color it very differently.

It wasn't a trivial work - on the contrary, it became well-respected and well used. But it WAS by an otherwise COMPLETELY obscure judge in Pennsylvania. It seems to have been his only important work or otherwise notable accomplishment.

And even as such, it paled in comparison to the importance of works on the Constitution by national experts such as William Rawle and St. George Tucker.

The Book is a compilation of the work done by the Entire Supreme Court of Pennsylvania at the direction of the State Legislature of Pennsylvania.

Let's make that an accurate statement.

The Book is a compilation of [a fleshing-out of] [the work done by the Entire Supreme Court of Pennsylvania at the direction of the State Legislature of Pennsylvania.]

There is no indication that Roberts' book was done "at the direction of the State Legislature," that it was done at the behest of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or that it had any such official nature whatsoever.

It was simply Roberts' work of sitting down and putting together the text of all the English common-law statutes that the Supreme Court had said were in effect in the State, along with his own personal commentary.

Here are a few of Roberts' comments in the Preface:

Such a selection, accompanied with notes and illustrations, seems to be much desired by the gentlemen of the bar, whose opinions I have had an opportunity of knowing; and might, it is conceived, be useful to all concerned in the administration of justice.

Does that sound like it was done at the behest of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, or with their approval? No.

The report which they [the judges of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court] have submitted, is, doubtless, entitled to high respect and consideration, as containing the opinions of men who rank in the highest grade of the professsion, and in the public confidence, but it ought to be carefully distinguished from a JUDICIAL DECISION; of the character of which it does not partake.

The distinguished characters who have made the report, it is confidently presumed, would not wish that it be so considered; but on the contrary, that whenever the question comes judicially before them, whether a particular English statute, or any part of it, is or is not in force in Pennsylvania, they will hear without prejudice, whatever may be urged on either side; and without otherwise adverting to the circumstance whether such statute be comprised in the report or not, will be solicitious only to form a correct decision.

Roberts PRESUMES that the justices of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would agree with him that their opinions in the report presented to the Legislature doe not rise to the level of a judicial ruling.

If Roberts' report had been done at the behest of the Supreme Court, he wouldn't PRESUME their feelings on that matter. He would KNOW.

And of course, nowhere does it ever say that the PA Supreme Court was behind Roberts' book in any way.

DiogenesLamp spins more bullsh*t:

Furthermore, I will point out that The Constitution was Written in Philadelphia, which was at that time the Nation's Capitol, and no body of people knew better what was the meaning of Article II "natural born citizen" than did those delegates and representatives from Pennsylvania.

Ah. But Roberts was not a "delegate" or "representative from Pennsylvania."

If one wants to go there, who would know better what the Founding Fathers meant than a member of Franklin's Society for Political Inquiries (which was an arm of the central body of Founders), who had served as a consultant to that body of leaders on the topic of immigration, a good personal friend of both Franklin and President of the Constitutional Convention George Washington, a man who had national-level legal responsibilities as UNITED STATES District Attorney for the State of Pennsylvania, who turned down the post of United States Attorney General when it was offered by President George Washington, and who was an important, nationally-recognized legal scholar who wrote one of the most important text books on the Constitution of the United States?

I refer, of course, to William Rawle.

Jeff Winston Deliberately, and with malicious intent, attempts to deceive people about the Provenance of this book...

No. As I have just shown, it is DIOGENESLAMP who attempts to deceive people about the provenance of Roberts' work, falsely claiming it was written at the behest of, or with the approval of, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Jeff... [wi]ll simply repeat his false claims again. (The Book is a nothing, Samuel Roberts is a nobody, the Book was NOT the work of the Entire Supreme court of Pennsylvania. The book is NOT evidence.)

I never claimed the Book was a "nothing." But it is clearly NOT the work of the entire Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

That is a FALSE CLAIM BY DIOGENESLAMP, and it is clearly false. There is no evidence to support it; all the available evidence is against it.

Yes, it REFERS TO a work that was DONE by the Supreme Court. But Roberts' book itself WAS NOT a product of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

So, as I've said: DiogenesLamp's claim is bullsh*t.

PS - apologies for burdening your 4th of July holiday with responses to DiogenesLamp's false claims and accusations.

[Jeff Winston]

Even in his attempt to dismiss the fact which he previously claimed we did not have, he is being dishonest.

Sorry, no, I'm not.

He attempts to portray it as a trivial work by an Obscure judge in Pennyslvania, but he leaves out a lot of salient details which color it very differently.

It wasn't a trivial work - on the contrary, it became well-respected and well used. But it WAS by an otherwise COMPLETELY obscure judge in Pennsylvania. It seems to have been his only important work or otherwise notable accomplishment.

And even as such, it paled in comparison to the importance of works on the Constitution by national experts such as William Rawle and St. George Tucker.

The Book is a compilation of the work done by the Entire Supreme Court of Pennsylvania at the direction of the State Legislature of Pennsylvania.

Let's make that an accurate statement.

The Book is a compilation of [a fleshing-out of] [the work done by the Entire Supreme Court of Pennsylvania at the direction of the State Legislature of Pennsylvania.]

There is no indication that Roberts' book was done "at the direction of the State Legislature," that it was done at the behest of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or that it had any such official nature whatsoever.

It was simply Roberts' work of sitting down and putting together the text of all the English common-law statutes that the Supreme Court had said were in effect in the State, along with his own personal commentary.

Here are a few of Roberts' comments in the Preface:

Such a selection, accompanied with notes and illustrations, seems to be much desired by the gentlemen of the bar, whose opinions I have had an opportunity of knowing; and might, it is conceived, be useful to all concerned in the administration of justice.

Does that sound like it was done at the behest of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, or with their approval? No.

The report which they [the judges of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court] have submitted, is, doubtless, entitled to high respect and consideration, as containing the opinions of men who rank in the highest grade of the professsion, and in the public confidence, but it ought to be carefully distinguished from a JUDICIAL DECISION; of the character of which it does not partake.

The distinguished characters who have made the report, it is confidently presumed, would not wish that it be so considered; but on the contrary, that whenever the question comes judicially before them, whether a particular English statute, or any part of it, is or is not in force in Pennsylvania, they will hear without prejudice, whatever may be urged on either side; and without otherwise adverting to the circumstance whether such statute be comprised in the report or not, will be solicitious only to form a correct decision.

Roberts PRESUMES that the justices of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would agree with him that their opinions in the report presented to the Legislature doe not rise to the level of a judicial ruling.

If Roberts' report had been done at the behest of the Supreme Court, he wouldn't PRESUME their feelings on that matter. He would KNOW.

And of course, nowhere does it ever say that the PA Supreme Court was behind Roberts' book in any way.

DiogenesLamp spins more bullsh*t:

Furthermore, I will point out that The Constitution was Written in Philadelphia, which was at that time the Nation's Capitol, and no body of people knew better what was the meaning of Article II "natural born citizen" than did those delegates and representatives from Pennsylvania.

Ah. But Roberts was not a "delegate" or "representative from Pennsylvania."

If one wants to go there, who would know better what the Founding Fathers meant than a member of Franklin's Society for Political Inquiries (which was an arm of the central body of Founders), who had served as a consultant to that body of leaders on the topic of immigration, a good personal friend of both Franklin and President of the Constitutional Convention George Washington, a man who had national-level legal responsibilities as UNITED STATES District Attorney for the State of Pennsylvania, who turned down the post of United States Attorney General when it was offered by President George Washington, and who was an important, nationally-recognized legal scholar who wrote one of the most important text books on the Constitution of the United States?

I refer, of course, to William Rawle.

Jeff Winston Deliberately, and with malicious intent, attempts to deceive people about the Provenance of this book...

No. As I have just shown, it is DIOGENESLAMP who attempts to deceive people about the provenance of Roberts' work, falsely claiming it was written at the behest of, or with the approval of, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Jeff... [wi]ll simply repeat his false claims again. (The Book is a nothing, Samuel Roberts is a nobody, the Book was NOT the work of the Entire Supreme court of Pennsylvania. The book is NOT evidence.)

I never claimed the Book was a "nothing." But it is clearly NOT the work of the entire Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

That is a FALSE CLAIM BY DIOGENESLAMP, and it is clearly false. There is no evidence to support it; all the available evidence is against it.

Yes, it REFERS TO a work that was DONE by the Supreme Court. But Roberts' book itself WAS NOT a product of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

So, as I've said: DiogenesLamp's claim is bullsh*t.

PS - apologies for burdening your 4th of July holiday with responses to DiogenesLamp's false claims and accusations.

[Jeff Winston]

Again, your quoting of the opinion of the Marquee de Lafayette's Aide, is an example of this. Why on God's earth would you regard the French Aide of a French National as a SOURCE on the meaning of Article II "natural born citizen?" He was neither a delegate, a representative, a founder, or even a Judge, yet you keep CITING that silly bastard as proof that you are right!

Umm... possibly because he was one of our important military leaders during the Revolution, under General Washington, was (indirectly) one of the most important financiers and assisters of the American Revolution, bringing the French in on our side, and was declared a "natural born citizen forever" by the State of Maryland?

Perhaps because he was a good personal friend of President George Washington, President John Adams, President Thomas Jefferson, President James Madison, President James Monroe, and President John Quincy Adams - every single one of our first SIX Presidents?

Having been declared a "natural born citizen" by the State of Maryland, don't you think he would asked what the term meant?

Being a good personal friend of our first six Presidents, don't you think he would have had easy access to what they considered the term to mean?

And with his assistant having written an entire book telling exactly what the Americans were doing in their political process, don't you think that his assistant, coming across the qualifications for President and needing to know what they meant, and having ready access to any one of our first six Presidents, as well as a man who had been specifically named a "natural born citizen" of the United States, don't you think he would've gotten it right?

Oh, but you've got some judge who was over several counties in Pennsylvania, who wasn't an important military leader in our Revolution, who didn't work closely with General George Washington, who didn't sit with Ben Franklin and George Washington and our other top leaders in meetings discussing the future of the country, who didn't know Washington, or Adams, or Jefferson, or Madison, or Monroe, or the second Adams. Ah, HE'S the person.

And then there's that SPANISH guy you keep citing! Again, no delegate, no Representative, no Judge, and no founder, yet you cite him anyway!

Not one of the known translators of the Constitution or commentators, foreign or domestic, EVER said that "natural born citizen" required citizen parents.

If your (bullsh*t) theory were correct, wouldn't that strike you as EXTEMELY REMARKABLE?

That NOT ONE of the translators, or commentators, or Founders, or national-level early legal experts in all of early America, EVER said it says what you claim it means: "born in the United States of citizen parents?"

Instead, they ALL say it means either "born in the United States," or "born a citizen."

You are either deluded, or a pathological liar, who happens to believe his own lies. Given how artfully you have truncated quotes so as to change their meaning, I'm voting for Deliberate and knowing liar.

Once again, another BULLSH*T FALSE ACCUSATION made by you against me.

We went OVER AND OVER that, and it was shown conclusively that I HAD ALREADY, IN THE SAME THREAD, INCLUDED A QUOTE FROM THE EXACT SAME PERSON THAT SAID THE SAME THING YOU MADE A BIG DEAL OVER MY NOT INCLUDING ELSEWHERE.

So once again, MORE BULLSH*T by you.

As for you, given the volume and consistency of your ABSOLUTE BULLSH*T, I can't conclude that you're deluded. The only option I have is to conclude that you're a pathological liar.

[Jeff Winston]

I’m glad that you both care so strongly about this issue, but I sincerely hope that your future discussions will be a tribute to the patriotism of this site, rather than an embarrassment.

I was willing to give birthers a full hearing, and to agree with them if what they said was true.

As detailed in this thread and in many other places, I've never found anything that wasn't BS. That wasn't disproven, misquoted, overruled, or otherwise just not a good point, for those who like reality and truth.

Because of that, I consider birthers to be counter-productive to conservatism, and an ongoing embarrassment to our conservative cause.

I really wish the whole thing would just go away. But it won't, as long as people keep posting things known to be BS, as if they were true.

And this isn't really how I wanted to spend my 4th of July. But it is what it is.

[TauntedTiger]

Yo birthers! Believe me, he born here... somewhere.

[trisham]

I hear you. Thanks for a thoughtful and kind response, friend.

[GBA]

I have looked through his posting history, and he seems to be conservative on other issues. It is for this reason that I don't think he INTENTIONALLY supports the Fogblower Democrat community, but support them and their goals he does.

I offer "Marco Rubio" for your consideration.