Enough's enough: Obama has conceded ineligibility

WND ^ | SEPTEMBER 12, 2010 | Joseph Farah

[RobinMasters]

For more than two years now, I have given Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt.

That may be hard to fathom for some because of my admittedly relentless and tireless pursuit of the truth about his origins and his constitutional eligibility for office.

After all, I am the guy who has posted this question on billboards across America: "Where's the birth certificate?"

But I really have given Obama the benefit of the doubt until now. I have asked the questions and directed the investigative reporting that has changed America's political landscape on the eligibility question. WND conducted the first national poll on this subject 15 months ago. Back then, we were shocked that 50 percent of Americans knew there was a controversy about his birth certificate and his eligibility – because WND is the only news organization in the country that pursued the story. Today, the latest polls show 58 percent of Americans don't believe Obama's story and suspect he is not eligible to serve.

That is a big shift in public opinion in a short period of time.

During that time, despite suggestions to the contrary, I never accused Obama of being born elsewhere. I never concluded he is constitutionally ineligible. I avoided speculation on what we might find if Obama ever did willingly and openly release his records as other presidents and presidential candidates have.

[bravedog]

His father was not a citizen of the USA. Therefore, he does not have unquestioned and sole allegiance to the USA, as the framers determined was necessary to be President. Therefore, he is not, never was, and never will be, eligible to legitimately hold the office of President of the USA. This is a known fact, and the only fact necessary to determine his ineligibility for the presidency.

I agree. If we were in a war with Kenya, Great Britain, or Indonsia, who would Obama hold allegiance to? I would like to believe that he would side solely with the U.S., but we cannot argue that military decisions may be somewhat biased because of this. If I were to force requirements on a president, I would certainly only want one whose sole allegiance is to the United States... no dual citizens need apply.

[curiosity]

LOL. Someone really has a distorted view of his own importance.

[curiosity]

Showing a birth certificate may mean he was born in Hawaii, it does not mean he is a natural born citizen. It will not be over.

So why are you surprised that he doesn't bother releasing the long form?

[curiosity]

Zero could dispel ALL of the naysayers and questions by simply releasing the long form.

Nonsense. You'd just double down on the crackpot theory that he isn't eligible because his father wasn't a US citizen.

[srweaver]

I see the reasons for your ire.

Just remember that with what measure you use, it shall be measured back to you.

[srweaver]

PS-

Still cheap shots from an armchair quarterback, though.

[jamese777]

They had everything to do with affirming the only and accepted definition of the term “Natural Born Citizen” as used in Article II.

You are of course free to feign ignorance of that fact if necessary to draw your pay check, but be advised we are all well aware of what you are, and what your mission is.

---

I am not “feigning ignorance” of the following historical facts: that the Venus was a case involving Maritime Law and who owned the cargo of a ship that was seized during a state of war and what nation’s citizenship did members of the crew claim: British subjects or American “subjects;”
Shanks v Dupont was a land inheritance case based on being born BEFORE the Declaration of Independence and whether a women who was married to a British soldier and who returned to England with her husband after the Revolutionary War was a British subject or an American citizen under the terms of the Treaty of Paris of 1793.
And Minor v Happersett was a women’s suffrage case arguing that the 14th Amendment granted women the right to vote prior to the passage of the 19th Amendment.

In my humble opinion I still think that it would be great to have a definitive, precedent setting ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States on Article 2, Section 1’s “natural born citizen” requirements in a lawsuit that challenges the eligibiliity of a presidential candidate to be on the ballot, to receive Electoral College votes and to be sworn in as president.

Such a ruling could clear up once and for all whether a post 14th Amendment “citizen at birth” (the term currently used in US law (Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part 1, Section 1401 of the US Code, “Nationals and citizens of the United States at birth”)and an Article 2, Section 1 (current) Clause 4, (original) Clause 5, “natural born citizen” have the same requirements or different requirements.

Obviously no such definitive, precedential ruling has been issued since Barack Hussein Obama II was on the ballot in 50 states plus the District of Columbia; he received 365 Electoral College votes that were counted and certified by Vice President Cheney without objection from any of the 535 members of Congress with no point of order being raised to challenge that counting and certification. Obama was sworn in as president by Chief Justice John Roberts; and he has been the President of the United States for more a year and a half now.

In December of 2007 Obama signed an official government form in the state of Arizona affirming that he is eligible to be on the ballot as a “natural born citizen of the United States” and no one has challenged that attestation in nearly three years. That simple statement could be the legal grounds for a criminal investigation for election fraud.
http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/arizona-election-nomination-papers-barack-obama-signed-statement-he-is-a-natural-born-citizen2.pdf

[jamese777]

He could have already been charged with many crimes... if we had an intact law enforcement system. We don’t. And that’s just as big a problem as Obama himself.

---

That’s always such an easy out for conspiracy theoriests, be they leftists or rightists. “The entire law enforcement system is corrupt” and that’s why I can’t get my way.
Yeah, right.

[jamese777]

LOL - Best laugh of the morning; thank you.
But, if you want to be technical there is not Constitutional requirement that the President be human, only a natural born citizen who is 35 years of age and of those at least 14 have been spent in the US.

---

Do you know of any non-human natural born citizens?

[jamese777]

Lingle may have plausible deniability if she didn’t see the BC herself. If she had seen the BC herself and knew that it was not legally valid, she could DEFINITELY be charged with violation of the Federal General False Statement Act for that one.

Plus, her story totally contradicts both what Fukino claimed about the process and what Fukino claimed about what was on the BC. As Edge919 has noted, this statement by Lingle actually leaves a person with no reason to believe anything that comes out of Lingle’s mouth, since what she’s said is so easily documented as false.

---

In order for a denial to be plausible, a public official first has to issue a denial.
To the best of my knowledge the Governor has not denied anything the she said in her radio interview.

[dangus]

I find this quote from John Crysostom (lit, “the Golden-Mouthed”) quite comforting, at times: “The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.” It reminds me that the cravenness of bishops is neither new nor insurmountable, but it’s real meaning was as a warning to bishops, that when they accept grave tasks (leading their flock), their moral responsibility is that much higher.

As for the charge of cheap shots: I’m not saying I could do better. I’ve never sought even a leadership position in my church. I know my energy levels fluctuate too much, and I don’t have the most even temperament. And my memory isn’t nearly up to my processing power. But those who do become leaders need to hear from us when we disagree with their choices, and need to know when they’ve alienated or angered us.

[OneWingedShark]

>Do you know of any non-human natural born citizens?

Irrelevant insofar as the legal system is concerned... but it would be interesting to see how sentient extra-terrestrial life would impact the law.
{Because then you could technically be genocidally violent towards them and not commit ‘homicide.’}

[srweaver]

I can’t agree with you that President Bush is similar to a craven bishop. Is that your assertion?

I suggest you try and find some place of leadership so you can grow into a more realistic understanding of associated challenges and limitations.

I have nothing against feedback to, or responsibility for, leaders, but those who accept responsibility to actually make a difference, rather than just type or talk, are the ones who deserve and contribute to good leadership.

[jamese777]

Irrelevant insofar as the legal system is concerned... but it would be interesting to see how sentient extra-terrestrial life would impact the law.
{Because then you could technically be genocidally violent towards them and not commit ‘homicide.’}

---

Sounds like that recent movie “District 9.”

[dangus]

>> I can’t agree with you that President Bush is similar to a craven bishop. Is that your assertion? <<

No, I didn’t; I meant to state that St. John’s purpose was not to bash on all the bishops, but to warn about grave responsibilities.

>> I have nothing against feedback to, or responsibility for, leaders, but those who accept responsibility to actually make a difference, rather than just type or talk, are the ones who deserve and contribute to good leadership. <<

You don’t know me, you don’t know what I do for a living, you don’t know what difference I make. All you (could) know is that I don’t throw myself up at front at all times; that I’m content to let others shine. And if you were wise, that just might suggest to you that there are people whose leadership I am quite comfortable with.

You obviously have a far higher opinion of Bush’s accomplishments than I do. After eight years of a Republican president, we have government growing extraordinarily larger, eight million more illegal aliens, no dent in the practice or legality of abortion, an economy in shambles, and a deficit beyond what anyone thought possible. Yes, it’s the Democrats who are most to blame, but why were they so successful at destroying America when we had the White House, and liberalism on the run?

[little jeremiah]

Fight for conservatism, not just against the current Democrat. After all, do we really want a President Biden? President Pelosi?

When 0thugga is exposed (Note - not "if"), then the Dems will be neutered, and anyone who assisted in his crimes will be tainted or even arrested. Effort needs to be on exposing him in every single way possible - his ineligiblity, his lies, his crimes, his fraud, his assocations, his Islamism, his homosexualism, his drug use, his marxism, everything. The more of who he is gets exposed, the better.

[editor-surveyor]

The definition of the term as used on the day that the article was prepared is the only thing that is at issue, your paid obfuscation not withstanding.

Obams is not President, and each and every act he has taken while pretending to office is null and void.

It will require the restablishment of the legitimate government of the United States of America at some point in the future to correct these matters, and bring those such as yourself that have participated in this charade to justice, but rest assured it will be done.
.

[editor-surveyor]

> “ but why were they so successful at destroying America when we had the White House, and liberalism on the run?”

.
Because it was only an illusion that “we had the White House, and liberalism on the run.”

Two obvious questions arise from your assumption:

* Who was “We?”

* What made you think that liberalism was “on the run?”

Leftist charades such as “global warming” were certainly advancing, as were massive governmental intrusions into our lives such as Bush’s prescription drug plan, and the “no child left behind” act.

Where did you see them on the run?
.

[little jeremiah]

I disagree. We HAVE to get rid of the New Kenyan Socialism.

Read my tagline.

[srweaver]

I still respect President Bush, though I often disagreed with him and his policies.

In my opinion, I think he should have used his veto pen much more frequently, and taken much more heat than he has, or is currently (by being accused of being a terrible president).

Standing against the tide probably wouldn’t have earned him many (if any) more friends, either conservative or liberal, but then leadership isn’t about making friends at the expense of principle.

Notwithstanding, I think he loved and served this country and its people, and he will ultimately be judged with a larger perspective against more historical backdrop than most of us have at present.

Glad you’re making a difference!