Posted on 03/01/2010 3:51:30 AM PST by patlin
There are many in the press today caricaturing me as a "conspiracy theorist" simply because I, like millions of other Americans, insist on actually seeing proof of Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility.
I've never alleged a conspiracy. Obama was given a free pass by an opponent who had his own eligibility issues. Not much of a conspiracy necessary – especially with Obama accountable only to a fawning press and scared-of-their-shadows Republicans.
But "conspiracy theorist" is an easy epithet to hurl.
One good question to ask, the next time you hear someone call me that name, is this: "Who is Joseph Farah conspiring with?"
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Agree, what's unusual is that they had to create photos of him there....hmmmm, wonder why?
As far as I can tell - nothing removes his Bristish citizenship automatically. I’m all ears.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
I’ll keep posting all this until someone can categorically refute it.
If born in Hawaii, per the US Constitution, Obama is a natural born American and no power on Earth can take a natural born American's citizenship from him, unless he voluntarily relinquishes it, and even then you have to work to prove it.
As far as his British/Kenyan citizenship is concerned:
He may have gained UK citizenship at Birth (under the British Nationality Act of 1948), if his parents marriage was legal. Since Obama Sr. was already married at the time in Kenya, the marriage was bigamous and void in the US and probably the UK. However since Obama Sr. was never charged and Stanley Dunham just chose to get a divorce, the point is probably moot.
Assuming Obama had UK citizenship, the Constitution of Kenya granted Obama Kenyan citizenship through his father.
The Kenya Independence Act revoked the UK citizenship of any person claiming Kenyan citizenship at independence.
Kenya stripped Obama of his (believed) Kenyan citizenship at his age of majority when he did not renounce his American citizenship.
A servant always bows to his master. Its nice that our president knows who he answers to. It's certainly not us, we, the American people.
sorry, did not meant to post twice...
THEY DID!!??
Where's the proof?
Why does Kenya still claim him as their own?
That is a documented case by a competent legal authority, which trumps anything you’ve ever produced. It certainly exposes the uninformed presumption of your previous quote: “If you have actually read anything on this thread you'll find it's the Founders intentions, not any ones claim. If this thread isn't enough, check this one out, that is if you want to learn about it and not look silly here spouting ignorant inanities.” Your link is simply more bloviating from unqualified hacks.
ROFL,Now that’s FUNNY!
Do you have any Idea how ridiculous that sounds? And even more so that you defend it?”
First off, someone born here is not a foreigner (the example in question). That's currently settled law, and I think you expose more about your own underlying attitudes with an answer like that than you realize.
I fought a war for this country. I managed to avoid become grotesquely paranoid about anyone I could somehow characterize as “other” in some sense, especially my fellow citizens in a land of immigrants. I think the Founding Fathers were men enough to do the same.
That is a documented case by a competent legal authority, which trumps anything you’ve ever produced.
Sorry, apellates don’ trump the SCOTUS and the conlusion you pesented isn’t even at the link and the ones you reached are wrong.
Here’s some actual SCOTUS decisions:
• “Minor v. Happersett - yes, it’s been mentioned on FR but not fully hashed out. I don’t see how, if this was decided by the SCOTUS then they did indeed give a definition of the term NBC.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html";
Not only has it been discussed, but so too have other SCOTUS cases that have that exact definition that the framers (no doubt) used when they entered the NBC requirement without debate.
Attorney Apuzzo mentions these cases in the “Kerchner v Obama” & Congress case:
“THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss
NBC in the Constitutional drafts:
June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States
July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” [the word born is underlined in Jay’s letter.] http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:
September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: “I thank you for the hints contained in your letter”
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483
September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay’s letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The “Natural Born Citizen” requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison’s notes of the Convention The proposal passed unanimously without debate.
No. It doesn't troll. The Founders bet it all. They would NOT have taken the chance on someone that had dual citizenship and/or divided loyalties. Obama HAS no loyalty. Family in Kenya, best friend, Chandoo, from Pakistan, lived in Indonesia and lived in Hawaii where the mainland is held in contempt. Bam is NOT what they had in mind when they said "Natural Born Citizen". Bam campaigned in Germany and told them he is a "citizen of the world". He bows to heads of state. He apologizes for American exceptionalism. These are NOT the actions of an American. He even disparages average Americans as "clinging to their guns and Bibles".
Do you actually you think the Founders took all that risk only to let someone questionable in as President?!
Awwww man, save that crap for DU.
Real beaut, huh ? LOL ..
Oh yeah!
Minor vs. Hapersett
“Mrs. Virginia Minor was a native-born American citizen from Missouri who had the audacity to try to register to vote. The registrar, one Happersett, refused because Minor was not “male”. Minor sued in local court and the Missouri State Supreme Court, but she lost. She appealed to the United States Supreme Court claiming that she was a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment and was entitled to vote. The Supreme Court agreed that she was a natural born citizen of the United States, but that didn’t make her eligible to vote.
So incidentally to the main question in the case, the Supreme Court did discuss citizenship...
The section from Minor that is alluded to by the opening quotation is one in which the court is describing the state of citizenship in the United States prior to the Fourteenth Amendment (something that is overlooked by those who use the citation). Here is what the court said:
[To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment, it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation and what were afterwards admitted to membership…
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that “No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,”
and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.]
Let’s take a minute to digest that lengthy citation. The most obvious point is that there are two and exactly two kinds of citizens discussed here: ” natural born” and “naturalized”. Take a minute and reread the citation and verify this for yourself. You will see no distinction made between those who are born a citizen and those who are a natural born citizen. Note: “all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens” — not “natural born citizens” but “citizens” but natural born implied because they are born citizens.
The issue addressed in this section is not who is a natural born citizen, but who is a citizen. So when the court talks about “some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents” they are saying that there are “doubts” as to whether the children of aliens born under the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens at all. This is the point glossed over when trying to use this case to create a third type of citizen (the non-natural born, non-naturalized citizen).
Let me quote from an earlier portion of the decision:
[Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these states when the Constitution of the United States was adopted became ipso facto a citizen — a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was consequently one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.]
What can be seen from this quotation is the distinction between the concept of who is in a class and whether members of that class are citizens. In relating Minor to the question of Obama natural born citizenship Minor informs us that those born citizens are natural born citizens, but Minor does not inform us who are born citizens. Focus on this language from the Court:
[These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.]
The distinction is not between “plain citizens” and “natural born citizens” but between “natural-born citizens” and aliens (e.g. not citizens).
All of the preceding discussion is related to the situation before passage of the Fourteenth Amendment (“To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment”). The reason for this digression to the time before the Fourteenth Amendment was the question of whether Minor was a citizen apart from the Fourteenth Amendment. The court said that she was: “she has always been a citizen from her birth and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship.” She was such a citizen because her parents were citizens and she was born under the jurisdiction of the United States, and the pesky argument about those not born of citizen parents before the Fourteenth Amendment “it is not necessary to solve”.
I don’t know if this question was ever solved for those born before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, but it is not necessary for us to solve either because there are no more persons living born before the Fourteenth Amendment, and because it was solved for those born after by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wonk Kim Ark. Wong, born in the United States of alien parents, was declared a citizen. It is hardly reasonable to quote the dicta in Minor as casting doubts while refusing to recognize the dicta in Wong which resolved them.”
The final paragraph above is pretty clear. The other cases are minor by comparison and have been discussed at length here. Apuzzo simply strings them together out of context to make it appear they have bearing on this issue that they do not. Apuzzo has no expertise in this field, he will continue to lose on this issue, and cutting and pasting his article proves nothing.
The quotes you cite simply support the fact that NBC is a requirement for President, which needs no support since it is in the Constitution. They say nothing about requiring two citizen parents.
They’re always veterans. Or from West Point. What crap.
.
JB Williams
Canada Free Press
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12999
(snip)
Every member of the Supreme Court, every member of congress, every member of the Joint Chiefs, most members of the DOD, CIA, FBI, Secret Service and state run media, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, MSNBC, Fox and print news, knows that Barack Hussein Obama does NOT meet Article II – Section I constitutional requirements for the office he holds. By his own biography, there is NO way he can pass the test. The hard evidence is so far beyond overwhelming, it is ridiculous.
(snip)
But not ONE member of America’s most powerful people will dare confront Obama and his anti-American cabal on the subject. The Constitution does NOT stand.
(snip)
Half of the people you expect to stop this insanity are quiet co-conspirators in the silent coup. The other half is paralyzed by fear, motivated only by political self-preservation.
(Snip)
Americans keep asking what they can do because they see that none of their leaders are doing anything to stop the demise of their beloved country. It’s the right question, because those leaders are NOT going to stop this thing.
(Snip)
WHO WILL SAVE FREEDOM?
A brave few… This is how it was in the beginning, how it has always been and how it will be.
(Snip)
DR. ORLY TAITZ, Phil Berg and Gary Kreep, ALL OF WHOM HAVE MADE DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE A PERSONAL AMBITION, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONSTITUTION LEADERSHIP.
(Snip)
A PRECIOUS FEW, BUT THEY EXIST… and the walls are indeed closing in on Obama and his evil cabal. IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FAIL TO GET BEHIND THESE BRAVE FEW WHO ARE SEEKING PEACEFUL REDRESS, ALL THE PEACEFUL OPTIONS WILL EVAPORATE AS IF THEY NEVER EXISTED. WE WILL RETURN TO A PRE-1776 AMERICA OVERNIGHT..
Do YOU fear Obama?
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12999
___________________________________
A precious few, indeed. Lets get behind those few brave patriots who are out there in the trenches every day working to prove Obama’s inelgibility:
Dr. Orly has put her life’s blood into this fight. SHE HAS MADE DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE A PERSONAL AMBITION, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONSTITUTION LEADERSHIP FROM COWARDLY REPUBLICANS AND THE SCOTUS.
Dr. Orly is the ONLY one out there in the trenches EVERY day hitting Obama on multiple fronts and trying to bring him down. It is reported that she is more than $8,000 in debt from using her own funds for expenses in her flights across the U.S for interviews, speeches, serving papers and meeting with officials.
She has even gone to Isreal and Russia to spread the message about Obama’s inelgibility!
She states the case expertly, including the bc and natural born citizen aspect, when not abused by the U.S. state-controlled media. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132880
Sure, Dr. Orly makes mistakes. We all do. But Dr. Orly is no dummy. How many of us could go to a foreign country, learn 5 languages, establish a successful dental practice, a successful real estate business AND pass the California state bar- one of the hardest in the U.S. to pass?
She may be a ‘mail order’ attorney and not a Harvard lawyer, but she IS an attorney with all the rights and privilages of a Harvard lawyer nevertheless!
The point is; she has the passion, the zeal, the courage of her convictions and the love of America and its freedoms (unlike many of our ‘great’ attorneys and ‘patriots’ who criticize her) that will not let her give up!
She is exhausted. She is nervous. She is frustrated. It is reported that she gets by on 4-5 hours of sleep per night, and her family is very worried about her health- as well as her safety.
She makes mistakes. But she will NOT give up. She will keep on until she gets it right.
Stop tearing her apart. The Obots on FR don’t need our help.
The obots are scared to death of this little lady and her determination. That’s why they come out in droves all over the net on forums, chat rooms and even the national news to attack and ridicule.
Even if Orly NEVER brings Obama to trial, she has almost single handly brought his ineligibility to world wide attention, caused him to spend MILLIONS on lawyers to keep his records hidden AND CAUSED THE MUZZIE TO SWEAT BULLETS!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcChG5pRTOE&feature=player_embedded
“Family in Kenya, best friend, Chandoo, from Pakistan, lived in Indonesia and lived in Hawaii where the mainland is held in contempt.”
Your xenophobia is showing.
“Do you actually you think the Founders took all that risk only to let someone questionable in as President?!”
I think they expected us, like every other country, to eventually have some total losers as leaders. And we have. They designed a system to survive that. It depends on the law, not vicious paranoia, which they clearly held in contempt.
Awwww man, save that crap for DU.”
Never been to DU in my life. But I do understand that people like you hold no service to one’s country in regard if it conflicts with their need for emotional validation.
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.