Posted on 11/24/2009 9:55:42 AM PST by STARWISE
It is a popular topic of discussion in political circles these days, and as the weeks pass more and more people are asking, “Is Barack Obama really a natural born citizen of the United States?
Is he eligible to serve as President, or isn’t he?”
If he is, then so be it. We’ll just have to grit our teeth until this long dark nightmare comes to an end… one way or another.
But what if he is not eligible? What then? Well, in that case we have a problem… a very large problem, the solution to which could tear asunder the fabric of American society.
Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states that, “No person except a natural born citizen… shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”
That’s pretty straightforward, yet, when confronted with the possibility that the man who sits in the Oval Office may be a usurper, a great many otherwise patriotic Americans can be heard to say, “What difference does it make? The election’s over; the people have spoken. Get over it!”
Well, it’s not quite as simple as all that and the sooner we can all be satisfied that Obama is or is not a natural born citizen, the better. To postpone that finding for a year or two and then find, conclusively, that Obama is not eligible to serve as president would be disastrous.
Every new law and every executive order he had signed, every political appointment, every judicial appointment, every order he had given to the military, and every act and every decision of all of his appointees would immediately become null and void. How could we ever undo all of that?
*snip*
So it is well established that Obama did travel to Indonesia and Pakistan in 1981.
What is not established, and what is critically important, is what passport he used during that trip. There are only three possibilities:
Obama could have traveled under a U.S. passport… a passport first issued when he and his mother moved from Hawaii to Indonesia in 1967; he could have traveled under an Indonesian passport, issued following his adoption by his Indonesian stepfather; and it is conceivable that, if he was, in fact, born in Kenya in 1961, he could still have been a British subject, traveling with a British passport.
So which is it?
Unfortunately for Obama, in the present circumstance, Pakistan was under martial law in 1981 and certain undesirables… Christians, Jews, and Americans… were prohibited from entering the country. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department’s “no travel” list, making a U.S. passport no more valuable than an empty chewing gum wrapper at the Karachi Port of Entry.
So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?
And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York, Jakarta, and Karachi, what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration? The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers.
It makes the debate over Obama’s citizenship a rather short and simple one.
Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
. A: Yes, by his own admission.
. Q: What passport did he travel under?
. A: There are only three possibilities.
. 1. He traveled with a U.S. passport,
. 2) He traveled with a British passport, or 3) He traveled with an Indonesian passport.
. Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. passport in 1981?
. A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981.
Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.
If he was traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he was traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.
Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a “natural born” American citizen between 1981 and 2008. Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better. Is he a “natural born” citizen, or isn’t he?
It seems pretty clear from the available evidence that he is not. If that proves to be the case he should minimize the damage to the country and follow the Nixon example; he should simply resign from office so that we can begin to clean up the mess he leaves behind.
I’ve just noticed that you often make these assertive, negative comments; wetblanket, it’s hopeless, all over, nothing will work, etc.
So I commented.
You have the freedom to make your comments, and I have the freedom to comment about your comments.
C’est la vie.
Isn’t it nice that you think 0bama’s eligibility is more important than one incorrect statement in the above article.
One way to argue dirty is to state that people said things that they didn’t, and that is what you seem to have done a lot on this thread.
The numbers of conservative black Americans
are growing.
It’s because they’ve gotten EDUCATED decently.
Be furious at the villains like Sharpton, Jackson, rotten
parents, etc. and the school unions who destroy the lives
and futures of other black children by playing racial
politics and lowering the standards of education these
innocent kids get, all in the name of of their own power,
politics and greed.
Actually, "undoing all of that" would be a great blessing to the country.
And besides NOT having any evidentiary support for your contention, upon which much of your argument apparently rests; now you have problems with MY link.
The link worked fine for me and got me this...
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/travel/cis/southasia/TA_Pakistan1981.pdf
No.81-33A TRAVEL ADVISORY August 17, 1981 Passport Services/Bureau of Consular Affairs/ Department of State
Before travel to Pakistan, American citizens should be aware of the following updated visa requirements: 30 day visas are available at Pakistani airports to tourists only........
Are you willing to admit HERE AND NOW, that you have no evidence to support that there was a travel ban? You can argue the workability or authenticity of my source all you want, and apparently you want to desperately; but will you admit now that you have NO evidence of a “travel ban”?
Apparently you want to *share* your opinions but get all huffy when other people *share* theirs and you don’t agree with them!
;-)
And I have not put words in peoples mouths or quoted anyone inaccurately.
If you feel my criticism of your argument isn't valid, say why; not that you think I am arguing “dirty” and putting words in your mouth.
Explain to me why the importance of 0bama’s eligibility is a mitigating factor on the acceptability of putting forth something that is absolutely false, or why you think your question is germane to the subject in any other context; don't cry about me arguing “dirty” or putting words in your mouth.
I hate the guy!
I’m not racist, I hate his white half just as much as I do his black half
Sigh. You accused me of tolerating lies in pursuit of the cause of removing 0bama.
Which I never said or implied.
Finis.
I am not being huffy; you are. All I did was ask you the basis for your opinion. Whatis wrong with that on anyone’s web site? You made a prediction. It would seem that one could ask you the basis for it.
Absolutely! I have a final to finish and 13 for dinner Thursday and a rewrite to do, so it might be about next Monday maybe later. I need it to get through the editorial process and get published before I can post it here. But when that happens (Or I get rejected LOL) I will do so!
It is a question of loyalties, and if his father was a Kenyan, he was born a British subject, regardless of where. His mother had not fulfilled the requirements to convey citizenship at birth under the law as it stood in 1961.
Unless his daddy wasn't married to his mommy, which opens up other possibilities. Was he Mr. Davis' kid? Mr. Little's? Enquiring minds want to know.
But there is no documentation of either his birth, his citizenship status, his school and college admissions records, financial aid forms, etc. which could show what citizenship he has claimed over the years.
So, essentially, we are told to 'trust him' that he is a citizen, him and the throng of syncophants, enablers, and Socialist 'fellow travellers' who are systematically looting this nation through the device of ever concentrated and unConstitutional power.
Either we stop this process by threatening the Congress with their jobs, by proving the usurper's actions null and void as a result of his disqualification, or other means, and in all instances the results will already be ugly.
They could get far uglier by letting the current regime go unchallenged, especially in the minds of Americans.
Pakistani travel is only a small portion of the picture, and arguing about the type of flowers in the vase on the table is tantamount to arguing over the number of Angels who can dance on the head of a pin.
While there was a travel advisory issued by the State Dept., it was possible to travel to Pakistan on an American Passport. The smart (Caucasian, American) people were leaving--not going there, and some were lucky to get out with the clothes on their backs, suffering considerable financial losses in the process.
Why Obama would want to go there, whether as Obama or Soetoro, is another question, and the answer to that might be more interesting than the fact that he did.
And you accused me of being insufficiently concerned over 0bama’s eligibility because I was disturbed about blatant and easily checked lies, which tend to discredit the cause.
Try to work out the logic of that one that doesn’t entail the truth being the first casualty of the cause; oh yeah, you cannot - thus I argue “dirty”.
Pitiful.
You’ll ping the regular list? ‘Cause I want to be pinged if you’re not.
Thanks!!!
And Happy Thanksgiving.
‘Nother sigh.
You spent many comments on this thread accusing others of lying, or approving of lying, or facilitating lying, or glossing over lying, etc etc etc.
You never mentioned your POV about 0bama’s eiligibility until others brought it up. It sure did seem - and still seems - as though what got your ire up was everyone supposedly agreeing with the use of lying (none of which was actual fact at all), much more than 0bama being a fraudulent usurper.
Your comments speak for themselves.
Not exactly, no. What was enacted in the 1960's is an economic embargo of Cuba that still is in effect. What that means is that for almost all Americans, any financial dealings with anyone in Cuba is against the law and you can be prosecuted for it should the government decide to. So legally you could fly to Cuba. But once there you can't get a hotel room, buy a meal, grab a cab, or engage in any commerce with anyone in the country. Now there are exceptions to that, and I don't think the government has prosecuted anyone under the law in recent memory. But it's still there on the books.
Is there actually any such thing as a, "complete travel ban"??
Probably not. But the claim was that the State Department banned travel to Pakistan for U.S. citizens. That claim is completely false, and has been shown to be false on any number of occasions.
Your claim was, “...Pakistan was under martial law in 1981 and certain undesirables… Christians, Jews, and Americans… were prohibited from entering the country. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department’s “no travel” list, making a U.S. passport no more valuable than an empty chewing gum wrapper at the Karachi Port of Entry.” Your claim is false. And all the other State Department warnings you care to quote doesn’t change that.
In this particular case that 'one incorrect statement' forms the central part of the author's arguement. Obama cannot be a U.S. citizen because he had to travel to Pakistan on a foreign passport. And he had to travel on a foreign passport because U.S. passports weren't allowed because of a State Department travel ban. Well, since there was no travel ban then there is no reason to believe that Obama traveled on a foreign passport. And if he used a U.S. passport then the arguement falls apart.
And that was not the only incorrect statement in the article.
Anyone who opposes lying in the name of the cause, apparently must not be sufficiently dedicated to the cause. I need to prove my anti-0bama bonifides before I can legitimately point out that ‘travel ban’ is a lie? Completely irrelevant to the point, the point being that lies do NOT help further the cause.
And I spent the majority of this thread pointing out that a “travel ban” on Pakistan is a lie, not accusing people of lying - but on promulgating a lie. And it is a lie.
Why are you not upset about the lie?
Do you think it furthers the cause?
I think it discredits the cause.
Thus the apparent source of our fundamental disagreement.
Sure thing! :)
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.