Posted on 09/21/2010 8:59:08 AM PDT by wintertime
Mr. Limbaugh,
You have FAILED to defend the Constitution in the important matter of Obama's very questionable natural born status! On those rare occasions that you have mentioned the topic ( less than 5 total minutes) you have treated it like a joke. I am mystified that you have done this.
The only consequence, Mr. Limbaugh, for directing attention to Obama's eligibility as a natural born citizen would have been a little ridicule from the mainstream Marxist media. If you fail to defend the Constitution in time of relative peace and security, only a FOOL would expect you to defend the Constitution in the face of real tyranny, tanks in the streets, and cattle cars filled to the brim? Only a fool would expect you to do what is right and brave.
Personally, I will never fully trust you and your opinions again. Some things are deal breakers. That you have failed to cover the important question of having a constitutionally eligible president is a deal breaker for me.
By the way, LTC Lakin is facing court martial for having dared Obama to prove his natural born citizenship. LTC Lakin is brave and honorable man. Hopefully, you, Mr. Limbaugh, you will have one thousandth of the courage of this military officer, and you will do what is right. You will give LTC Lakin the generous time on your program that his legal case deserves.
Mr. Limbaugh, that little itty bitty phrase in the Constitution about having a natural born citizen for a president is **not** a JOKE!
Respectfully,
Wintertime
I agree. But...there are other aspects of this issue that Rush could certainly raise:
Fact: It is SIMPLE and EASY to prove one's natural born citizenship.
Fact: Obama has gone to very great expense ( private and tax paid) and effort to hide common documents that unanointed Americans produce routinely for many reasons.
Fact: A **REAL**, American, natural born citizen and president would be **HONORED** to promptly prove (with the very best evidence) their natural born status. NO real American and eligible president would court martial a decorated officer over a matter so straight forward and **easily** resolved as this.
These are legitimate questions and points that Rush could easily ask and present on his program without having to get into obscure discussions about legal arguments ( pro and/or con).
If a person is a patriot, they defend the Constitution. **ALL** of it!..even that itty bitty phrase about being eligible to be president.
The language IS consistent with there being but two types of citizens, as I have maintained, either natural-born or naturalized.
Via the passage above it seems one is EITHER born a “natural-born citizen(s)” or one is born an “alien(s) or foreigner(s)”. If one is born an alien or foreigner one may be NATURALIZED as a US citizen. Thus the two types of US citizen clearly recognized by US law, natural born or naturalized.
You can be sure nine times out of ten, when someone cuts down a quote, they did NOT do so for clarity and brevity. Amusing that this isn't the posters first time down the quote mangling merry go round!
It is difficult to respond to personal insults.
You protest way too much. Repeating a false charge over and over doesn’t magically make it true. Nothing is out of context and you’ve been shown that. Man up and admit I’m right.
THEN...for the third time...what are YOU doing about it?
You don’t seem to understand. I’m not talking about your accuracy. I’m talking about your prose. You suck as a writer. Your writing is horrible. Your prose owe more to The Peril’s of Pauline than to Sinclair Lewis.
You’re trying to be dramatic to make a point but you come across looking silly.
It wasn’t a personal insult. It was a statement of fact addressed to birthers. The US Supreme Court spent pages in a 1898 decision detailing their belief that the phrase natural born citizen came from the strictly analogous common law phrase ‘natural born subject’. That in turn meant it applied to those born of alien parents, provided they were here with the approval of the government.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
The Supreme Court, as you well know, disagrees. They said this was the nomenclature known to the framers of the Constitution. Also, you DO understand that when Vattel says native (as in native born), it STILL means you have to be born to citizen parents. The framers would have understood this too. Under such an understanding of being a native or natural citizen at birth, you STILL HAVE TO HAVE citizen parents in order to be a natural citizen, a native or indigenous, etc., ... and as Vattel, John Jay, the Supreme Court, John Bingham, etc., would acknowledge ... free of foreign ties. Under all circumstances, Obama does not meet any of these definitions.
In spite of the near complete mainstream Marxist media and conservative media blackout, 6 out of 10 Americans have serious questions about Obama’s natural born citizenship.
Gee! How did that happen that soooooo many people know about this?
Answer: People like me!
6 out of 10 people know about Obama’s questionable eligibility because people like me have sent e-mails, talked about among relatives and friends. People like me have used the Internet and its social connections ( such as Free Republic) to inform others.
I and others have have written multiple times to my representative from dog catcher up to Senator.
I and others have donated money to those with legal cases.
And...As I type this there have been 104 posts to a thread I posted. Drip Drip Drip and soon you've carved a Grand Canyon of national opinion.
If the Founders were following Vattel, they should have followed his phrasing and used "native citizen" rather than confusing everyone by using a term so close to the common law phrase "natural born subject".
But they didn't, and the phrase they used makes sense as the American version of Natural Born Subject.
"II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. "
They also cite Dicey:
"Natural-born British subject" means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth." and "Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality."
No, the full text of the Minor decision proves it is true.
Nothing is out of context and you’ve been shown that.
Of course it is out of context. Here is the full passage, in context:
“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.”
You always omit the bolded sentence whenever your quote the Minor decision, and I am confident that any objective observer will immediately see it completely undermines your argument.
There's a name for selectively quoting only those sentences that appear to support your case while omitting those that undermine it.
Man up and admit I’m right.
Back at you. Man up and admit the bolded sentence that you always fail to include in your quote completely undermines your argument.
Ooookay! So 6 out 10 Americans who have questions about Obama's eligibility can't read. ( Yeah! Right!) ( with eye roll)
That in turn meant it applied to those born of alien parents, provided they were here with the approval of the government.
Uh? **Here**??? And what proof do you have of that, other than stuff posted by Obots on the Internet?
Unlike other presidents, ( other than Arthur) armies of citizens stood ready to testify of the president's earliest beginnings and that of his family. Obama lacks these witnesses, and given his tangled international and paternal history, it is rational for Americans to ask for documentation.
Fact: It is a very simple and inexpensive matter to prove natural born citizenship.
Fact: Obama has gone to considerable effort and expense ( private and tax paid) to prevent the release of common documents that would prove or disprove his natural born citizenship.
Gee! And...The afterbirthers wonder why 6 out 10 Americans are not smack dab certain of Obama's eligibility?
Honestly, Obama claims that Obama Sr. is his legal birth father...But..Without documentation few know even that for certain. ( By the way, I recognize that their is a difference between legal birth paternity and biologic paternity. Only DNA testing could untangle that.
My guess: Senators and Congressmen are learning nontransferable skills. A very high percentage become lobbyists after they are termed out or defeated. Their incomes, their family futures, college tuition, retirement, wealth for life, depend upon playing the game.
The senate actions, SB2678 and SenRes 511, neither of which had legal significance, were pure politics. No one could not have known about the McCain law suits and congressional hearings. But McCain is a “hero.” Leahy and McCaskill would have planted stories in the state-run media about anyone who failed to say they thought McCain should be able to be president, Constitutionally eligible or not. His problem, by no choice of his, was caused by his parent's service to our country. As unfair as it is to McCain, we've had two hundred thirty years to amend that provision, and, though there have been many attempts, twenty six, there were not 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the states who wanted the change.
It was lose-lose, since if senators didn't keep quiet, they would probably need to pay lip service to the “equal protection” clause and raise the warranted concerns about Obama. If McCain were to have become president do you think he wouldn't have remembered who his enemies are?
If Obama became president, and the patriot had no supporters, do you believe Obama wouldn't have had the media destroy the career of the patriot as he did Georgia Congressman Nathan Deal, who did send a letter asking about Obama’s eligibility. And if some Republican had raised Obama’s ineligibility, Dems would knock out McCain and Hillary was more than ready to step in.
[Read about the tactics with a web search. The House Ethics committee went through Deal’s old income tax statements and found that he had claimed a bit more than he should as an exemption for his family's auto salvage business. It was miniscule, and never proven to be a violation. This is like the Scooter Libby persecution, only small time. Make accusations while promising to keep looking to until you find some transgression, as they did with Libby, always knowing Libby was innocent. Pelosi directs a hundred million dollar to her husbands’ business, as does Feinstein, and Deal is still being smeared in the left wing media about corruption charges of which he was never convicted, making his run for the Governor's seat difficult. Is Sonny Perdue, Deal’s opponent, another Charlie Christ?]
Now, with the clearly vicious Chicago team in place, and our Attorney General contemplating making the New Black Panthers U.S. Attorneys, who would dare raise his or her hand? Even Sarah Palin, who I hope will become our next president, has never mentioned constitutional eligibility. The Alinksy ridicule campaign (Alinsky’s fifth rule: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon) has been to successful.
We have no public figures willing to face the “Ruling Class’” approbation. Clarence Thomas let us know that the court understands the issue but is unwilling to act - “evading that issue.” If Bobby Jindal were to become a presidential candidate (his parents were not naturalized when he was born), and appeared to be prevailing the left would suddenly display their erudition. Before McCain was the nominee, you can find dozen’s of articles about McCain's ineligibility, and the left did understand natural born citizenship. As soon as Obama became the nominee, those articles ceased.
Much as “a government of laws and not men” is what I wish were the case, government entitlements appear to be a more powerful force. The Kerchner/Apuzzo law suit has potential if we believe there are any representatives left who respect our constitutional principles, but the destructive forces may never permit any question of Obama’s legitimacy to be judged. That must weaken respect for laws, and has. Our military appears to have more Colin Powell types than Pattons. {I won't let my son serve unless there is a return to honesty, and know there are many like me.)
LOL!!!! Yes, he cuts it down for brevity and clarity, not because when you cut it down it looks definitive.
It seems pretty definitive that either one is a “citizen” “native” or “natural-born citizen” (all used synonymously) at birth, or one is an alien or foreigner.
An alien or foreigner is able to BECOME a US citizen via “naturalization” yet will never be a natural born citizen, who - via the natural act of being born - had US citizenship.
Where did that 6 in 10 number come from?
Uh? **Here**??? And what proof do you have of that, other than stuff posted by Obots on the Internet?
Both the governor of Hawaii and the director of Hawaii's department of public health both publicly attest to his birth in Hawaii. Or are they "Obots" too, in your mind?
The only birther claim I object to is the one that says Obama cannot be eligible because of his father’s citizenship.
If Obama wasn’t born in the USA, then he is ineligible. Period. However, that will require proof before going to court, rather than asking the courts to investigate it.
“Kim Wong Ark had two non-citizen parents, yet was a US citizen at birth and was found by US law to be “natural born”.”
KWA was not found or declared a “Natural Born Citizen.”
KWA was declared a citizen under the 14th Amendment.
The court said that his rights as a citizen were the same as those of a a Natural born citizen.
The Presidency is not a right of citizenship. It is restricted to NBCs.
Come on fellow, just how hard is it to meet the born in country to 2 US citizens eligibility requirement? It seems to be a very easily met and common sense requirement.
That Obama desn’t meet the requirement and given the damage his administration has done to this country both domestically and internationally, proves the wisdom of the Founders requirement of being the 18th Century definition of a Natural Born Citizen......Born in the country to 2 citizen parents.....
Last time I checked “as much a citizen” isn't carving out a class of born a citizen but not a natural born citizen, it is saying that he is “as much a citizen” as a child born of two citizen parents.
The relevant passage.....
“The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle”
It isn't hard to meet those requirements, many Americans do, but it is not at all clear that THOSE are the requirements, the SCOTUS has said that those are the provisions that leave it in absolutely no doubt.
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.