Posted on 01/02/2011 1:00:02 PM PST by opentalk
Notwithstanding Obama’s lack of constitutional eligibility for the office he occupies as a direct result of his father’s citizenship, Obama can’t even prove he is an American. In fact the only thing we can confirm about Obama is that he is a foreigner–foreign to America, foreign to the english language, and ignorant of our history. At this late date, after millions of dollars spent, people mysteriously dying, and the jailing of a decorated Army officer–all of whom questioned Obama’s legality–any so called ‘birth certificate’ produced now is nothing more than suspect, and it is more than likely another faked document…a worthless piece of paper just like all of Obama’s so called ‘credentials’.
We know Obama was born British, is likely a Kenyan citizen, and is Indonesian; we know he was never naturalized as an American citizen; we know there is no record of his name change from Barry Soetoro to Barack Hussein Obama, II; we know he lied on his Illinois bar form about his previous names; we know he is using a stolen social security number, and that he has multiple social security numbers, and we know that Obama has a forged selective service registration.
Who does this kind of stuff except an illegal alien?
One of the things Obama cannot prove is that he is an American. He won’t release anything and asks us to believe him…as he robs our savings, our livelihood and our America.
(Excerpt) Read more at drkatesview.wordpress.com ...
So what you’re saying is that the Founders wrote the NBC requirement in part to protect the children of foreign nationals from being denied the highest office of the land.
Protester shouts ‘What about Obama?’ as congressman reads section of Constitution on presidential eligibility...developing...
FROM DRUDGE
Oh wow, bannie—thanks for sharing that! It made my day. :)
On FOX, they just said that the “heckler” was removed. I wanna know that person!!! A FReeper? :-)
Then who does have the responsibility to know if the proposed POTUS has the qualifications to be President before He/She is put on the ballot?
Since there is no federal election for president, the task of determining eligibility falls on the states, probably to the secretary of state of each state.
Each state sends members of the electoral college, each state runs its electionin its own way, so each state has to verify that the candidate is OK.
There were states that allowed known, proven non-citizens on the ballot (some Mexican radical forget the name sorry), which is a small hint that nobody actually does check regardless of what their responsibility is. Probably because most peoploe think there is a federal election (and we live in a democracy).
No, I said nothing of the sort, and I don't see how any reasonsably intelligent, honest person could possibly have inferred that from anything I said.
I too want to know the name of this brave patriot. I don’t trust any MSM sources any more—including FOX after the hit job they did on Geert Wilders. However, the blogosphere is alive and kicking, and my guess is we will know the name of the ‘heckler’ sooner than later.
Interesting post
Okay, then, it appears we agree. The Founders wrote the NBC requirement to assure that in the future of the Republic, the occupier of the highest office of the land would be a citizen born and bred of American parents.
Drudge will tell. :-)
This might prompt FOX into sharing.
Of course, whether or not other outlets cover this as “news” depends on the identity of the hero.
Rush just mentioned her. Thank goodness for Rush. Once he gets something out there, it’s harder to ignore. This is the way we are going to win this battle. Bit by bit the questions re: Obama’s shady past will receive wider and wider publicity. At some point it will reach critical mass. Obama knows this; it’s one reason he looked so sickly-skinny in HI. His nerves must be badly frayed by now.
I do not believe the Constitution as originally passed expressly required both that a person be born in the U.S. and that both of his/her parents be U.S. citizens as well. That is open up to reasonable disagreement because the Founders did not define what they meant by "natural born citizen".
But I'll state again, whatever the Founders original intent was in 1787, the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868 -- long after all the Founders were dead -- eliminated any pre-existing requirement that both parents be citizens. Under the 14th, you are a citizen at birth if born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction. That's as opposed to a "naturalized" citizen who only becomes a citizen after birth, and therefore is not a "natural born citizen".
God bless Rush! He is a general in this war!
The Fourteen Amendment doesn’t affect the NBC requirement because the latter doesn’t state that the president much be a “citizen”. It states that he or she must be a “natural born citizen”. Even you said the anchor babies of illegal aliens couldn’t be president. So you are contradicting yourself. [Anchor babies, as matters stand, are “citizens”.] You are interjecting a personal requirement of ‘both parents being legal’ which is illogical. Either NBC means ‘native born of citizen-parentS’, or it means ‘citizen’ - and the kids of illegal aliens are just as A-Okay as Obama (in your book).
Bruce-just a quick clarification. It was never my intent to imply absolute trust. Sorry if I was not clear on that.
All-in proposing the questions regarding truth and trust I was seeking to distill ideas about constitutional foundations. It is clear from this process, that we all agree (I think TNTNT agrees, but I am not completely sure) that...
the founding fathers had as their intent, related to the NBC issue, that it would not be the case that someone with divided loyalties occupy the office of the Presidency.
In as far as we can come to an “absolute truth” within human limitation, this is one of them related to our constitution. Working within that framework, and moving forward we come to our day and time in which an individual, Obama, is asking us as citizens to trust him, while asking us to simultaneously avoid a basic understanding of what we have known about our constitution, namely the statement above.
Now, as Americans, we are being forced to choose between truth and trust. If we choose truth, it is the harder path. Many have recognized that state law needs to be more precise on the NBC issue and that is one area to start and must not be neglected. But we also must force the issue of what has been perceived as vagueness with the constitution related to exact wording on NBC and citizenship in general.
If we choose the trust route, and say, well let’s let this birth stuff pass and deal with things we can because this birth thing carries too much weight, well then we lose the truth issue all together.
In a civil society such as this republic we are trying to protect and defend, trust can only exist within the confines of the law (which is our absolute truth with which we work.)
Therefore, if WE THE PEOPLE, choose to back away from Obama specifically, we have chosen wrongly. WE THE PEOPLE are in charge of this government. WE THE PEOPLE must protect and defend the constitution. We do that by voting most of the time, but sometimes as in relation to Obama, that avenue did not work properly, and it must be fixed. WE THE PEOPLE are faced with a constitutional crisis, and we cannot lose heart in this matter.
Was Obama born in the US to two citizen parents? It matters NOT how that question is answered, what matters is that it is asked and answered to the satisfaction of WE THE PEOPLE who run this government. THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED.
Yes, we may be talking about an insurmountable task, but creating this “American experiment” in the first place was no easy feat and we owe it to the founding fathers, and to future generations to give it our best shot.
I propose a flanking maneuver. WE THE PEOPLE in this new era of constitutional awareness, press our elected officials to put forth a bill “celebrating” the exceptional wording of our constitution, and beginning with the clause NBC, and in that celebration demonstrate in visual form for all our citizens, just how each of our presidents has upheld that idea. This type of “celebration” will help all our citizens recognize the importance of the words chosen in our founding documents and inspire those who are not voting (children, illegals, etc.) to see the beauty of our country in its very detailed aspects.
Force the hand of those who are seeking to destroy our constitution. That is what I say. What say you all?
Because it is one thing to argue generalized intents and policies, and the wisdom of letting someone like Obama become President. Maybe simply being born here shouldn't be enough, but as a people governed by a written Constitution, we should abide by what it says, not by what we wish it said.
Now of course, that still leaves the issue of whether Obama really was born in Hawaii. But leaving that aside for the moment, I'm just trying to figure out what your position is regarding people who were born in the U.S., but who had at least one parent not a citizen of the United States.
So you are still pushing the line that the Founders intended, via the NBC, to include the children of foreigners as potential POTUSs. Bruce, now I see why you avoided my original question. Please go back and read it, and then tell me with a straight face that the Founders intended any kind of foreigner, however malicious, subversive, overtly ANTI-American and malignant (toward everything good and singular about the USA) to spawn a child with an underage citizen, and then that offspring, being predictably hostile to everything traditionally American, to go on to be POTUS. And don’t tell me the 14th amendment changed anything. It refers to citizenship, not eligibility.
You are avoiding my question which ended my last post. I think I have been clear on where I stand. You have been asked if people born on American soil to one or two NON-citizen parents SHOULD, repeat SHOULD, not -can- but SHOULD, be allowed to occupy the office of the Presidency. Will you answer this question?
But to be very clear, I agree with fantasywriter, the 14th amendment addresses citizenship in general but not the term “Natural Born Citizen” in particular used in reference to the presidency.
I also agree with you in that the way things currently stand, wording can be “CONSTRUED” to be vague. Cultural Marxists will seek to build on vagueness to further the watering down of established ideas. You aren’t a cultural marxist are you?
Please, in your next response, address the end question of my last post.
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.