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 ...
Daisy - 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?
Bruce - my inclination is to say that no, I don’t.
Why would you have that inclination, Bruce? Hum? Could it be that little thing called “truth” nagging at you?
Are you a believer in this republic, or are you a cultural marxist seeking to destroy our republic? Stand for something, clearly, Bruce. Put your cards on the table.
Bruce - Jus tout of curiosity, how about a someone born to two U.S. citizens overseas? Should they be permitted to become President?
Daisy - Are you seriously asking me this question? Do I need to answer in all capital letters?
The office of the Presidency MUST be filled by a person (not plant, animal, or other biological entity) who was born ON property belonging to (not wishing to belong to, not in the process of belonging to),the United States of American, whose biological contributors to his/her conception (some understand this to be parents) are legally (not semantically, but in fact letter of the law) citizens of the United States of America.
Lefty’s can’t read but we knew that. :-)
Wow. Excellent citation. I was not aware of that, but that would genuinely call into question whether anchor babies are Constitutional.
And if the “subject to its jurisdiction” phrase of the 14th Amendment was intended to exclude from the citizenship granted in the 14th amendment “citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States” (as the citation you gave directly states), that would make it a death-knell for Obama’s eligibility when he admitted that he was a subject of Kenya (or Britain, as the case may be).
Yes, it is a struggle, but I am optimistic. Those who wish to ‘fundamentally change’ [read ‘Marxist-radicalize’] this country are not as motivated as those of us who love the USA passionately and are committed to her defense. Plus, believe me, we pray a lot more. They may *eventually* win, but it will be a battle further on down the road. The one at hand will eventually be ours, I fully believe.
I did read all your questions, and I thought you unfolded your eventual conclusion with power and eloquence. It was fascinating. Thanks for taking the time to post so a thoughtful an addition to the discussion. It enriched the entire thread.
I’m humbled b your compliment. Thank you, my fellow American. :)
This post, #580, is the best I have read on ANY eligibility thread. Wow—you laid it out in its true perspective for the first time, at least for me. I knew it was important—VERY important, in fact—but now I see it as far more fundamental and crucial. It made for a sobering read, but well, *well* worth every line. You gave me a lot to think about. Thank you.
You’re very welcome. In fact, I’ll probably read your largish post again when time permits; there was a lot in it, and it was quite intriguing. Best to you!
I second your statement...
To retreat in the face of that enemy is surrender to terrorism. Plain and simple.
and go one further, to surrender to this enemy will ultimately lead to the END the United States of America.
No true American should misunderstand. We are in the fight of our lives and the outcome matters for future generations.
Here's the link and cited webpage for future use. :-)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/83/36/case.html
The 1872 SCOTUS opinion doesn't nearly get cited enough against the Bots.
Those 1872 Supreme Court jurists could have easily walked across the street in person to the Capital building and asked 14th Amendment framers so what did you guys mean by the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? It was that simple.
Wow—that IS a good citation! Bookmarking the link; thank you!
I quit arguing with Bots. One of the Founding Fathers could stand in front of them and tell them that Bam isn’t eligible and they’d argue it.
Mark Levin as a few minutes ago:
[A few snippets]
They are citizens (children) of their parents citizenship... Their citizenship would be determined by their citizenship of their parents.
They got it wrong [WKA Supreme Court ]... not what they said thirty of forty years later.
Levin goes on 4 to 5 minutes speaking about illegal immigrants children becoming citizens. No law supports it. There is no law and the 14th Amendment does not allowed it. You can also see that also the language that Levin believes jus sanguinis is completely pertinent to be a natural born citizen. No other way to interpret his words.
Find a replay of tonight's show and listen and weep Obots. Heehee.
You lose again TNTNT.
So it should be...
"They got it wrong [WKA Supreme Court ]... it is not what they said thirty or forty years later earlier."
Go Mark!! Levine is the man! I am going to try to find that replay. I would LOVE to hear Levine dissect the anchor baby disaster the libs imposed on us. Your summary was great, though. Thanks for letting me know—the timing is superb!
He read the thread. I only got a few snippets of his monologue. He goes on and on.
OMC!! I can’t believe he read the thread! Why didn’t he PM me, and thank me for setting the record straight? [Okay; I know the answer. He is a busy man, and he used the radio show to address the issue.] Whoa—that is SO cool! I am kicking myself that I wasn’t listening. I can’t imagine hearing it live. WOW!
Mark, if you read this, we love you, man. As constitutional scholars go, you are the Big Kahuna!
Thanks again, Red Steel. You are none too shabby yourself! ;)
Do you have a transcript of the statements? I checked Levine’s website and found nothing related to this.
No, I don’t he said tonight.
What I mean is that Levin likely read parts of the thread since he was pinged. I don't think Levin is going to go on record at the moment directly after Obama's lack of natural born citizenship, but he let it be known tonight where he stands on the subject of citizenship of jus sanguinis citizenship, which comes from the parents.
He doesn’t post a whole lot. The last time Holdonnow posted on FR was November 17th.
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.