Posted on 02/05/2012 9:33:38 AM PST by jmaroneps37
Congress made eight different attempts to alter our U.S. Constitution concerning the Natural Born Citizenship Clause according to research by Carl Gallups proving they knew Barack Obama lacked presidential eligibility prior to the 2008 election!
If there was no problem for Obama why would these people do this? There had never been a question of Natural Born Citizenship in our lifetimes! Why fix what wasn’t broken?
The youtube ……..reveal a secret, closed door meeting was held with eight Supreme Court Justices just prior to the January 2009 Inauguration sent our other courts an unspoken message to don’t go there. Plaintiff attorneys with cases were pending at the time were not allowed into this meeting! Only Justice Samuel Allito declined…….
“Gallups video, are the eight different attempts to amend our Constitution…. Obama’s eligibility questions: 1 On June 11, 2003: House Joint Resolution # 59, introduced by Rep. Vic Snyder (D-AR), failed to obtain a vote; it sought to allow non-natural born U.S. citizens, “but who have been citizens of the U.S. for at least 35 years,” to serve as President or Vice President.
8. On Feb. 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill, (D-MO) attempted to add language onto SB 2678, Children of the Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act, to again weaken the NBC clause.
Co-sponsors of the failed legislation were Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama!. By the way, was not the John McCain eligibility hearing really a head fake to draw attention away from the Democrats’ elephant in the room?
“This is (a) 100 times worse situation (than Watergate); this is a crime against the Constitution and all the people of the U.S. Obama is not who he says he is, ” says Charles Kerckner whose eligibility lawsuit was turned down by our Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
Transparently false protestation fools no one.
Thank you for providing clear evidence of the truth.
Aldo Mario Bellei (Rogers v Bellei) was a "citizen at birth" but lost his citizenship for failure to meet residency requirements. Since a "natural born citizen" has no residency requirements, a "citizen at birth" is obviously not the same thing as a "natural born citizen."
Learn what you are talking about.
This one sentence proves you are an ignorant idiot, and no one should pay the slightest attention to your noise.
I would waste no time responding to Kansas58. It is pointless to argue with that level of stupid.
“It appears emotion has gotten the best of you. Why?”
In a word: Rubio.
You’re on a real roll, here. Bravo!
Any serial killer or terrorist who is an American citizen could have a child who could grow up to be President.
Can I make a valid argument that ‘black’ is ‘white’ because each is a color?
“I would waste no time responding to Kansas58. It is pointless to argue with that level of stupid.”
I agree DiogenesLamp. Besides, Kansas58 said that he felt a “fiduciary duty” to minimize the amount of conservative funds and resources devoted to the NBC issue. He can best accomplish that by no longer wasting HIS time by making posts here.
As for me, I’ll continue to pay attention to it. I plan on checking out some of the folks challenging Obama’s eligibility to be on the ballot in Pennsylvania, New York and possibly other states. My primary interest is the NBC issue, but should any of those plaintiffs proceed with challenging the birth certificates, I’ll be trying to send recommendations to them to be sure to employ universally recognized and “certified” fraudulent document experts to testify about the alleged birth certificates. That would hopefully help minimize the possibility of some other doofus judge also deciding that the evidence is “non persuasive and presented by a non expert.
We should never give up challenging the tyrants and poseurs.
So you are saying that there is a difference between the natives vs the naturals? I'm just asking because this is one part that confuses me....just trying to learn.
There is a big difference between natural-born citizens and natural-born subjects. Native citizens are not the same as native subjects. A native is natural-born, but not all natural-born children hold the same mark of allegiance nor concept of allegiance.
At the time of the rule of King George, residents were considered settlers. Any child born to settlers was considered to be a natural-born subject. The more natives, the more power the King had. After all, the King enjoyed having as many subjects as possible for the sole purpose of taxation.
Thank you, GG. I appreciate that very much.
It certainly isn't.
What's difficult, is trying to figure out why some people, while seeming to understand the Framers' reasoning, still support a lower standard of citizenship requirement for the office of president.
The Framers' thinking is beautiful in its simplicity. The thinking of many modern Americans is frustratingly convoluted and complex.
I'm sure their thinking would automatically simplify itself, if they had to live under the conditions that produced this country.
Rogers v Bellei does not prove me wrong in any way.
straw man arguments now? I never said that at all.
The Framers did NOT tie the hands of Congress or the Courts on this matter, save for the Engish Language understanding of the term, which would mean Citizen at the Moment of Birth! The could have been more specific, however --- ---- the Framers made Citizenship issues VAGUE ON PURPOSE, as they wanted Congress to settle that matter, and, during a time of slavery, too much discussion of the matter would have prevented the Union from ever forming!
The Founders disagreed very much over Citizenship issues.
Would Vattel think that J.C. Watts or his ancestors could become President?
CITIZENS! YOU CAN CHALLENGE OBAMA'S ELIGIBILITY. Obama does not meet the requirements to be on the ballot, and he has submitted false documents in support of his eligibility.
Call your state secretary of state on how you may file a challenge.
Addresses of State Election Agencies.
Phone numbers of the Secretaries of States.
Call your state governor to complain about this violation of the U.S. Constitution. Phone numbers of the State Governors.
True enough .But our Courts ignore both history and Reason when they ignore the supreme law. Our Founders seemed to know and understand that human law if valid cannot contradict the laws dictated by God ,Himself.These laws are two the Law of Nature ,and the Divine Law ( reflected in Scripture and discovered by Reason).These are binding over all the earth.At all times. (with sorrow for my summation of both Sir Wm.Blackstone who sold more copies of his Commentaries here than in England. And to James Wilson to reflected Blackstone. IMO the one Code our Courts violate at risk— for Divine Law (Scripture is Not trumped by any valid law made by man.I long for the day when our Courts and our legislature honored the solemn oath and fundamental law.
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.