Posted on 04/20/2010 1:35:31 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Members from all three branches of the Federal government already know that Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible for the office of President. National leaders, to include members of the US Supreme Court, already know that Barack Hussein Obama is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States of America, and therefore, is ineligible for the office he currently holds.
What they don’t know is how long it will take for most Americans to figure it out, or what to do about it.
The diversionary search for an authentic birth certificate is ongoing and Obama has now spent in excess of $2 million in legal fees to keep that search alive.
Eric Holder’s Department of Justice continues to deploy taxpayer funded attorneys around the country to file dismissals on behalf of Obama, denying all American citizens access to the courts as a peaceful remedy, which only fuels the fire of discontent and the questions about Obama persist.
Michelle Obama states that Kenya is Barack’s “home country.” She knows, after twenty years with Barack. The Ambassador or Kenya has confirmed the same His family friends all know it, and are in fact quite proud of the fact that Americans had no hesitation in electing a “black man from Kenya” as President of the United States.
The US Supreme Court knows what the constitutional condition of “natural born citizen” means. Even the most far left member of that court, Justice Ginsberg, is on record proclaiming that a “natural born citizen” is a birth child of TWO legal US citizens.
Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi knows that Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible for the office of president, which is why she refused to certify the following language when certifying Obama as the DNC candidate for president in 2008.(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
I think the danger exists for such a civil war. But I think that giving up on the Constitution hastens such a war by creating so much chaos and confusion for the Leftists and racial supremacists to take advantage and take control.
That's why I think that all avenues to find out the truth about Obama's origins should be pursued and Obama impeached if necessary.
The political class is so worried about riots simply because they're afraid of losing elections. They're not seeing the bigger picture.
There might be riots but there won't necessarily be civil war. That's what I'd like to avoid if possible.
There is no confusion as to the meaning of “natural born citizen”, legally or historically or traditionally — except for the confusion that Obamabots have brought with them.
not to be stupid but where is the definition? What source?
He's a red diaper baby for sure. But his communist education took place on American soil (Hawaii, California, New York, Chicago) and was conducted by natural born Americans — his mom, his grandparents, and Frank Marshall Davis and, later, Billy Ayers and who knows who else. So, the founders' attempt at a preventive rule did not work. It's not as if he was raised in the USSR and then infiltrated into the US. He had next to no contact with the presumed Kenyan communist sperm donor, BHO, Sr., who absconded right around the time little Barry came into this world.
The announcement did not mention the baby’s name, it only mentioned the father’s name and the address of the family. An investigator went to the address and found a neighbor who lived there from before the birth announcement, the neighbor had no memory of a birth there and stated that it would be known to neighbors that a baby had been at that address.
Neighbors in Hawaii are much closer than in other places in the USA. They stay in their homes and seldom move around. They know their neighbors very well.
There are two problems with Obama and his eligibility. Either:
1. He was not born in the USA, or
2. His parents were not both citizens at the time of his birth.
Many so-called ‘birthers’ do not take sides on the above two issues. They simply ask for evidence to disprove both. Such request for evidence is not ‘crazy’ or ‘conspiracy driven’.
Your position is that birth announcements in a newspaper suffice for proving citizenship. But there are major holes in that argument. Each hole is well-documented with proof citing actual local laws, definitions and intentions.
One problemm is that Hawaii allowed anyone having a child to report the birth within a year and without official witness but by affidavit. This was a law in effect to allow for the transition to statehood and for those with infants to report them. Once the Hawaii department recorded a birth, a list of births would be made public for local media to report. Thus, the two newspapers announcing the birth to the father Barack Sr. would have taken the announcement from the same source and they would have known if the child had been born in the islands or not. The system was loose.
The motivation for announcing, actually for reporting the birth to the state would have been simply to claim citizenship. Obama may have been born in Kenya, may have been born some other place or may have been adopted, but the motive of claiming citizenship would have been strong at the time because US citizenship was very valuable to have. The Obama family was very aware of how to game the system. If indeed Obama was born in say Kenya, his mother, whether she was the adopting mother or the birth mother, would have faced a mountain of burden to get him into the country. If she had birth documentation from Kenya, she would have faced problems with proving he was indeed born to her and if she had adopted him the burden would have been greater. It would have been far easier to call realtives in Hawaii and coordinate a scheme to slip him in under the radar.
There is also the curious and strange fact that Obama showed up to sponsor Senate Resolution 511 to render permission for John McCain to run for POTUSA. The original wording was “naturalized citizen”, not “natural born citizen” so it is believed that Obambi knew exactly what he was trying to do.
The issue of why the Constitution calls out for a president to be a ‘natural born citizen’ meaning born in the United States from TWO US CITIZENS goes to the issue of allegiance. Indians and children of ambassadors would be excluded.
The original long form birth certificate would have the names of the parents and their CITIZENSHIP. So even if Obama had been born in Hawaii, he still has eligibility problems to be president because of the allegiance of his parents.
That Obama covers up for the real birth certificate, that he mysteriously sponsors a resolution that is unconstitutional in regards to natural born status and that he has his compliant media smear anyone that questions his legitimacy is a prime example of coverup.
“...wasn’t it Gandhi who declared the cause of equality one in which he was ready to die for, but NOT to kill for?”
And had Ghandi been dealing with any almost any nation other than an moral and principaled Great Briton he would have gotten his wish.... could you imagine how long Ghandi would have lasted if India was under Third Reich rule? One second, two seconds, three seconds......Ghandi who?
“....what amounts to a technicality.”
hhhmmmmm.... I thought it was the Law as written in the Constitution that we were talking about..... A technicality?
Can you tell me what other laws you think don’t count, and can be ignored by the dismissive statement that they’re “just a technicality?” I need to be enlightened as to the new rule of law per camle.......
The Second Amendment has always been considered the reset button for the Constitution. That said, NO one who has experienced War, or any other type of violence, wants to see us reach the point that it to be the only option left...... but, just like for the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto, when it becomes a matter of survival, Socialists being what they are, and have been shown to be over the last hundred years of history, well.....
Have we reached that point yet?.....No, not even close......and to imply, or speak of it is way, way premature...... Are Obama and his sort pushing the envelope....yes.....by apparently both intent, and design.....
The Elections in 2010 may be pivotal is seeing what direction the National leadership will take........if there is rampant voter fraud, real or perceived...... well, I’ll leave you to your private thoughts, and personal values, on what is best to be done..........
That spells it out so clearly even I understand,
I am still stunned so many refuse to question this including our elected Pols and even people like Hannity and limbaugh
He’s already inaugurated, sworn in, etc. you’ll have to impeach him to get him out of there, and you know that will never happen.
You’re a strange one. Are you so sure “it’ll never happen” or you don’t WANT it to happen??
“The party boss is Chairman Obama. Then we have Chairwomen Pelosi. (Remember Pelosi telling an Army General- “ It is CHAIRWOMEN- not MAM.”) Do not call me mam.”
I think that the loosely paraphrased quip, in parands, was by my, Ahem, “Senator” Babs Boxer.......
By the way, she’s a charwoman....not a chairwoman ..... LOLOLOLOLOL
I know , I know and I apologize,...... I do get the thrust of your post, and agree with it 100%.....Thanks, Lumper20
Well...the powers that be will just continue to win out as it should have been sorted by now.
Efforts to thwart his agenda and make sure this is a one term occupancy should be where our energies lie as of now.
Santa Rosa? Santa Rosa, California?
My God man, you’re deep into enemy terrority.... You’re one balsy guy to parade around in the open in Santa Rosa.....
Salute!
I don’t want him in there any more than you do, but what will happen should there be large amounts of violent civil unrest - blamed upon the right.
the army will move in and crush any civilian opposition. THEN you can say goodbye to your precious second ammendment, and a lot more besides.
I fail to see, aside from threate of violence right here in this thread, what seperates you folk from the lefties wearing “not MY president” badges not so very long ago. they felt, and still feel that Bush’s presidency was illegal.
Maybe you are old enough to remember Paula Jones vs. Bill Clinton, and maybe you remember Bill Clinton wagging his finger at Americans via the press cameras saying “I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky”.
I am for ‘Birthers’ keeping the pressure on. Look at what Arizona is doing. You can bet that Arizona’s legislation to require unequivocable proof of presidential eligibility in the next election was forged by Birthers not giving up and calling it quits.
Sometimes people have to persevere in the face of adversity.
I have no problems telling friends, coworkers and family that I question Obama’s eligibility. They may ask “Oh so you believe he was born in Kenya?” to which I respond “I don’t know! I just want to see his long form original birth certificate.”
Sheesh. You are acting like a seer of the future, stating as fact what will happen, when in fact, no one can see the future.
Civilian opposition? I don’t know what the heck is going on in your mind. People here were discussing DEFENDING themselves if OTHER people went on a rampage! No one on this thread has threatened violence
Have you no reading comprehension?
You’re living in your own mind.
We all know he is ineligible. It’s time the rest admit and do something about it. Obama has to step down along with his entire administration including Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi needs to step down and go to jail.
“what would you say if the USSC declared Obama ineligible, yet did NOT remove him from office?”
USSC has no enforcement arm.....it is up to the Congress and the Attorney General (I ain’t holding my breath for Holden to act in that event) to remove a man from an illegaly held office.....I agree that the Congess with its current make up, as unlikely to act.... After November it might be a different answer.........
“He’s already inaugurated, sworn in, etc. you’ll have to impeach him to get him out of there, and you know that will never happen.”
Despite your apparent reliance on impeachment being the only avenue to address an officials lack of eligibility, Impeachment is, most of all, a political consideration, and subject to political will/whim/motivation/populism.....
I think we are talking Law here.....aren’t we?
Our Laws recognize that, from time to time, a sitting offical should be removed for lack of eligibility, and uses “Quo Warranto” (By What Warrant?) suits as the vehicle to address/rectify/resolve situations like this........
You’ll notice that Judge Carter, in dismissing Alan Keyes brief in Ca Fed District Court, suggested that the suit would be better filed as Quo Warranto suit in the DC Fed Court.....
After Judge Carter initually stated that he intended to conduct an evidentury hearing and would not entertain a dismissal,he all of a sudden reverses himself.....why? Is there an unseen advisory by members of the USSC to get the suit on the proper tract at play here? Not sure, but I suspect so......
The question of Obama’s eligibility, and his installation as president in an apparent disregard for the Requirements of the Constitution forms the basis for a Constitutional Crisis....... With potential prescedent setting implications, it is no wonder the courts have been careful in accepting challenges to Obama’s Presidency...... when the proper form of suit, with a narrowly focused, tightly written, and near flawless brief is filed in the proper Federal Court, we will see the matter ajudicated with an Evidenturary Finding that addresses all the relevant questions..... a big what/when/if for sure!
Since the term "natural born citizen" has never been defined or re-defined since it was put down in the Constitution, you have to look at what the Founders meant when they wrote it - NOT modern interpretation of it. Think 18th century, NOT 21st century ...
Now, let us look at it from a Founder's point-of-view. Say, I am a Founder and also a lawyer. I was a British subject who, in Colonial days, was trained in British Law. My whole concept of justice has been framed by that education. I am also a learned man - having read the books of the great political scientists [Vattel, Grotius, etc.].
Then, I participate in a revolution - after which I am tasked with writing the requirements for the Chief Executive under the new Constitution. Using my education and, respecting the wishes of the other Founders, I write down "natural born citizen". No need to expand on it since everyone knows what that is.
The definition at the time meant that a Natural Born Subject was so at the moment of his birth [usually within the sovreign's realm]. But, in order to be a British Subject, he ALSO had to owe a PERMANENT allegiance to the sovreign. So, a Natural Born Subject is so by virtue of BOTH the moment of his BIRTH AND owing a PERMANENT allegiance to the sovreign at the moment of that birth. [See Dicey].
Now, under British Law, a child was under the protection of the sovreign where he was born from the moment of his birth. But, he was also obligated to follow the condition of his father until he reached the age of manhood [See Calvin’s Case, 1608]. Calvin’s Case stated that there were three conditions to a Natural Born Subject: place of birth, ACTUAL obedience [PERMANENT allegiance] of the subject’s parents, and the subject could not be born under one sovereign who was subsequently conquered by another sovereign.
If the father's foreign sovreign laid claim to the child as his own Natural Born Subject - then the child WAS NOT born under PERMANENT allegiance to the sovreign where he was born. The child was born with TWO allegiances - and COULD NOT be considered as natural born - subject, yes ... natural born, no. PERMANENT allegiance was defined as a single, solitary allegiance that could never be broken. Transient allegiance was that of a foreigner who was obligated to the sovreign only as long as he resided there. [See Blackstone].
Additionally, the British Nationality Act of 1730 was in effect at the writing of the Constitution – and it declared that children born out of the realm of the sovereign [to fathers who were Natural Born Subjects] to be Natural Born Subjects themselves. Therefore, a child born in the new United States [of a father who was a Natural Born Subject of England] was BOTH a Natural Born Subject of England AND a citizen of the new United States. But he COULD NOT be considered a Natural Born Citizen of the United States – citizen, yes … natural born, no.
So, taking into account Calvin’s Case, the British Nationality Act of 1730, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws Of England, and Dicey’s A Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws, the following definition [as the Founders knew it] emerges:
A Natural Born Citizen is BOTH a citizen at his birth [normally by virtue of being born on US soil] AND a citizen that owes a single, solitary, permanent allegiance to the United States at the moment of his birth [normally by virtue of his father’s citizenship]. However, if a foreign nation ALSO lays claim to his citizenship, then he is a citizen of the United States, although NOT natural born.
Anyone born in the USA becomes an American citizen at birth, and by birth owes allegiance to the USA, unless their parents were visiting military or diplomats. Further, the Supreme Court has ruled that no actions taken by your parents can rob you of that citizenship - that once born in the USA, you need to take some positive, deliberate steps to reject citizenship.
Not disagreeing with you on this - but notice that you said "citizenship" and not "natural born citizenship". And there will be people who fall through the cracks. In Perkins v Elg, a girl was born in the United States to parents who were naturalized citizens. Her parents repatriated to Sweden when she was a child and she came back to the US after she attained her majority. She was still a US citizen - having never elected to give up her citizenship after she reached majority. Under the definition, above, she would have been a natural born citizen - her parents had renounced Swedish citizenship and had become naturalized bfore she was born.
Natural born citizenship is a condition at birth, dependent upon two factors. Unless voluntarily given up, it cannot be lost [except by treason, etc.]. Same for citizenship - either by birth without being natural born [lacking one of the two conditions described, above] or by naturalization. They can only be voluntarily given up.
There are only two kinds of citizenship - citizenship at birth and naturalized. However, under citizenship at birth, there is a special category and that is natural born citizen. It carries the extra requirement that the child hold ONLY ONE permanent allegiance to the sovreign.
NOW - since I have laid it all out in 18th century terms, you show me where the term natural born citizen meant ALL PERSONS [excluding children of diplomats, etc.] born on US soil.
You will have riots like Watts only ALL over the Country. That is according to an outstanding modern day prophet, David Wilkerson of New York City. He runs the Times Square Church there. He gave a warning just with the last months. It is coming so BE PREPARED. CO
If Barry had moved with his parents to Kenya and rejected US citizenship, he would be Kenyan. If they moved to the UK and Barry chose to live there, he could be drafted in the Royal Army. But he didn’t and he can’t. But the issue is where his natural allegiance lies based on birth - and earth to birthers, it is NOT the UK!
And it is not Kenya, since the Kenyan Constitution requires someone like Obama to reject American citizenship as an adult and formally claim Kenyan citizenship.
The law [international and domestic] applies to the conditions that existed at the time of the person's birth. Obama was subject to both the 14th Amendment AND the British Nationality Act of 1948 [which substantively contained the same language as the Act of 1730]. Both the United States AND Great Britain had a claim on him as a citizen [subject] - due to his being born on US soil and his father's citizenship.
BTW: When Obama was born - Kenya was a British protectorate, so Kenyan law does not apply.
Also, here is a story about a kid who killed a guy in my area - cut his hands, feet, and head off. He was born here and had never set foot out of the US. He fled to Israel, and claimed citizenship under the Right of Settlement [through his family]. Israel refused to extradite - he was tried and convicted in Israel, and spent 3 years in a cushy cell taking college courses. He's a lawyer now - back in the US. Under your interpretation - he is a natural born citizen AND NOT an Israeli citizen.
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.