Posted on 04/23/2011 1:09:05 PM PDT by betty boop
That is the very point the president, his codependents and enablers are desperately trying to evade. They are trying to "change the subject" by redefining what "natural-born citizen" means. They indicate the proper understanding is: any child born on U.S. soil regardless of the citizenship status of the child's parents. (Which strikes me as utterly mindless....)
Pretty durned "innovative," "progressive" right there!!!
But there is a precedent on this question — this is not the first time in U.S. presidential history that the topic of "natural born citizen" has come up, and been publicly ventilated at the time.
The first was President Chester A. Arthur. He had political enemies who tried to disqualify him from office on the grounds that, at the time of his birth, he was not born to two American-citizen parents.
Chester's mother was clearly an American citizen of multigenerational heritage. His father, however, was an Irishman — a British subject — who emigrated to America, married the aforesaid American, then a citizen of Vermont IIRC, and sired the future president Chester.
Twelve years later, Chester's Irish-born father became a naturalized citizen of the United States.
Notwithstanding, the argument at the time went: Since Chester A. Arthur at the time of his birth was not born of two American-citizen parents, he could not claim to be a "natural-born citizen of the United States," and was therefore utterly disqualified from holding the Office of POTUS.
Possibly the American public of the time did not see fit to visit on the son the penalty of his father's delayed naturalization. For Arthur served out his term, although he was not reelected.
The point is, if Obama's father is who Obama says he is, then Mr. Obama, Sr. never even naturalized as a U.S. citizen. He died a British subject.
Ergo, Obama would not be a natural-born citizen of the United States.
I didn't think public political norms and discourse could be more of a sewer than in the Clinton years either, dear marron. But my word, nobody could even imagine then just how much worse things could possibly get.
We are seeing it now. We are paying the penalty for our collective sloth....
Some such, IIRC.
I think there’s some painting of him in full regalia.
As far as Obama (PBUH), I believe he is an uber progressive that wouldn't mind destroying this Country to suit his communist backers. Fraud .. probably. But the constant, repetitive harping of the birther threads is intellectually boring.
Don't get me wrong, I can't stand the man and I would love nothing better than him being dragged from the WH tomorrow. But it ain't happenin' and I know that.
I asked you nicely to stop with including me in your mass pings. If you want to respond to something I wrote to you, fine. Other than that, stop pinging me.
Listen boop ... the last best retort of those who can’t defend their BS is to start picking on a screen name. I see you still have nothing new ...
I can understand your perspective.
Though . . . I tend to use my scroll button or page down button a lot on boring posts and threads.
Some folks are claiming that the globalists are going to use their weather modification technologies to cause a lot of drought in our breadbasket . . .
They certainly are evil enough to do it.
I still think they’ll make othuga a scapegoat when he’s succeeded a bit more in bringing the whole house down around his and our ears—per their orders to begin with.
Anyway—interesting era . . .
May The Lord insure that your wheat crop is a bumper crop . . . and may you get top dollar for it in terms of quality and marketing.
Blessings,
Betty is also a dear soul, Blonde.
Like most of us, she can get tweaked by various pet peeves.
Kindly point out the "BS."
Having always respected your opinion, I'll back on out of this thread and leave its host to her discussion with those of like mind.
Take care.
May God bless you, Blonde! May His peace be with you.
Am deeply touched and humbled by your kind words.
I’ve persistently found your posts at least interesting and worth pondering . . . and often agreed with many of their points. Thx.
But look at the ideological contrasts between two of them, George Washington and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Their basic philosophies of government and their respective understandings of the scope of its power and authority — not to mention the policies they effected — could not be in sharper contrast. This is a "night and day" situation.
I cannot see how either man could have been relying on a common, fundamental root in the ideas and practices of Freemasonry, if the outcomes they achieved are so starkly different.
One was on the model of John Locke (who may have been a Freemason); the other was on the model of Karl Marx — who was no Freemason.
Perhaps the historic fear of the influence of Freemasonry on the U.S. government is a tad overblown? It seems that way to me — JMHO, FWIW.
Thank you ever so much for writing, dear brother in Christ!
I don’t like to talk about such groups much publically.
And there are fierce proponents in favor of them on FR.
1. My reading convinces me that the allegations are true.
2. The oligarchy has been well able to play all sides against the middle for at least 100 years . . .
3. Stooges—even Presidents—ultimately play their game. They tend to use opposites as a GOOD-COP/BAD-COP GAME with the public.
4. In counseling . . . men who’d been involved had far more troublesome and tenacious demonic involvement than anyone else, in my experience.
My dear brother in Christ, what allegations?
It's awfully easy to "allege" all kinds of things, or even anything at all, regarding "secret societies." But just because a voluntary society is "secret" doesn't necessarily make it nefarious.
Just a thought, dear Quix!
True.
Sorry.
I don’t want to get into the specifics again hereon.
There’s a raging war between the two sides on ATS.
And, there’s plenty of material on the net.
To me . . . given that all the Presidents have been puppets of the satanic oligarchy—chosen and put in place BY THE OLIGARCHY—voting has been a sham for a long time—according to sworn testimony of computer programmers managing such corruption . . . all are blood related but one and all have evidently been members of said society . . .
those points alone should be enough pause for thought.
Well, yes of course they would be — IF the points were valid, "true."
This is where I have a problem: As mentioned above, anyone can allege anything at all about a "secret" society, in principle: People "outside" the society have no knowledge of the "secrets," and no direct evidence of what is going on. Unless they are infiltrators, spies; i.e., people present under false pretenses.... That hardly constitutes a reference of "good character" to me!
So, where does the evidence come from, and how reliable is it?
I've heard the rumors about homosexual rites and even infant sacrifice. Devil worship. The whole nine yards.... Tell me why these aren't "fairy stories" concocted by superstitious outsiders?
Legends live long, regardless of their basis in fact.
One thing that interests me about Masonry in America is how close in spirit Masonry is to the American tradition of religious liberty. The Freemasons, to me, are more secular than explicitly religious; they are tolerant of all religious viewpoints that affirm a "higher power," or Creator God. But they don't care what your particular religious confession is.
As to whether they have some nefarious purpose to undermine America and/or the People of God, this seems rather dubious to me.
In any case, in the context of this thread, may I note that the nominal POTUS is definitely not a Freemason? I strongly doubt that George Soros is a Freemason. Nor probably any of the other "et ceteras" of Obama's enabling entourage.
If you're going to spend time and energy exposing Freemasons past and present, then maybe you're missing the "real action," dear brother in Christ!
Just some thoughts, dear Quix, FWTW.
BECAUSE
THERE HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT
numbers of convincingly former high ranking members and sons of such
asserting such things.
imho
Then, there is the witness one may or may not have in one’s spirit via Holy Spirit.
Not really my brief, per se.
I’ll leave that windmill to others with more facts at their fingertips.
Sorry.
I thought Occidental College was in Los Angeles? Other than that...excellent points (that keep getting made...but NOT answered).
You're absolutely right, PennsylvaniaMom! — my boo-boo. :^(
Thank you truly for the timely correction!
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.