Posted on 12/12/2008 9:18:49 PM PST by ckilmer
December 12, 2008
The Plaintiff in one of the filed suits put it this way.
Radio Host:
One more quick question, president elect Obama's birthplace over in Kenya is that going to be a national spot to go visit where he was born?
Kenyan Ambassador:
It is already an attraction. His paternal grandmother is still alive.
Radio Host:
But his birth place, they will put up a marker there?
Kenyan Ambassador:
It will depend on the government. It is already well known.
The sound clip can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH4GX3Otf14.
The second is that soon to be Secretary of Commerce and current New Mexico governor Bill Richardson is on record as stating that Obama is "an immigrant." An odd thing to say if it were not true, and an outright lie otherwise. You can view the video clip at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5OUdj_YIpo&eurl=http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83114&feature=player_embedded.
Perhaps the strongest anecdotal evidence is that Obama's own paternal grandmother has said on multiple occasions that she was there when Barack was born in Kenya. Obama's Kenyan half brother and half sister have also stated that Obama was born in Kenya. None of this anecdotal evidence is conclusive but combined with Obama's steadfast refusal to release his long form birth certificate it plants the seeds of suspicion and makes you really want to ask a simple question. What is he hiding? And why?
The real fun to be had with this story is not that Obama for any reason would be somehow decreed ineligible as the next President of the United States (it won't happen) but that there apparently is no oversight at all to the election process and a candidates eligibiliy for that office. Wouldn't it, and shouldn't it, be common sense and standard practice that some official or semi-official body like the Federal Election Commission or the respective major political parties require that all candidates for President of the United States provide proof that they meet the requirements for the office as stated in the Constitution? Is that really too much to ask?
Barack Obama has held elected office on the federal level, won his parties nomination for President, and then was elected President of the United States, all without providing proof that he is in compliance with the provisions laid down very plainly in the Constitution. One should be able to declare such a scenario as inconceivable, yet it appears to be all too true.
And for those of you who have studied history in any detail, the truth is far more often stranger than fiction. Obama may fall, and in many ways he already does, into that category. Who would have thought that an "I vote present" product of the incredibly corrupt Chicago political machine with a Leftist ideology, a Muslim stepfather, a socialistic economic policy, a radical spiritual mentor, and who is beholden to a domestic terrorist for the launching of his political career could so easily be elected to the Presidency of the United States of America? If I had pitched that scenario to you two years ago you would have called me crazy yet that is exactly the situation we find ourselves in.
I do believe this will probably not be little more than an interesting political sideshow that will end up as just another bizarre footnote in annals of history. It is somewhat disturbing though that we are apparently willing to just wave constitutional requirements for the highest office of the land whenever we see fit. One has to believe that altering and tampering with basic constitutional provisions is probably not very wise and not healthy for our form of government.
The glaring disgrace here is that Obama should have been forced to prove his eligibility for office (they all should) before the first primary election or caucus was held and that the Democratic Party failed miserably in its duty to make sure that they were offering up a legitimate and eligible candidate as their presidential nominee.
If indeed Barack Obama is constitutionally ineligible for the highest office in the land, and could theoretically be an unconstitutional president, it is not the child who dared mention that "The Emperor has no clothes!" who is being "embarrassing and destructive" by bringing this up, but the Democratic party and the electoral system as a whole which allowed an unqualified candidate with unproven, dubious credentials to be allowed to appear on the ballot in a national election.
In the worse case scenario we will have taken just another baby step towards losing our Republic and the rule of law when that dusty and irritating Constitution becomes something to just be ignored or set aside whenever it might be inconvenient, or upset some people, or just be impractical for this particular "situation."
Maybe we have reached the point where we just set aside parts of the Constitution if they are inconvenient and that might potentially be a problem for He Who Will Slow the Rising of the Seas and the fainting, ecstatic, potentially angry mob who propelled him to power. We have already journeyed a ways down the road once traveled by ancient Rome where the elites began to worry about the mood and reactions of the masses who openly threatened disorder and mayhem if they were unhappy, while those who held the reigns of power increasingly ignored the once revered rules that had held their political system together.
At the time of the publication of this article, Barack Obama still had not proved his eligibility to serve as President of the United States as defined by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America. And he probably remains unable to do so.
© David Huntwork
That is an extremely good point. We are all subject to the mind-sets of our upbringing. An immigrant such as your friend would not, naturally, have the same care or concern the Framers (and Freepers) do in protecting the inviolability of our new government. Their children, on the other hand, raised by naturalized parents on U.S. soil under our government rule, more likely would.
Thank you ... that’s what I get for posting late at night :-)
FYI
Where is the actual relevant passage that shows that a “citizen at birth” is somehow not a “natural born citizen”?
Bingo.
I have three questions for you and would appreciate hearing your opinion. Actually I would like anyone to weigh in if they can answer my questions or give their opinions.
Do you think it is possible that the SC Justices will consider joining the cases together and hear them AFTER the Electoral College vote due to the fact that Obama will not actually BE President-Elect until AFTER the vote on Monday?
I understand that a Judge in the Washington State SC has decided to hear a case. (I hope what I heard is correct.)
Is it possible for the Washington Supreme Court Judge to issue a stay in that State’s Electoral College vote on Monday?
The Electoral College meet at each state capital to cast their votes on Monday. If one or more Electoral College members of a particular state raise the question of constitutional qualifications, does that state Electoral College group have to resolve the issue before casting their votes?
Yo no speako legalo. But, IMO, I think it would be a very dangerous precedent to set to allow the electors meet and vote at all.
To date, we have found dead and non registered voter electors and have challenged them with no procedure in place to have these electors removed.
To date, NONE of the California electors have been certified.
If the electors are allowed to meet, this election will have a precedent in place by allowing an ineligible candidate voted in by POPULAR vote and not by a working, certified, vetted electoral college.
It is a false assertion that stumps you. Since we have—as posted—the words of the men who actually authored aspects of the Constitution, such as Bingham, we have the meaning they intended for the term ‘natural born citizen’. The negative naybobs are always playing semantic games to try and destroy hope and spread their negative perspective coloring everything they touch or address. Don’t ya know it must be hell living with such insulting little pricks (little nettles, nothing more). They must tear down hope and spit on peace in order to feel alive!
“The constitution cannot overrule the vote.” In some other nation, perhaps, but here in America—at least up until the affirmative action fraud raised his wicked inger to usurp the office of presdient—the process is followed or the Constitutional Republic is no longer valid. We have a way to vote for change to the Constitution. The recent election was not that way.
You have purposely conflated ‘natural born citizen’ with merely citizen. Nice job
You have an obvious cart and horse problem. Why? ... First, the term ‘natural born citizen’ can be understood in its specifics because of the words we have from the framers of the Constitution. No, the definition was not in the Constitution. Many specific things are not in the contract, but the courts have a way to sort that out. At another level is citizenship and the vagaries thereof throughout the history of the Republic. The highest most strict definition is natural born, then comes the conflating crap you seem hung up on, like having the poor horse dragged along by the cart full of obfuscations you prefer.
Yes, I know all about Title 8 — BUT — “Citizen” does not equal “natural born Citizen” and you’ve added the part about “natural born Citizen” which is a lie!
Arnold Schwarzneggar, Governor of California, is a “Citizen” under the 14th Amendment. He is ineligible to be President because he was not born here.
That particular website states its opinion concerning Title 8. If what they are pushing as fact were true, 19 lawsuits and 32 states’ electors wouldn’t be preparing to hurl this country into a Constitutional crisis (Civil War?) this coming week.
If you want to read facts about what “natural born Citizen” means, see the following for the clearest explanation I’ve yet to read:
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/divided-loyalties-pt-1/
“Divided Loyalties, Obamals Eligibility Problem, Part 1”, by Judah Benjamin
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/divided-loyalties-pt-2/
“Divided Loyalties, Obamas Eligibility Problem, Part 2”, by Judah Benjamin
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/11/
“Natural Born Citizens: Or How to Beat a Subject to Death with a Stick”, by Judah Benjamin, is a good place to start.
Good luck!
Who would have thought that an “I vote present” product of the incredibly corrupt Chicago political machine with a Leftist ideology, a Muslim stepfather, a socialistic economic policy, a radical spiritual mentor, and who is beholden to a domestic terrorist for the launching of his political career could so easily be elected to the Presidency of the United States of America?
***That’s an extremely sad commentary on the completely inept campaign of McCain.
I'm an Australian. Forgive me, but I believe it was deliberate. Everything I read and hear, points to that.
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.