NBC lies about Obama's birth certificate and eligibility to be President \

Last night, 7/22/2009, NBC’s Nightly News with Brian Williams took 5 minutes to try to refute widespread claims across America that Barack Obama isn’t actually a natural born citizen, conveniently before Barack’s 8:00 p.m. sale of Health Care Reform to the people.[1] The Constitution states that, in order to be President, one must be a natural born American Citizen.[2] Nightly News reported that “legal scholars, liberal and conservative alike, are in widespread agreement that Barack Obama is fully qualified.” The report then states that the Supreme Court has never verified what a “natural born citizen” really is. Both of these statements are utterly false.

There are two ways someone can be a natural born citizen. The first way is what Obama’s campaign claims: that Obama was born on U.S. soil. Obama does have a birth certificate registered in Hawaii, but Hawaiian law allowed for babies were weren’t born on U.S. soil to become registered as Hawaiian citizens.[3] This Hawaiian birth certificate does not in any way mean that Barack is a natural born citizen. Also, no one in Hawaii claims to have witnessed Barack’s birth. Currently, Obama’s true, Kenyan birthplace is a tourist attraction. There you can find his grandmother, who proudly tells that “Barack was born in this village” and that she was present during his birth. His half-brother and half-sister also substantiate this claim.

The only other way Barack could have been a natural born citizen was for both of his parents to be U.S. citizens. At the time of his birth, his mother was an Indonesian citizen and his father was a subject of the British Crown. It is argued that his mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama’s birth: she did have documented citizenship in the U.S. Indonesia, however, doesn’t recognize dual citizenship; and the U.S. only recognizes dual citizenship if the other country the individual claims citizenship with does. Therefore, Obama can’t be a natural born American Citizen via his parents either.

Before Barack was inaugurated, a New Jersey man named Leo Donofrio bravely created an emergency appeal regarding Obama’s qualification to be an American president and sent it to the Supreme Court to be reviewed. Without explaining why, the Supreme Court turned down the emergency appeal and soon after the media completely hushed about the dilemma.[4] Since then, a slew of other lawyers across the country have also attempted lawsuits without making any real progress.

There are also many other questions raised about Obama’s birth certificate. If Barack is truly a natural born U.S. citizen, why hasn’t his campaign effectively disproved the claims that he isn’t? Wouldn’t this be a simple conspiracy to silence? Even more pertinent, why did Obama spend $688,316 in legal fees to lawyer Perkins Coie for battling the birth certificate conspiracy?[5] Why is the Supreme Court rejecting these cases without warrant? Why is NBC shooting out such pro-Obama propaganda to the public? Don’t be fooled by it – the “conspiracy” is far from debunked. As of right now, the evidence is leaning against Obama, showing that he, according to the Constitution, should be immediately expelled from office.

[1] javascript:vPlayer('32091472','ac679625-c0aa-4935-b90c-1d4ef95579d1') This link should feed you to the story.

[2] Artilce Two, Clause 5

[3] http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm

[4] Jones, Tim. “Court won’t review Obama’s eligibility to serve.” Chicago Tribune. Dec 8, 2008.

[5] http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=5762

Wow, a whole paragraph.

Sorry for the delay in responding. Life got in the way of FReeping as it does every once in a while.

Your bizarre theology concedes to Barry by giving the Congress the magical power to redefine words.

I don't see how the word "theology" comes into play there.

But the power to define terms is hardly magical.

For example, you could take a look at the Second Amendment.

Define "a well-regulated Militia"

There are those who define that as being the National Guard (I'm not one of them)

Or, you could take a look at 10 USC §311, which defines it as being:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

But, looking at our case, the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, says this:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

But section 5 of that amendment says this:

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

That little sentence there gives Congress the right to make laws like the ones I cited.

You are stuck in the other side issue, which conflates and confuses birthright citizenship and natural-born citizenship with a series of complex "legal" arguments which are irrelevant to the simple prima facie case for Barry's ineligibility due to his status as a natural-born British subject.

You may have a point, but the question is, is he a natural-born British subject or is (was) he a dual citizen?

The complex legal questions come into play as he may have inherited British citizenship from his father (as Kenya as a British colony at the time of his birth), and that would likely be the case REGARDLESS of where he was born; he also would have inherited US citizenship from either the location of his birth (if he was, in fact, born in the US) or from his mother's status as a citizen (if she met the residency requirements that the convoluted web of law that I've been bringing forth in earlier posts). Now, of course, she might have forfeited her US citizenship due to her marriage to this guy (don't know one way or the other), but that has never been asserted to my knowledge.

But this brings up a whole bunch of potential fallout, for example:

Are you willing to tell a bunch of military brats who were born overseas that they can never aspire to be the President? (Most are, by nature, dual citizens, particularly if they were born in civilian hospitals)
Are you willing to say to a bunch of good children of immigrants (to include Bobby Jindahl) that they are not eligible to be president? (His parents were still Indian citizens, having come to the US on student visas only a year before Jindahl's birth. So, technically, Jindahl would have been a dual citizen)

See, that's the web you're weaving.

Your anti-American attitude vis-a-vis the intent of the Founding documents allows later generations to "define" the Constituion anyway they want, i.e. changing the document without going through the formal amendment process.

Anti-American? My Gawd, that's the first time in my life anybody has ever accused me of being anti-American.

But, as far as the content is concerned, please note the comments on the 14th Amendment, above.

You are setting the table for the 111th Congress, which you claim not to trust, to "define" natural-born in such a way to make Barry eligible.

It would be hard to do so, unless they were to explicitly make a law retroactive. Otherwise, the law that was in force when he was born was the law that applied.

Those are unConstitutional bills

Unfortunately, the 14th Amendment gives Congress the power to write those "unconstitutional" bills

yet you are endorsing the Congress' ability to pass them as "law."

The 14th Amendment would be what gave them the ability to do so.

If you are thinking strategically, a few moves ahead, you should know that your complex anti-Constitution anti-American legal philosophy virtually concedes the game to Barry before it starts.

Well, good luck dealing with opposition with your "pro-American" "pro-Constitution" philosophy. Good luck keeping people's attention, as well.

Hope this helps.

Hardly.

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.