Posted on 05/01/2010 1:22:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
One of the constitutional requirements for the office of the presidency is that he be a "natural born citizen." This was put into place by the founders to keep foreigners or persons who do not bear a non-questionable allegiance to the US Constitution out. Obviously, and admittedly Barack Hussein Obama was born to a foreign citizen and is not 100% American. He's half-American, half-African and all Marxist. He obviously bears no allegiance whatsoever to the US Constitution and is working overtime to destroy it. He's a usurper and should be removed from office. He is exactly the kind of fraud/usurper the founders feared.
So simple...needs restating another few million times
Oh I like it...the sign and the pic!!! I’ve just stolen both!
It’s comforting to know that you feel as I do on this issue. It’s disgraceful that he’s been allowed to get away with as much as he has.
The Democrat party put this man up for election. The Democrat party is responsible for our current mess. The Democrat party is going to have to remove Obama from office. The Republicans removed Nixon when he became a major liability to the country. It is the Democrats’ turn to show some honor.
Half-African full-fledged Anti-American Marxist TRAITOR squatting in the White House!
In a sane world this man would be up on treason charges after that report instead of being buried in the Washington Post!!!
The one thing that disturbs me even more than the fact that so many thought him a “swell guy” is that even today his poll numbers are nearly as bad as they should be.
It seems that about half of America takes no pride in being Americans. That fact is a catastrophe.
Welcome aboard!
If Drew68 child was born about 88 years ago before September, 1922, his child would be a natural born citizen because his wife would have became a naturalized US Citizen upon marriage. The turn of the 20th century woman’s liberation movement for the right to vote became reality, which as of consequence, decoupled the law of US citizenship for foreign wives when they married Americans. So in other words, a once liberal women’s cause is the origins for his contentious issue.
So where does this leave us? I say I'm right, you say I'm wrong. Meanwhile, a man with a foreign father occupies the office of the presidency and one of the most conservative justices of the nation's highest court has publicly stated a reluctance of this court to address the issue.
Looks to me like Obama is going to skate on the eligibility issue. So now what?
Since Obama claims to be half white and half black, why are white Americans “racist” for wanting to throw the commie out? And why is he called “the First Black American President,” when #1 he’s not all American and #2 he’s not all black?
Not too long ago on the census sheets, a person of mixed race was referred to as “mulatto.” Is that term gone now?
But, those whose opinions and actions actually count (Congress, the USSC, Vice President Cheney, The GOP governor and GOP AG of Hawaii, etc...) do not seem to agree with you.
You do not think the standards of proof that BHO has met are sufficient. Again, that is fine.
But again, those whose opinions and actions that could have affected the issue do not seem to agree.
Is the ‘Birther’ issue a legitimate plan of attack? I personally do not think so. Other disagree with me. That is also fine. Perhaps I will turn out to have been wrong.
Regardless, I must try to select and advocate what I see to be more productive avenues of attack. Which, in my opinion, is to do what you suggest at the end of your post. Focus on their choices and action, not alleged circumstances of parentage.
I don't think Obama is going to skate this issue even if it takes 20 years, although, I do not think that it will take that long. I'm not on a fixed time schedule as I suspect of others are not either. I'm not only after Obama's administration I'm after his legacy.
Are there enough Democrats out there who truly love this country and all she represents?
THANKS! and see what this guy says——>>>>
.
.
.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/a_stranger_in_our_midst.html
After auditioning countless political terms, I finally realized that the Obama administration and its congressional collaborators almost resemble a foreign occupying force, a coterie of politically and culturally non-indigenous leaders whose rule contravenes local values rooted in our national tradition. It is as if the United States has been occupied by a foreign power, and this transcends policy objections. It is not about Obama’s birthplace. It is not about race, either; millions of white Americans have had black mayors and black governors, and this unease about out-of-synch values never surfaced.
The term I settled on is “alien rule” — based on outsider values, regardless of policy benefits — that generates agitation. This is what bloody anti-colonial strife was all about. No doubt, millions of Indians and Africans probably grasped that expelling the British guaranteed economic ruin and even worse governance, but at least the mess would be their mess. Just travel to Afghanistan and witness American military commanders’ efforts to enlist tribal elders with promises of roads, clean water, dental clinics, and all else that America can freely provide. Many of these elders probably privately prefer abject poverty to foreign occupation since it would be their poverty, run by their people, according to their sensibilities.
This disquiet was a slow realization. Awareness began with Obama’s odd pre-presidency associations, decades of being oblivious to Rev. Wright’s anti-American ranting, his enduring friendship with the terrorist guy-in-the-neighborhood Bill Ayers, and the Saul Alinsky-flavored anti-capitalist community activism. Further add a hazy personal background — an Indonesian childhood, shifting official names, and a paperless-trail climb through elite educational institutions.
None of this disqualified Obama from the presidency; rather, this background just doesn’t fit with the conventional political résumé. It is just the “outsider?” quality that alarms. For all the yammering about George W. Bush’s privileged background, his made-in-the-USA persona was absolutely indisputable. John McCain might be embarrassed about his Naval Academy class rank and iffy combat performance, but there was never any doubt of his authenticity. Countless conservatives despised Bill Clinton, but nobody ever, ever doubted his good-old-boy American bonafides.
The suspicion that Obama is an outsider, a figure who really doesn’t “get” America, grew clearer from his initial appointments. What “native” would appoint Kevin Jennings, a militant gay activist, to oversee school safety? Or permit a Marxist rabble-rouser to be a “green jobs czar”? How about an Attorney General who began by accusing Americans of cowardice when it comes to discussing race? And who can forget Obama’s weird defense of his pal Louis Henry Gates from “racist” Cambridge, Massachusetts cops? If the American Revolution had never occurred and the Queen had appointed Obama Royal Governor (after his distinguished service in Kenya), a trusted locally attuned aide would have first whispered in his ear, “Mr. Governor General, here in America, we do not automatically assume that the police were at fault,” and the day would have been saved.
***
The Origins and Interpretation of the Presidential Eligibility Clause in the U.S. Constitution: Why Did the Founding Fathers Want the President To Be a "Natural Born Citizen"and
What Does this Clause Mean for Foreign-Born Adoptees?
by John Yinger(1)
Revised Version, April 6, 2000
*Excerpt*
The John Jay Letter
The most direct evidence about the origins of the "natural born citizen" clause comes from a letter that John Jay wrote to George Washington, who was at the time serving as President of the Constitutional Convention.(2) John Jay was not a delegate to the Convention; his views conflicted with those of the majority in his state, New York, and he was not elected by the state legislature.(3)
However, he was a well-known figure who had been President of the Continental Congress. Moreover, he would become an author, along with Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, of some of the famous Federalist Papers, written to encouraged New Yorkers to ratify the proposed constitution, and, after the Constitution had been ratified, he would be appointed as the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.(4)
It seems reasonable to suppose, therefore, that his letter carried some weight.
In this letter, dated July 25, 1787, Jay wrote:
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen (emphasis in the original).(7)
______________________________________________________
George Washington's Farewell Address
*Excerpt*
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This Spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.
But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual, and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils, and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection.
It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party.
But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged.
From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it.
A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another.
The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position.
The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern, some of them in our country and under our own eyes.
To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them.
If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates.
But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.
The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.
There needs to be a coordinated effort to study..the Journals/Books..the Founders had in their possession.
A list is in the Congressional Record. When I located and The Institutes by Justinian..it was understood..what the Founders were doing with natural born citizen.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/535institutes.html
We need to study..their books.
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.