ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS DESTROYING AMERICA-LOOK AT WHAT IT DID TO THE WHITE HOUSE!
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.
http://www.jrnyquist.com/media/FifeLeary_Int-1.mp3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJty-It1cS0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSQD_E5cegw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kL1a5KvHdu8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Taxa4vkPd_E&feature=related
http://www.jrnyquist.com/media/FifeLeary_Int-1.mp3
http://s668.photobucket.com/albums/vv47/MissieBessie/?action=view¤t=postandmail-2.jpg
http://www.obamacitizenshipfacts.org/
http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2010/04/barack-obama-argued-strict.html
http://www.commieblaster.com/obama/index.html?v=zCaJ8uYEY1U
Now, we have an unknown, undocumented, unexplained, unrevealed, foreign figure sitting in the White House.
Obama Espoused Radical Views in College [advocated communist revolution]
Steve Malzberg - WOR News Talk Radio 710 ^ | February 12, 2010 | Ronald Kessler
Posted on February 12, 2010 7:33:56 PM GMT+09:00 by ETL
Dr. John C. Drew, a grant writing consultant in Laguna Niguel, Calif., tells Newsmax he met Obama in 1980 when Obama was a sophomore at Occidental College in Los Angeles. Drew had just graduated from Occidental and was attending graduate school at Cornell University.
During Christmas break, Drew says he was at Grauman-Boss’ home in Palo Alto when Obama came over with Mohammed Hasan Chandoo, his roommate from Pakistan.
“Barack [Obama] and Hasan showed up at the house in a BMW, and then we went to a restaurant together,” Drew says. “We had a nice meal, and then we came back to the house and smoked cigarettes and drank and argued politics.”
For the next several hours, they discussed Marxism.
“He [Obama] was arguing a straightforward Marxist-Leninist class-struggle point of view, which anticipated that there would be a revolution of the working class, led by revolutionaries, who would overthrow the capitalist system and institute a new socialist government that would redistribute the wealth,” says Drew, who says he himself was then a Marxist.
“The idea was basically that wealthy people were exploiting others,” Drew says. “That this was the secret of their wealth, that they weren’t paying others enough for their work, and they were using and taking advantage of other people. He was convinced that a revolution would take place, and it would be a good thing.”
Drew concluded that Obama thought of himself as “part of an intelligent, radical vanguard that was leading the way towards this revolution and towards this new society.” ...”
Referring to Obama’s quote from “Dreams of My Father” that he associated with Marxist professors, Drew says, “What he’s not saying is that he was in 100 percent total agreement with those Marxist professors. When you understand that, Obama’s later associations and policies make more sense, including why he was taken in by Rev. Wright’s ideology.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2450298/posts
"[T]he gloss that has been placed on the Wong Kim Ark decision is actually much broader than the actual holding of the case.... Wong Kim Ark's parents were actually in this country both legally and permanently, yet were barred from even pursuing citizenship (and renouncing their former allegiance) by a treaty that closed that door to all Chinese immigrants. They were therefore as fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as they were legally permitted to be, and under those circumstances, it is not a surprise that the Court would extend the Constitution's grant of birthright citizenship to their children. But the effort to read Wong Kim Ark more broadly than that, as interpreting the Citizenship Clause to confer birthright citizenship on the children of those not subject to the full and sovereign (as opposed to territorial) jurisdiction of the United States, not only ignores the text, history, and theory of the Citizenship Clause, but also permits the Court to intrude upon a plenary power assigned to Congress itself."
Thus when Obamabots cite the words of their founder Justice Gray in their 1898 constitution, aka Wong Kim Ark, as their justification for Obama's citizenship status, they fail to appreciate the substantive difference between his Kenyan British father [who had the right to seek American citizenship but didn't] and Wong Kim Ark's father [who had no right under Treaty with China to seek American citizenship and thus couldn't].
Wong's father was as fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as the law allowed him to be, but Obama's father was not. And yet Wong was still not even a natural born citizen. One more leg that the Obamabots don't have to stand on.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS DESTROYING AMERICA-LOOK AT WHAT IT DID TO THE WHITE HOUSE!
Thanks for your reply.
“One of the after-birthers just revealed his reason for being one.”
‘Red’ Flags popped up as well as the hair on the back of my arms when I read his remarks.
“I cannot stop folks from giving cash to birther cases, but the money would be better spent going to conservative candidates, and in educating people what America is really about.”
WKA only concerned whether he was a citizen. SCOTUS, citing Minor explicitly said it would not reach whether he was NBC and may yet do so with the right case. An obviously flawed IN appeals court decision has no precedent, except in IN.
As you point out, if Obama was not born in HI he would clearly not be NBC. To me (and to LTC Lakin) his refusal to release his HI vital records is a virtual admission that he is concealing ineligibility or an investigative path that could lead to ineligibility that his lawyers might not be able to thwart.
Pressing for discovery of Obama’s HI vital records is the primary justification for my personal contributions to birther lawsuits.
In my personal view it would be unpatriotic for me to stand by and let a likely usurper refuse to submit his prime original eligibility documents. I also contribute to efforts to vote him and progressives out of office. Why not do both?
Our founders permitted the quo warranto process (a delegation of Congress’ power by Congress to the DC courts) to allow a sitting president to be challenged, as affirmed by Judge Carter and Judge Lamberth.
I give money that I hope will lead to a party with standing being able to place the burden of proof on Obama to prove his eligibility using the constitutional quo warranto process. It is my expectation that LTC Lakin's legal strategy will lead to a quo warranto claim.
BTW, I have an honorable DD-214. Thanks for your service.
That picture is so disturbing ....
Both laws ? the illegal immigration law ? and the law for any presidential candidate to prove that they are a Natural Born Citizen ?
Yes Jim , we got to keep this in the spot light and don’t let the MSM sweep this under the rug.
Good, that means it is befitting the man.
I'm beginning to think he just might be a 'person of interestt' under either or both.
“WKA only concerned whether he was a citizen.”
Read the decision. They argue WKA is a citizen, not just because of the 14th amendment, but because he would have been a natural born subject in old England, and that bit of common law teaches us what natural born citizen meant in the Constitution.
The Indiana decision is obviously binding only on Indiana. However, the LOGIC they use is mainstream, and likely to be repeated anywhere.
Try to get Utah to adopt via the AG or ballot the definition of NBC as requiring 2 citizen parents. It won’t happen. Why? 1) The large majority of lawyers know it would be overturned, and 2) the Utah courts would follow Indiana’s lead.
You obviously are free to give $$ where you think it best spent. Some people would argue the money I’ve given JD Hayworth in AZ is wasted. Oh well. We all have to pick our fights and give our time and money where we believe it is right.
I got involved on birther threads for 2 reasons:
1 - I thought Lakin will have his butt handed to him, and said so. Within minutes, I was attacked as a traitorous troll who hates America. That made it personal.
2 - Reading the cases has been enlightening. I strongly disagree with how the courts have ruled in many areas, but it doesn’t help anyone to ignore what they have ruled. When someone says ‘Everyone KNOWS the Founder’s relied on Vattel’s definition’, they ignore both the facts and the case history - and that is a good way to lose future cases.
The court did nothing of the sort. The case was dismissed for failing to state a claim.
WKA accepted natural born subject in English common law as the key to understanding natural born citizen in the Constitution. And in English common law, BOTH parents could be aliens, and the child a natural born subject UNLESS the parents were diplomats, or members of an invading army.
WKA would need to be overturned for Obama to be ruled ineligible based on his father’s citizenship.
Oh, my. Looks like I spoke too soon. Relying upon ober dicta to the exclusion of the actual decision again, I see. The law doesn’t work that way, Mr. Rogers.
Hmmm...the court said:
"Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”"
That sound pretty definitive to me! It only binds Indiana, but you are welcome to shop for a state court that will find differently.
But, let's just run with the odd rationalizations against the so-called "birther" Constitutional argument for a minute. Given the peculiar, opposing argument that there are strictly and only two forms of citizenship rather than two basic means of obtaining a variety of forms of citizenship, an argument that flies in the face of history by the way, this would mean that these original 14th Amendment citizens were ipso facto naturalized. They certainly weren't born citizens, since they weren't citizens at all. That was the basis for the amendment, denial of citizenship.
By what sort of flying backflip of tortured logic, then, does Mr. Wong Kim Ark's having been deemed a 14th Amendment citizen somehow equate to having altered a completely separate Constitutional eligibility requirement upon the basis of a question that was not before the court?
Good point. When one reads a court case, such as WKA, all one finds are references to the formal decision sentence. One never finds the court using the ARGUMENTS used in coming to the decision as instructive.
Did WKA formally decide that WKA was a NBC. No. Has its reasoning been followed in multiple cases since then? Yes. Does that include Indiana? Yes.
Good luck going into court and arguing that WKA only affects the 14th amendment. That is the sort of approach that has resulted in birthers losing every case.
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.