Posted on 08/09/2010 11:54:26 PM PDT by stevenl77
Just as Richard Nixon lost the battle of Watergate because of cover-up and stonewalling, Barack Obama has lost the battle over his constitutional eligibility for the same sins.
With the latest CNN poll showing only 42 percent of Americans definitively persuaded that he was born in the U.S., those who claimed this wasn't a "winning issue" have been proven wrong.
Not only is it a winning issue, it is the only issue that can effectively undo the nightmare of the Obama era in one fell swoop.
There would be no need for repealing Obamacare if it turns out his presidency was a sham from the beginning.
There would be no need to wait until Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan retire or die to see them replaced on the Supreme Court if it turns out his presidency was a sham from the beginning.
There would be no need to wring our hands in hopes that future congresses and future presidents might roll back all of the damage Obama has inflicted on America if it turns out his presidency was sham from the beginning.
There would be no need to wait until 2011 in hopes that a new Republican majority might impeach Obama if it turns out his presidency was a sham from the beginning.
There would be no need to wait until 2012 for another chance to replace Obama if it turns out his presidency was a sham from the beginning.
That's why this issue is so important.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
BTW, your deliberate avoidance in answering my questions is telling.
How did his adoption make him an exclusively Indonesian citizen? Are you suggesting that a parent can renounce US citizenship on behalf of a US Citizen child? Please show me the statute that allows a parent to do such a thing.
What if he did not know who his father was? Is the child of a US citizen mother, with an unidentified father, a natural born citizen according to your definition?
What if he did not know who his father was? Is the child of a US citizen mother, with an unidentified father, a natural born citizen according to your definition?
Some of that decision...
While acts of a de facto incumbent of an office lawfully created by law and existing are often held to be binding from reasons of public policy, the acts of a person assuming to fill and perform the duties of an office which does not exist de jure can have no validity whatever in law.
An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.
Pension or not, if he is not a US citizen of any sort (NBC or otherwise)when he served in the senate, he would have to forfeit the entire senate salary he fraudulently received plus all of the presidential stuff. Hey maybe we could send him and his wife the bill that they ran up for all of their vacations on the federal dime.
Is the child of a US citizen mother, with an unidentified father, a natural born citizen according to your definition?
I would say that until a father was identified the child would be a citizen, but not a natural born citizen. There wouldn't be enough evidence to come to that conclusion.
Would you consider the mother of such a child a tramp or just a young woman who made a mistake?
His US citizenship status is the question. Supposedly his mother could have him renaturalized after their return from Jakarta. But she was always a big Communist attitude on legs, and later in life she had Indonesian citizenship according to her bio (and she kept her former husband's name, spelling it Sutoro), so it's a question.
I respectfully disagree.
Would you consider the mother of such a child a tramp or just a young woman who made a mistake? Tramp or woman who made a mistake, it really doesn't matter - why should the child be punished because of the mother's actions?
Obama supposedly didn't have a draft card until 2008, when he took one of his many "fix-it" trips to Hawaii to "visit grandmother".
If he didn't have a draft card ...... why not? If he had an Indonesian passport, that would be one explanation. The other is that he struck a Communist "resistance" pose. Maybe.
Interesting coincidence, just one more suggesting he was possibly an Indonesian citizen all through his teens. And if he didn't renaturalize immediately on his return, or his mother neglected the duty, then he would no longer have been an NBC. Or so I read.
I agree. Personally, I don’t think he was born in the US, and I think that’s what we need to focus on, because that DEFINITELY makes him not a US citizen. The other (that his father was not a US citizen) would definitely go to the courts and it would most definitely be decided in his favor.
Indonesian law does not govern U.S. citizenship, U.S. law does. And U.S. law is very specific on the question of renunciation - a U.S. citizen renounces citizenship if (in relevant part) he "obtain[s] naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years."
His US citizenship status is the question. Supposedly his mother could have him renaturalized after their return from Jakarta. But she was always a big Communist attitude on legs, and later in life she had Indonesian citizenship according to her bio (and she kept her former husband's name, spelling it Sutoro), so it's a question.
Again, there is no need for "re-naturalization," because he never de-naturalized. A parent cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of a child, regardless of what any other country's laws say.
I do think that there’s a case that could be made for his being an Indonesian citizen, though. However, I’m afraid that the courts, in this case, would decide to retroactively confer citizenship on him.
In other words, if he had been born here, become an Indonesian citizen as a child, and never renounced that citizenship when he turned 18 (because I doubt that his mother would have wanted him to renounce it), I think the courts would treat it as a bureaucratic snafu and would let him off the hook.
People here are saying that it would then be revealed to the world that he had lied and that he’d be impeached, but I doubt it. He lies about everything, it’s as natural to him as the sun rising in the morning, and everybody in the country, even his fans, know it. So why should one more thing bother them?
why should the child be punished because of the mother's actions?
The child isn't being punished. He or she retains all of the rights of other citizens.
The child simply couldn't be POTUS.
Joseph Farah is a one trick pony. All he talks about on his site is the BC issue. Obama may not be a natural born citizen, but it (impeachment) won’t happen for that reason alone. Reason: Americans have a normalcy bias; We don’t like our government to be in crisis. He’ll be out in 2 1/2 years. Remember what happened to Clinton when he was impeached. Obama’s popularity would go up to 65% if they tried to remove him. As it is Obama will be at 30% at the end of his term.
OK, thanks, so much for that argument! I don’t think it would have mattered anyway.
However, if it’s true that he applied for aid as a foreign student from Indonesia, that might indicate that he had opted for Indonesian citizenship. Unfortunately, those records are no doubt as successfully buried as his birth certificate and, once again, I doubt that it would have any real impact on people’s thinking.
The office of President of the United States exists de jure.
The office of Board of Commissioners of Shelby County apparently did not.
Churchill was excluded from the US presidency without a doubt anyway so the discussion is moot and I am not quite sure what the point of this scenario is. But lets run with it for a minute. If Churchill's father had taken out his naturalization papers and they had been granted at the time he was born, then Churchill's mother would have also become a derivative US citizen under the law at the time...and Winston would have been born a natural born citizen. If his father had only taken out the papers without having been naturalized yet, when Churchill was born, then Churchill would have not been an NBC.
It's not a perfect system and it can exclude good people from being president, but it probably fixes a lot more problems than it creates, and it is the intent of the constitution to prevent those whose parents were not US citizens when they were born from being president. The danger of foreign influence upon the executive is too risky to even take chances. That is why John Jay asked George Washington to put that clause in the Constitution specifically to insulate the US president from foreign influence.
Would you, if similarly placed?
Ubuma gains nothing by releasing anything-—non-believers will continue, and the froth does no good. Neither to Dims nor to Cons.
A damned if you do, damned if you don’t game is quickly recognized. And poor for conservative ethics.
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.