Posted on 05/06/2011 7:33:57 AM PDT by Ordinary_American
The truth is hiding in plain sight. At some point in 2008, the political elites decided to violate the Constitution. I know of no better explanation.
In September 2008, Lawrence B. Solum, the John E. Cribbet Professor of Law at the University of Illinois College of Law, wrote:
“What was the original public meaning of the phrase that establishes the eligibility for the office of President of the United States? There is general agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a natural born citizen.”
The text of the Constitution, the intent of the Founders, judicial precedence and the historical background support that definition.
Every high school student, who paid attention in history class, knows that. Every elected President since the early days of the Republic has met that criterion. That is, every one except Barack Hussein Obama.
By his own admission, Obama is not a natural born citizen and is, therefore, not eligible to be President of the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
My guess would be inside forces. the faces behind the scene
Because when he was born he was named Barak Obama after his father. When his mother remarried and they were living in Indonesia, his adoptive father had Obama’s name changed to Barry Sotero. This wouldn’t change the info on the birth certificate. The adoption papers and name change would just get added to the file. My question though would be, did he get his named changed ‘legally’ back to Barak Obama?
Correct, only because he effectively hid his birth records. Your description of his ineligibility is correct. Precedent? Possibly, but only by deception.
Most of us realize that and it is correct. But the Communists Party (formally the Democratic Party) are power crazy and literally insane. At least one third of Americans are brain washed by many years of liberalism/communism. When will America wake up and put these insane nitwits to rest.
Every high school student, who paid attention in history class, knows that.
If birthers want to piece together new definitions of things in the Constitution, that's fine. But, come on, this isn't how it's taught in law school, let alone high school. If it were so obvious, where were these arguments in early 2008, when it would have actually made a difference?
“the coming second American revolution”
“Is it time? “
____________________________________________________________
Not to be sacrcastic, but what, exactly, do you think the whites of their eyes will look like?
Most are cluelessly watching American Idol, or amusing themselves with other non-actions such as hanging out on FR.
We’re not organized, and will be squashed or infiltrated the moment we are organized.
It will not be a civil war with clearly drawn battle lines, or anything resembling the first revolution. There will be no pitched battles. It will be a series of uncoordinated guerrilla actions that grow out of the chaos only AFTER society has fallen apart. That is both good and bad: resistance movements and guerrilla warfare are generally more effective than standing armies, despite their superiority in numbers, logistics, organizational sophistication and weaponry. If we become Charlie or the Mujahidin we can eventually win, but it will be anything but glorious or swift or easy, or what most people expect.
My two cents.
Are you sure of that? I am NOT sure the BHO, Sr. was his father. And why has no "hospital" admitted to being his birth place?? More question, no answers.
Not new on FR. People who’ve been reading about it have know this and a lot more for a long time.
And he tried to hide it in various ways. There were editorials in newspapers at the time wondering if he was lying about his father’s naturalization date and his possible ineligibility due to that.
I would agree that there are more questions than answers.
What would be worse— finding out that someone else was his father, but that person was a citizen, thus making Obama eligible, or having Obama Sr be his father, who we already know was NOT a citizen, making Obama ineligible?
By his own admission, Obama is not a natural born citizen and is, therefore, not eligible to be President of the United States.
See Obama Keyes US Senate debate, Sept 29, 2004:
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/SenateSt
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/15/obama-concedes-hes-not-a-nbc-in-obama-vs-keyes-2004-debate/
Obama has been using a Social Security Number issued in Connecticut, a state in which he never lived or even had a mailing address.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=obama+CT+SSN&form=HPNTDF&pc=HPNTDF
The elephant in the room will eventually demand to be noticed.
“Yep and unfortunately they have defenders at FR for some reason....”
that’s part of what a three trillion dollar heist from the Treasury gets ya....
I've been wondering the same thing. It's so obvious I can't figure out why no one has brought it up. Please let me know if you get the answer.
White House released the birth certificate:
Found two extremely strange inconsistencies that merit some attention.
First of all, the birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama's birth as August 4, 1961. It also lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, right? At the time of Obama's birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama's father was born in " Kenya , East Africa ". This wouldn't seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama's birth, and 27 years after his father's birth.
How could have Obama's father have been born in a country that did not yet exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the "British East Africa Protectorate". But, this is not the only thing that I found that just does not jive.
The other item: The hospital that Obama was born in.
1978 merger http://www.kapiolani.org/women-and-children/about-us/default.aspx
On the birth certificate released by the White House,the listed place of birth is:
"Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital". This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called "KauiKeolani Children's Hospital" and "Kapi'olani Maternity Home", respectively. The name did not change to Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978?
Post-colonial history (from Wikipedia) The first direct elections for Africans to the Legislative Council took place in 1957. Despite British hopes of handing power to "moderate" African rivals, it was the Kenya African National Union (KANU) of Jomo Kenyatta that formed a government shortly before Kenya became independent on 12 December 1963, on the same day forming the first Constitution of Kenya.
I thought it said East Africa. I don’t recall it saying Kenya.
By the way, it was known as Kenya Colony in 1920. So, I’m guessing that being the British Colony of Kenya, might be why the certificate said Kenya, East Africa.
I find it more odd that under race is says African instead of black or Negro.
The hospital changed its name to Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children in 1978, not Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital. The name on the long-form is correct for 1961 and is the same on other long-forms from the time.
Then they are communist sympathizers and need to be voted out of office.
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.