Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: IbJensen

Zero didn’t say anything because he has nothing to say. He knew he was not eligible in 2004 and said so himself. His only defense is “The King” doesn’t NEED a defense. So far it is working.


6 posted on 02/01/2012 4:47:24 AM PST by wastoute (Government cannot redistribute wealth. Government can only redistribute poverty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: wastoute

The “Magic Negro” isn’t subject to the laws of any nation, especially one founded by “slave owners.”


9 posted on 02/01/2012 5:04:30 AM PST by Tzfat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: wastoute
"Zero didn’t say anything because he has nothing to say."

Actually, Obama said quite a bit. He said “I am a native-born citizen of the US.” His statement affirmed that he was not a “natural born citizen”. A “native-born citizen” is the language of the 14th Amendment, created to make slaves, born on our soil, citizens, but not natural-born citizens. Being citizens, their children become natural born citizens. The 14th Amendment says nothing about natural born citizens, and its principal author, John Bingham told us why in the House Record, “The Globe” of 1866, when he was arguing for passage of the 14th Amendment. He told us, in effect, the same thing the Chief Justice Marshall told us, and the Chief Justice Morrison Waite turned from ‘dictum’ to ‘precedent’ in Minor v. Happersett. That precedent was confirmed as early as 1895 in the case Wong Kim Ark, in which Justice Gray, appointed by the only other ineligible president Chester Arthur, confirmed that Wong Kim, born on our soil to resident Chinese parents, was not a natural born citizen, but was a 14th Amendment citizen, a native-born citizen of the US.

Every US Senator, including Obama, signed Senate Res 511 in April 2008, confirming his and her belief that a natural born citizen is born to two parents who are citizens. They didn't include the other requirement, born on our sovereign soil, because they were creating the false impression the John McCain was eligible. He wasn't, and that is why Republicans refused to vet Obama. Had they done so, McCain would have been gone, and Hillary was ready and able.,

Read Arizona's own Rogers Professor of Law at U of Arizona, Gabriel Chin, whose excellent paper “Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President:” We may all believe his background should have made him eligible, but, in spite of twenty six attempted amendments to Article II Section 1, none has passed - and there were eight attempts alone between 2000 and 2007. Even Clare McCaskill and Obama made pretended to try in February of 2008 with a “Bill to enable Foreign Born Children of Military Citizens to Become President.” It didn't pass, and couldn't have affected a Constitutional definition. Republicans and Democrats colluded to obscure the definition they all understood because it was a political embarrassment, and probably, a violation of the oaths they all took upon being sworn to their offices. McCain seemed deserving, but ignoring the Constitution to reward McCain paved the path for Obama, who never said he was a natural born citizen. He doesn't believe the Constitution is binding, and told us that early in 2002.

You have been told the “Because the term natural born citizen was not defined in the Constitution..” That was sophistry. Terms were not defined in the Constitution, by design. As Minor v Happersett Justice Waite explained, “...In the language understood by the framers of the Constitution, it was never doubted...” There is only one word with a definition contained in the Constitution, and that, 'treason,' is probably because our new form of government, a republic required a variant of the common-law usage - which had many variants as it is.

Don't trust the pundits. Read Minor v. Happersett for yourself. It is not hard to read, but takes some mulling to understand the key idea, that Virginia Minor was only identified in the Constitution as a Citizen of the US, there being no "Uniform Rules for naturalization" before the 14th Amendment, becuase she was born on our soil to parents who were citizen. Without nailing the defintion, Justice Waite had no jurisdiction and no decision.

Dozens of Supreme Court cases containing citations to Minor v. Happersett were scrubbed by Soros’ Center for American Progress cadre and provided by Google to anyone curious enough to search Supreme Court cases involving citizenship. Cornell Law still has an expurgated case, Ex. Parte Lockwood, with a whole paragraph scrubbed. The corrupted "Justia.com" cases have now been replaced, and Google/Justia has blocked access to the "Wayback Machine," the internet archives. Our legislators and judges have caved, as has our presumably conservative legal history pundit, Mark Levin, who is going to the bank while avoiding the most cited legal reference for the first thirty years after 1779, Vattel’s Law of Nations, because Chief Justice John Marshall cites Vattel in “The Venus, 12 US 253, para 289” as the most concise source (and not by any means the only one) for the definition of natural born citizen.

Our legislators have become our enemies by their complicity in obscuring part of our law which was created to protect us. Our framers and founders understood how critical it was that our commander in chief and chief executive be born to and with allegiance to our foundation. Could it be any more clear that Obama has no such allegiance, and that his father, who never had any desire to be a citizen of the US, a professed Marxist, helped define who Obama is?

25 posted on 02/01/2012 6:03:32 AM PST by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson