Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

To: bigdaddy45
Super-Accurate!

#1. Chester A. Arthur knew he was not an NBC because his father was not an American citizen at the time of his birth. He spent his whole life lying his assoff about it, deliberately hiding the documentation, and burned his records before his death, That's #1,

#2 is the present resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He has NEVER claimed that he is a "Natural Born citizen." That's because he's knows more about Chester Arthur than either you or I, or possibly even Lawyer Donofrio.

What this fellow has done instead, is spend millions to convince the country that (1) He was born in Hawaii and is therefore (2)a NATIVE born citizen and that (3)NATIVE=NATURAL.

Hence the "Birther" controversy. It is unproven that he was born in Hawaii, but possible. All he has to do is present the documentation, which of course he refuses to do. It is absolutely impossible that he is a "Natural Born Citizen," as he well knows, because his legal father appears to have been a foreigner, although technically, that is not proven either.

It would appear that he has operated under a name not 100% legally his. as a minor child, he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro. At that time, his name was legally changed and his original BC amended. Upon his subsequent return to the US, that "Soetoro" name was never legally changed back. He was asked to voluntarily "retire" from the State of Illinois Bar, after, but not necessarily because, he was discovered to have lied about using another name on his Bar Application.*

Quite a guy we got here. Who, or what TF is he?

Traditionally, when a state bar catches a fraudulent application, they offer the cheat a chance to resign without a fight. In exchange they seal the record of the dispute and the guy can never practice law again.BTW, Michelle was also struck from the Bar by a court-ordered suspension. Move along. Nothing to see here!

Just to cut through all the post-modern bullshiite, a "Natural Born American Citizen" is someone born to two American citizens on territory subject to American jurisdiction. No dual citizenship. No equivocation. Obama had the choice upon reaching his majority of choosing Indonesian, British, Kenyan, or American* citizenship. a "Natural Born Citizen" could have no such choice, being exclusively American.

*Indonesian through adoption by Lolo Soetoro; British or Kenyan, through his alleged although legally recognized birth father; and American, if he was indeed born in Hawaii.

This is essentially a rather simple story, complicated, obfuscated, twisted, spun, and confused by a masterful public relations campaign whose sole purpose is to mislead enough voters to win an election.

If it works twice, it is a casus belli against those stupid enough to be fooled twice.

50 posted on 04/09/2011 9:57:32 PM PDT by Kenny Bunk (Qadafi and Obama share a common advantage. No organized opposition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]


To: Kenny Bunk

You wrote “Just to cut through all the post-modern bullshiite, a “Natural Born American Citizen” is someone born to two American citizens on territory subject to American jurisdiction. No dual citizenship. No equivocation. Obama had the choice upon reaching his majority of choosing Indonesian, British, Kenyan, or American* citizenship. a “Natural Born Citizen” could have no such choice, being exclusively American.”

That is incorrect. Please see the following:

James Madison: “It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States”

John Bingham: “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen”

Comments from Lynch v. Clarke, 1844: “Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.”

Comments from the SCOTUS ruling U.S. v. Kim Wong Ark. 1898: “Upon the facts agreed in this case, the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth”

The U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”

History, legislative opinion and case law all disagree with you.


69 posted on 04/10/2011 12:46:25 PM PDT by nvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article


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