Posted on 02/05/2010 8:35:06 AM PST by whatisthetruth
Please join Phil Berg, Jeff Kuhner and others at 12pm Eastern to hear updates and events surrounding the Constitutional issues regarding Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack H. Obama serving as the President of the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at freedom570am.com ...
Right, then it becomes a killer shark with a nice big bite!!!
Or Shamoo!!!
Not!
LOL!!!!
Frend, this SKIRT is the real issue. BHO,Jr., if he is telling the truth, is the son of a British Colonial Citizen, never naturalized in this country, and never more than a visitor on a visa. Thus one line of due diligence is the "Natural Born Citizen" issue.
Obama himself has never claimed "Natural Born Citizen" status. He brazenly tells us he is "qualified" as a "Native Born Citizen," and has shut down all inquiries that seek to verify even that.
The State of Hawaii won't let us know, which is against the law.
As far as I know, every Republican who has been asked has SKIRTed the problem, or what IMHO is worse, misdirected the question to the "born in Hawaii" answer. As long as elected Republican officials SKIRT the problem, nothing will happen.
[Thanks, Kenny Bunk.]
. . . . To All: Check out #262 and #347.
The ‘both parents’ requirement for NBC is based on Vatell’s writings from which many of us believe the Founders adapted the ‘natural born’ term in the Constitution. But original intent by a US Supreme Court interpretation of its use as a Constitutional requirement has never been made.
So, until and unless this is resolved by the SCOTUS, his eligibility, regardless of where he was born, remains in question.
Because some don't need no stinkin' Constitution and those founding dudes in fancy pants and wigs were sooo last century (or two). Come on! Don't you realize the black man in the WH is relieving all our white guilt and we are all one. Hugs everyone! And please do join me in a round of Kumbayah! MMMMMM mmmmm mmmmm...
The fuss over the BC is because it is hard evidence who his father may or may not be. If the BC doesn't say Sr. was daddy but Joe Bob Hippy was then Joe Bob might be an American citizen and then Hussein might be a natural born citizen. If there is no father listed on the BC, that also might mean he's a natural born citizen. But that would mean Hussein lied about his father (hey, he claimed in Dreams he held his BC) and if he lied about that then what else has he lied about.
Another point in releasing the BC is that it could be solid evidence as to the location of birth (keeping in mind Hawaii's allowing foreign births to register which messes it up even more). If there's no father listed and he was indeed born in the US, then who's to say if he had a Kenyan father? Sure, there's the newspaper announcements, but those aren't good enough for the courts. There's hearsay. There's his "Dreams". But today, the courts would push for DNA.
Now, if he were legally adopted as many believe, by Soetoro then the original BC would have been amended. If the adoption went through American courts then the Hawaiian Dept. of Health would have to make those changes to the original document and/or make a new document, and make a record of those changes. This opens another can of worms. Let's say he was born in Hawaii (which helps Ann and her young age in transferring American citizenship), and Sr. was dad, and now he's adopted by step-dad, well, that makes him an American/Kenyan/British/Indonesian (remember what our founders thought of loyalties). Talk about your foreign loyalties. Okey, dokey, when mom and step-dad divorced was the adoption dissolved or what? If so, the BC would have to show that. We don't have any record of him going to the courts upon majority to file to re-establish his American citizenship.
All these court proceedings might also have involved him proving he is the person named on the BC. Now, what do we usually show to prove identity? Yep, that's right, our social security card. If the stories are correct and he has dozens of different social security numbers (as supposedly did mom and white grandma), then you've jumped past a can to a whole truckload of worms.
Then there's the question of which country's citizenship did he use for the passport or passports on that college trip to Pakistan.
That follows with what country did he claim citizenship from for his college scholarships. Boat load of worms.
All the above leads us to the question of what is his legal name? He is asked by the bar for any aliases he has used but he never listed Soetoro. He was to list aliases when he ran for Senate and Prez. Now he's got a very long train with boxcar after boxcar of worms.
You see, the BC is the foundation for all that follows.
Not true.
Hey newcomer, before I welcome you here, we need YOU to prove that is not true w/sources for us to look at!!!
Rahm/0bama hireling.
My son in law’s parents immigrated to the US from France. He was born before they became US citizens, and is not eligible under the Constitution to become POTUS. His parents became US citizens after #2 was born, so their 3rd, 4th, 5th born children ARE eligible to become POTUS. Just the way the cookie crumbles.
We need guys like Breitbart, James & Hannah???
It's mind-boggling what 0bama is getting away with because of the cowards in Congress, it's probably too late now and utterly impossible to impeach Obama over this issue but we certainly can weaken and taint him over it, the Phony, the Usurper, the Fraud, the Imposter, the Pretender.
. . . . Check out #400.
[Thanks, whatisthetruth.]
Has any one seen or posted this before? I've never seen it before so forgive me if this is old.
Minor v. Happersett:
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.
"These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html
[Thanks, Las Vegas Ron.]
Yes Lucy, that SCOTUS opinion is well known. It’s good to see it posted every once in awhile. :-)
We do run that risk.
But than few ever stand up for the issues that we regularly do here with little or no fear only facts that we dig and dig and dig making the dBM dem party hate us even more.
With the evidence given on so many threads here one has to be a bit set in his ways or just plain ignorant not to pick up on the fact that zero is hiding a hell of a lot.
More than any other president has ever tried and arrogantly so.
IMHO,We do have a right to know who the usurper is,where he was born and where the hell is the documentation for most of his life!
Good Question.
The problem is the DBM has successfully GW 'ed the issue.
For 8 years they had GW in a vice of lies. He seldom defended himself and after an 8 year ordeal/onslaught of pinochioing lies at him time and again everything did become Bush's fault. The lies were finally sold and bought by enough for the socialists to take power.A lesson I hope we have learned.
Zero's administration "still" uses the ammo they stored from the DBM onslaught today!
Our conservative brethren,Rush, Sean,FNC,conservative papers and many others are guilty of hanging us out to dry just as many did GW when he failed to defend himself.
Worse yet we have secumed to the theory that if we pursue the issue we will be feeding the beast or playing right into the hands of the DBM/DNC rat socialist/marxist machine. There is some validity to that as well.
Seems in this case we may have to keep doing what we are doing, uncovering more and more info and history of his phony made up life until we strike gold and prove the point beyond any doubt whatsoever if we have not already.
I agree. In the beginning of this search (before the 2008 election), there were but a handful of FReepers joining in this discussion. That number has increased dramatically and I have nothing but good things to say about the research and knowledge that so many people are bringing to the discussion here. Some are well versed in the Constitution and case law. Others are great investigators, uncovering clues from B.O.'s past. Still others are terrific at formulating theories. There are many outstanding FReepers that are hot on this case! We are a threat to this administration's identity and legitimacy. Every week new revelations are uncovered. It is only a matter of time . . .
it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.
"These were natives, or natural-born citizens
Compare to Vattel:
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
“...his daddy was not a citizen therefore bammie cannot be a Natural Born Citizen.”
.
Then why all the controversy? If 0’s old man was a Kenyan then why are we still arguing about whether he is or is not a natural-born citizen? Do our congress-critters not ask themselves who in hell takes daily showers in the WH and why?
It must be that this bunch of numbnuts are hiding personal skeletons in their closets.
Sounds as good as anything I can come up with.
Strange times we're living in, God help us.
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.