March on Washington to tell president to quit

Organizers of a new march on Washington are offering Americans the opportunity to show President Obama their birth certificates and declare that unless he produces documentation of his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, he should quit.

The event is headed by Philip Berg, the first to bring court challenges to Obama's eligibility under the U.S. Constitution's requirement that presidents be a "natural born citizen."

While a number of cases, including several of his own, remain pending, Berg told WND today the issue needs to be pressed.

"Since the courts are taking their time to get to the point of allowing 'discovery,' it is time to motivate the citizens of the United States for a 'peaceful revolution' to expose the 'hoax' of Obama, the biggest 'hoax' in the history of our country, in over 230 years," he said.

Berg, who publicizes his cases through his ObamaCrimes.com website, said the planned "Birth Certificate March on Washington" will demand Obama resign.

Suspicions are fine but the problem is that much of “stench” has been generated by the birthers themselves out of thin air. Some unsuspecting freeper comes walking along, and SSSPPPPLLLAAAATTT!, he steps into this huge, steaming, hulking, piece of birther doo-doo, and gets it all over his shoes and tracks in the house, and car and furniture, well you get the picture.

Let me give you an example. A perfectly sane, mentally well-adjusted freeper is online one day, and he reads up a little on this birther stuff and WHAM!, he encounters this:”...Well, if he had nothing to hide, why is he spending a million bucks on keeping the long form secret?”

Fair question. If I had a million bucks, I could think of all kinds of ways to spend outside of a bunch of lawyers, particularly over something as silly as a birth certificate. Matter of fact, that statement got my attention when I first started about the birther stuff.

SOOOOOO, I went to find out how we knew that he had spent this money on this, because usually lawyer bills are NOT something you find in the court records. Lo and Behold! We don’t know this. Come to find out, public records indicate that Obama’s campaign lawyers had received payments, but nobody knows what for. They aren’t the main attorneys of record in any of the birther cases, and I may be wrong, but I don’t think that are on any of the cases.

Some birther saw this and JUMPED TO THE CONCLUSION the payments were for the birth certificate issue without any evidence to support that. BUT, it is now being reported by the Collective Birther Consciousness as a FACT.

So, when innocent little freepers step in this particular bit of stench, it isn’t Obama’s droppings. No, some birthers just didn’t take their pooper-scooper with them and clean up behind themselves.

parsy, who had to write this twice because he hit some durn key and erased it the first time

I don't mean to be snide, but I doubt your opinion of the Indiana decision stems from professional experience with the law. The opinion is very conventional, well-documented, and is extremely unlikely to be overturned on appeal.

First, there is no previous Supreme Court decision upholding your interpretation. SCOTUS is not on record as recognizing your distinction between citizen and NBC, other than with regard to the well-understood issue of naturalized citizens. If you believe that SCOTUS has endorsed your position, you are mistaken.

Second, the Indiana decision liberally quotes from one of the more relevant related SCOTUS decisions in articulating that the Constitution's roots in English Common Law establish NBC as meaning “born here.” The specific conclusion is as follows:

“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”

I will be the first to congratulate you if that is overturned, but I think the chances of that are essentially zero.

“In your heart of hearts do YOU believe that Barack Hussein Obama has met the Contitutional requirements to hold the Office of POTUS? ... and tell me why, please do.”

Yes.

(1) I didn't vote for him, but he got the most votes and won the Electoral College.
(2) I think the documentation produced to date clearly demonstrates that he was born in Hawaii.
(3) I don't think the two-citizen-parent NBC argument has a leg to stand on, legally speaking. Any court that should happen to entertain it will dismiss it in the exact same way that Indiana court did in November.

The Constitution guarantees that we get to vote for the President. That doesn't mean we have to like the guy who wins. We just get to try again in four years.

As I've said, conservatism is about nothing if it's not about facing reality, however unpalatable one may find it.

YOU don’t think that his father being a Subject of the British Crown transfers that citizenship onto Obama II?

Of course, it does.

But so what?

The UK has always employed what is called de sanguine citizenship -- wherein citizenship is determined by blood. This method reflects Britain's far-flung global economic influence -- where many British citizens were based (and born) overseas.

But it doesn't count for anything under U.S. law -- which employs de jure citizenship -- wherein citizenship is determined by law.

In this case, a child born in the U.S. with dual nationalities is a U.S. citizen -- unless he formally opts for British citizenship at age 18 (which he could've done...but apparently didn't).

For the outset, everybody knew Obama's father was a Kenyan. And everybody assumed he was born in Hawaii. Thus, he was a U.S. citizen at birth.

Nobody, but nobody, challenged him at the time. Why? Because, given the facts then known, there was no doubt of his U.S. citizenship.

If Obama was, in fact, born in Kenya (or any other country), you've got a case. But the father's nationality is completely immaterial.

We don’t have access to half of those records for other presidents much less presidential candidates.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is a common DOJ talking point seen with some regularity on Free Republic.

1) The natural born status of modern presidents was **self-evident**!

Armies of relatives, friends, and neighbors would have willing ( and proudly) testified that they knew the parents well, visited the mom and baby soon after birth, delivered meals to the new family, attended the Christening, and watched the child grow to maturity. The testimony of these citizens is a high standard, indeed!

Obama is unique in that no one has come forward in his life capable of or willing to give this high standard of **self evident** witness and testimony.

2) No other president has had such a convoluted past of foreign paternity, foreign adoption by a foreign national, a significant percentage of his young childhood lived in a foreign nation, no record of repatriation, confusing and undocumented name changes, and questions about visas and passports. It is not self-evident how his education was funded. Was it as a foreign national?

Given that Obama’s early life is not self-evident and he has not or can not provide the high standard of having American citizens testify for his natural birth status, then it is ***REASONABLE*** for **RATIONAL** Americans to want to see a paper trail.

That long list you cite would be required of Olympic athletes if they too had a history similar to Obama’s. The toilet bowl cleaners in the White House would need to produce much of the same documentation. Americans by the thousands produce these **same** documents for many, many types of work in the U.S. This is especially true if a security clearance is needed for the work.

So?....An Olympic ice dancer with false eyelashes and fluffy costume is required to produce more evidence of their citizenship than a man who is in command of the world's most powerful military and has immediate access to the most destructive nuclear arsenal humankind has ever known.

UNBELIEVABLE!

And...Polls are showing that the numbers of Americans with serious questions about Obama’s eligibility are growing. Rational Americans know that it is very odd for Obama to be going to such amazing trouble to withhold documents that common and unanointed Americans produce regularly.

If Obama is doing this merely to make the birthers or conservatives look foolish, the American people will not find it a laughing matter. Obama used DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ATTORNEYS ( yes, I am shouting because it is outrageous!) to hide simple common documentation that other Americans would **willing** produce for any high level security position.

Obama has wasted the time of DOJ attorneys, court time, and tax money at a time when plots were being laid to shoot our soldiers on their bases and recruitment centers, blow up a packed to the brim airliner, and poison our soldiers. That isn't a JOKE!!!

Rational Americans do and will see Obama’s behavior as being the actions of a guilty man. An honest man with nothing to hide would NOT waste one second’s worth of time, or one dime of U.S. resources, in that manner. An honest man with nothing to hide would have released **all** of the requested information immediately. They would have been, in fact, HONORED to do so!

So...The polls show that Americans by the thousands upon thousands have serious questions about Obama’s eligibility. What is amazing is that this is nearly entirely due to word of mouth ( neighbor to neighbor, friend to friend, relative to relative,) and the Internet.

Please read my tag line. I have used it since I first joined Free Republic. AMERICANS ARE NOT STUPID!!

It will be IMPOSSIBLE for the Dems and Chicago thugs to paint that many Americans with the broad brush of being racists or fringe level “nutz”. AMERICANS ARE NOT STUPID!

There is only one president of which I know that did not have a transparent and self-evident natural born citizenship (or grandfathered prior to the Constitution). That was Chester Arthur and he too went to considerable effort to hide ( and even burn) important documents.

In this case, a child born in the U.S. with dual nationalities is a U.S. citizen ...

A U.S. citizen? Yes, absolutely. A natural born citizen? We don't know because we don't have a definitive ruling from the courts on that specific scenario.

The U.S. Department of Foreign Affairs effectively states in the Foreign Affairs manual that being a U.S. citizen at birth does not automatically grant one natural born citizenship status for Constitutional purposes.

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that "No Person except a natural born Citizen ... shall be eligible for the Office of President;"
c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The "Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization", enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, "...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

Obama can be a citizen at birth by statute and still not be a natural born citizen eligible for the presidency. We need a SCOTUS ruling on his very specific circumstances to settle the matter once and for all. Are we likely to get such a ruling? Nope.

The above policy statements seem to establish two subsets of native citizens. Now many will argue that there are only two classes of citizenship: native and naturalized. Fair enough. But if one is a native citizen and not automatically eligible for the presidency, then doesn't that in and of itself establish two subsets of the native citizen class?

those clearly eligible for the presidency without a doubt
those who may or may not be eligible for the presidency

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.