Obama: Tea Party features 'core group' against him

“NATURAL BORN CITIZEN....you (blankety blank).

Nice obfuscation. Though at this point I’m not sure he’s not an illegal alien (Indonesian).”

Exactly Smokeyblue. I see more and more Free Republic members showing an understanding of this “core issue” - and you said it so concisely, like John Marshall and Vattel. There appear to be more and more of us who understand, and we must calmly help others to understand. Every bill signed by an illegitimate president, every treaty, every appointment should be challenged, and every one, since the signee was illegitimate is probably null.

The trolls were and are well organized, supported by their tribe. We are taking longer to get on topic, but it is happening. We can hope that the trolls begin to understand that they are being led to destroy their own nest, and join us in revealing the truth. Their interference has been reduced to name calling, ridicule. Parents among us have seen and corrected that behavior many times. We have hundreds, probably thousands, of words written by our founders and by their sources explaining exactly what they meant by provisions in the Constitution and why. Uniquely among provisions, there was such unanimous agreement about the natural born citizen provision that there was virtually no argument. Jus soli and jus sanguinis was discussed extensivly by Cicero, but almost certainly preceded Roman law. It was common both on The Continent and in England in their versions of the law of nations. Ours was a direct extraction from the most quoted legal source in U.S. law between 1789 and 1820, Vattel’s Law of Nations.

Vattel’s text was used in Thomas Jefferson's class in Law of Nature and of Nations at William and Mary beginning in 1779. Vattel remained the text until 1841. James Madison was the President of William and Mary while that course was being taught. John Marshall was a student at William and Mary, albeit briefly, in 1880.

For those of us who have read some of the founding documents the question is how best to help others understand. We don't have major media voices - yet, though Mark Levine has provided the essential background. It is probable that Mark is not willing to risk his income and family by taking the lead. This administration will not hesitate to destroy careers of any who threaten their overthrow of the Constitution.

On page 37 of Liberty and Tyranny Mark quotes Madison on why the Constitution is meaningless if not interpreted in the language of the time it was written. The founders wrote so clearly on the subject their words seem the most powerful way to convey the subtle point that, as with any investigation for a security clearance, to understand a person's background, learn about the parents, relatives, neighbors, and friends. The founders’ first concern, John Jay's Federalist Papers 2-5, is the security of The Republic. Cicero and Lord Calvin, Leibniz and Wolff, many French Governments and all of our founders, and all of our Senators in 2008 when they unanimously signed Senate Res. 511 where they affirmed that we should consider McCain a natural born citizen because both of his parents were citizens.

Obama’s alien father, the father whose ideas guide the son according to his on “Dreams from My Father”, was a Marxist Muslim whose fundamental philosophy was based upon the overthrow of capitalism and the imposition of Sharia law, is as good an example of what our founders anticipated as one could find.

Birth certificates are a distraction, which is not to say that we know he is a jus soli citizen. It is insufferable that Obama has hidden his past, but this is a fight over the validity of our Constitution, and there is no doubt about Obama’s alien father. He told us “I am a native-born U.S. citizen,” a citizen born on U.S. soil. He never told us he was a natural born citizen of the U.S., born on our soil AND of citizen parents. For our Constitution to insure our freedoms we cannot pick and choose which provisions still count, and which are passe. There have been twenty four attempts to amend Article II Section 1 clause 5 (clause 4 if you don't count the amended clause on the electoral college), the most recent in 2003. It seems unlikely that 2/3s of the both houses and 3/4 of the states would approve of any loosening of the protections we are currently not respecting.

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.