Obama Was Hand-Picked & NOT a Natural Born Citizen - Congress Knew It & Protected Him

Freedom Outpost ^ | March 30, 2015 | Dean Garrison

[yoe]

The further I travel down this rabbit hole, the more I feel divorced from the good conservative people that I choose to call my own. I hold some stories back from our readers. My thought is that people have a hard enough time embracing the basic fact that our government is ( corrupt on both sides of the aisle.) If you knew how corrupt I thought these people really were, I feel like you'd rush to the phone and soon bad men would show up to haul me off in a straitjacket.

Do they still do that?

Regardless, today I want to show you something that might leave you questioning everything around you.

Welcome to my world.

In 1975 a representative named Joe Bingham introduced an amendment to remove the "natural born citizen" constitutional requirement to become President...........

Why is that important?

[Nero Germanicus]

For the record SIX Supreme Court Justices ruled Wong Kim Ark to be a Citizen of the United States At Birth, two Justices disagreed and one Justice, who had just been appointed and had missed oral arguments recused himself.

[Nero Germanicus]

There is no constitutional distinction between at birth and by birth. The Constitution just says “born.”
The way the law looks at it is if you got your citizenship the moment you exited your mother’s womb, you’re in one category and if you got your citizenship at a later time, you’re in the other category.

Again, from the 19th century: “This section [of the 14th Amendment] contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”—
Elk v Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884)

[little jeremiah]

placemark

[fastkelly]

U.S.C. 8, Chapter 12, section iii.... Naturalizes everyone except those born inside US borders to two citizen parents.

[DiogenesLamp]

Competent attorneys know how to “judge shop” without breaking ethics rules. You pick the jurisdiction you will file in and the judges you want to hear your case in order to up the odds of getting favorable rulings.

And your acknowledgement of this sort of game playing simply lends strength to my argument that most court decisions nowadays (and possibly ever previously) are more about what a Judge wants to believe, than any sort of objective basis for law.

The fact that you *CAN* "Judge shop" demonstrates that the results are heavily weighted by bias, and so therefore are subjective. This is just what i've been saying for some time. We wouldn't be getting so many 5/4 splits on the Supreme court with the "Usual Suspects" generally on the same side, if Judges were really objective.

Your attempts at argumentum ad hominem are funny.

I know. That's why I do them that way. Laughter rocks the Highest throne. :)

We all like to regard ourselves as thoughtful, intellectual and wise, but closer to the truth is a comparison to monkeys hooting at each other. We are genuinely moved more by monkey emotions than we are by cognitive discourse.

For the vast majority of people, emotion beats logic every day of the week.

[cynwoody]

People born on military bases are a special case. In any event a U.S. military base is considered U.S. soil, like an Embassy.

Hence, any local babies dropped on base for whatever reason are US citizens (anchor babies). If not, then not.

[cynwoody]

His mother was not old enough to impart citizenship.

The age requirement only applied to married mothers.

Anarchist Annie was not married, even if she thought she was. This is because Barack, Sr., had a wife back in Kenya at the time he married Annie.

That makes Little Barry Bastard a natural born citizen, even if he was born in Mombasa, which he was not.

[DiogenesLamp]

There are always those judges who would love to be remembered in the history books for bringing down a president. Judge John Sirica, for example, brought down Richard Nixon and although he wasn’t practicing as a judge at the time, Judge Ken Starr got Clinton impeached.

They were both white. No modern judge wants to be associated with the destruction of the first "black" President. They don't want to go down in history with what will be argued is a racist tinge.

I go further. I would say the vast majority of them are DEATHLY AFRAID that they might somehow be forced into a position where they cannot avoid causing him some sort of damage.

Most of the Judiciary is not nearly so conservative as myself, so they don't follow politics nearly so closely as do I. They are blissfully unaware of just how oily this guy was, and they mostly know little about him.

All most of them see is the fact that a black guy got elected President, and they *WANT* his Presidency to "succeed" so as to make them feel good about the country and it's ubiquitous tolerance. They believe in the symbol that a "black" President represents, and they don't want any part in tarnishing it.

Unfortunately he is a Democrat, and a particularly low life scum version of one from Chicago, which is a particularly low life scum dominated political environment.

As a result of this, tarnishing his Presidency is a horse that has already left the barn, but these judges still want their illusions.

Had Barack Obama been white, and with the same credentials and baggage, he would never have gone anywhere. Had someone white been elected to the Presidency and then done what he has done, they would have already been impeached, and would probably be serving time right now.

No, Barry has protection. He represented the best hopes and dreams of a lot of people, and so he gets special dispensation because of what he is, not who he is.

It's a sort of racism that has been protecting him, and continues to protect him still. The Judges don't want to touch him, and never did. Neither did any of the secretaries of state.

Had any of them done so, they would have been on the receiving end of so much hatred and vituperation that it would make the current Indiana lynch mob look like a Tupperware party.

Nobody wants to be the focus of a massive national hate campaign. Not unless they have no other choice.

[cynwoody]

Reason is when he went to Indonesia his mom put him into a public school. In order to be put into a public school in Indonesia they require a citizenship. Indonesia doesn't allow for duel citizenship's.

The question really is did Obama's mother lie to get him into school? or was she an honest person? If Obama's mom foraged the documents to get him into school then Obama is likely a natural born citizen of the US.

Obama was a minor at the time.

The actions of his mama or his papa with respect to Indonesia, and whatever its turd-world view of citizenship may have been, are thus not relevant. To contend otherwise is to cede US sovereignty.

[DiogenesLamp]

The Supreme Court ruled in 1874 that the term Natural Born Citizen goes undefined in the Constitution. (Minor v Happersett).

Yes they did, and they were referring in particular to the 14th amendment. I'm glad you acknowledged this, because the 14th amendment definitely defines "citizen". That the supreme court specifically notes it doesn't define "natural born citizen" means the 14th amendment definition of "citizen" isn't the same thing. That it is explicitly different from "natural born citizen."

Why yes, yes it is. It's what we've been saying all along, and now you have unknowingly agreed with the point.

[DiogenesLamp]

Both sides in the Obama eligibility debate have used this citation. Pro-Obama uses the first part and anti-Obama uses the later sentences.

We use the whole thing, and I just explicitly used the first part in my previous message. Once again, by noting the definition of "natural born citizen" is not the 14th amendment definition of "citizen", the court informs us that clearly the one is not the same thing as the other.

[DiogenesLamp]

Ping to post #70, BTW.

That's a good find. Imagine the 14th amendment causing problems!

It was on the basis of the 14th amendment that prayers and any recognition of religion was stripped out of the schools, it was misused to create legalized abortion, it is currently being used to create "gay" marriage, it is also currently creating "birth tourists" and "anchor babies", and worst of all, it lent the illusion of legitimacy to the hybrid-bastardized citizenship of this current force of national destruction known as Barack Obama.

The 14th amendment is probably the worst written, and most destructive amendment in the entire collection of amendments. Yes, it had good intentions, but now has become a sort of constantly metastasizing cancer.

[DiogenesLamp]

For the record SIX Supreme Court Justices ruled Wong Kim Ark to be a Citizen of the United States At Birth, two Justices disagreed and one Justice, who had just been appointed and had missed oral arguments recused himself.

Five Republican Judges and one Louisiana Democrat. The two dissenting Judges were Democrats.

Pardon me if I see a little politics operating here. I suspect it played a part in this decision.

[DiogenesLamp]

There is no constitutional distinction between at birth and by birth. The Constitution just says “born.” The way the law looks at it is if you got your citizenship the moment you exited your mother’s womb, you’re in one category and if you got your citizenship at a later time, you’re in the other category.

Liberals make that distinction regarding "person" too. They regard a baby's status as first "non-person" then "person" after birth.

The pro-life/conservative viewpoint regards them consistently the same before or after birth. They are a "Person" before they were born, and they are a "Person" after they are born.

Our position on citizenship is exactly the same. A child is a specific sort of citizen before they are born, and they are the same sort of citizen after they are born. Their citizenship is inherent and natural, and they inherit it from the parents they have.

The Jus Sanguius position and the pro-life position are mutually consistent in this regard.

[MamaTexan]

There is no constitutional distinction between at birth and by birth. The Constitution just says “born.”

That's right. And the only Constitutional authority CONCERNING birth it that of naturalization

---

The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”—

Again, that's correct born or naturalized AND subject to the jurisdiction therof.

Unlike the writings of the Founder's era which typically said - born or naturalized in the United States or some one of them.

So who, exactly was 'subject to the jurisdiction'?

We know it wasn't diplomats or ambassadors, and at least 2 men involved in the 14th Amendment (Howard and Bingham) said it DIDN'T include foreigners or aliens. It didn't include people who were in the States, either. Their allegiance to their respective States made them State citizens -

§ 1218. The inhabitants enjoy all their civil, religious, and political rights. They live substantially under the same laws, as at the time of the cession, such changes only having been made, as have been devised, and sought by themselves. They are not indeed citizens of any state, entitled to the privileges of such; but they are citizens of the United States. They have no immediate representatives in congress.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833

So who does that leave? The only people in the country that had no recognized citizenship....the freed slaves.

-----

The way the law looks at it is if you got your citizenship the moment you exited your mother’s womb, you’re in one category and if you got your citizenship at a later time, you’re in the other category.

No, the current viewpoint of the administrative organ is that natural born citizenship as intended by the Law of Land and written by the Founders no longer exists.

We're either naturalized 'at' birth, or naturalized AFTER birth...which is WHY they use the term statutory natural born

And THIS is why Congress knew Obama was not eligible and protected him. Do you really think they would admit that the loss of our natural Rights is because of an assumed jurisdiction?

LOL! Not hardly.

[MamaTexan]

but now has become a sort of constantly metastasizing cancer.

'Cancer' is right. The prostitution of the 14th Amendment that created citizenship for a specific class of people has cloaked the mechanization of government to the extent that it's assumed control over a ALL classes of people...and given birth to 'protected' people who somehow manage to have the superior ability to cancel the rights of other people OUT.

All because the federal government wanted to play referee and ignore the Natural Law.

----

Of the Unwritten, or Common Law of England; And Its Introduction into, and Authority Within the United American States, George Tucker

It will he remembered, that the object of the several states in the adoption of that instrument, was not the establishment of a general consolidated government, which should swallow up the state sovereignties, and annihilate their several jurisdictions, and powers, as states; but a federal government, with powers limited to certain determinate objects; viz. their intercourse and concerns with foreign nations; and with each other, as separate and independent states; and, as members of the same confederacy: leaving the administration of their internal, and domestic concerns, to the absolute and uncontrollable jurisdiction of the states, respectively; except in one or two particular instances, specified, and enumerated in the constitution.
And because this principle was supposed not to have been expressed with sufficient precision, and certainty, an amendatory article was proposed, adopted, and ratified; whereby it is expressly declared, that, "the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." This article is, indeed, nothing more than an express recognition of the law of nations; for Vattel informs us, "that several sovereign, and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without each in particular ceasing to be a perfect state.

-----

10th Amendment, anyone? :-)

[arthurus]

Hadn’t thought of that. I guess he would be legal, then. He is still not “natural born” by the old definitions, but then neither would be Cruz or McCain.

[Nero Germanicus]

“That’s right. And the only Constitutional authority CONCERNING birth it that of naturalization.”

---

That was true until 1868 when the Constitution was amended and Section V of the 14th Amendment gave Congress the power to promote legislation to implement Section 1 of the Amendment, the Citizenship Clause.
And we know that since 1790 Congress passed legislation and Presidents have signed it into law that exempted classes of people from needing naturalization: “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or 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”.

---

“So who, exactly was ‘subject to the jurisdiction’?”
The Supreme Court ruled that persons with diplomatic immunity,
American Indians (Until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924) and members of foreign invading militaries are not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Everyone else born in the U.S. is subject to the jurisdiction...

---

“No, the current viewpoint of the administrative organ is that natural born citizenship as intended by the Law of Land and written by the Founders no longer exists.

We’re either naturalized ‘at’ birth, or naturalized AFTER birth...which is WHY they use the term statutory natural born

And THIS is why Congress knew Obama was not eligible and protected him. Do you really think they would admit that the loss of our natural Rights is because of an assumed jurisdiction?

LOL! Not hardly.”

---

Wow, you’re psychic and you know what the thinking was of 535 members of Congress in 2009 and again in 2013 when Congress counted and certified Obama’s Electors without objection. I am amazed at your powers.
But you are forgetting that no judicial proceeding, (and there had been hundreds of them) had ever ruled that Obama was ineligible, so Congress had no back up for challenging Obama’s eligibility.
As early as the late summer of 2008, before Obama was elected, federal courts had ruled him eligible and challenges to his eligibility to be “frivolous.”

[MamaTexan]

hat was true until 1868 when the Constitution was amended and Section V of the 14th Amendment gave Congress the power to promote legislation to implement Section 1 of the Amendment, the Citizenship Clause.

Which is still only operable ON the people it pertained to. Why did you THINK they had to but all the nondiscrimination language IN the 14th Amendment? Because it was a totally NEW type of Citizen.

-----

Everyone else born in the U.S. is subject to the jurisdiction...

According to them.

-----

I am amazed at your powers.

Getting snarky doesn't add any weight to your argument.

----

As early as the late summer of 2008, before Obama was elected, federal courts had ruled him eligible and challenges to his eligibility to be “frivolous.”

Yes, and that people had no 'standing'...because under current interpretation of the 'law', they aren't even human. They are extra-constitutional political constructs.... or 'legal entities'.

“There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such”.
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)

“The rights and privileges, and immunities which the fourteenth constitutional amendment and Rev. St. section 1979 [U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1262], for its enforcement, were designated to protect, are such as belonging to citizens of the United States as such, and not as citizens of a state”.
Wadleigh v. Newhall 136 F. 941 (1905)

“There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state”.
Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)

“That there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state,...”
Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)

Quoting Cruikshank
“The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other”.
Colgate v. Harvey , 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)

“ …as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship”.
Madden v. Kentucky , 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)

>>as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship<<<

-----

Natural born citizens are State citizens. Citizens claiming to be Citizens of the United States OUTSIDE the Constitutional areas of enumerated jurisdiction are naturalized at birth.

You want to know where our Inalienable Rights went? They were taken from us when government duped us into claiming to be the wrong kind of citizen

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101
8 USC § 1101 – DEFINITIONS

(21)The term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.
(22)The term “national of the United States” means
(A) a citizen of the United States, or
(B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.
(23)The term “naturalization” means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.

Notice the FIRST definition of the current code does NOT mention the 'United States' at all. That's because they are NOT 'citizens of the United States'...but some one of them

------

As long as you continue to tout findings that agree with you as some type of proof while conveniently disregarding everything that doesn't, I see no point in continuing the conversation any further.

Thank you for remaining civil during the discussion.

[Nero Germanicus]

Well then I guess Obama is untouchable.