Free Republic

The bottom line is that Jindal is ineligible just as Obama is. The BC thing was a worthless exercise because it never mattered if Obama had one or not and all it did was defect attention away from the real issue, which was natural born citizenship. I don’t care if Jindal is a conservative or not. If he is not qualified under the Constitution to hold the office of POTUS then he should not be allowed to run. The whole “it’s OK if my guy does it” crap is what got use where we are in the first place. Jindal’s parents were not US citizens and he is not eligible, period. I just sent a correspondence to his office reminding him of that.

I think I have found your answer. “I pledge THE allegiance” is a portion of a “prayer” of the progressive church of Unitarian Universalism, a social justice, socio-religious movement. Just Google the phrase “We pledge the allegiance of our hands and hearts” and you will find plenty of links.

Unto the Church Universal,
Which is the depository of all ancient wisdom,
And the school of all modern thought;
Which recognizes in all prophets a harmony,
In all scriptures a unity,
and through all dispensations a continuity;
Which abjures all that separates and divides
And always magnifies humanity and peace;
Which seeks truth in freedom, justice in love,
And individual discipline in social duty;
And which shall make of all persons, sects, classes, nations, and races,
One Beloved Community;
Unto this church and unto all its members,
Known and unknown throughout the world,
We pledge the allegiance of our hands and hearts.

http://www.ccny.org/thechurchuniversal

The Progressive Church Emergent
http://www.uuneedham.org/sermons/documents/20091004_Progressive_Church_Emergent.pdf

Who’s to say that any information the WH collects won’t be used to determine who gets full care and who gets rationed care. If a union boss and a conservative columnist bith need a kiney, who do you think is going to get the kidney?

WND is today claiming that the KBC may be a forgery.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106135

This gets more interesting every day. Perhaps this is the BC used by Obama to enter college as a foreign student as is claimed in the CA lawsuit. That would explain why his college records are sealed. Obama may be a forger in addition to being a usurper.

The US Constitution requires that the President must be a “natural born citizen” of the US. The Constitution makes a clear distinction between a basic citizen – who may be a Senator or Representative – and a “natural born citizen” – the higher standard which is required for the President/Commander In Chief.

Obama was a Constitutional law professor and Harvard Law graduate running for President. He was fully aware of the most on point US Supreme Court holding which discussed the meaning of “natural born citizen” – Minor v. Happersett – wherein the Supreme Court stated:

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 [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

In the Minor case, the person wasn’t running for President of the US so the court didn’t have to reach the nbc issue. But the court did note that the foreign nationality of a native born person’s parents could effect that native born person’s natural-born citizen status.
Furthermore, the court also stated that the definition of “natural-born citizen” was not found in the Constitution so “Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” Why is this important?
BECAUSE SCOTUS ISSUED THE MINOR HOLDING IN 1874 WHILE THE 14TH AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED IN 1868.

The most predominant argument that Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President relies on the wording of the 14th Amendment which states that a person born on US soil and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen. But the 14th Amendment does not say that every person born on US soil is a “natural-born citizen”, it just says “citizen”. Obama supporters have argued that 14th Amendment citizenship makes one eligible to be President and satisfies the natural born- citizen requirements of Article 2 Section 1. This is the “native born” = “natural born” argument.
The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868. But the Minor decision was issued in 1874 wherein

SCOTUS said:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

The 14th Amendment had already been part of the Constitution for six years when SCOTUS made that statement. SCOTUS clearly and unequivocally states in Minor that the 14th Amendment does NOT define who is a “natural-born citizen”. Anybody who says the 14th Amendment does define “natural-born citizen” is lying and/or ignorant as to the Supreme Court’s holding in Minor – the most on point discussion of the definition of the Article 2 Section 1 “natural-born citizen” requirement for POTUS.

Obama - the famed brilliant Constitutional scholar – had to be aware that the most directly on point US Supreme Court case in our nation’s history directly stated that there were doubts as to his NBC status. Yet, regardless of these doubts expressed by the highest court in the land, Obama went ahead and swore – under oath – that he was eligible to be President.
Therefore, he is now intellectually convicted of false swearing.
When you swear that what you say is true, then – to the best of your knowledge – what you say must be true. If you are a gifted Constitutional scholar/professor who knows of a SCOTUS holding which calls your “natural-born citizen” status into question and directly states that there have been doubts thereto, but you go ahead and swear under oath that you are - in fact – a natural-born citizen, then you are also – in fact – guilty of false swearing.
You can’t legally swear to the best of your knowledge that you are eligible to be President when the SCOTUS last word on the issue directly calls such eligibility into doubt. You can’t even do that with a straight face let alone a sworn oath.

Even if the current SCOTUS were to one day hold that Obama is a natural-born citizen despite his British/Kenyan birth through his father (who was never a US citizen) that would not have been a holding available to Obama at the time he swore he was eligible.