| How Crazy are those Birthers? |
 |
 |
| Written by JB Williams |
| Wednesday, 14 October 2009 19:56 |
|
In case you don't know, after the terror attacks of 9/11/01, there were indeed a few Americans who honestly believed that the federal government was so corrupt that it was behind and responsible for the events of September 11. Even though we all watched in shock, as hijacked planes flew into the twin towers, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field, these folks imagined that someone in Washington DC might have blown up those buildings instead. Not that our federal government isn't capable of such things, mind you... but they are not likely to pull off such a thing without anyone spilling the beans sooner or later. These believers were labeled "truthers" - and were often the same folks who claimed to have seen UFOs or even to have been abducted by aliens from outer space at some point in their lives.
Most Americans passed these folks off as crackpots - mentally unstable individuals in need of help, not a seat in congress. So when very normal people starting asking who this grand nobody from Chicago was, who appeared out of thin air with a blank résumé and a billion dollar campaign fund from donors around the globe, they were labeled "birthers" for questioning the "Natural Born Citizen" status of a mystery messiah seeking the Oval Office. Every mainstream media outlet in America has either ignored the question, or joined the chorus of pro-Obama propagandists in discrediting "birthers" as the same crackpots known as "truthers." What had "birthers" done that was so over the top? They asked to see Barack Obama's birth certificate, and to date, they have been denied that "crazy" request. In fact, multiple law suits have been filed across the country in numerous forms, simply seeking access to Obama's personal history, and most recently, a judge has fined one of those attorney's $20,000 for "filing frivolous law suits" on the matter. Meanwhile, taxpayers have picked up the tab for over $1.5 MILLION in Obama legal defense fees, used to keep Obama's birth certificate, his school and college records, his passport and travel records and his law practice files Top Secret. So far, the "transparent president" is anything but "transparent." He is the ONLY president in US history to hide his entire past. Now, how reasonable is Obama's behavior, and how unreasonable is the behavior of the so-called "birther?" Natural Born Citizen Article II - Section I - Clause 5 of the US Constitution requires that ONLY a "natural born citizen" hold the office of President. It's no secret what they meant or why that clause exists. It is a matter of national security. Lets not play any games here... too many games have been played with this phrase already. It's a very simple term that anyone with a dictionary can figure out. Not just any ole "citizen..." Not Native - "belonging to a particular place by birth" Not Naturalized - "to confer the rights of a national on; especially : to admit to citizenship" (as with an immigrant) But NATURAL - "Pertaining to nature; produced or effected by nature, or by the laws of growth, formation or motion impressed on bodies or beings by divine power." The US Senate got it exactly right in 2008 in their unanimous resolution proclaiming John McCain a "natural born citizen" of the Unites States of America, based upon the well-known fact that BOTH of his parents were indeed legal citizens of the United States at the time of John's birth. In other words, by "divine power" and the "laws of growth," "produced by nature" of the fact that his parents were US citizens, so was John McCain, by birth right via natural ancestry. However, no such Senate resolution concerning Barack Obama exists, and the standard applied to John McCain is NOT being applied to Barack Obama. The Birth Certificate Obama supporters like Snopes and FactCheck claim to have a copy of Obama's birth certificate, but they do NOT. I challenge any reader of this column to send me a certified copy of Obama's actual birth certificate and I will gladly disclose it to the public along with a retraction of this statement. I won't get one, because no such document has ever been released by Obama. End of story! Officials in Hawaii have issued their "opinion" that Obama is a "natural born citizen" of the United States. But they have thus far refused to make public the documents used to arrive at that opinion, and until they do so, their "opinion" is nothing more than inadmissible hearsay from a third party NOT present at the time of Obama's birth, and they are therefore, unable to support such a claim. Not one, but THREE different COLBs, (Certification of Live Birth, not to be confused with an actual birth certificate) have been posted online by Team Obama, Snopes and FactCheck. But none of the three contain any verifiable information necessary to vet the documents and since three have been offered, all must be treated as forgeries until one of them can be authenticated. Some "birthers" believe Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii. That's because Obama's Kenyan relatives have stated under oath, that they were present at Obama's birth in Kenya. But where he was born isn't so important. The fact that he was born to a father who was at no time a citizen of the United States, is the problem. On this basis alone, Obama is NOT a "natural born citizen" of the United States and that makes him an "unconstitutional president" at best! Proof of Constitutional Standing Other than the three different COLBs posted online by Obama, Snopes and FactCheck, Obama has offered NO other proof of legal US citizenship, much less "natural born" status as required by Article II of the Constitution. NONE! If you think I'm wrong, send me the proof you have! We know that he traveled to Pakistan, among other places in the Middle East, during his college years, and that he did NOT hold a US passport at that time. We know that he received his first US passport as a "diplomat," while he was a state senator in Illinois, which also allowed him to bypass the normal process of getting a US passport. But because he will not open up his records, we do NOT know what passport he traveled on during those college trips to the Middle East. We know he attended three of the most expensive colleges in the United States. But we do NOT know how he was able to pay his tuition without any job, why he changed schools, or why former Black Panther Godfather Dr. Khalid al-Mansour (aka Donald Warden, Saudi Royal Family front man) and New York Panther Percy Sutton, helped him into Harvard. Bottom line, Obama is one great big secret mystery! What's the BIG Deal? The BIG deal is national security! Like it or not, the Unites States has enemies, some of them obvious and others less overt in their strategies. After nine months of Marxist agenda advancements at odds with most Americans, leaving Obama with record sinking approval ratings in the states, no imagination is required when wondering what damages can be done to the USA from within the halls of our corrupt federal government. So, how crazy are those "birthers" to ask a question as basic as a birth certificate? Standard National Security Clearance Not only has Obama never passed any standard security clearance, he has never been asked to apply for such clearance and couldn't pass that clearance if his life depended on it. Yet, he is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America, the highest office in our land and the most powerful office in the world, without so much as a simple birth certificate to prove his eligibility for the lofty office he holds. What if he had to pass security clearance before having access to Top Secret information, as any other American citizen would have to pass? The security check will begin with you filling out a 17-page questionnaire. Most of the questions seek information that can be investigated, such as past residences and employment. It will also ask for contact information for people who know you. Fill out the form thoroughly and honestly. Providing false information on a U.S. security form is punishable with a fine, jail time and/or a dishonorable discharge if you are in the military. None of this information has been made available on Barack Obama... He has filled out no such form, has no "employment history" - won't discuss any of the people he spent twenty years hanging out with, some of whom are known terrorists, all of whom have a very funny view of America. Next, the actual security check... A security check involves investigation of your life, including federal records, criminal checks and credit checks. Higher level checks will also involve field interviews not only with you, but with people who know you. Investigators will be looking into your character, criminal history, emotional stability, trustworthiness, loyalty and reliability to see if you should be allowed to access confidential information, most notably national security information. So you don't want to have committed serious crimes, be deep in debt or associate with groups that act against the government. Oops! --- No record of how he paid for college, where he traveled or on what passport, or why. Twenty years in the pew of a racially charged anti-American church run by an overtly racists preacher. Friends like Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, Saudi Royal front man Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, criminal Tony Rezko, Communist Frank Marshall Davis, and many - MANY more! Adjudicative Process The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person's life to make an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is predicated upon the individual meeting these personnel security guidelines. The adjudicative process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole person concept. Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, should be considered in reaching a determination. In evaluating the relevance of an individual's conduct, the adjudicator should consider the following factors: a. The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct;
When information of security concern becomes known about an individual who is currently eligible for access to classified information, the adjudicator should consider whether the person: a. Voluntarily reported the information;
Maybe "birthers" are nuts! They have only asked for a simple birth certificate, which any other legal American citizen with nothing to hide would have released immediately upon request! Maybe it is "crazy" that "birthers" are only concerned with the missing birth certificate at this late date? Most American citizens have a job, a bank account, a post office box, a driver's license, and some even have high level security clearances. What was asked of you before you can have any of these things? Something more than a simple birth certificate, yes? Yet somehow, it isn't Obama who is in trouble here, but rather those crazy "birthers" who simply want to know who in the hell this mystery messiah from Kenya is and why he is so damned anti-American, and anything but transparent? The US citizen is becoming aware of the fact that they have an entire administration of foxes guarding their hen house and they are growing desperate in their attempts to seek peaceful redress in the courts, which are supposed to be the unbiased defenders of the Constitution and rule of law in this country. It's clear that neither the executive or legislative branches of the federal government represent the will of the legal US taxpayer anymore. Before we commence to "altering or abolishing" a government which has indeed become "destructive" of the individual right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, we must exhaust the peaceful means of redress established in the courts. But it appears that we may have already arrived at this point in time, as NO court in the land believes that average American citizens have the "proper standing" to ask who in the hell this mystery man really is? That being the case, I suppose all peaceful means of redress have been exhausted and it is time to take matters into our own hands while there is still a country left to save and a Constitution around to uphold. Before citizens allow people who won't even disclose a birth certificate to control life and death by way of nationalized medicine, they had better wake up and take a stand. "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." If it's true that NO American court will allow the people access to peaceful redress of such a fundamental concern, then I'm afraid we have indeed arrived at the moment in history when the people are left to their own remedies. I will NOT call for violent actions, but I sure have no hesitation in predicting that violent action is the natural result of no access to peaceful solutions. The people are tirelessly, relentlessly and patiently hoping that some court somewhere will rise to the duty of their oath to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, before the people themselves have to rise in defense of their beloved country. If the courts continue to run interference of Obama & Co., I predict it will be a grave error of enormous proportions... In the end, citizens of this country will demand freedom and a constitutional government. They will seek peaceful solutions first, but when all else fails, they will once again arise to the call of duty, in defense of the greatest nation ever known to mankind. For freedom to exist anywhere on earth, it must exist in the United States of America. I sincerely pray for wisdom in the courts, before the people run out of patience. The "birthers" aren't crazy. They're right! The Constitution either means what it says or it means nothing at all. If it means nothing at all, then the people are on their own and the time to alter or abolish has arrived. Trackback(0)
Comments (26)
  written by Anti Liberal, October 15, 2009
Thank you so much for stating so eloquently what I've been thinking since before the election. I know that we're not alone!
Patriots want redress as promised by the Constitution! I pray God will open the door to peacefully saving this country and restoring the Constitutional Republic that our founding fathers started. If not, then we need to restart with the Declaration of Independence. May freedom and liberty rein!
 written by show us NOW!, October 15, 2009
BATTLE HYMN OF THE UNSINKABLE BIRTHERS!
(Sung to the tune of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic") Mine eyes have not yet seen Obama's birth certificate. It is in the Devil's Vault, Where only God's Right Hand can get. Obama's C. O. L. B. is a Lousy counterfeit. It's truth we're marching for!!!! Orly! Orly! Hallelujah!!! Orly! Orly! Hallelujah!!! Orly! Orly! Hallelujah!!! It's truth we're marching for!!!! We shall fight the Masked Usurper On the beaches, in the hills. We shall fight this Painted Joker On the seas and in the fields. We shall fight to Hell and back And into court and with appeals. It's truth we're marching for! Orly! Orly! Hallelujah!!! Orly! Orly! Hallelujah!!! Orly! Orly! Hallelujah!!! It's truth we're marching for!!!! (Author grants permission to reprint on web or in print and to perform in public)
 written by Anthony, October 15, 2009
He is the ONLY president in US history to hide his entire past. Is contradicted by the fact that he is the only president in US history to make his birth certificate available to the public. This is fact where you believe it authentic or not. When some make an error of omission, it become apparent that they are more concerned with framing the facts to support their argument.
"Maybe "birthers" are nuts! They have only asked for a simple birth certificate..." That is the exact reason that they are nuts, the birth certificate as stated aboved has been released. Where you believe in the authenticity is another issue. However, nobody has been able to prove that it is not authentic.
 written by Mark Eden, October 15, 2009
Excellent article JB! My thoughts exactly! That's what I have been saying all along - what the hell is going on here? Is everybody asleep? Do they not realize that the very fabric that our great country was founded on is being torn to shreds by this Administration and the main stream media that refuses to ask even the most basic questions of them? This has gone way beyond PC. This is a Socialist takeover.
Why have more than 12 judges refused to at the very least require Obama to produce his BC and school, pa*sport papers to prove he is Constitutionally eligible to serve a President? Aren't they sworn to uphold the Constitution? For the life of me I'm at a loss. The only conclusion one can come to is we are in the middle of a take over of are Country! This may require those of us who hold the Constitution dear to do things we never thought we would have to do to protect it. I have never been more afraid for the future of out Country than I am at this time. The media is so complicit in this......they won't even report the fact that Obama has spent over ONE MILLION of tax payer dollars to keep his personal records sealed. The only Americans who know this are the ones who listen to talk radio and read the blogs on the internet -hell Fox News won't even report it. IT IS A FACT! It is time this man is made accountable. If these weak knee judges are afraid of the fallout of having the election results voided because of Obama's BC......I say too bad, we will deal with that. It comes down to this -We either have a Constitution or we don't..and if we do, than it is bigger than one traitor from Kenya, and we had better be willing to stand up and defend her!
 written by jai, October 15, 2009
It is frightening to even post in response to this powerful analysis of what is happening right before our eyes in our once free country.
Beginning early in the campaign, I repeatedly posted similar analyses of the available information. Surely they American voter knew they were voting for a man they knew nothing about, but he was elected anyway. Obama's eligibility is th4e foundation for many of the incredibly oppressive tactics of the government and is the most important issue facing our country. The socialist takeovers of our economic and governmental systems also are used as distractions from the Presidential lie that is at the foundation of the leadership of our country. As our founders knew, the lie can be used to control the leadership and ultimately our country. Much of the blame for this abuse of our constitution rests with the media, including FOX for their ourtiright refusal to cover this important issue. Before they were removed from the internet, Bloomberg and others posted information about the blind funds established by Saudi Arabia and other Islamist countries for the purpose of acquiring controlling interest in the U.S. media and their parent companies. And the American public seems to have forgotten how a group calling themselves the "Islamic Nation" proudly claimed credit for 9-11 and declared they would not stop in their effort to destroy America, but would "Destroy the infidel (America) from within." Though calling the group 'radicals' isolates them from the larger Islamic society, the radical ideas are evident in the Koran that is the foundation for the entire Islamic movement. Now that same "Islamic Nation" appears to be following the Nazi pattern of first taking control of the media in order to establish fear and chaos among the people, then using the perceived crisis to socialize the government and install a corrupt leader. By controlling the media, the Obama administration has been able to use ridicule and labeling (birther?) to establish George W. Bush as the villain to be blamed for socialist takeovers and every American ill. Keep posting, keep resisting, and pray for our country.
 written by Tony Licursi, October 15, 2009
The difference is citizen vs. natural born citizen. If the Constitution's Framers said natural born they didn't mean native born or naturalized citizen -or dummies, or enemy moles!
I expect you next to question why a C-section baby can't grow up to be the Commander-in-Chief.
 written by Petra, October 15, 2009
The first "Birthers" were liberals and Democrats who did everything they could to convince people that McCain was not a natural-born citizen because he was allegedly born in Panama, and not in the Canal Zone, a protectorate of the US.
They even went so far as to post TWO FORGED BIRTH CERTIFICATES online that appeared to corroborate their claim. It was a liberal RINO by the name of Fred Hollander who sued McCain in March 2008 on the same grounds that Berg would later raise against Obama. The big media were all over this -- just the opposite of how they shielded Obama and called anyone who asked to see Obama's birth certificate, a "right-wing nutjob." The media never called the Democrats "wing-nuts," "conspiracy freaks," and especially galling, "racists." McCain settled the issued by showing a copy of his original birth certificate, issued by the hospital in the US Naval Base at Colo Loco, Panama, to the Senate who, in turn, pa*ses a nonbinding resolution confirming McCain as an NBC. Obama was co-sponsor of this resolution. So, why didn't the Senate issue the same thing for Obama? Because they all knew from the start that Obama was not an NBC.
 written by SQ, October 15, 2009
US Code 1401 defines US citizens as based on the 14th amendment.
Article II section 1 Clause specifically DISallows mere US citizens from being President. Only double-allegiance natural born citizens can be president. This means both parents are US citizens and the child is born in-country. And so by defining Obama as a US citizen, he's ineligible because SCOTUS precedent Minor v Happersett says that a 14th amendment citizen is not a natural born citizen. If Obama were born in the USA, which is doubtful, but even if he were he'd only be a 14th amendment citizen and sitll ineligible. Obama is a fraud and an installed usurper. US v Wong Kim Ark says no native born child of an alien can be a natural born citizen.
 written by Adam, October 15, 2009
I'm sorry to have to point this out, but Obama and his cronies are hardly 'socialists'. They merely represent one set of corporate masters, versus the ones behind the Bush administration: nuclear vs. oil, Eastern vs. Western coal companies, HMOs vs. fee-for-service insurers, media-telecom firms vs. broadband, Microsoft vs. IBM. Enough of this 'socialist' nonsense--it's all too much definition creep. If you want to call somebody a commie, try Socialist Workers' Party Presidential Candidate Roger Calero. BTW, Calero was forthright and honest about being born in Nicaragua, yet got on the ballot anyhow.
Obamacare is hardly 'socialist', like the British NHS, Canada's system, or even the existing, government-run Medicare and Medicaid programs...which his plan will cut funding to. Rather, it's a guaranteed market for Obama's donors in the medical-financial (HMO) sector. (The 'public option' merely pulls bad risks out of their actuarial pools, which is why they actually sopport it.) Obama's very capitalistic pharmaceutical company donors get their perks. Top porkbarrel prize of all, though, goes to Microsoft, for their medical records program: $20B+, for a $20M campaign donation--not a bad investment. In case you're wondering, Bill Gates and Steve Balmer are capitalist pigs par exellance. Those big capitalists who run the media-telecom sector have the most riding on Obama. the media has always donated generously to the Democrats, but--with the whitespace spectrum reallocation issue--this has taken on a greater urgency. The Bush FCC's whitespace decision sent these firms into a conniption (thy're still suing the government over it). It's a multibillion-dollar per year issue. Obama doesn't run the media; the media owns him. There are many problems with and questions over Obama. However, neither B.O., nor his corporate backers are even remotely 'socialist'.
 written by George, October 15, 2009
Your statement is ridiculous of its face. You say that the "Constitution" had indeed defined natural born citizen and then you cite a federal statute in support. Is the entire U.S. federal code now deemed part of the Constitution?
 written by Runninbear, October 15, 2009
I have been on this since before the elections,when they busted his illegal Aunt living on public housing and working there while under a deportation since 2004.The only thing that has changed in kenya is Raila Odinga tried to get elected to the President of Kenya,with the help of then senator Obama.He lost? He then went on a killing spree,to stop him they had to share the prime Minister's postion.So why is she needing alsyum.While there Obama took part in a Foreign Political party's oath of alliegence,The "LOU TRIBAL LOYALITY OATH" His father was a member of the same Political party.Isn't there something in the oath that prohibits a U.S senator from getting that involved in anothers countries elections.
We keep hoping the media will wake up and start looking like the journalist that we were proud to call reporters? Woodwrad and Bernstein? they were JOURNALIST?
 written by Sandra Peterson, October 15, 2009
Would it really make a difference if the President whipped out a long form of a birth certificate at this point? Would you think it valid? I was born in 1959 and my birth certificate is labeled certificate of live birth. It does not mention the name of the doctor or a hospital and my middle name is spelled incorrectly. My husband's birth certificate is labeled abstract certificate of live birth. When my daughter's birth certificate was misplaced, we received a form that looks much like the one President Obama has produced. He has shown what the state of Hawaii provides those seeking a birth certificate. His birth was announced by two Hawaii newspapers shortly after his birth. He was born in Hawaii. You all need to give it a rest.
 written by raizing, October 15, 2009
I am not a conspiracy believer at all. However, it seems to me that Obama is spending a lot of money (our money) to fight something that is supposedly already proven. If Obama is a natural born citizen, then why is he fighting to keep his record sealed? Not just his birth certificate, but all of his records. Doesn't it disturb you that he is fighting so hard to keep everything a secret. McCain produced his certified birth certificate and the rest of his life was an open book. If he has nothing to hide, then he should just release the info and we would all go away and drop the issue. Only a person who has something to hide protests so much. To me, it is not just the birth certificate, there are other documents he won't allow anyone to see. Why not? What does he have to hide?
 written by gzar, October 16, 2009
Very well written. One of the very best on this topic. I was not born here, but have been fortunate to move here. I grew up in Romania, and believe me, I know the meaning of the above words. I just hope that this sleep may not last for too long. It s very sad to see the slow socialization of this country.
Even after all of these years, they ask me to show my pa*sport to prove that I am citizen when renewing the driver license. It does not bother me, why our need to see his, bothers him so much?
 written by One of Those Truthers JB Bashed To Lend Cred To His Article, October 16, 2009
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html
Anonymous: Consult the above posting of the US Code. Then click on the "How Current is This Link?" You will see it says, "Title 8 of the US Code as currently published by the US Government reflects the laws pa*sed by Congress as of Jan. 5, 2009." Even if it did show someone in Obama's situation is indeed a qualified national or citizen, the code still reflects laws pa*sed after he usurped the office. He is, as a blog poster SEO* wrote, a "PHUCUS" ("Person Having Usurped Control of the United States"). *http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/hawaii-attorney-general-invokes-attorney-client-privilege-concerning-doh-natural-born-citizen-press-release-of-july-27-2009/
 written by anonymous, October 16, 2009
George, I never said the constitution defined 'natural born citizen' It makes reference to that term but doesn't define it. You have to go to uscode Title 8 section 1401 to find out what it is.
"One of Those Truthers JB Bashed To Lend Cred To His Article", At least you looked which I find refreshing. One problem though is if you go to find the amendments you will find that the last amendment to that section was done in 1994. The last time the system was reindexed was in January of 2009. Also, changes to the USCode have to be made by congress, not the president so he couldn't have made a change that quick (also it was Jan 5, 2009 so he wasn't in office yet). As for smugly, I find it interesting that you think you can see how I feel and reply. Please remember that in online forums, there is no indication of the emotion at the time of posting. That is the difference of being face to face versus typing in a forum or blog. SQ, The only thing the constitution says is "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States. " That is why they had to define what that was. No where is the term Double allegiance used for the requirements for President. That is a legal term meaning that you have allegiance to more than one country so I don't think you would want that. As for the cases you site, Minor v Happersett concerns women's suffrage and is no longer considered good law. With the US v Wong Kim Ark, the SCOTUS held "A child born in the United States to foreign parents who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction automatically becomes a U.S. citizen." so it says the opposite of what you implied as well.
 written by Tom Mulligan, October 16, 2009
On behalf of the democratic party, please keep this nonsense up for the next seven years, if you can.
 written by anonymously posting, October 17, 2009
To all those people who keep insisting that Obama has shown his birth certificate because they saw it posted on the internet, (and actually think whats on the internet is evidence of anything)--I wonder if they would be interested in buying my beautiful ocean-front property located in the middle of Kansas? I will gladly post pictures on the internet for you.
 written by Micheal, October 19, 2009
Fact -- Between 1988 and 1990 at Harvard in Cambridge, Ma*sachusetts, Obama ama*sed 17 parking tickets that he never paid. When these came to light during the 2008 campaign, the next day someone paid $400 by credit card to clear them after 20 years via the Cambridge website. Question -- Did he have a driver's license when he got these tickets?
 written by borderraven, October 20, 2009
This fake was caught in email. Hopefull the response was quick to shut it down.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21333499/Fake-Cert --- --- --- --- Here are URLs to three Long Form COLBs from Honolulu, Hawaii, for births occurring between (August 1961 to June 1962): http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/a*sets/gif/M1139416728.GIF http://pa*sportsusa.com/wp-content/gallery/pa*sportusa/edith_front.jpg http://pa*sportsusa.com/wp-content/gallery/pa*sportusa/edith_rear.jpg :/ BR
written by borderraven, October 20, 2009
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: No person except a natural born citizen ...shall be eligible to the office of President.
The issue of whether or not Obama is “eligible to the office of President” depends upon whether or not he is an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States. The phrase “natural born citizen” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution” (Wong Kim Ark: Paragraph 16). United States v. Wong Kim Ark., 18 S. Ct. 456, 169 U.S. 649 (U.S. 03/28/189  [1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES [16] The Constitution nowhere de?nes the meaning of these words ["citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States"], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the af?rmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this, as in other respects, it [The Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. The “common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution” is plainly expressed in “Scott v. Sandford”, which quotes Vattel, and explicitly states, “The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…” Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (U.S. 01/02/1856) [1] UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT [418] …The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens… [419] Again: [420] …to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen, for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p. 101. With regard to citizenship issues, the Supreme Court of the United States, in The Venus, relied upon Vattel’s “Law of Nations” as the authority on citizenship issues, and stated the following: The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 1814 “Vattel, …is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [CITIZENSHIP ISSUES] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, [Vattel] says, ‘the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’ ” Vattel’s Law of Nations: § 212. Citizens and natives The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Finally, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Minor v. Happersett, confirmed the definition of an Article II natural born citizen as “children born in a country of parents who were its citizens”. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874) "No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President" and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. 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. Suffice it to say, Article II natural born citizens, “are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Hence, Obama is NOT an Article II natural born citizen of the United States, even if he was born in Hawaii, as his father was a “foreigner". Thus, Obama is NOT "eligible to the office of President".
written by borderraven, October 20, 2009
Citizenship only requires birth of blood or on soil. If NBC only required birth on soil, then a few million anchor babies would qualify for POTUS. You have flimsy evidence of a Hawaiian birth, Hawaiian residence, yes, but not a birth. The requirement, of both blood and soil for NBC, has long been established and followed, until, BHO fraudulently conspired with Nancy Pelosi, and usurped POTUS, for the DNC. Obama admits his father was British.
Therefore he is a FRAUD POTUS! "American citizen by birth", and a "natural born citizen" Immigrants are aliens who carry a pa*sport and obey the laws. Illegal aliens don't have a pa*sport, and don't obey the laws. Aliens do not have a birth right of USA citizenship. Pressure your state legislature, attornet general, US Senators, and the Congress: An alien is not subject to the Jurisdiction of the USA, as they are traveling under a pa*sport, except both an illegal alien and an alien under pa*sport, have not relinquished bonds to their homeland, nor established allegiance to the USA, and the citizenship of the mother transfers to the minor child. Aliens can run to or call on their consulates or Emba*sy, for help, since they owe allegiance to and are subject to the jurisdiction of laws and treaties, of their homeland, not the USA. A child born to an alien mother, with no known USA citizen father, on USA soil, really should not be a USA citizen, since the parent is subject to foreign jurisdiction, and has not established allegiance to the USA. Fix the 14th by revision of 8 USC 1401!
written by borderraven, October 20, 2009
Both the Democratic party and the Republican party, have become so inbred over the decades, that the each try their most to present their best bastard for President.
Go Third party, and register American Independent Party, and break the stranglehold the corporation owned media and lobbies have. Search Discoverthenetworks :/ BR
Write comment
|
| Last Updated on Wednesday, 14 October 2009 20:57 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Login Form
 |
 |
Subscribe to our Weekly Newsletter
|
|
Thank you for so eloquently putting into words the precise way I have been feeling for a long time. All along, I kept thinking that it would just be a matter of time before the truth came out. On the Friday before the general election, I called the Sean Hannity show and politely asked the call screener if Sean would take a call on this issue since I had never heard him bring up. Her reaction was to get really pissy with me and then she proceeded to tell me how Sean thought it was a "bogus issue". I asked her, 'how can Sean know that if he hasn't seen the long form birth certificate?' To which she replied, "don't ever call back" and then she hung up. And I sat there stunned because I realized that even those that I thought would be my friends were clearly not.
What was said to all of these right wing talking heads to make them go south on this issue? I first learned about the issue with the birth certificate on Michelle Malkin's site in June 2008. But after that, she went mute on the subject along with all of the other right wing talking heads. Were threats made? How else is this explainable?
All along, I thought for sure these talking heads would begin chiding and cajoling Obama into producing the documentation before the election. But they didn't. They just smoothed his path into the White House.
Clearly there are forces at play that transcend us little people. But I want my country back!!