Posted on 07/03/2013 9:04:28 AM PDT by FreedomOutpost
We know that John Brennan got the head job of the Central Intelligence Agency. However, as we stated in a previous article, by obtaining the records of Barack Obama he may well show that Obama is not eligible to be President.
Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/07/does-the-cia-director-have-barack-obamas-records-that-prove-he-is-ineligible-to-be-president/#ixzz2XzxgGS3K
You believe the father of the 14th Amendment on citizenship was a bullsheeter?
No. As you well know, I believe you and the other birthers are “bullsheets” who take Bingham’s words out of context and misrepresent what he was saying.
This has been gone over many times before. One of these days I will probably write a thorough analysis of Bingham’s words, their context, and how they have been twisted by birthers. Specifically, birthers have interpreted “subject to no foreign sovereignty” to include people who were resident aliens, when it’s clear from other things Bingham and those around him said that that was not the intent of those words.
Which also explains why they CHANGED that wording in the 14th Amendment. It didn’t say exactly what they meant.
Suffice it to say, Bingham NEVER said that citizenship was restricted to those born on US soil of citizen parents, or that those born to non-citizen parents were generally not citizens, or anything of the sort. And it is clear from the entire context of the historical record that neither he nor any of the others who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, or introduced the 14th Amendment, believed any such thing.
I liked Marco Rubio, but he's lost me. I no longer support him.
I do, however, support Ted Cruz.
I thought you might say that.
Just an FYI....
The White House has no public schedule posted after July 2nd.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/schedule/complete/2013-07-05
You are obviously aggravated by all this, which begs the question: why are you intent on self-inflicting more aggravation? Why wouldn't you satisfy your search for "no bullsh*t" by forgetting about all this? You are failing to display any sense of logical behavior. Go away. You are not wanted here.
By the way, the term is "eligibility", not "birther". Only leftist moles call us "birthers".
He's gonna have some 'splainin' to do with 'Lucie':
These six [things] doth the LORD hate: yea, seven [are] an abomination unto him:
A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
A heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
A false witness [that] speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
--Proverbs 6:16-19
He's just another iteration. A disciple. More practiced, perhaps, more thought and experience after all these years, but peel the FR facade away and all you see is just another Beast worshiping darksider.
Only leftist moles call us "birthers".
Good call. Exactly right.
I think you are right. My time online is limited so this is the only blog I read. I am interested in this issue and I read here to stay informed on it.
I don’t go to other sites that have an opposing view and spend my time arguing with them.
I can’t imagine why JW gives so much of his time and attention to posting opposing views on these threads.
It just doesn’t make sense.
Because people constantly posting of bullsh*t in the name of conservatism, and people constantly trying to mislead conservatives by posting a false narrative, is both offensive and wrong.
I can't bring myself to believe that people like DiogenesLamp really believe the crap they post. If you look at the facts, it's clear that what they post is bullsh*t.
And when you debunk one stupid thing that is clearly not true, they post another stupid thing that clearly isn't true.
So they cycle through several dozen of these BS claims and BS arguments (all the while calling names and insulting those who point out the truth).
And then a week later they go back and report the same stupid crap that's already been debunked 10 times before.
And frankly also, the way that those of us who value the truth have been treated by birthers is extremely offensive as well.
As I said to someone the other day, I had a choice of whether to give in to thugs like DiogenesLamp, or fight back. I chose to fight back.
There are those of us here who promote the truth, period. There are those of us who believe that conservatism doesn't need BULLSH*T to promote it. There are those of us who believe the truth is our friend, and lies are inherently wrong, counterproductive, and a betrayal of our traditional conservative values.
Since birtherism is false - and I've looked at so many BS claims without ever finding ONE that could stand up to an honest examination that I can say that with absolute confidence - there's NOTHING that birthers can contribute to the conservative cause that is of any value whatsoever.
All they can do is waste our efforts and make us look bad.
I CARE ABOUT THE CONSERVATIVE CAUSE. I CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH.
All of those are reasons why I oppose the BS of birthers. They are doing everything they can to distract and damage conservatism.
I don't even care whether it's deliberate or not. That's still the effect.
Birthers have made us look like idiots from day one.
I wouldn't mind if the birther stuff was actually TRUE. In THAT case, I would probably join in myself, because there would actually be a chance of birthers actually winning something, someday.
But there isn't.
All they can ever do is mislead the gullible and make us - the conservative movement as a whole - look bad.
Wich they unfortunately are experts at.
If you want an explanation, see post 109.
As far as calling birthers “birthers,” THAT’S WHAT THEY ARE.
They are people who claim the current President is ineligible by reason of his BIRTH.
I can’t think of any other SHORT, USABLE descriptive term.
And no, I’m NOT typing out something like “eligibility skeptics” every single time I refer to birthers.
It’s not even true. Probably at least half of birthers KNOW that what they’re posting is bullsh*t. It’s been pointed out to them, irrefutably, many many times.
And if you want another explanation, look at the scripture in post 107.
If you've got the certificate, present verifiable documentation. Otherwise, it's simply speculation.
Like so much of birther stuff.
Speculation is not proof.
Personally, I'm absolutely certain Obama is a reptilian alien and is actually a stepbrother of George W. Bush and Lady Gaga.
Your “citizenship” is your claim on/to a nation that is also that nation’s claim on/to you.
It’s similar to property claim/title concepts, such as in real estate and vehicles, for examples most have experience with. Or, given the number of single parents, very common to issues of adoption, inheritance, etc.
Who and what then has the right to claim you and vice versa or pass along to you such claims and entitlements, such as they may be, as a result of your birth?
Is it the Monarch/Emperor/Government who/that owns claim to all territory and those living there? Yes.
Does citizenship also come from one or both parents? Yes, from one or both.
Thus, a child can be and often is claimed by the nation that owns the territory where that child is born.
And, a child is also claimed by each parent and each parent’s nation via their citizenship.
Essentially, a child could be born in a country that neither parent is a citizen of. What then? Who has claim of citizenship and vice versa?
Do all of the King’s subjects and their children belong to the King, no matter where his subjects give birth? Sure, that’s not uncommon.
Does the King claim all children born in his Kingdom, regardless of what nation their parents might belong to? You bet.
Are their international legal claims that have supported or been reasons to go to war over regarding these examples throughout history at the time of our founding? You betcha.
Nations have over time developed a vocabulary to precisely define each type of citizenship based upon the circumstances of that child’s birth, whether they recognize them or not and what the rights and privileges of each might be and international laws and treaties that state them.
Knowing this, having experience with the concepts and issues noted and with history, the FFs chose a precise definition/class/standard of citizenship to avoid all legal or allegiance issues/problems/contentions, and keep it in the family, so to speak.
Of those, the FF chose the highest standard, the only one that avoids all such potential issues.
The only classification/definition that can possibly do this a condition where all claims have the same ultimate source: a child born in the country that both parents are citizens of.
No matter how anyone or any nation defines citizenship or the basis for any and all claims by parent, child or nation/ruler, that child is a Natural Born Citizen of that nation and NO OTHER.
For the single, most powerful person in their new government, with 1/3 of its legislative power, the power to sign treaties and bills into the laws that govern us, and with control over the nation’s armed forces, they went with the highest standard and so noted it in the eligibility requirement.
This is what I was taught in 5th grade. It is backed up in my life experience. It is supported by common sense.
You and all the others who come here to blow fog on this issue will not talk me out of this belief until you counter the above logically.
But you won’t, because you can’t.
And, you won’t because you have to:
1) cover up whatever was done to elect obama and
2) force the lesser standards on US to ram amnesty down our throats again for those who broke in and now claim citizenship via adverse possession.
Logically, NBC is a three input AND gate where the inputs are nation and citizenship of mom and of dad.
The only one that comes up true is where all inputs are the same.
That's a Natural, NOT native, Born Citizen.
It seems that today all those agencies are spying on Americans but they don't seem to have the time to investigate their own president for fraud and forgery concerning his 1980 Selective Service form. In this instance, he can't hide behind privacy laws.
What am I talking about?
I'm talking about Obama's Selective Service form signed by "Obama" in July 29, 1980 in Hawaii, when there is strong evidence that Obama was not even in Hawaii that summer, the first summer after his first year at Occidental in California. There is strong evidence, however, and eyewitnesses that say that Obama stayed in California that summer.
So if Obama was in California that 1980 entire summer, then how could he have signed that Selective Service form on July 29, 1980 in Hawaii?
1. Why don't reporters and talk show hosts like Hannity and Limbaugh challenge Obama to explain what he did that summer, because Obama cannot hide behind privacy laws in this situation?
2. Senators and Representatives: Why don't some Senators and Reps challenge Obama on the floor of Congress to explain how he could sign such a form in Hawaii when the evidence seems to say that Obama was in California that entire summer?
3. What is everybody scared of? Isn't it a felony to forge such a federal form?
4. Come on. Somebody in authority and in the media please challenge Obama: Why not simply ask him what he did the summer of 1980, the summer after his first year at Occidental, because he can't hide behind privacy laws in this situation.
5. If Obama did not sign that Selective Service form in 1980 in Hawaii, then someone else did, and Obama is guilty of forgery, and he should be impeached.
I, too, learned this in Elementary school...and this is what I said to my family members when I first heard of Barack Obama in Jan or Feb, 2008 before is birth certificate was ever mentioned. What concerned me was his father was a student here on visa. Therefore, he was not eligible to run for President.
correction to previous post: “before his birth certificate was ever mentioned”
Of those, the FF chose the highest standard, the only one that avoids all such potential issues.
Once again, you are taking the wrong approach to history.
History is not a record of what you think the Founding Fathers did, because it makes perfect sense to you to do it that way.
History is not a record of what I think the Founding Fathers did, because that's how I would do it.
History is a record of WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID.
Period.
You can't determine what the Founding Fathers did by theorizing, or saying, "This is what the Founding Fathers would have done."
You can't determine what the Founding Fathers did by saying, "This is the only way that makes sense."
Anybody can say, "The Founding Fathers would have done THIS."
And BELIEVE it.
And use it to claim anything.
Because the Founding Fathers would never have wanted people to live in poverty.
So they were totally in favor of taxing some in order to keep others from starving.
After all, it's a matter of life and death. And it's not fair that some should live and some should starve to death or be malnourished.
And the Founding Fathers were intelligent, fair people.
And the Founding Fathers would never have opposed people who loved each other having the right to marry each other.
Would they?
And the Founding Fathers wanted everyone to have the right to health care. So they were absolutely in support of something like Obamacare. They just didn't have enough tax revenue to make it happen in 1776.
See that?
It's all nonsense, of course.
But it shows how this approach - "This is what the Founding Fathers wanted" - can be used to justify ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING.
Obamacare. The welfare state. Gay marriage. Anything you like.
There is not a person alive today who knew any one of the Founding Fathers personally. Because the last Founding Father died about 180 years ago.
Our world is vastly different from theirs. Many of our assumptions are vastly different from theirs. And this is true whether the person doing the assuming is conservative, liberal, or anywhere in between.
So if we don't determine what the Founding Fathers did based on what they "must" have done, or what they "would" have done, how do we determine what they did?
We determine it BASED ON THE HISTORICAL RECORDS OF WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DID AND SAID.
That's the only way.
You can't start with your 21st-century THEORY of what YOU would have done, and put that on the Founders.
Because they never operated according to 21st-century logic.
They operated WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THEIR WORLD AND WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THEIR THINKING.
NOT YOURS AND NOT MINE.
So we have to go to the HISTORICAL AND LEGAL RECORD.
And the historical and legal record is this:
We were English colonies.
Although there were certainly some settlers from all over Europe, we weren't French colonies, or Dutch colonies, or Swiss colonies.
We were ENGLISH colonies.
We derived our entire legal system and our entire legal world view, as well as pretty much all of our law vocabulary, from the English system.
Is this not so?
It is so.
This has been commented on many times, by many people, including the United States Supreme Court.
Founder Alexander Hamilton noted that when you want to understand the terms written in the Constitution, you should look to the legal vocabulary of the country that gave us our legal terminology.
The US Supreme Court has noted that the Constitution is written in the legal language of the English common law.
This is a fundamental principle of our law.
In fact, as noted by Vice-Chancellor Lewis Sandford in 1844, there is an entire long LIST of legal terms used IN OUR CONSTITUTION that appear no place OTHER than in the English common law.
Well into the 1800s, the backbone of legal training in this country was the ENGLISH COMMON LAW, with the primary text being Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England.
For a great many American lawyers, Blackstone's Commentaries on the English common law were the ONLY legal training they received.
This is AMERICAN lawyers I'm talking about. In the 1800s.
Is this not true?
It is completely and absolutely true.
And there is really no question among historians or legal scholars that this is the case. This is not controversial.
So back to: What does the historical evidence say the Founding Fathers meant by "natural born citizen?"
That evidence is very clear.
The term "natural born" was WELL KNOWN from the phrase "natural born subject."
We changed "subject" to "citizen," so it is ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS that "natural born citizen" would mean the same thing as "natural born subject," except for the difference between "subject" and "citizen."
Birthers claim we got the term from a Swiss philosopher who wrote a book in the mid 1700s.
But we didn't. There's not the slightest historical evidence to support the idea.
Nor is there any real historical evidence to support the idea that "natural born citizen" required citizen parents.
There were a few - a VERY few - people who thought the children of non-citizens weren't citizens.
Birthers latch onto the extremely few, who were widely and totally contradicted by pretty much everyone, including every major legal authority of early America.
It was completely a fringe opinion, held only by the likes of Samuel Roberts (who, again, gave no reason for his opinion and was flatly contradicted by far more authoritative sources) and David Ramsay (who, again, was voted down 36 to 1 by our first House, including the Father of the Constitution and half a dozen other signers of the Constitution).
If birthers really wanted to adhere to the Founding Fathers' position, they would acknowledge the overwhelming evidence of what that position actually was.
But they don't. They don't CARE what the Founding Fathers actually, really and truly thought, wrote and said.
Because their adherence is not to the Founding Fathers, but to their idea of what THEY would have done IF THEY had been the Founding Fathers.
So it's not an adherence to our history or our law or our Founding Fathers at all.
It's an adherence to THEIR OWN OPINIONS AND THEIR OWN PREFERENCES.
This is really no different from liberals trying to rewrite the Constitution according to their preferences.
I'm not for ANYONE trying to break the Constitution and rewrite according to his or her own personal preference.
The Constitution is what it is. The Constitution is sacred. We aren't allowed to rewrite it based on our own personal preferences.
If you don't like what the Founding Fathers decided, then you can try to get a Constitutional Amendment to change it. They provided that process, because they knew things would need to be changed.
If you think the qualifications for President SHOULD be "born on US soil to two citizen parents," fine. Pass a Constitutional Amendment to make it that way.
But don't pretend that's what the Founding Fathers specified, because ACCORDING TO ALL PAST HISTORY AND LAW, INCLUDING THE ENTIRE OVERWHELMING WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE FROM EARLY AMERICA, THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY SPECIFIED.
Now, you have a choice.
You can either accept reality, and accept that the Founding Fathers had their own definitions, and you can't rewrite them, or you can stick your fingers in your ears and set yourself against both the truth, and the Founding Fathers themselves.
Let’s stay focused, Jeff.
You stated no one has proven the birth certificate to be irrelevant in determining the eligibility for the office of POTUS. I provided an example of a situation where the birth certificate was irrelevant in determining eligibility for POTUS; i.e. Obama naturalized years after his birth and made his place of birth irrelevant.
Here’s another example:
Regardless of where John McCain was born, he is eligible to be POTUS because his parents were U.S. Citizens at the time of his birth. Regardless of where McCain was born or what information is on his birth certificate, his parent’s citizenship status at the time of his birth make him eligible for POTUS. Consequently, the birth certificate is irrelevant.
It’s a false narrative perpetuated by Obama supporters that Obama has proven he eligible by providing the currently available records from the State of Hawaii. Obama needs to waive his privacy rights and disclose his immigration records with DHS to prove he did enter the United States in 1971 as an Indonesian National and naturalize in 1983. His birth certificate is irrelevant and amendable.
Knowing this, having experience with the concepts and issues noted and with history, the FFs chose a precise definition/class/standard of citizenship to avoid all legal or allegiance issues/problems/contentions, and keep it in the family, so to speak.
Of those, the FF chose the highest standard, the only one that avoids all such potential issues.
For the single, most powerful person in their new government, with 1/3 of its legislative power, the power to sign treaties and bills into the laws that govern us, and with control over the nation’s armed forces, they went with the highest standard and so noted it in the eligibility requirement.
This is what I was taught in 5th grade. It is backed up in my life experience. It is supported by common sense.
You and all the others who come here to blow fog on this issue will not talk me out of this belief until you counter the above logically.
But you won’t, because you can’t.
Once again, I note your reasons for believing the above.
"It is what I was taught in 5th grade."
"It is backed up in my life experience."
"It is supported by common sense."
Now note what you didn't say:
You didn't say that the historical evidence supports it.
And that was well left out, because the historical evidence does NOT support the idea.
So once again, we are back to: "My theory, and my 'common sense,' trump the historical record."
But they don't. The historical record is the ONLY reliable indicator of HISTORY.
Anything else is simply fantasy, and a denial of the truth of our history.
But let's go with your theory for a moment.
Your THEORY goes like this:
The Founding Fathers were wise.
Therefore, the Founding Fathers would have chosen - make that "chose" - only the highest possible citizenship qualification for President.
So the Founding Fathers did not tolerate any possible conflict of allegiance in a President. No one with any citizenship OTHER than United States citizenship could be allowed to serve as President, could they? Because possession of any citizenship other than United States citizenship is an indicator of a divided loyalty, a divided allegiance. Even if the person received that citizenship only because Italy (for example) grants citizenship to all children of its citizens worldwide, whether or not that person ever lived in Italy, spoke Italian, etc.
That is what we're talking about, right? By your theory, the current President, for example, is ineligible because he had British citizenship at birth, even though he has never permanently resided in Britain or Kenya and even though he doesn't even speak the Kenyan native language that his father spoke, and even though his British citizenship lapsed long ago.
So by your theory, having been granted foreign citizenship by some other country, at any point in one's life, is enough to permanently bar a person from the Presidency.
Now. Never mind that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that.
And never mind that nowhere in the entire history of our nation has any Founding Father, nationally-recognized legal expert, or court of any kind EVER stated that this complete lack of "dual allegiance" is in any way a requirement.
That, by the way, is absolutely remarkable, if your theory is true. A requirement exists, but no Founding Father or other nationally-recognized authority has EVER spoken or written about it or so much as acknowledged its existence?
Really???
The fact that NO SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITY IN OUR ENTIRE HISTORY HAS EVER MADE THE CLAIM YOU MAKE IN REGARD TO PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY - NOT ONE - to be a damn reliable indicator that the requirement DOES NOT EXIST.
Because thousands and thousands of pages have been written by the Founding Fathers, their contemporaries, nationally-recognized legal interpreters of the Constitution, foundations such as the Heritage Foundation, our courts, and the writers of textbooks.
THOUSANDS of pages.
And NOT ONCE has any of those sources ever made the claim you make.
Now that's logic. That's a demonstration: Your definition does not exist.
But there's another way of LOGICALLY demonstrating that your theory is hogwash.
You asked for logic, remember?
If your theory is true, then it is utterly intolerable to our Founding Fathers and their generation for anyone to have any kind of dual citizenship or dual allegiance, and serve as President.
And yet 3 of our first 4 Presidents were dual citizens of France, made so by the French legislature - AND WERE DUAL CITIZENS WITH FRANCE WHILE SERVING AS PRESIDENT.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison.
Three out of our first four.
AND ALL THREE WERE AMONG OUR MOST PROMINENT FOUNDING FATHERS.
By your theory, this isn't possible. Because the same logic that bars someone from serving as President if he was named a citizen of Italy as a baby, because his parents were Italian citizens, even though he himself had not the slightest relationship with the country of Italy, absolutely applies if someone, THROUGH HIS ACTUAL, REAL RELATIONSHIP WITH A FOREIGN COUNTRY IN ADULTHOOD WAS AWARDED CITIZENSHIP OF THAT COUNTRY AS AN ADULT.
So the Founding Fathers themselves absolutely contradict the rationale of your theory.
The fact is, it's a nice theory.
But it's not true. It is simply not in line with history.
So once again, you have a choice.
Do you go with the Founding Fathers and the truth of our history, or do you go with your own opinion of how you personally would write history?
I know who I pick. I pick the Founding Fathers and the truth.
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.