Posted on 03/12/2011 9:54:29 PM PST by thecodont
Continuing to thwart the United States Constitution and the people’s will, the Obama-Jarrett administration appears to be bribing the states considering eligibility legislation. Already Georgia* and New Hampshire’s eligibility bills will be postponed to 2013, clearly to protect Obama. And although there are signs of improvement in the language of the Arizona bill, what do you want to bet that will be postponed too?
The way the bribe is being set up only reinforces our own research that Congress is engaged in the cover up of the usurpation.
The goal is to reduce or threaten federal funding for key infrastructure projects in those states that have eligibility bills. But in order to hide the extortion, the reductions in funding must appear to come from Congress, specifically the republicans in Congress. Whatever loophole is left the democrat-controlled Senate will fix.
This is the federal government extracting behavior out of the states by leveraging our tax dollars. It is power the Founders never wanted our federal government to have.
(Excerpt) Read more at drkatesview.wordpress.com ...
Ping.
"Boston Globe: "native born" does not equal "natural born" for Presidential eligibility."
Natural Born Citizen (blog) ^ | March 12, 2011 | Leo Donofrio
Two can play that game, its time for we the people to go Gault stop work and demand an investigation into Obama’s eligivility. If we do nothing he will continue to usurp the Constitutions and Congress and the SCOTUS are co-conspirators IMO....cut off their tax dollars so they can’t use them against US.
What do we do? Stop paying taxes?
I wonder how many “protesters” would have to show up at the white house with signs callling for a birth certificate before the media would give it half the coverage the communists protesting in Wisconsin are getting.
sfl
Bttt
I am so totally NOT surprised.
The list, ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
He is not only bribing them, but, he is also threatening them.
Aah, yes ... he’s quite comfortable and very familiar with vengeful, spiteful retribution.
“Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother.”
That’s what President Barack Obama said to Rep. Peter DeFazio in a closed-door meeting of the House Democratic Caucus last week, according to the Associated Press.
“http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2220435/posts";
Why would Obama care if this was not a real issue? Why threaten if there’s nothing to it?
The issue is about much more than just the BC. It is also about why every detail of his entire life is off limits and is buried.
To me, this is the bigger issue.
I am open to suggestions, but it is past time to do something, and must be done prior to violence which these a$$ clowns don't seem to realize is almost the last step that is left.
Congress needs to fear losing their jobs and their contributions that help them keep their jobs..so how do we have any leverage over them? Voting seems to have scared some but not for long...they need us constantly in their face and realize that the issue must be resolved before things get better.
The people ended the Vietnam war (right or wrong) gave us civil right reform etc...the people own this country and need to take it back...Civil disobedience-nonviolen resistance to a non-responsive government...we need to take some lessons from history, we are on the right side of the issue..Congress & SCOTUS needs to fear repercussions for not doing the right thing more than fear of not covering up like they are currently doing. maybe we all need to key on a small number or reps and let them know we are not going away and the sooner they address this the better off the Nation will be.
Darrel Issa apparently has the power but doesn't seem interested in doing anything about eligibility, maybe we need to concentrate on him and his district? I suggest starting with polite persuasion then escalating if he is not receptive. Boehner appears to be compromised and doesn't have the fortitude to do the right thing...
While I believe his Mickey Mouse BC is a fraudulent document the first extant issue is:
Being born of two American Citizens, of which, he admits he wasn’t and details his dual citizenship in response to “Prover” claims.
Barry O. tried to pass of something that was inconsistent with what the rest of have and know to be a “Birth Certificate”.
The so called COLB has many flaws with it:
The best part and even more confusing is why he didn't release any of the three Birth Certificates we know already existed before 2007.
Those were most certainly BC’s and not a COLB. There is no reason to create confusion but, for the fact he is hiding something. That something will be discovered, though and this is a long process. “I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school. It’s a short piece, with a photograph of him. No mention is made of my mother or me, and I’m left to wonder whether the omission was intentional on my father’s part, in anticipation of his long departure. Perhaps the reporter failed to ask personal questions, intimidated by my father’s imperious manner; or perhaps it was an editorial decision, not part of the simple story that they were looking for. I wonder, too, whether the omission caused a fight between my parents.” From “Dreams From My Father” (Pg. 26 last paragraph) So with all these Birth Certificates lying around, why did he feel it necessary to produce a "Certification of Live Birth" that is inconsistent with a Birth Certificate and wholly lacking all of the information you would find, in you know, a Birth Certificate? He seemed to have some emotional attachment to the Birth Certificate found among his mother’s belongings. Why wouldn’t he just slap that one up, for all the world to see? It seemed important that he found a document that is called a “Birth Certificate” and it is highly unlikely he would not know what one looks like.
Hope no one brings up some house fire that vaporized his BC. That was in 1972 and none of the documents listed here would have been affected by that “fishy” event.
The issue of Natural Born Citizen was brought against John McCain long before Barrack was nominated to the DNC as a Presidential Candidate.
In fact, in order to place McCain on the ballot, the United States Senate went so far as to craft the Senate Resolution 511 proclaiming John McCain a Natural Born Citizen.
There is a cloud over Barrack's birth, to be sure. But the fact that still remains is his birth was of a divided nationality British and American. One is wholly one thing or another but not completely two things at the same time.
Senate Resolution 511
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;
Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;
Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;
Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;
Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
Now, let us take this simple and explore its hidden meaning.
Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;
They apparently have read the Constitution and have zeroed in on one clause that no law or legislative body has the right to amend.
Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
The term ‘natural born citizen’ is not defined, however other rulings by the Supreme Court, Congress, and other writings from such as John Bingham, do define what a ‘natural born citizen’ is. For sake of space I will only quote the following.
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 parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_Z…
Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;
So the Senate decided to make assumptions and attempt to pass a ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ on the same. We have already seen from the prior statement that they claimed to have no knowledge of the meaning, and its definition.
Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;
So the Senate decided to make assumptions and attempt to pass a ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ on the same. We have already seen from the prior statement that they have no knowledge of the meaning, and its definition.
Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;
It sounds nice, but means nothing? Some fluff but again means nothing.
Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and
Whom are they referring to, that was born ‘outside’ the United States and who deemed them eligible?
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
So the Senate gave by law, what nature failed to do. Would that not be a ‘naturalized’ citizenship?
So the Senate deemed that two (2) American or US Citizen parents was an essential to the definition of a ‘natural born citizen’ that was not defined in the Constitution. So how did they deem that the issue was being born outside the jurisdiction of the United States if they had no definition or requirements of what ‘constituted’ a ‘natural born citizen?’ It seems like they know the definition, but are hoping the American public doesn’t. There is but one defintion that a ‘natural born citizen’ has to have citizen parents and being born in country and that is Vattel’s Law of Nations.
As I refered to SR 511. SR511 is a non-binding, non-lawful understanding, that can not be held as a LAW. Being such, a non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that cannot progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion.This type of resolution is often used to express the body’s approval or disapproval of something which they cannot otherwise vote on, due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution.
Again, I will note: being protected by a constitution.
“Simple resolutions do not require the approval of the other house nor the signature of the President, and they do not have the force of law.”
The reason I make this point is that for the chance that John Mccain would have actually won the 2008 Presidential election. The issue of his eligibility not only would have been brought up, but would have stated congressional hearings, the likes of Watergate all over again. The Congress would have in no time instituted articles of impeachment and the motion would have been approved. Then the Senate would have their chance to remove John McCain, however since they already have voted with their ‘Gentlemen’s Agreement’, regardless how the vote went. A non-binding, non-lawful resolution that trumps the United States Constitution could be waved in front of the American public, and John McCain, could go back in the corner, stick his thumb in his pie, and exclaim “Oh, what a good boy am I.”
Senate Resolution 511, was an attempt to circumvent the United States Constitution, and amend the ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Clause of which there has NEVER been an amendment or change too.
More then just a non-binding resolution, SR511 defined John McCain’s eligibility based on being born of US Parents [NOTE the plural] but outside the country. Therefore the only alternative based on THEIR wording is ‘born in country’. They did not change the requirement of two (2) US parents.
Where is there a definition as to a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ based on parents [again plural] and born in country? Vattel’s Law of Nations.
Why if John McCain was held to these requirements, was Barack Obama not held of being born of US Parents [plural] and in the United States.
Barack Obama has admitted that not only was his father a foreign national, but that he himself was a British Subject at birth. A British Subject is a foreign national and how can a foreign national be a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as required by the United States Constitution?
They need to come out with proof of this and expose this with facts that cannot be denied.
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.