Posted on 04/30/2011 10:59:37 AM PDT by Hotlanta Mike
Obama has now personally and publicly acknowledged, albeit with the ‘silliness’ of an eight-year-old with a crayon and a piece of security paper*, that he is not a natural born Citizen – as defined by the Constitution:
1. Article II, Section 1:5 says that only a ‘natural born Citizen’ shall be eligible to the Office of President; 2. Article I, Section 8 says that Congress (under the authority granted by the People) shall have the power to… define and punish… Offenses against the Law of Nations; 3. The Law of Nations says that:
1.‘The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens’; 2.‘As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights’; 3.‘The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children’; 4.‘To be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.’ Now that Congress has been made fully (and publicly) aware that an ineligible non-natural born Citizen is occupying the Office of President and Commander in Chief (they could not be so stupid as to not know – see ‘Something Stupid This Way Comes’), it becomes incumbent upon them to begin impeachment proceedings immediately, lest their failure to act previously – or especially now that they and the whole world knows – makes them chargeable with Misprision of Treason.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
By conflating the issues you put the real issues with the false one (birther).
It opens the Left to say “you were wrong about ‘A’ so you are wrong about ‘B’ ‘C’ and ‘D’ as well.”
This is what was requested, he provided it, drop it. Else it becomes an anchor.
I just visited your link and that is 5 minutes of my life I will never get back.
It is 100% factually wrong in almost every statement it makes.
Do you have a link for meeting Elvis on a UFO -- that has more credibility.
Seriesly -- please stop spreading this nonsense. It splatters on all of us.
What is a natural born citizen.
This is the heart of your question.
To some, yes. However there is another valid question, and that is “what does the document released this week prove?”
In my opinion - the answer is “Nothing”.
It is a pdf electronic document, which is composed of various graphic elements. Anyone who knows how pdfs work can verify this. What is NOT is an image (like a scan or photograph) of a piece of paper.
Maybe years ago there was an original Obama HI birth certificate that was ultimately the source of the information that was contained in the pdf. If this could be proven I’ll be the first to agree this document carries some weight.
But without that proof - the textual content could as well have been typed by any of us.
Once you understand what the document is - and isn’t - the value of it as proof of birth disappears. All the original questions are still open, along with new ones, such as who created this pdf form, when, and why?
In 1843, at the time of Arthur’s birth, his father had already obtain his U.S. citizenship.
Big difference when compared to Obama, especially in light of past cases involving presidential eligibility.
Also, very interesting as to how Bobby Jindal is not considered eligible to run for president due to his parents not being naturalized citizens at the time of his birth.
You'll have to source that one. If he was born on American soil, he is a natural born citizen under current law (look upthread -- someone cited the applicable law).
SO WHY IS THIS HEADLINE SHOUTING AT ME?
This article doesn’t contribute a single new thought. I wish there was just one ongoing thread about the BC/NBC stuff, since 90% of it can be summed up as lather>rinse>repeat.
Either that, or put all of it in bloggers/personal section. I’d donate an extra $50 to the FReepathon if either of those things happen. I bet a lot of other FReepers would too.
Because when the Constitutional Gospel according to Saint De Vattel gets lumped in with Obama's AG deciding not to defend DOMA, it's the seriousness of the gay agenda radicalism that gets diminished.
There are very real, and daily attacks on the constitution. Throwing this crap into the mix only provides justification for the opposition to dismiss what they see as the entire "kook agenda".
I think the real important question, could it be asked, would be this very question of George Washington:
If GW were presented this information, would he affirm or deny the Bummer’s eligibility?
The voters knew his father was not a citizen. Hillary & McCain saw no point to this. There is no definitive answer either way. Americans don’t care, elected republicans don’t care, and the media won’t let this catch fire. Even half of the conservative media does not care. This is un-winnable, and we need to put our energies into winning in 2012 because 2008 is over. Let’s be smart, we have much to do.
Under The Constitution, if every person in the US voted for 0bama, he still should not qualified be in the WH.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. 8 U.S.C. 1401 makes no mention of this regarding people who were born in the US to a woman who was a legal US citizen.
The law clearly shows that 0bama is a natural-born US citizen. It is time to drop the birther issue. It is done.
Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) is the only president born of two immigrants, both Irish. Presidents with one immigrant parent are Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809), whose mother was born in England, James Buchanan (1857-1861) and Chester Arthur (1881-1885), both of whom had Irish fathers, and Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) and Herbert Hoover (1929-1933), whose mothers were born respectively in England and Canada.
The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens’
End of conversation, he’s a fraud and those who put him there are frauds, jail time needed
These people on our side that continue to cling to this are worse than those on the other side who insist Gore won in 2000 and Kerry won in 2004, and that Kloppenberg actually won in Wisconsin and are pushing for the recounts.
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.