Posted on 09/29/2012 12:31:26 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
audio @ 1:25: "It has nothing to do with Obama being black. It has to do with his father being here on a student visa. If his father had been from France, came here, had a child and then went back to France there would be conspiracy theories. There were conspiracy theories about Chester Arthur because his father was born in Ireland.
(Excerpt) Read more at obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com ...
Ann Coulter channels Donofrio eligibility ping...
Book sales down.
SOmeone must have had a Loooong talk with Ann. Now An needs to pass the information around.
You are so right!
She said she thinks it is a conspiracy theory and she thinks it is false! and... Sean thinks it is false!
What’s new. The constitution has no value to Ann. A Natural Born citizen MUST have TWO citizen parents! How stupid can Ann be if she can defend this topic in this video and then claim Barack Hussein Obama is a “Natural Born Citizen?”
Did she get Hoopi’s permission on this?
So, Ann *just* figured this out? Gee, she’s swift.
sadly, she still hasn’t got a clue.
-
the only thing she has correct here, is that it has nothing to do with racism.
-
but “student atatus” isn’t relevent to the contstitution. it has to do with citizenship of the parents.
sadly, she cannot comprehend the contstitutional requirements.
Nah, it has to do with who is really Barry’s daddy....
Did Chester Arthur take great pains to keep his family history a secret?
Yes Ol’ Chester managed to get away with committing a treasonous felony.
Since he got away with it that makes defrauding the American people and suborning the Constitution A-OK in your book.
Is that what you’re trying to say?
Remember, the whole birther thing actually started with McCain’s birthplace and was taken so seriously, Congress passed a resolution about it.
Least your implication confuse those who haven't followed Donofrio until he decided that the state of ignorance and culpibility in the citizenry and both political parties made legal discussion futile, Chester went so far as to hide all has family documents, including his birth certificate, and, when he knew he was within weeks of dying, had them all burned. Donofrio, poring over materials gathered over many years by an Arthur biographer, came across a reference to the the date of Chester's father's naturalization, a reference which others had probably seen, but didn't recognize as relevent, having been prompted to look for clues about where Chester was born. That misdirection, the hiding of legal documents in his possession, is what Obama appears to be using to redirect the inquiry.
The evidence, always right in front of everyone’s face, is Obama himself, who calmly explained that “I am a native-born citizen of the US.” The issue is a Constitutional issue, and Barry's Harvard adviser, Larry Tribe, on his campaign committee and author of the letter where his campaign committee paved the path with two Senate actions, SB 2678 and SR 511, February and April of 2008, for McCain, whom Democrats had prevously proved ineligible, to be Obama's opponent.
Do one in ten million understand that Obama was telling us he is a naturalized citizen? That is the language of the 14th Amendment, the “Naturalization” amendment, to naturalize slaves, who were not made citizens. Does one in ten million understand that natural born citizen does not appear to have been defined in the the Constitution because the Constitution doesn't have explicit definitions? Many have actually read the Constitution, but we read it assuming we understood the meanings of terms used therein. That assumption was exactly as the framers intended. The so-called natural language, the language most citizens understood without recourse to bewigged lords and their volumes of definitions for the English Common-Law, a legal system we fought a war to reject, was assumed for our republic based upon individual sovereigns, not men subjected by a King. Madison explained that because the meanings of words evolve over time, to preserve the original intent of the framers the Constitution's interpretation was to be assumed “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar,...”, quoting from Chief Justice Waite's decsion in Minor v. Happersett.
Who knows why Ann Coulter joined in the battle against our Constitution and its framers? Didn't she clerk for Justice Thomas, or was that the other blond, Laura Ingrahm? Obama is not a natural born citizen because he told us he wasn't. He is a naturalized citizen. There are two classes of citizen, natural, and naturalized.
Coulter’s appearances and income have been significantly reduced by her betrayal of the Constitution. But when she appears, it is usually on FOX News, whose largest private stockholder is the Saudi Royal Family, in the name of Alwaleed bin-Talal. Bin-Talal also supports the largest division in Harvard Divinity School, The Alwaleed bin-Talal Center for Islamic Studies. Bin-Talal donated twenty million dollars to Harvard about the time Percy Sutton, at the request of bin-Talal’s lawyer, Khalid al-Mansour/Don Warden (Black Panther Founder), used his influence to help get Barry into Harvard Law. Bin-Talal has publicly boasted about his influence over editorial policy at the WSJ and FOX News. How many appearances would Coulter make if she had explained the reasoning of five Chief Justices to her large public? Her lack of candor has cost her, but we can't know what they have in raw FBI files with which to destroy her. Mark Levin is probably in the same boat - two children in college and a financially troubled legal watchdog law firm dependent upon politically motivated law suits. There are laws against incitement that could apply, and as a justice department under Bush did to Scooter Libby charges, a corrupt government has the power to bankrupt anyone it wants, and even put them in prison.
Rudy Giuliani refused bin-Talal’s payola, but Harvard didn't, and apparently, if we believe Percy Sutton, Charles Rangel’s and Malcolm X's and Louis Farrakhan's personal attorney, neither did Barry/Barack. Coulter, perhaps like Clarence Thomas, knows the truth, but knows too that the vicious far left must be assumed to use any weapon at its disposal to achieve the objective, totalitarian Marxism. The Muslims believe it is their opportunity as well, as David Horowitz has explored so eloquently, and participate to further the conversion of America to Islam, just as Jimmy Carter turned the most liberal nation in the Middle East besides Israel, where women went to college with men and business thrived, and the middle class was rapidly growing, into an “Islamic Republic”, a dictatorship bent on destroying everyone they can't convert to Islam. Iran has become an Arab dictatorship, with Islam crushing its Persian core, which is the genius of the Muslim military ethos. Since Carter, Iran has become "The Islamic Republic of Iran." They believe America can be made an Islamic Republic, whether or not we believe it. Putin understands. China understands, India understands. But Obama, whether or not he is a believer, helped coordinate the Muslim Brotherhood's domination of the Middle East, and has its members in the While House, in our State Department, inn our Military and Homeland Security.
Its time to learn the abour our Constitution, and trust the original sources, not depend upon vulnerable pundits. Clarance Thomas as a disappointment, until one realizes that he probably knew who Roberts was. Without four justices no case has been or would be heard on the elibibility issue, and Clarence would have likely recused himself. He is still a great man, at least willing to hint that the Supreme Court was "evading" the issue. Coulter depends upon media access for her living. Her tongue is tied unless we can overcome the certain voter fraud, and the 47%, to remove Obama from office.
Coulter has became banal because the truth was her primary weapon. Now, like the predictable Levin and the predictable Limbaugh, she is constrained to complain about the symptoms and not the disease.
I think you are unnecessarily rough on Ann. Show me the clause in the Constitution that states that "A Natural Born citizen MUST have TWO citizen parents!."
No. Really. Show me (and I'm not even from Missouri.)
As I explained, quoting Chief Justice Morrison Waite, the Constitution has no definitions. The terms used in the Constitution come from our “common-law” and language familiar to our framers. Here is framer, founder, and Chief Justice John Marshall, explaining the common-law and citing his source in The Venus, 12 US 253:
“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.Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
The Obots will argue over “indigense, a term from the orginal French edition of Vattel, but Waite removed any doubt when he affirmed the definition of “native” in his Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162 (1894) decision:
“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.”
Whether or not you are an Obot, you are using their sophistry to perpetrate confusion. I could provide thirty other citations, including the direct repetition of the Waite definition above as Justice Gray clarified who were natural born citizen in Wong Kim Ark. Hint; Wong Kim was born on our soil, and made a naturalized citizen.
Let's be clear that you explained nothing in the comment I referred to.
I am fully aware of the common law definitions of natural law as well as the subsequent legal decisions. All that said, the Constitution is what it is and that's all you referred to.
Please try to be more precise in future posts.
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.