Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Congressman says Obama birthplace 'not in Hawaii'
WND ^ | 6-18 | WND

Posted on 06/19/2010 2:38:51 AM PDT by rambo316

Obama not born in Hawaii.

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; communist; fraud; naturalborncitizen; obama; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-106 next last

1 posted on 06/19/2010 2:38:51 AM PDT by rambo316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rambo316

A standing headline at WND isn’t news.


2 posted on 06/19/2010 2:42:47 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 ("You seem to believe that stupidity is a virtue. Why is that so?"-Flight of the Phoenix)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

What do you mean? Oh, are you one of those bashers or WND? Give me some examples of bogus news stories that they have produced.


3 posted on 06/19/2010 2:51:10 AM PDT by rambo316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rambo316
Oh, are you one of those bashers or WND?

Wha...?

4 posted on 06/19/2010 2:52:28 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 ("You seem to believe that stupidity is a virtue. Why is that so?"-Flight of the Phoenix)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rambo316
Some people find it so distasteful...all this 'Birther' stuff.

Now that BOR aka Ted Knight has pronounced Birthers to be fringe-kooks, some run in fear of being labeled.

WND will be vindicated at some point in time...likely post Obama rule.
5 posted on 06/19/2010 3:04:53 AM PDT by CaptSkip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rambo316

Every adult person in Narobi, Kenya knows exactly where Barry Soreto was born.


6 posted on 06/19/2010 3:25:28 AM PDT by wetgundog (" Extremism in the Defense of Liberty is no Vice")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rambo316

I stopped reading WND when they reported a false story about MIchelle having contacted an African official demanding they not release information about Obama’s birth. When legitimate news sources started demanding proof, WND pressured their source and their source turned out to be a 2 horse operation in an European outpost.


7 posted on 06/19/2010 3:42:39 AM PDT by ransomnote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CaptSkip

“Now that BOR aka Ted Knight has pronounced Birthers to be fringe-kooks,”

Since leaving the USSA, I very rarely see FOX, much less BOR.
I did, however, see him one night.
He was all puffed up like the pompous ass that he tends to be, proclaiming that he, as if he alone, had the secret birth certificate for the messiah.
He gingerly opened the magic envelope, then carefully pulled the sacred document out, only to revel the stupid computer generated COLB that had been all over the internet for many months, which, to my understanding, has been well debunked and proclaimed to be a fraud.

No one has yet to produce a real Hawaiian BC for Obambie, like this one:

http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u358/zczc3185/Birth_cert_coats_7c.jpg

I know, us birthers are just crazy kooks :P


8 posted on 06/19/2010 3:45:34 AM PDT by AlexW (Now in the Philippines . Happy not to be back in the USA for now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wetgundog
To our UnCola Prez I say...
A short YouTube Video -- "The UnCola Prez"

9 posted on 06/19/2010 3:49:25 AM PDT by BobP (The piss-stream media - Never to be watched again in my house)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377; Polarik
FROM THREAD ENTITLED:
Hawaii elections clerk: Obama not born here
06/10/2010 11:48:07 AM PDT · 77 of 505
Polarik to Cicero; LucyT; rxsid; Fred Nerks

****"World Net Daily is far from reliable"****

>>>>> Try "not even close to unreliable."

They throw nearly EVERYTHING they see and hear into one, big pot, without corroborating evidence, and then ignore the consequences when they get it wrong.

WND is in it for the moolah and these past experiences should make you think twice about automatically giving WND the benefit of the doubt:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2531005/posts?page=43#43 <<<<<

10 posted on 06/19/2010 4:18:54 AM PDT by hennie pennie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rambo316
How come there is no excerpt from the article?

Why did you only post a title, alone, and call it news???

Is this a link to an article at WND, or is it a link to one of their commercial products??

Thanks.

11 posted on 06/19/2010 4:21:23 AM PDT by hennie pennie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BobP
That's the second time I've seen this "uncola" thing here, and I'm not sure I get it.

I SUSPECT I do, but I hope I'm wrong.

12 posted on 06/19/2010 4:24:54 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 ("You seem to believe that stupidity is a virtue. Why is that so?"-Flight of the Phoenix)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rambo316

Congressman says Obama birthplace ‘not in Hawaii.

No documents prove that.


13 posted on 06/19/2010 4:29:50 AM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

What is wrong with WND?

They tell the news, not spoon fed ideology like some other places. And I have much more faith in news from WND than some other MSM websites.


14 posted on 06/19/2010 4:30:07 AM PDT by Eye of Unk ("In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" G.Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote
When legitimate news sources started demanding proof, WND pressured their source and their source turned out to be a 2 horse operation in an European outpost.

I think rationally you could say WND was not the "source" of the misinformation. There is no "news" organization on the planet that could be labled "legitimate" with your rationale. Just take this "birth certificate" issue alone. Every one of the major news organization states that Obama released his "birth certificate." They can't even get straight the difference between a "CertificATION of Live Birth" and a "CERTIFICATE of Live Birth"

The major difference between the documents is the one Barack "released" (The CertifiCATION of Live Birth) only proves that the state of Hawaii has a birth record on file. The state of Hawaii could possibly have a foreign birth certificate on file for Obama.

Robert Gibbels was asked at a White House presser for the "Birth Certificate." (It was made clear by the journalist that the document requested wanted was the one that listed a hospital of birth.) Of course being the great propagandist that he is Gibbels ridiculed the journalist. All the "legitimate" news organizations laughed along with him at the journalist who was asking the legitimate question of "WHAT HOSPITAL WAS BARACK BORN IN?"

15 posted on 06/19/2010 4:44:09 AM PDT by missnry (The truth will set you free ... and drive liberals Crazy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rambo316

Inglis was just going along with the comedy routine, trying not to be such a moderate. It was meant to be funny, not a serious statement.


16 posted on 06/19/2010 4:48:17 AM PDT by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Unk
They tell the news, not spoon fed ideology like some other places.

If you think WND is an objective news source that doesn't spoon-feed its audience, there's nothing to discuss.

17 posted on 06/19/2010 4:53:17 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 ("You seem to believe that stupidity is a virtue. Why is that so?"-Flight of the Phoenix)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: rambo316

“FREE THE LONG FORM!”


18 posted on 06/19/2010 5:09:35 AM PDT by Dryman ("FREE THE LONG FORM!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

Since I believe I met 0bama in 1980, I stand by WND’s story.


19 posted on 06/19/2010 5:41:29 AM PDT by RaceBannon (RON PAUL: THE PARTY OF TRUTHERS, TRAITORS AND UFO CHASERS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rambo316

US citizen or no, I have to produce a certified copy of my birth certificate every time I apply for a job. I can think of NO reason it should not apply to the highest job in the land.


20 posted on 06/19/2010 5:42:42 AM PDT by Old Student
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

7-Up.

AKA The Uncola - “Never had it, never will” was their motto for years.


21 posted on 06/19/2010 7:34:45 AM PDT by PeaceBeWithYou (De Oppresso Liber! (50 million and counting in Afganistan and Iraq))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: rambo316
Thanks for posting this.

Comedy works when it is based an element of truth that the audience recognizes.

The element of truth for both "birthers" and anti-birthers is the fact that Obama can't yet prove his HI birth with a 1961 document.

It is a very good sign for Constitutional eligibility activists that the big-name comedians are hitting Obama with the widespread public belief that he has failed to release his HI vital records, even when supposedly "mocking" conservatives.

22 posted on 06/19/2010 8:40:08 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; STARWISE; ASA Vet

ping...


23 posted on 06/19/2010 8:41:54 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan; Beckwith; bgill; bitt; butterdezillion; bvw; conservativegramma; Danae; dennisw; ...

NBC Ping


24 posted on 06/19/2010 8:57:19 AM PDT by ASA Vet (Natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. De Vattel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hennie pennie
Is this a link to an article at WND, or is it a link to one of their commercial products??

Article.

25 posted on 06/19/2010 9:06:36 AM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; BP2; rxsid; null and void; Candor7

ping


26 posted on 06/19/2010 9:14:02 AM PDT by tutstar (Baptist Ping List-freepmail me to be included or removed. <{{{><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

Thanks, El Gato!!


27 posted on 06/19/2010 9:14:52 AM PDT by hennie pennie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: rambo316; ASA Vet; Seizethecarp; tutstar; hennie pennie; Fred Nerks; null and void; stockpirate; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Congressman says Obama birthplace 'not in Hawaii'

[Thanks for the pings, y'all.]

~ Note: I'll be gone the remainder of the day.

28 posted on 06/19/2010 9:22:58 AM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rambo316
A local radio talk show host here who has been avoiding and mocking those who question Obama's eligibility has turned the corner and is now asking those questions directly himself.

There are now more and more coming out of the closet and having the courage to admit that they have seen no evidence that Obama is Constitutionally qualified for the Oval Office.

29 posted on 06/19/2010 9:47:50 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rambo316
Ramsey also said he doesn't believe citizens are concerned about Obama's citizenship status.

Tennessee's State Senator only wishes we don't. That's the same as stating we don't need the Constitution anymore.

30 posted on 06/19/2010 9:52:33 AM PDT by bgill (how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wetgundog

See my tagline from what was said in the Kenyan Parliament.


31 posted on 06/19/2010 9:54:36 AM PDT by bgill (how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: firebrand; SunkenCiv; Clintonfatigued; fieldmarshaldj; Just A Nobody; smoothsailing; ...
Inglis was just going along with the comedy routine, trying not to be such a moderate. It was meant to be funny, not a serious statement.

I tend to agree with you on that, firebrand. If he was serious about challenging O's constitutional qualifications for POTUS, he should have brought up the subject in public a long time ago, rather than waiting until he's in serious trouble in his primary race for re-election.

32 posted on 06/19/2010 9:57:43 AM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
If you think WND is an objective news source that doesn't spoon-feed its audience, there's nothing to discuss.

I prefer WND's perspective on these news stories to the perspective of anyone else that you would care to name.

33 posted on 06/19/2010 9:59:45 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

“I prefer WND’s perspective on these news stories to the perspective of anyone else that you would care to name.”

Seems to be a concerted effort to discredit Joseph Farah and the World Net Daily contributors by Obamatons.


34 posted on 06/19/2010 10:10:03 AM PDT by TauntedTiger (Keep away from the fence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: rambo316

This is pretty much a non-story, although I don’t see why WND should be faulted for printing it. The congressman, when asked how he would prove he was conservative, knew very well what the belief is of most conservative voters—that Obama was not born in Hawaii. So, it is minor news of a sort, that this is an instantly recognizable joke.


35 posted on 06/19/2010 10:26:47 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rambo316
While WND keep attention focused on birth certificate issues they have chosen to ignore the fact for which the evidence is unassailable, since it came from the mouth of the Prince, that he was born of an alien father. That is a direct violation of Art. II Sect. 1.

All of our Senators understood that in 2008 when they signed the second of two accords, the first a bill, the second a resolution, sponsored by Pat Leahy and Clair McCaskill asserting McCain's eligibility because both of his parents were citizens. Even the recent declarer, Tim Martin, that Obama does not have a Hawaiian long form, doesn't understand, or doesn't state, what our Library of Congress explained in annotations to the Constitution, that it is accepted, based upon English Common law that a natural born citizen, like a natural born subject, must have two citizen parents.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/012.pdf

Our more literate framers provided lots of documentation reinforcing this understanding. We have had many in government try to change it, but never enough, in twenty five attempts to amend the Constitution. McCaskill tried again in 2008, February; Orrin Hatch tried in 2003.

I suspect WND is more interested in advertising hits than in helping their readers understand the truth - sad to say.
Even Jerome Corsi has focused solely upon birth certificates, when he could have used his historical training to discover what many here at FR have, the writing of historian Dr. David Ramsay, who eloquently defined natural born citizen in his 1789 essay on citizenship (Ramsay was on the ratification convention from South Carolina, and wrote The History of America Before the Revolution.

This is most devious behavior, ignoring our Constitution while focusing on titillating and tabloid conjecture about almost certainly never to be seen documents, when there are hundreds of references in our history which WND could have helped enormously to exlain to a public who never heard that there was a difference between Native born U.S. citizen (the term Obama uses to describe his own status) and natural born U.S. citizen (the Constitutional requirement for our presidents and vice presidents, and only those two offices). WND employs some bright people. They know the truth. Why do they avoid it? The Supreme Court must affirm what is already our common law, because no one has tested this definition in a case. But if our citizens don't understand why the framers upgraded Madison's initial set of presidential qualifications, at the urging of John Jay and Washington, what incentive is there for the Supreme Court to create the political uproar certain to come when Obama is removed for his obvious ineligibility. It isn't obvious to the ignorant. The ignorant aren't at all stupid; they have not had a reason to learn this corner of our Constitutional protections against foreign intrigue, as eloquently explained the the first four Federalist Papers.

36 posted on 06/19/2010 10:30:54 AM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: missnry

My problem with WND is that it didn’t bother to verify its source - it basically printed baseless allegations as fact while vigorously asserting that the source was reliable. If I want that kind of reliability, I can always turn to the MSN.


37 posted on 06/19/2010 10:45:14 AM PDT by ransomnote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: bgill; All
(how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not a native American, become POTUS?)

I recall at least three different Kenyan parliamentarians stating in the minutes of the Parliament that Obama was born in Kenya. But I don't recall any of them evincing any knowledge of the Natural Born Citizen clause in the US constitution, so as to question the legality of his being POTUS. Rather, they merely congratulated and praised Obama.

38 posted on 06/19/2010 10:46:07 AM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
There are now more and more coming out of the closet and having the courage to admit that they have seen no evidence that Obama is Constitutionally qualified for the Oval Office.

It doesn't take as much courage as it did previously, now that O's popularity ratings have tanked. Much tougher to lead on an issue when it is unpopular than to join the bandwagon later.

39 posted on 06/19/2010 10:51:59 AM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Vaduz

There is a lot more proof that he was not born in HI than that he was. IOW there is zero proof he was born in HI.

He’s not an NBC anyway but his foreign birth, if proved in a court of law or in the court of public opinion, will be needed to bring about his downfall. And may that day come soon.


40 posted on 06/19/2010 11:04:45 AM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding

While WND keep attention focused on birth certificate issues they have chosen to ignore the fact for which the evidence is unassailable, since it came from the mouth of the Prince, that he was born of an alien father. That is a direct violation of Art. II Sect. 1.
All of our Senators understood that in 2008 when they signed the second of two accords, the first a bill, the second a resolution, sponsored by Pat Leahy and Clair McCaskill asserting McCain’s eligibility because both of his parents were citizens. Even the recent declarer, Tim Martin, that Obama does not have a Hawaiian long form, doesn’t understand, or doesn’t state, what our Library of Congress explained in annotations to the Constitution, that it is accepted, based upon English Common law that a natural born citizen, like a natural born subject, must have two citizen parents.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/012.pdf

Our more literate framers provided lots of documentation reinforcing this understanding. We have had many in government try to change it, but never enough, in twenty five attempts to amend the Constitution. McCaskill tried again in 2008, February; Orrin Hatch tried in 2003.

I suspect WND is more interested in advertising hits than in helping their readers understand the truth - sad to say.
Even Jerome Corsi has focused solely upon birth certificates, when he could have used his historical training to discover what many here at FR have, the writing of historian Dr. David Ramsay, who eloquently defined natural born citizen in his 1789 essay on citizenship (Ramsay was on the ratification convention from South Carolina, and wrote The History of America Before the Revolution.

This is most devious behavior, ignoring our Constitution while focusing on titillating and tabloid conjecture about almost certainly never to be seen documents, when there are hundreds of references in our history which WND could have helped enormously to exlain to a public who never heard that there was a difference between Native born U.S. citizen (the term Obama uses to describe his own status) and natural born U.S. citizen (the Constitutional requirement for our presidents and vice presidents, and only those two offices). WND employs some bright people. They know the truth. Why do they avoid it? The Supreme Court must affirm what is already our common law, because no one has tested this definition in a case. But if our citizens don’t understand why the framers upgraded Madison’s initial set of presidential qualifications, at the urging of John Jay and Washington, what incentive is there for the Supreme Court to create the political uproar certain to come when Obama is removed for his obvious ineligibility. It isn’t obvious to the ignorant. The ignorant aren’t at all stupid; they have not had a reason to learn this corner of our Constitutional protections against foreign intrigue, as eloquently explained the the first four Federalist Papers.


Primary framer of the US Constitution, James Madison in response to Ramsey’s essay:
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to examine any other.”—James Madison, Founding Father, Framer of the Consitution, 4th President of the United States

The statement of James Madison was made on the floor of the House of Representatives in 1789. The speech was part of the debate on the petition of Dr. David Ramsay to have the recently elected House member, William L. Smith declared ineligible. Ramsay’s contention was that Mr. Smith was ineligible for not meeting Constitutional requirement to be a member of the House of Representatives. Along with the petition and a dissertation on citizenship, Ramsay also wrote a personal letter to Madison, asking him to support his position in the House debates.

Madison rejected Ramsay’s position. And he defined what the Founders and Framers thought about where allegiance comes from.

The House vote against Ramsay’s petition was 36 to 1. Along with Madison, four other signers of the Constitution, voted against Ramsay’s petition.


“There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president–removal for any reason–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—US District Court Judge David O. Carter in dismissing “Captain Pamela Barnett, et. al v Barack H. Obama,et.al.” October 29, 2009


41 posted on 06/19/2010 11:09:28 AM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: All

This is quite a laundry list of Senators, congressmen, Governors, all the way down to councilmen and women who have written the president to clarify his Birth Certificate issue, have written legislation to prevent it happening again...With all this, why has the government not demanded he produce this evidence?
Who is Obama accountable to?


42 posted on 06/19/2010 11:59:03 AM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
While WND keep attention focused on birth certificate issues they have chosen to ignore the fact for which the evidence is unassailable, since it came from the mouth of the Prince, that he was born of an alien father.

I am not a lawyer but I wondered if that "evidence" you are talking about would be classified as "hearsay" in a court of law and therefore "inadmissable" as evidence.

Having said that, the birth certificate information does provide the "where" Hussein was born (hospital/country) and the name of his birth parents.

43 posted on 06/19/2010 1:37:03 PM PDT by missnry (The truth will set you free ... and drive liberals Crazy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: missnry

What birth certificate are you referring to? Please be specific.


44 posted on 06/19/2010 1:39:48 PM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13

I think your saying that the COLB which has never been confirmed by Obama, only his admin (press secretary in particular), has never been deemed authentic by Hawaii,and never ever mentioned or referred to by Obama is a fake and does not have the necessary information.
The Kenyan Birth Certificate however has been examined by the world for over a year, and nobody has been able to disprove it.
In the end, it does not matter, as in Obama’s own words, his father is Kenyan, has never been a US citizen to the day he died, so he is not Natural Born (having two citizen parents and born in the US), so is not qualified to be POTUS.


45 posted on 06/19/2010 1:43:27 PM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: jamese777; Spaulding; Red Steel

Our freeper obot seems to obtain his information regarding Ramsey here: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/04/the-eligibility-debate-in-congress/


46 posted on 06/19/2010 1:43:57 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13
What birth certificate are you referring to? Please be specific.

It "should" look something like this:Sarah Hawaii Birth Cert

47 posted on 06/19/2010 1:46:51 PM PDT by missnry (The truth will set you free ... and drive liberals Crazy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: jamese777; Spaulding; Red Steel; BP2

jamese777 do you often obtain information regarding Obama and his natural born citizenship status from Obamaconspiracy.com


48 posted on 06/19/2010 1:54:41 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding; rambo316
Good to hear from you, as always.

"But if our citizens don't understand why the framers upgraded Madison's initial set of presidential qualifications, at the urging of John Jay and Washington, what incentive is there for the Supreme Court to create the political uproar certain to come when Obama is removed for his obvious ineligibility. It isn't obvious to the ignorant. The ignorant aren't at all stupid; they have not had a reason to learn this corner of our Constitutional protections against foreign intrigue, as eloquently explained the the first four Federalist Papers."

The people who voted BO into office as "president" believe: BO was born in HI and since HI is American soil, jus soli = citizen at birth = natural born citizen = qualified to be POTUS under Article II.

BO's foreign national father never enters into their considerations since there is currently a great war for hearts and minds to accept birthright citizenship as a settled matter.

There are a couple of people seated on the Supreme Court who apparently have a personal stake in seeing that this question is never seriously examined. Ginsburg believes her foreign-born relatives are eligible for the Presidency. Sotomayor (appointed by BO) has an obvious interest in not examining this either.

The media has been hard at work over the past several years to convince the American electorate (evidence: the March 2007 Nicholas Kristof column in the NY Times) that a "foreign president" is exactly what this country needs and should want. The media does not heed Mr. Jay's wise words about a check on the admission of foreigners into the government.

49 posted on 06/19/2010 1:56:12 PM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: jamese777; Spaulding; All
I see your still trying to pass of that parsed & editted very long speech on the floor of Congress. Let me help to clarify what you purposefully left out.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=211

The discussion pertained to citizen, not NBC & he further went on to say that “Mr. Smith founds his claims upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony...if he were not a minor, he became bound, by his own act, ... if he was a minor, his consent was involved in the decision of that society to which he belonged by the ties of nature.”

Smith was making his claim that he was a citizen by mere fact of birthright, however Madison goes on to dispel that claim. He however explains that Smith being a minor at the time of the Declaration of Independence; Smith’s citizenship came through his father(ties of nature & consent of the newly freed society).

IOW, according to Madison, birth on soil did NOT automatically make one a citizen, the parents must have been citizens for the child to become one.

from St. George Tucker’s Blackstone’s Commentaries:

THE SOCIETY MUST HAVE LAWS.
The society of the state which man joins must have laws. These laws are termed positive because they are enacted for the special society in which they are to have force. They are the outgrowth of man’s nature to meet such emergencies and promote such prosperity, as the general utility of the society demands. They have a particular application to the defined territory of the society.

The term positive is used in contra-distinction to natural, which natural law man restricts by the positive law, to meet such rules of conduct as will best govern the members of society in their relations to each other. These laws of the society, which are termed positive, are the fabric of the government, which is an institution of man.

The natural law is universal, the positive law is territorial.

However so much the positive law of one society may differ from the positive law of another, the rule is: that, in either case, the laws are enacted for the common good of the members of the society within which territory the laws are enacted. It is not open to one society to do any act by which to make any change in any existing law which governs in another society. Such laws are purely autonomous and do not concern other societies. This is the general rule which governs among civilized countries. In the interests of humanity argued from the standpoint of religion there are many instances of interference on the part of civilized societies in the affairs of barbarous and irreligious communities. Nor can countries debar themselves from intercourse commercially with other countries. This position was taken by Great Britain and the United States in regard to China and Japan, both of which countries were forced to open their ports for trade with the civilized world and for reason of the rule which follows: “As the laws of each particular state are designed to promote its advantage the consent of all or at least the greater number of states may have produced certain laws between them. And in fact it appears that such laws have been established tending to promote the utility not of any particular state but of the great body of the communities.”

The act of 1802 was the last major piece of naturalization legislation during the 19th century. A number of minor revisions were introduced, but these merely altered or clarified details of evidence and certification without changing the basic nature of the admission procedure. The most important of these revisions occurred in 1855, when citizenship was automatically granted to alien wives of U.S. citizens (10 Stat. 604), and in 1870, when the naturalization process was opened to persons of African descent (16 Stat. 256).
NATURALIZATION. The act by which an alien is made a citizen of the United States of America.
2. The Constitution of the United States, art. 1, s. 8, vests in congress the power “to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” In pursuance of this authority congress have passed several laws on this subject, which, as they are of general interest, are here transcribed as far as they are in force.
3.-1. An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject. Approved April 14, 1802
9.-Sec. 4. That the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States, may have become citizens of any one of the said states, under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of their parents’ being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States; and the children of persons who now are, or have been, citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States:
10. Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States:
11. Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen, as aforesaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.

Prior to the passing of the Constitution, the laws rested with the states. Furthermore, NO where does the law distinguish the birth location of the child, it merely declares that ALL children of aliens become citizens upon the naturalization of the father. The same distinction goes for the wife/mother. The women & children followed the condition of the husband/father. That is why children born out of wedlock were classified as citizens of the mothers country as she had not yet changed her status. It was not natural for a household to hold divided allegiances. In fact is was considered quite disastrous should as it could pit father against son, wife against husband, etc. This was the law of nature and is why ALL the early census records are listed by the head of the household.

Now a question for jamesee, why the need to pass an Expatriation Act of 1868? What was the premise behind it? Is it still in force today and if not, when was it repealed?

50 posted on 06/19/2010 1:58:21 PM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-106 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson