Skip to comments.Congressman says Obama birthplace 'not in Hawaii'
Posted on 06/19/2010 2:38:51 AM PDT by rambo316
Obama not born in Hawaii.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
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.
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.
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. Ramsays 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 Ramsays position. And he defined what the Founders and Framers thought about where allegiance comes from.
The House vote against Ramsays petition was 36 to 1. Along with Madison, four other signers of the Constitution, voted against Ramsays petition.
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?
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.
What birth certificate are you referring to? Please be specific.
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.
Our freeper obot seems to obtain his information regarding Ramsey here: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/04/the-eligibility-debate-in-congress/
jamese777 do you often obtain information regarding Obama and his natural born citizenship status from Obamaconspiracy.com
"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.
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?
Oh yeah, no doubt about it. ObamaCONspiracy is Zot central for former trolls and trolls who will one day get zotted.
As their Pied Piper loves to say, that he was banned at FR.
It is clear jamese777 obtained the parsed and edited Madison speech from http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/04/the-eligibility-debate-in-congress/
james777 types the 36-1 vote against Ramesy and the 36-1 vote is at the link
Did Barry's father ever live in the US?
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” http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/04/the-eligibility-debate-in-congress/
“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. jamese777
What part of “the father/husband must be a citizen 1st” do you not understand? Was Obamy’s father ever a citizen? NO, hence according to the original intent of the framers, Obamy wouldn't have even been considered a citizen at birth because his parents were married & women followed the condition of the husband at the moment she said “I DO”.
What is this unhealthy obsession with skulking around the internet to find out what other sites people post on.
If I wasn't such a fan of Joe McCarthy I would call your behavior McCarthyism...as it is I'll call it good old fashioned paranoia.
Good grief...It's a conservative political website...not a spy agency.
He was an African alien transient.
Seems every time it is pointed out jamese777 is an Obot you pop up.
Is Obama a natural born citizen?