Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FR Poll: Do you believe Obama is hiding or lying about something regarding his origins?
July 30, 2009 | Jim Robinson

Posted on 07/30/2009 11:51:05 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350351-366 last
To: GovernmentShrinker
There has never been any provision that both parents (or either parent, for that matter) be a US citizen for a child born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Being born here makes one a natural born citizen, and always has.

There is no need to "define" a specific, technical term-of-art expressed in the Constitution.

Therefore, there is a reason that no legal statute addresses the specific, technical term-of-art "natural-born citizen," because such a status literally cannot be conferred by statute.

Citizenship at birth can be defined by statute, lex soli, and has been conferred in numerous ways, individually and en masse. This is naturalization at birth, and is correct per the powers enumerated to the Legislative by the Constitution.

Birthright citizenship, being born naturally of the country and of sovereign citizens without a doubt, is enshrined in the Constitution itself, which is the supreme law of the land. It has never been amended or even successfully challenged. It stands to this day, intact in its original intent.

Statutes have not changed it, and cannot change it. That is why the Naturalization Act Of 1790 was repealed and replaced in 1795, with identical language, sans the words "natural born." They had overreached their Constitutionally enumerated power, and knew it.

351 posted on 08/01/2009 9:52:23 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

On that last classmates.com link you provided of Barack Obama, class of 78, one of the classmates is “Youra Fraud”. LOL.


352 posted on 08/01/2009 10:13:22 AM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

He’s hiding many, many things.

May they all come to light.


353 posted on 08/01/2009 10:47:20 AM PDT by little jeremiah (Aham Brahmasmi - I am eternal soul)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dryman

I forgot, Jim.

YES, He is Hiding something.


354 posted on 08/01/2009 10:57:03 AM PDT by Dryman (Now, Back to Lurking)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

Comment #355 Removed by Moderator

To: Jim Robinson

Of course he is. If he ever gets to build a Presidential Library (banish the thought) the amount of ‘papers’ he has to display wouldn’t fill a shoe box.


356 posted on 08/01/2009 11:11:37 AM PDT by azishot (Please join the NRA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirJohnBarleycorn
It is not necessarily something relating specifically to the Hawaiian birth certificate; I suspect Obama is taking a “crack in the dam” approach, such that if he shows a willingness to concede disclosing his original birth certificate, he fears a crack in the dam such that public pressure could build for him to come clean on all his records, including his college records.

I concur with the "crack in the dam" approach. The problem for Obama is that there are already a few teeny cracks with the BC issue alone.

First crack - the original COLB shown on the internet. The White House press secretary has since called it legitimate. If the original records don't match that information, too late. They own it.

Second crack - the birth announcements in the two Hawaii papers at the time of his birth. Either they are real or a forgery. If they are real, the address shown in both papers is innacurate. Since the information came from Vital Statistics, the likelihood that both papers would print the same wrong address is, well, unlikely. This points to a possible fraudulent piece of information in his birth records. Are there more? If the announcements are fake, that's a probelm for whomoever faked them.

Third crack - the affirmation from the Dr. Fukino that she had seen his vital records and, that indeed, he was born in Hawaii. Now, I would think that the only person who could authorize her to release that information would be Obama himself. But.......she only said his record said he was born in Hawaii. Not, that the information was accurate. not whether it was a hospital birth (which I would think would be harder to falsify), or a home birth, or ?

Now if Obama authorized her to confirm verbally that he was born, why not authorize the release of additional information verbally? ....like the hospital?

Perhaps releasing this information would lead to further trails in finding out whether it was accurate or possibly fraudulent. If his BC says it was a home birth and attested to only by his mom, how many people who question his birth circumstances would be satisfied with that information?

I doubt we will ever see the original BC in Hawaii's Vital Statistics.
357 posted on 08/01/2009 11:22:07 AM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Absolutely. He has spent an enormous amount of resources and energy keeping his background hidden away deep in the shadows. There is nothing candid or straightforward about him. Everything is calculated, measured, and manipulated to present a certain plastic image to the public.

He is the most rottenly dishonest politician of his generation, surpassing even Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton typically lied on the spur of of the moment and badly. He was a jester and a clown.

Obama is a well-groomed slow walking slow talking cold-blooded reptile. His lies are deep and calculated.

358 posted on 08/01/2009 11:34:36 AM PDT by behzinlea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker; All; Jim Robinson

“There has never been any provision that both parents (or either parent, for that matter) be a US citizen for a child born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Being born here makes one a natural born citizen, and always has.”

You are in error. There is a very definite difference between being a citizen and being a “natural born” one. This term, “natural born” was placed in the constitution for a very specific reason...and it had a very diffenent meaning at the time of the constitution. It is only those that want to “change history” that argue otherwise.

Would someone here please explain the diffence to this individual.

By the way - the head of the Hawaii dept of vital records IS NOT a constitutional scholor and had NO business stating that President Obama is “natural born.” To say he was born in Hawaii was the full extent of what that person should have said. Actually, I believe this statement should form the basis for further inquiries into what is being hidden.


359 posted on 08/01/2009 2:32:55 PM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Obama could be hiding something, but I don’t know what he may be hiding. I don’t know what is on his birth certificate. I don’t know who his father is, since that information is on the bc that I have not seen. I don’t know where he was born for the same reason.

Everyone here is in the same boat with me regarding the sentences above.

Under our system, Obama claimed he met the eligibility requirements to run for president. He was certified by 50 Secretaries of State as eligible. He has been elected president.

Under our Constitution, he is innocent until proven guilty, and he does not have to incriminate himself. So, even if his birth certificate would show him to have been ineligible, he does not have to release it.

I have seen no documentary evidence that Obama was ineligible to run for president. I’ll get interested in this subject as soon as I see some good evidence that he was ineligible. I’ve read the various “evidence” posted on FR. None of what I have read is actual evidence in my opinion, but I’m not a lawyer. Apparently no judge has been impressed by anything brought up in the various lawsuits either.

Also, Obama has not spent any of his own money on these lawsuits. His campaign paid for defenses during the campaign, and WE are paying (through the Dept of Justice) with our tax dollars to defend the ones brought forward since the election.

I challenge anyone to show proof that Obama has paid out “a million dollars” of his own money defending against these suits. I will make a public apology if someone can show me some proof.

I’m an agnostic on this issue.


360 posted on 08/01/2009 3:39:32 PM PDT by SaxxonWoods (Charter Member, 58 Million Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: SaxxonWoods
I have seen no documentary evidence that Obama was ineligible to run for president. I’ll get interested in this subject as soon as I see some good evidence that he was ineligible.

It's unlikely you will see any evidence because he has sealed from the public practically his entire past. No BC, no college records, no passport info, etc. I am amazed that people wouldn't be suspicious of this behavior. I'm not so surprised that members of the MSM would look the other way.

361 posted on 08/01/2009 3:52:50 PM PDT by DejaJude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Yes, but it is probably only something that would be a minor embarrassment to someone like you and me. Given his grandiosity, his narcissism, his thin skin, I'm sure whatever it is is much exaggerated in his own mind.

My pet theory--his birth certificate registers him as white or caucasian instead of black (or "negro" as it would have been in '61).

362 posted on 08/01/2009 9:30:34 PM PDT by Mamzelle (boycott Peggy Swoonin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker; All

This explains “natural born.”

Friday, July 31, 2009
What to Tell The Birthers Bashers
You are poorly informed on the constitutional issue involved with Obama’s eligibility to be President. The primary issue is whether Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen,” not whether he was born in the U.S. When drafting the eligibility requirements for the President, the Founding Fathers distinguished between “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen” in Article II, sec. 1, cl. 5 and in Articles I, III, and IV of the Constitution. Per the Founders, while Senators and Representatives can be just “citizens,” after 1789 the President must be a “natural born Citizen.” The Founders wanted to assure that the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, a non-collegial and unique and powerful civil and military position, was free of all foreign influence and that its holder have sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the U.S. The “natural born Citizen” clause was the best way for them to assure this.

The distinction between “citizen” and “natural born Citizen” is based on the law of nations which became part of our national common law. According to that law as explained by Vattel in his, The Law of Nations, a “citizen” is simply a member of the civil society. To become a “citizen” is to enter into society as a member thereof. On the other hand, a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country of two citizen parents who have already entered into and become members of the society. Vattel also tells us that it is the “natural born Citizen” who will best preserve and perpetuate the society. This definition of the two distinct terms has been adopted by many United States Supreme Court decisions. Neither the 14th Amendment (which covers only “citizens” who are permitted to gain membership in and enter American society by either birth on U.S. soil or by naturalization and being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States), nor Congressional Acts, nor any case law has ever changed the original common law definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Congressional Acts and case law, like the 14th Amendment, have all dealt with the sole question of whether a particular person was going to be allowed to enter into and be a member of American society and thereby be declared a “citizen.” Never having been changed, the original constitutional meaning of a “natural born Citizen” prevails today. It is this definition of “natural born Citizen” which gives the Constitutional Republic the best chance of having a President and Commander in Chief of the Military who has sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the United States. By satisfying all conditions of this definition, all other avenues of acquiring other citizenships and allegiances (jus soli or by the soil and jus sanguinis or by descent) are cut off. I call this state of having all other means of acquiring other citizenships or allegiances cut off unity of citizenship which is what the President must have at the time of birth.

Obama’s father was born in Kenya when it was a British colony. When he came to America, he was probably here on a student visa and he never became a legal resident of the U.S. or an immigrant. He had no attachment to the U.S. other than to study in its prestigious educational institutions which he did for the sole purpose of returning to Kenya and applying his learning there for the best interests of that nation. In fact, when he completed his studies, he did return to Kenya and worked for its government.

If Obama was born in Hawaii, at best, he is a U.S. “citizen” under the 14th Amendment and federal statute. But he is not a “natural born Citizen” under the Constitution, for at the time of his birth under the British Nationality Act 1948 his father was a British subject and Obama himself through descent was also a British subject. Obama has himself admitted to the controlling effect of the British Nationality Act 1948 on his birth. Additionally, in 1963, both his father and Obama also became Kenyan citizens when Kenya obtained its independence from Great Britain.

Obama was born with multiple allegiances (at birth both U.S., if born in the U.S., and British, and also acquired Kenyan citizenship at age 2). Obama also obtained Indonesian citizenship when he was adopted by his step-father in Indonesia at age 6. The Founders would not have allowed such a person who was not born with sole allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the United States to be President and most importantly, Commander in Chief of the Military. We the People have too many “natural born Citizens” in our country, the largest group of citizens by far, from whom to pick to risk jeopardizing the best interests of the United States by allowing a person born with conflicting allegiances and loyalties to be President and Commander in Chief of our Military. There simply is no sound reason for risking America’s national security, welfare, and ultimate preservation by allowing a non-”natural born Citizen” to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. To permit it is a violation of Article II of our Constitution, the supreme law of our land.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.


363 posted on 08/01/2009 10:43:39 PM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Yes, I believe he is hiding a lot!

There only thing I would add that might not have been discussed at length already.

He is the first black president.

As such, according to some, his rise to 1600 was nothing short of a miraculous milestone in history.

We have been bombarded with memorabilia of every kind from the classic to the absurd.

Books, commemorative plates, sneakers, chia pets and almost everything else under the sun have been stamped with Obama.

I would think that all of his admirers would want to know what he was like in school, who his friends were, who he dated, what kind of student he was.

His ego is so huge, why wouldn’t he want to share all of this information so his admirers can gush and faint over it?

He can’t if he’s hiding something. If what I’ve read is true, he’s spent millions hiding it. In a more opportune time, he could make millions by revealing it in books and speaking engagements. Probably a whole hell of a lot more than he spent to hide it.

That alone should make people wonder.


364 posted on 08/02/2009 2:11:05 AM PDT by Califreak (My word calibrator's in the shop)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

His underage mother was impregnated by Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist under investigation by the FBI.

To keep the Dunhams from falling under FBI scrutiny - and indeed maybe to keep Stanley Armour Dunham from being brought up on child sex-trafficking charges — the Dunhams got a stooge to play the role of the father and Stanley Anne fled the country to have the baby,

Stanley Anne and Barack Sr never lived as husband and wife the United States, (though they may have briefly in Kenya).

We know Barry kept that last part hidden, because it’s already been proven he lied about it in his book/s — records now show that Ann and baby Barry spent his infancy and toddlerhood in Washington State, not Hawaii...


365 posted on 08/02/2009 2:27:12 AM PDT by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tutstar

here


366 posted on 01/26/2010 2:55:29 PM PST by tutstar (Baptist Ping list - freepmail me to get on or off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350351-366 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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