Skip to comments.FR Poll: Do you believe Obama is hiding or lying about something regarding his origins?
Posted on 07/30/2009 11:51:05 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
click here to read article
The stonewalling of all inquiries into a broad variety of personal data about Obama makes anything beyond speculation impossible.
Obama swore a stack of affidavits in order to file his candidacy with the various States' secretaries of state. His exposure is huge if he made false statements, e.g. if there is an Indonesian citizenship issue, or if his status as a "natural-born citizen" was in any way impaired.
If Obama concealed relevant facts about himself from the U.S. public, it is nevertheless highly likely that foreign governments know the facts that we don't. Such a state of affairs scandalizes the very idea of popular government and opens Obama to political influence and control by overseas interests.
Coda: It was always a convention of screenplays written by Communist screenwriters like Dalton Trumbo, that the People -- the bourgeoisie -- were denigrated and shown to be vile, cowardly, stupid and contemptible. (As opposed to vanguard leadership displayed by the hero.)
This documentation drama is very much of a piece with that Communist ideological cant. Obama may be displaying his vanguard leadership credentials, masquerading as neighborhood "thug thizzle", by stiffing all the white/bourgeois pukes on a key issue and publicly stepping on their majoritarian right and power to make the rules of leadership.
Found this last week, in an article from there. The article quoted many sources of people who knew him and his family....all Indonesian sources....
Barrak Hussein Obama II was born to a white American Ann Dunham and Kenyan Barrak Hussein Obama Snr, in Nyangoma Kogelo now in Kenya.
I don't think that what he's hiding - and he does hide a lot of his past - is more important than what he is not hiding, but is proud of: A non-resident foreign father, Kenyan national and British citizen at Junior birth in 1961.
This alone makes him a dual-citizen with dual allegiance, ergo ineligible for the office of president or vice-president of the United States, according to the Article II of the Constitution.
Everything else is (bad) literature.
How does a demand for release of Obama’s records make people “look like abject lunatics?”
You people can’t answer this question truthfully without making yourselves look stupid. And yes, there are a lot of you out there, but that doesn’t make you any less stupid.
Where did I state that people look like abject lunatics merely for asking that Obama's birth cert be shown publicly?
Don't bother going back to search. Why? Because I never said that.
I am sorry, truly sorry, that your reading comprehension is poor. I am not sorry, though you are, if you are deliberately contorting my words and making false inferences in order to make your (insignificant and petty) point.
“Quite possibly, but very doubtful its anything that would have bearing on the natural born citizen issue. The evidence is overwhelming that he was born in Hawaii, and that settles the natural born citizen question.”
NO IT DOES NOT!!!!!!! If he father is a Kenyan, never a U.S. citizen, then in the ORIGINAL meaning of “Natural Born” at the time of the constitution’s creation, he is NOT “natural born” because he father was not or ever a U.S. citizen. BOTH parents had to be U.S. citizens.
Until the SCOTUS rules otherwise (ignoring it doesn’t count), HE IS NOT “naural born” following the ORIGINAL intent of the constitution. His parentage creates divided loyalties, which is what “natural born” was ALL about.
Since Obama's father was a Kenyan national and not a U.S. citizen, Obama IS NOT a natural born citizen. Both parents must be U.S. citizens to satisfy the statute requirement that their child is a natural born citizen.
I think this explains it all.
UPDATED VERSION! - DID JESUS GIVE US THE NAME OF THE ANTICHRIST?
Maybe the reason there hasn’t been a birth certificate disclosed is because there isn’t one.
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.
“FREE THE LONG FORM!”
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.
On that last classmates.com link you provided of Barack Obama, class of 78, one of the classmates is “Youra Fraud”. LOL.
He’s hiding many, many things.
May they all come to light.
I forgot, Jim.
YES, He is Hiding something.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.