Skip to comments.Who Is Behind Quashing the Birth Certificate Issue?
Posted on 08/25/2009 2:47:30 PM PDT by AJMCQ
Back in October of 2008, when the subject of Obamas Constitutional eligibility to be president of the United States was just a blip on the radar screen of public awareness, I wrote an article about how easy it was to find my then -92-year-old mothers birth certificate.
Frankly, I didnt think finding my mothers birth certificate was possible, given the fact that she had been born in a farmhouse in Storrs, CT, along with nine of her 10 siblings, to parents who didnt speak English. Despairing that she would never be qualified to receive the care [in a nursing home} that she desperately needed, I set about to find the document, which I was sure had vanished in the unreliable record-keeping of 1913. When I called the third number, I explained to the woman who answered the phone that I was asking something impossible. I gave her my mothers first name and her fathers last name. Within four minutes, she said, Here it is! When I expressed my amazement, the woman said: Thats nothing
were routinely asked to find birth certificates from the 1800s, and we do that all the time! Total time it took me to find my mothers 1913, born-in-a-farmhouse birth certificate: 10 minutes!
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
...come to think of it, who exactly paid for his stint at the Harvard Law School? What role did 0bamas long-time friend, Khalid al-Mansour, a key advisor to a Saudi billionaire, play?
Writer Kenneth Timmerman describes al-Mansour as well known within the black community as a lawyer, an orthodox Muslim, a black nationalist, an author, an international deal-maker, an educator, and an outspoken enemy of Israel.
This is not to omit that al-Mansour was originally contacted to intervene with Harvard on 0bamas behalf by Percy Sutton, former Manhattan Borough President and the lawyer of Malcolm X.
~ Ping to #55 for more.
Those defending the Constitution are asking a polite and rational question, “Mr. Obama, please prove that you are a natural born citizen.” As Obama’s unpopularity grows I expect the demand for him to prove his natural born status will grow.
If and when he is proven not to natural born, I hope conservatives will rub in the nose of Ann Coulter, Michael Medved, and the directors of Fox News.
as writer Chelsea Schilling has scrupulously documented, ¬the Federal Election Commission shows Obamas campaign has made regular payments to Perkins Coie since Jan. 1, 2007the month he formed a presidential exploratory committee and only weeks before he formally announced his candidacy for president[and up to the present]has paid Perkins Coie, a single law firm, $2.3 million
to crush eligibility lawsuits.
Small errors! Not properly serving the defendant in your case for 8 months is a "small error"!
Glenn Beck has scared me completely this week. I am calling senators and congressmen tomorrow and raising holy hell about commies in the white house. MY white house.
Unfortunately, there are no SCOTUS cases, to the best of my knowledge, which discuss the definition of "natural born citizen" as related to presidential qualifications. Some scholars contend that it means "born of US citizens," others that it means "born on U.S. soil," and still others that it means that both of these criteria have to be satisfied.
can you point me to ‘investigating obama’?
:’) Thanks j.
This is a must read. The ENTIRE article is a must read. thank you AND THANK YOU CANADA !
Here you are:
Yep, birther is just meant to insult those that are concerned. A made up word just like homophobe is...meaningless....
“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.” (natives and indigenes mean Marshall was refering to the French edition of Vattel; subsequent English translations used natural-born citizen - citizenship defined by nature and not by law.)
Then, if you are really interested, try Minor v. Happersett and Wong Kim Ark and Perkins v. Elg. There is even a case from 2001 in which the citizenship of parents is discussed with an uninformed Justice Ginsberg, but the full statement not repeated - just citizen parents, which alarmed her because her grandchildren were born in France and would not be eligible for president.
Then read John Bingham, co-author of the 14th amendment, speaking to a joint session of Congress in 1866:
“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born with the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the languageof your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen ...”
There are analysis by Joseph Story, by Alexander Hamilton, and a dozen other constitution scholars affirming this definition. The efforts to obfuscate this well understood concept, which predates Vattel’s Law of Nations by millenia, but which document John Marshall cites in his decision in The Venus will continue until the courts resolve Obama's eligibility, or until we lose our 1st amendment as well as Article II.
As our republic is being dismantled it will be essential for those of us who resist to understand that the public face chosen for this revolution is not eligible to be president. My suspicion is that those who chose Obama - the Shadow Government - have never had much regard for the constitution, and most have only read it with distain if at all. Quite a few in legal academia have written devious articles to provide cover for some of the misleading nonesense about the definition of natural-born, and to provide cover for McCain, who is not a natural-born citizen. (That is why McCain was supported by the state-run media; his presence on the ticket silenced republicans.)
I don’t dismiss the possibility that McCain, who has received significant support from Soros over the years may be a willing participant. Some evidence for that is the promotion by the Republican party of Bobby Jindal, neither of whose parents were citizens when Bobby was born, as a presidential candidate. I definitely prefer Jindal’s political views to Obama’s, but believe that protecting the Constitution is critical to the survival of our republic. If our courts don’t address Obama’s ineligibility, and you can be sure all the justices know who John Marshall is and understand the definition of natural-born citizen, precedence will establish that the citizenship of parents is no longer necessary, and the child of illegal alien terrorists, born on our soil, would be eligible to be president. Illegal aliens may well elect our next president anyway, and probably had no small role in electing this one.
No one in our legislature dared to ask about Obama’s eligibity as they were required by oath to do - to defend and protect the constitution, and Article II Section 1 is part of our constitution. The 10th Amendment is a memory and the 1st Amendment is about to follow.
Had only those in the media, including supposed conservatives, understood that if they did keep quiet, threatend or not, they would still lose their radio stations, income, and future - Mark Levin, Hannity, and even Rush, (since a few jokes about birth certificates is not the issue). The silly schoolyard name calling is sadly effective, and reflects the state of reasoned dialog, of education, on both sides. The Obama supporters don’t have reason on their side, but cleverly use Alinsky tools to silence questions. That can only succeed because so few Birthers understand the real issue - that Obama's father's citizenship disqualifies his son from our presidency. It is a mess, but it is a fact. The longer the courts or military put off forcing our supreme court to clarify the issue the worse matters become.
In case you are honestly inquiring about the reasoning behind and meaning of natural-born citizen here is a reference to one of the most clear analysis, written by Joseph Story in 1833 on Article II Section 1. Story assumes you know the Vattel definition of natural-born, and cites Vattel as a principle source, but he elucidates the reasons for the natural-born requirement for presidents:
Perhaps. Or it may be that he and others are taking a different approach.
The BC issue has been shaped by obama supporters so that many who might otherwise pay attention ignore it all together.
Beck's expose is opening my eyes much wider than they were and showing me that obama and his regime are a very real and immediate, very clear and present danger. I believe what Beck is doing is not only far more effective in getting people's attention, but also lays the emotional groundwork for the BC issue to really catch fire.
It might be possible for many to be a bit outraged by the obama BC issue, but not have it rise much higher than that, sorta like the Clinton and Monica/lying under oath impeachment. Yeah, it was a big deal to me, but enough people looked at it as "hey, it's all about sex, so it's not that big of a deal and besides, the economy's good."
obama isn't Clinton and doesn't have a republican congress and a good economy like Clinton had. People might be a bit more willing to be outraged now with obama in ways they never would have been with Clinton.
Odumbas* is no longer a Trojan horse. He is exposed and people are fighting back now.
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.