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

Skip to comments.

Plan killed to make 'naturalized' citizens eligible
WorldNetDaily ^ | October 16, 2009 | Bob Unruh

Posted on 10/16/2009 5:59:24 PM PDT by RobinMasters

A congressional committee deliberated only five years ago a plan that would have opened the door to allowing immigrants and others who do not qualify as "natural born" citizens in the United States entry into the Oval office – but ended up killing the plan.

One of the advocates for the plan was Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., whose comments still are available in an audio file posted at Talk Radio News.

"I believe in the right of the people to choose as they wish. People say, 'Well you're amending the Constitution.' The fact is in 1789 the notion of direct democracy was not the one that governed," the congressman said.

"Clearly in terms of world history the people who came to the American continent… They went for the first time to self governance, but they didn't go all the way. We have evolved substantially since that time, I think in a good direction," he said.

"We do have now this major obstacle in the way of the voters, and we say to them, 'We don't trust you, you could get fooled, I mean, they might, some foreign country might sucker you by getting some slick person and mole him into the United States or her and get that person citizenship and then years later have that person get elected president and you'll be too dumb to notice.'

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 111th; birthcertificate; certifigate; naturalborn; naturalization
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

1 posted on 10/16/2009 5:59:24 PM PDT by RobinMasters
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ExTexasRedhead; justiceseeker93; traderrob6; OL Hickory; socialismisinsidious; trlambsr; Altera; ...

Ping.


2 posted on 10/16/2009 5:59:39 PM PDT by RobinMasters
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
'We don't trust you, you could get fooled, I mean, they might, some foreign country might sucker you by getting some slick person and mole him into the United States or her and get that person citizenship and then years later have that person get elected president and you'll be too dumb to notice.'

Well maybe not a foreign government.
3 posted on 10/16/2009 6:03:37 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Seniors, the new shovel ready project under socialized medicine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters; ml/nj; ExTexasRedhead; Fred Nerks; null and void; pissant; BP2; Candor7; patriot08; ..
BTW, 2004 may have been the last time that a change of the NBC provision was discussed in Congress, but there were many earlier attempts, all of which failed!

The 2004 hearings quoted by WND show Orrin Hatch to be almost as unreliable as Barney Frank in terms of trying to change the Constitution by legislation rather than amendment. This is the same Hatch, it should be remembered, who tried to do an end run around the Constitution by endorsing a notion that DC should get an additional seat in the House while Utah would get an additional seat as well. Both of these episodes are black marks on Hatch's credentials as a "conservative."

4 posted on 10/16/2009 6:31:11 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93
BTW, 2004 may have been the last time that a change of the NBC provision was discussed in Congress, but there were many earlier attempts, all of which failed!

Oh, no it wasn't. Try 2008. Sponsored by Claire McCaskill, co-sponsored by Barack Obama (D-IL), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Tom Coburn (R-OK).

S.2678, the Children Of Military Natural Born Citizen Act.

This was followed, bizarrely enough, by Senate Resolution SR 511, purporting to affirm that John McCain was a child of military parents born abroad, and yet still a natural-born citizen, despite their Bill proposing a Constitutional Amendment to make children born abroad natural-born citizens.

Both cannot be true.

5 posted on 10/16/2009 6:45:49 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93; LucyT
'We don't trust you, you could get fooled, I mean, they might, some foreign country might sucker you by getting some slick person and mole him into the United States or her and get that person citizenship and then years later have that person get elected president and you'll be too dumb to notice.'

In 2004? The man is either a prophet or he knew what was going on.

6 posted on 10/16/2009 6:46:11 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

Barney Franks? It was a deliberate in-your-face remark. And, those too dumb to notice were primarily voters for his own Democrat party.

This Constitutional eligibility issue has clearly been discussed at length, from at least 2004 right up until Barack Obama was nominated, which reveals the media embargo, stonewalling and mockery of the past year and a half for exactly what it is, propaganda.


7 posted on 10/16/2009 6:50:39 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
Reading behind the lines, this Bob Unruh article suggests that WND sees, thanks in part to Diane Cotter of Examiner.com, the public becoming better informed about the provision in Article II Section 1 requiring natural born citizenship. That is welcome. It is a tangled web by design, I suspect. Obama may or may not have been born in Hawaii, but his British citizenship by birth is a direct invalidation. He was naturally born with multiple allegiances. Only the president and vice president must be born on our soil of parents who are citizens. Every citizen, naturalized or native, has all the protections and privileges of a natural born citizen, but only a natural born citizen may be president.

The new and valuable contribution of this article is the fact that congress was discussing and informed of the correct definition of natural born citizen - the accepted common law definition. Unruh still glosses over the fact that the various legislative efforts to make it appear that McCain's eligibility had been resolved were legally impotent. The issues remain, and can only be resolved by constitutional amendment. That means the idiotic responses by all legislators who misstate the meaning of natural born citizenship, in spite of dozens of supreme court cases with precedent (reinforcing the common law accepted by the founders) are to cover their behinds should he be removed. They knew, and every legislator should be replaced. I don't know whether legislative immunity covers their lies, but regardless, they have not protected our Constitution.

The existence of the bill raises the valid question of whether this was in anticipation of Obama running for president. We may never know, but a fact is that these efforts to amend Article II Section 1 Clause 5 are not unique. An Obama sponsoring law firm, Kirkham and Ellis, funded a Kent Law Review article in 2005 in which the author, Sarah Herlihy cited 24 previous attempts to amend Article II Sect 1 cl 5. (Her review article was about the same issue, and might be presumed to be preparing the path for Obama; though Kirkham also represented McCain, whose NBC status was always in doubt).

8 posted on 10/16/2009 7:05:17 PM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding; justiceseeker93; Fred Nerks; thouworm; rxsid; GOPJ; null and void; stockpirate; ...
.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

. . . . Article and #8.

.

9 posted on 10/16/2009 7:12:41 PM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding

Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement Sarah p. Herlihy Feb 22 2006

http://www.scribd.com/doc/12873456/Amending-the-Natural-Born-Citizen-Requirement-Sarah-p-Herlihy-Feb-22-2006


10 posted on 10/16/2009 7:15:08 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

I’d say the latter -— “he knew what was going on.”

after the Obama Convention Speech

Congressman Barney Frank [D-MA] speaks as a witness to the Senate Judiciary Committee about his belief that the people of the United States should be able to elect a president of their choosing, even if that candidate is not a natural-born citizen. (1:00)
Tuesday, October 5th, 2004

http://talkradionews.com/page/7/?s=barney+frank


11 posted on 10/16/2009 7:26:41 PM PDT by thouworm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

“We do have now this major obstacle in the way of the voters, and we say to them, ‘We don’t trust you, you could get fooled, I mean, they might, some foreign country might sucker you by getting some slick person and mole him into the United States or her and get that person citizenship and then years later have that person get elected president and you’ll be too dumb to notice.”
~~~
And Look What Happened!!!...


12 posted on 10/16/2009 7:30:36 PM PDT by 1COUNTER-MORTER-68 (THROWING ANOTHER BULLET-RIDDLED TV IN THE PILE OUT BACK~~~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: thouworm
When I wrote:

The man is either a prophet or he knew what was going on.

take my word for it, I wasn't suggesting I believed he was a prophet, I was being somewhat sarcastic. I think a list of those 'who knew' would run into thousands.

he didn't say and you'll be too dumb to notice.' for nothing...

13 posted on 10/16/2009 7:37:49 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters; LucyT

Unbelievable..


14 posted on 10/16/2009 7:45:36 PM PDT by Freedom2specul8 (I am Jim Thompson............................Please pray for our troops....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry; LucyT; ml/nj; ExTexasRedhead; Red Steel; AJFavish; SunkenCiv; David; pissant; ...
S. 2678, the Children Of Military Natural Born Citizen Act.

Apparently that bill failed to pass. Do you know what the provisions were? It may have clarified McCain's status if it had passed, but it probably wouldn't have done anything directly for Obama, since he obviously was not a child of military personnel. I'd assume, though, that Obama sponsored it so that McCain would be loathe to challenge O's constitutional qualifications during the upcoming campaign as a payback.

15 posted on 10/16/2009 7:46:31 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

I think you are giving Barney Frank a little too much credit for his supposed clairvoyance. I think his speech was more grandstanding and pandering to immigrants in general than specifically trying to smooth the way for Obama four years down the road.


16 posted on 10/16/2009 7:51:48 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

lol.... I was just stating the obvious. I made the post to identify the month, not realizing it was already in the original article.


17 posted on 10/16/2009 7:54:36 PM PDT by thouworm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

Thanks js93.


18 posted on 10/16/2009 7:55:29 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/__Since Jan 3, 2004__Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

At one time, in 1790, there was a provision in our government for the children born overseas to U.S. citizens to be considered natural born Citizens. But it was repealed or revoked by 1795. That kind of says it all, you know.


19 posted on 10/16/2009 7:58:36 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NO Foreign Nationals as our President!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

What’s the National Broadcasting Company’s position?


20 posted on 10/16/2009 8:00:35 PM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

0bama also tried to get it to include any descendant of military personnel.


21 posted on 10/16/2009 8:07:35 PM PDT by null and void (We are now in day 267 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
Something is all twisted here. I did extensive research on this and now WND & Talk radio news with a 1 minute clip are giving what I think is bogus information. The Senate Judiciary records for that day show something quite different.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/search.cfm?q=Maximizing+Voter+Choice%3A+Opening+the+Presidency+to+Naturalized+Americans&site=judiciary&num=10&filter=0&submit.x=10&submit.y=7

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1326&wit_id=51

In 2004 Senator Nickles introduced a bill(S. 2128) to define ‘natural born’. It is in Part II of my series, A Congressional Natural Born Citizen. Those testifying that day were: Professor Akhil Amar, Doctor Matthew Spalding &
Professor John Yinger. Committee members were: Hatch, Leahy, Nickles & Conyers.

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/a-congressional-natural-born-citizen-parts-i-ii-iii/

If that audio came from Barney, it was not from the Senate hearing, I believe, from reading all the testimony on NBC thus far, that audio pertains to the numerous bills to eliminate the electoral college.

From Barney's statement in 2000: But whatever the rules are by which we elect people, I do not favor putting obstacles on the ability of the people to choose who they wish under those rules. I think the American public is perfectly capable of making those decisions, and for both those reasons I think the amendment is a good idea.

While the coverage is relevant & welcomed, atleast get the facts straight so people know where to look for the information. WND does none of this, they only quote what came from some blog without fact finding for themselves.

22 posted on 10/16/2009 8:57:44 PM PDT by patlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dalereed

NBC stands for “Natural Born Citizen”, one of the requirements in the Constitution for the presidency of the United States. Whether or not O meets that requirement is the subject of substantial discussion here on FR.


23 posted on 10/16/2009 9:11:37 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

You’re a lazy bastard!


24 posted on 10/16/2009 9:13:11 PM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

To: justiceseeker93

Thanks for the ping!


26 posted on 10/16/2009 9:34:27 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

McCain’s birth status was clear from the beginning. He was a Natural Born Citizen of the US, iaw the Constitution.

The Panama Canal Zone was considered to be US territory and was under US control at the time of his birth there in the Navy hospital. Both of his parents were US citizens.


27 posted on 10/16/2009 9:37:23 PM PDT by octex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

A prophet .... maybe .. or someone
who knew the evil doings that were
afoot.

I think I’ll go with the latter .. ;)


28 posted on 10/16/2009 9:45:34 PM PDT by STARWISE (The Art & Science Institute of Chicago Politics NE Div: now open at the White House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: null and void; thouworm

you mean - 'my grandfather served under Patton and my Uncle-in-Law liberated Auschwitz' (no he didn't!)

29 posted on 10/16/2009 9:56:20 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

...always acuse others of what you are yourself guilty of...


30 posted on 10/16/2009 9:58:08 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
Barney took that from Forrest McDonald who testified before the House Judiciary Committee on the Constitution in 2000:

McDonald: The original Constitution contemplated a relatively weak presidency, but the office has become the most powerful in the world, and safeguards surrounding it are therefore more indispensable than ever. The one area of presidential authority that is virtually unchecked and uncheckable (despite the War Powers Act and similar efforts) is the president's power as commander in chief. Can that power be safely entrusted to a foreign-born citizen? John Jay didn't think so; nor do I; nor I suspect do the vast majority of Americans. Let us consider a few scenarios. Start with an extreme example. The espionage agencies of a number of countries, doubtless including the United States, have sometimes employed what in the spy novel is called an agent under deep cover. A young person is thoroughly trained and indoctrinated before being sent to an enemy country, where he or she becomes a citizen and an exemplar of respectable behavior. This goes on for years, even decades, until the parent agency determines that it is time to activate the agent. It is not difficult to imagine such a person obtaining an office of great trust. But a Senator is one of 100, and a Representative is one of 435. What check is there on the president who is one of one, except for the constitutional restriction? Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Should that seem too remote a possibility, consider a more likely case. A person comes to America from country ''X'' as a young man, takes out citizenship, become thoroughly Americanized, and is as loyal to his adopted country as can be. Nonetheless, in dealing with his original country he is bound to be influenced by his nativity, whether in the form of hostility or favoritism. Even should he prove able to rise above his prejudices and deal with the old country objectively, he would still be widely regarded as prejudiced, and the media would fan such suspicions. As commander in chief, it is not enough to be above reproach, one must be above the suspicion of reproach.

Frank: The problem I have with that Manchurian Candidate scenario of yours is that precisely the Manchurian Candidate was an American. The fact was that if we have this really omniscient foreign power—and I think I should say that in our entire history we have apparently had no examples of an elected official being planted from overseas, we have had no examples of a foreign country doing that, because as you have said, we have the House and the Senate, we have the Supreme Court, and there are other important positions. And I am not aware that anybody has ever succeeded in planting that mole here and have him or her grow into prominence and then be an elected official. But if you were going to do that, there would be no need to do it with one of your own nationals. As a matter of fact, it would be far cleverer to pick an American. There are Americans of a wide range of loyalties and ideologies. In fact, many of the most prominent spies have been native-born Americans.

31 posted on 10/16/2009 10:04:00 PM PDT by patlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: thouworm
Frank's logic could also mean that the people of the US should be free to re-elect Obama to a third and fourth and fifth terms...if it is their choice.

I'm sure they'd love to get rid of the 22nd amendment, but 13 states can block repeal by refusing to ratify an amendment repealing the 22nd.

32 posted on 10/16/2009 10:10:32 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

Yep ..


33 posted on 10/16/2009 10:13:58 PM PDT by STARWISE (The Art & Science Institute of Chicago Politics NE Div: now open at the White House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

even if it may not have been in their minds then, it sure is now. There’s too much evidence that they looked at NBC clause as a “problem” that needed a solution.


34 posted on 10/16/2009 10:34:33 PM PDT by thouworm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
Thanks for the reference Fred. I've gotten lazy, figuring that if anyone is interested they will do a search. But I should have included it. It used to be posted at Kirkham and Ellis and at Kent Review, but like many leaks in Obama’s shield, was scrubbed from both sites in the early spring. How sad that we are doing battle with would-be tyrants who are busily hiding who they are.

I believe Scribd had pulled it for a few days. I wrote to them questioning their business plan and stated objectives (I'm sort of in their business), and suggesting that maintaining independence as stated in their bylaws might be in their long term business interest since they host documents which, if they couldn't assert complete neutrality, might cause them legal problems. I think they agreed because the document returned.

They said the document was not filtered at their servers, but I believe they are hosted by Google, so it may not have been Scribd. But it was filtered because I could still find documents I've accessed before at Scribd; it was not a nameserver problem.

35 posted on 10/16/2009 11:14:05 PM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: octex
McCain’s birth status was clear from the beginning. He was a Natural Born Citizen of the US, iaw the Constitution. The Panama Canal Zone was considered to be US territory and was under US control at the time of his birth there in the Navy hospital. Both of his parents were US citizens.

His birth status was controversial going back to his first Presidential run. His being a natural-born citizen was and is in doubt under the Constitution.

The Panama Canal Zone was leased. Do you seriously entertain the idea, that we just handed over sovereign territory? The nation of Panama did not cede jurisdiction completely, and under the Constitution of Panama, John McCain was born a citizen of Panama. By virtue of his having been born of two U.S. citizen parents, John McCain was born a citizen of the U.S. as well.

That Senate Resolution, SR 511, would have been completely unnecessary, had there been no controversy over John McCain's citizenship status. And, the many Senate Bills, seeking to amend the Constitution, in order to extend natural-born citizenship to children born outside the country to military parents, would also be entirely unnecessary.

You're engaging in wishful thinking. The law and the Constitution do no support what you've said, unfair as it may sound. There are practical reasons to exclude individuals with foreign citizenship claims upon them from the Presidency, though, no matter how that foreign citizenship was acquired, or under what circumstance.

36 posted on 10/17/2009 5:14:31 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
We had the “Senate Club” sanitize both of their members.

After they scrubbed McCain Clean, he couldn't point fingers at anyone else because he himself needed a good Scrubbing to qualify.

The House and Senate no longer represent the people, as they deliberately disrespect our contract with them. It's “In Your Face” attitude now.

2010 has all the ingredients of a massacre. There only hope is to manufacture more citizens who hate the country.

37 posted on 10/17/2009 7:01:19 AM PDT by PA-RIVER (Don't blame me. I voted for the American guy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

On many of the PUMA webbies, it has been theorized that the decision to ‘annoint’ BHO WAS made back IN 2004. The reason being Obama’s willingness to destroy the dollar/economy vs. Clinton(s) opposition to the plan. That is part of the reason why Hillary faced corrupt early caucus; had delegates and super delegates taken away.

The timing of the public acknowledgement of (at that time) a non issue by someone as corrupt as Frank raises all kinds of warnings with me.

The Won came out of virtual thin air to win the Oval Office. Great luck, or alot of preplanning.

There is too much ‘smoke’ for there not to be a ‘fire.’

My opinion on why the Birth Certificate issue is still in the courts, is that it is a nagging reminder to Obama to keep him in line; and not veer off plan. Do that and the ‘powers’ drop the paperwork and Obama is taken from office and becomes a blemish on Presidency.


38 posted on 10/17/2009 10:19:38 AM PDT by PennsylvaniaMom (Mmm, mmm, mmm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: octex
The Panama Canal Zone was considered to be US territory and was under US control at the time of [McCain's] birth there in the Navy hospital.

I would agree with you as to the status of the Canal Zone at the time of McCain's birth. In fact, I have several older maps with the indication of the Canal Zone as "CANAL ZONE (U. S.)" Furthermore, the Canal Zone, though not a state, traditionally sent its own delegates (as did the other US territories) to the GOP and Dem presidential conventions - until Carter gave it back to Panama.

However, there seems to be some dispute as to whether the Navy hospital at which McCain was born was located in the Canal Zone or just outside of it in Panama.

Regardless, I think it is reasonable to pass legislation specifying that children born at a US government facility anywhere in the world to two US citizen parents are natural born citizens. For some reason, this has never been done.

39 posted on 10/17/2009 5:22:13 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
A congressional committee deliberated only five years ago a plan that would have opened the door to allowing immigrants and others who do not qualify as "natural born" citizens in the United States entry into the Oval office – but ended up killing the plan.

Let's not forget why this plan was deliberated in the first place.

This was shortly after Arnold Schwarzenegger won the California Recall election for Governor in 2003. There was "bipartisan" support for this at the time because the Democrats also saw Jennifer Granholm as their foreign-born rising star.

-PJ

40 posted on 10/17/2009 5:27:10 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (Comprehensive congressional reform legislation only yields incomprehensible bills that nobody reads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PennsylvaniaMom; LucyT; ExTexasRedhead; SunkenCiv; Clintonfatigued; Just A Nobody; smoothsailing; ..
On many of the PUMA webbies, it has been theorized that the decision to 'anoint' BHO WAS made back in 2004.

Hard to believe that the anointers would be thinking of running Obama (who was still in the IL state Senate in '04) in 2008, at a time in 2004 when Kerry was probably considered likely to beat Bush. Do you really think that they would plot against a future Kerry re-election bid back then? Would the Kerry people have let O give a prime time speech at the 2004 Dem convention if they thought that O had such ideas for '08?

No, the PUMAs don't make sense with this theory. They were too upset at being beaten by dirty tactics within their own party to think logically.

The very earliest the Obamatons could have started their planning for his anointment would be the day after the election in '04, and Frank made his remarks before then.

BTW, can anyone state with certainty when Frank formally endorsed O against HRC for the Dem nomination? How early was it?

Frank never impressed me as being particular bright, even in his promotion of his his own sinister causes. His speech is often garbled and illogical. If he were so sharp, he'd never have been exposed with the gay escort service running out of his Washington apartment.

41 posted on 10/17/2009 11:40:06 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

As of Jan 10, 2008, “Hillary Clinton, Obama’s main rival for the Democratic nomination, has Representatives Barney Frank”

John Kerry To Endorse Obama For President

From Boston Globe:
Kerry to endorse Obama January 10, 2008
By Susan Milligan, Globe Staff

John F. Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, will endorse Barack Obama in this year’s race, a source close to the Massachusetts senator said.

Kerry, who announced last year he would not again seek his party’s nomination for president, believes his Illinois colleague “has the best potential to bring about transformational change,” said the official, who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to speak about the endorsement before Kerry makes it official in Charleston today.

Kerry is the latest prominent Massachusetts Democrat to join Obama’s team, following Governor Deval Patrick and Representative William Delahunt, among others.

Hillary Clinton, Obama’s main rival for the Democratic nomination, has Representatives Barney Frank, Stephen Lynch, James McGovern, and Richard Neal in her corner.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy has not yet made his pick…

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/john-kerry-to-endorse-obama-for-president


42 posted on 10/18/2009 12:01:27 AM PDT by thouworm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

McCain was not born in Panama. He was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which was US territory.

I believe it was Jimmah Cahtah that gave away the Canal Zone and that was long after McCain’s birth there.

What does it matter anyway? The wimpy RINO McCain will never be Prez.


43 posted on 10/18/2009 1:40:34 AM PDT by octex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

Thanks for your reply, JS93!

I’ve had to argue with a handful of folks who just refuse to believe that McCain was born on US territory. Frustrating.


44 posted on 10/18/2009 2:05:24 AM PDT by octex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: thouworm; All
So Frank supported HRC at the start of the Dem primary season. Kind of goes a long way to debunking the theory that Frank was running interference for Obama back in Oct. ‘04 in that “natural born citizen” debate.
45 posted on 10/18/2009 6:22:49 AM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93; ExTexasRedhead; fieldmarshaldj; Impy; AuH2ORepublican; BillyBoy; PhilCollins

“it has been theorized that the decision to ‘anoint’ BHO WAS made back in 2004.”

Actually, this is plausable. Look at the circumstances of his election to the U.S. Senate. The Chicago Tribune actually filed suit to get the Republican nominee’s divorce records unsealed for the purpose of damaging his candidacy. This is unprecedented, as far as I can tell. The result was not only did the nominee (Jack Ryan) withdraw, but Republicans were unable to find a feasible candidate. Clearly, something unusual was going on for Obama’s sake. He got adoring media attention even though he accomplished little as a state legislator. Then, he was elected President even though he was a first-term Senator with no major legislation under his belt. I don’t know of this ever happening in American history.


46 posted on 10/18/2009 7:12:17 AM PDT by Clintonfatigued (Liberal sacred cows make great hamburger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

The plot, IMO, goes back way further than 2004. Yes, plot as in sinister and suspect.


47 posted on 10/18/2009 7:49:00 AM PDT by ExTexasRedhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: octex
What does it matter anyway? The wimpy RINO McCain will never be Prez.

It matters because it's relevant to the issue at hand, because McCain also has doubts as to his eligibility to the office of President under Constitutional original intent. Otherwise, there would not have been that wildly unconstitutional Senate Resolution 511, and there would not have been multiple bills proposed, at least five since 2000, with the purpose of Constitutional amendment to make children born abroad of military parents natural-born citizens.

As far as simply "giving away" the Zone, please consider how that might be possible for sovereign territory. It's not. Administrative control of the Zone was gradually returned to Panama, beginning in 1979 and completely ceded in 1999. Under the constitution of Panama, the Zone always was Panamanian territory. They granted the United States authority to act "as if" it were U.S. territory. "As if" precludes actual, full territorial control. Our own State Department recognized this.

Regarding John McCain's specific predicament, I'll refer you to the very thorough analysis of the matter by Gabriel J. Chin (University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law). The following is an abstract of that analysis:

Senator McCain was born in 1936 in the Canal Zone to U.S. citizen parents. The Canal Zone was territory controlled by the United States, but it was not incorporated into the Union. As requested by Senator McCain's campaign, distinguished constitutional lawyers Laurence Tribe and Theodore Olson examined the law and issued a detailed opinion offering two reasons that Senator McCain was a natural born citizen. Neither is sound under current law. The Tribe-Olson Opinion suggests that the Canal Zone, then under exclusive U.S. jurisdiction, may have been covered by the Fourteenth Amendment's grant of citizenship to "all persons born . . . in the United States." However, in the Insular Cases, the Supreme Court held that "unincorporated territories" were not part of the United States for constitutional purposes. Accordingly, many decisions hold that persons born in unincorporated territories are not Fourteenth Amendment citizens. The Tribe-Olson Opinion also suggests that Senator McCain obtained citizenship by statute. However, the only statute in effect in 1936 did not cover the Canal Zone. Recognizing the gap, in 1937, Congress passed a citizenship law applicable only to the Canal Zone, granting Senator McCain citizenship, but eleven months too late for him to be a citizen at birth. Because Senator John McCain was not a citizen at birth, he is not a "natural born Citizen" and thus is not "eligible to the Office of President" under the Constitution.

This essay concludes by exploring how changes in constitutional law implied by the Tribe-Olson Opinion, such as limiting the Insular Cases and expanding judicial review of immigration and nationality laws passed by Congress, could make Senator McCain a citizen at birth and thus a natural born citizen.

A natural-born citizen cannot be "made" after the fact, octex. It is a status that is or is not present at birth. Prof. Chin provides some support, for those who claim that John McCain was not even born a U.S. citizen. I'll refute that very severe claim, by citing U.S. immigration and naturalization statutes going all the way back to 1795. John McCain was born a citizen. Just not a natural-born citizen.

48 posted on 10/18/2009 8:34:30 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93; PennsylvaniaMom; Clintonfatigued

Kerry was never likely to beat Bush. But obviously Obama would not have run if Kerry were elected in 2004, instead he’d have waited till 2012.

The stupid hype over his BS pap rainbow speech in 2004 was proof powerful elements in the rat party were keen on selling Obama for the next opening. They knew of course it would be a battle royale with Shrillery so I’d hardly call it “anointing”.


49 posted on 10/18/2009 1:37:50 PM PDT by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN | NO "INDIVIDUAL MANDATE"!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Impy
If ACORN had managed to produce another 120,000 votes for Kerry in Ohio in 2004, he would have won the electoral vote contest against Bush.

JFK gave away part of Texas to Mexico--at least some people would see it that way. (An international court had ruled in Mexico's favor--it had to do with a bit of land called El Chamizal in El Paso, where the Rio Grande had shifted its course).

50 posted on 10/21/2009 6:33:37 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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