Posted on 12/07/2009 10:47:09 PM PST by Frantzie
More than a few Times-Union readers want to know:
Is Barack Obama eligible to be president of the United States?
All the independent fact-checking sources, some of which did extensive original research on the issue, conclude that Obama is a natural born citizen, having been born on American soil in Honolulu, and is thus eligible to be president.
(Excerpt) Read more at jacksonville.com ...
There is a Long Form Birth Certificate because Obama found it years ago before Hawaii went digital so they say and no longer issue Long Forms. According to Page 26 last paragraph in his book “Dreams of My Father”......Obama’s Admission:
From “Dreams…” — page 26, last paragraph:
“I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school. It’s a short piece, with a photograph of him. No mention is made of my mother or me, and I’m left to wonder whether the omission was intentional on my father’s part, in anticipation of his long departure. Perhaps the reporter failed to ask personal questions, intimidated by my father’s imperious manner; or perhaps it was an editorial decision, not part of the simple story that they were looking for. I wonder, too, whether the omission caused a fight between my parents.”
So there is a Long Form that exists according to his admission in his book. Also Hawaii said there was a Ammendment on file with his vitals which means there was a adoption or something to that extent. Leo Donofrio pinned them down on that. Now here are the experts who according to Fact Check declared he was born in Hawaii and held his COLB.
FactCheck.org identifies their analysts as Jess Henig and Joe Miller.
See them Here:
http://www.theobamafile.com/_eligibility/AnnenbergFactCheckers.htm
http://www.greatdreams.com/2008/obama-hands.jpg
So says the IPCC. They had their best scientists working on this.
Barack admits to NOT being a Natural Born Citizen based on his British citizenship. Why he entered the race appears to be a case of fraud. He’s already admitted to being a dual citizen. It appears he initially lied when he ran and then posted a fraudulent fake birth certificate on his website. He directed voters to his website. He posted a fake document on his website. It doesn’t matter where he was born, he lied during the campaign and isn’t eligible based on election fraud. As well as all of his knowing accomplices.
Such incredible BS.
Why do we need to do “deep independent research”?
Why doesn’t he just hand around Congress his true original BC (NOT COLB),
... as did John McCain?
Because he can’t???
So, we get endless BS propaganda from the BS Media saying over and over that his BC is online ... which it is not.
When when when is posting something “online” considered sufficient —— and this is for being President of the United States!!!
Not that anyone gives a sh*t.
At the time of the drafting and ratification of the United States constitution,
the definition of natural born citizen, combined both the principles of jus soli and jus sanguinis.
“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 natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Emmerich De Vattel, (1714-1767,) Law of Nations, 1758, § 212, "Of the citizens and naturals."
Another thing is there is this:
FactCheck does say their, “representatives got a chance to spend some time with the ‘birth certificate,’ and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago.”
Factcheck says its in Chicago at his headquarters which still exists. Why haven’t attorneys subpoened the Chicago Headquarters for it? Is it in Hawaii or Chicago?
Also where a lot of people get hung up is when they say on Factcheck that Obamas Kenyan Citizenship expired. They say this:
When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
Do you see the deception in that statement. It is a code hidden that thank god the military teaches you to learn to recognize when deciphering psychological propaganda. Here it is. It is plain and simple. It says since he neither renounced his oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug 4. 1982. Yes that is true but what it doesn’t say is that his British Citizenship passed to him by his father at birth has never expired. Kenya Citizenship doesn’t have anything to do with it anymore. We are talking about two foreign citizenships. One Kenyan and one British. Kenya has expired but under the British Nationalty Act of 48, England still has a claim on Obama. The Obama Tean know this and it is a clever disguise to trip up people and make them assume he is a Natural Born Citizen and the issue is over.
Another thing is there is this:
FactCheck does say their, “representatives got a chance to spend some time with the ‘birth certificate,’ and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago.”
Factcheck says its in Chicago at his headquarters which still exists. Why haven’t attorneys subpoened the Chicago Headquarters for it? Is it in Hawaii or Chicago?
Also where a lot of people get hung up is when they say on Factcheck that Obamas Kenyan Citizenship expired. They say this:
When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
Do you see the deception in that statement. It is a code hidden that thank god the military teaches you to learn to recognize when deciphering psychological propaganda. Here it is. It is plain and simple. It says since he neither renounced his oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug 4. 1982. Yes that is true but what it doesn’t say is that his British Citizenship passed to him by his father at birth has never expired. Kenya Citizenship doesn’t have anything to do with it anymore. We are talking about two foreign citizenships. One Kenyan and one British. Kenya has expired but under the British Nationalty Act of 48, England still has a claim on Obama. The Obama Tean know this and it is a clever disguise to trip up people and make them assume he is a Natural Born Citizen and the issue is over.
That would all be relevant, IF Vattel's writings were a governing document of the United States. and IF the Vattel translation that you have posted actually existed at the time of the Constitution's ratification and IF there were legislation passed by Congress or Court decision which defined Natural Born Citizen as you wish for it to be defined.
However, on all counts your theory is flawed since we look to our Constitution , not the French writings of a Swiss philosopher as a governing document and the Vattel translation that you cite did not exist in 1787 and there has been no legislation or Court ruling that defines natural born citizen as you have stated.
Could you please cite a Court decision or the federal legislation that defines natural born citizen as you say it is defined?
Robert Trout
Among those citing Vattel in legal cases and government documents, were Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, and John Marshall.
John Adams, the future delegate to the Continental Congress, second President of the U.S., and father of President John Quincy Adams,
recorded in his Diary on Feb. 1, 1763, that after spending the day frivolously, instead of reading and thinking,
``The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me.'' In 1765, Adams copied into his Diary three statements by Vattel, ``of great use to Judges,''
that laws should be interpreted according to the intent of the author, and every interpretation which leads to absurdity should be rejected.
In a letter to the Foreign Minister of Denmark, in 1779, Benjamin Franklin quoted Vattel, and ``his excellent Treatise entitled {Le Droit des Gens.}''
James Madison, as a member of the Continental Congress in 1780, drafted the instructions sent to John Jay,
for negotiating a treaty with Spain, which quotes at length from {The Law of Nations.}
Jay complained that this letter, which was probably read by the Spanish government, was not in code,
and ``Vattel's {Law of Nations,} which I found quoted in a letter from Congress, is prohibited here.''
Later, John Marshall, during his thirty-four years as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court,
quoted Vattel by far the most among all authors on the law of nations.
The Law of Nations} and The Declaration of Independence
Delegates to the First and Second Continental Congress, which produced the Declaration of Independence,
often consulted {The Law of Nations,} as a reference for their discussions.
One important reason why the delegates chose to meet in Carpenters Hall, was that the building also housed the Library Company of Philadelphia.
The librarian reported that Vattel was one of the main sources consulted by the delegates during the First Continental Congress,
which met from Sept. 5 to Oct. 26, 1774.
Charles W.F. Dumas, an ardent supporter of the American cause, printed an edition of {The Law of Nations} in 1774,
with his own notes illustrating how the book applied to the American situation.
In 1770, Dumas had met Franklin in Holland, and was one of Franklin's key collaborators in his European diplomacy.
He sent three copies to Franklin, instructing him to send one to Harvard University, and to put one in the Philadelphia library.
Franklin sent Dumas a letter, Dec. 9, 1775, thanking him for the gift.
Franklin stated, ``I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel.
It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations.
Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting ...|.''
The study of {The Law of Nations} by the delegates to the Continental Congress, to answer questions ``of the circumstances of a rising state,''
is reflected in the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776.
The central ideas of that document are coherent with Vattel's arguments on the criteria of a people to overthrow a tyrannical sovereign.
The Declaration of Independence states that governments are instituted to fulfill the
``inalienable rights'' of ``life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,'' and can be changed if they fail to meet these obligations to the people.
Governments should not be changed for light and transient causes, but only after a long chain of abuses to the fundamental rights of the people,
with repeated requests for redress of grievances, which were refused.
Repeated appeals were made to our ``British Brethren,'' but since they
``have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity,'' we are prepared to face them either in war or in peace.
Therefore, we declare ourselves independent of the British Crown, with the full powers of a sovereign government,
``to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which Independent States may of right do.''
The inclusion of the central conception of {The Law of Nations,} Vattel's Leibnizian concept of happiness,
as one of the three inalienable rights, is a crucial statement of the Declaration's Leibnizian character.
The Declaration of Independence was prepared by a committee consisting of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson,
John Adams, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman.
Jefferson was assigned by this committee to write the draft of the Declaration,
after John Adams turned down the task, because of his numerous other responsibilities
I am actually in favor of a state mandating that presidential candidates provide a birth certificate, college transcripts and full medical records prior to being placed on the ballot.
However, since there is no legal definition of "natural born citizen," how would such a state determine of a person is Constitutionally qualified for the office?
lulz
jerk
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.
