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

Skip to comments.

Attorney Stephen Pidgeon to Glenn Beck
Tea Party Nation ^

Posted on 01/05/2010 7:16:47 PM PST by Man50D

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-262 next last
To: thecraw; Drew68
"The definition of "Natural Born Citizen" that requires both parents to be U.S. citizens is nothing more than a fictional device created by birthers specifically to be a standard of eligibility that Obama could not possibly meet. As such, you'll find this definition nowhere in the Constitution or any established case law."

Wishing this requirement is a "fictional device created by birthers" does not make it so

Here's the short version as to why Drew's right, and the 'two citizen parent' requirement is a fictional device:

1) Obama wrote a book, "Dreams From My Father," wherein he makes it abundantly clear that his father was Kenyan, and not a U.S. citizen. The book was published in 1995. It was re-released in 2004. It was a New York Times #1 bestseller, and the audiobook won a 2006 Grammy award.

Ergo, the fact that Barack Obama Sr. was a Kenyan has been a publicly acknowledged fact for 15 years, and has been a VERY publicly acknowledged fact since 2004.

2) Obama Jr. announced he was running for President in February 2007. He won the Iowa Caucus in January 2008, and clinched the Democratic nomination in early June 2008.

3) Despite the very well-known facts of the senior Obama's Kenyan nationality since at least 2004 if not 1995, and despite a contentious Presidential campaign that began in early 2007, when did people start making the argument that Obama Sr.'s Kenyan citizenship made Obama Jr. Constitutionally ineligible, even though he was born in Hawaii to an American mother?

JUNE/JULY 2008

If the 'two citizen parent' requirement were true, and not a fictional device, it is absolutely astounding that no one realized that this was a straightforward Constitutional bar to his eligibility until almost a year and a half into his campaign, and almost 15 years after he published his memoir. Apparently, we're supposed to think that this simple and obvious fact simply escaped EVERYONE'S attention, including every Obama opponent in the country, until mid-2008 when it was suddenly and inexplicably realized that he'd been ineligible all along and nobody had noticed.

But no, the reason that no one advanced this theory until 2008 was because the 'two citizen parent' requirement didn't EXIST until 2008, and didn't start getting passed around until Obama had locked down the Democratic nomination.

201 posted on 01/06/2010 3:16:44 PM PST by LorenC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
The definition of "Natural Born Citizen" that requires both parents to be U.S. citizens is nothing more than a fictional device created by birthers specifically to be a standard of eligibility that Obama could not possibly meet.

It is decidedly not my intent to cast aspersions at birthers, but I have yet not found anything in the law that clearly defines natural born citizens. Natural born and native seem to be used interchangeably. The only distinction I seem to find distinguishes between citizens and naturalized citizens. A naturalized citizen is one who through some act of the law becomes a citizen. That would demonstrate a clear difference between naturalized and natural-born as 'born' is not an act of the law.

In the U.S. Code: Title 8, 1401 it even appears that someone can be a citizen as long as they were born here, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. The Constitution (of which I have been accused of not supporting) state, "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"

So the question would seem to hinge on the definition of 'natural born citizen' as opposed to mere citizen and as understood by the founders and, hopefully as interpreted in case law. That is what I am currently looking for and what, for some reason, a few of the folks on this thread seem to be loathe to provide. Preferring instead to call me names.

I would be a happy to see Obama run out of DC on a rail as the next guy but only for reasons that can be supported rationally and in the law. Not simply because I have heard somebody else say he isn't eligible to be president.

Regardless, even if it could be shown definitively that he is not eligible and should therefore be impeached, I maintain that the likelihood of that occurring is close to nil. Given that, there are other areas that ought to be more pressing concerns for someone like Glenn Beck and I think he has chosen them pretty well.

202 posted on 01/06/2010 3:43:43 PM PST by newheart ("It will keep the government out of your health care decisions..." Barack Obama, July 23, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: newheart
It is decidedly not my intent to cast aspersions at birthers, but I have yet not found anything in the law that clearly defines natural born citizens.

Below is an explanation of how the definition can be found in the Constitution.

"Natural Born" is declared in Article II [No Person except a 'natural born' Citizen...]

.. and "Natural Born" is implied and expressed in the Constitution as a result of COMMON LAW.

The Common Law in this case goes all the way back to the Magna Carta (over 700 years). "Natural Born" was actually expressed (written) in Vatel's Law of Nations. If you don't know what the Law of Nations said about "natural born" you should. The Founding Fathers did. The Founding Fathers knew exactly what was implied, expressed and common to law when they drafted Article II, the "natural born" eligibility clause.

The Constitution and de Vattel’s Law of Nations has the answer to any questions regarding citizenship abroad and any laws crossing national boundaries:

EXCERPT 1. U.S. Constitution, Article II, §1: No Person except a natural born Citizen, OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

EXCERPT 2: de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, § 212: The natives, or NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.

Finally, the main item in the Constitution that ties both together:

EXCERPT 3: U.S. Constitution, Article I, §8: The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the LAW OF NATIONS.

LAW OF NATIONS is CAPITALIZED, meaning our framers were citing a proper name. There was only one Law of Nations in 1787 officially declared. And yes, Congress has the power to create and enforce ANY LAW mentioned in the Law of Nations written by Emmerich de Vattel! It was sitting right under our noses the entire time.
203 posted on 01/06/2010 3:56:03 PM PST by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it! www.FairTaxNation.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
Get used to it I am. :-)
204 posted on 01/06/2010 3:59:40 PM PST by newheart (A RINO is anyone who claims to be Republican but doesn't agree with ME on everything. </sarc>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

Very interesting food for thought. Thanks, Man50D.


205 posted on 01/06/2010 4:05:36 PM PST by newheart (A RINO is anyone who claims to be Republican but doesn't agree with ME on everything. </sarc>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip; mojitojoe; 6amgelsmama; LucyT; Beckwith; BP2; rxsid

See how successful the obamanoids are with their conflation? This poster is asking if Barry is a citizen, when the issue is natural born citizenship! The obamanoids work to create confusion and fill obama eligibility threads with dissonant diversion. It has worked on this poster. And the next phase in the disinformation cycle is to just outright lie and say there is no difference in being a citizen and natural born citizenship ... and it is so very obvious that even the democrat contrtolled Senate believes there’s a difference since they investigated McCain knowing he was a citizen but doubting his natural born citizn status.


206 posted on 01/06/2010 4:07:22 PM PST by MHGinTN (Obots, believing they cannot be deceived, it is impossible to convince them when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: LorenC; thecraw; Drew68
Here's the short version as to why Drew's right, and the 'two citizen parent' requirement is a fictional device:

Read reply #203. Take particular note of Excerpt 2:

EXCERPT 2: de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, § 212: The natives, or NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.

3) Despite the very well-known facts of the senior Obama's Kenyan nationality since at least 2004 if not 1995, and despite a contentious Presidential campaign that began in early 2007, when did people start making the argument that Obama Sr.'s Kenyan citizenship made Obama Jr. Constitutionally ineligible, even though he was born in Hawaii to an American mother?

BO's mother was unable to transfer her citizenship to BO despite being born in the U.S. per federal law:

For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child).

This means she had to be at least 19 years old (14 years old plus 5 years of U.S. physical presence) to satisfy the legal requirement of Section 301(g) and transfer her citizenship to him. However she was only 18. She was 117 days short from being 19 years old.
207 posted on 01/06/2010 4:09:10 PM PST by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it! www.FairTaxNation.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: newheart
The only distinction I seem to find distinguishes between citizens and naturalized citizens. A naturalized citizen is one who through some act of the law becomes a citizen.

Natural Born and Naturalized are the only two types of citizens as far as the law is concerned. There is no mythical third category of "citizen born in America but not eligible for the presidency due to foreign parents" as many here would like to believe.

You are either natural born (born in the USA) or naturalized (Arnold Schwarzenegger). That is it. Hawaiian-born Obama is natural born. He is eligible for the presidency (as the photos I linked to demonstrate).

And, yes, as President, he is a disaster. Nonetheless, he is eligible.

U.S. v. Kim Wong Ark determined the American born children of foreigners were citizens and Ankeny v. Daniels applied this ruling specifically to President Obama in affirming his eligibility.

208 posted on 01/06/2010 4:09:57 PM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

You really think that Obummer, the Marxist now posing as a Fascist, is going to resign willingly?

You really think that Axelrod will resign?

Do you really think Valerie Jarrett will resign just because you find out what is on the birth certificate?

We have a president who has told so many lies that people are counting them and keeping a list as a sport.

He knows that we know that he lies. But yet he is supposed to have so much ability for self examination and so much humility that he will resign because of the biggest lie of all?

You may think so, but I do not.

The man has absolutely no moral compass.


209 posted on 01/06/2010 4:10:50 PM PST by old curmudgeon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: old curmudgeon

If he looses the confidence of the joint chiefs of staff? Absolutely.


210 posted on 01/06/2010 4:12:57 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Drew68; newheart
"Natural Born and Naturalized are the only two types of citizens as far as the law is concerned."

The Constitution mentions two types of citizens:

"Citizens" as being a requirement for Senator's and Reps.

and

"Natural Born Citizen" as being a requirement for the President and Commander in Chief.

The framers made a distinction in the Constitution.

211 posted on 01/06/2010 4:15:28 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: Drew68; newheart
"U.S. v. Kim Wong Ark determined the American born children of foreigners were citizens"

Then he's eligible to be a Senator.

212 posted on 01/06/2010 4:16:53 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
There is a difference between being a citizen and a natural born citizen.

Yes, there are two kinds of citizens-- natural born and naturalized. Anyone born in the U.S. is a natural-born citizen.

213 posted on 01/06/2010 4:19:44 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

When the Senate held hearings regarding McCain’s natural born citizenship, there was no question that both his parents were American citizens at the time of his birth. For some reason unfathomable to Drew69, the Senate wanted to confirm the other leg of eligibility in the framer’s sense, whether he was born on American land. So, the stupid Senate was following the Vattel definition in their hearings, I wonder why Drew 69 and his butties can’t seem to follow that?


214 posted on 01/06/2010 4:23:55 PM PST by MHGinTN (Obots, believing they cannot be deceived, it is impossible to convince them when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Drew68; newheart
While we are on the topic of fallacies you might want to consider rethinking your ad hominem approach to argument. Get used to it. When their conspiracy theories fall apart under the most cursory examinations, insults and personal attacks are the only cards they have left to play.

Yet oddly all of you Obot anti-birthers are drawn to the Birther threads like flies to dog poop...

Now why do you think that is???

215 posted on 01/06/2010 4:30:41 PM PST by thecraw (God allows evil. God allowed Barry to usurp the highest office in the land. God will not be mocked.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
Finally, the main item in the Constitution that ties both together:

EXCERPT 3: U.S. Constitution, Article I, §8: The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the LAW OF NATIONS.

LAW OF NATIONS is CAPITALIZED, meaning our framers were citing a proper name. There was only one Law of Nations in 1787 officially declared. And yes, Congress has the power to create and enforce ANY LAW mentioned in the Law of Nations written by Emmerich de Vattel! It was sitting right under our noses the entire time.

First, your capitalization argument is priceless. You do notice that in the same sentence where "the Law of Nations" is capitalized, the words "Piracies and Felonies," "Seas," and "Offenses" are also capitalized? And that's just in that sentence; there are dozens of nouns in Section 8 that are capitalized. Are you proposing that they all are referring to proper names, or just the one?

Second, for the sake of argument, let's assume your interpretation of Vattel's statements on citizenship inheritance are correct. Moreover, let's assume for the sake of argument that since the adoption of the Constitution, that interpretation has been the correct one when it comes to Constitutional interpretation of "natural born citizen."

So, assuming both of those to be true, why did it take a year and a half of primary campaigning for ANYBODY to realize and argue that Obama was Constitutionally ineligible based on his father's citizenship? How did the entire country, all of conservative America, and the entirety of Obama's Democratic opposition simply slip up and fail to apply this standard, even though all the relevant facts were publicly known, and had been published in Obama's own memoir in 1995? If it was the standard test before summer 2008, why did no one use it or even mention it before summer 2008? Why did it suddenly appear only after Obama clinched the nomination and after Obama put his birth certificate online?

216 posted on 01/06/2010 4:35:11 PM PST by LorenC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; Drew68
When the Senate held hearings regarding McCain’s natural born citizenship,

Once again: there never were any Senate hearings regarding McCain's eligibility. None.

The ENTIRE extent of Senate debate over McCain's citizenship was one question, asked by Patrick Leahy, and one single-sentence answer, from Bush's Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. During an unrelated Judiciary Committee hearing, the transcript of which runs 42 pages long. There was never any inquiry into "whether he was born on American land." McCain was never asked by the Senate to produce a birth certificate or anything else.

I don't know why people keep falsely claiming there were hearings, when the Senate record makes it so clear that there were none.

217 posted on 01/06/2010 4:43:31 PM PST by LorenC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

I do know there is a difference between natural born citizenry and citizenry. But if O’s mother was not a US citizen, his alleged birth in Hawaii would mean less, and it would lend more credence to the claims of birthers. If she is a US citizen, then her claims of O being born on Hawaiian soil would mean more for his side. That was the reason for my question. I believe nothing that comes from the state run media, nor do I put stock in anything coming from the White House. I am not one of the mindless drones of which you speak. I was attempting to garner additional information about the situation to make a better informed opinion.


218 posted on 01/06/2010 4:53:55 PM PST by 6amgelsmama (The enemy within is most dangerous. Our soldiers aren't the only ones called to fight!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

btt


219 posted on 01/06/2010 4:54:54 PM PST by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 6amgelsmama

Where Barry Soetoro was actually born has not been legally established beyond reasonable doubt yet. I use ‘Barry Soetoro’ because Lolo Soetoro legally adopted little Barry and made him an Indonesian citizen, and Barry may have used that nationality to garner college entry and college financial aid. There is no record made public yet where Barry ever changed hhis legal name back to Barack Hussein Obama, so he is still Barry Soetoro in my mind. The issue of defining Natural Born Citizen has yet to be taken up by the SCOTUS regarding a presidential candidate or sitting Pres_ _ent, so even that is not settle. And no one —especially not me— has accused you of being a mindless drone. Your query came across as ‘confused’ ...


220 posted on 01/06/2010 5:00:02 PM PST by MHGinTN (Obots, believing they cannot be deceived, it is impossible to convince them when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: LorenC

Your hatred of those questioning your pres_ _ent is coloring your mind. Maybe the kneepads are too tight?


221 posted on 01/06/2010 5:01:55 PM PST by MHGinTN (Obots, believing they cannot be deceived, it is impossible to convince them when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: thecraw
Yet oddly all of you Obot anti-birthers are drawn to the Birther threads like flies to dog poop...

Now why do you think that is???

I'll tell you why.

A.) I'm doing my part to keep conservatism from being co-opted by unhinged conspiracy nuts.

B.) It's fun.

222 posted on 01/06/2010 5:02:53 PM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: thecraw
Wishing this requirement is a "fictional device created by birthers" does not make it so, any more than a global warming alarmist - wishing the earth was heating up to further their agenda - will make it so. As you can see, we are in the midst of a brutal winter,

So, not buying this birther nonsense makes me a default believer in man-made global warming?

That's pretty desperate, trying to piggyback the birther crusade on the shoulders of the global warming myth.

223 posted on 01/06/2010 5:19:52 PM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
Yet oddly all of you Obot anti-birthers are drawn to the Birther threads like flies to dog poop...

A.) I'm doing my part to keep conservatism from being co-opted by unhinged conspiracy nuts.

Yep. You and RINOs like Lindsey Grahamnesty are doing a bang-up job. Congratulations!

B.) It's fun.

Makes me wonder if you Obots playing Birther Whack-a-Mole have as much fun as the flies have landing on the dog poop...

224 posted on 01/06/2010 5:21:27 PM PST by thecraw (God allows evil. God allowed Barry to usurp the highest office in the land. God will not be mocked.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Your hatred of those questioning your pres_ _ent is coloring your mind.

If you're insisting that those imaginary Senate hearings were actually real, then it's your mind that's being colored by hatred.

225 posted on 01/06/2010 5:28:11 PM PST by LorenC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: thecraw
Yet oddly all of you Obot anti-birthers are drawn to the Birther threads like flies to dog poop...

I am in no way an Obot. And you may be surprised to hear that I am not anti-birther. I do keep looking for more persuasive evidence and genuinely try to keep an open mind. But for some reason, as soon as I raise a question that might challenge birther orthodoxy I get slammed as some kind of Obomanoid. Name calling seldom persuades anyone so I wonder if people just prefer to stir things up or if they really want to convince others of the correctness of their view.

226 posted on 01/06/2010 5:29:30 PM PST by newheart (A RINO is anyone who claims to be Republican but doesn't agree with ME on everything. </sarc>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: LorenC

Perhaps you would like to post the link to the Senate resolution generated by Leahy’s committee? ... You’re hatred is so unlovely.


227 posted on 01/06/2010 5:32:10 PM PST by MHGinTN (Obots, believing they cannot be deceived, it is impossible to convince them when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: LorenC
Below is osme of the text, just to help you out, hateful:

[Emphasis mine, not underlined in the Congressional record]
RESOLUTION

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ of the United States;

Whereas the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to American citizens serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’;

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.),

Chairman, Committee On The Judiciary,

On The Introduction Of A Senate Resolution

April 10, 2008

Today I join Senator Claire McCaskill in introducing a resolution to express the common sense of everyone here that Senator McCain is a “natural born Citizen,” as the term is used in the Constitution of the United States. Our Constitution contains three requirements for a person to be eligible to be President – the person must have reached the age of 35; must have resided in America for 14 years; and must be a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ of the United States. Certainly there is no doubt that Senator McCain is of sufficient years on this earth and in this country given that he has been serving in Washington for over 25 years. However, some pundits have raised the question of whether he is a “natural born Citizen” because he was born outside of the official borders of the United States.

John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American Naval base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936. [For those paying attention, this is precisely fit to the Vattel definition, so leaky went further, to try and undermine the very definition from the founders!] Numerous legal scholars have looked into the purpose and intent of the “natural born Citizen” requirement. As far as I am aware, no one has unearthed any reason to think that the Framers would have wanted to limit the rights of children born to military families stationed abroad or that such a limited view would serve any noble purpose enshrined in our founding document. Based on the understanding of the pertinent sources of constitutional meaning, it is widely believed that if someone is born to American citizens anywhere in the world they are natural born citizens.

It is interesting to note that another previous presidential candidate, George Romney, was also born outside of the United States. He was widely understood to be eligible to be President. Senator Barry Goldwater was born in a U.S territory that later became the State of Arizona so some even questioned his eligibility. Certainly the millions of Americans who voted for these two Republican candidates believed that they were eligible to assume the office of the President. The same is true today.

Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen. I recently asked Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, a former Federal judge, if he had any doubts in his mind. He did not. I ask unanimous consent that the relevant excerpt from the Judiciary Committee hearing where Secretary Chertoff testified be made a part of the record.

228 posted on 01/06/2010 5:44:11 PM PST by MHGinTN (Obots, believing they cannot be deceived, it is impossible to convince them when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
You are writing about or thinking about people with character.

Obummer, the Marxist now posing as a Fascist, has no character.

You might as well believe that a pedophile is going to reform because he has been publicly shamed.

There are some people that have no shame and no sensitivity for how others see them.

Obummer, the Marxist now posing as a Fascist, is one of them. As for the joint chiefs of staff, I am not up on all of that but I do know that the chairman and the vice chairman are appointed by the president. I am not certain how the chiefs of staff of the various services are appointed tot hat position, but I believe they are also appointed by the president. I believe the chiefs of staff of the various branches of the military are also appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. So all Obummer, the Marxist now posing as a Fascist, has to do is get him a new club it the old club does not like him.

229 posted on 01/06/2010 5:44:39 PM PST by old curmudgeon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Yes, there are two kinds of citizens— natural born and naturalized. Anyone born in the U.S. is a natural-born citizen.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yep! We've seen that DOJ obfuscation before. It has be thoroughly refuted hundreds of times here on Free Republic. Go look it up.

230 posted on 01/06/2010 5:49:41 PM PST by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are not stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
So, not buying this birther nonsense makes me a default believer in man-made global warming? That's pretty desperate, trying to piggyback the birther crusade on the shoulders of the global warming myth.

You betcha. But here are the facts, according to actual logic and truth:

1. The man-made global warming conspiracy came about from falsified data.
2. The Birth Certificate conspiracy (your words, not ours) came about from falsified data.

(Of course you'll deny #2 because your boy Barry is your hero. You believe that the glorious birth certificate on Factcheck is beyond reproach.)

Therefore, according to Obot anti-birther logic...
1. Man-made global warming deniers are kooks.
2. Birthers are kooks.

Now, we'll take your logic to the next level, therefore...
1. Drew68 (and other Obot anti-birthers that are attracted to birther threads like flies to dog poop) unquestionably believe that man-made global warming is real.
2. Drew68 (and other Obot anti-birthers that are attracted to birther threads like flies to dog poop) unquestionably believe that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen.

Logic is a wonderful thing, ain't it??? Now who are the kooks?

Yep. You betcha. You guys are...

231 posted on 01/06/2010 5:51:03 PM PST by thecraw (God allows evil. God allowed Barry to usurp the highest office in the land. God will not be mocked.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: newheart
I am in no way an Obot.

According to the Bush Doctrine, "you are either with us or against us."

So there are Birthers, and there are Obot anti-birthers.

Drew68 enjoys playing Birther Whack-a-Mole, and we Birthers enjoy whacking back! Troll hunting is quite entertaining...

232 posted on 01/06/2010 5:57:22 PM PST by thecraw (God allows evil. God allowed Barry to usurp the highest office in the land. God will not be mocked.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: thecraw
Drew68 enjoys playing Birther Whack-a-Mole, and we Birthers enjoy whacking back! Troll hunting is quite entertaining...

Then I suppose Drew68 and I will be forced into re-education camps when you and MHGinTN are able to effect your revolution.

233 posted on 01/06/2010 6:15:57 PM PST by newheart (A RINO is anyone who claims to be Republican but doesn't agree with ME on everything. </sarc>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: newheart
Then I suppose Drew68 and I will be forced into re-education camps when you and MHGinTN are able to effect your revolution.

In the words of Sarah Palin...
You Betcha!

/sarc

234 posted on 01/06/2010 6:20:31 PM PST by thecraw (God allows evil. God allowed Barry to usurp the highest office in the land. God will not be mocked.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: newheart
Thanks Uncle for at least providing me with something that can be researched. I will follow up on that.

I'll be interested in what you find out. If you find something definitive would you post it, please? Facts and clarity are wonderful things!

235 posted on 01/06/2010 6:25:44 PM PST by SuzyQue (Remember to think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Speaking of tactics, it’s almost Alinsky-like:

5th Rule - “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule.”

13th Rule - “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.”

Just two examples. Interesting stuff.


236 posted on 01/06/2010 6:44:22 PM PST by SuzyQue (Remember to think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: newheart
But in all seriousness, for some "red meat" on the eligibility issue keep an eye on D'Onofrio and Pidgeon's suits representing 21 Chrysler dealers who lost their franchises due to Barry's actions. A Quo Warranto filing (the proper way to legally challenge a usurper to public office) is part of this deal and will be brought in the DC District Court in the days to come.

Report is here:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/12/26/donofrio-pidgeon-file-motion-for-reconsideration-in-chrysler-case/

This is the best hope for getting to the truth of Barry's shady past. Leo D'Onofrio also posts pertinent updates to his blog site here:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

The truth will prevail, in its time...

237 posted on 01/06/2010 6:45:18 PM PST by thecraw (God allows evil. God allowed Barry to usurp the highest office in the land. God will not be mocked.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
That's not the text of a hearing; it's just the text of Senator Leahy introducing the resolution. And there's certainly no inquiry into "whether he was born on American land," as you specifically alleged there was, earlier in this thread. Nor was McCain ever asked to produce a birth certificate or any other evidence, as has been claimed at other times when people cite that "hearings" were held about McCain.

And do you know how minor what you quoted is? It appears in the Congressional Record directly inbetween the submission of "SENATE RESOLUTION 510—SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL CYSTIC FIBROSIS AWARENESS MONTH" and "SENATE RESOLUTION 512—HONORING THE LIFE OF CHARLTON HESTON." I'm sure hearings were held on both.

Heck, the text you've cited doesn't appear to have even been read aloud in the Senate; it was just submitted into the record as written, along with all the other resolutions. Watch the video for yourself. In other words: no hearings.

238 posted on 01/06/2010 6:52:24 PM PST by LorenC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: LorenC
You do notice that in the same sentence where "the Law of Nations" is capitalized, the words "Piracies and Felonies," "Seas," and "Offenses" are also capitalized?

Your reasoning isn't worth one red cent. You do understand by capitalized it means all the letters in LAWS OF NATIONS are capitalized whereas none of the other words are completely capitalized?

Second, for the sake of argument, let's assume your interpretation of Vattel's statements on citizenship inheritance are correct.

It's not my interpretation. The definition is in his book (Vattel, Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 19) paragraph 212 sentence 2.

Moreover, let's assume for the sake of argument that since the adoption of the Constitution, that interpretation has been the correct one when it comes to Constitutional interpretation of "natural born citizen."

It's not an assumption. In 1874, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed Vattel's definition of "natural born citizen. To quote SCOTUS's ruling:

"At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

So, assuming both of those to be true, why did it take a year and a half of primary campaigning for ANYBODY to realize and argue that Obama was Constitutionally ineligible based on his father's citizenship? How did the entire country, all of conservative America, and the entirety of Obama's Democratic opposition simply slip up and fail to apply this standard, even though all the relevant facts were publicly known, and had been published in Obama's own memoir in 1995?

It was no slip up by the DNC. They knew what they were doing. Each party signs a Nomination Document attesting to the fact their candidate meets the requirements, including natural born citizen, to become President. The DNC prepared two nomination documents. One document(DNC-1) included the "Constitutional" certification within the declaration:

"THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 through 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.

This document was filed only with the state of Hawaii. Another version of the document was sent to the other 49 states with the red highlighted Constitutional certification portion above redacted to read:

This is to certify that the National Convention of the Democrat party of the United States of America, held in Denver Colorado on August 25 through 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively".

The two separate Nomination Certifications are complete with date stamps, matching signatures, even the same Notary of Public authentication.

Below are images of the two versions. The first is with the Constitutional Certification and the second image is without the Constitutional Certification:





The 50th State, Hawaii, is a mystery as to why the DNC submitted the Constitutional Certification. It is assumed the State of Hawaii demanded the wording be included in the Certification. However, by filing this Constitutional "version" with Hawaii and not the other 49 States it ADDS to the fraud, conspiracy and guilt. Why would the DNC even prepare (2) documents? The issue still remains, Obama is not a "natural born" citizen and the vetting of him by the DNC was misrepresented and fraudulent.
239 posted on 01/06/2010 8:04:35 PM PST by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it! www.FairTaxNation.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

Kudos for your patience ... but you don’t expect obamanoid buttboyC to respond with reasoned debate, do you?


240 posted on 01/06/2010 8:49:33 PM PST by MHGinTN (Obots, believing they cannot be deceived, it is impossible to convince them when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

mark


241 posted on 01/06/2010 10:20:11 PM PST by JDoutrider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: old curmudgeon
Right now, many (most?) people loath what he is doing to the country. However, if it were to become widespread common knowledge that he isn't even a legal President, I truly believe there is not a chance in the world he would be allowed to remain in the WH. I just don't think he could pull it off with ~10% of the people, and ~20% of the far left in Congress and perhaps less than 10% of the military still behind him as an illegal President. I guess I have more faith in the "average Joe" American. We haven't been concurred yet.
242 posted on 01/07/2010 12:44:24 AM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: newheart
Nonetheless, as far as I know, born in Hawaii to an American mother qualifies one for citizenship regardless of who the daddy is.
So you don't really know, do you?
Don't you think the issue ought to be addressed and all doubt removed?
Can't one man unequivocally resolve the issue and put it to rest?
It seems to me that if he has nothing to hide (how many times have we heard that line?!) then he would "man up" (another oft used quip) and end the debate.

And what about the other documents that he refuses to release? Is he above the law? This is about more than a birth certificate!
I'll say it again...This is the distraction within the "records" issue. The "birth certificate controversy" is the sacrificial pawn to keep attention away from the rest of the records that have never been released.

243 posted on 01/07/2010 3:26:50 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: aNYCguy

Nope, Nope, Yep, Yep


244 posted on 01/07/2010 4:08:02 AM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: newheart
I would simply like for someone to show that to me in either the Constitution, the US Legal Code, or relevant, current case law.

Here ya go...
AP, NYT AND POLITICS.CO.UK MISTATE LAW AND FACTS IN DEC. 1ST REPORTS
The truth of law and history is, however, that a natural born citizen, according to the manner in which this term was intended in the U.S. Constitution, and in 4 Supreme Court Cases ("IRREFUTABLE AUTHORITY HAS SPOKEN"), is one who is born in the U.S.A. of two parents, each of which was a U.S. citizen at the time of the birth. Obama, by the very public fact that he claims a British subject, as his father, was not, is not, and can never be a natural born citizen of the United States, even if he is a citizen thereof. This legal and historical fact makes his presidency invalid, all his presidential acts unlawful, and his entrance into the office unconstitutional and a usurpation.

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

I like this one the most...
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

Yet despite my giving these excellent links and articles I get the feeling that you'll find some more ice to skate on, even if it's thin.

245 posted on 01/07/2010 4:31:24 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: newheart

BTW, before you go there...I can’t find that any of the cases have been overturned.


246 posted on 01/07/2010 4:40:39 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: LorenC
Here's the short version as to why Drew's right, and the 'two citizen parent' requirement is a fictional device ... 3) Despite the very well-known facts of the senior Obama's Kenyan nationality since at least 2004 if not 1995, and despite a contentious Presidential campaign that began in early 2007, when did people start making the argument that Obama Sr.'s Kenyan citizenship made Obama Jr. Constitutionally ineligible ...If the 'two citizen parent' requirement were true, and not a fictional device, it is absolutely astounding that no one realized that this was a straightforward Constitutional bar to his eligibility until almost a year and a half into his campaign

So then, by your line of desperate reasoning, if a bank robber robs a bank and is never caught, then he never robbed the bank, right???

Are you for real here. You Obamanoids have truly descended to the lowest levels of desperation to try to defend your Desperado in Chief. From the moment he announced for the office of POTUS, people with the Constitution in one hand, the facts of his birth in the other, and a brain above, were questioning his qualifications.

247 posted on 01/07/2010 4:42:44 AM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
U.S. v. Kim Wong Ark determined the American born children of foreigners were citizens

"citizens" not "natural born citizens". Congratulations, you just shot a hole in your own desperate argument.

248 posted on 01/07/2010 4:49:28 AM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: newheart
Free Case Law Search Results
62. Minor v. Happersett
249 posted on 01/07/2010 4:49:42 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

To take an example out of a recent film, “Inglorious Basterds” these obots in the future will be taking their uniforms off, but how will we still identify them?

They shall have the mark upon their foreheads, it may be a figurative mark but it will be a permanent one that any person will immediately recognize.

Animals can smell evil, its been said humans do to a point when they are capable of their faculties. This is a warning of the most severe type to the obots, what you do today will remain with you forever.


250 posted on 01/07/2010 4:55:25 AM PST by Eye of Unk (Phobos, kerdos, and doxa, said the Time Traveler. “Fear, self-interest, and honor.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-262 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