Posted on 03/14/2010 12:04:10 PM PDT by etraveler13
BP2 is one of the finest patriots we have the pleasure of keeping company with on this board.
Many thanks, BP.
Yes, that would have been much better, but the mere fact that it is capitalized says they were referencing a title. Had it not been capitalized it would take on an entirely different meaning and one that would not be definable.
Two sentences. And they have thrown the entire country into a tizzy of Cognitive Dissonance. Obama's story is that he was born in Hawaii, and so he's native born, he says.
The fact that he has not proven "Native," is very upsetting to those who rightly believe it to be a big deal. Furthermore, he definitely cannot prove "Natural."
So, Obama has created two cases (2) of Cognitive Dissonance. They compete, sometimes in one pleading (Orly's biggest problem), and Obama wins.
This will take a long time to sort out, longer than our Fearlessly Ineligible Leader will be in office. It has recently been convincingly demonstrated that Chester Arthur fraudulently held the office. That took 125 years!
I think we'll be able to prove that BHO, Jr. did the same ... in 5. No one will be able to pull this scam again.
I really believe that what the Framers intended was that BOTH parents be BORN here and only the offspring of THOSE two parents born here are eligible for the presidency.
It’s just like the Hebrews wandering in the desert before they could enter the Promised land. Must rid the old generation who were not BORN Hebrews, lest they fall back. The FIRST generation of those who were born Hebrew, but whose parents remained were ALSO died off. The SECOND generation BORN of THOSE parents would have been considered “natural born” Hebrews.
Only then were they permitted to cross over the River Jordan.
It is only logical.
The Framers were well versed in the history of the Hebrews and they understood the concept. I think it never occurred to them that we would become so UNEDUCATED that this would even be a problem. They expected us to understand what they understood.
Bingo.
For Obama to be a Natural Born Citizen...
1. He has to be born in the United States
2. Both parents must be Natural Born Citizens.
So, regardless of where he was born, he is not a Natural Born Citizen. There exists a possibility that he is a naturalized citizen, but he has not proven that possibility.
Good point, except that none of them are courageous enough to admit who they really are to our faces. By pretending to be conservatives, they can (and do) create discouragement and discord among us, at will.
All I can say is that they'd better be glad that JimRob doesn't entrust the zot gun to me.
I think you make sense, etraveler. OK, so to really kick the tires, let’s invite Tex.
I don’t think the president is constitutionally qualified, and now it’s being reported that seven states agree he does not meet their definition of qualification in 2012.
60+ Lawmakers 7 States Tell Obama; if you want on 2012 ballot, RELEASE THE RECORDS!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2462967/posts
In other words, we are winning the debate. The only way BO slipped in so secretively is because he blindsided state legislatures.
A counterpoint has its place. I don’t think we should exclude all naysayers from the forum.
I’m sorry, but even this birther cannot let this error slip: you stated that for a person to be eligible both parents must be natural born citizens; I think you will find that they need to be citizens, even naturalized citizens, but not the most extreme, natural born citizens.
I hope it is illuminating....
IMO the meaning was not lost. It frosts me that Obama is a Constitutional Scholar, he KNEW that what he was doing was wrong. Perhaps it was an intellectual exercise that went too far, or perhaps it was fraud. Only he knows that answer, but to the law, its fraud, and to others that participated, its treason.
Hi old buddy, I’m feeling pretty fired up about this! [post 67]
Great thread! Thank you. This issue needs to be presented to the the public on a daily basis.
“(Cheney), did NOT solicit objections from the senate, Per the Rules and Procedures he is required to follow...”
That is a correct statement, but allow me to put a sharper point on it: Cheney was required by 3 USC 15 to call for objections. So the questions are whether the Congress should be allowed to ignore its own statutes - Americans would think not - and whether the USSC, if asked, should render an opinion if Congress does so ignore - Americans who believe in the concept of checks and balances would certainly hope so.
Unfortunately, for our families and our nation’s history, all of the politicians, the lawyers and former judges in the Congress who 1) had full knowledge that O’s father was not a U.S. citizen, 2) were aware of the numerous eligibility lawsuits and 3) had received numerous inquiries as to whether O was even a U.S. citizen, sat on their hands when it was time to raise the point on Jan 8, 2009.
The USSC, who we would go to for relief, and who had knowledge of the 3 points above nonetheless sanctioned the breach of law by Congress by swearing in the new “President” on Jan 20, 2009.
The phrase, “the law of nations” isn’t capitalized in Article I, Section 8. Is it capitalized elsewhere?
He has already been quoted as saying that he would rather be a really good one term president than a mediocre 2 term president. IMO he is not a really good one term president.
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/president-obama-good-term-president/story?id=9657337
President Barack Obama will be a one-term president, former Vice President Dick Cheney confidently predicted Thursday.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/81915-cheney-says-obama-will-be-one-term-president-in-surprise-cpac-speech
We've been fait'ed, damn those French!
Sorry, but I have to disagree with you on this one. I believe the Framers intended that BOTH parents be born here. That is what separates natural born from being born to naturalized citizens. You know your Old Testament. The concept is directly taken from the Hebrew Exodus.
I've written to my state legislators and the governor about instituting such a law in Texas. It's a shame that there haven't been such checks and balances on this issue before. Perhaps this legislation can become Obama's most important legacy!
It is not an error sir:
Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens, . . .
The terms “natives” and “natural born citizens” are obviously English terms; used to render the idea convyed by the French phrase “les naturels, ou indigenes”: but both refered to the same category of citizen: one born in the country, of parents who were citizens of that country.
In the political philosophy of Vattel, the term “naturels” refers to citizens who are such by the Law of Nature, that is by the natural cirumstances of their birth — which they did not choose; the term “indigenes” is from the Latin, indigenes, which like the English, “indigenous”, means “begotten from within” (inde-genes), as in the phrase “the indigenous natives are the peoples who have been born and lived there for generations.” Hence the meaning the the term, “natural born citizen”, or “naturels ou indigenes” is the same: born in the country of two parents who are citizens of that country.
Vattel did not invent the notion “natural born citizen”; he was merely applying the Law of Nature to questions of citizenship. In fact the term first appears in a letter of the future Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention, where the Framers were consulting 3 copies Vattel’s book to complete their work (according to the testimony of Benjamin Franklin).
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.