2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten:
One point that seems a bit obvious but I’ll say it anyway.If you had said “Bush wasn’t an American” or “Clinton wasn’t an American” or “Nixon wasn’t an American” - people would have yawned.
If you say “Obama isn’t an American” you better be prepared for the machine to come down on your head because that is what is going to happen.
I wonder how come?
wintertime:
Because it is self-evident that Nixon and Bush were natural born citizens. Their past history was utterly and completely transparent.ARMIES of citizens ( a very high standard for evidence) would have testified that:
**They personally knew the parents and their history.Obama can not present even one citizen who can testify to his natural born status. Since he does not have this high standard of having citizens that can testify to his natural born status, then it is REASONABLE to request that he provide the lesser standard of evidence of a **certified** paper trail.
** They visited the mom and new baby in the hospital or home soon after birth.
** They attended the Christening.
** They were personal witnesses to the growth and development of the baby as he grew to maturity.I am 63 years old, and there are still people alive and well who would be honored to testify that I am, indeed, a natural born citizen.
An honest man would be **HONORED** to promptly prove with all of the best certifiable evidence that he is a natural born citizen and eligible to be president.
So?...Why doesn't Obama do that? It is a simple matter for him to nod his head to his secretary and have this settled within the week. Only a guilty man would hesitate to do this.
Funny you mention Nixon. His running mate and Vice President, Spiro Agnew was born to an American mother and a Greek immigrant father who was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth.
And, yes, Vice Presidents need to meet the exact same standard of eligibility as do Presidents. I don't recall history debating Agnew's eligibility or concerned that he was born with dual citizenship. In fact, he spoke proudly of his immigrant roots throughout the campaign.
Great point.
Zero has spent untold millions, we will never know the true amount,to hide anything that shines the light of day on his past. One can only imagine the untold "nat. security " dollars spent to secure his past.
Compared to any President before him it's a huge sham,con and deceitful.
One would be foolish not to be suspicious.
So?...Why doesn't Obama do that? It is a simple matter for him to nod his head to his secretary and have this settled within the week. Only a guilty man would hesitate to do this.
---------------------
And having spent millions of dollars keeping his personal information under lock and key so no one can get to it ever - it defies common sense and all vestiges of honesty of this president. It also casts concern about the nation's highest courts and what part they are playing in keeping this personal information withheld. Even education documents are "off-limits" to everyone. More and more it seems there is an " appearance of massive cover-up" involving all sorts of entities (courts/judges included). There should be NO reason educational documents are not released unless there is something in these documents indicating our leader is of "foreign" status.
This area of what we feel instinctively was called natural law, and is the foundation of the law of nations (lower case) which was in turn the basis for Law of Nations, the compendium by Vattel.
There were also very sound legal reasons since different nations had different claims upon people depending upon their implementations of jus soli and jus sanguinis. Whether the attachment is to the soil or the family bloodlines the core is that allegiances can best be ferreted by knowing family and friends. Anyone who has been the object of a security clearance knows from friends how thorough the FBI or military intelligence can be. How convenient that Barry/Barack didn't happen to have any living immediate family!
Hiding history as well as being born of a British Kenyan father is stomping on the Constitution - telling citizens, legislators, and lawmakers that the old laws aren't in effect now - and apparently Obama and his cadre were correct. With ridicule, threats, and our money being redistributed to buy influence he is effecting change we can believe in.
All those coincidental hints, grandma dying during the election, break ins in the state department disappearing records (and the bullet in the head of the perpetrator), could cause suspicion. It can only be conjecture, but the worrisome elements may be only to distract from the blatant fact, one which many find hard to understand, that our framers prudently required that our presidents be born of citizen parents. Our senators, all of them, understood that fact in 2008, when they voted unanimously for Senate Res. 511, asserting the John McCain was a natural born citizen because both of his parents were citizens. Even former federal judge Michael Chertoff said the same in judiciary committee hearings. They'll use the Constitution to qualify McCain, but not to disqualify Obama. They all know and apparently, don't care. Every senator of both parties (and the one or two independents) needs to be held to account. I suspect I won't be the only one remembering.
exactly!
A modern day Henry VII?
From Wikipedia
Henry VII fought against the brave Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth, 1485. He usurped the throne from its legitimate Plantagent claimant and effectively committed treason by starting a rebellion against England’s monarch. However, Henry VII was a hard-working ruler, has been described as ‘bookish’, but reformed the country’s financial situation effectively and began the Tudor dynasty.
Henry’s paternal grandfather, Owen Tudor, originally from the Isle of Anglesey in Wales, had been a page in the court of Henry V. He rose to become one of the “Squires to the Body to the King” after military service at Agincourt.[2] Owen is said to have secretly married the widow of Henry V, Catherine of Valois. One of their sons was Edmund Tudor, father of Henry VII. Edmund was created Earl of Richmond in 1452, and “formally declared legitimate by Parliament”.[3]
Henry’s claim to the throne, however, derived from his mother through the house of Beaufort. Henry’s mother, Lady Margaret Beaufort, was a great-granddaughter of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, third son of Edward III, and his third wife Katherine Swynford. Katherine was Gaunt’s mistress for around 25 years; when they married in 1396, they already had four children, including Henry’s great-grandfather John Beaufort. Thus Henry’s claim was somewhat tenuous: it was from a woman, and by illegitimate descent.