Jim,
Check this out. The Founders intent is important.
Foreign Influence and Presidential Eligibility
Evidence from the period right after the Constitutional Convention also supports the notion that the Founding Fathers were very concerned about foreign influence on the federal government, and in particular on the President.
The most direct evidence comes from a statement made by Charles Pinckney to the U.S. Senate in 1800. Pinckney had been a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and, on July 26, 1787, had been the first delegate to raise the issue of presidential qualifications in the debate. On March 25, 1800, the Senate was debating a bill “prescribing the mode of deciding disputed elections of President and Vice President of the United States.”(54) Pinckney gave a detailed explanation for the Electoral College, emphasizing that the rules governing the Electoral College were designed so “as to make it impossible ... for improper domestic, or, what is of much more consequence, foreign influence and gold to interfere.”(55) Pinckney then made the only documented statement by one of the Founders connecting the Electoral College and the presidential eligibility clause. The Founders “knew well,” he said that to give to the members of Congress a right to give votes in this election, or to decide upon them when given, was to destroy the independence of the Executive, and make him the creature of the Legislature. This therefore they have guarded against, and to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible....(56)
This statement by one of the Founders, thirteen years after the Constitutional Convention, therefore supports the interpretation, given earlier, that the Electoral College and the presidential eligibility clause were intended primarily as the two sides of a plan to protect the President from foreign influence.
Much more very worthwhile info continues here
http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/Citizenship/history.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2499410/posts?page=190#190
BTTT
Violent Anarchism planned for 70 Cities Nationwide on Communist May Day
I have not watched all the vids yet, actually watched the last one first accidentally. The COLB has raised letters with shadows around them which would NOT exist on a legitimate birth certificate printed on a laser printer.
Bravo!
BBTTT!
Ping......................
Jim Rob weighs in.
ping
a few words from da boss...
Proudly standing tall as a Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America, unlike our Usurper-In_Chief.
A check is in the mail to FreeRepublic, LLC.
Anyone care to join me?
Glad to see FR is not afraid. We are not afraid either.
Well put Jim!....
Can’t wait so say:
“He’s dead Jim!” (politcially speaking of course)
Well, I can't sign up to the half-American part. Seriously, is the contention really that someone who has one foreign national for a parent cannot be fully American? Does that also exclude people who had a foreign national parent when they were born but who later nationalized? Honestly, where do we draw the line on who is fully American, and why even bother? The majority of our Marxists by now are home grown from two citizen parents.
Obama is certainly a leftist, and I can even understand this carrying on about what is or is not a “natural born citizen,” though I think most of it is ultimately incorrect. But if Obama was born in Hawaii to an American mother, he is every bit as much an American as any of us.
Being American isn't some magic key to enlightenment. Just because someone is an American doesn't mean they can't be wrong on issues, or subscribe to a political philosophy I believe is incorrect. I will certainly oppose and vote against Obama’s policies, which I believe are incorrect, but denying that he's even an American seems a self-defeating place to start in terms of organizing politically meaningful opposition. [Note: If one produces real evidence that Obama wasn't born in America, then this discussion, of course, changes drastically.]
this vexing problem has distilled for me in this way:
—the Dems carefully laid out a narrative that included all necessary info. to inform the public that BHO is not natural born.
—we the public missed it because we did not know our own laws or proper redress.
—few attempted to stop the process but were easily stonewalled.
—election happened—BHO won—we all lost our standing at that point, due to negligence. Basically, our ignorance of law said that we don’t care whether the law is followed or not. Sarah Palin, and John McCain even more so, have less standing than average Americans! This is why all court cases fail. This is why no elected official will touch the issue...if they do, they essentially become complicit to the fraud.
Current recourse:
—federal student loan fraud is major! Those who have the capability to get to the bottom of this have something to work with.
—treason by action. If it could be proven that the actions he is taking while executing the office of the President are treasonous, he could be removed. Perhaps the knowledge that he was “trusted” by the American people despite “knowledge” of his unqualified state should hold him to a higher standard regarding executing the office??? Cap and Trade could qualify.
—prove a lie in the original narrative. This would say the American people were purposefully deceived. Kenyan not his real father? No actual marriage of parents and mother under age status does not give citizenship? Various names as identity and the implication of those names? Worked for the CIA? Intentional deception for the purpose of gaining power and authority—not good. Impeach.
—In Nov. swamp both houses with Republicans and stop his agenda, while at the same time putting laws in place in states that make this fraud impossible in the future and then lose him in 2012.
The last option is where I am focused. My 2 cents, for what it is not worth.
BUMP!!!
See tagline.
.
Boiled down to it’s essence, here are the questions that SHOULD be asked by voters and the media, and DESERVED an answer from the president.
1. In “Dreams of My Father”, Barak Obama stated that his father was a Kenyan. At the time, his mother was VERY young, and there is doubt as to whether Barak Obama was a “Natural Born Citizen”, under Hawaii and US law in 1961. The President should be open and the press and the legal community should fully address the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause of the US Constitution. As President, Barak Obama should be FULLY cooperative in examining his basic qualification as a “Natural Born” US citizen.
2. As part of question #1, the birthplace of Barak Obama becomes much more important. Due to claims by Obama’s own extended family in Kenya, the place of the president’s birthplace should be firmly established. The president has NO REASON to be hesitant in establishing his bona fide qualifications to be President of the United States.
These 2 questions are neither onerous nor controversial. We are a nation of laws, and the president, as chief law enforcement officer in the country, should be ready and willing to fully comply with all laws.
“He obviously bears no allegiance whatsoever to the US Constitution and is working overtime to destroy it.”
Very true.
But if Obama or any of his advisors were to read this thread, I would tell them that given Obama’s position and all the agencies under his control, his efforts to destroy the United States Constitution are actually rather weak.
It is true..for all persons that triangles have three angles equal to two right angles..but not every one knows this..
It is true for all persons that natural born citizens derive from two US citizen parents ..but not every one knows this..
No wonder he doesn’t appear to like Arizona’s new law...