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

Skip to comments.

Sure Obamaís ineligible, but itís only the Constitution that says so
coachisright.com ^ | June 3, 2011 | Doug Book, staff writer

Posted on 06/03/2011 8:17:52 AM PDT by jmaroneps37

On April 30th of 2008, the United States Senate proclaimed John McCain eligible to become the President of the United States, passing by unanimous consent Senate Resolution 511 which stated that his birth in the Panama Canal Zone did not violate the “natural born citizen” clause of the Constitution.

One of the co-sponsors of this non-binding resolution was Barack Hussein Obama.

Though the Constitution does not define “natural born”, it is clear that the meaning had been based upon principles included in a work quite popular with many of the Founders, the 1758 “Law of Nations” by Frenchman Emerich de Vattel.

According to the “Law of Nations”, “the natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…”

So because of his birth in a Panama hospital, embarrassing questions were being raised about McCain’s Constitutional eligibility to serve.

Nevertheless, rather than adhere to the text and spirit of the Constitution and engage in honest debate, members of the imperial senate rushed to put the issue to rest by ignoring the language of the document to which they had sworn a solemn oath of allegiance.

And the true motive for this betrayal of trust is more disgraceful than the betrayal itself. For it was quietly hoped this cynical, bipartisan resolution proclaiming McCain’s eligibility might insure no question would arise about another candidate, one who was clearly and irretrievably ineligible for the highest office in the land.

In 1800, Charles Pinckney, member of the Continental Congress; signatory to the Constitution wrote, “what better way to insure attachment to the Country than to require the President to have his American citizenship through his father and not through a foreign father.”

Regardless of Barack Obama’s birthplace, his father was a British citizen,…..

(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: allcorruption; birther; certifigate; eligible; hopespringseternal; naturalborncitizen; noaccountability; nobravery; noconstitution; nofreedom; nojustice; notransparency; noveritas; obamas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last
Why let the Constitution get in the way?
1 posted on 06/03/2011 8:17:55 AM PDT by jmaroneps37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37
We lost the Constitution a long time ago. King Obama really destroyed it and is now our communists black Muslim dictator to be.
2 posted on 06/03/2011 8:25:33 AM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37
The Rats and RINOs are all complicit.

3 posted on 06/03/2011 8:26:54 AM PDT by Genoa (Luke 12:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37

Wasn’t this issue raised over the candidacy of Barry Goldwater. There was, I believe, a question of his own eligibility as he was born in Arizona, BEFORE it became a state, but was a mere “territory”. He was truly born within the United States of American citizens.
Further weren’t McCain’s parents in Panama on MILITARY ASSIGNMENT. If some idiot tries to tell me that the young cousin, born on an AirForce base in Japan, where her father was stationed is NOT a “natural born citizen” of the USA, you know where they can go. I’m not sure, but I think this principle also accrues to children born of missionaries from America, temporarily in a foreign country.


4 posted on 06/03/2011 8:33:32 AM PDT by CaptainAmiigaf (NY TIMES: "We print the news as it fits our views")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37
OBAMAIWON
5 posted on 06/03/2011 8:34:46 AM PDT by FrankR (A people that values its privileges above its principles will soon lose both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FrankR

The relevant law is Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1001, which states, in part, that “whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully — (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than five years.”

Let’s have a closer look at that Birth Certificate!


6 posted on 06/03/2011 8:40:07 AM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37
One of the reasons I never got interested in the birth certificate was I always thought you had to show proof of eligibility when you make the application.
That should be done. He WAS NOT eligible because his father was not born here. Birth certificate or not.
This needs to be done from here on. When you apply for President everything should be checked. Arnold Schwarzenegger could run. Who would stop him?
7 posted on 06/03/2011 8:46:43 AM PDT by DeaconRed (Everything I need to know in life, I learned in Kindergarten. . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37

The constitution doesn’t “say” anything of the sort. If the founders wanted to require that every president have two citizen parents, it could have said so in plain and clear language. It didn’t. Please also not that NOBODY raised this objection to Chester Arthur even though it was well born that he had an Irish born father.


8 posted on 06/03/2011 9:00:24 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

Don’t agree with you. The founders DID say it in plain language of the day. Chester Arthur’s parents were permanent residents of the US, and who’s going to make an issue of it today, in any case?


9 posted on 06/03/2011 9:05:41 AM PDT by Missouri gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37

An old friend recently forwarded an email from a local Congressional Representative. It concerned Obozo’s use of an autopen to ”sign” the extension of the so-called Patriot Act. He and his 500 member entourage were on yet another European leg of his taxpayer funded world tour. My reply to him follows.

Phil,
I share Tom’s concerns and more. Much, much more.

The alien usurper now infesting the White House MUST be turned out BEFORE the 2012 election and EVERY action he has initiated while there declared null and void.

If his occupancy of the office is allowed to stand, this country no longer has a Constitution and every member of Congress who remained silent on this matter should be handcuffed, brought back to his/her district and horsewhipped in public.

During my last 30 minute one-on-one with former Rep. John Linder about 6 years ago, he told me something I already knew. He said that the country was dangerously close to the tipping point where the number of Americans (and NON-Americans) LIVING OFF THE TAX-PAYING PRODUCERS AND BORROWED GOVERNMENT LARGESSE WOULD EXCEED 50%. When we reached the point where those non-producing citizens and non-citizens voted and/or the “progressive” apparatchiksk running the Democrat Party could stuff enough ballot boxes or jigger enough voting machines, the America we knew would be over. The “coronation” of the illegal alien in 2008 is proof that the America we knew is, in fact, over.

I pray for our children and grandchildren. Having said that, given the infiltration of “progressive” indoctrination into the government schools, they probably won’t even know that their former birthright has been stolen by the uninformed, ignorant and the lazy handmaidens of power-mad would-be despots.

“When an opponent declares, ‘I will not come over to your side,’ I calmly say, ‘Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community’.”
Adolph Hitler Speech November 1933

Sorry to sugar coat it, but I dare not reveal how I REALLY feel lest I get a 3 am visit by the new Gestapo (aka the FBI).

”Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet, from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.” That xenophobic radical, Thomas Jefferson

Mr. Jefferson’s concerns go right to the heart of the vital questions of uncontrolled immigration and, in Obozo’s case, natural born citizenship, don’t they? http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/notes-on-virginia-8.html


10 posted on 06/03/2011 9:06:00 AM PDT by Dick Bachert (2012 CAN'T COME SOON ENOUGH FOR ME. HOW ABOUT YOU?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

There were challenges to Arthur’s eligibility at the time. Quite a few in fact. The lack of a solid paper trail (not unusual in that era) hindered the objectors efforts.


11 posted on 06/03/2011 9:06:07 AM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37
According to Vattel #1-217 the children of soldiers on duty born overseas are ‘deemed’ to be born within the nation of that soldiers allegiance.

Do you only follow one line - mistranslated- out of Vattel?

Or do you actually follow what Vattel wrote?

12 posted on 06/03/2011 9:09:45 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

Chester Arthur lied about his age and burned his documents to make it look as if he was born AFTER his father obtained his U.S. Naturalization.


13 posted on 06/03/2011 9:15:55 AM PDT by fastkelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
There were challenges to Arthur’s eligibility at the time. Quite a few in fact. The lack of a solid paper trail (not unusual in that era) hindered the objectors efforts.

The challenges focused solely on claims that he was born in Canada. NOBODY even hinted that his father's citizenship status might be an issue. As to paper trail, it was widely reported in 1880 that Irish father was born in Ireland yet NOBODY even bothered to ask if he was a citizen. Why? You have only two ways to explain this. Either voters in 1880 were ignorant trusting sheeple when compared to today's voters (IMHO, the opposite is true) or they did not see his father's citizenship as an issue that was even worth talking about.

I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is. Are you? I'll bet that not a single person ever challenged Arthur on this issue (e.g. his father's citizenship status) from 1880 (when he ran for veep) to 1885 when he left office?

14 posted on 06/03/2011 9:17:19 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
I'll bet that not a single person ever challenged Arthur on this issue (e.g. his father's citizenship status) from 1880 (when he ran for veep) to 1885 when he left office?

How do you intend to prove that?

Are you advocating that there should be no two citizen parent requirement for eligibility? If so, why?

15 posted on 06/03/2011 9:24:28 AM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: fastkelly
Chester Arthur lied about his age and burned his documents to make it look as if he was born AFTER his father obtained his U.S. Naturalization.

Please explain why pray-tell this would make any difference since Arthur's father had lived in the U.S. for a decade prior to Chet's birth, plenty of time to become a citizen.

In any case, this motivation doesn't make sense in another respect. Arthur's papers were burned in 1886. He left office in 1885. Again, you have two choices. If he had really done this as part of a devious cover-up, he woudl have burned them in 1880 (or earlier).

Again, you are stuck with two choices. Because they never bothered to even raise the issue from 1880 to 1885, voters from 1880 to 1885 were ignorant trusting sheeple compared to today's voters OR they didn't think this issue had any bearing on his eligibility.

Arthur readily admitted in 1880! that his father was Irish born yet nobody thought that this issue merited a follow-up question.

16 posted on 06/03/2011 9:25:47 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: fastkelly

Oh....the a”lie” was that Arthur said he was born in 1830 rather than 1829. Big friggin’ deal.


17 posted on 06/03/2011 9:28:12 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81

I have the Arthur precedent and I also have a nineteenth century SC ruling on my side, the Kim Wong Ark case. The burden of proof is on you, not me.


18 posted on 06/03/2011 9:30:35 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
How do you intend to prove that?

Well...nobody (INCLUDING ARTHUR'S BIOGRAPHERS AND YOU) has presented evidence to the contrary for your conspiracy theory. If you want to smear President Arthur's reputation, the burden of proof is on you not me.

19 posted on 06/03/2011 9:33:00 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: CaptainAmiigaf

John McCain lied about being born on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone and Congress resolution 511 incorretly states so. Colon Hospital was outside of the U.S. Panama Canal Zone.
Anyway, the legislative Branch of the U.S. Government is not delegated with the power to change the Constitution (States) or determine the the meaning of the wording (SCOTUS) so 511 is legally worthless.


20 posted on 06/03/2011 9:44:09 AM PDT by fastkelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
My, mighty touchy, aren't we? Is Chester one of your ancestors?

BTW, I'd love to know if you oppose the two citizen parent concept, and if so, why?

21 posted on 06/03/2011 9:53:45 AM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37
"Regardless of Barack Obama’s birthplace, his father was a British citizen, born in Kenya. This fact makes Obama Constitutionally ineligible for the Presidency, as he is NOT a natural born citizen."


This is the gist of it, as I've been saying to all those here who deny that the Kenyan usurper is ineligible, or if he is don't raise the issue because of potential riots in the streets.
22 posted on 06/03/2011 10:09:04 AM PDT by Emperor Palpatine (One of these days, Alice....one of these days.....POW!! Right in the kisser!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

The SCOTUS ruled that Kim Wong Ark was a native-born citizen, not natural born.


23 posted on 06/03/2011 10:10:08 AM PDT by fastkelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: fastkelly
John McCain lied about being born on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone and Congress resolution 511 incorretly states so. Colon Hospital was outside of the U.S. Panama Canal Zone.

He wasn't born at Colon Hospital.

24 posted on 06/03/2011 10:22:30 AM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Missouri gal

i DO agree with you.

...the Founding Fathers didn’t write 2000 page bills like congress does now. how many pages is the Constitution?

...they didn’t bother defining “natural born”, because they all knew exactly what it meant. and their other writings show this.
...the President is clearly being held to a higher standard. “natural born”. not native.

if the trolls don’t accept Vattel’s definition, then what do they think the Founding Fathers meant by it?


25 posted on 06/03/2011 10:25:31 AM PDT by Elendur (the hope and change i need: Sarah / Colonel West in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81

Yes, I oppose that “concept,” a position only advocated by a small fringe of birthers.


26 posted on 06/03/2011 10:33:13 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
Yes, I oppose that “concept,” a position only advocated by a small fringe of birthers.

Why?

27 posted on 06/03/2011 10:36:43 AM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: fastkelly
Anyway, the legislative Branch of the U.S. Government is not delegated with the power to change the Constitution (States) or determine the the meaning of the wording (SCOTUS) so 511 is legally worthless.
But it it got McCain the Republican nonination and Obama the presidency. Just what all the big multinational companies wanted the american people to do.

28 posted on 06/03/2011 10:37:22 AM PDT by fastkelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: fastkelly
Let me quote Kim Wong Ark for you. Please note that you and others are still failing to provide evidence that ANY American challenged Arthur's eligibility on this basis, or even raised the issue.

Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ‘strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle (emphasis mine)

29 posted on 06/03/2011 10:39:19 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81

Have you been reading my posts e.g. precedents and supreme court ruling. I’m not the evasivie one here. Why haven’t YOU answered my questions about Arthur?


30 posted on 06/03/2011 10:40:52 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: CaptainAmiigaf
I’m not sure, but I think this principle also accrues to children born of missionaries from America, temporarily in a foreign country.

The common meaning of natural born is citizen by birth, as opposed to naturalization. The parents need not be on any mission, not divine nor patriotic. They could just be turistas, and their kid would still be eligible (35 years later, having lived in the USA at least 14 years).

31 posted on 06/03/2011 10:43:35 AM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Voter#537
One of the reasons I never got interested in the birth certificate was I always thought you had to show proof of eligibility when you make the application.
That should be done. He WAS NOT eligible because his father was not born here.

Obama had stipulated at book length (and to the tune of copious book royalties) who his daddy was well before the election. It was a major part of his life legend. Anybody unaware of that should have sat out the election, being clearly unqualified to vote. Obviously, no birth certificate was necessary in that regard.

Anybody who thought he was ineligible because of his father needed to have made that case before the election. Which is hilarious, given the earliest FR thread raising the issue is dated 11 December 2008. Anybody got an earlier link?

32 posted on 06/03/2011 10:53:50 AM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
The Wong Kim Ark case simply settled native born citizenship, it did not declare him natural born. Wong is the original anchor baby. Big deal, he couldn't run for president either.

Why do you oppose the two citizen parent idea? You make it sound personal.

33 posted on 06/03/2011 10:54:49 AM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk; All

“Have you been reading my posts e.g. precedents and supreme court ruling. I’m not the evasivie one here. “
///
i HAVE been reading your posts. and i DO think you are being evasive. ...more than evasive, i think you are DELIBERATELY misleading and deceptive.
instead of having an HONEST discussion, about these issues.
and i wonder why...

yes, as you say, Arthur admitted his Father was Irish born. and there was plenty of time for him to become a citizen. so everyone ASSUMED he had. just as every ASSUMED Obama’s eligibility was verified. (a case of “it’s not my table...”).
...in the Constitution, the Founders DIDN’T define “Natural born”. so you think it was an accident? instead of that they didn’t feel a need to define what “is is” ?
...i admit you know a LOT i don’t. you’d have to, to be able to dodge, dissemble, and mislead as well as you do, on all these issues. i admit i am very impressed with your knowledge and intelligence.

...instead of addressing this, you come back with an esoteric quotation from Ark, that again ignores the central issue:
To: Captain Kirk
The SCOTUS ruled that Kim Wong Ark was a native-born citizen, not natural born.
23 posted on Friday, June 03, 2011 1:10:08 PM by fastkelly

...is there ANYTHING that would get you to have some honest intellectual curiosity, about the obvious coverup and scrubbing, the fact that ALL his records are hidden, from the “most transparent President ever” ???

...i’d LOVE for you to explain to me, how a teenager in Hawaii, got a CONNECTICUT SSN...


34 posted on 06/03/2011 11:06:11 AM PDT by Elendur (the hope and change i need: Sarah / Colonel West in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Kleon
He wasn't born at Colon Hospital.

Prove it.

35 posted on 06/03/2011 11:17:55 AM PDT by fastkelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Elendur

i’ve seen MANY honest discussions on FR. and they don’t twist words, and use deceptive tactics, they let the facts live or die on their own.
yet on this topic, i see people with honest questions, ridiculed, and given deceptive answers. WHY ?

...like the liberal Chicago Law firm, linked to Obama, that wrote how unfair the “natural born” clause is, and it should be changed.
link inside here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2728177/posts?page=14#14

until Obama was elected, i don’t see ANY disagreement, even by LIBERALS, of the definition of “natural born”.

if you can find something written from YOUR position, saying Vattel is wrong, prior to Obama, i’d LOVE to read it.


36 posted on 06/03/2011 11:17:55 AM PDT by Elendur (the hope and change i need: Sarah / Colonel West in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: fastkelly

I think it would be best to start by asking why you think he was born at Colon Hospital.


37 posted on 06/03/2011 11:31:07 AM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Kleon

It was the only near-by hospital open in 1936 and McCain has spent more legal funds to hide his birth and other records than Obama has.

This should give you a hint.


38 posted on 06/03/2011 11:36:44 AM PDT by fastkelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: fastkelly
It was the only near-by hospital open in 1936 and McCain has spent more legal funds to hide his birth and other records than Obama has.

That's a long-debunked Internet rumor. There was a small hospital on the military base in 1936.

39 posted on 06/03/2011 11:43:02 AM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Kleon
The birth certificate clearly says Colon hospital, August 29, 1936. Here's the link at Scribd.com:

John McCain birth certificate

40 posted on 06/03/2011 12:01:19 PM PDT by JoeA (JoeA / Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

and btw, i’m not saying this, because i have a naive hope of removing President Obama this way. I DON’T.

in fact, i’m postive he will never be removed for not being a NBC. for sake of argument,

i assume President Obama -IS- a NBC !!!

US State Department records, show his Father was a bigamist, so if the marriage occurred (of which there is NO evidence), it was invalid.
and his Mother was underage. And Obama himself could claim that the birth Father was different. i agree, it is quite possible, that he IS a NBC !!!

So, if this came before the Supreme Court, i think that is exactly what would happen.
(remember Obama’s OWN lawyer stated the records were secret because it would be “embarrassing”. What might that be?)

So, Obama would just have to admit, his Father was Davis, or claim his Mother was raped, and BINGO, he -IS- a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
which is why i don’t usually comment on NBC threads. it’s pointless, in relation to Obama.

i am much more interested, in the CT SSN,
and why the errors on the BC like Obama Sr’s age (incorrect for 1961), and why Hawaii DOH says Virginia Sunahara doesn’t exist, when it has her in it’s birth index, etc.

i ONLY argue the definition of NBC, because i think the meaning of NBC in the Constitution is clear, and again,

even Liberals agreed with Vattel on the definition of NBC,

until Obama became President. ...as Liberal Lawyer HERLIHY said:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2302751/posts


41 posted on 06/03/2011 12:35:59 PM PDT by Elendur (the hope and change i need: Sarah / Colonel West in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kleon

Oh, debuncked by Glenn Keesler, the Washington Compost Fact Checker who is supposedly the only guy that was shown a copy of McCain’s Birth Certificate. He has also quoted the much maligned Anthony Weiner saying “that repeal of the Obama health care bill will cost the Treasury $1.2 Trillion.”


42 posted on 06/03/2011 12:49:51 PM PDT by fastkelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81

Personal? Nice diversionary tactic. You’re the guy that’s refusing to provide evidence that anyone cared about Arthur’s citizenship status. As long as you fail to address this, you’re not to convince anyone outside of your small fringe group.

Since you asked, I think all of this is incredibly silly. I’d take a Chester Arthur, who was a free market/small government guy/pro-gold standard guy, any day of the week over TR, FDR, or Woodrow Wilson (all of whom had citizen parents). Wouldn’t you?


43 posted on 06/03/2011 12:54:05 PM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: JoeA
The birth certificate clearly says Colon hospital, August 29, 1936. Here's the link at Scribd.com:

That's a forgery, and not a very good one. McCain has never released his birth certificate.

44 posted on 06/03/2011 1:17:21 PM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Kleon

Better forgery than the Whitehouse posted on the internet on April 27th.


45 posted on 06/03/2011 1:40:49 PM PDT by fastkelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: fastkelly
Better forgery than the Whitehouse posted on the internet on April 27th.

It's pretty easy to prove it's fake, though. You don't need to make up stuff about scanning software or embarrass yourself by pointing out smiley faces.

46 posted on 06/03/2011 2:02:08 PM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
The translation was done in the same century as the constitution was written. I find that more reliable than the whining of members of the political class that are not elibible for POTUS.

Vattel:
§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.

If Vattel is accepted as the source of the Natural born citizen requirement, one might argue that Macain is a NBC.

47 posted on 06/03/2011 4:40:26 PM PDT by Exmil_UK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: rxsid; patlin

Have you seen this quote?

In 1800, Charles Pinckney, member of the Continental Congress; signatory to the Constitution wrote, “what better way to insure attachment to the Country than to require the President to have his American citizenship through his father and not through a foreign father.”


48 posted on 06/06/2011 3:03:33 AM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
In 1800, Charles Pinckney, member of the Continental Congress; signatory to the Constitution wrote, “what better way to insure attachment to the Country than to require the President to have his American citizenship through his father and not through a foreign father.”

Yes, that one I discovered & covered back in late 2008 & early 2009. I think Leo used it also, for all the good it did.

I am completely convinced that there is NOTHING that anyone will ever do to take away the 1/2 white man's life-long retirement fund paid for by you & me. There is not one body that when elected, will stand up & do the right thing & expose this fraud! NADA...why?...because he is 1/2 black. PERIOD! ITS ALL ABOUT RACE NOW!

Sorry for the attitude, but I am worn out, in need of a break & after 3 years, I can't imagine uncovering anything new that we haven't already exposed that will make one bit of difference. I will however be interested to see what Leo puts out this week as I do not always agree with all his conclusions where the 14th is concerned because the lawyers all tend to interpret it without also using the expatriation act, which was a critical piece of sister legislation to the 14th that forever eliminated any notion of jus soli citizenship. An act, whose law governs THE OATH OF CITIZENSHIP. PERIOD!

49 posted on 06/06/2011 7:25:23 AM PDT by patlin ("Knowledge is a powerful source that is 2nd to none but God" ConstitutionallySpeaking 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37
The Resolution 511 states:

Senate Resolution 511:

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.

There wasn't a hospital on that base in 1936 it was not until 1938. So is McRino an actual NBC? This was done to protect Zero...no other reason.

50 posted on 06/06/2011 7:33:13 AM PDT by shield (Rev2:9 "Woe unto those who say they are Judah and are not, but are of the synaGOGue of Satan.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 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