Skip to comments.Tea party exploring Obama's eligibility
Posted on 08/17/2011 11:45:17 AM PDT by rxsid
"Tea party exploring Obama's eligibility
Arizona event focuses on evidence behind dispute
An event scheduled in Arizona is reflecting a new consideration by tea party components of the real evidence behind Barack Obama's eligibility to be president.
But the general wave of conservative positions endorsed by tea party officials largely has excluded the eligibility issue. Until now.
The Liberty Through Action organization has scheduled a meeting tonight with Jerome Corsi, Ph.D., and author of Where's the Birth Certificate?"
The event at the Sun City West Foundation Building in Sun City West at 6:30 p.m. is to focus on the issues of being a dual citizen, what is a "natural born Citizen," the mystery of the birth location, missing documents in the hunt for evidence, whether Obama's residency in Indonesia is a factor, the court challenges, the stonewalling of evidence in Hawaii, and ultimately, what does it mean for 2012.
"The speech represents a real movement of the tea party to engage in the eligibility issue. I plan to explain the evidence presented in 'Where's the Birth Certificate?' and to demonstrate with my computer the 20 or so experts WND has published saying the Obama birth certificate is fake," Corsi explained.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
|Age||Residency (or years citizen)|
|President & Commander in Chief (1 of 1)||natural born Citizen||
|35||14 years resident|
|Senator (1 of many)||Citizen||
|30||9 years a Citizen|
|Represantative (1 of many)||Citizen||
|25||7 years a Citizen|
Assuming Barry's father really was Obama Sr., Barry was born a subject to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England, inheriting his foreign father's foreign citizenship by birthright.
Then, when Kenyan gained it's independence, Barry obtained Kenyan citizenship at age ~2.
He possibly even had Indonesian citizenship if his step father Lolo Soetoro adopted him.
Forget dual citizen...Barry was/is a multi-national. He never was a "natural born Citizen."
Question is, do enough people care in the present day that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution is currently being completely ignored? Where are all the "Constitutionalists?"
"Tea party exploring Obama's eligibility"
I’m completely on board for an eligibility fight, but I wish another agency outside of WND would pick up this story as well.
The eligibility thing was whitewashed by the regime, and no MSM outlet is going to cover it.
We need to fight this in the courts, pound on our Reps’ doors, and get a solid, unassailable case put forth that this man has no business being in the spot of President.
try calling a congressional office and pointing this out
they don’t care
the same people supposedly sworn to uphold the Constitution, couldn’t care less
and i’m talking about the republican offices. forget the dems
the TEA party should follow their lead.. and also disregard the Constitution... right around amendment 16.
This is interesting what Arizona is doing. They may know something we do not. This video explains that Hawaii refused to certify Obama and Nancy Pelosi took it upon herself to sign a paper that Hawaii should have but refused to sign.
This would be a gift to the Democrats. They’d get rid of 0baMao as their candidate, show that the TEA party is racist, power hungry, and dangerous.
The Founders were very clear that the Commander-in-Chief should be a “natural born” citizen. They were less clear in their definition of what that meant. But they sure as hell didn’t mean a natural born citizen of Kenya. At birth, Barack Obama was a Kenyan citizen and British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. He’s so proud of this fact, that he has it published on his own website — and his Indonesian citizenship status is still open to question. //
This Obama file adds more to the posted article.
“...show that the TEA party is racist, power hungry, and dangerous...”
....to the ignorant, uneducated, agenda-laden fools who believe that already anyway.
This kind of stuff is going to play right into Obama and his democrat’s hands.
Let’s face the facts instead of living in the liberal fantasy world.
Nobody takes the actions obama has taken regarding his birth certificate unless he has something to hide. The socialist fraud infested MSM, academia and government simply have no credibility on the subject. They would believe it was his legitimate certificate if it was printed on toilet paper written in crayons. It was a slap in the face to the american people for obama to release this fraudulent certificate and shows his utter contempt for the american people and it’s laws. I hope the republicans have the cahonees to prosecute those involved in this cover-up.
Nancy Pelosi knows the truth. She certified him. Hawaii refused.
Agreed. Every poll taken on the subject shows that fewer and fewer people believe his birth narrative, and more and more people question his birth place. That is very favorable for a sitting president. Fewer people believing him, more people questioning him—that’s the time-tested formula for success.
The knee grows are not going to like this!
If true, this is not a positive development.
Well well WELL well well.
The whole birth certificate issue is smoke and mirrors. The MSM when they do cover it, focuses only on the bc. I think the real story is in Berry’s college records. When the pressure gets high enough the will trot out a better fake bc and say the story is over, but they will never mention the college records.
That's very true. Most Birthers are also Tea Party but not all Tea Party are Birthers.
I think it's because the Tea Party stands behind the Constitution and that's one BIG reason why Birthers go Tea Party. But not all people in the Tea Party understand what's going on with the BC issue. Many Americans don't. Why would they? The media hides it.
I consider myself a Birther. I do not think it would be politically smart to run on the Birther issue though. I don't think that's a good thing to put politics above the Constitution but that's how I feel. The issue should have been taken care of before the 2008 election. And again before the 2012 election but it's too late now. I will be back on the issue after Nov 2012 whether Obama wins or not. At some point I think we could see Pelosi and perhaps others being hauled off to prison. It's almost necessary to save the Constitution. Right now the rule is: "You're American UNTIL proven otherwise." George Soros or even Arnold are now qualified to be President. Just hide the Birth Certificate.
This IS a major problem. I just don't think it should be the issue of the election.
If just one secretary of state refused to certify him because of a falsified birth cert or whatever evidence is presented, Obama has a problem because others might follow suit.
“More and more” isn’t enough and it’s not going to be enough to make a positive difference.
This issue is a single battle and we have a war to win. This will just help Obama and his democrats narrative designed to minimize, discredit and attack the Tea Party with claims that we’re kooks.
We have plenty to use to take him out and this issue has proven to be a distraction.
Now, I don’t for a second believe that Obama has provided anything but lies and fraudulent documents on this subject, but after over 3 years, there is nothing to prove those beliefs to the greater population of the American public.
Bottom line... we don’t need it and running in circles doesn’t help our cause.
Now you can take your sarcastic comments to me and stuff them where the sun doesn’t shine.
***This IS a major problem. I just don’t think it should be the issue of the election.***
If not now, when?
If by chance Zero is proven illegible - there would massive riots by the “knee grows” - and I mean complete entire cities burning to the ground and probably a pretty decent race war to boot.
they dont care"
Trust me, I know first hand.
I've written certified delivered mail to all 9 SCOTUS justices (who almost certainly never saw the mail) as well as to my Senator's and my Representative.
I've been writing them since before the counting of the E.C. votes.
I've kept the letters very, very short and to the point.
I said nothing at all about the "b.c." issue (even though it's clearly a fraudulent document).
I simply asked each time, some variant of:
How can someone who was born owing allegiance, by birthright, to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England, be considered a "natural born Citizen" as known and intended by the founders and framers?
If I got a response back, it always...always stated that he released a copy of his birth certificate. Even though I asked nothing about that...they'd always reply back with that. And...that he won the election and we must accept that. Period. None of them dared touch the actual constitutional issue. Can a multinational (born with British citizenship, obtained Kenyan citizenship around age 2, possibly Indonesian citizenship and possibly U.S. citizenship) be a "natural born Citizen as required by Article II, Section 1 Clause 5?
I've continued to write follow up letters reiterating my question. I've since stopped receiving reply mail.
All in the 111th Congress that "certified" him, as is SCOTUS, are fully aware that we have a multinational sitting in the White House playing the part of Commander in Chief of our armed forces.
This issue MUST be addressed...if not to resolve Barry's issue particularly...it must be addressed so that Barry doesn't set the precedent going forward that those who were born with foreign citizenship and have actually held multiple foreign citizenship don't ever get to be eligible to be our Commander in Chief.
At the very least, we need to think long term on this...for the sake of Republic and our Constitution.
“....probably a pretty decent race war to boot.”
We are hurtling headlong for that anyway. That, or the continued, and eventually complete, destruction of centuries of built-up, white, Christian western civilization.
Might as well get it on.
That’s what many people said going into the 2010 elections.
“This kind of stuff is going to play right into Obama and his democrats hands.”
It keeps Farah and Corsi employed, keeps birthers entertained and highly agitated, but it is doubtful to have convinced a single Obama voter to change their next vote.
The Congress and Supreme Court won’t override the will of the voters, so there we are.
The economy is the defining issue for the next election, and conservatives need to prioritize, get focused and stay focused on that.
The Liberty Through Action organization has scheduled a meeting tonight with Jerome Corsi, Ph.D., and author of Where's the Birth Certificate?"
There doesn't seem to be much information about this group Corsi will be speaking to, even how they are affiliated with Tea Party organizations. The link doesn't even go to their website, just a blog post about the event.
Let's multitask and not let the precident get set that someone born with foreign citizenship, having multiple foreign citizenships, be eligible for Commander in Chief of our military.
Short and Long term - economy. Long term - nobody with foreign citizenship get's their hands on the nuclear football.
They were right then and they are right now.
If some other entity or famous public voice wants to fight this battle, then fine.
I do not believe that the Tea Party should be tied to it. The Tea Party is extremely important to us right this moment and we can’t afford to have them minimized or discredited.
“The economy is the defining issue for the next election, and conservatives need to prioritize, get focused and stay focused on that.”
It’s tough for this group to do, but that is EXACTLY what needs to be done.
I cannot blame any constitutionalist who thinks it should. Constitutionally it should be an issue. The issue of all issues. Politically, I don't think it should. I admit I'm putting politics above the Constitution. Unfortunately not enough American voters know the Constitution. That's a shame.
Good point! Tea Party = Taxes.
The NRA does not go out and protest gay marriages.
I do believe the Birther issue is extremely important though.
Sun City West Foundation Building
14465 R H Johnson Blvd.
Sun City West
Admission: $5 Per Person (more is voluntary)
The Obama Birth Controversy .............First Birthers, Dual Citizen, Natural Born Citizen (Sen Res. 511), Born In USA or Out of Africa?
Cracks In The Obama Nativity Story ............ Mystery Hospital, Missing Doctor, Obama Mama?, Indonesian Citizen?
The Constitutional Gambit .................. Stonewalling In Hawaii, Democrats Dodge Eligibility, Missing Obama Documents, Court Challenges, States Rights Solution
CONCLUSION.................. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN 2012 ?? Soc Sec. No., Current Forged Long Form BC, BREAKING THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE ISSUE
Liberty Through Action
Arizona 2012 Project
Ronald Ludders, Chairman"
Doesn’t Ken Allen who has taken the government to court over denied FOIA requests for SAD and Barry Soetoro’s passport applications and immigration records actually live in Arizona. Perhaps he is in cahoots with this Tea Party chapter.
The state run media is, thankfully, having less and less of an affect on people in general.
The dems better dump him now before he brings the entire donkey party down with him...
It appears he is starting to lose the black vote. Even his Harvard Professor buddy Henry Louis Gates wrote an article recently stating that blacks should not be so emotionally invested in Obama just because he is black. Before the fall?
Anti-Obama Anger Explodes at Congressional Black Caucus
And I consider myself a Birther. But also Tea Party.
You know that I think you’re wrong, but you seem to be so far into this that I expect you to follow your dream.
I do not bash birthers, because I believe in seeking the truth in all things, I just believe this could hurt the Tea Party and thus, the conservative movement and our efforts to get rid of Obama.
I will now leave this thread and hope, for the good of our country, that I never have to say that I told you so.
That is absolutely the case. While I consider myself an anti-birther and believe that Obama was born in Hawaii, I also believe the FF intended that a natural-born citizen be born on U.S. soil to two citizen parents. I think we need a SCOTUS ruling to clearly define who is and is not a natural-born citizen, but I know we aren't likely to get such a ruling.
That being said, I've spent significant time presenting the issue to liberals on their turf. In doing so, the most I have accomplished is to convince them that there is not a legal process in place to determine that a candidate meets the Constitutional requirements for the presidency and that there should be one. Or, they accept that the FF intended two citizen parents but believe that the Constitution is a living document and that the FF's original intentions are outdated in today's global community due to the ease of international travel and the prevalence of multi-national relationships.
We won't get anywhere with liberals or even mainstream conservatives on this issue. The single, most-damaging factor to the eligibility issue was Orly Taitz's freak show.
People, like you, said going into the 2010 elections that the eligibility issue would (for short) hurt the (R)'s.
Did the (R)'s have a poor showing in 2010?
In it, there are VERY IMPORTANT references concerning what is a Natural-Born Subject ...
A motion in Parliament, 13 Elizab. about the succession to the crown; according to K. Henry VIII. his will.
" ... But let us admit an untruth, that there was no will, to the end there may nothing be imagined, that cannot justly be answered. And that the truth may be known, (which for my part I only desire may appear to all men,) who is the right and lawful heir in reversion to the crown; it will be said, the Scottish queen; because she cometh of the eldest sister, and is next of bloud to king Henry VIII. according to the maxim in the law. Truth it is, there is such a maxim: but it may not be so largely taken, but it must be restrained to such as be inheritable by the laws of the realm. Which be such as be born in the kings allegiance, of father and mother English; or out of the kings legiance, of parents English, and in the kings legiance. For if yee will put strangers and right English in one case, what availeth the liberty of England, or what profiteth it to be an Englishman born? Yea, it were a great deal better to be born a stranger, than an Englishman: for strangers, albeit they have not so great commodity in England in all things as Englishmen have, yet in some things they have more: neither be they bound to serve the realm with their witts, to maintain it with their goods, serve it with their bodies, defend it with their bloud, as we be: but may come when they will, tarry as long as them listeth, and depart when it pleaseth them.
Wherefore by nature there ought to be great difference between strangers and Englishmen: and those should enjoy the sweet, that be bound to tast of the sowre. And so our laws have provided, if ye will suffer them to stand in force. For the statute of the 23 Edward III. (which expoundeth the law in this case) saith, that the kings children, wheresoever they be born in the realm, or without, be inheritable to their auncesters: and that others which from time to time shall be born out of the legiance of the king, whose fathers and mothers at the time of their birth, be at the faith and legiance of the king of England, should be in like manet inheritors to their auncestors.
Whereby it is a consequent, a contrario, that these that be born out of the legiance of the king of England, be not inheritable to this realm. And so it appeareth by Bracton, that the old law before was, For he saith in one of his exceptions thus; Sicut Anglious non auditur in placitando aliquem de terris et tenementis in Francia; ita non debet Alienigena et Francigena, qui sunt ad fidem regis Francisae, audiri placitando in Anglia. In another place, Libro 4to de exception. dilatoria, Bracton saith thus: Ita respondere poterit, quod particeps, de quo di-citur, nil capere potest, antequam fiat fides regi Angliae. And Lit. saith, as yee know, That in an action real or personal, brought by one born out of the kings legiance, it is a good plea for the defendant to say, that the plaintiff was born out of the kings legiance. ...
... And because God first made man, and of man woman, and hath made him a more apt instrument to serve in the commonweal, in the functions both of the mind and of the body; therefore is man preferred to woman, and thought the more worthy person; not only by the laws of nature, but also by all other laws, and by the laws of this realm; as appeareth 47 Edward III. And so the children in all other places follow the condition and state of their father, as the most worthy person; which others do also here in England. For the law in like maner saith, Partus sequitur patrem. Which, if it should be examined only in the cases of the bondman and his wife, and that the child should be bond or free, according to the condition of the father, then it is no maxim, as the law termeth it. For a maxim is a rule that serves to rule and discuss more eases than one.
But let us seek if we can find out a reason to maintain this opinion, that every person born in England, of what nation soever the parents be, shall be free. For positive law written, that is contained in the book of the Exposition Of The Terms Of The Laws Of England: [which of what authority it is, I know not.] But what saith that book? verily thus: If an alien come and dwell in England, which is not of the kings enemies, and there hath issue, this issue is not alien, but English. But now such alien was the earl of Angus: for as the chronicle witnesseth, he came not into England with mind to tary and inhabit there. But after he had maried the Scottish queen, both without K. Henry his brothers consent, and also of the councils of Scotland, there fel such variance between her and him, and the lords of Scotland, that she and her husband (like banished persons) fled and came into England, and wrote to the king for mercy and comfort. The king enclined to mercy, sent them apparel, vessels, and all things; willing them to live still in Northumberland, till they knew further of his pleasure.
Whereupon they lay still at Harboute, where she was delivered of the said lady Lyneoux. And after, when the king sent for her and her husband, the earl, to come to the court, and the earl promised so to do, and she was coming and asked for him, he was returned to Scotland, [belike to his own wife, as ye shall hear hereafter,] or mistrusting that the king had understanding, how he had distained and abused his sister: and so she came without the earl to the court. When the king heard that the earl of Angus was so departed, he said, it was done like a Scot. And so after this queen had taried a year in England, she returned to Scotland. Whereby it may appear, that the said earl of Angus is not of that sort of aliens of whom this book of the Exposition Of The Terms Of The Laws Of England speaketh. For he came not into England to dwel, nor had any dwelling place there: but rather was to be judged as a guest; or as a bird, that for a time leaveth his native country while the foul weather lasteth: or as a wild beast chased with hounds out of his haunt, flyeth, till he perceive they persecute him no longer. And so the lady Lineoux can claim no benefit by this law, if it be taken for law: but rather it maketh altogether against her.
Moreover, statute there is none to maintain this opinion, that saith, every person is English that is born in England, of whatsoever nation his parents be. Then of necessity it must be by custom, if it be law: which having no reason to maintain it, or if it be contrary to reason is no law, have it never so long continuance; but is, as evil, to be abolished, as the laws of the realm do plainly teach us. For they say, customs not grounded on reason, or contrary to reason, cannot prescribe.
But yee will say, the reason is to entice strangers the rather to come into this realm. What enticement can it be, where they themselves shall not, by their coming, be free, nor may purchase any land to leave to their posterity?
And albeit that reason maintained this custom, yet can it not serve the lady Lenoux. For her father, the earl of Angus, came not into this realm to inhabit and dwel in the same, as before is sufficiently declared. Perchance it will be said, that it is the nature of the soil to make all such bee born in England, free of England. But how happeneth it, that this property is private to England, and not common to all other countreys? Truly, this is not allowed in any other country: and not without good reason. For the constitution of kingdoms and states, ordinances of cities and commonweals, and the liberties and freedoms thereof, are not by nature, but come by the consent of men and mens laws. And they receive none to be free, and they allow none to be free in their commonweals, but such as either for the faith and truth their parents, being citizens, bare thereunto, they do not suspect but that they will walk in the steps of their parents fidelity; or else are such as upon great consideration and promise of their faith and allegiance, they do newly admit citizens. Of which number young babes cannot be for simplicity. The magistrate can have no respect of them: nor they be not able to make any promise, or bond of fidelity to the commonwealth. For as the commonwealth is bound to preserve them that be free thereof from injury and injustice; so it doth require of them promise to be true thereunto, to serve and defend it to their uttermost power.
Truly in my judgment, there is no reason to move either England or Scotland to think such a person can be true to either of them both. For it hath been a principle received of all men, even as long as division of states and commonweals have been, that no man can be a citizen of two cities or commonweals; because he cannot serve them both at once. Wherefore I cannot see how this proposition, that every person born in England (of what nation or parents soever he be) should be free in England, should be justified by law or reason. And therefore the lady Leoneux can take no benefit thereby ..."
This isn't England. We are not subjects of a Queen or King.
Ridicule is a very powerful tool of the left.
Did "birtherism" doom the (R)'s election outcome in 2010?
Too bad, but we cannot have it both ways.
1. Nothing to see here
2. Its just a distraction
3. It plays into Obama’s hands, just how he planned it.
4. There will be riots. RIOTS I tell you!
5. But that will make Biden POTUS and he will ruin us.
TALKING POINTS OF THE UNINFORMED! If you don’t agree then leave it alone. You are obviously not a troll but don’t help the issue one bit by being negative. The trolls are very apparent because they can’t even recite TALKING POINTS.
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.