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

Skip to comments.

MILLER: EXCLUSIVE: Trump on Romney's birther comment
Washington Times ^ | August 26, 2012 | Emily Miller

Posted on 08/26/2012 8:28:48 PM PDT by Seizethecarp

Mitt Romney said on Friday in his native state of Michigan that, "No one has ever asked to see my birth certificate. They know that this is the place that we were born and raised." The Republican presidential candidate insisted afterwards that it was just a joke. That didn't stop Obama campaign manager Jim Messina from immediately used the comment in a fundraising appeal, calling it "a new low for Mitt Romney."

"That wasn't a low at all," the real estate mogul told me in a sit-down interview on Sunday in Sarasota. "The low was when they accused Gov. Romney of essentially murder, when they called him a felon. Those are the lows. What he said is not a low at all."

Mr. Trump said that more will come out about the legitimacy of Mr. Obama's birth in the weeks and months leading up to the election. The Constitution says that only native-born Americans can be president. Mr. Trump cited polls showing that, "A tremendous amount of people believe there is certainly a validity to it."

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


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; naturalborncitizen; obama; romney; trump

1 posted on 08/26/2012 8:28:53 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

What’s needed here is some bare-knuckles whoop-ass.


2 posted on 08/26/2012 8:36:56 PM PDT by pingman ("Human history seems logical in afterthought, but a mystery in forethought." (Strauss & Howe))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

For a man that supposed to usher in a new age of government transparency he sure seems to be very opaque.


3 posted on 08/26/2012 8:38:15 PM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pingman

Your wish is my command. lol


4 posted on 08/26/2012 8:38:38 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
Mr. Trump said that more will come out about the legitimacy of Mr. Obama's birth in the weeks and months leading up to the election. The Constitution says that only native-born Americans can be president.

This is incorrect. The Constitution in fact provides that a person must be a natural born citizen in order to be eligible to serve as President.

Why would this journalist misrepresent a very well understood constitutional precept?
5 posted on 08/26/2012 8:41:51 PM PDT by Milton Miteybad (I am Jim Thompson. {Really.})
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
It is time for Obama to explain why he is using a Connecticut social security number stolen from a dead man.
6 posted on 08/26/2012 8:48:27 PM PDT by Baynative (A man's admiration for absolute government is proportionate to the contempt he feels for others)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Milton Miteybad

Because US Constitution does NOT DEFINE what a Natural Born Citizen is. Only the SCOTUS has the final authority to interpret constitution. Anybody else’s opinion is irrelevant. If the current SCOTUS has not ruled against the current occupier of White House, then implicitly they have accepted him as NBC based on his fake Hawaii BC.


7 posted on 08/26/2012 8:50:36 PM PDT by entropy12 (I can't think of a single Mormon I have met in US in 52 years whom I did not like. Always polite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

America ? you didn’t birth THAT.


8 posted on 08/26/2012 8:52:17 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist (The fool has said in his heart, " there is no GOD " ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: entropy12

No, they’ve simply refused to accept a “case” about it. They’re reserving the right to take it up later. As Justice Thomas said, they’re “evading” that issue. They can do that because all the lower courts said there was no case because the plaintiff lacked standing.


9 posted on 08/26/2012 8:55:21 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: entropy12
So...the Supreme Court has actually heard a case concerning presidential eligibility under Article II, Section 1, U. S. Constitution? Really? I must have missed that.

Even if they have, that in and of itself does not explain why this "journalist" misrepresented the pertinent requirement.
10 posted on 08/26/2012 8:57:41 PM PDT by Milton Miteybad (I am Jim Thompson. {Really.})
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

“It is time for Obama to explain why he is using a Connecticut social security number stolen from a dead man.”

There isn’t even a conspiracy or a cover up here -— it’s publicly known. His fraudulent SS# has been demonstrated and documented to not pass e-verify, like mine had do to in order to get a job.

Yet the media yawns while virtually every law enforcement apparatus plays dumb and blind.

Are there no men left at the helm?

He should be unable to show his face in public because of the public outcry!


11 posted on 08/26/2012 8:58:44 PM PDT by Bshaw (A nefarious deceit is upon us all!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Milton Miteybad

If you follow the news, it will become clear to you that SCOTUS has not accepted the NBC case against Obama on grounds of insufficient cause. SCOTUS only takes up cases they deem worthwhile.


12 posted on 08/26/2012 9:01:57 PM PDT by entropy12 (I can't think of a single Mormon I have met in US in 52 years whom I did not like. Always polite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Bshaw
Identity theft is a felony.

I hope that someday the media is held to account for creating and then defending Obama and his agenda of destructing America.

13 posted on 08/26/2012 9:05:20 PM PDT by Baynative (A man's admiration for absolute government is proportionate to the contempt he feels for others)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

Awesome line!


14 posted on 08/26/2012 9:13:23 PM PDT by libertarian27 (Check my profile page for the FReeper Online Cookbook 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Would they take the case after Romney wins the election ?


15 posted on 08/26/2012 9:14:03 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist (The fool has said in his heart, " there is no GOD " ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
One of the fact check sites says "[Trump] claims that no hospital in Hawaii has a record of Obama's birth. Hospital records are confidential under federal law . . . ." The implication is that Trump is lying.

Romney says that Harper Hospital was the place of his birth.. oh yeah, prove it. Have an employee of that fact check place ask Harper for confirmation that Romney's mother was a patient there on the date of Romney's birth.

Are Hospital records that confidential under federal law?

Ask the "fact checkers" to show Harper's response. If both the hospital and the fact checkers say that federal law prohibits ask them to prove it.

16 posted on 08/26/2012 9:17:56 PM PDT by WilliamofCarmichael (If modern America's Man on Horseback is out there, Get on the damn horse already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libertarian27
MUTTLEY approves this message...

America ? You didn't birth THAT .... Hell no...
17 posted on 08/26/2012 9:20:21 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist (The fool has said in his heart, " there is no GOD " ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: entropy12

Supposedly SCOTUS chooses to hear cases that are so significant and important that they need to rule on them.

But I’ll take Justice Thomas’ word on it: they’re evading this one. They can afford to do it because no case has actually resulted in a ruling so they can decline to hear any of the cases without affirming any precedent. No cases have been decided because every case has been said to be no case.

That might change, however, now that Alvin Onaka has confirmed that the birth record for Obama in Hawaii is not legally valid. There are no legally-established birth facts for Obama, according to the HI state registrar’s official legal document sent to AZ SOS Ken Bennett. That means that nobody in America can LAWFULLY swear that Obama is eligible, since the legal presumption is that he has NOT qualified. Anybody who does swear to that will immediately be known as a perjurer, since the only way any birth facts can be legally established - according to HRS 338-17 - is when the certificate is actually presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body and the probative value of the non-valid BC is determined. Without that process taking place, it is known that anybody swearing to his eligibility or him being the duly-chosen candidate of the DNC is committing perjury.

By simply presenting an Official Certification of Nomination to any state SOS any person is committing the state and federal felony of election fraud. Whoever signed the OCON committed perjury by doing so. And any SOS who knows of the fraud and fails to report it to law enforcement commits misprision of fraud.

f committed, all these crimes will be known automatically, because Onaka confirmed that there are no legally-established birth facts for Obama, and according to HI law there never CAN be any unless and until the process of determining the probative value according to the rules of evidence required by judicial and administrative entities is completed, AFTER the BC is submitted as evidence.

And if what everybody is saying is correct - that the SOS’s cannot require a birth certificate to be presented - then there is no legal avenue for Obama to even DO that. He’s stuck. The only way he could EVER qualify as eligible is if a SOS actually kept him off the ballot and he sued - providing an opportunity for him to present his non-valid HI BC as evidence within a legal setting. Of course, the SOS that he sued would have standing for discovery - to subpoena all the records that pertain to the genuineness and veracity of the record - including microfilms, paper copies, computer transaction logs, etc.

IOW, Obama has failed to qualify and unless some SOS keeps him off the ballot there is not even a legal way that he could POSSIBLY qualify, ever.


18 posted on 08/26/2012 9:23:56 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bshaw

At this point, the fact that Obama’s SSN doesn’t pass e-verify is not surprising. It has been publicly available for a while, and should be considered compromised.

It has likely been flagged as invalid, so that no one can use it. If you want to test mt theory, try using the LifeLock guy’s SSN that he has been putting on billboards. It would also be flagged.


19 posted on 08/26/2012 9:25:21 PM PDT by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Milton Miteybad

“The Constitution in fact provides that a person must be a natural born citizen in order to be eligible to serve as President.”

I have found it virtually impossible to get otherwise well-informed public figures to acknowledge that “natural born” for the purpose at hand REQUIRES having had both parents being U. S. citizens at the time of birth of the candidate in question, IN ADDITION TO birth occurring on U. S. territory. For Bill O’Reilly to maintain his obtuseness on this question is one thing, but even Dinesh D’Sousa stated that birth on U. S. territory satisfies the “natural born” stipulation.


20 posted on 08/26/2012 9:30:23 PM PDT by Elsiejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

At that point they would probably say it was injusticiable - that there is no legal remedy for the damage inflicted on the plaintiff.

What we need is for the SOS’s to realize that they can be prosecuted for election fraud themselves if they accept what they know to be a perjurious application to be on the ballot.

The SOS’s need to know that at this point it is a legal fact that Obama has failed to qualify. As Onaka confirmed in his letter of verification to Ken Bennett, we have no way of knowing even how old he is. The burden of proof is on Obama now, and the stuff in Hawaii is legally worthless at this point.

The only avenue for him to ever be ABLE to qualify is if a SOS leaves him off the ballot and he has grounds to sue, and the judicial process of evidence, discovery, cross-examination, etc is allowed to happen, so that the real story of how that birth record was created is sorted out according to all the evidence.


21 posted on 08/26/2012 9:33:55 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

22 posted on 08/26/2012 9:38:41 PM PDT by GeorgeWashingtonsGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: entropy12
Only the SCOTUS has the final authority to interpret constitution.

I haven't found that in any copy of the Constitution. If it's not in there, what's the authority for it? It's certainly a popular view, but I can't find legal or logical support for it. And the consequences of having a single, Federal court interpret all our laws for us seems to be the USSC as the final arbiter—and therefore the body that in the end makes all the rules.

As I read it, the three branches are all tasked with the job of interpreting the Constitution and doing as it says.

23 posted on 08/26/2012 9:41:11 PM PDT by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Milton Miteybad
This is incorrect. The Constitution in fact provides that a person must be a natural born citizen in order to be eligible to serve as President.

Isn't it remarkable Milton, how few appear to have actually read the Constitution? If Trump did make the statement about “native-born” his motives must be questioned. He has attorneys who should inform him, unless his real intention is to maintain the public’s state of confusion. Obama, born to and alien father and a citizen mother is presumed to be a naturalized citizen - “A native-born citizen of the US”. The term was used when the 14th Amendment turned slaves, residents but not citizens, because their allegiance was not voluntary. American Indians were also native-born, but Indians were not made citizens because their allegiance was to tribal authority, not the individual freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. It sounds like Trump is hedging his bets in case Obama is reelected. He helps Obama by contributing to the confusion around natural and naturalized citizens. To be a constitutional president one must be a natural born citizen. At least four Chief Justices, and over twenty justices have confirmed the common-law definition, a definition made precedent when it was need for the resolution of Minor v. Happersett: “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth ... natives, or natural-born citizens...”. The issue, enunciated by Roman philosophers, is that children inherit the allegiances of their parents (fathers then, since women assumed the citizenship of their husbands).

The other remarkable subterfuge is the claim that natural born citizenship is undefined since it isn't defined in the Constitution. Many are simply ignorant, and depend upon media pundits for their understanding of the Constitution. Definitions are not found in the Constitution, by design. Our founders and framers wanted the Constitution, unlike the thousands of volumes constituting English Common law found in oak paneled law libraries, it was considered essential that every literate citizen be able to understand our foundation. Like invariance principles essential to interpreting the physics of stars whose light began its journey to our telescopes ten billion years ago, our Constitution was designed with the assumption that terms be derived from the common language and common law familiar to its framers. Thus changes in the meanings of words would not affect the principles described by provisions and amendments in our Constitution. Only one word was refined in the Constitution, because its application could affect a new government - “treason.

” The definition of who were natural born citizens has never been changed, in spite of over thirty attempts to amend Article II Section 1, the last by Clare McCaskill and Barack Obama in February of 2008. Clare and Barack called it the ‘‘Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act’’. Had it passed (It didn't), it needed to have been recast as an amendment to take affect. It was intended to render McCain eligible. McCaskill and Obama needed McCain's candidacy to insure that no Republican would raise the eligibility issue. Republicans didn't, and won't. Both parties had ineligible candidates, both ineligible for different reasons. No one ever questioned McCain's allegiance, inherited from his citizen parents. He was born on unincorporated territory - a State Department oversight - an unfortunate legal technicality. Obama was not born to citizen parents. His beliefs were influenced by parents, one, and perhaps both of whom hated our form of government. Our laws and our courts have never convolved naturalized with natural citizens. The 14th Amendment never mentions natural born citizenship, but its author, John Bingham, repeated the never doubted definition, expressing the the inheritance of allegiance as "of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty". They understood and anticipated the damage a President who didn't share our ideology could do.

24 posted on 08/26/2012 9:43:36 PM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

BTTT!


25 posted on 08/26/2012 9:45:01 PM PDT by Graewoulf ((Traitor John Roberts' Obama"care" violates Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND the U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot
As I read it, the three branches are all tasked with the job of interpreting the Constitution and doing as it says.

And their authority comes from US.

26 posted on 08/26/2012 9:45:46 PM PDT by SCalGal (Friends don't let friends donate to H$U$, A$PCA, or PETA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot

I was going by historical facts on important issues...such as Obamacare, abortion rights, gay marriage etc. were taken up by SCOTUS and their decision has been accepted as the final.


27 posted on 08/26/2012 9:53:20 PM PDT by entropy12 (I can't think of a single Mormon I have met in US in 52 years whom I did not like. Always polite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot

Also, SCOTUS can and has ruled many laws passed by congress and signed by president to be unconstitutional and that law becomes null & void.


28 posted on 08/26/2012 9:57:30 PM PDT by entropy12 (I can't think of a single Mormon I have met in US in 52 years whom I did not like. Always polite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot

BUMP. Well stated.


29 posted on 08/26/2012 10:01:58 PM PDT by antceecee (Bless us Father.. have mercy on us and protect us from evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: entropy12

“If the current SCOTUS has not ruled against the current occupier of White House, then implicitly they have accepted him as NBC based on his fake Hawaii BC.”

“Who in your opinion is the final authority to decide who is NBC and TAKE ACTION TO ENFORCE the US Constitution?”

The SCOTUS has already told us many times who are the natural born Citizens:

Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.’ Again: ‘I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),

was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child’s natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents’ origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship “and to return to the United States to assume its duties.” Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a “natural born Citizen of the United States” because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.

But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg ‘solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.’ The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg ‘to be a natural born citizen of the United States’ (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary’s discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship.”

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

“Who in your opinion is the final authority to TAKE ACTION TO ENFORCE the US Constitution?”

The final authority? We The People.

78 posted on August 25, 2012 6:59:58 PM PDT by Godebert (No Person Except a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

This was posted by another Freeper!!

As Vattel stated the Country of the Father is that of the children

Obama’s ...”LEGAL”.... Father was Kenyan .... Therefore Obama is Kenyan ... He is “not” Eligible to be POTUS!!!!...... Too bad the MSM is not doing it’s job to vet Obama!!!


30 posted on 08/26/2012 10:08:52 PM PDT by ebysan (ebysan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: entropy12

For me the Constitution is very explicit about the term ‘natural’ for POTUSA. It definitely does not use ‘native’. As such it is wrong to substitute one for the other. It can be argued that the SC could/should declare once and for all times an official National context for both terms using all historical basis. However, I tend to think that the SC is caught, and they recognize such, between an actual/explicit Constitutional word/condition which they are powerless to change which they are sworn to uphold versus taking an historical breach of the Constitution’s Founders original writing by their own present day desires or application. I don’t have a good feeling that most if not all SC Justices have the honesty, desire or even intelligence to resolve the issue. As such the issue of the present case with Obama will have to be addressed one way or another by a public vote.


31 posted on 08/26/2012 10:17:50 PM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ebysan

I believe authenticity of all those cases you listed.
So then why is Obama occupying the White House? His father
was never a US Citizen.


32 posted on 08/26/2012 10:24:12 PM PDT by entropy12 (I can't think of a single Mormon I have met in US in 52 years whom I did not like. Always polite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Elsiejay
but even Dinesh D’Sousa stated that birth on U. S. territory satisfies the “natural born” stipulation.

That is sad Elsiejay, if true. If being born on our soil was equivalent to being natural born then the children of royalists, who retreated to England during the Revolution, would be eligible to the presidency. Men who saw their families burned to death in churches in the name of King George went out of their way, John Jay and George Washington, to add a useless term to the Constitution?

The words of Congressional Historian and provisional President during the Continental Congress, Dr. David Ramsay, explained that born citizenship was the birthright of the children of those who fought in the revolution then meant nothing. And D’Souza understands so little of our history that he dismisses the words of the author of our Naturalization Amendment, the 14th, which turned slaves into citizens. Bingham testified to the House about citizenship: “I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen….”

Would Dinesh be confident that the illegal Sudanese immigrants awaiting orders from the Muslim Brotherhood owed no allegiance to an foreign sovereignty, because his equation of naturalized with natural citizenship would make that anchor baby, having spent his/her youth being indoctrinated with Jihad, eligible to run for president. D’Souza’s new film appears to have exposed lots of valuable information about Barack’s background, though nothing that this reader has heard that wasn't written about years ago by Treavor Loudon at “NewZeal.com”.

From what this reader has heard, D’Souza never mentions the admitted association between Barry and Khalid al-Mansour nee. Don Warden beginning when Barry was at Occidental. Mansour, a founder of the Black Panthers, Wahabi recruiter in the US prison system, attorney for Prince Whalid bin-Talal, largest external stockholder in News Corp, owner of Fox News and The WSJ. Could Dinesh be unwilling to foreclose the possibility that his college might be the beneficiary, as was Harvard after Barry was admitted, of twenty or thirty million dollars. Bin-Talal only offered Giuliani ten million to assuage the sting after most the the 9/11 terrorists were determined to have been Saudis. The source for the involvement of bin-Talal and Mansour is very public; Percy Sutton was old when interviewed by public service television, but quite precise and lucid. Percy was proud of having been the been an intermediary, having been contacted by Mansour to help get Obama into Harvard.

If he indeed made such a statement one might ask if Dinesh is simply taking advantage of the changing political winds. He directly contradicts five Chief Justices of the Supreme Court, Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin, and even the author of the case most used by Obama legal activists to cloud the issues around naturalized citizens, Justice Horace Gray's Wong Kim Ark. Gray cited Chief Justice Waite and quoted the correct definition for who were natural born citizens. Gray rendered Wong Kim Ark, born on our soil to domiciled Chinese parents, a naturalized citizen, and not a natural born citizen. Wong Kim was not eligible to be president. But Chief Justice Hughes, in Perkins v Elk, (1939) observed that Marie Elg, born in New York to newly naturalized Swedish Parents, though she was returned to Sweden as a youngster and raised there, could never have her natural born citizenship, granted by God and not men, removed, and could run for president of the US after 14 years residency and reaching the age of 35 years.

Dinesh, if he made that statement, is not the first “authority” who does not understand our law or history, but one might ask about his motives for being so provably wrong about the legal definition of natural born citizenship.

33 posted on 08/26/2012 10:45:20 PM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp; LucyT; null and void
“Mr. Trump said that more will come out about the legitimacy of Mr. Obama’s birth in the weeks and months leading up to the election.”

Legitimacy? Is Trump implying that Barry is illegitimate?

If so, how so?

Possibilities include:

Parents BHO Sr. and SADO unmarried
Parents marriage was bigamous
Frank M. Davis the father
Born in Kenya

34 posted on 08/26/2012 10:46:23 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
Logic tells us that Obama is not even an American citizen! Much less a natural born citizen.

If Obama was not born in Hawaii then he was most certainly born in Kenya just like his literary publication says he was. If that is the case then the only way Obama could be a citizen is if he went through the naturalization process and that would be absolute disqualification for the presidency. Since no records exist of Obama being a naturalized citizen and he was not born in Hawaii, Obama is NOT even an American citizen.

The fact that he appears to have a fake SS just confirms the obvious. Obama acquired a fake SS just like many illegals and has been fraudulently representing himself as an American citizen ever since.

35 posted on 08/26/2012 11:01:44 PM PDT by precisionshootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: precisionshootist
“The fact that he appears to have a fake SS just confirms the obvious.”

I can only hope that Trump is just waiting for the right moment to publicize, as only Trump can do, new evidence so as to get even for the devastating humiliation dumped on him by Barry at the Press Club dinner...and guarantee that Barry as a giant asterisk after his name in the history books!

Preferably this would be after the Dem Convention and the renewed certification of Barry's eligibility by the DNC.

36 posted on 08/26/2012 11:27:09 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
Possibilities include:

Parents BHO Sr. and SADO unmarried
Parents marriage was bigamous
Frank M. Davis the father
Born in Kenya

A combination of those are also possible.

37 posted on 08/26/2012 11:28:16 PM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: entropy12

LOL You really believe that??

What a joke.


38 posted on 08/27/2012 3:22:25 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Some great arguments here, but it is a proven fact that the Supreme Court of today is as political as the rest of the Government and will decide what is politically the easiest thing to do.

If Justice Roberts didnt prove that to all who are smart enough to put their shoe on the right foot, then you weren’t paying attention.

The Constitution is now just a really old piece of paper.


39 posted on 08/27/2012 3:28:47 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding

“but even Dinesh D’Sousa stated that birth on U. S. territory satisfies the “natural born” stipulation.”
I believe he had bigger fish to fry. If he started off that way, the press would have had a field day with him on the birther issue, this way, he could get out the more important information in his movie.
I never thought of the US and colonialism the way he describes it in the movie.


40 posted on 08/27/2012 3:35:33 AM PDT by conservativesister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Milton Miteybad
The Constitution says that only native-born Americans can be president. This is incorrect. The Constitution in fact provides that a person must be a natural born citizen in order to be eligible to serve as President.

It is not incorrect because precedent has been set that states there is no difference between natural and native.

“The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President… The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ” Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844)

41 posted on 08/27/2012 4:18:17 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
Mitt Romney said on Friday in his native state of Michigan that, "No one has ever asked to see my birth certificate. They know that this is the place that we were born and raised."

Any more calls for his tax forms from the commies?

Didn't think so.

42 posted on 08/27/2012 5:29:25 AM PDT by Caipirabob (Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativesister
I believe he had bigger fish to fry. If he started off that way, the press would have had a field day with him on the birther issue, this way, he could get out the more important information in his movie.

Insightful comment. Thank you.

43 posted on 08/27/2012 7:10:20 AM PDT by NurdlyPeon (It's down to 'anybody but Obama'. And may God forgive me for what I must do in November.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001
For a man that supposed to usher in a new age of government transparency he sure seems to be very opaque.


44 posted on 08/27/2012 9:14:59 AM PDT by Peet (Everything has an end -- only the sausage has two.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

I was born the same year as Obama, and lived in CT. The first five digits of my SS # are the same as his. I didn’t apply for a SS # at birth, but did so when I was 14, so as to be able to work. That would probably make his number as having been applied for, in roughly the same time frame, give or take a year or two. Mine was applied for in 1975.


45 posted on 08/27/2012 10:19:56 AM PDT by krogers58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: krogers58

Placemark.


46 posted on 08/27/2012 9:31:28 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

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