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

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: 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 ]

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