Skip to comments.Sen. Rand Paul: My filibuster was just the beginning
Posted on 03/08/2013 4:19:32 PM PST by Dacula
click here to read article
Crux’s Father Became a citizen and enthusiastically said “is this a great country, or what?!!”
Obama’s Father never took citizenship, took advantage of our generosity, got drunk and waved his dick around while talking **** about America.
Obama has so many areas of doubt and potential conflict in this regard that it's difficult to know where to begin. The reality is so wacky it beggars belief, which has been used to advantage to discredit opposition and to confuse the public.
Obama, Sr. can plausibly be claimed to have been an official of a foreign government while here as a student. His own citizenship is a tangle due to the dissolution of the British Empire, but the upshot of it all means that the UK claimed sovereignty at birth upon the individual known today as Barack Hussein Obama, due to his being born to a subject, yes they were still subjects then.
Then we have his adoption, introducing another foreign claim of sovereignty. Then, the passport kerfluffle. There's so much spin and obfuscation there, so much misdirection over that one. I think he just got an Indonesian passport and traveled under it, which became a problem once it was determined he was running for President, then came the wild disinfo campaign.
Then, the foreign student thing, smoke there too, all records sealed.
Obama was not natural born eight ways from Sunday, imho, regardless of where he came into this world.
Canada made NO claims on him and he made NO claims on Canada.
Conversely, Obama’s life was a convoluted mess of claims as to lineage and allegiance.
End of story
As an aside, Stephan Harper is Clearly an Canadian through and through, but I would vote for him as US President in a heartbeat over Barack Buttstain Obama.
God Speed Ted Cruz.
I don’t think you can make a blanket statement like that so easily regarding any claim Canada might have upon Cruz, but he has lived his life as an American and citizen of the United States.
That cannot be said of Obama.
Yes, but I believe the hopsital in Colon Panama is not. That leaves the fact that we all now know....
McCain was a Colon birth.
McCain was proudly flying his Colon flag just yesterday.
Seriously though, regardless of the on or off base controversy, the Canal Zone was not under the full jurisdiction of the United States. It was not sovereign territory, it was merely leased. If indeed it were sovereign territory, cam someone please explain how Jimmy Carter could just up and decide to cede it to Panama? He couldn’t. That is not a power of the Executive Branch.
No it does not, but law does. You know full well things have changed over the centuries ad there are abundant case law and regulations that define citizenship.
The law that was in affect when Obama was born would definitely rule him out as NBC, probably even Citizen, but depending on what actions he took in later years he could indeed be a naturalized citizen.
Idiots within the Justice department and Idiots in Congress have muddied the waters considerably.
The little dance that the Senate pulled off to Deem McCain eligible was just that, a little dance, it was deigned to bring Obama into the fold, without question.
When Freepers begin to argue irrelevant case law and ignore common sense then the Republic is lost and those of us in the older population should just be thankful we will not live to see the worst of what is to come, and it will come.
No, and I never have. But you should do a little reading since laws change over time.
You have had this explained to you so many times it is just silly to re-plow that ground.
You have been crying about your foreign born children so long that I was sure they would have already had a Presidential Campaign Pac by now.
Please attempt to separate you own position out of the argument and focus on what the law and regulations were when Obama was born. He would not have even been a citizen for a number of reasons, no matter where he was born. The fact that the GOPe refused to even bring up the issue does not make their contention legal, just unchallenged and de-facto legal. Sadly the law is whatever a Judge says it is.
Again, this is contrary to the 14th. The only ones who qualified for natural born citizenship under the 14th, made those born on what retroactively became US territory citizens of the United States from birth. This is why the 14th is so important.
The 14th is very clear that for someone to become a natural born citizen that they must be born either in territory controlled by the US, (ie, Guam, the Canal Zone), at the time of their birth, or they are born in one of the 50 states, or they were born in territory controlled by the US on the date of the 14th amendment’s passage and were grandfathered, much as the Founders had been earlier.
Cruz does not fulfill this condition as a natural born citizen. He is a citizen, a naturalized citizen, but not one who is natural born.
“In terms of being born on a certain soil...we know about anchor babies. A woman who is not a citizen, comes to America and gives birth and the child is considered a citizen by being born on this soil. I have seen this disputed...not everyone agrees that these should be considered citizens, but regardless, a child in this situation is NOT a natural born citizen eligible to run for President.”
You might consider the child not a natural born citizen. The 14th says otherwise.
Unfortunately your position is contrary to the constitution which, after the 14th amendment states that the only requirement is to be born on American soil.
If you study the origins of the peculiar phrase, Natural Born Citizen, which is set forth only once in our Constitution, you'll understand that the Framers used it to raise the bar on the citizenship qualifications for the office of President, beyond those required of any other office in the federal government.
That was done intentionally by them, and for very good reasons -- reasons which are now playing out on our national stage. The man now holding the office of US President does not have the sort of natural affinity and inbred allegiance to America that the Framers intended. No, his allegiance is to ideals which are foreign and repugnant to the Constitution, and the American culture.
It can be argued that being born on US soil to two American citizen parents isn't any guarantee that a President will carry out his duties faithfully, and in adherence to the Constitution, but the NBC clause is good insurance that they will. I'm afraid it's the best they could do. The rest is up to the people.
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.