Obama Was Hand-Picked & NOT a Natural Born Citizen - Congress Knew It & Protected Him

Freedom Outpost ^ | March 30, 2015 | Dean Garrison

[Nero Germanicus]

So let me get this straight, you think that conservatives think of Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and other originalist, textualist judges as “idiots?”
O.K., if you say so, then it MUST be true.
You’ll get no “argumentum ad nauseum” from me!

[DiogenesLamp]

So let me get this straight, you think that conservatives think of Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and other originalist, textualist judges as “idiots?”

Of course not. I'm talking about most of the remainder, i.e. the vast bulk of the court system. Most people can distinguish between "Idiot" and "sane", and so would not count the above mentioned Judges among the idiots. They are part of the exceptional few.

O.K., if you say so, then it MUST be true.

More like Vice Versa.

You’ll get no “argumentum ad nauseum” from me!

Again, are you sh*tting us? All you ever do is trot out this irrelevant statute, or that irrelevant statute, or this judge saying this, or that judge saying that. You never argue the CORE of the debate. Your sole argument is "Judges said it. I believe it. That settles it." Ad Nauseaum is the mindless repetition of the same thing, and that is exactly what you do.

[Nero Germanicus]

Hey everybody, let’s have a constitutional convention at Sven’s house.

It would take the legislatures of 34 states to call a constituional convention and it would take the legislatures of 38 states to pass new constitutional articles/amendments.
Currently Democrats control 12 state Senates and 14 state Houses of Representatives. Nebraska has a unicameral legislature that is ostensibly non-partisan but conservative.
All together Republicans control the legislatures of 30 states, Democrats control 11, 8 are split and 1 is non-partisan.
If the Democrats stuck together, they could defeat a constitutional convention and anything that was proposed that they didn’t like.

[Nero Germanicus]

Competent attorneys know how to “judge shop” without breaking ethics rules. You pick the jurisdiction you will file in and the judges you want to hear your case in order to up the odds of getting favorable rulings.

For example, Obama received only 24% of the vote in Utah, 27% in Wyoming, 28% in Nebraska’s 3rd Congressional District, 33% in Idaho and Oklahoma, 38% in North Dakota, 39% in Tennessee, and 40% in South Dakota.

Each of those jurisdictions had nearly no challenges to Obama’s eligibility.

Your attempts at argumentum ad hominem are funny.

[Nero Germanicus]

That’s always a good move, but no guts, no glory.

There are always those judges who would love to be remembered in the history books for bringing down a president.

Judge John Sirica, for example, brought down Richard Nixon and although he wasn’t practicing as a judge at the time, Judge Ken Starr got Clinton impeached.

[Nero Germanicus]

The Supreme Court ruled in 1874 that the term Natural Born Citizen goes undefined in the Constitution. (Minor v Happersett).

[jjotto]

You mean they didn’t take the opportunity in 1874 to cite Vattel and Common Law?

[Nero Germanicus]

The Minor v Happersett decision said, in part: “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. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

Both sides in the Obama eligibility debate have used this citation. Pro-Obama uses the first part and anti-Obama uses the later sentences.

[jjotto]

Thank you.

I had always glossed over the main part of the text and just mentally filed it under its last sentence.

[MamaTexan]

Statutory law didn’t create, it defined.

The power for the federal government to define, by law, the term natural born is found...where? If that authority had been bestowed on the federal government, it would have appeared in the Constitution, like this one does-

Article I, Section 8 -To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

Yet it does not.

Nor, until recently, has such a definition appeared. If it government HAD that ability, the Founders would have utilized it, and there wouldn't be such confusion on the subject.

-----

And what statutory law defined in ths instance is who are “Citizens of the United States At Birth” under the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment ceased legal operation upon the death of the last freed slave. No intent can be found in any of the records to show it was ever meant to be anything other than of limited duration.

Nor was being a '14th Amendment citizen' a GOOD thing. The records contain more than one example of it.

May 3,1872
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llhb&fileName=042/llhb042.db&recNum=9319

A Bill to remove the legal and political disabilities imposed by the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States

Gee. Now WHY would the men who were living around the time think it created a 'disability'? Oh, yes-

Because a 14th Amendment citizen is an EXTRA-Constitutional one. Congress did some very fine tippy-toeing around natural law in order to make that amendment even possible.

-----

It is JUDGES who have equated natural born citizens with Citizens of the United States At Birth.

Yep, they have. But what else to you expect today from a the mouthpieces of the administrative organ? They probably thing those old-timey judges were just stUuU-pid

In the United States of America the people have retained the sovereignty in their own hands: they have in each state distributed the government, or administrative authority of the state, into two distinct branches, internal, and external; the former of these, they have confided, with some few exceptions, to the state government; the latter to the federal government.

Since the union of the sovereignty with the government, constitutes a state of absolute power, or tyranny, over the people, every attempt to effect such an union is treason against the sovereignty, in the actors; and every extension of the administrative authority beyond its just constitutional limits, is absolutely an act of usurpation in the government, of that sovereignty, which the people have reserved to themselves.
Preliminary Remarks, St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution

The Federal government's power is primarily EXTERNAL. It has no legitimate authority to operate on citizenship in the States other than to make a general rule for naturalization for the States to follow.

. -----

Defining born citizenship and naturalized citizenship as stipulated in Section 1 of the 14th amendment fell to Congress.

I'ts true that they had to differentiate one from the other, but they also made it clear it did NOT include children of aliens.

On May 30, 1866, the co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, Mr Jacob Howard, said;
"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Jacob Howard
center column, halfway down)
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11%20

-----

No, the only thing that makes such a Constitutional oxymoron as statutroy natural born citizen exist is government's say so...and I'm not buying it.

[MamaTexan]

Well in our upside down goofy bastard ignorant barking at the moon legal system, the tail wags the dog.

And it's owner. LOL!

Ping to post #70, BTW.

[SvenMagnussen]

Article VI of the US Constitution (excerpt):

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

---

The American people voted to install an ineligible President on Jan. 20, 2009, void the US Constitution, void the United States Code, fire all US executive and judicial federal officers from all three branches of government, except Obama and Biden, and fire executive and judicial officers of the various states.

The votes, bills, proclamations or any other product of the legislatures of the various states have been voided after the installation of an ineligible President. Only the People of the United States, Obama and Biden have authority to call a convention for development of a national governing document.

[Nero Germanicus]

Don’t you need a ruling of ineligibility by some official body, somewhere?
Just saying that a president is ineligible isn’t enough to motivate anybody to do anything.
As a federal judge once said: “A spurious claim questioning the president’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”—
Rhodes v MacDonald, U.S. District Court Judge Clay D. Land, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, September 16, 2009.

[Nero Germanicus]

If there is no authority to define a constitutional term, how can anyone be excluded from the category or included in it when there is a question? There have been cases and contraversies over who qualifies as a natural born citizen.

Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 2: “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;—to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;—to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;—to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;—to controversies between two or more states;—between a state and citizens of another state;—between citizens of different states;—between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.”

[MamaTexan]

If there is no authority to define a constitutional term, how can anyone be excluded from the category or included in it when there is a question? There have been cases and controversies over who qualifies as a natural born citizen.

True, but once the judicial mess known as Wong Kim Ark hit the trail, nothing concerning citizenship was 'Constitutional' anymore.

Wong Kim was declared naturalized at birth by a judge who used a grandfather clause intended to give citizenship to a LIMITED class of people and perverting what Blackstone called a 'local allegiance'- (a temporary allegiance owed by aliens to their place of residence ONLY) - into a native born, but not NATURAL born citizen....and created the country's first anchor baby.

From Wong Kim Ark quoting Marshall:
The constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue.

To the rest of the quote by Marshall;

He is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none. There is, then, no resemblance between the act incorporating the Bank, and the general naturalization law. Osborn v. Bank of the United States

>>>except so far as the constitution makes the distinction<<<

The Constitution makes only one between Natural born and naturalized citizens - only a natural born can be President.

[Yosemitest]

We've know, and been able to PROVE THIS, for a very long time.

For those of you who don't know, remember this:

The Democrats knew about this BEFORE Obama was elected in 2008!

8 Congressional attempts from June 2004 to February 2008 to alter Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the US Constitution, proves to me

that the DNC knew that Obama was born in Kenya.

Read it for yourself.

What did Congress know about 'natural-born citizen'?
8 tries at eliminating requirement suggests organized strategy in place

Then look at these links.

1. June 11, 2003, Rep. Snyder, Vic (D) 108th congress, H.J.Res. 59

2. Sep 3, 2003, Rep. Conyers, John Jr., (D) H.J.Res. 67

3. Feb 25, 2005, Sen. Nickles, Don (R-OK) Senate Bill 2128, counter the democrats Natural Born Citizen Act - but Defines it wrong

4. Sep 15, 2004, Rep Dana Rohrabacher (D)(R-CA46) H.J.Res 104

5. Jan 4, 2005, Rep Conyers, John Jr., H.J.Res. 2 109th Congress

6. Feb 1, 2005, Rep Rohrabacher, Dana (D) (CA-46) H.J.Res.15

7. April 14, 2005, Rep. Snyder, Vic (D) (AR-2) H.J.Res. 42

8. Feb 28, 2008, Senator McCaskill, Claire (D) Attachment to a military bill Senate Bill 2678 Titled Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act.
DNC Presidential Candidate Senator Clinton and Senator Obama were cosponsors of this bill.

9. April 10, 2008, Sen McCaskill, Claire (D) (MO) Senate Res.511 passed declaring Senator John McCain a Natural Born Citizen.
But it was never in question. It was cosponsored by DNC Presidential Candidate Senator Clinton and Senator Obama.

Just before the 2008 election Barack Obama's election team spent $1.4 million blocking access to all of Obama's records.

Barack Hussein Obama II is UNCONSTITUTIONALLY QUALIFIED.
There were 8 attempts by Democrats to try to "Change the Qualification Rules" BEFORE Obama was elected.
They KNOW Obama's ILLEGAL ... AND .... UNQUALIFIED!

Obama's record is hard to find.
Think about this.

"On August 4, 1961 Obama's mother, father and grandmother were attending a Muslim festival in Mombasa , Kenya .



Mother had been refused entry to airplanes due to her nine month pregnancy.
It was a hot August day at the festival so the Obamas went to the beach to cool off.
While swimming in the ocean his mother experienced labor pains so was rushed to the Coast Provincial

General Hospital, Mombasa, Kenya where Obama was born a few hours later at 7:21 pm on August 4, 1961(what a sad day for the USA!).
Four days later his mother flew to Hawaii and registered his birth in Honolulu as a certificate of live birth which omitted the place and hospital of birth."

Here's something to ponder.

I think it more likely that the trip from Kenya actually occurred in August 1961, shortly after BHO-II's birth at the Coast Province General Hospital in Mombasa.
Ann and her newborn son flew from Nairobi to London, via BOAC Flight BA162 and then took the non-stop BOAC flight from London to Vancouver, Canada.
She then traveled the 110 miles or so, across the border, to Seattle in time to start Fall Semester, night-school extension classes at the University of Washington.
The trip would be challenging for a new mother, but she was young, healthy, intelligent, and capable.
BOAC was very accomodating to mothers with young children back in the 1960s. No real problem!

From the Airline Timetable Images - List of Complete Timetables, the cost of BOAC from April 24,1960 until October 1, 1962 was:
From Vancouver to Nairobi cost in Canadian Dollars:
Single Return
DL 1115.00 2026.80
F 1055.50 1918.80
T 764.00 1396.00
Y 701.00 1282.60



Passanger Fares could be "FLY NOW AND PAY LATER".
Arrangements could be made whereby residents of certain areas may, on payment of a 10% deposit, travel immediately and pay the balance of fare in monthly instalments.

If you're wondering about where the money came from, think about this.
Look at all the financial supporters Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. had.
"In 1959, Obama Sr. received a scholarship in economics through a program organized by nationalist leader Tom Mboya.
The program offered Western educational opportunities to outstanding Kenyan students.[22][23][24]
Initial financial supporters of the program included Harry Belafonte, Sidney Poitier, Jackie Robinson, and Elizabeth Mooney Kirk,
a literacy advocate who provided most of the financial support for Obama Sr.'s early years in the United States, according to the Tom Mboya archives at Stanford University.
Funds provided the following year by John F. Kennedy's family paid off old debts of the project and subsidized student stipends,
thereby indirectly benefiting Obama Sr. and other members of the 1959 group of scholarship holders.

Yes, it's quite clear that money wasn't a problem for the Marxists Revolutionaries.


Passanger Information for that time frame can be found here.
Connections from Nairobi - Lusaka - Salisbury can be found here.

The BOAC World Routes Map is found here.

Departure arrival times from Britian to Nairobi are found here.

Departure arrival times for London and Vancouver are found here.

Now think about those facts,and statements.
The forgeries I'm aware of, are the three Birth Cretificate Barack Hussein Obama II has forged.
I don't trust evidence put forth by Obama supporters.
The disappearance of too much evidence on Obama is strong enough for me to know that he was born in Kenya.

Read INS DOC FOUND: U.S. CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO ONE EAST AFRICAN-BORN CHILD OF U.S. CITIZEN IN 1961!
The documents provided in that article are very damaging to Obama, and well worth your time.

Most of these early "supporters" of the ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT IN CHIEF were party to the Communists "spooks".
There's a great volume of history you have to go through to understand this, and it goes back to about 1850.

Read these three articles on one of my earlier post:

Obama, the African Colonial
By L.E. Ikenga

PRAVDA: "THE AMERICAN DESCENT INTO MARXISM IS HAPPENING WITH BREATH TAKING SPEED"

Soviet Subversion of the Free Press (Ideological subversion, Destabilization, CRISIS - and the KGB)

Now go back and read The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals.

Are you getting the depth of this Fabian Society takeover?

Watch "Fabian Society" 1, then watch "Fabian Society" 2, and then watch "Fabian Society" 3.

It's deep, it's ugly, and most people WILL NOT ... CAN NOT ... accept the truth.

Anybody recall a press release telling the masses about federal intelligence notes sent warning police about this cabal?

[Nero Germanicus]

I’m talking about Supreme Court Justices in the 19th Century.
For example:

Minor v. Happersett (1874)

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’ and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

[Nero Germanicus]

For the record SIX Supreme Court Justices ruled Wong Kim Ark to be a Citizen of the United States At Birth, two Justices disagreed and one Justice, who had just been appointed and had missed oral arguments recused himself.

[MamaTexan]

Ah, I see what happened-

You said - If there is no authority to define a constitutional term,

But what I'd said was - The power for the federal government to define, by law, the term natural born

By law - meaning put into law, not that none of the branches could utter a word about it in any discussions.

Sorry. If I'd caught that sooner, I would have said something.

[MamaTexan]

Citizen of the United States At Birth

But a citizen of the United States AT birth is not the same as a citizen of the United States BY birth.

Between alien friends, who are temporary subjects, and subjects naturalized or natural born, a species of subjects intermediate is known to the law of England. They are distinguished by the appellation of denizens. The power of denization is a high and incommunicable portion of the prerogative royal. A denizen is received into the nation, like a person who is dropt from the clouds. He may acquire rights, but he cannot inherit them, not even from his own parent: he may transmit rights to his children, who are born after his letters patent of denization; but not to those who were born before.
James Wilson , Collected Works, vol. 2, Lectures on Law

Why could one not inherent before formally being recognized as a denizen? Because natural born citizenship is a political Allegiance inherited by blood.

If it's bestowed by man, to ANY extent, it's naturalization

----

Besides...do you REALLY think any part of the administrative organ would admit it granted itself the ability to create citizens at will and despite a person's Natural allegiance?