Posted on 07/23/2018 5:35:39 AM PDT by Zakeet
If Obama's grades were any good, they would have been shoving them in our faces since 2008 to show what a "genius" this Sh*tbag idiot is.
The discussion of the definition of natural born including citizen parents, etc is a not birtherism in my view, but a new discussion.
Obama is trying to change the narative. He wins on the natural born issue. He is losing on spying on your opponents.
The plot for his first NetFlix production
Yes, he is all those. He is all things to all people.
obama was a chameleon before he entered politics and now he is whatever he has to be in the moment, wherever that moment happens to be.
So, he was born in Kenya until he needed to be born in Hawaii.
Then, when he was pResident and he suddenly needed to be born in Hawaii, the necessary paperwork was created and who ever needed to be silent about it was silenced.
Now a decade later and we, the people, still don’t know who or what he actually is, and still don’t care how the Constitution has been torched so we could have him be our first “black” president, but who cares, right?
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
But McCain had similar problems - and both candidates were controlled by the same puppet masters - so they cut a deal not to bring it up.
Except, McCain was born to citizen parents. They were military (his dad) and stationed in Panama (aka Panama Canal Zone), IIRC. As such, he was born subject to all United States laws and regulations. If that negates someone for being President, then every military member today should send their families back to the US. (Which in itself isn’t a bad idea).
It gave McCain an excuse to cave. Real dirt on McCain is worse.
Another possibility is that he likes trolling us. He likes playing games with his opponents. That's one reason he made that comment in Kenya.
And that Obama likes to keep stuff about himself secret. Maybe there's something in there that he wants to hide, and it's easier to just hide everything.
The idea that he was spending millions on this is one of those unconfirmed internet rumors.
Colleges, hospitals, and government agencies are supposed to keep records secret, and you don't need big money to make them do so.
His official, long form birth records were SEALED. His Occidental College records were SEALED. His Columbia College records were SEALED. His Harvard College records were SEALED. His College thesis – SEALED. His Harvard Law Review articles – SEALED. His Indonesian adoption records – SEALED. His passport file – SEALED. His medical records – Unavailable His baptism records – Unavailable His papers from his service in the Illinois legislature – Unavailable His Illinois State Bar Association records – Unavailable
How much of your data is available online? Most candidates hide that stuff if they possibly can. McCain's class standing at Annapolis was public record. Kerry's grades were in the military record that he released.
Bush's grades were illegally leaked by someone at Yale. Hillary's thesis should have been made available earlier, but the school came up with a special rule keeping it secret for years. Her grades, though, still aren't available.
Obama's medical records were released. The one anonymous note Obama wrote for the law review has been known about for years, and you could find it in the hardcopy of the journal.
I think you’re right that nothing will be done about it. It has been covered up, and the cover-up will continue. But someday, when no one has any reason to be threatened by the truth, the truth will come out.
You are absolutely right about that. They almost pulled off a coup d'état. Donald Trump foiled their evil plans. That's why they HATE him with such venom.
Why?
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/04/why_obama_was_not_born_in_keny.html
Governments should not be allowed to do this if it allows Article II to be violated.
Also, state governments should not have the ability to ignore Article II requirements for allowing a candidate on ballot.
No proof, no name on ballot.
The SCOTUS has never directly ruled on the meaning of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the constitution in regard to POTUS eligibility. But in SCOTUS casr wherin they have given a definition of what a NBC is, Minor vs Haperstatt, Wong Kim Ark vs US, Perkins vs Elg,) they defined an NBC as a person born of TWO, count them TWO citizen parents (the parents don’t have to be NBC) and born in one of the states of the Union, or the territories.
The authors of the 14th amendment, in the Congressional debates on the matter, also defined an NBC in the same manner.
Until this matter is formally adjudicated by the Court, I will defer to their NBC stare decisis definitions. Obama and a host of others were not, are not, and can NEVER be constitutionally eligible to be POTUS.
Whatever one thinks what the meaning of Article II, Section 1, clause 5 is, it is clear that the adoption of the 14th amendment did not alter it in any constitutional sense. How else can you account for the fact that the constitution only specifies for the office of senator and representative citizenship for a period of 9 and 7 years respectively, while the constitution requires the POTUS, to be NATURALLY born, owing allegiance to no other country? That is the ONLY constitutional provision for NBC. Obviously, there is a singular distinction with regard to that office. Under Jamaican and Indian citizenship law, for instance, Kamala Harris, thru her parents, owed allegiance to both of those countries AT HER BIRTH. It was conferred upon her by law owing to those countries citizenship laws, just as valid as our own.
The framers of the constitution were patriarchs. (Yes I understand that is completely out of tune with modern sensibilities, but nonetheless it is true.) They believed that the citizenship of the FATHER was conferred upon his children. SCOUTUS incorporated in toto the ENTIRE 212th paragraph of Emerich De Vattel’s Law of Nations in their 1814 Venus merchantman case as they defined what an NBC is. Here is the money quote that Justice Livingstone that was cited when he wrote for the majority, “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 the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
I suspect the reason that many do not want this issue formally examined is that they wish to foster and enhance the globalist influence on the office of POTUS. The NBC requirement was never intended to be a guarantee of allegiance, but a safeguard against undue foreign influence on the office of POTUS, PARTICULARLY from a father owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. The oath of naturalization requires a formal and legal renunciation of any prior national allegiances.
Jennie Spencer-Churchill, known as Lady Randolph Churchill, was a natural born US citizen, and a British socialite, the wife of Lord Randolph Churchill and the mother of British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill.
Under US citizenship law at the time of Churchill’s birth, despite the fact that his mother was a NATURAL BORN US citizen, she could not transmit her US citizenship on to young Winston owing to her marriage to a foreign national, Sir Randolph Spencer Churchill, who was Winston’s father. That would not be legally allowed until the passage of the Cable Act of 1922, well after Churchill’s birth in 1874. The Cable Act only confers citizenship, NOT NATURALLY BORN citizenship. It did not refer to, or alter the meaning of an Article II, Sec. 1, clause 5 “natural born citizen” in any way.
Churchill was granted HONORARY US citizenship by an act of Congress on 9 April 1963. It was understood that his birth to a an NBC citizen US mother in Great Britain did not make him a citizen by law.
This is just one more indication of the fact that Obama, Cruz, Rubio OR Harris can NEVER be constitutionally eligible to the office of POTUS. We need to have this issue finally adjudicated by SCOTUS for the first time in US history, and finally get a definitive answer one way or another.
We have enough naturally born anti-american, anti-constitutional cultural marxists in our country now who aspire to be POTUS. I say let’s eliminate all those who don’t even meet the basic Article II criteria. Winnow the opposition.
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.