Free Republic

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it. — Patrick Henry, St. John’s Church, Richmond, VA, March 23, 1775

Those following SA RFR quickly resort to name calling, which you have demonstrated effectively.

As I said... nice demonstration of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals...

Nice demonstration of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals there.

You can’t logically argue the article on the merits, so you debase the article for a typo.

Clinton gave us “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for service in the military.

Obama is trying to give us “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for citizenship so that any citizen of the United States could become President, instead of just a “natural born citizen”.

Yeah, it appears the National Defence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 never became a bill.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1585

Um... I did a search of Free Republic for “Council of Governors” prior to posting this article from CFP and there were zero (0) hits found.

Citizenship conferred by special grant was awarded to the Marquis de Lafayette by the General Assembly of Maryland at the session held on November 1, 1784 to January 22, 1785 at Annapolis, Maryland. It provided that “the Marquis de Lafayette and his heirs male for ever, shall be, and they and each of them are hereby deemed, adjudged, and taken to be, natural born citizens of this state, and shall henceforth be entitled to all the immunities, rights and privileges, of natural born citizens thereof.”

4th. None can claim citizenship as a birth-right, but such as have been born since the declaration of independence, for this obvious reason: no man can be born a citizen of a state or government, which did not exist at the time of his birth. Citizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken a part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens. Those who died before the revolution, could leave no political character to their children, but that of subjects, which they themselves possessed. If they had lived, no one could be certain whether they would have adhered to the king or to congress. Their children, therefore, may claim by inheritance the rights of British subjects, but not of American citizens. —David Ramsay, Founder, 1789.

The phrase “natural born citizen” has been defined as a child born in the country to two citizen parents in numerous U.S. Supreme Court and lower court decisions:

)The Venus, 12U.S. 253(1814),
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242 (1830),
Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856),
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875),
Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F. Cas. 582 (C.C.W.D. Ark 1879), United States v. Ward, 42 F. 320 (1890)
Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Ludlam, Excutrix, & c., v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863) and more)

and the framers of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the 14th Amendment, the Naturalization Act of 1795, 1798, 1802, 1885, and our modern 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401.

Justice Grey, 23 years later in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) repeated what Justice Waite said in Minor about the need to resort to common law when defining “natural born Citizen:” “In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: ‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.” U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).

Chief Justice Waite, in Minor v. Happersett, in 1875, stated: “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.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875).

This decision was delivered after the 14th amendment was already in place.

Are you just going to make a direct statement like that without documenting sources to support your statement?

Based on the following, if your father owed allegiance to any foreign sovereignty, then no you would not be a “natural born citizen” for the purpose of determining your eligibility to run for Vice President or President of the United States.

“Bingham states: 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… . . – John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866”

What part of the following don’t you understand?

“Bingham states: 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… . . – John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866”

Quite clearly any human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States who owes allegiance to any foreign sovereignty can not be a “natural born citizen” which excludes such individuals from being eligible to be President of the United States of America.

According to factcheck, quote, “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948.

Factcheck continues: “That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children.

Factcheck continues: “Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.” End quote.

Thus, this is a direct admission that Barack Obama was a British citizen “at birth”.

Since Obama had dual citizenship “at birth,” and therefore split loyalties “at birth,” he is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States of America. A “natural born citizen” would not owe allegiance to any foreign sovereign “at birth” if and only if both parents were, themselves citizens of the United States of America at the time of the child’s birth!

The Framers of the Unites States Constitution carefully chose the words “natural born” and those words CANNOT BE IGNORED. Those words can not mean the same as “citizen” in the 14th Amendment.

The status referred to in Article 2, Section 1, “natural born citizen”, pertains to the status of the person’s citizenship “at birth”.

Born in Hawaii? . . . DOES NOT MATTER! Because Obama was, “at birth”, a British citizen, it is completely irrelevant whether Obama was born in Hawaii or abroad.

Either way, he is not eligible to be President.

Obama is ineligible to serve as President because his father was a citizen of Kenya and a British subject under the British Nationality Act at the time of Obama’s birth.

Regardless of where Obama was born, he is ineligible to serve as President of the United States on that fact, alone.

It’s just dumb? Let me get this straight are you saying the “natural born citizen” clause in the US Constitution, you know...

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President

So that is dumb, huh?

Does the birth certificate even matter with it being a fact that Obama’s father was a foreign national?

Obama is an Unconstitutional Illegal Putative President - 21 & 14 Dec 2009 Issues of the Washington Times National Weekly Edition - page 5 & 15 respectively

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24392974/Obama-an-Unconstitutional-Illegal-President-20091221-Issue-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly-pg-5

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24087943/Obama-an-Unconstitutional-Illegal-President-20091214-Issue-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly-pg-15

Obama is a usurper. Obama is an unconstitutional illegal putative president. See the above linked to issues of the Washington Times National Weekly edition. To be a “natural born Citizen” as is required in the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, the person must be born in the country to parents who both are Citizens of the country when the child was born. Obama’s father was a British Subject when Obama was born in 1961. Obama’s father was never a U.S. Citizen nor was he even an immigrant to the USA. We are a nation of immigrants but Obama Sr. was not one. And under the British Nationality Act of 1948 and international law, Obama (Jr.) was also born a British Subject and thus is a dual-citizen Citizen to this day, if he was born in Hawaii as he claims. To date, he has not conclusively proved exactly where he was born to any investigative controlling legal authority. Photoshop’d digital images and pictures of computerized summary data put on the internet proffered by Obama proves nothing. Computerized records say his birth was “registered” in the Hawaii birth system. That computer data registration record could have been based on false birth location registration testimony by a family member using a simple mail-in form available in 1961. GIGO - false location of birth registration into a data base yields false data out today on a computer print out. The original “ribbon copy” long-form birth records with the names and signatures of medical attendants and of witnesses, if any, to the alleged birth in Hawaii must be examined by experts as well as all his other hidden and sealed records of his early life. If he was born in Kenya as his relatives and news account there claim, then Obama could even be an illegal alien since his mother was not old enough under U.S. laws at that time to convey U.S. citizenship to her child born of a foreign father if the child is born in a foreign country. Obama had dual allegiance at birth if he was born in Hawaii - British via his father and U.S. via his mother. How can a person born a British Subject and a dual-citizen ever be considered a “natural born Citizen” of the USA with sole allegiance to the USA, per the intent of our nation’s founders and framers for the office of the Presidency, to constitutional standards? The answer is ... he cannot. See The 3 Enablers who have allowed this trampling of our Constitution and who will allow our Liberty to be destroyed if we do not put an end to this usurpation by Obama. Let others know about this. Pass this on to friends and family. Send it to your Congress person. Write letters to the editors of your newspapers. And if you personally know any federal Judge anywhere in your neighborhood, in your club, or at your church, use your 1st amendment freedom of speech while you still have it. Tell them what a disgrace the federal judicial system has become in this matter in not allowing a simple fact-finding trial on the merits of the charges and to uncover the hidden original birth record information that Obama has sealed along with all his other early life records. What is Obama hiding and using the Department of Justice lawyers and taxpayer’s money to help him hide it? Show them the current new ad above and this quote by Chief Justice John Marshall ad too and other ads in our series. Synergy at work! If we all do a little, together we will accomplish a lot! The truth and our Constitution will win in the end if we all do our part. If not, the future of our nation is in great danger.

For more information as to why Obama is an illegal putative president, see:

~Natural born citizenship requires both your parents to be Citizens when you are born:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html

~Obama was a British Subject when Born and is Still a British Overseas Citizen:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/12/obama-putative-president-of-us-was-born.html

~The 3 Enablers of Obama’s Usurpation of Office:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/11/obamas-lack-of-eligibility-three.html

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
Do you want this ad to run again? If so, please help the cause to fund more ads to educate the People about Obama’s usurpation of his office: http://www.protectourliberty.org/
###

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/12/new-ad-obama-is-unconstitutional.html