Page 505 of 574 FirstFirst ... 5405455495501502503504505506507508509515555 ... LastLast
Results 5,041 to 5,050 of 5731
Like Tree97Likes

Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #5041
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Please let me know if you want me to take this out... or have a mod delete it... I just think it is note worthy

    Racy photos of Barack Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham - *vid*

    Still proud to call yourself an American?

    Is This Communist Obama’s Real Father?

    June 14, 2012 By Daniel Noe

    Racy photos of Barack Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, have surfaced in vintage fetish and bondage magazines. The photos, taken at Frank Marshall Davis’ house in Honolulu, help illustrate the intimate relationship between Dunham and Davis. Is he Obama’s real father?

    Read more about "Dreams of my REAL Father"

    Video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMUlW...layer_embedded


    Read more: Charleston Voice: Racy photos of Barack Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham - *vid*

    Last edited by AirborneSapper7; 06-18-2012 at 04:41 PM.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #5042
    Senior Member MinutemanCDC_SC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    tracking the usurper-in-chief and on his trail
    Posts
    3,207
    If it could somehow be proven by exhuming FMD's body and comparing DNA from the remains with Mr. Obama's DNA... but that won't happen, sampling Mr. Obama's DNA, I mean.

    The father identified by the mother as written on the original BC, if such a BC should eventually be validated in court or before the law, is what matters to the law, regardless of the biological father... or it is what matters in other cases before a legitimate court with a judge acting legitimately. But given the current breakdown in the court system regarding Mr. Obama, all bets are off.

    If a federal judge made a DNA exception for Mr. Obama that overruled the mother's identification, it would throw paternity suits in the U.S. into chaos. Millions of men who object to paying child support would demand DNA testing, even if just to be a nuisance.

    Director Joel Gilbert concludes ["Dreams of my REAL Father," saying], "The 'Birthers' have been on a fool's errand. To understand Obama's plans for America, the question is not 'Where's the Birth Certificate?,' the question is 'Who is the real father?'"
    We do not attempt "to understand Obama's plans for America."
    His intentions are obvious... and irrelevant.

    We support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
    For us, that is no "fool's errand," but a sworn duty.
    Apart from the Constitution, we have the law of the jungle.

    We oppose the de facto annulling, without a Constitutional amendment, of
    Art. ii, § 1, ¶ 5: "No person except a natural born Citizen...
    shall be eligible to the Office of President."


    According to the controlling
    U.S. Supreme Court precedent, Minor v. Happersett:

    a natural born Citizen is
    one born in the country
    of parents who are citizens.

    Last edited by MinutemanCDC_SC; 06-18-2012 at 02:30 PM.
    One man's terrorist is another man's undocumented worker.

    Unless we enforce laws against illegal aliens today,
    tomorrow WE may wake up as illegals.

    The last word: illegal aliens are ILLEGAL!

  3. #5043
    Senior Member MinutemanCDC_SC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    tracking the usurper-in-chief and on his trail
    Posts
    3,207
    From WorldNetDaily:

    Obama attorneys argue he's not [yet] Dem nominee
    Urge Florida judge to ignore evidence challenging eligibility

    Published
    around 11 am on June 18, 2012

    TALLAHASSEE, Fla.
    – Attorneys arguing on behalf of Barack Obama’s re-election plans today urged a Florida judge to decide that Obama is not yet the Democratic nominee for president and ignore evidence challenging his eligibility.

    The arguments were raised by attorney Mark Herron on behalf of Obama in a hearing before Judge Terry Lewis in Florida, who is best known for presiding over the 2000 Bush v. Gore election dispute.

    Lewis is credited with making crucial rulings in the contested 2000 presidential election when ultimately a Florida recount was halted by the U.S. Supreme Court, and George W. Bush was declared the winner.

    Attorney Larry Klayman filed the challenge to Obama’s eligibility for the ballot on behalf of Michael Voeltz, who identifies himself in the complaint as “a registered member of the Democratic Party, voter, and taxpayer in Broward County.”

    Attorneys representing Obama at the hearing, which was livestreamed by WND, argued that the Florida presidential preference primary, which listed Obama as the only Democrat nominee, didn’t make him the party’s nominee for president.

    Herron argued the Florida process affirms only that Obama is the choice in the state’s presidential preference primary but is not necessarily the party’s nominee for president.

    A video recording of the hearing will be available for viewing online at WND.

    “This language clearly indicates the winner of the president preference primary, not the nominee of the party,” he said.

    But the judge noted that the party wrote to Florida’s secretary of state a letter indicating Obama’s name was the only one submitted, and he thought the state’s electors were bound to vote for him.

    “Wasn’t there a letter [that said] this is the only candidate whose name will appear?” Lewis asked.

    Obama’s attorneys said such a decision “has not been triggered yet.”

    Klayman argued that according to state law, when only one name is submitted, that person automatically becomes the nominee, even if the national Democratic Party nominating convention has not been held.

    No decision was announced immediately. The judge said he would review the law, but he had pointed questions for both sides.

    When Klayman noted the Founding Fathers established the natural-born citizen requirement because they wanted to avoid foreign influence on a president from a non-citizen parent, Lewis countered by posing a hypothetical situation in which a candidate’s two U.S.-citizen parents later emigrate to Israel.

    Klayman said the Founding Fathers’ attempt to avoid a conflict of interest in the Oval Office did not include every possible scenario.

    The judge asked whether the Democratic Party, as a private group, had a right to choose a nominee, even if that person was ineligible.

    Lewis questioned a citation by Obama’s attorneys of a Florida law that suggests when only one person is on the ballot, that person becomes the nominee. He told the attorneys he would review the details of the law.

    The arguments by Obama’s attorneys reflected their request that the judge simply dismiss the case because they claim a sitting president chosen by his party at multiple levels is not yet officially the nominee.

    Klayman accused the Obama attorneys of playing a “shell game” and trying to put off the issue, as numerous courts did in 2008 until the election was over and Obama was inaugurated.

    The judge could remove Obama’s name from the November ballot in Florida, a crucial swing state, should he determine that the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen” can be applied at the primary level.

    Klayman told WND that during a hearing last month on discovery issues in the case, Lewis noted that the plaintiff’s brief cited U.S. Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett from 1875 defining “natural born citizen” as the offspring of two citizens of the nation, while the Obama campaign’s arguments provided no citations.

    Defining the term is critical. Such a step has not been reached in any of the more than 100 legal cases that have been brought over Obama’s eligibility.

    The U.S. Constitution’s “natural born citizen” requirement is not imposed on other federal officials [except the Vice President*]. The writings of the Founders indicate the requirement was meant to ensure that no person who had divided loyalties would serve as commander in chief.

    Klayman has argued that since Obama, by his own admission, was not born to two citizen parents, he is not a “natural born citizen” and, therefore, is ineligible to be a candidate on the state’s election ballot.

    Florida’s election statutes provide broad protections for voters to ensure that the integrity of the election system is beyond reproach. One of the laws allows voters to challenge the nomination of a candidate who is not eligible for the office he is seeking.

    WND earlier reported on the case, which raises some of the same issues that have been raised in other state ballot challenges. Specifically it alleges:

    On or about April 2011, only after years into his presidency, and under media and political pressure, Barack Hussein Obama published on the Internet an electronic version of a purported birth certificate alleging his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961, to American citizen mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Kenyan British subject father, Barack Obama Senior.

    There is credible evidence indicating that this electronically produced birth certificate is entirely fraudulent or otherwise altered. No physical, paper copy of the actual long form birth certificate has been produced in order to definitively establish Barack Hussein Obama’s birth within the United States.

    The action follows by weeks the release of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigation into Obama’s eligibility. The investigation by professional law enforcement officers working on a volunteer basis for Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse found probable cause that Obama’s birth certificate was forged and fraudulently presented as a genuine document.

    The plaintiff has submitted affidavits from Arpaio and others to support the claim.

    The complaint explains that even if Obama was born within the United States, he is still not a “natural-born citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution. That’s because his father was born in the British Colony of Kenya on June 18, 1936, making him a British subject, according to the British Nationality Act of 1948.

    A case filing explains: “No physical, paper copy of defendant Obama’s birth certificate has been presented to establish his eligibility. … Defendant Obama has electronically produced a copy of what he purports to be his ‘birth certificate.’ Nevertheless, there is evidence to suggest that the electronically produced birth certificate is entirely fraudulent or otherwise altered.”

    When asked by Judge Lewis, Klayman confirmed he could add to the complaint details of the evidence Obama was not born in the U.S.

    Obama’s attorneys told the judge that other courts have decided that courts should not make such decisions and the process is better handled by Congress. They said state courts especially are not suited to making a decision on the eligibility of Obama.

    “They are precluded from judging the qualifications of candidates for president of the United States,” the Obama attorneys said.

    But Klayman pleaded with the judge to decide the issue, because a determination made after the election could negate Florida’s vote.

    “Florida has a special duty not just on behalf of the citizens of Florida but on behalf of the United States,” he said.

    Klayman referred to a recent Obama order to underscore the significance of the Founders’ desire that the president not have divided loyalties or “not even a hint of foreign influence.”

    “Just a few days ago, he issued an executive order … which in effect allows illegal alien students who came into this country … to remain in this country. … The president’s own father was in fact here on a student visa and ultimately was deported because that visa expired.”

    Klayman reiterated the Supreme Court’s Minor v. Happersett definition of “natural born citizen” as a person born in the country of two citizen parents.

    “The point is this, your honor,” said Klayman. “The president is not like everybody else. If that was the case the framers would have said ‘citizens’ [can be president.]”

    He accused Obama’s attorneys of trying to “push the issue down the road” until the legal process would fail due to lack of time.

    “It’s a shell game,” Klayman said. ” … Neither the Florida Constitution nor the federal Constitution … would ever sanction what they are saying."


    http://www.wnd.com/florida-eligibility-hearing/

    [* "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." - U.S. Constitution,
    Amendment XII]
    Last edited by MinutemanCDC_SC; 06-18-2012 at 03:14 PM.
    One man's terrorist is another man's undocumented worker.

    Unless we enforce laws against illegal aliens today,
    tomorrow WE may wake up as illegals.

    The last word: illegal aliens are ILLEGAL!

  4. #5044
    Senior Member TexasBorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Getyourassoutahere, Texas
    Posts
    3,783
    We can only hope, but the truth of the matter is, and everyone knows this, by denying Obama on the Florida Democratic ballot, a firestorm would be created and the entire election thrown into a tailspin. Even if the the judge WANT's to rule in favor of the plaintiff, he won't because of intimidation and outright threats of death. I wish I were wrong, but I'm not. We have to bide our time and dispose of this trash in November.

    Quote Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC View Post
    From WorldNetDaily:

    Obama attorneys argue he's not [yet] Dem nominee
    Urge Florida judge to ignore evidence challenging eligibility

    Published
    around 11 am on June 18, 2012

    TALLAHASSEE, Fla.
    – Attorneys arguing on behalf of Barack Obama’s re-election plans today urged a Florida judge to decide that Obama is not yet the Democratic nominee for president and ignore evidence challenging his eligibility.

    The arguments were raised by attorney Mark Herron on behalf of Obama in a hearing before Judge Terry Lewis in Florida, who is best known for presiding over the 2000 Bush v. Gore election dispute.

    Lewis is credited with making crucial rulings in the contested 2000 presidential election when ultimately a Florida recount was halted by the U.S. Supreme Court, and George W. Bush was declared the winner.

    Attorney Larry Klayman filed the challenge to Obama’s eligibility for the ballot on behalf of Michael Voeltz, who identifies himself in the complaint as “a registered member of the Democratic Party, voter, and taxpayer in Broward County.”

    Attorneys representing Obama at the hearing, which was livestreamed by WND, argued that the Florida presidential preference primary, which listed Obama as the only Democrat nominee, didn’t make him the party’s nominee for president.

    Herron argued the Florida process affirms only that Obama is the choice in the state’s presidential preference primary but is not necessarily the party’s nominee for president.

    A video recording of the hearing will be available for viewing online at WND.

    “This language clearly indicates the winner of the president preference primary, not the nominee of the party,” he said.

    But the judge noted that the party wrote to Florida’s secretary of state a letter indicating Obama’s name was the only one submitted, and he thought the state’s electors were bound to vote for him.

    “Wasn’t there a letter [that said] this is the only candidate whose name will appear?” Lewis asked.

    Obama’s attorneys said such a decision “has not been triggered yet.”

    Klayman argued that according to state law, when only one name is submitted, that person automatically becomes the nominee, even if the national Democratic Party nominating convention has not been held.

    No decision was announced immediately. The judge said he would review the law, but he had pointed questions for both sides.

    When Klayman noted the Founding Fathers established the natural-born citizen requirement because they wanted to avoid foreign influence on a president from a non-citizen parent, Lewis countered by posing a hypothetical situation in which a candidate’s two U.S.-citizen parents later emigrate to Israel.

    Klayman said the Founding Fathers’ attempt to avoid a conflict of interest in the Oval Office did not include every possible scenario.

    The judge asked whether the Democratic Party, as a private group, had a right to choose a nominee, even if that person was ineligible.

    Lewis questioned a citation by Obama’s attorneys of a Florida law that suggests when only one person is on the ballot, that person becomes the nominee. He told the attorneys he would review the details of the law.

    The arguments by Obama’s attorneys reflected their request that the judge simply dismiss the case because they claim a sitting president chosen by his party at multiple levels is not yet officially the nominee.

    Klayman accused the Obama attorneys of playing a “shell game” and trying to put off the issue, as numerous courts did in 2008 until the election was over and Obama was inaugurated.

    The judge could remove Obama’s name from the November ballot in Florida, a crucial swing state, should he determine that the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen” can be applied at the primary level.

    Klayman told WND that during a hearing last month on discovery issues in the case, Lewis noted that the plaintiff’s brief cited U.S. Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett from 1875 defining “natural born citizen” as the offspring of two citizens of the nation, while the Obama campaign’s arguments provided no citations.

    Defining the term is critical. Such a step has not been reached in any of the more than 100 legal cases that have been brought over Obama’s eligibility.

    The U.S. Constitution’s “natural born citizen” requirement is not imposed on other federal officials [except the Vice President*]. The writings of the Founders indicate the requirement was meant to ensure that no person who had divided loyalties would serve as commander in chief.

    Klayman has argued that since Obama, by his own admission, was not born to two citizen parents, he is not a “natural born citizen” and, therefore, is ineligible to be a candidate on the state’s election ballot.

    Florida’s election statutes provide broad protections for voters to ensure that the integrity of the election system is beyond reproach. One of the laws allows voters to challenge the nomination of a candidate who is not eligible for the office he is seeking.

    WND earlier reported on the case, which raises some of the same issues that have been raised in other state ballot challenges. Specifically it alleges:

    On or about April 2011, only after years into his presidency, and under media and political pressure, Barack Hussein Obama published on the Internet an electronic version of a purported birth certificate alleging his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961, to American citizen mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Kenyan British subject father, Barack Obama Senior.

    There is credible evidence indicating that this electronically produced birth certificate is entirely fraudulent or otherwise altered. No physical, paper copy of the actual long form birth certificate has been produced in order to definitively establish Barack Hussein Obama’s birth within the United States.

    The action follows by weeks the release of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigation into Obama’s eligibility. The investigation by professional law enforcement officers working on a volunteer basis for Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse found probable cause that Obama’s birth certificate was forged and fraudulently presented as a genuine document.

    The plaintiff has submitted affidavits from Arpaio and others to support the claim.

    The complaint explains that even if Obama was born within the United States, he is still not a “natural-born citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution. That’s because his father was born in the British Colony of Kenya on June 18, 1936, making him a British subject, according to the British Nationality Act of 1948.

    A case filing explains: “No physical, paper copy of defendant Obama’s birth certificate has been presented to establish his eligibility. … Defendant Obama has electronically produced a copy of what he purports to be his ‘birth certificate.’ Nevertheless, there is evidence to suggest that the electronically produced birth certificate is entirely fraudulent or otherwise altered.”

    When asked by Judge Lewis, Klayman confirmed he could add to the complaint details of the evidence Obama was not born in the U.S.

    Obama’s attorneys told the judge that other courts have decided that courts should not make such decisions and the process is better handled by Congress. They said state courts especially are not suited to making a decision on the eligibility of Obama.

    “They are precluded from judging the qualifications of candidates for president of the United States,” the Obama attorneys said.

    But Klayman pleaded with the judge to decide the issue, because a determination made after the election could negate Florida’s vote.

    “Florida has a special duty not just on behalf of the citizens of Florida but on behalf of the United States,” he said.

    Klayman referred to a recent Obama order to underscore the significance of the Founders’ desire that the president not have divided loyalties or “not even a hint of foreign influence.”

    “Just a few days ago, he issued an executive order … which in effect allows illegal alien students who came into this country … to remain in this country. … The president’s own father was in fact here on a student visa and ultimately was deported because that visa expired.”

    Klayman reiterated the Supreme Court’s Minor v. Happersett definition of “natural born citizen” as a person born in the country of two citizen parents.

    “The point is this, your honor,” said Klayman. “The president is not like everybody else. If that was the case the framers would have said ‘citizens’ [can be president.]”

    He accused Obama’s attorneys of trying to “push the issue down the road” until the legal process would fail due to lack of time.

    “It’s a shell game,” Klayman said. ” … Neither the Florida Constitution nor the federal Constitution … would ever sanction what they are saying."


    See Florida eligibility hearing on demand

    [* "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." - U.S. Constitution,
    Amendment XII]
    ...I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid...

    William Barret Travis
    Letter From The Alamo Feb 24, 1836

  5. #5045
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    WND EXCLUSIVE

    Now we learn Obama raised in Singapore?

    1990 Vanity Fair article contradicts Indonesia narrative

    Published: 3 hours ago
    by Jerome R. Corsi

    MIAMI BEACH, Fla. – On the heels of the discovery of a 1991 publicity brochure stating Barack Obama was born in Kenya comes the unearthing of a 1990 Vanity Fair article stating Obama grew up in Singapore, not in Indonesia.

    In both instances, the question immediately arises: Who was the source of the information that contradicts Obama’s accepted narrative?

    In the case of the “born in Kenya” brochure, it’s almost certain that Obama was the source, because it was the policy of literary agent Acton & Dystel to ask its authors to write their own bios. The agency insists, however, “born in Kenya” was merely a “fact-checking error.” Nevertheless, the agency cannot explain why the “error” was repeated numerous times over the course of 16 years and never corrected by Obama.

    WND found that in April 2007, two months after Obama had launched his presidential bid, Dystel was still touting the then-Democratic senator from Illinois as “born in Kenya.”

    Was Obama the source of the “raised in Singapore” statement in the Vanity Fair profile, or was it an error by the writer and editors?

    At the time of the 1990 article, Obama was the newly elected first black president of the Harvard Law Review.

    The key sentence in the piece reads: Barack Obama “saw poverty while growing up in Singapore with his mother, an anthropologist, and his half-brothers and –sisters in Kenya still live hand to mouth at times.”

    In 2006, after Obama was elected U.S. senator, Vanity Fair republished the article and added an editor’s note.

    The note offers no explanation of why the original article stated Obama was raised in Singapore.

    It declares, next to the Singapore reference, “We should have said Indonesia.”

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/now-we-le...-in-singapore/
    Last edited by AirborneSapper7; 06-19-2012 at 12:10 AM.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  6. #5046
    Senior Member MinutemanCDC_SC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    tracking the usurper-in-chief and on his trail
    Posts
    3,207
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerome R. Corsi
    In 2006, after Obama was elected U.S. senator, Vanity Fair republished the article and added an editor’s note.

    The note offers no explanation of why the original article stated Obama was raised in Singapore.

    It declares, next to the Singapore reference, “We should have said Indonesia.”
    It's understandable how anyone might have made that mistake.


    Last edited by MinutemanCDC_SC; 06-19-2012 at 12:50 AM.
    One man's terrorist is another man's undocumented worker.

    Unless we enforce laws against illegal aliens today,
    tomorrow WE may wake up as illegals.

    The last word: illegal aliens are ILLEGAL!

  7. #5047
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    WND EXCLUSIVE

    Rubio autobiography proves he's not eligible for VP?

    Senator provides evidence, according to lawyers challenging Obama

    Published: 8 hours ago by Jerome R. Corsi

    MIAMI BEACH, Fla. – In a generally well-written autobiography being released Tuesday, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., proclaims his love for his wife and family, his belief that God directs all aspects of his life and his passion for the Miami Dolphins.

    But if the arguments presented in dozens of legal cases challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility are correct, “Marco Rubio: An American Son” also provides the information needed to determine the Florida senator is not a natural-born citizen, a constitutional requirement for the presidency.

    On page 24, Rubio writes:
    “I was born on May 28, 1971. My sister, Veronica, was born the following year. My mother and father were starting over again as parents in the country they now called home (the U.S.).”
    Jerome Corsi’s updated blockbuster “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate” is the most compelling case available that Barack Obama is not eligible to be president

    The next paragraph makes clear that Rubio’s parents were both Cuban citizens, not United States citizens, when he was born:
    “My parents had lived in America for nearly two decades. It was clear that Cuba had become a thoroughly totalitarian state, and would likely remain so for some time. They had endured many disappointments, and their lives would never be easy. But slowly and surely they made a better life for our family than they had had as children, or could have ever been possible for them in Cuba. Three of their children were born Americans. Mario [the Senator’s older brother, born in Cuba] had naturalized after returning from the army. And in 1975, they, too, became citizens of the United States.”
    As WND reported, attorney Larry Klayman argued today before Florida Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis in the presidential eligibility case brought by Democrat voter Michael Voeltz that Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution requires a person eligible to be president to be born to parents who are each U.S. citizens at the time of the birth.

    That definition of natural-born citizen would clearly disqualify Rubio from running either for president or vice president.

    Is Obama constitutionally eligible to serve? Here’s WND’s complete archive of news reports on the issue

    Born in the USA

    Rubio’s book, subtitled “An American Son,” appears geared to arguing his birth in Miami makes him 100-percent American, even though his parents were Cuban when he was born.

    The senator’s constitutional qualification for a presidential ticket has received little attention, given the common determination by courts hearing Obama eligibility cases that “native born,” or “born in the USA,” is equivalent to “natural born.”

    While he does not openly proclaim aspirations to be Gov. Mitt Romney’s running mate, Rubio writes on page 283 eloquently of his success in politics:
    Why had my dreams come true? Because God had blessed me with a strong and stable family and parents who cherished my dreams more than their own, and with a wise and loving wife who supported me. And he blessed me with America, the only country in the world where dreams like mine would stand a chance of coming true.
    Because of the possibility that the vice president could ascend to the presidency on the death or disability of the president, it is logical to argue that a candidate for vice president must also meet the natural-born citizen requirement of Article 2, Section 1.

    As WND reported, another emerging Republican leader whose eligibility for the White House has been questioned is Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, whose parents were born in India.

    Questions also have been raised about Romney’s eligibility, because his father was born in Mexico. But the late Gov. George Romney, who ran for president in 1968, was born an American citizen, because he was born to two parents who were U.S. citizens at the time.

    When the U.S. Senate resolved in 2008 that Republican presidential nominee John McCain, R-Ariz., was a natural born citizen, it significantly specified that his parents were American citizens.

    Vattel and the Law of Nations

    Klayman argued in Florida court today that natural-born citizen is a term of natural law political philosophy that America’s Founders almost certainly derived from their analysis of Emerich de Vattel’s book published in 1758, “The Law of Nations: or, Principles of the Natural Law Applicable to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns.”

    In Chapter 19, Section 212, Vattel defined natural-born citizen:
    The citizens are 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.
    He continued:
    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. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.
    In the next two sentences, Vattel emphasized the concept that natural-born citizens are those born in the nation to parents who are citizens of the nation:
    The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.
    Vattel concluded:
    I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will only be the place of his birth, and not his country.
    Klayman has argued that the point of applying the term natural-born citizen as a requirement to be president as specified in Article 2, Section 1, was to prevent foreigners, or those whose allegiance could be attributed to the jurisdiction of foreign sovereigns, from ever being chief executive with the powers of commander-in-chief.

    The concern that the commander-in-chief not have dual loyalties was demonstrated in a 1787 letter from John Jay to George Washington.

    Jay, who later became president of the Continental Congress and the first Supreme Court chief justice, wrote: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

    Native-born is natural-born?

    Jake Walker, who writes for the popular conservative blog RedState, affirms that the Founders were “fond” of Vattel’s “Law of Nations,” but he points to certain writings of the Founders to argue anyone born on U.S. soil is a natural-born citizen.

    Walker cites a draft of the constitution by one of its important contributors, Alexander Hamilton.
    If Hamilton’s draft would have been accepted, Walker argues, the Constitution would have stated:
    No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a citizen of one of the States or hereafter be born a citizen of the United States.
    Walker concedes there “is no real explanation that I can find as to why the Committee of Eleven changed the phrase to its present form, but it was.”

    “Making it even worse, the Constitution itself does not define the term “natural born citizen,” he notes.

    He also quotes James Madison, popularly acknowledged as the “author” of the Constitution, who seemed to indicate in a paper dated May 22, 1789, that birthplace is a more important determinant of allegiance than parentage:
    It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
    However, when the first U.S. Congress had the opportunity to weigh in on the term natural-born citizen – in the Naturalization Act of 1790 – the lawmakers regarded it as a child born of two American parents. The act also specified that a natural-born citizen need not be born on U.S. soil.
    The law stated:
    The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.
    The first U.S. Congress, which approved the Naturalization Act of 1790, included 20 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Among the 20 were eight members of the Committee of Eleven that drafted the Constitution’s natural-born citizen clause.

    While the act was repealed five years later, it, nevertheless, represented the will of the Congress that the U.S. not be led by someone whose loyalty could be divided because of parentage.

    Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, a principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment, affirmed in a discussion in the House on March 9, 1866, that a natural-born citizen is “born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.”

    Rubio autobiography proves he’s not eligible for VP?
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  8. #5048
    April
    Guest
    Ask Romney to stand against Obama AMNESTY for Illegals!

    Take ACTION NOW!

    Go here:

    http://www.alipac.us/f8/ask-mitt-rom...4/#post1287866

  9. #5049
    Senior Member MinutemanCDC_SC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    tracking the usurper-in-chief and on his trail
    Posts
    3,207
    A ghost writer wrote this piece. Jerome Corsi didn't write it - he couldn't have. Dr. Corsi knows the ineligibility situation as well as almost anyone, and he would not have written an article with these errors. I cannot understand that he allowed his name to be placed on the byline of an article without proofreading it for content errors.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerome R. Corsi, writing about Sen. Mark Rubio
    The senator’s constitutional qualification for a presidential ticket has received little attention, given the common determination by courts hearing Obama eligibility cases that “native born,” or “born in the USA,” is equivalent to “natural born.”
    Sen. Rubio's Constitutional ineligibility for the Office of Vice-President has received little or no attention in the LSM, because of the nationwide blackout on the subject.

    As for "the common determination by courts hearing Obama eligibility cases," which court cases would those be? The courts have dismissed
    over 80 cases for lack of standing (or lack of jurisdiction).

    The military officer over the Terry Lakin trial would not allow Dr. Lakin's civilian attorney to present arguments from the Constitution or U.S. Code against Mr. Obama. The New Hampshire elections commission neither heard arguments nor made a determination concerning "native born" or "natural born." In Cook v. Goode et al, Judge Clay Land ruled that the Army had rescinded Maj. Stefan Cook's orders to Afghanistan, making the legitimacy of his chain of command a moot issue. In the combined three cases brought before the State of Georgia Administrative Court,
    Judge Michael Malihi rejected the arguments of the plaintiffs as "unconvincing". In the absence of the defense or any representative of the defense, he created his own defense from documents not entered into evidence and from the decision of an Indiana state court, which had "no jurisdiction" in a Georgia court.

    To my limited knowledge, no court hearing a Barack Obama ineligibility case has heard arguments about "native born" or "born in the U.S.A." being equivalent to "natural born," much less made any such determination.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jerome R. Corsi
    Because of the possibility that the vice president could ascend to the presidency on the death or disability of the president, it is logical to argue that a candidate for vice president must also meet the natural-born citizen requirement of Article 2, Section 1.
    Neither because of any possibility of succession nor because of any logical argument, but because the U.S. Constitution, Amendment XII, states, "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerome R. Corsi
    As WND reported, another emerging Republican leader whose eligibility for the White House has been questioned is Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, whose parents were born in India.
    Gov. Jindal was born in the U.S.; where his parents were born is irrelevant. But his parents were not U.S. citizens when he was born; that makes him ineligible for President or Vice-President.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerome R. Corsi
    Questions also have been raised about Romney’s eligibility, because his father was born in Mexico. But the late Gov. George Romney, who ran for president in 1968, was born an American citizen, because he was born to two parents who were U.S. citizens at the time.

    When the U.S. Senate resolved in 2008 that Republican presidential nominee John McCain, R-Ariz., was a natural born citizen, it significantly specified that his parents were American citizens.
    Being born to U.S. citizens made both Mitt Romney and John McCain U.S. citizens. But being born a U.S. citizen is not enough. To be a natural born Citizen, one must be "born in the country of parents who were citizens." Mitt Romney was born in the U.S., but John McCain was born in Colon Hospital in Colon, Republic of Panama, not in the Panama Canal Zone, and certainly not at Coco Solo Submanrine Base, where the hospital was not built until five years later. S.R. 511 did not and could not make Sen. McCain a natural born Citizen. It would (or will) require a Constitutional Amendment to change the natural born Citizen requirement. Just changing the dictionary definition of nbC would not change the U.S. Supreme Court interpretation: "one born in the country of parents who were citizens."

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerome R. Corsi
    Vattel and the Law of Nations

    Klayman argued in Florida court today that natural-born citizen is a term of natural law political philosophy that America’s Founders almost certainly derived from their analysis of Emerich de Vattel’s book published in 1758, “The Law of Nations: or, Principles of the Natural Law Applicable to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns.”

    In Chapter 19, Section 212, Vattel defined natural-born citizen:
    The citizens are 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 we have from time to time mentioned here, The Law of Nations is not the law of this nation. However, in Minor v. Happersett (1875), the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted "natural born Citizen" as
    one born in the country
    of parents who were citizens.

    This definition was repeated verbatim in Wong Kim Ark (1898 ) and supported in similar terms in The Venus (1814) and Shanks v. DuPont (1830).

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerome R. Corsi
    Klayman has argued that the point of applying the term natural-born citizen as a requirement to be president as specified in Article 2, Section 1, was to prevent foreigners, or those whose allegiance could be attributed to the jurisdiction of foreign sovereigns, from ever being chief executive with the powers of commander-in-chief.
    It was my understanding that Atty. Larry Klayman used the SCOTUS interpretation in Minor v. Happersett, which made unnecessary any further argument or discussion of motives, whys, or wherefores.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerome R. Corsi
    Native-born is natural-born?

    Jake Walker, who writes for the popular conservative blog RedState, affirms that the Founders were “fond” of Vattel’s “Law of Nations,” but he points to certain writings of the Founders to argue anyone born on U.S. soil is a natural-born citizen.
    Jake Walker's affirmations or points of argument have no bearing on this case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerome R. Corsi
    Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, a principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment, affirmed in a discussion in the House on March 9, 1866, that a natural-born citizen is “born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.”
    The controlling U.S. Supreme Court interpretation, "one born in the country of parents who were citizens," makes other supporting arguments extraneous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerome R. Corsi
    It has been known for quite a long time that Marco Rubio was born in the U.S. of parents who were not U.S. citizens, which makes him ineligible for POTUS or VPOTUS.
    One man's terrorist is another man's undocumented worker.

    Unless we enforce laws against illegal aliens today,
    tomorrow WE may wake up as illegals.

    The last word: illegal aliens are ILLEGAL!

  10. #5050

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •