Mike Zullo and Joe Arpaio prove Obama's birth certificate, social security number, and selective se

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by flyswatter

 

Oops you're right the Natural Born Clause just says one has to be natural born. The obfuscation comes with the definition of it, which isn't in the Constitution.

So, after repeatedly telling us it's in the Constitution, you finally admit it's not in the Constitution.

Thank you very much, it's great to see you admitting the truth at last.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
And a very pregnant Stanley Ann still could have traveled to Kenya, had the baby there

As shown in this thread, please explain exactly how she could have done that.

grandmommy could put the ad in the paper announcing the birth

Those announcements are made by the hospital....

and also registering the birth at Kapiolani hospital

Except Obama was born there....

Take your pick

My pick? You have shown you do not know what you are talking about, you were not even aware that birthers have lost every single court case, over 200, that they have attempted!

Originally posted by Sankari

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by flyswatter

 

Oops you're right the Natural Born Clause just says one has to be natural born. The obfuscation comes with the definition of it, which isn't in the Constitution.

So, after repeatedly telling us it's in the Constitution, you finally admit it's not in the Constitution.

Thank you very much, it's great to see you admitting the truth at last.

No, I just take the Natural Born Clause to be of Vattel's Law of Nations and not Wong Kim Ark/Ankney/Georgia/Indiana cases.

Have I not clarified that even the INS states 3 types of citizenship native, natural born and naturalized, and also that the resolution of McCain uses language plainly the same as Vattel, which is where all or most birthers get their definition of natural born.
I do sometimes make mistakes like all other human beings, so at least now you know I am not a robot.
Speaking of mistakes I had forgotten about the Georgia case brought by Orly, but that was still only a State court and not the Supreme Court of the US.

Five Georgians, including one represented by Taitz, filed challenges with the Georgia Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, regarding Obama's inclusion on the March primary ballot.[72] Kemp referred the challenges to Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi, an administrative law judge, who denied Obama's motion to dismiss them and scheduled a hearing for January 26.[73]

en.wikipedia.org...
These were cases brought at the state level, and therefore no Supreme Court judgement has been made regarding this matter, at least not to my knowledge, though I could be proven wrong by lack of awareness.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
I just take the Natural Born Clause to be of Vattel's Law of Nations and not Wong Kim Ark/Ankney/Georgia/Indiana cases.

So instead of wanting to use USA law and precedent in the USA you want to use a book written by a foreigner.... just so you can stop Obama being President!

These were cases brought at the state level, and therefore no Supreme Court judgement has been made regarding this matter,

Presidential eligibility is done on a state by state basis, the Supreme Court has refused to hear every birther case as they agree with the state courts decision - Obama is a natural born citizen, and eligible to be POTUS

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
I just take the Natural Born Clause to be of Vattel's Law of Nations and not Wong Kim Ark/Ankney/Georgia/Indiana cases.

So instead of wanting to use USA law and precedent in the USA you want to use a book written by a foreigner.... just so you can stop Obama being President!

I doubt that the case law and precedents of Wong Kim Ark and the Indiana and Georgia cases were available at the time our Founding Fathers wrote that eligibility meant natural born.

I do however accept the resolution of McCain as evidence of Vattel's reasoning, as well as the INS use of native, natural born, and naturalized as three distinct types of citizenship. Maybe you know something the Immigration and Naturalization Service doesn't.
Again, when people keep talking about the Constitution as a "living document" to be interpreted loosely, one can imagine how it can be manipulated.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
I doubt that the case law and precedents of Wong Kim Ark and the Indiana and Georgia cases were available at the time our Founding Fathers wrote that eligibility meant natural born.

I imagine the founding fathers would be horrified that the people elected a black man to be President - twice! many of them even owned blacks as slaves....

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
I doubt that the case law and precedents of Wong Kim Ark and the Indiana and Georgia cases were available at the time our Founding Fathers wrote that eligibility meant natural born.

I imagine the founding fathers would be horrified that the people elected a black man to be President - twice! many of them even owned blacks as slaves....

Please stop using the race card.
Only one other President had his eligibility challenged, and all the other Presidents were born in the country of two citizen parents.

You see now when we come down to it, you have to resort to the race card because all the other arguments are falling away.

Anyway, I am deeply concerned with his status as a Marxist, as it should be obvious with all my posting history on Marxism and Communism.
If the marriage to Barack Sr was a shotgun wedding done to cover up an illegitimate pregnancy with a card carrying communist one Frank Marshall Davis, it would make sense that to legitimize that marriage, she might have traveled to Kenya to meet Barack Srs family.
FMD was more in Barack's life than his own dad was. The need for the family to cover up a communist allegiance makes more sense in the larger context of rooting out communism in government and Hollywood.
But since you bring up race, I read somewhere that the Communist Party regularly recommended young female recruits have sex with members of other races.

Starting in the 1930s the Communist Party promoted opportunities for ‘inter-racial' relationships among its members. The Communists could monopolize their social ties due to the intense social pressures created by the Democrats' system of Jim Crow segregation. The social stigma against what segregationists such as Tennessee Senator Al Gore Sr. called ‘miscegenation' helped keep people in the orbit of the CPUSA. As future Obama mentor Frank Marshall Davis would explain in his 1968 book "Sex Rebel: Black", CPUSA recruitment burgeoned in part due to the sexual opportunities the Communists created.

"With the Soviet Union and the United States allies in the world struggle against the Axis, it was quite respectable to join and work with many groups later labeled Communist. Black and white mingled openly; for the first time many snow broads and spade studs could meet without fear or stigma and they made the most of this opportunity." (p 115)

www.americanthinker.com...

rather sordid isn't it?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
[I doubt that the case law and precedents of Wong Kim Ark and the Indiana and Georgia cases were available at the time our Founding Fathers wrote that eligibility meant natural born.

They seem to have understood what it meant already -

On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention:

Permit me to hint, whether it would not 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 Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

-wiki, which has a link to the source of the quote
And just below that:

The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that "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". (Act to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, 1st Congress, 2nd session, March 26, 1790, 1 Stat.L. 103 at 104, 2 Laws of the U.S., ed. Bioren & Duane (1815) 82 at 83.) This act was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which did not mention the phrase natural born citizen.

The 1795 act made naturalized citizens just "citizens".

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
because all the other arguments are falling away.

Yes, every argument and court case against Obama has failed, over 200 of them, - because those pushing those cases have no facts, only lies.

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
because all the other arguments are falling away.

Yes, every argument and court case against Obama has failed, over 200 of them, - because those pushing those cases have no facts, only lies.

Now we have to come back to our discussion of last night. I forgot about the Georgia case and was unfamiliar with the Indiana one, but none of the other cases have been heard per se and were summarily dismissed based on lack of merit. I tried to say that last night, but you brought up the Georgia case. I conceded on that account.
And of course everyone uses Wong Kim Ark.

And now after all this you resort to using the race card to prove your point.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Again, must I keep pointing to evidence that the INS still uses three terms, native, natural born and naturalized. Are you trying to tell me that the only thing left is just plain citizen per 1795? Quick, somebody tell the INS. Also your the chosen text says this

(Act to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization

So you are now saying that anyone who has been naturalized is now eligible for POTUS? Then why did Congress introduce resolutions to declare various people like McCain and Schwarzenegger eligible to be POTUS? Doesn't Arnie have a Naturalized citizenship? Why would it take a resolution to allow him to run as a candidate? Maybe the answer is because that is language relative to the act of naturalization. Arnie is not eligible, and neither the act of 1790 nor 1795 makes it so.

And then there's this:

Consider the following analysis of the natural born citizen clause by constitutional
scholar Michael Dorf, posted at the Dorf on Law blog February 29, 2008:
[I]f one is not burdened by the label of “originalist,” then [McCain’s eligibility
for the presidency] is a pretty easy question. The “natural born
citizen” requirement manifests a distrust of the foreign-born that, in a nation
of immigrants, can only be derided as repugnant. I both “reject” it and
I “denounce” it! It’s still part of the Constitution, however, and therefore
we need to try to figure out what it means. My frankly normative move
would be to limit the damage by limiting the scope of “foreign-born.”
There’s no plausible way to read the provision to permit Schwarzenegger
and other naturalized citizens to become President. There is a ready (if not
100% clearly the original) way to read it to permit Americans born abroad
to U.S. parents to become citizens.

www.michiganlawreview.org...

So even that guy says that "Natural Born" is in the Constitution as a distrust of the foreign born. He wishes it were not so. The person who said it is a Constitutional scholar.

Obama doesn't know where we was born.

He couldn't know. He was busy being born. And at that age, who is conscious of what is happening, or where they are?

First of all he had to do to kindergarten. Then he had to go to primary school. Then secondary school. At this point he's just becoming aware of geography, and the concepts of nations, and places, and things like place of birth.

Then he has to ask somebody, who was there at the time of his birth, where he was born. And if they lied to him, how would he know? His own mom, may have had him in Kenya, and when Barry asked, not wanting him to know, may have simply said "You were born in Hawaii, dear." The mom may have kept it secret from Barry, to ensure he had all rights of a U.S. born citizen. Who would be any wiser?

So, you can't blame Obama, for not knowing he was really born in Kenya.

He didn't fake his own birth certificate either. Someone had to do that for him. Barry probably doesn't even know how to create a PDF file. Much less, alter and edit one to produce a fake.

So, whatever you might think, Barry is innocent of all charges.

Now, if you want to go after the crooks that set all this in motion, that's another matter. But, what has it got to do with Obama himself?

At the time the crime was being committed, of faking his place of birth, Barry was too young to think of such crimes. He couldn't even speak yet, not even walk. He was just a crawling bawling baby.

I think those that hate Obama need to find another crime, one that Barry himself at least could possibly be accused of, but this is obviously a crime that other people must have engaged in, mostly without Obama's knowledge. So, they are barking up the wrong tree, if the goal is to "get Barry".

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
but none of the other cases have been heard per se and were summarily dismissed based on lack of merit.

But again you are wrong - why not research the cases, then you will find out that you are wrong....

I tried to say that last night, but you brought up the Georgia case.

You were wrong last night, you are still wrong this morning....

And now after all this you resort to using the race card to prove your point.

Birthers are the ones using the race card, that is what all the birther nonsense is about.

No previous President showed their birth certificate to the public, no previous President showed their college records, no previous President place of birth was questioned, no previous President's SSN was questioned etc etc but as soon as the first black President comes along people are demanding all sorts of records from him, and even when they get them they refuse to accept them...... then you claim it is not about his race?

reply to post by hellobruce


Bruce, I stated that I conceded on the Georgia case. However, it is still true that it was not decided by the Supreme Court.
This has nothing to do with his race as you wanted to make it, and others have made it. But go ahead if you insist and then I will go back to the communist insurgence.

You know you used the race card as a last resort.

This post on Judge Malihi and then I'm finished here

“His opinion holds that the 14th has the exact same effect as the natural-born citizen clause, while the 14th Amendment does not include the words “natural born Citizen”. Persons claiming citizenship under the 14th Amendment are deemed to be “citizens”. Malihi has added the words “natural born” into the Amendment. This is absolutely forbidden, according to Malihi’s own opinion in the Motion to dismiss, wherein he held: “In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.’ Because there is no other ‘natural and reasonable construction’ of the statutory language, this Court is ‘not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.’ “

In other words, he claimed one thing on January 3, 2012 and on February 3, 2012 he wrote the exact opposite. Why would any sane man do such a thing?
The question of Obama being eligible is a legal issue. It is also a political issue. Since America is not a “Nation of Laws” as the politicians hype. It is a Nation of Establishment. The Establishment, through their corrupted politicians make the rules and the rules change according to who they are for. And in politics, anywhere in the World, all through history, the three most effective tools are bribery, extortion and murder.

He ignored the Constitution and at least three US Supreme Court rulings, defining Natural born citizen as one who is born in America to two citizen parents. He ignored the Law of Nations, that the founders of this country used to draft our constitution. He ignored the countless letters, written back and forth by our founders, defining natural born citizen and their reasons for why they would only accept a natural born citizen as their President.

fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com...

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
However, it is still true that it was not decided by the Supreme Court.

The supreme court judges looked at it, agreed with the lower court so did not have to do anything.

This has nothing to do with his race

Birthers refuse to admit that, but it is a fact.

Have a look at WOLF v FUDDY as well....

reply to post by doryinaz


It's sad that so many people in the U.S. are still racist, give it up he's president. People move on and help the country unite and stop dividing it.

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by Magister
To be President you have to be a "natural born citizen". That means born in this country and your parents were born here too.

It doesn't mean that at all, anyway the court has declared Obama a natural born citizen....

The court also decided that OJ Simpson was innocent too......................and your point is ?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

He ignored the Constitution and at least three US Supreme Court rulings, defining Natural born citizen as one who is born in America to two citizen parents.

Which Supreme court rulings defined a natural born citizen being born in the USA with 2 citizen parents?

Hint - you will not find it, it is just more made up birther nonsense you just cut and paste here.

reply to post by AussieDingus

The court also decided that OJ Simpson was innocent too

Actually, a jury did.
A court (a judge) would have nailed him.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


It doesn't matter what definitions INS uses. The natural born citizen is a Constitutional matter. Since the term is never defined in the Constitution that leaves it up to the courts to interpret. It doesn't matter what th founding fathers may have thought. It doesn't matter what Vattel said. The only authority in this matter are the courts. Starting with Lynch v. Clarke (which has pretty much been the leading precedence in every case discussing he matter) natural born citizenship has been found to be equivalent to birthright citizenship. If you can provide a case that refutes Lynch v. Clarke and all the other cases please provide it. Otherwise any argument you make is moot.