Comments on: Apparently, Some People Still Care About Obama’s Birth Certificate http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/05/23/apparently-some-people-still-care-about-obamas-birth-certificate/ Beating Them With Their Own Sickle And Hammer Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:27:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: smrstrauss http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/05/23/apparently-some-people-still-care-about-obamas-birth-certificate/comment-page-2/#comment-118694 smrstrauss Thu, 04 Jun 2009 15:03:27 +0000 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/?p=22867#comment-118694 Delighted. Do the words “natural born citizen” in Article II mean anything other than what the USA uses to define a citizen at birth, someone who was merely born in the USA? For this to be true, there would have to be something that proves that the writers of Article II were following the Vattel definition and not the British common law definition. There is nothing. For example, the first use of Natural Born Citizen by an American at the time of the Constitution was John Jay’s letter to Washington, in which he said that the commander in chief should be a Natural Born Citizen. Fine. But Jay did not say that he meant Natural Born Citizen under the Vattel definition or under the British common law definition, which was as defined by Blackstone. Since Jay was a lawyer and a jurist and the first US Supreme Court chief justice, we assume that he was familiar with the common law. So, when he said “Natural Born Citizen,” he was thinking of the British common law which uses the term “Natural Born Subject.” If he was thinking of Vattel, he could have said—a Natural Born Citizen as defined by Vattel, or with two US parents. But he did not. He did not define Natural Born Citizen—so what evidence is there that he wanted the “two parents plus born in the USA” definition? Jay was one of the authors of the Federalist Papers. There is nothing that defines Natural Born Citizen in the Federalist papers. There is nothing in the Federalist Papers that even discusses the requirement that the president be a Natural Born Citizen. Vattel, of course, would allow people who were not even citizens to be sovereigns of countries. He mentions several kings and emperors that were from other countries, and does not criticize this, and when he discusses elected sovereigns, he does not say that they should be even citizens, much less natural born citizens. As to the allegation that if a child has a foreign father, she or he has some allegiance to that foreign country. The Supreme Court has ruled on that. It ruled in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), in which the Supreme Court said that a Natural Born Citizen is the same thing as a Natural Born Subject. And the reason that a Natural Born Citizen is the same thing as a Natural Born Subject, the court said, is because the nationality of a father has no affect on allegiance. Allegiance, the Supreme Court says, comes from the place of birth. Quote: “The child of alien parents born in the United States] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’ The court also said in the same case: “Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’ United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) In other words, the Supreme Court has ruled that when it comes to an ordinary citizen, what counts is the place of birth. Some say that this was not an Article II case. Well, of course. But, since there never has been an Article II case, those who say that Natural Born Citizen means something more than an ordinary citizen who was just born here (not naturalized) must prove that there is a difference. And most law review articles agree. For example, Yale Law review wrote: It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization,” do not. (Jill A. Pryor, Yale Law Review, 1988) And that is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Oren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA: Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said: “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent) Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said: “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004) And: Gov. Bobby Jindal, who delivered the Republican response to Obama’s speech, said: “Regardless of party, all Americans are moved by the President’s personal story - the son of an American mother and a Kenyan father, who grew up to become leader of the free world.” Jindal, of course, would be even less of a citizen under Vattel’s concept because neither of his parents were citizens at the time of his birth. His mother was about three months pregnant when they came to the USA. There are a couple of other arguments against “the two parents plus born in the USA theory” besides the common law. The first of these is the strict construction approach. If the framers of the Constitution had wanted us to understand that “Natural Born Citizen” should mean either two US parents or two US parents and be born in the USA, surely they would have said so. By not saying so, they certainly knew that people could think that they meant the common law definition of Natural Born Citizen as the equivalent of “Natural Born Subject.” So, for them to not clarify, must have meant that the Common Law definition was just fine. A second point is with the logic of the parents being citizens at the time of birth. Under this theory if one of my parents gets naturalized one day after I was born, I’m not eligible. If both are naturalized a minute before I am born, I am eligible. This may be useful as an arbitrary breakdown of who should and should not be president, but what is the REAL sense behind it? Does the fact that someone was naturalized before really make a difference to someone’s loyalty? What evidence is there that the framers though this, instead of the more commonly used rule of birth in the country, used by the Common Law? And finally, does the allegiance of the parent really affect the loyalty of a child at all? If my father was a Baptist, does this mean that I have to stay a Baptist all my life? No, of course not. And, the same about my father being a Kenyan. If my father were a Kenyan, in later years I might have an allegiance to Kenya, or I might not—just like my allegiance to the Baptist religion. There is no evidence that the framers of the Constitution thought any differently. They did require that the president must be 35 years old, 14 years a resident and a natural born citizen. But Natural Born Citizen does not require the president to wear suspenders and a belt. All he has to be is born in the USA—and, of course, elected. There are complicated arguments out there that allege that because the writers grandfathered themselves, meaning allowed US citizens who were not natural born to be president so long as they were born before the Constitution was adopted, this (they say) proves that they considered themselves British. But this proves nothing. In fact, the historic reason why there is the exception in Article II is to allow Alexander Hamiliton, who was born on the island of Nevis, and hence neither a US citizen by place of birth or by parentage, to be president. If they would allow Hamilton, who was not a born US citizen and did not have US parents (he wasn’t even legitimate!) to be eligible to be president, what evidence is there that they demanded two parents plus born in the USA? In fact, it was a stretch for them to demand born in the USA—but they did, and Obama was. Delighted.

Do the words “natural born citizen” in Article II mean anything other than what the USA uses to define a citizen at birth, someone who was merely born in the USA?

For this to be true, there would have to be something that proves that the writers of Article II were following the Vattel definition and not the British common law definition. There is nothing.

For example, the first use of Natural Born Citizen by an American at the time of the Constitution was John Jay’s letter to Washington, in which he said that the commander in chief should be a Natural Born Citizen. Fine. But Jay did not say that he meant Natural Born Citizen under the Vattel definition or under the British common law definition, which was as defined by Blackstone.

Since Jay was a lawyer and a jurist and the first US Supreme Court chief justice, we assume that he was familiar with the common law. So, when he said “Natural Born Citizen,” he was thinking of the British common law which uses the term “Natural Born Subject.” If he was thinking of Vattel, he could have said—a Natural Born Citizen as defined by Vattel, or with two US parents. But he did not. He did not define Natural Born Citizen—so what evidence is there that he wanted the “two parents plus born in the USA” definition?

Jay was one of the authors of the Federalist Papers. There is nothing that defines Natural Born Citizen in the Federalist papers. There is nothing in the Federalist Papers that even discusses the requirement that the president be a Natural Born Citizen.

Vattel, of course, would allow people who were not even citizens to be sovereigns of countries. He mentions several kings and emperors that were from other countries, and does not criticize this, and when he discusses elected sovereigns, he does not say that they should be even citizens, much less natural born citizens.

As to the allegation that if a child has a foreign father, she or he has some allegiance to that foreign country. The Supreme Court has ruled on that.

It ruled in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), in which the Supreme Court said that a Natural Born Citizen is the same thing as a Natural Born Subject. And the reason that a Natural Born Citizen is the same thing as a Natural Born Subject, the court said, is because the nationality of a father has no affect on allegiance. Allegiance, the Supreme Court says, comes from the place of birth.

Quote:

“The child of alien parents born in the United States] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’

The court also said in the same case:

“Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’

United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)

In other words, the Supreme Court has ruled that when it comes to an ordinary citizen, what counts is the place of birth. Some say that this was not an Article II case. Well, of course. But, since there never has been an Article II case, those who say that Natural Born Citizen means something more than an ordinary citizen who was just born here (not naturalized) must prove that there is a difference.

And most law review articles agree. For example, Yale Law review wrote:

It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization,” do not. (Jill A. Pryor, Yale Law Review, 1988)

And that is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Oren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

And:

Gov. Bobby Jindal, who delivered the Republican response to Obama’s speech, said: “Regardless of party, all Americans are moved by the President’s personal story – the son of an American mother and a Kenyan father, who grew up to become leader of the free world.”

Jindal, of course, would be even less of a citizen under Vattel’s concept because neither of his parents were citizens at the time of his birth. His mother was about three months pregnant when they came to the USA.

There are a couple of other arguments against “the two parents plus born in the USA theory” besides the common law.

The first of these is the strict construction approach. If the framers of the Constitution had wanted us to understand that “Natural Born Citizen” should mean either two US parents or two US parents and be born in the USA, surely they would have said so. By not saying so, they certainly knew that people could think that they meant the common law definition of Natural Born Citizen as the equivalent of “Natural Born Subject.” So, for them to not clarify, must have meant that the Common Law definition was just fine.

A second point is with the logic of the parents being citizens at the time of birth. Under this theory if one of my parents gets naturalized one day after I was born, I’m not eligible. If both are naturalized a minute before I am born, I am eligible. This may be useful as an arbitrary breakdown of who should and should not be president, but what is the REAL sense behind it? Does the fact that someone was naturalized before really make a difference to someone’s loyalty? What evidence is there that the framers though this, instead of the more commonly used rule of birth in the country, used by the Common Law?

And finally, does the allegiance of the parent really affect the loyalty of a child at all? If my father was a Baptist, does this mean that I have to stay a Baptist all my life? No, of course not. And, the same about my father being a Kenyan. If my father were a Kenyan, in later years I might have an allegiance to Kenya, or I might not—just like my allegiance to the Baptist religion. There is no evidence that the framers of the Constitution thought any differently. They did require that the president must be 35 years old, 14 years a resident and a natural born citizen. But Natural Born Citizen does not require the president to wear suspenders and a belt. All he has to be is born in the USA—and, of course, elected.

There are complicated arguments out there that allege that because the writers grandfathered themselves, meaning allowed US citizens who were not natural born to be president so long as they were born before the Constitution was adopted, this (they say) proves that they considered themselves British. But this proves nothing. In fact, the historic reason why there is the exception in Article II is to allow Alexander Hamiliton, who was born on the island of Nevis, and hence neither a US citizen by place of birth or by parentage, to be president.

If they would allow Hamilton, who was not a born US citizen and did not have US parents (he wasn’t even legitimate!) to be eligible to be president, what evidence is there that they demanded two parents plus born in the USA? In fact, it was a stretch for them to demand born in the USA—but they did, and Obama was.

]]> By: smrstrauss http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/05/23/apparently-some-people-still-care-about-obamas-birth-certificate/comment-page-2/#comment-118672 smrstrauss Wed, 03 Jun 2009 21:02:13 +0000 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/?p=22867#comment-118672 Re: "according to Ben Franklin’s letter to Charles W.F. Dumas 1775, Vattel defined natural born citizen as ” natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents (plural) who are citizens." Ben Franklin's letter said "thank you for the book." It did not say what Vattel said. And Vattel did not say ” natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents (plural) who are citizens." He said: "Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens." And this merely means that natives of a country are the children of parents who are citizens. The phrase: "Natural Born Citizen" does not appear in Vattel until the translation of Vattel 100 years after the Constitution was adopted. <i>So, what were the framers thinking about when they wrote Natural Born Citizen? They were thinking of British common law, which used the term Natural Born Subject. But a natural born subject was merely someone who was born in the British realm. It did not require two parents who were subjects or even one parent who was. The only exception was the child of a foreign diplomat.</i> Editor's note: <font color = red>That's your <b>opinion</b> until you include supporting documentation!</font color = red> Re: “according to Ben Franklin’s letter to Charles W.F. Dumas 1775, Vattel defined natural born citizen as ” natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents (plural) who are citizens.”

Ben Franklin’s letter said “thank you for the book.” It did not say what Vattel said.

And Vattel did not say ” natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents (plural) who are citizens.”

He said: “Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.” And this merely means that natives of a country are the children of parents who are citizens. The phrase: “Natural Born Citizen” does not appear in Vattel until the translation of Vattel 100 years after the Constitution was adopted.

So, what were the framers thinking about when they wrote Natural Born Citizen? They were thinking of British common law, which used the term Natural Born Subject. But a natural born subject was merely someone who was born in the British realm. It did not require two parents who were subjects or even one parent who was. The only exception was the child of a foreign diplomat.

Editor’s note: That’s your opinion until you include supporting documentation!

]]> By: Obama's out to get me http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/05/23/apparently-some-people-still-care-about-obamas-birth-certificate/comment-page-2/#comment-118553 Obama's out to get me Mon, 01 Jun 2009 07:28:01 +0000 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/?p=22867#comment-118553 Figures, DC US Attorney Taylor resigns and hence more obstruction and legal trickery to protect the false-messianic usurper in Chief. He cannot prove/validate his presidency under Quo Warranto, and he knows it, as does any thinking and Constitutional issue-knowledgable person, so to further the ruse that the naked Emperor is clothed, another resignation. MASS MEDIA--DO YOUR JOBS, YOUR REAL JOBS and REALLY interview this guy (and before you do that, please remove your faces and lips from the usurper prez's rear). If not, thengo get some honest jobs. Our Arab-american president needs to have his sellout media stooges and his smug press secretary and the judiciary and the legislature all cover for him. So much for all their oaths of office to protect and uphold the Constitution--and the usurper in Chief purjured himself when he took his oath. As if (a grossly manipulated, thanks ACORN et al) 53% of the vote and some phony doctored up COLB actually takes the place of real proof of Natural born status. The stupidity of the electorate and the cowardice of our judiciary and legislatures is staggering. No Republican could ever exist and flourish as such--what a shameful double standard. The usurper in chief says he won't withhold information simply because it embarrasses the government. He said (verbatim quote), "I will never hide the truth because it is uncomfortable." liar liar....prove it. Tricky Hussein and his handlers undoubtedly will stall and stall some more and obstruct and ridicule all questioners. So much for transparency and "not hiding the truth" and change we can believe in--looks more like the same old Chicago-style dirty politics in a bogus hyper-liberal african american wrapper. Figures, DC US Attorney Taylor resigns and hence more obstruction and legal trickery to protect the false-messianic usurper in Chief. He cannot prove/validate his presidency under Quo Warranto, and he knows it, as does any thinking and Constitutional issue-knowledgable person, so to further the ruse that the naked Emperor is clothed, another resignation. MASS MEDIA–DO YOUR JOBS, YOUR REAL JOBS and REALLY interview this guy (and before you do that, please remove your faces and lips from the usurper prez’s rear). If not, thengo get some honest jobs.

Our Arab-american president needs to have his sellout media stooges and his smug press secretary and the judiciary and the legislature all cover for him. So much for all their oaths of office to protect and uphold the Constitution–and the usurper in Chief purjured himself when he took his oath.
As if (a grossly manipulated, thanks ACORN et al) 53% of the vote and some phony doctored up COLB actually takes the place of real proof of Natural born status. The stupidity of the electorate and the cowardice of our judiciary and legislatures is staggering. No Republican could ever exist and flourish as such–what a shameful double standard.

The usurper in chief says he won’t withhold information simply because it embarrasses the government. He said (verbatim quote), “I will never hide the truth because it is uncomfortable.”

liar liar….prove it. Tricky Hussein and his handlers undoubtedly will stall and stall some more and obstruct and ridicule all questioners. So much for transparency and “not hiding the truth” and change we can believe in–looks more like the same old Chicago-style dirty politics in a bogus hyper-liberal african american wrapper.

]]> By: Jim http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/05/23/apparently-some-people-still-care-about-obamas-birth-certificate/comment-page-2/#comment-118541 Jim Mon, 01 Jun 2009 00:25:42 +0000 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/?p=22867#comment-118541 To all posters; remember this, dispite all the Obama research; only one thing is important, he is not a "Natural Born Citizen". Regardless of where he was born he does not qualify because his father was not a US Citizen at the time of his birth; his mother, if she met the requirements to bestow US Citizenship on her son at birth would only have made his a US Citizen since the requirements to be a "Natural Born Citizen" requires both parents, at the time of birth to be US Citizens to be able to establish natural born status as setforth in the United States Constitution and the Magna Carta. All the other issues if proved would make Obama either and illegal alien, a perjurer, an imposter, or all of the above. The criminal court would have a field day with this guy once he is out of office based on his concealed past. But don't assume this is over even when his birt status is finally accepted, based on the facts stated above; he has his minions all over the country and abroad and they are not going to stand for anything that remotely represents his removal from power unless out congress and judiciary standup and take their oaths of office seriously. Beware, congress and the judiciary are right now, up to this point, complicit in this attempted cover up. The ground swell is growing, it takes time. This issue was brought up on a Fox affiliate in Ohio during the election and then quickly vanished from the media. Conspiracy, everyone likes lable those of us who truly believe there is a huge cover up here, but those that do lable us have the heads stuch firmly in the liberal sands of time. Tomorrow is the date for the case to come before the US District Court of New Jersey in Kerchner, etal v. Obama, etal after having had the case granted a 120 day extention to file which is 60 days beyond the norma 60 days to answer in the case of the government being involved. Let's what happens at that hearing. US Attorney Taylor of the United States Attorney's Office in DC suddenly resigned instead of issuing a Qua Warrnto against Obama. Strange to say the least. Sorry of any (sic)End! To all posters; remember this, dispite all the Obama research; only one thing is important, he is not a “Natural Born Citizen”. Regardless of where he was born he does not qualify because his father was not a US Citizen at the time of his birth; his mother, if she met the requirements to bestow US Citizenship on her son at birth would only have made his a US Citizen since the requirements to be a “Natural Born Citizen” requires both parents, at the time of birth to be US Citizens to be able to establish natural born status as setforth in the United States Constitution and the Magna Carta. All the other issues if proved would make Obama either and illegal alien, a perjurer, an imposter, or all of the above. The criminal court would have a field day with this guy once he is out of office based on his concealed past. But don’t assume this is over even when his birt status is finally accepted, based on the facts stated above; he has his minions all over the country and abroad and they are not going to stand for anything that remotely represents his removal from power unless out congress and judiciary standup and take their oaths of office seriously. Beware, congress and the judiciary are right now, up to this point, complicit in this attempted cover up. The ground swell is growing, it takes time. This issue was brought up on a Fox affiliate in Ohio during the election and then quickly vanished from the media. Conspiracy, everyone likes lable those of us who truly believe there is a huge cover up here, but those that do lable us have the heads stuch firmly in the liberal sands of time. Tomorrow is the date for the case to come before the US District Court of New Jersey in Kerchner, etal v. Obama, etal after having had the case granted a 120 day extention to file which is 60 days beyond the norma 60 days to answer in the case of the government being involved. Let’s what happens at that hearing. US Attorney Taylor of the United States Attorney’s Office in DC suddenly resigned instead of issuing a Qua Warrnto against Obama. Strange to say the least. Sorry of any (sic)End!

]]> By: Majb http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/05/23/apparently-some-people-still-care-about-obamas-birth-certificate/comment-page-2/#comment-118529 Majb Sun, 31 May 2009 15:32:17 +0000 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/?p=22867#comment-118529 Smrstrauss, SOMEbody has been working hard and spending $ to put an end to the numerous cases filed in courts around the country trying to force B O to produce a certified copy of the real, long form original birth certificate. You can't get around the fact that if he produced the document, this would go away, and that people who insist on hiding things generally have a reason for doing so, and need to do so to achieve their aims. And, by the way, there WERE people asking for this proof BEFORE the election, as you'd know if you were paying attention. I myself wrote to a few congressional and senatorial representatives requesting it be brought up--they DO swear to uphold the constitution, in their oaths, you know. There was public information that other people far more influential were also asking. Also, calling B O an African-American generated a whole lot of votes from people who paid no attention to anything but that. Calling him a mostly black Arab, or Muslim would not have generated nearly so many (there might be a fair number of blacks who actually do realize what a very big part Arabs/Muslims played in gathering their forefathers up and bring them to their slave markets to sell for transport), and plenty who were not happy with the idea of such a person being president after 9/11 who not have been unlikely to vote for him--obviously why he tried so hard to distance himself from all those old ties. I'd love to see his college records for several reasons. Smrstrauss, SOMEbody has been working hard and spending $ to put an end to the numerous cases filed in courts around the country trying to force B O to produce a certified copy of the real, long form original birth certificate. You can’t get around the fact that if he produced the document, this would go away, and that people who insist on hiding things generally have a reason for doing so, and need to do so to achieve their aims. And, by the way, there WERE people asking for this proof BEFORE the election, as you’d know if you were paying attention. I myself wrote to a few congressional and senatorial representatives requesting it be brought up–they DO swear to uphold the constitution, in their oaths, you know. There was public information that other people far more influential were also asking. Also, calling B O an African-American generated a whole lot of votes from people who paid no attention to anything but that. Calling him a mostly black Arab, or Muslim would not have generated nearly so many (there might be a fair number of blacks who actually do realize what a very big part Arabs/Muslims played in gathering their forefathers up and bring them to their slave markets to sell for transport), and plenty who were not happy with the idea of such a person being president after 9/11 who not have been unlikely to vote for him–obviously why he tried so hard to distance himself from all those old ties. I’d love to see his college records for several reasons.

]]> By: Obama's out to get me http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/05/23/apparently-some-people-still-care-about-obamas-birth-certificate/comment-page-2/#comment-118518 Obama's out to get me Sun, 31 May 2009 03:40:20 +0000 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/?p=22867#comment-118518 This is the biggest collusive coverup of the century, and in our government's history--he is the ultimate Manchurian candidate. Obama is NOT natural born, and hence in violation of Constitutional law. But everyone says the emperor is clothed when he is not, like this article says: http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/letters/archives/2008/12/was-obama-born.html Welcome to Obamagate. Details forthcoming once the MSM is shamed and FORCED into covering them and they abandon their slobbering love affair with this half-white, 40+ percent Arab hard-left liberal that we truly know so little about (once again their fault) and start doing their jobs again instead of being cheerleaders for this 'coup d'etat'-installed "President". Nobody should Hail the usurper in chief. Follow the money yes, follow the money And there's plenty of money to follow, too, So much for promised transparency. This is the biggest collusive coverup of the century, and in our government’s history–he is the ultimate Manchurian candidate.

Obama is NOT natural born, and hence in violation of Constitutional law. But everyone says the emperor is clothed when he is not, like this article says:

http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/letters/archives/2008/12/was-obama-born.html

Welcome to Obamagate. Details forthcoming once the MSM is shamed and FORCED into covering them and they abandon their slobbering love affair with this half-white, 40+ percent Arab hard-left liberal that we truly know so little about (once again their fault) and start doing their jobs again instead of being cheerleaders for this ‘coup d’etat’-installed “President”.

Nobody should Hail the usurper in chief.

Follow the money yes, follow the money

And there’s plenty of money to follow, too, So much for promised transparency.

]]> By: smrstrauss http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/05/23/apparently-some-people-still-care-about-obamas-birth-certificate/comment-page-2/#comment-118442 smrstrauss Fri, 29 May 2009 13:25:30 +0000 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/?p=22867#comment-118442 Re: "But, that doesn’t explain why Obama has spent all the money defending the dozens of lawsuits. Or why he has had his records sealed at Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard." First, he hasn't spent any money, not one cent, on defending dozens of lawsuits asking for his birth certificate. All the lawsuits were to stop the election or to stop the certification of the election, which Obama naturally opposed, and I agree with him. None of the lawsuits were for his birth certificate or even for his Occidental records. One case asked for them, but this was only in support of the main goal, which was to have the election nullified. Re: "why he has had his records sealed at Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard." Answer: They aren't sealed. They are private, like all college records. My college records are private, and I am glad about it, and I understand that the college records of such old presidents as FDR and JFK are still private at Harvard, and not even historians can look at them. Privacy--good. He could, of course, voluntarily make his records public. But that was something to ask for during the election campaign. He doesn't have to now. And it might even be a bad thing to voluntarily disclose them. That would be setting a precedent in which future presidents have to show their records. Re: The grandmother. She didn't say that Obama was born in Kenya. She said very clearly if you listen to the complete tape that he was born in Hawaii. She says that right after the direct question: "Where was he born?" The answer she gave "Yes" was to the question: "Were you present WHEN (not where, and probably it is important) he (not clear who he refers to) was born." I believe the Yes refers to her being in the family when he was born. Since the question had to be translated into an African language, no one really knows that "present when" means in that language. Perhaps it is as broad as was she in the family. She is only his step-grandmother, so she could have on her mind the question asking whether she had already been married to his grandfather at the time of birth. In any case, the answer to the question: "Where was he born?" is very clear, and it is "Hawaii, America." Re: "-I’VE seen that announcement, and it says nothing about the location of Obama’s birth - which is the sole issue here. The announcement gives the date, the parents’ names, their street address, and the fact that it was a boy born to them." The announcement does not prove the location. It proves the date of the birth. It was not an advertisement. It was posted to the newspapers by the Hawaii Department of Vital Records (which it did with all births in Hawaii at that time). Abnd it appeared in the newspapers about 10 days after Obama was born. (1) The Hawaii government only announced births in Hawaii in those notices; (2) at the time, Hawaii was not allowed to register foreign births, so the birth that was registered--Obama's birth--had to be in Hawaii; (3) Because the notices in the newspaper appeared about 10 days after Obama was born, the birth certificate could not be a Certificate of Hawaiian birth or a certificate of delayed birth--both of which required delays, in some cases of a year. (4) At least one investigator has shown that if a child were born outside of a hospital, Hawaii required proof in the form of witnesses as to the location of birth. Re: “But, that doesn’t explain why Obama has spent all the money defending the dozens of lawsuits. Or why he has had his records sealed at Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard.”

First, he hasn’t spent any money, not one cent, on defending dozens of lawsuits asking for his birth certificate. All the lawsuits were to stop the election or to stop the certification of the election, which Obama naturally opposed, and I agree with him. None of the lawsuits were for his birth certificate or even for his Occidental records. One case asked for them, but this was only in support of the main goal, which was to have the election nullified.

Re: “why he has had his records sealed at Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard.”

Answer: They aren’t sealed. They are private, like all college records. My college records are private, and I am glad about it, and I understand that the college records of such old presidents as FDR and JFK are still private at Harvard, and not even historians can look at them.

Privacy–good.

He could, of course, voluntarily make his records public. But that was something to ask for during the election campaign. He doesn’t have to now. And it might even be a bad thing to voluntarily disclose them. That would be setting a precedent in which future presidents have to show their records.

Re: The grandmother. She didn’t say that Obama was born in Kenya. She said very clearly if you listen to the complete tape that he was born in Hawaii. She says that right after the direct question: “Where was he born?” The answer she gave “Yes” was to the question: “Were you present WHEN (not where, and probably it is important) he (not clear who he refers to) was born.” I believe the Yes refers to her being in the family when he was born. Since the question had to be translated into an African language, no one really knows that “present when” means in that language. Perhaps it is as broad as was she in the family. She is only his step-grandmother, so she could have on her mind the question asking whether she had already been married to his grandfather at the time of birth.

In any case, the answer to the question: “Where was he born?” is very clear, and it is “Hawaii, America.”

Re: “-I’VE seen that announcement, and it says nothing about the location of Obama’s birth – which is the sole issue here. The announcement gives the date, the parents’ names, their street address, and the fact that it was a boy born to them.”

The announcement does not prove the location. It proves the date of the birth. It was not an advertisement. It was posted to the newspapers by the Hawaii Department of Vital Records (which it did with all births in Hawaii at that time). Abnd it appeared in the newspapers about 10 days after Obama was born.

(1) The Hawaii government only announced births in Hawaii in those notices; (2) at the time, Hawaii was not allowed to register foreign births, so the birth that was registered–Obama’s birth–had to be in Hawaii; (3) Because the notices in the newspaper appeared about 10 days after Obama was born, the birth certificate could not be a Certificate of Hawaiian birth or a certificate of delayed birth–both of which required delays, in some cases of a year. (4) At least one investigator has shown that if a child were born outside of a hospital, Hawaii required proof in the form of witnesses as to the location of birth.

]]> By: Shirlee http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/05/23/apparently-some-people-still-care-about-obamas-birth-certificate/comment-page-2/#comment-118440 Shirlee Fri, 29 May 2009 12:46:08 +0000 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/?p=22867#comment-118440 This is an interesting article on the issue New bid to unseal Obama's birth certificate Challenge claims Hawaii waived privacy by talking about document http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99437 This is an interesting article on the issue

New bid to unseal Obama’s birth certificate
Challenge claims Hawaii waived privacy by talking about document

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99437

]]> By: KBB http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/05/23/apparently-some-people-still-care-about-obamas-birth-certificate/comment-page-2/#comment-118432 KBB Fri, 29 May 2009 07:08:02 +0000 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/?p=22867#comment-118432 marsminute: "...you have not come up with anything...that disproves Obama’s natural born citizenship.----THE burden of proof of citizenship falls on Obama - which he refuses to do. chim: "...God put Obama in that position..." ---UH, no, left-wing America haters put Obama in that position - they knew full well his status and what they were doing. truth: "...I just can’t see why someone hasn’t checked all this out. Were they so caught up in the Obama worship that they had their eyes closed?..."---THE ones that did this had their eyes wide open. Obama caught their attention early on, and he appeared to be the perfect (Manchurian) candidate to usher in the New World Order as "President", to cut America off at the knees and make her no better than 3rd world countries. Newgenots: "...When a presidential candidate first submits...the intention to run for that office, isn’t there a committee...that validates the candidate?..."---NO, there is not, and until now, it wasn't a problem. Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., filed H.R. 1503 to solve the problem - but of course, the Dems are against it! They want to bring in illegal aliens for future Dem voters, and don't want to run into a vetting brick wall if they ever "discover" another Obama. Jonathan: "...This Indonesian Muslim illegal alien...bogus president we have needs to be impeached..."---ACTUALLY, BO is only eligible to be yanked out of the Oval Office by the scruff of his neck, arrested, tried and sentenced. Having not ever legally held the office of POTUS, no impeachment required! Linda: "...FoxNews was told to drop this story. Hmmmm. Wonder why?"---FOX was threatened by BO's Saudi Arabia backers that if Fox airs anything resembling the eligibility issue, they (Saudi Arabia) will pull their corporate shares (Saudi Arabia owns 19% of Fox). We should never sell any part of our media to foreigners - else they are able to dictate what we hear! elsmitro: "...he is working at break neck speeds to keep us too buried in muck to fight the real issues..."---I believe BO is working at breakneck speed, because he thinks the deeper his fingers have reached into America's issues, the more likely We the People will just say, 'Oh, what the hell, let's just let him stay in there, look how much he's done" when he's found out to be a fraud. Shirlee: "...why wasn’t he asked for his birth certificate to start with?...who is covering up what?...Why too is he being called an African/American?..."----BO was not only NOT asked to present his bc, he was asked to conceal it. Palestinian-terrorist-turned-Columbia Univ. professor Rashid Khalidi was one of the lefties who identified Obama years ago, along with George Soros, as a potential change agent, to change "arrogant" America into a 3rd world country via the New World Order. (Google them and see their relationship with Obama.) They picked Obama, and groomed him by paying for his education, because he was "black", and thus could get away with actions that a white candidate could not - anyone who opposed him risked being called a racist - so they would be intimidated to let him work his evil. But, best of all, he wasn't "too black". If he "looked" and sounded black, he wouldn't get elected, evidenced by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. So, he was a perfect pick. You are correct, he is not African-American, he's mostly Black Arab. He's descended from slave OWNERS, not slaves. But the Dems prefer to tout him as African-American, because it helps to assuage their own white liberal guilt, as THEY are descended from slave owners, too. smrstrauss: "...Quotes: Andrew Walden of Hawai' Free Press writes: "...the August 13, 1961 Honolulu Advertiser also carries an announcement of Obama’s birth...."----I'VE seen that announcement, and it says nothing about the location of Obama's birth - which is the sole issue here. The announcement gives the date, the parents' names, their street address, and the fact that it was a boy born to them. It says nothing about him being born in Hawaii or anywhere else. BTW, Hawaii is a welfare state, and that's why they issue a certification of live birth to everyone and their dog, whether they were born in Hawaii or not. That way, Hawaii gets more Gov't money for welfare, which is based on population. marsminute: “…you have not come up with anything…that disproves Obama’s natural born citizenship.—-THE burden of proof of citizenship falls on Obama – which he refuses to do.

chim: “…God put Obama in that position…”
—UH, no, left-wing America haters put Obama in that position – they knew full well his status and what they were doing.

truth: “…I just can’t see why someone hasn’t checked all this out. Were they so caught up in the Obama worship that they had their eyes closed?…”—THE ones that did this had their eyes wide open. Obama caught their attention early on, and he appeared to be the perfect (Manchurian) candidate to usher in the New World Order as “President”, to cut America off at the knees and make her no better than 3rd world countries.

Newgenots: “…When a presidential candidate first submits…the intention to run for that office, isn’t there a committee…that validates the candidate?…”—NO, there is not, and until now, it wasn’t a problem. Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., filed H.R. 1503 to solve the problem – but of course, the Dems are against it! They want to bring in illegal aliens for future Dem voters, and don’t want to run into a vetting brick wall if they ever “discover” another Obama.

Jonathan: “…This Indonesian Muslim illegal alien…bogus president we have needs to be impeached…”—ACTUALLY, BO is only eligible to be yanked out of the Oval Office by the scruff of his neck, arrested, tried and sentenced. Having not ever legally held the office of POTUS, no impeachment required!

Linda: “…FoxNews was told to drop this story. Hmmmm. Wonder why?”—FOX was threatened by BO’s Saudi Arabia backers that if Fox airs anything resembling the eligibility issue, they (Saudi Arabia) will pull their corporate shares (Saudi Arabia owns 19% of Fox). We should never sell any part of our media to foreigners – else they are able to dictate what we hear!

elsmitro: “…he is working at break neck speeds to keep us too buried in muck to fight the real issues…”—I believe BO is working at breakneck speed, because he thinks the deeper his fingers have reached into America’s issues, the more likely We the People will just say, ‘Oh, what the hell, let’s just let him stay in there, look how much he’s done” when he’s found out to be a fraud.

Shirlee: “…why wasn’t he asked for his birth certificate to start with?…who is covering up what?…Why too is he being called an African/American?…”—-BO was not only NOT asked to present his bc, he was asked to conceal it. Palestinian-terrorist-turned-Columbia Univ. professor Rashid Khalidi was one of the lefties who identified Obama years ago, along with George Soros, as a potential change agent, to change “arrogant” America into a 3rd world country via the New World Order. (Google them and see their relationship with Obama.) They picked Obama, and groomed him by paying for his education, because he was “black”, and thus could get away with actions that a white candidate could not – anyone who opposed him risked being called a racist – so they would be intimidated to let him work his evil. But, best of all, he wasn’t “too black”. If he “looked” and sounded black, he wouldn’t get elected, evidenced by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. So, he was a perfect pick. You are correct, he is not African-American, he’s mostly Black Arab. He’s descended from slave OWNERS, not slaves. But the Dems prefer to tout him as African-American, because it helps to assuage their own white liberal guilt, as THEY are descended from slave owners, too.

smrstrauss: “…Quotes: Andrew Walden of Hawai’ Free Press writes: “…the August 13, 1961 Honolulu Advertiser also carries an announcement of Obama’s birth….”—-I’VE seen that announcement, and it says nothing about the location of Obama’s birth – which is the sole issue here. The announcement gives the date, the parents’ names, their street address, and the fact that it was a boy born to them. It says nothing about him being born in Hawaii or anywhere else. BTW, Hawaii is a welfare state, and that’s why they issue a certification of live birth to everyone and their dog, whether they were born in Hawaii or not. That way, Hawaii gets more Gov’t money for welfare, which is based on population.

]]> By: Shirlee http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/05/23/apparently-some-people-still-care-about-obamas-birth-certificate/comment-page-2/#comment-118430 Shirlee Fri, 29 May 2009 05:34:51 +0000 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/?p=22867#comment-118430 Thanks Jim for your kind words. I agree with the last post too. In my book, people only cover things up, when they have something they don't want people to see, or to know I am so glad that in this country, (Australia) our media would never get away with what they did in the US, at the last election. In general we NEED to know more and query much more than you do Thanks Jim for your kind words.

I agree with the last post too.

In my book, people only cover things up, when they have something they don’t want people to see, or to know

I am so glad that in this country, (Australia) our media would never get away with what they did in the US, at the last election.

In general we NEED to know more and query much more than you do

]]>