OBAMA CONFIRMS - NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

[Bad Dog]

Did our resident...and recently banned Constitutional "scholar" sneak back in or what?

So tell me troll what's your take on the USGS coverup at Yellowstone?

Not to mention the Wallmart Detention Camps   

[Big Dog]

My question is to everyone, if he is so dang patriotic, why the **** is he spending our Day of Independence in France???
Not you maybe, but to me that is a slap in the face to all American Patriots and especially the military!!!

seahorse, think of it this way: Do you know how vampires burst into flames when touched by sunlight?

Same thing.

[seahorse513]

seahorse, think of it this way: Do you know how vampires burst into flames when touched by sunlight?

Same thing.

Yeah gotcha!! I still think it is bad form though...

[txradioguy]

Yeah gotcha!! I still think it is bad form though...

Maybe he got July 4th and June 6th mixed up. 

[Eupher]

Maybe he got July 4th and June 6th mixed up. 

He doesn't have enough HONOR to set foot near Normandy, much less run his cock holster through TOTUS.

[txradioguy]

He doesn't have enough HONOR to set foot near Normandy, much less run his cock holster through TOTUS.

Well that would explain why he's failed to make mention of the anniv. of D-day two years running now.

[JohnnyReb]

Well that would explain why he's failed to make mention of the anniv. of D-day two years running now.

He did it on purpose OR he has surrounded himself with America hating hippies that didn't want/bother to remind him of the date.

Either way, he's a douche.

[seahorse513]

He did it on purpose OR he has surrounded himself with America hating hippies that didn't want/bother to remind him of the date.

Either way, he's a douche.

Or maybe he is just an idiot who doesn't give a ****!!!

[JohnnyReb]

Or maybe he is just an idiot who doesn't give a ****!!!

I thought that went without saying.

[Penrod]

Wow you guys are tough over here

The founders included the NBC clause as they wanted no one becoming president with allegiance to anyone or any where other then the US. Obama is proof of why.

“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” (Emphasis added.)


This is natural law. It doesnt take state to make you a citizen. Its a natural occurrence that no one can argue against.

If both your parents are US citizens and you are born here than naturally you are a US citizen. It doesnt take a law book

Heres another link Im sure you all wont read

Scrubbibng of Americahttp://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/the-scrubbing-of-america-how-professor-lawrence-solum-disgraced-himself-to-protect-obamas-eligibility/

At the time of his birth British law said he was a British citizen. Thats exactly who the NBC clause was meant to keep out.

Im really in shock here as every other conservative forum Ive ever been on supports my case. And Ive been doing this for 4 years. If I could get in the Hannity forums I could show you over 3000 pages on this. I guess their all conspiracy theorists over there.

Even the 14th amendment has been misread to make citizens out of illegal aliens children. The constitution has been so warped that its almost unrecognizable at this point. The fact that so many of you write this off as nonsense is quite disturbing.

[Big Dog]

Wow you guys are tough over here
<snippity>
Im really in shock here as every other conservative forum Ive ever been on supports my case.

So why, exactly, are you still here?

And Ive been doing this for 4 years.

By your own admission, you've been trying and failing to accomplish your goal for four years. We don't reward failure here.

Penrod, you earned this. Really, you did.

"Squad, atten-tion! Present....arms!"

 
     
               

[Penrod]

No for four years Ive been successful. Its only here ive had a problem lol

And why are you so rude. You are free to disagree but why the attitude?

Another link
Natural Born Citizenhttp://www.obamanotqualified.com/obama_is_not_a_natural_born_citizen.htm


The actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 states, "...children of citizens [plural = both parents] of the United States...shall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States..."  (THIRD CONGRESS Session II. Ch.21. 1795, Approved January 29, 1795, pp. 414-415. Document margin note: "How children shall obtain citizenship through their parents" Document margin note: "Former Act repealed 1790 ch.3.")
Not an NBC
http://www.obamanotqualified.com/obama_is_not_a_natural_born_citizen.htm

It seems Im far from alone. I can get quoteds from heritage House on this as well. But what the heck do they know right?

And being a Marine it will take alot more insults than your feeble attempt to get me to leave. 

Ill have to go find a thread we can agree on and try to make some friends here. I never expected this thread to cause controversy other than a few Libs disagreeing. No Im not calling anyone a Lib. I wont insult anyone here like that unless they say they are a lib

[Penrod]

And heres the link to Hannity although I can no longer get in you guys should be able to.

Default One & ONLY Obama Birth Certificate thread - Sean Hannity ..

1 and only Obama BC threadhttp://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?2322571-One-amp-ONLY-Obama-Birth-Certificate-thread

[Bad Dog]

I think Penrod is getting his emanations & penumbras reversed.  Or, maybe he is just full of crap.

[Carl]

Wow you guys are tough over here

The founders included the NBC clause as they wanted no one becoming president with allegiance to anyone or any where other then the US. Obama is proof of why.

“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” (Emphasis added.)


This is natural law. It doesnt take state to make you a citizen. Its a natural occurrence that no one can argue against.

If both your parents are US citizens and you are born here than naturally you are a US citizen. It doesnt take a law book

Heres another link Im sure you all wont read

Scrubbibng of Americahttp://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/the-scrubbing-of-america-how-professor-lawrence-solum-disgraced-himself-to-protect-obamas-eligibility/

At the time of his birth British law said he was a British citizen. Thats exactly who the NBC clause was meant to keep out.

Im really in shock here as every other conservative forum Ive ever been on supports my case. And Ive been doing this for 4 years. If I could get in the Hannity forums I could show you over 3000 pages on this. I guess their all conspiracy theorists over there.

Even the 14th amendment has been misread to make citizens out of illegal aliens children. The constitution has been so warped that its almost unrecognizable at this point. The fact that so many of you write this off as nonsense is quite disturbing.

What you are saying is that citizenship via birth on US soil is conditional upon the citizenship status of his/her parents.
The quote you offer speaks of this and acknowledges that many consider it birth alone regardless of parental status.
You conveniently leave out his next sentence which I showed earlier "For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."
He never once stated that his assertion was the final say on the matter,just that in that case it was irrelevant.

The Ark case raises the issue and in all the context of it both majority opinion and dissent makes it clear that they were declaring birth on US soil or territory was enough.

On this now the US code (I linked to) states as much and Presidential eligibility as well as other matters has long been established via this accepted criteria.
No court has accepted challenge of it,if it ever even has been,so to say now that your theory is the basis for Presidential eligibility throws one out to the edges of rationality.

Beyond that,just for the sake of entertainment lets assume you are 100% correct despite the easily found and obvious case to the contrary...what to you propose?
Are the words from the US code going to suddenly vanish?
Is the SCOTUS going to declare the Presidency vacant and if so how is the office filled?
By a VP on an illegal at that point ticket?
The Speaker and if so which one,the one today or the one at the time the illegal election occurred,Nancy.
Is the current Speaker to order the House Sergent at Arms to physically remove O?
What is your remedy?

The whole thing is an exercise of uselessness based on selective reaching that seems to serve no other purpose then to make each one that engages in it want to feel themselves the smartest in the room.

In reality it is just lunacy.

[Carl]

 I just realized that even more conveniently you omitted the first sentence of the Justices statement..."The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."

Please tell us as well why you would do that?

[Big Dog]

No for four years Ive been successful. Its only here ive had a problem lol

If your goal is to have Obama removed from office as ineligible, and you have been at it for four years, then to date you have failed. You will only succeed if Obama is impeached and convicted, which is the only constitutional mechanism to remove a sitting president (with the exception of the 25th Amendment).

[Penrod]

I just realized that even more conveniently you omitted the first sentence of the Justices statement..."The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."


That only proves my point The founders well knew what NBC was. Ive already explained that no government can write natural law. Thats why they didnt attempt to do so. Im still in shock here as ive never had any conservative never mind a whole crew argue against this point. next you will be telling me that there is separation of church and state in the constitution.

Just What Does “Natural Born” Mean?

Posted on 23 April 2012 by csalima

by Candace Salima, US Daily Review Contributor

Mitt Romney is so far ahead in the delegate race (Romney – 685, Gingrich – 136, and Paul – 63 NYT) the other candidates have been dropped from the national conversation, and Romney is now focusing solely on Barack Obama. And since we’ve moved to this part of the race, the VP stakes are being played by every media outlet. One name which keeps rising to the top is Marco Rubio, the senator from Florida.

Rubio is the darling of the Florida tea party, a rising political star on the national stage and a peer of Utah’s Senator Mike Lee. A strong conservative, and right on many of the issues, Marco Rubio’s name is brought up at every turn. However, I’m startled that everyone on the conservative side is ignoring one salient fact. Marco Rubio, according to the legal definition, is not a natural born American citizen. Let me explain before your heads explode.

SPECIAL CONTENT: CANDACE SALIMA INTERVIEWED BY KEVIN PRICE ON “NATURAL BORN”

Article II, section 1, of the U.S. Constitution states: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

The definition of a “natural born” citizen is interpreted one of two ways:

One: An individual born on U.S. soil of American parents also born on U.S. soil; and, Two: An individual born on U.S. soil.

I subscribe to the first definition because the Founding Fathers were worried about divided loyalties in a sitting U.S. president, and rightfully so. Looking at the mess we’re in today with Barack Obama, who violates the first definition of natural born citizen, on multiple counts, I can understand their concern.

In 1875, the U.S. Courts found in the case of Minor vs. Happersett

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”

Find me a conservative of importance that agrees with you guys.

By this finding, Marco Rubio is not eligible to hold the office one step away from the U.S. presidency.

In examining Barack Obama’s status, he violates this clause. This is something that the House of Representatives has refused to address. But I do not wish to see the Republican Party flaunting the law, as have the Democrats. Marco Rubio, because his parents were not born in America, does not qualify to run as Vice President, solely because he doesn’t qualify to be president of the United States of America.

[Penrod]

There are other historical sources and cases which inform on the definition of a “natural born Citizen” but for the sake of brevity, I will not include them here.

We know from Vattel and Minor that "citizens" can be the parents of "natural born Citizens" but are not necessarily "natural born Citizens" themselves. Being born in the country to citizen parents allows a child to be born with no foreign allegiance and with loyalty and attachment only to the country of his or her parents. Such birth circumstances allow a child to be born under the full and complete allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States.

Obama's father, a British citizen, was never a U.S. citizen. Hence, Obama was not born in the country to citizen parents. Because Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, Obama, even if born in Hawaii which he has yet to conclusively prove, was also born with allegiance to and citizenship in Great Britain. Consequently, Obama was not born with no foreign allegiance and with sole loyalty and attachment to the United States. He was not born with sole allegiance and unity of citizenship in the United States at birth, a natural condition that the Founders and Framers wanted in future presidents and commanders in chief. He was not born under the full and complete allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States. He is not and cannot be an Article II "natural born Citizen." Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, he is therefore not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief.

But how can we expect to achieve and maintain greatness as a nation when our own president does not follow the rule of law as it pertains to his eligibility to be President? Being the putative President and Commander in Chief, Obama should be the first one to follow his own advice of putting country first. He and his enablers should put the Constitution (country) before his personal political ambitions (party). But up to now, Obama and his enablers are just saying "do as I say, not as I do."

Natural law and the natural born citizen clause

[txradioguy]

Almost four years in what does this matter?  We can't undo the 2008 election and erase almost 4 years of damage by the Liberals anymore than the DUmmies can go back and re-do 2000 because they think Bush stole that election.

Extremeists on either side tend to meet in the middle.

Such is the situation here.

[Carl]

All you have done is state your opinion,well fine,have at it.
However you also show that it is not a universally accepted one as you pretend it to be and in fact it is at the edges.
The US code which has not been overturned says different,live with it.

As far as trying to insinuate that unless one is in agreement with you,which is nothing more then an exercise in futility to claim O is not eligible is not conservative then go **** yourself.
CC does not engage in backslapping rah rah garbage like DU and sadly now FR,we address things factually and realistically.

You bolded my words which show you being dishonest and then have the gall to claim they prove your point?
That nonsense has no place here,nor does idiocy that would make CC look like a kook site.

[Penrod]

As far as trying to insinuate that unless one is in agreement with you,which is nothing more then an exercise in futility to claim O is not eligible is not conservative then go **** yourself.

I insinuate no such thing. Im only speaking of my experiences on other forums.

I cant see how you can believe in original intent and think Obama is an NBC. It makes a joke of the NBC clause.

But too each his own. Its obvious the few here who replied dont agree.  I wont keep banging my head against the wall. I hope at least we can all agree that Obama has to go this November 

[rich_t]

I insinuate no such thing. Im only speaking of my experiences on other forums.

I cant see how you can believe in original intent and think Obama is an NBC. It makes a joke of the NBC clause.

But too each his own. Its obvious the few here who replied dont agree.  I wont keep banging my head against the wall. I hope at least we can all agree that Obama has to go this November 

On that we can agree.

[Eupher]

I insinuate no such thing. Im only speaking of my experiences on other forums.

I cant see how you can believe in original intent and think Obama is an NBC. It makes a joke of the NBC clause.

But too each his own. Its obvious the few here who replied dont agree.  I wont keep banging my head against the wall. I hope at least we can all agree that Obama has to go this November 

Yup.

[seahorse513]

Yes , we can all agree on that one.....

I ponder, at times, if he lied about his birth, I wonder what other closet skeletons does he have??? !!!