The Conservative Cave

Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: bijou on May 17, 2012, 12:59:54 PM

Title: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: bijou on May 17, 2012, 12:59:54 PM
(http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Government/2012/05/09/Obama-Closeup-2.png)

Note from Senior Management:

Andrew Breitbart was never a "Birther," and Breitbart News is a site that has never advocated the narrative of "Birtherism." In fact, Andrew believed, as we do, that President Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961.

Yet Andrew also believed that the complicit mainstream media had refused to examine President Obama's ideological past, or the carefully crafted persona he and his advisers had constructed for him.

It is for that reason that we launched "The Vetting," an ongoing series in which we explore the ideological background of President Obama (and other presidential candidates)--not to re-litigate 2008, but because ideas and actions have consequences.

It is also in that spirit that we discovered, and now present, the booklet described below--one that includes a marketing pitch for a forthcoming book by a then-young, otherwise unknown former president of the Harvard Law Review.

It is evidence--not of the President's foreign origin, but that Barack Obama's public persona has perhaps been presented differently at different times.

***

Breitbart News has obtained a promotional booklet produced in 1991 by Barack Obama's then-literary agency, Acton & Dystel, which touts Obama as "born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii."  ... http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Chris_ on May 17, 2012, 01:03:16 PM
:ohmy:
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: JohnnyReb on May 17, 2012, 01:15:01 PM
Out of his own mouth.

He's either a liar or a non-citizen.

I think he's both.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Texacon on May 17, 2012, 01:31:49 PM
It will be interesting to see how this develops.  IF he's found to not be a natural born American everything he's done while president is null and void.  THAT should wake some people up!

KC
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Splashdown on May 17, 2012, 01:33:45 PM
All over the MSM in 5....4....3....


oh wait.

Romney may or may not have hurt a student's feelings in 1965.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: JohnnyReb on May 17, 2012, 01:41:31 PM
All over the MSM in 5....4....3....


oh wait.

Romney may or may not have hurt a student's feelings in 1965.

A much needed haircut and attitude adjustment trumps everything.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Wineslob on May 17, 2012, 01:41:46 PM
All over the MSM in 5....4....3....


oh wait.

Romney may or may not have hurt a gay student's feelings in 1965.


Makes all the difference, don't cha know.....
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: BEG on May 17, 2012, 01:42:08 PM
It will be interesting to see how this develops.  IF he's found to not be a natural born American everything he's done while president is null and void.  THAT should wake some people up!

KC

I think he is a natural born citizen but I think he lied in college about where he was born.  That is why nothing has been released from college. I think his whole life is a "composite", just like his girlfriend in his book.  He is a work of fiction.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: JohnnyReb on May 17, 2012, 01:44:13 PM
I think he is a natural born citizen but I think he lied in college about where he was born.  That is why nothing has been released from college. I think his whole life is a "composite", just like his girlfriend in his book.  He is a work of fiction.

It's OK to lie to further your agenda if you're a democrat....just ask Bill Clinton.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: dutch508 on May 17, 2012, 01:45:34 PM
It's OK to lie to further your agenda if you're a democratmuslimdemocrat....just ask Bill Clinton.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: DumbAss Tanker on May 17, 2012, 01:57:57 PM
I think he is a natural born citizen but I think he lied in college about where he was born.  That is why nothing has been released from college. I think his whole life is a "composite", just like his girlfriend in his book.  He is a work of fiction.

Yeah, and also about his religion.  It all has to do with different gravy trains arriving at his station, from getting into a school for Muslims in Indonesia to playing multiple minority cards at Harvard (And Elizabeth Warren demonstrates perfectly what a great scam that has been). 
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: BEG on May 17, 2012, 02:13:57 PM
Yeah, and also about his religion.  It all has to do with different gravy trains arriving at his station, from getting into a school for Muslims in Indonesia to playing multiple minority cards at Harvard (And Elizabeth Warren demonstrates perfectly what a great scam that has been). 

Yep
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: AllosaursRus on May 17, 2012, 02:24:10 PM
Out of his own mouth.

He's either a liar or a non-citizen.

I think he's both.

Get's my vote! How do ya tell when O'Bummer is lying? His lips move! POS!
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Revolution on May 17, 2012, 02:36:59 PM
It will be interesting to see how this develops.  IF he's found to not be a natural born American everything he's done while president is null and void.  THAT should wake some people up!

KC

Still doesn't stop all the money being spent, the jobs being lost, and some of the rules being changed.

Quote
Get's my vote! How do ya tell when O'Bummer is lying? His purple lips move! POS!

Fixored.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Gina on May 17, 2012, 03:09:40 PM
I hope this has legs
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Gina on May 17, 2012, 03:15:01 PM
It says he is the first African American president but says it's from 1991? :???:
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: thundley4 on May 17, 2012, 03:16:05 PM
It says he is the first African American president but says it's from 1991? :???:

Of the Harvard Law review, not the US.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: miskie on May 17, 2012, 03:51:33 PM
I think that the final word on this is that Obama was Elizabeth Warren before Elizabeth Warren was cool. He 'exaggerated' his origins for personal gain.

However, this means the 'Birthers' are no longer entirely kooky. Obama himself said he was Kenyan-Born.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Trip on May 17, 2012, 03:58:05 PM
I think he is a natural born citizen but I think he lied in college about where he was born.  That is why nothing has been released from college. I think his whole life is a "composite", just like his girlfriend in his book.  He is a work of fiction.

He may well be a citizen. He may even have been born in Hawaii, and the statement by the literary agent just a falsehood, or a convenient lie at the time.

However by the known facts of his birth, and the only definition of "natural born citizen" ever recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court, Barack Obama cannot possibly be a natural born citizen of the United States. Obama's father was Kenyan, and transfered allegiance to Britain to Obama upon birth, a fact recognized by Obama himself.

Alexander Hamilton's original draft of the Article II requirement for President indicated only "born citizen", not natural born citizen. Hamilton's sketch indicates in 40 Article IX, section 1:


Note, the 2nd line even has a preliminary reference to the "grandfather clause".

However, that early Hamilton draft was abandoned. Over this time period, the election of the President was  changed from being elected by Congress, to being elected by the people themselves, with "natural born" being a further security to prevent foreign influence, as indicated in a letter by John Jay to George Washington.  

Mere birth on U.S. soil, or "born citizen", does not provide any security at all from foreign influence.  In fact we've repeatedly seen the effect of this foreign influence in Obama's actions.


Natural Born Defined (http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/1891436/naturalborndefined-pdf-may-3-2010-2-28-pm-860k?da=y&dnad=y)






Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Doubleplusungood on May 17, 2012, 04:06:49 PM
When its all said and done, it will turn out that everything the birther's claimed about this guy is going to be correct. Just like John Kerry and the Swift Boat Vets. I mean, why would this guy go to such trouble to keep his past hidden? Both Obama and Kerry claimed "transparency" would be hallmarks of how they conduct themselves, but of course the exact opposite is the case with both. They both also hypocritically called on opponents to be transparent. I find that if the Dem squirms and ratchets up their rhetoric while refusing to release info to the public, then they are lying, and the opponents are correct.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Kyle Ricky on May 17, 2012, 05:04:05 PM
The MSM will report this as soon as they are done reporting the senate shooting down yesterdays obama budget proposal.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Danglars on May 17, 2012, 05:08:47 PM
Maybe he wasn't born at all.

I'm thinking Abby Normal here.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Mr Mannn on May 17, 2012, 05:27:17 PM
Well. I'm hoping to parlay this into getting rid of both his USSC judges.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: JohnnyReb on May 17, 2012, 05:30:51 PM
Well. I'm hoping to parlay this into getting rid of both his USSC judges.

That would be nice....except for one little problem. It would have to go to the Supreme Court and I don't think either one of them would do the right thing and recuse themselves. Hey, we're talking damn liberal judges here, you know.

ETA: We might be able to undo everything he has done but we're stuck, stuck, stuck with the added 5 trillion in debt.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Ballygrl on May 17, 2012, 05:52:42 PM
1 of the comments from the Daily Mail's article on this, someone from Florida said "who cares, he's a damn good President". Can you believe that? an American with no idea what the Constitution says!
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: thundley4 on May 17, 2012, 06:02:52 PM
1 of the comments from the Daily Mail's article on this, someone from Florida said "who cares, he's a damn good President". Can you believe that? an American with no idea what the Constitution says!

Yes I can.  We have plenty of them serving in government.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: BEG on May 17, 2012, 06:05:03 PM
Maybe he wasn't born at all.

I'm thinking Abby Normal here.

Made me laugh. H5
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: rich_t on May 17, 2012, 06:05:50 PM
It will be interesting to see how this develops.  IF he's found to not be a natural born American everything he's done while president is null and void.  THAT should wake some people up!

KC

I don't think so.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: JohnnyReb on May 17, 2012, 06:06:19 PM
1 of the comments from the Daily Mail's article on this, someone from Florida said "who cares, he's a damn good President". Can you believe that? an American with no idea what the Constitution says!

You think that's bad, what about the ones that know better and don't care?  
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: thundley4 on May 17, 2012, 06:09:36 PM
I don't think so.

I don't think so either, but he could be charged with fraud in what could surely be one of the biggest trials in history.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Trip on May 17, 2012, 06:18:10 PM
I don't think so.


If (or "since") Obama is not a natural born citizen, then no citizen has any right to vote for him.

If (or "since") he is not a natural born citizen, then no vote can cleanse his lack of qualification, and he can only be a usurper of the office.

If (or "since") he is not a natural born citizen, then NO bill written by congress can be signed into law, and no act by the Executive office, nor any one of the Government Organizations, can be legitimate. Under those terms, the Supreme Court cannot legitimately rule on a case as two persons on the Bench are not entitled to be there.  And Biden is not entitled to the office, as he was appointed to the ticket by Obama.

Obama would not even be entitled to impeachment, as it is reserved solely for those who are legitimately elected to the office  of President, as a means to cleanse that election due to wrongdoing while in Office.

Under such terms all three branches of government are entirely illegitmate -- a "Constitutional Crisis".

"Obama Must Stand Up Now Or Step Down" (http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm),  Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.


That said, I have to recognize the real problem here as being "political". The Constutiotn does not anywhere provide a method for the Supreme Court to act to remove, or suggest the removal of, the President for not being a natural born citizen.  And it is uncertain if Congress itself has that authority any longer, once it validated the results of the election.

The other "elephant" in the room, is that pretty much all members of our government are too afraid to do what is correct, because of Political Correctness and having a black man in office.


Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: BEG on May 17, 2012, 06:24:52 PM
I think Obama has a personality disorder. Narcissistic Personality Disorder to be exact.

LINK (http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/narcissisticabuse/message/4951)

Quote
This is where the narcissist differs from others (from "normal" people).
 
His very self is a piece of fiction concocted to fend off hurt and to nurture the narcissist's grandiosity. He fails in his "reality test" - the ability to distinguish the actual from the imagined. The narcissist fervently believes in his own infallibility, brilliance, omnipotence, heroism, and perfection. He doesn't dare confront the truth and admit it even to himself.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: JohnnyReb on May 17, 2012, 06:25:25 PM

If (or "since") Obama is not a natural born citizen, then no citizen has any right to vote for him.

If (or "since") he is not a natural born citizen, then no vote can cleanse his lack of qualification, and he can only be a usurper of the office.

If (or "since") he is not a natural born citizen, then NO bill written by congress can be signed into law, and no act by the Executive office, nor any one of the Government Organizations, can be legitimate. Under those terms, the Supreme Court cannot legitimately rule on a case as two persons on the Bench are not entitled to be there.  And Biden is not entitled to the office, as he was appointed to the ticket by Obama.

Obama would not even be entitled to impeachment, as it is reserved solely for those who are legitimately elected to the office  of President, as a means to cleanse that election due to wrongdoing while in Office.

Under such terms all three branches of government are entirely illegitmate -- a "Constitutional Crisis".

"Obama Must Stand Up Now Or Step Down" (http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm),  Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.


That said, I have to recognize the real problem here as being "political". The Constutiotn does not anywhere provide a method for the Supreme Court to act to remove, or suggest the removal of, the President for not being a natural born citizen.  And it is uncertain if Congress itself has that authority any longer, once it validated the results of the election.





Does Hitlery know about this?








I bet she does and is pushing the birthers anyway she can.....and she's probably so excited that she's wetting her pants. I bet it's taking all her and Bill have to just keep her in depends.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Trip on May 17, 2012, 06:29:25 PM
Does Hitlery know about this?


I bet she does and is pushing the birthers anyway she can.....and she's probably so excited that she's wetting her pants. I bet it's taking all her and Bill have to just keep her in depends.

Considering half the original birthers, including Phil Berg, are Hillary Clinton supporters, I'm sure she does, but her opportunity for personal gain has been limited.

Then again Congress (the Senate) has shown they are aware of the qualifications for office, but willfully violated that to fraudulently promote John McCain... but that will just dig into a whole other ugly ****-storm that will get a lot of people irritated here .





Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: mrclose on May 17, 2012, 07:54:40 PM
I hope this has legs
It wont!
If you heard the guys from Breitbart on Hannity's radio show this evening .. Both they and Hannity were STILL saying that they believed The Kenyan was born in Hawaii and this was just an 'oversite', a mistake!

Funny that the 'mistake' wasn't .. Born in Texas or Florida or etc. etc.

The 'mistake' just happened to coincide with everything that has been known by the 'birthers' .. The Kenyan was BORN in KENYA!

I don't know much about the following but I've had it in my favorites for quite some time:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm

These people DON'T want the truth to come out for the same reason that the courts wont give it credence .. RIOTS!
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Evil_Conservative on May 17, 2012, 08:13:10 PM
I'm seeing the media do damage control.  Headlines are reading:  Did 1991 mistake spark 'birther' issue? 

Mistake?  I don't really think it's a mistake.  But that's just my two cents.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: obumazombie on May 17, 2012, 08:13:33 PM
Made me laugh. H5
Nice reference to Young Frankenstein. Make sure you pronounce it correctly.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: diesel driver on May 17, 2012, 08:14:30 PM
Found this on my step-son's Facebook page:

The Lamestream Media (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=300934566641696&set=a.178324995569321.42684.178303555571465&type=1&ref=nf)

Pretty well sums them up.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Duke Nukum on May 17, 2012, 08:18:32 PM
I think his whole life is a "composite", just like his girlfriend in his book.  He is a work of fiction.

Excellent analysis! ^5
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: DumbAss Tanker on May 17, 2012, 08:40:05 PM
Pipe dreams, born in Hawaii of a US citizen mother and a noncitizen father (To whom the mother was not married IIRC) is still a natural born citizen.  Not to say that I doubt there are papers all over the place that people are sitting on where he declared himself a Muslim, an Indonesian, or a Kenyan for convenience at the time, but if he just lied rather than formally renounced his US citizenship or elected a non-US citizenship once he was an adult, it means nothing legally.

And an improper President does not render the other two branches illegitimate.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Trip on May 17, 2012, 08:40:23 PM


It does not matter where Obama was born.

Obama could be born dressed in swaddling cloths, in a manger, on the steps of the Supreme Court, and witnessed by all Nine, and he still would not be a natural born citizen of the United States.

He was born with allegiance to Britain through his father, that makes him incapable of being a natural born citizen.

Obama *WANTS* us to focus on the birth Certificate!  His original site, "fight the smears",  works to distort the Constitutional requirement is "citizen" , or  "native citizen" (sound a little like "natural born citizen"), but none of these are the same as "natural born citizen", and he knows it.



It is far more than being merely a citizen at birth, which can come about from statute. 

Natural born citizen, in the natural law language of the Declaration of Independence, is a "self evident Truth",  where the citizenship is self evident, because the offspring cannot possibly be a citizen of anywhere else, being born with no other allegiance --- born in a country of parents who were its citizens.

Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Trip on May 17, 2012, 10:01:27 PM
Pipe dreams, born in Hawaii of a US citizen mother and a noncitizen father (To whom the mother was not married IIRC) is still a natural born citizen.  Not to say that I doubt there are papers all over the place that people are sitting on where he declared himself a Muslim, an Indonesian, or a Kenyan for convenience at the time, but if he just lied rather than formally renounced his US citizenship or elected a non-US citizenship once he was an adult, it means nothing legally.


Since "natural born citizen" is an at-birth status, it is as yet unestablished by any legal opinion at all, that this status can be lost at some later time by having forfeit one's citizenship. One's at-birth status does not change as a result of later events. However, I strongly believe that the Court would, with little or no reservation, uphold the idea that one must still also be a citizen to hold the office of President.

In truth, the only statements on the matter of "natural born citizen", from the U.S. Supreme Court, over its entire history, would strongly undermine the above highlighted statement, that it is mere birth on U.S. soil.  Also the  validity of the marriage (which was ended by legal process) is entirely irrelevant to natural born status -- which is a function of Natural Law, not Positive (man-made) Law. Being outside of man-made (Positive) law undoubtedly had a good deal to do with the choice of the phrase for the office President, putting its qualifications outside Congressional finagling with a legal definition (Separation of Powers).

In Minor vs. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) Justice Waite clearly indicated the definition of natural born citizen in the below passage:


This same definition of natural born citizen was again cited Justice Gray in the majority opinion for  U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), and at no time was it in any way undermined. Additionally the dissenting minority opinion in Wong Kim Ark, written by C.J. Fuller, also affirmed this definition involving birth on this country's soil to parents who were its citizens.


There are other statements throughout American history supporting this definition as well:


While there are references in American history to only one citizen parent establishing natural born citizen offspring (as in the first quote above), provided there was birth on U.S. soil, this is not entirely accurate. This came at a time in American history when the wife's citizenship was deemed to follow that of the father, naturalized by presumption, due to patriarchal beliefs.

And an improper President does not render the other two branches illegitimate.

It's not just "improper", but rather more accurately "unqualified" that is the concern here.  The powerful positive mandate of Article II indicates that "No Person" but a natural born citizen is qualified to hold the office of President.

However, in certain cases, your statement may be correct. For instance, in Supreme Courts where there are no appointees on the Court made by that illegitimate President, then there would be no ruling that would become illegitimate. Similarly,  even if those Court contain appointees by an unqualified President, there is a chance those votes would not serve as a deciding factor in the Court opinion.  Yet if their vote(s) were able to change the outcome, this would also make those case decisions illegitimate.
 
And while no bill can be signed into law by an unqualified President, I suppose some bills might be able to be considered law if they received a 2/3 majority Congress.  However, if there is no legitimate President in Congress, then there is no balance of powers, and no bill has the opportunity to be vetoed, nor signed into law, and the two branches of government are acting as if government is in a legitimate status, when it is not.  This would result in an enormous expanse of ground for conflict.

Beyond these considerations, Dr. Edwin Vieira does a fairly thorough job of considering the state of "Constitutional Crisis" resulting from an unqualified Oval Occupant, in "Obama Must Stand Up Now or Step Down" (http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm).




Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Evil_Conservative on May 17, 2012, 10:02:13 PM
Since this "mistake" is floating around, has anyone been able to explain the Connecticut SSN?
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: obumazombie on May 17, 2012, 10:09:59 PM
Since this "mistake" is floating around, has anyone been able to explain the Connecticut SSN?
When that secret is unlocked it will lead straight to his benefactor that paid for his ivy league education.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Trip on May 17, 2012, 10:22:58 PM
Since this "mistake" is floating around, has anyone been able to explain the Connecticut SSN?

I've not yet heard any reasonable explanation about the SSNs from anyone.



Incidentally, if anyone is interested in the argument about McCain's eligibility, and the fraud involved in promoting his candidacy:

John McCain: A Case of Senate Fraud (PDF) (http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/1893155/mccain-nbc-fraud-pdf-may-4-2010-9-35-am-324k?da=y&dnad=y)

Of note, McCain was not even made a CITIZEN of the United States until nearly a full year after his birth, 25 days shy of a year, by statute 8U.S.C. §1403 enacted by Congress.

However it is 'curious" to note that even the non-binding Senate Resolution SR511, that fraudulently promoted McCain as a natural born citizen, involved consideration of BOTH the citizenship of his parents, AND claim he was born on U.S. soil.


Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Ptarmigan on May 17, 2012, 11:15:16 PM
Now, why was this not dug up before?
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: delilahmused on May 18, 2012, 02:02:50 AM
But wasn't he adopted by his Indonesian stepfather (thus becoming Barry Sotero) so that the place of his birth is moot? Whether he wanted to lose his citizenship (or have dual citizenship which I also thought made him ineligible) it was what his legal parent chose to do in his "best interest". As his mother, it was her choice. It may suck but that's the way it goes.

Cindie
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: ironhorsedriver on May 18, 2012, 03:38:23 AM
I hope this has legs
Unfortunately, not much chance. Most people could care less, and you know the media will never push it.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Gina on May 18, 2012, 06:04:45 AM
I wonder...........IF he was killed/died will it then come out about him?  And if it did would his laws and stuff be booted?
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: DumbAss Tanker on May 18, 2012, 09:18:03 AM

It does not matter where Obama was born.

Obama could be born dressed in swaddling cloths, in a manger, on the steps of the Supreme Court, and witnessed by all Nine, and he still would not be a natural born citizen of the United States.

He was born with allegiance to Britain through his father, that makes him incapable of being a natural born citizen.

Obama *WANTS* us to focus on the birth Certificate!  His original site, "fight the smears",  works to distort the Constitutional requirement is "citizen" , or  "native citizen" (sound a little like "natural born citizen"), but none of these are the same as "natural born citizen", and he knows it.

  • (http://i425.photobucket.com/albums/pp337/tjmccann/fightsmears-claims.jpg)


It is far more than being merely a citizen at birth, which can come about from statute. 

Natural born citizen, in the natural law language of the Declaration of Independence, is a "self evident Truth",  where the citizenship is self evident, because the offspring cannot possibly be a citizen of anywhere else, being born with no other allegiance --- born in a country of parents who were its citizens.



How's that Yellowstone thing going?

Trip, unlike your last extended appearance here, I'm not going to waste a lot of explanation on your deaf ears as to why your legalistic-sounding BS is still total BS, but it's obvious to anyone who is a real lawyer that it's still total BS.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Trip on May 18, 2012, 01:43:51 PM


How's that Yellowstone thing going?

Trip, unlike your last extended appearance here, I'm not going to waste a lot of explanation on your deaf ears as to why your legalistic-sounding BS is still total BS, but it's obvious to anyone who is a real lawyer that it's still total BS.

This is not personal. This is not even a matter of law. I'm not even arguing legalisms.  And even in my "last extended appearance" you didn't respond to my argument in any manner, but rather got personal then too. (Is that all you got?)  And this does not have a thing to do with Yellowstone, but if you're going to try and pull credentials, I'm sure my being a professional geologist and geophysicist should carry some weight at least in that regard.

I can honestly understand why you'd react to this with such an emotional (and personal) response. 

Some years ago I had the same l emotional response when I first heard that "natural born citizen" involves consideration of the parents' allegiance upon birth, in addition to birth on American soil.  At that time, I deeply resented the authority stating such; he was wasting my damn time  with what I considered utter bull****, and was doing nothing but mudding the water as to the truth.   However, after some time, I paused to consider my own emotional response, and wonder why it was so deeply personal.  At that point I actually went and did extensive research on the issue over years, and found out I had been profoundly wrong and thoroughly ignorant on even the most fundamental facts of the issue, its history and even citizenship itself.  I've discovered that even a such a fundamental term as "naturalized" is poorly understood by contemporary society.

Incidentally, that guy I was listening to? He was actually a "real lawyer" and had done his "case work."

I think that emotional response stems from the fact that we are taught from very young in grade school that "anyone can be President one day", and we essentially view it from an egalitarian point of view, as some sort of right of citizenship. However that's not the case. The Founders intended that the "natural born" requirement protect the Office of President from foreign influence, and believed it was better to protect the rights of all citizens, than to have such an open access where virtually anyone might be President.

"Natural born citizen" is not from man-made "Positive Law" (http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1552), and is not subject to legislative statute, but originates by definition entirely outside that man-made law, in natural law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law), a fundamental concept to this country's founding principle. The term "natural born" is a term of art (http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/tutorials/definitions/term_art.html), having specific meaning within the context of a most fundamental citizenship.

True, I am not an attorney, but my Father, a graduate of Yale and Harvard Law, a  "real lawyer", emphatically states that no law school teaches the meaning of "natural born citizen", and furthermore that's not a function of lawyering, which deals with torts, precedent and legal procedure.    Law school teaches one to function within the American legal system, a system that has been continually used to stretch and undermine this country's founding principles. However, when I actually need input from an attorney, I promise your counsel will be considered.

I can understand why you don't want to "spend a lot of time" arguing against what I've presented, because you'd be arguing an uphill battle against the only extant opinion of the U.S Supreme Court, not to mention an enormous volume of fact and history that exceeds what I've presented here.  What I've presented is not my own theory, but rather the facts of the issue recognized by numerous authorities, and supported by history that long predates even this country.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: DumbAss Tanker on May 18, 2012, 03:41:25 PM
I did respond to the merits then, you just didn't understand them.  What you want the law to mean and what the Federal courts have held it to mean in the past are not the same thing.  For instance, you talk about what a term means based on the Declaration, however as historically important as it was, it is nowhere incorporated by reference into the Constitution as the law of the land, so what you read between its lines means nothing as far as US law is concerned.  It's useful, but not binding, for a court trying to understand a term directly used in both, but beyond that it has no legal authority in deciding cases under laws enacted since the Ratification.

I don't hate you, you seem like a pretty intelligent guy with a minor manic problem.  I just look at you as a time-wasting deceiver of yourself and others, like the periodic crop of yahoos who spring up and run around making a quick buck (or not) lecturing people on why they don't have to pay income taxes, or how they can print their own license plates, driver's licenses, or other documents as 'Constitutional Citizens,' or some other such malarkey.  I've dealt the the wreckage guys like that have wrought on the gullible before, it isn't pretty. 

But basically, you'd blow off any explanation I gave you this time, so just enjoy your fantasy world, I'm not going to waste my time looking up stuff you won't read or credit anyway.  If you and your fellow thinkers are so convinced, raise money to publicize your issue and take it to court.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Trip on May 18, 2012, 05:49:17 PM
I did respond to the merits then, you just didn't understand them.  What you want the law to mean and what the Federal courts have held it to mean in the past are not the same thing.  For instance, you talk about what a term means based on the Declaration, however as historically important as it was, it is nowhere incorporated by reference into the Constitution as the law of the land, so what you read between its lines means nothing as far as US law is concerned.  It's useful, but not binding, for a court trying to understand a term directly used in both, but beyond that it has no legal authority in deciding cases under laws enacted since the Ratification.

Your response(s) recognized the states as having, quote, "broad and vaguely-defined power to do things necessary for the safety and welfare of their populace."  That may well be true, but that broad concept, and the 10th Amendment itself, do not provide authority to the states to annul individual liberties.. and this is recognized by case after case (that law).

Supreme Court interpretations


And there are many other Supreme Court decisions that follow upon and continue to affirm that "states Rights" do not allow them to subvert individual rights, freedoms and property.

Contrary to your assertion, I was NOT claiming some broad protection extended from the Declaration, but rather the principles seen throughout the U.S. Constitution itself.  Among other protections in the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause explicitly protects individual rights from theft and usurpation by state authority. Beyond that, the Declaration is listed in U.S. Code, along with the Northwest Ordinance, the Articles of Confederation, and the U.S. Constitution itself, as being the "organic law" of the United States. "Organic law", to those who do not know, is the fundamental law and principle of a state or nation. It may not be in the form of statute, but it is inherent to the Constitution and laws of the United States.

If this were not true, our so-called "rights" and the fundamental idea that they are not granted unto us by any government, would be worthless - a sham.

Despite this, this consideration of law, statute, has nothing whatsoever to do with the meaning of "natural born citizen", which remains outside of man-made law, and statute. Your entire response here is a deflection having nothing to do with the consideration of natural born.

I don't hate you, you seem like a pretty intelligent guy with a minor manic problem.  I just look at you as a time-wasting deceiver of yourself and others, like the periodic crop of yahoos who spring up and run around making a quick buck (or not) lecturing people on why they don't have to pay income taxes, or how they can print their own license plates, driver's licenses, or other documents as 'Constitutional Citizens,' or some other such malarkey.  I've dealt the the wreckage guys like that have wrought on the gullible before, it isn't pretty.  

I couldn't give a damn about what you think of me personally, but you seem to have a compulsion to go personal rather than respond to the argument itself. And falsely impugning me with things I have never said, such as "income tax, license plates, driver's licenses", and whatever other crap you care to come up with, is a dishonest attempt to impugn my argument with "false association".

And believing I'm going to roll over, simply because you reference your law degree, that's another flaw of argumentation, in reference to a false (and irrelevant) authority, done in the absence of any argument at all.

I've laid out the facts for you, and you're invited to address those facts ... if you can.

Here's some further additional fact. Throughout this country's early history, we never gave direct citizenship at birth merely as a result of being born on American soil. That so-called "birthright citizenship" only came about 1898 from the corruption of "jurisdiction" in the 14th Amendment, 30 years after the 14th Amendment was enacted. This corruption came about from deliberate judicial malfeasance of the Court in Wong Kim Ark, and was done because the Court could not deny the authority of Congress to enact the "Chinese exclusion acts", which prohibited the entry (or re-entry) of Chinese into the country.  

If mere birth on U.S. soil did not result in citizenship during all that time, then how the hell did we have any legitimate "natural born citizen" President during that period? The only citizenship at birth that occurred in this country's early history, was citizenship achieved not by any statute authority, but rather the result of being born to two citizen parents on U.S. soil --- a natural born citizen.

But basically, you'd blow off any explanation I gave you this time, so just enjoy your fantasy world, I'm not going to waste my time looking up stuff you won't read or credit anyway.  If you and your fellow thinkers are so convinced, raise money to publicize your issue and take it to court.

I do solemnly promise that I will respond directly and specifically to "anything you give me" to support your argument.   I have in fact spent the time "looking stuff  up", and I've likely seen what you might find in a casual search.  It doesn't worry me.

And regarding "taking it to court", as I've previously indicated,  I believe the issue of natural born has been repeatedly rejected by the Supreme Court, not because (all) the challenges are invalid, but because even if the Court were to again recognize that definition of natural born, there is no authority indicated anywhere in the Constitution, for the Court to declare a sitting President to be unqualified to hold office. The last opportunity available under established process was when Congress counted the electoral vote, prior to pronouncing Obama the winner. Thus this concern is dismissed as "political" consideration.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any comment on the evidence I referenced that McCain also is unqualified to hold that Office, and he was promoted by deliberate and focused fraud?

Incidentally, if I did not believe you and I were capable of having an intelligent and worthwhile exchange, I'd have no need to waste my time responding to your empty posts at all.

Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: rich_t on May 18, 2012, 06:15:45 PM
 :popcorn:

I'm looking forward to this....
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: sybilll on May 18, 2012, 07:51:03 PM
Now, why was this not dug up before?
THAT was the whole point.  Had the MSM actually vetted Obama, this would have easily been found.  If I had to guess, I think the Breitbart staff debated long and hard about releasing this at all, because it is in no way a "birther" issue.  Obama molded himself into what was needed to gain favor and advancement, and the media would not report it because he is the Chicago Jesus. 
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: obumazombie on May 18, 2012, 09:26:04 PM
THAT was the whole point.  Had the MSM actually vetted Obama, this would have easily been found.  If I had to guess, I think the Breitbart staff debated long and hard about releasing this at all, because it is in no way a "birther" issue.  Obama molded himself into what was needed to gain favor and advancement, and the media would not report it because he is the Chicago Jesus. 
Yeah but not the "hey zeus" pronunciation of it.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Trip on May 20, 2012, 04:23:10 PM
Here is a simple "proof" that the interpretation natural born citizen involves both two parents who are citizens, as well as birth on a country's soil.  


The Proof:

ON July 25th, 1787 John Jay sent a letter to George Washington who was presiding over the Constitutional Convention. People attribute that letter from Jay as the influence that led to the adoption of the natural born citizen requirement for the Office of President. John Jay went on to become America's first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court:



Many of us, even most of us, look at the Article II requirement for President as if it were just a hurdle for the office of President, and that it doesn't really accomplish anything real. This is not true. It has real significance. We just need to recognize it ... and apply it.

We commonly recognize that those born overseas, not on American soil, even if born to two American citizen parents,  are not natural born citizens.  That part is easy, a 'given'.

However if two parents, who are not American citizens, but are foreign, were to give birth on American soil, there is no way we would think of their offspring as being "non-foreign" simply because they were born here. And it wasn't until the 1898 fabrication by the Court of "birthright" anchor baby citizenship that those offspring got American citizenship at all!

American soil is not somehow "magical", suddenly changing the nature of those offspring of foreigners, to somehow become by mystical process "American". Those offspring only real allegiance, and the only effect upon them, involves foreign countries, societies, and their values.

If two Alien, non-citizen, parents were your neighbors, and they gave birth to a child, you wouldn't suddenly look upon that child as being "American".  You'd look upon that child as being every bit as foreign as its parents, and in no way  a part of, nor product of, American society.

The "natural born citizen" requirement for Article II, isn't just some vague hurdle put into place, but rather has real effect of prohibiting anyone born with foreign allegiance from holding the office of President. While one's Loyalty no one can truly know, one's allegiance is publicly known and recognized, and involves consideration of an offspring's parents citizenship at birth. John Jay was no idiot, and his  suggestion to Washington has real effect in limiting foreign influence in the presidency.

Even assuming Obama was born in Hawaii (which I do), even to one American citizen parent, we continually see the effect of having one parent being a foreign national, and Obama's allegiance to another country, and other ideologies, despite having spent very little time with that parent -- his father.

Obama, by his own admission, was born of a Kenyan father who transferred British citizenship to him at birth.


While the requirement of being a natural born citizen of the United States, is no guarantee of not having foreign loyalties and interests being held by someone occupying the office of President, it is a security against having any foreign allegiance upon one's birth, thereby making agreement with those ideologies which are hostile to this country far less likely.



Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: wasp69 on May 21, 2012, 09:34:21 AM
:popcorn:

I'm looking forward to this....

I doubt you're going to see much, I don't think DAT is willing to bother with this.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Trip on May 21, 2012, 11:51:51 AM
I doubt you're going to see much, I don't think DAT is willing to bother with this.

After having had several exchanges, I question whether DAT has the "firepower" to deal with this directly. But I agree; I doubt we will see much.


Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: txradioguy on May 22, 2012, 01:34:25 AM
After having had several exchanges, I question whether DAT has the "firepower" to deal with this directly. But I agree; I doubt we will see much.




Ahhh yes because you above the rest of us are the only real brains around here.  All hail the mighty Trip!  How dare we question the superior intellect of a man...a God among me...who lives within sight of Valley Forge...therefore qualifying him more than the rest of us lesser sentinent beings to know exactly what every word comma and period of the Constitution means and exactly what the Founding Fathers were discussing when they put quill to parchment.

And any questioning of his intellectual genius will be judged as a personal attack and dealt with by snarky retort of the type he despises as he finishes another work of brilliant prose on these pages.

 :whatever:

In reality...


You're self aggrandizing egomaniac with  an opinion of yourself that's wayyyyyy higher than what it should be and when you're called on your bullshit...instead of honest debate or perhaps admitting you might be wrong...you belittle the group as just being to stupid to engage with you or to comprehend what you're saying.

Get over yourself Chip...no one but yourself is impressed with you.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: txradioguy on May 22, 2012, 01:35:21 AM
Now, why was this not dug up before?

The media knew.  They just turned a purposeful blind eye.  And they continue to do just that today.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: txradioguy on May 22, 2012, 01:47:12 AM
At the end of the day...IMHO this whole birth certificate thing is stupid.  If anything because his mother is American.

This is a distrction...and not worthy of discussion outside of a conspiracy thread.

British loyalty...facke doccuments...born in Kenya...born in Hawaii...when you look at what we REALLY need to point out to the masses about what this amateur in the WH has done...WHO THE **** CARES about his birth certificate?

Seriously?  He was elected he's been in office almost four years...let it go people.

Focus all that time and energy you're devoting to this birther thing to talking about and getting the word out about what he's done to the debt...how he nationalized two auto companies...how he's telling CEO's what they can and can't make...and the myriad of other attempts to destroy this country form within that are happening on a daily basis from within his office.

 :thatsright:
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Trip on May 22, 2012, 04:20:07 AM
At the end of the day...IMHO this whole birth certificate thing is stupid.  If anything because his mother is American.

This is a distrction...and not worthy of discussion outside of a conspiracy thread.

British loyalty...facke doccuments...born in Kenya...born in Hawaii...when you look at what we REALLY need to point out to the masses about what this amateur in the WH has done...WHO THE **** CARES about his birth certificate?

Seriously?  He was elected he's been in office almost four years...let it go people.

Focus all that time and energy you're devoting to this birther thing to talking about and getting the word out about what he's done to the debt...how he nationalized two auto companies...how he's telling CEO's what they can and can't make...and the myriad of other attempts to destroy this country form within that are happening on a daily basis from within his office.

 :thatsright:


The funny thing is that all those transgressions you reference, and more, are all stemming from the fact that he was born with an allegiance to his father, and his father's Communism, while having disdain for American freedoms and free-market Capitalism.  And very likely, he also acquired his affinity for Islam from his father, rather than the faux Christianity of Black Liberation Theology he pretends to cling to.  

Had Americans been more aware of the constraints the founders put into the Constitution, Obama would not have even been a problem over the past four years. But instead we got a guy who wants to transfer America's wealth and prosperity to other countries, all while he undermines our freedoms, and is setting up the structure for rigid martial law at his whim, and has left our children and children's children, with an unbearable debt burden and looming inflation.

Right there, in his own words from his FightTheSmears (http://web.archive.org/web/20100428113712/http://www.barackobama.com/fightthesmears/articles/5/birthcertificate.html) site, "hidden in plain sight":

(http://i425.photobucket.com/albums/pp337/tjmccann/obama-factcheck.jpg)


So we should ignore the fact that the phrase is "natural born citizen", not just "citizen" or "born citizen", ignore the fact they rejected Hamilton's draft containing "born citizen", and just ignore that pesky word "natural", because we've got no earthly idea what it means. "Natural born"? Those loony  founders were probably talking about avoiding Cesarean sections anyway!


But you're right about one thing. That birth certificate doesn't matter at all. Obama could have been born in swaddling clothes, in a manger, on the steps of the Supreme Court, and witnessed by all Nine, and he still would not be a natural born citizen of these United States.

Unfortunately, your theory about the mother being sufficient to make him a natural born citizen... it doesn't appear anywhere in any of that Court's writings addressing the matter over its entire history. It's right up there with your pet theory that the founders discarded "unalienable rights" when they drafted the Constitution. And thank god they did too, otherwise we'd be "just like Canada"! :snicker:




Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: txradioguy on May 22, 2012, 04:50:45 AM

The funny thing is that all those transgressions you reference, and more, are all stemming from the fact that he was born with an allegiance to his father, and his father's Communism, while having disdain for American freedoms and free-market Capitalism.  And very likely, he also acquired his affinity for Islam from his father, rather than the faux Christianity of Black Liberation Theology he pretends to cling to.

And you can link to this where? 



But you're right about one thing. That birth certificate doesn't matter at all. Obama could have been born in swaddling clothes, in a manger, on the steps of the Supreme Court, and witnessed by all Nine, and he still would not be a natural born citizen of these United States.

Unfortunately, your theory about the mother being sufficient to make him a natural born citizen... it doesn't appear anywhere in any of that Court's writings addressing the matter over its entire history. It's right up there with your pet theory that the founders discarded "unalienable rights" when they drafted the Constitution. And thank god they did too, otherwise we'd be "just like Canada"! :snicker:

[/quote]

And here is where I prove you wrong...again...this is getting too easy.  Your oversized ego and hyper inflated sense of self makes you look even more foolish than you already are when you look and discover things like this:

Quote
What are the rules for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986?

Again, children born abroad to two US citizen parents were US citizens at birth, as long as one of the parents resided in the US at some point before the birth of the child.

When one parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national, the US citizen parent must have resided in the US for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child, with five of the years after the age of 14.   An exception for people serving in the military was created by considering time spent outside the US on military duty as time spent in the US.

While there were initially rules regarding what the child must do to retain citizenship, amendments since 1952 have eliminated these requirements.

Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen mother were US citizens if the mother was resident in the US for a period of one year prior to the birth of the child.  Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen father acquired US citizenship only if legitimated before turning 21.

http://www.visalaw.com/05jan1/2jan105.html


You keep clining to your twisted and misinformed vision of what our laws are Chip...and I'll keep living in the real world.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: JohnnyReb on May 22, 2012, 05:44:26 AM
And you can link to this where? 



But you're right about one thing. That birth certificate doesn't matter at all. Obama could have been born in swaddling clothes, in a manger, on the steps of the Supreme Court, and witnessed by all Nine, and he still would not be a natural born citizen of these United States.

Unfortunately, your theory about the mother being sufficient to make him a natural born citizen... it doesn't appear anywhere in any of that Court's writings addressing the matter over its entire history. It's right up there with your pet theory that the founders discarded "unalienable rights" when they drafted the Constitution. And thank god they did too, otherwise we'd be "just like Canada"! :snicker:



And here is where I prove you wrong...again...this is getting too easy.  Your oversized ego and hyper inflated sense of self makes you look even more foolish than you already are when you look and discover things like this:

http://www.visalaw.com/05jan1/2jan105.html


You keep clining to your twisted and misinformed vision of what our laws are Chip...and I'll keep living in the real world.

It was different in 1947.

My X-wife was born in Germany in 1947 to an American soldier married to a British mother. She had German and British citizenship when I married her at age 21. British by the fact her mother was British and German by the fact she was born in Germany. She got her U.S. citizenship after we were married. If she and I had had children, they probably would not have been able to be president due to the citizenship questions.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Trip on May 22, 2012, 06:06:06 AM
The funny thing is that all those transgressions you reference, and more, are all stemming from the fact that he was born with an allegiance to his father, and his father's Communism, while having disdain for American freedoms and free-market Capitalism.  And very likely, he also acquired his affinity for Islam from his father, rather than the faux Christianity of Black Liberation Theology he pretends to cling to.

And you can link to this where?

Link to WHAT where? That he disregards free-market capitalism? That his father was a communist? That he supports Marxist ideology and spreading the wealth around? That he evidences an affinity for Islam far more than Christianity, and that BLT doesn't even promote anything resembling Christianity?  

I'm tempted to say, "You're kidding, right?", but will be content with saying, "you need to specify."





And here is where I prove you wrong...again...this is getting too easy.  Your oversized ego and hyper inflated sense of self makes you look even more foolish than you already are when you look and discover things like this:

Quote
What are the rules for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986?

Again, children born abroad to two US citizen parents were US citizens at birth, as long as one of the parents resided in the US at some point before the birth of the child.

When one parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national, the US citizen parent must have resided in the US for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child, with five of the years after the age of 14.   An exception for people serving in the military was created by considering time spent outside the US on military duty as time spent in the US.

While there were initially rules regarding what the child must do to retain citizenship, amendments since 1952 have eliminated these requirements.

Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen mother were US citizens if the mother was resident in the US for a period of one year prior to the birth of the child.  Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen father acquired US citizenship only if legitimated before turning 21.

http://www.visalaw.com/05jan1/2jan105.html


You keep clining to your twisted and misinformed vision of what our laws are Chip...and I'll keep living in the real world.

No, slick, you haven't proven anything.  The only thing you've proven, once again, is you haven't a damn clue about what you're talking about.

Read those portions I've highlighted once again, this time with just a tiny bit of discernment.

The passages is referring to C-I-T-I-Z-E-N-S-H-I-P, not natural born citizen! I'm not even contesting that Obama is a CITIZEN, nor even contesting that Obama was a citizen AT BIRTH!

What you're looking at is N-A-T-U-R-A-L-I-Z-A-T-I-O-N, the process by which someone becomes a citizen by statute or act of Congress, and in this instance, the statutes that are applicable between "December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986". That page you reference is even titled, "The ABC’s of Immigration: Citizenship Rules for People Born Outside the United States", showing you its not even for those born on American soil!  

You better alert even the leftist media about your newest clueless theory, that those born overseas are "natural born citizens" too, because they think it only requires birth on American soil!  You really should have been able to figure this one out on your own.

I can provide for you a whole slew of applicable statutes that reference CITIZENSHIP status, and none of which have any effect whatsoever on the Article II demand that every person holding the office of President must be a natural born citizen!

Title 8 USC 1401 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401),  General citizenship
Title 8 USC 1402 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001402----000-.html),  Puerto Rico
Title 8 USC 1403 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001403----000-.html), Panama  Canal Zone (McCain became only CITIZEN by this, and a year after his birth.)
Title 8 USC 1404 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001404----000-.html), Alaska
Title 8 USC 1405 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001405----000-.html), Hawaii
Title 8 USC 1406 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001406----000-.html), U.S. Virgen Islands
Title 8 USC 1407 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001407----000-.html), Guam


These statutes invariably, without exception, are not "natural" but are naturalization law, and are dealing only with "citizen" at birth, not "natural born citizen".  Even the term "naturalization", means "to make as if natural" - a natural born citizen. It does not effectively make them a natural born citizen!

If any of those statutes involved a "natural" citizen, they would not have needed any sort of statute in the first place!

The 14th Amendment also addresses citizenship (of blacks), and upon birth, but that Amendment did not affect natural born citizen either, which it does not reference. The left-wing clueless do likewise have an inclination for referring to these statutes and the 14th Amendment, to further their disregard for the Constitution.  Instead of going on a fishing expedition, you should have actually read and understood the previous quote I provided by Justice Marshall; it is inadmissible to ignore "natural" in the phrase "natural born citizen".

As I stated previously, "natural born" originates in Natural Law, not man-made Positive Law. This profoundly indicates that you won't find help for your ignorant theory anywhere in man-made statute!



What? You don't want to defend your theory that the Constitution is  not based on "unalienable rights"? I'm sure that onlookers here are not resting easy about that oath you swore to defend the Constitution, since you evidently believe the federal government is able to forfeit our rights without any violation of that Constitution.

No, you quite definitely have not even come close to proving me wrong... not on anything, ever.

Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Trip on May 22, 2012, 06:47:48 AM
It was different in 1947.

My X-wife was born in Germany in 1947 to an American soldier married to a British mother. She had German and British citizenship when I married her at age 21. British by the fact her mother was British and German by the fact she was born in Germany. She got her U.S. citizenship after we were married. If she and I had had children, they probably would not have been able to be president due to the citizenship questions.


If she had become a naturalized American citizen prior to the birth of your hypothetical offspring, then they would be natural born American citizens, provided they were born on American soil.

Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: dixierose on May 22, 2012, 08:50:03 AM
At the end of the day...IMHO this whole birth certificate thing is stupid.  If anything because his mother is American.

This is a distrction...and not worthy of discussion outside of a conspiracy thread.

British loyalty...facke doccuments...born in Kenya...born in Hawaii...when you look at what we REALLY need to point out to the masses about what this amateur in the WH has done...WHO THE **** CARES about his birth certificate?

Seriously?  He was elected he's been in office almost four years...let it go people.

Focus all that time and energy you're devoting to this birther thing to talking about and getting the word out about what he's done to the debt...how he nationalized two auto companies...how he's telling CEO's what they can and can't make...and the myriad of other attempts to destroy this country form within that are happening on a daily basis from within his office.

 :thatsright:

H^5. I agree completely.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: wasp69 on May 22, 2012, 09:53:19 AM
What? You don't want to defend your theory that the Constitution is  not based on "unalienable rights"?

Jeez, threadstalk much?

Quote
I'm sure that onlookers here are not resting easy about that oath you swore to defend the Constitution

Rest assured when I tell you that you are most definitely wrong and, quite frankly, you need to throttle back your attitude against a military veteran on this board who swore an oath and put his ass on the line; something that you could not find worthy of doing yourself.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: CG6468 on May 22, 2012, 09:57:23 AM
Another troll. We should show his what "military" means.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Trip on May 22, 2012, 11:04:42 AM
Jeez, threadstalk much?

Rest assured when I tell you that you are most definitely wrong and, quite frankly, you need to throttle back your attitude against a military veteran on this board who swore an oath and put his ass on the line; something that you could not find worthy of doing yourself.

except for the fact that is what the U.S. Supreme Court says...

.. throughout its entire history.

... and is supported by numerous Congress persons, over the time of that history, and a book documenting the definition, that was the most referenced document by this nation's founders during the authoring of the Constitution, put in that library by Benjamin Franklin.

The problem is you don't know even half the Truth.

And for the record, I consult  all branches of the U.S. military, about half of my employment time.  I commonly work with with special forces and Navy seal members in my work with UXO, and I have their respect and they mine; I contract them.  I spent the entirety of Desert Storm in a military base, doing work that I am still discouraged from talking about, but one might surmise what a geologist might be doing at a Navy base providing the intel for that particular incursion.  I know exactly what "military" means.  It's quite different from being a Government Issue ignoramus that has sought to harass since my arrival on the forum, and particularly given that oath, should have a far better knowledge of the Constitution, than things commonly known by the average elementary school child.  

The claim the Constitution is not founded on unalienable rights, would be thoroughly amusing, if it were not so sad that undoubtedly so many in our military have no grasp of the Constitution and freedoms they are sworn to defend. It is out of an abiding respect to those who do serve with honor and real appreciation for this country, that I do not say anything further.
 
Overall, it is best that persons do not surmise what they don't know anything about.

Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: wasp69 on May 22, 2012, 11:49:08 AM
The problem is you don't know even half the Truth.

If you say so, Trip.

Quote
And for the record, I consult

How very noble of you, Trip.

Quote
I spent the entirety of Desert Storm in a military base, doing work that I am still discouraged from talking about, but one might surmise what a geologist might be doing at a Navy base providing the intel for that particular incursion.

Bully for you, Trip.

Quote
I know exactly what "military" means.

I'm sure you think you do, Trip.

Quote
It's quite different from being a Government Issue ignoramus that has sought to harass since my arrival on the forum, and particularly given that oath, should have a far better knowledge of the Constitution, than things commonly known by the average elementary school child.  

It is out of an abiding respect to those who do serve with honor and real appreciation for this country...

In case you missed it:

Quote
ConservativeCave
Board Rules of Conduct

GENERALITIES
Any disparaging comments about the Military, Active Duty Personnel, Veterans and their families and are strictly forbidden.

Discussion of the Military, Active Members, Reserve, Veterans, Police Officers, other First Responders and any issue involving these individuals
Absolutely no troop-bashing allowed. We honor and respect all of our Military, Police, or other First Responders here on ConservativeCave. Any comment, photo, article or link that serves to disrespect our troops or their missions will be removed and you will face disciplinary action. The ONLY exception to this would be if you are linking to something from a site like DU.
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,8777.0.html

Throttle it back, Trip.

Quote
Overall, it is best that persons do not surmise what they don't know anything about.

Physician, heal thyself first.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Trip on May 22, 2012, 12:04:33 PM


The idea that I in any way was "bashing" the troops is thoroughly ludicrous, and offensive.



Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: obumazombie on May 22, 2012, 12:06:30 PM

The idea that I in any way was "bashing" the troops is thoroughly ludicrous, and offensive.




If a poll was taken I'm sure you wouldn't like the outcome, just speaking from my perspective.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Trip on May 22, 2012, 12:07:47 PM
If a poll was taken I'm sure you wouldn't like the outcome, just speaking from my perspective.

Good thing the facts and the truth are not affected by a poll among idiots.

Every sane American should be deeply disturbed by the fact that any member of our military believes our rights to be "alienable", able to be taken from us, by the government authority which that military represents.



Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: docstew on May 22, 2012, 12:08:06 PM
If you say so, Trip.

How very noble of you, Trip.

Bully for you, Trip.

I'm sure you think you do, Trip.

In case you missed it:
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,8777.0.html

Throttle it back, Trip.

Physician, heal thyself first.

I know that I would personally take someone calling me "ignoramus" to my face as pretty blatantly disrespectful. If a Private said it to me today, they'd be standing in front of the Commander's desk tomorrow getting NJP.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: obumazombie on May 22, 2012, 12:09:22 PM
Good thing the facts and the truth are not affected by a poll among idiots.


You specified "idea" not a fact or truth. Even an idiot like you regard me can see that, can you ?
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Splashdown on May 22, 2012, 12:12:10 PM
Are these stupid, juvenile pissing contests going to happen in every thread? I'm not a mod, but sheesh.

Take it to the fight club. Do us all a favor and leave the rest of us out of your petty side arguments. It's getting tiring. I dont' think we need to see post-whoring side arguments in every damn thread.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Trip on May 22, 2012, 12:17:58 PM
You specified "idea" not a fact or truth. Even an idiot like you regard me can see that, can you ?


The "idea" that our rights are unalienable, unable to be taken from us, nor even given away, is a fundamental fact of the Constitution.   The "idea" that our military swears an oath to uphold that Constitution, and not the authority of government, or any office holder, is also a fact.  

The fact that a member of our military believes our rights are alienable, able to be taken, is in fact a very disturbing "idea", especially to those who are paying attention to the repeated and now escalating actions of this administration.










Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: obumazombie on May 22, 2012, 12:21:36 PM
This is the idea I am referring to, to quote you...
"The idea that I in any way was "bashing" the troops is thoroughly ludicrous, and offensive."
That "idea" is not a fact, or a truth. Can you see what this "idiot" is referring to now ?
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: wasp69 on May 22, 2012, 12:25:09 PM
The idea that I in any way was "bashing" the troops is thoroughly ludicrous, and offensive.

Quote from: Trip
...a Government Issue ignoramus...

...those who do serve with honor and real appreciation for this country...

If you say so, Trip.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Trip on May 22, 2012, 12:29:30 PM
If you say so, Trip.

So I recognize those who do serve with honor and a real appreciation of this country, and somehow this is "bashing" the military?   *Right*



Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: wasp69 on May 22, 2012, 12:31:30 PM
I know that I would personally take someone calling me "ignoramus" to my face as pretty blatantly disrespectful. If a Private said it to me today, they'd be standing in front of the Commander's desk tomorrow getting NJP.

None of my kids (troopers) would have dared say the things to me (nor insinuate) what Trip has about TX.  

None.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Thor on May 22, 2012, 12:31:39 PM
Good thing the facts and the truth are not affected by a poll among idiots.

Every sane American should be deeply disturbed by the fact that any member of our military believes our rights to be "alienable", able to be taken from us, by the government authority which that military represents.





Seems to me that you're calling the entire membership of this forum, "idiots". You just might want to reconsider that statement, Trip. I most certainly take offense to that statement! I'm certain that others do, too.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: wasp69 on May 22, 2012, 12:42:01 PM
So I recognize those who do serve with honor and a real appreciation of this country, and somehow this is "bashing" the military?   *Right*

I suggest, Trip, that you reread the rules of the website I quoted concerning active duty members and veterans.  Pay particularly close attention to the word "all"; the one I bolded and italicized for you.

Either way, it's no longer up to me to decide whether it was "right" or "wrong". 

I can tell you for a fact that a know nothing civilian, who tries to use past association with real men of honor to burnish his own, has no place calling anyone in uniform an ignoramus nor insinuating that their service is anything but honorable.

That, sir, makes you less than the filth that inhabits DU. 

You have no right, nor perspective, to question the service of any veteran since you did not have the balls to ruck up and stand the line yourself.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Carl on May 22, 2012, 12:44:55 PM
I grow weary of this too and would rather not have to keep chasing threads or locking them. :banghead:
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Trip on May 22, 2012, 12:53:14 PM
Seems to me that you're calling the entire membership of this forum, "idiots". You just might want to reconsider that statement, Trip. I most certainly take offense to that statement! I'm certain that others do, too.

So you think the entire membership of this forum, thinks that I was bashing the military, when I clearly said I hold them in high regard?

I specifically said, ". It is out of an abiding respect to those who do serve with honor and real appreciation for this country... "

My comment only applies to the hypothetical poll, and presumption of the polling results to indicate that I was in any way "bashing the military", which I obviously was not doing.  Since no one voted on any poll, and I was not bashing the military, I'm not calling anyone an idiot, and there's no cause for  anyone to get defensive.



ETA: as a matter of fact, I am on the phone this very moment, with one of my best friends, a Viet Nam vet.


Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: docstew on May 22, 2012, 12:59:02 PM
Government Issue ignoramus that has sought to harass since my arrival on the forum

This is the part in question, where you all but identify TRG and call him an ignoramus (and the snarky tone that is carried with your use of Government Issue is another one).

STFU. GFY. ESAD.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: txradioguy on May 22, 2012, 01:01:23 PM
So I recognize those who do serve with honor and a real appreciation of this country, and somehow this is "bashing" the military?   *Right*


With the snarky insinuation that I don't...therefore I'm not worthy of the same appreciation.

You REALLY can't handle people who disagree with you and challenge your view of the world can you Trip?
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: Chris on May 22, 2012, 01:06:45 PM
You've been given multiple opportunities to be a positive contribution to this board but as it's been pointed out to you more than once, you just can't seem to participate here without pissing people off.  We are getting tired of cleaning up the messes you seem to leave behind whenever you decide to pay us a visit.

Your "General Issue ignoramous" comment is a violation of the rules of conduct and a slap in the face to every veteran and active duty military here.  Your constant derailing of threads, resulting in them being locked or deleted, has passed the point of being disruptive. 

Your membership is no longer wanted here.  Goodbye.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on May 22, 2012, 01:22:00 PM
Damn...what I was preapred to say before chris_ got to him...



There was an honest dispute of:

Quote
As I stated previously, "natural born" originates in Natural Law, not man-made Positive Law. This profoundly indicates that you won't find help for your ignorant theory anywhere in man-made statute!

Which in turn lead to the inexplicable non-sequitor of insults:

Quote
What? You don't want to defend your theory that the Constitution is  not based on "unalienable rights"? I'm sure that onlookers here are not resting easy about that oath you swore to defend the Constitution, since you evidently believe the federal government is able to forfeit our rights without any violation of that Constitution.

There is no reason to insult the service of TxRadioGuy as if he is unworthy based on a single discussion. Certainly no person is expected to have a SCOTUS-level opinion of the minutae of legal history and theory as a precondition of enlistment; let alone a mandatory agreement Chief Justice Douchebag here.

If you want to belittle every person that dares to disagree with you then understand you will isolate yourself until A) you leave or B) you're banned. Either way the result is the same. If by some stretch of the imagination you thought you could enlighten us poor, benighted "idiots" then perhaps you are only setting yourself up for failure and frustration. Leave and save yourself the melodramatic martyrdom of banning.

Unless that is your true objective then go ahead and start penning your magnum opus now in preparation for your grandest, most exquisite display of your know-it-all brilliance.

We rubes are waiting like so many primates at a fireworks display.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: CG6468 on May 22, 2012, 01:24:21 PM
At last. Another one's gone.

Thank you. Chris.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: obumazombie on May 22, 2012, 01:24:27 PM
Rube 1 standing by...
(referring to post 90)
edit for aside.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: wasp69 on May 22, 2012, 01:26:56 PM
Damn...what I was preapred to say before chris_ got to him...

It's okay, SGT Bunny Rabbit, I'm sure he'll read it.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: wasp69 on May 22, 2012, 04:55:42 PM
How did I miss this?

ETA: as a matter of fact, I am on the phone this very moment, with one of my best friends, a Viet Nam vet.

Trip, in the event you happen to wander by and haunt this thread, I want you to know that is the most lame assed thing I have ever seen in defense of something so stupid.
Title: Re: The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
Post by: obumazombie on May 22, 2012, 08:29:08 PM
I hate to see anyone get banned, but in this case I can see why.