Here you go Dave
04/27/2011
If the document proves valid, it could answer the questions raised by those who
have alleged he was not actually born in Hawaii. But it also could prove his
ineligibility because of its references to his father. Some of the cases
challenging Obama have explained that he was a dual citizen through his father
at his birth, and they contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual
citizens from qualifying as natural born citizens.
Don’t you see it? Why can’t you understand? This is the most ANTI American person to have ever occupied any position of authority in U.S. history. And this is not just for you, but for anybody who cares about the survival of this nation.
Advertisement
8 Comments
Comments are closed.
You do realize that World Net Daily’s apparent stock and trade these days is the “eligibility” of Obama don’t you? They cater to those people who see conspiracy in this story and don’t really care for the “facts” as long as it validates a preconceived notion or idea of how they WANT things to be.
As I mentioned somewhere else — there are two ways to be a natural born citizen of this country. By just being born in this country or being born to at least one American citizen abroad. In the case of dual citizenship, depending on the date and treaties in force at the time of birth, there may be a requirement to choose a country at the age of 21. To give up your citizenship in this country, you actually have to proactively renounce it.
I know this because I have a dual citizenship. Actually three of them. As a Jew, I have an automatic citizenship in Israel. (Using the theory put out by WND, Joe Liebermann would have been ineligible, as well as any other Jewish person.) I have citizenship in Canada solely by virtue of being born across the border while my American parents were visiting relatives. I was born prior to the 1951 immigration treaty which requires a person born after January 1952 to choose citizenship at the age of 21. People born prior to that were grandfathered. Anyone born after 1952 that chooses to be a Canadian citizen has to renounce their American claim of citizenship. It isn’t automatic.
I also get a kick out of all the “experts” on whether this document is real. As if firing up Adobe Illustrator is the forensic way of determining whether a document is real or not. A lot of these “experts” are too young to even remember what a microfiche image is, so they don’t recognize one when they see it. To them, this “looks” fake. The “curved” part on the left side of the page isn’t part of a binder, it is the curved roller of a microfiche reader platen. The stuff you see there is part of the previous record on that microfiche roll.
Records are not stored on paper any more. They haven’t been in decades. This original document was probably scanned in 1961 then destroyed. The parents may have kept an original photostatic copy from back then — my parents did.
As far as using software to evaluate a photocopy of something? Virtually impossible. A photocopy or laser copy isn’t an exact x/y ratio copy of something. Even the very best copiers made will distort the image. A copy of an original is not exact. A copy of a copy is even less exact. Scanning an original to the computer, let alone a PDF is not exact. There is alway going to be distortion. If you are starting with a microfiche image to begin with? Forget about it.
But this is NOT going to stop those people who really WANT to find something wrong. Especially if they’ve stuck their neck out this far. They are only going to sound more desperate in their rantings.
But you and I both know that this isn’t about the birth certificate. If Obama had been a white man with the name “O’Brien”, we wouldn’t be having this conversation now. Even if his father had been an Irish national with ties to the IRA. Why? Because he would have been white, and would have either been a Catholic or a Protestant — the “acceptable” religions and if his father had been an IRA terrorist, it would have been an “acceptable” terrorist. (Ask Peter King)
As far as Obama being “socialist”? I only wish he were as socialist as say Bernie Sanders. No, sorry, Obama has about the same political ideology as Richard Nixon or Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Hey, thanks for the brief on the wordpress wide comments hiccup. As to this pResident, believe as you will. The term “natural born” is as Vattel’s definition in the description by The Founders. To think they’d be willing to have other than a person of undivided loyalties is astonishing to me. As to the “socialist factor”, I don’t know for sure whether he’s commie or mob. Whichever he is, he is a puppet of “the Illuminati”. Sounds amusing, eh? That may be a bit “conspiracy theorist”, and it may be putting it a bit simplistically, but from the campaign it has obviously been his intent to destroy our nations economy, and thus position as a financial entity. Scoff as you will, but NO social/commun/fascist government has ever survived intact. Capitalism may suck, but it’s the only thing that survives long term.
And the “race card” is dead. Give me West, Cain, or Keyes, far “blacker” than OreObama, and you’d hurt your neck trying to follow my hand to the voting handle.
“As far as Obama being “socialist”? I only wish he were as socialist as say Bernie Sanders. No, sorry, Obama has about the same political ideology as Richard Nixon or Dwight D. Eisenhower.”
Obama is about as socialist as Stalin, and as crooked as Capone.
First off, Vattel was NOT a founding father, nor his his opinions controlling. Secondly, the Fourteenth Amendment along with numerous Supreme Court cases ARE controlling. Ergo, Obama is considered to be a natural born citizen according to law and eligible for the office of the presidency.
Understand that the Constitution is NOT the same as what was originally put forth by the “Founding Fathers”. Even they recognized that things would change, which is why they provided for such changes to be made to the Constitution in order to keep it up-to-date. A 150 years ago a black man wasn’t even considered to be completely human, let alone a citizen at all. Under Constitution at the time of those founding fathers a black man COULDN’T be a citizen, let alone be eligible to be president. Neither could a woman, for that matter. If you didn’t own land, you couldn’t even vote for president.
We aren’t dealing with laws of 1789, we are dealing with current laws here. Those laws say that Obama is eligible. Get over it.
The illuminati? Seriously? Now you are starting to sound like Mel Gibson’s character, or you’ve been reading too many of Dan Brown’s fiction books. The mob? Wow. Just keep throwing something out there to see what sticks.
Look, Obama is just a guy. He has no super powers, and has never claimed them. You might not agree with his ideas, or his positions, but you’d be hard-pressed to be able to demonstrate that he “hates” the country or that he intends some eeeevil plot against it.
If you were to do a blind test and put his policies up against Richard Nixon’s or Dwight Eisenhower’s, you would be surprised to learn that there is very little daylight between them.
The problem is that you WANT to believe the worst about the guy, and you will gravitate to whoever will validate what you want.
I just see a guy who has a tough job to do and virtually no help in doing it. Try looking past the corporate media and the clowns whose only purpose in life is to make sure he doesn’t succeed at anything. Actually try to listen to WHAT he is saying, instead of what others are TELLING you he is saying.
Quit letting others think for you.
Whatever, Deej. How about Stalin? He right there with Nixon and Eisenhower too? I’m thinking Purple Raider understands. What you’re saying is they’re all like that, yeah?
And if you’d gone to the next line about “putting it simplistically”, you’d have understood where I was coming from. Pull your head out, man. You know that there is that faction who actually do control the operations of the Earth, and all this bullshit about varied governments is nothing more than a chess game amongst them.
Oh crap. Because of Obama’s secretiveness, it has been possible to surmise many things about him. The question of his birth was the most basic. It’s very disappointing that he appears to be a “natural born citizen.”
We still have the larger issue of making sure he is frustrated in anything he tries for the remainder of his term in office.
Now, what was hidden while we’ve all been looking at Obama’s secretivness and debating his birth? What is he up to that we’ve been missing?
DJ Allyn says:
No shit but since his idea was almost certainly the standard and understood by the founders and all those alive at the time to be the standard it is incorporated by reference.Moses,Jesus, Montiesque,Hume, Locke and Cicero were as much founders as Madison, Jefferson, Adams Hamilton and Washingtom as the founders based much of what they did on the ten commandments,the British enlightenment and natural law as well as the state of the law of nations at the time and mistakenly thought that future generations would be familiar with such constructs and left those certain items undefined as everyone at the time new what those terms meant. Even as skeptical as the founder were they could not foresee the sophistry of those who would go so far as to mangle the language and ignore well established concepts in use at the time. The founders used the term “natural born citizen” for a reason as it has specific meaning. As far as I know this term is not addressed anywhere in the law. Therefore the understanding by the founders at the time is controlling.
Citizenship for sucking off the public teat is one thing citizenship to lead the country is narrowly defined.
This is the definition of sophistry. It seem plausible until you actually look into the particulars.
The framers of the the 14th amendment specifically stated that the amendment did not provide for birthright citizenship and since doesn’t provide for birthright citizenship it can’t possibly confer citizenship on what would be considered a narrower construct . This I have cited ad infinitum ad nauseum. And since it did not establish it(or in the minds of Obama’s apologists did) it must not have been present in the first place. Up until 1894(Wong Ark v US) it did not even allow for the citizenship of the progeny of permanent resident aliens as all cases brought up under the 14th amendment were adjudicated against the plaintiffs seeking such birthright citizenship.
Your construction of the 14th amendment would allow the concept of “anchor babies” which a scrupulous reading of the 14th would clearly prohibit as illegal aliens do not hold themselves responsible to this jurisdiction by ingressing surreptitiously. They are transient under the clear admonition which also would exclude the children of diplomats or invading armies.
That’s right DJ the change mechanism is called an amendment not change by specious and meretricious interpretations of clearly established law. The constitution can only be changed by the input of thousands not by 5 lawyers in black robes. The 14th amendment has been misapprehended, misapplied and misrepresented consistently since Wong and just like the commerce clause has been perverted beyond any semblance of it’s actual meaning by self serving, power hungry reprobates.
The constitution is in it’s current state because of men who thought they were great because they stood on the shoulders of giants.
It was not meant to be interpreted in the light of contemporary circumstance as this is the opposite of the “rule of law” and becomes “the rule of man”. Law that changes at the whim of man without authority and without proper procedure(both need to be observed) is arbitrary and the hallmark of a collectivist, totalitarian society. The only way you don’t see that this is what’s happening with the current occupant of the White House is because you have ideological blinders on.
The idea Obama is not a “socialist” is one of the more ridiculous contentions you make and you make it constantly. He is more the Gramscian/ Fabian type who like the government in “Atlas Shrugged” wishes to cajole your consent to your own subjugation. This gives it a patina of legitimacy. Of course when that doesn’t work he just commands his minions to ignore the express will of congress and the courts and do as he damn well pleases just like his third world tin pot models like Hugo Chavez.Why do you think communist regimes use the phrase democratic or republic in their names? It implies consent of the people to their own bondage and thus creates a plausible chimera of legitimacy that their fellow travelers in the academy to latch onto. Of course sophists like DJ think that just because we have a creeping totalitarian state as opposed to an overt revolution that we should believe our self proclaimed betters and not out lying eyes that our political and economic liberty are being circumscribed because of political movement that has more in common with religion than actual governance. The only thing that can make anyone believe that this totalitarian agenda will succeed is founded on such esoteric concepts as “hope” and “faith”(the foundations of all religion with the notable exception of Islam who’s doctrine is world submission). It sure as hell isn’t based on evidence.
By invoking Nixon and Eisenhower you do not exonerate Obama but indict them. I have no real problem with that as they were part of the same ruling class republican establishment that has made it’s peace with creeping statism.
Just to be clear, if I haven’t been to this point, all governmental philosophies which promote the leadership by some intrusive elite is leftist(according to what the founders conceived. See the “5000 year leap”) regardless of it’s supposed animating idea is of the left. Divine right monarchies and communist totalitarian dictatorships have much in common in the control of all facets of society from economics to social mores to politcal power and overt cronyism.
Now back to our story.
In the case of Eisenhower he turned a blind eye to communist infiltration and infestation.(derived from information in Blacklisted By History;M Stanton Evans). Nixon for various overweening government interventions such as OSHA, the EPA and wage and price controls.
I mean really DJ , “your guy did it too” is no argument as some agendas are wrong regardless of the party affiliation and it makes a presumption that is not in evidence with a majority of the people you wish to refute with that hackneyed “argument”. I would say that the preponderance of the people on both the boards we have in common are small government types who are the real RINO’s in that we do not accept the milquetoast acquiescence of the the establishment Republican Party in the inexorable march of the statist collective.
Unfortunately what Carroll Quigley wished for 50 years ago has come to pass in that the establishment parties have agreed in principle on the destination just not the means and timing.It’s kind of like the Muslim Brotherhood(repulicrats)and Al Qaeda(demicans) they agree that Shari’a is the goal it’s just a difference in method. In the case of the ruling class here they have agreed that we must be yoked to the “common good” no matter how much lawlessness and injustice they have to commit in order to assuage their over sized egos.
Oh and as to your pathetic invocation of the race card. Fuck you. Obama is opposed solely on the basis of his nihilistic, anti-American and un-American agenda. His policy of demonizing those who are successful and achieve within the bounds of a state set up to throttle you and throw you back at every turn is an obscenity. He is a hateful and vindictive jackass who is just the front man for a party of such reprehensible creatures.
So if Hillary or Biden were president what would be your vacuous assertion be then? That we are prejudiced against women and the retarded? The NDSWP’s policies of legalized theft and the fencing of stolen property,euphemistically described as “tax and spend”, are abhorrent, their economic philosophy of government control and coercion of the means of productions are vacuous and discredited.
Calling the people here or anywhere “racist” for naturally following up on evidence that he himself promoted as his “story” is as reprehensible as it is fatuous. It is only the left who see things through the prism of race by inventing things like “code language” and indulging in the conceit that they can read our minds. It is the left who has encoded racism in the law with any number of affirmative action laws which take into account the color and not quality of an individual.
Quite frankly DJ for someone who is so condescending and who has pretensions to superior intelligence you sure were quick to invoke the primary trope of vacuous leftist imbeciles everywhere i.e if you question the Won you must be RAAAAAACIST!!!!
I had had hoped you were better than that. I’m not surprised that you are not.
Apparently there are none so blind…
And no, he is NOT “natural born”, he is “native born” if he was in fact born in Hawaii after all. The Founding fathers based that on the definition of BOTH parents so there would be no division of loyalties possible.