Comments on: Obama Eligibility and the Gotcha Liberals

By: ethunter

ethunter — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:29:34 +0000

I was born in Ontario while my father was working there. My parents went to the U.S. Consulate and registered me there as being born an American citizen. The INS issued me a formal document that said,” Born: 28 March 1933. Became U.S. citizen: 28 March 1933.” At that time, I was verbally told, in passing, that I was now eligible to become President. From what has been said here, it sounds like either the INS lied, or you are mistaken. Fortunately, I never wanted to be President.

By: Ken

Ken — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:13:47 +0000

Warrior,there is no argument about Children of American Parents deployed by the United States. If it were two Americans just roaming around a foreign country it would be argumentable. However, parents who were Citizens of the U.S. were deployed by the U.S.A., with orders, as a directive, eliminating any question. And, if born on base in an American Facility (American Soil wether leased or owned). American Consulates equally derive legal status in the same way.

By: warrior4Truth

warrior4Truth — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 11:38:32 +0000

@ FranLG….. I have no doubt that your daughter is a “US Citizen”. By US Law, though, your daughter is NOT a “Natural Born Citizen” of the United States of America, and thus your daughter born in Japan – with certificate and Passport and all – she is NOT Eligible to be POTUS nor VPOTUS.

By: FranLG

FranLG — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 21:06:26 +0000

Elixir: McCains parents were in Panama because the US Navy sent them there. At that time Panama Canal Zone was a US territory (US soil). My daughter was bore in Japan because the US Air Force sent us there; her birthcertificate reads: BIRTH OF A CITIZEN ABROAD, issued by the US State Department. She got her first United States Passport at the ripe old age of 6weeks. I believe one has to be a citizen to obtain a US Passport.

By: elixir

elixir — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:54:29 +0000

Let us not forget his former “opponent” the despicably dimwitted panamanchurian candidate, Juan Mclame.

Undeniably not a natural born citizen. A citizen yes, by virtue of his parents. In no manner could he be considered to meet the constitutional requirement though.

By: Nick Horan

Nick Horan — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:10:44 +0000

President has exective privelege, a lower court can,t demend from him. But his attorney doesn,t have this right. The issue here is The State Constitution of Georgia, which Obama is requesting permission to be on their ballot and conforming to its rules. Natural citizen, vs naturalized, vs natural born are totally different worms. The President doesn,t meet the State,s Constitutional Rules to be on the ballot. What happens when other States hear of this, they already have, and what happens when other States which have similar Constitutional requirements ignor this? I think its called color of law, treason, willfull lenegent [sp] of duty of other state officials duties. Troubles ahead, and maybe a Constitutional Crisises[sp].

By: Dmitri

Dmitri — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:29:54 +0000

Now that obama did not appear in court. What is the next step. I see the newspapers here in South Africa have nothing about this story.

Thanks
Dmitri

By: Barbara

Barbara — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 08:22:17 +0000

Thanks for the post. I was attacked with all sorts of nasty terms yesterday on the Huffpost gauntlet of comments. One of their favorites was “birther”. I had never had a discussion on this subject before in my life. I was just willing to look into the points made in the case. So, I looked into the Birth Certificate that is presented for us to believe. It doesn’t hold up to what I believe to be even a minor level of scrutiny. When I put that forward it was like asking the hungry lions to wait to eat.
You should see what they did to some guy named Cody, I don’t think he’ll be back on the site. I’m not sure I want to, but someone should introduce some intellegence or sanity to this circus of media trained sheep. Now i’m calling names…
So, Is there anyone on the “opposing side” that has a reasonable defense to all of this? The forgery is obvious. I download a printed document and it is one file, not ten. How are they justifying there point of view? Legally? Merely too powerful to take him down? Too many insiders because the government is already run by outside money? Anyone can just point me in a direction, I don’t want to pick someones brain dry, there is a lot to learn out there.
I do understand why you say that Minor was not determined to apply – because the question was unnecessary, the order was given because the defendant didn’t show up, Default.
I’m glad Kemp stood his ground and didn’t fear the power of king O and the disappearing american trick, to make light of NDAA.
We may not be laughing for long.

By: Karl Oakes

Karl Oakes — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 19:27:14 +0000

Craig, I agree with you that the issue can’t be resolved by looking at past Presidents. The issue is resolved by looking at the law of the land. You’ve been claiming for a long time that Minor V. Happersett “defines” a natural born citizen, when the Supreme Court actually came out and REFUSED to define it. I’ve asked you several times, and I ask you again: What part of the following is wrong?

MINOR TRANSLATED:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

WE HAVE TO LOOK OUTSIDE THE CONSTITUTION TO FIGURE OUT WHO IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN (NBC)

At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

UNDER THE LEGAL SYSTEM THE FRAMERS WERE FAMILIAR WITH, THERE WAS NO DOUBT YOU WERE A NBC IF YOU WERE BORN HERE AND YOUR PARENTS WERE CITIZENS

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

SOME LEGAL AUTHORITY SAYS YOU CAN BE A NBC AS LONG AS YOU WERE BORN HERE, EVEN IF YOU DON’T HAVE CITIZEN PARENTS

As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

SOME DOUBTS HAVE BEEN RAISED ABOUT THAT

For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

WE DON’T NEED TO RESOLVE THOSE DOUBTS — I.E., WE ARE NOT GOING TO DECIDE THAT NOW

Thus, Minor did NOT define Natural Born Citizen as some are claiming.

By: Daniel's Seventieth 7

Daniel's Seventieth 7 — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 17:40:33 +0000

Bravo Mr. Andresen!

From Chester Arthur’s Feinian Brotherhood:

“Nationality is their first object-… a nationality which may embrace Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter…”

Sound familiar?…

“We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers.” B. Obama 1/20/09

What are the odds?
-Two presidents with similar creeds.
-Both questioned about their birthplace but not the citizenship of their fathers. ( both British citizens)
-Both required to retake the oath of office.