Obama has fooled the entire USA which gives him the only award he deserves, The Imposter of the USA Century. Foreign born are not allowed to be US President:
Those journalists lie about the Gray Communist having "published his birth certificate", and only insinuate, without any proof, that Orly Taitz produced a fake Kenyan certificate and was acting with the Israeli government.
This is sloppiness and/or dishonesty at its height.
But at least they acknowledge that the Gray Communist suffers from the eligibility issue, on which the comments here show that the general public knows much more than the media is willing to say.
You can't have loyalty to TWO countries and be a president of the United States. You people are MORONS and don't understand what our Constitutions says AT ALL. Our forefather's must be turning in their graves.
I look at this question the other way. If in fact someone with allegiances to other countries made it to the Presidency to muck up the country, what would he do and what would he say. Does Obama have it out for the USA. 1) Does he pretend to be an American. 2) Is he making policy which goes against the constitution. 3) Are his words and actions the same. Race will be used by his supporters, propaganda will be used by his opponents. I say release the documents and settle this. Why not ?
"old cannard" ? "high favorability ratings" ? what world is this guy living in? It is a valid question and his favorability ratings are extremely low. "investigative journalist"? The word "fool" is more accurate.
No I don't but the thing is the birthers said first that the birth certificate was forged that it was not real.Hawaii confirmed they issued it to him.I don't understand why they would do that if he had no original.if he was not born in Hawaii then a bunch of people are covering it up.
Then why do the officials in Hawaii say it is?they also say they have the original and they confirm he was born there.are you saying the officials in Hawaii are lying?..what reason would they have to lie?...they also have a Republican governor.
"Born in the US to 2 Citizen Parents is a Natural Born Citizen."
Wrong. not "In" the US.
mother was a citizen. Obama is therefore natural born. No matter where he was born. Again, it doesn't matter if you agree, you're not on the selection committee. So believe away.
Oh and what in the fuck is this? : "combination of Blood and soil that ensures the highest probability of allegiance "
Sounds like this guy is a kook and Russian t.v. is trying to make an international incident blaming Israel for Obama's refusal to present his birth records. Why would he spend close to a million dollars - so far - to fight against showing a certified copy of his birth certificate? That has nothing to do with the Joooooos.
Constitution doesn't say you gotta be born IN the US. His fucking mother was a US citizen. If one goes on a vacation to italy, and they have a fucking child there doesn't mean child is not a US citizen.
Hey Dipshit, keep sucking the sac of your phoney president cause your in for big reality check soon! Look up the definition of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. GOT IT NOW?? His mother was too young to pass on natural born rights. Father was born in KENYA and couldnt pass on natural born rights. And on top of those two issues your phoney president is hiding and has sealed every single document in his past that would show his citizenship status. Are u just stupid or is it just a man crush thing?
You are not correct. The age of the Mother at the age of birth would only be questioned if he was born overseas (possibly). Since he was born in Hawaii, and his Mother is an American citizen he is qualified, period. Also, shouting and calling names does not make you right, it just makes you look foolish.
It does say that. Unfortunately there is no legal definition of that term in US law. So we are forced to go by the only legal definition of citizenship we have, the one provided by the 14th Amendment. To be a Natural Citizen of the US, you need to be born on US soil or outside of the US to 2 citizen parents. Since he was born in Hawaii, which is US soil, it does not matter where his parents were from. Learn the law.
The 14th Amendment (1866) does not settle the matter, as expressedly stated in Minor v. Happersett (1874): The definition of a natural born citizen is to be found outside of the Constitution.
I love when you Birthers all make the same mistake. Minor was a case about a woman's right to vote. In the judge's statement, he says that for people born in the US of two citizen parents, there is NO DOUBT that they are natural born citizens. But he does not say that they are the only ones. He further states that this case will not define natural born citizenship. SO Minor does not help you.
Every time SCOTUS pronounced itself on natural-born citizenship since The Venus (1814) it has been consistent in its definition: that's "parents" with an "s".
You are the one who failed to understand Minor v. Happerstatt. In the 230 years that the USA has been around, there has never been a legal definition of NBC provided by any court case. As in Minor, some judges have said that a certain group must be considered NBC, but they have not defined it to only being that one group. Thank you for playing but learn the facts next time.
And yes, many Supreme court decisions have incidentally defined a "natural born citizen".
Not only The Venus (1814) and Minor v. Happersett (1874) but also Shanks v. Dupont (1830), Scott v. Sandford (1856), Ex parte Reynolds (1879), Ward (1890), Wong Kim Ark (1898), and Ludlam (1863). Their constant definition ("ParentS with an "s") has also been confirmed by Representative John A. Bingham, the architect of the 14th Amendment.
Excuse me for misspelling the name off the top of my head. At least I have read the case, which you obviously have not. In the judge's decision, he specifically says that the case is not going to provide a definition of Natural Born Citizen. It merely supports that people born in the US of two citizen parents are without a doubt NBC. It does not say that they are the only ones. As for the other cases you name, what blog did you copy these from? The Venus has nothing to do with NBC; It deals....
(cont) property rights and naturalized citizens. Scott v. Sandford is in regards to the rights of a slave and has been vacated by the 14th Amendment. Shanks v. Dupont does not deal with NBC since it involves the English born grandchildren trying to claim the estate of their grandfather and whether their mother lost her citizenship by marrying a British Officer. As for Bingham, although he was in charge of the 14th Amendment, he did not write the Citizenship Clause. Jacob Howe did. Bingham....
(cont) disagreed with the Clause quite publicly after it had been put in place. But that is nothing more than his opinion. The 14th Amendment is the law. Nowhere in the law is Natural Born Citizen defined in US law. None of these cases define it, not even incidentally. Finally, if you Birthers are so sure that NBC is defined by law the way you want it to be, how is it then that no one ever brought this up during the campaign? Last October, when McCain was trailing in the polls and heading...
(cont) into the final debate, why didn't he just mention that Obama isn't eligible to be President because his father was not a citizen? With all this case law that you claim makes your case, why did he and Hilary just allow this "Ineligible" opponent to beat them? When you can intelligently answer that, get back to me. Until then, don't talk about the law since you have no clue what it means.
But that does not make it law. Many cases before SCOTUS cite any number of sources, novels, foreign law, texts from centuries past, Shakespeare, etc. Just because something is mentioned in a case before SCOTUS does not make it law. The opinion of many legal scholars is that the Founders were indeed referencing de Vatel when they put the term NBC into the Constitution. But since it was never defined into law as such, it holds no weight. Your parents citizenship does not effect your eligibility.
"It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
Vattel... is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other... says
"... The natives or indigènes are those born in the country of parentS who are citizens. "
Yes it does. It also cites The Jonge Clarissa, a novel by Samuel Richardson, De Juren Belli ac Paris by Hugo Grotius, a treatise on war and peace written 200 years prior, Sir William Scott, a high Judge in England and the case of the Citto, a Danish case about a ship traveling to Spain. All of these plus Vatel are used in the case. It does not make what is in them the law in the US. What you cite actually comes from the dissent, not the actual ruling of the case.
You need to learn the law, bot. To be a Natural Born American citizen you must be born owing no foreign allegiance. Obama, a dual British/U.S. citizen at birth doesn't qualify.
Congressman John Bingham, father of the 14th amendment: every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.
Sorry, but you need to learn the law. The term Natural Born Citizen has no legal definition in the US. The quote you cite from Bingham is from an opinion he wrote. It is not part of any law. Obama, by the way, no longer has British citizenship; he lost it in 1964. And he owes no allegiance to any foreign nation. Nice repeating of Birther talking points, but total ignorance of US law.
Because, you dumb cunt, he doesn't owe you. He doesn't have to show it to you. He has to show the committee or whatever that makes sure that a candidate is eligible to run for presidency.
NIce language. Shows a lot of respect for differing points of view. Maybe you did not hear this but NO ONE or NO COMMITTEE has ever vetted him for the presidency. THAT'S THE WHOLE PROBLEM!
The Birth Place or birth certificate does not matter. He could have been born in the White House, and not be Natural Born. His Father was not a Citizen when Obama 2 was born. Natural Born Citizen = Born in the US to 2 Citizen Parents.
Vattel is the only reference for Natural-born citizen the founding fathers had, and it would apply. You must have TWO parents that are US citizens, not ONE be a Natural-born citizen. Obama may have been legal to be a Senator, but not President. Once he's proven illegitimate, his legislation will be just as illegitimate.
It does not apply because they never put it into law or into the Constitution. There is no definition for 'Natural Born Citizen' in all of the US legal canon. None of us are 'Natural Born Citizens' by definition because there is no legal definition for the term. I personally believe the Founders were referring to de Vattel's work when choosing that definition. But it can not be proven, so it is not legitimate.
But the intent was obviously to establish exclusive allegiance through an automatic vetting mechanism; and here it seems that the Gray Communist is exacly the kind of person --a natural-born BRITISH subject-- whom they intended to keep away from the position of Cammander in Chief.
You can argue about intent all day long. Personally, I agree that the Founders were using de Vattel's definition. But that has never been decided in a court of law. Just as the Supreme Court had to make a ruling on the intent of the 2nd Amendment two years ago (which I think they got wrong), so to would a court need to rule on the intent of the wording of 'Natural Born Citizen'. And even if that case went to SCOTUS tomorrow, it would not be retroactive. So he is eligible and is President.
All judicial precedents are retro-active, to the extent that they must change previous interpretations of the law, and approximately half of judicial decisions must deny rights which someone de facto possessed or thought he had.
Since a SCOTUS precedent on Natural-Born Citizenship would by hypothesis involve the current Usurper, it would indeed have a retro-active effect.
And the fact that no court has pronounced itself on his eligibility does not mean he is legitimate.
No, in this case SCOTUS would be saying that a definition for Natural Born Citizen based on the Founders intentions is finally being put into law. If they decided that de Vatel's definition is the one to use, they would be making it active from here on out. It would not be made retroactive since it can not be applied to previous presidencies. We can't throw Wilson's and Arthur's presidencies. Nor would we be able to throw out Obama's since he was duly elected under the law as it was at the....
(cont) time of his election. With his being born in Hawaii, he was eligible under the law as it was legally understood when he was elected last November. Now if they ruled he was born outside the US, that would be different. What would be really interesting would be if the ruled that de Vatel's definition was the one to use, would Obama be able to run for re-election, since a sitting president is eligible to do so?
If the Court finds that the Gray Communist is not a natural-born citizen it automatically follows that he was not "duly elected under the law" and that he was never President.
I don't see how the rule of law could be consistently respected otherwise, and that is why a judicial precedent also has the consequence of denying a party the rights he thought he had.
Wrong silly. The requirement is Natural Born Citizen, not US Citizen. It is a combination of Blood and soil that ensures the highest probability of allegiance to the US. Born in the US to 2 Citizen Parents is a Natural Born Citizen.
obama could easily put this to rest and avoid the constitutional crisis if he would merely put up the actual long form birth certificate identifying the hospital and with the delivering doctor's signature.
Prove that you are constitutionally qualified and the issue is dead - why don't you do it?
The State of Hawaii has verified that not only does the State have his long form BC on file but that it does say he was born in Honolulu. I'll take their word as proof over the lack of evidence provided by Birthers.
It's become abundantly clear that this birth certificate issue is a psyop. I'm not saying he's natural born or that he's not, but the fact Israel is speaking out against Obama shows it's a farce. Israel could not exist if not for the US. Netanyahu would not say this unless the powers that be wanted him to.
If Israel is trying to take Obama out, it is the first time they ever tried to do anything good for America. Israel is ruthless and will get whatever information they need, after all we give them over 3 billion a year to operate their propaganda machine. After paying bribes of over 300+ million to our congress every year they have plenty left to bribe Kenya into giving up Barry Obama's real birth certificate. If that does not work, they are very good at killing ones that do not cooperate.
Notice that this guest says nothing about Philip Berg's case. I've long believed the Israeli/Zionist issue to be a sideshow, and Netanyahu's involvement in this does little to convince me that Obama is a victim here.
If this guest on this show did some research into the business interests that bankrolled Obama's campaign, tons of money probably had Israeli connections, so Israel would be playing both sides.
Nonetheless, whatever comes of the birther issue, Obama need to be taken down.
Regardless of which side of the Constitution you stand, for or against. I heard a radio interview with Berg late in the day yesterday 08-10-09. Berg contends that two of his cases are still very much alive.
The passport myth is about as stupid as the birth certificate nonsense. Madsen, the guy in the video, says Obama was living in Indonesia with his step father Lolo Soetoro in 1981. Not true; just look it up. Obama separating from Soetoro and returned to the U.S. permanently in 1971.
It's all just tin-foil hat stuff, debunked long ago.
Obama supporters have a fond notion of this tin-foil hat cliche, its probably connected to some sort of odd sexual fetish they have with the material. lol
But seriously, the fact that Obama had been out of the country for an extended period of time and was adopted by a non-American is very problematic. The legality would need to be established in court, but it definitely explains why Obama's loyalties are tilted towards offshore banking interests rather than the American people.
hellsunicorn wrote: "Obama supporters have a fond notion of this tin-foil hat cliche"
If you think what we Obama supports say is harsh, check out what Obama opponent Ann Coulter said about y'all: "You know it's just a few cranks out there. It's like when networks bring on the three remaining Klanners in America on T.V."
watch?v=mBwMJO9-pG0
Ouch! I saw that aspect of your cause, of course, but I did not go that far and liken you to the Klan. Don't shoot the messenger.
ooh I am evil I travelled on two passports. You ignorant pricks many AMERICANS travel under another countries passport. Way back if you were caught on the street of ome countries with a U.S. passport you could be kidnapped or killed.
Name those countries please, asks an ignorant prick American. I've used my US passport to enter dozens of unfriendly countries including Cuba, so what are you talking, bro? My guess is you need two passports because you are a felon, punk.
First, there is no proof that Soetoro ever adopted Obama. But let's say he did: Under US law, a child can not form the consent to give up his citizenship. So Obama never lost his US citizenship while in Indonesia. After he returned to the US at age 10, he would still have held Indonesian citizenship until age 23 when, in order to keep it, he would have had to renounce his US citizenship. He did not. If ever he had it, he has not held Indonesian citizenship for 25 years now.
A "natural born" citizen is any person born of US citizen parents (that's two) in the U. S. mainland (includes Alaska and Hawaii)
A "native born" citizen, is any person born in the United States mainland -- think Barack Obama --
(jus soli)+(jus sanguinis). The child meets both tests.= NBC
CAPTDAX 1 year ago
Obama has fooled the entire USA which gives him the only award he deserves, The Imposter of the USA Century. Foreign born are not allowed to be US President:
Kenyans know Obama was born in Kenya:
CAPTDAX 1 year ago
THE FAKE IS FROM HAWAII !
HE JUST HAS TO SHOW THE ORIGINAL...AND HE WONT ! CUZ HE CANT !
13AJJONES 1 year ago
Do you? Did Bush? Did Clinton? Find me their posted BCs and Passport records online. No one deserves such an invasion of privacy.
tgear77 2 years ago
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." Joseph Stalin.
By the way, Stalin was also a Free Mason, as well as Gorbochav, bet you Ruskis did not know that.
bhibatsu 2 years ago
No I did not NEED two passports but felt alot more comfortable with two. Because there WERE some countries that really hated Americans.
TruthFullWords 2 years ago
Those journalists lie about the Gray Communist having "published his birth certificate", and only insinuate, without any proof, that Orly Taitz produced a fake Kenyan certificate and was acting with the Israeli government.
This is sloppiness and/or dishonesty at its height.
But at least they acknowledge that the Gray Communist suffers from the eligibility issue, on which the comments here show that the general public knows much more than the media is willing to say.
Szentelira 2 years ago
You can't have loyalty to TWO countries and be a president of the United States. You people are MORONS and don't understand what our Constitutions says AT ALL. Our forefather's must be turning in their graves.
SweetCaroline1971 2 years ago
But Obama does not have loyalties to two countries. Not according to the law. He is eligible and he is President
tgear77 2 years ago
I look at this question the other way. If in fact someone with allegiances to other countries made it to the Presidency to muck up the country, what would he do and what would he say. Does Obama have it out for the USA. 1) Does he pretend to be an American. 2) Is he making policy which goes against the constitution. 3) Are his words and actions the same. Race will be used by his supporters, propaganda will be used by his opponents. I say release the documents and settle this. Why not ?
kmmaraxus 2 years ago 2
It's all they got though. The facts aren't going to help them.
st4ticblu3 2 years ago
Do you?
Gravel4Prez 2 years ago
"old cannard" ? "high favorability ratings" ? what world is this guy living in? It is a valid question and his favorability ratings are extremely low. "investigative journalist"? The word "fool" is more accurate.
PowerForGood 2 years ago
No I don't but the thing is the birthers said first that the birth certificate was forged that it was not real.Hawaii confirmed they issued it to him.I don't understand why they would do that if he had no original.if he was not born in Hawaii then a bunch of people are covering it up.
idlertire 2 years ago
JESUS
baltimoreravensfc 2 years ago
Because it's the law in Hawaii that they issue a short form birth certificate.everyone that's born there get's the same thing.
idlertire 2 years ago
These birthers are just racists.
chairde 2 years ago
I am a birther. My wife is black. Fuck you.
XsamgX 2 years ago
your a birther? I thought only women can get pregnant.
TruthFullWords 2 years ago
Obama as president = dangerous
Ins3minator 2 years ago
Then why do the officials in Hawaii say it is?they also say they have the original and they confirm he was born there.are you saying the officials in Hawaii are lying?..what reason would they have to lie?...they also have a Republican governor.
idlertire 2 years ago
your intelligence is'nt legit
allenamerica 2 years ago
Kenya is trying to take over the US? Wha???
hyperrreal 2 years ago
I'm so sick of hearing people claim a certification of live birth is a birth certificate.
I'm a walrus. Thats right a walrus. And its true because I said its true.
JesseKantstopolis 2 years ago
If the birthers keep looking they may just find santa and the easter bunny. I know they are out there somewhere :)
angelaj1939 2 years ago
"Born in the US to 2 Citizen Parents is a Natural Born Citizen."
Wrong. not "In" the US.
mother was a citizen. Obama is therefore natural born. No matter where he was born. Again, it doesn't matter if you agree, you're not on the selection committee. So believe away.
Oh and what in the fuck is this? : "combination of Blood and soil that ensures the highest probability of allegiance "
Too much stuff coming out of ass
CaIgaryFIames 2 years ago
Loved the british-russian pronunciation.
Did not like "Wayne the expert" and whole excuse for journalism exercise...
If Putin likes Obama - I am - not.
Go, Orly, go!
abro15 2 years ago
Russian mother fucking bastards!
webchamp930 2 years ago
hahaha
lolololololo
dino01 2 years ago
its not the Mossad?drunk putina hahahahah
1pornezzo 2 years ago 2
Putin` Old Tricks hahahahah
kozil55 2 years ago 3
KGB/FSB regular disinformation with their informant show
suying1 2 years ago 15
Bullshit of Ex KGB station & Drunk "Jurnalist"
MosheDrori1 2 years ago 22
He should show the original, McCain did!!!!!
Does this community organizer think he's better than a POW? Apparently so!
bbv4 2 years ago
where was obama born?
tomandmary55 2 years ago
Sounds like this guy is a kook and Russian t.v. is trying to make an international incident blaming Israel for Obama's refusal to present his birth records. Why would he spend close to a million dollars - so far - to fight against showing a certified copy of his birth certificate? That has nothing to do with the Joooooos.
Kiro123123123 2 years ago
Comment removed
dinkolino2 2 years ago
The Truth is Out There ! One must Search for it.
JakeBlakeProject 2 years ago
uh, no,,,
Constitution doesn't say you gotta be born IN the US. His fucking mother was a US citizen. If one goes on a vacation to italy, and they have a fucking child there doesn't mean child is not a US citizen.
Dumb fucking public!
CaIgaryFIames 2 years ago
Hey Dipshit, keep sucking the sac of your phoney president cause your in for big reality check soon! Look up the definition of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. GOT IT NOW?? His mother was too young to pass on natural born rights. Father was born in KENYA and couldnt pass on natural born rights. And on top of those two issues your phoney president is hiding and has sealed every single document in his past that would show his citizenship status. Are u just stupid or is it just a man crush thing?
rwoodward61 2 years ago
You are not correct. The age of the Mother at the age of birth would only be questioned if he was born overseas (possibly). Since he was born in Hawaii, and his Mother is an American citizen he is qualified, period. Also, shouting and calling names does not make you right, it just makes you look foolish.
MrShermansMarch 2 years ago
Why would a non American care who is President anyway?
MrShermansMarch 2 years ago
natural born citizen has a higher standard of proof than just a citizen. your use of profanity makes you look like a brain dead obamabot zombie.
tomandmary55 2 years ago
There is no legal definition for the term 'Natural Born Citizen'. It can not be applied to prove anything legally.
tgear77 2 years ago
The Constitution says the POTUS must be Natural Born.
Instead of running your foul mouth why don't you go learn what the requirements are?
HereinLasVegas 2 years ago
And what the fuck does "Natural Born" mean?
You dumb idiots think it means born withing US boundaries don;t you? For fuck's sake!
Mother=Us citizen=Son=natural born
But hey! the people responsible for determining Obama eligibility understood it. Thats all that matters. dumb idiots.
CaIgaryFIames 2 years ago
It does say that. Unfortunately there is no legal definition of that term in US law. So we are forced to go by the only legal definition of citizenship we have, the one provided by the 14th Amendment. To be a Natural Citizen of the US, you need to be born on US soil or outside of the US to 2 citizen parents. Since he was born in Hawaii, which is US soil, it does not matter where his parents were from. Learn the law.
tgear77 2 years ago
You learn the law.
The 14th Amendment (1866) does not settle the matter, as expressedly stated in Minor v. Happersett (1874): The definition of a natural born citizen is to be found outside of the Constitution.
Szentelira 2 years ago
I love when you Birthers all make the same mistake. Minor was a case about a woman's right to vote. In the judge's statement, he says that for people born in the US of two citizen parents, there is NO DOUBT that they are natural born citizens. But he does not say that they are the only ones. He further states that this case will not define natural born citizenship. SO Minor does not help you.
tgear77 2 years ago
Every time SCOTUS pronounced itself on natural-born citizenship since The Venus (1814) it has been consistent in its definition: that's "parents" with an "s".
Szentelira 2 years ago
You are the one who failed to understand Minor v. Happerstatt. In the 230 years that the USA has been around, there has never been a legal definition of NBC provided by any court case. As in Minor, some judges have said that a certain group must be considered NBC, but they have not defined it to only being that one group. Thank you for playing but learn the facts next time.
tgear77 2 years ago
That's not "Happerstatt" but "Happersett".
And yes, many Supreme court decisions have incidentally defined a "natural born citizen".
Not only The Venus (1814) and Minor v. Happersett (1874) but also Shanks v. Dupont (1830), Scott v. Sandford (1856), Ex parte Reynolds (1879), Ward (1890), Wong Kim Ark (1898), and Ludlam (1863). Their constant definition ("ParentS with an "s") has also been confirmed by Representative John A. Bingham, the architect of the 14th Amendment.
Szentelira 2 years ago
Excuse me for misspelling the name off the top of my head. At least I have read the case, which you obviously have not. In the judge's decision, he specifically says that the case is not going to provide a definition of Natural Born Citizen. It merely supports that people born in the US of two citizen parents are without a doubt NBC. It does not say that they are the only ones. As for the other cases you name, what blog did you copy these from? The Venus has nothing to do with NBC; It deals....
tgear77 2 years ago
(cont) property rights and naturalized citizens. Scott v. Sandford is in regards to the rights of a slave and has been vacated by the 14th Amendment. Shanks v. Dupont does not deal with NBC since it involves the English born grandchildren trying to claim the estate of their grandfather and whether their mother lost her citizenship by marrying a British Officer. As for Bingham, although he was in charge of the 14th Amendment, he did not write the Citizenship Clause. Jacob Howe did. Bingham....
tgear77 2 years ago
(cont) disagreed with the Clause quite publicly after it had been put in place. But that is nothing more than his opinion. The 14th Amendment is the law. Nowhere in the law is Natural Born Citizen defined in US law. None of these cases define it, not even incidentally. Finally, if you Birthers are so sure that NBC is defined by law the way you want it to be, how is it then that no one ever brought this up during the campaign? Last October, when McCain was trailing in the polls and heading...
tgear77 2 years ago
(cont) into the final debate, why didn't he just mention that Obama isn't eligible to be President because his father was not a citizen? With all this case law that you claim makes your case, why did he and Hilary just allow this "Ineligible" opponent to beat them? When you can intelligently answer that, get back to me. Until then, don't talk about the law since you have no clue what it means.
tgear77 2 years ago
None of those cases is primarily about NBC, which would have meant dealing with a challenge to a President's eligibility.
All of them incidentally DO repeat the same definition of a NBC, as understood by the Framers of 1787: "parentS" with an S.
Szentelira 2 years ago
But that does not make it law. Many cases before SCOTUS cite any number of sources, novels, foreign law, texts from centuries past, Shakespeare, etc. Just because something is mentioned in a case before SCOTUS does not make it law. The opinion of many legal scholars is that the Founders were indeed referencing de Vatel when they put the term NBC into the Constitution. But since it was never defined into law as such, it holds no weight. Your parents citizenship does not effect your eligibility.
tgear77 2 years ago
"The Venus" explicitely quotes Vattel (1758):
"It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
Vattel... is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other... says
"... The natives or indigènes are those born in the country of parentS who are citizens. "
Szentelira 2 years ago
Yes it does. It also cites The Jonge Clarissa, a novel by Samuel Richardson, De Juren Belli ac Paris by Hugo Grotius, a treatise on war and peace written 200 years prior, Sir William Scott, a high Judge in England and the case of the Citto, a Danish case about a ship traveling to Spain. All of these plus Vatel are used in the case. It does not make what is in them the law in the US. What you cite actually comes from the dissent, not the actual ruling of the case.
tgear77 2 years ago
You need to learn the law, bot. To be a Natural Born American citizen you must be born owing no foreign allegiance. Obama, a dual British/U.S. citizen at birth doesn't qualify.
Congressman John Bingham, father of the 14th amendment: every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.
menzelcassini 2 years ago
Sorry, but you need to learn the law. The term Natural Born Citizen has no legal definition in the US. The quote you cite from Bingham is from an opinion he wrote. It is not part of any law. Obama, by the way, no longer has British citizenship; he lost it in 1964. And he owes no allegiance to any foreign nation. Nice repeating of Birther talking points, but total ignorance of US law.
tgear77 2 years ago
Comment removed
Szentelira 2 years ago
Showing his LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE should simply make this whole mess go away. Why won't he do it? Is there something he is hiding?
Bud3491 2 years ago
"Why won't he do it? "
Because, you dumb cunt, he doesn't owe you. He doesn't have to show it to you. He has to show the committee or whatever that makes sure that a candidate is eligible to run for presidency.
CaIgaryFIames 2 years ago
You're being an embarrassment to Canada. Watch your mouth, eh?
kanawa 2 years ago
NIce language. Shows a lot of respect for differing points of view. Maybe you did not hear this but NO ONE or NO COMMITTEE has ever vetted him for the presidency. THAT'S THE WHOLE PROBLEM!
Bud3491 2 years ago
He never did.
Szentelira 2 years ago
The Birth Place or birth certificate does not matter. He could have been born in the White House, and not be Natural Born. His Father was not a Citizen when Obama 2 was born. Natural Born Citizen = Born in the US to 2 Citizen Parents.
mivo68 2 years ago 3
Vattel is the only reference for Natural-born citizen the founding fathers had, and it would apply. You must have TWO parents that are US citizens, not ONE be a Natural-born citizen. Obama may have been legal to be a Senator, but not President. Once he's proven illegitimate, his legislation will be just as illegitimate.
TUBEDUDE4U 2 years ago
It does not apply because they never put it into law or into the Constitution. There is no definition for 'Natural Born Citizen' in all of the US legal canon. None of us are 'Natural Born Citizens' by definition because there is no legal definition for the term. I personally believe the Founders were referring to de Vattel's work when choosing that definition. But it can not be proven, so it is not legitimate.
tgear77 2 years ago
The references to Vattel are indeed proven.
But the intent was obviously to establish exclusive allegiance through an automatic vetting mechanism; and here it seems that the Gray Communist is exacly the kind of person --a natural-born BRITISH subject-- whom they intended to keep away from the position of Cammander in Chief.
Szentelira 2 years ago
You can argue about intent all day long. Personally, I agree that the Founders were using de Vattel's definition. But that has never been decided in a court of law. Just as the Supreme Court had to make a ruling on the intent of the 2nd Amendment two years ago (which I think they got wrong), so to would a court need to rule on the intent of the wording of 'Natural Born Citizen'. And even if that case went to SCOTUS tomorrow, it would not be retroactive. So he is eligible and is President.
tgear77 2 years ago
All judicial precedents are retro-active, to the extent that they must change previous interpretations of the law, and approximately half of judicial decisions must deny rights which someone de facto possessed or thought he had.
Since a SCOTUS precedent on Natural-Born Citizenship would by hypothesis involve the current Usurper, it would indeed have a retro-active effect.
And the fact that no court has pronounced itself on his eligibility does not mean he is legitimate.
Szentelira 2 years ago
No, in this case SCOTUS would be saying that a definition for Natural Born Citizen based on the Founders intentions is finally being put into law. If they decided that de Vatel's definition is the one to use, they would be making it active from here on out. It would not be made retroactive since it can not be applied to previous presidencies. We can't throw Wilson's and Arthur's presidencies. Nor would we be able to throw out Obama's since he was duly elected under the law as it was at the....
tgear77 2 years ago
(cont) time of his election. With his being born in Hawaii, he was eligible under the law as it was legally understood when he was elected last November. Now if they ruled he was born outside the US, that would be different. What would be really interesting would be if the ruled that de Vatel's definition was the one to use, would Obama be able to run for re-election, since a sitting president is eligible to do so?
tgear77 2 years ago
If the Court finds that the Gray Communist is not a natural-born citizen it automatically follows that he was not "duly elected under the law" and that he was never President.
I don't see how the rule of law could be consistently respected otherwise, and that is why a judicial precedent also has the consequence of denying a party the rights he thought he had.
Szentelira 2 years ago
"Born in the US to 2 Citizen Parents. "
wrong you dumb motherfucker. The mother was a citizen. That is enough. So if he was born in Kenya or Mars, he would be a US citizen.
CaIgaryFIames 2 years ago
that doesnt matter, he needs to be US born to be a president
dinkolino2 2 years ago
Wrong silly. The requirement is Natural Born Citizen, not US Citizen. It is a combination of Blood and soil that ensures the highest probability of allegiance to the US. Born in the US to 2 Citizen Parents is a Natural Born Citizen.
mivo68 2 years ago
Send Obama back to Kenya! He's done enough damage here.
BTW - Alyona is cute as a button.
shoeman3434 2 years ago
really !!! who has done good G. Bush? you fuck
27632763 2 years ago
obama could easily put this to rest and avoid the constitutional crisis if he would merely put up the actual long form birth certificate identifying the hospital and with the delivering doctor's signature.
Prove that you are constitutionally qualified and the issue is dead - why don't you do it?
plsjr 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is the dumbest shit ever. Cut off Bibi's money and military supplies, now. Israel is a fake country full of parasites and freeloaders.
loonmaniac 2 years ago
No Obama supporters here, thank you.
shoeman3434 2 years ago
How do you -KNOW- Obama was born in Hawaii. Have you seen his ORIGINAL birth certificate?
You're setting yourself up for a big letdown once the truth of Obama's ORIGINAL birth certificate comes out...
TUBEDUDE4U 2 years ago 3
The State of Hawaii has verified that not only does the State have his long form BC on file but that it does say he was born in Honolulu. I'll take their word as proof over the lack of evidence provided by Birthers.
tgear77 2 years ago
Why doesn't BO simply produce his full birth cert?
jonno99 2 years ago
Because it will show that he is NOT an American citizen.
shoeman3434 2 years ago
Doesn't it make you wonder why BO doesn't simply produce his full birth Certificate?
jonno99 2 years ago
No. I'm not a conspiracy nut like you are. I bet you think the moon landing was a hoax.
loonmaniac 2 years ago
It's become abundantly clear that this birth certificate issue is a psyop. I'm not saying he's natural born or that he's not, but the fact Israel is speaking out against Obama shows it's a farce. Israel could not exist if not for the US. Netanyahu would not say this unless the powers that be wanted him to.
cosmic088 2 years ago
If Israel is trying to take Obama out, it is the first time they ever tried to do anything good for America. Israel is ruthless and will get whatever information they need, after all we give them over 3 billion a year to operate their propaganda machine. After paying bribes of over 300+ million to our congress every year they have plenty left to bribe Kenya into giving up Barry Obama's real birth certificate. If that does not work, they are very good at killing ones that do not cooperate.
lickdacat2 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
rui769 2 years ago
Comment removed
rui769 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
how do they make up this bullshit?
rui769 2 years ago
Notice that this guest says nothing about Philip Berg's case. I've long believed the Israeli/Zionist issue to be a sideshow, and Netanyahu's involvement in this does little to convince me that Obama is a victim here.
If this guest on this show did some research into the business interests that bankrolled Obama's campaign, tons of money probably had Israeli connections, so Israel would be playing both sides.
Nonetheless, whatever comes of the birther issue, Obama need to be taken down.
hellsunicorn 2 years ago
hellsunicorn wrote: "Notice that this guest says nothing about Philip Berg's case."
Berg had three Obama-denial cases, and all have been dismissed. One federal judge called Berg's argument "frivolous" and the case "foolish".
Berg previously filed suit against President G.W. Bush and others in the Bush administration for their role in the attacks of 9/11.
brygenon 2 years ago
Regardless of which side of the Constitution you stand, for or against. I heard a radio interview with Berg late in the day yesterday 08-10-09. Berg contends that two of his cases are still very much alive.
robpatozz 2 years ago
robpatozz wrote: "Berg contends that two of his cases are still very much alive."
I thought Berg fantasized all three to be alive. He's still trying to appeal the one that the U.S. Supreme Court already denied.
I'd guess it's False Claims Act suit that he realizes to be dead. Berg sued to recover the salary Obama had received as a U.S. senator.
Stupid as those two pursuits may sound, the case I noted the judge calling "frivolous" and "foolish" is the other one of Berg's three.
brygenon 2 years ago
Just made a dumb typo on the original comment, saying "villain" rather than "victim", really big difference there. lol
hellsunicorn 2 years ago
The passport myth is about as stupid as the birth certificate nonsense. Madsen, the guy in the video, says Obama was living in Indonesia with his step father Lolo Soetoro in 1981. Not true; just look it up. Obama separating from Soetoro and returned to the U.S. permanently in 1971.
It's all just tin-foil hat stuff, debunked long ago.
brygenon 2 years ago
Obama supporters have a fond notion of this tin-foil hat cliche, its probably connected to some sort of odd sexual fetish they have with the material. lol
But seriously, the fact that Obama had been out of the country for an extended period of time and was adopted by a non-American is very problematic. The legality would need to be established in court, but it definitely explains why Obama's loyalties are tilted towards offshore banking interests rather than the American people.
hellsunicorn 2 years ago
hellsunicorn wrote: "Obama supporters have a fond notion of this tin-foil hat cliche"
If you think what we Obama supports say is harsh, check out what Obama opponent Ann Coulter said about y'all: "You know it's just a few cranks out there. It's like when networks bring on the three remaining Klanners in America on T.V."
watch?v=mBwMJO9-pG0
Ouch! I saw that aspect of your cause, of course, but I did not go that far and liken you to the Klan. Don't shoot the messenger.
brygenon 2 years ago
ooh I am evil I travelled on two passports. You ignorant pricks many AMERICANS travel under another countries passport. Way back if you were caught on the street of ome countries with a U.S. passport you could be kidnapped or killed.
TruthFullWords 2 years ago
You didn't declare under oath that you don't have any foreign allegiances, did you?
That's what the Gray Communist did when he applied for the candidacy.
Now he is a felon, to everyone's knowledge.
Szentelira 2 years ago
Name those countries please, asks an ignorant prick American. I've used my US passport to enter dozens of unfriendly countries including Cuba, so what are you talking, bro? My guess is you need two passports because you are a felon, punk.
DrBukk 2 years ago
First, there is no proof that Soetoro ever adopted Obama. But let's say he did: Under US law, a child can not form the consent to give up his citizenship. So Obama never lost his US citizenship while in Indonesia. After he returned to the US at age 10, he would still have held Indonesian citizenship until age 23 when, in order to keep it, he would have had to renounce his US citizenship. He did not. If ever he had it, he has not held Indonesian citizenship for 25 years now.
tgear77 2 years ago
Obama was living with his step-father in Indonesia from 1966 until Dec 1971.
Furthermore, the passport myth is NOT de-bunked. Please provide your evidence or go back to the Bloggers for Obama war room for more talking points.
TUBEDUDE4U 2 years ago
Comment removed
hellsunicorn 2 years ago