Comments on: SHOCKING! MORE PROOF … MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ALWAYS KNEW OBAMA WAS INELIGIBLE FOR THE PRESIDENCY (UPDATED)

By: Carol

Carol — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 06:26:08 +0000

Regarding McCain: Like I said in another post I always look at the “intent” of the framers of a law. Our Founding Fathers were beyond wise and I believe our Constitution absolutely has “Divine” inspiration.
When our military is deployed to even our enemies soil and a child is born on that soil I believe that the Framer’s of the Law would not have our soldiers children subject to that foreign soil, it’s King, nor dictators. If there is no such law for that protection then there should be because some dictator of a country could declare that the child could not leave the soil as it belonged to them.
Just yesterday the leaders of Haiti stopped Americans trying to take orphaned children out of their country.
The country you are in claims children born on their soil as their citizens and that would mean that if there was not some law regarding the military deployed there then Panama could have declared that McCain’s parents had no right to leave Panama with one of Panama’s citizens.
McCain provided all his records (which Obama never has) and let the Congress rule that he his parents had not relinquished his natural born status just because he was not on America soil but on an America base retaining American soveignty on that American base born of two American born citizens.
Obama’s father was subject to the King/Queen of England and any child of his would be subject also. Women’s rights were always subject to the man’s. So the man’s allegiance to his country takes precedence over the mother’s rights and her allegiance to her country. The child is claimed through the father and not the mother in a country that has a King or Queen. Regardless, of where Obama’s children are born they are subject to the Mother country. That is one of the reasons why America claimed it’s Independence. Unless Obama’s father declared his own independence from Britain then any child of his is a British subject and that citizenship trumps any claim to a US citizenship.
That is how I reason out the intent of all these laws but the actual laws I personally do not know myself.
btw: Even with the KNOWING HE IS NOT ELIGIBLE what and who can do anything about this. I also reason out that if it is finally ruled that he is ineligible and if Pelosi knowing this did cover it up….then he would be deposed and his whole Administration demantled (Vice Predident) and Pelosi would have to be deposed. Hillary would automatically be sworn in as President because the election was stolen from her by this cover up. Ya think?

By: Carol

Carol — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 05:11:25 +0000

I was referring to Richard Kent’s quote:
Furthermore, new constitutional law trumps old statutory law. Any first year law student could tell you that.

The passing of the XIV Amendment killed any old Congressional ruminations on the subject, just as the passing of the XIII Amendment killed the Escaped Slave Act.

I am not a lawyer but I have worked as a member of the fraud investigative unit for the Dept. of Social Services. Our manuals regarding eligibility and what constitutes fraud were ever evolving and changing. I learned that even in any questionable situation you always refer back to the Original law and the Original intent of that law.
You must go by the principle that a law is not imposed just to have a law.. it is not a law just to be a law…Always ask why they would make such a law. So in looking at this matter you see that the Framer’s of the Constitution studied hard and long on where one’s loyalties would lie in a time of War and being the Commander in Chief of the US with the decision to deploy troops the President must not have a conflict of loyalties. Having both parents born and bound in loyalty to the United States would alleviate any such conflict.
This law must be kept intact. It is vital to the security of this nation. If we allow Obama with dual citizenship with inherit split loyalties it sets a precedent that could endanger our nation in the future should that other nation be an enemy of the US.

There is also a very dire situation that we have in this present day and that is because our enemy is not a religious sect that refers to itself as the Nation of Islam.
Just as a Jewish person is deemed Jewish via his mother’s bloodline, A Muslim is deemed Muslim via his father’s bloodline. His Muslim name is considered holy and if he converts to any other religion he must change his name. Obama knows this and yet he keeps his Muslim name. So he has already a conflict of loyalties. He also knows that by keeping that name his father’s bloodline citizenship trumps his American born mother’s citizenship because women are not considered to have the same authority. Therefore, I would surmise that according to Kenyan’s his loyalties would lie first to Kenya and his Muslim namesake. That is why I think that Obama is having a problem saying that we are at war with terrorist nor will he call them terrorist …just criminals.
No one seems willing to vet this information. And even with this knowledge what are we really dloing here but bloviating. The people are so proud that we have a black man in office and that Martin Luther King’s dream has come true but this black man is not a Martin Luther King. He could very well be a usurper and I believe we have been hoodwinked.
Who can really do anything about this? Going thru the courts as Orly Taiz has tried and Phillip Berg has tried and that seems to be going no where fast. Every reasonalbe Republican is afraid of being mocked as a “Birther”. So who and how can this really be addressed.
“Sigh”

By: sandstone

sandstone — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 17:47:46 +0000

Carol:

I don’t know what new law you are referring to. Also, I agree with you as to the NBC clause and its relationship to the Commander in Chief.

By: sandstone

sandstone — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 17:41:14 +0000

Carol:

Regarding your last 2 comments, you are very right to perceive the word “African” as being a dead giveaway that is written on the Obama birth certificate. When people go online to view it, too bad there isn’t a red flashing light shouting “forgery”.

As for McCain, his place of birth unfortunately did disqualify him to run as POTUS. If this wasn’t the case then there was no need for him to spend thousands of dollars for attorneys to write an opinion that he was qualified to run. Don’t forget the Senate passed a non-binding resolution (an opinion and feel good piece) S Res 511, declaring him to be a natural born citizen. You are either born a NBC or you are not. Declaring it to be so, doesn’t make it so.

I have mixed feelings about McCain … no one can doubt his love for this country or his service, but had the Congress not been trying to make an exception for McCain we wouldn’t have a fraud sitting in the White House. McCain was in NO POSITION to object when Obama ran … sad but true. I voted for McCain, but he was still ineligible. Hillary was my choice, but that was taken away from us and the country by the frauds in the DNC.

By: Carol

Carol — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 17:34:44 +0000

mmm? Then why was Swartzeneggar so eager to have the law changed so that he, himself, could run for President? Just because the “new” law meant that any child born on American soil was indeed a citizen and just because it is silent regarding the POTUS clause just means that the clause of exclusion of the POTUS still stands until addressed as such by an amendment. Natural born is the requirement because the POTUS is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and should have no conflict of interest in deploying troops to land of foreign soil therefore he must not have comprising issues as possibly declaring war against a country that shares his citizenship…..Kenya.

By: Carol

Carol — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 17:21:59 +0000

The Constitution imposed the restriction of “natural born citizen” clause as a requirement for POTUS with great forethought and deliberation. Regardless of the citizenship of your parents if you are a citizen of the US, born or naturalized citizen such as Swartzeneggar you can run for any political office in the US EXCEPT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE ONLY THE PRESIDENT IS ALSO COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES. As such the Commander in Chief must be free of conflict of interest in any potential declaration of war against any country.
There is a conflict of interest with Obama’s Uncle being a leader of Kenya and also because that region is predominantly Muslim.
As for McCain I believe you are very wrong. I don’t know the law regarding this but I do know that there is a protection in place for children born on foreign soil when a parent is there in execution of a government duty. He was born in Panama on a military base because his father was in the military. Thus McCain’s father has no allegiance to Panama only the US. Whereas, Obama’s father has allegiance to his parent country, Kenya. Also, in Kenya the father of a child is the predominant parent and Kenya would claim Obama’s citizenship is predominantly Kenyan not the United States.

By: Carol

Carol — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:51:36 +0000

I never watched Lou Dobbs when he had the “birth” issue on there but I have always admired Lou Dobbs. So when I heard on Bill O’Reilly that he was being fired for “fueling this controversy” proded me to find out why. I have always trusted Lou and in no way would he make his show some Jerry Springer show. There had to be some plausible info in covering this. When googling I went to the website, FactCheck.org and found the birth certificate that Bill O’Reilly said he saw that satisfied his investigation and proved to him was authentic and he concluded “Obama was indeed born in Hawaii”.
There is one thing on that birth certificate that “flew in my face” big time. Under Race for Father: African. ????
I was a hospital birth certificate clerk in 1971. THERE WAS NO CHOICE ON THE LIST IN 1971 FOR “AFRICAN” FOR RACE….even ten years after Obama was born the check list for race would have included the word “Negro” . I know that in years afterward that they changed that to “Black” but Negro was still in place in 1971. There was on the list: “Other”
with a line beside it to write in but even so if the word was a Nationality like African we would then question the mother what the race was not the nationality because even in Africa there were other races than black. This is the information we gathered from the mother by which we typed up both a Hospital Birth Certificate with the footprints on it as well as the long form which was then signed by the mother, father, attending physician, blood type, etc.
JUST SAYING THE WORD “AFRICAN’ BESIDE THE RACE IS REALLY SUSPECT especially to someone like me that actually was the one gathering the information, typing up the birth certificates and sending it to the State Office of Vital Statistics whereby that Certificate of Birth as seen on that site would have been sent to the parent usually within 3 to 4 weeks…During that space of time until it arrived all the mother would have had on hand was the Hospital Birth Certificate.

By: sandstone

sandstone — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:59:49 +0000

I feel honored to make your list of wing nuts. Hillary ‘n Me is higher than Politico! Who knew? BTW, other than calling people names, I noticed you never addressed a single point that anyone made. Name calling is so much more fun than real thought, isn’t it?

By: sandstone

sandstone — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:32:56 +0000

Thanks for sharing the info on this site. It has some very good info and insight.

By: Erica

Erica — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:47:57 +0000

You’ll find three new graphic illustrations that define “natural born citizen” and “citizen” at Jefferson’s Rebels.

http://www.jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com