The Rise of the Birther Movement and It's Aims.

reply to post by Stormdancer777

Dr. Michael Savage interviews Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily.

Worldnutdaily says it all, i really dont put any weight into any of their claims over at wnd, and all who knows just a little thing about wnd knows that its the birth place(pun intended) for the whole "long form birth cetificate" conspiracy.

Best regards

Loke.:.

reply to post by kinda kurious


Shooting the messenger eh?

Who cares what hes done, just listen to the video and then explain to us for what reasons they are censoring the searches?

Originally posted by rnaa
OK, why all the drama then? He was born on US Soil. His Mother was an American citizen. He is a natural born citizen. End of story.

Either you are NOT reading the posts of others, cannot comprehend what you are reading or are purposefully being disingenuous.

I'll try and explain it one more time so even you can understand it.
If you go by the founding fathers, their thoughts leaned towards the FATHER MUST be a U.S. citizen in order for the child to be considered natural born.

More recent court ruling and congressional declarations have claimed that BOTH parents must be U.S. citizens in order for the child to be considered natural born.

Now, which ever way you want to take it, Obama is NOT eligible. Myself and others have given links which prove this to be the case. So before you start spewing that there is no proof, go back and read the darn posts and links provided in the previous posts.

reply to post by WhatTheory


Sorry i missed those proof, would you please post them again so i can verify your claims.

Best regards

Loke.:.

My final word in this thread, though I know it won't satisfy the unsatisfiable.

The following link is a full explanation of the entire constitutional and statutory landscape for the validation of the eligibility of a Candidate to be President.

Obama Birth Certificate:
Who Determines Constitutional Eligibility?

Summary of the link info:
1) The States do according to their statutory procedures.
2) The people do, at the ballot box.
3) The Senate rules on any objections raised during electoral college counting according to the procedures outlined in Article II of the Constitution, the 20th Amendment to the Constitution, and 3 U.S.C. 15
4) The Courts DO NOT have any Constitutional authority to validate the eligibility.



[edit on 25/7/2009 by rnaa]

Originally posted by Loke.
Sorry i missed those proof, would you please post them again so i can verify your claims.

No. Go back and read the posts for yourself. I am not doing the work for you. It does not take much effort to click a few buttons and read some posts. It's only 8 pages. It's not like this thread is 100 pages. Geesh!

[edit on 7/25/2009 by WhatTheory]

reply to post by rnaa

Sorry, but some dudes blog on a webstie called "death by 1000 papercuts" is not what I would call trustworthy. Hell, it's just some dudes opinion. You really did not do yourself any favors by posting that crapola.

Originally posted by Fett Pinkus
reply to post by kinda kurious

 

Shooting the messenger eh?

Please read my prior post as to why this is all moot. I am "shooting" a bigoted hypocrite.

Who cares what hes done, just listen to the video and then explain to us for what reasons they are censoring the searches?

I care "what" he's done since it provides motive context and framing for bias. "Consider the source" since you like phrases like that.

Ask GOOGLE how it's search engine filters. I highly DOUBT it is influenced by our government.

[edit on 25-7-2009 by kinda kurious]

Originally posted by WhatTheory
reply to post by rnaa

 

Sorry, but some dudes blog on a webstie called "death by 1000 papercuts" is not what I would call trustworthy. Hell, it's just some dudes opinion.

You really did not do yourself any favors by posting that crapola.

And what does the title of the blog have to do with anything?

The article was commissioned from WhatsYourEvidence.com.

Is that a more 'trustworthy name'? And the author is a woman, not a 'dude'.

Originally posted by WhatTheory
reply to post by rnaa

 

Sorry, but some dudes blog on a webstie called "death by 1000 papercuts" is not what I would call trustworthy. Hell, it's just some dudes opinion.

You really did not do yourself any favors by posting that crapola.

but TheObamaFiles.com which is run thru a proxy domain company so the real man/woman behind is anonymous much more trustworthy?

Best regards

Loke.:.

Btw i read your proof, and Southern Guardian answers your law proof www.abovetopsecret.com... so read up, since im not that much into US law but i trust in SG in this matter.

[edit on 25-7-2009 by Loke.]

Originally posted by contemplator
Birther rymes with flatearther. Just sayin...

it also rhymes with roundearther. Just sayin...

Originally posted by WhatTheory
I'll try and explain it one more time so even you can understand it.
If you go by the founding fathers, their thoughts leaned towards the FATHER MUST be a U.S. citizen in order for the child to be considered natural born.

More recent court ruling and congressional declarations have claimed that BOTH parents must be U.S. citizens in order for the child to be considered natural born.

Now, which ever way you want to take it, Obama is NOT eligible. Myself and others have given links which prove this to be the case. So before you start spewing that there is no proof, go back and read the darn posts and links provided in the previous posts.

Totally and 100% false. Every word of it.

If you agree that Obama was born on U.S. Soil to parents that were not protected Foreign Diplomats, then you are agreeing that he is a Natural Born Citizen. It is that simple.

There is no requirement in the constitution, there are no court rulings (in fact the opposite see below), and no act of Congress, that says the father must be a citizen, nor that either parent must be a citizen. NONE WHAT-SO_EVER. You are either lying out of malice or you are misinformed and refuse to be enlightened.

Following excerpts from The "Natural Born Citizenship" Clause (Updated)

Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844).

Summary of Case:
"The defendant, Julia Lynch, was born in the City of New York in 1819, of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn in that city. She re-turned with them the same year, to their native country, and always resided there afterwards. It was held that she was a citizen of the United States." [NYLO at 238.]
Excerpt:
"It is an indispensable proposition, that by the rule of common law of England, if applied to these facts, Julia Lynch was a natural born citizen of the United States. And this rule was established and inflexible in the common law, long anterior to the first settlement of the United States and, indeed, before the discovery of America by Columbus.

Munro vs. Merchant (N.Y. 1858), as reported in Oliver Lorenzo Barbour, REPORTS OF CASES IN LAW AND EQUITY IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Vol. 26 (1858), at 383

Summary of Case:
Generally, this was a property case (i.e., whether a person could retain property). However, both parties argued that the other was not a citizen.
Excerpts:
... the question was precisely as here, whether a child born in the city of New York of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn there, was a native born citizen or an alien; and the conclusion was, that being born within the dominion and allegiance of the United States, he was a native born citizen, whatever was the situation of the parents at the time of the birth.

Jill A.Pryor, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L.J. 881, at 881 and n. 2 (1988)

"It is well settled that "native-born" citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born." "Native-born citizens are natural born by virtue of the nearly universal principle of jus soli, or citizenship of place of birth." [881 and n.2].

".... It has never been suggested that Congress has the power to deny natural born status to native borns. Here it might be helpful to distinguish between the power to define the clause (e.g., to say that "natural born" means "born in California") and the power to naturalize from birth (to include additional classes of people within the scope of the clause). Congress has only the latter power under the Constitution. Thus Congress can expand the category of natural-born citizens to encompass more than simply native borns, but it may

nearly 8 pages of debate and still no satisfactory reason that I should accept the short form over the long form.

It is available, the state of Hawaii says they have viewed the original.

There is no reason that anyone in this country should accept anything less than full disclosure. Especially an ATS member. An ATS member not wanting to see a document that is available is trying to deny evidence and this goes against everything that this website is about.

To stop seeking disclosure of available evidence is shameful and some here should renounce their membership for being diingenuous in their argument that we should stop short in this persuit.

If you truly believe that this available document will confirm legitamacy, then you have NO REASON to try to stop anyone from seeing it.

Originally posted by Loke.
but TheObamaFiles.com which is run thru a proxy domain company so the real man/woman behind is anonymous much more trustworthy?

Exaggerate much? It's not run through a proxy.
I see how you just ignored all the other sites which showed court & congressional rulings which prove my case and that you have no idea what you are talking about. Try reading more than 1 page of posts.

Originally posted by rnaa
Totally and 100% false. Every word of it.

Saying it in bold does not make it true.

Sorry, but you are totally wrong and are just ignoring the evidence.

there are no court rulings (in fact the opposite see below), and no act of Congress, that says the father must be a citizen, nor that either parent must be a citizen. NONE WHAT-SO_EVER. You are either lying out of malice or you are misinformed and refuse to be enlightened.

I gave you the links which proved otherwise so you are either ignorant and have reading comprehension problems or you are purposefully being disingenuous. Which is it?

Originally posted by JustTheFacts
nearly 8 pages of debate and still no satisfactory reason that I should accept the short form over the long form.

It is available, the state of Hawaii says they have viewed the original.

Hawaii no longer issues the long form?

reply to post by WhatTheory


Excerpt from www.whatsyourevidence.com...

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

Context: Plaintiff, born in San Franscisco to Chinese parents, sued after being denied reentry into the US, claiming that he was a "native-born citizen of the United States."

Ruling:
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides...

reply to post by rnaa


"Born and naturalized" are means to attain citizenship, not "types" nor "classes" of citizen. The whole purpose of the 14th Amendment Section 1 was to ensure slaves would be guaranteed the right of citizenship. There was no mention of "natural born citizen" anywhere in the 14th.

"Born" has citizenship from birth. Natural born citizen, the highest level of allegiance, is a subset of "born". Born includes those who attain citizenship upon birth by statute.

"naturalized" are all those who attain citizenship after birth.

We nowhere recognize nor distinguish "born" nor "naturalized" anywhere in this country by any rights or privileges, therefore they cannot be "classes" of citizen.

We do however distinguish between "citizen" and "natural born citizen', with the latter being the only class of citizen qualified to hold the office of President.

reply to post by theamazing60secondman


The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[edit]

Originally posted by WhatTheory
reply to post by rnaa

 

"Born and naturalized" are means to attain citizenship, not "types" nor "classes" of citizen. The whole purpose of the 14th Amendment Section 1 was to ensure slaves would be guaranteed the right of citizenship. There was no mention of "natural born citizen" anywhere in the 14th.

"Born" has citizenship from birth. Natural born citizen, the highest level of allegiance, is a subset of "born". Born includes those who attain citizenship upon birth by statute.

"naturalized" are all those who attain citizenship after birth.

That is incorrect. You misunderstand it completely.

Please read the ruling from United States v. Wong Kim Ark posted above.

We nowhere recognize nor distinguish "born" nor "naturalized" anywhere in this country by any rights or privileges, therefore they cannot be "classes" of citizen.

We do however distinguish between "citizen" and "natural born citizen', with the latter being the only class of citizen qualified to hold the office of President.