Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Obama’s Stubborn Cover up Leads to Civil Rights Violations

The tragic irony intensifies. Barack Obama's election supposedly represented an historic breakthrough in the struggle for justice and human rights in America. The success of that struggle depended on respect for the principles of the American Declaration of Independence, the Constitutional sovereignty of the American people, and Constitutionally secured civil rights of all individuals in the United States. Yet every day brings reports of some new travesty signaling hostility to those principles, the abandonment of the Constitution, and the end of respect for those rights.

Along with securing their persons and property against abuses of government power, nothing is more essential to maintaining liberty than the Constitutional rights that give citizens assurance against repression and abuse as they speak and act on political matters. Of these matters, issues that involve respect for the Constitution are the most critical, since without the Constitution the people lose the institutions that assure their political participation and authority.

From the outset, Obama's strenuous efforts to prevent access to records that could lay to rest the growing public concern about his Constitutional eligibility for the office of President of the United States signaled his contempt for the provisions of the Constitution. It was inevitable that these efforts would go beyond legal maneuvering to encompass attempts to suppress all public expressions of interest and concern about his fundamental disregard for the authority of the Constitution. Evidence of this suppression appeared quickly with respect to grassroots internet activities aimed at overcoming the big corporate media's obstinate censorship of the issue. Despite this censorship, and efforts to ridicule and marginalize people who continue to raise the issue, the common sense questions occasioned by Obama's unrelenting cover up have become more and more widespread.

Along with common senses questions about Obama's cover up has come increasing dismay at the willingness of the Courts, the Republican politicians and other elements of the US power elite to accept complicity with it. Some say that this results from fear of a violent reaction from black Americans if the issue is treated with integrity. However, I believe that it may also reflect a shared elite desire to overthrow the sovereignty of the people in order to re-establish government based on the authority of the powerful few (oligarchy) that American constitutionalism is intended to replace. (This would explain Republican cooperation in the 2008 so-called 'bank bailout', which began America's precipitous slide into socialist government dictatorship.)

Against this repressive elite consensus, one key resource for news and information has been the reporting and commentary provided by WorldNetDaily. WND's founder and CEO Joseph Farah has consistently stood against the big corporate media censors, to provide readers with the facts and reasoning needed to make an accurate assessment of the nature and importance of the eligibility controversy. He has also taken the initiative to get at the facts, and to encourage citizen action on behalf of respect for Constitutional authority. In this regard he has lately initiated a drive to place billboards around the country asking the simple question "Where's the birth certificate?" Corporate media censors, first at CBS, the No. 1 U.S. outdoor advertising company and now at Lama Outdoor, another billboard giant, have refused to lease billboards for the campaign.

The Italian communist Antonio Gramsci suggested decades ago that Marxist-Leninists learn from the reverses they suffered at the hands of the Nazis and fascists during the 1930's. It's clear that the communist leaning elements of the Obama faction have done just that. In both their economic and political moves to install a neo-communist regime in the US, they are co-opting and manipulating corporate entities rather than openly adding them to the government bureaucracy. Instead of government commissars censoring dissident voices, private entities, claiming to exercise legal private property rights, enforce the regime of repression.

There are some possible avenues of redress against this repressive ploy. Though it is often forgotten these days, the term civil rights has no racial connotations, except in the propaganda of leftist politicos hijacking it for partisan political purposes. In the first instance it refers to the rights of citizenship under the Constitution and laws of the United States, including free speech, assembly and the right to seek redress of grievances. Clearly, the abrogation of the Constitution of the United States represents a legitimate citizen grievance. Clearly, asking the question that highlights this abrogation involves an exercise of the freedom of speech, in the very context where it was most especially intended for protection by the first amendment to the Constitution. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1871

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,

regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the

District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any

citizen of the United States or other person within the

jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,

or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable

to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other

proper proceeding for redress…

Every private entity or corporation seeking to repress free speech on the issue of Obama's eligibility should be sued for damages for violating the civil rights of the victims of their abuse. As part of the legal effort, injured parties should seek court injunctions requiring that the abusers cease their repressive activities so that their victims do not suffer indefinite harm to their citizen rights while the suits are in progress.

Of course, throughout the country, the Courts have been chief among the collaborators in the eligibility cover up. It makes no sense simply to assume they will give fair treatment to the civil rights suits arising from the abuses needed to implement it. Grassroots people have recourse however, in the exercise of their own property rights. People with appropriately situated property who want to see the Constitution's authority re-established, should offer use of the property for placement of the billboards. In addition people should place signs in their shop windows, and bumper stickers on their vehicles until it becomes impossible to drive the streets and highways without wondering why Obama obstinately refuses to comply with the Constitution he has supposedly sworn to uphold.


smrstrauss said...

Re: "From the outset, Obama's strenuous efforts to prevent access to records."

There have been NO lawsuits against Obama for records. All the lawsuits were to stop the election or to stop the certification, which Obama naturally fought.

Barry said...

Mr. Keyes,

Perhaps the companies reject Farah's proposed billboards out of their own unwillingness to be associated with the desperate and pathetic mission of trying to compel President Obama to produce some birth certificate other than the actual one he has displayed since June 2008.

That document, which has been authenticated by both the State of Hawaii's Health Director and its Registrar of Vital Statistics, and the contemporaneous announcements of Obama's birth printed in Honolulu's Advertiser and Star Bulletin newspapers, lay bare the absurdity of your cause.

Every piece of evidence you could possibly want has been provided, yet you insist on receiving more. You have buried your head in the sand only to complain about the view. Please stop this nonsense.

Alan Keyes said...

As a matter of fact the suits in which I have been involved sought records, and in no way sought per se to influence or change the election outcome. You folks who defend this cover up share in its spirit: your aim is simply to attack and try to discredit dissent, so you blow whatever smoke is available. My aim is simply to vindicate the Constitution by getting at the truth, whatever its political implications. Many Americans seem to agree with me, so the issue won't go away until the truth is served.
Alan Keyes

Anonymous said...

I find myself in the odious position of having to specifically disassociate myself from some of the above comments. This is odious because in the normal course of events no reasonable person ought to be forced to specifically deny sympathy or agreement with such idiotic statements. Suffice it to say, Obama has made strenuous efforts to hide his records (which do in fact reveal that he forfieted his citizenship, which itself did not qualify as 'natural born'), and documents produced by his defenders have been definitivly proven to be fraudulent.

However, I do have a contention that I regard as somewhat more important than arguing with the willing instruments of tyranny (a fruitless and foolish pursuit).

The Civil Rights Act of 1871, to which Dr. Keyes astutely refers for an unbiased perspective, makes a key (if muddied by enumeration) point. The act imposes liability for activity "under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custum, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Coumbia".

There is a reason for this clause, which excludes actions which are not "under color of any" official policy of the government. The right to direct the use of one's own private property is among the rights kept sacrosanct by the Constitution. One might suppose (or even find it evident) that some of the private entities mentioned by Dr. Keyes as obstructing the freedom speech are doing so under the threat of adverse legal (or extralegal) action from the administration. But this does not make them liable, since they are not acting by the authority of the administration.

They have, as private entities, the authority to use their assets how they will. A suit against them for employing that right is doomed to failure and properly should fail. The attempt to use the laws to enforce the rights of some by disparaging the essential rights of others is a useless and ultimately destructive endavour. In the end it reduces all rights to whatever the judicial authority of appeal is willing to permit.

Of course, America has already arrived at that point.

seekyetruth said...

As has been said over and over and over and over and over and over again, the certificate of live birth that has been provided as "proof" is NOT an actual long form birth certificate, and has been proven a fraud anyway. But besides that, I have one common sense question for all the folks who want to ridicule the pursuit of the oh-so-transparent Obama's birth certificate and other records to prove his eligibility - If there is nothing to this and there is nothing to hide, then WHY would Obama spend $1,000,000+ in taxpayer money to KEEP from showing any of the records??? If it's frivolous and has no merit, why not just ignore it? Any person with a wee bit of common sense can see Obama's actions are not consistent with the theory that this is a frivolous non-issue. I am very happy that Alan Keyes and Joseph Farah and others have the courage to pursue this issue. The media's lack of attention to this matter is appalling! This is absolute NEWS important to every American, regardless of the outcome. Even if it proved to be frivolous, is it not news-worthy to report on the Supreme Court cases that arose because of this?? I NEVER watch the news anymore except for local weather, but happened to hear waiting for my weather report the other night, the NEWS that Cindy Sheehan had again parked herself in front of former-President Bush's house in some protest. THAT is news, as we must keep the Bush-hatred alive proving that all the ills of the country are still Bush's fault, but REAL-LIFE court cases going as far as the SUPREME COURT involving the SITTING president is not news????? Outrageous! I think this thing needs to pushed and pushed and pushed and promoted until it can no longer be ignored or until the Transparent One lives up to that name!!

Damery World said...

Perhaps when Obama said full disclosure he really said fool disclosure ... we just heard him wrong.

Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said...

Well when someone is a hypocrite and a liar, what do you expect? I wonder about the futility of pursuing his citizenship, but the issue must be brought to the American people. So many of us simply accept what we see or are told without asking questions and as soon as we do, we are persona non grata.

Keep up the good work, I know it's difficult Alan. You have my undying respect.

Alan Keyes said...

chiu chunling:

I believe that, for purposes of the Civil Rights statutes the billboards are, like other public accomodations (restaurants, motels, etc.) subject to liability if they can be shown to have singled out an individual or group in a discriminatory fashion, in this case suppressing their views and thereby infringing on their Constitutionally secured rights.

Foxwood said...

Our Constitutional right are being ignored, but the sad truth is we don't know it. We don't know our rights, and some just don't care. That is why we are where we are.

Anonymous said...

The argument to 'public accomodations' does have legal merit, but speaks to a later innovation in Civil Rights law of which I am suspicious at best. Leaving aside such disinclinations to advance an agenda by means I regard as potentially destructive towards Constitutional limitations on government, I am also troubled by the premonition that these lawsuits are likely to be ineffective even if they succeed in court (which I would regard as a near-impossibility, given the current bias of the judiciary).

After all, it is very clear that the media companies in question have already suffered extensive loss of profitability due to their leftist censorship policies. Absent forfieture of the actual billboards in question, the only mechanism for redress would be imposition of damages and fines. But this might have limited effect on the behavior of companies already willing to bear the loss of tens of millions of dollars in profits to enact their own biases. If the chances of success in court were sufficient to justify the relative financial burden borne by the plaintiffs, it still might make sense as a method of hastening the end of these collaborators.

But in raw economic terms, it seems that traditional forms of organized boycott activity are far more likely to have the desired effect. Let advertisers using those companies know that you are aware of their support of the censorship of political speech. Spread that awareness through the people, not through the courts. Cry for freedom, rather than further government interventions, and your voice will carry to those who love liberty.

Those measures suggested in the final paragraph are the most likely to be effective, and the most compatible with the cause of preserving the right of the people to free expression. I think them a better foundation for action, in both immediate effect and future implications.

eyes wide open said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

The idea of posting the sign on personal property is brilliant although I can't help to think that some city commission or homeowners association will find an excuse to have the sign removed, proving once again that freedom of speech only protects liberal agendas.

eyes wide open said...

Mr. Keyes, I am a fan of yours. I am a fan of anyone who stands for their convictions. How ever I would disagree with obama, if he would stand and declare the conviction that guides him I could respect him. However, it is clear that he is not being truthful with America. His real agenda is being hidden because, I surmise, an articulation of his position and beliefs would get him impeached or cause a civil war.

I am a fan of yours Mr. Keyes, moreover, you have had my vote consistently over the years. I am a "good ole" country boy from South Carolina who has a big 4x4 truck with a gun rack, who carries a gun, who loves God, and I am WHITE! How about that for your stereotypes there liberals?

I have a friend who phoned me one night a couple of weeks before the election of obama. He was telling me how grieved he was that a mens Bible study that he leads had devolved into a political discussion about the evil platform of obama and the virtueless nominee of the repubelicans. I asked him why he grieved and his answer blew my mind. I thought he would give me some answer in the direction of, "we are supposed to be talking about God" or something like that. He said that he couldn't describe the grief at the time so he went home and began to seek God about it. By morning he identified the reason for the grief.

He told me that he believed to have heard God say to him that "Obama is my choice for this season". I said, "WHAT? WHY? How could that be?" My friend's confident reply was, "You then assume that you know the purposes of God and His intentions." I realized that I often make assumptions of God. He then explained to me that we have murdered more than 50 million babies, the "church" has fallen in love with $$ and prestige and looks more like the world than the people of God, "christians" have put all of their hopes in the political process-on both sides- when if we had been doing our jobs as praying faithful witnesses of Christ we would not be having this struggle in America, but instead we are so focused of prosperity we have ignored our calling (Proverbs 30:8&9), so on and so forth. The World Trade Center, being a symbol or an idol, representing America's idolatry- wealth- was toppled as a testimony against us, but we would not repent- especially the "church". Yet for all this, his anger is not turned away,his hand is still upraised. Isaiah 10: 1-4.

My friend's belief, and mine now that I have seen the insanity of obama's actions, is that he is God's choice for bringing judgment, first to the "church" then to America as a whole for the wickedness the we have come to love.

Thanks Mr. Keyes. Blessings to you and yours for being the rock in the creek that stirs it up!

Redneck from South Carolina

John K said...

"The idea of posting the sign on personal property is brilliant although I can't help to think that some city commission or homeowners association will find an excuse to have the sign removed, proving once again that freedom of speech only protects liberal agendas."

I too agree it is a brillant idea. While local governments and homeowner associations may restrict signs freedom of speech must prevail. Should we be duplicating the WND billboard sign? In central NJ we see what I call lawn signs posted everywhere at homes and along highways. There are national sign making company franchises that could produce the signs so supporters could easily buy and pick up the signs for posting.

HistoryWriter said...

Dr. Keyes:

"Stubborn cover-up"? If you have evidence that the President is not a natural-born citizen of the United States, then offer it. It's not up to him to disprove your accusations. In the United States of America we ask accusers to prove their charges. Furthermore, your claim that your purpose is to defend the Constitution is disingenuous at best. It appears obvious, from this and similar posts, that your purpose is to try to damage the President's credibility, since his election dissatisfied you. The proof of it is your association with Joseph Farah in this absurd billboard project. I hope you understand that all that's going to come of this is that you'll damage any credibility you have left among reasonable folks.

Angelopeter said...


The evidence Mr. Keyes has that the president is not a natural born citizen is the fact THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT PROVIDED THAT EVIDENCE! and what’s wrong with trying to “disprove the presidents credibility,” if the president indeed does not have any credibility?

Has the world gone mad? I cannot shop for a simple t-shirt without climbing my way through 25 shirts that have either Obama’s face or some nonsensical quote of his like “I will complete my next 100 days in 72 days, and on the 73rd day I will rest.” He said what?!? so the angel said to Lucifer WHO IS LIKE GOD?? and so was his name Michael. The only way for a significant number of souls to be saved now, is by a horrendous chastisement. Just like before the flood they were eating, drinking and being married; so it is today, however it will not be water the cleanses the earth of the world’s sin, it will be by fire. “The present heavens and earth have been reserved by the same word for fire, kept for the day of judgment and of destruction of the godless.” Peter2

Mr. Keyes our Lord has blessed you with a sharp intellect and the ability to articulate it by speech, you are producing 60, 100 fold? Only our Lord knows. You are a thorn in this man’s breast, and perhaps one day will suffer martyrdom for it. I would be glad to die with you, a fellow catholic, if need be, as a testimony to the Truth, a Truth that is the essence and cause of all life, goodness and love. Kyrie eleison.

Jackie Smith said...

Dr. Keys...Why won't the media cover these lawsuits and bring them to the attention of all of America...like yours and the recent one Kercherne vs. Obama???

smrstrauss said...

Re: "As a matter of fact the suits in which I have been involved sought records, and in no way sought per se to influence or change the election outcome."

Respectfully Counselor, this is what the original Petition said:

"WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully prays: That the court issue a peremptory writ in the first instance barring Respondent Secretary of State of California, Ms. Bowen, from both certifying to the Governor the names of the California Electors, and from transmitting to each presidential Elector a Certificate of Election, until such documentary proof is produced and verified showing that Senator Obama is a "natural born" citizen of the United States and does not hold citizenship of Indonesia, Kenya or Great Britain. In addition, this writ requests that the court issue a peremptory writ barring Respondent California Electors from signing the Certificate of Vote until such documentary proof is produced and verified showing that Senator Obama is a "natural born" citizen of the United States and does not hold citizenship of Indonesia, Kenya or Great Britain."

To be sure documents are mentioned, but this was not just a request for documents. If it were, it would simply say, Plaintiff demands documents or request documents. But it did not. It asked for a writ blocking the certification of the election, which was my point.

There have been no cases against Obama asking simply for documents.

You wrote: "Obama's strenuous efforts to prevent access to records." Yet Obama did not oppose a case that simply asked for records. He opposed a case that would stop the certification of the election. If you can find a case against Obama that simply asks for records, and he has fought that case, you can say that he has opposed releasing records. Otherwise, he has fought the attempt to have a judge block the certification of the election.

There is one case, Martin's case in Hawaii, that asks to see the original birth certificate, but this is not against Obama. It is against the state of Hawaii, and Obama has apparently not participated in it in any way.

Anonymous said...

Demanding proof that someone meets the requirements for an office, position, or other job is not an accusation.

I,like millions of others, have had to provide proof that I met the qualifications for jobs I have applied for over the years.

I, like millions of others, have presented various documents such as diplomas,background checks, references, letters of recommendation, and even my long form birth certificate as proof.

An unsigned short form birth certificate posted on the internet with an area blacked out, and no offical seal is not appropriate proof in any sense of the word.

The question is simple is he a natural born citizen, and offer the proof just like the rest of us have to do.

gilbertabrett said...

Dear Mr. Keyes,
It is good to read your post again. I was concerned last week and tried Google to find you!
I see there are people who love to read your post and still want you to stop telling the truth...
Obama is a bum and we are fools for not making more noise! Something will come of this birth certificate debacle.
Did you hear about how the dealerships he now is forcing to close are being bribed into secrecy? Heard it on Glenn Beck today. What a sad state we are in. PS - I loved what you told the man at Notre Dame about what he would face from GOD about 'he was just doing his job.' Too much of that spineless activity going on in the 'land of the "free" and the "home" of the "brave."'

smrstrauss said...

Re: "An unsigned short form birth certificate posted on the internet with an area blacked out, and no offical seal is not appropriate proof in any sense of the word."

Agreed. However, no president has had to show any document before this election. Both Obama and McCain did in this election, for the first time. No court or other official asked to see the physical paper document of either of them.

Then, the two officials of Hawaii said that there was an ORIGINAL birth certificate in Obama's file. It is doubtful that they were lying or misleading by this statement. The risk to them if it turned out that Obama was really born somewhere else would be too high. Then the PR offical for the Department of Health of Hawaii called the Chicago Tribune in response to their questions and said that the fact that there was an original in the file (not a certificate of Hawaiian birth or a delayed birth certificate) meant that Obama was born in Hawaii.

You still would like to see the original? I'm sure you would, but most of us think that this is sufficient. If you still want to see the original, here's how: Lobby the government of Hawaii to make the birth records of a president public documents. That would require a change in the law, but it would not be too difficult to do since the governor of Hawaii is a Republican and why should the Democrats oppose it (since they know Obama was born in Hawaii).

Why doesn't Obama just show the original? Because he most likely lost it and Hawaii no longer sends out copies of the original.

Anonymous said...

Even if Obama were born outside the United States (and I have no reason to believe that he was), the fact that his mother was a U.S. citizen makes him a 'natural born citizen.' There is no age-limit as some have argued. Show me the constitutional provision that says otherwise and I will shut up.

Love him or hate him, he is the rightful president. It is counterproductive and bad for conservatism to waste time trying to show otherwise.

HistoryWriter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...


No it doesn't. The Naturalization Act of 1795 states, in part:

[T]he children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."

So the birth certificate argument is irrelevant. The only requirement is that he be born to a U.S. citizen and that his father, if not a citizen, have at least lived in the United States prior to the child's birth. Ann Dunham was an American citizen and Barack Obama Sr lived in the United States between 1960-1962 (B.O. jr was born in 1961). Ergo, President Obama is a natural-board citizen.

Anonymous said...

My mistake. Naturalization Act of 1790, not 95. In any case, this is as close as we can get to what the Founders meant by "natural-born citizen."

IONU said...


1) You're correct, Barry Soetoro is a U.S. citizen, but not a natural born one.

2) My contempt for Zero is not a result of his being born out of wedlock. It has more to do with a foreign born Muslim Marxist who illegally inhabits the White House and brings ridicule, shame and eventual destruction to our Republic.


Don't let facts get in the way of your idol worship. WND's "Is Obama Eligible to be President?" has logged over 3300 posts devoted to this topic.

Briefly, to be a natural born citizen, both parents must be U.S. citizens at the time of your birth.

Amazingly, your statement is correct: "...the birth certificate argument is irrelevant."

It most definitely is irrelevant. Zero cannot, no matter where he was born (U.S. or Kenya) be a natural born citizen. The BC brouhaha is a red herring.

Joel Lehman said...

I applaud Joseph Farrah for trying to do something about this issue, but the problem with the “Where’s the birth certificate” billboard is that most people, regardless of political party, have no clue what the sign is trying to get at and are confused by it. The Soetoro AKA Obama citizenship issue is still unknown to the American public. The issue is too complex at this point to be effectively popularized by a minor billboard effort. From a graphics design standpoint, the sign is amateurish and degrades the reputation of the billboard owner. I do not blame CBS from yanking it. Best thing to do is run informative and respectful full page ads in major newspapers. Here is a web address to a thoughtful respectful ad on global warming that was run in some newspapers:

Anonymous said...


I quoted you U.S. law stating that only one parent must be a U.S. citizen. Indeed, the law states only that the father of the child must be resident in the United States for some period of time. I provided documentation and evidence for my argument. Can you?

Derek P. said...

Question - If Barack Obama is not considered to be a "natural born" citizen, then what category of citizenship does he fall under?

Anonymous said...

Barak Obama is not an American citizen at all, having made legal declarations of foreign nationality after attaining his majority. He was elegible for citizenship at birth, but not 'natural born' citizenship due to the then current federal law on the subject (according to the Constitution, the power to make and update citizenship law remains vested in Congress). As a person born with dual-citizenship, he fell into a special category of those who would have been elegible to choose U.S. citizenship at majority, but he instead chose otherwise.

Why he did this is not entirely obvious, but he may have been aware (or advised) that, even were he to retain his U.S. citizenship, it would not be 'natural born'. Given the immediate advantages in financial and networking benefits to be obtained, and more particularly the laxity of the media in examining his records, it would seem he made a clever choice.

Not a particularly wise one, but it is hardly new for cunning to preclude wisdom.

I am more concerned with his unambiguously expressed hostility to the letter and spirit of the Constitution, which clearly renders him incapable of being sworn in as President. The fact that he has been allowed to commit numberous acts completely outside of the powers granted to the President or any other officer of the United States government is more fatal than the insult of letting him be called President in the first place, improper as that may itself be.

But it is hardly surprising, seeing that the Constitution itself is held in utter contempt by the vast majority of thsoe purporting to wield authority under it. I personally don't consider Obama's disability to serve in a position of trust under the Constitution which he so loathes to be a peculiar problem, it touches the legitimacy of the entire government. But I cannot disparage the effort to at least remove Obama, given that his particular disqualifications are a valid concern.

kid said...

I have one question. How can a white woman have a child in Kenya during the Mau-Mau rebellion ? Whites were fleeing Kenya at the time.

One more question, with all the right wing blogs that make death threats against the President , why don't you speak out.Is it only a problem when the President supports a racist regime like the former South Africa and wants the black populace to live in misery. WHY DO YOU HATE BLACK PEOPLE SO MUCH ?Any law that helps black people you are against.So far white racist have killed three policemen in Pittsburgh. One in Washington. Stores are running out of bullets. As a BLACK MAN I feel scared.What will you do about it ? When something is detrimental to lacks you are 1000% for it.also when are you going to apologize to Nelson Mandela and the people of South Africa for complicity in participating in apartheid?Do you feel any shame ?

IONU said...


be honest, racism is preached and practiced mostly by liberals (aka socialists) as a means of furthering their agenda. they are your real enemy, kid. don't be fooled by a false messiah.


I have thoroughly researched this issue and do not have a one-liner to respond to your one-liner. To answer your question, see


IONU said...

Derek asked: "If Barack Obama is not considered to be a "natural born" citizen, then what category of citizenship does he fall under?"

There has been some debate as to whether he is a naturalized U.S. citizen, or not a citizen at all, an alien. Those are your only 2 choices. NBC is not one of them.

kid said...

IONU, do you know what socialism is. The US had a socialist partner in the cold war Yugoslavia. Keyes worked on the side of the racist.Socialism is better than racism.Why don't he apologize to Mandela ?What he did would be similar to working for the Klan.Canada and England have socialist programs, should we shun them ? There's a difference between socialism and communism, and both are better than racism.

pbunyon said...

Here I sit reading all these posts just disgusted at this and the many more ills we are dealing that originate from the White House. It all boils down to the fact that I and the massses work for a living and we have to support our families and pay taxes. Meanwhile you have an ever growing government who relies on these taxes for their family's support who work against us at every chance. This what they get PAID TO DO. Can you imagine of you were paid too much to screw with everyone else? You would want to keep that position secure wouldn't you?

BHO is an embarrassement to freedom and so are his supporters, with or without a Birth Certificate.

I agree with "eyes wide open" for the most part but would never, could never, and should never support any candidate based on impending doom. I will never willingly walk the plank.

Anonymous said...

I think it's pitiful, truly pitiful that most of you keep asking the same questions over and over, even though the answers you seek are right under your noses in history as to what defines one as eligible to the executive office.

Go back and study the Revolution for God's sake, and stop being so narrow-minded that you require a textbook definition otherwise you are determined to feign any other sort of intelligence.

If you took as much time to study the minds of the men who wrote it instead of wasting all the time you have entertaining your own theories, you wouldn't have to ask these questions. Or do some of you find yourselves fit to redefine the Constitution yourselves because that's exactly what you're doing minus the amendment process.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "Barak Obama is not an American citizen at all, having made legal declarations of foreign nationality after attaining his majority."

If you have proof of this, show it. If you are referring to the allegation that Obama became an Indonesian citizen and used an Indonesian passport, a simple telephone call to the Indonesian Embassy in Washington should confirm or deny this. I did call, but please make your own telephone call to check me, and Indonesian authorities say that he was never a citizen and hence never had an Indonesian passport.

Anonymous said...

What did the framers mean by natural born citizen. Go read your history, it's well-defined - Letter by George Washington to Colonel Spotswood, 1777, among thousands of others:

"When I recommend care in your choice, I would be understood to mean, men of good character in the regiment, that possess the pride of appearing clean and soldier-like. I am satisfied, that there can be no absolute security for the fidelity of this class of people, but yet I think it most likely to be found, in those who have family connections in the country. You will therefore send me none but natives, and men of some property, if you have them. I must insist, that, in making this choice, you give no intimation of my preference of natives, as I do not want to create any invidious distinction between them and the foreigners."

Letter after essay after speech, we find nothing but a clear character assessment based on where they were born and BRED, what their father's influence was, their investment in the country and their ties to family connections within the country. Obama doesn't have any military experience whatsoever and his favored ties are with Kenyans. The framers would have rejected him. Not only was he questionably a native of this country, his parental ties were foreign. Even his mother chose to remarry another foreigner and have her children bred in a foreign land.

The term in the Constitution is a character assessment and history proves that's how it was done. In Obama's case, he was never vetted on those principles. Due to that oversight, we now have an person sitting in the executive branch who is leeching from the commonwealth, destroying capitalism, voicing his disdain for this country and previous administrations and acting in direct opposition to the principles this country was founded on.

And you wonder WHY people are demanding to know where he came from? I think it's evident that it's because he doesn't even act American.

The definition comes from the experience of the Revolutionary War. The constitutional debates confirm this. Foreign influence was to be avoided at all costs.

Anonymous said...

From two more letters written by Washington:

I need not enlarge upon the danger of substituting, as soldiers, men who have given a glaring proof of a treacherous disposition, and who are bound to us by no motives of attachment, instead of citizens, in whom the ties of country, kindred, and sometimes property, are so many securities for their fidelity.

My Aids, as you well know, must be men of business; and ought to be Officers of experience. Many, very many young Gentlemen of the first families in the Country have offered their Services; and all have received one answer, to the above effect. Indeed in the choice of my Aids a variety of considerations must combine—political—geographical &ca as well as experience.

What is become of Walker? Colo. Heth has offered, and stands well in my estimation, without a promise. No Foreigner will be admitted as a member of my family, while I retain my present ideas;nor do I think they ought to be in any situation where they can come at secrets, & betray a trust.

The anti-Americans love to argue semantics with those they feel they can argue over. One thing they can't refute, are the words of the framers and they won't touch them because they know they will lose. So they resort to disingenuous semantics. These are the same names I see on every blog. srmsstrauss, history writer aka history dude. Two common names out to destroy the meaning behind the Constitution. They've do this all day long.

Anonymous said...

"the governor of Hawaii is a Republican"

Are you making the assumption that I am a republican as well?

I will respond to other points in your post when I have the time.

Terry Morris said...

I did call, but please make your own telephone call to check me, and Indonesian authorities say that he was never a citizen and hence never had an Indonesian passport.

And you take them at their word, eh? What complete idiocy. It's on the level of thinking that presumes the average American citizen is privvy to the same information and intelligence as the POTUS, or the Congress for that matter.

Why would the Indonesian government (or any of its agents) divulge any information they have - good, bad, or indifferent - about Hussein Obama to little 'ol insignificant you, or me, or any other private American citizen for that matter? What (Indonesian) interest could such a thing possibly serve? You do realize, do you not, that the Indonesian government is most partial to serving its own interests, or what it perceives as its own interests? To do otherwise would be tantamount to treason.

I'm reminded of a discussion I had with a certain Native American commenter at my blog some time back related to this same topic. He said to me, after I'd pointed out the clear anti-American implications of his previous statements, that he had been invited to the White House as a delegate from his tribe (by a Republican president, no less), and that therefore (non Sequitur anyone?) he could have no ambition of destroying America as we've always known it through the "change" agent Hussein Obama. I simply pointed out to him, as I point out in this particular instance, what a laughable argument he was making, as if to say that no-one with ill-intentions towards the United States has ever darkened the door of the White House, under a Republican administration or otherwise.

Again, pure unadulterated idiocy.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "and you take them at their word."

Actually, yes. Indonesia has become a Democracy over the last few years, and I have always found the Indonesian people caring courteous and polite. And, like the folks at the Economist and the Far Eastern Review, I really believe that Indonesia is now a democracy.

Moreover, they have no reason to lie. If Obama had become an Indonesian citizen, that is good for Indonesia. It makes the citizens proud. And, it is only you who allege that if Obama had become an Indonesian citizen he would lose US citizenship. No, he would not lose US citizenship. He would become a dual national, and there is nothing in the Constitution that bars a dual national (much less one who was once a dual national) from being president.

You may disagree with this, but most of us believe it, and the Indonesian authorities are likely to be among this group. If they believe that Obama cannot be affected by having dual nationality in Indonesia (as I do), they have no reason to lie and say that he was never a citizen. They have just as much motive to lie and say that he was a citizen even if he wasn't.

The flip side of this is that you have no proof that he was an Indonesian or had an Indonesian passport. There are claims that in order to get into an Indonesian school you had to be an Indonesian citizen. But this is simply not true. There were schools that accepted foreign students, so it wasn't against the law. Moreover, in the schools that did require you to be an Indonesian citizen, it was easy enough to just say that you were an Indonesian citizen and get away with it--no requirement for proof.

Finally, it was actually difficult to become an Indonesian citizen specifically because the did not accept dual nationalities. Since a US child cannot renounce US citizenship, and the Indonesian authorities know that, if they made him an Indonesian they would be creating a dual national, and since they did not accept dual nationality, they would not nationalize US children--only US adults, who were legally entitled to renounce citizenship.

There is absolutely no evidence that Obama became an Indonesian citizen and the Indonesian government says that he was never an Indonesian citizen. There isn't even proof that he was adopted by his stepfather. If he had, there would have to be a document proving it filed in a district court in Indonesia.

Anonymous said...

I think that 'kid' has expressed a valid concern about the possibility of racial tensions giving rise to white on black violence. I will answer simply.


Those who honestly work to reconcile conflicts between 'black' and 'white' interests, rather than engaging in partisan attacks, should be praised rather than censured for doing so by everyone who honestly doesn't want widespread racial violence to become the norm. Those who insist on defending 'black' aggression against 'whites' have no right to complain about the mere possibility of 'whites' reciprocating.

On the perennial debate over whether or not there is grounds to remove Barak Obama...I would suggest that arguments focus on his contempt for the Constitution, which is the real point of both sides of the argument. While it is interesting (and legal grounds for removal from office) that his 'cosmopolitan' background has left him 'without country', the reason patriotic Americans wish him removed has more to do with his hatred of America and its Constitution than with his (somewhat pathetic) cosmopolitanism.

Yes, making more people aware that Barak is not even elegible to be President is a good starting point, but there are far more serious violations of the Constitution involved in his Presidency so far.

Terry Morris said...

No, he would not lose US citizenship. He would become a dual national, and there is nothing in the Constitution that bars a dual national (much less one who was once a dual national) from being president.

Let me give you a free piece of advice:

If you're going to defend Hussein Obama against accusations of ineligibility based on Article II, U.S. Constitution (and all laws made in pursuance thereof, etc.), then you should at very least get on the same page with the folks at FighttheSmears.com. As it is you contradict the clear implications of the postings on the site itself, to wit:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.”

Ask yourself this very simple question: If there's no prohibition against a dual "national" serving as Chief Executive Officer of the United States, and perhaps more importantly, if the Obama camp truly believes that no such prohibition in U.S. law exists, then what would be the point of Fight the Smears posting an excerpt from an article specifically addressing the question of dual citizenship and denying that he retains dual citizenship status in the first place? Moreover, why wouldn't they just answer the accusation the way you did if this were the case?


you think, because you think that Indonesia is a democracy, that their status as a democracy means that they're automatically going to divulge personal information about the current occupant of the White House to a private U.S. citizen whose motives they can have no knowledge of if there's any potential whatsoever of such information negatively affecting his presidency, and/or the relationship between the U.S. and Indonesia? You must be completely outside your mind.

Most Rev. Gregori said...

Dr. Keyes;
I watch Glen Beck every day on the Fox News Channel, and he along with a frequent guest, retired Judge Andrew Napolitano, as well as several other guests keep stating that everything the Obama administration and the Congress are doing is unconstitutional.

Now, please correct me if I am wrong, but if what they are doing is unconstitutional it would also be illegal and a violation of their oaths of office. If I am correct, then how come there is no action, legal or otherwise, being taken against them. Are not these impeachable actions? If they are violating the Constitution of the United States and violating their oaths of office to uphold and defend the Constitution, then why are they being allowed to destroy our country with impunity?

I would really like an answer, but nobody seems to want to give one.

Anonymous said...

Rev. Gregori,

The simplest answer would be to say that the Supreme Court would have to declare the actions unconstitutional (it has not), and whether they even are unconstitutional is a subject of debate. (Personally, I don't believe they are unconstitutional, but it is certainly a debate worth having.)

Until the Supreme Court decides the actions are unconstitutional or he violates some law where the meaning of the constutition or the law is not in dispute, impeachment doesn't have a whole lot of merit.

Terry Morris said...

Rev. Gregori,

The leftist federal Congress would have to initiate impeachment proceedings, both against Obama and their own members. They may not give two hoots about Obama's fate in all actuality and when the rubber hits the road, but they're certainly not going bring indictments against themselves, nor are they going to implicate themselves by pursuing indictments against him. Impeachment, therefore, is completely out of the question at this point. And it's very very unlikely at any future date.

Anonymous said...

Since there was no such thing as dual-citizenship at the time of the writing of the Constitution, you either were or you were not, your assumption that anyone would be eligible for the presidency on such grounds is completely false and not supported in the framers' writings for intent one bit, smrstrauss.

smrstrauss said...

Re: Citizenship in Indonesia.

YOU have no proof that he was a citizen of Indonesia. And, Indonesia says that he wasn't. And, now the US government, through the US State Department (which is under Obama, I know, I know) has said in a legal filing that (1) Obama is not and never was a citizen of Indonesia; (2) Obama was not adopted in Indonesia.


IF you had evidence that he was an Indonesian citizen, the situation would be different.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "A free piece of advice.

A free piece of advice is worth exactly what you pay for it.

Terry Morris said...

A free piece of advice is worth exactly what you pay for it.


Look, I offered a piece of advice that ultimately will be helpful, not harmful, to your cause. I don't expect you to show any gratitude. But you ought to take it. Trust me, it'll work to your advantage.

In point of fact I was very easy on you in my reply, your post above being so chock-full of holes that it quite literally insults the intelligence of anyone with the slightest semblance left of common sense. Best to just learn thy lesson and keep your mouth shut.

gilbertabrett said...

Some of you all are really funny arguing about laws and what not... you act as if you believe that O'Drama's momma is REALLy his momma! How do you KNOW that his parents are even who they say they are? Funny, but people go to court all across the world EVERYDAY about paternity issues. I think he is, as we say in the South, a NATURAL BORN LIAR. I think his daddy could just as easily be someone from the royal Saudi family.

The way all these people are lying and paying MILLIONS to hide things they should be proud of (as arrogant as he is)... WHY? Please explain THAT ONE with some fancy laws made up by some more of our natural born lying representatives and senators...

smrstrauss said...

Re: dual nationality allegedly affects Natural Born Citizen status.

The fact that Obama was at one time a dual national was known before the election in November. Well known.

If John McCain had agreed with you that dual nationality barred one from being president, he would have used that fact to good effect in the election. But he did not.

If conservatives to the right of McCain, such as Gov. Palin and Senators Shelby, Graham and Hatch, had believed that dual nationality bars one from being president, they would have said so before the election, and used the fact that Obama was at one time a dual national to good effect in the election. But they did not.

If conservative commentators, such as Rush, had thought that dual nationality barred someone from being president, he or then or at least someone would have used that fact before the election. But they did not.

If The US congress when it certified the results of the election had thought that someone who was a dual national was not eligible, it would not have certified. If the electors of the Electoral College, or even one elector, had thought that being a dual national bars someone from being president, they would have voted against him. They voted for him. Not even one of those electors whose votes he won in the general election voted against him.

If the Constitution had meant “no dual nationals,” it would have said it.

Terry Morris said...


I think it's important to note that any private citizen who actually believes that a foreign government (or any of its agents) would divulge sensitive personal information about an acting president of the United States, over the telephone and on simple request of the party calling, is an utterly deluded fool who would believe anything that it was his/her impulse to want to believe. I think you must be completely oblivious to how very idiotic it sounds to people with an average allotment of common sense, your recommendation to call the Indonesian Embassy to verify what you're saying. Not to mention your ridiculously goofy reasoning for believing they would divulge this information to any and all inquisitors. You might just as well call Jeremiah Wright's church and ask the receptionist whether Hussein Obama was ever present, in 20 years of attending his church, during one of his hate-America sermons.

In short, you do much more damage to your cause than you do it good.

Anonymous said...

Nice spin, straus, but it's not going to fly according to the framers of the Constitution and anyone familiar with them. There was no such thing as dual-citizenship in this country prior to the 1960's and that's a fact. The permittance of it has nothing to do with the presidency. It's simply another example of a complete disregard to the warnings given by some of the best men who ever walked the earth and saw the writing on the wall whom you ignore.

There has been no constitutional amendment with regard to Article II, Sect. I, ever. In order to change those qualifications, you must use that procedure, not mere rhetoric, which is all you are doing. You cannot bypass the Constitution with abject innuendo that not only insults the framers, but is unlawful in and of itself.

The framers were specific in their zero tolerance stance for foreign influence. The evidence was clear since the Revolution. It is clear now what the price is that the country will pay when the law is broken.

The framers most certainly did guard against anyone ascending to the executive branch who was not born and bred in this country, with family attachments found here, not of foreign persuasion. The intent was; this Constitution does not endorse the practice of endorsing foreign influence, especially at the expense of its own citizens who have toiled to pass the litmus test others haven't at a far greater price.

You can't just come in here and change the law or pretend to be ignorant of it. There are reasons why the law was written as it was and the sooner this country stops allowing itself to be shamed for what it is and starts bringing back American pride, run by only Americans and points the finger back at those who seek to steal it and transform their adopted land they are using like a ragdoll into the one they favor, the sooner and better they will keep the freedoms they take for granted by the blood of their ancestors.

I think it's despicable that you find it your mission in life to spit on the Constitution repeatedly and twist the history of it to your own ends. Furthermore, I find it extremely telling that not ONE of you can address the forefathers themselves or do any homework of your own in that regard. The disrespect you demonstrate for this country disgusts me. It's people like you who will fuel the next Revolution; for one reason and one reason only - because people like you are literally threatening and attempting to change the law of this land into your ideological playground.

Enough of you.

Let me address one point to the ignorant Shepard Smith from FOX News as of late with his recent comments. "This is America!", you pounded and cursed during your little televised rant. I suggest you start studying the history of it instead of coming off as some sort of immature authority. Your ignorance of the subject is astoundingly contemptuous! Just because you have a camera in your face and are the discontent chosen to scoffingly address the rising education that Americans are doing themselves, yet knew all along at heart, doesn't make you better than us nor give you the right to spit in our faces or in the face of the men and women who gave us this country and proved they would put its interests above anything else.

Keep sneering at Americans while shouting "America the Beautiful!". We see right through you and your games.

Terry Morris said...

And by the way (trust me on this one)...

You shouldn't be making blanket statements about what the constitution would have or would not have said if it meant this, that, or the other. That's a can of worms you definitely do not want to open up. But let me just advise you of this -- the Constitution is not, in and of itself, the Supreme Law of the Land. There's more to it than that. See Article VI.

Terry Morris said...


Amen. He/she, and a lot of other people who call themselves 'patriotic Americans' ought to show a little interest in their country and its governing constitution, and spend some time in the original source documents -- The Declaration of Independence, Washington's Farewell Address, The Federalist Papers, letters and other writings of the founders, Jefferson's autobiography and others, etc...

Anonymous said...

Terry, they repeatedly try to backdoor against the Constitution without a lawful amendment. They believe that if enough time goes by the words and law of the land is meaningless. If they liked it, they wouldn't be doing this, which is demonstrative of their real intentions. They can call it anything they want, but Americans are starting to see them for what they are, unAmerican. That's why the media avoids the topic and now that they've even been overrun, they blame the internet because they can't control that, yet. The fact that they are trying to do that too should be evident what their agenda truly is - despotism.

Americans are sick of being shamed for what they are and the laws that brought them to the place they are at and if the media doesn't like it, that's just too bad for them.

To quote Mark Levin last week addressing Obama, "I don't know why you want to be President of such a horrible country!"

Omegaman said...

Alan Keyes is exactly right. The usurper has NOT provided any birth certificate. What somebody put on one of his web sites does not tell what time he was born, does not have the signature of three doctors which is required, has no state stamp, no state seal, and is not signed.

There are several law suits requesting the judge order the usurper to provide his real long form birth certificate, which would have all that information. They also ask for other records that would identify the usurper.

The neo-socialist has spent to date $1,000,000 to prevent a $25.00 birth certificate from being released.

What does he have to hide?


June 12, 2009 9:08 PM

Omegaman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
smrstrauss said...

Re: “There was no such thing as dual-citizenship in this country prior to the 1960's and that's a fact.”

Interesting. A lot of things exist now that did not exist then. Even more exist now than at the time of the Constitution.

The underlying issue of dual citizenship is loyalty. Washington recommended, and I completely agree, that we should elect people who are completely loyal. That is the decision for us, the voters. He did not say, and I am sure he did not believe, that there could be some institution that could decide whether someone was loyal any better than the voters.

Article II of the Constitution has three qualifications, age, time of residence in the USA and Natural Born Citizen status. It does not bar murderers from being president. It does not bar traitors. It does not bar people who actually fought against the United States (and neither, interestingly, did the 14th amendment after the Civil War). It leaves such things, in full confidence, to the voters. It assumes what we will not elect a murderer or other criminal. Or a traitor, or someone who had actually fought against the United States.

Let us read Dual Citizen in that context. Would the writers of the constitution who did not bar murderers or traitors have barred Dual Citizens? No, they would have said that it was up to us, the voters whether we believed that a Dual Citizen was loyal enough to be president, and if we did, we could vote for him.

The next way of tackling this is to look at Natural Born Citizen. It is only IF dual nationality makes one NOT a natural Born Citizen that your argument has any weight.

But a Natural Born Citizen stems from the term Natural Born Subject in British common law. (No, it has been proven that it does not and cannot stem from Vattel because Vattel never used the term [He wrote in French, and the word used in French is far from “Natural Born Citizen”], and the translation of Vattel used before the Constitution was written does not use the term Natural Born Citizen. That came from a translation that was made much later.)

But under British common law, a Natural Born Subject was simply someone who was born in Britain other than the children of foreign diplomats. That meant that the children of foreigners could, and still can, be a Natural Born Subject.

But what about Dual Nationals? The fact that someone is a dual national stems from another country’s law. And we and the British have always believed that foreign law has no effect on our laws. (And a good thing too!)

The laws of foreign nations sometimes make the children of their citizens also citizens of that country. But that had no effect, and still has no effect, on a person being a Natural Born Subject, and it has no effect on someone being a Natural Born Citizen.

One reason, of course, is that it is a FOREIGN law. Say that Canada or Mexico should pass a law that rules that all children born within 15 miles of their borders are Canadian or Mexican citizens.

That has no effect on US law. Children born in that area are still US citizens. Mexico considers that they are Mexicans. They have dual nationality. But take it a step further: Do they lose the Natural Born Citizenship status? Do they lose the status that they received by simply being born in the USA because of the laws of Mexico or of Canada? Of course not!

Another way of looking at it, is to say that IF Britain at one time considered Obama to be a British subject, and that fact makes him NOT a Natural Born Citizen, then a British law has taken away something from an American citizen. But why should we let the British do that? It would be disloyal to let the British take away the rights of even one US citizen.

Anonymous said...

On the issue of dual-citizenship:

The fact that another nation offers citizenship rights to a person based on their ancestry based on parentage has no effect on American citizenship. If Barak Obama had been born in this country (I do see the point of disputing his claimed parentage), his citizenship would qualify as 'Natural Born' under the existing law, notwithstanding eligibility for other citizenship. There are certain concerns about whether a 'natural born' citizenship should still apply to a person who had been raised outside the country and been legally accepted as a citizen of at least one other nation while a minor, but the applicable law does not lend itself to such an argument.

The issue of Obama having been considered an Indonesian national as a minor child is thus alarming, but not of clear legal consequence in deciding his citizenship. However, when Obama became an adult, and claimed status as a foriegn national (for legal and social advantages accruing to such status), he lost any claim to be a U.S. citizen (even had he been born in the territory of the United States). It is of course very telling that Obama was socially placed so as to benefit by claiming foreign nationality, but the most important fact is that he did so by legally binding declaration.

There is also the question of whether any action was ever taken (other than obtaining a Certification of Live Birth from the state of Hawaii, which is not proof of Hawaiian or even U.S. birth) to secure legal citizenship for him. It might be the case that Barack Obama never had any form of U.S. citizenship. If he did have such citizenship, it would be naturalized rather than 'natural born', as he did not qualify for 'natural born' citizenship. Thus if there is proof that Barack was a U.S. citizen, he has good reason to keep it hidden.

In any case the fact remains that, even if he were naturalized as a minor, he gave up any claim to U.S. citizenship by claiming legal (and social) status as a foreign national after his legal majority. And that citizenship was not 'natural born' anyway.

For purposes of simplicity, I summarize the relevant points under the law as follows. If Obama was not born on U.S. soil (which he was not), then he did not recieve 'natural born' citizenship under the laws of the United States at the time of his birth. Further, if he made legal claims to be a foreign national after becoming an adult based on his eligibility for foriegn citizenship (in several different countries), then that would qualify as acceptance of a foreign nationality, ending any claim on U.S. citizenship.

That Obama was eligible for citizenship in several other nations is not an issue (though it is a little bit telling). The key point is that he accepted the benefits of claiming such citizenship after becoming an adult, which would have ended his claim on any U.S. citizenship even had he qualified for 'natural born' citizenship (which he did not).

These facts are, at this point, obvious to any dispassionate observer. But they have yet to be brought before a court of law due to the intransigence of those defending his claim to be President. This is not due to any lack of desire or action on the part of Dr. Keyes or those joining him in the effort to legally settle the question of Obama's eligibility, all posts implying such to the contrary.

But really, the problem is that the entire government is unconstitutional.

Anonymous said...

To add, I do not disparage the efforts to dislodge Obama. I fully recognize that drawing the line and starting to fight against persons who are disqualified from holding office is necessary if there is to be any hope of restoring Constitutional government short of civil war. I further applaud the humanity and decency of those who wish to settle this question by legal rather than lethal instruments. It is simply my professional opinion that there is no longer any realistic hope of avoiding the final appeal to bloodshed.

I take no pleasure in this fact (though I do feel some measure of satisfaction in being able to state it with confidence). To the contrary, the willingness of Dr. Keyes and others to take up such a difficult task as preserving the Republic has warmed my heart and stirred my sympathy. I thus thank them for their efforts and wish them every possible success, further hoping that the courage and discipline they show and build in this will stand them in good stead in what is to come.

And to those willing to defend Obama's administration, I must also give thanks. Thanks for reminding me that war is not the worst possible thing. When one sees that bloodshed is inevitable, it's good to be reminded that there is an upside.

kid said...

chiu_chunling said...
"I think that 'kid' has expressed a valid concern about the possibility of racial tensions giving rise to white on black violence. I will answer simply.


It already started. A "birther" went to a museum and started shooting. A Glenn Beck 9/12 supporter in Pittsburgh KILLED three cops.Someone that read Bernard Goldberg's book went to a "liberal" church and killed .Someone listening to the words "Tiller the baby killer" on FOX killed a doctor.No one that I know read "Dreams of My Father" and went out and killed somebody.

Terry Morris said...

No one that I know read "Dreams of My Father" and went out and killed somebody.

Oh dear Lord!!! Is it really necessary to resort to such idiocy?

Earth to kid!:

I know a lot of people that watch Beck, that are repulsed by abortion, that want to know the truth about Hussein Obama's past. None of them --no not one-- has gone out and killed anyone or otherwise shown the slightest inkling to want to go out and kill anyone that disagrees with them on any one of these things.

Furthermore, a person must have his head stuck way deep in the sand not to realize or acknowledge that black-on-white crime (including murder) occurs in this country on a daily basis, and for no apparent reason. (Note: Allegedly being called a racial epithet by someone of another race isn't sufficient reason to attack or kill the person that did it.)

The point is this, your argument is just plain dumb to start with. And it reveals a real blind spot in the way you view the world and the crimes that continually happen all around you. Of course the way the media reports on these crimes doesn't help matters any, but that isn't excuse enough for you or anyone else to simply turn a blind eye to criminals you tacitly sympathize with.

Omegaman said...

Mr. Keyes, Sir; I would like to make a suggestion. I have wrangled with the ultimate question in our time right now - How do we stop obama/seatoror? I have lived on the web, looking for a legal movement that I thought might work. I have found, exactly what you have stated, that there are many, many ideas and legal movements to try and stop this radicalization of our country, but, they are broken into many peaces with no organization to combat this treason going on before our very eyes.

Most movements suggest writing congressmen, and senators. In my view a futile strategy. I see those who suggest 2010 and a change in congresses power as the answer. I cringe at those who claim the people's power lie in only the vote. Others, are attempting court battles such as those you are involved in. Still others, are trying to find something in obama's/seatoro's past, that might stick to this guy.

All these strategies are good, and even necessary, but I am afraid all will fall short. After many months of searching, I am unconvinced any will work, and see no evidence that these splintered groups will consolidate any time soon. The only way I see to stop this, quickly, which is absolutely essential, is if the people can convince several democrats (the ones who are least supportive of obama/seatoro) in the Senate to convert to the republican party. Not just vote with the Republicans, but convert to their side. If the Republicans can gain the majority in the Senate, and do it quickly as obama/seatoro has done with his usurpations, we have our best chance of stopping this destruction of our beloved country before it is to late.

Have you considered this? Do you believe there are three or four, or more, democrats that could be convinced to make this kind of move? I am sure you are aware that the NY house just had two democrats do just that, and now the Republicans control that house.

We must do something, and do something quick. It must be legal, the US Constitution our super weapon, MUST prevail, or our cause even if won is without substance. Their must be a few democrats in the Senate that are as angry as millions of Americans, at least I like to think so, that would see and realize this to be the only way to stop this, and limit the damage.

Thank you for your tireless struggle to defend our republic. We the people, need you desperately and fully support your efforts to shed light on this despicable usurper. May God be with you, and with the American people.

Thank you.


Anonymous said...

"Let us read Dual Citizen in that context."

Let's not. It's not up to you to interpret the framers' words. I already gave you examples of what they meant by it, but that doesn't fit your agenda, so you ignore it as usual. You can't go back and change what they wrote, so instead you just think it's ok to disregard it and dream up your own idea of what it means. It doesn't work that way. If the Supreme Court winds up having to spell it out, they're going to have to go back and get the source documentation, including Obama's. Then anything you "think" about the way it should be is moot.

It's amazing how party line loyalists will do and say anything without giving one thought to the ramifications of it. It's amazing how their name is now labeled alongside Socialism and Marxism and they're proud of it and defend it. They think it's fine to just rewrite history, come in here and tell Americans, in essence, "Too bad, this is the way it's going to be NOW." Just because you "won" doesn't mean the rest of us are going to swallow the tyrannical edict. We have history on our side. You have nothing but spin.

Not only that, but you try going to ANY other country and tell them that you have dual-citizenship, questionable papers that you're not going to show them, but you're running for leader of their country and see how fast they show you the door. So you think, "That's ok. I can go to America, drop a kid there, raise and indoctrinate him into my way of thinking, and when he grows up, he can run for President by lying to those suckers after a weak moment using a catastrophical event and they're so stupid, they'll vote for him." Not intended by the framers and you know it! If you think for one second the precedent you are attempting to set for this country is going to lead into the future, think again. It's not going to happen.

You think the label of American entitles you to destroy the very fabric it was made from and the power to do it. All this while proclaiming what a horrible country it is and fawning over the foreign heritage you hold so dear.

Don't like guns - you'll take those away and use lunatic examples as your excuse like "kid" and Obama are doing. Don't like people having babies they don't want due to their own irresponsibility - no problem, we can make you irresponsibly legal and help you get rid of him/her. Don't like capitalism - we can change that in three months and nationalize everything including healthcare. Don't like God - we can erase him from the founding documents, too. Then we'll take your children and force them to serve us and there's nothing you can do or say about it. Let's bet!

Either the branches of this government start doing their job or this country will see another constitutional convention and the "rules" will be spelled out again where none of you can interpret anything your way again. The hard part is over. Now it's just a matter of bringing it back on track and letting people like smrstrauss know we're not taking it anymore. It won't be YOUR way. This is America and history already said the way it's going to be here. If you don't like it, leave.

Omegaman said...

Let me clear up some confusion that smrstrauss and others seem to have. A "natural born citizen", is defined as - a person born on US soil to parents that BOTH are US citizens at the time of birth. This definition was well understood by the founders, and is spelled out in many of their documents. Also, clearly spelled out, is the subject of dual citizenship. It is not allowed regarding the presidency of the United States. In addition to the documented evidence, it is just common sense.

Anyone, who becomes a citizen of another country, as obama/seatoro did, has by doing so, declared his lack of any loyalty to the United States. The founding fathers were extremely smart men, who rightly wanted only a president that had TOTAL loyalty to the United States, and not splintered by loyalty to another state.

obama/seatoro has shown in his words and in his actions, his attempt to destroy America, that he lacks even basic loyalty to this country. This is exactly what the founding fathers did not want, and tried to prevent. We the people today, also do not want it.

On many facts, he is NOT Constitutionally eligible to be president of the United States. I have knowledge of many, many legal cases, and can tell you that the evidence, most admittedly circumstantial, but so only as a result of obama/seatoro cover up, is greater than that which has convicted and imprisoned many hundreds of people in this country. And, these criminal cases require the highest level of proof, beyond any reasonable doubt. All that has to be proved against him, is that it is more likely than it is not, that he is not Constitutionally qualified. He certainly is not.

Finally, you have a man who has spent $1 MILLION dollars, to prevent a $25.00 full legal birth certificate from being released. But, we are told by his supporters (sheep) that he has nothing to hind. We are taken for fools. He obviously, has much to hide. The truth will come out, but at what cost? Everyday that congress meets, our liberty, our rights, our freedoms, are being chopped away. It is truly amazing that as this erosion of our liberty is taking place, there are so many who defend it. Well, hitler had many defenders too. He achieved his goal to destroy Germany, as his enablers, defenders, and believers watched in horror. It took him years. obama/seatoro has had only months, but has accomplished an amazing amout of destruction. Let us all pray that he is stopped before history is written that his supporters watched in horror, as he destroyed the freest country in the world, The United States of America.


Terry Morris said...

A word on dual citizenshp:

A singular loyalty to one of two nation-states with the political power to advance it in the lesser revered of the two. In other words, self-destructiveness and abject stupidity on the part of the country that grants it.

Okay, okay, that was more than 'a word'. So sue me.

Omegaman said...

Some facts for thought:

Chief Justice Waite’s court opinion included a definition of natural-born citizens based on the common-law at the time of the US Constitution’s passage and subsequent legislation. Minor vs Happersett 1875.

“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."

E.de Vattel's Law of Nations 1758.
"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children.”

Only two examples of the literally hundreds clearly defining the meaning of "natural born citizen". You will note, as in all credited definitions that it is "parents", plural. Both parents MUST be citizens of the United States. obama/seotoro certainly does NOT meet any legal defintion, for several valid and important reasons, only one of which is the dual citizenship question.


Anonymous said...

Terry, it doesn't matter the point he's trying to make. It's done ONLY to indoctrinate those that might buy his bull, not us. The framers never allowed for dual-citizenship, therefore, it wasn't even an issue at the time of the signing of the Constitution. Why? Because it wasn't allowed. They didn't allow dual-loyalties, period. Strauss tries to argue that they do now so therefore, it's automatic that person is eligible to the executive office and nothing could be farther from the truth!

The evidence shows the framers were dead-set against foreign loyalties and influence over politics and government, period. They're the people who wrote the Constitution, not Strauss. His opinion means nothing. My opinion means nothing. The only opinion that counts is the framers who wrote the meaning behind the words and they wrote volumes on the subject. This incessant troll comes in here and tries to lie to everyone saying the document itself doesn't give a definition and he's here to straighten us all out. How stupid can one be when the explanation is found in 20,000 other things they wrote? But he disregards all that. To him, that doesn't count. Well hate to tell him, but it does count. They wrote it, not Strauss.

They never intended anyone with foreign loyalties to rise to the executive office and I can prove it. But he doesn't want any of that evidence. That destroys his, "too bad, we can do this NOW", attitude. Just because they tried to pull the wool over the eyes of Americans, doesn't mean they're getting away with it; hence the fight. This country will be brought back to its principled roots and Americans are going to be the ones to do it. We believe in the founding ideals this country was born under and reject their foreign ideas which don't work, never did work and won't work here.

I think it's evident from their mission across the internet, that they have no interest in the facts behind the words used in the Constitution and no respect for it either.

This is a take-over, plain and simple.

Terry Morris said...


I don't care what his point is. He's already shown himself to be completely irrational. My point about the illegitimate policy of dual citizenship is as follows:

(1) It is currently allowed under U.S. law, and

(2) it is self-destructive and abjectly stupid, and should be stopped immediately.

Whatever it implies regarding Hussein Obama notwithstanding.

Anonymous said...


It's just another example of how they didn't use the procedure given to them; which is a constitutional amendment.

Instead, they use another backdoor into the Constitution and try to bypass what it says; in effect, usurping it. They've been spitting on the Constitution, mad that they can't change it so easily and don't have the support to amend it. What burns me up, is when they can't do it legitimately, they do it via illegal means and then have the nerve to tell us, "Too bad, we won." Even the democrats are screaming over the lunacy of this administration for God's sake! Day after day I listen to people who actually voted for him and regret it. They didn't ask for this. Obama's solution: He'll give amnesty to 20 million to cover that loss come the next elect and to hell what they think about what he's doing.

They asked for this problem and now they want to try and lay blame calling Americans, "those crazies" and using examples of insane nutcases to back up their rhetoric.

There's a reason why the main stream media won't touch this issue; because they're going to lose when history smacks them upside the head and a constitutional convention is called to cement that history into a clarification based on the founding documents so they have no excuse in the future.

Rasmussen Poll last week says 83% love their Constitution just the way it is and that government has too much control. The majority is obviously on the Founding Fathers' side and it's understandable why that is - because they're the only ones who were looking out for us.

Terry Morris said...

Zapum wrote:

Rasmussen Poll last week says 83% love their Constitution just the way it is and that government has too much control. The majority is obviously on the Founding Fathers' side and it's understandable why that is - because they're the only ones who were looking out for us.

Well, I wouldn't be quite so sure about your interpretation of what the numbers represent. I very highly doubt, for instance, that the 83% number is at all representative of people who actually understand the principles contained in the constitution. Many of them may not want to tamper with it because they think it authorizes many of the anti-republican, destructive policies the central government has been engaging itself in for decades.

Back to this stupid policy of granting dual citizenship -- let me say, in addition to what I said in the earlier post, that it is also an immoral policy. Now, we can debate whether the government ought to be involved in attempting to improve the morals of the citizens it represents, but what we can't debate is whether it ought to be engaging itself in practices that we know work to destroy the morals of its citizens. The answer to that question is a clear and an emphatic NO.

And it is an immoral policy because it puts the citizens who possess it in the precarious position of choosing where their primary loyalties lie, and of voting accordingly at the expense of the other nation and its citizens. Not to mention that it undermines the value of exclusive U.S. citizenship. You can't have your cake and eat it too, as they say.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "Finally, you have a man who has spent $1 MILLION dollars, to prevent a $25.00 full legal birth certificate from being released. But, we are told by his supporters (sheep)."

He has not spent a single cent to prevent the disclosure of his birth certificate. Not one case against him was brought simply to require him to show his birth certificate. All the cases were to stop the election or to stop the certification of the election.

Obama has paid the $10 (That is the right amount) and received from Hawaii the only birth certificate that it sends out, and he has posted an image of that and showed the physical document. That is the only birth certificate that Hawaii sends out. http://www.starbulletin.com/features/20090606_kokua_line.html

smrstrauss said...

Re: "The evidence shows the framers were dead-set against foreign loyalties and influence over politics and government, period."

As I am and as the people who voted for Obama are. We don't think that he has foreign loyalties.

Are you saying that a court will come along and take that election away because IT thinks that it knows more than a significant majority of US voters whether Obama is loyal?

Are you seriously suggesting that because an infant's father, was a foreign citizen when the infant was born, the person is not loyal when he becomes an adult? That's like saying that because my father was a Baptist, I have to be a Baptist.

I absolutely agree with you that the founders were concerned about foreign loyalties--as I am and so are the voters--but they did NOT say that a court could take away the election of someone. And they did not say that because a candidate's father was not a citizen at the instant of birth the candidate was not loyal. The idea that a baby's loyalty is really influenced by the nationality of the parent at the instant of birth and that the child keeps that loyalty into adulthood, is laughable.

So where is the evidence that the founders thought that was the case?

Moreover, let's lay Obama aside and think of the 66th president. There will be a 66th president some day.

If your test applies, that the President must have two US parents, this woman would have to prove that her mother was a citizen. (No real problem. The president's birth certificate shows who the mother was, and then the president merely has to find the birth certificate or nationalization document.)

Ah, but the father. We all know that even though a certain man is listed as a father on a birth certificate, that man is not necessarily the father. So to prove that her father was a US citizen, the 66th president would have to take a DNA test, and then have one for her father, and if he is not alive, she would have to have his remains dug up and take the DNA test from them, and then produce the birth certificate.

And, I would agree with you that this is exactly what should be done, IF there was evidence that "Natural Born Citizen" really meant two US parents. But there is no evidence. The writers of Article II were not thinking of Vattel because he did not use "Natural Born Citizen" in any translation that was published before the Constitution.

The only thing that "Natural Born Citizen" refers to is "Natural Born Subject" under British common law.

And that is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

smrstrauss said...

Re: "they wrote volumes on the subject."

I have gone through the Federalist Papers and there is no mention of Natural Born Citizen.

Anonymous said...

"I have gone through the Federalist Papers and there is no mention of Natural Born Citizen."

Why don't you try expanding your horizons and study history. I said the Federalist Papers used to be taught in school and now they are ignored. These papers are part of the Constitutional history. I did not say they contain the full attitude of the Founding Fathers. I specifically said that attitude is found in their letters, essays and speeches. The Federalist Papers were an anonymous writing by the pseudo-name Publius in support of the Constitution, but that's certainly not all there is as I pointed out. HINT: Go back and read what the actual authors of those papers had to say.

You purport to be such an expert, yet you can't even find the quotes I gave as a mere example, of which there are hundreds more, neither do you even understand what the Federalist Papers are. You have no conception that the Articles of Confederation didn't provide for an eligibility check; hence the Federalist Papers which explained to the people why such measures, among others, were necessary in a new Constitution.

This only proves you haven't done any research whatsoever. You believe it's only your opinion that matters; an opinion which lacks education of historical events and the written character assessment the Founders made with reference to a fidelity check in Article II. Nowhere in their writings did they contemplate a foreign-bred, foreign-born or questionable President. They specifically guarded against it due to the experiences these meddling troublemakers caused them. How on earth you deduced that dual-citizenship was fine with the Founders, is preposterous. It not only was not allowed, it was looked up with distrust and disdain. Furthermore, merely allowing a person to hold dual-citizenship today is by no means a legal loophole into the presidency as the intent of the framers negate such a ludicrous idea. Your pitiful attempt to bypass the Constitution is noted however. It is the intent of the framers that matters when upholding the Constitution, not your opinion.

Given that stance, there is no way anyone of logic can deduce that the Founders intended that anyone, merely born here and not having even proved even that beyond a reasonable doubt and above a preponderance of the evidence submitted, would have been eligible for the highest office in the land. By your logic, anyone, even Ahmadinejad, could sire a child and have it born here on purpose, educate their formative years abroad, return, and then be educated in the rest by colleges that cater to the foreign, anti-American sentiments. Then in a few more years, ascend to the presidency. This is pure bunk according to the ideals set down by the Founders and you know it.

I wish you would just admit that you are of the "New World Order" ilk and be done with it. You obviously have no use for the guard placed at the door. Your desire is to see it torn down. At least the others, including myself, make no bones about where they stand when it comes to the protection of America staying American only. If you find that prejudiced or racist, you may want to look at how other governments are run, who would throw you out if you attempted to usurp their Constitutions which are much more severe when it comes to qualifications.

The United States is the most welcoming country in the world. But by no means was it ever willing to have its principles usurped by foreign influence and that is noted in the character assessment the Founders made with regard to command of office. You are welcome here only if you liege yourself to American principles and no other! If you can't see from their writings the clear intent of the clause, you indulge yourself in blinders on purpose; because you don't want to see the truth. It doesn't comport with your agenda. Just admit it.

Anonymous said...

"As I am and as the people who voted for Obama are. We don't think that he has foreign loyalties."

I can't read anymore of this. It's just preposterous! The man doesn't even salute the American flag! He doesn't like wearing the pin on his lapel. He denoted the very Constitution itself as being "flawed" - his words. He calls Kenyans his brothers and sisters. He wants to use American prosperity to help their economic plights. He wants an Americorp and HSD that will police its own citizens restrictively, adding even veterans to their "extremist" list, and the former of which will cater to foreign gains, not American ones. He wants to socialize medicine, control private sectors where he has no business or right. He is leeching the commonwealth and bankrupting the country by spending massive amounts of money he does not have, nor had any right to spend.

He tells the people all facets of government and their individual compartments must be transparent, yet he sets no example when it comes to himself - that's private information we're not entitled to have. His example completely flops when he adds lobbyists to his own cabinet which he told the people was a practice his adminstration would never engage in!

He and Pelosi tell the American people there will be a tax cut, but the Tea Party activists show there is no tax cut in the long run at all and prove it with the energy taxes sure to increase a burden of $2500-$3500 per family, above and beyond his touted "cut". Now we're looking at a VAT tax, additional state taxes led by his party and a loss of jobs by the millions, which the numbers prove, he never saved with his "stimulus plan" or "bailouts". The banks have been forced to take the money and regardless of wanting to give it back, are refused! Obviously the ends Obama proclaimed he did all this for was not the truth!

Obama was voted in by a pack of lies, the truth of which is starting to be seen by all. Notwithstanding his political hypocrisy, the Constitutionality of his eligibility, on dual-citizen issues alone is of grave concern to the future of this country. If these foreign-idea promoting scoundrels believe they will bypass the Constitution and allow this sort of candidate to ever run again by pointing to their precedent in Obama, they can forget it. There are many more of us who know how and why it was done. It is our aim to inform the people that it was completely unconstitutional and we can prove it. Let the people then decide how they feel being duped or how much they're going to enjoy having their American freedoms thrown under the bus by this man and his foreign-minded ilk.

Anonymous said...

We give him evidence, he turns around and asks for evidence. The man clearly cannot read.

Anonymous said...

And FYI, the proof was sent to Orrin Hatch, who refused to post it on his blog. Nothwithstanding the fact that Sen. Hatch is not a Founding Father, the SCOTUS cannot use his opinion to clarify the intent of the framers. They must ONLY use the documentation found in the writings of the framers which we've collected.

It's very telling in and of itself that Sen. Hatch refused to post our findings. They proved him wrong and that's exactly why he refused to post it.

Anonymous said...

smrstrauss, when you can find me some factual evidence from the framers of this country that they allowed dual-citizens to become President, that they would have allowed the hiding of qualification documents, that they felt it was ok to have foreign influential families who had no connection to the country and then lay their eggs here to later ascend to the executive branch of government, then come talk to me.

I really don't care what people you find after the fact who spout their own opinions as well while refusing to post proofs that make them look stupid, including Congressmen. The only facts that matters with regard to the Constitution are those who wrote it - since that's the only thing the Supreme Court would be able to rule on anyway; the framers intent. When you've done the homework we have, then you can start making some factual claims other than your opinion, which I truly tire of hearing. You're entitled to it, but you're not entitled to speak for the Founding Fathers of this country by acting ignorant of what was said. You've provided no proof whatsoever to refute the proof given. End of story. Stop regurgitating the same old nonsense.

You're good at asking all the questions, but you don't acknowledge the answers. You only ask more questions, and give nothing but opinion yourself, providing no evidence to back it up. You leave me believing that you're more of a student than an actual teacher. You ask more questions and give more opinions without knowing the answer, than most zealots I've seen on the internet yet.

In other words, in all due respect, you may want to shut up and actually do some research yourself and have some respect for what you do read.

Anonymous said...

I don't think that we can conclusively say that nobody who read "Dreams from My Father" ever went out and killed anyone.

After all, the actual author did kill people. Sure, they were hate/war-mongering racist mercenaries in the pay of the oppressive Great Satan (man, it's gotta hurt the Sixties kids thay they didn't think of that term, though) and all, but that's not really the point.

Not sure there is a point, really.

Anonymous said...

P.S. - You never read The Federalist Papers, Strauss. If you did, you'd see in #64 exactly where the criteria was mentioned that I'm talking about. But that's over your head it seems. The dictionary definition is all you will accept, proving you have no interest in the truth of what was behind the definition.

Anonymous said...

John Hanson (1715-1783) was the first president (1780-1783) of the United States under the Confederation before the Oligarchs took power with the Constitution which allowed Bush to be president and the ownership of guns. Hanson was an Oldenburg Moor, a black nobleman, and like Elijah-Moses-Enoch-Baptist-Mahdi-Elvis, went to space on a fiery alien ship and never died. Hanson has returned as Obama to end the evil Oligarchy! This is why they could never find Obama's birth certificate! Danny Lazare is right to want to change this NRA chad Oligarch Constitution which allows the angry white talk radio males to object to Obama's berth certificate! We must impeach Scalia to disable the southern oligarchs of Calhoun, Corker, & Shelby and their demented Constitution. They have this evil bill of rights with rights for hate speech, guns, lobbyist blogging, campaign bribery, states, property, bonuses, and other oligarchic thievery that needs to end! Such euphemism, like when they call you boy as if they ever intend to call you man when you "grow"! This is why we must oppose oligarch-serving superstition by supporting one-state solutions in India-Packistain, Palestain-Isreal, Turkey-Grease, Creatia-Servia, Armeania-Asbyjean and Zahir-Condo. Then we can abolish greed and superstition across the globe with free psychiatric healthcare. We need to do domestically like we did in Servia, to teach these oligarchs they have no rights to be superstitious racists.

Terry Morris said...

Well now, there's a minority opinion for ya. I have a strong urge to go take a shower ... now!

smrstrauss said...

Re: "A "natural born citizen", is defined as - a person born on US soil to parents that BOTH are US citizens at the time of birth. This definition was well understood by the founders, and is spelled out in many of their documents."

Not true. A Natural Born Citizen is the US equivalent of something that the framers were very familiar with, a Natural Born Subject.

Only Vattel says that a Natural Born Citizen required two parents and birth in the country, and the term "Natural Born" was not in any translation of Vattel published before the Constitution, so the framers could not have been referring to it. They could, and did, refer to the Natural Born that was used in Natural Born Subject used in British common law.

Jay, who used the term Natural Born Citizen, did not define it in that letter or anything else as "Two parents and being born in the country." And, since he was a lawyer and would become the first chief justice, it is more than likely that he was thinking of the familiar expression used in British common law, Natural Born Subject.

But, if you can find a framer of the constitution who actually said that to be a Natural Born Citizen you had to have two parents who were citizens and be born in the country, I would welcome you showing that quotation.

The framers clearly wanted to exclude foreigners and they wanted to exclude naturalized US citizens, but they did not say that they wanted to exclude the children of foreigners who were born in the USA.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "You never read The Federalist Papers, Strauss"

I have just read Federalist #64 on

Federalist #64 refers to the powers of the Senate and discusses treaties. There is no mention of citizen, citizenship, the qualifications for president, or Natural Born.

I have done a search on the words Citizen and Natural Born in the Federalist papers, and there is no discussion of Natural Born, and very little of citizen.

If you can find a quotation from a framer of the Constitution saying that to be president a person must have two parents who were US citizens, I would welcome you posting it. Otherwise, the evidence is that they did not want foreigners to be president. They did not want naturalized citizens to be president, but they did not say that the children of foreigners who were born in the USA were not eligible to be president.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "they felt it was ok to have foreign influential families who had no connection to the country and then lay their eggs here to later ascend to the executive branch of government,"

George Washington was good friends with an influential Frenchman called the Marquis de Lafayette. Under the Constitution, the Marquis would not have been eligible to be president. If he were naturalized he would be (under the grandfather clause, but not if he had been born after the constitution). But, if Lafayette had had children in the USA, would the framers have wanted that they should be excluded from being president?

Terry Morris said...

But, if Lafayette had had children in the USA, would the framers have wanted that they should be excluded from being president?

Are you suggesting that Lafayette and Barack Hussein Obama I are somehow equivalent? You seem to have an incurable disposition to paint yourself into these corners, ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth.

Besides, crafting these goofy speculations in an attempt to legitimize the the thoroughly illegitimate Obama is nothing more than grasping at straws.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "Nowhere in their writings did they contemplate a foreign-bred, foreign-born or questionable President."

Actually, they did. The whole purpose of the grandfather clause in Article II was to allow Alexander Hamilton, a naturalized US citizen (by the State of New York) who had been born of two British parents on the island of Nevis, to be president.

Hamilton was a great man and would have made a great president. But the point is that the Constitution says that even naturalized US citizens were allowed to be president if they were born before the Constitution was adopted.

Then they wrote, and no one disagrees, that someone born after the Constitution was adopted could neither be a foreigner nor a naturalized citizen.

But they did not write that someone who was the child of a foreigner who was born in the USA could not be a US citizen. And, since they did not write either in the document or anywhere else that the children of foreigners born in the USA should not be eligible, it is illogical that they should move all the way from allowing one person who was not born in the USA and had two parents who were not US citizens, to barring someone who WAS born in the USA with at least one parent who was a US citizen.

Re: dual nationality. It is not clear that Alexander Hamilton lost his British citizenship by being naturalized in New York. He could have lost it by renouncing British citizenship, but he was a British citizen at birth.

Obama also lost the British side of his dual nationality. It expired. He is not a dual national now. Your argument is that because he had dual nationality at birth that affects him.

But does it? Say that Mexico passes a law that all newly born US citizens are also Mexicans. Does that make them Mexicans? Does the Mexican law affect their loyalty? No, of course not.

Our rule is that a foreign law does not affect our country's citizens, and that means that it cannot affect Natural Born Citizens because, if they fulfill the criteria of being Natural Born, no other country's law can take that away.

So, on neither the ground that his father was a foreigner nor on the ground that Obama had dual nationality can he be considered not a Natural Born Citizen. Well, how about both of them?

Not that either. The Dual Nationality thing is merely a legal add-on to the fact that his father was a foreigner.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "This definition was well understood by the founders, and is spelled out in many of their documents."

I haven't seen one yet.

gilbertabrett said...

Vernon Malcolm said...


O'Drama is a polished liar. I am glad to see that everyday, more than twice a day & by more than two organizations, I am receiving emails of peole, organizations and politicians taking notice of the people DEMANDING to see Barry's birth certificate.

Two months ago I was afraid it would be covered up.

Thank you Dr. Keyes for having a solid foundation & a backbone.

You ARE being prayed for sir...

Anonymous said...

Um...I'm pretty sure almost all of the Founding Fathers were British Citizens originally. It wasn't just Hamilton. Considering that the United States didn't exist only a few years prior to the drafting of the Constitution, and that all the original states were originally British colonies, this shouldn't be suprising.

I mean, I agree with the part about it not mattering whether Obama is eligible for citizenship in any other country, if he were indeed a citizen of America (which he is not). Frankly, I don't even care about his lack of citizenship, since his obvious contempt for the Constitution is a much more important issue in my eyes (though it is very possible that there is a relationship between those two issues, as some have posited).

But when you try to be all historical and everything, try not to look completely ignorant. That might ruin the fun for everyone else. I mean, I find the whole argument completely pointless, but other people are posting too.

Anonymous said...

Notwithstanding the fact that only the delusional would believe in hostage-sniping, alien spaceships that steal humans or that the Constitution was a product of oligarchy men instead of the truer fact that the Articles of Confederation weren't conducive to an emerging, independent country, John Hanson was not the "first president of the United States under the Confederation", you have your history discombobulated. Samuel Huntington was the 1st President of the United States in Congress Assembled and John Hanson was the 3rd in Congress Assembled. Peyton Randolph was the 1st President of the Continental Congress of the United Colonies of America.


Anonymous said...

Strauss has not done one iota of research on Hamilton or he would have known that Hamilton could have run for President under the grandfathered clause of the Constitution. The fact was, he was nominated for several positions, some of which he accepted and others which he did not, having seven children including an adopted one and wasn't too keen on leaving his family for long periods of time.

Hamilton's interest was in law after having served in the revolutionary war. He was a polished writer, aide de camp to George Washington and instrumental in refining Washington's Farewell Address. He was also one of the writers of The Federalist Papers, entered into Congress as a bona fide reference for clarification of the Constitution.

Anonymous said...

Alexander Hamilton was of the same mind as George Washington concerning foreign influence. He clarified in his writings that the Constitution itself contains lessons that should warn against foreign friendships and attachments. The clause he was referring to was embodied in Article II, Section I, Clause 5, the natural born citizen rule:

"The information, which the address of the Constitution contains, ought to serve as an instructive lesson to the people of this Country. It ought to teach us not to overrate foreign friendships... to be upon our guard against foreign attachments. The former will generally be found hollow and delusive; the latter have a natural tendency to lead us aside from our true interest and to make us the dupe of foreign influence." - Alexander Hamilton

"Dupe" in this regard meaning, a "duplication". The warning is clear. When you break down your guard and allow yourself to become the object of foreign attacks, your concessions to it will result in becoming a duplication of their aim and your own interests will fall to the wayside.

I see that happening now. I see the same tools being used against this society where racism and discrimination charges are used as a tool to keep Americans on the defensive and ultimately having them concede their own interests in favor of the foreigners. In the end, it was all just a ploy to shame Americans for their culture by way of guilt, but the ultimate goal is in taking what the American has. Should Americans feel guilty for their Constitution and having prospered? I definitely think no. Obama definitely thinks yes. This is why every person of reknowned accomplishment has been painted as a thief who should be shamed and share their "pie" with socialist dictates.

Anonymous said...

Strauss, are you incapable of digesting the language of the day in The Federalist, not to mention that you to continues to ignore the other examples?

It very much embodies the contingency for insuring that Electors and Congress make it their business to affirm that the person elected for the presidency be in accord with the highest values, morals and upbringing of American ways only and not tainted by something foreign that might creep in and disjoint the principles of the Constitution.

In the 2008 election, not only did the Electors and Congress not do their job per the dictates of the Founding Fathers, the courts have further reneged on their responsibility to insure that the candidate was pure. I've said all along that the "natural born citizen" clause is a character assessment that encompasses qualities that are meant to weed out foreign influence and that it is not a mere Webster's definition of place of birth. I fully stand behind the documentation that proves this is the full meaning behind the clause, making it a point to recognize that no Justice so far in history has dared to tread or even trample on the well-documented original papers.

Washington himself made the observation that while they could try to embody the type of character they were looking for when he demanded that they at least be natives, having family (parents, siblings, etc.) connections here they document and prove, and lieged to no other, preferably with property, of good confirmable stock, etc., he noted that not even that was sufficient to guard against those intent upon destroying American principles.

I honestly don't see why it's so hard to fathom that Barack Obama has not been vetted in this light and has refused to even comply with what the Founders would have deemed mandatory. I think the Founders would have labeled it a coup that the guards they put in place at the door to the executive office have even turned a blind eye to it. Lord knows many men stood trial during that period for much lesser crimes. Many men have lost their official seats after investigations revealed their qualifications were not in order and I note that Congress never shunned that responsibility when the people petitioned them to investigate.

That seems to go unrecognized today for some reason. Today we see judges actually threatening litigators who seek answers. Back in the days of the Constitution, that would have been an unconscionable thought.

Moreover, I think the Founders would have used Obama's example now as proof of what they warned of. People were extremely against power-hoarding of the government. They would have literally burned down the White House if a President attempted to meddle in the affairs of the private sector or nationalized healthcare or owned major financial interests. It's simply unAmerican when you think they had a fit over losing some State power to the Constitution with a revision of the Articles of Confederation, what on earth do you think they would have done with a person like this?

Ask yourselves if you have not been used in their games as well. The same tools were used in politics back then in that racism, religious differences and personal differences were actually encouraged by conniving politicians in an effort to keep the anxiety going between classes so that the elite were free from scrutiny. That is exactly why you see the race card being played today and unfounded charges of bias against certain groups. It's intended purposely to keep you at each other's throats, divided, so the elite can do their business. If you stood as one people and scrutinzed them instead, you would have held them to the higher standard the Founders asked of you to do. Therefore, the people are just as much to blame for falling into the web they will soon have their blood sucked dry from.

Trust me on this, these politicians have read every lesson I'm telling you and they are using the same games on you that were used on your predecessors then.

Anonymous said...

"Re: "This definition was well understood by the founders, and is spelled out in many of their documents."

I haven't seen one yet."

You choose not to see it.

Anonymous said...

"Obama also lost the British side of his dual nationality. It expired. He is not a dual national now. Your argument is that because he had dual nationality at birth that affects him."

Barack Obama is an admitted dual-citizen. A dual-citizen is subject to laws of two separate authorities. A natural born citizen is one at birth, having no dual-loyalties at all but one, the United States of America.

Since he was not a natural born citizen at birth, he was not eligible for the presidency.

That is certainly notwithstanding the entire meaning behind the words used in Article II, Section I, Clause 5, which you continue to ignore and claim doesn't exist, no matter how many examples I have tried to educate you in on this board.

You were also educated in many other blogs I've seen your name in. Does the Obama administration pay you by the week or are you on a yearly salary? Your obsession with defending the indefensible would be best energized into a history book. That is, if you are at all seeking the truth and claim to be American.

I don't think you are going to get very far attempting to defend that Obama has the right to the office, let alone the right to disassemble the Constitution. For even Sen. Byrd has now come out and complained that Obama's 16+ appointed Czars, answerable only to him that will eventually dictate to the people who receives healthcare, etc., is 100% unconstitutional. Even the Democrats who originally applauded him are finding out that he's not what he seemed. I'd love to see how you intend to defend that, considering his own are now taking a stand against his sorted policies.

Anonymous said...

Lafayette did have children and one was adopted into the family of George Washington after Lafayette was imprisoned. He lived in the United States at Washington's home in Mount Vernon.

Lafayette was also the only exception that George Washington trusted. Most of the rest he had no use for and said so. Lafayette was a firm believer of the freedom cause and a good friend of George Washington who he dedicated himself to help.

Wow Strauss, you really need a history book instead of Wikki where you try to come off as being more educated than the rest of us. Your digestion of our laws regarding dual-citizenship is rather laughable, too. Even the Department of Immigration and Naturalization doesn't agree with you.

Anonymous said...

Well, I think 'need' is a bit strong. And it is pretty clear that Strauss doesn't want a good history book either.

As for making legal judgments, I'm not fond of multiplying sources. The requirement to be a 'natural born' citizen, at the time Barack Obama was born (wherever and under whatever name), was laid out in fairly simple language by properly drafted and passed national law (establishing legal definitions of citizenship is one of Congress' Constitutionally mandated duties, as it turns out). To sum things up, due to the facts of his parentage, Barack would be considered a 'natural born' citizen if he were born in the U.S., otherwise he would not be a 'natural born' citizen.

Now, that doesn't change the fact that his later declarations of foreign status would have removed such citizenship. It just puts the birth certificate issue in a proper, understandable perspective. Under the laws of the United States at the time of his birth, Barack Obama cannot have qualified as a 'natural born' citizen unless he was born in the United States. End of story. Well, not quite the end of the story, I suppose that one could mention that Congress has never seen fit to subsequently pass any legislation which would grant 'natural born' citizenship to someone who did not qualify for it at birth.

In the 'special case' of McCain, the Congressional Resolution merely affirmed what the law under which he was born clearly established, that McCain did qualify for 'natural born' citizenship at birth.

I didn't vote for either of them, because I regard both as being disqualified from high office, and their citizenships had nothing to do with that (well, almost nothing).

The issue of Barack's illegitimacy (as President, I mean) is useful because it is a simple matter of plain law. Making it overly complicated is unnecessary and detracts from the main value of the issue, which is to awaken Americans to the fact that they do not have a Constitutional government. I must state clearly that hopes that Obama can be removed from office (and his administration's agenda thus repudiated) are...well, just not going to be fulfilled.

Because the vast majority of those currently holding positions of authority in the government of the United States of American have utter contempt for the will of the American people and the Constitution which is the only binding expression of that will.

They have already declared that you are their enemy.

It's about time to wake up and return the favor.

Derek P. said...

How will it work when Bobby Jindal throws his hat into ring for POTUS?

Anonymous said...

Actually, Chiu, McCain was not verified as constitutionally eligible. First of all, the Congress has powers over uniform naturalization laws, that's it. Sen. Clair McCaskill (MO) tried to impose a bill in February, 2008 under S. 2678 where they attempted to legislate him into being a natural born citzen. It's not their jurisdiction. Obama and Clinton both knew this, yet they helped plan the Bill and put their names up as co-sponsors. So did Robert Menendez (NJ). The Bill failed and rightly so. She then came back in April, 2008, with a non-binding resolution, which is their mere opinion under S.R. 511, and which the media touted around as law but was not.

I'm afraid the SCOTUS opinion so far has never defined the intent of the framers. Minor v. Happersett confirms this but makes certain clarifications:

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

That's being done right now. Remember too, much of the historical material was not widely available and was a painstaking job to read images of old, handwritten letters. It's only within the last decade that many of these scattered sets were combined into complete collections.

"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."

I also note that in S.R. 511 in April, 2008, it was noted by the 110th Congress that it was confirmed and understood that parents of the child born in the U.S., who were citizens themselves, passed full citizenship onto the child. They have a huge obstacle recognizing that fact and knowing something else was not being investigated by them - Obama.

The Gray decision in Wong Kim Ark has been proven to be tainted by a political farce due to his connection and appointment with an illegitimate president named Chester Arthur. Historical tradition has it, that when a seat has been proven to be gained under false pretenses, the occupant of that seat's name is stricken from every record. Should these cases see the light of day in court, I have no doubt that Justice Gray's decision in Wong Kim Ark will come under fire as his appointment would have been considered null and void as the presidency itself was never legitimate and there was something to be gained in the Gray decision. Justice Waite may be relevant, but Justice Gray, no.

Bobby Jindal arrives at the same problem. While it's not confirmed whether his parents were naturalized upon his birth, it's known that his mother was pregnant when she arrived here. If he was born before the parents were naturalized, then that's a hurdle he needs to overcome because I'm sure someone will contest him, too.

While it may not seem fair to many people, even Washington concluded that the safeguards they offered, would never guarantee against foreign influence, which is even more unfair to American principles.

Terry Morris said...

The fundamental problem with smrstrauss's method is that it is a part-to-whole, rather than a whole-to-part method. This tendency to chase the phrase "natural born citizen" around in the Federalist Papers and so forth reveals a real defect in his approach.

If someone hands me a 5000 piece puzzle contained in a plain brown box with no reference to what the puzzle represents as a complete image, then I'm going to have a much more difficult time putting it together than I would if the opposite is the case. Sure, I can generally find the pieces that comprise the perimeter of the puzzle easily enough, but doing so still doesn't give me any indication of what the completed puzzle is supposed to be.

The only way the individual pieces (or parts), or a given region of the puzzle, can have any meaning is in the context of the whole assembled puzzle. Otherwise they're just random pieces that you're trying to fit into a whole that you don't understand. And all kinds of speculation naturally attends that kind of process.

The point is this -- absent a pretty reliable understanding of the founding fathers and the founding generation, one must have a very defective understanding of why the framers put such provisions as the natural born citizen clause into the constitution of the presidency. Some people tend to believe that since Mr. Jefferson authored the Declaration of Independence, for example, then he is more of an authority on the meaning of its principles than is the entirety of the founding generation. But that is far from the case. Jefferson could have authored a thousand DoIs containing the greatest political principles ever laid down on parchment, but absent the approval and assent of the founding generation to those principles, Jefferson's authority would merely extend to the expression of his own interpretation and no further. The fact is that the DoI contains principles generally accepted by the founding generation itself in its whole political capacity. Evidenced by the fact that the Continental Congress debated it and revised some of its language before accepting it as an expression of its collective political philosophy and of those who had appointed its members delegates to the Continental Congress.

Call Me Mom said...

Just wanting to put my two cents worth in on this discussion after going a few rounds with smrstrauss at Mr. Morris' blog. One of the last go-rounds was this:

"...However, the definition provided in SB 511 is not only very specific, it is a piece of legislation introduced by the law making body of the United States Congress where it was unanimously approved. I think that does have the color of law whether it was non-binding or not. I think so because this same piece of legislation is widely acknowledged to be having the effect of making it legal for the children of American armed service personnel, born on US military bases abroad to be able to serve as president by the use of the definition specified therein. If it may be said to legally have that affect for those children, it may certainly be said to be providing a legal definition of the term "natural born citizen" for other purposes as well.

You say that they were merely adding to the definition - by which you mean what? First you argue that there is no definition and then you argue that the casual comments of two senators provide that non-existent definition for legal purposes?

SB 511 was specifying a definition, not adding to one. Yes they mention John McCain specifically, but that does not mean the definition is limited to Mr. McCain. In fact it was clearly intended to apply to the children of American service men and women born on US military bases abroad as well.
The fact that there hasn't been a specific written definition heretofore makes this piece of legislation very important in that regard. It is specific and clear. It was presented as part of a piece of legislation crafted and unanimously approved by the members of the US Senate.
It is being used to define the legality of thousands of American citizens (Those children I mentioned)to sit as president.

I think it is a valid argument to say that the US Senate, in passing this bill, non-binding or not, has created a simple,specific and reasonable definition for the term Natural Born Citizen for the purpose of holding the office of the POTUS.
And they did so prior to the election of Mr. Obama. Nothing you have said is a presents a reasonable counter-argument."

Call Me Mom said...

To continue:
For those who may be unfamiliar with this bill it it is SR 511 (in it's passed form) and the text is as follows:

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen' of the United States;

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen', as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country's President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen';

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."

My contention in the discussion is that this bill defines "Natural Born Citizen" for the purpose of the presidency as: Born of American citizens(please note the plural) on American soil.

Anonymous said...

"I think it is a valid argument to say that the US Senate, in passing this bill, non-binding or not, has created a simple,specific and reasonable definition for the term Natural Born Citizen for the purpose of holding the office of the POTUS."

Congratulations, you have just usurped the Constitution of the United States!

What type of law practicing is this? First of all, there was no "bill" being presented in Senate Resolution 511. Inserting "B" in front of "S", is tampering. It's not a "B" (Bill), it's an "R" (Resolution). The two things are worlds apart. The former is legally binding IF it becomes law, the latter is mere opinion and means absolutely nothing as it never does become law. They make resolutions to get a sense of how the body in Congress feels about a certain subject, that's it.

What happened here is that instead of getting a sense of what everyone thought first, they did it backwards. The original "Bill" introduced by Sen. Claire McCaskill in February, 2008 was S. 2678 and it failed. It was never passed. She then asks what the Senate's opinion is in March,2008 with S.R. 511. In April, 2008 they resolve that the Senate's opinion is what it is, nothing more. In order for a "Bill" to become law, it must pass the House, then the Senate and be signed by the President. That's how it works, per the Constitution. It doesn't matter what the demagogues say to cater to the passions and prejudices of the people. What matters is what the law says.

Second of all, S.R. 511 is moot anyway since John McCain's long-form birth certificate has a discrepancy compared to his short form as to where he was actually born. Just a minor oversight, I'm sure. That was the contention in Hollander v. McCain where the long-form BC was shown to all in that lawsuit.

It also prompted a legal opinion by Professor Gabriel J. Chin of the University of Arizona regarding the Canal Zone itself:


Thank God resolutions don't have the force of law or we'd be seeing all types of corruption, above and beyond what we've seen already.

If anything can be gleaned by the 2008 elections, it is the wide-spread illegal activity of attempting to usurp the Constitution with meddling such as this and non-conformance by the Obama campaign in attempting to investigate McCain as a smokescreen that detoured any investigations of Obama.

They all knew it. And they were all in on it.

Derek P. said...

"Bobby Jindal arrives at the same problem. While it's not confirmed whether his parents were naturalized upon his birth, it's known that his mother was pregnant when she arrived here. If he was born before the parents were naturalized, then that's a hurdle he needs to overcome because I'm sure someone will contest him, too." (Zapem)

In order to get to BHO you may have to first contest Jindal and his political prospects. Not meaning to sound too simplistic, but, if you get one, then you get the other. Either way. Eliminating Jindal from eligibility for POTUS would effectively eliminate Obama from having eligibility for POTUS as well.

Omegaman said...

smrstrauss, you seemed to ignore the declaration of the Supreme Court at the time of the adaption of the Constitution, i.e. "Chief Justice Waite’s court opinion included a definition of natural-born citizens based on the common-law at the time of the US Constitution’s passage and subsequent legislation. Minor vs Happersett 1875.

“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."

I would think that the Supreme court at the time, would have a better handle on what the framers meant by "natural born citizen", than anybody living today. The court clearly said that this definition was not doubted by anybody at the time. The statement was it was "Common-law", not "British law".This doesn't really matter to obama/seatoro as he does not believe in the US Constitution anyway. It is just a road block to his agenda.

I am confident that none of the founding fathers would support a president who had the obvious and factual ties that obama/seatoro has with several other countries, not to even mention his connection to communist and radical Islamics, which we just happen to be at war with.

I will be glad to provide other documents that support the definition I gave for natural born citizen, and you provide just one where any founding father or viable person involved at the time, stated that it means only born in the US.


Omegaman said...

smrstrauss said - "There have been NO lawsuits against Obama for records. All the lawsuits were to stop the election or to stop the certification, which Obama naturally fought."

Again, you are wrong. The election is over and the law suits, asking for him to prove his birth place, continue. And, the "birth" certificate placed on his website is NOT the official birth certificate, called the "long form birth certificate" This birth certificate, that contains much more information, is what he is fighting to keep secret. The one on the website you speak of, has little real information, no state stamp, no state seal, and no signatures, all of which are required legally for it to be an accepted record of birth. The one he is hiding, has that information and he obviously doesn't want that information made public.

You are right, however, on one thing and that is HE is now not spending hundreds of thousand of dollars to keep these, and other records secret. We, the American people are as the "justice" department is defending him at tax payer expense, instead of doing their constitutional responsibility to defend the American people.


Omegaman said...

Here, some more evidence of natural born citizen means born in America by parents who both were at the time of birth citizens of the United States. Taken on the whole, as suggested by another post on here, it is easy to understand the meaning of the natural born statement in the US Constitution.

St. George Tucker wrote in St. George Tucker’s Treatise on the Constitution (1803),

“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom."

He has basically said that obama/seatoro is worse than the "plague".He stated that - "The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against." In other words, we error on the side of total assurance that the canidate IS a natural born citizen as it was understood to mean at the time.

The author of the citizenship clause, Senator Jacob M. Howard (MI) described the clause as excluding not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”Full and complete jurisdiction precludes citizenship to any person who was beholden to any sovereignty other than a U.S. state or the federal government.

Here, citizenship is "precluded" to ANY person who WAS beholden to any other sovereignty. This eliminates obama/seatoro.

The author behind the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, Rep. John A. Bihgham (OH) referenced Section 1992 of the Revised Statutes.

“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.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Here, it is stated that the parents also cannot have an foreign allegiance.

In delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court for United States v. Wong Kim Ark, when determining “whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,” Justice Gray stated,

“In construing any act of legislation...regard is to be had not only to all parts of the act itself, and of any former act of the same lawmaking power of which the act in question is an amendment, but also to the condition and to the history of the law as previously existing, and in the light of which the new act must be read and interpreted.”

Because the Constitution does not define “natural born citizen” it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.”

It is clear, in these statements and many others I could post, that it was understood that not only the person who wished to be president but also BOTH his parents, must have no allegiance to any other country.


Omegaman said...

Our Constitution was based upon the encyclopedic "The Law of Nations," a treatise written by Swiss lawyer and diplomat Emerich de Vattel as a manual for how government should function. Written in 1758, this work was read not only by the Founding Fathers, but was also well-known throughout the colonies among the populace. (so "natural born" did not have to be defined in the Constitution - it was a common term, perhaps like the term “first down” in football or “home run” in baseball – it was a clearly understood term.)

...in Book I, Chapter XIX, part 212, it says: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Here is the definition the Founding Fathers did not deem necessary to supply since it was already understood.
Source: National Academy of Public Administration


Hamilton said: in essay 68

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?

This is a very good description of obama/seatoro; a creature of a foreign power.

Rep. A. Smyth (VA), House of Representatives, December 1820:

When we apply the term “citizens” to the inhabitants of States, it means those who are members of the political community. The civil law determined the condition of the son by that of the father. A man whose father was not a citizen was allowed to be a perpetual inhabitant, but not a citizen, unless citizenship was conferred on him.

Savage v. Umphries (TX) 118 S. W. 893, 909:

As a man is a “citizen” of the country to which his father owes allegiance, it was incumbent on one alleging in an election contest that a voter was not a citizen of the United States to show that such voter’s father was not a citizen thereof during his son’s minority.

Do you want more evidence of the common understanding of the definition of natural born before, during, and after the drafting and adoption of the US Constitution, smrstrauss? There is more, much more, but I am waiting on something from you from that time that shows something different.


Anonymous said...

"Our Constitution was based upon the encyclopedic "The Law of Nations," a treatise written by Swiss lawyer and diplomat Emerich de Vattel as a manual for how government should function."

I'm thinking you worded that wrong but I hope you're not suggesting that a people who were so adamantly against foreign influence merely adopted the pages of a foreign book to create their Constitution? I don't think that's what you're saying, but just to be clear.

While Vattel agrees with the Founders on certain issues, it was the experience of the Revolutionary War that impacted the Framers of the Constitution regarding that clause. Vattel didn't have to teach George Washington to beware of foreigners. George Washington learned that on the battlefield. In fact, George Washington said more about distrust of foreigners than Vattel ever did. The "hint" in John Jay's letter was aimed at foreign influence and how to protect against it.

The truth is, the Founders read from many books, including Vattel, during the constitutional debates, but their experience is what led them, not Vattel.

Be careful how you word that, because it seemed to me you were crediting Vattel instead of the Founding Fathers for the meaning behind the Constitution and the proof shows, that it was their own experience that led them to include that clause and the rest of the Constitution for that matter; which makes for a much more reasonable and powerful argument behind the construction of the Constitution.

In essence, Vattel is a support for how they feel, not the other way around. The Founders don't feel that way because of what they read from Vattel.

Foreign officers were given a shot in our early military. If Vattel had been their guide, foreigners would have never seen the light of day in Washington's army. They screwed up and that's why they weren't trusted thereafter. A good opposition attorney would readily point that out, too. You have to have a good counter-argument.

It's always best to put the facts of American History first, then the literary works they found useful to their experiences, as a support point.

But anyway, I don't think that's what you meant, it's just the wording of it would probably have Strauss dragging you into the corner - again. Strauss & Co. like the Vattel corner too, by the way. Best to not get trapped in it. American History is a far better weapon for why the Framers intended the things they did; it's loaded with truth.

Terry Morris said...


I completely concur. While Vattel was developing his political philosophy -- indeed, way before -- America was becoming an independent nation.

Anonymous said...

The problem with all of this is that the farther you go from what is unarguably law, the easier it is to argue any position.

While the argument that 'natural born' citizenship should be defined by 'natural rights' rather than law is superficially attractive, it inherently implies that determining whether or not an individual has such citizenship is not the province of the law. So such arguments are of limited persuasive value in dealing with anyone not naturally inclined to agree with how you want to use them.

As it happens, naturalization laws in force when Obama was born define elegibility for birth citizenship in some detail. Obama could not qualify under those laws if he were not born on U.S. soil.

Now, certain aspects of then or current naturalization law may be unsatisfactory to some. There is always room, when making laws, to argue about what the laws ought to be. But arguing about what the law ought to say, rather than what it does say, in a current court case is rather suspect. And almost certain to fail if the judge is not already friendly to your point of view (even then, it probably should fail, but 'impartial' judgment is really beyond human capacity).

Anonymous said...

One must also consider human nature (and certain derived legal principles). If you make an argument that, based on the facts already known about Obama by the electorate when he won the presidency, he was ineligible, then it obviously isn't going to be a very persuasive argument because everybody who already knew those facts has to admit to being wrong before you can make any headway.

Whereas if you plausibly base the eligibility question on facts that have only come to general light after the election, then people can plausibly claim not to have known that Obama was ineligible.

I'm not saying that those who voted for Obama deserve a cover of plausible deniability, I'm just pointing out that they are unlikely to support the removal of Obama based on facts they they cannot deny having already known. If you would avoid bothering to change anyone's mind about whether he should be president, then I don't see the point of making an argument in the first place.

smrstrauss said...

Re: “Are you suggesting that Lafayette and Barack Hussein Obama I are somehow equivalent? You seem to have an incurable disposition to paint yourself into these corners, ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth.”

I am saying that to deny any foreign parent the right to have his American born son or daughter be eligible to be president means that you throw out the good ones with the bad ones. Our framers were familiar with the good ones, like Lafayette and Steuben and Polaski, who fought on our side in the revolution. They would not have wanted to bar their children from being president. In fact, they would not have wanted to bar the children of any foreigner, so long as the child was born on US soil, from being president.

Someone has commented earlier that: “By your logic, anyone, even Ahmadinejad, could sire a child and have it born here on purpose…Then in a few more years, ascend to the presidency. This is pure bunk.”

I did not respond to this at the time because my main point was, and still is, that any child born in the USA regardless of the number of parents, is a Natural Born Citizen.

But let’s take it up. We would have to be crazy to elect the son or daughter of Ahmadinejad UNLESS that person was completely unlike his or her father. Are children always like their fathers? Sometimes, sometimes not. The old, maybe trite, assumption is that the preacher’s son is expected to be the exact reverse of the father—wild and sinful. Stalin had a daughter, Svetalana, who was really rather sweet.

The point I am making is that the framers did not know, and did not want to impose on the voters in future generations, the decision who would be a good president or a bad president based on prejudices. They left that choice up to us. (Our prejudices, perhaps, but at least not their’s.)

Other than the three “Nos” of Article II (no one under 35, no one without 14 years in the USA, no one who is not a Natural Born Citizen) we are allowed to elect anyone.

Ahmadinejad cannot be president because he is not a citizen, but we are allowed to vote for someone just as bad so long as she or he is a citizen. There is nothing in the Constitution that specifically says: “no murderers may be president.” Nothing bars criminals of any kind. Not even traitors. Tories, who had fought against the Revolution, are still allowed to be president. But, of course, we do not have to vote for them.

What is the protection against someone who was once a traitor becoming president? US. We are the protection. We do not have to vote for that person.

Now turn this to the question whether the Framers of Article II believed that children born in the USA of foreign parents (one or two) should be eligible to be president. Let us assume that when the child grows up, it seems to favor the other country. Would we vote for her? NO. But if she does not favor the other country and seems dedicated to the USA, and she seems better than the other candidate, would we vote for her? YES.

Would the framers forbid us from making that choice? There is no evidence that they would.

Who decides if the child is like Lafayette or like Ahmadinejad? We do. No one else can. If there were some body who could say: “The Americans voted for X, but X is not loyal, and this body takes the election away, that would not be democracy (small d). We have, of course, the protection of impeachment. If we elect someone who is truly bad, we can impeach him or her. Two have been impeached in the legal sense, brought to trial. None has been impeached in the sense of removal from office. But, it is there, and it is a protection. Other than that we Americans walk the high wire of democracy without a net. If we make a mistake, no one can fix it for four years.

smrstrauss said...

The idea that a child of a foreigner, although born in the USA, is less loyal than one born of two US parents is a kind of prejudice. Many of the framers were prejudiced in one particular way, race. But they did not deal with that through the “Natural Born” part of Natural Born Citizen. They made the law that Blacks and Indians could not be citizens. Where foreigners were concerned, they barred them from being president and they barred naturalized citizens from being president. But this affected the citizen side of “natural born citizen,” nothing affects the “Natural Born” side. If someone is natural born, they are and will always be. A person can lose his or her citizenship, but the fact that you are “naturally born” affects one at birth and cannot be changed.

And, it is notable that the writers of Article II did not say anything about the babies of foreigners. Why not? Because many of them thought that the babies of foreigners, so long as they were born in the USA, would become just as good citizens as third-generation Americans. And, there is another reason, because they thought that if the baby of a foreigner who ran for president turned out not to be as good as an ordinary American citizen, we would vote against him.

Did Jefferson, who wrote that we believe that “all men are created equal” hold that the US-born babies of foreigners were less equal where Article II is concerned than other US-born babies?

I think that most likely there WERE some among the framers who thought that the babies of foreigners ought to be excluded. But there are no words to that effect, and there is nothing that says “follow Vattel in this.”

Here is what Blackstone said: “The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is alien.” http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/ (And generally speaking refers to the children of foreign diplomats.)

Is there anything in the Constitution that says that “Natural Born” stems from French law or German law? Or does anything say that it was a totally new creation, a combination of jus soli and just sangunis? The latter is possible, but it is NOT possible if they did not say it. Can “Natural Born” refer to anything other than the Natural Born in Natural Born Subject? It certainly cannot refer to Vattel, where the term did not appear in print until 100 years after the Constitution.

smrstrauss said...

Re: “Vattel didn't have to teach George Washington to beware of foreigners. George Washington learned that on the battlefield.”

We know that George had such people as Lafayette fighting on our side. There is no question that Article II bars foreigners and naturalized citizens from being president.

The question does it, would George, want to bar the children of foreigners? I don’t think so, and there is certainly no evidence.

Re: “Strauss has not done one iota of research on Hamilton or he would have known that Hamilton could have run for President under the grandfathered clause of the Constitution.”

I agree with this, and it is precisely my point. It is what I said. The framers did not worry about Hamilton, even though he was born outside of US territory. To allow Hamilton to be president they would have allowed anyone who was naturalized before the Constitution to be president. Anyone (over 35 and 14 years a resident of course). The King of Prussia could have left Prussia and come to the USA and been naturalized by a state before the constitution, and he would be eligible because of the grandfather clause. (As I said before, the sole protection against such a thing happening is that we voters would not vote for him.)

Then, the framers showed that they WERE worried about foreigners in the future. They made two provisions, which no one argues with: no foreigners and no naturalized citizens. But did they bar the children of foreigners who were born in the USA? It seems a tremendous change, from allowing any foreigner if naturalized before the Constitution to barring even the children of foreigners afterwards.

Re: Hamilton saying: “It ought to teach us not to overrate foreign friendships... to be upon our guard against foreign attachments.”

Indeed yes. But did he mean that US-born children of foreigners are foreigners?

Re: “The Federalist…It very much embodies the contingency for insuring that Electors and Congress make it their business to affirm that the person elected for the presidency be in accord with the highest values, morals and upbringing of American ways only and not tainted by something foreign that might creep in and disjoint the principles of the Constitution.”

Indeed yes. Who could disagree? But did the writers of the Federalist believe that the US born children of foreigners were foreigners?

Re: Washington’s advice on character.

It is good advice. It is the advice that voters should always follow. I think that they DID in the 2008 election. You think that they did not. That is democracy (small d). I will always fight for your right to say that the president is a lousy X@#X@#*!, but there is NO right in the Constitution to take the election away from someone who was validly elected. If there were proof that he were born in a foreign country, that would be different, in my opinion.

smrstrauss said...

e: “Barack Obama is an admitted dual-citizen.”

No he admitted (admitted is the wrong word, he stated) that he was at one time a dual citizen. Does dual nationality take away Natural Born any more than having a foreign father does? No. Dual nationality merely reflects the fact that a foreign law makes a CLAIM that US law does not accept with regard to citizenship.

Example: Britain says that Smith is British. The USA says that Smith is American. Can the British make Smith any less American (Yes, they can tax him, and draft him, but can they take away his American citizenship, or his American loyalty?)?

Say Mexico says: “You now are a Mexican.” Does that make you loyal to Mexico? So long as the framers would have allowed the US-born children of foreigners to be president, and there is no evidence to the contrary, the fact that someone WAS once a dual national does not affect that in the slightest. To think so implies that you believe that a foreign law can take away the right of a US citizen.

Re: “Sen. Byrd has now come out and complained that Obama's 16+ appointed Czars.”

I am not debating the questions of policy. Obama may be bad. Obama may be a socialist. Obama may not do all that I want or you want. That is not the issue. The issue we are debating is whether he is eligible to be president. We have had stupid presidents and bad presidents. What we are discussing here is whether Obama was eligible to be president, and of course he was, having been born in Hawaii (not a shred of evidence to the contrary) and having been elected president.

smrstrauss said...

Re: “due to the facts of his parentage, Barack would be considered a 'natural born' citizen if he were born in the U.S., otherwise he would not be a 'natural born' citizen.”

I agree completely. He was born in Hawaii, so he is a natural born citizen.

Re: the claim that Obama lost his citizenship due to allegedly having made “declarations of foreign status.” There is absolutely no evidence of this. Only an adult can renounce US citizenship. Use of a foreign passport is not considered renunciation. Both Indonesia and the US State Department now say that Obama was never an Indonesian citizen. The State Department said (http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/strunk-answer.pdf) :

“To the extent this paragraph alleges that President Obama may be an illegal alien or that President Obama is or ever was a citizen of Indonesia, those allegations are denied.”

Re: "When we apply the term “citizens” to the inhabitants of States, it means those who are members of the political community. The civil law determined the condition of the son by that of the father. A man whose father was not a citizen was allowed to be a perpetual inhabitant, but not a citizen, unless citizenship was conferred on him."

Yes, but James Madison said in 1809: "It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."

I do not know who Smythe was, but Madison was a framer and a writer of the Federalist Papers, and here he is saying that the criterion of allegiance is mainly birthplace.

Re: Savage v. Umphries (TX). Here is the ruling in a New York case:

"Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not." Lynch v. Clarke New York in 1844

And this: "By the common law a child born within the allegiance of the United States is born a subject thereof without reference to the political status or condition of its parents.” In McKay v. Campbell 2 Sawy. 118

And the US Supreme Court in the Wong case:
"every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established."

Anonymous said...

"We would have to be crazy to elect the son or daughter of Ahmadinejad UNLESS that person was completely unlike his or her father."

Well, thank you for nicely summarizing my actual objections to Barack Obama.

Anonymous said...

George Washington did ban the children of foreigners from even participating in his army unless it was confirmed that the entire family was domiciled here with the express intention to commit to this country only. Even with such qualifications, Washington ordered that these foreigners were to be enlistments only (soldiers), and that rank (officership) was to be reserved for natives only, whose families had already met the prerequisite requirements stated. That was the new order after many episodes of treason and taking advantage took place.

Lafayette was the only foreigner Washington trusted and said so. He was also made an officer prior to the General Order made by Washington himself. You have no point here as Washington would have never considered Lafayette for the position of President and Lafayette was in agreement with him.

Dual-citizenship makes one very much subject to two governments, it says so directly in the manual from the Department of Naturalization and Immigration. This is something that George Washington would have never agreed to for the executive position and you know it.

Please spare me these ridiculous arguments. You are attempting to usurp the Constitution to your interpretation. Well I hate to tell you, Mr. Strauss, the founders disagree with your opinion and I have the proof of that. YOU have provided nothing to assert your opinions. When you can cite from THEM what they meant, then come talk to me. But this ridiculous banter from you about how you feel they felt is an abortion of the truth. Where is your PROOF this is what the Framers intended; because only THAT is what the Supreme Court could even consider in making a determination as to Article II, Section I, Clause 5.

Citizenship, per Madison "is a privilege not a right". You are not entitled to citizenship merely upon being born here and that was upheld in the Fourteenth Amendment "subject to the jurisdiciton thereof" and in the debate of the Fourteenth Amendment meaning, "having no other allegiance to anyone else", not your slanted arguments. The first criteria was birth, according to Madison, which you even admit yourself. But he certainly cited allegiance as the other well-established maxim, which goes to parentage and allegiances, which you can't deny he said. Barack Obama admits to two allegiances, therefore such a person cannot be President. You must be, by birth, alleged to only one and he wasn't, he was BORN alleged to two, at best.

Anonymous said...

Just because Obama calls himself a Democrat doesn't mean he is. You are trying to defend Obama merely because you are a Democrat and this is the worst type of ignorant thinking. Obama more correctly calls himself a "citizen of the world" and refers to Kenyans as his "brothers and sisters". The Framers referred to Americans as their "brethren". Are you even starting to see the problem with the politics of such a man? A man that hypocritically tells Iran that they should "listen to their protesters" but ignores the ones protesting his own unAmerican policies in this country? A man that said on national television that he would be "happy to have a discussion" with the Tea Party participants and then summarily ignored them. You defend this? Have some guts and call the man for what he is, a liar.

Or how about a man who appoints 16+ Czars, answerable only to him that will eventually decide who and when you get healthcare. You call that American? Sen. Byrd, a Democrat, calls it "unconstitutional"! You don't see the problem with his foreign-bred influence that does cater to such policies? THAT is the larger proof of who and what he is and it's not Democrat, it's Socialist, something Obama denied he was during the campaign and something he is proving to be.

Obama may have run on the Democratic ticket, but by no means is that what he is, same as Bush was no republican. Resort then must be made into finding out who, what and where he came from and I'm sorry, but that has NOT been uncovered or reviewed in a court of law. Just because you wish to settle for an image placed on the internet, doesn't mean the rest of the country believes it. You don't get it. It's Obama's own ACTIONS that have caused his own problems of skepticism.

Now, as I said before, unless you can come up with some proof, per the Framers, denying what I've quoted them as saying, with reference to eligibility for offices, then do so or dispense with the opinion that has already been disproven.

Anonymous said...

I honestly have no tolerance for a person who pretends to respect the Constitution and then can't be bothered with going back and researching what the men who wrote it have to say - i.e., Strauss

I have absolutely no use for a person who sees fit to insult the intelligence of the men who wrote it by bypassing their words as if they don't matter because he finds a person who may agree with him in some mundane citing of case law that has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

Case law is only judicial opinion. Some of it is good, some of it is bad. Most of it is completely at odds with each other. The supreme law is the Constitution. One would think that if anyone's opinion mattered here, it would be the men who wrote it. Yet this Strauss has absolutely zero interest in studying the Founders. He has more of an interest in finding excuses for Obama's existence than anything else. One has to wonder what possesses such an individual to be so obsessed with one mere man.

If ANY President is doing wrong by this country, which Obama is, then he needs to be called out on it immediately and every scrap of his motives, intentions and past should be and needs to be investigated. There is absolutely no reason to be debating this any further while our country is dissolving into bankruptcy and nationalization, stripping each and every individual of their personal freedoms to the whims of big government.

Of course most others in this now over-inflated government will not complain, for they are the ones who control YOU. It is up to the people to complain and better now than later.

Let the record show, Strauss has absolutely no qualms with being controlled by a man who holds the record in deficit spending and only six months into his term of office. Strauss sees only a label of Democrat on Obama's desk and will defend him no matter if Obama embraced Stalin himself, so long as Stalin called himself a Democrat.

Anonymous said...

"We would have to be crazy to elect the son or daughter of Ahmadinejad UNLESS that person was completely unlike his or her father."

Well, thank you for nicely summarizing my actual objections to Barack Obama.

Yet this is EXACTLY what Strauss finds no problem with -- allowing them in. And it's EXACTLY what the Framers discussed over and over -- how to keep them OUT.

"Foreign influence is the bane of the republic."

Srauss won't quote the Framers because it doesn't coincide with his opinion that it's ok to invite anyone to be the President of this country. And he finds it repulsive that a democratic people have the nerve to question a man who is outright usurping the Constitution since the day he strolled into office and put his feet up on the desk. Obama is well pleased with himself for every liberty he has so far stripped from the people, beginning with massive debt and the government takeover of the private sector. And the New York Times this week demands that such contesting voices be labeled alongside murderers - defined as extremists, to be silenced and incarcerated. So much for the United States of America you once knew.

smrstrauss said...

Re: “Again, you are wrong. The election is over and the law suits, asking for him to prove his birth place, continue.” This was in response to my comment: "There have been NO lawsuits against Obama for records. All the lawsuits were to stop the election or to stop the certification, which Obama naturally fought."

Answer: You say that this statement “no lawsuits” is wrong. Yet you do not cite a single case that is against Obama for records, meaning a case with the sole purpose being to get records.

My point is that the money that is alleged to have been spent on lawsuits was NOT spent on keeping records secret. It was to fight cases that would stop the election. In every case against Obama, the demand of the plaintiffs, which is contained in the “prayer” section of the brief, was to stop the election or to stop the certification of the election or to stop the swearing in. Most cases include sections that argue that even if Obama showed records proving that he was born in Hawaii or never became an Indonesian citizen, then he still would not be eligible because his father was not a citizen. I await your citations of cases that only ask for documents.

A lawsuit for records would simply ask the court to demand copies of the records and to have them examined. It would not say: “stop the election or the certification”. But the cases do not ask for the records. They ask to stop the election, certification or swearing in.

For example, in the Keyes v. Bowen, ( the request for action by the plaintiffs was:

“WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully prays:
That the court issue a peremptory writ in the first instance barring Respondent Secretary of State of California, Ms. Bowen, from both certifying to the Governor the names of the California Electors, and from transmitting to each presidential Elector a Certificate of Election, until such documentary proof is produced and verified showing that Senator Obama is a "natural born" citizen of the United States and does not hold citizenship of Indonesia, Kenya or Great Britain. In addition, this writ requests that the court issue a peremptory writ barring Respondent California Electors from signing the Certificate of Vote until such documentary proof is produced and verified showing that Senator Obama is a "natural born" citizen of the United States and does not hold citizenship of Indonesia, Kenya or Great Britain.”

This shows that the purpose of the case was to get a writ from the court to stop the certification. It was not to get documents.

I await your citing a case against Obama (Martin’s case in Hawaii is against Hawaii, and Obama is apparently not involved at all) that is just for records.

So Obama is not fighting to hide the original because the Certification is the legal document that the court would accept. And, unless he has a copy of the original, he cannot get it from Hawaii, which only sends out the Certification.

smrstrauss said...

Re: “This birth certificate, that contains much more information, is what he is fighting to keep secret. The one on the website you speak of, has little real information, no state stamp, no state seal, and no signatures, all of which are required legally for it to be an accepted record of birth.”

First, the document does have a stamp, a seal and a signature. I have not referred you to a website on this. But, here is one (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html). As you can see, there is a raised seal, a stamp, and a signature. At this point I hope you do not say something foolish link: “Who can believe FactCheck, they were part of the Annenberg Foundation.” The document that they show has all the things you mentioned, and FactCheck does not have the skills or the resources to forge the document. Moreover, if it had forged the document, Hawaii would surely have commented.

As for the Certification of Live Birth having “little real information.” It has the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii, which has been confirmed by the officials in Hawaii who said that they found an original birth certificate in the file, and then told the PR representative of the department that she could call back the Chicago Tribune and tell them that this statement indicates that Obama must have been born in Hawaii. (Because it could not have been a foreign birth certificate, a delayed birth certificate of a certificate of Hawaiian birth. The first of these could not be entered into a file in 1961, and the latter two required a delay of at least a year.)

Finally, the Certification of Real Birth is THE official birth certificate that Hawaii issues these days. It no longer issues certified copies of the original (some people have the originals, of course, but those were saved from the time of birth). http://www.starbulletin.com/features/20090606_kokua_line.html

So, if any court were to ask for Obama’s birth certificate, Obama would simply show the Certification of Live Birth, because it is the legal document that Hawaii issues.

So Obama is not fighting to hide the original because the Certification is the legal document that the court would accept. And, unless he has a copy of the original, he cannot get it from Hawaii, which only sends out the Certification.

Anonymous said...

Neither Hawaii or any institution should be hiding the full records of anything regarding the presidency. This is well spelled out during the constitutional debates during the discussion of Electoral and Congressional duties. There was never a discussion that records would be sealed for privacy concerns, yet this is what the Obama administration has held as their defense - his privacy.

It is well-known law that the States have no right to usurp the Constitution. In fact, I'm quite sure that was the whole purpose for the Union.

Why Strauss continues to defend the indefensible here, is unbelievable, but a quick google on your name does show you're beginning to show signs of a psychiatric condition. You even led the Indonesian forums to believe YOU were the student making inquiries of citizenship. Do you seriously need to defend Obama this badly? If he is in the right, let him prove it and be done with it. There is no need for you to play his internet attorney. Honestly, it's getting rather insane.

I swear, the judge that finally allows it to be heard will be hailed a hero, for putting it to REST! 2012 will take care of the fallout, no doubt. Obama will be impeached on the next spending spree. Another trillion dollar debt proposal, for any reason, will be the breaking point. His approval index rating is now in the negative numbers, despite a corrupted media.

Terry Morris said...

Another trillion dollar debt proposal, for any reason, will be the breaking point.

Well, I never heard of anyone being impeached for merely proposing a measure. If he were, it would be the height of injustice. But as I said earlier in the thread, don't get your hopes up for impeachment of Hussein Obama. The leftist House -which is in bed with him- isn't going to implicate itself by initiating impeachment procedures against him. If what he has proposed is unconstitutional and traitorous, then what they have approved is even more unconstitutional and traitorous. And they're the ones invested with the impeachment mechanism.

pbunyon said...

I was going to say a good bit more here but instead I just want to throw out a bone to some very intelligent folks.

I get the gut feeling that we are indeed going to be in a new war with the obvious culprits. That gut feeling extends me to feel that BHO could not only completely avoid any shread of impeachment but could even be an inadvertent war hero. I can't get specific about how it all could happen or not happen. I just feel that BHO could go the way of FDR. I do respect a little more about FDR than BHO but I feel that they could be destined for similar places in history. Look at what is happening. An all out war is looming with NK, Iran, and their partners pulling numerous stunts which defy stability. Nuclear or other devestating weapons could be used again to stop the aggression of eastern nations. If that is the case then would BHO not be considered a hero? FDR is by so many though I tend to think he is one of the worst things to ever happen to the USA due to the insurmountable socialist agenda he had which we are still dealing with.

What if BHO, hence the USA, ends up unable to rise to the occassion? Would he then be impeached or considered worthy of impeachment? These next few months, weeks, or even days could begin tell the tale.

I realize that some of you have lived during much more strenuous times but for people in my generation these are the darkest days we have experienced. While I feel very certain about my conivictions and what I am capable of, I feel very uncertain about the current style of politics in DC and elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

"There have been NO lawsuits against Obama for records. All the lawsuits were to stop the election or to stop the certification, which Obama naturally fought."

This is such a canard. Could we please let this nonsensical argument die? Of course the plaintiffs have to give some reason that they need to see the records. Of course the reason is to settle the eligibility question.

But if Obama really wanted to put an end to these lawsuits, and the records prove his case, then the best course of action would be for him to release those records. In no way could his releasing records proving his U.S. birth citizenship possibly advance the plaintiffs' case.

Now, by admitting that, in order to fight these lawsuits, Obama must hide the records, you are basically admitting that the actual records are indeed destructive to his defense. In other words, you are admitting that factual discovery will not be in Obama's best interest because he is not a citizen of the United States, 'natural-born' or otherwise.

You say 'of course he fights the release of these documents because they're being sought to contest his eligibility'. But there is no "of course" about it unless those documents prove he is not eligible. When you imply that he has to hide those documents to fight the eligibility challenge, you implicitly assume the documents prove a lack of eligibility.

Yes, getting Zapem to elucidate many intersting points of Washington's views on foreign influence is all very well and good, but please.

Oh, and the internet posting of the birth certificate image thing? Anyone with a printer, a camera, and an internet connection could create an online forgery every bit as good (in every sense of the word). Which is not saying much, because it's not a very good forgery. I could produce a better forgery, but there would be no point because an image posted on the internet is not proof of anything precisely because they're so easy to fake. Pointing to the online image is simply a pathetic argument against presenting an actual document.

And how can anyone can take seriously claims that the online images are real when there is no remotely plausible explanation of how those posting them obtained access to the document in question? It would be like me posting images that "prove" Tunguska was the result of an alien saving Earth from certain destruction. Even if the images weren't obviously fake (I'm pretty good with image editing, actually), it would be hard to explain how I supposedly obtained them.

Anonymous said...

I'm not inclined to believe that anyone now alive has lived through more strenuous times...or should I just say, "You ain't seen nothing yet"?

When things start to go down internationally, it will be largely because America is no longer a player on that stage. This economic crisis was intentionally designed to create an actual, blood in the streets fascist revolution in the United States. People trying to point out the similarities to what America is doing now and what the Weimar Republic did prior to Hitler's ascension seldom realize that the current program was specifically designed using it as a model. Of course, the best laid plans (and this is far from that) oft go awry. America is not Germany.

The United States are not going to survive the transition to a fascist dictatorship remotely intact. The revolt in the cities will not go smoothly, nor will all the states roll-over for the new order. The existing military will have to be almost completely disbanded, and rather significant assets in personnel and materiel are going to end up in the hands of some newly independent states. When control of the central government is reconsolidated, America will be too busy fighting another civil war to do much abroad.

You can thank Obama for much of this abject failure, but the plan was a lemon from the beginning. Humans cannot control history, if history teaches nothing else it should teach this. You pick your side and you fight for it, knowing history is mostly good for figuring out which side is worth it. Islam, Fascism, and Communism aren't. Christianity is.

My side isn't particularly worth fighting for, so you can consider yourselves lucky I'm not counting on you.

jimmyds69 said...

chiu chunling is correct, and explains the real situation rather well. There would be no law suits at all, if obama/seatoro would simply release the necessary documents to prove or disprove his eligibility. The fact that he does not, is nothing more than an admission of guilt.

None of these case should still be going on, or dismissed. The American people have a right to know that their president is constitutionally qualified, and he has an obligation to provide it, without any court order to do so. The courts have a Constitutional responsibility to order him to do so if he refuses. Those are the facts of the matter.

America is in more danger of collapse today, than in any day in history, all the way back to the revolution and America's creation. And, this collapse is specifically the fault of the socialist democrats, now being led by this usurper.

For all those of you who support this destruction of America, you need to realize that you do not live in a vacuum. This destruction will affect many of you just as negatively as it does those who see what is happening and are speaking out against it.

The only question is how long will it take for the liberty folks and the tyranny folks to come to a head, and everybody is then made very aware of what is going on. Only time will tell.


Anonymous said...

Hmm...it depends on how you define 'danger'. There were some very tight spots during the Civil War. Where violence is not yet generalized, the essential character of irreversibility does not clearly obtain to critical decisions.

That said, the only way out of the current mess is a complete, orderly turn-about of the government at every level. Obama and a super-majority of all other government officials have to basically start thinking, and acting like our Founding Fathers.

In other words, not very likely. Theoretically conceivable, under some models of human nature. There are apparent historical precedents. It's definitely worth thinking about what they would need to do, and expressing the reasons they should do it. At least, there is no possible way that doing so could make matters worse, and such thoughts and expressions are worthwhile in their own right.

For you who are not yet fated, now is the time to write the role you'll play in this moment of history. Where cunning, and eminence, and even prudence fail, there is still honor and valor.

Terry Morris said...

Chiu wrote:

In other words, not very likely.

Now that's the understatement of the yea...dec...century!

Anonymous said...

Well, once the level of violence reaches a certain point, it becomes progressively more difficult to direct the course of events by instruction rather than intervention.

"In a crisis, people look to strong leadership." A maxim being misapplied by those who do not seem to understand that they do not possess the kinds of strength which will count in a crisis. Or they fail to even understand the crucial difference between leadership and management.

Terry Morris said...

Few people are possessed of the strength of character and leadership qualities necessary to properly lead or manage the kind of crisis we're headed for in this country. But I'm sure a community organizer like Hussein Obama, and some of our illustrious "leaders" in Congress (Pelosi, Schumer, Reid, Kennedy, Snowe, Graham, etc.) are well capable the difficult task.

It will be interesting to see the actual leaders emerge.

Post a Comment

Be advised that this comment section is moderated in order to assure respect for civil proprieties. Posts that use obscenities, scurrilous epithets or that are gratuitously disrespectful of others will be removed ASAP. If you think a comment offensive in this way, report it in an email to alan@loyaltoliberty.com.