tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post261971759498273143..comments2023-09-13T11:06:15.170-04:00Comments on Alan Keyes is LOYAL TO LIBERTY: Obama’s Stubborn Cover up Leads to Civil Rights ViolationsAlan Keyeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00205437413964197871noreply@blogger.comBlogger137125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-19340941066959252552009-06-26T03:21:35.276-04:002009-06-26T03:21:35.276-04:00Few people are possessed of the strength of charac...Few people are possessed of the strength of character and leadership qualities necessary to properly lead <i>or manage</i> 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.<br /><br />It will be interesting to see the actual leaders emerge.Terry Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00166609562028309038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-25939944031470890042009-06-26T02:35:56.940-04:002009-06-26T02:35:56.940-04:00Well, once the level of violence reaches a certain...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.<br /><br />"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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-56471204130309341082009-06-25T14:59:35.235-04:002009-06-25T14:59:35.235-04:00Chiu wrote:
In other words, not very likely.
Now...Chiu wrote:<br /><br /><i>In other words, not very likely.</i><br /><br />Now that's the understatement of the yea...dec...century!Terry Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00166609562028309038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-30568029076971938912009-06-24T07:32:01.815-04:002009-06-24T07:32:01.815-04:00Hmm...it depends on how you define 'danger'...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.<br /><br />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 <i>acting</i> like our Founding Fathers.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-42664135453235918162009-06-23T12:57:51.407-04:002009-06-23T12:57:51.407-04:00chiu chunling is correct, and explains the real si...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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The_OmegamanUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12738653213784530695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-78656088292166609512009-06-23T01:23:22.045-04:002009-06-23T01:23:22.045-04:00I'm not inclined to believe that anyone now al...I'm not inclined to believe that anyone now alive <i>has</i> lived through more strenuous times...or should I just say, "You ain't seen <i>nothing</i> yet"?<br /><br />When things start to go down internationally, it will be largely <i>because</i> 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.<br /><br />The United States are <i>not</i> 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>My</i> side isn't particularly worth fighting for, so you can consider yourselves lucky I'm not counting on you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-77610284751704338992009-06-23T00:52:32.135-04:002009-06-23T00:52:32.135-04:00"There have been NO lawsuits against Obama fo..."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."<br /><br />This is such a canard. Could we please let this nonsensical argument die? Of <i>course</i> the plaintiffs have to give some reason that they need to see the records. Of <i>course</i> the reason is to settle the eligibility question.<br /><br />But if Obama <i>really</i> wanted to put an end to these lawsuits, and the records prove his case, <i>then the best course of action would be for him to release those records</i>. In no way could his releasing records proving his U.S. birth citizenship possibly advance the plaintiffs' case.<br /><br />Now, by admitting that, in order to fight these lawsuits, Obama <i>must</i> 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 <i>not</i> a citizen of the United States, 'natural-born' or otherwise.<br /><br />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 <i>not eligible</i>. 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.<br /><br />Yes, getting Zapem to elucidate many intersting points of Washington's views on foreign influence is all very well and good, but please.<br /><br />Oh, and the internet posting of the birth certificate image thing? <i>Anyone</i> 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 <i>better</i> 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.<br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-67247266464426325542009-06-23T00:09:18.871-04:002009-06-23T00:09:18.871-04:00I was going to say a good bit more here but instea...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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.pbunyonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11640995263537667360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-27636271558158306722009-06-22T19:45:05.327-04:002009-06-22T19:45:05.327-04:00Another trillion dollar debt proposal, for any rea...<i>Another trillion dollar debt proposal, for any reason, will be the breaking point.</i><br /><br />Well, I never heard of anyone being impeached for merely <i>proposing</i> 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.Terry Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00166609562028309038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-57544541858635225982009-06-22T18:15:24.239-04:002009-06-22T18:15:24.239-04:00Neither Hawaii or any institution should be hiding...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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-44267682203504880732009-06-22T15:48:43.768-04:002009-06-22T15:48:43.768-04:00Re: “This birth certificate, that contains much mo...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.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.)<br /><br />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<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.smrstrausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17130680385818556655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-78121083459451228502009-06-22T15:45:04.242-04:002009-06-22T15:45:04.242-04:00Re: “Again, you are wrong. The election is over a...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."<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />For example, in the Keyes v. Bowen, (http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:eV4MKFj1ROMJ:www.ballot-access.org/2008/WRIT-OF-MANDATE.pdf+keyes+v+bowen&cd=13&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) the request for action by the plaintiffs was:<br /><br />“WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully prays:<br />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.”<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.smrstrausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17130680385818556655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-10060389959230410482009-06-22T08:43:41.607-04:002009-06-22T08:43:41.607-04:00"We would have to be crazy to elect the son o...<i>"We would have to be crazy to elect the son or daughter of Ahmadinejad UNLESS that person was completely unlike his or her father."<br /><br />Well, thank you for nicely summarizing my actual objections to Barack Obama.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />"Foreign influence is the bane of the republic."<br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-76284354589556229562009-06-22T08:22:02.859-04:002009-06-22T08:22:02.859-04:00I honestly have no tolerance for a person who pret...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<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-85250391369162208572009-06-22T08:01:11.346-04:002009-06-22T08:01:11.346-04:00Just because Obama calls himself a Democrat doesn&...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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-30990792880672270862009-06-22T08:00:58.012-04:002009-06-22T08:00:58.012-04:00George Washington did ban the children of foreigne...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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-20680289525672562612009-06-22T07:18:37.676-04:002009-06-22T07:18:37.676-04:00"We would have to be crazy to elect the son o..."We would have to be crazy to elect the son or daughter of Ahmadinejad UNLESS that person was completely unlike his or her father."<br /><br />Well, thank you for nicely summarizing my <i>actual</i> objections to Barack Obama.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-48837380715926655762009-06-21T20:25:18.222-04:002009-06-21T20:25:18.222-04:00Re: “due to the facts of his parentage, Barack wou...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.”<br /><br />I agree completely. He was born in Hawaii, so he is a natural born citizen. <br /><br />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) : <br /><br />“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.”<br /><br /><br />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."<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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. <br /><br />Re: Savage v. Umphries (TX). Here is the ruling in a New York case:<br /><br />"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<br /><br />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 <br /><br />And the US Supreme Court in the Wong case:<br />"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.<br /><br />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."smrstrausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17130680385818556655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-6351051157072100062009-06-21T20:21:42.406-04:002009-06-21T20:21:42.406-04:00e: “Barack Obama is an admitted dual-citizen.”
No...e: “Barack Obama is an admitted dual-citizen.”<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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?)?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Re: “Sen. Byrd has now come out and complained that Obama's 16+ appointed Czars.”<br /><br />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.smrstrausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17130680385818556655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-22571226431599733452009-06-21T20:21:12.285-04:002009-06-21T20:21:12.285-04:00Re: “Vattel didn't have to teach George Washin...Re: “Vattel didn't have to teach George Washington to beware of foreigners. George Washington learned that on the battlefield.”<br /><br />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. <br /><br />The question does it, would George, want to bar the children of foreigners? I don’t think so, and there is certainly no evidence.<br /><br />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.” <br /><br />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.) <br /><br />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.<br /><br />Re: Hamilton saying: “It ought to teach us not to overrate foreign friendships... to be upon our guard against foreign attachments.” <br /><br />Indeed yes. But did he mean that US-born children of foreigners are foreigners?<br /><br />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.”<br /><br />Indeed yes. Who could disagree? But did the writers of the Federalist believe that the US born children of foreigners were foreigners?<br /><br />Re: Washington’s advice on character. <br /><br />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.smrstrausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17130680385818556655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-65390331257464859302009-06-21T20:16:16.270-04:002009-06-21T20:16:16.270-04:00The idea that a child of a foreigner, although bor...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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.” <br /><br />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.)<br /><br />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.smrstrausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17130680385818556655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-56277108530801483712009-06-21T20:12:55.751-04:002009-06-21T20:12:55.751-04:00Re: “Are you suggesting that Lafayette and Barack ...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.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.)<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Would the framers forbid us from making that choice? There is no evidence that they would. <br /><br />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.smrstrausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17130680385818556655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-34550466393449890022009-06-21T01:41:38.644-04:002009-06-21T01:41:38.644-04:00One must also consider human nature (and certain d...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.<br /><br />Whereas if you plausibly base the eligibility question on facts that have only come to general light <i>after</i> the election, then people can plausibly claim not to have known that Obama was ineligible.<br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-73064448757619432212009-06-21T01:25:43.133-04:002009-06-21T01:25:43.133-04:00The problem with all of this is that the farther y...The problem with all of this is that the farther you go from what is unarguably law, the easier it is to argue <i>any</i> position.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Now, certain aspects of then or current naturalization law may be unsatisfactory to some. There is always room, when <i>making</i> laws, to argue about what the laws ought to be. But arguing about what the law <i>ought</i> to say, rather than what it <i>does</i> 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 <i>should</i> fail, but 'impartial' judgment is really beyond human capacity).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-15875656815969840632009-06-20T12:11:59.312-04:002009-06-20T12:11:59.312-04:00Zapem,
I completely concur. While Vattel was dev...Zapem,<br /><br />I completely concur. While Vattel was developing his political philosophy -- indeed, way before -- America was becoming an independent nation.Terry Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00166609562028309038noreply@blogger.com