• SiteMeter

A Blog Response

Recently on another blog: The Right Side of Life posted the following;   Rep. Deal Wants Obama’s Birth Certificate; Let the Blowback Begin!

Apparently Rep. Deal knew he was going to stir up quite the proverbial hornet’s nest by seriously suggesting that he was going to ask the President to see his birth certificate. So, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (h/t PeachPundit), the castigations are now beginning.

As you read through what I post from the article, below, I’m going to interject my own commentary into what the included public figures say, because I think most of them are seriously full of it; the idea that somehow someone is considered to be, essentially, other than rational for daring to question the President is, itself, asinine:

“I have looked at the documentation that is publicly available and it leaves many things to be desired,” Deal said in an interview Friday.

Deal’s statement came a day after he noted in an online chat that he would join other U.S. House members in writing the president and asking that he release a copy of his birth certificate.

a poster that goes by siseduermapierdra posted again the flawed Wong Kim Ark decision in his rantinmgs. I posted the follwing reply. Posted here for you all to read.

I hate to break the news to you, but I have been saying the following LONG before Leo.

Quote; Barack Obama has admitted that he is a British subject [CITIZEN] at birth, was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 [JURISDICTION] and followed the condition of his father, a foreign national from Kenya [ALLEGIANCE] to the British Crown.

The 14th Amendment and Title 8 state that NOT only being born in country, but that you have to have the Jurisdiction.

You attempt to solve a math problem with only half the equation, it does not work.

Citizenship + Jurisdiction + Allegiance = Natural Born Citizen

Even SR511 that allowed McCain, was flawed as it clearly stated the requirements for NBC status.

 Senate Resolutions is a resolution is often used to express the body’s approval or disapproval of something which they cannot otherwise vote on, due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution.

Again, I will note: being protected by a constitution.
What Constitution are they refering to that protects the NBC requirement.

“””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…”””

Note BORN TO TWO (2) US CITIZEN Parents, but OUTSIDE the Country.
Which we know McCain was NOT born in a US Military hospital on base, as there WAS no hospital on base.

Please state who are Barack Obama TWO (2) US Citizen parents?

Now, lets take a look at John Bingham, ‘author’ of the 14th Amendment of which you attempt to use a flawed decision of KWA.

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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 -Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives ((Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291, March 9, 1866 ) http://grou.ps/zapem/blogs/3787

Note: that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.

Barack Obama has admitted that he is a British subject [CITIZEN] at birth, was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 [JURISDICTION] and followed the condition of his father, a foreign national from Kenya [ALLEGIANCE] to the British Crown.

I believe Obama fails, based on John Bingham

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_Z

Now Justice Waite;
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.

Again born in country to parents who are citizens

Please state the US Parent(s) of Barack Obama, both of them.
Oh, that’s right his father was a foreign national, or ‘as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.’

“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.
“That is mine, too,” said Leahy
-Homeland Security SecretaryMichael Chertoff and Senator Patrick Leahy, (April 03, 2008) http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html

Again, please provide the names of both the United States citizen Parent(s) of Barack Obama.

that’s right, his father was a foreign national. He was from a foreign country.

Since you like to use KWA, here is another
“In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: ‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.”
-Justice Grey, in US v Wong Kim Ark (1898) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=1

Where is this other resort that the Supreme Court and other cases used to determine.

E. Vattel, the Law of Nations.

 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. 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 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; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

It’s hard for Obama supporters to face facts.

About these ads

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 34 other followers

%d bloggers like this: