Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentElections · 1 decade ago

Do you notice how the bots try to confuse people about Obama's ineligibility with "birther" nonsense?

Do you notice it's the bots who keep the focus away from the Constitution so they can mock "birthers"?

They know that the birth certificate is a focus we cannot ever find the truth about, so they keep it on that. And did you notice they always try to confuse people saying he's a US citizen when only a natural born citizen is allowed to be president and in fact US citizens are DISallowed from being president per the Constitution? (Article II s.1)

They focus on the birth certificate, using Alinksy#5 to mock "birthers" instead of Barack's own admission against interest that he was born British and was thus never a natural born citizen, ineligible per the Constitution. Dual citizens cannot be natural born citizens, he's a fraud.

US v Wong Kim Ark

Minor v Happersett

Craig v US

SR 511

John Bingham Congressional Record

15 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    Your sources would be better if you actually read them, or listed the quotes where it says anything about dual-citizenship.

    SR511 was the non-binding McCain resolution. McCain was born outside the US, to two citizen parents. Obama was born on US soil. Different cases, they don't cover the same issue. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:3:./tem...

    Minor v Happersett says that there are two kinds of citizens: Natural born and naturalized. Native and natural born are the same. http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/minor-v-hap...

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark

    …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. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/US...

    Craig v US was several days ago denied writ by SCOTUS, and in August the 10th Circuit of Appeals upheld the case's dismissal in lower court. It's dead.

    How about Perkins v. Elg:

    And the mere fact that the plaintiff [Elg] may have acquired Swedish citizenship by virtue of the operation of Swedish law on the resumption of that citizenship by her parents does not compel the conclusion that she has lost her own citizenship acquired under our law….

    The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [page 350] ….. declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,”

    Oh, and the 14th Amendment says there are only 2 kinds of citizens:

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

  • 1 decade ago

    No, sorry.

    I DO notice how people who get their legal degrees out of a box of Cracker Jacks... or some crackpot website that plays on people's paranoia...

    keep sitting around, trying to rewrite what they think the law is, to make themselves look smart.

    Birthers are not limited to ignorance about what is/is not a real birth certificate/ proof of birth. They include those who frantically attempt to grab onto fabricated definitions of what a natural born citizen is supposed to be.

    There is no legal grounds to say that a person who MIGHT have had dual citizenship, is "eliminated" from the definition of natural born.

    Obama is a citizen from birth. He did not become a citizen by being naturalized.

    Funny, how hysteria drives otherwise sane people into not having the capacity to see the truth, right in front of their own eyes.

    Birthers focus on any internet theory that they possibly can, and never realize that the internet is not a source of any law.

  • 4 years ago

    Here is a list of things Obama has done that make him a deserving Nobel winner. “[his] extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” He is closing Guantanamo. Sign the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Pushed for enactment of Matthew Shepard Act, which expands hate crime law to include sexual orientation and other factors He Reversed restrictions on stem cell research Funded a major expansion of AmeriCorps (national version of the peacecorps) Reversed an executive order that refused the presence of the press when our fallen soldier's caskets arrive back into the country. The new order leaves the media coverage decision to the families of the fallen. Obama appointed a special adviser to the president on violence against women. Obama partnered to enhance the potential of the International Space Station. He's saved more US lives than Bush has More importantly then all of this It's Sweden/Norway's prize to give out. They created it, they pay for it, and they made their choice. The prize and the subsequent cash award are not coming out of tax payer funds. If we want a say in it, then we need to create our own prize. It's theirs, they get to do what they want with it.

  • 1 decade ago

    So Penny pointed out the actual legal flaws in every single example you brought up.

    You didn't research these cases yourself, I've seen a few hundred other "birthers" (yes you all fall into the same catergory) try to use the same exact logic. You all seem to miss a huge hole in your arguments though.

    The rumor that Obama wasn't eligible sprang up in the primaries. Where his opponent HRC had a chance to research the rumor and use it against him, yet she didn't. Mabye she didn't want to harm the Democratic party.

    McCain and Bush heard the same rumor. Do you honestly believe that Bush wouldn't have made a few phone calls to determine if Obama was eligible? He wanted McCain to win, so I think he would have put in a little effort to have it checked out. McCain would have had some staffers investigate as well.

    Then after Obama was elected, nut job attention seeking lawyers popped up out of the woodwork. They used the BC claim, as well as all the ones you're trying to pass off as original, in court to try and have Obama removed. 35 different court cases, on differing levels of the system (all the way up to the Supreme court) and 34 have been dismissed, while 1 soon will be.

    So you're assuming that the Supreme court (which is republican filled) knows less about the law than you do. They've heard the arguments and ruled against the "birthers" every time. The reason they do that is because they've actually read the different cases you've pointed out, and like Penny, they understand them.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Yes, obamabots do that.

    For instance, they critique your question, then counter with the fact that President Taylor had Parents born in Britain... all true.... however, like all obots they fail to read the Constitution...

    "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

    See the part? "... or a Citizen of the United States AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION..."

    Old Zachary was born November 24, 1784... the Constitution was written in 1787, ratified in 1788... he simply met the eligibility requirements, as he WAS A CITIZEN AT THE TIME IT WAS RATIFIED, AND WRITTEN!

    That is the only exception to the NBC clause, and he met it... obama would not... unless he is 221 years old.

    Yes, they always try to change the argument, or ignore it, or just don't have a clue to what is being argued, or they do, but don't care what the Constitution says... the Zachary Taylor argument is typical.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    They do it because it works. Conservatives are trying to split the country into Balkan states. What they don't realize is that they and the liberals, are being used by an establishment trying to destroy the concept of national independence.

    Silly issues based in obvious lies and distortions are encouraged on both sides so that the one-world establishment (consisting of both liberals and conservatives) can divide and conquer.

    If you don't believe what I'm saying, then consider the condition of our so-called union. America is bankrupt, no longer produces anything of real value, it's citizens are either unemployed or underemployed and in serious debt, while all they do is yell and scream at each other arguing about irrelevant issues. If our leadership and our own stupidity isn't responsible for our state of disintegration than who or what is?

    And who is at the heart of the problem? The one industry that prospers when everything else is doing well or suffering, the worldwide banking establishment. Is it a conspiracy or is it just the way things are. I choose to believe it is the latter. But I also choose to believe that strong intelligent people can change it, but not by participating in our sham democracy.

    The first step is to ignore the idiot birthers and start attacking the people who make certain that America and the world will never be debt free. We overpay for housing, transportation, and medical care and once we're finished paying our federal, state, local and hidden taxes we use our credit cards to pay for food, entertainment and expenses incurred by our children's education and presents for holidays, birthdays, etc.

    This entire country, as well as most of of the world, is now controlled by banks. Debt has eliminated the need for them to stage major wars as a way to power, but this lack of war is no more benign than the predictions of George Orwell in his book 1984.

    So please, let's put the silly bickering behind us and realize that we're committing suicide if we don't start fighting the people who are really to blame for our sickly condition, and I think that our health should be our number one priority, don't you?

  • 1 decade ago

    Obama and his administration are confused enough, without Anyone's help. I think they should ask President Bush over for a beer, so they can have someone to blame all their failures on.

  • 1 decade ago

    I think you need to rewrite what you wrote, state your hyptheisis clearly, then back it up with some real fact.

    The fact that you are garbling your ideas together, then spit out some bizarre list of non-linked references is really and indication to me of your intellectual instability.

    Most people define 'natural born citizen' as one who is born on US soil. The idea that parents have to do with being 'natural born' is ridiculous, since Taylor both had English parents and he was allowed to be president. Then again, he was white.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    It would be easy for Obama to get the hospital to permit access to the original birth certificate. Why hasn't he? It would put the birther controversy to rest.

  • 1 decade ago

    Lol.. I like the " sock puppet " one. How aptly that describes Obama.. just have to wonder.. who has their hand up his a s s !

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.