It’s time I suppose to deal with some of the neener neener liberals out there. I know a few and a suspect you do too.
Liberals won’t do their homework or, they’ll only do it up to a point. They will parse out only what backs their position without bothering to mention the whole story.
You and I both know this kind of liberal, don’t we?
These are the Obama Kool Aid drinkers who just can’t bring themselves to the understanding that THEIR guy may well be in trouble and in order to deflect any talk of ineligibility, they try the old and worn…”Well, what about THESE Presidents…HUH?”…tact.
These liberals will lay upon you the names of other Presidents who had one or both parents born off soil so to speak so, let’s have a look shall we?
Some will throw Thomas Jefferson under the bus because his mother was British. Ain’t flying liberals. Learn your 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 that part where it says, “…or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” THAT’S the part that covers Jefferson.
Next up, we have Andrew Johnson. Andrew’s parents came from either Ireland or England. Did they? That’s unclear as it may well NOT have been his FATHER but his GRANDFATHER who made that journey. No matter really though because the Naturalization Act of 1795 stated that anyone having lived in the United States for a period of 5 years was to be considered a citizen. They did and therefore, Andrew Johnson was a natural born citizen.
NEXT!!!
Let’s have a look at the next liberal show and tell piece…James Buchanan. Buchanan’s parents were living in Pennsylvania where his mother was born. His father on the other hand, came from Ireland. Before the ratification of the constitution, citizenship was bestowed by state. They were considered citizens of Pennsylvania. Upon the ratification in 1788, they were automatically considered…U.S. citizens. One would also want to add that in 1783, some 8 years before Buchanan’s birth, a treaty between the U.S. and Great Britain established that all colonists were to be considered…FORMER subjects of the throne and CITIZENS of the United States.
This makes ol’ James Buchanan DOUBLE covered.
Woodrow Wilson. Hmmm…Well his dad was born in Ohio. So far so good. His mother though, was born in England. Uh oh? Not so fast. According to a Congressional Act in 1855, “any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under existing laws, married, or shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen.” BINGO…Woody was a natural born citizen.
Up next is Herbert Hoover, Herb his friends called him. Herb’s mom was born in Canada…oh the humanity. Remember that pesky 1855 act that covered Wilson? Well low and behold, it covers Herb too. His parents were married in 1871 and thus, Herbert Hoover was a natural born citizen and perfectly eligible to serve.
That leaves us with but one. One oddball President. Chester Arthur.
Chester Arthur was a strange, strange man who would do just about anything to hide his past. In fact, he burned his records. What we know comes from an old family bible and it’s none too clear.
It was widely believed that Arthur was actually born in Canada though he claimed to have been born in Vermont. He claimed his father was 40 years old at the time of his birth but other records indicate Chet’s dad was 33. Arthur changed the date of HIS birth from 1829-1830 but no records remained to know for sure which was correct.
As close to the truth as is possible to come, Arthur, according to long buried records in the Library of Congress, became a NATURALIZED U.S. Citizen in…1843!!!
This means one thing. He was NOT I repeat NOT eligible to serve. Oh…it was questioned at the time. It was as big a deal then as Obama’s trouble is now. The problem was, the guy who was bent on proving it kept changing HIS story and he couldn’t be trusted to tell the truth…Whatever it was concerning Arthur.
As the implements of investigation we have today didn’t exist THEN and considering Chester, to keep his past hidden, burned all those official records, he was allowed to serve.
The fact remains, he was ineligible and covered up the facts of his birth and that of his patents citizenship.
Chester Arthur got away with it.
Now then, some liberal is sure to say that if it was good enough for Chester Arthur, it’s good enough for Obama. You KNOW someone will try that line of reasoning.
While the proper response would be…”Two wrongs don’t make a right” don’t bother using that as an argument with a liberal. It will only confuse them.
It employs math.
Instead, ask them if a person robs a ban
k and gets away with it, should then everybody be allowed to rob a bank?
The answer, of course, is no.
Chester Arthur got away with it for several reasons. He was very guarding of his past. So too is Obama. Arthur destroyed his records. Obama, it seems, has faked some of his. Arthur’s accusers did not have at their disposal, the sorts of investigative tools we have today. Uh oh Obama…
Now, when a liberal Obama Kool Aid drinker calls you a “Birther” or something vile, and tells you there were plenty of other Presidents who had parents born outside the United States, you can hand them the link to THIS article and your good deed for the day, doing a liberal’s homework for them, will be accomplished.
Tomorrow, we’ll examine the term, “Natural Born Citizen” and how it applies to this case.
I was born in Ontario while my father was working there. My parents went to the U.S. Consulate and registered me there as being born an American citizen. The INS issued me a formal document that said,” Born: 28 March 1933. Became U.S. citizen: 28 March 1933.” At that time, I was verbally told, in passing, that I was now eligible to become President. From what has been said here, it sounds like either the INS lied, or you are mistaken. Fortunately, I never wanted to be President.
Warrior,there is no argument about Children of American Parents deployed by the United States. If it were two Americans just roaming around a foreign country it would be argumentable. However, parents who were Citizens of the U.S. were deployed by the U.S.A., with orders, as a directive, eliminating any question. And, if born on base in an American Facility (American Soil wether leased or owned). American Consulates equally derive legal status in the same way.
@ FranLG….. I have no doubt that your daughter is a “US Citizen”. By US Law, though, your daughter is NOT a “Natural Born Citizen” of the United States of America, and thus your daughter born in Japan – with certificate and Passport and all – she is NOT Eligible to be POTUS nor VPOTUS.
Elixir: McCains parents were in Panama because the US Navy sent them there. At that time Panama Canal Zone was a US territory (US soil). My daughter was bore in Japan because the US Air Force sent us there; her birthcertificate reads: BIRTH OF A CITIZEN ABROAD, issued by the US State Department. She got her first United States Passport at the ripe old age of 6weeks. I believe one has to be a citizen to obtain a US Passport.
Let us not forget his former “opponent” the despicably dimwitted panamanchurian candidate, Juan Mclame.
Undeniably not a natural born citizen. A citizen yes, by virtue of his parents. In no manner could he be considered to meet the constitutional requirement though.
President has exective privelege, a lower court can,t demend from him. But his attorney doesn,t have this right. The issue here is The State Constitution of Georgia, which Obama is requesting permission to be on their ballot and conforming to its rules. Natural citizen, vs naturalized, vs natural born are totally different worms. The President doesn,t meet the State,s Constitutional Rules to be on the ballot. What happens when other States hear of this, they already have, and what happens when other States which have similar Constitutional requirements ignor this? I think its called color of law, treason, willfull lenegent [sp] of duty of other state officials duties. Troubles ahead, and maybe a Constitutional Crisises[sp].
Now that obama did not appear in court. What is the next step. I see the newspapers here in South Africa have nothing about this story.
Thanks
Dmitri
Thanks for the post. I was attacked with all sorts of nasty terms yesterday on the Huffpost gauntlet of comments. One of their favorites was “birther”. I had never had a discussion on this subject before in my life. I was just willing to look into the points made in the case. So, I looked into the Birth Certificate that is presented for us to believe. It doesn’t hold up to what I believe to be even a minor level of scrutiny. When I put that forward it was like asking the hungry lions to wait to eat.
You should see what they did to some guy named Cody, I don’t think he’ll be back on the site. I’m not sure I want to, but someone should introduce some intellegence or sanity to this circus of media trained sheep. Now i’m calling names…
So, Is there anyone on the “opposing side” that has a reasonable defense to all of this? The forgery is obvious. I download a printed document and it is one file, not ten. How are they justifying there point of view? Legally? Merely too powerful to take him down? Too many insiders because the government is already run by outside money? Anyone can just point me in a direction, I don’t want to pick someones brain dry, there is a lot to learn out there.
I do understand why you say that Minor was not determined to apply – because the question was unnecessary, the order was given because the defendant didn’t show up, Default.
I’m glad Kemp stood his ground and didn’t fear the power of king O and the disappearing american trick, to make light of NDAA.
We may not be laughing for long.
Craig, I agree with you that the issue can’t be resolved by looking at past Presidents. The issue is resolved by looking at the law of the land. You’ve been claiming for a long time that Minor V. Happersett “defines” a natural born citizen, when the Supreme Court actually came out and REFUSED to define it. I’ve asked you several times, and I ask you again: What part of the following is wrong?
MINOR TRANSLATED:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.
WE HAVE TO LOOK OUTSIDE THE CONSTITUTION TO FIGURE OUT WHO IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN (NBC)
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.
UNDER THE LEGAL SYSTEM THE FRAMERS WERE FAMILIAR WITH, THERE WAS NO DOUBT YOU WERE A NBC IF YOU WERE BORN HERE AND YOUR PARENTS WERE CITIZENS
Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
SOME LEGAL AUTHORITY SAYS YOU CAN BE A NBC AS LONG AS YOU WERE BORN HERE, EVEN IF YOU DON’T HAVE CITIZEN PARENTS
As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
SOME DOUBTS HAVE BEEN RAISED ABOUT THAT
For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
WE DON’T NEED TO RESOLVE THOSE DOUBTS — I.E., WE ARE NOT GOING TO DECIDE THAT NOW
Thus, Minor did NOT define Natural Born Citizen as some are claiming.
Bravo Mr. Andresen!
From Chester Arthur’s Feinian Brotherhood:
“Nationality is their first object-… a nationality which may embrace Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter…”
Sound familiar?…
“We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers.” B. Obama 1/20/09
What are the odds?
-Two presidents with similar creeds.
-Both questioned about their birthplace but not the citizenship of their fathers. ( both British citizens)
-Both required to retake the oath of office.
🙂