Finally an end to birtherism?

No, that's not what it means at all.

To be a "natural born" citizen one must be born of two parents that are citizens. Obama's father was not a citizen of the United States at the time of his son's birth. He was a British subject and native born Kenyan. That makes Obama Jr. ineligible to hold the office of POTUS. He may indeed be a native born citizen but he is not a natural born citizen.

 

Huh? Would you please explain the difference?

How is he not a natural born citizen. He was born in Hawaii, as his short and long form birth certificate states. His mother, grandmother on his mother's side, his grandfather on his mother's side were natural born citizens. So, how can you say he was not a natural b orn citizen?

Natural born defined:

 

That's not true, and you're crossing into the realm of intentional lying. Crabby posted the U.S. statute. All persons who hold United States citizenship at birth are natural born citizens. It's a matter of settled law.

 

We are going to get real. Of all people Poncho Iam surprised you would reach into British writing and definitions to effect U.S. law. Obama as president must really bug you in order for you to go that far.

Without all the legal gymnastics of British help let's look straight on at the clear words of U.S. law:


As you yourself posted Poncho:

This is what President Obama read and obeyed by running for president. He has shown his birth certificate proving he is a citizen born in Hawaii a state of the United States.
For you or anyone else to assert to the extent you have saying Obama has lied to become president of the United States is casting false accusation.
You are really stretching it Poncho and you must really have a deep seated reason to yen yang your way around so to find Obama illegitimate.

The continuation of all this if anything should be the brunt of jokes. Starting here....:laugh:

Case closed.

 

No the case isn't closed. And I thought you had a life to get back to.

What happened to that?

The plain fact of the matter is a natural born citizen needs no law to recognize that he/she is a natural born citizen.

In the case of the 14th amendment,

Senator Trumbull, when commenting on that Amendment declared: “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” Sen. Howard added: “the word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.” On May 30, 1866, Senator Howard continued: "This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Govern- of the United States, but will include every other class of persons." Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, May 30, 1866, P. 2890, col. 2. Again, only if the both parents of the child were citizens at the time of birth could the child be subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States, not owe allegiance to any foreign power, and not be a person “born in the United States who are foreigners [or aliens].” source

Obama’s current citizenship status is the same as that which the Framers and Founders had during the Constitutional Convention. If he was born in Hawaii (which he has yet to conclusively prove), he is a “Citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment just as they were under natural law and the law of nations. And he is not a “natural born Citizen” as they also were not. Like a naturalized citizen who is not a “natural born Citizen” and therefore not eligible to be President, the Framers and Founders were born subject to a foreign power as was Obama. Being born subject to a foreign power, both the original Founders and Obama qualify as “citizens of the United States” but not as “natural born Citizens.” But the difference between Obama and the original Founders is that Obama cannot take advantage of Article II’s grandfather clause to make him eligible to be President. Obama is therefore not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. source

At least now we're debating the correct issue.

Paul3144,

I do not appreciate being called a liar.

 

That was uncalled for.

 

What was uncalled for Paul3144 calling me a liar or me telling him I don't appreciate being called a liar?

If you have something to add to this discussion by all means add away. If you're just here to judge what people say we already have people here to do that they are called moderators. Let them be the judge of what's called for and what isn't.

If anyone here would care to further debate the subject of natural born citizens vs. naturalized or native born citizens I opened a new thread for that purpose.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1675075#post1675075

 

Who cares? His politics are Marxist and his status is/was questionable. He is accountable to the electorate, not they to him. If they ask for a Topps baseball card, he'd better d----d well produce it.

Puh-leeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze!

 

I love it when political outsiders shake things up. I wouldn't vote for Trump, or Palin, for that matter. But they both have changed the conversation, so much that only the most blinded idealogues, and the wilfully ignorant can still say they support Obama, and his team of anti-Americans.

I love them both for it. Go ahead and call us racists, and idiots. Your man is a complete fraud, and you know it.

 

Well according to the treaty of 1783 we are still subject to England so we are technically still British subjects. Read the treaty and you will see.

In the first article of the Treaty most of the kings claims to America are relinquished, except for his claim to continue receiving gold, silver and copper as gain for his business venture. Article 3 gives Americans the right to fish the waters around the United States and its rivers. In article 4 the United States agreed to pay all bona fide debts. If you will read my other papers on money you will understand that the financiers were working with the king. Why else would he protect their interest with this Treaty?

"26 USC Sec. 1491

HEAD-
Sec. 1491. Imposition of tax

-STATUTE-
There is hereby imposed on the transfer of property by a citizen or resident of the United States, or by a domestic corporation or partnership, or by an estate or trust which is not a foreign estate or trust, to a foreign corporation as paid-in surplus or as a contribution to capital, or to a foreign estate or trust, or to a foreign partnership, an excise tax equal to 35 percent of the excess of -
(1) the fair market value of the property so transferred, over
(2) the sum of -
(A) the adjusted basis (for determining gain) of such property in the hands of the transferor, plus
(B) the amount of the gain recognized to the transferor at the time of the transfer.

-SOURCE-
(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 365; Oct. 4, 1976, Pub. L. 94-455, title X, Sec. 1015(a), 90 Stat. 1617; Nov. 6, 1978, Pub. L. 95-600, title VII, Sec. 701(u)(14)(A), 92 Stat. 2919.)

-MISC1-
AMENDMENTS
1978 - Pub. L. 95-600 substituted 'estate or trust' for 'trust' wherever appearing.
1976 - Pub. L. 94-455 substituted in provisions preceding par.
(1) 'property' for 'stocks and securities' and '35 percent' for '27 1/2 percent' and in par.
(1) 'fair market value' for 'value' and 'property' for 'stocks and securities' and in par.
(2) designated existing provisions as subpar. (A) and added subpar. (B).
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1978 AMENDMENT
Section 701(u)(14)(C) of Pub. L. 95-600 provided that: 'The amendments made by this paragraph (amending this section and section 1492 of this title) shall apply to transfers after October 2, 1975.'
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1976 AMENDMENT
Section 1015(d) of Pub. L. 94-455 provided that: 'The amendments made by this section (enacting section 1057 of this title, amending this section and section 1492 of this title, and renumbering former section 1057 as 1058 of this title) shall apply to transfers of property after October 2, 1975.' "

 

I think that it is the opposite.

The Republicans have been offering solutions to other problems - but the Democrats shoot them down with there usual labels of "extreme" and "far right".

While the Demoncrats offer nothing.

Obama's birth certificate really has not been the dominate new item - and he does have a very big microphone that allows him to talk about whatever he chooses.

I think that he is the one that decided to focus on the issue to distract from his failings.

For instance - where is the Democrat budget proposal?

What is the Democrat plan for deficit spending?

The debt?

High unemployment?

Ever higher gas prices?

The three war fronts?

Obama said that it was time to stop talking about his birth certificate and get to talking about all these other issues...

And then promptly went out to talk about his birth certificate.

He wants the distraction.

 

>What is the Democrat plan for deficit spending?

The budget is in the red because millionaires who own 90% of the assets in the US only pay a 15% marginal tax on income from capital gains. Also because we have troops in 150 bases around the world and are fighting two or more wars.

 

Well, if you insist! You are a [I am going to delete the name calling, but I am also going to point out that the responder was only doing what he was asked to do, so if you don't want to be called something it is difficult for a moderator to keep it from happening when you ask for it. If they were curse words or other un-Christian words I would delete them regardless, but hate to say it, don't ask if you don't want to be told. ;-)] I hope this makes you happy!

I wouldn't argue with a man who knows what he is. I aim to please!

 

Salty, thanks for the link to Stephanie Miller - we don't get good liberal talk here in Houston, and since Stephanie streams live on the net, I have been enjoying her show - and have learned a lot.

Like I said, I aim to please!

 

Interesting that the libs detest the"rich" (whatever that may be) simply because they have so much money??!!

Well, one thing that is pretty common with these rich is that they are never satisfied, so they are always trying to make more; this equals investing which opens up capital for business to grow, which produces jobs.

And even if they spend a whoppin' lot of their money, they spend it on stuff that somebody has to produce, equaling still more jobs.

Remember the yacht industry somewhere in New England area? Been many years ago now, so I don't remember many of the details, but the libs decided that it was a crime for the purchasers of these yachts to not pay exorbitant taxes for same. Well it was not long before the yacht industry there went belly-up 'cause the "rich" just bought their yachts from Denmark or Sweden or wherever, sans the added taxes - ergo lost jobs.

Incidentally, many of these "rich" are DEMONCRATS, so why no animosity against them, as opposed to Rs?? (Rhetorical question for you libs!!:sleep

Just more of the liberal class warfare.:sleeping_2:

 

That may or may not be true...

But either way - where is the Demoncrat plan for deficit spending?

Demoncrats are good at finding problems.

Not so good on finding solutions.