• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Ad In Today's Washington Times

Mike

Well-known member
Here is the text of the ad:



Obama is NOT an Article II Natural Born Citizen and therefore is NOT Eligible to be President


The President and CINC of the USA Must be a .Natural Born. Citizen . U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5
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
Obama’s Father Was
Not a U.S. Citizen, nor
Was He an Immigrant
to the USA, nor Was
He Even a Permanent
Resident of the USA
The Law of
Nations,Vattel, 1758,
Chapter 19, Section 212:
.natural-born citizens, are
those born in the country,
of parents who are citizens.
Article II .Natural Born Citizen. Means Unity of Citizenship At Birth
Article II of our Constitution has a lot
to say about how a would-be President
is born. .Natural born Citizen. status
requires not only birth on U.S. soil but also
birth to parents who are both U.S. citizens
by birth or naturalization. This unity of
jus soli (soil) and jus sanguinis (descent)
in the child at the time of birth assures
that the child is born with sole allegiance
(obligation of delity and obedience to
government in consideration for protection
that government gives (U.S. v. Kuhn, 49
F.Supp.407, 414 (D.C.N.Y)) and loyalty to
the United States and that no other nation
can lay any claim to the child.s (later an
adult) allegiance and loyalty. Indeed,
under such birth circumstances, no other
nation can legally or morally demand
any military or political obligations from
that person. The child, as he/she grows,
will also have a better chance of not
psychologically struggling with conicted
allegiance and loyalty to any other nation.
Unity of citizenship is based on the
teachings of the law of nature (natural law)
and the law of nations, as conrmed by
ancient Greek and Roman law; American,
European, and English constitutions,
common and civil law, and statutes; and
Vattel.s, The Law of Nations, all of which
the Founding Fathers read and understood.
These sources have taught civilizations
from time immemorial that a person
gains allegiance and loyalty and therefore
attachment for a nation from either being
born on the soil of the community dening
that nation or from being born to parents
who were also born on that same soil
or who naturalized as though they were
born on that soil. It is only by combining
at birth in the child both means to inherit
these two sources of citizenship that the
child by nature and therefore also by
law is born with only one allegiance and
loyalty to and consequently attachment
for only the United States.


Our Constitution requires unity of U.S.
citizenship from birth only for the Ofce
of President and Commander in Chief of
the Military, given the unique nature of
the position, a position that empowers
one person to decide whether our national
survival requires the destruction of or a
nuclear attack on or some less military
measure against another nation or group.
It is required of the President because such
a status gives the American people the
best Constitutional chance that a wouldbe
President will not have any foreign
inuences which because of conict of
conscience can most certainly taint his/
her critical decisions made when leading
the nation. Hence, the special status is
a Constitutional eligibility requirement
to be President and thereby to be vested
with the sole power to decide the fate
and survival of the American people.
Of course, the status, being a minimum
Constitutional requirement, does not
guarantee that a would-be President will
have love and fealty only for the United
States. Therefore, the nal informed and
intelligent decision on who the President
will be is left to the voters, the Electors,
and Congress at the Joint Session, to
whom hopefully responsible media and
political institutions will have provided
all the necessary vetting information
concerning the candidate.s character and
qualications to be President.
Through historical development, unity of
citizenship and sole allegiance at birth is
not required for U.S. born citizen Senators,
Representatives, and regular citizens under
the 14th Amendment and Congressional
enactments. In contradiction and which
conrms the Founding Fathers. meaning
of what a .natural born Citizen. is,
naturalized citizens, since 1795, before
becoming such must swear an oath that
they renounce all other allegiances to
other nations. During the Washington


Administration, the First Congress
passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 in
which it provided that new citizens take
a solemn oath to support the Constitution
and .renounce. all .allegiance. to
their former political regimes. This is
during the time that most of the Framers
were alive and still actively involved in
guiding and forming the new national
government and Constitutional Republic.
Today, we still require that an alien upon
being naturalized must give an oath that
he/she renounces all former allegiances
and that he/she will .support and defend
the Constitution and laws of the United
States of America against all enemies,
foreign and domestic.. Hence, allegiance
is not simply a thing of the past but very
much with us today. It is important to
also understand that naturalization takes
an alien back to the moment of birth and
by law changes that alien.s birth status.
In other words, naturalization, which by
legal denition requires sole allegiance to
the United States, re-creates the individual
as though he were a born Citizen but only
does it by law and not by nature. This
is the reason that the 14th Amendment
considers a naturalized person to be a
.citizen. of the United States and not
a .natural born Citizen. of the United
States. This recreation of birth status
through naturalization which also existed
under English common law also probably
explains why John Jay underlined the
word .born. when he recommended to
General Washington that only a .natural
born Citizen. (as to say born in fact, by
nature, and not by law) be allowed to
be President. Consequently, naturalized
citizens stand on an equal footing with
born Citizens (who are so recognized and
conrmed by the 14th Amendment or by
an Act of Congress and who can be but
not necessarily are also .natural born
Citizens.) except that they cannot be
President or Vice President, for they were


born with an allegiance not owing to the
United States and acquire that allegiance
only after birth. Surely, if a naturalized
citizen, even though having sole allegiance
to the United States, is not Constitutionally
eligible to be President, we cannot expect
any less of someone who we are willing
to declare so Constitutionally eligible.
The Founding Fathers emphasized
that, for the sake of the survival of the
Constitutional Republic, the Ofce of
President and Commander in Chief of the
Military be free of foreign inuence and
intrigue. It is the .natural born Citizen.
clause that gives the American people the
best ghting chance to keep it that way for
generations to come. American people do
not have the Constitutional right to have
any certain person be President. But for the
reasons stated above, minimally they do
have a Constitutional right to protect their
liberty by knowing and assuring that their
President is Constitutionally eligible and
qualied to hold the Ofce of President
and Commander in Chief of the Military.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Feeling ignored Mike?

This seemed to be more of an issue to the Dems when they were questioning McCain's eligibility as a Natural Born Citizen.

Now they just write it off as a conspiracy theory.

untitled-1.jpg
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
The libs have no answer. They know that we're right, and they hate it. They give the nervous little "Gibbs is about to lie" laugh or the "Hillary up a tree" bray, but they can't answer sooooo many questions on this topic.
 

jigs

Well-known member
I believe we need to get us a southern lawyer with a coon dog to go trackin the facts in this case.....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
jigs said:
I believe we need to get us a southern lawyer with a coon dog to go trackin the facts in this case.....

I'm so happy you and Mike are posters on here...As it daily strengthens my belief that I was right to walk away from this "new" Republicanism and the current rigthwingernut "crazies" thinking- that would have all minorities again enslaved and women home barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen or bedrooms without any rights that they've spent 100+ years earning- and anyone that doesn't think the same way as "the base" way should be hanging from a tree- or assassinated...

And the fact that all the other posters- even some of the more supposedly sensible ones like Nebraska ranchers and bankers on here- that purport themselves as "Republicans" or "conservatives" not only seem to condone this thinking but backslap it- and never speak out against it- only supports it more.... :( :( :(

So much for my convincing me that the "Christian southerners" and "Evangelicals" really don't believe in Christian principals... :( :(

Thank You so much.....
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Hell oldtimer you lean any further to the left you will be laying on your side to watch your 15 TV sets :wink: :wink: Way to fat t lay on your stomach from lack of exercise :wink: :wink: unless you count WADDLING across the room to get a drink excercize :D :D
Did that oversize recliner that you family ordered ever grt in for you? it was a special order that supposedly could handle 1500# of hot air, and they were concerned it wasn't enough for you! :wink: :wink:
 

nonothing

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
The libs have no answer. They know that we're right, and they hate it. They give the nervous little "Gibbs is about to lie" laugh or the "Hillary up a tree" bray, but they can't answer sooooo many questions on this topic.

Ok,your right.....will that now shut you up? ....
 

MsSage

Well-known member
nonothing said:
Sandhusker said:
The libs have no answer. They know that we're right, and they hate it. They give the nervous little "Gibbs is about to lie" laugh or the "Hillary up a tree" bray, but they can't answer sooooo many questions on this topic.

Ok,your right.....will that now shut you up? ....
If he shuts up I will pick up where he left off....another will pick up where I leave off.
This is a major problem that needs HONEST ANSWERS
 

nonothing

Well-known member
hopalong said:
Hell oldtimer you lean any further to the left you will be laying on your side to watch your 15 TV sets :wink: :wink: Way to fat t lay on your stomach from lack of exercise :wink: :wink: unless you count WADDLING across the room to get a drink excercize :D :D
Did that oversize recliner that you family ordered ever grt in for you? it was a special order that supposedly could handle 1500# of hot air, and they were concerned it wasn't enough for you! :wink: :wink:

You sure can be a mean man at times Memanpa.... :roll: :roll:
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
jigs said:
I believe we need to get us a southern lawyer with a coon dog to go trackin the facts in this case.....

I'm so happy you and Mike are posters on here...As it daily strengthens my belief that I was right to walk away from this "new" Republicanism and the current rigthwingernut "crazies" thinking- that would have all minorities again enslaved and women home barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen or bedrooms without any rights that they've spent 100+ years earning- and anyone that doesn't think the same way as "the base" way should be hanging from a tree- or assassinated...

And the fact that all the other posters- even some of the more supposedly sensible ones like Nebraska ranchers and bankers on here- that purport themselves as "Republicans" or "conservatives" not only seem to condone this thinking but backslap it- and never speak out against it- only supports it more.... :( :( :(

So much for my convincing me that the "Christian southerners" and "Evangelicals" really don't believe in Christian principals... :( :(

Thank You so much.....

You're welcome, AT......but, being the legal expert and purveyor of all things constitutional, legal, and proper that you claim to be...there appears to be "reasonable doubt" that the mulatto is NOT qualified to be the POTUS. Why else would this remain an issue...or about the sealing of his records and transcripts? Whazzup with that? He is definately hiding something.....yet you in all your judging splendor are turning a blind eye toward it, simply because the very folks you loathe are on the opposite side of the issue. Makes me wonder if anybody who ever came before you on the bench received fairness and impartiality from you.......
 

alice

Well-known member
MsSage said:
nonothing said:
Sandhusker said:
The libs have no answer. They know that we're right, and they hate it. They give the nervous little "Gibbs is about to lie" laugh or the "Hillary up a tree" bray, but they can't answer sooooo many questions on this topic.

Ok,your right.....will that now shut you up? ....
If he shuts up I will pick up where he left off....another will pick up where I leave off.
This is a major problem that needs HONEST ANSWERS

What answers do you want? The ones YOU agree with?

Alice
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
alice said:
MsSage said:
nonothing said:
Ok,your right.....will that now shut you up? ....
If he shuts up I will pick up where he left off....another will pick up where I leave off.
This is a major problem that needs HONEST ANSWERS

What answers do you want? The ones YOU agree with?

Alice

Before we talk about agreeing and/or disagreeing, you libs have to answer first.

Let's start with this: Why did Robert Gibbs lie about Obama's birth certificate being on the internet?

Now you answer, and we'll see if we agree.
 

jigs

Well-known member
OT, you are so wrong. I think slavery was a bad thing. and i think it is just as bad that some use it today as leverage to get a bigger piece of the welfare pie. and others use it as a stepping stone to become race riot leaders ( jessie and Al )

the bare foot and pregnant deal ain't so bad...I loved to see my wife pregnant, it meant more kids....however, I like to see the wedding THEN the kids...you seem to run it the other way out there.I see the true happenings in this nation, you see something and try to find a way to blame Bush.

I like it when you lump me in with Mike...at least I know he is man enough to back me up in a fight. you would be busy trying to sell your judicial influence
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
MsSage said:
nonothing said:
Ok,your right.....will that now shut you up? ....
If he shuts up I will pick up where he left off....another will pick up where I leave off.
This is a major problem that needs HONEST ANSWERS

Good grief. Bring on the proof lady. What a loon.

You have to have both parents as US citizens to be natural born. Do you need further proof?
 

alice

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
alice said:
MsSage said:
If he shuts up I will pick up where he left off....another will pick up where I leave off.
This is a major problem that needs HONEST ANSWERS

What answers do you want? The ones YOU agree with?

Alice

Before we talk about agreeing and/or disagreeing, you libs have to answer first.

Let's start with this: Why did Robert Gibbs lie about Obama's birth certificate being on the internet?

Now you answer, and we'll see if we agree.

Putting conditions on things already, are ya'? How utterly chicken shite and predictable of you. Tell me, what are YOU afraid of?

Alice
 
Top