WON’T TAKE UP THE CAUSE, BECAUSE SEES THAT HER INVOLVEMENT IS NOT NECESSARY
by John Charlton
(Dec. 4, 2009) — Rusty Humphries, former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin said the controversy over Obama’s vital records is a legitimate one. In the exclusive interview, she is recorded to have said the following, as per Ben Smith’s transcript, at Politico.com:
“Would you make the birth certificate an issue if you ran?” she was asked (around 9 minutes into the video above).
“I think the public rightfully is still making it an issue. I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t know if I would have to bother to make it an issue, because I think that members of the electorate still want answers,” she replied.
You can watch the interview on video from Ustream.
The ineligibility of Barack Hussein Obama does not stand or fall on the question of his vital records. Having claimed a father who is a British subject, he himself remains a British subject, if his vital records prove that his father is who he says he is. As a British subject from birth, Obama cannot be a natural born citizen of the U.S.A., because dual citizens are not natural born citizens.
See tags at the end of this article for many more reports on these issues.
If Sarah Palin really cared about the Constitution, she would have been on board with the movement to secure the TRUTH about Obama’s eligibility. Obviously, McCain shut her down prior to Nov. 4th, however she could have gone rogue after the election on this issue. The issue would have been unstoppable if she had been the one to change the term from “birther” to “truther”. For her, it’s all about getting elected. Just another politician. She may not be corrupt, but she has standing as a candidate for VPOTUS in 2008 and has refused to be party to any of the legal efforts. If she had partnered with Alan Keyes, Oath Keepers and millions of Patriots on the Washington Mall; we would once again be living in a Constitutional Republic. Consequentially, we are now subjugated by a usurping despotic tyrannical Marxist pathological lying narcissist. Prove me wrong.
ONCE AGAIN WE SEE THE JUDICIARY STANDS AGAINST THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE AND THERE OATH TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION…EVEN THE HOPEFUL PROSPECTS OF A NEW VOICE IN THE BATTLE TO QUESTION THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE USURPER, HAS ONLY PROVEN A LACK OF COMMITMENT TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION… THE GREATEST CHALLENGE TO THE HISTORY OF THIS REPUBLIC AND SHE CAN NOT COMMIT TO A DEMAND FOR THE TRUTH …THE TIME GROWS NEAR THAT THE CITIZENS MUST REMOVE THEMSELVES FROM THIS TYRANNY THAT HAS CORRUPTED OUR GOVERNMENT AT ALL LEVELS… THE COMPLEX CONSPIRACY OF THE SOCIALIST / DEMOCRATIC , ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER HAS STARTED TO REVEAL ITSELF… THE RECENT RELEASED E-MAILS OF THE FALSE GLOBAL WARMING DATA AND THE ALL OUT UNITED NATIONS PUSH TO ACCEPT THIS AS AN IMMINENT THREAT TO THE EXISTENCE OF MANKIND IS QUIT DISTURBING ON IT’S FACE… LET’S ALL KEEP OUR SIGHT ON THE UPCOMING COPENHAGEN GLOBAL WARMING MEETING AND SEE HOW THE USURPER WILL TRY TO ENTER THE UNITED STATES INTO SOME BINDING TREATY THAT WILL WEAKEN, IF NOT DESTROY OUR NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY…THIS TREASON MUST STOP… TO THE MILITARY AND THE MILLIONS OF VETERANS WHO HAVE SERVED I SAY!!! REMEMBER THE OATH YOU TOOK… WE ARE A GREAT NUMBER AND OUR SPIRIT IS STRONG… WHO DARES TO TAKE OUR FREEDOM… ALL THAT IS LEFT TO SAY IS DEATH TO THE TRAITORS OF THE U.S CONSTITUTION AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE…
GOD SAVE THE REPUBLIC AND THE U.S CONSTITUTION…
John, continuing our discussion from yesterday, which I do not see posted today, regarding whether or not Obama is eligible to be President if it is shown that he was born in the US and both parents were US citizens:
Thanks. You muster a good argument as well. And you are right that Obama would be a natural born citizen should his vital records (original birth certificate, for example) show that he was born in Hawaii to parents who were both US citizens. He would be a natural born citizen under natural law (laws of nature, not of man). However, the intent of our Founding Fathers, which was to prevent a future President who possesed foreign influence, is not satisfied by just the natural born citizen requirement. As I pointed out earlier, they also required the President to have lived the last 14 years in the US, and this was to “cleanse” him of foreign ideas and influence. They also required the President to be 35 years old which can be construed to foster a level of maturity that would quelch foreign influences that the President may have been exposed to as a young person.
In researching the origin of the natural born citizen clause, I learned that it first appeared in a draft of the Constitution at the same time as the idea of an electoral college. It has been argued that the electoral college was proposed as a way to minimize the influence of foreigners and foreign governments on our presidential elections. That being so, then that further bolsters the argument that the intent of the natural born citizen clause was to minimize (as much as possible) the chance of foreign influence in a President. Our Founding Fathers very much wanted future Presidents to have 100% allegiance to our nation, and to not be conflicted with foreign sympathies should he, as Commader in Chief, had to put US interests above those of any foreign entity.
Mr. Charlton, I disagree with the last part of your statement: “Having claimed a father who is a British subject, he himself remains a British subject, if his vital records prove that his father is who he says he is.”
It does not make any difference as to the real parentage of Obama, because Obama Senior claimed him as a product of the marriage. In the time of our Founding Fathers, all that was necessary was for the father of record to claim he was the father in actuality, which Obama Senior did in the divorce papers. In the time of our Founding Fathers there was no way to test (such as with DNA) for paternity. If a man claimed to be the father of a son, then that was good enough for all legal purposes of identity, passing on of inheritance, land grants, and especially citizenship.
Obama’s citizenship status at birth was dual (US and British/Kenyan) and so was his allegiance. His status at birth was “governed” by the laws of Great Britain. Natural born citizen status is the “strong check” against foreign influence, and this influence was present at the birth of Obama, as well as in the years that followed. These are all facts which will not go away should his father turn out to have been an American.
—————-
Mr. Charlton replies: As far as I undestsand the issue of the Obama-Dunham divorce filing, Dunham’s filing was fraudulent since she did not meet the requisite residency requirement in Hawaii, the marriage was bigamous and therefore invalid, and Obama Sr never signed off on the divorce filing. So there is doubt in my mind that the paternity claim in that document would stand up in court against this 3 pronged challenge; whereas if Hawaii Vital Statistics Office has any document which would withstand court scrutiny the father named therein would have a greater claim to paternity. I presume that both documents name the same father; but we will only be certain when Obama or Hawaii reveals them.
These are good points if we were talking about something like inheritance, but not the citizenship status of Obama at birth. We cannot change history. Obama’s dual citizenship at birth, even if found to be incorrect because his father was really an American, does not erase the foreign claim and influence which existed at the time of his birth. And this is because Obama Senior claimed to be the father, and he never claimed otherwise. Furthermore, the mother and son claimed Obama Senior to be the father. This is precisely the foreign influence and entanglement which our Founding Fathers wished to prevent in future presidents, and requiring presidents to be natural born citizens was a “strong check” against this.
It is important to note that being a natural born citizen was not enough for our Founding Fathers. They realized that foreign influence comes not only from birthplace and parents, but also from exposure to foreign ideas and customs. Hence they added the requirement that presidents must have resided in the US for the last 14 years.
—————–
Mr. Charlton replies: You muster a good argument, but I will point out that one must make some necessary distinctions: it’s not a question of citizenship alone, or inheretance alone or loyalty alone. Loyalty is consequent to citizenship which is consequent to inheritance. You cannot be born without having some natural right to inherit, and some natural rights to citizenship, and thus some natural obligations of loyalty to some polity of human making. To this extent the paternity of Obama’s origin is crucial, and while different laws might govern different aspects of the legal consequences of that paternity, whether regarding citizenship or inheritance; Obama’s citizenship at birth cannot be extricated from inheritance and paternity. So, for these reasons I do not think the doubts about his paternity are legally immaterial to his being or not being a natural born citizen, just because of his claims that Obama Sr is his father. Nor do these doubts prove he was not sired by him. They are simply doubts that evidence alone can dismiss.
I believe Palin has been bought and paid for. Go back and look at the interviews of her before nomination to be VP – intelligent, articulate, confident, etc. Then suddenly during the campaign she can’t seem to make it through a single interview. In my opinion, the Powers That Be ™ couldn’t risk having someone go to Washington who might actually stir up the status quo, so they worked out a deal. Next thing you know, she resigns her Gov position to rake in a cool multi $mil book deal brokered by the same CFR guy who also has brokered books for Obama, Cheney, Bush, Clintons, etc. Didn’t you wonder why Bush, Sr. seemed to give up when running against Clinton? Did you think the GOP was serious when they ran Dole? Do you think McCain really campaigned as hard as he could against Obama? The simple answer is that our elections are just to make us feel like we have a say in things, but it’s all just an illusion. Our leaders are CHOSEN for us, and they all have a price… including Palin.
Of course, this is all just nutty conspiracy theory BS and clearly has no basis in reality.
“Joan of Arc” Has No Cross
I think Palin is gutless just like :
1-Congress
2-Courts
3-Media
Palin is saying: “Let some body else do it”
How can she lead from the back of the crusade?
“Joan of Arc” Has No Cross!
She would be one of the few possible “interested parties” that Leo talked about in using quo warrento. Of coarse her political mentors would tell her to stay clear. I think this would be true proof of ‘going rogue’ but don’t hold your breath.
I am with you Toni K.! Odd indeed!
Since, as Sarah Palin rightfully says, it WILL be a campaign issue, this means (which should become obvious) that Obama will never even make it to being on the Dem ticket in ’12 (that is, if he even were to make it through his current term). Think about it for a bit if you have any doubts.
If she (Palin) does think it is a valid issue, she has an odd way of expressing that point. On her facebook page, she has posted a note entitled “Stupid Conspiracies”, in which she likened the questioning of Mr. Obama (?)’s eligibility to hold the office of President due to questions of his failure to present his birth certificate, as similar in nature to questions posed to her by “comspiracy-minded reporters and voters” about whether or not Trig was her own son. Maybe I am misinterpreting her note…
http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/stupid-conspiracies/188707498434
(“I think the public rightfully is still making it an issue. I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t know if I would have to bother to make it an issue, because I think that members of the electorate still want answers,”)
I take her above statement that she already believes it is and will remain an issue… Time will tell….