Too Hot to Handle!

WHAT IS THE MEANING OF “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN?”

by Tracey M. Grissom, blogging at Pushing Back

(May 8, 2011) — As you might or might not know by now, before the US Constitution was finalized, John Jay wrote a letter to George Washington, (who was the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention), giving the opinion that “whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen”.

And that phrase natural born Citizen is, of course, how our Constitution reads, …”No person except a natural born Citizen…”, more than likely, if you’re reading this you know that sentence by heart and the questions that naturally follow –

– but what exactly IS a natural born citizen? Born on American soil with ONE (or both) American parents or born on American and absolutely requiring BOTH parents to be American citizens or something else altogether? Was the reason the Founders included the phrase to remove any chance the POTUS would have dual citizenship? OR to put it in other words, is there a difference between native-born and natural born or are they one and the same?

But it seems to me the discussion of the natural born/native born Citizen dilemma has suddenly in the past few days become off-limits and “too hot to handle.” Fellow Patriot, have you noticed that if you say to a left-leaning friend, “okay, so what Barack Obama was born in Honolulu?, I always suspected the 18 year old mother didn’t take a trip all the way to Kenya to have a baby anyway, but the issue IS and has ALWAYS been whether or not native born and natural born mean the same thing. We all know it’s always been about the Constitut…”, chances are your friend’s eyes will glaze over, you’ll be cut off in mid-sentence and with a rather snarly “YOU BIRTHERS NEVER GIVE UP!”, your friend will walk away.

Over the last few days whether it be in a face to face exchange, or posting on various forums, or in the national conversation, the debate about native/natural born that never really got started and certainly has never been definitively clarified by the Supreme Court is now considered by many to be over- dead- done with- and marked “END OF STORY, DON’T BRING IT UP AGAIN.”

If you doubt that, bring it up tomorrow in the break room at work! What changed?  The release of the Barack H. Obama II long form birth certificate? You got to be kidding! Should not the long awaited long form birth certificate with the proof his father WAS FOR ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY a citizen of a foreign country intensify the debate, not end it?

Yes it SHOULD! But if you have both feet planted firmly in the real world you know all too well that what “should be so” and what “really is so” are many times 1000 miles apart. Here is a question I think needs to be thoughtfully considered: If we are going to defeat Obama in 2012 do we continue putting an argument to the forefront, that no matter how much merit it SHOULD have, is NOT considered by the general public to be a viable argument? An argument that the average American is tired off because the general consensus is that the case is closed? OR DO WE SWITCH TACTICS?

I vote for switching tactics. I vote for temporarily putting the eligibility issue on the back burner!

For now!

Now  Fellow Patriot, please notice I did not state I thought we should totally discard it forever. Nor do I think we should concede the war, for I have seen the Presidental eligibility issue as being only one battle in a much greater war. The greater war, in my opinion, is over how the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted.

On one side of this war are those who view the U.S. Constitution as a living document (1) that if looked at literally, they believe, has out-dated words that are no longer used in the old archaic way in our modern world. They argue that the framers purposely wrote it in broad terms so it would constantly evolve and is meant to be interpreted in light of the times. So in their estimation that means many times, if not most times, the Constitution can be changed from times past without amendment. The original principles are fine and their meaning for today can be ascertained by looking to see the general consensus of what certain phrases and words mean. If the American public seems to think natural born simply means native born, well then according to their doctrine, darn it thats what it means! Well, actually, they say, what it means NOW. Maybe it did not mean that back in the 18th century but it evolved you see.

On my side of the war we say evolved-schmevolved,–to interpret the Constitution it’s crucial to look at what the framers original intent was. Crucial because the United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy and is meant to be guided by the rule of law not the whims of society. And that includes the whims of society as to what words mean irregardless if the majority sees the meaning as having changed through the years. You can’t look at what natural born means to most people today but what did it mean when the Constitution was written. On my side of the debate we say a Democracy, which is rule by the majority is nothing more than another word for mob rule and who needs it? The Constitution has been the bedrock of this country through easy times and through the toughest of times and yet, through it all, as a nation we prospered and we grew. One could say my side is kind of on the ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” team, or the “Original Intenters” and the “Evolver’s” are on the “lets keep tinkering with it” team.

The saying goes “choose your battles wisely”– don’t invest your time and energy in a battle you can’t win. Some of us chose the natural born Citizen battle because, well, quite frankly, because we thought if we camped here and fought here we could win this one. Surely eventually everyone would see the utter necessity of the Supreme Court ruling once and for all on who is or is not a natural born Citizen. And so all we had to do was work to educate ourselves and the American public, keep applying the “squeaky wheel gets the grease principle” and the battle could be won. Maybe the SCOTUS would rule one way, or perhaps they would rule the other way, maybe I personally would be pleased, maybe not, but at least the country would finally have a definition a person could bank on!  see #(2)

Maybe someday! But for right now in my opinion the subject is simply TOO HOT TO HANDLE!

So what do we do now? Where do we go from here? If we are going to fight for the rule of law as we see it, what course do we set?

I suggest we start by engaging in a little heartfelt self-assessment. Did we make mistakes? If we did we must acknowledge them so we can learn from them. Did “they” defeat us, or did we, at least in part, defeat ourselves? Did we get in our own way sometimes? I think it would be useful if we ask ourselves what would we do differently if we could go back to the spring/summer of 2008?

*(1) for further reading see wikipedia article on the Living Constitution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution

*(2) if you think there is not a 50-50 chance either side could win please check out   the Obama Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Primer which is written by someone named Stephen Tonchen. I do not know who Mr. Tonchen is, but he must be brilliant, because this is the most comprehensive, complete and exhaustive piece on the  subject on the internet. (IMO of course :)) Read over the site and I think you’ll agree an argument can be made for the SCOTUS ruling to go either way IF and WHEN they ever look at it.

 

40 Responses to "Too Hot to Handle!"

  1. Trac   Tuesday, May 10, 2011 at 4:00 PM

    update: Thank you for your comments, you guys have really been a help. See–I have been trying for 2 months now to educate myself on “all things birth certificates” and “what makes Obama tick?” Not that I’ve found anything earth-shattering and can write a book or something now— but I have been trying to look at the possible motives why the HDOH or the White House says or does what they do and exactly when they say or do it, especially anything connected to birth certificates. Bottom line—I don’t trust any of them to not get their big fat sense of self-importance in the way and just feel like they don’t have to answer anything, and I think they are experts at manipulating.

    Well out pops the latest version of the BC, better known as the “Long Form Cut and Paste Thing”, or the “BC from DC” or whatever you have nick-named it by now.
    And my first reaction was: … what an insult, if you’re going to commit forgery, good grief people —can you at least put a little effort into it?

    And then I got to wondering is this a reaction on their part, or since it’s so –SO surreal, is it a distraction? If it’s a distraction then am I spinning my wheels trying to research birth certificates? because it must mean they’re up to something else, something they’re trying to distract people from.

    And then I got to thinking some more, yes, I KNOW and you KNOW and yes, I believe many Obots KNOW exactly what the NBC clause means — but it’s difficult to PROVE just what a person KNOWS, you can be dead sure beyond any doubt they KNOW, but if they stick to the story that “DUH! we just didn’t have a clue” how are you going to prove otherwise? And yeah…they’ve used that line before “Bill Ayers? naww just some guy down the street, I didn’t really know…”

    So, what if (just wild story here) the SCOTUS is “telegraphing” to the White House that they’re finally going to look at the NBC issue before the 2012 election. BUT not to worry too much because they’re going to take a nice “keep either side from rioting in the streets” middle road and rule that in future elections NBC will mean born on American soil of 2 American parents but since Obama, (lacking a Supreme Court ruling), was acting on good faith because he believed the Constitution is a living document well…it won’t apply until he leaves office in January of 2013. Because he just did not KNOW… everybody’s happy right? SCOTUS are the guys wearing white hats. Obama and Co. can go crazy driving the country even further into the ground in his few remaining months. Michelle can go back to Chicago, Democrats get Hillary, and oh yeah…there are those poor deluded right wing nutty “birthers” complaining as usual, but”…well we know the drill and NOOOO none of us are happy but they have their secret weapon —- RIDICULE!

    Too far-fetched? 10 years ago did you think your country would be in this shape? Ok then, I believe anything can happen anymore and no it doesn’t have to make sense. So how would you prove somebody did KNOW perfectly well what NBC is? Only one way I can think of — if they had committed fraud or forgery or a cover-up to hide something showing they KNEW! I believe one could PROVE the Democrats, per Pelosi style, KNEW after the Certification of Nomination fiasco in 2008, but what about Obama and Co? Could we prove he KNOWS? Well we could make the case that he KNEW if we could prove ahead time he had committed fraud. Which brought me full circle right back to the latest weird birth certificate!

    So perhaps the latest BC from DC is more a part of the natural-born Citizen issue than just the fact O-Senior was from Kenya and never an American. I know I’ve irritated some of you and I’m sorry if I have, but I operate on the principle iron sharpens iron. A little playing devil’s advocate and asking hard questions has never hurt anyone. I have found my spot in the battle (for now anyway) with researching all things birth certificates and what makes Obama tick and I pray there are 10,000 more citizen researchers working on the same thing and 50 million more fighting from other positions and now, (((with the help of your comments))), I’m positive it’s not a distraction. It’s important, or might prove to be important someday to the battle.

    I appreciate all of you,
    Stay strong
    Trac

  2. RJ   Tuesday, May 10, 2011 at 12:38 PM

    Switching tactics equals compromise; compromise equals defeat; defeat means the end of the country our Founding Fathers granted us — under GOD.

    Amen!!!

  3. Dennis Varnau   Tuesday, May 10, 2011 at 11:45 AM

    Why have a Constitution and laws if they are not going to be enforced equally across the board? We might as well just do away with them completely, because they otherwise mean nothing. As soon as compromise enters the equation, that is the same as admitting something may not be what it claims. Giving up the fight for truth is exactly what those who despise the truth desire. The truth cannot, and should not, be politicized for expedience purposes, if, in fact, it is the TRUTH. Truth endures as long as those who genuinely value it press onward without quitting. Never-ending endurance and persistence is what it takes to support and preserve the truth.

  4. Kevin J. Lankford   Tuesday, May 10, 2011 at 8:33 AM

    There is a definition set in stone. One only need to read our Constitution and the some of the Federalist Papers to recognize the influence of Vattel’s book “The Law Of Nations” had on the composers of our ruling document. Of course you must read some of his book also.

    The meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” was common knowledge in their time. Sadly, it did not occur to them people could grow more ignorant rather than more enlightened.

  5. RacerJim   Tuesday, May 10, 2011 at 7:48 AM

    My 23yo Obot nephew knows, and he knows I know he knows, and he recently told me he would still debate the issue even if/after the SCOTUS and/or Congress legally declared Obama/Soetoro ineligible because he knows, and he knows I know, that neither of those entities will ever do that.

    Indeed all the Obots know, and they all know we all know.

  6. A Southern Lady   Tuesday, May 10, 2011 at 12:09 AM

    Nope ain’t gonna happen! I’ll NEVER give up on his lack of eligibility no matter how “hot” the topic is! He’s a Usurper and any person in his or her right mind should know this after 3 years of HAMMERING this topic. THAT is the most important issue and MUST be resolved before 2012! Keep praying and never give up!! He’s WAGGING THE DOG to try and take focus off of it but it will not work. We are a vigilent group and I will not rest until that fool in the White House is ARRESTED.

  7. Bob1943   Monday, May 9, 2011 at 9:24 PM

    I think the “birther bill” Jindal would sign would say: Native born=Natural Born, and that is why he would be happy to sign it.

  8. Obama Researcher   Monday, May 9, 2011 at 6:18 PM

    Actually at the time of the Constitution only the men had citizenship. The wife took on the citizenship of the father. So really the critical point back then was the citizenship of the father who was British. No way could the mother over ride the citizenship of the father. So Barack is 100% British.

    But really Natural Born citizenship is so easy to understand. It is incredible easy. It is the way of NATURE. Imagine a female giraffe in Hawaii. They ship a male giraffe from Kenya to Hawaii where it deposites its sperm and goes back to Kenya. Now is that natural. Of course not. Nature does not work that way. Man invented an airplane and boats and shipped the male across thousands of miles in a most unnatural way to make the baby.

    Natural is the way nature makes babies. They are the local animals breeding in a natural way in the neighborhood. Unnatural is any change in the natural way. It would involve human interference in the breeding. laws etc. A NBC is a neighborhood pair of animals breeding without respect to people or country boundaries in a natural way. People back then were in touch with nature. they understood. It is not just the pop out of the baby from the mommy that is involved. the entire process must be natural.

    Take Bobby Jindal. His mother came from India already pregnant with baby. Would that baby be a NBC in India yes. Would it be a NBC in USA of course NOT. Nature does not get animals pregnant in India to deliver the baby in American continent. That is absurd.

    There is no need to define NATURAL to people who live in nature. It is so easy to understand. We have lived in nature for over a million years. and in that million years no giraffe flew to Hawaii and back to Kenya to have a baby giraffe in Hawaii.

    And if you dont get it. then tough.

    Let me say that I have had many discussions with Obots on the internet. Whenever I say to them that they Know what a NBC is born on the soil to 2 citizen parents. Then never argue. All these obots KNOW obama is not a NBC. they just argue. But stop arguing and just tell them you know they know the truth. and you will see they will not argue. They Know but if you argue they love it. the one losing is the arguer. as long as you argue you seem to assume they might be right. I dont argue with them. I tell them they know the truth. That Obama is not a NBC because his father is British Kenyan. and he is not a NBC born on the soil to 2 citizen parents.

    I knew that when I was 5 years old. Everyone in town knew that at age 5. How come all the intellectual left wing nuts all of a sudden are stupid on this one childish idea. They know they all know. there is nothing to really argue about.

    The word StoneWalling came into existance as Nixon coverup watergate. Well they are stonewalling once again. THEY KNOW. & THEY KNOW I KNOW THEY KNOW.

  9. kbp   Monday, May 9, 2011 at 5:19 PM

    To Trac;

    WordPress is a pain to register at.

  10. kbp   Monday, May 9, 2011 at 5:17 PM

    My position on the “birther” issue has stayed about the same throughout. Absent a definition set in stone, the best we get out of the issue is more questionable issues which reflect upon the person serving as POTUS. Unfortunately, the media will not ask about all that is questionable, so it takes lots of activists to spread those questions about.

    I would like to see a state pass a law requiring verifiable proof that one is a “natural born citizen” which included a definition requiring both parents to have been citizens. Let the courts prove that is right or wrong.

    Meanwhile, I believe the target should concentrate first on gaining control of the Senate, at least until we have someone step forward that we believe can when the election for the POTUS.

  11. tim   Monday, May 9, 2011 at 3:26 PM

    John Jay states in his letter—“COMMAND in Chief ” NOT “Commander”
    I know it is a minor point but you’ve got to be a stickler for such details when dealing with current mess

  12. tim   Monday, May 9, 2011 at 3:24 PM

    Well, that would be a dramatic and sudden about-face—
    Jindal has been screaming for years to anyone who’ll listen; that he is a ‘natural born Citizen’

  13. Bob1943   Monday, May 9, 2011 at 3:01 PM

    Quote:

    “But I fear if we see the eligibility issue as being the ONLY issue and therefore the entire war and Barack Obama were to be deemed ineligible,(and consequently removed from office), we would say “well, good job, we won” and promptly go back to sleep.”

    Surely, “going back to sleep”, after seeing Obama removed from office on ineligibility is a chance most will be more than willing to take. To slow down the fighting because there might be a hazard involved with winning doesn’t make a lot of sense unless you are on Obama’s side.

  14. Harry H   Monday, May 9, 2011 at 2:11 PM

    Yes, Trac, we are in a global ideological war. The U.S. is just one battlefield, and Obama’s eligibility/fitness for office is just one battle, but it is the most crucial battle to win at this critical point. This is the hill that must be taken at all costs, while continuing to fight for life, liberty, right to bear arms, free speech, etc.

    It is not fighting smart to pull back from the pivotal and controlling issue now before us. You are misreading momentum and underestimating patriot power. Now is the time to take Obama Hill.

  15. Trac   Monday, May 9, 2011 at 1:28 PM

    I deeply appreciate your comments, my intention with this submission is to brainstorm and perhaps get people (including myself) thinking along new lines. I know for many of you this is a very emotional issue and you absolutely disagree with me, so I also appreciate, in spite of the emotion, your civility. Thank you for that.

    I am not saying we should send up the white flag and surrender. But I do see the war as being an all-out, winner take all, frontal assault on our Constitution and the whole NBC issue as being one of many, many battles in that war.

    Because I have what I think is a fairly typical Christian conservative worldview, some battles previously fought I see as having been lost. That does NOT mean we have lost the war but it does mean we now have to retake ground. So I do what I can to promote the idea that Roe vs. Wade must be over-turned, prayer must be restored to public schools and so on. But some we have won…for example, the SCOTUS 2008 ruling striking down the D.C. ban on handguns IMO was a win. Now we must protect the ground we have won, be ever vigilant because the progressive camp may go silent for awhile — but lets face it folks, they’ll never give up, and they will always attack gun ownership from one angle or another.

    But I fear if we see the eligibility issue as being the ONLY issue and therefore the entire war and Barack Obama were to be deemed ineligible,(and consequently removed from office), we would say “well, good job, we won” and promptly go back to sleep. So having won a few battles, planted our flag on a few hills, no matter how important they are…the assault on the Constitution would continue and eventually in years to come we would lose the bigger war. Then who was POTUS would not matter because we would have a nice one-world-government leader sitting in the White House using it as a summer palace. We must grasp how patient and cunning the “progressive” party can be, they have been at this for years, their agenda didn’t start in 2008, it had been going on long before that.

    I see nothing wrong with retreating back a few yards, taking a FEW WEEKS to re-assess and asking ourselves if we have been fighting smart? Is this really the hill we must take first before we continue on? If so, how can we do this better? I feel frustrated we have not, to date, won the NBC battle, it flies in the face of logic, but reality says now Obama is running for a 2nd term. I never thought I’d see that day and while I HAVE THE UTMOST FAITH WE WILL EVENTUALLY WIN, not only this battle, but the war itself, I just want it to be sooner and not later.

    Sharon, forgive me for the blatant self promotion but I would like to continue this dialog through upcoming submissions to the Post and Email. I know we have been fighting hard, bless our hearts, we’re a tenacious group, but have we been fighting smart? Can we take the time to ask questions like : have we been playing THEIR game, THEIR way? We criticize the left for using ridicule when they can’t argue a point, but sometimes we sprinkle our comments with the words “morons” and “idiots” and what is that, if not ridicule? Should we be doing that? We ask an honest question, they respond with a vicious label, are they goading us into betraying our own standards of displaying a Christ-like love, making us look like a bunch of mean-spirited people who hate everybody but their own kind?

    I refuse to believe they are stronger and smarter than us. No they’re not. So why are we not getting this issue nailed down?

    I just think it’s time to ask the hard questions.
    Stay strong

  16. iluvamerica   Monday, May 9, 2011 at 12:11 PM

    Gov. Jindal releases his Birth Certificate!
    Does Gov. Jindal want to run for president or does he want to “out” the usurper in the White House? Maybe we should ask him! A Governor with an “eligibility problem” could offer allot to our cause, if he stepped forward, to tell America why he will not be running for president.

    May 6, 2011- Gov. Bobby Jindal releases his birth certificate. Gov. Bobby Jindal arrived in the United States in utero, his mother about three months pregnant. Birth Certificate clearly says, both parents were Indian, from India.
    http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/05/gov_bobby_jindal_releases_his.html

    FOX NEWS April 19, 2011
    Gov. Bobby Jindal Says He’ll Sign ‘Birther’ Bill if it Reaches His Desk
    http://nation.foxnews.com/gov-bobby-jindal/2011/04/19/gov-bobby-jindal-says-hell-sign-birther-bill-if-it-reaches-his-desk

  17. alain   Monday, May 9, 2011 at 11:59 AM

    Unfortunately only 2 current Supreme Court Justices believe that, Thomas and Alita. Even Scalia has proven a scoundrel.

  18. Concerned Citizen   Monday, May 9, 2011 at 11:38 AM

    This whole issue of eligibility turns on Obama’s footprint. The Lucas Smith birth certificate from the hospital in Mombasa has a baby’s footprint on it. A match would be game over for Obama. I believe there would be such a match, I suggest we change tactics and ask for a footprint.

  19. Harry H   Monday, May 9, 2011 at 11:00 AM

    Grissom’s misguided thinking is not helpful at this critical juncture. Eligibility should be pressed while the iron is hot, not put aside to cool.

  20. sky   Monday, May 9, 2011 at 10:47 AM

    What did the founding fathers say,and what did the federalist papers say? What is the punishment for treason?

  21. ramboike   Monday, May 9, 2011 at 10:42 AM

    Hi Robert,

    “The term “Natural-Born” is notwithstanding whether or not “Native” and “Natural-Born” are synonymous. The Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett did use them synonymously however.”

    That had me confused till I read this website:

    http://www.birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html

    The terms Native & Natural-Born were not synonymous. There was an error when Vattel’s book was translated into english. It’s fully explained in a note following the wording of Section 212. Of the citizens and natives: “Please note that the correct title of Vattel’s Book I, Chapter 19, section 212……………” As you will see Franklin & the other founders used the correct version.

  22. Paula   Monday, May 9, 2011 at 10:14 AM

    Is this writer serious? Totally disagree with this article. Makes me wonder: Infiltrator?

  23. 12thGenerationAMERICAN   Monday, May 9, 2011 at 9:26 AM

    Obama/Soetoro has yet to prove Stanley Ann Dunham is his mother?!!?!?!

  24. Robert   Monday, May 9, 2011 at 9:24 AM

    What is the definition of Natural Born Citizen? At the time of the adoption of our Constitution, the commonly understood and accepted definition was “a person born on U.S. soil of parents, both of whom are U.S. citizens at the time of the birth”. This was worded so as to prevent anyone with divided loyalties from holding the sensitive position of President of the United States and should never change.

    Some people are in favor of changing the Constitution to allow anyone born or naturalized to hold the office of president. If you believe that it would require a Constitutional Convention to change the Constitution in favor of foreigners holding the office, you are wrong. All that needs be done is to change the generally accepted definition! Furthermore, it is not necessary to change how YOU define it but only how the judges and media define it. To some extent, this has already been done. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=294221 You see this happening every day in media reports, talk radio shows. judicial decisions and snarky replies from your congressman.

    The socialist element in our society realizes that Obama’s eligibility is on shaky ground. The only way to save his and others’ ineligibility is to re-define “Natural Born Citizen”. They are taking giant steps in that direction. If a court will either accept or disallow the real definition, it will be appealed by one or the other parties. This can go as high as the Supreme Court, which will have final say. The Supreme Court can, in the words of Clarence Thomas, “avoid the issue” by refusing to hear the appeal… thereby allowing a lower court’s decision to stand. If the lower court allows the re-defining of Natural Born and the high court refuses to hear the appeal, we will be up the proverbial creek.

    Some socialist Democrats are now calling for the two oldest members of the Supreme Court to retire before the 2012 election.

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2011/04/28/harvard-law-prof-justices-ginsburg-breyer-retire-now-you-drop-dead-duri

    This would allow Obama to appoint two justices of his choice… before the election. Two more Elena Kagans would seal America’s doom

  25. RacerJim   Monday, May 9, 2011 at 9:23 AM

    Change tactics when Obama just fell into the birth certificate trap that Donald Trump lured him into?

    Obama just put his name on a birth certificate which if: a) authentic confirms his father was who he (BHO Jr/II) claims he was and thereby makes him (BHO Jr/II) ineligible to serve as POTUS, or; b) a forgery confirms he (BHO Jr/II) has committed the worst election fraud in U.S., if not world, history.

    Change tactics? NUTS!!!

  26. gary deschaine   Monday, May 9, 2011 at 8:35 AM

    I agree that we should not give up and should press even harder. This administration is a farce and an abomination of our constitution. All those who have covered up and taken part in this farce need to be prosecuted and imprisoned. Obama should be removed in shackles and paraded through the streets for all to see, the same should have happened with osama.

  27. Robert   Monday, May 9, 2011 at 8:03 AM

    Obot Strategy: “No need to change or ignore the Constitution; just change the definition of Natural Born Citizen.

  28. Bob1943   Monday, May 9, 2011 at 7:10 AM

    Put me in the, “no way I am giving up or conceding anything” column.

    The white flag of surrender will not be flown by me. The future of my country and the memory of the many who died to keep if free are far too important for me to submit to a bunch of lying sleazebags who have temporarily taken it over.

    Remember John Paul Jones? :

    “On September 23, 1779, Jones fought one of the bloodiest engagements in naval history. Jones struggled with the 44-gun Royal Navy frigate Serapis, and although his own vessel was burning and sinking, Jones would not accept the British demand for surrender, replying, “I have not yet begun to fight.” More than three hours later, Serapis surrendered and Jones took command.”

    I agree with John Paul Jones…..victory is just ahead and giving up in not an option!!

  29. Kevin J. Lankford   Monday, May 9, 2011 at 7:09 AM

    This is all meaningless babble. Our Constitution means what it says. It is not to be
    interpreted, it is to be adhered to and enforced.

    Our constitution is not written in some ancient obscure dialect to confuse and confound
    our simple minds, but there has been a long and concerted effort by those so many
    foolishly trust to dull our minds and blind our eyes.

  30. BarryIndo   Monday, May 9, 2011 at 6:50 AM

    BORN A BRIT-NOT LEGIT
    IT’S THE CONSTITUTION, STUPID!

  31. Challenge   Monday, May 9, 2011 at 6:12 AM

    I just don’t accept the writer’s premise. This issue turns not on whether we win or lose, it turns on whether the rule of law will be applied to the issues or whether we subscribe and succumb to a lawless government. In my book, we have no luxury of taking a break on whether the Constitution is adhered to or ignored. We must press on, on all fronts to seek the truth. When Obama embarked on this massive fraud, he took a huge gamble that he could BS his way past all the obstacles, including his criminal past and hoodwick the American public. He did this because he has nothing but contempt for Americans and he thinks they are all stupid fools and he is such a brilliant con artist. He did succeed in suckering a huge swath of stupid fools in the country that are now complicit in his dirty work of criminally covering up his tracks. Obama and his supporters have no where to go but deeper and deeper into the dark hole of self destruction. Obama’s most recent act is a good example. For the first time, he came forward (Monica Lewinski Moment), looked the American people in the eye, and said “Here is my official long form birth certificate.” He now has “skin in the game” and he and his law firm are directly and officially connected to a counterfeit document. I call that progress.

  32. CA Patriot   Monday, May 9, 2011 at 12:58 AM

    Are you KIDDING ME?? The obama eligibility issue is THE only topic which matters right now. Solve it and everything goes away. EVERYTHING. If you are saying we should focus on other topics as we roll into the 2012 elections, I say NUTS! If we wait until that time, obama and his minions will have completed their mission, which is and has always been to destroy America.

    The fact that the topic is too hot is the number one reason why we should keep fighting. The government needs to be taken back from these treasonous traitors who run their agenda in the face of We The People. I say keep the fire squarely on barry. Don’t let up for even a second. Days and even hours count right now. Do whatever else you want to do, but NEVER give up the fight for the truth about barry.

  33. Robert Laity   Monday, May 9, 2011 at 12:51 AM

    Part V of response:
    This “battle” CAN be won and I intend to win it. I will NOT be disuaded from my focus on Obama’s illicit usurpation or people who say that I should “switch tactics”. I REFUSE. I am going to bring Barack Obama to Justice or I will die trying to save my country from a clear and present danger.You can sit on your hands and “switch tactics” The movement does not need you if you have lost the will to fight tyranny. You “switch tactics” go ahead.There were NO “Mistakes” made in pursuing the rogue faux “President”. We have not been “defeated” by Obama or “ourselves. As for wikipedia,they are Obamatoid. They misrepresent the truth and cannot be trusted. As for Tonchen, SCOTUS already has accepted the definition that one must have parents who are BOTH American and be born IN the USA,ON US Soil to be President. As for me, “Give me liberty or give me death”.

  34. Robert Laity   Monday, May 9, 2011 at 12:38 AM

    Part IV:
    …Every moment he is permitted to remain in office is one mnoment too much.The constitution can NEVER “be changed without amendment”. The process of amendment found in Article V of the constitution is the sole avenue for changing the Constitution. IT cannot be changed otherwise) and by the way, The U.S. IS a “Democracy”. It is a Constitutional Democratic Republic in which elected officials (Congressmen,Senators,et al) represent tthe people.. A “Majority” could dictatte anything,good or bad. That is why the constitution is safeguarded from “Majority” changes and interpretations and amendment must be done by proper process.

  35. Ed '74   Monday, May 9, 2011 at 12:31 AM

    Well, what you say may be correct but I’m not letting it die. the man is ineligible and will always be. I do agree that the generally, not in the know, public thinks the fake bc proved everything. It only proved that someone knows how to do a very poor fraudulent document.
    The truth will be known eventually and it won’t be much different from what we suspect. Keep the faith…

  36. Robert Laity   Monday, May 9, 2011 at 12:29 AM

    Part III of response:

    …The matter is far from “over”. The powers to be know that Obama is disqualified. They are complicit with Obama’s treason and fraud. That makes it even more of a priority,in the interest of National Security to continue the fight and NOT to give up. Wanting the Constitution adhered to is NOT a “Tactic” as you call it. It is a right that “we the People” have and demand it be followed. The constitution is clear that only “Natural-Born Citizens” be able to attain to the Presidency. The congress has incorporated the Law of Nations by reference IN the constitution and gave the power to congress to define and punish offenses under it (See Article 1,sec.8). Obama is attempting to dismantle the constitution. If he does there will be no constitution to “Interpret”. Obama MUST be contained by arrest,trial for treason and fraud and if convicted given the death penalty…

  37. Robert Laity   Monday, May 9, 2011 at 12:18 AM

    Part II of response:

    “…Some include as citizens children born in the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of parents. As to this class there have been doubts,but NEVER as to the first…allchildren born of citizen parentS within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens”.
    You deleted Naturalized citizen in your discussion. Those who by some action of Law must apply for citizenship as opposed to those who by their birth IN a country of citizen parents are Natural-Born. The issue is NOT “Too Hot” for me to handle and I don’t “give up”. I am a Navy man and navy people “don’t give up the ship”,in this case the Oval Office….

  38. Robert Laity   Monday, May 9, 2011 at 12:10 AM

    Tracey, One thing is clear. The founders did not want dual citizen, a British Subject under the British Nationality Act of 1948 by birth, to be President of the United States.
    A Natural-Born Citizen” is “one born IN a Country of citizen parents”-Law of Nations. The law of Nations was “Ubiquitously cited in the 18th century in both British and US Courts”. The word “Parents” in the phrase “Parents who are citizens” is plural. This means BOTH parents must be Americans. The definition does not say ” born of at least one parent who is a citizen” it says “born…of citizen parents”. The term “Native born” is not used in the constitution in article 2,sec.1. The term “Natural-Born” is notwithstanding whether or not “Native” and “Natural-Born” are synonymous. The Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett did use them synonymously however. The court unanimously accepted the definition as “One born in a country of citizen parents”:
    “It was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were citizens become themselves citizens upon their birth citizens also these were native or natural born citizens as distinguished from aliens or foreigners…”

  39. michaelsr   Sunday, May 8, 2011 at 11:28 PM

    Leaving the eligibility battle for the moment might be a good idea. IMO, the proper approach would be to nail BO for something concrete, something for which we already have proof of his guilt, like using a purloined social security number. After all, he has been illegally using it for around thirty years. Put his hide in prison where many believe he belongs. While he is wasting away in Terry Lakin’s old cell and with a verifiable born, bred, and raised (NBC) American finally sitting in the WH, we go to work on resolving the NBC issue, once and for all. Then we can also decide if we will follow mob rule or do as the stodgy old Constitution calls for (as we ought to have been doing all along). Perhaps we could also reinstitute fifth amendment respect for Grand Jury Presentments in order to keep things like this eligibility issue from ever occurring again.

  40. AuntieMadder   Sunday, May 8, 2011 at 11:10 PM

    I don’t know what battle you’ve been fighting, but it certainly reads as if you’ve conceded the one over Barky’s ineligibility.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.