Rovingpatrol's Blog

What part Of Not Born Here Don’t They get?

Posted in politics by roving on January 6, 2009

All these lawyers, bloggers, and everyone fighting Obama over the natural born citizen. I don’t get it.

EVERYONE including judges, RNC, DNC, the world knows Obama’s father is not American born. Everyone should know in our constitution it says both patents MUST be natural born to be president.  It makes zero difference if Obama is born in the U.S. He CAN NOT be president.

So what the hell is the problem? Why must it be proven Obama wasn’t born in the U.S? He already isn’t qualified.  Why is everyone ignoring that? The senators and congressmen who answer letters saying Obama has posted his birth certificate on line is proof he was born here. SO WHAT? What part of Obama’s father wasn’t born here do they not understand?

Why do the big boy talk radio shows like Hannity, Levin, Rush refuse to talk about this? Why do their screeners hang up on people who want to bring the subject up? Fine, they don’t want to talk about his birth certificate but why not talk about the fact Obama’s father was not born here? How would that make them not look like they are wearing a tin-foil hat? It wouldn’t. Its a fair issue.  None had a problem talking about McCain’s eligibility. How in the world would this fact make anyone look foolish? Its a fact. It isn’t rumor.

What are the leaders (that are not Muslim) going to do. Especially the ones that don’t really like us much. They know Obama isn’t qualified. They can just sit back, wait for Obama to become president then say you have no say in anything. Your not legally the president. Go away.

I wrote to my congressman:

Its pretty obvious Obama isnt a U.S. citizen. The COLB Obama posted as been proven a fraud.
If the congress and senate want to pretend that Obama was born here, there is still the problem of Obama;s father who was not born in the U.S. Why are you all allowing this to go on? Are we to ignore only parts of the constitution or all of it?

The supreme court justices arnt sitting in a bubble. They know whats what but are they going to do anything about it?

By the way, My congressman never answered me.


7 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. smrstrauss said, on January 6, 2009 at 7:04 pm

    Re: “Everyone should know in our constitution it says both patents MUST be natural born to be president. ”

    It does? Show me the words. In fact, it could have said what you said very easily, and the fact that it did NOT say it, indicates that the writers did not intend it. They could easily have said “the President must have been born in the USA to two parents both of whom are US citizens.” Instead, it just said “a natural born citizen.”

    Well, there are a FEW who comment on the Web that say that “natural born” means two US parents. But most constitutional experts say that the Supreme Court will turn for guidance as to what “natural born” means to US citizenship law, and specifically to Title 8 of the US Code, which defines a US citizen at birth. A US citizen at birth is a “natural born” citizen.

    Or, if you want to prove that the writers of the Constitution wanted to set a higher standard than merely a US citizen at birth, then why didn’t they set all kinds of higher standards. For example, Article II does not bar Tories (remember Torries? The guys who fought against the USA in the Revolution) from being President, so long as they were born in the USA before the Constitution. Or, the Constitution could have barred traitors, or felons from being President. But it doesn’t.

    It gives every indication of being as open as possible. So, it is hard to prove that the writers insisted on two parents both of whom are citizens. It is also possible that they meant “natural born” to be defined by subsequent legislation, which would be what was done in Title 8 of the US Code.

    Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Yes, Obama is a Natural Born Citizen.

  2. Ted said, on January 6, 2009 at 9:46 pm




  3. Ted said, on January 6, 2009 at 9:49 pm


    The Supreme Court fully know this.

  4. smrstrauss said, on January 7, 2009 at 9:01 am


    No it doesn’t. “Natural born” is the same as a “citizen at birth” under US citizenship law (Title 8 of the US Code). This only requires that a person be born in US territory (the fact that Obama’s mother was a citizen is just extra).

    This is the law UNLESS you get five Supreme Court justices to say that “natural born” means something other than US citizenship law.

    The Constitution does not actually say that Article II is different from citizenship law. Nor does it say that both parents must be citizens. It says “natural born” in such a way that it could be merely citizenship law (or, it could be something else, but you have to prove it).

    And it will be difficult to prove it, since Article II does not actually show a concern about people who might be of divided loyalty or even opposed to the USA being president. It does not bar Tories (Remember Tories? The guys who fought against the Revolution?) so long as they were born before the Constitution. It does not bar traitors or felons It leaves those things to the voters.

    Well, it is highly likely that it left the issue of whether to elect a person with dual citizenship to the voters as well.

    As in so much, the writers of the Constitution were very smart.

  5. Sally said, on January 7, 2009 at 4:29 pm

    smrstrauss, For someone who so definitively wants to state that Obama is a NBC, you sure do alot of dancing around the meanings contained within the Constitution.

    I will give you that there is some ambiquity, some obscure wording, and definitely NBC is a point that needs to be clarified either by SCOTUS or Congress; therefore, I will also concede there this some doubt whether Obama is NOT a NBC. But you cannot unequivicably state (with all your noted ifs, ands, and buts) that Obama is a NBC.

    Something I have lived my life by is: better to be safe than sorry. Why not just have him verify his birth with a copy of the long-form vault BC? What would it hurt? I mean, what possible reason would you have to stand behind his refusal to submit such a small piece of evidence?

    Just in case – I mean, WHAT IF…what if he has something he is hiding. I’m not saying he is, but WHAT IF? I have read some blog entries that say Obama is an open book, but the more and more I read about this…..?man?…..the more I have to question their sanity or lack of honesty in order to make that statement.

    This person who goes by the name of Barack Obama has such an obscure and hiden (almost deceitful) past that it is really frightening. Sometimes, I sit back in my chair and go, could this really be happening, could this really be real? Who is this person and what is he trying to accomplish? I just cannot imagine that even his followers are not (in some corner’s of their minds) wondering the exact same things.

    Some things just do not add up. Most of us have the knowledge to know when these just are not as they seem, when something seems wrong or not right. When you go back and reconstruct his life history – there are just so many questions that come to the surface. I could go through them all here, but those that choose to close their eyes to the obvious will just find ways to explain them away.

    And to say that the voters will was done is a total cop-out. Most of “Obama” voters had no clue whether he was white, black, purple, pink, American, Asian, Egyptian, or British. And most of them could have cared less. They saw a handsome, very charismatic man saying what they wanted to hear. He pretended to be black and they bought it, because they could identify with his skin-color. That is not a racist remark, that is the truth. I think the fact that most “Obama” voters didn’t even have a clue about his polices would preclude them from knowing he had dual-citizenship.

    Just think about this – WHAT IF?
    Better safe than sorry.

  6. roving said, on January 8, 2009 at 2:14 am

    When they let McCain slide they said natural born panrent(s) Not parent.

    McCain paid the $12 to show his BC. Obama pays $800,000 to lawyers. Whats wrong with this picture?

  7. smrstrauss said, on January 8, 2009 at 9:54 am

    Re: Why not just have him verify his birth with a copy of the long-form vault BC? What would it hurt? I mean, what possible reason would you have to stand behind his refusal to submit such a small piece of evidence?

    Because the State of Hawaii only issues the Certification of Live Birth, which is what Obama has posted. Unless Obama has kept a copy of the original birth certificate, and has not mislaid it, all that he can post is the Certificate of Live Birth, which is what the State of Hawaii sent him.

    But, you could say, that there is an original birth certificate in the files, and Hawaii would be compelled to show it if there was a court order to show it.

    Of course, but is it Obama’s responsiblity to sue Hawaii to get the original birth certificate just to show it to the right-wing nuts who do not believe that the Certification of Live Birth is a valid, legal document?

    If the COLB is a valid, legal document, and it is, it is absurd for Obama to have to sue to get the original. There are right-wing lawsuits that continue, and they are asking to see the original, and if they win, fine, because the original will say that he was born in Hawaii.

    Do you really think that he was born in Kenya?

    Here’s what would have to have happened if he was born in Kenya. Baby Obama would have to get a US visa in Kenya to go to Hawaii. IF so, that visa would still be on file in the records of the State Department or the US Embassy in Kenya, or both.

    And that visa would not be a secret document or a private matter that the government could hide. It would have to be given up under the Freedom of Information Act. But no visa has been found. So maybe it hasn’t been searched for? Absurd, you think that Hillary and McCain’s people didn’t search?

    Also, it is not in character with Obama’s mother. If she had gone to Kenya and given birth there, she would not have kept it secret (why should she?). She would have been proud of that fact and would have told everyone about it, and someone would have remembered.

    Then, there is the grandmother tape. I suggest you listen to it again. Here is the site

    This is the tape that is supposed to show the grandmother saying that she was present when Obama was born. She answers “yes” according to the translation when asked was she present when “he” (not clear who he was) was born. BUT later, when she is asked directly “where was he born?”she answers “America”, “Hawaii.” This is certainly not evidence that he was born in Kenya.

    So, if you accept the fact that he was born in Hawaii (Okay, hou don’t but there is no evidence he was born anywhere else, and an official document that he was born in Hawaii), all you can fall back on is the theory that even if he was born in Hawaii, that because his father was not a US citizen he is not a “natural born citizen.”

    Well, there is a chance that that may be true. But it is only true if five justices on the Supreme Court say that it is true. And two of the conservative justices who would be expected to vote against Obama had fathers who were born in Italy.

    The fathers were probably naturalized by the times that their sons were born, but the justices are likely to ask “would I be any more loyal to the USA if my father were naturalized AFTER I was born?” Good question, isn’t it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: