Rovingpatrol's Blog

Real Reason Obama Will Be One Term President

Posted in politics by roving on January 27, 2010

Even though the kings of radio refuse to mention it and the print media publish lies, more people are becoming concerned about all the records Obama has sealed and continues to fight in court to keep them that way. Just 51% of Americans believe Obama is eligible.

Contrary to what the media continually  repeats, Obama DID NOT release his birth certificate.  The COLB he put on his website is not a birth certificate. What he released, is the same COLB anyone in the world could get from Hawaii. We know he has the long form. He said so in his book while rifling through his Grandmothers things.

Obama had mentioned months ago that he may be a one term president then again said it with his “Rather be a good one term president then a mediocre two time president.”

Obama has fought off lawsuit after lawsuit of people trying to force him to produce his birth certificate along with all his other records.  All judges so far are afraid to look at any evidence and  instead used the weak excuse “No standing.”

Sooner or later Obama will be found out and he knows it. Leo Donforio is representing over 20 closed down dealerships which in the end will force Obama to turn over his hidden records.

Several states are working on legislation that would require anyone running for president provide proof they are natural born citizens. All it would take is just ONE state to pass this law and Obama is finished.

The left make fun of us who only want to see the proof by calling us birthers. I’m proud to be a birther. For the ones who have no problem with Obama hiding EVERYTHING all the way down to his medical records, you would be good candidates for someone trying to sell bridges to.

I have yet to hear from anyone of why Obama would seal all his records. They call him a genius but Obama refuses to even show his grades.

What I believe his college records would show is, his schooling was paid for with foreign aide.  How did he pay for his education with no job?  His medical records would show his drug use and the country he came from.

Just some of what Obama is hiding and refuses to release. There is plenty more he has hidden but I would settle for these:

1 Certified copy of original birth certificate

2 Columbia University transcripts

3 Columbia thesis paper

4 Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups

5 Harvard University transcripts

6 Illinois State Senate records

7 Illinois State Senate schedule

8 Law practice client list and billing records/summary

9 Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mother

10 Medical records (only the one page summary released so far)

11 Occidental College Transcripts

12 Schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007

13 Passport records for all passports

16 Scholarly articles

17 SAT and LSAT test scores

18 List of all campaign workers that are lobbyists

Even if Obama’s birth certificate shows he was born in Hawaii ( I don’t believe it would) he still wouldn’t be eligible to be president due to his father  British citizenship.

Advertisements

24 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. smrstrauss said, on January 27, 2010 at 1:39 pm

    A more obvious reason that Obama may not be reelected is that he may not be popular enough to be re-elected.

    However, there is no question that Obama has proven that he is eligible to be re-elected. He has posted the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and the facts on it were twice confirmed by the officials in Hawaii (members of a Republican governor’s administration).

    Since it is highly likely that any state law passed would merely demand a copy of the official birth certificate (as the proposed federal “Birther Bill” already does), Obama can prove his birth in the USA very easily. In fact, he already has.

    The Wall Street Journal has already commented on this. It said: “Further, if Congress were to pass the so-called birther bill, Obama would be able to comply easily. The bill would require presidential campaigns to submit “a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate” to the Federal Election Commission. The certificate Obama has released publicly would meet this requirement.”

    And, it concluded: ‘Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn.”

  2. rxsid said, on January 27, 2010 at 7:49 pm

    How can a Natural Born Citizen’s status be “Governed” by Great Britain?

    “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”
    http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

    Furthermore: Hawaii’s “Territorial Law, Chapter 57 – VITAL STATISTICS, I”, shown beginning pg 23 of 29, (the law in effect in 1961) allowed baby’s born anywhere in the world to be eligible to apply for a Hawaii birth certificate.

  3. smrstrauss said, on January 28, 2010 at 11:46 am

    Because Natural Born Citizen just means born in the USA. If the writers of the Constitution had meant to say that dual nationality affects Natural Born Citizen status, they would have said. The meaning of Natural Born at the time of the writing of the Constitution was simply “born in the country.” The word “naturalize” comes from Natural Born, meaning to make someone who was born outside of the country like someone who was born inside the country.

    Yale Law Review wrote: “It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.”

    Black’s Law Dictionary says: “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

    Re: “Furthermore: Hawaii’s “Territorial Law, Chapter 57 – VITAL STATISTICS, I”, shown beginning pg 23 of 29, (the law in effect in 1961) allowed baby’s born anywhere in the world to be eligible to apply for a Hawaii birth certificate.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/24948817/Joint-Motion-with-HI-Territorial-Law-57

    But not to get a birth certificate that says on it “born in Hawaii.” That allows a birth certificate to be issued, but it does not allow that certificate to lie. In other words, you could get a certificate (with a delay of at least a month, which was not the case in Obama’ situation because the notices in the newspapers indicate there was no delay in issuing the document), but it has to say the real place of birth on it. Obama’s birth certificate clearly says on it “born in Hawaii.”

    The officials in Hawaii, members of a Republican governor’s administration, have said twice that the document in the files confirms the published birth certificate, showing that Obama was born in Hawaii.

  4. themadjewess said, on January 28, 2010 at 2:59 pm

    Strauss, YOUR people are asking WHERE THE BC IS:
    Democrats suddenly interested in Obama birth certificate
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=123375

    Why dont you go back to Media Matters and tell EM:
    They called down the thunder, and they are GOING TO GET IT.
    Got that Strauss?
    We have a massivve email out on you ***UN-BIRTHERS** and YOU are one of the trolls, you lying Bolshevik SNAKE.

  5. smrstrauss said, on January 28, 2010 at 4:45 pm

    Re: “Strauss, YOUR people are asking WHERE THE BC IS:”

    NO they are not. That is a report from WND that shows that Democrats are DELIGHTED to discuss the issue of the birth certificate because, they believe that any political candidate who seriously believes that Obama was born in Kenya, or that his Hawaii birth certificate is not legal and accurate, will lose the election big time.

    Why? Because Obama has shown the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and it is the ONLY birth certificate that Hawaii currently issues (It no longer issues copies of the original), and the two officials in Hawaii (members of a Republican governor’s administration) have repeatedly confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii, and there is not a shred of evidence or even credible reports that Obama was born in Kenya. His Kenyan grandmother never said that he was born in Kenya. She said that he was born in Hawaii.

    So Democrats will be delighted to find a Republican or Conservative candidate who does not believe that Obama was born in Hawaii, because that candidate is a nutcase.

  6. rxsid said, on January 28, 2010 at 5:04 pm

    @smrstrauss

    The framers mention two types of citizen in the Constitution itself.

    1. A Natural born citizen as being a requirement for POTUS eligibility
    and
    2. A Citizen as being a requirement for Senator and Rep eligibility.

    They clearly distinguished between the two. Why? Why require the Commander in Chief to be “more” than a “citizen?”

    Being born here is not enough because if you have foreign national parent(s), you (the child) can inherit the citizenship of the parent(s).

    In the case of Barry, he was born the subject of the British crown no matter where he was born by inheriting that from his foreign national father.

    At best, for Barry, he was BORN a citizen of two country’s. Ever read about the framers wanting to protect against divided loyalties?

    A press release by a medical dr., that isn’t made under oath is by no means a determining factor as to weather or not Barry is a Natural Born Citizen.

    There are numerous SCOTUS cases which discuse in their dicta, what it means to be a Natural Born Citizen (i.e. born in country, to two citizens)
    “THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
    SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
    MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
    EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
    UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)”

    Finally, you’ve skated over the initial question.

    How can a Natural Born Citizen’s status be “Governed” by Great Britain?

    It’s impossible, and you know it.

  7. smrstrauss said, on January 28, 2010 at 5:46 pm

    Re: ” Why require the Commander in Chief to be “more” than a “citizen?”

    Because they did not want a naturalized citizen to be the commander in chief. They only wanted a born in the country, Natural Born Citizen.

    Re: ‘Being born here is not enough because if you have foreign national parent(s), you (the child) can inherit the citizenship of the parent(s). ”

    Not if you are born in the USA you can’t. That is to say, if you are born in the USA, ONLY your US citizenship counts to US law. A foreign law is irrelevant and does not affect US law. In the other country, sure, the dual citizen is a citizen of that country. But we are talking about US law and only US law.

    Re: “Ever read about the framers wanting to protect against divided loyalties?”

    Of course, and that is why they required a born-in-America citizen and not a naturalized citizen. But, it is key to their thinking that birth in the USA is the criterion of loyalty to the USA.

    In a speech before the House of Representatives in May of 1789, James Madison said:

    “It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”

    As you can see, there is only one criterion of allegiance, not two, and in the USA the only criterion is the place of birth.

    And Blackstone wrote that a person can have only one loyalty, to the country where she or he is born.

    And this is why the Framers did not believe that a child born in the USA could have divided loyalty, because they believed that a person is capable of only one loyalty, and that is to the place where he was born. And, at the time Natural Born simply meant “born in the country.”

    This is well known. For example, Black’s Law Dictionary wrote: ““Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition”

    Yale Law Review wrote: “It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.”

    And such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

    “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

    Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

    Re the cases you cite. The key case is Wong Kim Ark, and it says repeatedly that EVERY child born in a country (except for the children of foreign diplomats) is Natural Born.

    It says: ‘It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

    III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

    To make that simple, EVERY child born in England and the same in the English colonies, and the same in the early states and the same under the Constitution. EVERY CHILD.

  8. themadjewess said, on January 28, 2010 at 10:04 pm

    Strauss, FACE IT, the ONLY reason that you take up for the USURPER is because YOU KNOW that he is NOT Kosher, you little meshugana.

  9. themadjewess said, on January 28, 2010 at 10:07 pm

    So Democrats will be delighted to find a Republican or Conservative candidate who does not believe that Obama was born in Hawaii, because that candidate is a nutcase.

    ————–Strauss…. Check it out, you are using the Alinskyite rule # 5
    5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.”

    Stop being a little Bolshevik, and TRY being an AMERICAN for a change we can believe in, you give Jews a BAD name.

  10. RC said, on January 29, 2010 at 12:19 am

    How on earth does being born in a certain place instill loyalty?

    Loyalty is learned, taught by those who raise you. Not simply transferred to your brain from the dirt under your feet!

    If you are born to foreign parents, you will be taught to think the way your parents think. If your parents are not proud to be Americans you will not give a damn about America!
    NBC per Article II, is second generation citizen, Raised to think like an American. Proud to be an American, not a clown raised to be a citizen of the world, who hates America and our Constitution, Capitalist, Freedom loving society!

    If you read Vatell the meaning is clear, and it does not mean literally must be born here. Vatell uses the phrase “born in the country” in book 1, 212-219. It says, “natural born” follows your father, as the father is the person who would teach the child about loyalty to one’s country. If your father has not moved permanent residence, as in serving “his country”, in a foreign land you are still born ” in the country” of you father, no matter where you are born, as your father has not changed “his country”.

    Obama’s father was never an American, and never intended to become an American. His mother was raised by communists, so Obama thinks like a foreigner! He is not loyal to America! His brain was never taught American soil is better than anywhere else. He was taught Amercia is the big bad Capitalist boggy man Nation, with the screwed up Constitution!

    Anyone who would say it is not important to have a president who is a 100% citizen, raised as an American, taught loyalty to America, and America only, not loyalty to other nations also, or even greater loyalty to a parents nation other than America, is an idiot!

    Yes, we have a bunch of idiots, in our elected Fed Government!
    Barney Frank on tape saying, we should be able to elect anyone we want to as President! We should indeed, as long as they are a true American, who loves America! Not a person from a divided house! Or a foreign house!

    “A divided house cannot stand.” A nation, cannot stand with a leader, who has divided loyalties!

    Doesn’t matter is Obama was born in Hawaii or not, he is not NBC, per Article II original meaning, common knowledge at the time.

    The last part of Article II, says or must be a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, was used because none of the founding Fathers where NBC. All their fathers were not American. With out adding this grandfather clause, none of them could run for president. There were no American NBC’s at the time.

  11. themadjewess said, on January 29, 2010 at 11:05 am

    How on earth does being born in a certain place instill loyalty?
    That stopped me from reading ANY more of your post. you hate LAW.

  12. themadjewess said, on January 29, 2010 at 11:07 am

    Ich. I responded to the wrong post, excuse me, while I go eat crow 😦

  13. smrstrauss said, on January 29, 2010 at 11:36 am

    Re: “How on earth does being born in a certain place instill loyalty? ”

    How does the blood of the parents instill loyalty either? Both of Benedict Arnold’s parents were born in America and he was born in America, and he was still a traitor.

    We are talking about the concept of legal allegiance. As you can see, both Madison and Blackstone believed that legal allegiance stemmed only from the place of birth, and Blackstone believed (I don’t know about Madison) that one can have only one allegiance.

    To be sure people who have legal allegiance are sometimes traitors and people without legal allegiance are sometimes loyal. But, as far as the law goes, the framers were talking about legal allegiance. They assumed that the voters and the Electoral College would be the best judges of real loyalty, and that is the way the Constitution is written.

    The framers barred foreigners from being president, and they barred naturalized citizens (whose allegiance may still have had an influence of the country were they were born). But they did not bar the US-born children of foreigners from being president.

  14. themadjewess said, on January 29, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    How does the blood of the parents instill loyalty either? Both of Benedict Arnold’s parents were born in America and he was born in America, and he was still a traitor.
    ———————Obama has a mama that was born in the midwest, Obama has a daddy, and he is a Kenyan.
    Obama is not eligivle to be the Pres.
    Obama is ALSO a citizen of Kenya, he has DUAL loyalties.
    Obama will be THROWN out, and very soon, we will see him drug through the streets like Moussalini 😉

  15. smrstrauss said, on January 29, 2010 at 8:00 pm

    According to US law, he has only one loyalty, to the United States because he was born here. Madison said that there is only one criterion of loyalty, place, the place of birth.

    And at the time of the writing of the Constitution, Natural Born simply meant “born in the country.” The result is that people who are not citizens cannot be president, and people who have been naturalized cannot be president, but the children of foreigners who have been born in the USA are Natural Born, and so they can be president.

    “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

  16. rxsid said, on January 29, 2010 at 10:16 pm

    @smrstrauss

    Your not making sense. There was no such thing as a Naturalized citizen of the United States of America in 1787. It’s not even mentioned in the Constitution, and didn’t become a reality until 1790 when Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790. So how in the world could they be wanting to guard against something that didn’t even exist within the federal government at the time?

    Blackstone talks about Natural Born Subjects. Are you insinuating that being a Subject of a King or Queen is the equivalent of being a Citizen of a Republic? Of course not. Secondly, according to Blackstone:
    “all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;”
    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch10.asp

    Barry was born the subject of the British crown, according to Blackstone, according to the BNA of 1948 and even according to his campaign website F.T.S.

    Oh, and re: “Re the cases you cite. The key case is Wong Kim Ark, and it says repeatedly that EVERY child born in a country (except for the children of foreign diplomats) is Natural Born.”

    Your lying through your teeth and you know it. The ARK court most certainly did NOT find that children born to foreign parents are “Natural Born.” They found that the child (WKA in that case) is a “citizen.” Therefore, they would be eligible, per the Constitution to be a Senator or a Rep at the federal level.

    You’ve got nothing to demonstrate how it’s possible that someone born a subject (& thus with all it’s rights and privileges, protections and duties) of a foreign country could possible be considered a Natural Born citizen of the U.S.

  17. rxsid said, on January 29, 2010 at 10:57 pm

    @smrstrauss

    Are you trying to make the case that the framers used Black’s law dictionary to find the meaning of Natural Born Citizen?

    They were well versed with Vattel, whom Jefferson relied on heavily for the drafting of the Deceleration of Independence.

    “While Madam Adams’ observations dealt rather cavalierly with the diplomatic facts of the American Revolution, her bias and good sense had surely been absorbed by her son together with the teachings of Vattel and other authorities.”
    This argument that the natural state of nations is a state of peace for reasons of self-survival, John Quincy had derived from the teachings of Vattel, the famous French author of The Law of Nature and of Nations. He had once personally known Dumas, the editor of Vattel, as his pupil in Paris and had even lived in the Dumas household for a time.
    http://www.archive.org/stream/johnquincyadamst007416mbp/johnquincyadamst007416mbp_djvu.txt

    Benjamin Franklin to Dumas
    “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. Your manuscript “Idée sur le Gouvernement et la Royauté,” is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces which accompanied Vattel. “Le court Exposé de ce qui est passé entre la Cour Britanique et les Colonies,” etc., being a very concise and clear statement of facts, will be reprinted here for the use of our new friends in Canada.”
    http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(dc00211)):

    The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot’s Debates, Volume 5]
    Wednesday, June 27.
    “In order to prove that individuals in a state of nature are equally free and independent, he read passages from Locke, Vattel, Lord Somers, Priestly. To prove that the case is the same with states, till they surrender their equal sovereignty, he read other passages in Locke, and Vattel, and also Rutherford: that the states, being equal, cannot treat orconfederate so as to give up an equality of votes, without giving up their liberty”
    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28ed005206%29%29

    Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 25 March 1, 1788-December 31, 1789
    Secret Committee Contract
    “MS (Privately owned original, 1993). In the hand of Roger Sherman.
    1 A copy of a 60-page notebook in the hand of Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman was made available for use in this supplement by Mr. Joseph Rubenfine of West Palm Beach, Fla. It contains 24 pages of notes on Sherman’s readings from Emmerich Vattel and the Bishop of Bristol, various personal expense accounts from 1781 to 1784, and copies of reports now in the PCC on Continental expenses and indebtedness, battle casualties, and the hospital establishment as of July 23, 1781, of which only the present notes do not duplicate information available elsewhere.”
    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(dg025422)):

    Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, April 28, 1793
    “The Law of nations, by which this question is to be determined, is composed of three branches, 1. The Moral law of our nature. 2. The Usages of nations. 3. Their special Conventions. The first of these only, concerns this question, that is to say the Moral law to which Man has been subjected by his creator, & of which his feelings, or Conscience as it is sometimes called, are the evidence with which his creator has furnished him…..Certainly not when merely useless or disagreeable, as seems to be said in an authority which has been quoted, Vattel, 2. 197, and tho he may under certain degrees of danger, yet the danger must be imminent, & the degree great.”
    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mtj:@field(DOCID+@lit(tj070115))

    And so many other references to Vattel during the Revolutionary war era and the writing of the Constitution, found at the Library of Congress.

    The framers revolted against British rule as well as British law.
    http://www.columbialawreview.org/articles/historical-practice-and-the-contemporary-debate-over-customary-international-law

    Not that it’s controlling law, but a Senate resolution is better than a Senator’s unofficial and off the record opinion.
    “Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen,” said Leahy.

    “My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.

    “That is mine, too,” said Leahy.
    http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html

    Your arguments are absurd, at best that a Barry who was born a British subject (no matter where he was born) could possibly be considered a Natural Born Citizen. The very notion would have been absurd to the framers (post grandfather clause).

  18. themadjewess said, on January 30, 2010 at 9:42 am

    Barack HUSSEIN Obama is NOT an American citizen. Orly Taitz sent certified transcripts demanding Eric holder (another Kommie chump of Obamas) to OPEN his records, and for that fact, his wife as well.
    Strauss is a KGB agent for Media Matters. He does this all day long gentleman.

  19. Montana said, on January 30, 2010 at 3:25 pm

    We won the election and now these sore losers will continue to spew your hate with lies. The way ours courts work is that you get a competent lawyer, verifiable facts and present them to a judge, if the facts are real and not half baked lies, then, and only then, you proceed to trial. they seem to be having a problem with their half baked lies. Their actions are very funny, but to sign on with them, they really need to win a case, but until then, they will continue to appear dumb, crazy or racist, or maybe all three. Keep plucking that chicken.

  20. smrstrauss said, on January 30, 2010 at 3:42 pm

    Re: “They were well versed with Vattel, whom Jefferson relied on heavily for the drafting of the Deceleration of Independence. ”

    Vattel was a Swiss monarchist who never recommended elections and never said that the leader of a country should be a citizen of that country, much less a natural born citizen. He gives several examples of contries picking their sovereigns from the nobility of other countries, and he never says that doing that is a bad thing.

    The meaning of Natural Born does not come from Vattel. It comes from Blackstone and from the common law. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, the phrase Natural Born was ALWAYS used to mean “born in the country (except for the children of foreign diplomats).”

  21. themadjewess said, on January 30, 2010 at 6:24 pm

    We won the election and now these sore losers will continue to spew your hate with lies.—————Excuse YOU, America LOST you moron.
    Obama has ZERO proof of being an American, if he DID havve proof, he is the biggest ANTI AMERICAN non President EVER.
    YOU demoFASCISTS are the HATERS, you are the LIARS, you are the dummies that could not find a single thing, when voting for Obama, except YES WE CAN, Hope, CHANGE.
    Dumb, and totally EMBARASSING.
    This is the typical Obama-BOT:

  22. smrstrauss said, on February 1, 2010 at 10:23 am

    Re: ‘Obama has ZERO proof of being an American.”

    Obama has plenty of proof. He has the official birth certificate of Hawaii, which says on it clearly “born in Hawaii.” The facts on the official birth certificate were twice confirmed by the officials in Hawaii (members of a Republican governor’s administration). There are the notices in the Hawaii newspapers, which were generated by the government’s issue of a birth certificate and confirm that the certificate issued cannot be any form of delayed certificate. Hawaii at the time did not issue birth certificates to persons born outside of Hawaii. And, there is even a witness who recalls being told of his birth in Hawaii.

  23. themadjewess said, on February 1, 2010 at 11:04 pm

    See Dem panic! Anti-tea-party ads tied to Obama eligibility

    http://www.wnd.com/

  24. themadjewess said, on February 2, 2010 at 12:56 pm

    Strauss, Obama and Holders chickens are coing HOME to roost;
    http://themadjewess.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/obama-holder-facing-dc-quo-warranto-a-ronald-reagan-chief-judge/


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: