Rovingpatrol's Blog

Beck, O’Rielly, MSM Forced To Defend Obama Over His Birth Certificate

Posted in politics by roving on April 7, 2010

By now millions have seen the tape of Michelle Obama calling Kenya Obama’s home country. Glenn Beck and other conservatives think Obama’s people are releasing tapes like that in order to bait the birthers and looking for reasons to mock them.  Glenn thinks Obama is poking at the birthers. Make them even more extremists.

What does Beck and the MSM use as evidence that convinces them beyond a doubt Obama was born in America? A news paper ad, a COLB that was proven a fraud, and the false assumption  Hawaii officials said he was born in Hawaii.

Anyone can  go out on the web and see for themselves all the stories and documents that show there is a big problem here. I’m sure Beck and the others have done just that yet are forced to call us kooks when they are the ones who come off as kooks by using what they have as “evidence.”

Mark Levin was talking to Hannity one night on Levin’s radio show and mentioned how large their listening audience has grown. Obama being in the White House has been very very good for them.

If you notice, certain things seems to be off limits to Glenn Beck and the MSM. Things like all his college records being sealed. Things that shouldn’t have anything to do with Obama’s birth certificate.  Why? Because his records would reveal the truth. Never in the history of the United States has so many records been sealed about a president, by a president. It was the very first thing Obama did after being sworn into office.

Obama knows  Fox News and the rest of the media  are not allowed to question the mountain of circumstantial evidence  showing there are huge questions of Obama’s nationality.

Obama is poking at Glenn Beck and the MSM then sitting back laughing as they all are  forced to defend him.

Advertisements

12 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. ellenbarrons said, on April 8, 2010 at 3:39 am

    Michelle did not say that Obama was born in Kenya, and his Kenyan grandmother did not either. Obama’s mother did not even have a passport in 1961. This is what the Wall Street Journal said:

    “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.”

    Obama has posted the official birth certificate of Hawaii. He is the first and only US president to show his birth certificate. The Certification of Live Birth is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and it is the only one that Hawaii issues. It no longer sends out copies of the original birth certificate (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html).

    So, it is the only birth certificate that Obama can show. That is the birth certificate Hawaii sent to Obama in 2007, and it is the birth certificate that it sends to everyone. And the facts on the birth certificate–that he was born in Hawaii in 1961–were confirmed twice by the officials in Hawaii, and they are members of a Republican governor’s administration.

    The posted birth certificate has not been forged. The McCain campaign looked into all the allegations of forgery, birth in Kenya, loss of citizenship, Etc.—and found that they were all false.

  2. rxsid said, on April 8, 2010 at 12:01 pm

    Obama…FREE THE LONG FORM!

  3. rxsid said, on April 8, 2010 at 12:02 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

    Factcheck.org goes on to say this about Obama Sr., Jr. and the British Nationality Act of 1948:

    In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.

    http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html 

    Even the modern day State Department rules discusses the problems associated with dual citizenship:

    7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:

    (e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.…the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that dual nationality is a “status long recognized in the law” and that “a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both.” See Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952).

    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86563.pdf

    So, back to the question: “HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’S STATUS BE “GOVERNED” BY GREAT BRITAIN?”It can’t. Of course not. Yet, right there, on his campaign web site F.T.S., it’s stated that a foreign government “governed” Barry from birth and the reason it did, was that Barry inherited that foreign citizenship by way of his foreign national father (no matter where he was born), a fact backed up by Factcheck.org. Assuming, of course, that Sr. was his legal father at birth. How, then, could he possibly be a “Natural Born Citizen” of the U.S.? Barry Soetoro, the divided citizen at birth!http://www.jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com 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 Hawaiian birth certificate based on the word of 1 relative.Bottom line: Even IF (big IF) he was born in HI, he inherited his father’s foreign citizenship as well, making him a US citizen by US law and the subject of the crown of her majesty the Queen of England by inheritance and England’s law. He could not be considered a Natural Born Citizen as known by and as intended by the framers.

  4. ellenbarrons said, on April 8, 2010 at 12:52 pm

    Dual Nationality has no effect on Natural Born Citizen status, which is why the Chief Justice of the United States swore in Obama. To think that a foreign law affects the Natural Born Citizen status of a child born in the USA is to think that a foreign law can affect the ability of an American child to become president. No foreign law can do that, and besides, Natural Born Citizen status covers Every child (except the children of foreign diplomats).

    The framers said nothing about Dual Nationality and they certainly did not exclude a US-born child of a foreigner from becoming president.

  5. rxsid said, on April 12, 2010 at 11:32 am

    “Dual Nationality has no effect on Natural Born Citizen status, which is why the Chief Justice of the United States swore in Obama.”

    Not true. The Chief Justice swore in Obama because there was no case in front of him (or the other justices) that he could take action upon.

    “To think that a foreign law affects the Natural Born Citizen status of a child born in the USA is to think that a foreign law can affect the ability of an American child to become president. No foreign law can do that,”

    Your not thinking this through. There is no U.S. law that can prevent a foreigner from passing their foreign citizenship to their child, even if that child is born in the U.S. Similarly, no foreign country can prevent a U.S. citizen mother from passing U.S. citizenship (but not natural born) to her child if that child is born overseas.

    Obama, no matter where he was born, inherited his fathers foreign citizenship no matter where he was born. Even factcheck and his very own campaign web site state this fact.

    “Natural Born Citizen status covers Every child (except the children of foreign diplomats). ” Where’s your source here? There is nothing in U.S. law that states this.

    “The framers said nothing about Dual Nationality and they certainly did not exclude a US-born child of a foreigner from becoming president.” You clearly do not intend to understand the history.

    The historical record shows that the term “natural born” citizen did not include all citizens. If it did, the framers would not have made the distinction within the very requirement itself.

  6. ellenbarrons said, on April 13, 2010 at 7:19 pm

    You said: “The historical record shows that the term “natural born” citizen did not include all citizens. If it did, the framers would not have made the distinction within the very requirement itself.”

    The distinction is between Natural Born Citizens and all citizens. NOT all citizens are Natural Born. Some citizens are NATURALIZED. The Naturalized Citizens are not eligible. ONLY the naturalized citizens are citizens who are not eligible. ALL who were born here and become citizens (meaning excluding the children of foreign diplomats and those who abandon citizeship) are eligible.

    That is why 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)

    And that is why 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.

    Obama falls into the category of those who were born in the jurisdiction.

    And that is why there are rulings in federal courts like these:

    Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

    Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.

    Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

    Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.

    Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

    The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.

  7. rxsid said, on April 15, 2010 at 5:52 pm

    Part I

    Who, or “what” constituted a natural born citizen was well known to the framers. Jay would not have made such a suggestion to others (Washington & the rest of those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention) unless there was a clear understanding of what that term meant. The definition comes from a source that not only were the framers familiar with, but the founders (many who were both) as well.

    NBC in the Constitutional drafts:

    June 18th, 1787 – Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States

    July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) – John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): “Permit me to hint, whether it would 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 of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
    [the word born is underlined in Jay’s letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.]
    http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:

    September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: “I thank you for the hints contained in your letter”
    http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483

    September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay’s letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) – The “Natural Born Citizen” requirement is now found in their drafts.
    Madison’s notes of the Convention
    http://www.nhccs.org/dfc-0904.txt
    The proposal passed unanimously without debate.

  8. rxsid said, on April 15, 2010 at 5:53 pm

    Part II

    Original French version of Vattel’s Law of Nations:

    Emer de Vattel, Le droit des gens, ou Principes de la loi naturelle, vol. 1 (of 2) [1758]

    From Chapter XIX, 212 (page 248 of 592):Title in French: “Des citoyens et naturels”
    http://files.libertyfund.org/files/1051/0586-01_Bk.pdf

    To English: “Citizens and natural”

    French text (about citizens): “Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile : lies a cette societe par certains devoirs et soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages.”
    ——————-
    To English: “The citizens are the members of the civil society: linked to this society by certain duties and subject to its authority, they participate with equality has its advantages.”
    —————————————————————————————-
    French text (about “natural” born citizens): “Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens”
    ——————-
    To English, gives this: “the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents (plural) who are citizens”

    The same definition was referenced in the dicta of many early SCOTUS cases as well…some examples:

    “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.)”

    A detailed, historical, etymology of the term “Natural Born Citizen” can be found here: http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/index.htm

  9. rxsid said, on April 15, 2010 at 5:53 pm

    Part III

    Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789
    David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period.

    David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen (born in country, to citizen parents (plural)) in 1789
    A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789)

    John Bingham, “father” of the 14th Amendment:
    stated that “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))””
    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332

    Natural Born Citizen = born in country, to citizen parents (plural). This eliminates the possibility that the child is born with foreign citizenship (& thus allegiance), inherited from a foreign parent(s).

    We don’t need, nor want a Commander in Chief who was born with foreign citizenship…no matter where they were born. Not to mention, it’s Unconstitutional!

  10. rxsid said, on April 15, 2010 at 6:42 pm

    You said: “The distinction is between Natural Born Citizens and all citizens. NOT all citizens are Natural Born. Some citizens are NATURALIZED. The Naturalized Citizens are not eligible. ONLY the naturalized citizens are citizens who are not eligible. ALL who were born here and become citizens (meaning excluding the children of foreign diplomats and those who abandon citizenship) are eligible.”

    Not true. Unless, of course, you trying to rewrite history to say that there were “naturalized” citizens at the time of the writing and adoption of the Constitution. Naturalized citizens were not possible until AFTER the Constitution was ratified by way of an act from Congress.

    b.t.w. as I’ve shown above, the “father” of the 14th Amendment clearly defined, actually reaffirmed the definition that was known to the framers as being born in country to citizen parents (plural).

    I’ll take the word of a founding father, the 5 mentioned SCOTUS cases and the father of the 14th Amendment over that of Orren Hatch and Lindsay Grahamisty.

    When was Blacks law dictionary 6th edition written? Was it in the hands of the founders when they wrote the Constitution? No. Vattel was though.

    Regarding the non SCOTUS cases you cite:

    Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice Was this a case to determine the citizenship status of the children? No. It was not. The case, about the parents, merely “describes” their children as being Natural Born Citizens. The court did not FIND them to be NBC. Big difference. Furthermore, as if it matters (because the case was NOT about determining if the children were NBC), they state “It does not appear that the Mustatas were literally in custody at any point.” This is a nothing federal case regarding the defintion of or the finding of who is a Natural Born Citizen.
    http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/179/1017/546639/

    The same goes for the other two circuit court cases. Again, why would you cite this as an example of either giving a definition or as a case that found who is a “Natural Born” citizen? We don’t even know if those children are the natural children, or adopted children.

    In any event, I”ll take SCOTUS cases over circuit court cases all day long. Furthermore, as mentioned, a founding father/historian and the author of the 14th Amendment are far more credible on the issue than Hatch or Grahamisty.

  11. rxsid said, on April 15, 2010 at 6:47 pm

    Oh, b.t.w. BOR may be “forced” to look at this issue (which isn’t going away) again:

    The Peter Boyles show, does another interview with Margaret Hemenway, the daughter of John Hemenway…one of LTC Lakin’s attorney’s. (& Cliff Kincaid):
    http://www.khow.com/cc-common/podcast/single_podcast.html?podcast=fullshow_boyles.xml

    “April 15, 2010 6:00am
    Thu, 15 Apr 2010 10:55:59 -0400
    Army medic Dr. Lakin”s Spokesperson Margaret Hemenway returned to the show to talk about the latest turn in events.”
    041510PETE6A.mp3

    http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/DENVER-CO/KHOW-AM/041510PETE6A.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=DENVER-CO&NG_FORMAT=talk&SITE_ID=636&STATION_ID=KHOW-AM&PCAST_AUTHOR=Peter_Boyles&PCAST_CAT=Spoken_Word&PCAST_TITLE=Peter_Boyles_Show

    Some notes from the show (times are not necessarily exact):

    1:15 – Begins
    5:30 – Cliff Kincaid joins the conversation (mainly about Barry’s grandfather, FBI, etc)
    13:45 – Back to subject at hand
    19:50 – Fox News, Megan Kelly/Oreilly to discuss on air tonight
    20:20 – Oreily blew it early on. Relied on staffers to “authenticate” the online .jpg of the short form
    21:10 – Boyles say’s “back channels” telling him Beck may take another look at this issue
    23:30 – Hannity has called (Hemenway) regarding LTC Lakin
    23:45 – Inside Addition has called and did an interview asking “serious” questions
    30:50 – Segment about LTC Lakin / BC Issue ends

    Note: Even though LTC Lakin clearly states he questions weather or not Barry is a “Natural Born Citizen” as required by the Constitution, the entire show is spent dealing with the “birth certificate” aspect. That is, the fact that Barry hasn’t released a copy of his long form that includes hospital of birth, delivery dr. signature, etc.

  12. ellenbarrons said, on April 16, 2010 at 4:27 pm

    You said: “When was Blacks law dictionary 6th edition written? Was it in the hands of the founders when they wrote the Constitution? No. Vattel was though.”

    But there is no evidence that the writers of the Constitution followed Vattel. Instead, the almost certainly followed the British (and American) common law, which at the time defined “natural born” as simply “born in the country with the exception of the children of foreign diplomats.” John Jay, the first American leader to use the term Natural Born Citizen, was a lawyer and a judge and would become the first chief justice. He was obviously referring to the law, the law at the time, the common law. Vattel is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. He was a Swiss monarchist who never recommended elections and who never said that the leaders of a country should be citizens, much less two-parent citizen citizens. He gave several examples of countries picking their leaders from the nobility of other countries, and he never said that that was a bad thing.

    Re naturalized citizen at the the time of the writing of the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, who was born on the British Caribbean island of Nevis, was a naturalized citizen of New York and hence eligible to be president under the grandfather clause in Article II.

    Re Supreme Court cases. The Wong Kim Ark case ruled (six to two) that EVERY child born in the USA is Natural Born. That is why Black’s Law Dictionary and the two senators all agree that children born in the USA and who become citizens are Natural Born citizens.


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: