Challenge: Can any poster disprove any fact or conclusion in this article?!?
Why the Founding Fathers Were “Birthers” [:]
Along with Millions of Americans, not willing to let their Constitution die without a good ole patriot's fight! [My emphasis]
From a Canada Free Press .com article, Why the Founding Fathers Were “Birthers”, more below:
Please link to the full article. I have attempted to provide a succinct extract below, but have missed much that is of value. The recent announcement by an Hawaiian official regarding Obama’s birth does not significantly change the situation. Documentation that provides verifiable details should be provided. Only such details as precise place of birth make the assertions provable or disprovable. And, as reasoned below, birth on U.S. soil to a U.S. mother may not of itself meet constitutional requirements.
I report and link. You decide. - BJon
Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7
More from a Canada Free Press .com article, Why the Founding Fathers Were “Birthers”:
Why the Founding Fathers Were “Birthers” [:]
Along with Millions of Americans, not willing to let their Constitution die without a good ole patriot's fight!
By JB Williams Saturday, August 1, 2009The label of “birther” is fast becoming a noble badge of honor for millions of Americans who are not willing to let their Constitution die without a good ole patriot’s fight! [/] The leftist Obama propaganda press would love for you to believe that “birthers” are just a bunch of “crazy racists” that number in the hundreds, and that they have NO basis to demand proof of whom and what Barack Hussein Obama really is…
But the “birthers” actually number in the millions and the basis for their demands were set in stone by the men who wrote and ratified the US Constitution. If millions of American “birthers” are “right-wing nuts,” they are in good company with men like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams and Ben Franklin.
[...] Since ALL Obama records remain SEALED, what files did O’Reilly and others investigate in order to draw their absolute conclusion that Obama is legit and millions of Americans are nuts?
What’s all of the stink about? [/] US Law establishes that while there are several ways one can become a US citizen, there are actually only three different types of US Citizens with three very different sets of qualifications and citizen rights. [/] A US Citizen [/] A Native Born Citizen [/] A Natural Born Citizen
[...] A foreign born immigrant, who has successfully navigated the naturalization process, is a legal US citizen with all of the Constitutional rights afforded a US Citizen with the exception of one, the right to be President of the United States. As a matter of Constitutional case law, - 94 ”Whatever the term ‘’natural born’’ means, it no doubt does not include a person who is ‘’naturalized.’’
In this regard, the issue of Obama’s adoption by Indonesian citizen Lolo Soetoro is also of consequence, as Obama could only be a US citizen by way of “naturalization.” There is no record of Obama naturalizing as a U.S. citizen upon returning from Indonesia.
All of this is at the heart of the debate over where Barack Hussein Obama II was born. [...] [/] But since he has refused to open up his official birth records in Hawaii, nobody knows for certain where Barack Hussein Obama II was born. Contrary to leftist attempts to spin, the mere fact that such a constitutional requirement exists implies that one must provide proof of compliance, if and when asked to do so.
[...] If Barack Hussein Obama II was indeed born in Hawaii, and this can be verified by authenticating his official birth records alleged to exist in Hawaii, then he could be a “US Citizen” and maybe even a “Native Born Citizen” having been born on American soil. To date, no such evidence has been made available for purposes of authentication. [/] However, one can be both a “US citizen” and a “Native Born citizen”” and still NOT be a “Natural Born Citizen.”
[...] It was the Founding Fathers who wrote and ratified, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;” [/] They based this clause on the following; “Congress, in which a number of Framers sat, provided in the Naturalization act of 1790 that ‘’the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, . . . shall be considered as natural born citizens. . . .’’ 96 This phrasing followed the literal terms of British statutes, beginning in 1350, under which persons born abroad, whose parents were both British subjects, would enjoy the same rights of inheritance as those born in England; beginning with laws in 1709 and 1731, these statutes expressly provided that such persons were natural-born subjects of the crown.”
So, had both of Obama’s parents been US citizens, he would indeed be a “natural born citizen” of the US, even if he had been born in Kenya. By way of “natural law,” he inherited the name and citizenship of his father, in Kenya, not the US. [/] As his father was not a US citizen, but rather a citizen of Kenya, Obama inherited by birthright, natural law, his fathers name and citizenship. He is NOT a “natural born citizen” of the US, no matter where he was born.
[...] There are TWO reasons why the “birther” movement is EXPLODING instead of going away, despite daily attacks and name calling from the lamestream press.
[...] Sooner or later, Obama is going to have to prove that he is legitimate. The longer it takes for him to come forward and do so, the more dangerous the situation will become, as citizens grow increasingly angry [...] [/] The truth exists in Obama’s official birth, adoption, college and passport records. Nobody hides the truth unless the truth will expose a lie… [...] [My ellipses and emphasis]
