PostHeaderIcon More Usurper News

I keep saying this question isn’t going to go away before the SCOTUS rules on it. Now a retired major general has joined they fray:

On the heels of two active duty members of the U.S. military serving in Iraq calling for President Obama to prove his eligibility to be president, a retired major general has agreed to join the case, saying he just wants “the truth.”

WND reported earlier when 1st Lt. Scott Easterling confirmed to California attorney Orly Taitz that he wanted to be a plaintiff in the legal action she is preparing on behalf of members of the U.S. military, both active and retired. A second soldier who asked that his name be withheld for now became part of the action just a day later.

Now retired Maj. Gen. Carroll D. Childers has submitted a statement to Taitz and her website, agreeing to be a plaintiff in her pending action.

If “the truth” were palatable, Sir, he would have cleared this up months ago. More lawsuits like this one are being filed all the time. Sooner or later the SCOTUS isn’t going to be able to duck them all. â—„Daveâ–º

11 Responses to “More Usurper News”

  • I think you would be surprised. The lazy bastards are pretty choosy about what they feel like hearing. If they don’t want to hear it, which they clearly don’t, I don’t think they will. If the Republicans want to push this, then they had better quit parading around Jindal.

  • It is not Republicans pushing it. I get most of my information from pro-Hillary Democrat sites, who still haven’t gotten over the Primary. 🙂

    What is Jindal’s problem? Were his parents not yet citizens by the time he was born, or something? I haven’t heard any such speculation. â—„Daveâ–º

  • Hah! Yuck. Nothing worse than a bitter Hillaryite.

    You know, I don’t know much abut the guy, but I seem to remember him telling someone (David Gregory maybe?) that his mother was four months pregnant with him when she arrived in this country. According to Wikipedia, his father left his village at about that time. I don’t think he was conceived by U.S. citizens, but I think he was born in this country. Whether they were both citizens or not yet, I don’t know. If life begins at conception, would that make him ineligible? I’m not going to bother digging deeper unless he survives that state of the union disaster. If he was natural born because his parents gained citizenship moments before he was born, does that magically make him less of a usurper than if they had gotten it moments after he was born? I tend to think the whole issue is antiquated. With all the digging and media attention, people have the info to know who they are electing. If 150 million people want to elect a foreigner, then they get what they want, and deserve.

  • Boy, I sure agree about the State of the Union disaster! Pathetic. You know, I vaguely remember something about his mother being pregnant too. Then, he could not be a natural born citizen, because it takes five years as a resident alien before one is eligible to apply for citizenship.

    I disagree that a majority of citizens can thwart the Constitution. It is either the basic law of the land, or it is meaningless. There is a well established procedure for amending it; but until properly amended, it just cannot be ignored. Yes, if they became citizens moments before he was born, he is naturally born. Moments afterward, he would not be. That is the agreed law of the land. Convince me that the Constitution is flexible, and you will have convinced me that I owe no allegiance whatever to the Federal government. â—„Daveâ–º

  • You are correct of course on the Constitution, but it was meant to be small, strong, and flexible, not to micromanage the details. It doesn’t specify the requirements for natural born citizenship status, that was left to the interpretation of the court, therefore if the court says he is a natural born citizen, then he is. By your definition, why would we even need a Supreme Court?

  • To adjudicate disputes between the States, and presumably to check the power of the other two branches of government by ruling unconstitutional any acts or statutes that are not permitted them by it. NOT to “interpret” it, and certainly not to change the plain meaning of words to fit modern usage. The meaning of “natural born” was well established in common law at the time they used it. You will notice that they are not ruling him natural born; they are using every excuse they can find to duck making a ruling on it – because they know he is not, and know that the correct ruling would tear this nation asunder. If they could correctly rule him eligible, they would do so in a heartbeat and end the festering sore. They can’t. There is a clear distinction in the law between natural born, native born, and naturalized citizens. â—„Daveâ–º

  • Is there a clear distinction in the law? I don’t think I’ve ever seen it.

  • MikeS. says:

    I thought (think) that if you are born on U.S. soil you are automatically a citizen. Am I wrong? Wouldn’t be the 1st time.

    That is the problem with all the Mexican females dropping their progeny on U.S. soil. They now have citizens here.

  • Here is one example from The Federalist Blog:

    Additionally, Charles Pinckney in 1800 said the presidential eligibility clause was designed “to insure … attachment to the country.”

    What better way to insure attachment to the country then to require the President to have inherited his American citizenship through his American father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return in later life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues.

    Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.

    Yes, there are distinctions – important ones. A natural born citizen must have two American citizens as parents, so there is no divided loyalty. A native born citizen is just a citizen by act of being born on our soil, regardless of parentage and loyalty issues. A naturalized citizen becomes a citizen by taking a test and swearing allegiance to America.

  • That doesn’t look like a clear distinction of law to me. I’ll admit that there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that there was such a distinction, I just haven’t seen it in any specific law of the land.

    Mike: There is supposedly a distinction between citizenship and ‘natural born citizenship’. To be a citizen, you just have to be born here, to be natural born, you traditionally had to have parents that were already citizens for quite a while. It is something most see as a grey area; â—„Daveâ–º does not.

  • Even the Wikipedia will give you enough information on the controversy to conclude there is enough of a question that the courts should rule on it. Suffice it to say that I have spent untold hours following the legal discussions all over the web and the actual SCOTUS pleadings. Enough to be convinced that Obama is not a natural born citizen by definition, and as a Constitutional lawyer himself, this means he knowingly has perpetrated a massive fraud on the American people. See my Dec. 9th blog entry entitled, “Obamusurper” for all the links one needs to delve deeper into this if interested. â—„Daveâ–º

Leave a Reply

Political Spectrum
Political Circle

Think Up/Down not Left/Right

Internal Links