Barry Belongs in Gitmo!

Support and defend our Constitution and the Rule of Law.

Combine the legal requirements of:

————————————————————————————————

1) Article II Section 1 of the United States Constitution

2) Section 3 of the 20th Amendment to the United States Constitution

3) The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986

All employees, citizens and noncitizens, hired after November 6, 1986 and working in the United States must complete a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.

————————————————————————————————

… and you see that Obama and Biden are legally required to produce hard copy documentation of not only their eligibility to work in the United states but also their eligibility to hold the office of President. And Congress has the legal responsibility to ensure that the President and Vice President have qualified.

If Barry Soetoro (a.k.a. Barack Obama) were born in a Hawaiian hospital, then there would be a Hawaiian long-form Birth Certificate proving that.

The contrapositive is that if there is not a Hawaiian long-form Birth Certificate, then he was not born in a Hawaiian hospital.

And if he wasn’t born at Kapi’olani Medical Center in Hawai‘i, then this document is fraudulent and the “Obama birth narrative” is fraudulent.

This is worse than Watergate.

We need to all keep the faith until members of Congress begin supporting and defending Article II Section 1, Section 3 of the 20th Amendment, and the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

Step 1 is verifying the “Obama birth narrative”… seeing the original, certified, hard copy vital records to determine the truth of Soetoro/Obama’s birth.

Step 2 is reacting to the outcome of that verification…

If the “Obama birth narrative” is 100% true, then he is a usurper because he does not meet the Natural Law definition of “natural born citizen”.

George Washington, John Jay, and the Natural Law Definition of “Natural Born Citizen”

A usurper should be immediately removed from office, all of the usurped actions (including Obamacare) stricken from the record, and the usurper sent to Gitmo .

If the “Obama birth narrative” is not 100% true, then he is guilty of forgery, perjury, obstruction of justice, etc., so even if he is a natural born citizen of the United States, he would still be guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, and should be impeached, convicted, removed from office, and sent to Gitmo.

Either way, Barry belongs in Gitmo!

About these ads
This entry was posted in Presidential Eligibility. Bookmark the permalink.

73 Responses to Barry Belongs in Gitmo!

  1. Does Hawaii ever release long-form birth certificates?

    Yes.

  2. Pingback: OK, Speaker Pelosi, How Did the DNC Certify Obama’s Eligibility? « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)

  3. smart guy says:

    Please give it a rest, dummy. No one believes your garbage.

  4. Hey “smart guy”, is that the best you can do?

    I guess you think the pResident is above the law, and the best you can do is pretend to be a “smart guy” and call smart Constitutional Republicans (those who wisely support and defend the Constitution and the Rule of Law) “dummies”.

    Wow. Impressive.

    NOT!

  5. Aaron says:

    I won’t quite go so far as to believe that Obama belongs in the Guantanamo Bay if found to be ineligible to serve in the office of President. I do think the issue should be fully vetted and allowed proper hearing, though. Specifically, not some biased judge looking for any excuse he can dig up to toss it.

    More importantly, can we get enough dems out of the way so we can take real action to cut the national debt and eliminate deficit spending? They make lots of noise when anyone talks about making cuts to social programs despite the fact that welfare hand-outs and other government spending on social hand-outs equals 55% of the budget. For the record, total national security costs (which is the total active/reserve/guard military combined with coast guard, border security, alliance support funding, etc…) is 21%. Given the disparity between the funding for all of national security vs welfare hand-out spending. The left really has no ground to stand on when they claim that military spending is too high.

  6. I won’t quite go so far as to believe that Obama belongs in the Guantanamo Bay

    I will.

    if found to be ineligible

    If?

    If the “Obama birth narrative” is 100% correct, he is a usurper.

    If the “Obama birth narrative” is not 100% correct, he is guilty of fraud. (And may or may not also be a usurper.)

    This is worse than Watergate. And yes, Barry belongs in Gitmo. He has given, and continues to give, aid and comfort to our enemies. Historically, such people have received much harsher punishment than mere imprisonment.

  7. Aaron says:

    I am not familiar with him giving aid or comfort to our enemies. Can you remind your audience of the aid & comfort instances to which you’re referring?

  8. Here’s just one example: putting a moratorium on U.S. offshore oil drilling, while sending $2 BILLION in U.S. money to help George Soros profit from offshore oil drilling in Brazil. Obama is deliberately hurting U.S. citizens, as gas rises to $4/gal and up, and giving aid and comfort to those who want to “fundamentally transform” the United States of America.

    Obama also has a long history with a domestic terrorist and revolutionary Communist who bombed the U.S. Capitol building and the Pentagon, and who just so happened to give his children Islamic names.

    Obama has a track record of being helped (whether it be help getting into and paying for Harvard Law School, or starting his political career) by people who want to bring the United States to its knees. And Obama himself described his “journey” this way:

    But my journey is part of a larger journey – one shared by all who’ve ever sought to apply the values of their faith to our society. It’s a journey that takes us back to our nation’s founding, when none other than a UCC church inspired the Boston Tea Party and helped bring an Empire to its knees.

    – Barack Hussein Obama

  9. TRUMP2012 says:

    So… you’re against the American Revolution? Okaaaaay.

  10. TRUMP2012 says:

    Yeah, except your “Natural Law” is not a law of the United States of America. Your definition of “natural born citizen” has never been defined that way in any law, court decision, or Amendment to the Constitution. It’s not a law. For something to be AGAINST the law, there would have to be a law, and that’s not a law.

  11. So… you’re against the American Revolution?

    Quite to the contrary. See: In Congress, March 16, 1776.

  12. TRUMP2012 says:

    None of what you just quoted are laws. If the Governor of Arizona signs the birther bill, it will become state law, and will be in direct conflict with the Full Faith and Credits clause of the United States Constitution.

    So once again, your definition of “natural born citizen” has never been defined that way in any law, court decision, or Amendment to the Constitution. It’s not a law. For something to be AGAINST the law, there would have to be a law, and that’s not a law.

  13. Aaron says:

    I knew about the moratorium and found it to be purely politically motivated as it had nothing to do with safety, accident investigation, or prevention of another accident. What’s more is that the Deep Water Horizon wasn’t in the drilling phase of operations at the time of the accident.

    However, I did not know about the Tax-Payer funds going to Brazil. The only possible benefit to the US is a global increase in supply (which will stabilize/reduce overall prices). If the US and Brazil have good relations, that could open up another source for the US to purchase from. Personally, that one benefit is not enough for me to consider it an overall good use of tax-money.

  14. Aaron says:

    That Soros was involved in this is certainly worth investigation, though.

  15. skeeter says:

    “In February, The New York Times published a report calling into question the legality of McCain’s presidential run. McCain was born to American citizens stationed on an American Naval base in the Panama Canal Zone. He has since served in the U.S. Navy, and, since 1983, has served in the U.S. Congress.

    “Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen,” said Leahy. “I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate.”

    “It is silly for anyone to argue that Senator McCain is not eligible to become president,” said McCaskill. “I would hope that this is something we can all agree on, for goodness sakes.”

    At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President.

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

    American Parents, plural. Not one American and one African parent. Obama is a “usurper”.

    That is mine, too,” said Leahy.”

    http://leahy.senate.gov/press/press_releases/release/?id=fd6db55d-33d4-440e-b53d-754f5bb58983

    There are officials, citizens of Africa, who want Obama to be tried along with “The Ocampo Six” for crimes against the “state”, Kenya. Apparently Obama funneled $23,000,000 into that country to rewrite their National Constitution. Thereby violating numerous laws, both Kenyan and American [laws]. Obama has loyalties to other than America and Her interest.

  16. TRUMP2012 says:

    At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President.

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

    American Parents, plural. Not one American and one African parent. Obama is a “usurper”.

    Yeah, that’s still not a law. No law or Supreme Court decision defines natural born the way you define it.

  17. skeeter says:

    Members of Obama’s party “assumed” if you are born of two American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.
    It only stands to reason they would assume if you are not naturally born of American parents you are not a natural-born American citizen.

    Unless Obama’s party can find a way to naturally circumvent the Law of Nature they cannot make Obama a natural-born American citizen. ‘Positive Law’ may make Obama a naturalized citizen but positive law can’t duplicate Nature and Arizona may be the first state in the United States to prove that.
    ” House Bill 2177 now has been moved to the desk of Gov. Jan Brewer who can sign it, veto it, or let it become law without her”

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=287485

    Natural Law can’t be superceded by man made law. In fact “In natural law jurisprudence, on the other hand, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to the natural law”. See:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

    Natural Law exists and always has and always will. The only Supreme Justice that can overturn that Law is God Himself. I do not Think He will.

  18. “TRUMP2012″,

    On a different post of mine, on April 15, 2011 at 4:32 pm, you said:

    THIS BLOG IS IN THE TANK FOR TRUMP!

    I replied that Trump is not conservative enough for me, but I do respect him for being the first (and so far only) candidate who has supported the Constitution and the Rule of Law enough to expect Obama to release his original long-form birth certificate and prove that the Obama birth narrative is 100% true.

    You chose to ignore what I said about Trump and “move on” to your assertions about Obama being Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President.

    I’d like you to explain yourself. Your statement seems to be an anti-Trump statement, complaining that my blog is “in the tank for Trump!” Yet, your name “TRUMP2012″ implies that you are supporting Trump in 2012. It sure seems to me that you are a troll who at times is pretending to be a Trump supporter, when you are not.

    I’d like you to explain yourself. What is your worldview, who do you support in the 2012 Presidential election, and what is your purpose in commenting here?

  19. Vattel was the de facto authority on the “THE LAW OF NATIONS OR PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS“, which stated:

    natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

    and

    By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular

    Obama’s own campaign web site admitted that Barry was born a British subject because his father was a British subject:

    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.

    Review the post George Washington, John Jay, and the Natural Law Definition of “Natural Born Citizen”

    Now, if John Jay and George Washington had meant for the usage of “natural born citizen” in Article II Section 1 of the United States Constitution to mean something other than how Vattel defined it the Natural Law definition as explained by Vattel, don’t you think they would have explicitly said so?

    Neither Vattel, nor the Founders, would have considered Barry a “natural born citizen” of the United States of America.

  20. “TRUMP2012″,

    This is especially for you:

  21. TRUMP2012 says:

    skeeter –

    “Members of Obama’s party “assumed” if you are born of two American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen. It only stands to reason they would assume if you are not naturally born of American parents you are not a natural-born American citizen.”

    So, you’re agreeing with me that it’s not a law, yes? All your examples are just politicians stating opinions. Because there are really clear ways that things become law in this country, and that isn’t one of them. Going through 200+ years of American history and citing every time someone used the term “parents” rather than “parent” won’t change that. It’s not a law.

    Also, “it only stands to reason” if you have no idea how logic works. You’re stating that X is true (if you are born of two American parents, you are a natural-born American citizen), therefore the opposite of X is true (if you are not born of two American parents, you are not a natural-born American citizen), yeah? False. See if you can follow the logic trail: All squares are rectangles. By your argument, all rectangles would be squares. But they’re not. Pick up a book on logic and reasoning, I guarantee you’ll hit this one in the first ten pages.

    With regards to “Natural Law”, I don’t think even you know what you’re talking about. Maybe you’re trying to tie it to Vattel’s book The Law of Nations, but even you have to know that The Law of Nations A) is not, nor does it claim to be, a codified description of Natural Law, and B) has never been ratified as law by the United States House or Senate. “To be a natural born citizen, you have to be born to two American citizen parents” is not United States law. It is not the legal definition of natural born. You are wrong.

  22. TRUMP2012 says:

    Redimus Von Pillbert –

    “I replied that Trump is not conservative enough for me, but I do respect him for being the first (and so far only) candidate who has supported the Constitution and the Rule of Law enough to expect Obama to release his original long-form birth certificate and prove that the Obama birth narrative is 100% true.

    You chose to ignore what I said about Trump and “move on” to your assertions about Obama being Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President.”

    I didn’t ask what you thought about Trump, but I DO enjoy your subtle innuendo that when faced with your iron-clad logic, your detractors can only “move on” to the next point. I’m going to do a little experiment. I’m going to reply to your points, show my logic, state my conclusions clearly, and count how many of them you either ignore, fail to refute, or simply link to other posts that don’t refute them either. I don’t intend to change your mind, but perhaps when you are desperately flailing around for disproved birther talking points that you can use to change the subject, you’ll understand why the birthers can’t win a court case. Kay? Let’s begin:

  23. TRUMP2012 says:

    ‘Our Founders founded this country on “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God“.’

    True enough. The “Laws of Nature” are a reference to the ideal that laws be just, and not be subject to the immediate and selfish needs of mob rule. They are NOT a codified set of rules. Literally hundreds of authors, politicians and philosophers, from Socrates to Abraham Lincoln, have written on their understanding of the Laws of Nature. I like to think that Jefferson summed it up quite well when he described them as “certain unalienable Rights,… among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” But once again, NOT a specific set of codified rules. Jefferson didn’t make a reference to “the Laws of Nature as codified by Emmerich Vattel”. If he had, you’d have a case. He didn’t and you don’t. Not a law.

  24. TRUMP2012 says:

    “Vattel was the de facto authority on the ‘THE LAW OF NATIONS OR PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS'”

    This is my favorite part of your argument, partially because you essentially admit I’m right, but partially because the logic circle is just so amazing. “De facto”, in law, means, “in practice but not necessarily ordained by law.” Get that bit? NOT NECESSARILY ORDAINED BY LAW. You know that definition, you run around all the time describing Obama as the “de facto president”, meaning he is acting as president while it is not constitutionally legal to do so.

    Do you see how amazing that is? You’re arguing that Obama is commiting an illegal act to hold office based on the definition of the term by a scholar whose authority, by your own admission, IS NOT A LEGAL ONE. You know what the term means.

    Never mind that there are many other authorities, such as English common law, another repeatedly cited antecedent to the Constitution, who define a natural born citizen as a citizen of the nation at birth. Never mind that the original French translation of Vattel’s work does not use the term “natural born” and the English translation that does was not available until seven years after the ratification of the Constitution. Never mind that we only have your assertion that Vattel was even a “de facto” authority (I know, you’re about to bring up the letter from Ben Franklin. There is a big difference between “We have read and enjoyed your book” and “We are adopting your definitions of legal terms wholesale.”) The point is, even you have admitted that Vattel’s definitions are not codified legal definitions under United States law.

  25. TRUMP2012 says:

    To Vattel, I would only add this one other point. The Law of Nations also stated that only male landowners should legally bear arms. The Second Amendment to the Constitution states that “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” So either begin another website advocating that we should start seizing guns from women and non-landowners, or admit that perhaps, Vattel did not set the legal definitions for this country.

    Now to John Jay and George Washington. I particularly like your question: “Now, if John Jay and George Washington had meant for the usage of “natural born citizen” in Article II Section 1 of the United States Constitution to mean something other than how Vattel defined it, don’t you think they would have explicitly said so?”

    Well, first, they would have needed to. You birthers seem to have built an interesting understanding of the law, that understanding being “if a Founding Father said it one time, it’s the law!” Hey, did you ever notice how John Adams was stridently anti-slavery. How he said that “consenting to slavery is a sacrilegious breach of trust, as offensive in the sight of God as it is derogatory from our own honor or interest of happiness”? Then did you notice how slavery was legal in the United States for almost 100 years after the Constitution? Why is that, can you explain it to me? I mean, considering all the stuff that John Adams said against it.

  26. Trump2012,

    Do you think the President above the law?

    Where is the evidence that Barack Obama is in compliance with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986?

    Where is the Form I-9 and hardcopy documentation, from the list of approved acceptable documentation, that Barack Obama was legally required to provide?

    Bold emphasis mine:

    All employees, citizens and noncitizens, hired after November 6, 1986 and working in the United States must complete a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.

    There are NO EXCEPTIONS.

    Obama and Biden are our employees, hired after November 6, 1986 and working in the United States. They are LEGALLY REQUIRED to produce documentation to prove their employment eligibility. And since the Constitution also requires that they be natural born citizens who are over the age of 35, a birth certificate is the only acceptable document to satisfy both the requirements of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and the U.S. Constitution.

    And if they don’t produce the document…

    The I-9 Form refers to the M-274 Handbook. Here is one of the Q&A’s:

    4. Q. May I fire an employee who fails to produce the required documents within three business days of his or her start date?

    A. Yes. You may terminate an employee who fails to produce the required document or documents, or an acceptable receipt for a document, within three business days of the date employment begins.

    Step 1 is enforcing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, and verifying the “Obama birth narrative”.

    Step 2 is having Congress fulfill their duty under section 3 of the 20th Amendment to ensure that the President and Vice-President have qualified, under Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, to hold the office of President.

    If the Obama birth narrative is 100% true, then Congress can examine and discuss the historical record of discussions about who is, and is not, a “natural born citizen” of the United States. Congress can openly debate, on C-SPAN, every historical reference and openly come to a conclusion about what the historical standard has been, and whether or not Obama meets that standard. If not, Obama is a usurper.

    If the Obama birth narrative is not 100% true, then he is guilty of forgery, perjury, obstruction of justice, etc., and even if his true birth narrative met the standard of “natural born citizen”, he should still be impeached, convicted (and therefore removed from office), and sentenced.

  27. skeeter says:

    TRUMP
    The only thing I have said is law, is the law of nature. I simply think any law-maker, legislator, and/or any man that applies the law, a judge, would have difficulty explaining how one American parent and one African parent could produce a natural born citizen, on any continent, after making the statement Sen. Leahy and Judge Chertoff made at a judiciary committee hearing. Leahy and Chertoff simply stated what they thought constituted a natural born citizen. It was their “assumption and understanding” that ” if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural born citizen”.
    They were in Committee Hearing and they were quantifying (a) Law. They were expressing their opinion on existing law and the prerequisite of being a natural born citizen in order to be elligibile to be the president of the United States of America.
    “quantifyingpresent participle of quan·ti·fy (Verb)
    1. Express or measure the quantity of.
    2. Define the application of (a term or proposition) by the use of all, some, etc., e.g., “for all x if x is A then x is B.”. More »
    Merriam-Webster – The Free Dictionary”
    They were not discussing the weather, follow the logic trail. According to the assumption and understanding expressed by the law-maker and the judge, Obama at best, is an American hybrid, a cross between an American citizen and an African citizen, that is the Law of Nature. Possibly he is a naturalized citizen, according to the law of man, but we can’t know because he will not show his ID.

  28. Gradin says:

    Mr Skeeter & Red Pill: Was the statement using the plural “parents” not made when refering to the McCain case? They were refering to a case where a person is born outside of the country to citizen parents.

    In the case where a person is born in the United States, there is no mention in the law about the citizenship of the parents. How could there be when it is possible for the citizenship of one (or in rare cases both) of the parents’ to be unknown?

  29. Gradin,

    You are incorrect to think that “there is no mention in the law about the citizenship of the parents”.

    I recommend that you familiarize yourself with each of the following posts:
    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/index.php?s=parents

  30. Gradin says:

    I could spend four years searching through 200 years of US case law and probably find just about anything I wanted.

    Point me to a LAW that denies any person born in the US any right based on the citizenship of his parents.

    You might also want to answer some of the questions brought forward by TRUMP2012.

  31. skeeter says:

    Mr/Ms? Gradin.You could spend four years searching but it is a lot easier to simply read the US Constitution.

  32. I didn’t ask what you thought about Trump

    No, you didn’t ask… you asserted…

    THIS BLOG IS IN THE TANK FOR TRUMP!

  33. TRUMP2012 says:

    Arizona Birther Bill: VETOED.

    By Gov. Jan Brewer… quite the bleeding heart liberal, apparently.

  34. TRUMP2012 says:

    BIRTHER FACT-DODGING SCORECARD: 4

    This is my count of how many of my points you chose to “move on” rather than address. “Move on” down this list, and see how many point you’d like to “move on” actually providing a coherent argument against.

    1) The “Laws of Nature” are not a codified set of rules that supercede the United States Constitution.

    2) Each time a historical figure refers to “Laws of Nature”, they are not directly referencing the philisophical treatise “The Law of Nations” by Emmerich Vattel.

    3) Even you refer to Vattel as a “de facto” authority on the “Laws of Nature”. The legal definition of “de facto” is “in practice but not necessarily ordained by law.” Even if points 1 and 2 were false, by your own statements, his definitions of terms are not United States law.

    (Again, I just have to point out how funny that is. If you hadn’t consistently used the term “de facto president” to describe President Obama as an executive leader operating without a constitutional support, I’d have assumed you just didn’t know what the term meant and were trying to sound smart. But you do know what the term means. You just can’t help throwing Latin around when you’re making your wild leaps of logic.) You also chose not to address Vattel’s stance on the right to bear arms.

    4) Opinions stated by the Founding Fathers are not automatically United States law; for copious examples, see John Adams’ writings on slavery.

    I’m giving you a break on English common law and its definition of “natural born”, Vattel in the original French, and Vattel as the “de facto authority” for the Founding Fathers on the “Laws of Nature”, but if you have anything you want to try, feel free. I’ll school you, and we’ll add them to the scoreboard.

    The I-9 form argument is the dumbest thing I have ever heard, but I’ll play along.

    A) Please provide the section of the M-274 handbook where it states that the employee/employer relationship extends to elected officials. How does this pretend law you made up work, in your mind? Does any individual have the right to “fire” any elected official with whom he or she disagrees? Does this ability to hire and fire extend to people who cannot vote, but are nonetheless represented by the elected official, like convicted felons, or children?

    B) Please provide the I-9 form of any elected official for the office they now hold, or have ever held. The politician may be living or dead.

    Hey, if you can make this completely illogical “rule” work, you can start firing Democrats and I’ll start firing Republicans. We should be able to get to anarchy by the fall.

  35. “TRUMP2012″,
    Your comment was submitted at 3:56 am EDT (12:56 am PDT), thirty minutes after the following AP story was released:

    Arizona Gov. Vetoes Presidential ‘Birther’ Bill
    By PAUL DAVENPORT Associated Press
    4/19/2011, 3:26 AM EDT

    “I do not support designating one person as the gatekeeper to the ballot for a candidate, which could lead to arbitrary or politically motivated decisions,” said Brewer, who was secretary of state until she became governor in 2009.

    “In addition, I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for president of the greatest and most powerful nation on Earth to submit their ‘early baptismal circumcision certificates’ among other records to the Arizona secretary of state,” she said. “This is a bridge too far.”

    The certificates were among the documents a candidate could have submitted under the bill in place of a birth certificate.

    I am honestly surprised by Brewer’s veto. It is absolutely the responsibility of the Secretary of State to ensure that candidates for an office have met the eligibility requirements for that office. It is absolutely the responsibility of the Secretary of State to be the “gatekeeper to the ballot”.

    Brewer is wrong to think and say that the bill “could require candidates for president of the greatest and most powerful nation on Earth to submit their ‘early baptismal circumcision certificates’ among other records to the Arizona secretary of state”. The bill requires the candidates to prove their eligibility, and gives the candidate a choice of documents from which to prove their eligibility, in the same way that an Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification gives employees a choice of documents from which to prove their employment eligibility. There is nothing in the bill that REQUIRES candidates for president to submit their ‘early baptismal circumcision certificates’.

    Brewer’s statement is a bridge too far.

  36. Trump2012,

    I’ll reply to your comment from 2011/04/19 at 4:43 am after you reply to my comment submitted 2011/04/18 at 8:48 am.

    Do you think the President above the law?

    Where is the evidence that Barack Obama is in compliance with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986?

    Please provide the section of the M-274 handbook where it states that the employee/employer relationship does not extend to elected officials, or that elected officials are not employees of “We the People”. The Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution both make it clear that the government is to work for “We the People”.

  37. TRUMP2012 says:

    So… just so I’m clear, this is what you think the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 means: that any citizen can, at any time, demand an I-9 form from any official in the United States Government, and if they do not supply it, they have to leave their office.

    Well, here’s my answer: no, I don’t think the President is above the law, which is handy, because that is not a law.

    By the way, I enjoyed your backpedaling in the comments above, going from “If the Obama birth narrative is 100% true, he is breaking the law and should go to Gitmo!” to “If the Obama birth narrative is 100% true, then Congress can examine and discuss the historical record of discussions about who is, and is not, a “natural born citizen” of the United States. Congress can openly debate, on C-SPAN, every historical reference and openly come to a conclusion about what the historical standard has been, and whether or not Obama meets that standard.”

    So…er…gee.. there’s not TECHNICALLY a law that defines natural born citizen the way I define it, but Congress should debate until there is one!

    (Side note: once again, I absolutely love the birthers logic. So you want the Congress to rule on matters of Constitutional legal defintions, and you want the Supreme Court to impeach the President? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA)

    I notice your main article (subtly titled “Barry Belongs in Gitmo” has not reflected your backpedaling here in the comments. Feel free to make edits, and credit me for setting you straight.

  38. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 is current law. There are no exceptions made for government employees. All means all. Obama must comply with the requirements of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Where is his Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification and the accompanying acceptable hard copy documentation?

    If/when Congress examines the historical record, they will find that the Natural Law definition of “natural born citizen” has been the standard. And by that standard, Obama is either a usurper, a fraud, or both. I stand by my statement that Obama belongs in Gitmo!

    I never said that I want the Supreme Court to impeach the President. Where did you get that from? I want the Supreme Court or the Congress to openly examine the historical record of “natural born citizen” and put an end to the debate about whether or not a person who was born a subject or citizen of a foreign country (which Obama’s own campaign web site said he was) can be considered a “natural born citizen of the United States”.

    Impeachment is not needed to remove a usurper.

    Impeachment by the House, and trial by the Senate, would only be necessary for a qualified candidate who had broken other laws (forgery, perjury, obstruction of justice, etc.)

  39. TRUMP2012 says:

    But you get that they would actually have to pass a law making that the official definition, right? A law that not only would invalidate the Presidency of Chester A. Arthur, but a law that the President would actually have to sign, making his own presidency retroactively illegal… you know what? Never mind. You clearly don’t understand laws. This is like trying to play chess with a duck.

  40. But you get that they would actually have to pass a law making that the official definition, right?

    The Constitution, in section 3 of the 20th Amendment, gives Congress the responsibility to qualify the President-elect and Vice President-elect, as well as the authority to by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

    What has congress done to support and defend this section of the Constitution?

    Step 1 is to “Trust, but Verify” the “Obama birth narrative”.

    Step 2 is to respond to the outcome of that verification.

    Let’s put first things first.

    For now, put step 2 on the back burner and focus on step 1.

    If Obama cannot prove that his “birth narrative” is 100% true, would you agree that he should be removed from office because he, in the words of the U.S. Constitution, he “failed to qualify”?

  41. Thanks for the link, skeeter. Good for Jindal.

    Let’s take a look at what the press gets wrong in their reporting…

    Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal says he would sign a bill requiring presidential candidates to prove they were born in the United States are a natural born citizen of the United States if the state Legislature passes such a measure.

    The comments come one day after Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed a bill that would require presidential candidates to prove their U.S. citizenship natural born citizenship in order to get on the ballot in that state.

    Arizona would have been the first state to enact such a law, which comes as so-called “birthers” Constitutional Republicans, who support and defend the U.S. Constitution and the Rule of Law — among them potential White House candidate Donald Trump — question whether or not President Barack Obama was born in is a natural born citizen of the United States. Obama‘s campaign has produced a certificate Certification of live birth from the state of Hawaii Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago, but critics say that is not the same as a birth certificate, because it’s not, and say Obama could have been born in Kenya, his father’s homeland, and not the 50th state, because Hawaii has never verified that the COLB produced at and by the Obama campaign is authentic, and Dr. Fukino did not say, “Obama was born in Hawaii” until the U.S. House of Representatives said so first, with their vote in favor of H.Res. 593.

    Jindal believes Obama is an American citizen, Plotkin told the Times-Picayune. As long as Obama was born on U.S. soil, then he was born a U.S. citizen because his mother was a U.S. citizen, but Obama also admits to being born a British subject because his father was a British subject. The U.S. Supreme Court said (in the 1874 case of Minor v. Happersett):

    …it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

    The U.S. Supreme Court itself stated that there have been doubts that a person with a birth narrative such as Obamas could be considered a “natural born citizen” of the Uinited States.

    A bill introduced last week in Louisiana by state Rep. Alan Seabaugh and state Sen. A.G. Crowe would require candidates for federal office to file an affidavit avowing their U.S. citizenship, accompanied by an “original or certified copy” of their birth certificate. The law would apply to candidates for president, Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives. If this bill only requires an affidavit avowing their U.S. citizenship, then it is insufficient for President and Vice-President.

    Similar legislation has been proposed in Several states, including Oklahoma, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and New Hampshire, USA Today said.

    Article Two of the U.S. Constitution states that the president and Vice-President must be a natural-born citizen. Senators have to have been U.S. citizens for at least nine years but can be foreign-born. The same is true of representatives, who need to have been U.S. citizens for at least seven years.

  42. skeeter says:

    Obviously I am not versed in Law. However, even I can understand that if nature is altered it is no longer natural but a product of human tampering. I would also add this.
    “Lawyers are judged, daily, on the quality of words they string and lean together”

    I have no idea how a lawyer, who not only strings words together, but also plays chess with a duck would be judged by other lawyers (re post at 4:06 pm). I just wonder who won the game? Well, at least he tried.

    Seriously though, I believe Jindal will sign such a bill if it comes before him. We see Jindal on a fairly regular basis here on the local channels. He is pretty much a no non-sense man and doesn’t spout words that he will not back up. But that is just my opinion.

  43. TRUMP2012 says:

    You’re aware Bobby Jindal’s parents weren’t US citizens when he was born, right?

  44. You’re aware Bobby Jindal’s parents weren’t US citizens when he was born, right?

    Yes. He is therefore not a natural born citizen and is not eligible to hold the office of President.

  45. Speaking to host Gretchen Carlson, Michelle Bachmann said the media needs to

    “stop asking Republicans to vouch and verify for Barack Obama’s birth certificate. That‘s not my job to do or anyone else’s.”

    My first reaction was, “Uh, yes it is your job. Read the Constitution. Specifically, Section 3 of the 20th Amendment. It is absolutely your job to ensure that the President and Vice-President have qualified.”

    But while it is absolutely her Constitutional responsibility to ensure that the President and Vice-President have qualified, Bachmann does have a point that it is not her job to vouch for and verify the CertificatION of Live Birth that was produced at and by the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago. The State of Hawaii should be doing that, and have so far refused to vouch for and verify the “Obama COLB”. The media should be asking such questions of Government officials in Honolulu, Hawaii, not in Washington, D.C.

    So Bachmann is correct in that regard, but she is wrong to think that verification of the Obama birth narrative is not important.

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