Notice to Boehner: We Birthers Will Never Give Up

 

We Obama truth-seekers, whom the MSM deride as “birthers,” are patriots who love and respect the Constitution because it is not just our founding document but the highest law of the land. We fully know how thin and fragile the veneer of civilization is which alone separates us from the maw of chaos and the abyss. It is the rule of law — not of man — that holds civil order and civilization itself together.
To that end, we Obama truth-seekers hold sacred the Constitution’s stipulation of the necessary qualifications for the office of the presidency. Article II, Section 1 says: 

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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

But the person variously named Barack Barry Hussein Steven Dunham Soetoro Obama has not produced the necessary documentation certifying he is a Natural Born Citizen (NBC). Even leaving aside the matter of his birth place, the very fact that when Obama was born in 1961, his biological father, Barack Obama Sr., was not a U.S. citizen but a British citizen (Kenya being a British colony at the time), would disqualify him. For there is a clear, concise definition of the term “Natural Born Citizen” in Vattel’s Law of Nations which was the principal legal reference book used by the Founding Fathers in writing the Constitution (h/t fellow Free Speech!):

“The natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

From the beginning — the 2008 presidential year — World Net Daily has waged a tireless battle to inform us about the eligibility issue and sponsoring public campaigns of awareness, including billboards. In that battle, World Net Daily was almost all alone. The liberal MSM ignored, suppressed and mocked us. Even more reprehensible are the news media that are supposed to be “on our side” — FoxNews and its talking heads Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck (who called birthers “dumb”) — who also ignored and dismissed us.
Finally, the eligibility question is getting steam despite the concerted media mockery and suppression. Recently, Jeff Kuhner of the Washington Times said that people around the White House, Democratic circles, and the liberal media – including senior top editors — all know there’s something there about Obama’s birth eligibility but are afraid to pursue the matter. Yesterday, a very brave woman single-handedly brought the eligibility question to the attention of the American people when she interrupted the House reading of the Constitution by yelling “Except Obama!” at precisely the point when Rep. Frank Perone was reading Article II, Section I that presidents must be naturally born U.S. citizens in order to be eligible for that office.
The woman, Theresa Cao, 48, was removed from the House by Capitol police, arrested and charged with unlawful conduct and disrupting Congress. She is now released from police custody.
Thank you, Theresa! Chroniclers of our time will record your courage and the name Theresa Cao will forever be remembered.
What a contrast this brave woman is from the spineless newly elected House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). The Hill reports that in an interview on NBC Nightly News yesterday after “the incident,” Boehner reacted to the outburst and said he believed Obama is a U.S. citizen:

“The state of Hawaii has said that President Obama was born there. That’s good enough for me.”

Boehner is covering his and his fellow political class’s asses. None other than the Congressional Research Office has admitted that Congress failed to vett Obama’s presidential candidacy because no law requires them to do so, conveniently forgetting that the Constitution itself is the highest law of the land. (See also “Obama Eligibility Is Now a Conspiracy“)
Shame on you, Congressman Boehner! It may be “good enough” for you, but it sure ain’t “good enough” for us, the American people!
You keep up your pusillanimous spinelessness and We the People will get rid of you, too.
Count on it.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

0 responses to “Notice to Boehner: We Birthers Will Never Give Up

  1. Birthers are traitors

    Lol… We will get rid of any birther .. You aren’t americans , you are enemies of the state and will be EXECUTED AS SUCH.
    trust me. It will happen.
    Mark my words – YOU ARE GOING DOWN DOWN DOWN.

     
    • You again? How boring. Y-A-W-N
      boring liberal

       
    • Hmm, I am guessing your third pube is starting to emerge. Must be itching something awful.
      And I hope for your sake that your aim far exceeds your intelligence, else you will prove that Darwin was correct as far as survival of the fittest is concerned.
      Chew on that one for a while, you anti-American, freedom-hating commie scum.
      Now get along young pioneer, as comrade Soros wants those dishes done by 10:00 pm (before the gruel dries and turns to grout), else you will be sleeping in the barn, and thus will miss the nightly reading of the Communist Manifesto.
      -Dave

       
  2. We are going to have to keep up the pressure on the government , left AND right to take this issue in hand. If they think that we will sit back on our laurels after having affected the elections, they have another think coming.

     
  3. ALL US citizens who were born in the USA–and Obama was as his official birth certificate and the repeated confirmations of the Hawaii officials show–are Natural Born Citizens. Only naturalized citizens, the only kind of US citizens who were born outside of the USA, are NOT natural born citizens.
    “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)
    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
    “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

     
    • And so you say. Others say the Founders used and had in mind Vattel’s Law of Nations for the definition of Natural Born Citizen. You and I can argue till the cows come home and we won’t convince the other.
      I propose this:
      First, we ask Obama to show us his original long-form birth certificate. If everything is as you anti-birthers insist they are, what does he have to fear?
      Second, we ask Congress to look into what NBC means and whether Obama is a NBC.
      Third, we ask the Supreme Court to make a definitive ruling (so this matter is settled for all time) on what NBC means and whether Obama is a NBC.
      How about it? And if you say no, what are you afraid of?

       
      • tellen left a long response in which she, once again, repeats what she’s already said about NBC, blah blah blah.
        She does not, however, respond to my 3-step proposal. I take that as tellen being afraid. LOL

         
      • Good Plan. Eo.
        http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2011/01/definition-of-birther-and-definition-of.html
        If we take BHO Jr. at his word then there is no doubt that he is not a Natural Born Citizen of the United States as required by the Presidential Qualifications Clause of Article II Section 1 Paragraph 5 of the United States Constitution. The Constitution requires that to be the President of the United States, a person must be born in the United States of two parents who are citizens of the United States. By BHO Junior’s own admission his father was a British/Kenyan subject (citizen) at the time of his birth. Thus BHO Jr. is disqualified for the Presidency.
        There is a clear, concise definition of the term “Natural Born Citizen” in Vattel’s Law of Nations which was the principal legal reference book used by the Founding Fathers in writing the Constitution.
        “The natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
        There have been innumerable United States Supreme Court Decisions that have referenced Vattel’s Law of Nations as a resource in interpreting the original intent of the Founding Fathers when writing the Constitution.

         
  4. Thinking Boehner is simply picking his battles. Not the time , Not the place to fight the Obama birthing fiction. He has minions & functionaries for that task.
    He needs to be able to appear fair & even-handed so that he can advance conservative agendas. It would have been foolish to provide the MSM with talking points that could have compromised him & become a distraction from his main goals of reversing Obama’s ‘victories’.
    First Rule of Politics:
    Nothing is what it seems.
    Look at how Obama came to office as a “communicator” & ” person who would bring parties together” & change ” Washington’s ‘ business as usual backroom dealing ‘ culture “. He is the biggest hypocrite of all time he has been making deals since 2 years before he ever came to office.
    Watch Boehner play out his hand. I think we will all be pleasantly surprised.

     
    • Boehner is sending a very bad message by saying the BO’s fraud is good enough for him. He should have kept his mouth shut and he should stop crying all the time in public. A crybaby is not much of a leader. If the
      Repubs had any sense they would can Boehner and elect Bachmann or someone with some fortitude.
      Another things that irks me about Boehner is that he was a drinking pal of that SCUMBAG ted kennedy.

       
  5. 1-877-851-6437 GETS YOU TO THE CONGRESSIONAL SWITCHBOARD, INCLUDING CROCK-o-TEARS BOEHNER.
    I’VE BEEN CALLING FOR OVER A YEAR TO GET HIM TO PUSH THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE. IF YOU GET THAT YOUNGISH MALE AIDE,
    YOU WON’T GET ANYWHERE.

     
  6. Oh Boehner…this new Congress better get a spine!

     
  7. I enjoyed your three part proposal, eowyn. Suffice to say that I agree with Speaker Boehner on your first point (re: if HI says BHO was born there, we should accept it) and would note that your next two points are irrelevant.
    The Supreme Court has made the meaning of Natural Born Citizen crystal clear to anyone who seriously researches the subject: NBC is anyone born on US soil, no matter the citizenship of the parents. Two cases:
    1. Perkins v. Elg. The Supreme Court ruling upheld the federal appeals court logic that US citizenship is based on jus soli (location of birth) and NOT jus sanguinus (citizenship of parents). Take a look at the text in loislaw, etc. I know that birthers like to claim that both parents were citizens, but the appeals court clearly threw out the citizenship of the parents as any logic at all. Same with…
    2. Wong Ark Kim. Many birthers like to claim that Natural Born Citizen is not the same as Native Born Citizen, the words used by the majority in the Kim case. I have never seen anyone else attempt that logic, and guess what? The dissenters in the Kim case disagreed with birthers who say this, and CLEARLY saw the court majority granting Kim “Natural Born Citizen” status. From the dissent, quote:
    Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.
    Like I said: crystal clear.
    But interesting proposals, eowyn.

     
    • Not True!
      http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2011/01/definition-of-birther-and-definition-of.html
      If we take BHO Jr. at his word then there is no doubt that he is not a Natural Born Citizen of the United States as required by the Presidential Qualifications Clause of Article II Section 1 Paragraph 5 of the United States Constitution. The Constitution requires that to be the President of the United States, a person must be born in the United States of two parents who are citizens of the United States. By BHO Junior’s own admission his father was a British/Kenyan subject (citizen) at the time of his birth. Thus BHO Jr. is disqualified for the Presidency.
      There is a clear, concise definition of the term “Natural Born Citizen” in Vattel’s Law of Nations which was the principal legal reference book used by the Founding Fathers in writing the Constitution.
      “The natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
      There have been innumerable United States Supreme Court Decisions that have referenced Vattel’s Law of Nations as a resource in interpreting the original intent of the Founding Fathers when writing the Constitution.

       
    • More proof you are WRONG Rob.
      http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2011/01/definition-of-birther-and-definition-of.html
      The following are a few of the cases that have reiterated Vattel’s definition of the meaning of the term, Natural Born Citizen.
      In the Venus Case, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814), Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212 paragraph from the French edition of Vattel’s Law of Nations:
      “Vattel who…is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:
      The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives (natural born citizens) or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
      The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…”
      Justice Story ruled in Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830), ‘If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings…”
      In Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875), Chief Justice Morrison Waite delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, 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.”
      Justice Gray ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), “At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, 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.”

       
  8. Sorry, FreeSpeech.
    Look again.
    Kim. Justice Gray in fact ruled that Kim was a “Native Born Citizen.” As I said, there is no difference between the two terms (“Native Born” and “Natural Born”)… so I’m not sure why you quote Gray, as all you quote is the question, and then fail to quote the answer that Gray in fact provided.
    Likewise, I am not sure why you quote Minor. Again, you pose the QUESTION that Minor throws out but fail to give the answer- i.e. the Minor opinion clearly avoided declaring who was natural born and who wat not: QUOTE “For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
    As when you go back to VENUS and other cases, they are no longer the standing law of the land. They were superceded by Perkins and Kim.
    And I don’t understand why people always want to quote Vattel- he is a well reasoned writer, and his opinion makes sense BUT it was never an opinion that was upheld or verified by the Court.

     
  9. By the way, Free: In Shanks, the person in question was married to a british officer prior to the Declaration of Independence. So the Fourteenth Amendment has zero to do with that case.

     
  10. It appears my fears concerning Boehner are going to come to fruition.
    Damn. 🙁
    -Dave

     
  11. Boehner seems to be Neville Chamberlain with an overdose of “natural tears”.
    Why aren’t the facilitators (Nancy & Christine Pelosi, All Demonrat Super Delegates) who allowed Obama to be forced on us put on trial for treason?

     
  12. We have someone sitting in the oval office who is, among many other things… commanding our military, signing laws, implementing national policies and regulations. What did this person provide to the American public as proof of eligibility to execute the duties of that office? An electronic forged COLB posted online.
    Here’s an idea… When applying for a US passport, post online a forged COLB and direct the State Department to that website when they ask for your birth certificate. Of course when the State Department laughs at you and rejects your application simply state “It was good enough for BHO, why not me?”
    But something tells me you’ll immediately get a visit from the secret service and FBI which will be followed by numerous felony charges against you. Oh my the hypocrisy in our country today.
    We’ll get a long form very soon as BHO knows it’s not going away. Will it be authentic? Absolutely not. If one was available 2.5 years ago, he would have released it then.

     
  13. Excellent come back, Free. If you can’t debate the facts, call the other poster names and go home.
    Anywho, to review: standing Supreme Court law clearly and concisely states that Obama meets the qualifications of Natural Born Citizen.
    His policies and politics? Garbage, and bad for America. But we need to be honest in the fight- and if you honestly review case law and the facts, the conclusion is obvious…

     
  14. “If so he should then rot in hell by Destroying Col. Lakins Life and Career.”
    You lost me with that one, Steve. The ONLY hero in the sordid affair of Mr. Lakin was Major Dobson, the soldier who had to leave his wife and family AFTER months in Afghanistan to RETURN to Afghanistan simply because Mr. Lakin refused to do his duty as a soldier.
    As Lakin said on the stand, he was wrong to disobey what he admitted were perfectly legal orders.
    BHO is the worst president of my lifetime, but I would sooner spend another four years with him than a single minute with a soldier who disgraces his uniform.
    Why is this so hard? CIVILIANS decide who the president and CinC is… not the military.

     
  15. I’m truly sorry if facts frustrate you, Steve, but there you go… soldiers don’t disobey legal orders.
    I know, I know. It is all a conspiracy. Lind, Lakin’s CO, etc. etc. All in on it. Sure.
    So name call and stomp up and down as you wish, but you do the Conservative Cause no good. The vast majority of us honor and respect the military to much to salute Lakin for what he did…

     
    • “soldiers don’t disobey legal orders” Lt Wataba ring a bell?
      “if you can’t debate the facts”…then I guess you ignore them? Just like you did when Steve asked you about Bambi spending $2M to hide ALL his documents? Wish I had that kinda money to blow to cover up my not-so-stellar college math grades (although I did successfully pass chemistry w/flying colors!) 🙂

       
    • Steve 3, troll 0 and Lakin rocks! Give it up lib troll!

       
  16. I will put my money where my mouth is.
    In order to free Lakin (a political POW) and help lower the out-of-control skyrocketing national debt I will forfeit all future payments of my 22 year military pension if BHO releases ALL the public records that he’s paid to hide over the last 2.5 years.
    Balls in your court Obama.

     
  17. You sure are easily frustrated, Steve. I’m not sure why you get so emotional in an anonymous internet forum, but that’s up to you.
    As to the “rest of your post,” what was there of substance? You noted retired generals who came out in defense of Lakin- OK, that’s true. And the officers who counted (the non retired ones) voted to convict him. So guess whose opinions have the impact?
    “Denied discovery.” Of course- it was a foregone conclusion. Because the discovery he asked for was irrelevant to his orders… as Lakin himself admitted, the officers who gave him the orders have authority no matter who the president is…
    I know that you claim that Lakin was lying when he said that (what a guy- lying under oath), but it is what the military and military lawyers said all along.
    As far as your smear of Lind, what is there to reply to…? I’m sure anyone who disagrees with you gets the same.

     
  18. DCG-
    Wataba disobeyed orders and should have been court martialed. Like Mr. Lakin, he does not get to choose which legal orders to follow.
    Oh! Sorry, kids! I missed the $2M that you claim Obama has spent. No idea on that one, so no opinion. But for the record, I don’t accept nutter websites (right or left) as true sources of information. So if you link to “Obamafile” or “BushIsHitler” you are wasting our time…

     
  19. If you want to go the military justice route, Steve, you should try the experts instead of worldnetdaily.com. My suggestion is that you go with
    http://www.caaflog.com/?s=lakin
    caaflog is military justice experts discussing military justice proceedings, not an overheated partisan website cherry picking commentary and subject matter. Their take on the Lakin affair is obvious from the first paragraph: the Lakin case proceeded in an entirely predictable and entirely predicted way. Here is a quote from the experts:
    “Any military justice practitioner watching the trial would have been very proud of the way our system functioned. Some of the birthers present derided the court-martial as a “kangaroo court.” It wasn’t. The trial demonstrated once again the beauty of the Care inquiry. How could anyone reasonably believe that the result was unfair when the accused himself admitted that his conduct was criminal and repeatedly stated under oath not only that the orders he received were lawful, but that he knew at the time he violated them that they were lawful?”
    That pretty much accurately sums things up- but you should take a look at the blog yourself, Steve, so you can see the way they laud Judge Lind on the way she handled the case.
    It bears repeating: the above is from a non partisan website, comprising the opinions of experts in military justice.
    On the “$1.2M” issue you keep referring to steve, we aren’t in the Land of The Snark- repeating things on the internet does not make it so. But let’s take a for instance: you claim that Obama’s records are sealed, and then ask me to respond. The only response I can give is this: Obama did not seal his records-
    Got it? Obama did not seal his records.
    (Of course, I agree that Obama has done nothing to cause the release of his records, and that I think shows the lie of “the most transparent administration” foolishness he puts out. But that’s not the same, is it?)
    Your question on when did Obama reclaim his citizenship: He didn’t need to. Minors cannot have their citizenship renounced for them by their parents, and certainly no record exists of Obama renouncing his own. So his adoption or non adoption is irrelevant to his citizenship status.
    Finally, I note that you like to call me “lib asshole,” “smartass,” etc. Is being 0 and 90 in court and being basically ignored by just about everyone really this teeth gnashing, urinate in your pants, frustrating for you that you can’t have a civil back and forth on these issues (or non issues, as the case may be)?

     
  20. LOL, I can’t believe you losers are still simpering about this loser of an issue when there is real work to be done for our nation. Hey, I know you cowards don’t post opinions counter to birthers, but I just wanted to let you know I am still here to laugh at you blogging nitwits… enjoy. And VOTE ROMNEY in November!

     
    • LOL. Only sadly simple minds think in either/or. Unlike you, Rob, I actually have the ability to consider more than one issue. And if you’d bothered to read some of the posts on FOTM, you’ll see that Obama’s eligibility is only ONE of many many issues we explore.
      As for doing “real work” for our nation, what exactly is it that you do, other than coming here to insult us. Just a dandy way to win people for Romney! [snark]

       
    • Unfortunately there is real work to be done because the loser in the WH is hard at work breaking us financially, stopping job growth (no drilling, at least here, and nixing Keystone), and is too busy giving his cronies our money while he’s out on the golf course or campaign trail. Oh, and he’s working hard to destroy the First Amendment.
      But I know those facts are tough to process. Just stick to name-calling. More your speed…

       
  21. Never get posted, but personal message to DCG: I agree with everything you say in your post of 2/4 0702, and most of what gets posted on this site by many others. But the birther stuff is for fools. And the thread AND issue have been dead for over a year..

     
  22. Every time I think about you nitwits, I chuckle- the inability to read makes me think you kids should ask for your high school tuition money back… I know this won’t get posted, but the moderator will read it and that’s good enough for me…

     
  23. Thanks, Eowyn! I was clearly and distinctly wrong … so how is that whole “Birthers Will Never Give Up” thing going for you??
    And no, I’m not a liberal. Proud volunteer for (now) Senator Roy Blunt on a number of campaigns- please don’t conflate “liberal” with birther ridicule…
    Cheers!

     

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *