Posted by: reddiva | January 29, 2010

Why Are Democrats Suddenly Interested?


Since Obama himself made the statement that he was born of a Kenyan father, many people in the United States have been yelling at the tops of their lungs, “He does not meet the requirements to be president!”  The only problem is that nobody was listening.

The Founding Fathers were very specific when they wrote the Constitution.  Article 2, Section 1, states, “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.”

One report says that this clause may have been added at the suggestion of John Jay in a letter to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention, in July 25, 1787.  Jay wrote:

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.

At the time of Obama’s birth, Kenya was a British Protectorate; therefore Obama Sr. was a British citizen.  A natural-born citizen is a citizen born of two American citizens on American soil.  From his own mouth, Obama disputes his qualification for the office by stating that his father was a British citizen; Obama himself is a dual citizen of Britain and the United States.

The fact that Obama is a United States citizen has never been at issue.  For persons born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true:

  1. One of the person’s parents was a U.S. citizen when the person in question was born
  2. The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child’s birth;
  3. A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday.

The only problem is, his mother did not meet qualification number 3 because she was under the age of 19 when Obama was born, so it was impossible for her to have lived in the United States for a minimum of 5 years after her 14th birthday.

That little technicality is basically a washout because as I said before nobody is questioning the fact that he is a United States citizen.  The only complaint is that he is not a NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN as required by the Constitution to be even a candidate for the office of president.

This is the very issue that caused the American Grand Jury to hold numerous sittings to hear evidence.  In each case, they have found unanimously that Obama does not meet the Constitution’s requirements.  You can view a copy of the presentments of the last American Grand Jury at their website.

So why is it that the Democrats are suddenly interested in the Constitutional requirements for the office of President?  American citizens have tried since his own announcement as an American with dual citizenship to get Senators and Representatives for almost every state to stand up and speak out about this.  They have been asked to challenge his eligibility, and to this date only one lone Representative has dared to even discuss it openly, Congressman Nathan Deal from Georgia.

World Net Daily published an article which may be an indication of why the Democrats are so concerned.   Naturally, they do not seem to care that if true, it would mean political chaos in Washington.  They see this as a way to discredit their Republican challengers when faced with the possibilities of sitting at home after the November mid-term elections.

I think they may well be right, but not for the reasons they think.

The WND article by Bob Unruh refers to a memorandum sent to US Senate campaign offices providing what they think is a means to drive a wedge between Republicans who have adopted the so-called “tea-party-standards” and the Democrat and Independent voters.  The memorandum reportedly comes from the office of Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee chief Robert Menendez.

The report said Menendez wants to use the questions to “frame” opponents and “drive a wedge” between moderates belonging to the GOP and those who have adopted the tea party standards advocating limited government, lower taxes, fewer regulations and more freedom for Americans.

The Democrat memo said, “Given the pressure Republican candidates feel from the extreme right in their party, there is a critical – yet time-sensitive – opportunity for Democratic candidates.

“We have a finite window when Republicans candidates will feel susceptible to the extremists in their party. Given the urgent nature of this dynamic, we suggest an aggressive effort to get your opponents on the record.”

The Politico report listed the following questions for Democrat to ask of Republican opponents:

  • Do you believe that Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen?
  • Do you think the 10th Amendment bars Congress from issuing regulations like minimum health care coverage standards?
  • Do you think programs like Social Security and Medicare represent socialism and should never have been created in the first place?
  • Do you think President Obama is a socialist?
  • Do you think America should return to a gold standard?

The memo instructs that if a GOP candidate says no, make his or her “primary opponent or conservative activists know it.”

[…]

The website for the Democrat committee already has started demonizing Republicans in the “tea party” movement challenging Washington‘s tax-and-spend agenda, massive health care takeover and plans for huge new energy taxes.

“Is the angry, irrational mob known as the ‘Tea Party’ one and the same as the Republican Party?” the site says. “After a summer of yelling about ‘socialism’ and ‘death panels’ at town hall meetings, they have mobilized behind a number of Republican Senate candidates. We saw how energized they were in Massachusetts. If more of these candidates are elected in November, it will become harder and harder to make any progress in Washington.”

Wall Street Journal blogger James Taranto questioned the logic of Democrats raising the eligibility issue.  “Are we given to understand that the Democrats intend to run for office by raising questions about Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president?” he asked. “That has got to be the most brilliant campaign strategy since Michael Dukakis and Max Cleland raised questions about their own patriotism.”

Please read the entire WND article for much more detailed information about this topic.

Obviously the Democrats are running scared.  They are seeing the uprisings from normal everyday people – the ones who elected them in the first place – and while they try to ignore us we can tell that our message is getting through.  They know their jobs are on the line and that the American people are the ones who have the right to hire and fire them when they do not represent the people to whom they are directly responsible.

Americans who are pressing the Obama eligibility issue broadly refer to the congressional hearings that were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a “natural born citizen.”  They question why the same attention was not paid to verify Obama’s “natural born citizen” status.  Double standard?

I am distressed by the double standards that are becoming more and more evident on the stage of national politics in America.  A woman who stands up for what she believes is vilified because she has chosen to give birth to a special needs child.  Who led the attacks on her in many instances?  Women’s organizations which promote abortion by implying that a woman does not have an abortion when the circumstances are uncomfortable for her or do not fit in her lifestyle is somehow less a woman than one who chooses life for her child.

Currently, the same sort of uprising is being seen as another woman who chose life for her unborn child against the medical odds presented to her by her physician is being featured on an advertisement scheduled to run during the family event we call “The Super Bowl.”   This woman believes that all life is precious.  She was willing to stare down the odds and delivered a healthy, happy, bouncing baby boy.  Had Pam Tebow not made that choice, who would have won the Heisman Trophy at the end of the Florida Gators’ 2007 football season?

Have you heard the full story behind her decision to give birth to her son, Tim?  Read on:

(Tim) Tebow was born on August 14, 1987 in Manilla in the Philippines, to Bob and Pam Tebow, who were serving as Christian missionaries at the time.  While pregnant, Pam suffered a life-threatening infection with a pathogenic amoeba.  Because of the drugs used to rouse her from a coma and to treat her dysentery, the fetus experienced a severe placental abruption. Doctors expected a stillbirth and recommended an abortion to protect her life.  She carried Timothy to term, and both survived.

All of the Tebow children were homeschooled by their mother, who worked to instill the family’s Christian beliefs along the way.  In 1996, legislation was passed in Florida allowing homeschooled students to compete in local high school sporting events. The law specifies that homeschooled students may participate on the team of the local school in the school district in which they live.  The Tebows lived in Jacksonville, Florida, and Tim played linebacker and tight end at the local Trinity Christian Academy for one season. Tebow’s preferred position was quarterback, but Trinity football team’s offense did not rely on passing the football, so he began to explore his options to play for a new high school.  He decided to attend Nease High School, which under head coach Craig Howard was known for having a passing offense. With the rest of his family living on a farm in Duval County, Tim and his mother moved into an apartment in nearby St. Johns County, making him eligible to play for the football team at Nease.

Because of the courage of Pam Tebow, the National Organization for Women, a George Soros front group who seem to be afraid of really strong women as role-models unless they have an abortion or two on their resume, are demanding that the advertisement not be aired.

This brings me to the end of this article and my questions to you are these; why is it so wrong for people to want to know that the Constitution of the United States is being upheld as strongly today as it was when it was written and ratified over 225 years ago?  And if being a loving wife and mother does not make a woman a feminist, why does having an abortion?

Ponder these and let me know what you decide.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Re: “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.”

    Yes. However, the meaning of Natural Born Citizen at the time of the writing of the Constitution was simply “born in the country.” Obama is a Natural Born Citizen because he was born in Hawaii, as his official birth certificate from Hawaii shows, and the facts on it were twice confirmed by the officials in Hawaii, members of a Republican governor’s administration.

    The definition of Natural Born that applies to Obama is birth in the country.

    Black’s Law Dictionary wrote: ““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, 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)

    • I debated whether to leave your entire comment posted or not. I finally decided that I would because it took you that long to get to your point. I would suggest for next time you want to comment on a blog post that you probably shouldn’t be reading anyway because you obviously won’t agree with its content that you check out the USER INFORMATION – especially on THIS blog.

      1. KEEP IT SHORT. If you want to write more than five or six lines, I respectfully suggest you get your own blog.

      RD

  2. Even if it’s a law, it should be changed.

    • In your opinion, Sexist Stay-at-home Dad. In my opinion, they meant what they said, and I for one appreciate their efforts. It has protected us from usurpers very well – until now!

      RD

  3. Constitution natural born…..Born to two American citizens……. Hatch and Graham gave their opinion. I saw the interview with Hatch he said he would check with legal depatment. They do not know. Obama has not produced any documents what so ever. WHAT IS HE AFRAID OFF? Put up the documentation prove us wrong. If there is nothing to hide you obots should encourage Obama to unseal his documents.

  4. It’s simple;
    1. His father was a Kenyan (no question about this)
    2. In 1961 Kenya was under British rule (this is a simple fact)
    3. In 1961 all male British Subjects came under the British Nationality Act of 1948 (this states that all children born to British Subjects while overseas will be born British Subjects at birth. This is a British law dealing with British Subjects and can not be overridden by American law, being that his father was never an American Citizen & never applied for American Citizenship, nor wanted to be nationalized)
    4. Article 2. Section 1. paragraph 5. of our Great Constitution has never been amended or changed in anyway and still requires the status of Natural Born American Citizen be required of any American President. (Natural born = born of BLOOD & SOIL – That is the BLOOD of both parents being American Citizens at the time of your birth and that birth on American SOIL. We know for a FACT that his father was NOT an American Citizen at the time of Barack Hussein Obams Jr.s birth thus no American Citizen BLOOD on his father’s side and we have never been provided with any prof that he was born on American SOIL, the Hawaiian COLB does not substantiate this fact. Alone the simple fact his father was never an American Citizen negates BHO’s ability to ever be considered a Natural Born American Citizen)
    This is all the information any reasonable American needs to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the man sleeping in our White House is a Foreign Usurper and all those that were behind putting him there are Traitors, Un American, and are participating is a Communist coup to take over our Great Country by deceit and trickery.
    Wake Up America – The TRUTH is right in front of your eyes!

  5. Comment removed as being argumentative by blog owner.

    RD

  6. smrstrauss is a paid Obot and has been outed months ago. He posts Obot lies to defend his God and employer. Way back in 1787 our founding fathers were for the most part old English Lawyers schooled in British Law and themselves not eligible to meet the requirement of the new Constitution for President, that being a Natural Born American Citizen. They were not born in America, and had British parents just like Barack Hussien Obama Jr. To allow one of them to run for and hold the office of President of the United States of America they had to add “unless you are a citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution” to Article 2. Section 1. paragraph 5. of our Great Constitution in order to have anyone eligible to hold the office of President. It would be 35 years before any American could possible be born in America to two American Citizen parents and reach the age requirement for President. The first 10 Presidents used this language to hold office. Barack Hussein Obama was not alive and a Citizen of America at the time the Constitution was adopted so he can never use this old language. Therefore being born a British Subject with allegiance to England he can never be a Natural Born American Citizen! Just GOOGLE what our first Supreme Court Justice had to say about this issue (enter John Jay, George Washington, Natural Born) This isn’t rocket science just simple law anyone can understand. It is just that the Communist coup has many paid Obots typing their Evil propaganda trying desperately to keep their teleprompter reading puppet is his illusion of power.

  7. Comment removed by blog owner as argumentative.

    RD

  8. A Natural Born Citizen is simply a citizen at birth, one who has not been naturalized.


Categories

%d bloggers like this: