Fall 2011 new page

Natural-born-citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of the constitutional provision as it appeared in 1787

Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for election to the office of President or Vice President. This requirement was an attempt to allay concerns that foreign aristocrats might immigrate to the new nation and use their wealth and influence to impose a monarchy.

The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. There is general agreement that the term encompasses, as a minimum, anyone born on U.S. soil to U.S. citizen parents. Most scholars and politicians currently agree that the term includes those born on U.S. soil, as well as those born to U.S. citizen parents regardless of place of birth.

The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court and lower courts, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate's eligibility as a natural-born citizen. Although numerous claims have been put forth that the current president, Barack Obama, is not a natural-born citizen, the relevant courts have so far dismissed all lawsuits brought over this question.

####################################################################

it looks like romney ?? this could be one of those campaigns where the candidate wins by attrition. i am trying to warm up to mitt romney, and as we go along he seems more and more presidential all of the time. christie's endorsement coming on the heels of his own decision not to run shows a conservative restrain and maturity that people now crave. after years of floundering and inexperience, i believe a lot of voters will be convinced that obama is a fake. literally and figuratively, enough time has gone by that, promises and waves, smiles and telepromters, aren't going to keep the whitehouse.

Even Republicans Rejected Info About Obama's Past

John Drew

What would you do if you knew that the top Democrat running for president was lying about his past?

That is the question I was faced with in 2008. I had met the young Barack Obama while he was a sophomore at Occidental College, and I knew that his commitment to socialism was deep, genuine, and longstanding. See my earlier article on American Thinker.

I had been a leader of the Marxist students at Occidental College myself, starting in 1976 when I founded the precursor of the Democrat Socialist Alliance on campus. The young Obama I knew was a Marxist socialist who would have been quite comfortable with Communist party members like his Hawaii mentor Frank Marshall Davis, retired domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers, or active socialist politicians like Illinois State Senator Alice Palmer.

The Obama I knew was nothing like the lifelong pragmatic centrist that he was pretending to be in the 2008 presidential campaign. When I talked politics with the young Obama, he expressed a profound commitment to bringing about a socialist economic system in the U.S. -- completely divorced from the profit motive -- which would occur, in his lifetime, through a potentially violent, Communist-style revolution. In this context, I saw my report on young Obama as a key piece of evidence suggesting a profound continuity in his belief system.

Although I was surprised by Barack Obama's insistence on his mainstream ideological credentials, I was shocked that my attempts to spread the news about young Obama's Marxism failed to gain any media traction with reporters, activists, or campaign staffs during the 2008 presidential campaign.

Once I saw the significance of my face-to-face observations on the young Obama, I went out of my way to get my story on record with the Orange County Register. I tried to contact, among others, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, the folks behind the Swiftboat ads, and the McCain campaign.

I thought I would get a phone call back from Fox News -- someone, somewhere -- and I still do not understand why no one seemed to catch on to the urgency of the situation. I understand that I did not have audio tape of young Obama. I did not have any photos or home movies. Nevertheless, I was extremely active in the leftist politics and counter-cultural milieu of Occidental College in the 1970s.

As a younger man, I had earned a Ph.D. in political science from Cornell, which, I would think, gave me some credibility in measuring young Obama's ideological convictions. I quickly saw that other people who had known the young Obama were featured in various news articles. It seemed to me that I should have been just another interview for any journalist, producer, or campaign consultant interested in checking out my story and testing my credibility against the facts.

In frustration, I was also posting what I knew on The Caucus Blog site at the New York Times. My expectation was that someone from the Times would call me and follow up on the leads I was sending out. Here is a sample of what I was doing in October 2008 to get the word out about Obama's Marxist ideology.

I even thought of scheduling my own press conference on the campus of Occidental College through their campus Republican club. Internally, I was conflicted by the urgency of what I knew and the sense that it was best for the story to break out in a manner supportive of the McCain campaign.

What shocked me about my experience in the summer of 2008 is that I thought my experience as a Williams College political science professor, my small business owner status, and my visibility in the Orange County community would allow my message to immediately go to the very top of the McCain campaign. I thought my story would be welcomed by Fox News.

Since then, things have slowly gotten better. My story on the young Marxist Obama has appeared in Michael Savage's Trickle-Up Poverty, Paul Kengor's Dupes, Stanley Kurtz's Radical-In-Chief, and Jack Cashill's Deconstructing Obama.

Nevertheless, I think there is something broken in our media and campaign system. I do not think most independents or conservatives understand, or fully appreciate, the tremendous advantages the left derives from having the mainstream media serve as the fully paid, completely sympathetic, Dan Rather-level opposition research team of the Democratic Party. It is a system that methodically ignores damaging information about flawed candidates like Sen. John Edwards and Rep. Anthony Weiner, while elevating minor errors among Republicans to the status of Watergate investigations.

If Republicans are going to win in 2012, I think they need to make some changes so that they are more friendly to the whistle-blowers bringing them bad news about the Obama administration. Personally, I would like to see Republicans create new ways to collect negative news stories on liberals by 1) including web pages requesting opposition research from leakers; 2) establishing guidelines for leakers that help them give campaign decision-makers the confidence to pursue appropriate leads; and 3) instituting feedback mechanisms so leakers have some minimal assurance that they have been heard by top campaign managers and that their information has been discarded for technical or strategic reasons and not simply because it was overlooked by a careless staff member.

I think recognition of this problem should be the first step in taking systematic action to prevent flawed Democrat candidates from winning office. In the meantime, I predict that we will see more examples of media failure as the left dominates the muckraking journalism profession while the right seems too dependent on a small handful of seemingly obscure, overworked journalists and -- as my case illustrates -- unconnected and often baffled citizen activists.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist and a blogger at David Horowitz's NewsReal Blog. Dr. Drew earned his Ph.D. from Cornell and has taught political science and economics at Williams College. Today, Dr. Drew makes his living as an author, trainer, and consultant in the field of non-profit grant writing, fundraising, and program evaluation. To book Dr. Drew for your event, please go here.

Another Article Written By Johnny Dangerously:

That’s the first line in Ayn Rand’s classic novel Atlas Shrugged. As the book unfolds it turns out that John Galt was an engineer/inventor who simply got tired of picking up the slack for the rest of the world. He walked off the job one day never to return. Throughout the course of the book captains of industry mysteriously disappear only to turn up at the end of the book in a hidden valley where the producers of the world have created their own secret society where they don’t have a bunch of moochers dragging them down.

A bit far fetched I’ll admit. That could never happen today because the liberals would undoubtedly track them down and find a way to tax them into oblivion. However, the basic premise of the book is interesting:

If you get enough people who are non-producers depending on the producers of the world the sheer weight of those non-producers will overwhelm the producers causing them to finally just give up and eventually bring us to a grinding halt.

Again, perhaps a bit extreme… or is it? In today’s economic turmoil we have many who continue to propagate the politics of class warfare -- e.g. the “haves” vs. the “have nots”. I personally believe this is due in part to jealousy, but also due to just plain ignorance.

Many liberal and so-called “moderate” politicians on both sides of the aisle in congress know now that all they have to do is screech “no tax cuts for the rich” and their constituents will pile on.

I think a worthy question is - Who are the “rich” and how did they get that way? Some are entertainers, athletes and trust fund babies to be sure, but the reality is that the “rich” by and large got that way by being productive members of society. They are the small business owners, the captains of industry, the inventors, scientists, physicians, etc. In short, they are the ones who provide jobs in a time when we really need jobs.

Of course the counter to this is “the rich are greedy, dishonest, etc”. I don’t disagree that there are those. However, I submit to you that the vast majority of the “rich” are people just like you and me who have families, hopes and dreams, etc. They agonize at the thought of having to lay off employees, they contribute to charities, they try to be fair and give back to the society that provided them the opportunities that got them where they are today.

You may recall the old story of the goose who laid the golden egg. The farmer reasoned that, rather than wait for the goose to lay one golden egg every day, he should be able to simply slice open that goose and pull out all the eggs at once! He soon found out that when he sliced open the goose, not only were there no eggs to be had, but now the goose was dead and could no longer produce.

Just something to think about the next time you hear people rail against “the rich” and “corporate tax cuts” -- where do you think these jobs we need so desperately will come from?

J.D is a frequent poster at politicalbuddies.com and has graciously allowed us to reprint some of his philisophical politicisms and theory. we just love his style and perspective. thanks johnny D.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&****************************************************************************** ******

also from politicalbuddies...
contributer
james cessna... thank you james

Were we all saps when it comes to Obama's miraculous but yet undelivered promises?

Question: Are we all saps when it comes to accepting Obama and believing in his miraculous but yet undelivered promises?

Why did we believe Obama when he promised us in his acceptance speech he could part the oceans, heal the planet, put millions of people back to work and fix our broken economy?

Obama's promise to our nation, June 2008: The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment—this was the time—when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

It is quite a stark contrast to compare the Obama of "then" to the Obama "now"!

"I’m a sap, a specific kind of sap. I’m an Obama Sap."

"When the president said the unemployed couldn’t wait 14 more months for help and we had to do something right away, I believed him. When administration officials called around saying that the possibility of a double-dip recession was horrifyingly real and that it would be irresponsible not to come up with a package that could pass right away, I believed them.

I liked Obama’s payroll tax cut ideas and urged Republicans to play along. But of course I’m a sap. When the president unveiled the second half of his stimulus it became clear that this package has nothing to do with helping people right away or averting a double dip. This is a campaign marker, not a jobs bill.

It recycles ideas that couldn’t get passed even when Democrats controlled Congress. In his remarks Monday the president didn’t try to win Republicans to even some parts of his measures. He repeated the populist cries that fire up liberals but are designed to enrage moderates and conservatives.

He claimed we can afford future Medicare costs if we raise taxes on the rich. He repeated the old half-truth about millionaires not paying as much in taxes as their secretaries. (In reality, the top 10 percent of earners pay nearly 70 percent of all income taxes, according to the I.R.S. People in the richest 1 percent pay 31 percent of their income to the federal government while the average worker pays less than 14 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office.)

This wasn’t a speech to get something done. This was the sort of speech that sounded better when Ted Kennedy was delivering it. The result is that we will get neither short-term stimulus nor long-term debt reduction anytime soon, and I’m a sap for thinking it was possible.
Yes, I’m a sap. I believed Obama when he said he wanted to move beyond the stale ideological debates that have paralyzed this country. I always believe that Obama is on the verge of breaking out of the conventional categories and embracing one of the many bipartisan reform packages that are floating around.

But remember, I’m a sap. The White House has clearly decided that in a town of intransigent Republicans and mean ideologues, it has to be mean and intransigent too. The president was stung by the liberal charge that he was outmaneuvered during the debt-ceiling fight. So the White House has moved away from the Reasonable Man approach or the centrist Clinton approach.

It has gone back, as an appreciative Ezra Klein of The Washington Post conceded, to politics as usual. The president is sounding like the Al Gore for President campaign, but without the earth tones. Tax increases for the rich! Protect entitlements! People versus the powerful! I was hoping the president would give a cynical nation something unconventional, but, as you know, I’m a sap.

Being a sap, I still believe that the president’s soul would like to do something about the country’s structural problems. I keep thinking he’s a few weeks away from proposing serious tax reform and entitlement reform. But each time he gets close, he rips the football away. He whispered about seriously reforming Medicare but then opted for changes that are worthy but small. He talks about fundamental tax reform, but I keep forgetting that he has promised never to raise taxes on people in the bottom 98 percent of the income scale.

That means when he talks about raising revenue, which he is right to do, he can’t really talk about anything substantive. He can’t tax gasoline. He can’t tax consumption. He can’t do a comprehensive tax reform. He has to restrict his tax policy changes to the top 2 percent, and to get any real revenue he’s got to hit them in every which way. We’re not going to simplify the tax code, but by God Obama’s going to raise taxes on rich people who give to charity! We’ve got to do something to reduce the awful philanthropy surplus plaguing this country!

The president believes the press corps imposes a false equivalency on American politics. We assign equal blame to both parties for the dysfunctional politics when in reality the Republicans are more rigid and extreme. There’s a lot of truth to that, but at least Republicans respect Americans enough to tell us what they really think. The White House gives moderates little morsels of hope, and then rips them from our mouths. To be an Obama admirer is to toggle from being uplifted to feeling used.

The White House has decided to wage the campaign as fighting liberals. I guess I understand the choice, but I still believe in the governing style Obama talked about in 2008. I may be the last one. I’m a sap."

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/op...=1&ref=opinion

u·surpVerb/yo͞oˈsərp/

Natural-born-citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution

why is it that henry waxman, who normally grills scandal testifiers... seems to be defending the players involved with solargate ?? he is not being consistent, why is that ?? is this obstruction of justice management for obama ??
what's up with that ??

just what the hell is going on here ??

editors note:

i have not yet secured permission to reprint this article, but i am hoping dr. john drew will, in the interest of national security, and with respect to the upcoming elections, will allow us to do so now:

Even Republicans Rejected Info About Obama's Past

u·surpVerb/yo͞oˈsərp/

Natural-born-citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution

why is it that henry waxman, who normally grills scandal testifiers... seems to be defending the players involved with solargate ?? he is not being consistent, why is that ?? is this obstruction of justice management for obama ?? what's up with that ??

just what the hell is going on here ??

editors note:

i have not yet secured permission to reprint this article, but i am hoping dr. john drew will, in the interest of national security, and with respect to the upcoming elections, will allow us to do so now:

Even Republicans Rejected Info About Obama's Past

why is it that henry waxman, who normally grills scandal testifiers... seems to be defending the players involved with solargate ?? he is not being consistent, why is that ?? is this obstruction of justice management for obama ??
what's up with that ??