# The Theory is Now a Conspiracy And Facts Don't Lie



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

The Theory is Now a Conspiracy And Facts Don't Lie

This article has been updated, with added content at the end of the article and also here.

Though we live in an era when all undesirable facts are often blindly labeled "conspiracy theories" by political operatives with an agenda at risk, a very real conspiracy unfolds every now and then.

While it is indeed true that not all theories are actual conspiracies, like when Hillary Clinton developed an imaginary "right-wing conspiracy" out to get her husband, when in fact, the semen stained dress provided all the necessary (but unfriendly) facts and a perfectly logical explanation for all of those nasty rumors - it is also true that some conspiracies are much more than just crackpot theory.

To be a bonafide conspiracy, two or more individuals must knowingly conspire, plot or plan an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious act. In politics or law, an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act, is a "conspiracy." Not in theory, but in reality.

Such is the case today!

A political national committee, the Chair of the Party convention, the Secretary of the Party, Party offices in each of fifty states, and maybe many - many more, have knowingly and wantonly defrauded the American election system and more than 300 million American citizens.

They plotted and planned an act of evil, unlawful, treacherous fraud in a blind quest for unbridled political power, and they hoped that you would never catch it. They almost got away with it too...

The full story at,

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2009091063 ... t-lie.html

to new for snoops, we will see.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Liberals aren't concerned with facts, they just muddy up that feel-good euphoria.

I wonder what the response to this is going to be. 8)

huntin1


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

Will be interesting to see how this turns out if it's true.

Or if anyone of the news networks pick it up.


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

The article might have merit if the stated portion of the constitution required any specific verbiage. It doesn't. :beer:


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

Dak said:


> The article might have merit if the stated portion of the constitution required any specific verbiage. It doesn't. :beer:


How about this, not about the DNC, just the constitution requires a "Natural Born Citizen" check out the verbage! :beer:

The Fourteenth Amendment and a "natural born citizen"

A common misunderstanding of "natural born" citizenship comes from the Fourteenth Amendment, but a strict reading of the fourteenth amendment is quite clear that this only conveys an at birth naturalized citizenship. Those born in the United States at the time of adoption and afterwards were only citizens. Those who wrote the amendment knew exactly what they were doing. Because of the distinctive use of "natural born citizen" and "citizen," in Article II, Section 1 the simple fact that being born in the United States does not make one a "natural born citizen," it only makes one "a citizen."

The Fourteenth amendment states in Section 1,

Section 1 - "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Obviously missing is the conveyance of "natural born" status to these citizens. In fact what is obviously included in the text is the term "naturalized." This section has several clauses, the first deals with citizenship.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

The second deals with prohibiting the states from passing laws denying the protection of citizenship from any citizen, "natural born" or naturalized.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The fifth section details something very important, it reads

Section 5 - "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Article 1, Section 8 enumerated the powers Congress has. The only power Congress has over citizenship is found here. It reads,

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

To make the freed slaves citizens, naturalization was the only power the 14th Amendment granted Congress to use. Look it up in the Constitution. Congress had no intention and no authority to making everyone born under the 14th Amendment "a natural born citizen." This is born out by Congressional records regarding the debate of the Fourteenth Amendment. By the chief architect of Section 1 of this amendment.

"I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States." John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, Architect of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.

There is no doubt that anyone born under the 14th Amendment who is not subject is a "naturalized citizen," or just "a citizen," as the Amendment states. They are not natural born citizens.

To further understand why this is so, is to look at the first clause carefully.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

The words "born or naturalized" are joined with the conjunction "or," and logically an or implies either of the two are equal. What they are equal in is being a citizen. Not "a natural born citizen." This expressly negates the idea that simple birth of a person who is "subject to the jurisdiction" confers the coveted "natural born" status. If the term "citizen" did in fact convey a "natural born" status, then who were naturalized would be considered "natural born."

Obviously, this is not the case, as it would mean that people like Kissinger, Albright and Schwarzenegger could run for office. Clearly, the Fourteenth Amendment is not conferring "natural born" status on anyone, it only confers simple citizenship and the universal rights given to all citizens, "native born" and naturalized. In fact, several Supreme Court Cases since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment restrict citizenship claims based on being born geographically within the United States, and bestows the coveted "natural born citizen" title to the children of citizens, while affirming simple citizenship to the children born to aliens.

1. The Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36 (1873) The Fourteenth Amendment excludes the children of aliens. "The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States."

2. Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874) The Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. "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."

3. Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884) The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence. "This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired."

4. Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) Affirms that "natural born citizen," is the child of an existing citizen. "The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."

5. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U. S. 325 (1939) In citing a long series of cases, involving minors removed from their US domicile by their foreign born parents, the Supreme Court distinguishes the difference of "a native born person" of two naturalized citizens can become President. This distinction of citizenship is not made to the others, only that their Jus soli citizenship is intact if at the age of majority they reclaim it.

As you can see from the intent of the Founding Fathers to the Supreme Court decision that "a natural born" is the child of citizens. A natural born citizen is not the child of an alien. In this there is no doubt. The question now that we seek answered is that Barack Hussein Obama, II is both the child of an alien who never had any intention on becoming a naturalized citizen and the child of a citizen minor. If Barack Hussein Obama, II was in fact born in Hawaii, he is a citizen under Jus soli and afforded all rights any citizen has. But he is not a citizen under Jus sanguinis, because we have laws that dictate how Jus sanguinis citizenship can be transferred. If Barack Hussein Obama, II cannot claim citizenship under Jus sanguinis then he is not a natural born citizen.

While many patriots will argue with clear conviction "natural born" should be narrowly interpreted as to mean both parents must be citizens, giving birth to that child under the jurisdiction of the United States of America, they do accept that Jus sanguinis citizenship can be passed from one parent in accordance to the law of the land at the time of birth. So what was the law of the land at the time for giving a person Jus sanguinis citizenship?

There three ways for a person claim citizenship, what most of us think of first is called Jus soli, "the right of the soil," which is the physical location your place of birth. The second is what is called Jus sanguinis, "the right of blood," which you inherit from your parents. The third is a combination of Jus soli and Jus sanguinis, and it is this combination that determines if one is a natural born citizen. Since any citizenship under Jus solis is codified by the Fourteenth Amendment, we only find laws for passing citizenship via Jus sanguinis on August 4th, 1961 in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter Act). This act states that in order for Obama's right of blood citizenship to be passed to him, that since he only had one parent who was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 14. Barack Hussein Obama, II fails the test for the right to claim "natural born citizen" status.

Common sense tells us that both Jus soli and Jus sanguinis are what the Founding Fathers intended when they penned the phrase "a natural born citizen." For imagine foreigners owing allegiance to a foreign power, arriving in America, giving birth to a child and immediately returning home to their country with their child. This child is reared for 21 years in a culture that hates America and that wants to see America destroyed. On the child's 21st birthday this child returns to the United States of America, claiming their citizenship based Jus soli. For fourteen years they live in the United States, supported covertly by these foreign powers, growing in wealth and stature until they reach the age of 35 years. This scenario cumulates with this child of the soil, not having one drop of American blood in their veins, becoming President and destroying this country. Considering that countries are a creation of mankind, and non-existent in nature, natural loyalties are too blood.

"To disregard such a deliberate choice of words and their natural meaning would be a departure from the first principle of constitutional interpretation. 'In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood." Chief Justice Roger B. Taney

The Constitution directly specified 3 types of citizens, at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment as those who are "citizens," those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and natural born citizens. The architects of the Fourteenth Amendment had two to choose from in granting citizenship under this amendment, they choose just a citizen, and rejected "a natural born citizen."


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

Quite simple...President Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961...he's a citizen. If you don't like him fine.


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

Dak said:


> Quite simple...President Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961...he's a citizen. If you don't like him fine.


*I agree, it's that simple. He is not a natural born citizen and is not eligible for the office of president. The fact he is covering up the records that would prove his natural born citizenship is enough for me to discount his word to zero. I like BHO as a person, I just don't like the way he's ruining this country with the lack of leadership to expand the private sector economy to stop the aftermath caused by jobs being lost at record numbers. The lack of leadership and experience and his idea of "Big" government is turning the "American Dream" into the "American Nightmare". Just because some voted for his form of government does require anyone to follow him blindly and continue to chug-a-lug the kool-aid.*
:beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bowstring I agree. If he did not spend money hiding records I would perhaps have had no suspicions. Since he does like you his word is worth zero. Most of the democrats, and perhaps a majority of the republicans also have zero credit with me. I would guess any reasonable non partisan person would have to come to the conclusion that something is very seriously wrong with Obama's credentials. Those that say otherwise don't much care about our constitution, or at the least something is more important to them than the constitution.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Dak said:


> Quite simple...President Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961...he's a citizen. If you don't like him fine.


Doesn't really matter.

He had to renounced his US citizenship to become a citizen of Indonesia so that he could attend school, he then applied for college finacial aid as an Indonesian citizen. At the time he bacame an Indonesian citizen, they did not have a dual citizenship agreement with the US. He has never applied to reinstate his US citizenship.

He traveled to a country that US citizens were not allowed to travel to. He could not have used a US passport to travel there. What passport did he use?

Why does he continue to refuse to put this to rest? Why is he spending so much money to keep these records hidden? We all have a right to know the answer to these questions. Even those of you who choose to keep your head in the sand about this issue.

huntin1


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

Say what you will the citizenship thing will not go anywhere. Dislike the man I could care less. At least spend your time on something useful in that case. Such as finding someone to run against and beat him.

BTW...the supposed country that Obama traveled to using a non-US passport ... Pakistan ... was not on a the State Department's "No travel list" in 1981. He could have went on his US passport. Nor did he renounce his his citizenship.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Bowstring said:


> Dak said:
> 
> 
> > Quite simple...President Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961...he's a citizen. If you don't like him fine.
> ...


There are some good points here. I know I have fallen off the Obama bandwagon, but Dak also has a good point here about the repubs finding someone who can actually beat Obama. Right now the repubs should be on an all out assault via the internet and other places to make Obama a lame duck and get Cass Sunstein the hell out of our nation's capital


----------



## tsj (Jul 22, 2006)

i agree tk though ive never beena fan of obama. the people of america deserve better than the czars; (didntthe russuans kill them all?) is this even constitional. we need better, we are a better nation than this. wonder who will step and try to lead us out of thi horrible mess?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> At least spend your time on something useful in that case.


I think we need to try every avenue to stop this Marxist. Simply because I would like proof of his birth doesn't mean I'm not for looking forward to someone who can lead the republican party and someone who can beat him in the next election. I am for exploring all avenues and exploiting every opportunity.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

You may be right about the Pakistan thing Dak, snopes says it's false, and there are a number of others sites saying so as well.

As to the citizenship issue, there is still that enrollment in an Indonesian school under the name of Barry Soetero, students were required to be Indonesian citizens in order to attend school.

And there is that report that he attended Occidental College on a scholarship reserved for foreign students.

Maybe he is a US citizen after all and just lied on that Indonesian enrollment form and the financial aid for foreign nationals he received.

At any rate, he owes it to the America people to dispell these things. Something he could easily do, but has spent a reported $1,000,000 to keep these documents hidden. Care to explain why?

huntin1


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

tsj said:


> i agree tk though ive never beena fan of obama. the people of america deserve better than the czars; (didntthe russuans kill them all?) is this even constitional. we need better, we are a better nation than this. wonder who will step and try to lead us out of thi horrible mess?


I have read a couple of times now that the term czar was created by our beloved media. They did it to shorten up their real titles. Personally I wonder what their real jobs are?????


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

Huntin1,

As longas you believe Snopes on the Pakistan thing ... believe them on the Occidental College thing as well.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Dak said:


> Huntin1,
> 
> As longas you believe Snopes on the Pakistan thing ... believe them on the Occidental College thing as well.


Snopes isn't always right, and they do often lean left on political issues. The Pakistan issue can be verified easily with State Department records, what I found after searching, a lot, was that there was a no travel advisory issued for Pakistan at that time. US citizens could go there, it just wasn't advised.

The Occidental College thing, to prove that Obama would have to release records, something he flatly refuses to do.

Maybe there is nothing to any of this. If so, why won't he do as his employers, (you and me) have asked and produce the records that would show that this is all false. By refusing to do so he is making a lot of people believe that there is something to this.

I have never said I don't like him, I don't know him. I don't like his political philosophy or ideaology, he believes in the writings of Karl Marx, I don't. I've studied the Marxist philosophy, it doesn't work, history has proven this.

Our system, while not perfect, has stood for well over 200 years. He would like to destroy that system.

huntin1


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

I'm assuming he feels, like most folks, that this issue is behind him and that he has a few other things to legitimately worry about instead of responding to every internet rumor that comes up. He responds to one and then another would come up and he responds to that and then another. Eventually, like anyone he gets tired of it and then doesn't respond and people are all over the web saying...."See, see he didn't respond to that one it must be true." He is then is in no better position than if he had not bothered responding to the initial rumor.

I don't agree with everything he has done nor do I disagree with everything he has done. He does prefer government solutions over market solutions. I don't think that makes him a Marxist. Just in line with mainstream Democrat ideology for the past quarter century. You can label that Marxist if you want. I won't. I won't agree with most of it either.

Time to go run the dogs for a bit.

Cheers.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

If he were just ignoring the issue I'd agree with you. But he is putting out some serious dollars to keep the answers from being found. That is a pretty clear indication that it is not just a rumor. You don't spend that kind of money to keep the truth hidden unless it will hurt you.

As far as Marxism, many of his philosophies and ideals are taken directly from The Communist Manifesto. He was afilliated with "The New Party" don't know what they are.



> Co-founded in 1992 by Daniel Cantor (a former staffer for Jesse Jackson's 1988 presidential campaign) and Joel Rogers (a sociology and law professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison), the New Party was a Marxist political coalition whose objective was to endorse and elect leftist public officials -- most often Democrats. The New Party's short-term objective was to move the Democratic Party leftward, thereby setting the stage for the eventual rise of new Marxist third party.
> 
> Most New Party members hailed from the Democratic Socialists of America and the militant organization ACORN. The party's Chicago chapter also included a large contingent from the Committees of Correspondence, a Marxist coalition of former Maoists, Trotskyists, and Communist Party USA members.
> 
> ...


Not much doubt in my mind that he has marxist leanings.

huntin1


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

He said his most influential author was Marx. How much more evidence do you need a hammer and sickle tattooed on his forehead?  He wants to redistribute wealth. If that's not a dead give away I don't know what is. 
I also agree with you huntin1 that you just don't blow a million dollars defending nothing. You just don't. I can't for the life of me understand why people don't admit this is just fishy. Partisan to the point of denial? I think everyone knows this is not normal, but people just can't accept their messia may not be what they pushed him as.


----------

