I disagree Brad. I believe that was a secondary motive. The prime motive was the big payoffs Obama & Holder were getting from the Mexican drug cartels.

Jukebox:

Actually I don’t believe Holder and oblama are taking payoffs from the cartels. I believe this whole thing came up because they want to shut down gun sales and gun ownership in the US. They intended to use the evidence that guns were sold to the cartels at gun shows to ban gun shows – and also ban the dealers who were obeying orders to sell to the cartel members. They could care less if the cartels get guns here since the cartels can and do get their guns on the world market (many times buying directly from the Federal government). They want OUR guns instead.

Not necessarily true. According to Wikipedia, the following applies for a baby born outside the U.S. to a female citizen and a foreign national:

“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 (except if born out-of-wedlock)[8]:

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

For persons born out-of-wedlock (mother) if all the following apply:

the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth and
the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth.[9] (See link for those born to a U.S. father out-of-wedlock)[8]”

If Barack Obama was born on U.S. soil, then he automatically has citizenship per the 14th amendment to our Constitution.

The question becomes, was Mr. Obama born in Hawaii or elsewhere, off of U.S soil. If outside the U.S., it was impossible for his mother to have met the 5 year after the 14th birthday requirement, since Obama was born August 4, 1961 and his mother was born November 29, 1942, four years and 247 days after her 14th birthday.

There are records showing that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii. Some people hold that these records are fake. Snoopes.com writes about this and holds that the birth document is authentic.

Unless you have other proof, Mr. Obama is a citizen by birth.

There is a world of difference in a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen”. There is no question about a persons citizenship if they are born in a country of two citizen parents. They are natural born citizens.

Some people believe that it has to be a vaginal birth to be natural born, so what’s your definition and did the fourteenth amendment change its meaning, many believe that too, so why should we think you know what you are talking about???

Both of the sources you quote as fact have already been seen to change and pull info after the administration saw what was posted. Neither is at all trustworthy.

Your statement is simply not true!!!!!!

History answers the question of what “natural born citizen” means, and leaves NO wiggle room for debate or wishful agenda-driven interpretations.

The term was first used by the British Royal family. The question at the time was how to keep the Royal bloodline intact when members of the Royal family traveled abroad extensively, often giving birth to offspring while abroad, therefore bringing the issue of “native born” into question.

Native is a term relative to geography, where a person is at the time of birth. This issue came up as a challenge to John McCain during his 2008 bid for the White House, as he was born “off base” at a local hospital in Panama while his father was stationed on a Navy base in Panama.

As a diversionary tactic to lead obvious questions away from Barack Hussein Obama, some challenged McCain’s “natural born” status as a presidential candidate on the basis that he was not “native born” on US soil, or on US territory, the US Naval Base in Panama. Congress, therefore, passed a resolution proclaiming McCain a “natural born citizen” on the basis that he was the “natural born” son of two US citizens, more specifically, the natural born son of a US Naval Commander.

However, no such resolution exists for Barack Hussein Obama, and here’s why;

The term “native” relates to the geographic location of birth. But the term “natural” relates to the “laws of natural,” ergo family lineage or the bloodline of the father.

The term “natural born citizen” next appears in the Law of Nations, a treaty between nations which established certain universal standards, one of which being the term “natural born citizen.”

The related passage from Vattel’s book on the Law of Nations reads as follows;
“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, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, 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.”

Note the following text—“As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

Further clarification—“The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children;”

And the final blow to Barack Hussein Obama—“I say, that, in order to be of the country, 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.”

The subject of “natural law” found in the Law of Nations is entirely consistent with the Royal British purpose of the term “natural born citizen.” It keeps the family bloodline intact on the basis of the father’s blood, aka “natural law.” It is the source from which our nation’s Founding Fathers entered those words into the US Constitution, under Article II—Section I—Clause V;

“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;”

Not “native” or “naturalized” or “citizen,” but only “natural born” citizens can hold the office of president.

The matter is quite clear and it is on this basis that I have written that John Sidney McCain is indeed a “natural born citizen” of the United States, and the Barack Hussein Obama is not, no matter where in the world he might have been born.

A Hawaiian birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama solves nothing, other than curiosity. A “certification of live birth” means even less, as it only confirms that a child was indeed “born live”—with no reference as to where that birth took place, or who attended or witnessed that birth.

Some argue that the XIV Amendment altered the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States;” However, the XIV Amendment makes no mention of “natural born citizen” as it was written to address issues of “immigration” and “naturalization,”—which excludes any redress regarding “native” or “natural born” citizens of the Unites States. In short, “natural born” is the exact opposite of “naturalized.” They are two completely different subjects and as we know, “naturalized citizens” cannot hold the office of President, though they are indeed “citizens” with otherwise equal rights. As Barack Hussein Obama’s stated birth father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was at no time in his life a citizen of the United States, but rather a British subject and native citizen of Kenya, it is not possible for Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. to be a “natural born citizen” of the United States. It is therefore not possible for Barack Hussein Obama Jr. to be a constitutionally qualified resident of the people’s White House. Does it matter? Does the “will of the people” trump the US Constitution via the outcome of an election which happened as a result of fraud, in which the candidate concealed the fact that he is not a “natural born citizen?”

Only the people can decide…
But I submit to every American the idea that if Article II—Section I of the US Constitution is no longer worthy of protection and preservation, then nothing in that document matters anymore.

If we fail to uphold Article II—Section I of the US Constitution, then we have failed to uphold, protect, preserve or defend any part of the US Constitution or the American way of life.

If the US Constitution no longer stands, then the United States of America no longer stands.

Is there a more pressing issue on the table today?

Shouldn’t you wait to see if he appears first, assumptions are such a stupid thing

Doug:

Terrorism is a serious crime. It is the act of using violence to terrorize others into obeying your commands. Most criminal acts are NOT terrorism although the government now seems to want to use that for every act that they disagree with – such as owning guns and Bibles.

So – please – don’t suggest someone be arrested as a terrorist just because he broke some law that has nothing to do with terrorism. We don’t need the government expanding that definition to fit anyone who disagrees with them.

eer…try waterboarding!

Bud:

Fire them at the same time.

I agree, but the Untouchables came under the Treasury Dept., not the FBI.

Great point about that media last name Inc! No moral responsibilities at all, and look at where its gotten us.

Further there’s a comment re “Congress has the power…” Unfortunately, they also have the power to ignore their sworn duties- They are EXPERTS at that!

Larry:

I can’t agree that the Republicans are “better heeled” than the Demos.

The richest men in Congress are all Demos. The richest men in the country are all Demos. And I would be willing to bet that if you made a search of the top richest men in the country, at least half would be Demos. This myth that only the Republicans are rich is just that – a myth.

Perhaps we should have the evidence of the murder presented to a grand jury and allow them to decide if charges should be placed. If they agree, then it means they go to trial – regardless of what they may want to say. And in a trial, any refusal, except to certain questions, can put a guy on death row.

What this guy – and others like Holden – are saying is that they can’t be held responsible for any crimes they commit and no one can make them responsible.

I love the “my party is better than your party” BS. Frank Thompson D-NJ and John Jennette D-SC were convicted and went to prison in the Abscam sting. There were indictments against Tom DeLay R-Tx and he was found guilty but he put the blame on his aides. Both parties have snakes in their midst and play dirty with the American people.

sooooo eddie lets put a stop to all of it. Starting today at 6:16 PM

Agreed. He HAS to appear, but he can claim the 5th during questioning. By refusing to appear he can be charged with obstruction of justice or witholding evidence, or both. By appearing and claiming the fifth during all questioning he cannot be charged with either. It’s a legal loophole.

I wouldn’t classify what you termed a ‘legal loophole.’ This is our Constitution at work. You do not have to implicate yourself or testify against yourself according to the Constitution. Now, what I can say is these people in the AZ DOJ and the federal DOJ have no respect for our Constitution, only when it serves their own purposes.

Nonetheless, this AG will be viewed as a corrupt politico and is taking the 5th to cover his a**. He obviously has something to hide (remind you of someone?). BTW, if you or I refused to show up, we’d be held in contempt of court, and put in jail. But that’s another matter. Remember, these politicos think they are above the law, even if they do work for the DOJ. This is why the DOJ has become an oxymoron. It should be given the moniker the Dept. of Injustice. And the feds wonder why the American people don’t put their blind trust in govt. LOL.

Subpoena Holder and Obama see if they take the 5th.

Issa & Co. need to back away from this hearing strategy, have a special prosecutor appointed and empanel a Grand Jury. It came out early in the Iran-Contra fiasco that any evidence or admissions from Congressional hearings could not be used against the defendants in a formal court case.

The more hearings there are, the less a jury will have offered as evidence. As I recall, Judge Walsh was deprived of some good evidence because of the Iran-Contra hearings.

While politics is politics, Congress should take the short term election year loss for a greater long term gain in sending these bastards to prison. If that includes Holder, so be it.

As I’ve commented before, AG John Mitchell went to prison for a hell of a lot less than the crimes Holder is guilty of.

jo1cr says:
January 23, 2012 at 3:52 pm

Holder has not taken the fifth when he has testified and most likely will testify again, Obama does not have to due to the separation of powers

Holder doesn’t need to take the fifth. He uses the time-honored technique since Watergate of saying “I don’t recall.”

That’s what he will be charged with if the committee decides to charge him. Which I will be surprised to see happen considering how weak this congress is. When you refuse to appear or testify before a senate committee you are charged with Contempt of Congress.

Cunningham and Holder need to come clean on this issue instead of letting it fester. Tell us what you know and move on.Honest government doesn’t come from those unwilling to tell the truth.

never will happen. As far as they are concern is that this whole issue is a witch hunt to make the Democrats look bad. Obama and his clan did nothing wrong on the way fast and furious was handle. The media will never look into this while they got Newt. and Romney to kick around and to dig up all the dirt they can.

I hate to break this to you eddie47d but we haven’t had an honest govt (gee, I can’t remember in my lifetime when we have had an honest govt. It’s an oxymoron. Govt is NEVER honest.

If they don’t “fall on their swords”, it will sink Obama’s re-election bid. I hope that they keep playing their little games – all the way to jail.

Come Clean? WHo’s koolaid are you drinking eddie? They are up to their necks in this stinking deal and they know it. They aren’t about to admit anything. THey figure there isn’t any stomach left in America to root out this kind of subversive crime. They will just deny and stonewall to get off as light as possible. Hoping it will all just blow over in an election year. Republicans better hammer this or we’ll all succumb to more of it.

Honest government-OXYMORON.

Then don’t vote for Ron Paul if you don’t think government can change or be honest. He will also be at the head of the Government and hopefully soon.

Interestingly why are not the fed marshals there to haul his behind or put him in jail for being in contempt of a subpoena. Just try that yourself and be prepared to see life thru bars! No one has the right and especially these criminals to ignore or say no to a subpoena, but what the heck, they don’t even recognize the Constitution so why a subpoena. Arrest him and put him in a federal prison and let him hobnob with his old and new friends until Hell freezes over. He broke the laws and no punishment? Why not?

Better yet the US marshals go into the DOJ and take all papers ande files reference F&F and let the whole thing be exposed on National television as those papers are read aloud in an public hearing in congress. Then Impeach the the administration and try them all with treason and murder.this whole thing stinkslike a ten foot deep pile of pig crap.let the people take our country back from the special few who think it’ws their place to ruklwe over us.

this case will no doubt in up in the highest court.
Does a government official have the right to the 5th or this meant for citizens to defend themselves against the government. What if he doesn’t show up, is the setting the stage for any other similar summons. And so what if he is brought to some sort of justice-doesn’t the president have the power to pardon him. Is this some of kind of test they are using to see how much they can get away with. Sounds like the trouble is continuing with this administration.

Yes he is more equal because he’s a Liberal and a Democrat. Laws only effect Republicans.

Of course! Being a “li-ber-al” and a Dummycrat, he’s better than us ordinary folks! I love how they like to be called “Progressives”. My term would be REgressive – BIG TIME!