Posted on Saturday, 11/07/2009 - 6:16 a.m. PST — by alferd P.
Mike, what's you PhD in? Conspiracy Theory? Did you write your thesis on the "Magic Bullet?"
Seriously, I can not understand how any intelligent person can still be touting this ridiculous birther nonsense.
I guess it's true, "You can't fix stupid."
Joined: Dec 2008
Current Posts: 22
How the heck do you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously if you can't even get your facts right. You wrote: ---"Punahou (Indonesia) school records (fifth grade through high school, where he was registered as a Muslim and citizen of Indonesia)."---
Obama only lived in Indonesia from age 6 to age 10. After which, he moved back to Hawaii where he went to school from sixth grade to High School.
Joined: Dec 2008
Current Posts: 224
alfred P.
I guess you solved the records problem- If you don't live there, than there is no record. LOL
Joined: Dec 2008
Current Posts: 22
They are just sock puppets for stupidity.
Go birthers, go.
LOL
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Court Concerns
I may have stumbled upon the answer. The crux of the matter is the definition of 'natural born' citizen. Prior to the Ark Kim Wong v US decision, the courts held that natural born was someone born in the jurisdiction of the U.S. of parents who were citizens. In that case the '... subject to a foreign jurisdiction ...' clause of the 14th Amendment was redefined from the original intent of the authors and molded into the courts image.
In that decision the unbreakable tenant of stare decisis was broken. Stare decisis is the concept of 'already looked at and decided; no looking at it again'. So for that reason alone the court is loath to revisit the topic of 'natural born' and 'subject to the jurisdiction'. And the native born usurped the birthrights of the natural born.
Now if you add the concept of the Court defining a usurper / President out of a job, it becomes a double whammy on any poor judge who would go that extra mile for We the People. The courts pretty much agree that Congress has the power to remove a president (for something he did while in office). But they haven't had much experience in disqualifying somone in public office because the tool to do that is used so infrequently it is considered 'obsolete'. And there aren't a lot of judges out there willing to take that risk.
(cutNpaste:) federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered.html
I'll Keep My Freedom -
You Keep The Chains
RealAmerica
Joined: Dec 2008
Current Posts: 22
By your logic, no black person could ever be president, since no black person was ever a natural born citizen. Is that your argument?
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 7
Chant the mantra, racist, racist, racist!
Born to US citizens (plural) on US soil. Simple.
obama himself made the statement that he was born a British national/US citizen.
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 8
"Born to US citizens (plural) on US soil. Simple."
Simple but not true. Would you cite a reliable source for that statement please? According to the vast majority of U.S. legal scholars, "born on U.S. soil" is sufficient.
Of course it is conceivable that the Supreme Court could rule differently in the future. But it is not conceivable that they would declare ineligible someone who was clearly eligible under the prevailing legal opinion at the time of the election.
Joined: Dec 2008
Current Posts: 22
No one takes them seriously anymore. We just followw them to see what crazy cr@p they can come up with.
Joined: Dec 2008
Current Posts: 22
No one takes them seriously anymore. We just followw them to see what crazy cr@p they can come up with.
Joined: Jul 2009
Current Posts: 361
The crux of the matter is the definition of 'natural born' citizen. Prior to the Ark Kim Wong v US decision, the courts held that natural born was someone born in the jurisdiction of the U.S. of parents who were citizens. In that case the '... subject to a foreign jurisdiction ...' clause of the 14th Amendment was redefined from the original intent of the authors and molded into the courts image.
As I read this.... the term "citizens" - refers to "US Citizenship" - (not residency) no matter what race, ethnicity or where the person was initially born.
So, based on that comment --- since my grandmother did not get her US citizenship until she was 50 (after having her children) - not one of her children are natural born (even though her hubby was). So in order for any of her descendents to be eligible for presidency...all her children need to become US Citizens (since neither of them are natural born since she was not natural born at the time of birthing or all descendants are not natural born.)..LOL -- Do doubt this is the reason they re looked at it in the case of Wong vs US?
Fricken brain boggling BS. I give up - I am not much at puzzles. Send me a flare when you guys get it all figured out and I can see what the picture looks like after the pieces are all put together
I don't think there is any conspiracy theory - Hey - if you want a real obvious conspiracy? - I think those fricken ads on this blog are out to get us ....like octopusues taking over our posts...eeek (joking!) lol
Joined: Oct 2009
Current Posts: 4
I think Mike raises a valid point in his last sentence - why no transparency by Obama with regard to his history. No official records released by Obama? Every politician, on the national level at least, has authorized release of many and sundry records which show who they are and what they have done in their lives. It's called being honest, open, and transparent. The issue, which I notice Alferd does NOT address, is this lack of information (which we could get on just about anyone, not just politicians in this age of technological date storage). Why does Alferd take a minor point (how long Obama lived in Indonesia) and emphasize that rather than discuss the possible reasons for Obama's obfuscation and concealment of facts about his mysterious past (and his past is a mystery when it comes to concrete information about his philosophy, his accomplishments, beliefs, and character)? Why does Alferd bring up a "conspiracy theory" argument when conspiracy is completely irrelevant and not even posed by Mike in the article, rather than discuss why Obama chooses to spend millions of dollars on keeping his past secret and concealed from the people, instead of than just show american citizens a simple piece of paper called a birth certificate? Why does Alferd attack Mike's intelligence and resort to calling him names ("You can't fix stupid."), rather than to address the legitimate issue Mike raises in this thoughtful article? Could it be because the real stupidity of Obama apologists, as I presume Alferd to be, prevents them from being able to think rationally, to analyze, and draw logical assumptions from a person's actions and not just from what they might say? So the question remains: WHY is Obama afraid to reveal his past? By the way, shouldn't that spelling be "Alford", or "Alfred"? Never saw "Alferd" before.
Joined: Dec 2008
Current Posts: 22
As is Alferd Packer. I am a famous chef (hee hee)
Joined: Dec 2008
Current Posts: 224
Used to eat at the Alfred E. Packer grill at Univ. of Colorado, great food except the liver and onions. LOL
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 8
Unfortunately, this piece is so full of misinformation it's hard to know where to start.
Just a few obvious ones:
o "The only document he has made available is a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth...There is no official signature of any kind verifying its accuracy." NOT TRUE. The document has an official seal and stamp, and Hawaiian law says that "Certifications of Live Birth ... are official government records documenting an individual’s birth." (hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl)
o "In addition, there is the oft-overlooked deposition from his paternal African grandmother who stated that she was present at his birth in (what is now) Kenya." NOT TRUE. There is a recording of a phone call with his step-grandmother, some versions of which have been deceptively edited. If you listen to the whole thing, it's clear that she said he was born in Hawaii. And she never made a deposition; that's just a lie.
o "Obama has spent upward of $1.4 million in attorney fees ensuring that the original document of his birth never sees the light of day." NOT TRUE. There is documented evidence concerning how much the Obama campaign spent in total on legal fees. There is absolutely no evidence of how much if any was spent on concealing documents.
Since the Certification of Live Birth is legally sufficient to prove when and where he was born (see the Hawaii web page cited above), it is the height of absurdity to suggest that his eligibility for the Presidency is in any way affected by the laundry list of documents given above.
But the fact that #1 among them are his "Noelani (Hawaii) Elementary school records" might give some insight into the thinking of those who write articles like this one.
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 7
Focus on a more important issue, one that obama himself thought was so important that he had it put on his own campaign website, FactCheck.org.
It goes like this:
"The fact is barack obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a NATIVE citizen of the United States of America."
It goes on to state:
"When barack obama jr. was born on Aug. 4 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kindom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was goverened by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act goverened the status of Obama Sr's children."
"Since sen. obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his KENYAN CITIZENSHIP automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982."
obama has admitted that not only was his father a foreign national, but that he himself was a British Subject at birth. A British Subject is a foreign national and how can a FOREIGN NATIONAL be a "Natural Born Citizen" as required by the United States Constitution?
The Founders of our country strove to prevent exactly this situation from happening.
“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.” –Letter from John Jay to George Washington, July 25, 1787"
MANY writings from that time clearly state what "natural born citizen" meant. Here is a good indication:
Rep. John A Bingham who was one of the founders of the 14th Amendment left this famous quote which is recorded in congressional records for all time:
Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “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.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 8
"obama has admitted that not only was his father a foreign national, but that he himself was a British Subject at birth. A British Subject is a foreign national and how can a FOREIGN NATIONAL be a "Natural Born Citizen" as required by the United States Constitution?"
You are confusing two issues. The President was a British Subject at birth under The British Nationality Act of 1948. He was also a Natural Born Citizen under U.S. law. Those two statements are not in conflict, because U.S. citizenship is governed by U.S. law. It makes no difference what any other country's laws may say.
John Jay's correspondence and Rep. Bingham's comments may reflect their opinions, but they are not controlling. As I said before, long-standing legal precedent supports the notion that anyone born in the U.S. (with certain exceptions for the children of diplomats and the like) is a natural born citizen; and the fact that you have to go to isolated, centuries-old non-binding quotations to find support suggests that you probably know that already.
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 7
So then, by your reasoning if Ahmadinejad popped on over here, and begot himself a baby with an American teenager (after a temporary marriage), then goes on home to Iran, that child would be eligible to become POTUS?
Yes, I guess that is what our Founders had in mind. Situations like the above would of course be nothing to cause concern.
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 8
Yes, by my reasoning, such a person would be a natural born citizen and constitutionally eligible to be POTUS, just like Tim McVeigh, Charles Manson, and a lot of other people who most of us would prefer not to see as President.
The Constitution provides three qualifiers for Presidential candidates. But don't forget, the winner also has to be elected.
Simply making up scary scenarios isn't a good way to make a convincing argument.
Joined: Dec 2008
Current Posts: 22
Yes, if thatbaby was born in the U.S.
Children of iligal Mexican immigrants born in the U.S. can grow up to be President as well.
Too bad for you, moron
Joined: Jul 2009
Current Posts: 361
This thought came to mind as I read the thread and here you mention the same (ommitting the president comment).
Many pregnant illegal immigrants have come over the border, had children in California just to ensure ....as far as it was explained to me ..to be "American Citizens" (Highland Hospital was flooded with them some decades back). Now with border control awareness and issues with immigration over the years, I am not sure what they consider it or how it is handled now.
After reading this thread I am even more confused - like splitting hairs vs a well versed lawyer specializing in foreign and national laws talking to a wall of BS.
Guess we will see how this one unfolds, as we are the great melting pot (or are we nowadays?) and I think eventually it may become quite a "tangled web" (lol) trying to determine anyone's actual roots.
Wonder what Hawaii's census reports are like...guess you'd either have to go there to view the micro fische or make a stop in Salt Lake City - LOL
Joined: Mar 2008
Current Posts: 430
I appreciate your efforts and accuracy but you will just exhaust yourself. They don't listen nor do they have open minds.
Joined: Mar 2009
Current Posts: 25
How can a dual-national by birth convert to a natural born citizen?
Only by statute, since a birth cannot be undone and a natural born citizen can only be created, by birth. Since, you cannot, by statute, return a baby to the womb, therefore it is impossible, by statute to create a natural born citizen.
All attempts by Obots to rationalize away, the fraud which led to their error, are in futility, and perfidous towards the US Constitution.
Wong Kim Ark, was born in the USA to two resident aliens and SCOTUS declared him a US citizen.
Marie Elizabeth Elg, was born in the USA of parents naturalized in the United States, and SCOTUS decreed her a a natural born citizen.
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 20
Dual nationality is meaningless, under U.S. law and the Constitution. All that counts is that U.S. law says Obama was a U.S. citizen at birth.
And Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) was not about the definition of "natural born citizen". It only mentioned the term once, quoting a lower court ruling. The crux of the case was "if a child born here is taken during minority to the country of his parents' origin, where his parents resume their former allegiance, he does not thereby lose his citizenship in the United States provided that, on attaining majority, he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties.".
You, and all the other birthers, are the ones dependent on fraud and lies.
Joined: Dec 2005
Current Posts: 1243
it's not just the birth place/ certificate issue, how about all of his other school/ college records are sealed, at his first day of office.
I will keep my GUNS, my FREEDOM, my MONEY, you can keep the CHANGE
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 7
Those things matter in a particular way.
People like to feel that they KNOW their president. To learn that we actually know so little, and that a fierce legal battle to seal off everything but that which has been sanitized and approved for release is causing alarm bells to go off for an awful lot of people.
It's human nature. And we are talking about the most powerful position in this country.
Of course people are going to be uneasy with this situation, of course they will begin to wonder. It would be more amazing if they did not.
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 8
Don't be silly, the "fierce legal battle" is coming entirely from Orly Taitz and the other nutty lawyers. Every one of the cases has been thrown out; not a single judge has thought a single one of them worth considering.
Make up a conspiracy theory if you like, but it has to include an explanation for why several federal judges have felt unanimously that the "fierce legal battle" was a tempest in a teapot.
You can pretend that you are part of a large, growing movement, but it's been going nowhere and it will continue to go nowhere. Your cases have all been tossed. This is a dead issue.
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 7
Wrong venue. They are filing in the wrong venue.
That issue could be solved about the birth certificate easily. obama chooses to fight a strange fight over that. No one can figure why it is that important for him to keep it secret (the official long form), so some people choose to think "worst case scenario".
I do not know why he has a hard time being forthcoming with such a simple document, and I don't automatically assume that it has sinister implications. I do find it peculiar in the extreme when he knows it is causing such a stir, to fight so vehemently against simply producing it.
That being said, my focus remains on the eligibility issue regarding his citizenship status at birth.
I do believe, without any reservation, that our Forefathers NEVER intended for a person born with MULTIPLE ALLEGIANCES to ascend to the Presidency of the United States of America.
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 8
What do you mean, "simply producing it"? Do you believe he has it in his possession? Hawaii has made it clear that they no longer issue them. So it's hard for me to understand what you think he's opposing so vehemently.
And I'm similarly baffled by your apparent ability to read the minds of our long deceased Founding Fathers. What I find peculiar is your insistence that they felt so strongly about this even though they left clear historical records, and those records don't reflect what you claim their thoughts were.
Joined: Oct 2009
Current Posts: 4
Just a quick observation: Obama states in one of his 2 books that he looked at his birth certifcate which he had in his possession. So, the inference to be drawn from Obama's own mouth is that a hard copy exists, he has it, but won't pull it out and wave it around. WHY?
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 8
Didn't that incident take place when he was quite young, like in H.S.? I had my original birth certificate back then too. There's certainly no reason to believe he has it now.
But not to worry, Hawaii is equipped for these situations -- they issue Certifications of Live Birth when people request copies of their birth certificates. In fact, that's all they've issued since 2001, so people younger than that have never had long forms and presumably never will.
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 7
Until early June of this year it was simple to obtain a copy of the certified long form birth certificate. In fact, if a native of Hawaii wished to apply for Hawaii Home Lands they HAD to produce the long form, the abbreviated form was considered inadequate. In June this was very quietly changed. However, since it takes decades to move up the list on the DHHL, likely that will be amended when obama leaves office-again, very quietly.
Anyone born in Hawaii absolutely can still obtain a copy of the original long form BC, they are still maintained (per the officials at DoH). A person without tangible interest cannot obtain a copy.
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 8
Pretty much everything you've said is false.
Janice Okubo addresses many of these matters in an interview at the StarBulletin site, under "columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html"
Please read it.
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 7
Before early June 09, this is the exact wording that was on the DHHL website:
In order to process your application, DHHL [Department of Hawaiian Home Lands] utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.
When requesting a certified copy of your birth certificate from the Vital Records Section of DOH, let the clerk know you are requesting it “For DHHL Purposes,” and that you need a copy of the original Certificate of Live Birth and not the computer-generated Certification.
Since then this wording has been scrubbed. I suspect that as it takes decades on the DHHL waiting list, this language will very quietly reappear when obama leaves the White House.
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 20
Unfortunately, that information was based on a pamphlet that predated the 2001 change at the Department of Health. Apparently, updating the pamphlet and the website just fell through the cracks. And, no, they did not have to produce the long form. The pamphlet (and the web site) simply stated that it would take longer if they produced the Certification.
You can't get a copy of the "original long form BC" anymore, either, even though the originals are still archived. The only thing that the Hawaiian Department of Health still issues is the Certification. I believe Missouri, among other states, is the same way. There simply is no reason to continue to issue copies of the long form, when it is quicker and cheaper to simply print off a Certification based on the information extracted from the original Certificate. And, as long as the Certification has the minimum required information, and the appropriate signature and seal, it is a legal birth certificate.
If it was still possible to obtain a copy of the "original long form BC", birthers would be hunting them down and posting copies in droves on the web. So far, there hasn't been a one. That is the clearest possible proof that they are no longer issued.
Joined: Mar 2009
Current Posts: 25
That would have been a head, if a candidate for POTUS had asked for a CERTIFIED COPY OF HIS LONG FORM.
Sure.
Joined: Oct 2009
Current Posts: 9
I thought that they originally had British allegience before their treasonous change. At least they were born to British Allegience
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 20
???
Joined: Dec 2005
Current Posts: 1243
obama obviously has a lot to hide.
if he does not wants to show his birth certificate. let's see all of his school records. i bet he is registered there as a foreign/ international student.
I will keep my GUNS, my FREEDOM, my MONEY, you can keep the CHANGE
Joined: Jul 2009
Current Posts: 361
I see this issue pop up every now and then but really do not know all the details -
If this list of documents have been sealed - I would think, the powers that be know the reason for this too. It could very well be as simple as a benign privacy issue that could create unnecessary distractions via press and public drama that might just keep him from getting his job done?
It does seem a bit unusual - but it has allowed him to move forward "so far'.
After reading this and all the comments I have seen about this issue I was wondering...since all I read is speculation.
Has anyone ever asked him this question directly? Asked him why he has made the choice to seal his past? Maybe someone should just ask.
If they have already...sorry for the redundancy - guess I missed it in every article I have read.
And if so...uuh what was his answer?
Joined: Dec 2005
Current Posts: 1243
@cckitty,
the main street press has and still totally ignored that issue.
the fact that obamas ante is in the states illegally and has lived for years in public substituted housing also is avoided by the press.
to me it is very simple. as an immigrant i had to put my life on the table..from a-z, in order to come in (legally) and to be sworn in as a citizen.
how come our president seals his records on his first day of office?
nobody ask for anything special. just that he produces very basic paper work...birth certificate, and all school/ college records.
I will keep my GUNS, my FREEDOM, my MONEY, you can keep the CHANGE
Joined: Jul 2009
Current Posts: 361
So...basically "no"
It is unusual to say the least. I know people that have to have full background checks for their jobs.
I knew a married couple - the wife used to work in a high profile job for TRW (remember TRW? - lol). Every year or so, her husband had to submit a full background check.
Come to think of it - I know a guy (Concord resident) that used to work for the govt and his job was to dismantle bombs (don't know the official title he had) and he was forced to leave his job because he married a Greek National.
Go figure....
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 20
So, do their employers, or the U.S. government, publicize the results of those background checks?
Joined: Jul 2009
Current Posts: 361
LOL - sorry - you picked a name that makes me chuckle ;)
If you are asking me this question - No is the answer as far as I know. In fact, I think we need to draw the line on privacy.
But they were not running for President. They were still under a microscope (not public) by their employers - another reason why I think the powers that be know his past - just not publically open.
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 20
The first fact that you got wrong was "how come our president seals his records on his first day of office?" Never happened.
The second is "nobody ask for anything special. just that he produces very basic paper work...birth certificate, and all school/ college records." What other President, Vice President, or candidate for either office has ever been asked for all of that? Including his kindergarten records, his parents marriage license and non-existent adoption papers?
Joined: Dec 2005
Current Posts: 1243
@twitchy,
since we can't post links anymore, you need to look it up yourself.
but here it is:
executive order 13489, amended by obama, jan. 21, 2009
I will keep my GUNS, my FREEDOM, my MONEY, you can keep the CHANGE
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 20
Hilarious ignorance.
Executive Order 13489 simply restored the wording of Executive Order 12667, signed by President Ronald Reagan on January 18, 1989, and revoked the much stricter Bush administration replacement Executive Order 13233. It had nothing to do with any of Obama's personal records, only with the release of Presidential records by the National Archives and Records Administration.
So, again, never happened.
Joined: Mar 2009
Current Posts: 25
With such overwhelming public interest in the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama II, one would expect the requested documents would have surfaced by now. Instead, the more I must spend time researching, the more disturbing the results.
The document on FighttheSmears is a invalid item, as the number is altered, and raised seal is not apparent. However, should one file suit, against Barack Hussein Obama II, claiming the fraud, one might then later acquire a subpoena deuces tecum to request a certified copy, of the original vital statistic birth certificate of one Barack Hussein Obama II, so a verification of the data displayed online might be effected.
Barack Hussein Obama II, was born in Hawaii, and he is a dual national.
Joined: Dec 2008
Current Posts: 22
arguing with birthers is pointless.
All you can do is point at them and laugh.
Birthers are morons.
Joined: Mar 2009
Current Posts: 25
This is all about the sanctity of the US Constitution, and nothing about politics. The separation of powers, the Executive branch defined by the US Constitution. This is not about the color of skin, but about the content of a man's character. This will also reach to the Declaration of Independence.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Martin Luther King, Jr.
1959 Barack Obama, Sr., at the age of 23 Barack Obama Sr. leaves behind his pregnant Kenyan wife Kezia and their baby son ...
On or about October 28, 1960, Barack Hussein Obama II, is conceived in the womb, of Stanley Ann Dunham, a 17 year old, unwed college student.
February 2, 1961 - Barack Obama Sr., 25, marries 18 year old Ann Dunham, at the time of their wedding, Ann Dunham is already three months pregnant with Barack Obama, Jr., and she doesn't know Barack Obama Sr. has a wife and children in Kenya.
Hawaii Law states:
..."HRS §572-1 Requisites of valid marriage contract. In order to make valid the marriage contract, which shall be only between a man and a woman, it shall be necessary that:
(3) The man does not at the time have any lawful wife living and that thewoman does not at the time have any lawful husband living;" ....
Barack Hussein Obama II, was born on August 4, 1961, in Hawaii [certification needed] to a minor US citizen mother, age 18, and a 25 year old, Kenyan born British subject father.
Barack Hussein Obama II, was born in Hawaii, and he is a dual national.
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 20
This has zip to do with the Constitution and everything to do with either politics or racism. What other President or Vice President, or candidate for either office, has had this level of scrutiny, and such demands, placed upon him, or her?
Joined: Mar 2009
Current Posts: 25
This is not about race or politics. This is about the placing more value on the US Constitution, than any one person. The USA can survive without an ineligible president, but without the US Constitution, the USA no longer is.
By continuing the US Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama II, the USA has effectively nullified the Declaration of Independence and surrendered to the British, without a single shot or bloodshed.
By continuing the presidency of a dual-national, the USA sets a dangerous precedent, whereby all dual-nationals, regardless of their renouncing their foreign citizenship, can attempt to gain control, and eventually will gain control of the USA, within the US Constitution. Don't let us go down that road.
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 20
The Declaration of Independence is not a part of the Constitution, and your statement that we have, somehow, "surrendered to the British" is laughable.
So far, none of the arguments that Obama is ineligible hold water. And the President does not "control" the USA.
Joined: Mar 2009
Current Posts: 25
The organic laws of the United States of America are included in the U.S. Code. These documents include:
* the United States Declaration of Independence,
* the Articles of Confederation,
* the Northwest Ordinance, and
* the U.S. Constitution.
These documents comprise the very first part of the United States Code, wherein lies the collected statutes of the United States.
gpoaccess.gov/uscode/
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 20
Of the four documents you mentioned, only the Northwest Ordinance (as amended) and the Constitution itself have the force of law under the Constitution.
You appear to be trying to undermine the Constitution, rather than defending it.
And if you're going to give a link, try not to give a broken link. Of course, since your claim is nonsense, I suppose you don't have much choice.
Joined: Mar 2009
Current Posts: 25
Twitchy,
As I indicated the organic laws are incorporated into th the US Code, which is the legislature's interpretation of the organic laws. There is no attempt to "undermine" the Constitution.
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 20
Absurd. If you would look at a current edition of the U.S.C. (w w w. gpoaccess. gov / uscode/ [remove the spaces]), you will find that there is no such incorporation. Apparently, you have to go back to the 1913 edition, which was not a government publication, to find those "organic laws" published with the code.
And the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution, so attempting to define them as current law is, definitely, an attempt to undermine the Constitution.
Joined: Mar 2009
Current Posts: 25
Do you trust the Office of the Law Revision Counsel on the website of the
U.S. House of Representatives?
uscode. house. gov/pdf/ Organic%20Laws/
How are magistrate judges appointed under the US Constitution?
42USC Sec. 1989. United States magistrate judges; appointment of
ORDINANCE OF 1787: THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT
gress.
SEC. 7. Previous to the organization of the
general assembly the governor shall appoint
such magistrates, and other civil officers, in
each county or township, as he shall find nec-
essary for the preservation of the peace and
good order in the same. After the general assem-
bly shall be organized the powers and duties of
magistrates and other civil officers shall be reg-
ulated and defined by the said assembly; but all
magistrates and other civil officers, not herein
otherwise directed, shall, during the continu-
ance of this temporary government, be ap-
pointed by the governor.
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 20
OK, for some unknown reason, that's missing from the official website. However, the inclusion of the section "PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION NOT RATIFIED BY THE STATES" indicates that the purpose is historical, not legal, and that your interpretation of the term "Organic Laws" is flawed.
Joined: Mar 2009
Current Posts: 25
I didn't interpret, I copy/pasted samples.
Compare Art 4 Sect 4 to this one.
The Northwest Ordinance, July 13, 1787
ww w. usconstitution. net/articles.html
No State shall engage in any war without the consent of the United States in
Congress assembled, unless such State be actually invaded by enemies,
or shall have received certain advice of a resolution being formed by some
nation of Indians to invade such State, and the danger is so imminent as
not to admit of a delay till the United States in Congress assembled can be
consulted; nor shall any State grant commissions to any ships or vessels of
war, nor letters of marque or reprisal, except it be after a declaration of war
by the United States in Congress assembled, and then only against the
Kingdom or State and the subjects thereof, against which war has been so
declared, and under such regulations as shall be established by the United
States in Congress assembled, unless such State be infested by pirates,
in which case vessels of war may be fitted out for that occasion, and kept
so long as the danger shall continue, or until the United States in Congress
assembled shall determine otherwise.
w ww .let. rug. nl/usa/D/1776-1800/ohio/norwes.htm
The Northwest Ordinance, July 13, 1787
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 20
You're trying to sidetrack the issue. What does any of this have to do with your statement: "By continuing the US Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama II, the USA has effectively nullified the Declaration of Independence and surrendered to the British, without a single shot or bloodshed."?
Joined: Mar 2009
Current Posts: 25
"A nation or civilization that continues to produce soft-minded men purchases its own spiritual death on the installment plan." ---- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Barack Hussein Obama II, was born on August 4, 1961, in Hawaii [certification needed] to a minor US citizen mother, age 18, and a 25 year old, Kenyan born British subject father.
Barack Hussein Obama II, was born in Hawaii, and he is a dual national.
A dual national, is a person born in the USA to a US citizen, and an alien.
14th Amendment(8USC1401): "1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."
If, big IF, Barack H. Obama II, was "born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;" he is simply a US citizen, on his mother's side.
But, it takes two persons to make a baby, and those two people are subject national jurisdictions.
sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/04108.png
The first part of the 14th Amendment "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" is an "OR GATE" meaning either of the attributes "born in USA " or "naturalized in USA" meet first qualification.
sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/04101.png
The second part of the 14th Amendment "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", begins with an "AND GATE" meaning what follows applies to either of the two previous qualifications. Jurisdiction, in this sense refers to the "personal" jurisdiction and protections a nation exerts over it's citizens, by laws and international treaties, by allegiance. It is what nation a person owes allegiance to that determines jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction is an authority over a person, regardless of their location.A simple test, is if the person is an alien, in a nation, which embassy would they seek consular services at? If Barack H. Obama Sr., Ann Dunham, and Barack H. Obama II, were in China, in 1962, and their passports expired, what embassy would each be served at?
travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html
Dual Nationality
The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy. Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. ....
US State Department .... dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there. ....
Joined: Dec 2008
Current Posts: 22
Same ol' same ol.
When will the birthers get a life?
Joined: Mar 2009
Current Posts: 25
California state law (c 2009) .... The citizens of the State are: (a) All persons born in the State and residing within it, except the children of transient aliens and of alien public ministers and consuls. (b) All persons born out of the State who are citizens of the United States and residing within the State. .... Persons in the State not its citizens are either: (a) Citizens of other States; or (b) Aliens. .... Every person while within the State is subject to its jurisdiction and entitled to its protection. .... Allegiance is the obligation of fidelity and obedience which every citizen owes to the State. .... ~-*-~ Barack Hussein Obama II, was born in Hawaii, to two persons, one a US citizen, the other a British subject. Resulting from his US parent Hawaii is his place of birth and he is a US citizen. Resulting from his British parent Hawaii is his place of birth and he is a British citizen. Barack Hussein Obama II, was born in Hawaii, and he is a dual national.
By continuing the US Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama II, the USA has effectively nullified the Declaration of Independence and surrendered to the British, without a single shot or bloodshed.
By continuing the presidency of a dual-national, the USA sets a dangerous precedent, whereby all dual-nationals, regardless of their renouncing their foreign citizenship, can attempt to gain control, and eventually will gain control of the USA, within the US Constitution. Don't let us go down that road.
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." ---- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Your exposition of the terms of a citizen of the State of California raise an interesting point. Why do we issue state-certified birth certificates to children of transient aliens if they are not citizens of the state? And how does the word 'protection' get aborted to 'benefits' and 'entitlements'? Let them go to the Fed for certificates for their a-n-c-h-o-r b-a-b-i-e-s.
Nice post - can you cite the section of law where you found it?
I'll Keep My Freedom -
You Keep The Chains
RealAmerica
Joined: Mar 2009
Current Posts: 25
California Law (CA)
leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
GOVERNMENT CODE
241
Joined: Dec 2008
Current Posts: 22
Arguing with a birther is like wresteling with a pig.
You both get dirty and the pig likes it.
Joined: Mar 2009
Current Posts: 25
A determination of nationality of a person is a function of the US State Dept.
The problem is the laws that define minimum information on a birth certificate, as you only need so much to determine eligibility for a US passort, but, more to determine NBC or dual-nationality.
The document on FactCheck being a prime example.
Docs to prove eligibility for Medicaid ID
ndrn.org/policy/SCHIP/cit%20doc%20CMS%20flyers.pdf
22CFR51.42 - Persons born in USA applying for first passport
Fix the laws and solve the problem.
Joined: Mar 2009
Current Posts: 25
No persons under oath, in a court of law, on threat of perjury, have sworn Barack Hussein Obama II, was born on an island of Hawaii, in the state hospital system (two hospitals mentioned in heresay). It is odd, with all due public interest, the government of Hawaii, is reluctant to produce a web page to display the document, they have gone on record, in official news release by Gov. Lindle, a statement from Janice Okubo, on October 31, 2008, to declare exists in their possession. As declared the Obama document is being treated no differently than any other, so no order of a circuit court has been issued.
HRS_0626-0001-0803.htm
Rule 803 Hearsay exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial. The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness:
(b) Other exceptions.
(8) Public records and reports. Records, reports, statements, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth (A) the activities of the office or agency, or (B) matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to which matters there was a duty to report, excluding, however, in criminal cases matters observed by police officers and other law enforcement personnel, or (C) in civil proceedings and against the government in criminal cases, factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law, unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness.
(9) Records of vital statistics. Records or data compilations, in any form, of births, fetal deaths, deaths, or marriages, if the report thereof was made to a public office pursuant to requirements of law.
(10) Absence of public record or entry. To prove the absence of a record, report, statement, or data compilation, in any form, or the nonoccurrence or nonexistence of a matter of which a record, report, statement, or data compilation, in any form, was regularly made and preserved by a public office or agency, evidence in the form of a certification in accordance with rule 902, or testimony, that diligent search failed to disclose the record, report, statement, or data compilation, or entry.
--- Analysis: The state of Hawaii, has issued public statements that under HRS_0626-0001-0803(b)(8) indicate the existence of a record in HRS_0626-0001-0803(b)(9), generating significant public interest, in the disclosure of the record, and you seek to verify the public statement of Janice Okubo, by requesting per §338-18(g)(5), a certified copy of the original birth certificate mentioned in the official news release by Gov. Lindle, a statement from Janice Okubo, on October 31, 2008.
Joined: Mar 2009
Current Posts: 25
20091107
KEYES|BARNETT (CODY JUDY) - MOTION FOR PERMISSIVE JOINDER ) AND AMENDMENT TO THE ) CIVIL RIGHTS / FE
scribd.com/doc/22291433/KEYES-BARNETT-CODY-JUDY-MOTION-FOR-PERMISSIVE-JOINDER-AND-AMENDMENT-TO-THE-CIVIL-RIGHTS-FEDERAL-V-ELECTIONS-COMPLAINT-922288917-Judy-v
Joined: Mar 2009
Current Posts: 25
STRUNK v U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE - 27 - Letter from Christopher Earl Strunk - gov.uscourts.dcd.1345
scribd.com/doc/21832918/STRUNK-v-U-S-DEPARTMENT-OF-STATE-27-Letter-from-Christopher-Earl-Strunk-gov-uscourts-dcd-134568-27-0
A Quo Warranto is pending in Washington, DC against OBAMA.
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 20
Basically, as indirectly pointed out by others, for someone who claims to be a research scientist, your research for this article stunk. It looks like it was pulled directly from a single article at WND, with NO research at all.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Actually, the 'illegitimizers' may be more right than they are even aware. None of them so far have picked up on my earlier post about Barry's parents. Barry's father was married to a woman in Kenya at the time he married Barry's mother. No documents of divorce were ever filed from that marriage, and in actuality, Obama Sr. never really lived with Stanley Ann Dunham, although she did add his name after hers at times. Since our laws don't recognize polygamy, the marriage of Barry's parents was invalid, and Stanley Ann Dunham was an unwed mother.
7 FAM 1133.4-3 Birth Out of Wedlock to American Mother (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998) a. Section 309 (c) INA: A child born abroad out of wedlock after December 24, 1952, to a U.S. citizen mother acquires U.S. citizenship if the mother was physically present continuously for 1 year in the United States or its outlying possessions at any time prior to the child’s birth.
If the writer is correct, the above law may supercede the law that was in effect at the time of Barak Obama’s birth in 1961 to an 18 year old mother (below), and he is legally qualified to hold the office of President. It comes down to whether she was a 'U.S. citizen mother'. Was she old enough to be such in light of the law below?
Here is the law per FindLaw.com that applied at the time of his birth–if his parents were legally married:
4. December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986: If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of 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. If the above law is found to be the correct law applying at the time of the birth of Barak Obama, he is legally not qualified to hold the office of President.
Which, if either, of the two laws applied at the time of his birth?
I'll Keep My Freedom -
You Keep The Changeling
RealAmerica
Joined: Mar 2009
Current Posts: 25
I've known it for awhile and we need birth and marriage records to verify it.
See .barack-obama-timeline.com/
1959 -- Barack Obama's father, Barack Obama, Sr., .... At the age of 23 Barack Obama Sr. leaves behind his pregnant Kenyan wife Kezia and their baby son
February 2, 1961 - Barack Obama Sr., 25, marries 18 year old Ann Dunham, The ceremony takes place at Maui. At the time of their wedding, Ann Dunham is already three months pregnant with Barack Obama, Jr., and she doesn't know Barack Obama Sr. has a wife and children in Kenya. [FYI -- Ann was 17 years old when Jr was concieved, and Sr was the exotic stud from Kenya.]
capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588HRS0572HRS_0572-0001.htm
HRS §572-1 Requisites of valid marriage contract. In order to make valid the marriage contract, which shall be only between a man and a woman, it shall be necessary that:
(3) The man does not at the time have any lawful wife living and that the woman does not at the time have any lawful husband living;
Obama Family Tree
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_of_Barack_Obama
See
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama,_Sr
I've heard the Dems and Repubs always put the best bastards up for election, but I never thought they literally did it. OMG -- The Obots put a bastard in the Oval office! What a disgrace to the office of POTUS. So not only is he not a NBC he is a bastard.
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 20
Learn to read: "A child born abroad out of wedlock".
Little Barry was born in Hawaii.
Joined: Mar 2009
Current Posts: 25
Natural Born Citizen
-- An alien is neither a citizen nor NBC and cannot be POTUS. (14th Am.)(Art, 2 Sect. 1)
-- A person born in an outlying possession of the USA is a national, but not citizen, nor NBC and cannot be POTUS. (8USC1408)(Art, 2 Sect. 1)
-- A naturalized person is not NBC and cannot be POTUS. (14th Am.)(Art, 2 Sect. 1)
-- A dual-national is not NBC and cannot be POTUS. (14th Am.)(Art, 2 Sect. 1)
-- A person born in the USA to two resident aliens is a citizen, not NBC and cannot be POTUS. (Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898))(Art, 2 Sect. 1)
-- But, a person born in the USA to two US citizens is a NBC and can be POTUS. (Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939))(Art, 2 Sect. 1)
Joined: Dec 2008
Current Posts: 22
Are you done beating that dead horse yet, BR?
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 20
Hawaii became a state two years before Obama was born. You're also deliberately, or ignorantly, misinterpreting the 14th Amendment. And Wong Kim Ark.
Wong Kim Ark contains an extensive discussion of the meaning of "natural born" in English Common Law, which is the language of the Constitution. And that meaning distills, basically, to "born on U.S. soil", with some exceptions.
Your arguments are based on ignorance, lies, or, maybe, just plain stupidity.
Legally, there are only two types of citizen: natural born (or native) and naturalized. Any other division is not supported by law or precedent.
Joined: Mar 2009
Current Posts: 25
Twitchy, you are reading the "dicta" of Wong Kim Ark. The holding or decision is Wong Kim Ark is a "citizen".
English Common Law does not apply in the USA.
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 20
No, it doesn't. But it does provide context for the language of the Constitution. As stated in Wong Kim Ark: "The language of the constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law."
And the decision was that Wong Kim Ark was "at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States", thus a natural born citizen.
Joined: Mar 2009
Current Posts: 25
Twitchy,
You are inferring what does not exist.
And the decision was that Wong Kim Ark was "at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States".
You are propagandizing. It is typical of Communists.
Joined: Dec 2008
Current Posts: 22
Nice one, BR, when all else fails, an ad hominem attack will do.
Classy.
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 20
Sorry if the truth doesn't match your ideology.
Citizen at birth == natural born citizen. The only other type of citizen is "naturalized".
Give up the oddball unsupportable theories.
Joined: Dec 2008
Current Posts: 22
The Justices in WKA clearly defined that being born a citizen is the equivalent to being a "natural born citizen.” Heck, even the losing side of the WKA case admitted as much.
The whole basis of their argument was that by granting WKA the status of citizenship by birth, then Chinese would be NBCs and elegible to be POTUS and no white American wanted that.
Joined: Dec 2008
Current Posts: 22
this part is totally wrong.
-- A dual-national is not NBC and cannot be POTUS. (14th Am.)(Art, 2 Sect. 1)--
Nope. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Try again.
Joined: Mar 2009
Current Posts: 25
SCOTUS did properly airm the decree that Elg retained her citizenship, and her citizenship was NBC.
Joined: Dec 2008
Current Posts: 22
Then you agree that by Pervisn v. Elg, the fact that Barack Obama lived in Indonesia for for four years as a minor child has nothing to do with his status as a U.S. citizen.
Thanks for that little bit of sanity on your part.
Joined: Mar 2009
Current Posts: 25
Nothing changes the birth circumstance.
Obama was born a dual national and he cannot be reborn an NBC.
Now, had he been present at the adoption of the US Constitution, then he would qualify for President.
Under strict reading of COTUS, I cannot justify allowing Obama to continue as POTUS.
Joined: Dec 2008
Current Posts: 22
------
Under strict reading of COTUS, I cannot justify allowing Obama to continue as POTUS.
-------
Well fortunately for the rest of us, no one cares what you think.
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 20
There is nothing in the Constitution that defines NBC.
There is nothing in the Constitution that mentions dual nationality, or says that a dual national is not a NBC.
Stop making things up.
Joined: Mar 2009
Current Posts: 25
Stop asserting dual nationality is NBC, because it isn't.
By your asserting a dual nationality is NBC, you are asserting a person is born NBC of two nationalities, under recognition of both nations involved.
True, in the virtual reality, US laws can only control the USA, but in the existing reality, the interests of the other nation cannot be ignored.
Barack Hussein Obama II/Barry Soetoro, was born with dual nationalities and is not NBC.
All attempts to rationalize his continued presidency are perfidious.
Joined: Jun 2008
Current Posts: 80
there is something fishy about Obama's birth location or birth certificate. However, I believe the numero uno reason Obama lacks transparency in this area is because his original birth certificate states father's race as NEGRO and father's religion as ISLAM, and too many people in this country would associate Obama through his birth certificate as being a black muslim.
He doesn't need that association. I
Joined: Dec 2008
Current Posts: 22
His Father was a BLACK MUSLIM?????????
Why didn't anyone tell us????
{/snark}
LOL you are an idiot.
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 20
A Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth has a place on it for parents' religion???
And haven't plenty of others complained about him being both black and a Muslim, despite the ridiculousness of both claims?
Joined: Mar 2009
Current Posts: 25
The Declaration of Independence was wriiten as a separation from England and the rule of the Monarchy of King George III, so by allowing Obama, a British citizen under British law, to continue as POTUS, the US has effectively surrendered to Britain, thus repealing the Declaration of Independence and voiding the US Constitution.
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 20
1. Obama is not a British citizen. His British citizenship changed to Kenyan citizenship when Kenya became independent, according to British law.
2. Obama is not a Kenyan citizen. Kenyan law does not allow dual citizenship for adults, so Obama lost his Kenyan citizenship when he became an adult.
3. Your entire statement above is ignorant, irrational and illogical nonsense.
Joined: Mar 2009
Current Posts: 25
Obama was born dual national British/USA, he cannot be reborn, and his birth nationality cannot be changed or lost. Since he was not "a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution", he fails to be grandfathered in, therefore he cannot constitutionally be POTUS. Therefore his continued un-constitutional presidency is treasonous and fraudulent.
That he was allowed into the US Senate -- the "birthplace" of US laws-- is fraudulent and treasonous.