Obama is not a Native US Citizen

Bouvier's Law Dictionary ^ | 1928 | William Edward Saldwin

[BP2]

> But the British Nationality Act of 1948 that governed the status of Obama Sr’s
> children did at the time, therefore Obama was British 1st and American 2nd.

>> Maybe to the British, but in terms U.S. law, that doesn't matter at all.

When ... the US laws of 1961 when Obama was born, or the US laws of 1787 when the Constitution was written?

Only one would be accepted by the SCOTUS in a ruling, and it would NOT be the laws of 1961.

[MHGinTN]

Those seeking any means to distract from the illicit nature of their affirmative action bastard in the Oval Office use this ploy often, as if by not using some theoretical damning piece of evidence it means there is none such.

Hatellary could not have won in '08 without the black block vote, and the absences of black vote at the polls would have meant lots of democrats would have been defeated in '08. Even Hillary knows not to slit the throats of fellow democRATS. Hillary is a socialist oligarch and will not endanger her species.

[patlin]

You say not, but you offer no proof. I challenge you to show us the law from 1961 or treaty signed by the US & the Brits that allowed the US to ignore British laws. In 1961, children born “IN” wedlock took the citizenship of the father. This was International law aka Law of Nations that was recognized globally at the time.

[parsifal]

I’m sorry, but I can’t come out to play. . . If I do, people will just say I’m trolling again. But, thank you for the invitation!

parsy, who must be off

[bushpilot1]

[patlin]

Thanks, I was talking in obot terms, something they might bite onto and try to prove me wrong. I really would like to see it because thus far I have I have not found one law that the US Congress has ever passed that legally allows for dual citizenship & for that matter, a law that doesn't recognize the father as being the one that passes his citizenship when the child is born in wedlock.

If dual citizenship was a matter of law & it mattered NOT for the sake of the executive branch, then why is it that anyone working or interning at the white house to this day must take an oath renouncing any foreign allegiance they might have acquired during their life?

[little jeremiah]

A most excellent assessment of why people hassle on these threads, by zzeeman:

---

The most “curious” aspect of all of this “anti-birther” propaganda that appears here is the simple question: why would anyone that claims to be “conservative” (most, but not all of them, do) ever bother to spend so much time and energy researching and posting all of this propaganda?
Without suspending disbelief and making a huge leap of faith, I can’t accept that there are any valid reasons for this activity, other than the simple fact that they wish to discredit and ultimately silence all discussion of the very serious issues that surround the background and Constitutional eligibility of the present occupant of the White House. The level of severity of this situation is very grave, arguably the most dangerous situation that has confronted our country since its founding. In my opinion, it is not too provocative or hyperbolic to acknowledge that we are currently living within the unfolding of a grave Constitutional crisis that began on November 4, 2008.

It is precisely the severity of this crisis, combined with the daily assaults on our Constitution, Freedom, Liberty, Society, and Economy that makes this an issue that no true Conservative would willingly battle against. I’m sorry, I don’t buy any of the excuse or motives that I’ve read here. I’ve read that some people have been “insulted” in these threads so now the argument has become “personal” for them. I’ve read that some have motives since they are a parent of a child that doesn’t meet the Natural Born Citizen eligibility requirements stated for the President and Vice President of the United States, so they somehow feel that they have a vested interest in somehow finding a way in having this sacred requirement subverted (just in case their child wishes to run for either of these 2 offices when they are 35 years of age). I’ve also read many times that they simply wish to redirect the efforts of fellow conservatives toward more “constructive” issues, causes, and pursuits (which absurdly presumes that no one can effectively multi-task at any given point in time). And of course we always hear about how “embarrassing” they believe it makes conservatives look to the “general public” and state-run media. (This last one is really a gem. What it presumes is that “if we conservatives just act normal and play nice, then the state run media will represent our issues, candidates, and politicians fairly.” To me, this is as sane as hearing the left wring their hands and whine “if we would just stop oppressing those poor people, then they would stop terrorizing us.” Both arguments are equally inane.)

I am not suggesting that every Conservative citizen, politician, or pundit needs to make this issue the forefront of their daily thought, deliberation, and speech. I respect the fact that some people may just not be “comfortable” with dealing with this issue, or speaking about it a public (or even private) forum. We all (still) have the right to what we deem important issues on which to direct our time, energy, and other resources. However, given the stakes of our collective situation, I can not fathom why any sane Conservative would spend an ounce of their energy trying to argue against a conclusion that would be of great benefit in our fight to overturn the oppressive tyranny that is being forced onto us on a daily basis. I readily admit that no one really understands how this issue may play out over time. At a minimum, hopefully it leads to more and more of our fellow citizens becoming more aware of the murky (to be kind) circumstances that surround virtually every aspect and period of the occupant’s life and background. And perhaps this increased awareness will lead to them becoming more active in pursuing truth and better understanding the travesties that are being unfolded on a daily basis by this regime and its supporters and enablers. Beyond that I can not accurately speculate on what may ensue. However, for all true Conservatives the ultimate outcome would be the invalidation and nullification of all (or at least most) of the un-Constitutional, immoral, and illegal acts that the regime has inflicted on our great and beloved Country.

So regardless of how any of us may choose to spend our time and energies, regardless of how plausible or “credible” we may see these issues to be, the only reasonable and logical (which are key underpinnings of Conservatism) reaction to these issues would be along the lines of a simple “No thanks, not for me; but Good Luck in your chosen battle, I hope that you succeed!” for any of us that choose not to be active in this pursuit. I am sorry, I just can’t make the leap from that sort of slightly apathetic (but still supportive) reaction to the incredible amounts of energy and time that we witness daily on these threads. I don’t have any quantitative measures to use as illustrative data points, but I know that I am not alone in being absolutely astounded at the amount of time, energy, and (perhaps most revealing) passion that I see being expended by those that are ostensibly arguing against the sane resolution of a whole host of issues that can only serve to provide strategic and operative victories (even if they are incremental in nature) in our struggle against tyranny.

676 posted on Friday, May 14, 2010 3:25:57 PM by zzeeman

[patlin]

A most excellent assessment of why people hassle on these threads

I totally concur, thanks for the post lj & zman

[bushpilot1]

page 833 is posted..seems the definition includes natural born subject being born two citizen parents.

[Aurorales]

I seem to remember you getting a reprimand because of what you were posting on eligibility threads.

I also remember you stating you would stay away?????

Did you think some of us would forget?

[parsifal]

Oh no. Birfers never forget. So, I pretty much just respond when spoke to or pinged. Got a problem with that?

parsy

[Aurorales]

You did come out to play... and you were trolling.

Something you said you would not do again.

[Aurorales]

Yes I do have a problem with that.

When you said you wouldn’t post on these threads anymore I took you at your word.

Silly me.

[parsifal]

if you think I’m trolling because I answer somebody, then do what the rest of the Birfers do, and go whine to a mod or JimRob. Until then, I think I am able to respond to another freeper.

But, I am on a chain, so I can’t really tell you what I think of this nonsense, which I assure you would include multiple references to guano.

Now, am I supposed to respond to you or not?

parsy

[BP2]

> Dual nationality was ALMOST ENTIRELY unknown at the time.

Check Blackstone for the phrase “service to two masters”.
That’s how it was understood and defined in those days, and thus why
Obama’s dual nationality makes him royally-screwed once the SCOTUS rules.

> And the second law of William the Conqueror was:

> We decree also that every freeman shall affirm by oath and compact that he will be loyal
> to king William both within and without England, that he will preserve with him his lands
> and honor with all fidelity and defend him against his enemies.”

> So, it is exclusive allegiance that determines whether one is natural-born. And, that
> allegiance IS NOT automatically conferred upon birth within the realm [per Common Law].

LOL. Now that's funny.

Do you know why William the Conqueror required an OATH following his 1066 A.D. battle?

1) Because he was also known as “William the Bastard” from his illegitimate birth as the bastard son of the Duke of Normandy; some questioned his sovereign authority.
2) As he killed the previous ruler (King Godwinson) in battle, William was unsure who he could trust and who might try to avenge the former King.

However, despite this history-changing event in England, there was no common law "requirement" for an Oath of Allegiance by the “common” Subject, even though the King often asked for it as a “reminder” to his Subjects so they knew their "place" and "duty" within the Realm.

Don’t take my word for it. Read what Blackstone and Sir Edward Coke both said ...
Allegiance is “automatic” and owed to the King, regardless of an actual Oath taking place:

[Aurorales]

Do what you want.

You might want to look internally for that guano though.

And of course we now know you are not an honest person.

Thanks for the clarification.

[BP2]

Come on, Parsy. Redemption time ...

Was it the old "Steak and Ale" that you ate the ribeye with JimRob?

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Sorry the interpretation is wrong!!! If that was the case, then why aren’t Americans still considered British?

Because it's no longer British soil. We fought to secede from the UK.

Why then are only those born before the signing of the Constitution exempt from the citizen clause?

Because they were not natural born citizens of the US, being born in a British territory.

Also, the Supreme Court is far from right on many issues.

On that we do not disagree.

They can decide law on one letter yet they ignore MANY letter referring to Natural Born Citizen!

Because we have writings for both cases of NBC - Vattel and English common law.

Look, it's really simple: point to statute or legal precedent that defines NBC as is supported by Vattel. You cannot. In fact, the closest you get is the Ark case where the minority point to Vattel and the majority point to English common law. If you want to claim someone is not a natural born citizen then you have to provide a legal foundation for your claim, and that simply is not done.

[parsifal]

Nope.

parsy

[PugetSoundSoldier]

But the British Nationality Act of 1948 that governed the status of Obama Sr’s children did at the time, therefore Obama was British 1st and American 2nd.

If Venezuelan law was changed to recognize everyone born on US soil as a Venezuelan citizen as well, would that eliminate everyone from NBC status?

What another nation claims is immaterial over what the US claims. We do not recognize another nation's claim on our citizens. If we do, then we open ourselves to claims such as the hypothetical Venezuelan situation.