Posted on 04/04/2011 10:31:21 AM PDT by Bridgetteb
Has anyone taken you up on this fallacious part of your argument? It's interesting and relevant too, how one's travel documents apply to whether or not you are a natural born citizen.
a natural born citizen is one who has no voluntary allegiance to another country as an adult. This is not written down anywhere, but it doesnt need to be. Americans would not have voted for George w bush if he had applied for a French passport and traveled under it, would they have? It is pure common sense that one would not have trusted his loyalties, since to own a passport of a land is to swear allegiance to it, especially if you applied for it as an adult.
Do you get it? And there is evidence that Barack Obama, in his adult college years, traveled to Indonesia and Pakistan for some duration. He was once a citizen of Indonesia; it stands to reason that he could have been traveling on his Indonesian passport. We do not know for sure. This is a travel fact that would make a huge difference to Americans to know. If he swore allegiance to Indonesia as an adult, he loses his natural born citizenship, if if if he ever had it.
2) Also in 2008, virtually identical images of the announcements in the Star Bulletin were posted online, with the source again claimed to be the Hawaii State Library. These Star Bulletin images listed identical births to the Honolulu Advertiser. The actual Star Bulletin microfilm at the Hawaii State Library for that day's birth announcements is longer with 26 additional birth announcements. Clearly, the online Star Bulletin images were cropped/fixed to appear identical with those of the Advertiser. Question - Why would the Star Bulletin have 26 more birth announcements than the Advertiser if the source is the Vital Records Office ? Suppose the source of the birth announcements also include mere phone calls by relatives to the Hawaii newspapers ?
It gets very interesting. Clearly, there are several discrepancies with these announcements which would rule them out as a source of primary evidence for Obama's birth. Only a fool like O'Reilly would rely on these announcements.
Thanks to ButterD for good work done.
Butterdezillion’s work is absolutely BRILLIANT.
She deserves a great deal of thanks!
Butter! YOU ROCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Butterdezillion. Now THAT is WINNING!
Thanks for the vote of confidence. I have to admit that it’s disheartening that I can’t find any way to get the research into the hands of people like O’Reilly and Trump. The most informed people in the world on this issue are at the grunt level, not the generals.
So us grunts who are out here doing and/or learning the research listen to the generals dicker back and forth and they all just seem increasingly irrelevant because they have no idea what’s already been discovered.
I hear you. It is unbelievably frustrating.
Our opponents strategy has been to concede nothing and hope that we will get frustrated, tired and eventually give up while they run out the clock. I thought that Obama would either provide valid proof that showed he was a Natural Born Citizen or bow out of the race. I was wrong. It could have been for a number of reasons.
McCain had his own difficulties regarding his Natural Born status since his Birth Certificate shows that he was born at Colon Hospital, City of Colon, Republic of Panama which was not on the US Military Base, not in a US Territory and was outside the official “Panama Canal Zone” and could in no way be considered US soil. There are valid legal questions concerning the actual Natural Born status of children of US Service Members born abroad... but to my knowledge this has never been definitively resolved. The US Senate passed a resolution declaring McCain to be Natural Born Citizen, but that was a political move not a legal ruling with any real meaning.
At some point was there a backroom political “wink, wink, say no more” deal reached between top Republican and Democrat leadership and each side agreed not to make Natural Born Citizenship an issue in the race? If so this could help explain why top Republican leadership have declined to pursue this issue. They may have willingly participated in undermining the US Constitution and found themselves duped into this absurd situation.
Butterdezillion is one of my greatest Heroes / Heroines on Freerepublic. I thank her too for diligently continuing her quest for the truth.
Amen!!!
If anyone thinks asking Obama for proof of his natural citizenship is “crazy” then all they need to do is show the proof that he is. Simple enough, yet, no one, not even Obama, has been able to do it.
“especially when said birth in the USA is verbally confirmed by a State official charged with maintaining state birth records.”
*yawn*
Let us know when that happens under oath or on an official State document. Until then, it is hearsay.
“born under the sole jurisdiction of”
“sole” has never been part of any historical nor current definition.
US law, 8 USC 1401, enacted in 1952 long before Obama was born, clearly states:
Ҥ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;”
Notice there is no “sole” in that law? If you want to nail Obama, nail him on the fact that he has yet to even prove that he was born here and therefore cannot possibly meet section 1401 definitions of a natural born citizen.
Brilliant snapshot of butterdezillion’s tireless, genius work! Excellent post.
Those announcements were tampered with, without one shadow of a doubt.
It is so frustrating. I bet trump knows this now, but he’s not out there talking as much, I guess. I hope he truly truly cares about this, the biggest mystery and potential scam in our nation.
I can’t get regular people to really listen to this info too. They all cock their heads as if I am a conspiracist. It is really frustrating.
We need to keep asking publicly, is Obama even eligible???? He has to prove it.
I've seen the term "dem/lib/prog/pops" used to describe the rabid left. Works for me!
At the time of Obama’s birth in 1961, parents could rather easily get a Hawaiian birth certificate for a baby who wasn’t born in Hawaii.
1. Aug. 4, 1961 — Obama supposedly born in Hawaii in Kapiolani hospital.
2. Aug. 5, 1961 — Nordyke twins born in Hawaii in same Kapiolani hospital. Copies of long form birth certificates are on internet.
3. Aug. 8, 1961 — Obama’s birth certificate is filed with Hawaii vital statistics, if we are to believe what we see on Obama’s short form birth certificate that we see all over the internet.
4. Aug. 11, 1961 — Nordyke twins birth certificate filed with Hawaii vital statistics.
5. 10641 — Obama number on short form birth certificate that we see all over the internet.
6. 10638 — Nordyke twin number on top of long form birth certificate.
7. 10637 — Nordyke twin number on top of long form birth certificate we see on internet.
8. Huh? What is going here that does NOT smell right? Why does Obama’s certificate have a HIGHER number than the Nordyke twins’ certificates, when the Obama certificate was filed 3 days EARLIER: Aug. 8 vs. Aug. 11.
9. So, if Obama’s birth certificate was filed on Aug. 8, then it should have a LOWER filing number than the Nordyke twins’ birth certificates that were filed on Aug. 11.
12. But as we can see above, Obama’s birth certificate received a HIGHER number-—10641-—than the Nordyke twins-—10637 and 10638.
13. Something does not smell right concerning why Obama’s number is greater than the Nordyke twins.
14. I wish that the Nordyke twins would demand that Hawaii officials explain why they received LOWER numbers than Obama. They obviously have so-called “standing” to ask questions about their own Hawaii birth certificates.
http://www.theobamafile.com/_eligibility/CertificateNumbers.htm
The COLB is and official state document.
Why? Are birthers are now insisting that one must be delivered by a US citizen doctor to qualify for natural born citizenship?
The problem is Obama's (putative)father was NEVER an American citizen, nor did he even have any intention of becoming a citizen.
If you were born in America (jus soli) and your parents were BOTH American Citizens (jus sanguinis)you are a natural born Citizen of the united states.
Natural born Citizenship is (almost) an indelible state.
It is my understanding that one would have to voluntarily -- and positively -- renounce such citizenship, at the age of one's maturity.
Other countries "conferring" THEIR citizenship would not impinge in any way on the rights, or the prerogatives, of a natural born Citizen (see definition above) of the United States nor could such countries bar a natural born Citizen from holding office as President Of The United States.
STE=Q
I seriously doubt that's true. Got a source? Wait, don't tell me...it's a WorldNutDaily poll. Right?
Nope. Natural born citizen simply means US citizen at birth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.