Skip to comments.Obama's Eligibility Diversion
Posted on 02/14/2012 3:17:10 AM PST by Flotsam_Jetsome
Having followed the Obama "natural born" citizenship quandary since its inception, I had always viewed the controversy over Obama's birthplace and other records as a diversion from the real issue: Obama's dual citizenship precluded his constitutional eligibility. My position was also influenced by my desire to elevate discussion on the inextricably related issue of birthright citizenship as a key component in effective immigration reform. Birthright citizenship is the practice of conferring U.S. citizenship to every baby born on U.S. soil, regardless of the nationality, domicile, or legal status of its parents. The practice, seen by many as an illegal immigration magnet, also often results in the dilemma of double allegiance, a "supra-citizen" status held by millions of Americans. Although the State Department rarely enforces its policies discouraging dual citizenship, it does recognize its security clearance implications. And the department confirmed that Obama was born a dual citizen.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/obamas_eligibility_diversion.html#ixzz1mLwFXoEP
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
It must be really exhausting running around trying to hide the truth and keep up with all the lies about this man. I can't imagine how many people it takes.
In the society we live in, where we want to know every little detail about famous and infamous people, the people covering for him must feel like they are playing with that toy slime. You have two cups of slime and you're trying to contain it in a single cup. It just keeps spilling over and down the sides. As soon as you rake it up one side, it slimes down another.
Americans have a right to know any and everything about whoever is in the WH making the decisions that affect us and our descendants.
Delighted even Americanthinker publishes on this issue.
Until the lamestream wakes up and does the job, obozo will get away with it, or we vote out the usurper then prosecute him!
During the period 2003 - 2008 there we’re 8 Congressional attempts to remove the Aricle 2, Secion 1, Clause 5 requirement for a Presidential candidate to be a Natural Born citizen of the US. These attempts were mostly by Democrats, Vic Snyder of Arkansas, John Conyers of Michigan, and Claire McCaskill of Oklahoma. These were in the forms of resolutions to be developed into Constitutional amendments. They all were worded in various forms that the candidate only needed to be a US citizen for periods of 14 years, 20 years or 35 years. The question is why was all this activity initiated during the rise to power of Barack Obama?
Good article. Each week, month, year that has passed . . . still amazes AND saddens me. What is wrong with our Congress, judges, and the media? Are they really that afraid of a race war or riots? I hope the truth comes out one of these days before I die.
Is Obama eligible?" is a legitimate question. But so is "Who is Obama?" And further, "Who is backing him?"
Is Obama eligible?, is the threshold legal question and should be the center of focus. The other two questions are primarily political in nature and become nonissues in the event the former is answered in the negative (except as they may lead to a formal criminal investigation).
The threshold question includes at once both birthplace and the foreign father element. The former most likely will be resolved when a state finds the political courage to ask for certified birth documents delivered from HI. Failing that, we may be left hoping the 2013 Joint Session of Congress will do the job the 2009 Joint Session refused to do.
The second of the two inseparable elements, the foreign father, is not difficult to understand but, unfortunately,also depends on a Congress willing to honor its oath of office, or a rational decision from a politically split USSC.
As Andrew Breitbart recently stated, this is not your mother’s democratic party. Libs living a lie, and supporting one to the detriment of liberty and prosperity...
Occidental is not that big a college and it seems very strange that no one seems to remember him. Certainly other foreign students would have known his status and even other classmates would have had some knowledge of who he was. The only evidence of his time at Occidental were those photos of a cocky and arrogant looking young man in a Panama hat with a cigarette dangling from his lips. His time at Columbia and Harvard are also phantom like with again no one seeming to remember him. Obama seems to have a past that is largely a fabrication.
The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide. Barry Dunham
Wild Bill for America -
Secret Service Secrets
What the Secret Service agents say about past and present Presidents.
The US State Dept. can _only_ “confirm” alleged US citizenship, _not_ UK citizenship.
Did the US State Dept. contact the UK Foreign Office and request confirmation that Barry was documented to be a UK subject at birth? There is no evidence of that.
Only the UK could “confirm” that Barry was born a UK subject. However, under the 1948 BNA, UK citizenship passes _only_ to the legitimate children of UK subjects, and children of bigamous marriages are _not_ legitimate and would _not_ be UK subjects at birth.
The State Dept. need only look in the INS files on BHO Sr. to find that Sr. was deported specifically _because_ his marriage to SADO was assumed to be a sham, given the documentation in the INS files that Sr. had a wife and children in Kenya.
Now these facts (INS docs on Sr. and bigamous marriage as the cause of deportation) have been entered into the court record as evidence in the GA eligibility case. This evidence of probable bigamy undermines the claim that Barry was born a UK subject at birth.
How many times does the “Pakistan Travel Ban” need to be debunked?
Oh, but nevermind THAT! Let us go with that bit of invented history and taken that as a given - assume he had a foreign passport - and then require evidence of a U.S. passport - all based upon a bogus claim from years ago that only the absolutely uninformed or ill-informed are still clinging too.
I state as fact that there was no requirement for him to have a passport OTHER THAN a U.S. passport to travel to Pakistan - because the supposed travel ban is an invention.
An invention that YEARS LATER - people still believe.
Why do they still believe that invention? Because they don't want to know the truth? Because speaking the truth gets rabid birther dogs sicked on them? Because birthers would rather hold onto an attractive lie than be confronted with the truth?
Why do birthers still believe in a Pakistan travel ban?
Because they are stupid?
Because they are uninformed?
Because birther sources lie to them?
What is the answer?
Attacking me isn't the answer.
To Mark Steyn: Citizenship, its rights and responsibilities, and presidential eligibility are more than merely “rinky-dink” technicalities.
As are voter id laws...
All is Well. Remain Calm
I can’t help but channel Kevin Bacon from Animal House while reading the news that 1.8 million dead people are registered to vote.
Remember: We don’t need Voter ID laws because our system is sound as...well, a dollar...
I guess this is the progressive’s strategy in getting a failed radical POTUS re-elected.
1. In 2008, Obama’s campaign web site confirmed that his status at birth was governed by British law.
2. INS makes distinction between a native-born and a natural-born citizen.
How do you explain that?
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.