Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NBC lies about Obama's birth certificate and eligibility to be President \
Examiner.com ^ | July 23, 1:33 AM | geoff linsley

Posted on 07/23/2009 1:34:50 AM PDT by Red Steel

Last night, 7/22/2009, NBC’s Nightly News with Brian Williams took 5 minutes to try to refute widespread claims across America that Barack Obama isn’t actually a natural born citizen, conveniently before Barack’s 8:00 p.m. sale of Health Care Reform to the people.[1] The Constitution states that, in order to be President, one must be a natural born American Citizen.[2] Nightly News reported that “legal scholars, liberal and conservative alike, are in widespread agreement that Barack Obama is fully qualified.”  The report then states that the Supreme Court has never verified what a “natural born citizen” really is. Both of these statements are utterly false.
 
There are two ways someone can be a natural born citizen. The first way is what Obama’s campaign claims: that Obama was born on U.S. soil. Obama does have a birth certificate registered in Hawaii, but Hawaiian law allowed for babies were weren’t born on U.S. soil to become registered as Hawaiian citizens.[3] This Hawaiian birth certificate does not in any way mean that Barack is a natural born citizen. Also, no one in Hawaii claims to have witnessed Barack’s birth. Currently, Obama’s true, Kenyan birthplace is a tourist attraction. There you can find his grandmother, who proudly tells that “Barack was born in this village” and that she was present during his birth. His half-brother and half-sister also substantiate this claim. 
 
The only other way Barack could have been a natural born citizen was for both of his parents to be U.S. citizens.   At the time of his birth, his mother was an Indonesian citizen and his father was a subject of the British Crown. It is argued that his mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama’s birth: she did have documented citizenship in the U.S. Indonesia, however, doesn’t recognize dual citizenship; and the U.S. only recognizes dual citizenship if the other country the individual claims citizenship with does. Therefore, Obama can’t be a natural born American Citizen via his parents either.
 
Before Barack was inaugurated, a New Jersey man named Leo Donofrio bravely created an emergency appeal regarding Obama’s qualification to be an American president and sent it to the Supreme Court to be reviewed. Without explaining why, the Supreme Court turned down the emergency appeal and soon after the media completely hushed about the dilemma.[4]   Since then, a slew of other lawyers across the country have also attempted lawsuits without making any real progress.
 
There are also many other questions raised about Obama’s birth certificate. If Barack is truly a natural born U.S. citizen, why hasn’t his campaign effectively disproved the claims that he isn’t? Wouldn’t this be a simple conspiracy to silence? Even more pertinent, why did Obama spend $688,316 in legal fees to lawyer Perkins Coie for battling the birth certificate conspiracy?[5] Why is the Supreme Court rejecting these cases without warrant? Why is NBC shooting out such pro-Obama propaganda to the public? Don’t be fooled by it – the “conspiracy” is far from debunked. As of right now, the evidence is leaning against Obama, showing that he, according to the Constitution, should be immediately expelled from office.


[1] javascript:vPlayer('32091472','ac679625-c0aa-4935-b90c-1d4ef95579d1')   This link should feed you to the story.
[2] Artilce Two, Clause 5
[3] http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm
[4] Jones, Tim. “Court won’t review Obama’s eligibility to serve.” Chicago Tribune. Dec 8, 2008.
[5] http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=5762
 


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: article2section1; barackobama; bho2009; bho44; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; colb; eligibility; forgery; hawaii; indonesia; ineligible; kenya; medialies; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; nbcnews; obama; obamanoncitizenissue; occidentalcollege
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-124 next last
Actually, it's really one way to be a NBC. Born in the US to US citizens...otherwise carry on.

And he's correct about the Natural Barack Network (NBC) lying.

1 posted on 07/23/2009 1:34:50 AM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
A point that I have rarely heard brought up is that Obie's defense against these lawsuits has always been plaintiff's standing, never any suggestion that a valid birth certificate has been produced. Amazing that these newsies would argue a point of law never put forward by the defendant.
2 posted on 07/23/2009 1:37:32 AM PDT by gov_bean_ counter (Barak Obama: Pontificator in Chief and Poster Child for the Peter Principle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
The only one conspiring is Stinkerbell.

Why no BC, BO?

Why are you conspiring to hide it?



No DO can cover the stench of my BO!


3 posted on 07/23/2009 1:44:33 AM PDT by rawcatslyentist (Ifanationexpects tobe ignorantandfree,inastateofcivilization,itexpects whatneverwas andnever will be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Glad to see you caught that one. There are a lot of people who conflate “native born” and “natural born”. One is a commonplace expression, the second is a term of art, with one very specific meaning; one that hasn’t changed since the Framers used it back in the 18th century.


4 posted on 07/23/2009 1:45:20 AM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

bkkmk/BC/legalfees/footnote5


5 posted on 07/23/2009 1:54:42 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Is this a serious question? How could the Obama worship network act in any other manner>


6 posted on 07/23/2009 2:09:20 AM PDT by Jeff Gordon (Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Actually, it's really one way to be a NBC. Born in the US to US citizens...otherwise carry on.

In which case, McLame wasn't one either.

Since the U.S. Constitution doesn't define the term, Congress has the right to do so...and they have (8 U.S.C. §1401)

Other than that minor detail, both in your assertion and in the article's, I thought it was a good piece.

Now, having said that, it becomes doubly confusing why he won't release his actual birth certificate (the one with the baby footprints and the OB signature). Because regardless of where he was born, due to 8 U.S.C. §1401 and by virtue of Stanley Ann's citizenship, he's qualified for the post.

My theory:

So, press on.

But know the facts.

7 posted on 07/23/2009 2:13:36 AM PDT by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Since the U.S. Constitution doesn't define the term, Congress has the right to do so...and they have (8 U.S.C. §1401)

I know the facts better than most. I've see that US Code 1401 at least a dozen times over the last year and nowhere does it address the issue of Natural Born Citizen as it pertains to the eligibility of the US presidency. What the statue does define are US Nationals and Citizens.

So press on.

8 posted on 07/23/2009 2:34:02 AM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Since the U.S. Constitution doesn't define the term, Congress has the right to do so...and they have (8 U.S.C. §1401)

... But know the facts.


Are you citing the current law? Wouldn't use the law as written at the time of BHO's birth, not current law?

9 posted on 07/23/2009 2:36:21 AM PDT by Kegger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
"Since the U.S. Constitution doesn't define the term (Natural-Born), Congress has the right to do so...and they have (8 U.S.C. §1401)"

That code defines citizenship....NOT Natural-Born status. Perhaps you should learn the facts.

10 posted on 07/23/2009 2:54:10 AM PDT by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html


11 posted on 07/23/2009 2:55:05 AM PDT by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

bump


12 posted on 07/23/2009 3:01:21 AM PDT by tophat9000 (Obama plans to fix America like he fixed his dog)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

I’m not a lawyer but you seem like a reasonable individual...
From your link...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401——000-.html
“(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;”

His mother is a person born in the US and ‘arguably’ was physically present for a continuous period. Perhaps this defuses the issue?

Also see Subsec (g) which spirals around the language to almost point directly to BO, which was amended in 1986.

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t05t08+5071+102++%28Title%208%20%3E%20Chapter%2012%20%3E%20Subchapter%20III%20%3E%20Part%20I%20%3E%20Section%201401%29%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20

I’m just asking from a laymans point of view. Where precisely in the law COULD it be argued that this president is a natural born citizen by way of ANY law. Notwithstanding the notion that we may need to apply laws as they were written in 1961 when he was born. That’s a separate argument.

And if such a law could be found, WHY hasnt the media and the “legal scholars, liberal and conservative alike, [WHO] are in widespread agreement that Barack Obama is fully qualified.” simply cited the relevant legal code and be done with it?

Enquiring Minds Wanna Know!


13 posted on 07/23/2009 3:16:22 AM PDT by Samurai_Jack (ride out and confront the evil!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Godebert
Under the heading of Natural Born Defined: Your site speaks of parent(S) being U.S. citizens, as represented here by Rep. Bingham comment on Section 1992, "Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parent(S) 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)."

Under the definition contained in the website you have so generously given us then, Barack Obama is not, and was not, qualified to take the oath of office of the Presidency of the United States.

ex animo

davidfarrar

14 posted on 07/23/2009 3:21:02 AM PDT by DavidFarrar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
“At the time of his birth, his mother was an Indonesian citizen...”

I'm not tracking with you on this part...Stanely Danham met and married Lolo Soetoro in Hawaii about 1966. What connection would she have had with Indonesia prior to this?

15 posted on 07/23/2009 3:21:19 AM PDT by Red Dog #1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
markomalley,
IMO, If I had to bet money on why he's hiding his birth certificate, I'd go with your option number two. A “long form” Hawaiian birth certificate was posted on FR several weeks ago. Beyond the place of birth, the volume of personnel information on it would have great potential for embarrassment.
16 posted on 07/23/2009 3:29:17 AM PDT by Red Dog #1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Dog bites man. When NBC - or anyone else in the MSM - decides to tell the truth about the issue, THEN it’ll be news. Don’t hold your breath.


17 posted on 07/23/2009 3:33:56 AM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Godebert
I'll ignore your previous reply.

The article you cite quotes the 14th Amendment. That is very pertinent and is central to my argument. Section 5 of that Amendment states, The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Congress did so in 8 USC §1401.

18 posted on 07/23/2009 3:38:23 AM PDT by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel; All
The REAL issue is WHY he's been usurped into power, and by whom, he didn't plan, fund & execute this all by himself, he's a marionette, so who's pulling his strings?

When you connect the dots, and see what's happening now, and is going to happen this Winter, together with the issue of Obama being being controlled by an external force, then it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where the USA is heading.

I think the USA, and consequently, the World is in dire peril, people just seem so ignorant to it.
19 posted on 07/23/2009 3:47:02 AM PDT by bethybabes69 (Between you, and whatever you call God, there is no authority, only an illusion of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kegger
Are you citing the current law? Wouldn't use the law as written at the time of BHO's birth, not current law?

Good question.

According to the notes attached to the code, the law was enacted in 1952. The specific subparagraph (g) was changed from:

(prior text) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least four of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years

to

(current text) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years

According to the bios of Stanley Ann Dunham, she lived in the CONUS from 1942 to 1960. (17.5 years -- 3.5 years after her 14th birthday). She supposedly graduated from Mercer Island High School in Washington State (a fact that should be verifiable). She moved to Hawaii in 1960 and supposedly attended the University of Hawaii at Mānoa. Again, a fact that should be easily verifiable. If she completed classes for even one semester, then she met the criterion of four years of residency after her 14th birthday.

If, on the other hand, she didn't, then there might be a case to be made.

But that, actually, could be a really good point because there is a potentially exploitable hole.

20 posted on 07/23/2009 3:52:15 AM PDT by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Samurai_Jack
And if such a law could be found, WHY hasnt the media and the “legal scholars, liberal and conservative alike, [WHO] are in widespread agreement that Barack Obama is fully qualified.” simply cited the relevant legal code and be done with it?

Enquiring Minds Wanna Know!

Alfred Lanning Quote

21 posted on 07/23/2009 3:53:44 AM PDT by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

The Supreme Court, and many others commited treason IMHO, and continue to do so.


22 posted on 07/23/2009 3:56:44 AM PDT by Waco (Libs exhale too much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kegger

Forgot to mention, the 10/4 requirement to 5/2 was changed in 1986. Sorry. Should have mentioned that in my reply. (Pub. L. 99–653)


23 posted on 07/23/2009 3:57:43 AM PDT by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
"Since the U.S. Constitution doesn't define the term, Congress has the right to do so...and they have (8 U.S.C. §1401)"

That, as I understand it, is the CURRENT definition. Other info posted here proves that the definition AT THE TIME OF OBAMA'S BIRTH (which is the law that would apply), does not yield him to be a natural born citizen. Specifically, birth to a single citizen parent outside the United States only garnered citizenship if the parent was over a specific age. Obama's mother was younger than the required age.

24 posted on 07/23/2009 4:08:21 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog ( The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Neither NBC nor GE are American. American patriots will boycott both forever.


25 posted on 07/23/2009 4:19:59 AM PDT by Diogenesis ("Those who go below the surface do so at their peril" - Oscar Wilde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
That, as I understand it, is the CURRENT definition. Other info posted here proves that the definition AT THE TIME OF OBAMA'S BIRTH (which is the law that would apply), does not yield him to be a natural born citizen.

ping to post #20. That's a really good question, though, and might provide a bit of a hole, dependent upon Stanley Ann's residency. But the law, in question, was passed in 1952 (and was slightly adjusted in 1986).

26 posted on 07/23/2009 4:23:38 AM PDT by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Go one further...

OUT OF WEDLOCK BIRTH
BECAUSE Mother married a lying commie who was already legally married in his country and couldn’t marry her.

UNLESS you can find some statute from back then that would allow such a marriage n Hawaii.

So...ONE and ONLY ONE contiguous year necessary.


27 posted on 07/23/2009 4:30:55 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
"Last night, 7/22/2009, NBC’s Nightly News with Brian Williams took 5 minutes to try to refute widespread claims across America that Barack Obama isn’t actually a natural born citizen"

It's good to know we can rely on Brian Williams objectivity:
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
28 posted on 07/23/2009 4:34:24 AM PDT by mkjessup (Jimmy Carter is the Skidmark in the panties of American history, 0bama is the yellow stain in front.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

nbc lies... always has.

LLS


29 posted on 07/23/2009 4:35:27 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (hussein will NEVER be my President... NEVER!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
...and the U.S. only recognizes dual citizenship if the other country the individual claims citizenship with does.

I don't believe this is true.US citizenship laws aren't dependent in any way on what another country's citizenship laws say about a particular individual's citizenship status.You either *are* or *are not* a US citizen at a given moment in time.And if you *are* a US citizen just about the only way you can lose your citizenship is if you formally renounce it (there are other ways,too,but they're very rare).

However,the concept of "natural born" citizenship is another matter.

30 posted on 07/23/2009 4:46:10 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Christian+Veteran=Terrorist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
BECAUSE Mother married a lying commie who was already legally married in his country and couldn’t marry her.

In fact, the statute says nothing about the marital status of the parents.

a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years

Stanley Ann could have been forcibly raped by Idi Amin and it wouldn't really matter.

My suggestion, keep looking for the birth certificate. But, at the same time, start looking into tracing the residency of Stanley Ann at the same time. Seattle (where she supposedly graduated from High School) is only a few miles from British Columbia. Her bio could have been modified. Additionally, what about her time after she graduated from High School? If you can show that she was not resident for four years after her 14th birthday (there are only four years and 9 months to play with here -- meaning you only have to show that she wasn't present for more than 9 months during that four year period) and that he was born outside of the US and possessions, then there might just be a legal case. (The law at the time Ø's birth was 10 years total US residency and 4 years after the age of 14, for the citizen parent), then you might have a really good case legally.

However, even if you can't prove that Stanley Ann wasn't absent from the US for 10 months between her birthday and Ø's birth, I'd keep pressing on the subject, as it would be HORRIBLY damaging to him, politically!

31 posted on 07/23/2009 5:01:11 AM PDT by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Actually the Immigration Statute DOES talk about OUT OF WEDLOCK birth. There is a section for OUT OF WEDLOCK fathers and OUT OF WEDLOCK Mothers. Mothers have less of a burden than fathers in the statute.

Read the Statute.

A Marriage that is VOID (NOT VOIDABLE) means OUT OF WEDLOCK BIRTH.

For it not to be an out of wedlock birth you have to find a statute in Hawaii that would allow the marriage to a man who had a legally recognized marriage in Africa.


32 posted on 07/23/2009 5:08:48 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

For those of you that still don’t believe there is an out of wedlock provision in the Immigration Act..read the Supreme Court case about a man born in Vietnam in 1969

http://www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/natzcitzshp/nc033.htm


33 posted on 07/23/2009 5:14:24 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Tell the fibbing Brian Williams that Obama isn’t even a natural born citizen if he were actually born in Hawaii. His father was a Kenyan (a British colony). Both parents must be citizens. Later on, Obama was adopted by Soetoro and citizenship changed to Indonesia (evidence by the fact he schooled there). Throw in as a foreign student at Occidental College as Barry Soetoro, and his Presidential stint will be ending soon.

And if that won’t convince someone, why won’t Obama simply present his original long form birth certificate to prove eligibility? Speaks for itself.


34 posted on 07/23/2009 5:27:06 AM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
Actually the Immigration Statute DOES talk about OUT OF WEDLOCK birth. There is a section for OUT OF WEDLOCK fathers and OUT OF WEDLOCK Mothers. Mothers have less of a burden than fathers in the statute.

But it's really irrelevant since the mother was the one through whom citizenship was inherited:

8 U.S.C. §1101 (b) As used in subchapters I and II of this chapter— (1) The term “child” means an unmarried person under twenty-one years of age who is (D) a child born out of wedlock, by, through whom, or on whose behalf a status, privilege, or benefit is sought by virtue of the relationship of the child to its natural mother or to its natural father if the father has or had a bona fide parent-child relationship with the person;

8 U.S.C §1409 (c) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.

§1409 is in there to deal with the situation of a US father going overseas, knocking a woman up (e.g., in a whorehouse), and then the child automatically getting citizenship status even though the father may never have met the kid.

So why even confuse matters?

Oh, and one other point: there is a difference between being a "national" and being a "citizen." The §1409 reference above talks about inheriting "nationality" status, not "citizenship" status. The §1401 reference I quoted in earlier posts (which doesn't reference marriage at all) references inheriting "citizenship" status AND "national" status.

35 posted on 07/23/2009 5:31:39 AM PDT by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Stanley Ann Dunham, Barack Obama’s mother, attended the University of Hawaii during the fall of 1960. She was enrolled at the University of Washington in autumn of 1961.

Between these start dates, Miss Duham became pregnant with Obama on Nov. 1, 1960 while she was 17 years of age. Claims are that she married Obama Sr. on February 2, 1961. If this is correct and Obama Sr. was already married, it would constitute bigamy. Bigamy is outlawed in Hawaii, but legal in Kenya. Thus, chances are that Obama’s mother had moved to Kenya residing there the months preceding Obama’s 1961 birth.

Obama’s own grandmother states that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. Thus, he would not be a natural born citizen. Obama is reported to have been born August 4, 1961.

Now, how could Obama be born in Kenya or Hawaii and then have his mother enrolled at the University of Washington later that same month? Unlikely movement!

Is there any witnesses to Stanley Ann Dunham’s location and movement in 1961 up through Obama’s birth. Any medical clinic visits in the U.S. during her pregnancy? I have not heard of any which is a good indication that she was in Kenya.

Claims indicate that Obama was adopted and became Barry Soetoro in Indonesia. He would then have lost natural born citizenship if he even ever had it. He attended Occidental College as Barry Soetoro. Occidental College informed Newsweek that Obama enrolled as a foreign student (info at FreeRepublic).

By simply releasing his original long form birth certificate, Obama could prove whether he is a natural born citizen or not. By spending an enormous amount in legal fees to keep his birth certificate hidden, it leads one to think that he is NOT a natural born citizen.


36 posted on 07/23/2009 5:35:31 AM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

That 10 year Trillion dollar contract rewarded to G.E. by the Obama administration has really paid of for Obama’s sake. Any objective person that examines the evidence can clearly see that the certificate of live birth is bogus. Furthermore, the reluctance of Obama to disclose his college records (that show him as an exchange student) is further proof that Obama was not born in the USA. However, we all know that the lap dogs in the media and press will ALWAYS provide cover those they agree with politically. They will not do their jobs honorably.


37 posted on 07/23/2009 5:38:55 AM PDT by Sprite518
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

I cant make sense of your post. WTF???

Bottom line, you are wrong when you said Obama’s mother needed at least 5 years. Most people on this site are wrong because they have not thought through the scenario concerning the Bigamist daddy and haven’t looked at the law.

Different sections of the law apply depending on marital status. She was not legally married. The marriage was not VOIDABLE..it was VOID.- unless you can come up with a statute from hawaii that says otherwise.

There are some provisions in the Immigration Act if it is the United States citizen or permanent resident who is pulling a fast one and is the bigamist..but that isn’t the case here. It was the Lying Commie Daddy.

Obama is a US citizen no matter where he was born thanks to his bigamist daddy.


38 posted on 07/23/2009 5:51:01 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

i really couldnt make any sense of Mark;s post so I went to go look up 1409.

IT DOES APPLY TO MOTHERS for NATIONALITY

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001409——000-.html

A NATIONAL is not the same thing as NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AND NOT THE SAME THING AS CITIZEN as can be seen here
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001408——000-.html

so the only thing in Mark’s post that would be relevant is US CITIZENSHIP.

Obamanazi is a US citizen no matter where he was born because his daddy was a bigamist and the out of wedlock law applies.

Natural Born Citizen??? That is a legal argument that a Court has to decided.


39 posted on 07/23/2009 6:27:15 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
"But the law, in question, was passed in 1952 (and was slightly adjusted in 1986)."

Yes, but again, as I recall from other postings here, that "slight adjustment" was the specific thing that changed the age/residency requirements for the "citizen mother" such that Obama "qualifies" under current law, but not under the law at the time of his birth.

But the crux of this is that the entire brou-ha-ha could be eliminted immediately by the simple release of his "long form" birth certificate. The mere fact that he has NOT done so, and has spent a huge amount of money NOT to do so, is, I think, a strong indicator that the "birthers" have a case. Just as the fact that John Kerry has STILL not released his full service records leads me to think that the "Swift-boat" guys were right about him, as well.

40 posted on 07/23/2009 7:10:19 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog ( The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
Natural Born Citizen??? That is a legal argument that a Court has to decided.

The SCOTUS has already decided:

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830)
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875)
Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394
United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890)

S.R. 511 - 110th Congress - 2nd Session - April 24, 2008:

Excerpt: "Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936:...." Read more here

Our founding fathers drew from Vattel's Law of Nations in drawing up the Constitution. Within this book is described the definition of Natural Born in Book 1; Chapter 19 to wit...."The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." Notice the plurals the same as S.R. 511 - PARENTS, CITIZENS....et. al. Natural Born status has always been defined this way. In 2008 that definition was upheld by the 110th Congress.

In the SCOTUS cases referenced above that definition was also upheld and the bottom two cases Vattel was actually cited as the source reference for the decision.

To be a 'Natural Born' citizen the definition has always been defined as born in the country of TWO citizen parents.

The problem isn't lack of definition or court decisions - the problem is refusal to recognize or agree with those decisions in modern times by the bulk of the American people who continue to confuse 'native born' with 'natural born'.

41 posted on 07/23/2009 7:36:03 AM PDT by conservativegramma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: real_patriotic_american
By simply releasing his original long form birth certificate, Obama could prove whether he is a natural born citizen or not. By spending an enormous amount in legal fees to keep his birth certificate hidden, it leads one to think that he is NOT a natural born citizen.

That is the bottom line. There is something politically that he is VERY worried about, else he'd just go ahead and "humor them."

And you bring up some very relevant points about his mother's residency. With the law as it was at the time of his birth (10 / 4), those disparities in her record could prove HUGE.

IMHO, the folks who are doing the microscopic analysis of JPEGs of his "certification" should start devoting energies to HER whereabouts in that level of detail. If it could be shown that she wasn't resident for the requisite amount of time, that would bring a LOT more pressure to bear on the subject.

42 posted on 07/23/2009 7:36:29 AM PDT by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

In my opinion we’re going after this the wrong way in pursuit of ‘the birth certificate’.

What we should be doing is #1 - Go after the Obama Administration/Campaign and FactCheck for committing felony document fraud and hit them with an indictment. Force them to prove or disprove the COLB that keeps getting waved around as authentic when there is a great deal of proof it is not.

#2 - See my post #41. Obama isn’t eligible because he has a non-citizen Father. That has been proven. Launch an investigation into why the constitution is not being upheld when Obama is not a natural born citizen as S.R. 511 demands - TWO CITIZEN PARENTS.

All those enabling and abetting Obama’s fraudulent takeover should all be equally indicted for fraud and treason as well. They may produce or claim forged documents as authentic if we only pursue ‘the birth certificate’ but they have no defense against #1 & #2 above.


43 posted on 07/23/2009 7:51:47 AM PDT by conservativegramma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Yes, when Obama’s mother dropped out of the University of Hawaii during the fall of 1960, I’ve heard no witnesses or evidence to her wherabouts aside from Obama’s grandmother stating being present when Obama was born in Kenya.

The COLB could prove felony forgery of a government document.


44 posted on 07/23/2009 7:53:39 AM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
Sorry: was in a hurry.

Here's the bottom line. The part of Title 8 of the US Code that applies to parents out of wedlock (8 USC §1409) talks about him inheriting nationality from his mother.

The part that I cited earlier (8 USC §1401) talks about inheriting citizenship.

There is a difference between citizenship and nationality; i.e., you can be a U.S. national without being a citizen, while all U.S. citizens are considered nationals. Green card holders are considered U.S. nationals (at least for the purpose of the US Export Control laws), but they are not considered citizens.

8 USC §1409(c), which talks about inheriting nationality is the section you are citing (if I'm wrong, please provide me the section number) in your discussion. It says, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year. Note: it does NOT say the citizenship status of his mother, just the nationality status. Remember: all citizens are nationals, not all nationals are citizens.

8 USC §1401, which is the one I'm citing, talks about inheriting US citizenship. It says, The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:…(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years

In other words, if she didn't meet the residency requirements of §1401(g), but did meet the residency requirements of §1409(c), then he would be a U.S. national at birth, but not a citizen (i.e., essentially a green card holder).

Hopefully that expressed the same thought a little clearer than before.

45 posted on 07/23/2009 7:58:47 AM PDT by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: real_patriotic_american; conservativegramma
The COLB could prove felony forgery of a government document.

And considering it is just a form printed out based upon the contents of a government database (not a facsimile of the live document), that is not at all beyond the realm of possibility.

Yes, when Obama’s mother dropped out of the University of Hawaii during the fall of 1960, I’ve heard no witnesses or evidence to her wherabouts aside from Obama’s grandmother stating being present when Obama was born in Kenya.

And in which case, the folks tracking this need to determine travel dates. If she left prior to her 18th Birthday and didn't return until after his birth, she wouldn't meet the residency requirements of 8 U.S.C. §1401(g) to pass on citizenship, in the event that it can be proven that bam-bam wasn't born in Hawaii.

One other off-the-wall question, do you know if anybody on the "birther" side has looked for the microfilm for the Honolulu papers to confirm or disprove the statements by the MSM that there were birth announcements?

46 posted on 07/23/2009 8:06:34 AM PDT by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma

YOu are talking about Strict Constructionism and I am not sure that is the way the courts would rule.

As I said, a matter for the courts.

If Obama was born in the US, with no UK citizenship because it couldn’t be conferred without legal marriage - then it is possible that the courts would decide he is eligible.

If born in Kenya then he has does have UK citizenship and US citizenship.

The Birthers should be digging into whether Hawaii would recognize that marriage in Kenya or not. If it was deemed a common law marriage - I don’t think it would be recognized and Ann Obama’s marriage legal.

If hawaii recognized it as a legal marriage - Ann Obama marriage ILLEGAL, VOID, and punishable by prison.

It is a legal entanglement in many different areas that would have taken years to sort out - which he evaded as scooted his way into the White House.


47 posted on 07/23/2009 8:11:47 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
YOu are talking about Strict Constructionism and I am not sure that is the way the courts would rule.

You're not doing your research. Read my post again. The courts HAVE ALREADY RULED.

As I said, a matter for the courts.

Which they HAVE ALREADY DECIDED. I can't help it if you won't read or research the cases cited.

Your problem is you cannot accept already settled case history. Why I don't know.

For those who cannot accept these rulings you have 3 options: 1) reverse the previous court decisions, 2) get an amendment to the constitution re-defining 'natural born', 3) or simply ignore the constitution and previous court rulings. Unfortunately #3 appears to be the way most Americans want to go.

But bear in mind even when conservatives start to throw out the constitution because you don't like the 'strict constructionism' our founders set up, then anything else may be re-written, re-defined, thrown out if you will, and then you are no better than Obama and his cronies.

48 posted on 07/23/2009 8:20:35 AM PDT by conservativegramma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma
My opinion is that you are wrong as to it being settled law.

You forgot U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark

But For example, Let me just take one you quoted:

Minor VS Happerett


Chief Justice Waite: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
49 posted on 07/23/2009 8:38:35 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

You can backtrack it from this info:

http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html


50 posted on 07/23/2009 8:40:46 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-124 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson