NBC lies about Obama's birth certificate and eligibility to be President \

Examiner.com ^ | July 23, 1:33 AM | geoff linsley

[MHGinTN]

You have a pleasant eveing ...

[RummyChick]

Hmmmm...so did your expert make up this law to suit a purpose... I will await you showing me the actual law that was enacted. I have shown you the one that says Obama could not have been a UK citizen without a legal marriage.

[MHGinTN]

“Hmmmm...so did your expert make up this law to suit a purpose?” Now, Rummy Chick, you didn’t really think you were going to bait someone and get a response using such phrasing, did you? As I said you have a good evening.

[Plummz]

The Constitution does not define the term “navy.”

According to your bizarre theory, the Congress could redefine “navy” to mean “lollipops.”

You are in la-la land. A natural-born British subject like Barry just ain’t ne c’est pas un naturel ou indigene...

[RummyChick]

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1958/jun/27/children-bill-lords

Funny how this doesn’t say what you claim it says.

So I guess you people are wrong and I am right...until you prove me otherwise WITH LEGITIMATE INFORMATION.

[RummyChick]

Btw, I hope you provide LEGITIMATE information that backs up what you just posted..otherwise you are giving ammunition to Obama about the depths that people will go to in their quest to denigrate him.

You are no better than Obama if you are willing to lie in order to forward an agenda.

[MHGinTN]

Please accept that we are going to indulge you and give you the last word you're so desperate for.

Don't take this as evidence of folks agreeing with you; it has little to do with the discussion and everything to do with your obsessive behavior and confrontational lunacy. Enduring such unpleasantness is not a requirement to remain active at FreeRepublic.com

There were two portions in the quote, one from a 1958 procedure and one from a 1948 British Nationality Act. You appear to have great need for an argument to feed your obsession for having the last word.

Some of us--at least I am--are going to save you the embarrassment of you having to spittle and claw for that last word and just grant it to you now. ... Have a quiet evening.

[RummyChick]

“It is now the law that all persons born in the United Kingdom or its Colonies, or in countries which were Colonies at the time when they were born, have British nationality whether they are legitimate or illegitimate. . . .”

This little gem that BOTH of you quoted is in neither.

Shame on you.

Provide the link.

Amazing that Google can only find it in TWO places. Here and the lawyer that you keep quoting.

Erroneous crap like you are spreading should not be allowed on Free Republic.

I will always acknowledge when I am wrong. Apparently, neither of you can..and provide false information to try to hide it.

Unbelievable that I am seeing that on this website.

[markomalley]

Is there a definition somewhere in the sections that defines parents as married?

I haven't seen one. I'm just a "barracks lawyer" so I am not well familiar with all of the common law history or precedent that may well define it in a court (something to do with legitimation of a child and / or inheritance law), but this may be the reason why the current Immigration and Nationalization Law has these clauses in it to begin with (a statutory method to overcome the background of common law).

"The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 added the requirement that the citizenmother must have been continuously physically present in the United States or a possession for twelve months prior to the child’s birth"

That is pretty close to a couple of clauses in §1401:

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions 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 prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(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;

The way I read the above is that they are just two different situations where somebody could be declared a citizen at birth, not that they would negate subparagraph (g). Subparagraph (d) wouldn't apply, as the father was not a national of the US. Subparagraph (e) wouldn't apply, as nobody is asserting Ø was born in an outlying possession.

I understand where you are coming from..but there must be something out there that reconciles the info..because it is pretty established in cases I have looked through etc...about the one year if out of wedlock.

One thing to keep in mind is that any case law may be obscure, if it, in fact, exists.

The usual situation is that the government wants to deny officially granting citizenship rights to a person. In fact, if you look at the corresponding parts of the Code of Federal Regulations, you will see that it explicitly states that the burden of proof is on the petitioner, in cases of certificates of citizenship or passports.

So most court cases would have the plaintiff trying to have the government (via the courts) include him as a citizen. In this case, we are trying to exclude him. You've got to admit that is not the norm.

That would also explain why people wouldn't notice that the State Department page substituted the word "citizen" for "national."

[markomalley]

You are in la-la land. A natural-born British subject like Barry just ain’t ne c’est pas un naturel ou indigene...

Thank you for your well thought out and reasoned post.

[markomalley]

According to your bizarre theory, the Congress could redefine “navy” to mean “lollipops.”

Oh, and by the way, Congress did define the term "Navy:"

(1) The term “Navy” means the United States Navy. It includes the Regular Navy, the Fleet Reserve, and the Navy Reserve.

(2) The term “Marine Corps” means the United States Marine Corps. It includes the Regular Marine Corps, the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve, and the Marine Corps Reserve.

(3) The term “member of the naval service” means a person appointed or enlisted in, or inducted or conscripted into, the Navy or the Marine Corps.

Silly, ain't it?

[Star Traveler]

Ummmm..., I don’t know if I would trust Jack Bauer’s father... I think he’s a Chinese communist sympathizer... LOL...

[markomalley]

Actually, the reference comes from “I, Robot”

[Star Traveler]

Okay... :-)

He looks *just like that* as Jack Bauer’s father...

[Plummz]

That definition is a defintion only for the purposes of a particular statute, and it does not attempt to redefine a Constitutional term just because “it’s not defined in the COnsitution.”

Lack of any other response confirms, that in your bizarre theory, the Congress could define the “navy” for Constitutional purposes as “lollipops” if they were so inclined.

[markomalley]

Considering that Title 10 (i.e., National Defense Act of 1947) is basically the only logical place to do so, you are right.

And you are right on this part, as well. If they decided to create a definition in Title 1 of the US Code, one that would apply for all the remaining titles, they could do so...even if they wanted to define the Navy as the Land Service. If POTUS would sign such a silly definition, it would apply.

Like it or not.

[Plummz]

You have a bizarre anti-American theology.

[RummyChick]

For those that actually care about the TRUTH..and not distorting laws and posts to forward an agenda...

Here is a discussion about what is a LEGITIMATE BIRTH for UK citizenship and the ramifications in the law. It discusses Polygamy,too.

http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/nationalityinstructions/nisec2gensec/legitimacy?view=Binary

[markomalley]

You have a bizarre anti-American theology.

If despising a marxist pretender is anti-American, so be it.

On the other hand, you apparently have no grasp on reality.

Remember, like most FReepers (I can't speak for you, of course), I would LOVE to find that Ø is not qualified for his office. I would thoroughly enjoy seeing him run out on a rail. I would love to see him being confronted by his masters (e.g., Soros) for not fulfilling his portion of the contract.

Unfortunately, I am also part of a smaller subset of FReepers: those of us who recognize that the 111th Congress won't take any action against him, even if he unequivocally admits to High Treason on nationwide television. I also recognize that the courts to date haven't been willing to touch this case with a 10 foot pole and, with the impending inclusion of Sonia Sotomayor on the SCOTUS, the likelihood of the courts being willing to touch this case get smaller and smaller. How many cases to date have been summarily dismissed?

So, I am in this exclusive club of FReepers who happen to have the belief that the only way that he's going to be run out on a rail is some point in time AFTER January 3, 2011. And the only way that this is going to happen is if a HUGE majority of the American people recognize and are outraged by this scandal (whether the scandal is something he's hiding on an original Hawaii Birth Certificate or the fraud around an original Mombasa Birth Certificate).

See, unlike you, I recognize that most Americans will get really bored with complex conspiracy webs that would make Alex Jones' head spin, like some that I've read on this very site.

Unlike you, I want to keep it simple stupid. I KNOW that Bambi won't release his B.C. And if you're honest, you will know that, as well. At some point in time, some leftist media type will actually read the Immigration Law (maybe a consultant will tell him to do so). AND if that is happens, we'd better be prepared to show that she hasn't met the residency requirements to maternally pass on citizenship to THE ONE^®™. But, of course, I wouldn't expect you to think about it, concentrating, rather, on minutiae involving the photoshopped COLB.

One other thing that I'd wonder is if at least one of the summary dismissals was based upon a belief that it wouldn't matter anyway (the judge thinking to himself, "after all, he'd inherit citizenship by birth from his mother, no matter where he was born, so why should I have to deal with this ugliness").

But rather than trying to strategically think a couple of moves ahead, in order to prevent your opponent from triangulating, you'd rather just hurl slimeball attacks…just like a libtard.

Well, I guess it's your choice to either act like an adult or act like a KosKid. As long as the management of this place doesn't mind, it's cool with me.

So, press on.

[Plummz]

Your bizarre theology concedes to Barry by giving the Congress the magical power to redefine words. I agree the COLB photoshop is a a side issue conspiracy theory. What we have here is a simple legal question. You are stuck in the other side issue, which conflates and confuses birthright citizenship and natural-born citizenship with a series of complex "legal" arguments which are irrelevant to the simple prima facie case for Barry's ineligibility due to his status as a natural-born British subject. Your anti-American attitude vis-a-vis the intent of the Founding documents allows later generations to "define" the Constituion anyway they want, i.e. changing the document without going through the formal amendment process. This anti-American philosophy would render the simple legal question moot. You are setting the table for the 111th Congress, which you claim not to trust, to "define" natural-born in such a way to make Barry eligible. Those are unConstitutional bills yet you are endorsing the Congress' ability to pass them as "law." If you are thinking strategically, a few moves ahead, you should know that your complex anti-Constitution anti-American legal philosophy virtually concedes the game to Barry before it starts. Hope this helps.