Posted on 08/17/2009 11:50:23 PM PDT by Vincent Jappi
* How is it possible that that woman he claims as mother was taking classes in Seattle 15 days after his supposed birth in Honolulu?
* Why wasn't the man we're told was his father there with her?
* Why is it that his parents apparently never lived together as husband and wife? Was it a marriage of convenience to establish U.S. residency for a foreigner? Were they, in fact, his real parents?
* Why were addresses used by his parents apparently fictitious?
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Obaa s an illegal smining Cobra!
ummmmmm, we don’t know?
Hope you have a designated driver, sunshine.
Never leave the house without an edge.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>>>>> No, more like the Black Mamba <<<<<<
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/black_mamba.htm
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>>>>> No, more like the Black Mamba <<<<<<
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/black_mamba.htm
How, why, why, why?
Because Obama is a fraud, that’s why.
“How is it possible that that woman he claims as mother was taking classes in Seattle 15 days after his supposed birth in Honolulu?”
Obama was surely not born on August 4th, 1961, as claimed in his COLB. It’s probably the date given by his white family to the registrar.
You know, I recall seeing an obscure article containing a couple of “world horoscopes” back before the election, that said Obama in relation to the US and the world was completely unremarkable and had no indication whatsoever of his even holding elected office, let alone rising to the Presidency, for what that’s worth. I don’t give any credence to individual horoscopes, personally,; I think it’s attempted divination and is condemned for that reason, Biblically.
But, bad data, garbage in, garbage out, lol. The site had an odd name, political sounding but dealing with mundane astrology. Stumbled into it during a web search.
Isn’t it ironic that the so-called “first black president” claim to citizenship clings to his white mother’s, whose blood he wished to expunge from his body, espousing Malcom X’s wish?
The unremarkable half-Kenyan has indeed no legal right to US presidency, as per the US Constitution.
I don’t care if he’s Kenyan or Indonesian, I just want him dragged from office in disgrace for perpetrating a fraud on the people of MY Country. I can deal with a bumbling fool in office; anything is better than a arrogant scheming Marxist.
Surely the ink is dry by now, so where’s the BC? The cleaners have been busy but even they are worried that there’s evidence out there in private hands they can’t get to. Amazing how there are no original newspapers containing the supposed announcement. Amazing how none of papa’s Hawaiian friends even knew there was a baby on the way and didn’t know anything about the birth until a month later when Ann was supposed to have been back in Washington. How did all those friends not know anything? Where was the baby bump hiding out that no one suspected anything? Sorry, but in ‘61 people would have been talking.
Born of a Jackal, maybe? Damian revisited!
How is it possible that that woman he claims as mother was taking classes in Seattle 15 days after his supposed birth in Honolulu?
Uh.. ya ever hear of AIRPLANES! Sheesh, now Farah is implying Barry's mother isn't his mother. Can World NUT Daily get any goofier. (Don't answer that its rhetorical)
But anyhow,it makes no difference where Barry was born. As long as his mother didn't renounce HER U.S. Citizenship, Barry O'Bammy is a 'Natural Born Citizen'. It's all spelled out in that little thing called The US Code.
Specifically....
TITLE 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITYNo wonder people look at the Birthers as kooks. Its idiocy like World NUT Daily now questioning who Barry's mother is that gives them the ammo. That's just as bad as the leftist Moonbat Kooks and Sarah Palin.
CHAPTER 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY
SUBCHAPTER III - NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION
PART I - NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION
Section 1401. Nationals And Citizens Of United States At BirthSection 1401 'codifies' (makes into law), what's in the US Constitution as to the requirements for being POTUS. And that 'Five Year Rule' that's been bandied about regarding his mother and her age, well its not to be found anywhere. In every instance it is One Year. And FWIW, Section 1409 addresses unwed mothers.
Could I be wrong about Section 1401, sure (1). I'm no lawyer and 1401 is written in legal mumbo-jumbo. Then again, I spent most of my adult life READING legal mumbo-jumbo in Contracts (Contract Law) and deciphering it into English.
Now, why Barry has spent $1 million plus fighting this and getting the cases dismissed beats the heck out of me. Maybe his BC has his sex listed as Female? But per section 1401 of the US Code it makes this all moot. If mom was a US Citizen Barry could have been born in the Crab Nebula, or an alternate universe. The fact is he's the POTUS and IMHO there's more important things to fight the commie on than his place of birth.
And I don't want no peeing match over his BC.
Just read Section 1401 in Title 8 of the US Code. (FindLaw is the best source)
(1) I could also be wrong about the sun setting in the West tonight but I'm pretty sure it will.
The US Code can’t make someone a natural-born citizen; it can only make someone a naturalized citizen.
Hope this helps.
No the US Code can't 'make' someone a natural-born citizen. What section 1401 of the Code does is define it and makes it Law. It also takes the Constitution and codifies it into Law, as for the POTUS requirements. Other sections of Title 8 get into Naturalization.
The entire 1401 section is too long to post 'as is' on FindLaw. I was going to copy and reformat for posting but never found the time.
....(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States; .....
So according to the above STATUTE a foundling of unknown mother and father is a Citizen at Birth and that somehow equates to a "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" under the Constitution and is eligible to be President of the United States. I don't think so.
The US Code does not “define” “natural born citizen,” and it would be unConstiutional for it to attempt to do so.
Congress can pass laws concerning naturalization.
If Barry, or anyone, needs to point to the US Code to prove his citizenship, he’s naturalized.
Learn to read:
In the same way as a CertificaTION of Live Birth is not a CertificaTE,
no law defines a “natURAL-born citizen” as opposed to natIVE-born citizen”.
As the Supreme Court said in Minor v. Happersett (1874),
“the answer will have to be found elsewhere”.
The last piece of legislation which did define a “natural-born citizen”, as the child of TWO US citizens, so that the Gray Communist Usurper would not qualify, was the US Naturalization Act of 1790.
But that one was abolished five years later.
Only Socialists treat as “kooks” people who have a different opinion than they because they KNOW something which THEY don’t. That’s even a good definition of a Socialist.
In which you will not find the phrase "natural born citizen". "citizen", yes, "natural born", nope.
The US Code consists of laws passed by Congress. The only citizenship related power Congress was delegated by the Constitution was the power to define a uniform rule of naturalization. If one is naturalized, even at birth, one is not a natural born citizen.
Section 1401 'codifies' (makes into law), what's in the US Constitution as to the requirements for being POTUS. And that 'Five Year Rule' that's been bandied about regarding his mother and her age, well its not to be found anywhere. In every instance it is One Year. And FWIW, Section 1409 addresses unwed mothers.
yes it does, for "citizenship at birth. Notice the Sub-chapter title "Nationality and Naturalization"
But the five year rule was in effect prior to 1986. FindLaw is not so good for telling you that. But the Cornell Legal Information Institute is. Here's their Notes on Section 1401 which say:
Amendments
1986—Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 99–653 substituted “five years, at least two” for “ten years, at least five”.
Subsection (g) now reads (in part):
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
So even your statement, "In every instance it's One Year is demonstrably wrong, even for the current law.
What is also wrong is your statement:
Section 1401 'codifies' (makes into law), what's in the US Constitution as to the requirements for being POTUS.
There's nothing about eligibility for POTUS, nor about "natural born" in section 1401. Since 1401, along with the entire Chapter 12 subchapter III was passed under Congress power to define Naturalization rules, it can't possibly be defining, or codifying, the eligibility requirements for POTUS, since one of those is "Natural Born Citizen", which requires, at minimum, someone be "native born" the opposite of naturalized.
If you look up "Naturalization", you'll find it's the process of making aliens into citizens. Not, necessarily adult aliens, and not necessarily "one by one". Whole territories full of people have been nationalized by acts of Congress. Territories like Alaska, Hawaii, Arizona, etc.
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.