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

Skip to comments.

Cpt Connie Rhodes, MD refuses deployment to Iraq until Obama’s legitimacy for CinC is verified
U.S.D.C. Western District of Texas ^ | 8/28/2009 | rxsid

Posted on 08/28/2009 8:21:55 PM PDT by rxsid

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 701-741 next last
To: EDINVA
"But I imagine if nothing goes her way in court before 9/12, she will report to Benning and go on to Iraq rather than face court martial."

That would be sage advice if you were her legal counsel. Hopefully, she'll get that from someone and report on time. It would be criminal (pardon the pun) if she spent all those years in medical school only to have her medical license snatched from her by a conviction or dishonorable discharge.

101 posted on 08/28/2009 11:36:01 PM PDT by OldDeckHand (No Socialized Medicine, No Way, No How, No Time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

You haven’t been keeping up or reading up on the BC issue I see.

We have been going over everything you have mentioned for over a year on this board.

No Hawaii official has sworn to see a BC that shows Barry was actually born in Hawaii. Just that he has a Certificate on file. Doesn’t mean it says he was born in Hawaii.

I will ask you again, please enlighten (show and tell) us where you have seen Barry’s “Certification of Live Birth”.

He has not shown this document to any legal authority or (more importantly) to the American people.

Before you spout off about Barry and his proven Constitutional right to be President, you should read up on the facts.

Oh, if I was the betting kind of person, I would bet on her orders being rescinded or revoked. So I really don’t think this particular case will ever see the light of day.


102 posted on 08/28/2009 11:41:19 PM PDT by Aurorales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: azishot; Jet Jaguar

http://blogs.sun.com/barton808/entry/obama_in_73

link to image


103 posted on 08/28/2009 11:41:57 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (DON'T LIE TO ME!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
And you base that on how many years, prosecuting, defending or presiding over general courts-martial?

What I know about lawyers is that they are not all that smart as they claim to be. If you're going to ruin a career over orders what the defendant thinks are illegal, you as a fair judge, would give latitude to the defendant for discovery. And BTW, I don't give a hoot how many years you have practiced, it really doesn't mean a whole lot.

104 posted on 08/28/2009 11:43:52 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

I see you are a new FReeper.

There is a lot of info on Barry’s BC problems.
Please read up on them.

With your 25 years experience, you might be more inclined to reach out and help this Officer rather than dismiss her dedication and patriotism to our Constitution.


105 posted on 08/28/2009 11:44:37 PM PDT by Aurorales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand; Red Steel; LucyT; mojitojoe; Polarik; am; All

“Obama has a Certification of Live Birth, that at least two HI government officials have publicly stated is legitimate, including the Governor. I’m assuming that those HI officials would swear to that in an affidavit. If so, that Certification of Live Birth is prima fascia evidence of birth - it’s settled US law.”
~~~
I call BULLSHIITE on this!!!

This was proven a Fake rite here on FR by FReeper Polarik,,,

Now go peddle your O’Bammy Kool-Aid somewhere else!TROLL!.


106 posted on 08/28/2009 11:48:20 PM PDT by 1COUNTER-MORTER-68 (THROWING ANOTHER BULLET-RIDDLED TV IN THE PILE OUT BACK~~~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

Thanks, Fred Nerks.

Maybe those kids are all in a witness protection program. Why blur their faces? (shaking my head)


107 posted on 08/28/2009 11:49:13 PM PDT by azishot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Aurorales
"No Hawaii official has sworn to see a BC that shows Barry was actually born in Hawaii. Just that he has a Certificate on file. Doesn’t mean it says he was born in Hawaii."

I haven't seen anything. And, you shouldn't be so defensive when someone, in good faith, tries to explain the legal complexities of this matter, especially if those nuances don't cut your way.

The governor of HI has publicly stated that a properly kept BC is on file. Furthermore, the Director of Records in HI (or some such title) has said that Obama's Certification of Live Birth is legitimate - you can google it, I'm sure you'll find it.

What I said is - if those things are both true, and the appropriate HI official would sign an affidavit affirming those facts - then Obama has prima fascia evidence of his Hawaiian birth, and the plaintiff would have not only the burden of proof for their allegation, but they would also have an virtually insurmountable mountain to climb as the evidentiary burden would be with them as well.

If you have another legal opinion, I'm all ears. Do tell. But, stop putting words in my mouth.

108 posted on 08/28/2009 11:49:33 PM PDT by OldDeckHand (No Socialized Medicine, No Way, No How, No Time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

http://www.theobamafile.com/

a very good place to start your research.


109 posted on 08/28/2009 11:50:10 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (DON'T LIE TO ME!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
“Obama has a Certification of Live Birth, that at least two HI government officials have publicly stated is legitimate, including the Governor. I’m assuming that those HI officials would swear to that in an affidavit. If so, that Certification of Live Birth is prima fascia evidence of birth - it’s settled US law.”

For a lawyer, you do NOT have a very good command of the facts.

110 posted on 08/28/2009 11:51:07 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel; OldDeckHand
I agree with you Red.

I don't give a “hoot” either about what most lawyers have to say on most issues.

There have been many lawyers and so-called legal experts on this board for the past year preaching to us about what is definitely going to happen with this issue.
It seems like a revolving door for lawyers.
Most of them have been dead wrong.

Someone telling me their resume to make their point, usually makes me question their knowledge on the topic.

111 posted on 08/28/2009 11:51:53 PM PDT by Aurorales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Aurorales
"With your 25 years experience, you might be more inclined to reach out and help this Officer rather than dismiss her dedication and patriotism to our Constitution."

My advice would be short and sweet, report for duty, anything else is a losing strategy and possibly malpractice. End of advice

112 posted on 08/28/2009 11:53:25 PM PDT by OldDeckHand (No Socialized Medicine, No Way, No How, No Time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

Comment #113 Removed by Moderator

To: OldDeckHand
“But, stop putting words in my mouth.”

____________________________________________

What are you talking about?
I used your words! I quoted you directly!

You did not use the word “if”.

Now you are making stuff up. Just admit you don't know what is going to happen regarding this case. And admit that you are talking about the BC issue, but obviously don't know many of the facts.

A good lawyer would read up on the facts of an issue before trying to argue their point.
You obviously haven't done that.

And yes, I am defensive. Too many know-it-all lawyers have come on here telling us that they know everything.
Most have been wrong.

Most of those lawyers and law experts after a while have disappeared.

Sometimes it is better to read a little before posting so boldly on this board how you are right and many of us are wrong.

Just saying.

114 posted on 08/29/2009 12:01:59 AM PDT by Aurorales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

What would he do if an entire Air Force Wing, a Marine, or Army Division refused deployment to Iraq until his legitimacy is verified. It would be awe crap, show me the long form Birth Certificate or get out of our Whitehouse.


115 posted on 08/29/2009 12:06:37 AM PDT by Colorado Cowgirl (God bless America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Actually I take it back.

Please DO NOT reach out to help this wonderful brave Officer.

You would do her no good.

You have no idea about the facts behind the reason for her defending her Constitution, and you have no intention on learning about them.

This woman needs support and legal assistance from someone who believes she is right and just in what she is doing.

You are not that person.


116 posted on 08/29/2009 12:08:58 AM PDT by Aurorales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel; Aurorales
"For a lawyer, you do NOT have a very good command of the facts. "

Apparently, I'm in great company, along with the USA Today and at least a handful of HI state officials. From the USA Today website...

""I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...."

Hawaii: Obama birth certificate is real

With that statement, and a Certification of Live Birth, Barack Obama will win any and all legal challenges, assuming that one of these cases is ever heard on the merits, which is wildly unlikely. That's just the way things work in the US legal system. The plaintiff has the burden of proof, not the defense. The plaintiff would have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that all these people are lying, it's that simple.

Now, perhaps you have information that indicates Dr. Fukino is either an impostor, or part of Moveon.org or a space alien for that matter or maybe even USA Today fabricated the quote out of whole cloth. I don't know. But, if he's legit as well as the quote, then it's an uphill battle for any plaintiff challenging Obama.

I'm getting the feeling from our brief interaction that neither of you are people who listen to reason, so don't feel it necessary to respond. I'll take you silence as a protest of disagreement, and we'll call it a night.

117 posted on 08/29/2009 12:11:07 AM PDT by OldDeckHand (No Socialized Medicine, No Way, No How, No Time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
What I said is - if those things are both true, and the appropriate HI official would sign an affidavit affirming those facts - then Obama has prima fascia evidence of his Hawaiian birth, and the plaintiff would have not only the burden of proof for their allegation, but they would also have an virtually insurmountable mountain to climb as the evidentiary burden would be with them as well.

Insurmountable? Present the real Obama birth certificate in court not an affidavit. Hawaii issuance of birth certificates could be obtained under flimsy circumstances, which can be proven in court. A statement from a witness was all that was needed for a Hawaiian birth certificate to be issued. If this is what happened, the myth of Obama being born in a hospital would all be shattered, and the question of to where Obama was born would then become paramount.

118 posted on 08/29/2009 12:12:19 AM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: JMack
"The law is obviously not my area of expertise, so I’m just curious, what happens if Obama gives orders to commit a war crime?"

Your exactly correct! The Nuremberg trials showed that a defense of "I was only following orders" doesn't cut it. Therefore, if an officer has reason to believe that orders given to them are unlawful, they have a duty to question them. Now, that reason might be ultimately worked out in a court of law.

119 posted on 08/29/2009 12:18:04 AM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

You will take my silence as a protest of disagreement?

You have given me absolutely no time to respond!

A good lawyer would stay up a few more minutes and argue their point.

Quoting from the USA Today website? Please.
You are either a troll on this board, a Barry kool-aid drinker, or just have been living under a rock for the past year.

My suggestion is stop posting about an issue you know nothing about and either educate yourself on the Fraud we have in office or go take a big ‘ol swig of the kool-aid you have been drinking.

I guess do the one that gets you through the night.


120 posted on 08/29/2009 12:21:12 AM PDT by Aurorales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Your joking...right? By what authority does a HI dept of health official make the determination that someone born Governed by Great Britain, is considered a “natural-born American citizen”?


121 posted on 08/29/2009 12:24:12 AM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
This is what you said,

“Obama has a Certification of Live Birth, that at least two HI government officials have publicly stated is legitimate, including the Governor. I’m assuming that those HI officials would swear to that in an affidavit. If so, that Certification of Live Birth is prima fascia evidence of birth - it’s settled US law.”

The state of Hawaii has refused to authenticate, according to WND, the COLB that Obama has published on the net. Fukino said she looked at the "vital records." Is that the hard copy birth certificate on file or did she only look at what the computer database says? What the defense needs to discover all the documentation that backs up the 'Vital Records' in the database. And Fukino's opinion on who is a natural born citizen is not relevant.

122 posted on 08/29/2009 12:25:09 AM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
Isn't it time for all Officers in the Armed Forces to say No to the usurper and to protect us . . "from all enemies, foreign and domestic."?
123 posted on 08/29/2009 12:37:24 AM PDT by Art in Idaho
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JMack
"The law is obviously not my area of expertise, so I’m just curious, what happens if Obama gives orders to commit a war crime?"

It would take a small book to answer this completely. But, we aren't talking about "war crimes", we're talking about deployment orders. There's nothing remotely "unlawful" about a deployment order. It's like arguing that an order to take out the trash is unlawful. Irrespective of what they're arguing in the request for TRO, they aren't questioning the lawfulness of the order per se (deployment orders could never be considered unlawful, in any way). This captain is questioning the legitimacy of the President - big difference. In other words, she's questioning command authority - not something that's taken lightly by a military that has deep reverence for civilian control of the military. Do you understand the distinction?

Soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines don't get to litigate the complexities of domestic politics while serving - questioning the legitimacy is a political question, not a question of an order that could be found to be a "war crime".

Finally, a compounding element is that these deployment orders (like all deployment orders) aren't signed by the President, they're signed by the Secretary of Defense - a man who's been confirmed by the US Senate, twice.

"By your posts(which could be correct, for all I know), the whole military is filled with Adolf Eichmanns waiting to happen, as no officer has any ability to challenge an order as unlawful prior to executing it, without opening themselves up to felony prosecution, though they are told again and again to ignore unlawful orders."

You can, and in fact have an obligation to question unlawful orders. But, you can't question the authority of the chain of command. It may sound like a difference without a distinction, but in fact it's very different. Here's an example...

Order: Shoot the unarmed civilian
Response: I refuse as it's a violation of the UCMJ, Army Field Manual and Article 49 of the Geneva convention to intentionally kill unarmed non-combatants

It's the soldier's duty to refuse that order. It's clearly an unlawful order. Try this one...

Order: Pick up that trash.
Response: Go "f" yourself, I don't recognize your command authority.

Well, let's see. There's certainly nothing against picking up trash in any manual in which I'm familiar, nor is it against the UCMJ, nor is it against the Geneva Convention. Picking up trash, in and of itself - like a deployment order - is inherently a legal order. Assuming the person is in your chain command, it's not your prerogative to argue his command authority. As it's not the prerogative of an officer to challenge the command authority of the President. They can challenge unlawful orders, but not command authority. Does that make sense?

124 posted on 08/29/2009 12:48:32 AM PDT by OldDeckHand (No Socialized Medicine, No Way, No How, No Time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: JMack

Fighting an undeclared war on orders of an usurper President is in war crime territory as it is. The lady has the right to question her potential status and liability.


125 posted on 08/29/2009 1:22:08 AM PDT by Plummz (You seepro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
It would take a small book to answer this completely. But, we aren't talking about "war crimes", we're talking about deployment orders. There's nothing remotely "unlawful" about a deployment order. It's like arguing that an order to take out the trash is unlawful. Irrespective of what they're arguing in the request for TRO, they aren't questioning the lawfulness of the order per se (deployment orders could never be considered unlawful, in any way). This captain is questioning the legitimacy of the President - big difference. In other words, she's questioning command authority - not something that's taken lightly by a military that has deep reverence for civilian control of the military. Do you understand the distinction?

They military has deep reverence for the US Constitution. Officers and enlisted alike have sworn to uphold the US Constitution. If Obama does not have the Constitutional legitimacy to give orders to the troops to engage in warfare are those lawful orders even if they conform the the law of armed conflict or any other order he gives? And if they are not lawful orders from the top of the chain of command to who are just 'following orders' exposes them, the military personnel, to criminal and civil court action? It's an overarching issue that really goes beyond just deployment order.

126 posted on 08/29/2009 1:23:50 AM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

See post #125 which explains the stuation very well and is quite concise.


127 posted on 08/29/2009 1:44:32 AM PDT by BnBlFlag (Deo Vindice/Semper Fidelis "Ya gotta saddle up your boys; Ya gotta draw a hard line")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Plummz

Excellent point!


128 posted on 08/29/2009 1:45:21 AM PDT by BnBlFlag (Deo Vindice/Semper Fidelis "Ya gotta saddle up your boys; Ya gotta draw a hard line")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Brytani; roaddog727

I was wondering why there aren’t more of these, based on the lack of proof of citizenship. The more the merrier! This could definitely get dicey.


129 posted on 08/29/2009 2:17:58 AM PDT by Bushbacker1 (I'll miss President Bush greatly! Palin in 2012! The "other" Jim Thompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
Assuming that a district court entertains such a challenge, the burden of proof will be on the plaintiff, not the defendant - as always.

Would that not cause the state of Hawaii to open the sealed "birth certificate" for examination?

130 posted on 08/29/2009 2:28:15 AM PDT by Bushbacker1 (I'll miss President Bush greatly! Palin in 2012! The "other" Jim Thompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

Comment #131 Removed by Moderator

To: OldDeckHand
With that statement, and a Certification of Live Birth, Barack Obama will win any and all legal challenges, assuming that one of these cases is ever heard on the merits, which is wildly unlikely...

That 'statement' will need to be made in a court of law under oath, not as a quote on an internet website, correct?

Just as the original paper-copy of the Certification of Live Birth (showing the Seal and Stamp) will need to be shown.

132 posted on 08/29/2009 3:13:23 AM PDT by Fred Nerks (DON'T LIE TO ME!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

133 posted on 08/29/2009 3:43:57 AM PDT by Fred Nerks (DON'T LIE TO ME!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

I’ll second that and kudos to Dr. Rhodes for standing tall.


134 posted on 08/29/2009 3:58:02 AM PDT by rodguy911 (HOME OF THE FREE BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE--GO SARAHCUDA !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Thanks for the ping, Nully.


135 posted on 08/29/2009 4:29:04 AM PDT by fanfan (Why did they bury Barry's past?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand; LucyT; Fred Nerks; Red Steel

I’m unaware of the statements you speak of — the two Hawaii officials stating that the scanned document on Daily Kos and FactCheck.org is legitimate.

I AM aware that the Governor and a Public Health Official has said there is a long-form BC ON FILE in Hawaii, but I don’t believe they have EVER said ANYTHING about the scanned/photographed copy floating around on the internet... Do you happen to remember where you heard/read those statements?

Also, I’m curious as to why you think these two officials would sign an affadavit without personally examining the document in question.

Lucy, or Fred, perhaps you can help me remember where, but I thought I read that there was some sort of proof that Obama had NEVER applied for a copy of his COLB in 1997 (the date on the scanned COLB)? And, if that is true, then I doubt ANY official is going to sign anything putting their neck on the line for a document they’ve never seen and have no record of having processed, ODH.

I was offline for most of the summer, so maybe I missed something. Just trying to get all my facts straight...


136 posted on 08/29/2009 4:29:55 AM PDT by LibertyRocks ( http://LibertyRocks.wordpress.com ~ ANTI-OBAMA STUFF : http://cafepress.com/NO_ObamaBiden08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

LOL — As per my post to you a moment ago, you can probably guess that I didn’t scroll down past the comment I was replying to yet... My bad! [However, I KNEW this guy was wrong!]


137 posted on 08/29/2009 4:32:39 AM PDT by LibertyRocks ( http://LibertyRocks.wordpress.com ~ ANTI-OBAMA STUFF : http://cafepress.com/NO_ObamaBiden08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

*snicker*


138 posted on 08/29/2009 4:34:28 AM PDT by LibertyRocks ( http://LibertyRocks.wordpress.com ~ ANTI-OBAMA STUFF : http://cafepress.com/NO_ObamaBiden08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks
Truth is the Joker can get to anyone and wont hesitate to. And to think that he doesn't have his BC problems completely covered up from top to bottom like so many other things, is probably rather naive,IMHO.
139 posted on 08/29/2009 5:07:53 AM PDT by rodguy911 (HOME OF THE FREE BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE--GO SARAHCUDA !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Obama blinked believing it was simply go away; destroying Major Cook’s civilian and military career was a touch of revenge with the assumption others would be scared away from filing suit.

Obama, could not and does not understand the mentality of our military. I expect if they rescind Cpt. Rhodes MD orders, there will be another and another - a continual line of those serving our country willing to put it all on the line and go against “The One”.

Cook’s orders being rescinded made some waves; what happens when dozens of our military file suit, all to have their orders revoked?

Ones head would have to be buried very high up their posterior to not realize somethings not kosher in Obama-Land.


140 posted on 08/29/2009 6:09:35 AM PDT by Brytani (DC Freeper Convention and National Tea Party - FreepMail Me for rooms and convention info!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
“IMO, all she would have to present in court is the known “facts” (assuming Barry isn't lying about who his biological father really is):

1)Barry was born to a foreign national father who had no perminant attachment to this country.
2)Bary was born with British citizenship via his father's British citizenship...no matter where he was born.
3)Assuming birth in HI, he was BORN with dual citizenship (i.e. potential for divided loyalties).
4)There is no known record of him renouncing his born with British citizenship.
5)Therefore, unless he prooves otherwise, he remains a British citizen today (& possibly a U.S. citizen. TBD).

So, she ask’s the military court...does our Constitution allow for the Commander in Chief to be a British citizen or...possibly a dual citizen?

They can waive the “prima facia” short form HI colb all they want. Question is, “HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE “GOVERNED” BY GREAT BRITAIN?” “

To address your points one at a time:

“1)Barry was born to a foreign national father who had no perminant attachment to this country.”

Yes, but his father's status does not determine American citizenship, birth location and/or mother's citizenship determine it.

“2)Bary was born with British citizenship via his father's British citizenship...no matter where he was born.”

True, but under US law that no longer effects his US citizenship. The US laws that took an American’s US citizenship away because of foreign nationality have been thrown out as unconstitutional. This is because a right created by the constitution (citizenship) was being taken without due process of law. People were losing their citizenship by administrative action, not conviction in court and that is unconstitutional.

“3)Assuming birth in HI, he was BORN with dual citizenship (i.e. potential for divided loyalties).”

If he was born in Hawaii, then he had citizenship from birth. Any foreign citizenship he may have had is not legally relevant. Foreign law cannot deprive an American of his birthright.

“4)There is no known record of him renouncing his born with British citizenship.”

He never needed to, it was taken automatically by Act of Parliament. (see below)

“5)Therefore, unless he prooves otherwise, he remains a British citizen today (& possibly a U.S. citizen. TBD).”

Incorrect.

If born in Hawaii, then Obama has US citizenship by the 14th amendment, this citizenship is a birthright that can only be taken by two methods, 1) an explicit renunciation (it MUST be explicit not implicit), or 2) conviction of Treason (if allowed by law, I'm not sure of the status today)

Separate from his US Citizenship, he did have British Citizenship per the British Nationality Act of 1948. However he lost that citizenship in 1963. The timeline of Obama’s UK citizenship is roughly as follows:

1961 Obama born, acquires UK citizenship
1963 Constitution of Kenya, Obama gains Kenyan citizenship
1963 Per the Kenyan Independence Act, citizens of Kenya lose their UK Citizenship. They retain an amorphous status of “British Subject”.
1981 British Nationality Act of 1981 abolishes the status of “British Subject” replaced with the even more amorphous status of “Commonwealth Citizen” which is only used for certain issues related The Commonwealth.
1982 Per Kenyan law, because Obama does not explicitly renounce his US citizenship, he automatically loses his Kenyan citizenship and his status as a Commonwealth Citizen

As of 1982, the only citizenship Obama has is US citizenship (There are rumors he may have gotten Indonesian citizenship, but like UK citizenship that would not have effected his US citizenship. To answer your tag line: "HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?"

It can't. The only factor in determining his natural born status is his US citizenship. The actions of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, or the Parliament of Kenya can never deprive an American of his birthright. Any foreign citizenships he may have held have no meaning in US law.

141 posted on 08/29/2009 6:11:10 AM PDT by GreenLanternCorps ("Barack Obama" is Swahili for "Jimmy Carter".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: null and void; rxsid; Alamo-Girl; onyx; ALOHA RONNIE; SpookBrat; Republican Wildcat; Howlin; ...

Pingin’ my General Interest and Texas Lists here
cuz I thought you’d wanna know. :)

Ping! Ping! Ping!


142 posted on 08/29/2009 6:13:50 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (2008: The year the Media died. --Sean Hannity, regarding Barack HUSSEIN ObaMao's treatment ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Oddly enough, “Connie Rhodes” types into Google News doesn’t yeild even ONE result. Eric Schmidt better change his company motto “Don’t Be Evil” to “It’s ok to be evil if you are blindly serving the prescribed liberal line - check with Rham first.”


143 posted on 08/29/2009 6:18:04 AM PDT by AJMCQ (Who is Khalid al-Mansour? You mean Obama didn't get into Harvard on his grades?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoosier-Daddy

Deja vu all over again.

144 posted on 08/29/2009 6:19:45 AM PDT by martin_fierro (< |:)~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Oddly enough, “Connie Rhodes” types into Google News doesn’t yeild even ONE result. Eric Schmidt better change his company motto “Don’t Be Evil” to “It’s ok to be evil if you are blindly serving the prescribed liberal line - check with Rham first.”


145 posted on 08/29/2009 6:21:01 AM PDT by AJMCQ (Who is Khalid al-Mansour? You mean Obama didn't get into Harvard on his grades?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brytani

Your last line is a killer./Just Asking - seoul62.......


146 posted on 08/29/2009 6:22:25 AM PDT by seoul62
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

If I remember my 3rd grade civics classes correctly, and I know I do, the Constitution is the law of the land and supersedes any laws where there is a conflict.

To say “that’s not how it works” is ridiculous - show me where in the Constitution an Article exists that states any person can hold office of POTUS without pre-conditions. If that was the case there would be no need to include provisions to remove a person who does not qualify.

The very opposite of that is the case. The qualifications to be elected POTUSA are clearly defined as are the provisions t be taken if a person fails to do so.

We see judges fail to follow the Constitution, that it happens does not mean the judge is correct, what it does mean is that they are not following the very document they take an oath to uphold.


147 posted on 08/29/2009 6:23:17 AM PDT by Brytani (DC Freeper Convention and National Tea Party - FreepMail Me for rooms and convention info!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

The point that others are trying to make is:

1. The MSM is in the tank for BO and have twisted the issue in his favor.
2. There are four different actions that can produce the “fake” document BO put on line.
One even involves being born out of the country.

This may help you get up to speed:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2275574/posts

There are other links if you are truly interested in truth and not just disruption of the threads. IOW be a help or get out of the way.


148 posted on 08/29/2009 6:50:19 AM PDT by hoosiermama (ONLY DEAD FISH GO WITH THE FLOW.......I am swimming with Sarahcudah! Sarah has read the tealeaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: MeekOneGOP

I guess the good doctor takes her oath to serve and protect our constitution seriously.


149 posted on 08/29/2009 6:54:29 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (Does 0b0z0 have any friends, who aren't traitors, spies, tax cheats and criminals?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

Yessiree! I’d say so!

Mornin’, Grampa! :^D


150 posted on 08/29/2009 7:12:42 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (2008: The year the Media died. --Sean Hannity, regarding Barack HUSSEIN ObaMao's treatment ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 701-741 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