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

Skip to comments.

Newspapers' birth announcements: So what ?
WorldNetDaily ^ | January 07, 2010 | Jerome R. Corsi

Posted on 01/06/2010 5:41:28 PM PST by RobinMasters

Contrary to the claims of critics of citizens who demand Barack Obama produce evidence of his presidential eligibility, newspaper birth announcements in Hawaiian newspapers in 1961 did not necessarily indicate a baby was born in the state.

As WND reported, Glenn Beck ridiculed the so-called birther movement on his nationally syndicated radio show Monday, pointing to identical birth announcements published in the Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin as evidence Obama was born in Hawaii and, therefore, is a natural-born citizen as required by the Constitution.

Beck, and two colleagues, mocked "birthers" for purportedly believing a wild conspiracy in which Obama's parents, knowing he would someday be president, "preemptively" collaborated with two separate newspapers to publish phony announcements stating he was born in Hawaii.

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: beck; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; corsi; eligibility; glennbeck
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-206 next last
To: TribalPrincess2U

Maybe some day.
Some day will be too late. He is dismantling this country at lightning speed. He must be stopped sooner than later. This is the single issue that can stop him and he knows it and so do his handlers. There are a whole lot of people and organizations complicit in foisting this POS on our country and bringing them down will not be easy, especially since some of those we trust (FOX) are proving themselves to be just as complicit as those we know not to trust. There is one Entity I am sure we can trust but we must first ask His forgiveness for our transgressions and pray like we have never prayed before. I see this as our last best hope. He and He alone has the power to turn the hearts of those who have betrayed us. Pray that He will.


101 posted on 01/07/2010 8:40:22 AM PST by Josephat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah

Even if she were old enough she would only be able to pass US citizenship NOT natural born citizenship. If Obama Sr. is his father HE CAN NOT BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, even if he were born in the white house.


102 posted on 01/07/2010 8:43:54 AM PST by Josephat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: eddiespaghetti

a child born outside the US - with ONE parent who is a US citizen and one who isn’t = is a natural-born US citizen

WRONG The child would be a citizen not a natural born citizen. NBC requires 2 citizen parents. We don’t even know if this clown is a citizen, let alone NBC.


103 posted on 01/07/2010 8:46:35 AM PST by Josephat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Josephat

Yes, yes. I concur. Never said otherwise.


104 posted on 01/07/2010 9:04:39 AM PST by Jedidah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: wintertime; RobinMasters
Glenn Beck is an ignorant nut or idiot. Either that or he is deliberately aiding and abetting evil.

I don't believe that for one moment, we are dealing with some more sinister background invisible players!

I am convinced that all the talking heads know very well that we have an ineligible usurper in the W.H. by the biggest voting fraud and Constitutional scandal in our country's history!!

With that said, they are all forced NOT to touch the issues otherwise they would NOT have a gig (bread & butter) and NO Station either (FCC=Mark Lloyd, etc.) Schnitt on clear channel has blocked me and others on his e-mail account. It is all in a calculated putting, but it is treason and they are enablers ALL of them, including the tree branches of government. Deal has showed to have cojones!!!

105 posted on 01/07/2010 9:51:25 AM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk; RobinMasters

Three little words you need to know!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsX5DzZHkIU&feature=PlayList&p=B278681E23614868&index=0


106 posted on 01/07/2010 11:06:22 AM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wintertime; Jedidah
1) Beck is an ignorant idiot. 2) He is being deliberately evil.

No, he is NOT, but he and the rest of the talking heads have been muzzled from above NOT to touch the usurper's ineligibility regarding the B.C. and other sealed records. Otherwise no gig (bread/butter) or Station!!!

107 posted on 01/07/2010 11:15:26 AM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

He is NOT a NBC, he has never been, and he will never be. Additional he is also now a British/E.U. citizens as well probably an Indonesian citizen!!!


108 posted on 01/07/2010 11:23:04 AM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah
No evidence that the parents were legally married or that Obama Sr. is the boy’s biological father.

We have the divorce papers, and people who were never legally married don't get divorced. And long-established law is that the child of a marriage is the legal child of both partners of the marriage, no matter who the biological father is.

109 posted on 01/07/2010 11:23:34 AM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Josephat
f that were the case, Osama Bin Laden could impregate someone, send her over here when it was time to deliver and that child could grow up to be President.

Yes, he could. Of course, he'd have to wait 35 years, the kid would have to live in the US at least 14 years, and he'd have to actually be elected. It seems a pretty dumb way for Bin Laden to work on his dreams of world conquest.

If the framers were that stupid and short sighted we would never have survived as long as we have.

And yet here we are.

110 posted on 01/07/2010 11:27:34 AM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: chris37; Captain Kirk; STARWISE; pissant; BP2; RobinMasters; george76; patriot08; SatinDoll; ...
Let's just hope Bin Laden's children don't decide to run for president because Obama's use of the constitution as toilet paper has left the door wide open.

Great line!

Incidentally, the posted WND piece by Jerome Corsi is probably the best written of all I've seen on WND about the POTUS constitutional eligibility issue. It's an excellent rebuttal to Beck.

111 posted on 01/07/2010 11:28:31 AM PST by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

His point is, that as an “AFTER-BIRTHER”, a 24/7 ZERO-BRIGADE, he is happy with an usurper occupant of the W.H. and he popped the Champagne bottle on November 4, 2008!!!


112 posted on 01/07/2010 11:34:28 AM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Drew68; DJ MacWoW

You are raping the three little words!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsX5DzZHkIU&feature=PlayList&p=B278681E23614868&index=0


113 posted on 01/07/2010 11:40:32 AM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Cowgirl; Traveler59
From your own profile: Hi Freepers or others who would happen to be interested in my profile. I'm a Christian with a mission, i.e., to undo the effects of the lies taught by the scientists and public schools.

- The truth shall set you free-!

As a "Christian you should know better than spread such appalling rumors!!

Check out the DATE and the source for this article before you portray yourself. It's time for repentance!!!

114 posted on 01/07/2010 11:50:51 AM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: LucyT
Could we add: You may be a Constitutionalists if you are a "BIRTHER"???

And, You may NOT be a Constitutionalists if you are an "AFTER-BIRTHER" !!!

115 posted on 01/07/2010 12:01:40 PM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

I’m fully aware that of the law regarding legal paternity.

As for the “marriage,” documentation may someday turn up. I doubt it, considering Obama’s effort to pre-emptively explain it away in his book, admitting the details are hazy.

The divorce papers would be necessary, regardless of whether there had been a marriage ceremony, because Ann had been passing the kid off as the son of a marriage (common-law or otherwise) for years.

She needed to establish legal custody. She had plans to marry Soetoro and let him adopt the boy. Can you imagine the hassle of getting Sr.’s signature on all the paperwork required, both in Hawaii and Indonesia, for adoption, citizenship, school, etc. if the court had not awarded her sole custody? She was just taking care of business.


116 posted on 01/07/2010 12:02:29 PM PST by Jedidah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah; Bubba Ho-Tep

“She needed to establish legal custody. She had plans to marry Soetoro and let him adopt the boy. Can you imagine the hassle of getting Sr.’s signature on all the paperwork required, both in Hawaii and Indonesia, for adoption, citizenship, school, etc. if the court had not awarded her sole custody? She was just taking care of business.”


When you take this ONE thing only into account, how can it be so difficulty for a few here and the media outlets, including the three government branches to understand that everything in this treasonous impostor’s life-records have been totally sanitized for us to see???

And the hypocrisy of double standards is just mind-boggling!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ6iLuyCAx0


117 posted on 01/07/2010 12:19:54 PM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah
She was just taking care of business.

Of course, if Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann were never legally married, then there's no question of his holding British citizenship. Until very recently, Britain didn't grant citizenship to the children of unmarried British fathers and non-British women.

118 posted on 01/07/2010 12:38:47 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

Unless the Dunhams shipped her back to the mainland to hide the pregnancy, and he was born in a home for unwed mothers in Vancouver. As in Canada, under British rule. Ann was, after all, toting a newborn around in Seattle in Aug. ‘61, according to eyewitness accounts.

Meanwhile, back in Honolulu, the Dunhams manufacture a tale to cover for the black grandkid (who apparently won’t come back to the island until after Obama Sr. leaves). This includes filing info for an out-of-state birth and sending an announcement to the local paper.

Obama admits he had British citizenship. I don’t know if that refers to his bloodline or to his place of birth. Or both.


119 posted on 01/07/2010 1:02:02 PM PST by Jedidah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Josephat

Are you saying that someone who is a “citizen at birth” is NOT a natural-born citizen?

The following state (from Title 8 of the U.S. code) lists categories of people who are “United States citizens at birth.”

Subsection (g) is relevant here. (sorry for the length)

Page 391 TITLE 8—ALIENS AND NATIONALITY § 1401
nonimmigrants described in section
1101(a)(15)(L) of this title, including the number
of such nonimmigrants who are classified on the
basis of specialized knowledge and the number
of nonimmigrants who are classified on the basis
of specialized knowledge in order to work primarily
at offsite locations.
(b) Applicability
Subsection (a) of this section shall apply to
petitions filed on or after the effective date of
this subtitle.
(Pub. L. 108–447, div. J, title IV, § 414, Dec. 8, 2004,
118 Stat. 3352.)
REFERENCES IN TEXT
This subtitle, referred to in subsec. (b), means subtitle
A (§§ 411–417) of title IV of div. J of Pub. L. 108–447.
For the effective date of subtitle A, see section 417 of
Pub. L. 108–447, set out as an Effective Date of 2004
Amendment note under section 1184 of this title.
CODIFICATION
Section was enacted as part of the L–1 Visa (Intracompany
Transferee) Reform Act of 2004, and also as
part of the L–1 Visa and H–1B Visa Reform Act and the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, and not as part
of the Immigration and Nationality Act which comprises
this chapter.
EFFECTIVE DATE
Section effective 180 days after Dec. 8, 2004, see section
417 of Pub. L. 108–447, set out as an Effective Date
of 2004 Amendment note under section 1184 of this title.
§ 1381. Secretary of Labor report
Not later than January 31 of each year, the
Secretary of Labor shall report to the Committees
on the Judiciary of the Senate and the
House of Representatives on the investigations
undertaken based on—
(1) the authorities described in clauses (i)
and (ii) of section 1182(n)(2)(G) of this title;
and
(2) the expenditures by the Secretary of
Labor described in section 1356(v)(2)(D) of this
title.
(Pub. L. 108–447, div. J, title IV, § 424(c), Dec. 8,
2004, 118 Stat. 3356.)
CODIFICATION
Section was enacted as part of the H–1B Visa Reform
Act of 2004, and also as part of the L–1 Visa and H–1B
Visa Reform Act and the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2005, and not as part of the Immigration and Nationality
Act which comprises this chapter.
EFFECTIVE DATE
Section effective 90 days after Dec. 8, 2004, see section
430 of Pub. L. 108–447, set out as an Effective Date of
2004 Amendment note under section 1182 of this title.

SUBCHAPTER III—NATIONALITY AND
NATURALIZATION
PART I—NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND COLLECTIVE
NATURALIZATION
§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at
birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens
of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a
member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or
other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the
granting of citizenship under this subsection
shall not in any manner impair or otherwise
affect the right of such person to tribal or
other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United
States and its outlying possessions of parents
both of whom are citizens of the United States
and one of whom has had a residence in the
United States or one of its outlying possessions,
prior to the birth of such person;
(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;
(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;
(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: Provided, That any periods of honorable
service in the Armed Forces of the United
States, or periods of employment with the
United States Government or with an international
organization as that term is defined
in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent,
or any periods during which such citizen parent
is physically present abroad as the dependent
unmarried son or daughter and a member
of the household of a person (A) honorably
serving with the Armed Forces of the United
States, or (B) employed by the United States
Government or an international organization
as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included
in order to satisfy the physical-presence
requirement of this paragraph. This proviso
shall be applicable to persons born on or
after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as
if it had become effective in its present form
on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern
Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits
and jurisdiction of the United States of an
alien father and a mother who is a citizen of
the United States who, prior to the birth of
such person, had resided in the United States.
(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 1, § 301, 66
Stat. 235; Pub. L. 89–770, Nov. 6, 1966, 80 Stat.


120 posted on 01/07/2010 1:05:57 PM PST by eddiespaghetti ( (with the meatball eyes) ("Deinen leichten Sinn lass dich denn leiten . . . "))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah
Unless the Dunhams shipped her back to the mainland to hide the pregnancy, and he was born in a home for unwed mothers in Vancouver. As in Canada, under British rule.

Nope. Persons born in Canada after 1947 have Canadian citizenship, not British.

121 posted on 01/07/2010 1:31:11 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: usmcobra; bgill; Whenifhow; malkee; STE=Q; rocco55; thouworm; rxsid; GOPJ; Fred Nerks; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Check out Post #98.

122 posted on 01/07/2010 2:16:46 PM PST by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

****Check out Post #98.*****

Strategic placement of that announcement using common sense approach to it and Hillary involvement.


123 posted on 01/07/2010 2:21:51 PM PST by MamaDearest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

BULLSH*T. Even the most ardent afterbirthers realize that is false


124 posted on 01/07/2010 2:33:48 PM PST by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah

McCain actually was questionable. He was not born in the Canal Zone, but was born over the line in a hospital in Panama.

You can argue that he deserves to be a full citizen since his father was in the Panama Canal Zone on active duty and his wife accompanied him. But for whatever reason she chose to give birth across the border in Panama.

The whole business is very suspicious. I think the Democrats raised the McCain issue largely in order to put future Obama issues to rest. The resolution passed in the Senate seems to be directed more at Obama than McCain in some of its details.


125 posted on 01/07/2010 2:39:54 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Josephat

Even if she were old enough she would only be able to pass US citizenship NOT natural born citizenship. If Obama Sr. is his father HE CAN NOT BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, even if he were born in the white house.


In the case of Ankeney et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, the Indiana Court of Appeals found that both John McCain and Barack Obama qualify as Natural Born Citizens under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 4 of the US Constitution. The plaintiffs in that case made the argument that Obama was not a Natural Born Citizen because his father was not a US citizen. The court ruled against the plaintiffs and that is the only legal judgement that has been rendered on the Natural Born Citizen clause until and unless it is appealed and overturned by a different court.
The Indiana Appeals Court’s decision can be read here:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
Other courts throughout our history have ruled that a “citizen at birth” and a “natural born citizen” are identical and the 14th amendment clearly states that “ALL persons born or naturalized in the US are citizens...”
Therefore any person over the age of 35 who was born in the US is eligible to run for and be elected president.
As the Indiana Appeals Court noted, in the 19th century President Chester A. Arthur’s father was born in Ireland, immigrated to Canada and then immigrated to the US.


126 posted on 01/07/2010 2:52:25 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: danamco
From your own profile: Hi Freepers or others who would happen to be interested in my profile. I'm a Christian with a mission, i.e., to undo the effects of the lies taught by the scientists and public schools. - The truth shall set you free-! As a "Christian you should know better than spread such appalling rumors!! Check out the DATE and the source for this article before you portray yourself. It's time for repentance!!!

Ahhhh, sorry but that's not on my profile nor has it ever been on my profile. My earlier statements still stand.

- Traveler

127 posted on 01/07/2010 2:55:28 PM PST by Traveler59 (Truth is a journey, not a destination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: eddiespaghetti

Congress only has the power to set standards for naturalization, not to redefine words.

Therefore, the US Code you quote concerns those persons who are naturalized at birth.

Hope this helps.


128 posted on 01/07/2010 3:01:20 PM PST by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

Kruschev(sp) said in the sixties that the only way to take the US was from within. Perhaps the reason we know next to nothing about our _redisent is that his childhood was spent being groomed for that very role. He has a history(what little we know) of being in the company of Communists. Our Constitution specifically excludes anyone without citizen parents from assuming the top two positions in our government to prevent that very thing, yet we have ignored that document and allowed the enemy to attain the highest office. Google Tom Fife and see what he has to say about his experience in Russia in the early 90’s. If he is to be believed they seemed to know more about Obama than anyone in the US.


129 posted on 01/07/2010 3:09:48 PM PST by Josephat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: danamco

It should be obvious that he is not a NBC because everything he does is anti-American.


130 posted on 01/07/2010 3:14:36 PM PST by zeebee (Ask a teenager now, while they still know everything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: usmcobra; LucyT

YOu anywhere near Sacramento?

My understanding there is a copy of the paper available there, also availble at Stanford University.


131 posted on 01/07/2010 3:21:20 PM PST by hoosiermama (ONLY DEAD FISH GO WITH THE FLOW.......I am swimming with Sarahcudah! Sarah has read the tealeaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: chris37
The only thing those announcements prove is that someone called a newspaper and said a baby was born.

Actually that someone filed a birth certificate. The newspapers, at least in those days, got the lists of births from the state vital statistics folks. In some places from the hospitals, but I've read that in Hawaii, they got them from the state. Makes sense since the papers don't list the hospital of birth, which is generally done when and where the hospitals supply the information.

But a birth certificate could be filed in several ways in Hawaii, in 1961. The most likely, for a child not actually born in Hawaii, would be for a parent or relative, like a Grandmother, to file it as a "home birth".

Makes you wonder why they don't want the long form to be seen, which would show who the "witness" was, a doctor or a friend/relative, and if the birth was in a hospital with the form filed by the hospital, or "at home" filed by someone other than a hospital registrar.

132 posted on 01/07/2010 3:28:29 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Josephat
Google Tom Fife and see what he has to say about his experience in Russia in the early 90’s. If he is to be believed they seemed to know more about Obama than anyone in the US.

Seen it. Don't believe a word of it.

133 posted on 01/07/2010 3:36:09 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
Glenn Beck is an ignorant nut or idiot. Either that or he is deliberately aiding and abetting evil.

Or he's stirring the pot, so as to "discover" something at a convenient time, hopefully soon.

134 posted on 01/07/2010 3:37:48 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

No. You know nothing about the subject.

The definition of the term, “natural born citizen”, was entered into the Congressional record of the House on March 9, 1866, in comments made by Rep. John Bingham on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment. He repeated Vattel’s definition when he said:

“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” — John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866).

In other words, anyone born in the U.S.A. to citizen parents [plural - both parents] is a natural born citizen.

Here is the true precedent from a most liberal professor. Read it and weap:

In a recent Illinois Public Law & Legal Theory written by Professor Lawrence B Solum of the U of IL, College of Law, Chicago, Solum further explains why the English common law definition of ‘natural born subject was not the definition adopted by the Framers for the Sovereign citizens of the United States of America.

[Blackstone Commentaries (1765): When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the ambassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;...]

[F.E. Edwards, Natural Born British Subjects at Common Law, 14 Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation 314 (1914): The pro- position that British Protectorates, and consequently any less interest of the Crown, should be excluded from our definition of the King’s protection, is supported by Sir William Anson, who declares that birth within such a region is not sufficient to found a claim for British natural-born status. The real test of whether a given territory is part of the British Dominions is that it must have passed openly, completely, and unequivocally into the possession of the Crown.]

[Solum: If the American conception of “natural born citizen” were equivalent to the English notion of a “natural born subject,” then it could be argued that only persons born on American soil to American parents would have qualified. This might lead to the conclusion that McCain would not be a constitutional natural-born citizen, because the Panama Canal Zone was not the sovereign territory of the United States, but was instead merely subject to its administrative control.

The language of the Constitution recognizes a distinction between the terms “citizen” and “subject”. For example, in Article III Section 2, which confers “judicial power” on the federal courts, “citizens” of the several states are differentiated from “citizens” or “subjects” of foreign states—corresponding to the distinction between diversity and alienage jurisdiction. In the framing era, these two terms reflected two distinct theories of the relationship between individual members of a political community and the state.

In feudal or monarchical constitutional theory, individuals were the subjects of a monarch or sovereign, but the republican constitutional theory of the revolutionary and post revolutionary period conceived of the individual as a citizen and assigned sovereignty to the people.

The distinction between citizens and subjects is reflected in Chief Justice John Jay’s opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789:

[T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State…

[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…]

As you can see, in England there are two very distinct meanings of ’natural born’ subject. In one hand there is the broader view & in the other there is the view of the laws of nations. What the liberal progressive constitutionalists use is the broader view and thus disregard the fact that at some point, even England used the law of nations. The Framers also knew of Englands use of the law of nations and were very aware of its importance when establishing a new nation. It has also been proven that the Law of Nations was in the hands of the Framers at the time of the drafting of the Declaration of Independence.

And as pointed out above, please do not come back with the same old lame references to Blackstone & English common law, we know for a fact from the very 1st SCOTUS Justice Washington appointed, a Justice who was only 2nd to Madison in the drafting of the Constitution that the definition for US citizens was NOT derived from English common law, but on the law of Nations which is the law of nature:

“The law of nature, when applied to states and political societies, receives a new name, that of the law of nations. This law, important in all states, is of peculiar importance in free ones. The States of America are certainly entitled to this dignified appellation…But if the knowledge of the law of nations is greatly useful to those who appoint, it surely must be highly necessary to those who are appointed…As Puffendorff thought that the law of nature and the law of nations were precisely the same, he has not, in his book on these subjects treated of the law of nations separately; but has every where joined it with the law of nature, properly called so…the law of nature is applied to individuals; the law of nations is applied to states.”

Wilson, in his 1st commentaries, blasts Blackstone’s theory by citing that the definition of ’subject’ per English common law according to Blackstone was not the definition of ‘citizen’ as adopted by the framers of the US Constitution. A ’subject’ is ruled by an all powerful central government/monarchy and the under the new Constitution of the United States, the central government’s power is derived from the people, the citizens.

Wilson also wrote the very 1st SCOTUS decision in Chisolm which is cited to this day as to the powers of the central government. He also was no right-wing conservative where the limits of the central government were concerned. Wilson felt that the Constitution did not go far enough in giving broader powers to those in Washington, but he KNEW the premise of the Constitution and stood behind it in every decision he made, regardless of his political philosophy.

Get back on the Enterprise and travel through that wormwhole, spaceboy!


135 posted on 01/07/2010 3:39:38 PM PST by SatinDoll (NO Foreign Nationals as our President!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

Do you believe it is possible that we are seeing the culmination of a long running plan to take over the US?


136 posted on 01/07/2010 3:42:34 PM PST by Josephat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Coachm
I believe the mother was not of age to pass on natural born status.

She wasn't, since she was only 18 and one needed to have lived in the US for 5 years after the 14th birthday in order to do that. BUT, that only applies to births outside the US, and doesn't confer natural born status anyway. Since it's under statute law, it confers something like naturalization at birth, since Congress has no power to redefine a Constitutional term, like "natural born citizen" by passing a mere law. It would take a Constitutional amendment to do so.

The only way to be born outside the US and be natural born is for one or both parents to be serving the US in the military or diplomatic corps. Both parents must still be US citizens though. Otherwise NBC requires birth in the country to citizen parents.

Thus it really doesn't matter where BHO was born, since his father was visiting student from Kenya, and never was a US citizen, and thus he is not and cannot be a "natural born citizen".

Remember, NO birth document for BHO has been entered into evidence in any court. If it were, then it would become known, as a matter of law, that his father was BHO Sr, rather than as a matter of heresay.

137 posted on 01/07/2010 3:46:18 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Josephat
Do you believe it is possible that we are seeing the culmination of a long running plan to take over the US?

In a word, no. I tend not to believe gigantic conspiracy theories that stretch over decades. Give me some better evidence of this than some guy on the internet recalling a conversation he had almost 20 years ago and maybe I'll reconsider. Until then I'll attribute Obama's election to the natural pendulum swing of politics and the Republican party's botched running of things when they were in charge, the weakness of the candidate they fielded, and other, less conspiratorial factors.

I want to hear a story from a guy who tells how he talked to some Russian KGB agent decades ago who drunkenly told him about them brainwashing John McCain while he was in that POW camp so that he'd go home, get elected to the Senate, lose the nomination in 2000, run again in 2008, win the nomination, but lose in the general election to the candidate who had been groomed from birth, but who, in spite all their careful decades of planning, might be disqualified if someone notices that he might not be a natural born citizen, depending on how you read the Wong Kim Ark decision.

138 posted on 01/07/2010 3:58:11 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

“The 14th amendment has nothing to do with the NATURAL BORN citizenship.”

Actually it does. It is the only thing in the Constitution that defines citizenship. The “natural born” requirement must be interpreted in accordance with the plain meaning of the 14th Amendment. Amendments, by nature, override the original text of the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship and makes it a birthright that may not be impaired by the United States or the several states without due process of law.


139 posted on 01/07/2010 4:03:22 PM PST by GreenLanternCorps ("Barack Obama" is Swahili for "Jimmy Carter".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: GreenLanternCorps
If Obama was born in Hawaii then he is a natural born citizen by right granted by the 14th amendment.

14th amendment:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

I don't see the words "natural born citizen" in there anywhere. I see "born" and "citizen", but not even "born citizen", let alone "natural born citizen".

140 posted on 01/07/2010 4:10:58 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: GreenLanternCorps
If Obama was born in Hawaii then he is a natural born citizen by right granted by the 14th amendment.

14th amendment:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

I don't see the words "natural born citizen" in there anywhere. I see "born" and "citizen", but not even "born citizen", let alone "natural born citizen".

141 posted on 01/07/2010 4:11:07 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: El Gato; tired_old_conservative; curiosity
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Pinging tired_old_conservative & curiosity.

Don't want to confuse you two with facts, so you probably won't be interested in reading post #137.

.

142 posted on 01/07/2010 4:13:11 PM PST by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: GreenLanternCorps

Actually it does. It is the only thing in the Constitution that defines citizenship. The “natural born” requirement must be interpreted in accordance with the plain meaning of the 14th Amendment. Amendments, by nature, override the original text of the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship and makes it a birthright that may not be impaired by the United States or the several states without due process of law.


You are exactly right.
The 14th Amendment clearly states that ALL persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens. There is no wording that exempts presidential candidates from the word “ALL.”
Therefore there are two classes of citizens: Born Citizens and Naturalized Citizens. U.S. Public Law (US Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter 3, Part 1,Section 1401) http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html further defines the term citizen at birth and case law has determined that there is no difference between a citizen at birth and a natural born citizen. Those who want there to be a distinction between a citizen at birth and a natural born citizen are going to have to change the current law or amend the Constitution further.


143 posted on 01/07/2010 4:24:43 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

Have you seen this? #’s 15, 17, 20 and 21 would most definately enhance their chance to succeed at their overall goals.... and they seem to have been accomplished.

January 10, 1963

Current Communist Goals

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, January 10, 1963

Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.

At Mrs. Nordman’s request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following “Current Communist Goals,” which she identifies as an excerpt from “The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen:

[From “The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen]

CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture—education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use [”]united force[”] to solve economic, political or social problems.

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.


144 posted on 01/07/2010 4:24:50 PM PST by Josephat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Tamar1973
First of all, you have no proof BHO was born abroad.

And it doesn't matter a hoot in a hollar. His father, if his father is who he claims, was never a US Citizen, and thus he cannot be a Natural Born Citizen.

145 posted on 01/07/2010 4:26:11 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Josephat

Yes, I’ve seen it. Unfortunately, there’s no evidence of it coming from anywhere except Mr. Skousen’s imagination.


146 posted on 01/07/2010 4:37:34 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: GreenLanternCorps
"The “natural born” requirement must be interpreted in accordance with the plain meaning of the 14th Amendment. Amendments, by nature, override the original text of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment defines citizenship and makes it a birthright that may not be impaired by the United States or the several states without due process of law."

You are incorrect. The 14th amendment DOES NOT mention Natural Born Citizenship at all. It is clear that the founding fathers relied upon the only available definition of Natural Born Citizen at the time, which was from Vattel's Law of Nations. That definition states that both parents had to be citizens to confer Natural Born Status.

147 posted on 01/07/2010 4:58:15 PM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: LucyT
Don't want to confuse you two with facts, so you probably won't be interested in reading post #137.

I read it. Didn't see any facts there, though. Just lots of unsupported and uninformed opinions.

Thanks anyway for the ping.

148 posted on 01/07/2010 5:08:29 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: GreenLanternCorps
To put to rest any doubt you might have as to wether the Continental Congress used Vattel's Law of Nations; just check what Benjamin Franklin had to say on the matter.
149 posted on 01/07/2010 5:11:54 PM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: curiosity; tired_old_conservative; American Constitutionalist; americanophile; awake-n-angry; ...
Here is a FRmail, posted with permission:

**Birth Certificate APPLICATION WAS NOT LODGED BY MADELYN DUNHAM.

She would NOT misspell her own name.

Note carefully:

When do such misspellings happen?

STREET - someone who is not a Hawaiian resident...but knows how to use a typewriter.

MADELYN...MADLYN! you got to be kidding. Who ever wrote that must have been TOLD what her name was. IT’S A CLASSIC PHONETIC TRANSCRIPTION ERROR.

same with ERICSON FOR ERICKSON.

Now who could that apply to?

Someone who took the application away, typed it up, filled in the signatures, (all of them by the same hand)

And took it back to lodge where-ever such applications go,

WHERE THEY then FILED IT. BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PROOF OF BIRTH.**

See:

http://s668.photobucket.com/albums/vv47/MissieBessie/?action=view&current=postandmail-2.jpg

-

Click on photo to enlarge:

http://i944.photobucket.com/albums/ad288/ParkerShannon/Images/NordykeBirthAnnoucement.gif

Another FRmail, posted with permission:

**So the sequence of events gives the lie to the announcements being automatically generated - ever since we saw that zero application and the way it was filled in, we could see that a relative or parent could complete the application and present it - to have the birth registered.

The process (at least in 1961) was the lodgement of an application completed by relative or parent, take it to the registration branch, and obtain a certified birth certificate.

But you can’t get one of those, unless you have something from the hospital to prove the child was ACTUALLY BORN.

Then announce it the birth in the local papers. In the case of Nordyke, they did that about two weeks after the birth. And we can understand why. It had to do with the health of the children. No one would announce the birth of twins in a newspaper if it looked as if one of them might not make it.

But in 1961 when zero was born (lord knows where) all they wanted to achieve is a RECORD OF THE BIRTH.

AND AN ANNOUNCEMENT IN THE PAPER.

They got what they wanted. But what they never got, and what he cannot get now, IS A PROPER CERTIFIED BIRTH CERTIFICATE!

All he has been able to get is an abstract of the original APPLICATION.**

[Many thanks to those who provided this information.]

150 posted on 01/07/2010 5:13:51 PM PST by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-206 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