Posted on 11/29/2011 4:39:25 PM PST by bushpilot1
A local man is asking a United States federal court to help him gain access to information related to the citizenship history of President Barack Obama.
Berryville resident, George Archibald has petitioned the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to compel the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and former White House Counsel Robert Bauer to produce documents that Archibald says may provide new insight into whether the President’s mother forfeited his US citizenship when Obama was just six-years-old.
(Excerpt) Read more at clarkedailynews.com ...
I have seen that image scan Before- look at line number 4- the caption translates to “religion” and the written answer is “ISLAM”
Yes, you probably have seen this before. All this information was flying like crazy even before the usurper was even elected. Court after court would not hear any information that was dug up since We the People have no standing.
He even admitted on his own fight the smears web site that he held dual citizenship as a British subject and still the courts would not hear a case that he was not a Natural born citizen. You can’t be a Natural born citizen if you have allegiance to another nation. grrr......
And we also knew of the adoption to Soetoro which then gave him Indonesian Citizenship. How many nations does this man have allegiance to? Definitely not the US
Why isn’t a local newspaper where the plaintiff lives an ‘authoritative’ link? You expect to read about this in the NYT or WaPo? The case documents can be obtained through PACER for $0.08/page if you require ‘authoritative.’
There’s no need to ask if he had Indonesian citizenship.
A boy raised in the Jungle is raised in the Jungle.
A drunk stumbling out of a bar is a drunk.
An Indonesian communist raised in Indonesia is an Indonesian communist.
Not all documents are subject to FOIA, just because somebody wants a look-see. If no compelling public interest argument is made, the judge is just going to dismiss the suit. Since a parent CANNOT renounce a child's citizenship, the premise that these documents can shed some or any kind of light is faulty and there is no compelling public interest in forcing them into public view. He's got no bait on his hook.
From the article: “Archibald’s request is based on President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Executive Order 10450, ‘Security Requirements for Government Employment,’ issued in 1953. Under the Eisenhower directive, the FBI conducts background checks on all presidential candidates.”
No, they don’t. George Archibald looks to be a credible challenger to Orly Taitz for who can be wrong the most.
First, if the FBI ever conducted a background check on Obama, it was not because he ran for president. Second, the results of background checks for federal employment are confidential and exempt of FOIA disclosure. Third, as others have pointed out in this thread, even if Lolo Soetoro had adopted Barack Obama, and even if Obama became an Indonesian citizen under Indonesian law, Obama would still be a natural-born citizen of the Untied States.
Really! How can he still be something he never was?
Chears:>) EasyDoesIt
Catholic Social Services of Connecticut maintained legal custody of BHO II until he turned 18. Madelyn Payne Dunham, Obama’s grandmother, was appointed his guardian during this time.
When Obama was 15 or 16, Catholic Social Services applied for an SSN on Obama’s behalf and used their Connecticut address as the return address on the SSN application. Consequently, Obama has a prefix SSN indicating a Connecticut number.
Perhaps they will 'stumble' into this; as time goes along and the lists grow longer, of those who want Obama 'out'. We know this Media is at best; self-serving.
Because my comment in reply #8 has nothing to do with the local newspaper story.
Go to reply #5 and read the second, third and fourth paragraphs. That is what I referred to.
Obama never renounced his British Citizenship. It takes a very specific form to do so. Form RN.
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/applicationforms/nationality/form_rn.pdf
Obama indicates he was born a dual citizen due to his (supposed) birth father. As such, that status was never taken away from him. Even when his father became Kenyan a couple of years later. Like the US Citizenship and even more so, you can not simply ‘lose’ your citizenship. Form RN is needed.
Without form RN Obama is still, to this day, a citizen of Great Britain.
To see a similar case:
Why was the marriage date for Lolo and SAD published in so many accounts early on so wrong? They were married in 1965, yet most accounts (provided by the Obama camp) indicate the marriage is in 1967 or 1968.
Even the great TIME magazine published the story with a date two years off.
Why was this date so lied about?
The media is the Democrat's propaganda troops. They will not report on corruption from their side.
If the judge is a Clinton appointee, this will no doubt be true. If, on the other hand, he is a normal non-kook, non-idiot, non-corrupt judge, he will see the public interest in knowing the particulars of this most Un-American Precedent's origins.
Since a parent CANNOT renounce a child's citizenship, the premise that these documents can shed some or any kind of light is faulty and there is no compelling public interest in forcing them into public view. He's got no bait on his hook.
The parent's might not themselves be able to renounce a child's citizenship, but they can certainly put a child in such a position as to cause it to happen otherwise. A parent that takes a child to live in a foreign country till maturity may very well inadvertently cause the child to attain citizenship in that country, and subsequently through some affirmative act, lose his citizenship in this country. I have seen it suggested that swearing an oath of loyalty to another nation, or getting a passport in another nation as a citizen of that nation, could be regarded as an "affirmative act." Even if such a thing does not meet the legal requirements for losing citizenship, the public has a right to know how willing someone is to sell out their franchise in our society.
In any case, no public interest is served by keeping truthful information regarding those in positions of authority hidden from the public. Indeed, it is very much against the public interest.
It is odd that Muslims around the world do not regard Obama as an apostate, which is the normal view of Muslims who give up Islam for Christianity. Muslim's have tolerance for those who lie about their conversion, but not for those who actually convert. Knowing of blatant duplicity in our leadership is also in the public interest.
You mean "declared wrong" by idiot judges. Legal priests in robes cannot abide blasphemers.
Third, as others have pointed out in this thread, even if Lolo Soetoro had adopted Barack Obama, and even if Obama became an Indonesian citizen under Indonesian law, Obama would still be a natural-born citizen of the Untied States.
He is not a natural born citizen because there is nothing natural about his birth. His father was foreign and in violation of his visa just to get here. (He lied on his visa application.) If he has any citizenship at all, it is based on the 14th amendment, and not on the original meaning of "natural born citizen" which pre-dates the 14th amendment, and there is some argument as to whether or not he even meets the 14th Amendment requirements of citizenship.
The Adoption issue, in my mind, has more to do with what was on his ORIGINAL birth certificate, and to demonstrate what he is showing now is a subsequently created REPLACEMENT birth certificate, such as the one *I* have. Again, Hawaii will allow the creation of a birth certificate for ANY Hawaiian citizen's children REGARDLESS of where they were born. To my mind, there is still the possibility that Barry was born in White Rock Canada, which would make him a NON-CITIZEN.
Prove he was adopted, by Indonesian Lolo Soetoro, and it may very well demonstrate that his current document MUST be a later date creation of Hawaiian DOH, therefore we still have not seen verifiable proof of his place of birth.
The public may have a legitimate interest in knowing that a candidate traveled on a foreign passport and what countries he has visited.
But by doing an overbroad request based on a spurious premise regarding the mother's actions, he shot himself in the foot. It's an obvious fishing trip and the courts generally don't regard those as having a compelling public interest. Like I said, he's got no bait on his hook and he's gonna come up empty.
In any case, no public interest is served by keeping truthful information regarding those in positions of authority hidden from the public. Indeed, it is very much against the public interest.
The issue is not public interest, it's privacy. There is a public interest in maintaining personal privacy, even for public figures to a certain extent. That is why you must have a competing (and compelling) public interest in abrogating the privacy of individuals.
The FBI does a gazillion background investigations. There is no reason to declare FOIA open season on those files unless there is a truly compelling reason, something other than curiosity or opposition research. Those files are full of carp because they contain everything said by those interviewed including both the malignant and the simply misinformed gossip.
Never forget that legal precedents can be used by the other side against us. Where the public right to know intersects with the individual's right to privacy is an important fencepost. We shouldn't be moving it around willy nilly. "Hard cases make bad law".
You need to show me evidence Obama was born in Kenya. On the many, many threads I’ve seen, there has never been any evidence.
But it doesn't work the other way. A U.S. parent cannot renounce a child's U.S. citizenship.
I never said he was born in Kenya (which was not an independent country on August 4, 1961).
In 1964 the divorce of Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham established BHO Sr. as the birth father - at least legally, regardless of other theories. Thus, legal father was a British Citizen since he was a citizen of the British East Africa - a British Colony. And thus, Obama II would be a British Citizen. And he claims such at the Fight The Smears website.
http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
The second part of this is wrong. Obama II never surrendered his British Citizenship. He may have had rights to claim Republic of Kenya Citizenship since his father did become a Kenyan Citizen upon Kenya’s independence. But at no time did Obama II quit being a British Overseas Citizen (BOC).
As noted, one must formally renounce such status to the crown via form RN. Obama II never did. To this day he qualifies as a British Citizen.
See this link starting at page 27.
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/hannigan/Eligibility_Dialogue.pdf
“It is true that the President‘s father converted and lost his British citizenship, however, the Kenyan Constitution (KC) provisioned for minors to maintain dual citizenship. Therefore, as a minor, by virtue of Article 97 of the KC, the President would have maintained his dual or possibly multiple citizenships (Kenyan, British and US).”
...
“Therefore the President seems to hold dual citizenship with Great Briton and the United States.”
...
“The KC article 95 confirms the status of Commonwealth status to its Kenyan citizens. No Act, law or decree therefore removed Barak‘s Commonwealth Citizenship status as received when he received Kenyan Citizenship.”
So Obama II never ‘lost’ his legal British Citizenship status. And for a real life example of this scenario - just look at the situation with the former Thailand PM.
He was the leader of Thailand - and a British Citizen.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/24/abhisit-vejajjiva-thai-pr_n_827557.html
“Thailand’s prime minister has a confession to make: He is also British.
Prime Minister Abhisit Vejajjiva publicly acknowledged his dual nationality Thursday for the first time during a debate in Parliament.
Abhisit automatically holds British citizenship because he was born in Newcastle to parents from a well-to-do Bangkok family. He would have to specifically renounce it to lose it.”
He would have to specifically renounce it to lose it....How?
Here is how:
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/applicationforms/nationality/form_rn.pdf
It would appear we have subject of British Crown as Commander in Chief. Its fairly certain that is not exactly what they wanted to allow to happen in 1787 and was not supposed to happen if Article II, Section 1 is applied correctly.
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.