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

Skip to comments.

Georgia eligibility challenge returns!
World Net Daily ^ | 02/07/12 | Bob Unruh

Posted on 02/08/2012 10:09:23 AM PST by Pfesser

An administrative law judge in Georgia who held hearings on citizens’ complaints that Barack Obama isn’t eligible to be president and so shouldn’t be on the 2012 presidential ballot in the state failed to follow U.S. Supreme Court precedent, according to one of the attorneys representing clients bringing the complaints....

Appeals of the decision already are in the works, ... Hatfield ... told WND he had expected Kemp to rubber-stamp whatever Malihi wrote....

He noted since Obama and his lawyer “failed to appear” and “failed to submit any evidence,” the determination by Malihi in the cases brought by his clients appears to be unsubstantiated.

Hatfield also explained that Malihi failed to decide the burden of proof.

“The defendant and his lawyer failed to attend trial and failed to offer any evidence, and such failures were intentional … If the defendant did, as plaintiffs contend, bear the burden of proof in these cases, then defendant can in no way be said to have satisfied his burden, and plaintiffs are entitled to judgment.”

He also noted that Malihi based his opinion of an Indiana Court of Appeals ruling from 2009, when, in fact, the U.S. Supreme Court also has spoken on the issue.

While Malihi said he believed Obama was born in the U.S. and that automatically conferred “natural born citizenship” on him, that “is an incorrect statement of the applicable law,” Hatfield said.

“The ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett … is binding authority for the proposition that the Article II phrase ‘natural born citizen’ refers to a person born in the United States to two (2) parents who were then (at the time of the child’s birth) themselves United States citizens.”

He said since Obama’s father never was a U.S. citizen, Obama junior then is disqualified....

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abovethelaw; eligibility; naturalborncitizen; obama; teflon
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-202 next last
To: butterdezillion

You don’t get it. Obama lost - the judge offered a default judgment. The plaintiffs rejected it.


51 posted on 02/08/2012 6:10:17 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Mr.Rogers:”Why do you keep claiming Obama is a naturalized citizen? If there was ANY evidence of that, he would be removed from office as ineligible.”

There are criminals walking free in this world all the time. The reason they’re still walking free usually falls into a couple categories:

1. They have successfully eradicated or hidden any evidence to their crimes.

2. No one has the desire or will to bring them to justice.

3. They have enough power or wealth to avoid justice by manipulating the legal system or perhaps by intimidating possible witnesses to their crimes.

In the case of Obama, it seems that most all of the above apply.


52 posted on 02/08/2012 6:16:27 PM PST by visually_augmented (I was blind, but now I see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: kiltie65
"What about sperm donations...who knows where that originates?"

It would be impossible to prove one is eligible as a natural born citizen if the citizenship status of the father is unknown. Thus, the burden of proof, which is on the one seeking office, could not be made. Not eligible.

53 posted on 02/08/2012 6:48:12 PM PST by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

Hague Convention.

US does allow parents to relinquish their children’s citizenship and when it is done it IS recognized by the US.

It is true that a child does not lose their RIGHT to reclaim this citizenship if they so choice when they reach majority. Indonesian law did not recogize dual citizens. When SAD marries Lolo Soetoro AND moves to Indonesia the Indonesian government considers her and her child citizens of Indonesia. With the 1965 marriage when Obama was only 3 years old and the action of removing Obama from her US passport in 1968 when he was only 6 or 7 SAD is admitting - he is not a US citizen.

She had to do that for his own safety in Indonesia. It was done in 1968 - right after her and Obama II moved to Indonesia.

Indonesian law allows for a child to renounce their citizenship when the child is adopted. One of those laws is when a natural father reclaims their natural son. And that is what happened in December 1971.

Getting back to 1961 in the records is likely difficult. It is likely difficult for the Hawaiian officials. Assuming Obama changed identity/guardianship/citizenship at various times the records are likely seal, spun and mutilated. The wormhole of 1971 probably results in sealed records - meaning no one has really seen the ‘original’ BC for a long, long time.


54 posted on 02/08/2012 6:57:25 PM PST by bluecat6 ( "A non-denial denial. They doubt our heritage, but they don't say the story is not accurate.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

How does anything the plaintiffs did or didn’t do change whether Obama has qualified for the position he seeks? Either he’s qualified or he isn’t. No lawyer or judge can bargain away the people’s right to have a candidate who is actually eligible for the job. That right of the people is firmly anchored in Georgia’s statute and can’t be nullified by tricksy lawyerly garbage.

Obama has presented ZERO legal evidence of being qualified for the job. There is no way a judge can legally say he is qualified UNLESS THAT DECISION IS BASED ON “JUDGE’S KNOWLEDGE” - a decision based on something besides actual probative evidence.


55 posted on 02/08/2012 7:33:02 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

Comment #56 Removed by Moderator

To: bluecat6
US does allow parents to relinquish their children’s citizenship and when it is done it IS recognized by the US.

The State Department (as well as the Immigration and Nationality Act) disagrees.

It doesn't matter if Indonesia recognizes dual citizenship, since U.S. law governs U.S. citizenship. Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act specifies several ways that a U.S. citizen can lose citizenship. All of them require an intent on the part of the citizen to renounce citizenship, and most require that the citizen be at least 18 years old. The only way a minor citizen can lose citizenship is by making a formal declaration of renunciation.

57 posted on 02/08/2012 7:38:30 PM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
Photobucket
58 posted on 02/08/2012 7:40:27 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
Photobucket
59 posted on 02/08/2012 7:46:03 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Obama had lost - he was off the ballot. They should have accepted their victory.

But when you reject it and ask that the entire case be judged solely on the merits of your argument - not Obama’s defense but solely on the plaintiffs argument - then things like this happen. The only pertinent fact to determine eligibility was where Obama was born. When one defendant stipulates that Obama was born in Hawaii and the other does not challenge that fact, then they have done Obama’s work for him. That is what stipulated means - that particular fact is accepted by the court as true.

60 posted on 02/08/2012 7:47:17 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

So, descendants of immigrants are natural born citizens, as long as they are descended from Anglo-Saxon immigrants?


61 posted on 02/08/2012 7:51:52 PM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

So only white people can be President? You really believe that BS?


62 posted on 02/08/2012 7:53:09 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

http://www.archive.org/stream/shakespeareski01shak#page/136/mode/1up

place ur mouse over the 2nd orange icon lower left..its page 33, read 19 on the linked page. U have ur answer.


63 posted on 02/08/2012 8:03:03 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

You are absolutely stark raving nuts if you think that a person in one case has to challenge the stipulations from a DIFFERENT CASE in order to not have somebody else’s stipulation wander over into their case.

That is absolutely asinine. The cases were totally separate.

And nobody can stipulate anybody into being legally eligible. It can’t be done. I can’t stipulate a purple person’s skin into being orange either. And I can’t stipulate MTV into a 5 million dollar contract that they never agreed to - even if in another court case they failed to refute my stipulation. This is absolutely crazy, what you’re saying.

It is a total waste of time to even discuss this with you.

A judge can’t “offer” to make a candidate either eligible or not eligible. And a plaintiff can’t refuse an “offer” of the candidate being eligible or not. The candidate either is, or isn’t. And Obama has produced ABSOLUTELY NO PROBATIVE EVIDENCE THAT HE IS ELIGIBLE. Nothing that happened in Georgia the day of the hearing up until now CAN change that fact.

Has Obama proven he is eligible, or not? If so, what probative evidence did he present to prove his eligibility?Just answer those questions. Those are the only questions that Malihi had to answer.

Did Obama prove his eligibility in the Taitz case? If so, with what legally probative records?

Did Obama prove his eligibility in the Irion case? If so, with what legally probative records?

Did Obama prove his eligibility in the Hatfield case? If so, with what legally probative records?

I’m going to do my best to just ignore anything from you that doesn’t address those questions because they are the crux of this whole thing.


64 posted on 02/08/2012 8:05:34 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

http://www.archive.org/stream/shakespeareski01shak#page/136/mode/1up


65 posted on 02/08/2012 8:06:02 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

You tell us Obot..who did the Founders want to be President?

“Which leads me to add one Remark:

That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small.

All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so.

And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth.

I could wish their Numbers were increased.

And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People?

Why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such

Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.

Ben Franklin

Kind and natural.

http://www.franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp


66 posted on 02/08/2012 8:17:21 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
Let me see if I can follow your logic: In a play written in 1600 (or thereabouts), Shakespeare used the line "Were all thy children kind and natural." That means that, when the Founders wrote the Constitution in 1787, the phrase "natural born citizen" was intended to limit eligibility for the presidency to a certain "Kind." So, in order to be a "natural born citizen" and thus eligible to be President, one must not only be a citizen based on jus soli and jus sanguinis citizenship, one also must be of the right "Kind" - meaning that they must be of Anglo-Saxon descent.

Do I have that right?

67 posted on 02/08/2012 8:19:42 PM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
You tell us Obot..who did the Founders want to be President?

So, if someone believes that one does not need to be white to be President, that makes them an "Obot"? Got it.

68 posted on 02/08/2012 8:24:35 PM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

You tell us the meaning of natural in natural born citizen.

The Shakespeare reference came from a College professor in the 19th century.

I’ve 100’s examples the meaning of natural, kind and native.

If the 14th and WKA changed this I’ve no idea.

One thing is certain..the Founders placed one class of citizen into a Kind.

The Chinese, Ethiopians, Malays, Slavs, Arabs did not write the Constitution did they. The Founders had every right to do what they did when they used the term natural born citizen.

If you don’t like it..complain to the Founders or call your Congressman to change the Constitution.


69 posted on 02/08/2012 8:40:24 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
One thing is certain..the Founders placed one class of citizen into a Kind.

Funny how they did so without using the word "Kind," huh? And funny how they did so using a phrase ("natural born citizen") that sounds oddly reminiscent of a phrase ("natural born subject") that (a) would have been recognizable to anyone in the former colonies and (b) had nothing to do with ethnicity or "Kind."

It's one thing to argue that Obama is ineligible because his father was not a citizen. It's another thing to argue that Obama is ineligible because his father is black (and that all blacks, southern Europeans, Jews, etc. are ineligible to be President). The former is a reasonable argument, based on solid (if not universal) principles of international law. The latter makes you look like you belong on Stormfront, not FR.

70 posted on 02/08/2012 8:55:00 PM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

Wanted to let you know your Alinsky methods do not work.

Say hello to the crazy Foggy.


71 posted on 02/08/2012 9:06:56 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

I thought this creep got zotted a while ago. What gives? Same thing with drool68, I know he was banned. Now he’s back, even worse than before.


72 posted on 02/08/2012 9:11:41 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

You’re on here pushing an idea that only white Anglo-Saxons are eligible to be President - an idea that (a) has never been adopted by any court in this nation, (b) appears to be based not on any historical sources that are relevant or directly tied to the Framers, but rather on snippets of Shakespeare, dictionaries, etc., and (c) is associated with racial/ethnic separatist garbage that has no place here. And you’re accusing me of “Alinsky methods”??? I might accuse you of the same thing, posting this baseless garbage in an effort to make all of us look bad.


73 posted on 02/08/2012 9:16:35 PM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
bushpilot1 is arguing that only white people can be President, and I'm the one who should be zotted? Ha!
74 posted on 02/08/2012 9:21:08 PM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
It doesn't matter if Indonesia recognizes dual citizenship, since U.S. law governs U.S. citizenship. Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act specifies several ways that a U.S. citizen can lose citizenship.

Right now there's no legal evidence that Obama ever had U.S. citizenship to renounce, so the U.S. law doesn't necessarily apply. Further, under the same Supreme Court decision that would supposably make Obama a native-born citizen, it was acknowledged that the parents COULD renounce the citizenship of the child.

75 posted on 02/08/2012 10:19:07 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

Most Italian aliens who served in WWII were naturalized by an act of Congress. If gramps was in the Army, Happy Birthday Mr President Ho-Tep.


76 posted on 02/08/2012 10:54:09 PM PST by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Revel

Article 9 of the Jay Treaty is still in effect. That treaty recognizes dual citizenship for British subjects and United States citizens. A natural born citizen is a citizen born of two citizen parents who owes no allegiance to any other country than the United States from the moment of his birth. The United States legally recognizes the dual citizenship of Barack Obama from his birth. He cannot be a natural born citizen owing to the fact that he owed allegiance to at least three different nations from his birth.


77 posted on 02/08/2012 11:44:51 PM PST by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Revel

Article 9 of the Jay Treaty is still in effect. That treaty recognizes dual citizenship for British subjects and United States citizens. A natural born citizen is a citizen born of two citizen parents who owes no allegiance to any other country than the United States from the moment of his birth. The United States legally recognizes the dual citizenship of Barack Obama from his birth. He cannot be a natural born citizen owing to the fact that he owed allegiance to at least three different nations from his birth.


78 posted on 02/08/2012 11:44:59 PM PST by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Pfesser; arthurus; bluecat6; bushpilot1; butterdezillion; Conscience of a Conservative; DMZFrank; ..
He also noted that Malihi based his opinion of an Indiana Court of Appeals ruling from 2009, when, in fact, the U.S. Supreme Court also has spoken on the issue.

Last I heard, Georgia was not under the jurisdiction of Indiana. But it is under the jurisdiction of SCOTUS, so SCOTUS opinion should rule over Indiana opinion.
While Malihi said he believed Obama was born in the U.S. and that...

One of the three cases challenged that he was born in Hawaii. How can the judge 'believe' he was born there, or anywhere else in the U.S., without a singe SHRED courtroom evidence to that effect? Does this twit get his evidence from Twitter?

Are these lawyers now going to have to appeal BOTH Malihi AND Kemp? It seems like if they don't appeal Kemp, they won't have standing to appeal Malihi.

79 posted on 02/09/2012 12:31:53 AM PST by Future Useless Eater (Chicago politics = corrupted capitalism = takeover by COMMUNity-ISM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative; little jeremiah; bushpilot1

“bushpilot1 is arguing that only white people can be President, and I’m the one who should be zotted? Ha!”

I’m of the firm opinion that Natural Born Citizen means a person born of two parents who are themselves also citizens (of whatever kind), and I must admit that I don’t see this “Anglo Saxon” thing. Am I missing something, here?


80 posted on 02/09/2012 1:59:57 AM PST by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Plummz

plummz,
it would be very important right now for you to tell us what act of congress made aliens citizens in wwll and what year.

that act applies to this next election....


81 posted on 02/09/2012 2:57:12 AM PST by jdirt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

It has been explained to you by several people - you just refuse to accept the answer. Read the judge’s statement for understanding this time.


82 posted on 02/09/2012 4:05:07 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
Nothing there about my mother serving in the Italian army.

You're getting unreliable information because you're depending on a fee-for-service website advertisement. It's in their best financial interest to make as many people as possible believe they're eligible for Italian citizenship so they can collect more in service and documentation fees.

Better to get your information from Italian Government websites, like the ones I posted.

83 posted on 02/09/2012 6:36:23 AM PST by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

The judge didn’t back up his beliefs. He denied that the plaintiffs evidence had any probative value. Obama submitted nothing. There’s no way to understand a judge who accepts nothing as proof of anything.


84 posted on 02/09/2012 6:54:20 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

Minors can not make that decision. Especially at the age of 3! When the marriage occurred.

Simple passport records would clarify this. Too bad they were compromised in 2008.

In the meantime. We know the Obama came off SADs passport in 2008. Did he go onto to his own passport? Did he obtain an Indonesian passport?

He was in Hawaii in 1969 and returned in 1971 so he traveled after the removal from SADs passport. What nationality did he travel under?

If he was still considered a US citizen AND entered the US after 1968 he would have HAD to present a US passport.

http://www.us-passport-service-guide.com/must-a-minor-with-dual-citizenship-use-us-passport-to-reenter-the-usa.html

And of course by birth to a British National Obama - to this day - can claim British Citizenship.

Unfortunately, Obama’s life is a case study of what a natural born Citizen is not. Down to being a British Subject at birth.


85 posted on 02/09/2012 7:06:20 AM PST by bluecat6 ( "A non-denial denial. They doubt our heritage, but they don't say the story is not accurate.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Future Useless Eater

“Judge’s knowledge”. It’s a sharia thing. Never openly acknowleged; Malihi claims he based his decision totally on the law and what was presented at the hearing. There was nothing probative presented at the hearing.

Obama is dependent on a sharia ruling to be on the ballot in GA.

Either that, or Malihi has just set the precedent that a computer image can substitute for any paper vital record or documentation. In which case, the people of Georgia need to post images of Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Daisy Duck, etc birth certificates, driver’s licenses, medical licenses, etc online, start taking their laptops everywhere they go, and using those online images as their documentation whenever anybody asks for documentation - and then rely on the precedent that Malhi set by accepting as probative an online image. If any state entity won’t accept that as probative, the person needs to sue for Georgia’s violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, since Obama was allowed to use internet images as probative but Mickey Mouse isn’t allowed.

Hopefully all those cases would go to Judge Michael Malihi...


86 posted on 02/09/2012 8:31:15 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: edge919

“Judge’s knowledge”.

It’s allowed by sharia.


87 posted on 02/09/2012 8:33:25 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Lest anybody wonder what the fruits of “judge’s knowledge” are, see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2844422/posts .

In Egypt, a Muslim accused a Christian of having a dirty pic of a Muslim woman on his cellphone. The Christian turned himself in to the cops for protection. The cops looked on the phone and there was nothing there. They questioned the woman who was supposedly photographed and she said it hadn’t happened. There was no evidence. The only way they would get any legal conviction would be by “judge’s knowledge”.

But the Muslim salafis, with the help of the authorities, used that already-proven-false accusation to basically seize the property of 8 Christian families, with threats of violence if they ddn’t get what they wanted.

I’ve been doing a lot of reading on the Holocaust and this is Krystalnacht all over again. Coming soon to a theater near you, if this whole sharia/no-evidence-necessary and local-government-cedes-to-the-Islamist-threats-of-violence garbage is allowed to fly here in America.

Of course, this Muslim violence is exactly the kind of thing that Obama’s cousin, Raila Odinga, relied on to get into power in Kenya also - an agreement (Memorandum of Understanding) signed by both the Muslim leaders and Odinga saying that the Muslims would get Odinga into power if Odinga would agree to get sharia accepted in Kenya, reduce Kenya’s cooperation with anti-terrorism, etc. The Muslims lived up to their end of the bargain by violent rampages that swept Odinga into power brokered by the UN, and Odinga lived up to his end of the bargain by using US taxpayer money (happily donated by Obama on behalf of all us taxpayers) to establish sharia in the new Kenyan constitution.

Obama’s agenda is clear. The mandate that Catholics perform abortions, to undermine the freedom of religion and officially set religious policy in government that opposes Christianity. The requirement that everybody but Muslims, scientologists, and the Amish buy health insurance - which is basically a tax on dhimmis that Muslims don’t have to pay (which is a central part of sharia). The sharia ruling to allow Obama on the GA ballot. Those are recent manifestations of the Muslim agenda - an agenda Obama told the Egyptian ambassador in early 2010 that he supported.

He told the Egyptian ambassador in early 2010 that he was and still is a Muslim who supports the Muslim agenda but that the Muslim world needed to be patient with him; he hadn’t delivered on any of the Muslim agenda YET because he first had to get Obamacare passed, and then he would focus on defeating Israel (which, together with defeating the US and instituting worldwide sharia, is the major agenda that all Muslims groups agree to).

Just as Obama made good on Odinga’s word to institute sharia in Kenya, he also made good on his word to the Egyptian ambassador and all the other Muslims (who have all along said that Obama is a Muslim) by supporting all the regime changes in the Middle East whereby Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda have replaced the secular governments that had been cooperating with US anti-terrorism measures. Those governments are now killing Christians at a ridiculous pace. He also left Iraq so that the extremists could also exterminate Christians there. The one regime change the Obama administration would NOT support was the one in Iran. But then, Iran is already under sharia so why would a guy who supports the MUSLIM agenda want anything to change in Iran?

Any one of these things by itself might raise an eyebrow. But taken together, the dots paint a very clear picture of where we’re headed. If America doesn’t wake up now and put this unconstitutional, lawless tyrant out of office, we will suffer the same fate as the Germans who willingly passed what they believed was just another political checkers move - the Enabling Act of 1933, which enabled Adolf Hitler to LEGALLY take over EVERYTHING, with all resistance both illegal and futile.


88 posted on 02/09/2012 9:19:35 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Plummz
If gramps was in the Army, Happy Birthday Mr President Ho-Tep.

Hold off the inauguration ball planning. Two of my grandfather's brothers served--one getting killed in Normandy a week after D-Day, the other one serving in the Pacific where he was badly hurt during a Japanese air raid when someone jumped into the hole where he was taking shelter, landing on him boots-first and causing massive internal injuries. (And then the system lost track of him, reported him to the family as M.I.A, and only informed them that he was still alive when he turned up at a hospital in Oklahoma).

But when my grandfather reported for his physical, the draft board pulled out a letter from his employer saying he was engaged in necessary war work. That, combined with the two kids he already had, got him a draft classification of III-B ("Men with dependents, engaged in work essential to national defense")

Now I'm wondering if someone's going to say I'm not a citizen at all.

89 posted on 02/09/2012 10:10:15 AM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
Better to get your information from Italian Government websites, like the ones I posted

Okay, how about this? Italian Consulate of New York:

If you were born in the United States you may also be considered an Italian citizen if any one of the situations listed below pertains to you:

Category 5) your paternal or maternal grandparents were born in the United States from Italian parents and they never renounced their right to Italian citizenship. (Please note: the Italian mother can transfer her Italian citizenship only to children born after 01/01/1948).

If category 5 applies to you, the following documents are required:
- FORM 1
- YOUR PATERNAL OR MATERNAL GREAT GRANDPARENTS’ BIRTH CERTIFICATE (from Italy)
- YOUR PATERNAL OR MATERNAL GREAT GRANDPARENTS' MARRIAGE
CERTIFICATE
- YOUR PATERNAL OR MATERNAL GREAT GRANDFATHERS’ CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION AND PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION
- YOUR PATERNAL/MATERNAL GRANDPARENTS’ BIRTH CERTIFICATE
- YOUR PATERNAL/MATERNAL GRANDPARENTS' MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE
- YOUR PATERNAL/MATERNAL PARENTS’ BIRTH CERTIFICATE
- YOUR PATERNAL/MATERNAL PARENTS' MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE
- YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE
- YOUR DECLARATION THAT YOU NEVER RENOUNCED ITALIAN CITIZENSHIP BEFORE ANY ITALIAN AUTHORITY, listing all your places of residence and relative years. Your signature must be notarized. Copy of your passport and proof of residence (driver licence and utility bills ect.) are requested. Use FORM 2
- DECLARATION THAT YOUR PATERNAL/MATERNAL GRANDPARENTS NEVER RENOUNCED ITALIAN CITIZENSHIP BEFORE ANY ITALIAN AUTHORITY, listing all places of residence and relative years. If living use FORM 3, if deceased use FORM 4
- DECLARATION THAT YOUR FATHER/MOTHER NEVER RENOUNCED ITALIAN CITIZENSHIP BEFORE ANY ITALIAN AUTHORITY, listing all places of residence and relative years. If living use FORM 3, if deceased use FORM 4
- ANY PERTINENT DEATH CERTIFICATE/S RELATED TO THE ITALIAN ASCENDANTS. If your great grandfather became a naturalized U.S. citizen before your grandfather or grandmother’s birth, you are not eligible for Italian citizenship.

The link that you posted earlier was a little unclear because of the indenting, which made those items look like subordinate conditions, but Here's a link to the Italian Embassy with the same information. The item about military service pertains to non-citizens wishing to become citizens. However, the statement above, "Italian citizenship is based on the principle of ius sanguinis (blood right) by which a child born of an Italian father or mother is Italian" supports all the argument that I'm already an Italian citizen under their law, and no such condition applies.

For good measure, here's one man's account of the process. No military service mentioned. I can find plenty more examples of people telling exactly how they did it and what was required if you still refuse to believe.

90 posted on 02/09/2012 10:32:55 AM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep; LucyT; Brown Deer
Bubba says stop talking about Barry Soetoro. He was been trying to make these threads about him and to re-direct them. It's called high jacking a thread. Get lost troll. tick tock Photobucket
91 posted on 02/09/2012 10:34:31 AM PST by mojitojoe (SCOTUS.... think about that when you decide to sit home and pout because your candidate didn't win)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe

So are you now saying that foreign law does matter in who the US considers to be or not to be a Natural Born Citizen? Because it was just a week or so ago that you said the opposite.


92 posted on 02/09/2012 10:39:32 AM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
You are correct about where that garbage belongs.

If I wanted to formulate an argument that was as discrediting to the “birther” movement as it was possible to be - arguing that only white people of Anglo-Saxon descent are natural born citizens would pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Notice how the usual suspects circle the wagons around him?

Lay down with dogs, wake up with fleas.

93 posted on 02/09/2012 10:47:26 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
Note, again, the requirements from the Italian Consulate website YOU posted:
HOW TO APPLY

1. Declaration of desire to become a citizen;

If the foreigner is of Italian descent (up to the 2nd degree) he/she can obtain citizenship in any of the following cases:

by serving in the Italian armed forces;

by becoming a subordinate employee of the Italian State, even abroad;

by residing legally in Italy for at least two years after reaching legal age.

"Up to the 2nd degree" includes grandparents and parents. Any Italian descendant foreigners wishing to APPLY for Italian citizenship must meet those requirements.
94 posted on 02/09/2012 10:50:16 AM PST by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
Quote directly from the Italian Government in your post: "If you were born in the United States you may also be considered an Italian citizen"

-----------------------------

MAY also be considered an Italian citizen...

The Italian Government makes it very clear that an eligible foreigner must APPLY for citizenship.

95 posted on 02/09/2012 11:07:23 AM PST by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
But as the other items I posted make clear, in their eyes I'm NOT a foreigner. I don't need to apply for citizenship and be naturalized. I only have to show the unbroken chain of Italian citizenship through the required documentation and apply for a passport
"If you were born in the United States you may also be considered an Italian citizen if any one of the situations listed below pertains to you.

Seriously, people do this all the time. Check out the forums on expatsinitaly.com

96 posted on 02/09/2012 11:24:04 AM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
But as the other items I posted make clear, in their eyes I'm NOT a foreigner.

I know you want desperately to believe that, but again, the Italian Government makes it very clear that you (or anyone else who thinks they may be eligible by descent up to the 2nd degree) must APPLY for Italian citizenship. It says U.S. born descendants up to the 2nd degree MAY be considered an Italian citizen. You would have to APPLY in order to verify if Italy considers you to be such.

The Consulate's FAQ regarding citizenship: Citizenship FAQ

They process applications from Italian descendants located all over the world.

97 posted on 02/09/2012 11:40:07 AM PST by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
It mattered when this country was founded because we specifically made a treaty to declare which natives were British subjects and which natives were U.S. citizens.
Shanks v. Dupont (1830): The Treaty of 1783 acted upon the state of things as it existed at that period. It took the actual state of things as its basis. All those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American states were virtually absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown; all those who then adhered to the British Crown were deemed and held subjects of that Crown.

The court acknowledged that citizenship naturally follows the condition of the father. The children of those fathers who adhered to the crown were considered Natural-born subjects. The children of those fathers who adhered to the new republic of the united States, were natural-born Citizens. The Constitution places treaties on equal footing with U.S. law and the Constitution itself.

98 posted on 02/09/2012 11:54:51 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Can you understand a judge that was prepared to give the plaintiffs everything they wanted? All they had to do was say “yes” and victory was theirs. If this was rigged why did he offer the default judgment?
99 posted on 02/09/2012 1:41:43 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

The judge was prepared to give the plaintiffs everything they wanted - EVERYTHING. Explain that to me if you can. Did he use a Jedi mind trick to compel them to make the wrong choice?

They had victory in their hands and threw it away. You cannot blame the judge for that.


100 posted on 02/09/2012 1:45:17 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-202 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