Posted on 03/21/2013 4:37:24 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Excellent.
Thanks for the Ping, Nully.
Great comment.
BookMark
I answered your question and you didn’t like the answer. So, you’re assuming I didn’t answer your question and am avoiding it.
My answer was personal knowledge. This is similar to the attack on Tim Adams. Tim Adams publicly stated he had personal knowledge he had gained through his employment with the state of Hawaii as Senior Elections Chief. Adams factually stated Obama’s original long form BC was not available for inspection.
Adams was called a liar, falsely accused of not having access and repeatedly demeaned because he could post a jpeg image, pdf or video of information he had gathered through his employment history.
I have personal knowledge Obama naturalized in 1983. I do not trust Zullo or Arapaio because they have enough information to interview or obtain a search warrant for primary evidence of Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization from a witness who lives in their jurisdiction. They refuse to investigate within their jurisdiction while traveling outside of their jurisdiction to Hawaii and DC to put on a good show.
I’ve asked you, Why doesn’t Zullo or Arpaio drive over to Janet Napolitano’s home in Maricopa County to interview the custodian Obama’s immigration files? Why do you refuse to answer?
Jindal and Rubio are 14th Amendment citizens and not statutory citizens.
McCain and Cruz are statutory citizens. McCain and Cruz are not natural born citizens because their citizenship was recognized by statute. After they applied with proof of eligibility and subscribed and took an oath of allegiance, they were issued a revocable certificate by the U.S. Federal government.
Even if Jindal and Rubio have their birth certificates revoked due to fraud, they are still natural born citizens. They can produced affidavits from the delivery doctor, hospital administrator and pediatrition affirming their place and time of birth in the U.S.
Your headline implies Cruz and 7 other Politicians are “involved” in pushing Birther Conspiracies. The body of the posted story does not say that and instead ABCNews is trying to add clouding to these conservative’s running for POTUS.
NBC has been well explained in recent threads and it seems the Constitution’s wording is mostly based on English Common Law per Natural Born Subjects. That indicates only one American citizen parent is necessary to provide NBC to a person born outside the USA, not both. Cruz’s Mother was an American citizen.
The 2008 Dem Senate BS about McLame’s Panama birth was a backdoor cover for nobama.
“NBC has been well explained in recent threads and it seems the Constitution’s wording is mostly based on English Common Law per Natural Born Subjects. That indicates only one American citizen parent is necessary to provide NBC to a person born outside the USA, not both. Cruz’s Mother was an American citizen.”
And that right there makes him not eligible for Article 2 Section 1.
IIRC, deVatell’s definition including the exemption for military and foreign service doesn’t call for their children to be born in a military hospital. Indeed, in those days and for long after children were born at home.
Interesting that while each nation’s ‘best’ choose to serve in its military or foreign service, if they are assigned overseas, the theory you advance would prohibit any child born during that service from serving as POTUS. That’s a hell of a recruiting tool: Join the Navy (Foreign Service) so if we send you overseas and you have a kid s/he can never be POTUS.
At least they should've kept their mouths shut. The cynical perspective would be that even if I believed Obama was born in HI I'd keep quiet because questions about his eligibility might peel away a few voters. Thats the attitude the democrats have, and it works for them.
Maybe those who value their integrity to the point they have to broadcast their opinion on everything and make certain everyone knows how righteous they are are sleeping well, but we now have a marxist in the White House for a second term and ObamaCare is the law of the land.
14th Amendment Citizens don’t qualify for Article 2 Section 1 Sven. Nowhere in the 14th Amendment will you find the term of art called ‘natural born Citizen’.
The 14th says born or naturalized in the USA. How does it even apply to a US citizen at birth born in England?
“14th Amendment Citizens don’t qualify for Article 2 Section 1 Sven.”
Ha Ha Ha! Good one. You made me laugh out loud.
Let’s try this. McCain and Cruz have U.S. Citizenship derived from statute as codified in the Immigration and Naturalization Act. Congress has a Constitutional mandate to write legislation on immigration and naturalization, as needed.
Natural born citizenship is not defined in the Constitution and Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to define it. Since Congress does not have Constitutional authority to define it, SCOTUS cannot offer a definitive opinion on the definition of natural born citizen. SCOTUS has opined on some aspects of the definition of natural born citizen, but those opinions are not definitive, complete or final.
The only way to determine who is a natural born citizen is to eliminate those who are not natural born citizens. A naturalized citizen is not a natural born citizen. A statutory citizen is defined in the INA by legislation written by Congress. Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to define a natural born citizen; therefore, a statutory citizen cannot be a natural born citizen.
You say again “Why doesn’t Zullo or Arpaio drive over to Janet Napolitano’s home in Maricopa County to interview the custodian Obama’s immigration files? Why do you refuse to answer?”
I will answer again. Janet Napolitano works for Obama. She opposes Sheriff Arpaio. Common sense would tell you this. Common sense would also tell you that Napolitano most likely does not have his immigration files on hand within Arpaio’s jurisdiction. And lastly, what makes you so sure Arpaio and Zullo haven’t tried to acquire his immigration file?
Sven, there is only one process or means by which one can be a “natural born Citizen,” by satisfying the necessary and sufficient conditions of birth time (at the moment of birth), birth country (born in the United States), and birth parents (born to U.S. citizen parents). Simply stated, any “born citizen” who does not satisfy these three conditions, while still being a “born citizen” under some legal mechanism ( under the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act), is not a “natural born Citizen” under American common law which is the natural law that provides the constitutional definition of the clause.
To back up your post....
The US citizens of Puerto Rico are ‘citizens at birth’. From the moment they are born they are US citizens.
But they are naturalized citizens. Puerto Rico citizens fall under collective naturalization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_citizenship
http://juliorvarela.com/2011/01/30/the-1917-jones-act-puerto-ricans-as-us-citizens/
Many government related documents are clear about the fact that Puerto Ricans are US citizens but they are so under an act of Congress for collective naturalization.
Example:
www.cms.gov/smdl/downloads/SMD06012.pdf
Page 4
“*Puerto Rico (if born on or after January 13, 1941);
Note: If the document shows the individual was born in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands of the U.S., or the Northern Mariana Islands before these areas became part of the U.S., the individual may be a collectively naturalized citizen. Collective naturalization occurred on certain dates listed for each of the territories. *See additional requirements for Collective Naturalization.”
So it is very clear - citizen at birth is NOT the same as natural born Citizen. The situation of Puerto Rico demonstrates that fact.
Bret Baier misrepresented this fact in his blog posting below:
“They’re all natural born U.S. citizens. That also includes people who are born in Puerto Rico and people who were born in states before they became states. Born in Hawaii in 1950, a decade before statehood? You’re a natural born U.S. citizen.”
No Bret, the people born in Puerto Rico are NOT natural born Citizens. They are naturalized citizens.
If you are a naturalized citizen - it is impossible for you to be a ‘natural born Citizen’. The two are mutually exclusive.
i’m confused. i never said rubio or jindahl are NBCs
for the record... just like 0bama... they are not.
actually, the point of capitalizing ‘officially’ is to reenforce the fact that he has never submitted the birth record he has famously flaunted ... anywhere.
if he did, it would be a crime... as the forgery is obvious, even without the original for comparison.
and yes, he has the ‘authority’ to submit his birth certificate into record. to say otherwise it absurd.
US District Court Judge Henry T. Wingate in Jackson, Mississippi (a Reagan Appointee) currently has as an exhibit from the defense a copy of Obama’s long form birth certificate along with a Letter of Verification from Hawaii’s registrar, Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D. that was submitted by Obama’s attorneys, Tepper and Begley for Orly Taitz’s Mississippi eligibility lawsuit, Taitz, et. al. v Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committee, Obama, et. al.
The birth certificate copy is on page 11 and the Letter of Verification for it is on page 12:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/96289285/Mississippi-Democratic-Party-Motion-v-Taitz
And therein lies the legal problem. Since the Supreme Court’s 1898 ruling in US v Wong Kim Ark, SCOTUS has consistently ruled that there are only two forms of US citizenship: (1) “Citizen of the United States at Birth” and (2) “Naturalized United States Citizen.” The courts have ruled that there is no third category called “natural born citizen” that is separate from category 1, according to Supreme Court rulings since 1898. Judges believe that a Citizen of the United States At Birth IS a natural born citizen.
The principle above has found its way into judicial rulings concerning Obama’s status:
Ankeny v Daniels.
Indiana Court of Appeals: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”— November 12, 2009
Tisdale v Obama.
US District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— Tisdale v Obama, US District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama.
Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings, Farrar et. al., Welden, Swensson and Powell v Obama: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012
Allen v Obama.
Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
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.