Here it is:
Posted on 08/24/2010 6:37:15 PM PDT by RobinMasters
The State Department is maintaining a "counter-misinformation" page on an America.gov blog that attempts to "debunk a conspiracy theory" that President Obama was not born in the United States, as if the topic were equivalent to believing space aliens visit Earth in flying saucers.
However, in the attempt to debunk the Obama birth-certificate controversy, the State Department author confirmed Obama was a dual citizen of the U.K. and the U.S. from 1961 to 1963 and a dual citizen of Kenya and the U.S. from 1963 to 1982, because his father was a Kenyan citizen when Obama was born in 1961.
In a number of court cases challenging Obama's eligibility, dual citizenship has been raised as a factor that could compromise his "natural born" status under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. The cases argue dual citizenship would make Obama ineligible even if documentary evidence were shown the public, such as the hospital-issued long-form birth certificate that indicates the place of his birth and the name of the attending physician.
The entry "The Obama Birth Controversy" was written by Todd Leventhal, identified as the chief of the Counter-Misinformation Team for the U.S. Department of State. The office appears to have been established "to provide information about false and misleading stories in the Middle East," as described in a biography of Leventhal published on the U.S. Public Diplomacy website.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Obama lost his United Kingdom (not "English") citizenship on Kenya's independence in 1963According to the Kenyan Constitution, Obama was an overseas British citizen at the time. Therefore Obama was a British and Kenyan citizen under a particular clause therein. The Kenyan Constitution is clear that dual citizenship was honored to those born overseas prior to the Act until they were age 21, or if at least one parent or guardian completed the necessary paperwork to instate the child as a citizen of Kenya.
Well, good luck trying to get the Supreme Court to address it. They made it pretty clear in 1898 - clear enough that no one has sustained a challenge to the idea in the intervening 110 years. The Indiana courts were in the mainstream of thought when they ruled that any one born in the USA is a natural born citizen.
And EVERY state has apparently concluded the same - any one could challenge the idea in court by simply passing a law (or getting a ruling from the DA) that natural born citizen does NOT allow a foreign citizen parent. Since that state would disagree with Indiana, it would force the Supreme Court to rule.
You can expect or hope for it to happen. I am certain it won’t. We’ll see who is correct. I’ve been wrong before, so I might be again.
That settles it. 0bama is not a natural born citizen and he’s not eligible to be the President.
In this instance, there is 'no doubt.'
She looks like she came from the movie, The Body Snatchers.
Both Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton were duel citizens. Yet both ran for the Presidency without objection.
Here it is:
Once again WND deftly demonstrates something already well known...
Good pun aside, Hamilton is credited as being the inspiration for the grandfather clause of being a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
In this instance, there is 'no doubt.' "
As always he's wrong.
Hmmm...no state agrees with you - neither legislature nor DA. No Congressman agrees with you. The only birther case to go to a ruling on the merits determined "Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”
Let me know when a birther figures out what the courts mean by 'standing', and takes action to gain standing so they can get a ruling from some court other than Indiana's. Until then, you are making claims that no legal authority supports - no state and no federal authority.
Just Internet hot air.
ONLY if those alien parents were already naturalized citizens.
1) Wong Kim Ark not only petitioned the court as a native-born citizen, he never claimed any citizenship other than American.
2) His petition was NOT based on his parentage by some fly-by-night African radical here on a student visa.
Obama MAY be native born, but he is NOT natural-born, and should he have claimed foreign citizenship in order to receive student funding, he isn't even that.
He's just an illegal like all the others invading our country.
“Failing to renew a passport does not, in most cases, cause you to lose a citizenship. It definitely does not occur with a US citizenship. It may or may not occur with other countries.”
I was born in another country to American parents. I never explored the issue deeply since I had no interest in becoming a citizen of that country. But my understanding was that failure to affirmatively declare my citizenship for that other country at age 18 (or maybe it was 21) permanently precluded the possibility of changing my mind later on. That is, it was a one-time, time-limited “opportunity.” I just assumed it was the same for any country, but perhaps this was a country-specific rule.
In reading about Obama, my impression was that similarly, unless he formally declared being a Kenyan citizen, his previous dual citizenship automatically disappeared without his having to take any action for this to happen. I wasn’t aware that one could maintain their dual citizenship merely by keeping passports for 2 countries.
But regardless of whether he kept his dual citizenship alive or let it automatically lapse, the fact that he was BORN a dual citizen means he was not (and can never be) a natural born citizen since he had theoretically divided loyalties at birth. Indeed, when one reads his book and his decision after 18 to “identify” as black, one could argue that even if he failed to opt for Kenyan citizenship as an adult, Obama ultimately identified much more with his father and his heritage than his American-born mother’s. All the living relatives we hear about are Kenyan. I’ve never heard of his keeping up with aunts, uncles or cousins on his mother’s side of the family.
“I just had a weird shock - reading in the paper that someone I once went out with and whose wedding I attended is now a major Hildebeast supporter.”
Given that about one quarter of the population still strongly approves of Obama’s performance, my guess is that there’s quite a few Americans who personally know someone who shockingly and unaccountably still supports this man despite all the rather obvious evidence of the harm he’s done to the country and its economy.
In other words, if you're a natural born citizen, dual citizenship doesn't change that. All that matters are U.S. citizenship laws.
“The US doesn’t recognize dual citizenship.”
Yes it does. I am dual.
Yeh and one knocked off the other in a duel and neither of them ever served as President, did they???
P.S.
George Soros has five (5) passports to include a U.S. passport.
He claims citizenship to 5 countries.
And did you notice they’re treating a year-old blog post as “breaking news”?
“ONLY if those alien parents were already naturalized citizens.”
No. The only exceptions were for the children of ambassadors, and those born to an invading army.
And Obama’s father was here legally for years studying at good schools. Nor is Obama in any sense an illegal alien who has invaded our country.
State Dept. confirms Obama dual citizen
Yep. She’s at State getting her ‘foreign policy’ ticket punched so she can run and claim she has ‘experience’.
But if he'd been studying at some podunk community college it would have been a different story? :)
"Here legally for years" doesn't mean he became a citizen, ever. There is no documentation that BO Sr. ever became an American citizen. A citizen of Australia (for example) who works here but has to go back home every six months to renew his visa is here legally also, but he still isn't an American citizen.
Nope. not the same thing.
There is enough in the public record alone to prove him a fraud were the evidence to be presented to a jury.
Let me know where standing is in the Constitution and who invented it and should not standing for Presidential eligibility challenges be ruled non-applicable and grandfathered out. Standing for eligibility is ex post facto....how do you like that theory?
bump for later viewing
From the Library of Congress;
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332
[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)
[emphasis mine]
-----
Facts without evidence are only opinion. Have you any facts, sir, or are we to take yours as such simply because you say so?
oh, and
Yeah -- and I have more of that on the boots I wear out into the pasture...
I would say this is proof of 0bama’s divided loyalties,
except, of course, “divided” would mean he had SOME loyalty to America.
Exactly!
Being natural born isn't about the location of the birth, but the NATURE of the birth.
I wonder how ignorant the Founders would think we all are for not understanding such a simple term as 'natural-born'?
I still want to see if foreign student grants and scholarships paid his way through college.
Right, as if you speak for all states ...
And you keep quoting the Hoosier hillbillies who undermined their conclusion by admitting the guidance they presume to follow did not actually declare a person born in the United States to be a natural born citizen. Instead, they declared that person to be a citizen of the United States, which only applies to the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 IF that person was born at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
Coincidence? I don't think so.
Nothing new here that we haven’t known all along.
Polarik
TheDrRJP
New information has come to light that Barack Obama is not his real name, that his father was not Obama Sr, that his mother was not Ann Dunham, and that every photo taken of him with his parents or grandparents, or other students, or by himself at Punahou, Columbia, and Occidental were fabricated!
Just like his birth certificate.
He did not go to Columbia, or Occidental, or Punahou. He was not born in the US. He is an imposter.
THE GREATEST IDENTITY FRAUD IN HISTORY!
Found at YouTube
***
Has Polarik lost his mind?!
I just want to know if Obama COLB is legit or not.
Excellent analogy by Dr. Jerome Corsi!
So the State Department has a "Counter-Misinformation Team"? Sounds like it wants to morph into an American version of the Soviet diplomatic service.
SHE did that, hunh? makes me want to throw up when I read people on FR saying she’d be better than 0thugga.
Read this:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
They go to great lengths discussing the meaning of natural born subject/citizen - which they describe as interchageable. They needed to decide if WKA was a citizen in spite of treaties with China, and they argued that he qualified as a natural born citizen and thus was a citizen per the Constitution, and therefor no treaty could override it.
edge919 doesn’t like it, but there isn’t one state in the union that has challenged Obama’s eligibility - not one. Nor did any member of Congress. The Supreme Court refused to take a case challenging it. At some point, edge919 needs to face the fact that no legal authority agrees with his analysis.
So if the State Dept says he was a dual citizen until 1983, that is past his 21st birthday. Does that have any significance. There are a lot of unanswered questions such as did he ever have an Indonesian passpoort and when did he last use it.
----
From your link-
and did return thereto by sea in the same year, and was permitted by the collector of customs to enter the United States upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States
Again, Wong Kim claimed to be NATIVE born, not natural-born.
Also from your link-
The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. [p666]
is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen,
Judges DON'T make distinctions unless there is a difference.
-----
Regarding your previous assertion that alien parents can have natural-born children
Greisser was born in the state of Ohio in 1867, his father being a German subject, and domiciled in Germany, to which country the child returned. After quoting the act of 1866 and the fourteenth amendment, Mr. Secretary Bayard said: 'Richard Greisser was, no doubt, born in the United States, but he was on his birth 'subject to a foreign power,' and 'not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.' He was not, therefore, under the statute and the constitution, a citizen of the United States by birth; and it is not pretended that he has any other title to citizenship.' 2 Whart. Int. Dig. 399.
Richard Greisser
Rogers, you’re intentionally misrepresenting and misinterpreting the decision. They don’t call natural born subject and natural born citizen interchangeable. Far from it. They make NO argument that Wong Kim Ark qualified as a a naturalb born citizen. The only definition per the Constitution is citizen of the United States via the 14th amendment. The definition of NBC, they say in accordance with Minor V. Happersett, is OUTSIDE the Constitution. The reason the treaty doesn’t override the 14th amendment, they say, is because “... it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.” And finally, despite your weak attempt to make this personal, it’s not about what I like or don’t like. I’m going by the words they used and nothing in that decision declares Wong Kim Ark or any person not born of citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.
~~
"interchageable"? [sic] Not so. From WKA -- at your link:
The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. [p666]
"citizen" versus "natural born"... Distinct and separate.
~~
(How does that foot in your mouth taste -- now that you've shot yourself there?)
Haven’t shot myself in the foot. Here is what they wrote:
The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said:
Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”
Notice they DO consider the terms natural born subject and natural born citizen to be “precisely analogous”, and that “...the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.”
Further, they note in detail that under English common law, it was well established prior to the Constitution that a natural born subject included anyone with TWO alien parents, provided the parents were not members of an invading army or ambassadors.
Elsewhere they note:
“And he [Kent] elsewhere says:
And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”
“They make NO argument that Wong Kim Ark qualified as a a naturalb born citizen. The only definition per the Constitution is citizen of the United States via the 14th amendment.”
Sure - they wrote for pages just for the fun of it! There is a reason that no state legislature or DA & no Congressman has taken up your cause, and why Sarah Palin & John McCain did not either - you have no legal case.
WKA clearly establishes TWO arguments based on the Constitution for WKA’s citizenship - the 14th, which is their second argument, and the original intent of the phrase ‘natural born citizen’, which is their first argument.
Since WKA was not running for President, there was no reason to bring up the NBC phrase EXCEPT that it applies to WKA and thus makes him a citizen by birth.
What's wrong with countering misinformation? Isn't that what we try to do here?
ML/NJ
Against who? Davis and his mother are both dead, and they would be the ones who perpetrated the fraud (if there even is one).
References please.
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.