Posted on 12/03/2008 11:43:31 PM PST by BP2
calenel said: "Not a credible source."
wndawmn666 said: "Oh, I get it. FactCheck is only credible when they say Obama’s birth certificate it legit. When they admit he was a British citizen at birth they are not credible. Makes perfect sense."
calenel said: "Before you accuse people of bias or inconsistency you should actually check what they said....I question their (FactCheck) objectivity and integrity since they are 'owned' by the same organization that 'owns' Obama, namely Annenberg."
wndawmn666 said: "I never accused YOU of anything. Perhaps you should take your own advice?"
Well, I apologize if I misunderstood your intent, but perhaps you can see how I might have drawn the conclusion that you were accusing me of inconsistency and/or bias. I haven't cited FactCheck that I can remember, whether to support or refute an argument, so being critical of them is not inconsistent, and I think that the relationship between and among Annenberg, Obama, FactCheck (and Ayers) allows for a reasonable doubt as to the credibility and integrity of FactCheck. Again, I apologize for any unfair accusations I might have made.
Did you intend this post for someone else?
Dual citizenship is perfectly legal under US law. Being a citizen of another country in addition to the US will neither harm you nor help you under American law.
Go back and READ the historical works of Blackwell, Vattel, Christian Wolff, Gottfried Leibniz and Hugo Grotius.
All well and good, I suppose. But none of their writings are in the COTUS, Federal law or case law on this issue. You're not going to make your case relying on European legal scholars instead of US law.
Why is it wrong? It is a fundamentally American concept that we do not punish children for the actions of their parents, at least not by law. Legally-speaking, the motivations and behavior's of a kid's parents make no difference when it comes to whether that kid can run for President someday.
Correction from me as I stated it wrongly. I believe if two come here from another country and become citizens BEFORE they give birth to there child, then their child is “natural born”. :)
Under the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment, the status of one's parents doesn't matter if you are born in the US.
I'd like to see the 14th Amendment changed so that the children of illegals do not qualify for citizenship.
Sorry, yes, it was intended as a response to the post after [764] yours [763]. In too much of a hurry, I guess.
Thank you, calenel. Yes, I can see how my comment came off that way and I apologize for not being clearer.
Just another anonymous reference to the same stuff. Not credentials or a bio. How do you know that the "obamabirth" site wasn't put up by "Madison" or vice versa? If John proclaims Jane to be an expert on something and Jane proclaims John to be an expert on the same topic and they go around quoting each other, does it make either of them experts or what they say true? It is just a shell game. It goes on all the time among the global warming/environmental crowd, as their assertions are generally based on cherry picked or completely fabricated data. But they all go around referencing each other to create the impression of consensus/credibility. It is a way of fabricating credibility where none exists or should exist. It is also known in programming parlance as a "circular reference." This phenemonon also comes in the pyramid scheme variety.
Basically the Berg affidavits in video form. Now go to Berg's site and read the affidavits for yourself and see if you can spot the problems.
FROM Leo http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
DONOFRIO APPLICATION DENIED - WROTNOWSKI APPLICATION STILL PENDING
Posted in Uncategorized on December 8, 2008 by naturalborncitizen
My application was denied. The Honorable Court chose not to state why.
Wrotnowksi v. Connecticut Secretary of State is still pending as an emergency application resubmitted to the Honorable Associate Justice Antonin Scalia as of last Tuesday. I worked extensively on that application and it includes a more solid brief and a less treacherous lower Court procedural history.
After six days, it’s interesting that Scalia neither denied it nor referred it to the full Court.
My case may have suffered from the NJ Appellate Division Judge having incorrectly characterized my original suit as a “motion for leave to appeal” rather than the “direct appeal” that it actually was. On Dec 21 I filed official Judicial misconduct charges with the NJ Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, and I updated SCOTUS about that by a letter which is part of SCOTUS Docket as of Dec. 22. The NJ Appellate Divison official case file is fraudulent.
On the chance that SCOTUS was looking at both my case and Cort’s case, I must stress that Cort’s case does not have the same procedural hang up that mine does. It may be that without a decision on the Judicial misconduct allegation correcting the NJ Appellate Division case file, SCOTUS might have been in the position of not being able to hear my case as it would appear that my case was not before them on the proper procedural grounds.
I did file a direct appeal under the proper NJ Court rules, but the lower Court judge refused to acknowledge that and if his fraudulent docketing was used by SCOTUS they would have a solid procedural basis to throw mine out.
I don’t know if it’s significant that Cort’s case was not denied at the same time as mine. His case argues the same exact theory - that Obama is not a natural born citizen because he was a British citizen at birth.
All eyes should now be closely watching US Supreme Court Docket No. 08A469, Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz.
If Cort’s application is also denied then the fat lady can sing. Until then, the same exact issue is before SCOTUS as was in my case. Cort’s application before SCOTUS incorporates all of the arguments and law in mine, but we improved on the arguments in Cort’s quite a bit as we had more time to prepare it.
I was in a rush to get mine to SCOTUS before election day, which I did do on Nov. 3.
Cort’s case has a much cleaner lower court procedural history.
I’m not trying to play with people’s minds here. SCOTUS has not updated Cort’s docket and until they do there can be no closure. I was expecting, if they didn’t grant certiorari, that they would deny both cases at the same time so as to provide closure to the underlying issue. I hate to read tea leaves, but Cort’s application is still pending. That’s all we can really say with any certainty.
A "natural" born citizen is one of other issues regarding Hussein's eligibility for President. The Framers could probably not vision that a foreigner would sneak himself in that positions, yet they did created the grandfather clause!!
Here is the closest I can find!!!
Natural-born citizen
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "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." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
* Anyone born inside the United States * Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe * Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S. * Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national * Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year * Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21 * Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time) * A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.
The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was "declared" to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.
In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(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." Not eveyone agrees that this section includes McCain - but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.
U.S. Nationals
A "national" is a person who is considered under the legal protection of a country, while not necessarily a citizen. National status is generally conferred on persons who lived in places acquired by the U.S. before the date of acquisition. A person can be a national-at-birth under a similar set of rules for a natural-born citizen. U.S. nationals must go through the same processes as an immigrant to become a full citizen. U.S. nationals who become citizens are not considered natural-born.
"* Anyone born inside the United States * Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe * Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S. * Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national * Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year * Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21 * Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time) * A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S."
And ultimately it all boils down to where he was born. Any of those conditions that he could meet require that he was born in the US or a possession.
"Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)"
Different sites show a mix of the 1952 statute ("for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years") and the 1986 ("five years, at least two") language. The 1952 language was in effect at the time of Obama's birth, obviously. I have also seen "after the age of 16" but I don't recall where that language originates.
Below is update from Leo’s web site. Leo and Cort are going to be on Plains this evening beginning at 8:00. The Freeper Joe Thunder will be on Lan Lamphere at 10:30.
WROTNOWSKI APPLICATION REFERRED TO FULL COURT BY JUSTICE SCALIA - DISTRIBUTED FOR CONFERENCE ON DEC 12 - SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF TO BE SUBMITTED TOMORROW
Posted in Uncategorized on December 8, 2008 by naturalborncitizen
PRESS RELEASE: 12.08.08 7:20 pm
Cort Wrotnowski’s emergency application for a stay and/or injunction as to the Electoral College meeting on Dec. 15 was today referred to the full Court by the Honorable Associate Justice Anotonin Scalia. It has been distributed for Conference of Friday December 12. The official case name is WROTNOWSKI v. BYSIEWICZ, United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A469.
The Wrotnowski Supreme Court application was prepared by Leo Donofrio, Esq. and is centered on the same issue from Donofrio’s case which was discussed by the Supreme Court in its conference of December 5 - whether Barack Obama is not eligible to the office of President due to the fact that he was a British citizen at the time of his birth.
Tomorrow, Dec. 9 - Cort Wrotnowski will submit a supplemental brief concerning the newly discovered ineligibility of twenty-first President Chester Arthur due to his having been born as a British subject. This is relevant to the case at hand in that Justice Gray - who wrote the seminal opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Arc - was appointed by Chester Arthur.
The Wong Kim Arc case involves an important historical opinion that SCOTUS justices will certainly consider as to the Obama natural born citizen issue.
The recent discovery calls into question the motivations of both Arthur and Gray since Arthur’s father was a British subject not naturalized at the time of Chester’s birth. In fact, William Arthur was not naturalized until 1843, fourteen years after Chester was born. In the light of historical retrospection, Justice Gray’s decision in Wong Kim Arc seems tailor made to the circumstances of Arthur’s birth.
Chester Arthur was born in 1829. The 14th Amendment wasn’t ratified until 1868, and Wong Kim Arc was decided in 1898. But under United States law in 1829 it’s not clear that Arthur would have even been considered a United States citizen at the time of his birth, let alone a “natural born citizen” eligible to be President. At best, he would have been a dual citizen of Great Britain and the United States.
It was proved earlier this week, by various articles in the Brooklyn Eagle printed circa 1880, and other authorities, that when Arthur was on the campaign trail as Garfield’s running mate he lied many times about his father’s emigration record, his parents’ life in Canada before coming to the United States, and his father’s age. Chester also burned his papers and falsified his birth year. It appears now that he was doing so to conceal the POTUS eligibility issue.
Every other President (who didn’t become eligible under the Article 2, Section 1 grandfather clause) was born to American citizen parents in the United States. The fact that he was a British subject at birth was first reported on Friday Dec. 5.
It must now be questioned whether the relationship between Chester Arthur and Justice Gray was influenced by Arthur’s eligibility problems and whether those issues effected Gray’s opinion and vote in Wong Kim Arc.
It must also be considered that the integrity of Justice Gray’s SCOTUS appointment might have been called into question if Chester Arthur’s POTUS ineligibility issues had become known.
All of the above is relevant to the issue of whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen in that the core Supreme Court opinion in Wong Kim Arc must now be re-evaluated in lieu of the fact that the Justice who wrote the opinion was appointed by Chester Arthur.
Leo Donofrio will accompany Cort Wrotnowski to Washington D.C. tomorrow and both will be available for comment at 11:00 AM on the steps of the Supreme Court. This is not a rally, protest or vigil. If the media would like to discuss this historical brief and the issues discussed above, Donofrio and Wrotnowski will be available to answer any questions thereto.
Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.
Cort Wrotnowski
Now, somehow this does NOT make any sense to me???
"Now, somehow this does NOT make any sense to me??? "
I am not sure what you mean. The passage is paraphrased and less specific than the actual statute, so I can see that it might be confusing. The meaning of that particular passage is that a child born to a US citizen and an alien (not US citizen, not US national) is a citizen at birth if the US citizen parent has met certain specific residency requirements. I have the exact text on my profile page. For Obama, if he was not born in the US, then he was not a natural born US citizen, because he was not a citizen at all, due to his mother being too young to have met the residency requirements to pass citizenship to him at birth. Does that help?
“But see, this is NOT just about YOU shirking off part of your lineage — it’s about those who could damage our country if they are devious enough and have the financial backing to do so.”
If you think they’re devious, how about you bring it up during the election? As far as I’m concerned, demanding that they be born on our soil is safeguard enough.
Was Obama’s father an illegal alien? I didn’t think so.
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.