Posted on 09/22/2016 2:33:28 PM PDT by DOC44
Interesting. FOUR Simple questions from an attorney Here are 4 Simple questions from an attorney..... are there ANY logical answers? You be the judge...... Here's what I would like to know. If the TRUTH ever comes out and it is decided that Obama was never eligible to be president, what happens to all the laws he signed into being and all the executive orders? Should they all be null and void? Here are 4 Simple questions from a reputable attorney .... this should really get your "gray matter" to churning, even if you are an Obama fan. For all you "anti-Fox News" folks, none of this information came from Fox. All of it can be verified from legitimate sources (Wikipedia, the Kapiolani hospital website itself, and a good history book, as noted herein). It is very easy for someone to check out. 4 Simple Questions .... 1. Back in 1961 people of color were called 'Negroes.' So how can the Obama 'birth certificate' state he is "African-American" when the term wasn't even used at that time ? 2. The birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama's birth as August 4, 1961 and lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, right? At the time of Obama's birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama's father was born in "Kenya, East Africa." This wouldn't seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama's birth, and 27 years after his father's birth. How could Obama's father have been born in a country that did not yet exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the "British East Africa Protectorate" (check it below) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya_%28http:/en.wikipedia..org/wiki/Kenya%29 3. On the Birth Certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is "Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital". This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called "KauiKeolani Children's Hospital" and "Kapi'olani Maternity Home," respectively. The name did not change to Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978? (CHECK IT BELOW) http://www.kapiolani.org/women-and-children/about-us/default.aspx Why hasn't this been discussed in the major media? 4. Perhaps a clue comes from Obama's book on his father. He states how proud he is of his father fighting in WW II. I'm not a math genius, so I may need some help from you. Barack Obama's "birth certificate" says his father was 25 years old in 1961 when Obama was born. That should have put his father's date of birth approximately 1936 - if my math holds (Honest! I did that without a calculator!). Now we need a non-revised history book - one that hasn't been altered to satisfy the author's goals - to verify that WW II was basically between 1939 and 1945. Just how many 3 year olds fight in Wars? Even in the latest stages of WW II his father wouldn't have been more than 9 years old. Does that mean that Mr. Obama is a liar, or simply chooses to alter the facts to satisfy his imagination or political purposes ? Very truly yours, RICHARD R. SILVERLIEB Attorney at Law 354 Eisenhower Parkway Livingston, NJ 07039 (https://www.linkedin.com/in/richard-silverlieb-3145502a)
"A pen in the hand of this president is far more dangerous than a gun in the hands of 200 million law-abiding citizens. Send this to as many Patriots as you can! Ask your Republican friends in Washington D.C. If they have a backbone ... why in the hell can't they use it and get media coverage to explode this across our country? Impeachment in itself is not justice! We are talking orange jumpsuit & long prison sentences.
I said this 8 years ago and I’ll say it again. Obama is a demon infested foreign invader and he’ll never be my president. My country has been under foreign occupation for almost 8 years now.
It gives his father’s race as “African.” That’s a little suspicious, but it was Hawaii and Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, and Portuguese were considered “races” by many Hawaiians, so “African” wouldn’t have been impossible. A white family might have felt better about giving the father’s name as “African,” rather than “Negro.” When statistics were submitted to federal authorities, BHO, Sr. would have been listed as “Negro.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Barack Hussein Obama II is the only person on Earth to have a 1961 Hawaiian birth certificate with the father listed as “African”.
If you don’t believe me, find another one and present it. I’ll even accept any BC from 1964 and earlier.
If you don’t believe me, find another one and present it. I’ll even accept any BC from 1964 and earlier.
The only Hawaiian birth certificates I can see are the ones posted online.
Like I said, "African" as a race is suspicious and raises eyebrows, but it's not obvious or undeniable evidence of fraud or forgery.
For all I know, BHO may have been the only child born in Hawaii that year who's father was a Black African.
Who knows what a clerk might have been told or how he or she would have responded when such an unusual event occurred?
I'm not going to vouch for the birth certificate, I'm just saying that "African" was more acceptable to White people than "Negro" was, and Hawaii was looser about race than the mainland was.
No one can read that mess.
Accurate constitutional interpretation requires the Constitution to be read as written and originally understood and interpreted. Although the Constitution itself gives little guidance to what a natural born citizen (NBC) is, the Naturalization Act of 1790 helps.
Passed three years after the Constitution was ratified with many of the same people involved, the Act acknowledges that, “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States” may be NBC’s under certain conditions.
Although the Act itself was replaced, the portion about birth outside the U.S. was not contravened in the new law and thus we have some insight into original constitutional understanding that at least the possibility existed that one may be foreign born and an NBC.
Repealed when they realized their error.
Born here of citizen parents.
Cubanadians are not eligible.
SCOTUS is off the rails. They hear cases they shouldn’t (usually for political reasons - poltics is something they’re not supposed to concern themsleves with) or they don’t hear cases they should for much the same reason.
Nevertheless, we have some guidance about somehing many are confused about. The Naturalization Act of 1790 helps passed three years after the Constitution was ratified with many of the same people involved acknowledges that, “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States” may be NBC’s under certain conditions.
Although the Act itself was replaced, the portion about birth outside the U.S. was not contravened in the new law and thus we have some insight into original constitutional understanding that at least the possibility existed that one may be foreign born and an NBC.
Although the Act itself was replaced, the portion about birth outside the U.S. was not contravened in the new law and thus we have some insight into original constitutional understanding that at least the possibility existed that one may be foreign born and an NBC.
thanx
I’m just saying that “African” was more acceptable to White people than “Negro” was...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, it wasn’t. 1961. Negro was the correct term. Still is for languages influenced by Latin.
You seem stuck in the post-1970s concepts of political correctness with your statement.
Until I am shown otherwise, the 2007 BC is a fake pounded out by a 20-to-30-something who didn’t know the proper nomenclature. The only “otherwise” is another pre-1964 Hawaiian birth certificate with “African” as a racial designation on it.
If it is legitimate to post images of documents on the Internet as proof of something, can I post an image of my winning ticket from last week’s Powerball and collect my winnings?
That phony birth certificate was posted by Obama on the White House website servers for all comers to download. I did and was one of those who was debunking it by dismantling it, finding multiple fonts and typefaces on a document supposedly typed on a mechanical or electric typewriter in the early 1960s, plus elements that had been rotated 90° to be included on the page as well as official registration numbers that were composed of part matrix graphics and part vector graphic so the number could be changed! It was actually hilarious the number of overlapping layers they put on that "official document" and then forgot to "flatten" the layers in a single layer!
Congress has the power to naturalize. The 1790 Act is an instance of their exercise of this power. In that Act Congress conferred upon the foreign born children of U.S. citizens the legal status “natural born citizen”. Those children required a Congressional Act to obtain this status.
February 4, 1790, while discussing a bill to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, the U.S. Representative from South Carolina Aedanus Burke said: “The case of the children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for”. Burke recognized that those children were not citizens and that the bill should accommodate their situation.
Unlike in 1790, Madison was a member of the committee which drafted the 1795 Act.
December 29, 1794, Madison said that Congress had no naturalization authority over American citizens, “It was only granted to them to admit aliens.” On January 5, 1795 Madison reported the naturalization bill that became the Act of 1795. Unlike the 1790 Act, this Act conferred the legal status “citizen”. Like Burke, Madison viewed the foreign born children of U.S. citizens as requiring naturalization.
A lot of back and forth on the NBC issue, but as far as birth on foreign soil, that is still an open issue. The Act of 1795 replaced the 1790 Act. However, the portion about birth outside the U.S. was not contravened in the new law. Regardless of sentiments of certain members of Congress, the majority chose not to address birth outside the U.S. or contravene the allowance in the previous Act. Thus we were left with at least the possibility that one may be foreign born and an NBC.
At this point in time, either Congress should make a sweeping law about NBC or federal cases should be taken individually. Probably both as no law can cover every nuance and instance. The Obama and Cruz controversies should have been taken up in federal court, which , again , has the power to decide for the parties at hand, but not to create national law.
Both the 1790 and 1795 Acts are naturalization acts. They both naturalized the foreign born children of U.S. citizens.
The foreign born children of U.S. citizens are not citizens of any sort unless and until an Act makes them so. The 1790 Act conferred upon these non-citizens the legal status “natural born citizen”, the 1795 Act conferred upon these non-citizens the legal status “citizen”.
The foreign born begin with the status “alien”.
Sen. Cruz acquired U.S. citizenship via Pub.L. 82-414 § 301(a)(7); 66 Stat. 236. To retain citizenship he was required to fulfill the requirements of Pub.L. 82-414 § 301(b), 66 Stat. 236, if those requirements where not fulfilled then citizenship was revoked. (The retention requirements were later amended and then later eliminated. This does not negate the fact that citizenship is by Congressional grant.)
Read Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) in tandem with Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967).
Bellei lost his citizenship because he failed to comply with a condition subsequent required by naturalization statute.
Cruz is naturalized.
NBC status of foreign born children of U.S. citizens is not a settled issue by any means. Neither is the issue of whether one or two parents are required to be U.S. citizens for the child born on foreign soil to be an NBC. Lots of arguments on both sides.
As I said either our chicken-sh*t Congress needs to actually pass a law regarding these issues and/or individual cases/controversies whose questions of law and fact are not precisely on point with legislation or previous adjudication, need to be decided in federal court.
> NBC status of foreign born children of U.S. citizens is not a settled issue by any means.
How can you possibly make that claim?
Madison viewed them as aliens requiring naturalization. So does the Supreme Court, see Rogers v. Bellei.
Because when a nation changes, the citizenship changes with it. Both Zero and his father automatically became citizens of the Republic of Kenya on the same day..... December 12th, 1963.
1963 Kenyan Constitution Chapter 1 - Citizenship
1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on llth December. 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963: Provided that a person shall not become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of this subsection if neither of his parents was born in Kenya.
2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya is on llth December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1).
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.