Being born in the United States does not even make one a 'NATIVE' citizen.

nobarack08 | Feb 12, 2010 | syc1959

[syc1959]

Being born in the United States does not even make one a 'NATIVE' citizen.

Immigration and Citizenship: Process and Policy fourth edition Under Jus Soli, the following is written "The Supreme Court's first holding on the sublect suggested that the court would give a restrictive reading to the phrase, potentially disqualifing significant number of persons born within the physical boundries of the nation. In Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94, 5 S.CT. 41, 28 L.ED. 643 (1884), the court ruled that native Indians were not U.S. citizens, even if they later severed their ties with their tribes. The words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," the court held, mean "not merely subjct in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiange." Most Indians could not meet the test. "Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian Tribes, (an alien through dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,'*** then the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government ***. Id. at 102. It continues that Congress eventually passed legislation with the 'Allotment Act of 1887, that conferred citizenship on many Indians.

The fact remains, the Court held, complete and sole Jurisdiction. As I have held that being born anywhere in the United States, jurisdiction is required, sole and complete, and Barack Hussein Obama was already claimed by British jurisdiction under the British Nationailty Act of 1948, and as such fails the United states Constitutional requirement of a Natural Born Citizen.

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Barack Hussein Obama did not have sole jurisdiction under the United States.

Title 8 and the 14th Amendment clearlt state the following;

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

Note: 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'

[Canadian Outrage]

You don’t know history. Did you know that Isreal is the ONLY country on earth where the child’s status is determined by the mother’s nationality? It is. Every other country in the world, the child’s citizenship or status is determined by the Father’s nationality. In this case, that is British/Kenyan. And let’s not forget that Barack Obama SR. was an avowed Communist. Something that this President CLEARLY wanted to go back to. Since he changed his name from Barry to Barack. It’s so very obvious where the freak is coming from. Defend him if you will but take the consequences also. He has no more use for you than a gnat.!! CO

[Beckwith]

You’re full of baloney!

http://www.theobamafile.com/_eligibility/IssueFourCases.htm

[Uncle Chip]

Here is a scan of the book that I have mentioned: 'Table of Acknowledgement. This is only one page, but have the other scans up. There is no British law in there, but Vattel is listed. Why is Vattel listed, if the Founding Fathers used British Common Law, like EnderWiggins is pawning?

Because EW is an Obama pawn who has no documentary evidence for his position -- just like Obama.

[EnderWiggins]

"You're easily impressed, EnderWiggins.

It's very easy to be impressed when the competition is Phil Berg, Orly Taitz and Leo Donofrio. Need I point out that no Birther lawyer has ever won once regardless of who they were up against? DOJ or anybody? So... yeah. I'm confident the DOJ lawyers will make the same argument I have made, since it is good law and the are very good lawyers.

"Among the States where Presidential election qualification or Eligibility requirements will be checked in 2012 include Oklahoma, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Virginia, New York and others."

You are living in a fantasy world. Not one of those states has any such law on the books. But it hardly matters. Should such a law ever pass, all Obama has to do is show the COLB and the requirement will be met.

"Oh … and Obama’s "Certification of Live Birth" will NOT be accepted, no matter what HRS §338-13(b) and §319 says about the validity of Hawaii’s abstract birth certificate. Executive Privilege won’t fly either. In fact, some of the State legislators have been getting help structuring the language of the Bills to ensure they’re Obama-proof."

How funny. You think that the COLB's validity is dependent on legislation? It's not. It's dependent on the US Constitution, specifically the "full faith and credit" clause found in Article IV, Section 1. If Hawaii certifies that COLB, no other State can refuse to accept it.

[MHGinTN]

You are obviously easy to pass forged documents through. Do you work for Holder’s unJustice Department? Bwahahahaha

[EnderWiggins]

If the document was forged, then at least on Birther lawyer would have been smart enough to file a criminal complaint against the Hawaii DOH.

None have done so. Reasons must be one of these:

1. They are all very bad lawyers.

2. There is no evidence that the COLB is forged.

These options are not mutually exclusive.

[MHGinTN]

Now we all know you’re dumb as a post: “If the document was forged, then at least on(e) Birther lawyer would have been smart enough to file a criminal complaint against the Hawaii DOH.” As stupid as that assertion is, I will go ahead and point out to you, obamanoid, that a forgery would not have been made BY THE DOH! Sheesh, you obamanoid operatives are getting dumber by the week. Loosen your kneepads, fool, you’re cutting off circulation to your tiny brain.

[STE=Q]

“If the document was forged, then at least on Birther lawyer would have been smart enough to file a criminal complaint against the Hawaii DOH.”

PLESE READ “RED FLAGS”:

http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/

Update on article at Free Republic:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2454976/posts

Excerpt from “Red Flags”:

“This information has been given to every lawmaker in Hawaii, the OIP, DOH, Ombudsman’s office, HI lieutenant governor’ and governor’s offices, Nebraska’s US attorney (who says they won’t take reports from citizens), and Hawaii’s director of the Department of Public Safety, as well as to multiple news organizations. The FBI thrice said they don’t investigate document fraud. All refused to act.”

STE=Q

[STE=Q]

PLESE = PLEASE

[Danae]

Ping for updated bookmark.

Don’t give ground STE=Q.

I was born in Hawaii, I KNOW how corrupt everything is there. And as a point in fact, a COLB while it is state issued, is NOT sufficient in the state of Hawaii if one is going to try and register for Native Hawaiian Status.

You heard me EW.

You cannot use a Hawaiian COLB to register for Native Hawaiian Status. You have to have your LONG FORM, and the LONG form of your family members proving your genealogy.

SO yes, quite literally, A Hawaiian COLB is not even accepted by the state in proving heritage.

Suck it up buttercup. (EnderWiggins)

That being said, it doesn’t matter where Barry was born, he never was and never could be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States. He was born British/American, and you can’t be a dual citizen and also be a Natural Born Citizen.

[STE=Q]

“You cannot use a Hawaiian COLB to register for Native Hawaiian Status.”

Thanks for this valuable first hand information.

Lady shows Hawaii long form:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=124656

By the way... as a young man I lived in Hawaii
for several years.

I still have my Hawaii State Photo-ID: with my Soc. Security no., Full Name, Hawaii address, date of birth, sex - height - weight, and place of Citizenship (USA)

On the back of the ID. are 4 of my fingerprints (2 for each hand)over a 6 digit and 1 letter file No.

The ID is signed by the(then)Attorney General and also the register — with the date it was signed by same.

The whole ID is laminated in a HARD plastic that is still intact, even today.

Oh yah, there’s also a space for a relatives Name and Address, to notify: “in case of emergency.”

In short, I’m pretty sure my old Hawaii State ID — with soc sec. no., finger prints, etc. — tells us more about who I am (for verification purposes)than Obama’s on line Internet image of his alleged COLB tells us about HIM.

AND THIS:

Hawaii Attorney General’s office refuses to corroborate Obama’s Hawaii Birth:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/02/02/hi-attorney-generals-office-refuses-to-corroborate-obamas-hi-birth/

STE=Q

[STE=Q]

Here it is:

“In correspondence with The Post & Email, Jill T. Nagamine, Deputy Attorney General for the State of Hawaii, has made it clear that her office will not corroborate or back in any way the July 27, 2009 Statement of Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, which declared Obama Hawaiian-born and a ‘natural-born American citizen’.”

STE=Q

[STE=Q]

Suck it up buttercup. (EnderWiggins)

LOL!!

STE=Q

[EnderWiggins]

"In short, I’m pretty sure my old Hawaii State ID — with soc sec. no., finger prints, etc. — tells us more about who I am (for verification purposes)than Obama’s on line Internet image of his alleged COLB tells us about HIM."

As long as he COLB meets the US State Department regulations for proving citizenship at birth (and it does) you are welcome to do with your old ID anything you find morally acceptable.

[STE=Q]

“As long as he (sic) COLB meets the US State Department regulations for proving citizenship at birth”

Unfortunately Obama has never submitted a “COLB” to the US State Department.

Or do YOU know something we don’t?

Are you from the state department?

Please supply evidence that Obama has submitted a COLB to ANY government department!

Trolling 101:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2165967/posts

STE=Q

[DJ MacWoW]

Thanks for that link as I missed the original posting.

[fireman15]

Thank you for the link to the great article! I believe that any attempt the Democrats make to use Obama’s refusal to release his pertanent and verifiable background information including his long form birth certificate will backfire on them. Probably half the public already understand that Obama is hiding information about his back ground and that this is suspicious. This is despite the media and even many “conservative” pundits denying that this is a serious issue.

[STE=Q]

Thanks for that link

You are both welcome!

The tide is turning and the Obots are getting desperate to shut the "birther" issue down.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” (Mahatma Gandhi)

They are fighting and they WILL lose!

STE=Q

[Danae]

Not to mention it would not be accepted. You have to submit a birth certificate now, not a certificate of live birth.

Hawaii itself doesn’t even accept it for establishing Native status! LOL

[EnderWiggins]

"Unfortunately Obama has never submitted a “COLB” to the US State Department. Or do YOU know something we don’t?"

Well... I think that there has never been any question that I know something you don't. The truth of that statement has been repeatedly demonstrated in these threads.

But as to the State Department's determination that the COLB is adequate, I refer you to the court filing of the DOS and DHS in response the suite by Christopher Earl Strunk in which they explicitly declare under oath that Obama's COLB (and specifically the one he shared over the InterneT) is adequate proof of Obama's natural born citizenship.

http://www.scribd.com/full/17508463?access_key=key-1vg7c228ugapeqcnkki6

Again, that document constitutes testimony under oath under penalty of perjury.

"Are you from the state department?"

No. But that document is.