Posted on 09/24/2010 11:31:46 AM PDT by patlin
proof positive that Obama was ”NOT” a US citizen prior to & in 1968...Sept. 24, 2010
Dear Sen. Thune,
As a member of the Armed Forces Committee & member of the sub-committee on Personnel, I am imploring you to please take this seriously & take immediate action...
(Excerpt) Read more at constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com ...
ping...
A distraction from
WHERE ARE THE JOBS?
HOW MANY TRILLIONS DID PELOSI AND THE DEMOCRATS SPEND THIS YEAR?
OK, so I forgot about a photograph that says he attended kindergarten at a public school. So What? What does a photograph prove in a court of law? NOTHING! There is also a picture of him that says he was in the 3rd grade in Hawaii, however witnesses(former Indonesian classmates) have stated that he was in Indonesia in school. These photos do not prove anything and that is all that is, just photos posted online by obama koola-aide drinkers. These are not official documents. Not one document that has been posted online has been verified by any government or judicial official.
Scott Inoue is now a chiropractor in Stockton, California.
http://wtpotus.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/scott-inoue-and-barack-noelani-elementary-school-1969-ducky.jpg
Actually, both Governor Lingle of Hawaii and Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of Health of Hawaii have made public statements testifying to the authenticity of Obama’s birth records.
In a recent radio interview Governor Lingle said the following:
“You know, during the campaign of 2008, I was actually in the mainland campaigning for Sen. McCain. This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it’s one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country. And so I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact. And yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue. And I think it’s, again, a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this. ... It’s been established. He was born here.”
Dr. Fukino made her statement under oath when testifying before the Hawaii Senate Committee on the Judiciary and Government Operations on February 23, 2010. The key statement from Dr. Fukino’s testimony was: “For more than a year now the Department has continued to receive approximately 50 emails per month seeking access to President Obama’s birth certificate IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT POSTED A COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ON HIS FORMER CAMPAIGN WEBSITE.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28117439/Sb2937-Testimony-Jgo-02-23-10-Late
Dr. Fukino has also issued two media releases verifying the authenticity of Obama’s birth records and she has a “Frequently Asked Questions” section of the Department of Health’s web site specifically devoted to Barack Obama’s birth in Hawaii.
Well, actually, every single one of our Founding Fathers was born "a subject to the crown of His/Her Majesty the King/Queen of England". :-)
Benjamin Franklin: Born a subject of Her Majesty Queen Anne
John Hancock and most of the other Founding Fathers: Born a subject of His Majesty George II
Martin Van Buren, the eighth President of the United States, was the first U.S. President that was NOT born as "a subject to the crown of His/Her Majesty the King/Queen of England".
As far as I can see, this document only refers to Obama's mother, not him. Nobody claims that Stanley Ann ever lost or renounced her US citizenship. How exactly does it prove anything regarding Obama?
What on Earth is this supposed to prove?
If she is applying overseas for a US Passport it is not proof that she is not a citizen, on the contrary, it is proof that she is.
For those who don’t know, even if she took on foreign citizenship anywhere, you can take on foreign citizenship and you don’t lose your American citizenship by that act.
Ah, yes thank you for the corroboration...
if he or she elects . . .
It’s that pesky positive act a person with foreign allegiance must take upon the coming of age. As I asked: ...when did Obama or his mother formally renounce this foreign citizenship that has now been verified by the US State Dept? Where are those records?
See:
Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)
Thus, the court ruled, a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act mandating automatic loss of citizenship for voting in a foreign election was invalid. Other, similar provisions providing for loss of citizenship for serving in a foreign army, or even swearing allegiance to a foreign country, were similarly invalid unless the action was accompanied by an intent to give up US citizenship.
...............................
It was a retroactive decision.
It doesn't, though given the source, you shouldn't be surprised.
That link doesn’t carry any weight because its current law. What did the State Department say in 1968?
That is what’s relevant.
U.S. Supreme Court
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)
No. 454
Argued February 3, 1939
Decided May 29, 1939*
307 U.S. 325
Syllabus
1. A child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States. P. 307 U. S. 328.
2. As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, the same person may possess a dual nationality. P. 307 U. S. 329.
3. A citizen by birth retains his United States citizenship unless deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by his voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles. P. 307 U. S. 329.
4. It has long been a recognized principle in this country that, if a child born here is taken during minority to the country of his parents’ origin, where his parents resume their former allegiance, he does not thereby lose his citizenship in the United States provided that, on attaining majority, he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties. P. 307 U. S. 329.
Expatriation is the voluntary renunciation or abandonment of nationality and allegiance. P. 307 U. S. 334.
5. This right of election is consistent with the naturalization treaty with Sweden of 1869 and its accompanying protocol. P. 307 U. S. 335.
6. The Act of March 2, 1907, in providing “That any American citizen shall be deemed to have expatriated himself when he has been naturalized in any foreign state in conformity with its laws, . . . “ was aimed at voluntary expatriation, and was not intended to destroy the right of a native citizen, removed from this country during minority, to elect to retain the citizenship acquired by birth and to return here for that purpose, even though he may be deemed to have been naturalized under the foreign law by derivation from the citizenship of his parents before he came of age. P. 307 U. S. 342.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/
A valid statement that ‘gaining’ Indonesian citizenship - which it appears is exactly the case - does not nullify US citizenship.
The real issue would be the actions of an ADULT Obama after he turned to the age of majority (18). At that point he would need to declare or at least utilize the privileges of only one country from that point forward.
It would appear that there is a least plausible actions or lack of actions and disclosures that give credence to an ADULT Obama who leveraged multiple citizenships depending on the need. Or maybe he lived as a full foreign national during his college years. The records that would confirm or debunk this line of reasoning are.....still hidden.
His birth - may be a problem, his likely adaptions - may be a problem. But if lived and embraced either foreign or dual citizenship as an adult after age 18...that IS a problem that almost no one can deflect or rationalize.
Because birthers amuse him. They make for a great butt of jokes, and a convenient brush with which to tar his entire opposition.
That is horrible. Wintertime, read what patlin said about Levin deleting the link he posted.
It’s one thing if “pundits” [puke], talk show people, politicians etc who are supposedly conservative think that it’s best to focus on other things like 0thugga’s agenda and leave the NBC issue aside.
It’s another thing ENTIRELY to mock it, scorn it or delete references to it as though it didn’t exist.
Such people are enablers of evil IMO.
Totally wrong. See #68
Thanks patlin.
words, just words, blah, blah, blah
If a number of them talked about it, it would cease being “kook” territory. If none of them ever say anything, then it can be claimed to be “kook” since none of them mention it.
They’re the ones making it look (if it does, that’s debatable anyway) like “kook” stuff, merely by their avoiding it. So they are soundly at fault.
You’re an idiot.
Sorry to be blunt, but there it is.
Or a troll.
One or the other. Or it could be both.
Sorry, no dice. The paragraph does not instruct the applicant to strike out the person's name, but rather the portions of the paragraph that do not apply to that person.
The fact that she struck out Barry's name simply means she she initially wanted to include him on her passport, and then changed her mind.
Now why would she not want him on her passport? Most likely she decided it would be a good idea to get him his own, in which case it wouldn't be necessary to have him on hers.
It's called Occum's razor, granny. You should try using it some time.
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.
