Obama is not a Native US Citizen

Bouvier's Law Dictionary ^ | 1928 | William Edward Saldwin

[bushpilot1]

Meandering through my 1928 Edition of Bouvier's Law Dictionary on page 833, Native, Native Citizen is defined:

Those born in a country, of parents who are citizens.

If Obama does not meet the standards of a native citizen how can he be a natural born citizen.

[Seizethecarp]

“Psychological operations are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.[1]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Operations_(United_States)

It has doubtless not escaped the attention of the Obama Admin. and DOD that troop morale is lower than desired and approval of Obama and confidence in his legitimacy is also slipping as the Afghanistan push approaches.

It is illegal for the Army and CIA to conduct psyops against US citizens except in cases of “emergency.” But the skill-set and experience in applying these political manipulation techniques is there in the Army and CIA personnel. At a minimum, when those personnel retire or are not actively deployed, their skills could be solicited and employed by non-government entities to manipulate target portions of the US public.

Entities who could be hiring retired or non-active psyops-trained Army/CIA personnel could be cut-outs with plausible deniablility to US govenment entities or funded by parties with specific agendas. These agendas could be political or economic.

Of concern to me are advisers close to Obama who have declared that “conspiracy theories” should be actively suppressed in the media and on the internet blogs using paid operatives to post comments refuting what the government determines to be conspiracy theories. There appears to be circumstantial evidence that bloggers and commenters who investigate theories and share them have even been targeted with trojan viruses to cripple their computers in a kind of internet sniper attack.

WKA has been the linchpin of what I consider to be the psyops campaign by Obama’s team and if the DOJ/DIA felt that protecting Obama’s legitimacy for the troops was an emergency, then protecting WKA becomes a fight to the death.

LTC Lankin’s act of conscience may have generated an underground wave of support in active duty troops both in internet buzz and financial contributions that the WH/DOJ/DOD may be monitoring.

It is not hard to anticipate that a psyops operation might have been launched to post comments on sites where Lakin has some support, such as FR. An operative with prior posting history would be perfect.

The psyops operatives would post comments that would attempt to mock Lakin by claiming that WKA is settled law and validates Obama’s legitimacy because SCOTUS and the political establishment could have contested Obama’s NBC status, but didn't.

The psyops operative would attempt to delegitimize Lakin by accusing him of dishonorably attempting to avoid deployment.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Ridicule and insults are the domains on little minds and weak arguments.

Thanks for confirming both.

[little jeremiah]

Here’s his comment and link to the thread it’s on.

---

Tuesday, May 04, 2010 12:06:21 PM · 420 of 451
Seizethecarp to Mr Rogers; Red Steel; little jeremiah; LucyT; BP2; rxsid; El Gato
“They claim Obama is ineligible for office because of his father - yet it was all known, and that argument rejected by the states, voters, McCain, the GOP, Sarah Palin, Coulter, Malkin, Rush, the Electoral College, Congress and ignored by the Supreme Court.”
I disagree. Failure to properly define and address an issue in a timely manner after full discovery of the facts (such as Obama’s intentionally withheld HI contemporaneous vital records and access to witnesses in Kenya and HI) does not equate to “that argument rejected by...”

Let me refer you to the following FR link:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2504335/posts?q=1&;page=1

At this link are links to four youtube videos by Dr. Ronald Polland in which he shows an extensive collection of webshots of news stories during the 2008 campaign.

The clear evidence from these webshots is that the Obama campaign and their MSM Factcheck and Politifact enablers successfully conducted a black propaganda psyops disinformation campaign against the US electorate which framed McCain’s NBC status as a BIG ISSUE and Obama’s NBC status as a NON-ISSUE (his precious “historic” candidacy was too good to check).

Obama may not have been a constitutional scholar but he and his campaign had years to get the jump on the media and opposition with claims that Wong Kim Ark was on-point with Obama’s public biography and was settled law.

The WKA ruling is not at all on point with Obama’s alleged bio and the ruling explicitly declines to define NBC, a statement likely inserted to refute the claim in the dissent that Wong was being made eligible to be president.

I am a little surprised that you have claimed to be amused by my suggestion that your posting pattern could raise suspicions. I am assuming that you are fully familiar with Army as well as CIA psyops.

“Psychological operations are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.[1]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Operations_(United_States)

It has doubtless not escaped the attention of the Obama Admin. and DOD that troop morale is lower than desired and approval of Obama and confidence in his legitimacy is also slipping as the Afghanistan push approaches.

It is illegal for the Army and CIA to conduct psyops against US citizens except in cases of “emergency.” But the skill-set and experience in applying these political manipulation techniques is there in the Army and CIA personnel. At a minimum, when those personnel retire or are not actively deployed, their skills could be solicited and employed by non-government entities to manipulate target portions of the US public.

Entities who could be hiring retired or non-active psyops-trained Army/CIA personnel could be cut-outs with plausible deniablility to US govenment entities or funded by parties with specific agendas. These agendas could be political or economic.

Of concern to me are advisers close to Obama who have declared that “conspiracy theories” should be actively suppressed in the media and on the internet blogs using paid operatives to post comments refuting what the government determines to be conspiracy theories. There appears to be circumstantial evidence that bloggers and commenters who investigate theories and share them have even been targeted with trojan viruses to cripple their computers in a kind of internet sniper attack.

WKA has been the linchpin of what I consider to be the psyops campaign by Obama’s team and if the DOJ/DIA felt that protecting Obama’s legitimacy for the troops was an emergency, then protecting WKA becomes a fight to the death.

LTC Lankin’s act of conscience may have generated an underground wave of support in active duty troops both in internet buzz and financial contributions that the WH/DOJ/DOD may be monitoring.

It is not hard to anticipate that a psyops operation might have been launched to post comments on sites where Lakin has some support, such as FR. An operative with prior posting history would be perfect.

The psyops operatives would post comments that would attempt to mock Lakin by claiming that WKA is settled law and validates Obama’s legitimacy because SCOTUS and the political establishment could have contested Obama’s NBC status, but didn’t.

The psyops operative would attempt to delegitimize Lakin by accusing him of dishonorably attempting to avoid deployment.

Of course, this may have nothing to do with you.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2504697/posts?page=420#420

---

Another courtesy ping to Seize.

[little jeremiah]

Ridicule and insults?

I haven’t insulted anyone, and merely expressed my natural mirth.

[patlin]

That would be consuls, ambassadors, foreign dignitaries. All else are subject to our jurisdiction.

Nice of you to exclude the last part of that law which reads: “was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

CARLISLE V. UNITED STATES CASE(1872):

“Every foreigner born residing in a country owes to that country allegiance and obedience to its laws so long as he remains in it, as a duty upon him by the mere fact of his residence and that temporary protection which he enjoys, and is as much bound to obey its laws as native subjects or citizens. This is the universal understanding in all civilized states, and nowhere a more established doctrine than in this country.

Independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that by the public law, an alien or a stranger born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government and may be punished for treason or other crimes as a native-born subject might be unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulation.”

[PugetSoundSoldier]

To know the truth.

Wonderful. By now it should be patently clear to anyone that the natural born status of President Obama (or, to personalize it for me, my friend Kevin who was born in Seattle WA to two green-card carrying Canadians who had resided in the US for a decade before he was born) hinges on the definition of natural born citizen.

There are basically two different definitions at odds here:

1. Vattel's definition where location AND citizenship of the parents is required
2. English common law where location is the key factor

We have the first citizenship statutes passed in 1790 and the Supreme Court decisions tending towards the English common law, not Vattel.

Barring a definition such as Vattel, how would a person like my friend Kevin (born on US soil to legally present foreign parents) not be a natural born citizen?

So first, we need to establish either statute or case law that supports Vattel. That is what is always lacking. Yes, there are writings by some of the founders that support Vattel, yet we see their actions - that of the first Congress - run counter. They were divided at best!

So, rather than casting aspersions and hurling insults how about presenting actual facts showing that the US - as a legal, functioning Government - supported the definition of natural born citizen proffered by Vattel?

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Again, let's look at the parts you quote:

Every foreigner born residing in a country owes to that country allegiance and obedience to its laws so long as he remains in it...

an alien or a stranger born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government and may be punished for treason or other crimes as a native-born subject might be unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulation.

Thus a foreign national here is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, up to and including treason! Unless you are exempted by treaty, you are under the full jurisdiction of the United States when you are on US soil. And that includes treason.

Why include treason if you weren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US? How can I - a US citizen - commit treason within Germany, without being a German citizen? Treason itself is the act against your Government; here's the definition from Merriam Webster's dictionary:

1 : the betrayal of a trust : treachery
2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

Clearly the second definition is of import here, and we see it as an act to overthrow the state to which the offender owes allegiance! How can a foreign national owe allegiance to the US unless they are inherently subject to our full jurisdiction (being here voluntarily means accepting such jurisdiction and hence, granting at least limited allegiance). The case of Carlisle v US makes that explicitly clear:

Every foreigner residing in a country owes to that country allegiance and obedience to its laws so long as he remains in it.

Meaning that - if your father is a British or Canadian or Venezuelan citizen - while present in the US (unless here as an ambassador, or other exempted individual) - he owes allegiance and obedience to the US. The jurisdiction of the US is supreme over that foreign national.

If anything, your quote strengthens the case further that President Obama was subject to the full jurisdiction of the US at birth, and his father was likewise subject to that jurisdiction.

[little jeremiah]

I read and draw my conclusions; and one of the factors is peoples’ motivations. How many lawyers can dance on the head of a pin may interest some people; people can obscure the simple truth with smart-sounding legalisms; done in courtrooms every business day.

I think your comments are obfuscation on purpose, so after I read comments from someone who is doing that, after a while I don’t bother to read them any more.

The vast amount of research here on FR into documentats that informed the men who wrote the Constitution is incredible. You pretend it’s unimportant, or don’t read it, or something. So your motivation is the pivot.

Someone who wants to know the truth spends a lot of time reading and considering. You and others like you on FR keep pushing the same fetid tripe over and over and over again. Never learning, never trying to.

That’s why your motivation is suspect, that and your attitude also generates suspicion. It is a wellknown fact that the administration hires people to troll on conservative websites and other forums to push the message supporting 0bama, causing doubt, putting forward arguments, etc.

This is not conjecture; it is fact. So it is natural for people on FR to wonder what peoples’ motivation is.

Case closed.

[little jeremiah]

If anything, your quote strengthens the case further that President Obama was subject to the full jurisdiction of the US at birth, and his father was likewise subject to that jurisdiction.

---

You know, you’re pretty funny. So if 0bama Jr and Sr both were subject to US jurisdiction in the same manner, 0bama Sr could have become president.

Reeeeally convincing!

[PugetSoundSoldier]

I read and draw my conclusions; and one of the factors is peoples’ motivations.

Thus your argument boils down to:

I don't think your motivations are as pure as mine so you're wrong and I'm right

So it's not a matter of logic and reason, but feelings and motives. I thought that was the domain of the left, not conservatives. It should matter what is done, not just why it is done. The former is conservative, logical, and lawful; the latter is liberal, inconsistent, and chaotic.

So go ahead, and take your own advice:

I think your comments are obfuscation on purpose, so after I read comments from someone who is doing that, after a while I don’t bother to read them any more.

Feel free to ignore my comments from here on out.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Can you argue against the statements of the Court in Carlisle v. United States where the Court explicitly stated that:

Every foreigner born residing in a country owes to that country allegiance and obedience to its laws so long as he remains in it...

While in this country, the foreigner owes allegiance and obedience to the laws of this country. That would be jurisdiction, no?

Or is this wrong because you feel it is wrong?

[little jeremiah]

Not based on emotions. I have read for countless hours, for two years, and use whatever motherwit, common sense and perception available to me.

I cannot argue legalisms, but that does not make me unfit for using my brain.

Motives are not “feelings”. If someone is paid to post, or is a leftist wantint to support 0bama, or has a foreign wife and wants their kid to be able to be president, or just likes to whizz in the cereal - these are not “emotions”. In courtrooms motives are counted when possible crimes are committed. Motives count.

They aren’t the whole thing, but they are useful when looking at the whole picture.

More obfuscation from you.

[patlin]

BS! Your still ignoring the fact that the 14th did not merely exclude children born to dignitaries, it included children of ALL foreigners. The census data reported of 1892 which include all cunsus data from 1790-1890 back this up. You also ignore the part of the case which states:

unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulation.

WKA was subject to the treaty between the US & China. Under the Chinese Exclusion Act, which upheld Chinese Law, the Chinese immigrants and their children, could not legally become US citizens by accord of the treaty.

WKA fails no matter what twist you try to take. And also the fact that you try to change the subject by bringing in laws pertaining treason and you use such limited/edited definitions from a modern dictionary, not definitions that wee used at the time of the adoption of the constitution, again shows your desperation to somehow make dual citizenship a law, when in fact it is not according to the current US State Dept. They say it is accepted, but they do not condone the practice of it. Accepted by looking the other way does not make it Law of the Land!

[little jeremiah]

Obviously anyone residing within the borders of a country - or even travelling through - has to follow the laws.

That has nothing to do with being a natural born citizen.

And 0thugga said himself that he was governed by British law when he was born even though he was not born (supposedly) in Kenya. So that is another situation entirely.

Plus, add to that, there is the strong likelihood that he was indeed born in Kenya.

So you are conveniently mixing up a bunch of different things to make yourself/your arguments look really legal and smart. But you are soundly defeated by legal minds and dedicated researchers on FR who are not 0thugga toadies and sycophants.

:-)

[little jeremiah]

Psyops, IMO.

[patlin]

Show me a link to a law book that defines local allegiance & political allegiance as meaning the same thing regarding nationality.

So far you have shown nothing and you have linked to nothing. Therefore your rebuttals are without merit.

[patlin]

Definitely Psyops. I just haven't figured out if he's on the Russian team or the Jihad's team yet.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

So far you have shown nothing and you have linked to nothing. Therefore your rebuttals are without merit.

Since the act of the first Congress, and the finding of the Supreme Court do not count as examples to show my case, I believe I cannot show any more.

Now can you meet your own standard or proof? What is used to prove your own position to be conclusive and beyond reproach?

[little jeremiah]

Chicom flag on profile page, just to add another dimension.

Military (our side) psyops? I think Seize is right on the money, with some of these.

[patlin]

You say WKA redefined NBC, yet you still have not shown in the deciding opinion where that occurred in the holding of the case. and for that matter, one Constitutional Amendment does not redefine another unless expressly written in the text and there is not one notation as to that effect. To think that Congress, after just going through another bloody civil war to reunite the states, as well as the citizens of those states would have ratified a constitutional amendment that would allow a child of a foreigner not yet naturalized to become president just goes to show you are definitely off your rocker and are only in this fight for your own personal agenda which does not include patriotism to our country.