Posted on 03/08/2014 7:02:43 AM PST by Steven Tyler
So far, just a repeat of the 7 minute video. Wait and see, I imagine BR and Post & Email will get a few hits this weekend
Mar. 7, 2014) — BirtherReport.com and The Post & Email can report that an exclusive interview was conducted on Friday evening with Barrister Michael Shrimpton, who first appeared in a video released on February 26, 2014 stating unequivocally that Barack Hussein Obama "was born in Mombasa, Kenya."
Topics discussed during the two-hour interview include the meaning of the U.S. Constitution's Article II "natural born Citizen" clause;....; what is really driving the unrest in Ukraine; the death of novelist Tom Clancy; and the actions Shrimpton believes should be taken as a result of Obama's usurpation of the presidency.
"He's not a U.S. citizen," Shrimpton told BirtherReport and this writer in a riveting session conducted over Skype.
(Excerpt) Read more at birtherreport.com ...
Sherrif Joes needs to know that WE ARE LISTENING
My family can trace every marriage and offspring in USA to 1640 by paper archival records.
I have traced Indonesian and Dutch families in Indonesia back to the 1600`s, every child and marriage[ coz the Dutch kept perfect records of everyone there til 1940`s.]
via the Mormon Temple genealogical center archives in Oakland CA before it was on the internet.
Obummer is a fraud imposter. He should be tryed and sentenced as a foreign agent subversive communist moslem coz he cannot even be traced, while millions of others in several countries know every ancestor marriage details, available to everyone on the internet..
This SOB BASTARD BUM FRAUD IMPOSTER HAS TO GO!
I have a long narrative as to Obama’s heritage. The short of many dots is that Obama was conceived in Indonesia but born in Kenya. There are many established dots as to Obama’s early years that can be and need to be publicly connected.
Both parents must be American citizens.
Apparently a debatable issue. For instance, soldiers who got married overseas and had a child overseas, the child was considered a US citizen I believe.
The Obama FBI was going to go after Sheriff Arpaio but then they backed off.
From yesterday’s USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/07/records-fbi-urged-charges-in-ariz-abuse-of-power-case/6152807/
Not same thing. Regular Citizenship is not same as Natural Born Citizen. Different categories.
Quite a few courts have explicitly ruled that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. No court has ruled otherwise.
1) Allen v. Obama (Arizona)
2) Ankeny v. Daniels (Indiana)
3) Fair v. Obama (Maryland)
4) Farrar v. Obama (Georgia)
5) Freeman v. Obama (Illinois)
6) Galasso v. Obama (New Jersey)
7) Jackson v. Obama (Illinois)
8) Jordan v. Obama (Washington)
9) Judd v. Obama (California)
10) Kesler v. Obama (Indiana)
11) Martin v. Obama (Illinois)
12) Paige v. Condos & Obama (Vermont)
13) Powell v. Obama (Georgia)
14) Purpura, et. al. v. Obama (New Jersey)
15) Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections (NY)
16) Swensson v. Obama (Georgia)
17) Taitz v. Obama (District of Columbia)
18) Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia)
19) Voeltz v. Obama, et. al. (Florida)
20) Welden v. Obama (Georgia)
For example:
Taitz v. Obama {Quo Warranto} “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as is required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”— Chief US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, April 14, 2010
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30040084/TAITZ-v-OBAMA-QW-23-MEMORANDUM-OPINION-dcd-04502943496-23-0
Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v. Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80424508/Swensson-Powell-Farrar-Welden-vs-Obama-Judge-Michael-Malihi-s-Final-Order-Georgia-Ballot-Access-Challenge-2-3-12
Pupura & Moran v. Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo
Allen v. Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint
One who is born of an American citizen is considered a natural born citizen.
Close, but I believe not quite correct.
To be a Natural Born Citizen, both of one’s parents must have been American citizens at your birth (plus you were born in USA).
A person born of one American citizen parent (as you cite) is usually considered to be an American citizen, yes, you are correct on that score.
ps: I think that takes care of it... I do need to sign off now .... so maybe somebody else can kindly pick up the ball and advance it forward for us all here now? Thanks!
Thanks!
If Obama was born in Kenya, then his mother couldn’t have conferred citizenship on him. The law said that you have to be a citizen for 10 years with at least 5 of those years being after the age of 14. Obama’s mother was 18 when she gave birth, so she did not meet the requirements to confer citizenship on him.
The Georgia ruling in Farrar, Powell, Swenson, and Welden came after a trial on the merits that was requested by the plaintiffs. The Georgia Judge was ready to issue a summary judgement because Obama’s attorney refused to show up for the trial but the plaintiffs requested a trial on the merits and they were granted that. They lost and then appealed to the Georgia Superior Court. They lost there as well and appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court, they also lost there and finally the plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which refused to grant cert and hear the case.
Many of the eligibility lawsuits against Obama were dismissed for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. The people who had standing to sue because they suffered direct injury from Obama’s election were the other candidates who received Electoral votes and had an opportunity to be elected: John McCain, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan or the Republican National Committee on their behalf. None of those person or that entity filed suit.
To have standing you must be able to demonstrate DIRECT injury not indirect.
The issue seems to be debatable but certainly doesn’t seem to be the open-and-shut case as many think it is. If a U.S. soldier marries overseas and has a child, that child should be a natural-born citizen at birth.
Hi there. Thanks for your note. Here’s the last note on this I can do today.....I hope I say something helpful for you?
Yes, the Georgia courts hardly distinguished themselves (the nicest possible way of putting the point), nor did they resolve the issues at bar.
Perhaps that was not the best imaginable case for the USSCt to maybe take up, I suspect it wasn’t....but it nevertheless seemed a shame the USSCt did not find a case that dealt intelligently with the issues and... take that one up. After all, it will take a new USSCt decision to overturn the previous and apparently controlling language, or to provide a new, modern definition perhaps (if you believe the SCt should do that). Some holding by a local ALJ or even a state court somewhere ... can do little to resolve a US Constitutional matter (particularly when it appears that the ALJ gentleman ruled against the evidence before him? There was quite a lot of concern about that at the time...).
Also, the record was not benefited by courts turning down so many cases for “standing” or as “frivilous” or as a “waste of the court’s time” -—
“Standing’ has its value (to insure that plaintiffs have sufficient incentive to present vigorous and competent litigation), but it can also provide an immense skirt for a reticent court to hide behind, as we all have come to realize.
Nor was it particularly benefited by one or more of the plaintiffs or one plaintiffs’ attorney (who seemed prone to somewhat odd statements at times).
We are therefore left with little or nothing of recent date worth much weight. We thus return, as we always must, to the US Constitution. We immediately note its provision setting up a different or higher standard for the office of the presidency than for any other purpose in our country, a standard driven by the well-known concerns of our Founders that somebody with allegiance to a foreign power, Great Britain in particular as it happened, could someday (after the Founders’ generation) acquire the office. The law of nations at the time (and some of the documents relating to the Founding fathers) illustrate that two citizen parents, plus birth in the USA, were what was envisioned for this higher standard...that being their best effort at insuring the loyalty of future presidents. And, the USSCt has referred to this (including its two parents aspect). I am aware of no USSCt decision since that overruled this or provided a different definition of NBC. (There have been many citizenship-related decisions, but none can recall addressing the NBC standard since the early language citing two USA citizen parents etc.)
Daddy having been a British citizen (via Kenya colony), it is impossible to see how sonny boy could possibly qualify for the office on this basis.
(Note also that we also have been quite deliberately, and I would have to note amazingly, denied nearly all of the simple documentation or evidence needed to ascertain even his basic citizenship status and of what countries that may pertain (Indonesia? UK? Kenya? USA? Romulus?). ALL this difficulty could have been avoided had there not been such a concerted and comprehensive concealment of every conceivable pertinent document, record, witness, or scrap of evidence .....
History may someday clear all this up, one way or another. It often does; the facts have a way of surfacing one way or another.
I am open to correction but also regret that I have no more time for the internet this weekend. So maybe someone else, possibly with more light to share with us all, can please pick this discussion up right now and move us forward? Thanks!
Over and out, and thanks for the notes. Much appreciated!!!
If one or two courts had ruled “incorrectly” or even five or ten, I might agree with your premises, but all told since 2008 there have now been 220 judicial rulings on Obama eligibility and not one single judge anywhere in our nation has ruled that Obama isn’t eligible.
Not one of the nine Supreme Court Justices has seen fit to put an Obama eligibility appeal on the “Discuss List” for their Certiorari Conferences and there certainly aren’t the required four Justices’ votes to hear an Obama eligibility appeal before the full Court. Nineteen appeals have been sent up to the Supreme Court and all have been rejected.
This issue has worked to aobama’s benefit, not against him.
Please see the link I posted in post #32. It has a chart that lists the U.S. citizenship and immigration laws that were in effect at various times. BHO’s mother (Stanley Ann) would not have been old enough to confer U.S. citizenship onto BHO if he had been born outside of the United States. He would have had to go through an expedited naturalization process, which would have made him a naturalized citizen — not a “natural born” citizen.
I am pretty sure that like 99% of Americans Obama forgot birthers exist a long time ago. I doubt he cares at all about some nut ranting on a conspiracy blog, and some imaginary investigation that has allegedly been going on for three years and will produce results any day now.
Obama is concerned about real issues like the failed Obamacare roll out and his failed “lets just talk to them nicely” foreign policy.
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.