Posted on 03/01/2010 3:51:30 AM PST by patlin
There are many in the press today caricaturing me as a "conspiracy theorist" simply because I, like millions of other Americans, insist on actually seeing proof of Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility.
I've never alleged a conspiracy. Obama was given a free pass by an opponent who had his own eligibility issues. Not much of a conspiracy necessary – especially with Obama accountable only to a fawning press and scared-of-their-shadows Republicans.
But "conspiracy theorist" is an easy epithet to hurl.
One good question to ask, the next time you hear someone call me that name, is this: "Who is Joseph Farah conspiring with?"
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I'm just honestly telling you this is a nonstarter that will never go anywhere.
Again, that's your OPINION. There are a lot of people that are saying there's something wrong with Obamas eligibility. More and more are questioning it.
Good gravy! We agree on something! lol
Any lawsuit can attempt an appeal to a higher court. What D’onofrio is really saying is that the chances of winning an appeal are slim due to the way the Court of Appeals framed its decision.
Of the seven lawsuits which reached cert panel conference at the Supreme Court several had been dismissed for lack of standing in lower courts. They were still sppealed up.
The Republican Attorney General of Indiana was defendants’ attorney in this case. In effect he was defending Obama. “Politics makes strange bedfellows.”
Are you sure this is what you meant to write?? It doesn't jibe with the Hoosier Hangin' Court or the rest of the Obama faither movement.
There are a lot of people that are saying there's something wrong with Obamas elegibility. More and more are questioning it. I note the same mistakes being made with regard to Chester Arthur. True his elegibility might have slipped through the cracks, because the focus was on James Garfield, the presidential nominee. His father, William Arthur was born in Ireland and emigrated to Canada, thence to Vermont. A fine written citizenship certificate sworn in 1843, gave him American citizenship. His mother, Martha Stone born in Vermont. At least Arthur had two citizen parents.
I read that such a furore was raised by lawyer A. Hinman about the elegibility, that the Pubbies did not accept Arthur's willingness to stand in the actual election. Hinman's book was titled something like "A British Subject is President". As VP, Arthur took the place of the assassinated President Garfield in 1880.
You probably will know all of this though. I spent time on Ancestry.com today and find interference with records. Not that there is anything sensational to find. Just that spammers have interfered with these records. I am not paranoid though.
I banged away on the local Church of the LDS records on their computer this evening. No luck, except persons on the computer read out, faithfully claiming some connection to the ancestry of one Barack Obama and stating that hospital in Hawaii as his birth.
Wonder who told them. (chuckle)
Whoops! sorry. I did not read your post and thus go to the link provided on your post #47. This stating that Chester Arthur burned his private papers prior to death.
I know that in 1850 citizenship papers were drawn up for persons becoming American citizens to and stated clearly to this effect. That the applicant forswore allegiance to a foreign monarch. The ones I saw named the King of Belgium. Another one named Queen Victoria as another foreign monarch. (Certificate of citizenship for J.J. Dolan, of Lincoln, NM. Formerly of Ireland. circa 1883.
No dual citizenship then existed.
Randolph Bourne, The Atlantic Monthly 1916.
"Transnational America".
" Cosmopolitan Federation of National Colonies, of Foreign Cultures"
"Not in a nationality but in a transnationality.
A weaving back and forth with other lands"
One might think that this is all academic and long gone. However we are informed that a law professor, T. Alexander Alienikoff, who had a key position with the INS during the 1990's, cites Bourne. In short, this is not a theory, but something that may be imposed quietly and legally on an unsuspecting public. There may be many legislators with him.
I now know why Lyndon Baines Johnson and also in Canada, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, did what they did. Open the flood gates and damn the rest of us.
There are about sixty nations that allow dual citizenship and another 50 or so that don’t. The rest take no position. Only Belgium and Sweden in western Europe don’t allow it.
It used to be the case in the US that you couldn’t hold dual citizenship (except in certain cases such as if you had dual citizenship from birth or childhood. In those situations some Supreme Court rulings — Perkins v. Elg (1939), Mandoli v. Acheson (1952), and Kawakita v. U.S. (1952) — permitted you to keep both). However, most of the laws forbidding dual citizenship were struck down by the US Supreme Court in two cases: a 1967 decision, Afroyim v. Rusk, as well as a second ruling in 1980, Vance v. Terrazas.
Rules against dual citizenship still apply to some extent — at least in theory — to people who wish to become US citizens via naturalization. The Supreme Court chose to leave in place the requirement that new citizens must renounce their old citizenship during US naturalization. However, in practice, the State Department is no longer doing anything in the vast majority of situations where a new citizen’s “old country” refuses to recognize the US renunciation and continues to consider the person’s original citizenship to be in effect.
The official US State Department policy on dual citizenship today is that the United States does not favor it as a matter of policy because of various problems they feel it may cause, but the existence of dual citizenship is recognized (i.e., accepted) as a fact of life. That is, if you ask them if you ought to become a dual citizen, they will recommend against doing it; but if you tell them you are a dual citizen, they’ll almost always say it’s OK.
I too was shocked at how much there is about this and now know why it was such a BIG issue for T. Roosevelt. Dislike what you like about him, but he knew that assimilation & patriotism was the key to America's sovereignty.
That link should include “FIRST SESSION - SEPTEMBER 29, 2005
My research suggests that 151 countries, including the United States, allow some form of dual citizenship. Most, with the exception of the United States, strongly regulate it without, however, outlawing it. They do so no doubt for the same reasons that lie behind the four policy suggestions that are in my prepared statement, concerns with the viability of citizen attachment in their national communities. Dr. Renshon Ph.D. in Political Science
Yes.
This needs some careful reading and going over. This I will do later. In the meantime I did a little research on T Alexander Aleinikoff. I thought that in the text it was Alienikoff. No big deal, but the word alien seemed appropriate to some extent.
In case others missed it, I had indicated in my post to you, that the ideas of Randolph Bourne re Transnational America,(1916) were indeed refered to by professor Aleinikoff. He has even more clout than I feared. A former position was:
Co-chair of Immigration Policy Review Team for the presidential transition of Barack Obama.
A scant month ago he gained the position of:
United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for refugees in Geneva.
These ideas and those who espose them are generally not realised by the public at large. Now one can see the determination of the "birthers". We may have more than just a marxist oriented leader here.
The little that I read was of great concern.
It’s everything Washington warned us about in his farewell address.
You effing moron you did exactly what I said you were going to do - call me an Obamabot or troll and then claim you birthers don’t insult people.
Birthers play with themselves.
At least your proud of yourself.
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.