THE AUDACITY OF TRUTH ABOUT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S UPBRINGING
Ping
Was Chet Arthur sent here with foreign backing to destroy America? If not, I’ll give him a pass.
From Wiki:
“His father had initially migrated to Dunham, Lower Canada, ....”
Scary............
With any luck, perhaps another fact will repeat itself: Arthur was a one-termer, actually a little less, since he only served a little over three years.
same info—more or less—has been online for sometime now...
more linx offa the below lik...
http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2008/12/11/
There are two types of citizenship. Natural born and Naturalized. Both Obama and Arther were citizens without being naturalized, therefore both are natural born.
Here is what the Supreme Court said on this subject:
U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649
FYI
Thanks Danae.....reading it now.
Looks like a swarm of non-natural born citizen obama rumpswabs have been busy on this thread ;)
Vattel in Bk 1 Sec 212, states the following.
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.
The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.
I say, that, in order to be of the country,it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
Is there any question why the founders put the Natural Born Citizen requirement clause in the Constitution?
George D. Collins was a San Francisco attorney. If you read his article, one of his arguments is that Congress couldn't restrict citizenship to the Caucasian and African race if the common law tradition was followed. There was a lot of concern in 19th century California about Chinese immigration.
In the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case, the Supreme Court ruled against Collins's understanding of citizenship. One of the lawyers representing the government against Wong was George D. Collins.
Some may find the following edifying:
Interestingly (follow link to video)Obama HIMSELF agrees that a Natural Born American is “one born of American citizens” — plural!
He also — cleverly — muddies the water by conflating ‘natural’ born with ‘native’ born citizens... they are not the same.
Exactly What IS a Natural Born Citizen?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEnaAZrYqQI
STE=Q
How many nations are enemies of the United States?
Do those countries have intelligence organizations? Yes.
How many countries around the world are friends of the United States?
Do those countires not also have intelligence organizations? Of course they do.
Would not our enemies find it useful to have accurate information on the birthplace of the president, knowing how many American people see this as a very critical issue? Of course.
Would not even friendly nations find it worth their while to have absolutely correct and reliable background information on the U.S. president? Of course.
Are we to believe that professional intelligence officers in Russia do not know absolutely where Obama was born? Are we to believe that the Chinese government through it’s own spy-guys have not long ago discovered the exact birthplace of Barack Obama?
Are we to believe that at 110 Downing Street, London, there is some doubt about the birthplace of Barack Hussein Obama? How about the Israli Mossad? Do they know where Obama was born? You had better believe that they do.
Some Hawaii state official at Vital Statistics implies that the general American public has no “need-to-know” any more of the content of Obama’s records stored there, as if they are assigned “Secret” or “Top Secret” security status.
But though “sealed,” the vital statistics records in Hawaii have absolutely no secret or top secret security status-—no security status on par with Pentagon files or CIA files.
Professional intelligence officers all around the world are expert at obtaining information contained in secret and top-secret files. They know the techniques and tricks.
If the Israeli Mossad or Britain’s MI5 wanted to know what was in Barack Obama’s vital statistics file, how much time from the moment their agent (it would take only one) walked out of the Honolulu airport would be required to obtain the contents of that file? I would guess no longer than 48 hours, and that with a lot of partying time.
It might take a Russian spy or an intelligence officer at their San Francisco consulate 72 hours. Sorry.
If Obama was born in a village in Kenya, who in the international intelligence community doesn’t already know that with certainty. The German government, should they desire that information, could have blood and DNA samples from Dunham’s afterbirth.
Who thinks that there have not already been scores of intelligence officers snooping around Kenya and have not already clearly determined whether Obama was born in Kenya.
They all know. The CIA and the highest levels at the FBI know beyond of shadow of a doubt. If there is a long form, they have seen it, “sealed” or not sealed. Who are we trying to kid? If there is no long form-—if the vital records are fonies, they know that too. If Obama was born in Keny or Tinbucktu, they know which for sure.
We’re having all these discussions and compiling and trying to put together pieces of data like a jigsaw puzzle. I can imagine that intelligence officers sipping tea under their Panama hats in Oman get big chuckles reading articles in the American media and on the Internet regarding Obama’s “legitimacy” as president.
It’s just our bad luck that the Constitution very specifically spelled out the oath one has to take to be president, but not the proof he has to present to prove eligibility.
In your article you discussed and quoted 19th century investigator Collins as follows:
“A lawyer and scholar by the name of George D. Collins Esq. wrote an article regarding citizenship during Arthur’s term, that had the President seen it, would have concerned him. “Are Persons born Within the United States Ipso Facto Citizens thereof?” was published in the American Law Review in Sept. /Oct. 1884.”
“Collins concludes:
“’Birth, therefore, does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and it is essential in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof, or in the case he be illegitimate, that his mother be a citizen thereof at the time of such birth.’ – Collins”
Danae, you and others like D’Onofrio have focused on the part of Collins’ quote regarding whether or not the father is a citizen, but in this passage Collins declares explicitly that if a baby is illegitimate, it can still be a natural born citizen if the mother is a citizen, as Obama’s mom was. Thus, if born in HI to a legally single US citizen mom, according to Collins, Obama would be an NBC regardless of who his father was because dual citizenship would not pass to him via a bigamous marriage.