Replies

"You have been proven wrong."

Danae, you have to actually understand the quotations you post before being able to draw a conclusion regarding what they do or do not prove. Frankly, you betray understanding of neither your quotations nor the arguments you imagine you were replying to.

Britain gets to call anybody anything they want. They can grant citizenship to anybody they want. But since we are a sovereign nation, we really don't have to care. Because among the things they cannot do is to pretend that anybody on our soil is subject to their jurisdiction. They cannot send their police, or their army, or even a dogcatcher onto our territory to capture a rabid collie. And they certainly cannot reach out and claim the allegiance of somebody born in Boise or Denver or Honolulu.

Once again I have to point out the bitter irony of you guys pretending you are patriots when you are so anxious to surrender our national sovereignty to a foreign government.

As the Supreme Court has asserted... our sovereignty within our own territory is absolute. We have sole and complete jurisdiction over anybody therein except for foreign diplomats and occupying armies. This includes citizens, and tourists, and sojourners, and illegal immigrants... if they are on our soil they are subject to our jurisdiction. If any other nation pretends otherwise, it is arguably an act of war... an invasion of our sovereign territory.

Any child born on our territory (again, who is not the child of a foreign diplomat or invading army) is entirely, wholly, solely, completely and absolutely subject to our jurisdiction and that of no other nation. This is not an issue over which any court ruling has been in disagreement. So that is where natural allegiance entirely, wholly, solely, completely and absolutely lays.

Allegiance under our laws as we have seen again, and again, and again is made in exchange for the protection of the state under whose jurisdiction a person is born. The quotation that you have provided and that you do not seem to understand does not even pretend to challenge that claim, but explicitly confirms it. It points out that even though British legislation has awarded natural born citizenship to certain children born "outside the allegiance of the Crown," they are still born outside the allegiance of the crown. As such, they are only claiming a child's citizenship... but not his or her allegiance. And of course they could not claim the allegiance of a child born under our jurisdiction, because that would be (arguably) an act of war.

We are a sovereign nation. We and only we get to decide who is our citizen, and who is our natural born citizen. Britain cannot do that for us. Neither can Kenya or Indonesia.

And every time you guys claim they can, you prove nothing other than that you yourselves are not really patriots at all.

Save it for the kindergartners EW.

I am neither buying into your condensation or your bogus argumnets.

You have been proven wrong by no less than 6 people posting differing levels of information including Title 3 of Public Law 414 which I researched and posted myself.

Now, how about you just concede like an adult. I can admit when I am wrong, you apparently aren’t big enough to do so.

That says a lot more about you than it does anyone else.

again attempting for a grain of salt to make a loaf of bread.

The laws of the United states do not take presidence over the laws of a non-domiciled resident alien, in any part of the United States.

Barack Hussein Obama Sr, by his citizenship, governance, and allegiance under his law, not the United States law, by nature and tacit consent, bestowed upon his offspring his condition without any statute or all the rights and privilges of a British subject, as as admitted by BHO.

you do not seem to understand, that that sole jurisdiction of the United States is required, as stated, not merely to some extent, but full and complete.

The 1964 divorce papers establish the parental lineage of his father and as so noted. Legal document, BHO Sr his father.

You are the one showing that your allegiance is to an unknown, undicoumented illegal alien, who refuses to establish his credentials in the basic of forms or required by law, and the Constitution.

Talk about who is un-patriotic, or Un-American, look in the mirror.

Not buying your cow cookies EW.

I think that you are completely wrong.

I also think you will be eating crow when a case finally makes it to SCOTUS. The ONLY body with the constitutional authority to make the decision. At that point, Federal Marshals will remove Obama, if he is still in office that is. There is far too much evidence that is completely contrary to your “opinion”. You can go ahead and continue to waste your time. Up to you. But you are barking up the wrong tree with a lizard.

I am not buying your argument that the lizard is a dog.

We are a sovereign nation. We and only we get to decide who is our citizen, and who is our natural born citizen. Britain cannot do that for us. Neither can Kenya or Indonesia.

And that is the damn point, Wiggy ...

Since the term natural born citizen has never been defined either politically, through Constitutional amendment, or judicially, by the Supreme Court, the question devolves to original intent of the Founding Fathers – what did they know and how did they know it. The lawyers amongst them were trained, quite brilliantly, in English Law. In fact, many of them received their law degrees in England prior to the revolution …

Obama is a “citizen” of the United States by virtue of being born on United States soil, but he is also a “natural born citizen” by virtue of the British Nationality Act of 1730 [4 Geo. II, c. 21].

Now, you may say that the British Nationality Act of 1730 [4 Geo. II, c. 21] was “legislated”, and does not count. However, the definition of “natural born subject” in English Common Law was also legislated [7 Rep. 7], as well as the exception for children of English ambassadors who are born outside of the sovreign’s dominion [7 Rep. 18]. Should we discount these laws too? In fact, should we discard English Common Law completely since it was derived from Roman Law, and then discard Roman Law since it was derived from Greek Law, and then discard Greek Law since it was derived from Biblical Law ??? Of course not. BTW: Biblical Law recognizes citizenship through heredity only.

The Founding Fathers relied on Blackstone, the British Nationality Act of 1730 [4 Geo. II, c. 21], and Calvin’s Case 7 Coke Report 1a, 77 ER 377 in their understanding of natural born citizen. That meant being born within the sovreign’s dominion and under a singular, exclusive allegiance to him. In the eyes of the Founding Fathers, the fact that English Law allowed natural born subject status to children born out of the sovreign’s dominion of natural born fathers [4 Geo. II, c. 21] would have necessarily negated Obama’s claim to natural born citizenship in the United States. If Obama had lived in the times of the Founding Fathers, he never would have been eligible to run for President.