[rxsid]

HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?

Office	Citizenship		Age	Residency (or years citizen)
President & Commander in Chief (1 of 1)	natural born Citizen		35	14 years resident
Senator (1 of many)	Citizen		30	9 years a Citizen
Represantative (1 of many)	Citizen		25	7 years a Citizen

Assuming Barry's father really was Obama Sr., Barry was born a subject to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England, inheriting his foreign father's foreign citizenship by birthright.
Then, when Kenyan gained it's independence, Barry obtained Kenyan citizenship at age ~2.
He possibly even had Indonesian citizenship if his step father Lolo Soetoro adopted him.

Forget dual citizen...Barry was/is a multi-national. He was born, at least, half foreigner. He never was a "natural born Citizen."

Question is, do enough people care in the present day that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution is currently being completely ignored? Where are all the "Constitutionalists?"

[rxsid]

Ping!

"Debunking The New Natural Born Citizen Congressional Research Propaganda."

[kitkat]

BUMP

[alancarp]

It is unfortunate that the birth certificate issue has clouded this one: we really couldn't care less about whether Barry Jr. was born in the U.S.: he's not eligible because he's never been a citizen (natural born or otherwise) of the United States of America.

[WayneS]

Consider this scenario, which, given the number of foreign children adopted by Americans in recent years may come up at some point in the future:

1) A child is born in Russia and abandoned to the care of a children's home.

2) A married couple, both of whom are U.S. citizens, adopt the child in Russia while he is an infant.

3) As part of finalizing the adoption in Russia, the Russian court issues a new birth certificate for the child which names the adoptive parents as the child's birth parents.

4) Upon returning to the U.S., the child's parents 'readopt' him in their home State. Based on the contents of the child's Russian-issued birth certificate, the State lists the adoptive parents as the child's birth parents on the birth certificate issued by that State.

Question: Do you think this child would legally qualify as a "natural-born citizen" of the United States?

[Triple]

I am glad Leo addressed this propaganda so quickly...

Does the fogbow crowd still want to hang their hats on this memo?

[redshawk]

Leo Rocks!

[so_real]

Still praying this sees the light of day ... We have two new socialists on the Supreme Court now thanks to the usurper. How can the cancer be excised while the surgeon wears a blindfold?

[rxsid]

Many of us, including Leo, have asked "Why now?"

Why would they feel the need to release yet another CRS memo on this topic?

Don't they feel that they put Barry's eligibility issue to bed with the release of the (clearly forged) LFBC last April?

Don't they think the media (both liberal AND conservative) have done a good enough job of ridiculing this issue into submission?

Don't they think the courts have effectively scared off (with fines and threats of sanctions) or otherwise ignored this issue with great success?

Again, why go through the trouble to write up this lengthy opinion now?

Could it be that AG Holder will resign in the coming weeks/months with the mounting pressure on him to do so?

With Barry's personal firewall (Holder) out of the way, there will be a period of time before Holder's replacement is in position.

Perhaps they sense a coming weakness in their defenses.

Afterall, why keep the issue alive, even if they are only trying to cover for Barry?

What are they worried about at this point?

{:^)

[SuperLuminal]

Good piece of investigative journalism...

Guess that means that the "Terminator", born in Austria, first adopt by Vince G. (an American citizen), then re-adopted by Joe W. (a Canadian citizen??), and finally adopted by the Kennedy clan (citizens...but fans of Hitler & Stalin) is definitely not eligible to be POTUS?

[philman_36]

I assume you saw this yesterday...

Protecting Obama: Congressional Research Service Releases Error and Disinformation Ridden Report on Natural Born Citizen Requirement
(Maskell writes, “There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President.” Two sentences later he states, “…the eligibility of native born U.S. citizens has been settled law for more than a century…” If there is no controlling case law, how can the issue have been settled law for more than a century?)

[edge919]

I posted some of the errors I found yesterday. I'll share that again:

Wow, this piece is a legal mess. This falls under the category of “if you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, then baffle them with bull manure.” The author makes several critical errors and unsupported assumptions. I'll point out a few:
The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark thus concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment “affirms”the common law rule of “citizenship by birth within the territory,” even if one is born of alien parents in this country, and approved of the characterization of the children of such resident aliens as “natural born” citizens of the United States.63
There's nothing in the Wong Kim Ark decision that “approved” a characterization of children of resident aliens as natural born citizens. This is an outright fabrication. It's footnoted to page 693, which is the part where Gray quotes Binney saying the child of an alien “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.” This passage doesn't approve of a characterization, nor does anything else on this page. It's making an analogy in which it still distinguishes children of aliens from natural-born citizenship. It only says their level of citizenship is the same by virtue of the 14th amendment, which no one disagrees with. If the president requirement was only basic citizenship, then this would be true. But it requires the specific characterization of “natural-born” which is neither expressly stated nor implied. Secondly, this is the same kind of dicta that Maskell downplays from Minor. He also ignores that this passage requires domicile (Obama’s father was not domiciled in the U.S.): “Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction ...” Under this requirement, Obama fails to be a 14th amendment citizen.

Maskell, for unknown reasons, wants to downplay the influence of Vattel. He says he was only cited once by the Federal Convention of 1787. This ignores that Vattel was cited frequently by the Journals of the Continental Congress between at least 1780 and 1787. The Law of Nations is cited even more frequently.

This next passage is another work of fiction. It says that Minor v Happersett:

... discussed the question in dicta as to whether one would be a “natural born” citizen if born to only one citizen-parent or to no citizen-parents, noting specifically that“some authorities” hold so.
This is NOT what it says. Some authorities include as citizens those born “without reference to the citizenship of their parents.” This doesn't say anything about a question of whether such children would be a “natural born” citizen. It's questioning whether they are citizens. It also does NOT say that some authorities hold such persons to be NBCs.

The Court, however, expressly declined to rule on that subject in this particular case.
... because it established an exclusive set of criteria for defining natural-born. Maskell claims the discussion quoted here is dicta and not relevant to the holding in the case, which is false. This was the basis for establishing Virginia Minor's citizenship in rejecting an argument that it was derived through the 14th amendment. Wong Kim Ark noted this fact and affirmed it, which Maskell fails to understand.

The majority opinion of the Court [in WKA] clearly found, by any fair reading of its reasoning, discussion, and holding, that every person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (that is, not the child of foreign diplomats or of troops in hostile occupation),regardless of the citizenship of one’s parents, is a “natural born” citizen
The conclusion above is based on the same dicta using the Binney “as much a citizen” citation. It's a faulty conclusion and poor reading.

By footnote, Maskell claims this about Minor:

Any analysis of the distinction between “holding” and dicta is simplified in Minor v. Happersett, as the Supreme Court expressly explained that “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve” the issue of parental citizenship, thus clearly stating that its discussion was not part of, and the resolution of the issue not necessary to, the underlying holding or ruling of that case.
Waite did NOT say it is not necessary to solve the issue of “parental citizenship.” He solved it quite clearly. All persons born in the country to citizen parents are natural-born citizens. It is a type of citizenship without doubt. What Waite did NOT solve is the issue of territorial-birth citizenship. “Parental citizenship” was directly applicable to the holding in Minor because it was used to reject the 14th amendment citizenship argument proposed by Virginia Minor.

There are plenty of other errors. What needs to be understood is that Minor was a unanimous decision that defined natural-born citizen. The Supreme Court affirmed that definition in Wong Kim Ark. There was no way Horace Gray was going to overturn a unanimous decision. There's no other higher judicial or legal authority. Not 20th century “legal scholars.” Not circuit court decisions. Not state appeals court decisions. And not the CRS.

[EternalVigilance]

Bump.

[Ladysforest]

This is a bit off topic, for which I apologize. I am frantically searching for a particular story or article/blog post that I ran across within the past few months. I need to find this, so if anyone knows the piece I am about to describe, please let me know. It will be vitally important to some ongoing research. Here is my recollection of what I am looking for and what I SEEM to recall about the “story” that I am searching for: It was black text on white background. It began with a intro story (I cannot remember any specific) that was NOT really long. Clearly it had to be relating to the HI DOH and the certification number on obama’s birth certificate, and all other HI BC’s that have been published since we began this odyssey. It was about the paperwork flow for birth certs filed in HI in the early ’60′s. At the end of the “article” or “story” was a cut and pasted copy of a partial article, apparently written circa 1960-1961. It appeared to be/or was inferred to be, from a newspaper article. That partial article, in a quote box, detailed more specifically how the birth certificates were assigned the certificate numbers. It-the quoted article- was (in my imperfect memory) only a paragraph or two long. My memory is that it was authored by two men. It detailed specifically HOW the birth certificates were assigned their certificate numbers. It could possibly have been an excerpt from a 1960 or 1961 Hawaii Medical Journal. But it does seem that I recall it being represented as being from an old newspaper article. I don’t think it was from some really obscure site, but rather one that I tend to read at least once or more a month – so like WND or P&E, or various “birther” type blogs. What I have confirmed is that it is not part of the Bennett HI Med. Journal article that was on WND sometime after obama's long from BC was released. And it does not seem to be part of any "article" that was published on daily pen. I recall no charts being in the story (could be wrong though). The person who needs this has a very specific reason for needing to find this, and that person had seen this same article that I recall reading. I think it was no earlier than July, but I know it was more than a month ago that I read it. Time flies. It's possible that the article/post may have been written a while before I came across it, but I don't think that it was. Sorry, I know this isn't much to go on, but I have hopes that someone here may know this article that I am looking for, and can help us. Thanks!

[thecodont]

They’re still trying to conflate “citizen” with “natural born citizen” and hoping people won’t notice the difference.

Hey Jay Leno, here’s something for you to try in your “Jaywalking” skit:

“What’s the difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen?”

[STARWISE]

Remember, this is the Congressional Research Service, our employees!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*snip*

Having been born in the US of parents who were citizens, petitioner was indeed a natural-born citizen. But Maskell’s frightening quotation surgery makes it appear as if the petitioner was born of alien parents. The Supreme Court rejected that contention. And Maskell’s ruse highlights the depravity of lies being shoved down the nation’s throat on this issue. I can imagine Mini-Me sitting on his lap while this was being prepared.

When you look carefully at Maskell’s creative use of quotation marks, you’ll see that the statement is NOT a quote from the case, but rather a Frankenstein inspired patchwork. He starts the reversed vivisection off with the following:

*snip*

LOOMING CONSTITUTIONAL DISASTERS

The timing of the memo’s appearance is alarming.

I have been saying for quite awhile now that Obama doesn’t really have to worry about the natural-born issue coming back to haunt him in court unless he attempts to suspend the Constitution. I know that sounds paranoid. And nothing would please me more than to be wrong on that prophecy.

If my fears don’t come to pass, I will gladly wear the tin foil hat of shame. But the appearance of the updated CRS memo at this particular moment portends a Constitutional disaster.

If Obama attempts to suspend the US Constitution and/or declare martial law and/or suspend the 2012 election… chances of the natural-born citizen issue finding its way to the Supreme Court on the merits increase exponentially.

Rest

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/debunking-the-new-natural-born-citizen-congressional-research-propaganda/

[bushpilot1]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/74454580/Georgia-Primary-Ballot-Challenge-Re-Obama-Pre-Trial-Order-Farrar

[bluecat6]

“Congressional Misconduct”

by Jack Maskell

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Congressional-Misconduct-NEW-Jack-Maskell-/160540496840

[bluecat6]

Good history of publications by Maskell:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/05/29/bombshell-second-crs-memo-covering-for-obamas-ineligibility-not-released-to-the-public-until-now/

Summary of dates:

April 3, 2009 - Original Maskell memo

http://www.scribd.com/doc/41131059/CRS-Congressional-Internal-Memo-What-to-Tell-Your-Constituents-Regarding-Obama-Eligibility-Questions

June 5, 2009 - From P&E link above:
“A June 5, 2009 Congressional Research Service “Transmittal” message to a member of Congress from one Jerry Mansfield, an “Information Research Specialist” in the CRS “Knowledge Services Group,” misinforms the congressman by stating that questions about Mr. Obama’s birth certificate have been “ultimately resolved” in favor of his eligibility based on a series of biased and badly-skewed Internet postings”

Early June 2009 - State Hawaii changes name of birth documents and changes wording on website for Hawaii Homelands qualification.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports/clearing-the-smoke-on-obamas-eligibility-updated/

“Sometime between June 10, 2009 and June 18, 2009 the state of Hawaii changed its long-standing rule on what documents and data were necessary to prove a birth in Hawaii for the Dept of Hawaiian Homelands, thereby upgrading the apparent status of the Certification of Live Birth which it had formerly regarded as insufficiently probative.”

7/24/2009 - Joe Klein tell CNN staff that eligibility issue is a - “a dead issue”.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2009/07/cnn-president-jon-klein-declares-birther-story-dead.html

*** At this point it clear that the this was supposed to be dead issue as far as the establishment was concerned - Hawaii had cleaned up its loose ends around COLBs, the main mouthpiece of the press had provided a declaration. Congress had its talking points and specific noisy Congressmen were contacted. So this was supposed to be done. ****

9/3/2009 - Joe Miller of Factcheck post new blog entry indicating that original statements on Obama’s ability to obtain Kenyan citizenship were incorrect.

http://factcheck.org/2009/09/obama-and-kenya-again/

(Note - Joe Miller now works for Congressional Budget Office)

3/18/2010 - Jack Maskell issues another memo on Birth Ceritificates and Eligibility.

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/05/new-report-on-birth-certificates-from-the-congressional-research-service/

4/27/2011 8:09 ET - PDF image of supposed LFBC is released by White House staff.

Also of note - Brian Schatz, then Chairman of Hawaii Democratic Party in 2008 would not sign a document that claimed Obama was constitutionally eligible as required by Hawaii law, even though it was routinely provided by HDP in previous elections. So in 2008 Nancy Pelosi had to provide the document to meet Hawaii legal requirements.

In short - Hawaii refuses to acknowledge that Obama is constitutionally eligible. Even today.