Triple, but who's counting.
Posted on 11/15/2008 8:48:13 AM PST by Amityschild
OBAMA ADMITS HE WAS A BRITISH CITIZEN "AT BIRTH" - AS SUCH, OBAMA IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES
Barack Obama's official web site, Fight The Smears, admits he was a British Citizen at birth. At the very bottom of the section of his web site that shows an alleged official Certification Of Live Birth, the web site lists the following information and link thereto: FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
That is a direct admission Barack Obama was a British citizen "at birth".
(Excerpt) Read more at blogtext.org ...
If you are a lawyer, teacher, doctor etc. you must meet certain qualifications in order to perform your job.....A license is required. Said document must be presented to your employer or those who pay for your service. (posted on the walls etc)
The Contitution names only two requirements to be President of the United States......and By Golly...I don’t want any questions whether my President meets those requirements. They’d better PROVE IT when asked to! McCain did, so why won’t the 0?
Triple, but who's counting.
Uh, cunning though she may well be, Linda Lingle is a Republican. She spoke at the convention.
You are inverting the moral emphasis of this argument. All this speculation, correct or not; has come about because this lying crypto-marxist thug from the most corrupt environs of leftist Chicago sewer politics has ascended to POTUS-elect status with the willing aquiescence of the MSM. The MSM was hell-bent on concealing this usurper’s background because they wanted him to be elected. Now, in a classic case of blame the messenger, those of us who belive in the constitution are being reviled for insisting that a POTUS comply with a basic requirement that most of us unhesitatingly conform with when seeking a driver’s license.
The arrogance and effrontery of this lying bastid is breathtaking. The founders knew that they were not natural born citizens, so they had to include language in Art II Sec 1 that exempted THEM. Does this fraud think that he is better than Washington, Madison, Adams, and Jefferson in that sense? Apparently he does, and with the submission of enough folks who think like you, he will suceed in usurping and corrupting the Executive Branch of government. This situation presents the very real posssibility of impelling this great nation beyond a constitutional crisis toward a civil war.
Finally, consider the implications of a man who would undertake these devious machinations to knowingly assume an office that he has no constitutional claim to, and than to see this same counterfeit president elect take an oath to defend that constitution. I believe that such a man would be willing to impose ANY sort or despotism or tyranny upon us to retain power.
Amen, with ya on that! Hearing ya loud and clear. Hope our supreme court judges begin to feel the same way we do.
How soon we forget, foreign precedent has crept into, many decisions lately.
The issue that most people are missing is it is customary for any legal document to be “kept safe” if it is to be used as evidence in some legal proceedings. The day that Davis filed his Freedom of Information papers in HI for the birth documents was also the day that all the stories came out that the Governor had somehow “frozen” the papers.
Coincidental? I don't think so!
Wouldn’t it be easier for him to prove that he is a citizen? I could prove my husband’s, my children’s or mine in a matter of minutes... however long it takes me to open the safe and get out the birth certificates and/or naturalization papers. Why shouldn’t he be expected to do the same? I think it stinks more than chicken manure!
Wrote a letter to each of the Justices this AM.....Everyone else should do the same.....Let them know we’re watching and we care!
Sorry... I should have noted that was a courtesy ping since I was answering a question asked of you. I want to know that too.
Shield: So Barry isn’t even an American Citizen. WOW...this is worse than I thought.
That's the entire problem, and the reason we need to see the ORIGINAL. He may be, he may not be, but until we see it, we can't know.
That he refuses to show it suggests he is not natural-born.
The US is a signatory to , and has ratified the Hague convention of 1930. That agreement would seem to negate your argument, the relevant portions are reprinted below. A parent or legal guardian CAN make citizenship decisions for minors under their care as do US adoptive parents. In any event Hissein could have restablished his citizenship upon becoming an adult by going to an appropriate State Dept. official and swearing an oath of allegiance to the US. Alas this makes him a naturalized citizen, at which time he has forever forfeited his natural born status. Consider Article 17.
CONVENTION ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS RELATING TO
THE CONFLICT OF NATIONALITY LAWS
THE HAGUE - 12 APRIL 1930
CHAPTER IV
NATIONALITY OF CHILDREN
Article 12
Rules of law which confer nationality by reason of birth on the territory of a State
shall not apply automatically to children born to persons enjoying diplomatic
immunities in the country where the birth occurs.
The law of each State shall permit children of consuls de carrière, or of officials of
foreign States charged with official missions by their Governments, to become
divested, by repudiation or otherwise, of the nationality of the State in which they
were born, in any case in which on birth they acquired dual nationality, provided that
they retain the nationality of their parents.
Article 13
Naturalisation of the parents shall confer on such of their children as, according to its
law, are minors the nationality of the State by which the naturalisation is granted. In
such case the law of that State may specify the conditions governing the acquisition of
its nationality by the minor children as a result of the naturalisation of the parents. In
cases where minor children do not acquire the nationality of their parents as the result
of the naturalisation of the latter, they shall retain their existing nationality.
Article 14
A child whose parents are both unknown shall have the nationality of the country of
birth. If the child’s parentage is established, its nationality shall be determined by the
rules applicable in cases where the parentage is known.
A foundling is, until the contrary is proved, presumed to have been born on the
territory of the State in which it was found.
Article 15
Where the nationality of a State is not acquired automatically by reason of birth on its
territory, a child born on the territory of that State of parents having no nationality, or
of unknown nationality, may obtain the nationality of the said State. The law of that
State shall determine the conditions governing the acquisition of its nationality in such
cases.
Article 16
If the law of the State, whose nationality an illegitimate child possesses, recognises
that such nationality may be lost as a consequence of a change in the civil status of the
child (legitimation, recognition), such loss shall be conditional on the acquisition by
the child of the nationality of another State under the law of such State relating to the
effect upon nationality of changes in civil status.
CHAPTER V
ADOPTION
Article 17
If the law of a State recognises that its nationality may be lost as the result of
adoption, this loss shall be conditional upon the acquisition by the person adopted of
the nationality of the person by whom he is adopted, under the law of the State of
which the latter is a national relating to the effect of adoption upon nationality.
The governor of Hawaii is Republican.
I just looked closely at my father’s foreign birth document from a South American US Consulate: US State Dept. Form 240: Titled: line 1 “Report of Birth,” line 2 “Child Born Abroad of an American Father:” (His father was not American)
Very interesting (from the form 240 document): First, his mother was recorded correctly as American and father as German (OK). However, the record fields for his father’s info(passport no. etc) repeat his mother’s information exactly in the father’s section of the document. Summary: The form was incorrectly filled out (!), which may explain why he had to naturalize upon return to the US at age 2.
So here’s question: Did the State Dept. have procedures for handling the documentation of a foreign birth on Form 240 with questionable US citizenship (e.g. repeat the one valid citizen’s info in two places as a code)? A copy of Form 240 was routinely sent to Washington, and the overseas consulates may have filled the form out with defects to let citizenship issue be handled stateside (at least in that era). Any State Dept retirees reading this?
At Obama’s mother’s age, if she was overseas, she likely entered the consulate and started the form 240 process, but would have immediately run in to the defect issue with the case officer (father was not American). Perhaps the case officer did the same thing as with my Grandmother: filled the form out with defects to capture the birth (Mother’s info in both father/mother fields). If so, there is a copy in a vault in Washington and maybe in the HI files (FOIA will work in Washington). There may also be a record of the visit in the consulate files (again, if she was overseas at all).
Believe me...I totally agree with you. But unless there is a battle cry from the people in this country the media will not touch it. We have half of the nation behind this piece of feces no matter what he did or is.
We also have a lot that just don’t care, or don’t know how to react to this. I’ve written letters, made phone calls, and the interest isn’t there.
I know about Chicago politics..I grew up in the area.;^)
Give me some ideas on what to do...I’m out.
What's unclear to me is the situation laid out in the Berg case, where he claims 0bama’s Indonesian citizenship takes away his US citizenship because Indonesian law does not recognize dual citizenship.
Maybe it does BUT what of it? ASSUMING he was born in the State of Hawaii to a US citizen parent, it seems to me he would still be “natural born”.
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Those are the words that define who is eligible to become President. I'm not sure there's anything in that which takes away “natural born” status for having once been a citizen of Indonesia.
So the issue returns to where he was born and what US code says of his natural born status based on that, and what it says about his status as a legal US citizen NOW.
I would be satisfied with a demonstrably real birth certificate, and evidence that US citizenship has been either continuously held or legally regained, both prongs of the issue vetted through an appropriate manner of inquest.
I don't think the question of eligibility has been raised to this level before in our history, and I DO think it needs to be answered.
Absolutely correct, But RINO's and Dem's alike have let it default into accepted law, by refusing to instruct the courts, or enforce the law, or require prosecutors to prosecute.
My assumption it they allow the courts to take the blame for instituting policy that they are afraid to publicly support. That way they can continue there real ambition of destroying the country, with our eager support. Just saying.
Not only would it be easier, it is incumbent upon the candidate or, in this particular case, president-designate to provide proof of eligibility, if questions arise in that regard. This is not a criminal court proceeding, wherein the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff. We do not have to prove Obama's ineligibility, he has to prove he's eligible. Trouble is, he's stonewalling. Seventeen lawsuits and counting.
FactCheck knows what ever the Annenburg Foundation(a subsidy of Obama campaign) tells it it knows.
Please give it a rest. These threads are making us look like kooks.
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.