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 ...
Hear, hear!
Will I what?
Exactly, the State of Hawaii refuses to LIE for barry
“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.
Regarding BHO's mother...there are many unanswered questions and who knows where they might lead.
You repeatedly stated in this thread that there was no reason for Hawaii to have Barack Obama's birth certificate, if he was not born in Hawaii. I provided you with a link to the specific statute of the state of Hawaii, that deals with just that, issuing birth certificates for individuals born out of state. So, rather than admit your error, you plow right on, and pose a hypothetical, as if you had always been correct.
That annoying habit of yours aside, let's say Obama does provide his birth certificate. If that birth certificate is in no way questionable, and he is shown via that birth certificate to meet the requirements of the Constitution as far as being native born, then he will have put to rest any claims of his being ineligible on that basis. If it doesn't show that he meets the requirements, he is ineligible. Barack Obama is quite capable of putting the question of his eligibility under the Constitution to rest, as far as being native born. But, he does not. You seem perfectly OK with this. If his birth certificate were to show Obama ineligible, what would that prove to you?
Not sure I had a question. Only pointing out that this article was trying to convey citizenship to Obama based soley upon his fathers citizenship. That ignores the other portion of the birth, his mothers citizenship. Yes Kenya was a Crown Colony of England until 1963.
“natural born citizen” has never really been interpeted by the SCOTUS that I’m aware of. It would be interesting to see how they would apply original intent should they decide to try.
We maybe in for some interesting court actions over the next few weeks.......
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000004——000-.html
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1
§ 4. Misprision of felony
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
Don’t you think if there was a slight chance of that OB was not a citizen the Clintons would have dug this out long ago.
But you said that Hawaii will give a birth certificate to anyone regrdless of whether they were born there or not. So what does that prove to you?
“Just when we were having such fun...”
OK. lets continue having fun: Fukino did not say whether the birth certificate in the “record” is a Certificate of Live Birth or a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth (see Petition by Alan Keyes in suit v CA Sec of State).
You willing to buy a cat in the bag?
I agree, I would have thought so! But that still does not answer the question of why won’t BHO release his birth certificate and put and end to the lawsuits. That is, assuming he does have one!
I said nothing of the sort. I am not the state of Hawaii. I provided you with a link to the specific statute that deals with providing birth certificates to individuals born out of state, with no commentary of my own, whatsoever.
The state of Hawaii legally restricts access to this record, to the individual or to family members, and even that is subject to qualification.
So, we cannot know the specifics of the matter, as relates to his eligibility for the office of President, until this is disclosed.
What does that prove to you?
I am tired of these nonsensical arguments. It's been repeated ad nauseam and adds nothing to the discussion. Go away.
Read it again This country was a signatory of the Hague Convention and in 1961 did not recognize dual citizenship. According to FactCheck.org and Obama’s website fight the smears he was a British citizen by birth as well as a Kenyan citizen for the same reason his father was both.
Once Obama starts claiming various different citizenship around the world, as he already has his fidelity to this country is suspect, and must be examined to the fullest extent that the law allows.
Bump
No, it says Congress can make a UNIFORM RULE of naturalization. Making the rules for naturalization the same for all the States is totally different concept than allowing Congress to define what it can and cannot do on the subject of naturalization.
-----
Section 1401 of Title 8 of the U.S. code says that a person born in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction there of
The jurisdiction of the federal government is defined in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution.
They can pass codes and legislation until their heads explode. It is meaningless to anywhere other than their designated jurisdiction.
-----
Because you say so?
No, because St. George Tucker said so:
14. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district not exceeding ten miles square, as may by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of congress, become the seat of government of the United States; and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by consent of the legislature in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings.
The exclusive power of legislating in all cases whatsoever, except within the precincts of the seat of government, not exceeding ten miles square; and except within the precincts of such forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other such needful buildings, as may be erected by congress with the consent of the state, in which the same shall be, being reserved to the states, respectively.
View of the Constitution of the United States
NOTE E.
Of the Unwritten, or Common Law of England; And Its Introduction into, and Authority Within the United American States
Here's Joseph Story's take on where citizens of the United States resided:
§ 1218. The inhabitants enjoy all their civil, religious, and political rights. They live substantially under the same laws, as at the time of the cession, such changes only having been made, as have been devised, and sought by themselves. They are not indeed citizens of any state, entitled to the privileges of such; but they are citizens of the United States. They have no immediate representatives in congress.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution
1)Congress does not have the authority to create citizenship, only regulate the type of citizenship already in existence.
2) Congress does not have the authority to legislate outside of its enumerated areas.....PERIOD.
If these facts upset the governmental boot-lickers, that's too bad.
Great post, thanks!
He may not be technically breaking the law by NOT showing his documentation, but if other laws require things like age requirements, the only way one would know is for the individual to show a form of ID that proves one meets a requirement.
It’s important as a precedent that if there is widespread fear among the people that our candidate for President might not be a natural born citizen, we need to get some kind of SCOTUS ruling that he/she must prove his status. It seems almost too common sense to have to rule on, but why would someone NOT wish to set the record straight immediately?
President Elect Obama said he was our President too. Doesn’t he know that we are concerned about this, and would relax if we saw that all was in order? If he really wanted to be our President too, he’d slap the document down on Wolf Blitzer’s desk and be done with it.
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.