Why Obama is ineligible – regardless of his birthplace

World Net Daily ^ | April 01, 2010 | Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.

[Seizethecarp]

The following discussion assumes President Obama was born in Hawaii and is a United States citizen.

The purpose of this article is to highlight judicial and historical evidence suggesting that a "natural born citizen" must be born in the United States to parents who are citizens. By that definition, Obama is not eligible to be president. Therefore, his presidency and official administrative acts remain subject to being rendered void by the Supreme Court.

[Lmo56]

You're going to have to do a little better than "check out the US Code". 8 USC § 1401, is the relevant citizenship statute in the US Code. Do you see "natural-born" anywhere in there?

You fell into that one - like I thought that you would ...

OF COURSE, All US citizens are US Nationals, but NOT all US Nationals are US citizens.

My point of mis-applying the USC was to get you to look at it - NO WHERE does it state what a "natural born citizen" is since the term CANNOT be defined by statute. So, your assertion in the previous post IS BOGUS AND A FLAT-OUT LIE:

"If Barack Obama was born in HI, and we have no credible evidence that he wasn't, then he's a citizen at birth - a "natural-born citizen". That is the law as it exists today in this country."

Show me a statute or Supreme Court ruling that states a "citizen at birth" is a "natural born citizen" !!! And DO NOT quote Wong Kim Ark v. United States - it was decided on the basis of the 14th amendment ONLY and it ONLY declared him to be a "citizen".

In Ark's background informtion, Justice Gray PROFOUNDLY bastardized and mis-quoted what Calvin's Case had to say.

What Calvin's Case REALLY said was that:

" ... There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. 1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king. 2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion. And 3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom, that was born under the ligeance of a king of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the king of the other. For the first, it is termed actual obedience, because though the King of England hath absolute right to other kingdoms or dominions, as France, Aquitain, Normandy, &c. yet seeing the King is not in actual possession thereof, none born there since the Crown of England was out of actual possession thereof, are Subjects to the king of England. 2. The place is observable, but so as many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions without obedience can never produce a natural subject. And therefore if any of the king’s Ambassadors in forein Nations, have children there of their wives, being English women, by the Common Laws of England they are natural born subjects, and yet they are born out of the king’s dominions. But if Enemies should come into any of the king’s dominions and surprise any Castle or Fort, and |[18 b] possess the same by hostility, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the king, though he be born within his dominions, for that he was not born under the king’s ligeance or obedience. But the time of his birth is of the essence of a subject born; for he cannot be a subject to the king of England, unlesse at the time of his birth he was under the ligeance and obedience of the king. And that is the reason that Antenati in Scotland (for that at the time of their birth they were under the ligeance and obedience of another king) are Aliens born, in respect of the time of their birth."

BTW:

Actual obedience = actual allegiance = actual ligeance and it MUST be permanent, as opposed to temporary allegiance owed by an alien as long as he is resident within the sovreign's dominion ...

So, that being said, refute my analysis about the British Nationality Acts. The Founding Fathers' intent when they inserted the clause in Article II, Section I was to PROTECT the country from possible foreign infuence.

The lawyers amongst the Founding Fathers were EXTREMELY aware of Calvin's Case, as they were trained in British Law, and Calvin was THE seminal nationality case on record. AND, since England extended "natural born subject" status to children born out of the ligeance of the sovreign [as long as their fathers were natural born subjects] - THERE IS NO WAY THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD HAVE WANTED SUCH A CHILD AS PRESIDENT.

I notice that you have not addressed THAT from my previous post ...

[Aurorales]

“Succinctly stated, you may be nuts. Absolutely, unequivocally nuts”
__________________________________________

Oh, I almost forgot. I'm not “nuts”.

When I said “you lied”. It is the truth. Absolutely.

I know you wish I would forget what you did (still doing) on these eligibility threads. You knew none of the facts, but came out, guns blazing, framing your arguments to fit your agenda.

I remember your first posts on these threads. You knew nothing of the facts and evidence that FReepers had been acquiring for over a year, but yet tried to knock everyone down with your “knowledge”.

Which again I say sounds a lot like “toll agenda” wrapped in legal terms.

[little jeremiah]

He jumped in with both feet, just like Plant who got banned today. And some others. Wiggins, for instance, and Michael Michael (who apparently were the same person).

[Aurorales]

Yes. They all jumped in. Like a game of double-dutch. Trying to catch the wave and pretend like they are one of us.

I particularly hate the transferring of guilt onto others. If we call one of them out they call us bullies and crazy “birthers”.
It is the same tactic the left uses on conservatives. Calling good people racists or extremists.

We have to remember who says what on these threads. A few nice posts don’t negate the troll-behavior that came before them. And will surely come after them.

[little jeremiah]

Hmm - I used to have a list of those who trolled these threads; I posted a vanity with the list and the mods pulled it in two minutes. They were watching. Actually a lot of the trolls on the list are now banned.

Someone could keep a list and save choice comments under each name.

Now I have a reason I can use to explain to my DH why I need to spend many hours a day on FR.

[Lmo56]

I’ve been out of it for a little while - like since Feb. 20th. I went head-to-head with Wiggy a few times ...

So, Wiggy got banned ???

[El Sordo]

You mentioned SSN’s in post #165. I was using that as an example of a “fact” that really isn't so.

On the matter of COLB numbering, this was covered rather well in that massive thread you started a month ago:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2457491/posts

In this thread Buckeye Texan offers a few possible explanations for the non-sequential numbering.

One example from that thread (post #96):

“Let’s suppose that there was an authorized registrar at the hospital. She likely would have been a head nurse or someone like that. It’s likely that she would have been the one to stamp the date filed because it seems to coincide with the date the doctor signed the certificate. Her signature wouldn’t be enough even in 1961. She would have needed to reflect a date somewhere.

Then let’s suppose that her weekly stack of certificates are sent to the state for verification and certificate number assignment. The clerk at the state registrar’s office receives a pile of paperwork with the 8th on the bottom and the 11th on the top because that’s how the hospital stacked it in their outgoing tray. The clerk approves and stamps the certificate number on each paper working from the top down in the stack.”

BT may be right or he may be wrong. But the scenarios he offers are not outside the realm of possibility.

Now, you may not agree with BT’s speculation. And that is fine. Just please recognize the pitfalls of drawing appealing conclusions from limited information based on very small population samples.

Especially since no one knows with any certainty just how this process was actually done fifty years ago.

Also consider that no one has produced any evidence that Hawaiian BC numbers really should be sequential. Maybe a sample of BC’s from that period would show perfect sequence for all but BHO’s. Then you'd have a much more convincing argument.

Maybe the numbers would be jumping all over the place. In which case your theory falls apart.

It's not enough to just hypothesize how things might have been. Theories need to be tested. Especially when we want to use them as a basis for strong claims

[little jeremiah]

I thought I hadn’t seen you around lately! Yes indeed, and quite a banning it was. A jolly time was had by all. Maybe someone else can remember which thread it was. I’m too drain bamaged to remember exactly...it was a few weeks ago. Maybe ask some of the regulars who have better brains!

[presently no screen name]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2485624/posts?q=1&;page=1#1

Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks bitt.

[presently no screen name]

Was the posters screen name Wiggy?

[butterdezillion]

The date on the COLB, “Date filed”, is not put on by the hospital. It’s put on by the state at the same time the number is given. That fact totally nullifies the argument you cited. I’ve not seen any prospective scenario that gets around that snag.

The CDC Vital Stats Report for 1961 notes that certificate numbers were given in ascending order. That’s the standard they expect; they considered their 50% sampling accurate because of that. And that’s the pattern we see in the BC’s.

I just don’t think “Sh!t happens” is the best way of explaining data that doesn’t fit the protocols. If scientists did that with data we’d never learn anything.

[Lmo56]

Was the posters screen name Wiggy?

I think it was EnderWiggins ... he was several slices short of a loaf as posters ripped his Wong Kim Ark argument apart.

He didn't have anything but that ... we started calling him Wiggy becuz he was, well, "Wiggy" ...

[presently no screen name]

I don’t think I ever encountered ‘shortbread’ - name doesn’t sound familiar. No doubt it’s withdrawal time for wiggy. Thanks.

[edge919]

I just don’t think “Sh!t happens” is the best way of explaining data that doesn’t fit the protocols. If scientists did that with data we’d never learn anything.

Awesome comment, although, I have to say, gullobal warming science relies quite frequently on "SH" protocols.

[danamco]

You and Orly Taitz can continue "fight the good fight". I'll make camp with Ann Coulter, Mark Levin, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and countless other legitimate conservative activist who plainly want NO PART in this nonsense.

To date, not a SINGLE conservative legal or political think tank, political action committee or public conservative activist has thrown in with the birthers. Why is that?

Really wise guy?

You are NOT really up to what happens around you, are you??

Did you even remember what happened to respected Lou Dobbs at CNN when he put out question marks about your boss Barry Soetoro, huh???

In the area where I come from we had a fellow with the name of VIDKUN and I consider you to be of that deceitful caliber and have the exact same character as he had!

That said it's so typically for you and your "friends" to invoke Orly Taitz who is not mentioned or include on this thread!!

Traitorous behavior or Saul Alinsky tactics are the hallmark of you guys!!!

[BP2]

You and Orly Taitz can continue “fight the good fight”.

This is bigger than Orly or any one person. Why you After-Birthers are INFATUATED with Orly, I'll never know ... maybe you should ask her out on a date. LOL. As you continue to aid & abet Barry Soetoro as he brings this country down further, you probably are hard up.

The fact that there are After-Birther groups and website devoted to SLIMING the ENTIRE Eligibility effort — when the US Attorneys and Justice Department SHOULD be adequately-equipped to defend against so-called “frivolous lawsuits” against the “office of the President” — tells any honest person that there's an organized effort to obfuscate this very important Constitutional issue.

This is NO different that the "Nuts and Sluts" strategy you Liberal apologists tried to pull off with the infamous Blue Dress, and the "hit job" you Lefties did on Linda Tripp, demonizing her and Monica Lewinsky because of Bill Clinton's Oral Office "blow job".

I'll make camp with Ann Coulter, Mark Levin, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and countless other legitimate conservative activist who plainly want NO PART in this nonsense.

First of all, just because they are uninformed on this issue, I won't hold it against them that they don't agree with me. Nobody’s perfect, but they DO understand that NOTHING can be done until Conservatives have the votes in Congress to do so, so the choose their battles.

Second of all, the last thing they want is to invite some Race Baiter like “Reverend” Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson organizing protests in front of their studios, claiming the NBC controversy is about Racism. We all know how the Dem Race Baiters work.

I'm sure the THAT is the last thing Clear Channel and Fox wants as they've been threatened with the Fairness Doctrine on numerous occasions. So, they steer clear of the issue — for now. But if you've listened to them, like you say, you'd know they've all dropped hints.

Again, others are uninformed about the issue. Most think this is all strictly about the Birth Certificate or Obama's place of birth — like Glenn Beck. The COLB is a minor portion of this issue though. VERY few of the talking heads have devoted a scintilla of time TRULY discussing the issue of Obama’s status as a British Subject. However ... if you need a lecture on the COLB, I can certainly fill you in on the Chain of Custody of the FactCheck “birth certificate” and why it CANNOT be trusted!

Other commentators give Obama too much credit, trying to be somewhat even-handed. For cripes sake — Bill O’Reilly still has doubts that Obama is a Socialist. Others still doubt Obama is Muslim or at least his Islamic-leaning tendencies.

Because the birhters make conservatives look like unthinking, reactionary and intellectually vacant morons.

No — FOR NOW — you and your ilk have done bang-up job demonizing those who question Obama's Eligibility. Bravo.

But JUST like with GLOBAL WARMING, as with Monica's Blue Dress, the old Leftist Alinsky-style attacks — WILL FAIL.

,

[Velveeta]

Glad you’re taking camp with Rush, Olddeckhand:

Top-rated radio host Rush Limbaugh, upset that he’s forced to report his every movement to tax authorities, blasted President Obama for failing to prove he is natural-born citizen of the United States.

On his show today, Limbaugh told listeners, “As you know, I’m in the midst of another harassing audit from New York State and New York City for the last three years. We’re up to 16 different ways I have to prove to New York City and state tax authorities where I have been every day – not just work week – but every day, for the past three years.”

He continued, “Barack Obama
has yet to have to prove that he’s a citizen. All he has to do is show a birth certificate. He has yet to have to prove he’s a citizen. I have to show them 14 different ways where the h-— I am every day of the year for three years.”
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=104595

[Seizethecarp]

ping...

Rush:

He continued, “Barack Obama
has yet to have to prove that he’s a citizen. All he has to do is show a birth certificate. He has yet to have to prove he’s a citizen. I have to show them 14 different ways where the h-— I am every day of the year for three years.”
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=104595

[rodguy911]

Great post as usual!

As you say the DBM have done a "nothing job" trying to discover who this guy really is. It's totally left up to us.

Those who don't like what we are doing should hustle on down to the DU where they come from.