Posted on 08/09/2010 11:54:26 PM PDT by stevenl77
Just as Richard Nixon lost the battle of Watergate because of cover-up and stonewalling, Barack Obama has lost the battle over his constitutional eligibility for the same sins.
With the latest CNN poll showing only 42 percent of Americans definitively persuaded that he was born in the U.S., those who claimed this wasn't a "winning issue" have been proven wrong.
Not only is it a winning issue, it is the only issue that can effectively undo the nightmare of the Obama era in one fell swoop.
There would be no need for repealing Obamacare if it turns out his presidency was a sham from the beginning.
There would be no need to wait until Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan retire or die to see them replaced on the Supreme Court if it turns out his presidency was a sham from the beginning.
There would be no need to wring our hands in hopes that future congresses and future presidents might roll back all of the damage Obama has inflicted on America if it turns out his presidency was sham from the beginning.
There would be no need to wait until 2011 in hopes that a new Republican majority might impeach Obama if it turns out his presidency was a sham from the beginning.
There would be no need to wait until 2012 for another chance to replace Obama if it turns out his presidency was a sham from the beginning.
That's why this issue is so important.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
" ... The general rule is that once an individual reaches American soil and is out of American waters, they are allowed to remain in the U.S. This controversial policy is often referred to as the “wet foot, dry foot policy. ...”
http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/cubaimmigration.html
please advise,
thanks
j
Citizen by technicality? Elian, I mean. I wasn’t meaning it to apply to Obama but to your statement about a parent revoking U.S. citizenship. The Clinton Administration allowed a non-US citizen, the Elder Gonzales to revoke the citizenship of Elian. Elian’s mother wanted her son to become an American citizen, evident by her actions of bringing him.
Then we'll just have to discuss it without him.
And speculation becomes fair play.
Also, during the 19th and early twentieth centuries, a wife automatically became the citizenship of whatever country her husband was... (and a daughter was automatically whatever her father was until she married and became her husbands nationality). So it was impossible for a child of a married American father to be anything but an NBC because both parents were always the same citizenship. The repeal of this law and the allowance of dual citizenship by activist courts has muddied the waters considerably in recent times.
In other words, under the old system, the children of war brides born to US fathers would have probably been considered NBC under the old system. (Some argue that you have to be born in the territorial US, but I am not sure if that was ever was part of the definition of a NBC clause...after all the Naturalization Act of 1790 declared that:
"the children of Citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the seas, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."
...and this Congress included the same lot who proposed the Constitution. So it is at least historically possible that under the old "patriarchal" system of granting citizenship, you probably would have been considered an NBC. But since the system system of granting citizenship was dramatically changed in the 1930s, I am not sure how things work now that parents can hold multiple citizenships and both mother and father are both considered as being able to pass on citizenship.
As I have said, before one could only become an NBC only through their father. Now that we have jettisoned the old "patriarchal" aspect of citizenship law because of political correctness...no one knows exactly what "NBC" means anymore because of this. This issue only gets more confusing when you add the question of geographic location to the mix.
One thing that is certain is at the time the Constitution was written, in order to be considered an NBC, your father had to be a US citizen...unless the identity of the father was unknown. Citizenship by geographic location of birth was only introduced by the 14th amendment almost 90 years later...this amendment didn't say it was modifying the NBC clause of Article II, so it can be argued that 14th amendment citizenship is a naturalized type of citizen granted by law at birth instead of by natural born inheritance. Someone subject to the jurisdiction of the US without US Citizen parents is naturalized at birth in the US by virtue of the 14th amendment's geographic citizenship, whereas someone who is an NBC inherits their citizenship by blood.
Zero’s history?
There is nothing to discuss.
But Elian was not a citizen. Wet foot/dry foot does not automatically grant citizenship. It streamlines the process for applying for residency (and eventually citizenship) for those to whom the policy applies, but it is a very different thing for a parent to be able to halt that process on behalf of a child than it is for a parent to be able to rescind a child’s citizenship once already granted (either by birth or by naturalization)
If his mother was not of sufficient age to confer citizenship then he is not natural born, if ie he was actually born Hawaii which most likey he was not.
Churchill’s mother would have lost her citizenship when she married Churchill’s father, so although she was born to American parents, and was an American citizen before her marriage, she lost her citizenship upon her marriage to a subject of the British Crown according to the laws of the time so she wasn’t an American when Churchill was born.
“Soebarkah” most likely is the name given to Obama upon adoption by Indonesian Stepfather( as Stanely Anee wrote in her passport application, then thought better of it and struck it out ... why?
Why would anyone list as their child, Barack Hussein Obama (Soebarkah) ?
This one name Indonesian style name is clearly made of Soetoro and Barack and is his Indonesian name, in Anne’s own passport application handwriting ... .
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2565896/posts
What do you mean? He didn’t take the oath of office in front of the nation as Bush did and those before him, outside on the capitol steps?
He did attempt to take the oath publicly but the oath was bungled and was stated incorrectly...and since the Constitution is exact in the words of the oath, they administered the oath again privately.
Alan Keyes, in an interview with a reporter from KHAS-TV, filmed outside a fundraiser for the AAA Crisis Pregnancy Center in Hastings, Neb., said this:
“Obama is a radical communist, and I think it is becoming clear. That is what I told people in Illinois and now everybody realizes it’s true,” said Keyes, who ran unsuccessfully against Obama for the state’s open Senate seat in 2004. “He is going to destroy this country, and we are either going to stop him or the United States of America is going to cease to exist.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmujttc0oJc&feature=related
Yes to what you say/ But I sadly think that most Americans are unaware, and don’t even care. So do; not many.
BTW
Alan Keyes, in an interview with a reporter from KHAS-TV, filmed outside a fundraiser for the AAA Crisis Pregnancy Center in Hastings, Neb., said this:
“Obama is a radical communist, and I think it is becoming clear. That is what I told people in Illinois and now everybody realizes it’s true,” said Keyes, who ran unsuccessfully against Obama for the state’s open Senate seat in 2004. “He is going to destroy this country, and we are either going to stop him or the United States of America is going to cease to exist.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmujttc0oJc&feature=related
Then why did C.A. go through such great lengths to obfuscate the date of his birth to be after his father gained citizenship?
My father was Canadian and I was born in Massachusetts, am I a “natural born citizen?”
Post #19 is absolutely dead-on when he says, “What is certain is that Obama needs to have born in the country and retained his U.S. citizenship. Neither of those is certain, and they need to focus their attention on that and get off this losing argument about his biological father being non-citizen.”
EVERYBODY - GET OFF HIS FATHER LINK and focus on the real issue!
I can't say. I've never been a grifter. Not even in my misspent youth.
Are you saying that once a rule is broken it is no longer the rule? Chester Arthur got away with violating the elegibilty rules in the constitution and burned all of his papers to protect his fraud which was only uncovered in the last few years. Leo Donofrio uncovered it while doing research on Obama’s fraud. Arthur’s fraud does not make Obama’s lawful.
At some point in the not distant future I’m afraid that Obama’s handlers will determine that he will be of more use dead with the blame placed on conservatives.
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.