oh, and
Posted on 08/24/2010 6:37:15 PM PDT by RobinMasters
The State Department is maintaining a "counter-misinformation" page on an America.gov blog that attempts to "debunk a conspiracy theory" that President Obama was not born in the United States, as if the topic were equivalent to believing space aliens visit Earth in flying saucers.
However, in the attempt to debunk the Obama birth-certificate controversy, the State Department author confirmed Obama was a dual citizen of the U.K. and the U.S. from 1961 to 1963 and a dual citizen of Kenya and the U.S. from 1963 to 1982, because his father was a Kenyan citizen when Obama was born in 1961.
In a number of court cases challenging Obama's eligibility, dual citizenship has been raised as a factor that could compromise his "natural born" status under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. The cases argue dual citizenship would make Obama ineligible even if documentary evidence were shown the public, such as the hospital-issued long-form birth certificate that indicates the place of his birth and the name of the attending physician.
The entry "The Obama Birth Controversy" was written by Todd Leventhal, identified as the chief of the Counter-Misinformation Team for the U.S. Department of State. The office appears to have been established "to provide information about false and misleading stories in the Middle East," as described in a biography of Leventhal published on the U.S. Public Diplomacy website.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
oh, and
Yeah -- and I have more of that on the boots I wear out into the pasture...
I would say this is proof of 0bama’s divided loyalties,
except, of course, “divided” would mean he had SOME loyalty to America.
Exactly!
Being natural born isn't about the location of the birth, but the NATURE of the birth.
I wonder how ignorant the Founders would think we all are for not understanding such a simple term as 'natural-born'?
I still want to see if foreign student grants and scholarships paid his way through college.
Right, as if you speak for all states ...
And you keep quoting the Hoosier hillbillies who undermined their conclusion by admitting the guidance they presume to follow did not actually declare a person born in the United States to be a natural born citizen. Instead, they declared that person to be a citizen of the United States, which only applies to the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 IF that person was born at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
Coincidence? I don't think so.
Nothing new here that we haven’t known all along.
Polarik
TheDrRJP
New information has come to light that Barack Obama is not his real name, that his father was not Obama Sr, that his mother was not Ann Dunham, and that every photo taken of him with his parents or grandparents, or other students, or by himself at Punahou, Columbia, and Occidental were fabricated!
Just like his birth certificate.
He did not go to Columbia, or Occidental, or Punahou. He was not born in the US. He is an imposter.
THE GREATEST IDENTITY FRAUD IN HISTORY!
Found at YouTube
***
Has Polarik lost his mind?!
I just want to know if Obama COLB is legit or not.
Excellent analogy by Dr. Jerome Corsi!
So the State Department has a "Counter-Misinformation Team"? Sounds like it wants to morph into an American version of the Soviet diplomatic service.
SHE did that, hunh? makes me want to throw up when I read people on FR saying she’d be better than 0thugga.
Read this:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
They go to great lengths discussing the meaning of natural born subject/citizen - which they describe as interchageable. They needed to decide if WKA was a citizen in spite of treaties with China, and they argued that he qualified as a natural born citizen and thus was a citizen per the Constitution, and therefor no treaty could override it.
edge919 doesn’t like it, but there isn’t one state in the union that has challenged Obama’s eligibility - not one. Nor did any member of Congress. The Supreme Court refused to take a case challenging it. At some point, edge919 needs to face the fact that no legal authority agrees with his analysis.
So if the State Dept says he was a dual citizen until 1983, that is past his 21st birthday. Does that have any significance. There are a lot of unanswered questions such as did he ever have an Indonesian passpoort and when did he last use it.
----
From your link-
and did return thereto by sea in the same year, and was permitted by the collector of customs to enter the United States upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States
Again, Wong Kim claimed to be NATIVE born, not natural-born.
Also from your link-
The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. [p666]
is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen,
Judges DON'T make distinctions unless there is a difference.
-----
Regarding your previous assertion that alien parents can have natural-born children
Greisser was born in the state of Ohio in 1867, his father being a German subject, and domiciled in Germany, to which country the child returned. After quoting the act of 1866 and the fourteenth amendment, Mr. Secretary Bayard said: 'Richard Greisser was, no doubt, born in the United States, but he was on his birth 'subject to a foreign power,' and 'not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.' He was not, therefore, under the statute and the constitution, a citizen of the United States by birth; and it is not pretended that he has any other title to citizenship.' 2 Whart. Int. Dig. 399.
Richard Greisser
Rogers, you’re intentionally misrepresenting and misinterpreting the decision. They don’t call natural born subject and natural born citizen interchangeable. Far from it. They make NO argument that Wong Kim Ark qualified as a a naturalb born citizen. The only definition per the Constitution is citizen of the United States via the 14th amendment. The definition of NBC, they say in accordance with Minor V. Happersett, is OUTSIDE the Constitution. The reason the treaty doesn’t override the 14th amendment, they say, is because “... it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.” And finally, despite your weak attempt to make this personal, it’s not about what I like or don’t like. I’m going by the words they used and nothing in that decision declares Wong Kim Ark or any person not born of citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.
~~
"interchageable"? [sic] Not so. From WKA -- at your link:
The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. [p666]
"citizen" versus "natural born"... Distinct and separate.
~~
(How does that foot in your mouth taste -- now that you've shot yourself there?)
Haven’t shot myself in the foot. Here is what they wrote:
The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said:
Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”
Notice they DO consider the terms natural born subject and natural born citizen to be “precisely analogous”, and that “...the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.”
Further, they note in detail that under English common law, it was well established prior to the Constitution that a natural born subject included anyone with TWO alien parents, provided the parents were not members of an invading army or ambassadors.
Elsewhere they note:
“And he [Kent] elsewhere says:
And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”
“They make NO argument that Wong Kim Ark qualified as a a naturalb born citizen. The only definition per the Constitution is citizen of the United States via the 14th amendment.”
Sure - they wrote for pages just for the fun of it! There is a reason that no state legislature or DA & no Congressman has taken up your cause, and why Sarah Palin & John McCain did not either - you have no legal case.
WKA clearly establishes TWO arguments based on the Constitution for WKA’s citizenship - the 14th, which is their second argument, and the original intent of the phrase ‘natural born citizen’, which is their first argument.
Since WKA was not running for President, there was no reason to bring up the NBC phrase EXCEPT that it applies to WKA and thus makes him a citizen by birth.
What's wrong with countering misinformation? Isn't that what we try to do here?
ML/NJ
Against who? Davis and his mother are both dead, and they would be the ones who perpetrated the fraud (if there even is one).
References please.
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.