This really isn't so hard, folks.
Posted on 02/22/2012 10:09:16 AM PST by jdirt
Please attend hearing if you can.
This really isn't so hard, folks.
YES!
Who is the original poster and why is everyone jumping on the Chatter Wagon for this particular post?"
I've checked in several different locations, including the source link, and cannot find anything as yet on hearing results. The Obama Ballot Challenge site is as best I can discern, an eligibility challenge information clearinghouse, and I have checked information there previously. I don't think the Obama Eligibility Challenge site is a rat.
As to "many others are just going on and on about WKA, NBC and other legal gymnastics acronyms/analyses," folks who have done a not inconsiderable amount of reading on the subject, both those working for the enemy and those striving to achieve clarity seldom need much of a pretext to joust over the issue, and sans a report on the outcome of the hearing, they're biding their time by attempting to obfuscate or catch out the obfuscators, bad actors and patriots each in their turn.
Right..........the fact that you cannot find anything about today’s hearing says it all and makes my case............this original post is bogus
If the post is bogus, it is bogus based on citation of bogus information at Obama Ballot Challenge, and as such is not persuasively attributable to underhanded intent on the part of the FR poster, and that is what seems to be insinuated when terms like "smell a rat" are brought into the conversation.
You may very well be right about the information being bogus, for whatever reason. We'll see.
Nobody got that? Or it's just that nobody bit. Or I just typed it wrong.
A2S1C5.
Discount DIY brain surgery. :)
“No where did it say that natural born is other than born with both parents citizens at the time of that birth.”
Then you need to reread it. Every state & every court says it is there. The dissent to WKA says it is there. Every member of Congress says it is there.
To every court & every state, it says NBS = NBC = 14th Amendment. The formal, one sentence ruling does not, just as the formal ruling in Minor makes no mention of NBC. But the argument made - the dicta, which is the same stuff folks waive around with Minor - says NBS = NBC.
I can’t make anyone ‘see’ it. But if all the world says your ‘facts’ are not true, who is right? If someone claims to be Emperor of the World and no one believes him, how many orders get obeyed?
WKA uses nbs to rationalize the 14th.
it never equates them as to being the same.
A citizen is entirly different. They simply associate that it is tradition to claim as a subject people born in a kingdom, and the 14 does a similar thing by granting citizenship. Never do they call kwa an nbc.
You are slowly figuring this out. Everytime there is something scheduled, no one posts anything. you would think the person(org.) who filed would be on top of this. It never happens. The Ga. hearing was live streamed. Then a claim of wiring problems from the Co.WTF.
A few years ago WND promised the Kenya BC. Nothing printed for days. Then they claimed someone hijacked the site and it was all bogus.
Orly had several hearings in Ha. So did Andy Martin. Neither posted anything for days. You would think they would have put out a brief email, tweet, etc.. No way. They later claimed to be tired or had to catch a flight.
While I believe Obama is a POS and a fraud, I question the motives of these people who hype these events and then don’t mention they occured. Notice the contribute button on all these sites? Someone is making a ton of $ and can’t even inform us the hearing occured. Even a gag order would not stop a blog or notice the hearing took place and ruling is reserved. This is all smoke and mirrors.
Kwa was declared a citizen.
Kwa was born a citizen.
Never was it declared Natural.
The court refused to cross that bridge.
But they did with Virginia Minor.
The same principle was used in granting Obama Indonesian citizenship. This is why Ann Dunham removed Obama from her American passport. This is why our president pledged allegiance to Indonesia everyday in school as a child. This is why he calls Kenya his home country. Each of these countries lay claim to him, similar to nbs tradition.
This is why he claimed kenyan citizenship to escape Indonesia. This is why his Father was in Hawaii in 1971 or 1972.
He was subject to laws of 4 nations.
natural born, my ass.
I have long advocated this strategy because I have my suspicions that Barack Hussein Obama can very not likely satisfy even 14th amendment requirements.
One does not play such games with the issue of their birth certificate unless something is not as it should be.
Six days from today the vetting of Obama will hit a new chord.
I think the shot will hit the fan next Thursday.
First time i've seen (E) as an argument. I had been wondering about this because there were LARGE numbers of British Loyalists in the Colonies after the war. Were THEY British subjects, or forcibly American citizens? Good Point.
On a secondary note, I've recently discovered two legal scholars (others may have already known of them) that argue the Expatriation act of 1868 demonstrates conclusively that the writers of the 14th completely abrogated English Common law as the basis of American Citizenship. Here is a link to testimony before the House of Representatives (in 1997) by one of the Legal Scholars.
Another line of attack. :)
Math joke - see tagline. I put Descartes (de cart) before de horse.
Bookmark.
Ankeny didn't get anything right. It is such a stupid case that people lose IQ points just citing it.
D) Obama’s father was a legal resident alien at the time of his birth.
Obama's father was an undiscovered illegal at the time of his birth. Barack Obama sr. lied on his visa application. Had he told the truth, he would have been denied entry into the country.
His mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth.
Which means that his citizenship is dependent on the CABLE act, and the Women's citizenship act of 1934, making him a citizen by statute, the same as Aldo Mario Bellei. Look up the case, and see what the Supreme Court said about "statutory" citizens. Aldo Mario Bellei was not a "natural born citizen" and neither is Barack Obama; And for the same reason.
Once you are born a citizen, nothing your parents do can take away your citizenship. Once a citizen, Obama’s citizenship exists completely independent of his parents.
Aldo Mario Bellei lost his citizenship because he failed to meet residency requirements. He was a citizen by statute. (Incidentally, the same statute that made Obama a citizen.)A citizen by statute is not the same thing as a "natural born citizen".
E)The Treaty of 1783 did not ban dual-citizenship. It dealt with how how untangle the mess caused as the population separated themselves into Americans or Englishmen. Nowhere does it specifically ban dual citizenship. It merely states that a British subject and his heirs who own property in America were afforded the same property rights by law that native citizens enjoyed.
I haven't spent any time looking at the Treaty, but i'll take edge919's opinion of it over yours any day of the week. One cannot amass such a large collection of WRONG without it being a sort of consistency.
Inglis v. Sailor’s Snug Harbor revolves around the citizenship of a child that was born in NY City to a English subject. The court specifically ruled that if he was born in NYC in that period after the declaration of independence and before the British occupied NYC, then he was a natural born citizen American citizen regardless of his fathers citizenship. If he was born before or after that period he was British because he was not born on American soil.
The period in question was prior to the creation of the Federal Government. As a result, it applies the law in existence at that time. In fact, it applies the law of that particular colony/state which existed at that time. (In the case of New York, we know the answer was the Default English Common law, because the State of New York changed created their first citizenship law in 1845; Specifically EXCLUDING the children of transient aliens.)
After the U.S. Constitution was created, it was possible for someone to be a citizen of a state, but not a federal citizen, as the plight of James McClure illustrates.
1.UNLESS YOU ARE THE CHILD OF A DIPLOMAT, 2.THE CHILD OF AN INDIAN, 3.THE CHILD OF A SLAVE, 4.THE CHILD OF A BRITISH LOYALIST AFTER THE REVOLUTION, 5.A WOMAN WHO HAS MARRIED A FOREIGNER, 6.THE MARQUE DE LAFAYETTE OR 7.HIS DESCENDANTS, OR 8.A MAN NAMED JAMES MCCLURE.
Your theory is full of holes, and does not comport to the reality that existed.
You really should learn what you are talking about. Spreading such ignorance is not in the best interest of the nation.
Well there you go again, screwing things up about dicta in your normal manner. Do you need a refresher?
@#191
You, Mr Rogers, are in italics...
For example, Minor did not rule that “The word “citizen “ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.”
And yet what do we find in the full decision?
That's what the syllabus says but only in fewer words, right?
1. The word "citizen " is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.
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.