Posted on 06/22/2013 1:58:39 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Appearing on TruNews talk radio this week, Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) agreed with host Rick Wiles that Congress ought to revisit questions about the validity of President Obama’s birth certificate in light of the recent scandals involving the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice.
After Wiles and Rep. Duncan discussed their desire to pursue and deport illegal immigrants, rather than extend the possibility of citizenship to them, the host asked if the House has any intention to also “pursue Barack Obama’s phony identification papers.”
At first, Duncan shied away from directly addressing the so-called “birther” concerns, simply adding that Americans had a chance to vote Obama out in November and, in his belief, regrettably didn’t do so. Wiles then asked: “If we know they are lying about all these other things, why not go back and say ‘Well, maybe the first scandal was a lie too?’”
“There you go,” Duncan agreed. “I’m all with you. So let’s go back and revisit some of these things because Americans have questions about not only the IRS scandal but also about the president’s validity.”
Throughout Obama’s presidency, various conspiracy theories have arisen about his birth certificates, including the belief that the long-form certificate publicly released in 2011 was a forgery using image-editing software. Though these so-called “birther” beliefs have been out of the news in recent months, they still seem to hold weight with some of the president’s political opponents.
Listen below, as clipped by RightWingWatch:
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
Oh....I think most are convinced that something shady has occurred but no one has the backbone to stand up and announce the necessity for an investigation. Not being convinced and being afraid of your own shadow (racism accusations) are two different things.
Regardless, Obama fails to qualify as his (stated) father was a British subject. As such.....he is not a "Natural Born Citizen". If his birthplace was indeed Hawaii.....he is only a "Native Born Citizen".
Constitutionally....."Native Born Citizens" are ineligible to be the "Commander in Chief".
This is so elementary that most grade school students knew this 50 years ago when the Constitution was still being taught in our public schools.
A number of courts have issued verdicts declaring that Barack Obama IS a natural born citizen and no court has ever ruled that he isn’t.
Here’s a couple of examples:
Purpura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo
Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint
That politicians lie to advance their careers is not news.
Crimes by a sitting President are news. Sorry if that’s inconvenient for you.
Allegations only become crimes when they are charged and prosecuted. No one has filed criminal charges against Obama. Every legal action against him has been a civil suit.
Barack Obama is a "Native Born Citizen" (if he was born in Hawaii). So was "Wong Kim Ark" (being born in the U.S.) whose parents were also not U.S. Citizens.
Constitutionally...it is not where you were born but to whom you were born that identifies your "Natural Born Status". The fact that some courts can't even get this through their heads is a remarkable testament to the complete ignorance of some legal minds we must contend with in this country.
This "Dog and Pony Show" about a stupid birth certificate is nothing but a diversion. His father was a British subject. His birth status is determined by that simple fact! He could have been born in the lobby of Independence Hall in Philadelphia..... on the 4th of July....with the Marine Corps band playing "God Bless America" outside on the lawn. Any 5th grader prior to 1955 would have been able to tell you he was still......not a "Natural Born Citizen" because of his father's British Citizenship! The Constitution was still taught in those days in our public schools.
Interesting legal theory you have there, but in fact, a crime is a crime as soon as it is committed. Is it your assertion that a murder is not a crime until the murderer has been charged and prosecuted?
Have you ever heard of manslaughter? Justifiable homicide? The various degrees of homicide? Self-defense? Sometimes what looks like murder turns out to be suicide. Just because someone has died under suspicious circumstances doesn’t automatically make it murder until there is a law enforcement investigation and a criminal complaint is issued, usually through an indictment by a grand jury.
Here in America, all alleged defendants are entitled to the have the burden of proof in criminal allegations fall to the government. It is a constitutional principle that requires the government to prove the guilt of a criminal defendant and relieves the defendant of any burden to prove his or her innocence.
Barack Obama doesn’t have to prove that his birth certificate isn’t forged, the government (city, county, state or federal) must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it is forged. The first step in that process is to conduct a formal law enforcement (or congressional) investigation.
As I said, the courts have ruled Barack Obama to be a NATURAL born citizen, not a native born citizen.
I didn’t say anything about Obama’s birth certificate—you did. I said that I want to know why Obama’s publicist said for 16 years that he was born in Kenya! I want an explanation. The other authors represented by the same publisher said that they were asked to provide their own biographical details. This was not a typo, nor was it a fact-checking error—this was a case of Obama lying to his publicist and claiming to be born in Kenya.
I want to know where else he lied. Did Obama claim foreign birth in order to receive financial aid during college? I suspect the answer is yes, and that would mean Obama is guilty of felony fraud. You may not think this is a big deal but many Americans, including myself, would disagree with you.
You are, again, being disingenuous. Obviously, if a man commits suicide it is not a murder. My point is that if Obama has committed student aid or Selective Service fraud, he has committed a crime, regardless of whether or not he’s yet been charged. If I murder a man, I have committed a crime, even if I have not yet been found out.
Just because some folks say there was fraud doesn’t make it so.
As the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (a Reagan appointee) ruled: “Ever persistent, plaintiff has once again come before the Court in an effort to uncover “the biggest cover up in the history of the nation.” She believes that the President is using a “fraudulently obtained” social security number and that the Social Security Administration—among other agencies—is involved in a scheme to “cover up social security fraud, IRS fraud, elections fraud and possibly treason” committed by the President. As her numerous filings demonstrate, plaintiff will stop at nothing to get to the bottom of this alleged conspiracy. Unfortunately for plaintiff, today is not her lucky day.”—Chief US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, Taitz v. Astrue, August 30, 2011
http://www.scribd.com/doc/63579610/TAITZ-v-ASTRUE-USDC-D-C-33-MEMORANDUM-OPINION-Signed-by-Chief-Judge-Royce-C-Lamberth-gov-uscourts-dcd-146770-33-0
I’ll take the fraud allegations seriously when someone, anyone actually files a criminal complaint with a duly authorized and statutory law enforcement agency and/or a prosecuting attorney in any jurisdiction in America.
Your courts are lacking the jurisdiction as well as the ability to determine what is a "Natural Born Citizen". This stems from the simple fact that they don't know what they're talking about! So....what else is new?
In U.S. v Wong Kim Ark (U.S. Supreme Court 1896) the decision was that he was a "Native Born Citizen"......not "Natural Born". Big difference. As a native born he would have been able to sit in the House of Representatives as an elected member; He could have run and been elected to the U.S. Senate and even had been appointed a Supreme Court Justice......but he would not have (Constitutionally) been able to serve as the "Commander in Chief". Big difference.
From the decision: The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens.....Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.
As you can see.....Justice Gray compares two children (“…and his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”)
That's very revealing. The Supreme Court mentions the U.S. born child of a resident alien ( Wong Kim Ark), Native Born and compares him to a child born of U.S. citizens , Natural Born.
Needless to say.....most folks cannot get their heads wrapped around the concept of Natural Born......because it's no longer taught properly.....and they're clueless! Some folks even seem to think "Natural Born" means something other than a "C-section".
Barack Obama is the son of a one time resident alien. The New Jersey Court (in your example) has spilled "Stupid Sauce" all over themselves.
C'est la Vie.........
Quotations from the majority decision in US v. Wong Kim Ark:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
[An alien parent’s] “allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’”
The Wong court also said:
“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.’”
and:
“…every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”
and:
“ The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
So, the Supreme Court ruled in US v. Wong Kim Ark that Wong was a natural born citizen. Wong could not be a naturalized citizen due to the Chinese Exclusion Act which was in force at that time.
And specifically with regard to the eligibility of Barack Obama: Ankeny v Daniels, Indiana A three judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled unanimously: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
and: Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80424508/Swensson-Powell-Farrar-Welden-vs-Obama-Judge-Michael-Malihi-s-Final-Order-Georgia-Ballot-Access-Challenge-2-3-12
Let's finish your statement in its proper context:
"strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "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." It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides -- seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when Secretary of State, in his Report to the President on Thrasher's Case in 1851, and since repeated by this court,
Now........let's not beat a dead horse here but Justice Gray is comparing Wong Kim Ark to a "Natural Born Citizen".....not calling him one!
At no place in this decision is Wong Kim Ark ever called a "Natural Born Citizen".
Here is the syllabus:
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
169 U.S. 649 United States v. Wong Kim Ark APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA No. 18 Argued: March 5, 8, 1897 --- Decided: March 28, 1898
A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,
All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
This was a writ of habeas corpus issued October 2, 1895, by the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California to the collector of customs at the port of San Francisco, in behalf of Wong Kim Ark, who alleged that he was a citizen of the United States, of more than twenty-one years of age, and was born at San Francisco in 1873 of parents of Chinese descent and subjects of the Emperor of China, but domiciled residents at San Francisco, and that, on his return to the United States on the steamship Coptic in August, 1895, from a temporary visit to China, he applied to said collector of customs for permission to land, and was by the collector refused such permission, and was restrained of his liberty by the collector, and by the general manager of the steamship company acting under his direction, in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States, not by virtue of any judicial order or proceeding, but solely upon the pretence that he was not a citizen of the United States.
At the hearing, the District Attorney of the United States was permitted to intervene in behalf of the United States in opposition to the writ, and stated the grounds of his intervention in writing as follows:
That, as he is informed and believes, the said person in [p650] whose behalf said application was made is not entitled to land in the United States, or to be or remain therein, as is alleged in said application, or otherwise.
Because the said Wong Kim Ark, although born in the city and county of San Francisco, State of California, United States of America, is not, under the laws of the State of California and of the United States, a citizen thereof, the mother and father of the said Wong Kim Ark being Chinese persons and subjects of the Emperor of China, and the said Wong Kim Ark being also a Chinese person and a subject of the Emperor of China.
Because the said Wong Kim Ark has been at all times, by reason of his race, language, color and dress, a Chinese person, and now is, and for some time last past has been, a laborer by occupation.
That the said Wong Kim Ark is not entitled to land in the United States, or to be or remain therein, because he does not belong to any of the privileged classes enumerated in any of the acts of Congress, known as the Chinese Exclusion Acts, [*] which would exempt him from the class or classes which are especially excluded from the United States by the provisions of the said acts.
Wherefore the said United States Attorney asks that a judgment and order of this honorable court be made and entered in accordance with the allegations herein contained, and that the said Wong Kim Ark be detained on board of said vessel until released as provided by law, or otherwise to be returned to the country from whence he came, and that such further order be made as to the court may seem proper and legal in the premises.
The case was submitted to the decision of the court upon the following facts agreed by the parties:
That the said Wong Kim Ark was born in the year 1873, at No. 751 Sacramento Street, in the city and county of San Francisco, State of California, United States of America, and [p651] that his mother and father were persons of Chinese descent and subjects of the Emperor of China, and that said Wong Kim Ark was and is a laborer.
That, at the time of his said birth, his mother and father were domiciled residents of the United States, and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicil and residence therein at said city and county of San Francisco, State aforesaid.
That said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark continued to reside and remain in the United States until the year 1890, when they departed for China.
That during all the time of their said residence in the United States as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China.
That ever since the birth of said Wong Kim Ark, at the time and place hereinbefore stated and stipulated, he has had but one residence, to-wit, a residence in said State of California, in the United States of America, and that he has never changed or lost said residence or gained or acquired another residence, and there resided claiming to be a citizen of the United States.
That, in the year 1890 the said Wong Kim Ark departed for China upon a temporary visit and with the intention of returning to the United States, and did return thereto on July 26, 1890, on the steamship Gaelic, and was permitted to enter the United States by the collector of customs upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States.
That after his said return, the said Wong Kim Ark remained in the United States, claiming to be a citizen thereof, until the year 1894, when he again departed for China upon a temporary visit, and with the intention of returning to the United States, and did return thereto in the month of August, 1895, and applied to the collector of customs to be permitted to land, and that such application was denied upon the sole ground that said Wong in Ark was not a citizen of the United States. [p652]
That said Wong Kim Ark has not, either by himself or his parents acting for him, ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, and that he has never done or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom.
The court ordered Wong Kim Ark to be discharged, upon the ground that he was a citizen of the United States. 1 Fed.Rep. 382. The United States appealed to this court, and the appellee was admitted to bail pending the appeal. ************************************************************
The court did not find Wong Kim Ark to be a "Natural Born Citizen" and for you to keep saying that it did........ is simply disingenuous.
There is no separate citizenship category called “native born” that is distinct from natural born citizen or the modern day term that is in current US law “citizen of the United States at birth.” Since the adoption of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment in 1868, there are only two citizenship categories: (1) born citizens and (2) naturalized citizens.
Obama’s attorneys have cited US v. Wong Kim Ark numerous times in defending Obama’s eligibility and they’ve won every time.
The following is from the US government’s brief for the Supreme Court in US v. Wong Kim Ark. The government, which sought to deny Wong Kim Ark citizenship said:
“For the most persuasive reasons we have refused citizenship to Chinese subjects; and yet, as to their offspring, who are just as obnoxious, and to whom the same reasons for exclusion apply -with equal force, we are told that we must accept them as fellow-citizens, and that, too, because of the mere accident of birth. There certainly should be some honor and dignity in American citizenship that would be sacred from the foul and corrupting taint of a debasing alienage. Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?”
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/the-apuzzo-files-2/apuzzo-v-government-apellant-in-us-v-wong-kim-ark/
It is obvious that the appellants thought that they were defending the U.S. against allowing children of foreign born parents from having the status of natural born citizens who were eligible to become president.
They lost.
Thanks for spoiling your own argument. Former Gov. Lingle claims that she had her former director of health isssue a news release that Obama was born in Kapiolani Hospital. This is an outright lie. The news release that was put out did not even say Obama was born in Hawaii, much less announce a hospital. She makes it sound like it came out during the campaign, but this is misleading because the news release only came out a couple of days prior to the election. There’s not a whole lot of campaigning that goes on in those last two days compared to the previous several months. And contrary to her claim, a news release doesn’t prove where someone was born.
The U.S. Government disagrees. Here U.S. Citizinship and Immigration Services discusses native-born and natural-born as different types of citizenship status.
The words "shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922", as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired.
link
Here’s the CURRENT law of the land: “Nationals and Citizens of the United States at Birth”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
The “current law” falls under the title of “Aliens and Nationality.” It has nothing to do with Natural-born Citizenship. I’ve already shown you how the law was interpreted by the federal government (which is consistent with several Supreme Court interpretations as well).
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.