Posted on 12/08/2008 7:12:24 AM PST by cycle of discernment
too bad
Check out the link on this posst for more detail.
have you been following Donofrio/Wronowski?(sp?)Donofrio-denied/Wronowski-full hearing SCOTUS Dec 12th.
This case had no chance..... basically Donofrio is claiming that the laws of a foreign nation (Britain considered him a citizen at birth) precludes an American citizen from becoming president. U.S. law puts no weight whatsoever on foreign country’s laws. If that were the case, Iran could pass a law tomorrow that all U.S. citizens of Iran, disqualifying anyone..so unless you are of the opinion that foreign laws apply to U.S. citizens this case is folly.....maybe the Iranians will also require each of us to pay income taxes
Forbidden
You don’t have permission to access / on this server.
You may need to create an index.html page or enable the directory browsing by creating an .htaccess file containing “Options +Indexes”.
Apache/1.3.37 Server at www.naturalborncitizen.com Port 80
There is no definitive evidence to support your view, and that is why the Supreme Court needs to rule on what "natural born citizen" means. Obama Sr. was not a U.S. citizen, and it is not reasonable to assume that the United States would not honor his wish, had he demonstrated it, to take his child to his place of residence in Kenya. Obama Sr. had rights afforded him as the father of that child under the law in effect regarding nationality in the UK (1948). That law provided that his progeny were also British subjects. I doubt that the United States would have denied Obama Sr. his legal rights as parent, so in that sense, indeed, Obama Jr. inherited his nationality from his father at birth.
The question is what the U.S. law at the time said about Obama Jr's citizenship. Was he natural born? That is what we wanted the Supreme Court to decide. The question is an open one that has never been decided.
I'm not sure that The Great Oz calling someone a "vexatious litigant" is going to garner much sympathy from me...
“No, that law was revised in 1982. It has been in effect in one form or another even before Hawaii became a state. Also according to the current law, he could walk in today and ask for a copy himself:
[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State.
(a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
There is nothing in the current law that says how long after the birth the application has to be made.
The question is what the U.S. law at the time said about Obama Jr’s citizenship. Was he natural born? That is what we wanted the Supreme Court to decide. The question is an open one that has never been decided.
***
If Obama is found to be a dual national, how can he be a “natural born” citizen ? A “natural born” citizen owes allegiance to ONE and ONLY ONE nation.
Obama may be “native born” but he is certainly NOT “natural born” ...
The Supreme Court of the United States has stated that dual nationality is “a status long recognized in the law” and that “a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both. The mere fact that he asserts the rights of one citizenship does not without more mean that he renounces the other,” (Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717, 1952).
It is generally considered that while dual nationals are in the country of which they are citizens that country has a predominant claim on their allegiance.
Dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries.
“Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth says that he was born in the City of Honolulu, in the County of Honolulu, on the Island of Oahu on August 4, 1961 at 7:24 P.M.
Obama’s FAKE Certificate of Live Birth says....”
He has never shown a Certificate of Live Birth to anyone. What he posted on his site was a Certification of Live Birth.(COLB) That has been shown to be a forgery.
That is not what she said.
This is what she actually said :
When the birth certificate arrived from the Obama campaign it confirmed his name as the other documents already showed it. Still, we took an extra step: We e-mailed it to the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records, to ask if it was real. “It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo told us.
They conveniently left out what she went on to say :
“When we looked at that image you guys sent us, our registrar, he thought he could see pieces of the embossed image through it.” Still, she acknowledges: “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.”
So they can't confirm that the copy posted on the site is a legitimate copy.It may resemble one, but it can't be authenticated .
First I'd heard that Ron Paul joined one of these cases. There's someone else who has "standing".
Good to hear.
We don't know for a fact that one or more may have had their childrens' lives threatened. A.S. alone has what, nine? Plus grandkids?
0B's string-pulllers mean business. Just a thought....
I did read on a non-government site something about how the U.S. recognition of dual citizenship had changed in the last ten years, so perhaps in 1961, it wasn’t recognized. But it’s hard to believe that Osama Sr. would have been prevented from exercising his parental right to take the child to Kenya if he so chose. In that case, I cannot believe the U.S. would have prevented him and said it was because Osama Sr. did not give UK allegiance to his son at birth.
Here’s the site: http://www.uscitizenship.info/citizenship-library-dual.htm
And here’s the text:
4. I heard that the US and Canada don’t allow Dual Citizenship. Is this true?
This is incorrect. Both the US and Canada now allow their citizens to hold multiple citizenships. Most references to the contrary are out of date since this has been resolved for at least ten years in the case of the United States and over twenty in the case of Canada. Note that the respective governments often couch dual citizenship in negative terms as few governments like to lose control over their citizens.
So, according to my lights, the distilled question can be stated this way:
In 1961, would the United States government consider a child born in Hawaii of an American mother and a UK subject to have dual citizenship?
What might be helpful to the cause is if a lot of people were to pose this question to their local office of the State Department in their respective cities. I’m in Boston, so I can do it here.
What do you all think? Where are you located? Are you willing to pose this question — in writing or in person — in order to further the effort to arrive at an understanding of the true circumstances of Obama’s citizenship?
Let’s do it! Or do you see a flaw in my “magic question”?
You slime around on these threads like an oozing sore.
Why don’t you read the actual information and then try and argue? Your ignorance is transparently revealing that you are either an 0 supporter or someone who just likse to fling s**t.
>>>If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.
To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.<<<
Thanks for the quotes. Very damning and damnable.
There is no outcome that would satisfy the genuine nutbags on this. You could have the delivering obstetrician and nursing staff offer sworn depositions and they would be accused of being frauds, plants, or Indonesian terrorist double agents. It is all so much crap. They guy was born in Hawaii - that makes him a citizen (and don't give me that "but, but he's not 'natural born'..."). He's going to be the next POTUS. I for one think conservatives better learn how to work with his administration or they really will be left out in the cold. You can't hold your breath until the next election.
And I'll throw in a National Review article that says pretty much the same thing for good measure:
"The continuing efforts of a fringe group of conservatives to deny Obama his victory and to lay the basis for the claim that he is not a legitimate president is embarrassing and destructive. The fact that these efforts are being led by Alan Keyes, a demagogue who lost a Senate election to the then-unknown Obama by 42 points, should be a warning in itself."
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjQyOTgxM2M0YWMxOTdhZDcwMzlmMDU1ZGYxNzFkMmQ=
‘bit ‘o’ prayer tonight for TRUTH... sorry to those who are offended and want to brand me a TRUTHER... the truth is the truth...
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.