Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama Born In The U.S. ? New Facts And Questions Say; 'Probably Not!'
Source? Sherlock Holmes | MB26

Posted on 02/05/2009 7:52:01 PM PST by MindBender26

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 1,461-1,479 next last
To: fanfan
I don't know what it means, but if Stanley Ann went to Cuba, and Malcolm X went to Cuba????

If Malcolm X is Obama's father, it would mean that Barack is a Natural Born Citizen.

341 posted on 02/06/2009 12:47:12 PM PST by trumandogz (The Democrats are driving us to Socialism at I00 MPH -The GOP is driving us to Socialism at 97.5 MPH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: Yooper4Life; MindBender26
$100k minimum and probably closer to $200k-$300k

I don't think so. All campaigns have lawyers on retainer. Filing a simple request to dismiss would be routine procedure and from what I understand the campaign would not be charged extra for routine legal procedures from any lawyer under retainer. There would be no travel and no appearances or arguments. Just simply file to dismiss. But, MindBender, I still await your sources and figures.
342 posted on 02/06/2009 12:47:58 PM PST by LanaTurnerOverdrive ("I've done a few things in my life I'm not proud of, and the things I am proud of are disgusting.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: FourtySeven; Chief Engineer

The law was amended in 1982, there were laws allowing foreign born babies, or born in other states IIRC, to be registered in HI. I think the first such law was enacted in 1911, and had another amendment in the 60s. Chief Engineer knows all the details.

(Courtesy Ping to CE - this subject has come up so often I will copy and paste anything you say about it on my desktop, sorry to bug you again.)


343 posted on 02/06/2009 12:54:24 PM PST by little jeremiah (Leave illusion, come to the truth. Leave the darkness, come to the light.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: Wil H
"Again, you make no sense."

"Under the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 as it stood in 1961, 0bama wold NOT be a natural born citizen if born abroad because neither of his parents could confer that status."

No, you aren't making sense. What you mention here was not the issue.

The issue was about the claim he could get a Hawaiian birth certificate if he was born elsewhere.

344 posted on 02/06/2009 12:55:48 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: Michael Michael

See my comment above. It was amended in 1982, there was another similar law before. I don’t have the details but I hope CE will post them.


345 posted on 02/06/2009 12:56:21 PM PST by little jeremiah (Leave illusion, come to the truth. Leave the darkness, come to the light.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: Diggity
"Go look it up yourself and quit be so lazy."

Any laziness is yours. When you make a claim it is up to you to back it up. How is anyone else supposed to know what you are talking about unless you tell them? That's inherrently irrational.

346 posted on 02/06/2009 12:57:10 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

That doesn’t define “Natural Born,” it merely defines citizen at birth, which is not the same, and even then, those statutes are not retroactive; they only affect those born after their enactment.

Also note that the statutes that you post are in opposition to what you posted earlier. As per (a) a person born in the US is not a citizen unless under the jurisdiction of the US, so no resident visa, no citizen. Children of diplomats, and illegals that have not signed the acceptance clause in the application for a resident visa are not citizens, capiche????


347 posted on 02/06/2009 12:57:37 PM PST by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: Wil H
This is a common misconception of non-lawyers. Mr. Obama, or any citizen is entitled to claim the benefits of revised law. Notice that even the law in question confers benefits on persons born before 1934.

No, I'm not saying that Mr. Obama goes back < 1934. The issue here is that he entitled to the benefits of current law or the older, whichever is more beneficial to him, unless specifically denied by a new, now current, law.

Example. Slavery was outlawed by the Emancipation Proclamation. It also served to make null and void previous laws regarding slavery, some of which granted certain rights to slaves, made certain commercial accommodations, etc, some of which actually benefited slaves. Although slavery was outlawed from the EP forward, the previous rights were not canceled.

The rights, benefits, innurements, are cumulative, not selective nor exclusionary. Yeah, there would be appeals on a ruling, but the foundation of this is well established.

348 posted on 02/06/2009 1:01:43 PM PST by MindBender26 (Does Obama want to end the USA as we know it? What indication has he given that he doesn't!?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

No, I’m sorry you are wrong.

The legal meaning of Natural Born Citizen is one that is born a citizen, one that does not have to be “Naturalized” (made a citizen by operation of statute) at a later time.

It is NOT regulated solely by place of birth.

Argue all you want. The law is the law.


349 posted on 02/06/2009 1:05:13 PM PST by MindBender26 (Does Obama want to end the USA as we know it? What indication has he given that he doesn't!?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: 230FMJ; 50mm; A.Hun; abigailsmybaby; AFPhys; Aircop_2006; AliVeritas; Allegra; Allosaurs_r_us; ...

///// #PPPPPPP

DTG 062105Z FEB 09

T O P S E C R E T VIKINGKITTEN

SUBJ: ZOT

RE: POST 90

1. WATCH NCOIC HAS CONFIRMED REPEAT CONFIRMED TROLL SIGHTING, THIS DTG, THIS LOCATION. FR MOD COMMAND HAS INITIATED ZORCH ON TARGET (Z.O.T.).

2. WATCH NCOIC HAS CONCLUDED BATTLE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT (BDA) FOLLOWING STRIKE TERMINATION ORDER. BDA EVALUATES STRIKE EFFECT AS LEVEL-TWO “STILL SMOKING”.

3. ALL ELEMENTS ARE AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE OPTION “DOGPILE” UPON RECEIPT OF THIS MSG. WATCH NCOIC WILL CONDUCT BATTLE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT FOLLOWING STRIKE TERMINATION ORDER.

4. GENERAL ORDER ONE IS SUSPENDED THIS OCCASION. ALL ELEMENTS ARE DIRECTED TO RALLY POINT URSULA FOR AUTHORIZED LINE-DANCE UPON TROLL REMAINS. CONSUMPTION OF ADULT BEVERAGES IS FURTHER AUTHORIZED.

5. ADMIN NOTE: INTERESTED PARTIES MAY BE INCLUDED IN, OR REMOVED FROM, THE VIKING KITTIES TROLL-WATCH ALERT ROSTER BY FREEPMAILING THE WATCH NCOIC, CODENAME “OLD SARGE”, SUBJECT: ALERT ROSTER.

6. CHALLENGE/PASSWORD: VALHALLA-OVERLORD.

#/////

NOTHING FOLLOWS

EOM EOM EOM


350 posted on 02/06/2009 1:05:40 PM PST by Old Sarge (Obama Dozed, People Froze)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Old Sarge

Dang it, missed another one.


351 posted on 02/06/2009 1:09:45 PM PST by WakeUpAndVote (INGSOC starts 1.20.09)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: Old Sarge
IATZ!
352 posted on 02/06/2009 1:10:22 PM PST by darkangel82 (I don't have a superiority complex, I'm just better than you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: zacharyroyce
And yes, I think you’re experiencing cultural anomie.

You like that phrase, don't you? Makes you sound all knowledgeable and stuff.

I think you're experiencing some {ZOT!} lightning burns now, yes?

Better put some ice on that. :-D

353 posted on 02/06/2009 1:13:09 PM PST by Allegra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
The law was amended in 1982...

No, that law was enacted in 1982. Not amended in 1982. The earliest year shown in the statute's history is the year it was enacted. Compare the history of 338-17.8 to the history of 338-1:

[L 1949, c 327, §2; am L 1951, c 92, §1; RL 1955, §57-1; HRS §338-1; am L 1973, c 17, §5; am L 1975, c 66, §2(1); am L 1982, c 112, §2; gen ch 1985; am L 1987, c 100, §1; am L 1993, c 131, §1]

338-1 was enacted in 1947, and subsequently changed and/or amended in 1951 ,1955, 1973, 1975, 1982, 1985, 1987, and finally in 1993.

"[L 1982, c 182, §1]" means that 338-17.8 was enacted in 1982 and had had no subsequent changes or amendments.


354 posted on 02/06/2009 1:14:13 PM PST by Michael Michael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

True.


355 posted on 02/06/2009 1:19:59 PM PST by fanfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: Wil H
"What we DON’T know is the information on that Birth Certificate. And it could be that he was was Foreign Born..."

We do know what is on the birth certificate. It says he was born in Honolulu.

356 posted on 02/06/2009 1:25:54 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: Old Sarge
John has a long mustache!
John has a long mustache!
357 posted on 02/06/2009 1:26:07 PM PST by MindBender26 (Does Obama want to end the USA as we know it? What indication has he given that he doesn't!?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

Wait.

Would he still be if he was born in Canada or Kenya?


358 posted on 02/06/2009 1:32:55 PM PST by fanfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

That info is found here and is how the Chinese national was able to obtain a Hawaiian birth certificate eventhough he wasn’t born in Hawaii.

“The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii. The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program was terminated in 1972, during the statehood era.”

Found here:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/hawnbirth.html


359 posted on 02/06/2009 1:36:09 PM PST by Chief Engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: mlo
We do know what is on the birth certificate. It says he was born in Honolulu.

What you are referring to is his COLB, not his Birth Certificate.

The COLB has been widely discredited as a fraud by some.

It is also not clear as to what information was placed on a COLB in the case of a foreign born infant that was registered in Hawaii. Does the COLB reflect the actual place of BIRTH or the place of REGISTRATION?

The only definitive, authentic, document is the one that 0bama refuses to show.

Why is that?

360 posted on 02/06/2009 1:37:30 PM PST by Wil H (No Accomplishments, No Experience, No Resume No Records, No References, Nobama..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 1,461-1,479 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson