Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

2 GA Officers Accused of Running Background Checks on Obama

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-165099.html

Why it matters, it is about honesty, fairness and what is right. I was shocked when a guy said to me, "So what does it matter where Obama was born? Who cares?" So I asked him,

"If you were denied a job because the other applicant that was chosen lied on their application and really was not qualified or eligible, how would you feel?" He said he'd be [angry] and see to it the guy was fired. I replied, "Well that's the case about Obama, it is that simple." He then agreed.

www.obamanotqualified.com/

RELATED

Woman sells her TVs to avoid seeing Obama

http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-931875.html#931875

Does anyone wonder the reason why he is hiding the birth cert is because it might list him as white, or it lists his religion as Muslim, which to the Muslim world would mean he is a traitor since he left the religion for something else, and that penalty is death?

Originally Posted by 93camaro

Does anyone wonder if the reason why he is hiding the birth cert is because it might list him as white, or it lists his religion as Muslim...

No. The four relevant, and possibly altered, fields on the Certification of Live Birth (the computer-generated abstract) are the city and state of the birth, and the father's name and race.

If the occult document in the vault at Vital Records in Honolulu, Hawaii, [were] a State of Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth (indulge me in this supposition for a moment), the corresponding fields [would be]:

6a. Place of Birth: City, Town, or Rural Location
6b. Island
6c. Name of Hospital or Institution (If not in hospital or institution, give street address)
6d. Is Place of Birth Inside City or Town Limits? If no, give judicial district

8. Full Name of Father
9. Race of Father

For the child, the Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth has no fields for race or religion -
only for sex, birth order in case of a multiple birth, date of birth, and time of birth.
_________________________________________

If the occult document is a Republic of Kenya Certificate of Birth, it has no fields for race or religion -
only for place and date of birth, sex, and time of birth.

This is NOT an actual birth certificate for Barack Obama, but the Kenya Colony, U.K., Certificate of Birth form is accurate.

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter heard the opening presentments for Keyes v. Obama on July 13. If the usual 60-day recess for response applies here, the case will resume on or around September 11.

If the Lord wills, America and Lady Liberty will strike a might blow against taqqiya (battle by deception) and Is1amist conquest of "the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave" on September 11. It won't be a day too soon.

Let me know if this is a duplicate.

I think this article states what a lot of people are now wondering -what is the true story of Obama. Fact vs. fiction. What is he really hiding? The birth issue is a catalyst for all of these questions.

Keep this thread going -it is fascinating.







July 30, 2009, 0:00 a.m.

Suborned in the U.S.A.
The birth-certificate controversy is about Obama’s honesty, not where he was born.

By Andrew C. McCarthy

Throughout the 2008 campaign, Barack Hussein Obama claimed it was a “smearâ€

Some legal notions that were floating around a long time ago.


Barry v. Mercein (1847) - before the 14th Amendment

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=103

The plaintiff in error being of legeance to the crown of England, his child, though born in the United States during his father's temporary residence therein - twenty-two months and twenty days - not withstanding its mother be an American citizen, is not a citizen of the United States. It is incapacitate by its infancy from making any present election, follows the legeance of its father, partus sequitur patrem, and is a British subject. The father being domiciled and resident within the dominions of Her Britannic Majesty, such is also the proper and rightful domicil of his wife and child, and he has a legal right to remove them thither. The child being detained from the father, its natural guardian and protector, without authority of law, and writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is his appropriate legal remedy for its restoration to him from its present illegal detention and restraint. Constitution United States, art. 3, sec. 2; Judiciary Act, 1789, sec. 11; Inglis v. Trustees Sailor's Snug Harbor, 3 Peters, 99; 7 Anne, cap. 5; 4 Geo. III. cap. 21; Warrender v. Warrender, 2 Clar. & Fin. Ap. Ca. 523; Story's Confl. Laws, 30, 36, 43, 74, 160; Shelford on Marriage, Ferg. Rep. 397, 398.

That Latin phrase with larger text is worth a little Googling.

From Minor v. Happersett (1874) -- after the 14th Amendment and suggesting it (the Amendment) added nothing to the term-of-art of "natural born citizen" though the defenders of Obama try to conflate native born with natural born at every opportunity:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=162


The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

Nothing about mere birth on soil conferring the "natural born" variety of citizenship; just mere "citizen" is the status about which that SCOTUS of 1874 expressed doubt.

Another little factoid:
When did the U.S. even "allow" dual citizenship at all?

Most point to it as getting its "start" as judge-made law in the case of AFROYIM v. RUSK, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=253

which overruled a case from a decade earlier, PEREZ v. BROWNELL, 356 U.S. 44 (195.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 6&invol=44

Indeed, prior to AFROYIM, and tracing to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the US ratified a series of citizenship treaties (the "Bancroft treaties", named after American diplomat George Bancroft). The intent of these treaties was to prevent dual citizenship by providing for automatic loss of citizenship by foreigners who obtained US citizenship, or by Americans who obtained foreign citizenship. They were bi-laterally undertaken with a number of (mostly European) nations. Dual citizenship was considered an unnatural condition and a "curse" rather than a blessing. In a similar vein, the laws which required an affirmative "election" of one citizenship or another -- upon reaching age of majority -- by those whose conditions of birth "afflicted" them with dual citizenship.

WOW! FreedomFirst, how did you happen upon these cases?

Minor v. Happersett, sure, but Barry v. Mercein, Afroyim v. Rusk, and Perez v. Brownell? You blew an old, old layer of dust off those records, didn't you?

Originally Posted by U.S. Circuit Judge Betts for the Southern District of New York, in _Barry_v._Mercein_;

...his child, though born in the United States during his father's temporary residence therein - twenty-two months and twenty days - not withstanding its mother be an American citizen, is not a citizen of the United States. It is incapacitate by its infancy from making any present election, follows the legeance of its father, partus sequitur patrem, and is a British subject.

In the 19th century and for hundreds of years before, a wife's citizenship followed her husband. A mother's citizenship before marriage did not confer upon her child. Only with women's suffrage did this condition change in the United States - and it has not changed in many other countries.

I'm constantly amazed at the depth of your research, FreedomFirst. Thank you for forgiving my curt shortness with you and for returning to the discussion. You are one of the best resources we have.

Steele: Obama wasn't vetted because he's black

Posted: May 22nd, 2009 02:16 PM ET

From CNN Political Producer Rebecca Sinderbrand


Michael Steele said Friday that President Obama 'came out of no where.'

(CNN) — Days after announcing an "aggressive new approach" in confronting President Obama, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said Friday that the president hadn't been properly vetted because he is black.

"The problem that we have with this president is we don't know him. He was not vetted, folks. He came out of nowhere," Steele told listeners to Bill Bennett's radio show Friday morning. "….We don't know his political background, we don't know his political philosophy, the ideology that shapes his thinking on policy.

"He was not vetted, because the press fell in love with the black man running for the office. 'Oh gee, wouldn't it be neat to do that? Gee, wouldn't it make all of our liberal guilt just go away? We could continue to ride around in our limousines and feel so lucky be alive and in an America with a black president,'" said Steele. "Okay, that's wonderful — great scenario, nice backdrop. But what does he stand for? What does he believe?


"And that's why I keep going back to the point, the missed opportunity was dissecting and understanding Rev. [Jeremiah] Wright," he added. "It wasn't about Rev. Wright, it was about the philosophy that emerged and the directions that he was given, the lessons he learned at his knee. We never got a chance to understand that. People got lost on what Wright said about America instead of focusing on what Obama understood from what Wright was saying, so that you could understand and track that political philosophy. So we don't know. We just don't know."

Steele — who said last weekend that "like a bad diet, liberalism will kill you" — told GOP leaders this week that the era of Republican "apologizing" was over.

Filed under: Michael Steele

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... hes-black/