Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

FreedomFirst,

Thanks for the detailed discussion. One more question.

You said "Obama took his citizenship from the mother's side and was illegitimate."

Q: Does this tell us that a natural born citizen can be a child born on U.S. soil with only one parent?

Yes. If the "one parent" is an unmarried mother, I believe that's exactly what can happen. It's the flip side of the coin of the otherwise generally applicable rule (back in the 1700's and through much of the 20th century) of partus sequitur patrem.

That flip side is: Ejus, qui justum patrem non habet, prima 'origo a matre. In other words, if there's no legally recognized father, a child assumes the origins/nationality of the mother.

I understood the mother was not old enough (i.e. 19 years of age in Dunham's case) to pass along natural born U.S. citizenship. Citizenship, yes, but NBC, no.

Donofrio adds these comments to a poster"

"[Ed. Reader, please understand that the Constitution makes a clear distinction between Citizens and Natural Born Citizens. NBC is a sub-class of citizen. I believe Obama is a citizen through his mother, but because of his father he is not in the sub class of natural born citizen. There are born citizens, but not all born citizens are natural born citizens. The thing which makes his citizenship unnatural is his British dual nationality at birth. He was still entitled to all the benefits of being a citizen of the US, but he should not have been allowed to run for President as the nbc status was always provided as a way of disqualifying certain citizens from being President and Commander in Chief.

NBC status is a sub-class of citizenship which was designed to EXCLUDE certain citizens from being POTUS. ]"

This has got to be one of the most legally confusing discussions I could imagine. I can't believe that Obama figured all of this out before he ran for office.

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

FreedomFirst,

Thanks for the detailed discussion. One more question.

You said "Obama took his citizenship from the mother's side and was illegitimate."

Q: Does this tell us that a natural born citizen can be a child born on U.S. soil with only one parent?

Yes. If the "one parent" is an unmarried mother, I believe that's exactly what can happen. It's the flip side of the coin of the otherwise generally applicable rule (back in the 1700's and through much of the 20th century) of partus sequitur patrem.

That flip side is: Ejus, qui justum patrem non habet, prima 'origo a matre. In other words, if there's no legally recognized father, a child assumes the origins/nationality of the mother.

I understood the mother was not old enough (i.e. 19 years of age in Dunham's case) to pass along natural born U.S. citizenship. Citizenship, yes, but NBC, no.

This has got to be one of the most legally confusing discussions I could imagine. I can't believe that Obama figured all of this out before he ran for office.

That "19 years old" business relies upon there being a birth abroad and the conferral of American citizenship at birth from the mother's side is possible only if the period of minimum residency inside the U.S. (10 years) has been met, with "five of those years" coming "beyond the age of 14" etc. That was the governing statute at the time. I would opine that the "natural born" part extinguishes at the borders of the U.S. and nobody born outside a U.S. "jurisdiction" such as a state or territory meets NBC criteria. (Except for the few infants born between 1790 and 1795 to situations of both parents being U.S. citizens while that old law was on the books.)

There's a "presumption of a valid marriage" in a lot of the statutes that people have been studying, citing and relying upon. But if you strip away the presence of a legit father, who else is left except a mother to confer anything upon a child at birth?

Answer: a "ius soli" law in the actual place of birth.
Alternative Answer: There are people born into situations of "no legal citizenship" whatsoever, and the international bodies "out there" are always trying to figure out how they can be "patriated" to some country somewhere on earth. (Infants abandoned at birth frequently fall into that category but situations involving refugee camps also throw off those kind of cases.)

It's notable that even in Kenya, the fact that Obama Sr. engaged in "mixing modes" by serially entering into a "customary marriage" (Kezia, in a tribal ceremony, no paperwork) and then into what the Kenyan laws would have interpreted as a "statutory marriage" (in Hawaii, need for monogamy, need for paperwork of a marriage license) would have set him up for a charge of bigamy. If a man failed to divorce his customary wife (or wives, since the colonial U.K. powers didn't try to stop Muslims or tribal/pagan practitioners from from their habits of taking multiple wives or meeting obligations to marry their brothers' widows etc.) before embarking on a "statutory" marriage, Kenya would/could charge him with bigamy.

IF Obama was born in Kenya per the newly revealed document (or any other foreign land) and IF there was no "ius soli" law in place in Kenya to claim all infants born on that soil as citizens, he was either 100% American (no other option) or 100% "infant without a country" because of the maternal age limitation of the then-existing statutes in the U.S. Code.

As for Obama figuring things out before he ran for office ... he's sitting on a lot more definitory documentation than any of us speculators (a/k/a "worried Americans") out here in the Internet are. His book claims he ran across his own birth certificate (presumption: original or generated for when he entered Hawaiian grade K) when going through his mother's stuff, but that his parents' marriage details were "murky" .... book also claims (conveniently) that the parents got married in November 1960. Divorce papers would disprove that date. Absence of a marriage license might disprove both the book and the claims in the divorce petition.

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm

British Nationality Act, 1948
1948 (11 & 12 Geo. 6.) CHAPTER 56.
Part I
British Nationality.

British nationality by virtue of citizenship.

1.—(1) Every person who under this Act is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of this section is a citizen of that country shall by virtue of that citizenship have the status of a British subject...

(3) The following are the countries hereinbefore referred to, that is to say, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Newfoundland, India, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia and Ceylon.

Does the omission of Kenya from the list of colonies cause the British Nationality Act of 1948 not to apply to Kenya?
[quote:5b8m2byv]5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth:

Provided that if the father of such a person is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of this section unless—

(a) that person is born or his father was born in a protectorate, protected state, mandated territory or trust territory or any place in a foreign country where by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance, or other lawful means, His Majesty then has or had jurisdiction over British subjects; or

(b) that person's birth having occurred in a place in a foreign country other than a place such as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph, the birth is registered at a United Kingdom consulate within one year of its occurrence, or, with the permission of the Secretary of State, later; or

(c) that person's father is, at the time of the birth, in Crown service under His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom; or

(d) that person is born in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of section one of this Act in which a citizenship law has then taken effect and does not become a citizen thereof on birth.

[/quote:5b8m2byv]

Kenya was only the name of a mountain during most of the colonial era. You're looking for names like Protectorate of East Africa and Zanzibar for the piece of land that later took on the name of the mountain.

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

As for Obama figuring things out before he ran for office ... he's sitting on a lot more definitory documentation than any of us speculators (a/k/a "worried Americans") out here in the Internet are. His book claims he ran across his own birth certificate (presumption: original or generated for when he entered Hawaiian grade K) when going through his mother's stuff, but that his parents' marriage details were "murky" .... book also claims (conveniently) that the parents got married in November 1960. Divorce papers would disprove that date. Absence of a marriage license might disprove both the book and the claims in the divorce petition.

It would seem that the challenge remains the same, i.e. determining the truth when dealing with a clever liar who has lots of money and power. And in this case, and since so much documentation has been destroyed or otherwise removed from public access, we may never know for sure.

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

As for Obama figuring things out before he ran for office ... he's sitting on a lot more definitory documentation than any of us speculators (a/k/a "worried Americans") out here in the Internet are. His book claims he ran across his own birth certificate (presumption: original or generated for when he entered Hawaiian grade K) when going through his mother's stuff, but that his parents' marriage details were "murky" .... book also claims (conveniently) that the parents got married in November 1960. Divorce papers would disprove that date. Absence of a marriage license might disprove both the book and the claims in the divorce petition.

It would seem that the challenge remains the same, i.e. determining the truth when dealing with a clever liar who has lots of money and power. And in this case, and since so much documentation has been destroyed or otherwise removed from public access, we may never know for sure.

The "burden of proof" about meeting criteria for ANY JOB rests with the job applicant. It is utterly appalling to me that Obama got a "free pass" from the press and his political party. (Ditto on McCain as far as the political party "pass" and that bogus Senate Resolution given over to a voice vote of probably less than even a quorum on the floor. The media hounding McCain's own "nbc" questionability with the NYTimes and even earlier, a published inquiry in the WaPo, doubtless set the stage for back door deals between the parties' leaders. Lotta COLLEGIALITY in that Senate Rich Boyz Club.)

If 2010 doesn't see a lot of people swept out of office on this and other grounds (TARP, allowing for "czars", virtual nationalization of the auto industry, etc., etc.) then we are in deep doo-doo.

ORGANIZE AND HOLLER LIKE H-E-double hockey sticks IN 2010 is becoming my focus. Plus digging in to stop the hemorraghing (bad legislation) until then. (Plug the dikes!)

Mangy Mutts Media now has its various talking heads poking around looking for printing press Guv'mint Rescues. Obvious what was going on during the campaign, as NY Times faced a debt rollover it knew it couldn't likely meet and Tribune companies (Chicago Trib, LA Times and others among its holdings) went into reorg. There are a whole lot of vested interests that wanted a "spend like a drunken sailor on shore leave" type of guy in office. And "to heck" with the average among us who are going to get gouged by taxes (or become a Zimbabwe of debt) as we perish down the chutes.

Steele is warming to the topic of the "media pass given to Obama" because he was of a compelling race that fit the image the effete intellectuals wanted to project to the world. Thank heavens that tough talk is coming from a truer "African American" (tracing to the West African area where the slaves came from) than Obama will ever be. Doesn't change my opinion that the GOP has a lot of louts in office, however.

My husband is taking the position, with arguments from me, that in the congressional resolution for Hawaii's anniversary, out House bestowed Natural Born status on Obama whether or not he in fact had such status. In an alternative to allowing chaos and a crisis to arise, he feels the Supreme Court may use that to legitimize Obama as a Natural Born Citizen regardless of any and all evidence stating the contrary.

I also discussed this issue for the first time with an old friend from my youth who has a really really interesting take on this. She believes he is fully legitimate and a Natural Born Citizen but has been intentionally sprinkling the doubt to intentionally cause the suspicion. When enough people on the right believe he is a usurper, he will then PROVE he is legit in hope of riots, where once and for all, the Department of Homeland Security can claim those of us who read and defend the constitution are indeed a danger to this country and will be able to arrest or confine us all as potential terrorists with little to no resistance from the left or "main stream", thus, but getting rid of the opposition, they can then speed through the take over and complete destruction of our constitution.

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

The "burden of proof" about meeting criteria for ANY JOB rests with the job applicant. It is utterly appalling to me that Obama got a "free pass" from the press and his political party. (Ditto on McCain as far as the political party "pass" and that bogus Senate Resolution given over to a voice vote of probably less than even a quorum on the floor. The media hounding McCain's own "nbc" questionability with the NYTimes and even earlier, a published inquiry in the WaPo, doubtless set the stage for back door deals between the parties' leaders. Lotta COLLEGIALITY in that Senate Rich Boyz Club.)

I think because there is no legislation or constitutional rules regarding job descriptions and job requirements (or limitations) for POTUS and for Senators, the method to use when desiring office appears to be well established political guerrilla tactics and lots of money.

If possible, I would like to see state sovereignty returned, the missing 13th Amendment re-instated, and senator selection returned to the states - along with suitable background checks, job descriptions, and term limits.

Everything counts, but I don't expect any part of our government to willingly limit its own powers. This must be done by the people.

This article reminds us of all of the other hidden records as well that might reveal what is really going on with his citizenship.



Lou Dobbs Right on Obama Birth Certificate

Monday, August 3, 2009 9:48 AM

By: Newsmax Staff Article Font Size

The Associated Press is wrong and Lou Dobbs is right.

This past weekend, the AP published a story entitled "CNN's Dobbs Under Fire for Hosting 'Birthers'".

The AP began their highly critical story on Dobbs: "He's become a publicity nightmare for CNN, embarrassed his boss and hosted a show that seemed to contradict the network's 'no bias' brand."

And what is Dobbs' "crime?" He has said on air that Obama should release his birth certificate and has had on his show guests who suggested Obama was born outside the U.S.

Dobbs does not believe Obama was born outside the U.S., nor does Newsmax. The evidence indicates he was born in Hawaii. But the indisputable fact is that Obama has not released his birth certificate, which the state of Hawaii issues for all citizens born there. The AP implies that Obama has not released a "long version of his birth certificate." But there is no such thing as a long version of a birth certificate.

Instead, Obama's campaign last year released only his Certification of Live Birth from the state of Hawaii, which is a document that offers a summarized version of the birth certificate. Even state residents born outside the U.S. can get one.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, GOP nominee Sen. John McCain quickly released his birth certificate when liberal bloggers raised questions about his eligibility to be president. McCain was born at a military hospital in Panama.

Obama likewise could put the matter to rest by releasing his actual birth certificate, which would show, among other things, the place of his birth and the doctor who performed the birth procedure.

This information is not provided on the Certification of Live Birth.

As it stands, Obama is the only president in history whose birthplace is unknown to the public – a fact that would be stated on the actual birth certificate. Interestingly, his family has mentioned two different hospitals in Hawaii as the place of birth.

Obama’s refusal to release his birth certificate does mean that Obama remains one of America’s most mysterious and opaque presidents ever.

Obama, for example, has not released many other documents regarding his public and private life.

Many of these documents were sought by reporters, who easily acquiesced when Obama said he would not release them – though most presidential candidates release them as a perfunctory matter.

Among the key documents that Obama continues to shield from the public:

• Obama released just one brief document detailing his personal health. McCain, on the other hand, released what he said was his complete medical file, totaling more than 1,500 pages.

• Obama refused to offer his official papers as a state legislator in Illinois. Nor did he produce correspondence, such as his schedules of appointments or letters from lobbyists, from his days in the Illinois state Senate.

• Obama did not release his client list as an attorney or his billing records. He maintained that he performed only a few hours of legal work for a nonprofit organization with ties to Tony Rezko, the Chicago businessman convicted of fraud in June 2008 but did not release billing records that would prove this assertion.

• Obama ignored requests for his records from Occidental College, where he studied for two years before transferring to Columbia University.

• Obama’s campaign refused to give Columbia, where he earned an undergraduate degree in political science, permission to release his transcripts. Former President George W. Bush and presidential contenders Al Gore and John Kerry all released their college transcripts.

• Obama did not agree to the release of his application to the Illinois State Bar, which would have cleared up intermittent allegations that his application may have been inaccurate.

• Obama did not release records from his time at Harvard Law School.

• During the presidential campaign, McCain’s campaign released a full list of all online donors. Obama’s campaign still has not released the names of those who donated at least one-third of the $750 million he raised.

Ironically, Obama accused the Bush White House of being "one of the most secretive administrations in our history," and chided then-Sen. Hillary Clinton for not releasing her White House schedules.

Editor's Notes:

# See Lou Dobbs' video on Obama's birth certificate - Click Here Now.

# Dobbs fires back at critics of his show on Obama's birth certificate - Click Here Now.

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/dobb ... 43134.html

During the 2008 presidential campaign, GOP nominee Sen. John McCain quickly released his birth certificate when liberal bloggers raised questions about his eligibility to be president. McCain was born at a military hospital in Panama.

NewsMax is wrong on that count. McCain lied about being born on a base. He got his mother Roberta to lie, too, about remembering "celebration noises" from a "nearby" officers club. The lies continued all the way through that rushed Sen. Res. 511 (in May). It wasn't until the summer of '08 when Fred Hollander, suing McCain as ineligible because he was sure the Dems would file an eligibility suit if McCain won and use the research from that U. of Arizona professor, managed to locate the original long form certificate. He got it from the Panamanian R.R. company which kind of ran the show around that sphere as a major employer for building the rail lines that make the canal a functional transit point between oceans.

Outlets that portray McCain as a stand-up guy are outlets that haven't traced the timeline of what was said and when; nor what was known and when; nor what it took to get the truth out.

Colon Hospital was on Panamanian soil; the military hospital wasn't built until 1941; even the law conferring basic "citizenship" in the Zone wasn't until 1937. McCain was born in 1936.

I think its pretty safe to assume that BO is ineligible!

The next part is so what, nobody will remove him from office.

I was just listening to Glenn Beck and he even knows that we can't remove him form office he wont go!!