Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Well, I hope the next president we elect either likes me or hates a certain person with the initials L. K. T. She knows who she is, and the lawsuit award is up to 10K now.

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

Yes but the databases are not publicly accessible. At least not the accurate ones. I tried tracking a rent skipper - only partial success.

He who controls the data controls the process.

The knowledge and understanding that only government has the information, to the exclusion of the people, would lead to the conclusion that the people are subject to, or subservient to, the government, and that is clearly wrong in America. Might work in China or Russia, but doesn't work in America.

One more argument for becoming invisible to government if we are to remain a free people.

All of the arguments for or against Obama's NBC status or eligibility are moot without verifiable objective evidence and the trail thereof. I still argue the point that given the divisiveness of this issue and the suspicion that will continue to build and plague this presidency, why would someone who has nothing to hide, continue to hide? In this regard, apply your own common sense and if one is intellectually honest they can only conclude that these are not the actions of a servant of the people but the actions of a self serving politician who intends to maintain his power at any cost! He cannot and should not survive politically beyond his first term in office. Ask yourselves, are we to become slaves of a government who live by one set of rules while we live by another? Will we be required to bare all while they bare nothing? Is this not tyranny?

If jobs don't pick up real fast, he won't get a second term.

Interesting reading below. I have moved the last paragraph to the top as it provides the preface for the rest of the post.

US Citizen is defined by the 14th amendment.
Natural Born Citizen is defined by The Law Of Nations, which is cited in the Constitution as its very basis
Not only does the Law of Nations state that a natural born citizen is born in country of two citizen parents, it ALSO says that the patrilineage determines allegiance, meaning Barack’s father who was British/Kenyan determined Obama’s citizenship.

The Law of Nations is quoted in the Constitution
August 8th, 2009

This was posted on Citizen Wells and and Natural Born Citizen.

You Article II s.1′er guys are just going to love this………THE CONSTITUTION DOES INDEED DEFINE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AS BORN OF 2 US CITIZEN PARENTS AND ‘IN COUNTRY’, further it defines allegiance by patrilineage!!!
Greg Goss wrote:
The Constitution and de Vattel’s Law of Nations has the answer to any questions regarding citizenship abroad and any laws crossing national boundaries:
EXCERPT 1. U.S. Constitution, Article II, §1:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
EXCERPT 2: de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, § 212:
The natives, or NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.
Finally, the main item in the Constitution that ties both together:
EXCERPT 3: U.S. Constitution, Article I, §8:
The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations
Yes, Law of Nations is CAPITALIZED, meaning our framers were citing a proper name. There was only one Law of Nations in 1787 officially declared. And yes, Congress has the power to create and enforce ANY LAW mentioned in the Law of Nations written by Emmerich de Vattel! It was sitting right under our noses the entire time.
http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm
————


http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/

Are you sure he doesn't mean fathers in the same sense as it is used collquially, i.e. "city fathers." Once upon a time, the word fathers was litterally true, but not for a long time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_father

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

Are you sure he doesn't mean fathers in the same sense as it is used collquially, i.e. "city fathers." Once upon a time, the word fathers was litterally true, but not for a long time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_father

I didn't take away that interpretation at all and I can't imagine a court of law would either. It seems pretty clear. Obama's fathers citizenship would clearly exclude Barak Obama Jr. from natural born citizenship status. The framers of our constitution were clever enough to ensure allegiance of any future POTUS.

EXCERPT 2: de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, § 212:
The natives, or NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.

What about that American Taliban guy?

I have learned a lot about the pro and con arguments about the BC. Interesting and eloquent postings.
I have one request: can some of you folks get off of this thread and see how the country is coming apart at the seams? And the BC problem has nothing to do with it.
I know it is fun to debate this, but we need help in lots of battles, starting with loopholes so illegals get Obamacare, biased media, illegal crimes being only misdemeanors, illegals getting a redo of our prison system to make them more comfy, anchor babies bankrupting so many states, citizens and legal immigrants losing jobs to cheap illegals, attempts to quash mandatory E-Verify for all employers in Congress, more debt than our great-great grandchildren will ever repay as they won't be able to earn an income, because their jobs have either been taken by cheap illegals or have been outsourced, or they have been replaced by some visa holder.
Call me every name in the book if you wish, but I consider myself looking at all that is going on in this country and am truly worried. We are stuck with Obama and a Democrat Congress, which seems to be falling apart. We really don't need diversions keeping us off the main points.

Originally Posted by vortex

I have learned a lot about the pro and con arguments about the BC. Interesting and eloquent postings.
I have one request: can some of you folks get off of this thread and see how the country is coming apart at the seams? And the BC problem has nothing to do with it.
I know it is fun to debate this, but we need help in lots of battles, starting with loopholes so illegals get Obamacare, biased media, illegal crimes being only misdemeanors, illegals getting a redo of our prison system to make them more comfy, anchor babies bankrupting so many states, citizens and legal immigrants losing jobs to cheap illegals, attempts to quash mandatory E-Verify for all employers in Congress, more debt than our great-great grandchildren will ever repay as they won't be able to earn an income, because their jobs have either been taken by cheap illegals or have been outsourced, or they have been replaced by some visa holder.
Call me every name in the book if you wish, but I consider myself looking at all that is going on in this country and am truly worried. We are stuck with Obama and a Democrat Congress, which seems to be falling apart. We really don't need diversions keeping us off the main points.

Vortex, you are making an assumption about those of us interested in this topic...that we aren't already active in writing, calling, emailing, attending meetings etc. to address serious and pressing issues that face us. At least in my case, you would be wrong on all counts. Could it be that perhaps you see those of us who believe in this cause as lunatic fringe elements? Sometimes I wonder myself. As I'm sure that you have keenly noticed, Alipac consists of a very diverse group of people and diverse opinions. That's why there are areas within the Alipac site for "Other Issues and Topics". I am sure that someone would be glad to take you on a tour to see this diversity firsthand.

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

I've already come around to the view that Obama is a NBC but not for the simple-minded "citizen at birth" arguments that some of his supporters endorse, because I think that those arguments dangerously undermine what ought to be a definitional requirement of "sole U.S. citizenship" at birth for any future POTUS.

Because I respect your comments so much, I hesitate to say I hope you are wrong, but that is my thinking - I do hope you are wrong.

And, if Obama IS really an NBC, why is he hiding all of his personal information? Didn't he get the memo that everything is OK?

I wouldn't mind being "wrong" by any means. But I just couldn't come up with any other conclusion than that Obama Sr. taking a second wife in Stanley Ann Dunham was bigamy. Making the marriage null/void. Leaving only Dunham to impart citizenship to Obama, assuming that he actually was born in Hawaii. Since Kenya would have recognized his tribal marriage to Kezia as a "customary marriage" under their laws, and since Kenya would have treated any later Western-style monogamous marriage (called a "statutory marriage" under their laws) as bigamy if he didn't divorce the tribal wife / wives, there would have been a total roadblock on the second marriage being legitimate under their laws or our laws.

Another way that I could be "wrong" apart from the NBC at birth aspect, however, would involve what Obama did with his citizenship status later on. E.g., living in Indonesia, traveling to Pakistan, enrolling at Occidental College. Somewhere in those later records, he could have made a declaration that somehow impaired his status as an American citizen. And it looks like once a person gets elected to federal office, the State Dept. gets loosey-goosey about handing out Passports on some kind of "assumption" that "the public" (voters) has done the vetting.

Anyway, I think he's not being more forthcoming about his status because it would require a full airing of the ins-and-outs of his mother being an unwed mom and he's weighed the pro's and con's of what he wants to project as a "role model" .