Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Originally Posted by grandmasmad

Therefore, she has sworn falsely that Mr. Obama is Constitutionally qualified, and she can hardly claim ignorance of that lie.

PERJURY ALERT ! ! !

Wouldn't that be our prayers answered..... I wonder if Harry Reid can be tied to this also..........hey...I can hope.....I am here in Nevada with HIM

I think it all depends on what is...is lol Bill Clinton set a precedent, they are now free to purger themselves as often as they like.

An interesting sideline of this conversation is that Barack Obama is, at this time, a private citizen, and I'm wondering if that leaves him exposed to certain statutes that he will be imune to when acting at POTUS.

BTW, Happy New Year everyone!!

But again, if he really was born in Hawaii, it won't matter if 50 elderly Kenyans swear that he was born in their front yards, or if Pelosi swore he was the son of Superman and Barbara Bush, or whatever. So, I would not be getting anyone's hopes up over this.

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

But again, if he really was born in Hawaii, it won't matter if 50 elderly Kenyans swear that he was born in their front yards, or if Pelosi swore he was the son of Superman and Barbara Bush, or whatever. So, I would not be getting anyone's hopes up over this.

I expect that he was born in Hawaii, but that is not the disqualifying condition of his birth. His dual citizenship at birth, to which he admits, right on his website, is the disqualifying condition. It renders him not a "natural born citizen."

A birth outside the U.S. -- which I give only about 5% chances of actually being the case if an original certificate shows up -- would simply seal the deal on his most likely not being a citizen at birth, at all.

The RNC is implicated as well. McCain is not a natural born citizen and the article published by Professor Chin at University of Arizona Law School, which reached that conclusion, appears to be solid legal research.

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

But again, if he really was born in Hawaii, it won't matter if 50 elderly Kenyans swear that he was born in their front yards, or if Pelosi swore he was the son of Superman and Barbara Bush, or whatever. So, I would not be getting anyone's hopes up over this.

More discouraging words from the flag lady. BR, don't you ever give up? It's not a good thing to keep sticking your sewing needles into wise men as if you think they are hot air balloons. Figure out the results of that maneuver for yourself.

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

I expect that he was born in Hawaii, but that is not the disqualifying condition of his birth. His dual citizenship at birth, to which he admits, right on his website, is the disqualifying condition. It renders him not a "natural born citizen."

But SCOTUS isn't buying it. Ask Leo Donofrio. Ask Cort Wrotnowski.

The Supreme Court Justices take cases in which
1. they want to settle Constitutional questions,
or in which
2. they are willing to mediate disputes between parties.
Mainly the former.

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898 ) determined that two foreign citizen parents don't affect their child's citizenship by birth on U.S. soil. Perkins v. Elg (1939) determined that dual citizenship by parentage doesn't affect a child's natural born citizenship. The Supreme Court today is unwilling to overturn Wong Kim Ark now, even if it was contrary to the established U.S. court precedents at the time and the tradition of a child inheriting his or her father's citizenship (and name, and family identity, and perhaps land).

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

A birth outside the U.S. -- which I give only about 5% chances of actually being the case if an original certificate shows up -- would simply seal the deal on his most likely not being a citizen at birth, at all.

Anything you or I say is mere conjecture at this point. Phil Berg says he is "1000% sure" that Barack Obama II was born in Kenya. The Hon. Rep. Nancy Pelosi has sworn an oath that Barack Obama II is Constitutionally qualified, i.e., he was born on U.S. soil, and the Hon. Ms. Pelosi should know. To my knowledge, ex-Sen. Obama has said absolutely nothing, and he is paying three law firms hundreds of thousands of dollars to make sure nothing leaks out. Enough said.

But the Supreme Court can just say the word and demand discovery of Barack Obama II's birth document in the vault at the Div. of Vital Statistics, Hawaii State Dept. of Health. If ex-Sen. Obama stiffarms the Supreme Court in the same way that he has stiffed everyone else, that will be a severe career-limiting move, and the court will get the document anyway.

Whatever is hidden in that vault is enough to sink his ship, or he would not have spent $500,000, $800,000, $400,000, or even $10,000 playing keep-away with a piece of paper he can retrieve for $10. You may sleep soundly with the knowledge that ex-Sen. Obama cannot release that document and ride out the storm that will follow. As soon as the Supreme Court demands that he present his creds, the jig is up, and Barack Obama is history.

Count on it. Take it to the bank. Go to Vegas with it.

Unless you think Hezbo||ah or Is|amic J|had or three law firms can take down SCOTUS.

A bit dated, but here's an interesting video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecbbt72fKyo

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

subject to the Supreme Court's interpretation now of SCOTUS in 1939 letting stand the isolated and singular decree of the lower court in New York, that a U.S. native with a foreign parent and a U.S. citizen parent is a natural born citizen {Perkins v. Elg (1939), part 5}, and whether that decree applies outside New York, Connecticut, or Vermont,

Here's a link to the Perkins v. Elg case, so everybody can follow along ...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=325

First facts it tells us, and located in the second paragraph, are:
Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907. Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906 and her father was naturalized here in that year. In 1911, her mother took her to Sweden where she continued to reside until September 7, 1929. Her father went to Sweden in 1922 and has not since returned to the United States. In November, 1934, he made a statement before an American consul in Sweden that he had voluntarily expatriated himself for the reason that he did not desire to retain the status of an American citizen and wished to preserve his allegiance to Sweden.

This set of facts finds you claiming that Elg was born to parents of "mixed" citizenship and yet, if you look at the paragraph above the one I've quoted, you find a distillation of the question presented to the court, as follows:

The question is whether the plaintiff, Marie Elizabeth Elg. who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized here, has lost her citizenship and is subject to deportation because of her removal during minority to Sweden, it appearing that her parents resumed their citizenship in that country but that she returned here on attaining majority with intention to remain and to maintain her citizenship in the United States.

So how did the MOTHER come to be a naturalized citizen, when only the father's formal naturalization in 1906 is mentioned? Answer: because of the extensive application of "derivative citizenship" in naturalization statutes that made up the law prior to 1922. When an immigrant family arrived in the U.S., it was not uncommon for the father to pursue naturalization and, upon his obtaining citizenship, his wife and minor children were also entered into the court records as having obtained derivative U.S. citizenship through him. People who want to delve into the area can check the PDF document below.

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/ ... r51.44.pdf

Perkins v. Elg needs no "qualification" to stand for the proposition that it properly defines NBC, and as follows:

Natural Born Citizen =
Birth in the country + Birth to two parents who are themselves citizens on the date of birth.

The baby Elg had only one citizenship at birth, and that was a U.S. citizenship.

The first lesson taught in law school is "read very carefully" ...

The second lesson is "do some research" if one part of a case doesn't jibe with another part of a case. The facts pointed to only the father naturalizing in 1906, but the court used the plural parents in claiming that both were "naturalized" so, it takes more than just reading the case itself to fully understand it. One has to look up how older statutes of the time handled wives and children of naturalized citizens.

The third lesson in law school is "learn to separate the dicta from the ruling" ...

Wong Kim Ark has a heckuva lot of dicta in it.

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Perkins v. Elg (1939) determined that dual citizenship by parentage doesn't affect a child's natural born citizenship.

See explanation in the post above. Both of the Elg parents were U.S. citizens or, otherwise, the court would not have ruled as it did in finding their daughter was a natural born citizen at birth.

Wise men????? Many of these so-called "birther" leadership are certifiable loons. I would not put the weight and name of any respectable individual or organization behind them, for fear of going down with them.

Why on earth are we supposed to give so much credence to these guys, given their documented histories? Should someone come onto ALIPAC and preach anti-semitism (to give one example) and lead the flock his way???? Of course not.

If I need to publish an expose of the "birthers", I will. ALIPAC's focus is against illegal immigration. Anyone attempting to hijack it for any other cause needs to stop and think hard. If I'm wrong about this, I will apologize, but I will summon the mods for judgement here.

It is ok to believe in 9/11 being an inside job, fiat currency being bad, homeschooling being the only way, and so on, but that is not the purpose of ALIPAC. The fact that illegal immigration ties into a lot of other topics is unavoidable, but if this organization were to go down a road that got discredited later on (which seems likely in the case of the Obama citizenship wrangle) would be a disastrous blow.

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

If I need to publish an expose of the "birthers", I will. ALIPAC's focus is against illegal immigration. Anyone attempting to hijack it for any other cause needs to stop and think hard. If I'm wrong about this, I will apologize, but I will summon the mods for judgement here.

With all due respect, I thought this forum was identified as "Barack Obama's citizenship questioned" and I thought that was the topic we were addressing. I think the topic Natural Born Citizenship falls within the category of citizenship, and having a usurper hijack the White House would be a high crime worthy of discussion.

Is there something deeper going on that I should be aware of, or is it that you just don't care for the findings so far?