| |
  
|
||||||||||
Obama's Birth Certificate is NOT an Issue
Submitted by TxRedneck on Sun, 11/30/2008 - 23:00
Considering that most States did not begin registering Births until the early 1900's (about the same time the Federal Reserve, the IRS and all the other socialist crap began). Knowing this, how many presidents have served that would have been unable to PROVE their "Natural Born" Status? Past Precedents... » |
|
|||||||||
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul or his Presidential Committee. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original poster, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site IMMEDIATELY. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2011 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul. | General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here
Court: No review of Obama's eligibility to serve...
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081208/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_obama
NPR coverage
I spoke with the NPR newsroom today about why they aren't covering the Canadian constitutional crisis ("We don't have anyone in Canada. All of our reporters are in Mumbai.") and when I said I wasn't surprised they weren't covering the Canadian story, since they aren't covering our own constitutional crisis, she assured me they would be covering Friday's Supreme Court meeting.
We'll see . . .
We can beat ourselves into a frenzy over this
but bottom line is, Obama's the CFR's man and our supreme court is the CFR's ultimate protector.
If not us than who?
So very sad....
Yet I fear it is true.
I have studied many philosophers and many cats. The wisdom of cats is infinitely superior.--Hippolyte Taine
Absolutely right.
Also, even if the above was NOT true, a document (forged or otherwise) is said to exist, the Supremes aren't going to play detective on this, the media supports Obama, and he's going to be inaugurated on January 20, 2009, on schedule. No one in authority would have the guts to put a stop to it, even if they wanted to..which they don't.
And if all that were not true, it wouldn't matter, because after eight years of unconditional constitutional rape and pillage, a president-elect fudging on his birth certificate is almost laughably reminiscent of the Clinton and Lewinsky Impeachment.
Talk about hacking at the branches, instead of striking the root...this is more like hacking at twigs.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
WORD !!!
One Voice, One Vision, One Love ~ Liberty.
Good Thoughts, Good Words , Good Deeds.
That is the Ron Paul rEVOLution Creed.
One Louv. ;-)..
One Voice, One Vision, One Love ~ Liberty.
Good Thoughts, Good Words , Good Deeds.
That is the Ron Paul rEVOLution Creed.
One Louv. ;-)..
Immigration changes were made in 1996 by Clinton
made it difficult for me to claim U.S. citizenship even though I was born here and lived abroad in addition to my mother and her parents, and their parents were U.S. citizens going back to 19th century, I was not 'allowed' to use this proof! Can you believe that!
I still had to prove residency for 5 years. I should know. I was born here in Cleveland, Ohio, and unlike Obama, I had a valid birth certificate with the stamp on it, but I spent my life up until 10 years ago living in Canada.
When we moved here to Minnesota in 1998 from Canada, we would soon find out there were vastly differing opinions about my childrens' and my status according to the American consulate in Ottawa, Minnesota's immigration, and then at the Detroit border (who threatened to 'deport' my children because they did not have green cards even though they were included in my husbands' green card, they would not use that data).
Our Minnesota immigration processor did not think my children needed green cards because I was a natural born citizen of the U.S. and that citizenship would be granted to them through me. I stated this at the customs immigration border at Detroit coming back from Canada in year 2000. That was how we were finally 'allowed into' the U.S. provided I showed up with my children at the immigration office a month later. When the time came and we showed up, it was all for nothing and they were confused why we were there! Our immigration is a nuthouse!!!!
During our first year here, we were told to allow the childrens' visas to expire and that I could claim citizenship for them soon afterwards, but that was not to be.
They became U.S. citizens only after five years. We will never forget the terrible experience in Detroit that Christmas. We were held up and missed our plane and our young children were traumatized because of the inconsistency in understanding their State department rules.
Amazing how confusing and inconsistent our State Department and all the immigration offices are across the U.S. It really is a shame.
Sounds like a script for a
Sounds like a script for a movie.
You are very, very lucky
that your children did not get separated from you for a period of time.
Whether he was born in the US is not an issue
Because if his mother was a US citizen, then so was he. However, if he relinquished his citizenship to go to Indonesia, that is an issue. If he FORGED his birth certificate, that's a VERY SERIOUS issue.
You have a lot of research you need to do
If you want to understand the difference between being a "natural born citizen", getting citizenship under the 14th amendment, and getting citizenship under a law that Congress passed relating to citizenship and immigration.
The citizenship requirement for being a Representative or a Senator is simply that you be a citizen for a certain number of years before you run. The requirement for the President is higher; he must be a "natural born citizen."
The Framers of the 14th amendment (which came in after the Civil War) said anyone born in the United States AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof was a citizen (they did not say "natural born citizen"). In various writings they indicated that they meant by being "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" that someone was not born subject to the jurisdiction of another country. They intended to exclude people born with foreign citizenship. They also stated that they did not intend to overturn the concept of "natural born citizen," There is much evidence that to be a "natural born citizen" you must be born in the US and not have another country claiming jurisdiction over you.
So neither McCain (born outside the US to two US parents) nor Obama (born inside the US with British citizenship) are "natural born citizens." There are possibly a few cases where you could be a 14th amendment citizen, but not a "natural born citizen." But for McCain and Obama neither are even a 14th amendment citizen, one being born out of the US and the other being born subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign power.
They both got their citizenship only under Congressional statutes effective at the time of their births, hence they are statutory (naturalized ) citizens.
The Supreme Court will decide Dec. 5 if they will look at this issue, covered in the appeal of Leo Donofrio. Hopefully they will act as Justices rather than as politicians and not crap on the Constitution. If not, I could see the possibility of this becoming a rallying point as civil unrest increases in response to the long term economic contraction that is just beginning.
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence." Thomas H. Huxley
Thank you, Henry
Very helpful and informative.
I don't know, though, whether this could become a rallying point since the "average" person doesn't know a thing about this. Distracted, disinterested, disaffected, and of course--the usual--ignorant of basic Constitutional principles.
But--I hope you're right, Henry.
According to Phil Berg your
According to Phil Berg your first statement is completely inaccurate.
"Whether he was born in the
"Whether he was born in the U.S. is not an issue!!!?
Are you serious?
By that statement your saying,for example,someone born in china is able to be president here as long as he's 35 and lived here 14 years.Does that make sense to you?
You have to be born here.
The problem in this case is a privacy act passed in 1999.
Public disclosure of health records is at the heart of this.
I'm sure the supreme court can view these records.
The question is will they see that evidence in this case urges them to review such documents.
Has there ever been a president elect with such a checkered past?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not
warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit
of resistance?" --Thomas Jefferson
"A government of reason is better than one of force." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1820
You do not have to be born here.
I never said that just any old person born in china can be the US president. Nice straw man argument.
You have to be a natural-born citizen, according to the constitution. Unfortunately, statutorially there's no definition of natural-born citizen, and in plain english it could be interpreted as far-flung as "a citizen, and not born by IVF" (think Duncan from MacBeth).
The most reasonable interpretation is that you have to be born as a citizen (and not relinquished and reacquired citizenship). So, if you are born as a citizen in a foreign country, then you are eligible to be president.
I don't know where you got this "if mama's american so's baby"
idea. But Daddy was Kenyan, so does that make him Kenyan? My brother was born in the UK to US Citizens working for the US Government. He had to become a US citizen when he turned 18. Two married parents serving the government and he's not eligible to run for president (they told him that when he became a citizen).
I wish the law really was just what we individually think it ought to be. I know so many people that pull "laws" out of their ass because it seems to make sense.
Explore Orthodox Christianity
Funny, babies born in Australia to American mothers
can become citizens seconds after being born, if she's keen enough to have the form in the delivery room (father's citizenship doesn't matter). In fact, American citizenship will be presumed because Australia does grant citizenship to "foreign" babies and a person is "not allowed" to be stateless.
Rules change though.
Ron Paul "Sign Wave Across the USA" -- November 5th!
I don't know what the situation is with your brother.
Unless you've checked the laws at the time on the matter, I suspect, as usual, some bureaucrat who didn't know the law and was on a "I'm so smart trip" botched things, and misinformed your parents (and your brother). or it's possible that for some reason your parents CHOSE UK citienship at birth because the treaty laws at the time disallowed dual citizenship, or maybe the UK forces children born on their soil to accept citizenship Jus Soli, I don't know.
The US has accepted Jus Sanguinis as a valid form of instananeous citizenship upon birth since 1790. The rules have changed from time to time. In the beginning, it used to be that your dad had to be american, and then they changed it to your mom - because dad is not so easily provable whereas, well you leave your mom's womb - and now it looks like this:
http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html
I will be honest and I don't know what the law looked like was when Obama was born. However, I don't think Berg's stuff about where Obama was born is going to be so easily provable *anyway*, whereas things about whether or not he relinquished his citizenship to be schooled in Indonesia are much easier to prove.
It's not that difficult to get your citizenship back and I don't
think there is any rule about it anyway as far as presidential eligibility. I would suspect, however that if one is a dual citizen, the second citizenship must be relinquished prior to swearing in.
People should spend more time contacting their elected officials about this and less time playing migration lawyer.
Ron Paul "Sign Wave Across the USA" -- November 5th!
I find the pulling law out of your ass thing funny.
Since your version is not correct.
Free and Brave
or Cradle to Grave
You can't have both
Free and Brave
or Cradle to Grave
You can't have both
Actually the US Supreme
Actually the US Supreme Court disagrees.... Justice Thomas thought it was enough of an issue to refer it to Conference with All 9 Justices this Friday. If 4 Justices decide to hear the case it will go to Oral Arguments... This is all over the net.....
find out more
www.worldnetdaily.com
For anyone interested there will be a rally in front of the US Supreme Court Friday morning at 8am....
This is a day that History will be made, you can be sure.....
There are now 5 cases in the US Supreme Court.
Where else is it all over
Where else is it all over the net, besides WorldNetDaily?
It would be great if you could post some "mainstream media" links.
.................
Truther?
No, sir!
.................
http://libertarianwiki.org/
..................
"The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic..." —Alan Moore
Check out posts on
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=248110...
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=248182...
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=248163...
lots of conversation and the Supreme court now has 5 suits in front of them. You might try Devvy Kidd and others on www.newsiwth views.com. I believe you can also find discussion at vdare.com.
Alpacas - IT'S DOABLE
Any links on ABCnews.com,
Any links on ABCnews.com, CBSnews.com, CNN.com, NBCnews.com, NYTimes.com, etc., etc., etc.
Don't tell me you restrict your news to only viewpoints that reinforce your own beliefs?
.................
Have a good laugh:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
..................
"The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic..." —Alan Moore
Yea, ABC, NBC, FOX, MSNBC
Yea, ABC, NBC, FOX, MSNBC etc... covered Ron Paul's run too right?
Do you really think they are going to cover this? Come on now... I would think you had learned your lesson by now...
Never fear tho... depending on what happens tomorrow... you will either hear all about it or nothing....
Actually the NYTimes did carry a story about it..
Hey Why not check out Russian News.. They are really good at getting the News as it happens here in the US....
or go here and try to understand what this is really all about... It has nothing to do with Obama as a person...
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
http://www.facebook.com/FoxNews and actually Fox news did mention something about it the other day
http://americamustknow.com/default.aspx
Do you restrict your news to CFR sources?
Cause you won't get much there. Unless you care what paris hilton is doing.
Explore Orthodox Christianity
I consult all kinds of
I consult all kinds of sites. If you rely on one source of reportage, you are wearing blinders. Yes, I go to the far right and far left sites as well to see how the news is "playing in Peoria". Relying only on Daily Paul or Digg or these conspiracy sites is causing a good many people here to adopt very, very narrow views of the world. Not good for a healthy outlook on life.
.................
Have a good laugh:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
..................
"The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic..." —Alan Moore
A google search I did last night turned up a few local newspaper
articles from across the country, but nothing on the big news sites.
- -
Get your own "Ron Paul for Treasury Secretary" bumper sticker at
http://www.cafepress.com/thirdparty08
RP2012!
I find that curious. Not
I find that curious. Not even the Christian Science Monitor online, a site (and until recently, newspaper) that is world-renowned for fairness in their reporting? I'd take that as a sign that the sources that are reporting this are not being straight with us.
.................
Have a good laugh:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
..................
"The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic..." —Alan Moore
a few weeks ago the CSM had
a few weeks ago the CSM had a story on it. I was suprised.