OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

Blackmonkeymon, what is a rikker? And how logical is it to be traveling internationally when one is nine months in gestation, to begin with? It makes more sense to travel postpartum than to board a plane when one is about to drop skull, dontcha think?

Anyway, you are a pin-head. How much is ACORN paying you to be on this board doing his majesty's bidding?

ibeen_jerkenov:"It makes more sense to travel postpartum than to board a plane when one is about to drop skull, dontcha think?"

blackmonrikker:"Stanley Ann mounts the water buffalo two hours after giving birth, rides back to Nairobi with her bundle of joy in tow. She catches the first thing smoking."

jackenov, you are obviously a bottom feeder, and I realize it is an exercise in futility to respond to your comment, but I couldn't resist.

Next time you comment on a post you might try reading it first.

"Anyway, you are a pin-head. How much is ACORN paying you to be on this board doing his majesty's bidding? "

yeh, but I notice you couldn't refute my logic. Those of you that believe in the Kenyan birth believe exactly what I posted above. Who's the pinhead now?

This is the most childish post yet printed in these comments. Is it possible to discuss this serious issue as adults without "so's your old man" insults from childhood playgrounds???

The comment appears to be totally based on point #6, which is disproven by investigators who said no one knows who posted the birth announcements- could have been grandparents or anyone. Other investigators have looked point by point over the internet-posted images and shown them to be false. They also state that no one by the Obama name ever lived at the address shown. These announcements are proof of nothing. One investigator's affidavit in District Court can be read at http://wnd.com/files/baro.pdf

One thing that I didn't note here. International travel requires a PASSPORT. According to records, Stanley Ann Dunham didn't apply for her first passport until 1967, when she went to Indonesia.

So much for the Kenyan birth theory.

"Is it possible to discuss this serious issue as adults"

Serious issue? Come on. When did 'serious' become synonymous with 'moot'?

"One thing that I didn't note here. International travel requires a PASSPORT. According to records, Stanley Ann Dunham didn't apply for her first passport until 1967, when she went to Indonesia."

And another thing. Passports are good for 10 years. If she'd received a passport in 1961, she wouldn't have needed to apply for another one in 1967.

(massive silence in the birfer peanut gallery)

Ask his grandmother, she says he was born in Kenya, not Phil Berg.

This must be settled in an OPEN COURT.

The Court is the ONLY place we have to TRY THE FACTS.

quote:

"AFFIDAVIT OF REVEREND KWELI SHUHUBIA

I, Kweli Shuhubia am over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to the within action. If called to do so, I could and would competently testify under oath as follows I am an ordained minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ and a native evangelist and translator for the Anabaptist churches in Kenya. I am the official Swahili translator for the annual Anabaptists Conference held each year in Africa, working with the American bishops sitting upon the Continental Presbytery of the Anabaptists Churches of Africa. I am fluent in Swahili and in English. I am a former teacher in Kenya, and travel

extensively in the ministries of the Anabaptists Churches of Africa throughout Kenya, Uganda and the Sudan.

It is common knowledge throughout the Christian and Muslim communities in Kenya that Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., the United States Presidential candidate, was born in Mombosa Kenya. Senator Obama's grandmother still resides in the village of Alego-Kogello, approximately 37 miles from Kisumu City.

During my interview of Sarah Obama; I called Bishop Ron McRae in the United States from my mobile number. I advised Bishop McRae that I was present with Ms. Obama in her home, and wished for him to speak with her. Bishop McRae informed me he would call me right back, to avoid the international costs on my personal mobile phone. Bishop McRae subsequently called me back; Bishop McRae requested permission to electronically record his telephone conversations with Ms. Obama, to which I agreed.

Due to bad telephone connections Bishop McRae had to call me back three [3] times, before we were able to continue our conversation. The telephone interview conducted by Bishop McRae was conducted on loud speaker (speaker phone). During the interview conversation, one of Ms. Obama's grandsons's and myself acted as Swahili translators, and as Bishop McRae talked to and questioned Ms. Obama, we would translate what Bishop McRae said to Ms. Obama in Swahili, and then we would translate her Swahili responses to Bishop McRae in English. Ms. Obama can fluently speak Swahili in her native dialect, but cannot read or write.

Bishop McRae asked Ms. Obama specifically, "Were you present when your grandson Barack Obama was born in Kenya?" This was asked to her in translation twice, and both times she specifically replied, "Yes". It appeared Ms. Obama's relatives and her grandson, handling the translating,, had obviously been versed to counter such facts with the purported information from the American news media that Obama was born in Hawaii. Despite this, Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama was very adamant that her grandson, Senator Barack Hussein Obama, was born in Kenya, and that she was present and witnessed his birth in Kenya, not the United States. When Ms. Obama's grandson attempted to counter his grandmother's clear responses to the question, verifying the birth of Senator Obama in Kenya, Bishop McRae asked her grandson, how she could be present at Barack Obama's birth if the Senator was born in Hawaii, but the grandson would not answer the question, instead he repeatedly tried to insert that, "No, No, No.

He was born in the United States!" But during the conversation, Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama never changed her reply that she was in deed present when Senator Barack Obama was born in Kenya."

http://www.obamanotqualified.com/grandmother.htm

carpenturr1 quoted Kweli Shuhubria: "I am the official Swahili translator for the annual Anabaptists Conference held each year in Africa"

I am DYING to have this affidavit vetted in court. Shuhubria claims under oath that he is the official SWAHILI translator. That's his main credential, right?

SARAH OBAMA DOES NOT SPEAK SWAHILI. SHE SPEAKS LUO, A LANGUAGE THAT IS AS DIFFERENT FROM SWAHILI AS SPANISH IS FROM FRENCH.

Any decent lawyer will point out that discrepancy on Day One. Never mind that this affidavit will never be accepted in court. It's hearsay. Berg would have to get Obama's lawyers to stipulate it's veracity (good luck) OR they would have to drag Sarah Obama into court and get her to testify directly.

LOL!!!

Simply because a person is the Official Interpreter of SWAHILI ...DOES NOT MEAN, he cannot SPEAK LUO.

Any 1st Grader can point this out for you in 2 minutes time, and not take a day as it would for a lawyer.

LOL (moron)

Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?

A: Yes, by his own admission.

Q: What passport did he travel

under?

A: There are only three possibilities. 1. He traveled with a U.S. Passport, 2) He traveled with a British passport, or 3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.

Q: Is it possible that UHbama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?

A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's "no travel" list in 1981.

Conclusion: When UHbama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.

If he was traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he was traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he

relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967..

Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a "natural born" American citizen between 1981 and 2008.

Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.

"SARAH OBAMA DOES NOT SPEAK SWAHILI. SHE SPEAKS LUO, A LANGUAGE THAT IS AS DIFFERENT FROM SWAHILI AS SPANISH IS FROM FRENCH."

Only an incompetent like Phil Berg would miss such an obvious mistake.

Here's another glaring legal error. In Berg's initial filing, back in August 2008, Berg claimed he already HAD a tape of Obama's grandmother claiming that Obama Jr. was born in Kenya. And yet, he didn't file the Shuhubria affidavit until late October, and the tape wasn't made until October.

So Berg LIED in his initial filing, then sent some flunky Anabaptist to cover his tracks two months later.

Do you think Obama's lawyers are going to miss that?

I tell you, Berg does NOT want to argue this case in court. He'd get slaughtered. He just wants to lead you birfers along by the nose and tap your wallets. He knows that fear has always been a growth industry.

Carpenturr1: "Simply because a person is the Official Interpreter of SWAHILI ...DOES NOT MEAN, he cannot SPEAK LUO."

Really, you ought to hush. Every time you talk, your ignorance of legalese is evident. OF COURSE IT DOESN'T MEAN SHUHUBRIA IS IGNORANT OF LUO. But UNLESS HE TESTIFIES IN THE AFFIDAVIT THAT HE SPEAKS LUO, HIS EXPERTISE IS IN QUESTION. The affidavit has to SAY he speaks LUO. Only an idiot like Berg would miss that obvious legal error. (And I had to explain it to YOU, carpenturr1, so you're in Berg's league).

That affidavit is legally useless on several fronts. Berg looks like an idiot for offering it as evidence. It's a bad as the Dudley Doright BC.

Berg has screwed up this case so badly, one would almost be led to believe he is an Obama plant. More than anything, Berg's glaring legal incompetence leads me to believe Obama may be hiding something. I can't believe a paid lawyer would be that stupid.

blackmonrikker

I do not take advice from idiots or morons, spammers or trolls like you

"Conclusion: When UHbama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport"

Suppose I stipulate that he used a British passport. By his own admission, he was a dual Kenyan/American citizen, by virtue of his father, up until 1982, when his Kenyan citizenship expired because he failed to assert it by the age of 21.

Where's the law that says dual citizens can't be president?

It's frustrating, isn't it? All the protections that you THOUGHT you had don't really exist, do they?

capenturr1: "I do not take advice from idiots or morons, spammers or trolls like you "

You ought to. It would make you more intelligent.

blackmonrikker

You have shown yourself a fool

Blackmonriker,,So how mucjh is ACORN paying you?

carpenturr1: Let's dispense with the name calling. How did Stanley Ann Dunham travel to Kenya in 1961 when she received her first passport in 1967?

Can you answer that? Or do you need advice from Sarah Obama about how it happened?

Rejean, how much is Rush Fatboy paying YOU?

A little less then Obie ONE is paying lawyers to HIDE his past

LOL!! That's probably all you deserve!!

It is ,quite a hansome amount,now I'll be in an even higher tax bracket.JUST WHAT THE COUNTRY NEEDS

Well, Fatboy Rush has the funds to subsidize you, there's not questioning that. What else is the Lardster getting from you for his money?

Are you dealing oxycontin?

Monkeymon and sasquatch, in 1961 Kenya was a British colony complete with Land Rovers and other modern means of conveyance (they even had airplanes capable of international travel). Barack Obama Sr was not a destitute bushman.

And I did suffer through your pathetic post, which launched this thread, prior to posting. Why don't you take your own advice? It is part of growing up.

Now why don't you children go outside and play and leave us adults alone.

Thank you.

ivana_jerkitov: "Barack Obama Sr was not a destitute bushman"

Sarah Obama still lives in the same windowless, no electricity hut in Kogelo Village. My assessment of their lifestyle and the infrastructure in 1961 Kenya was dead on.

You still haven't answered how Stanley Ann Dunham traveled to Kenya in 1961 when she didn't receive a passport until 1967. That's an inconvenient fact that the birfers don't want people to know. Really, will the U.S. courts believe the Shuhubria affidavit of Sarah Obama, or their own legal records of Stanley Ann Dunham's travel records?

Am I wasting my time explaining U.S. law to you people?

Nope no drugs for me .Freedom to just say no is enough

blackmonrikker "Am I wasting my time explaining U.S. law to you people?

You still haven't answered how Stanley Ann Dunham traveled to Kenya in 1961 when she didn't receive a passport until 1967. That's an inconvenient fact that the birfers don't want people to know."

==============================================

You waste your time for being a liar.

There is no more evidence Stanley Ann Dunham did not receive a PP until 1967 than there is the obama was born in Hawaii

carpenturr1: "There is no more evidence Stanley Ann Dunham did not receive a PP until 1967 than there is the obama was born in Hawaii "

So that's all the more reason why Obama shouldn't release any of his records to these idiots. I predicted none of them would accept the truth and carpenter ant, here, is the proof.

You are the idiot, idiot blackmonrikker writes:

"So that's all the more reason why Obama shouldn't release any of his record"

==============================================

You are promoting anarchy and cover-up.

Promote it all you like, the truth is going to come out if you like it or not.

The Constitution, the Law requires his records to be opened to the Public.

Article IV

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records...............

Hee-hee-hee!!

Then why has every one of the birfer cases been bytch slapped by the courts? Is Obama paying them off to punk you?

Will this one be tossed too?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16253400/

Expect a punk like the obama to act like a punk and he will not disappoint you.

We have globalists in positions of power is why this globe trotting muslim lover obama has yet to be stopped.

He will be stopped, not by the people or law, he has no respect for either, he is going against a much higher power than this fool understands

Carpenturr1: "He will be stopped, not by the people or law, he has no respect for either, he is going against a much higher power than this fool understands"

Michael Jordan? I dunno if Mike gets into politics much. try again.

Monkeymon, I learned long ago that it is a waste of time to wrestle with pigs. For one thing, all you accomplish is getting yourself filthy, and for the other, the pig likes it.

Now go back and drink your kool-aid. One final question: Do you really vanna jerkitoff? If so, be careful and don't hurt yourself.

ivana,

Are you trying to be witty and snide and the same time? Isn't that MY job? In a true meritocracy, you'd lose that battle.

freedomfigher4:

There was no ban on travel to Pakistan in 1981. Here is a New York Times article from 1981 which discusses tourist attractions in Pakistan.

The more times identical items are posted, the dumber they always turn out to be.

http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/7009-4049http://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/14/travel/lahore-a-survivor-with-a-bittersweet-history.html?scp=1&sq=lahore%20travel%201981&st=cse

Please consider facts and stop pasting misinformation at our national blog.

Wow CreakSneaker,,,NY Times,It MUST be true.

Citar:

I looked at the link you provided and its to a court document. The document says investigators were dispatched to the newspaper and they could not determine who placed the "ad." This tells me nobody seriously looked into the matter, because the announcement was not in an "ad." It was in a column list of birth announcements which the newspaper received from the Department of health.

Here's a link:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php

This has been verified by Snopes.com, one of the most respected verifiers of fact versus falsehood on the Internet.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

Its obvious that this information didn't come from individual announcements because it all closely follows a format. I learned the source was the health department from a comment on the Hawaiian Star-Bulletin.

What we have in the court document is either a gross failure to verify fact or an intentional effort to deceive. It's probably the latter.

I'm looking forward to exploring your explanation of natural law.

Rejean: Do you think the New York Times published a five page travel article in 1981 so that when you came to read it in 2009 they could fool you into thinking Obama could travel to Pakistan?

Anything that disagrees with birthers is immediately dismissed and ignored, regardless of what the facts, evidence and logic is. This is why birthers do not deserve information that they request.

Seems to still be an open question as to whether dual citizenship at birth can coexcist with being a natural born citizen.

antoinette_lasalle wrote:

Seems to still be an open question as to whether dual citizenship at birth can coexcist with being a natural born citizen.

==================================

Not really

There was no such a thing as a dual citizen when the obama was born, not in America or Indonesia.

Every immigrant from another nation was required to take this oath at the time the obama was born.

The Oath of Allegiance

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

"I......renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen"

You are mistaken. If he was born in Hawaii, then he had both American and British citizenship, so he was a dual citizen at birth. Check out the State Department website, which talks about dual citizenship. It mentions it only slightly, but that proves it does exist. It happens when a person is born with two citizenships!

carpenturr1: "There was no such a thing as a dual citizen when the obama was born, not in America or Indonesia."

Do you EVER tell the truth? Dude, seriously. Is it that big a deal that you have to put your eternal soul at this much risk?

Obama's father was a Kenyan national. Under Kenyan law, his children were also Kenyan nationals up until the age of 21. Kenya was a British protectorate. That means Obama ALSO held British citizenship.

Obama's mother was an American. He was born on American soil. That means he also held American citizenship.

Obama's British/Kenyan citizenship EXPIRED in 1982, when he turned 21, BECAUSE HE DID NOT ASSERT IT.

Sheesh!! Aren't you afraid of going to hell?

Whether Obama had dual citizenship is not relevent. There's plenty of case law that says a natural born citizen doesn't lose any rights by holding citizenship in a second country, unless the citizen after turning 21 renounces his American citizenship.

Birthers! Demand records of every Embassy for all the years since Obama turned 21. After all, they have to prove it didn't happen, right?

carpenturr1: "There was no such a thing as a dual citizen when the obama was born, not in America or Indonesia."

===========================================

blackmonrikker writes:

Do you EVER tell the truth? Dude, seriously. Is it that big a deal that you have to put your eternal soul at this much risk?

=============================================

Do you ever make a point without your school yard childish insults?

Impotent insults but it shows me what a hateful little man you are.

Its a fact, America did not have dual citizens in 1961.

Jimmy Carter began the assault on single citizenship.

No one could hold citizenship in another country and be a citizen of America at the same time in 1961.

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)

Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717 (1952)

Mandoli v. Acheson, 344 U.S. 133 (1952)

Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958)

Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958)

Continues after 1961

with:

Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)

Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)

Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)

Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980)

Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998)

Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001)

Richards v. Secretary of State et al., 752 F.2d 1413 (9th Cir. 1985)

The following Court of Appeals case (one step below the Supreme Court) isn't nearly as relevant nowadays as it was in 1985, in light of the State Department's current (and much more permissive) policy on loss of US citizenship.

William Richards became a Canadian citizen in 1971. At the time he did this, the Canadian naturalization oath included a clause renouncing prior allegiances. Accordingly, a lower court concluded that Richards had lost his US citizenship.

Richards argued that he had acquired Canadian citizenship only because he needed said citizenship in order to get a job with the Boy Scouts of Canada. Although he conceded that he had made an explicit statement of renunciation of US citizenship as part of the Canadian naturalization procedure, he contended that this action on his part was not voluntary because he had been under "economic duress" at the time.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Richards' economic duress argument, observing that he had worked in Canada for several years as a teacher without being a Canadian citizen, and that there was no evidence that he had been forced to leave his teaching job or that he had made any effort to find a job that would not have required him to obtain Canadian citizenship and renounce his US citizenship.

The lower court found (and the Ninth Circuit agreed) that Richards knew and understood the significance of the renunciatory language in the Canadian naturalization documents. Although Richards would have preferred to keep his US citizenship, such a wish was not sufficient to negate the presumption that he had chosen, in the end, to give up that citizenship. "We cannot accept a test", the Ninth Circuit stated in its opinion, "under which the right to expatriation can be exercised effectively only if exercised eagerly."

It should be noted, by the way, that Canada no longer requires new citizens to give up their other citizenships. The renunciatory language in the Canadian naturalization oath was ruled illegal by a Canadian court in 1973 on technical grounds and was subsequently removed -- and Canada has allowed dual citizenship without any restrictions at all since 1977. Hence, the Richards case is generally not relevant to Americans who became Canadian citizens after that time.

Further, the State Department's current (post-1990) policy on loss of US citizenship specifically says that taking a "routine oath of allegiance" to a foreign country will not normally be interpreted as showing an intent to give up US citizenship. Contrast the ruling in this case with a very different ruling in a 1991 case, discussed below.

Action and Deltamar v. Rich, 951 F.2d 504 (2nd Cir. 1991)

The following case seems somewhat more in line with the current State Department policy that loss of US citizenship occurs only when a person truly intends to give it up.

Marc Rich, defendant in a multi-million-dollar business lawsuit, contended that the Federal District Court which had heard his case lacked jurisdiction because he (Rich) had given up his US citizenship in 1982 when he became a naturalized citizen of Spain. The Spanish naturalization oath he took included an explicit renunciation of US citizenship.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals observed, however, that "[D]espite his naturalization as a Spanish citizen, Rich continued to behave in a manner consistent with American citizenship. . . . Rich continued to use his American passport despite renunciation of American citizenship. . . ."

Although Rich asserted that his Spanish naturalization conclusively established his intent to relinquish US citizenship, the court said there "must be proof of a specific intent to relinquish United States citizenship before an act of foreign naturalization or oath of loyalty to another sovereign can result in the expatriation of an American citizen. . . . Despite mouthing words of renunciation before a Spanish official", the court continued, Rich "brought a Swiss action as an American national, travelled on his American passport, and publicized himself in a commercial register as a United States citizen."

Accordingly, the Second Circuit ruled that despite Rich's actions, he had retained his US citizenship because he had never truly intended to relinquish it.

You have shown me how stupid you are blackmonrikker, and you are not ashamed to show everyone how stupid you are

What American law trumps British laws? What British law trumps American laws?

Are you saying that because the U.S. didn't recognize dual citizenship, the Brits would say, "Sorry mate. But the American won't allow us to enforce our own citizenship laws?"

If, in fact, there was an Indonesian law against dual Indonesian/American citizenship, and they ENFORCED it in Indonesia, how would they enforce it in America? Why would they bother to enforce it on a second grader, who only needed to attend a school, and didn't really want to revoke his U.S. citizenship?

Hey, look, Mr. Gump, it's really a waste of time talking to you.

Dual citizenship doesn't result in any loss of American citizenship rights, except when American citizenship has been denounced.

http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Mar/11/131399.html

I'd be happy to go through cases.

Dual Citizenship is a rather new situation.

No one statement can be made that is accurate to describe all the situations this subject brings up.

This is as clear as it gets in the way it was when Obama was born.

The Oath of Allegiance

The final step in the naturalization process is the reciting of the "oath of allegiance" by the applicant, in which he or she makes several promises upon becoming a U.S. citizen. The oath of allegiance is:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

Capiche?

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen"

Capiche?

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen"

Capiche?

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen"

Understand clear English?

No doubt you do and are dishonest

Whether dual citizenship includes being a natural born citizen is the issue. It's not clear, I don't think, from the Supreme Court decisions that we have to work with.

Carpenturr:

No, I don't capiche. What does the process a foreigner goes through to become a US citizen have to do with Obama? Are you saying Obama had no US citizenship at all? He does under the 14th amendment. Even babies born to illegal immigrants who sneak across the border and deliver to give their children American citizenship get it.

Read it then, moron

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen"

Its perfectly clear as its never been questioned except by people today who want to justify Obama.

======================================

antoinette_lasalle writes:

Whether dual citizenship includes being a natural born citizen is the issue. It's not clear, I don't think, from the Supreme Court decisions that we have to work with.

The reason we do not have any Court Cases that address the Qualifications of the President being a natural Born Citizen is due to there has never been anyone until Obama to question his Natural Born Status.

Natural born is self explanatory.

A citizen by nature and not law.

Anytime the law is involved in any person's citizenship, he is a citizen by legislation, not nature

Many humans had been born in America that were not recognized as citizens.

The American Indians of the Kansas Tribe who had been born after Kansas became a State were not US Citizens, for example.

Many others of the American Indian Tribes did not receive US Citizenship even after the passage of the 14th Amendment.

Look it up and see for yourself, here are some of the American Indian Tribes who were not US Citizens until....? way after 1868 and the 14th A. anyway.

The original inhabitants of the area that is now Kansas included:

*The Arapaho tribe

*The Comanche tribe

*The Kansa tribe

*The Kiowa tribe

*The Osage tribe

*The Pawnee tribe

The Cheyenne Indians, close allies of the Arapahos, also occasionally ranged into what is now northwestern Kansas, and the Wichita Indians expanded into the southern part of the state.

Indian tribes relocated into Kansas by the US government:

Kansas, like Oklahoma, was originally allotted as Indian territory. This was part of the American policy of Indian Removal. Some eastern and midwestern tribes signed treaties agreeing to move onto reservations in Oklahoma and Kansas in exchange for undisputed ownership of the new lands. Other tribes refused or resisted and were forcibly moved into Kansas by the US Army.

*The Cherokee tribe

*The Chippewa tribe

*The Delaware tribe

*The Illini

*The Iowa tribe

*The Otoe tribe

*The Kickapoo tribe

*The Potawatomi tribe

*The Sac and Fox tribe

*The Seneca tribe

*The Shawnee tribe

*The Wyandotte tribe

Many Kansas Indians, including all the tribes originally native to the area, had to go through a second removal to Oklahoma in the late 19th century. They are still living there today.

See also our new Arapaho, Comanche, Kansa, Kiowa, Osage, Pawnee, Wichita, Iowa, Kickapoo, Otoe, Shawnee, Wyandotte, and Pottawatomie Facts for Kids pages!

There are four federally recognized Indian tribes in Kansas today.

Here are the addresses of Kansas' Indian reservations:

*Kickapoo Tribe of Indians in Kansas:

PO Box 271

Horton, KS 66439

*Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska:

Route 1, Box 58A

White Cloud, KS 66094

*Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation:

14880 K Road

Mayetta, KS 66439

http://www.pbpindiantribe.com/

*Sac and Fox Nation:

RR 1 Box 60

Reserve, KS 66434

Forgot the link for the American Indians

http://www.native-languages.org/kansas.htm

Yes, it's being questioned, and that is how ALL constitutional questions are settled! The only problem is people waited too long to do this. It should have been done much, much earlier. It's probably hopeless at this point. What I don't understand is why Wall Street would support him at all if his goal is to kill capitalism. That implies he conned all the people who voted for him; he certainly didn't con the rest of us.

Carpenturr1 wrote: "Anytime the law is involved in any person's citizenship, he is a citizen by legislation, not nature."

-------

No, you've got that totally wrong. If a legal PROCESS -- that is, a process based on a law -- is used to make a person a citizen, that person is not a natural born citizen. If the citizenship law of a country states that persons born on its soil are citizens at birth, then such persons ARE natural born. However, dual citizenship introduces a question, and that question cannot be solved by looking at citizenship law IN ITS APPLICATION TO CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH. Why? Because it is NOT in the statute that tells us who is a citizen at birth.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401

§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person

(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or

(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

Search this title:

The connection between Wall Street and the Socialists is something you are probably unaware of.

Truth is stranger than Fiction.

Read this, lots of information that has been buried.

WALL STREET

AND THE

BOLSHEVIK

REVOLUTION

By

Antony C. Sutton

http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/

antoinette_lasalle writes:

No, you've got that totally wrong. If a legal PROCESS -- that is, a process based on a law -- is used to make a person a citizen, that person is not a natural born citizen. If the citizenship law of a country states that persons born on its soil are citizens at birth, then such persons ARE natural born. However, dual citizenship introduces a question, and that question cannot be solved by looking at citizenship law IN ITS APPLICATION TO CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH. Why? Because it is NOT in the statute that tells us who is a citizen at birth.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 140

=======================================

This is exactly what I said!

quote you:

" If a legal PROCESS -- that is, a process based on a law -- is used to make a person a citizen, that person is not a natural born citizen."

This subject was addressed long ago and adopted into everyone's understanding of "natural born citizen".

Blackwell and .....whats his name, the Frenchman.

Vattel

You mention this:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401

§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

This is just following the prescription layed out in 1868 and the 14th Amendment.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

This was made in 1868 long after the United States had formed and already had citizens.

Many situations had yet to be addressed to qualify and recognize persons involved with circumstances that questioned their citizenship, just as Southern States had black citizens before and frankly after 1868.

Natural Born Citizen is a citizen who is recognized as a Citizen by the law, but was not made a citizen by the law.

All citizens made a citizen by law are called naturalized.

There are two categories of United States citizens.

Natural and naturalized.

Obama cannot ever be considered Natural Born.

He birth circumstance brings up law, due to his father and his adoption by Lolo Soetoro.

Lolo was an Indonesian Government Official and the legal father of Barry Soetoro while he was in Indonesia and up and til he was 20 years old.

This is documented by his mothers divorce papers from Lolo in 1980.

here:

http://decalogosintl.org/documents/Soetoro_Divorce.pdf

antoinette lasalle:

It doesn't mention dual citizens because all who fall into one of those categories (usually A) are US citizens whether they have dual citizenship or not.

There is no documented proof that he was ever adopted by anyone. The school record proves nothing at all. To prove he was adopted, you need better evidence than that.

Sorry, the divorce record doesn't prove he was adopted either.

creeksneakers2 wrote: "It doesn't mention dual citizens because all who fall into one of those categories (usually A) are US citizens whether they have dual citizenship or not."

----

That's your interpretation; another side could be argued fairly easily -- that of a child having no legal obligation to a foreign nation.

Yes there is

antoinette_lasalle writes:

There is no documented proof that he was ever adopted by anyone. The school record proves nothing at all. To prove he was adopted, you need better evidence than that.

===============================================

We have Indonesian Law that Documents Barry (Obama) could not have went to school in Indonesia unless he was a Citizen of Indonesia.

We have all seen that documentation and Barry's own words he went to school in Indonesia.

We have documents Lolo Soetoro was an Official of the Indonesian Government.

This gives credence he followed the laws of Indonesia and adopted Barry.

So there must be papers showing the adoption in Indonesia.

But just like Obama will not be transparent with his BC, neither will he with his adoption papers, Passport or School Records

No, that's not what you said, carpenturr1. You said "a law." It's "a PROCESS based on a law," not "a law." Obviously, the United States can determine who are citizens and who are not, so you'd really be tying your hands if you insist that there can be no law regarding who is or is not a citizen.

We have Indonesian Law that Documents Barry (Obama) could not have went to school in Indonesia unless he was a Citizen of Indonesia.

-------We need more than a law on the books. That is not proof that the law was enforced in his case.

We have all seen that documentation and Barry's own words he went to school in Indonesia.

--------Sure, he went to school. That doesn't mean the law was enforced in his case. We'd need testimony or documentation that his citizenship was verified.

We have documents Lolo Soetoro was an Official of the Indonesian Government.

---------Never heard of those, but all the more worry that the law was bent on his behalf.

This gives credence he followed the laws of Indonesia and adopted Barry.

----------No, silly!! It's precisely government officials who do NOT follow the law in a corrupt regime. Not proof at all.

So there must be papers showing the adoption in Indonesia.

----------If there are, great!

But just like Obama will not be transparent with his BC, neither will he with his adoption papers, Passport or School Records

-----------I'm all for getting this case into court; it just appears that the law is not on our side. There may indeed be NO WAY to get at him so that we can find out the truth.

antoinette_lasalle writes:

Sorry, the divorce record doesn't prove he was adopted either.

=======================================

The Divorce Papers indeed show Barry was a dependent of Lolo Soetoro.

Not possible unless he had been adopted

antoinette_lasalle wrote:

No, that's not what you said, carpenturr1. You said "a law." It's "a PROCESS based on a law," not "a law." Obviously, the United States can determine who are citizens and who are not, so you'd really be tying your hands if you insist that there can be no law regarding who is or is not a citizen.

----------------------------------------

Maybe you are just honestly confused and not intentionally obstructive.

Here is what I said:

"Natural born is self explanatory.

A citizen by nature and not law.

Anytime the law is involved in any person's citizenship, he is a citizen by legislation, not nature"

I did not say:

antoinette_lasalle wrote

" so you'd really be tying your hands if you insist that there can be no law regarding who is or is not a citizen."

The law can only recognize a natural born citizen, the law cannot create a Natural Born Citizen.

My statement is true:

"Natural born is self explanatory.

A citizen by nature and not law.

Anytime the law is involved in any person's citizenship, he is a citizen by legislation, not nature"

Antoinette LaSalle:

US State Department -

"U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship."

http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Mar/11/131399.html

Laws that address dual citizenship have been in an evolving and changing accommodation for globalism.

US law

relating to

dual citizenship

Last revised: 2009-03-28 20:25:58-0700

US Constitution

* 14th Amendment

Statutes

* Immigration and Nationality Act

* US citizenship vs. US nationality

* Citizenship by birth (INA § 301, 8 USC § 1401)

* Citizenship by naturalization (INA § 337, 8 USC § 1448)

* Loss of citizenship (INA § 349, 8 USC § 1481)

* 1978 citizenship law amendments (Pub.L. 95-432)

* 1986 citizenship law amendments (Pub.L. 99-653)

* 1994 citizenship law amendments (Pub.L. 103-416)

* 2000 citizenship law amendments (Pub.L. 106-395)

http://www.richw.org/dualcit/law.html

Glad to see discussion of the laws, rather than insults. About 8 USC 1401- note first that the title is directed to "nationals and citizens at birth". It does not attempt to define "natural born citizens" as the framers of the Constitution did so- quoted elsewhere on these pages. But, taking the items as listed and whether they apply to "natural born"-

(a) brings us back to the dispute over the place of birth and a reason to require an original, typed, 1961 birth certificate. However, it adds "subject to the jurisdiction" which is defined by those original writers and means having no allegiance to a foreign power.

(b) doesn't apply to the present issue

(c) doesn't apply-both parents not US citizens

(d) "born outside the US"- some say he wasn't

(e) ditto (d)

(f) not applicable- parentage is known, we believe

(h) not applicable- was born after May 1934

(g) here's the rub- if he was born in Kenya, only his mother could pass citizenship from this clause. BUT in 1961 this clause said she had to be in the US five years after age 14, requiring her to be 19 when he was born. She was only 18- can't apply. And we must keep in mind that the laws that existed at the time of birth apply, not what a revision today states.

Citar: Where does it say "subject to the jurisdiction" means no foreign allegience? I'm not coming up with a definition of allegiance in the way I'm inferring you mean it.

Does this all come from Vattel? If not, where?

No foreign allegiance is what this oath is all about.

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen"

This oath is based in the understanding that both Blackstone and Vattel had expounded on.

William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62 (1765)

The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject. The thing itself, or substantial part of it, is founded in reason and the nature of government; the name and the form are derived to us from our Gothic ancestors….

Allegiance, both express and implied, is however distinguished by the law into two sorts or species, the one natural, the other local; the former being also perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king’s protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themselves.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships1.html

Vattel has so much to say about this its hard to just confine it to anyone paragraph, but here is one about: "obligation to preserve itself"

§ 16. A nation is under an obligation to preserve itself.

In the act of association, by virtue of which a multitude of men form together a state or nation, each individual has entered into engagements with all, to promote the general welfare; and all have entered into engagements with each individual, to facilitate for him the means of supplying his necessities, and to protect and defend him. It is manifest that these reciprocal engagements can no otherwise be fulfilled than by maintaining the political association. The entire nation is then obliged to maintain that association; and as their preservation depends on its continuance, it thence follows that every nation is obliged to perform the duty of self-preservation,

This obligation, so natural to each individual of God's creation, is not derived to nations immediately from nature, but from the agreement by which civil society is formed: it is therefore not absolute, but conditional, — that is to say, it supposes a human act, to wit, the social compact. And as compacts may be dissolved by common consent of the parties — if the individuals that compose a nation should unanimously agree to break the link that binds them, it would be lawful for them to do so, and thus to destroy the state or nation; but they would doubtless incur a degree of guilt, if they took this step without just and weighty reasons; for civil societies are approved by the Law of Nature, which recommends them to mankind, as the true means of supplying all their wants, and of effectually advancing towards their own perfection. Moreover, civil society is so useful, nay so necessary to all citizens, that it may well be considered as morally impossible for them to consent unanimously to break it without necessity. But what citizens may or ought to do — what the majority of them may resolve in certain cases of necessity or of pressing exigency — are questions that will be treated of elsewhere: they cannot be solidly determined without some principles which we have not yet established. For the present, it is sufficient to have proved, that, in general, as long as the political society subsists, the whole nation is obliged to endeavour to maintain it.

This oath is about preservation of this nation.

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen"

citar ---

The framers did not define "natural born citizen." That is the problem.

Link to read Vattel and the Law of Nations.

http://home.earthlink.net/~dybel/Documents/LawOfNations,Vattel.htm#I-%C2%A716

antoinette_lasalle writes:

The framers did not define "natural born citizen." That is the problem.

===========================================

It did not need an explanation, it had been defined by the very words themselves.

Look at it, it was clear enough no one questioned it before today.

Article II

Section 1

Clause 5

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,.......

It is self explanatory in the very words themselves

creeksneaker- Check out a long idea I posted this morning about Honest Research- now shows up as about the eighth one down from the top under Making Data Accessible. It includes a number of the quotes from the writers defining "natural born" and "subject to the jurisdiction". I included a number of links to historian sites that deal with the issue for those who want to do the research and there are more quotes to be found.

blackmonrikker- You say:

"B.O. Jr. was admittedly conceived in Hawaii in late 1960" and

"Birfers believe that B.O Sr. took his wife to Kenya in July 1961 to visit his family"

and your entire premise is based on this, yet you are the only one I have heard expound this, even though I've been reading about the issue since August last year. Aren't you, like your idol is so prone to do, setting up a straw man so you can knock it down?

DJ,

If I'm the first person you've heard say this, you haven't been paying attention. There are a plethora of living eyewitnesses who have testified that they were students at the University of Hawaii in 1960 when Barack Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham became a couple. Barack Jr. was born in August, 1961, full term. That means he was conceived in November of the previous year. Barack Jr's parents were MARRIED in early 1961. There is a record of it. (I could hunt it up for you, but hell, I'm tired of doing all this birfer grunt work).

The were married in HAWAII. University of Hawaii records show that both Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham completed the 1961 Spring Semester at the school.

Birfer mythology holds that sometime after the completion of the Spring Semester, Stanley Ann Dunham traveled with Barack Obama Sr. to Kenya. It further holds that Stanley Ann was prevented from flying back to the United States in late July of 1961 because of her late term condition. They hold that she bore Obama Jr. in Coast Provincial Hospital, Mombasa, Kenya. That's 350 miles southeast of Obama Sr.s home.

Mombasa, Kenya had an international airport in 1961 with one airstrip and one international flight--to Tanzania. The only airport in Kenya with flights to Europe was in Nairobi, 150 miles northwest of Mombasa. THERE ARE NO INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS IN KENYA. Ground travel is exceedingly slow.

So, the logistics of Stanley Ann's two day odyssey from Mombasa to Nairobi to Cairo to Rome to London to NYC to San Franciso to Honolulu, all while recovering from childbirth, is documented here.

Does it seem plausible to you?