Is This True ?

[Thunder Road]

Is this authentic or counterfeit ? I do not know.
Just throwing it out there!

www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105764 (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105764)

[RonnieX]

It's crap!

[phatjack81]

They're still investigating it. Now if we can get the mainstream media to investigate anything on President Obama that would be amazing.

[BadMoon]

They're still investigating it. Now if we can get the mainstream media to investigate anything on President Obama that would be amazing.

Hello, them bastages are the ones covering it up. Paleeeeze.

[Bull117]

Billo investigated...and found nothing. State of Hawaii investigated twice...and found born in Hawaii. Election commission investigated and found the same. I will note though:

1) If born to a US citizen anywhere in the world...still makes you a US citizen

2) I chuckle with the thought of an illegal in the US having a child...and the child is automatically a US citizen and can be prez.

I'd rather fight the stupid healthcare plan and killing small business' than this...the born issue is a distraction that I wouldn't be surprised is being stoaked by various left wingers to keep people's eyes off the bigger issues like healthcare.

Bull

[Duug]

The birth issue is the legal cornerstone of getting rid of the guy before he ruins the entire country.

His mother was a minor at the time of birth so his fathers citizenship is what he was born into. He is NOT a natural born American.

[markamoore]

The birth issue is the legal cornerstone of getting rid of the guy before he ruins the entire country.

His mother was a minor at the time of birth so his fathers citizenship is what he was born into. He is NOT a natural born American.



:thumbup: You tell'um Duug! I'm too mad to!nojoke
The bastard's a bastard from God only knows where, he's goin DOWN, and I ain't lying, Bubba!

[Glennok]

The problem is that we don't know what's true and what's not. To compound the problem, the obamama won't help his own case which leads most to believe that he's hiding something. It could all be cleared up in an instant if he would release his long-form BC, but I doubt he has one or he would have produced it already.

It's just too easy for the obamama to put this to rest, but he won't, or can't. Why?

[CentralScrutinizer]

Is this authentic or counterfeit ? I do not know.
Just throwing it out there!

David Jeffrey Bomford
Just throwing it out there!


:lol::lol::lol:

[Bull117]

The birth issue is the legal cornerstone of getting rid of the guy before he ruins the entire country.

His mother was a minor at the time of birth so his fathers citizenship is what he was born into. He is NOT a natural born American.

Chasing a red herring...

18 is a minor???...wonder how the troops would feel about that...

...regardless, didn't realize a minor has no citizenship...so if a US minor gives birth overseas, the baby automatically reverts to the father's citizenship? Is there some document that supports this?

Bull

[markamoore]

Chasing a red herring...

18 is a minor???...wonder how the troops would feel about that...

Bull



I believe, if I'm not badly mistaken, the constitution states " a citizen residing in the united states for a minimum of ten(10) years, five(5) of which is to be obtained after the age of 16 years of age", which S.A.Dunham was NOT(at the age of 18)
Last I counted 16 + 5 = 21, which she was NOT!
B.H.Obama I was not a citizen of the United States, in any shape, form or fashion, by any definition used, ever!
Seems pretty simple to me!

[Bull117]

Are you saying Mark that a child, with a US birth certificate and established birth in the US must be in the US for at least 10 years or lose that citizenship? And if so, what would their citizenship revert too?

Bull

[Wolfen]

I believe, if I'm not badly mistaken, the constitution states " a citizen residing in the united states for a minimum of ten(10) years, five(5) of which is to be obtained after the age of 16 years of age", which S.A.Dunham was NOT(at the age of 18)
Last I counted 16 + 5 = 21, which she was NOT!
B.H.Obama I was not a citizen of the United States, in any shape, form or fashion, by any definition used, ever!
Seems pretty simple to me!

Even if you are right about what he constitution states, According to the state of Hawaii, Obama was born there. So basically you are saying that all the evidence of his birth, including birth announcements in newspapers in 1961 have been fabricated and or lied about by State officials in Hawaii. Wow that is one hell of a conspiracy you all have going there.

:yikes:

[Cody450]

The birth issue is the legal cornerstone of getting rid of the guy before he ruins the entire country..................


................Too Late..............:dontknow:

[phatjack81]

The problem is that we don't know what's true and what's not. To compound the problem, the obamama won't help his own case which leads most to believe that he's hiding something. It could all be cleared up in an instant if he would release his long-form BC, but I doubt he has one or he would have produced it already.

It's just too easy for the obamama to put this to rest, but he won't, or can't. Why?

Because Obama and the party are using it to their advantage, straight from one of their heroes, Saul Alinsky and his book, Rules for Radicals. Say there is a town meeting about health care and someone asks a really good question that nails a Senator to the wall. Then some Einstein in the back yells out "Where's the birth certificate." and all they have to do is ridicule them and discredit them as right wing extremist birthers and they're neutralized. Here are some quotes from good ole Saul.


Change means movement. Movement means friction. Only in the frictionless vacuum of a nonexistent abstract world can movement or change occur without that abrasive friction of conflict.
In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt.
Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means.
The end is what you want and the means is how you get it.
If you have a vast organization, parade it before the enemy, openly show your power.(ACORN ring a bell)
If your organization is small, do what Gideon did: conceal the members in the dark but raise a clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more that it does.
If your organization is too tiny even for noise, stink up the place.
Liberals in their meetings utter bold works; they strut, grimace belligerently, and then issue a weasel-worded statement 'which has tremendous implications, if read between the lines.' They sit calmly, dispassionately, studying the issue; judging both sides; they sit and still sit.
Power goes to two poles: to those who've got money and those who've got people.
Society has good reason to fear the Radical. Every shaking advance of mankind toward equality and justice has come from the Radical. He hits, he hurts, he is dangerous. Conservative interests know that while Liberals are most adept at breaking their own necks with their tongues, Radicals are most adept at breaking the necks of Conservatives.
The Radical may resort to the sword but when he does he is not filled with hatred against those individuals whom he attacks. He hates these individuals not as persons but as symbols representing ideas or interests which he believes to be inimical to the welfare of the people. :evil:

[markamoore]

Are you saying Mark that a child, with a US birth certificate and established birth in the US must be in the US for at least 10 years or lose that citizenship? And if so, what would their citizenship revert too?

Bull


Stanley Ann Dunham could not have automatically transferred citizenship to Barack Obama Jr., due to her age at the time of his birth. Therefore his citizenship would have been determined by the citizenship of his Father, which was British by law at the time.



Clarification:1) Barack Obama is not legally a U.S. natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between "December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986?
Presidential office requires a natural-born citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. citizen parents, which of course is what exempts John McCain though he was born in the Panama Canal. US Law very clearly stipulates: ".If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16." Barack Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama's mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which means though she had been a U.S. citizen for 10 years, (or citizen perhaps because of Hawai'i being a territory) the mother fails the test for being so for at least 5 years **prior to** Barack Obama's birth, but *after* age 16. It doesn't matter *after*.
In essence, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. citizenship. At most, there were only 2 years elapsed since his mother turned 16 at the time of Barack Obama's birth when she was 18 in Hawai'i. His mother would have needed to have been 16+5= 21 years old, at the time of Barack Obama's birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen. As aforementioned, she was a young college student at the time and was not. Barack Obama was already 3 years old at that time his mother would have needed to have waited to have him as the only U.S. Citizen parent. Obama instead should have been naturalized, but even then, that would still disqualify him from holding the office.
*** Naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of President. *** Though Barack Obama was sent back to Hawaii at age 10, all the other info does not matter because his mother is the one who needed to have been a U.S. citizen for 10 years prior to his birth on August 4, 1961, with 5 of those years being after age 16. Further, Obama may have had to have remained in the country for some time to protect any citizenship he would have had, rather than living in Indonesia.


Clarification 2) When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children:

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.
In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.

Obama's British citizenship was short-lived. On Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:
1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963...

2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
As a citizen of the UKC who was born in Kenya, Obama's father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UKC status at birth and given that Obama's father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), it follows that Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship after 1963.

[Duug]

Chasing a red herring...

18 is a minor???...wonder how the troops would feel about that...

...regardless, didn't realize a minor has no citizenship...so if a US minor gives birth overseas, the baby automatically reverts to the father's citizenship? Is there some document that supports this?

Bull

At the time of his birth the legal age was 21 brainiac.


To Mark,...Thank you Sir. You are a true American Patriot.

[Bull117]

Thanks Mark for the clarification. Very interesting.

Bull

[markamoore]

Just for the record!
Actually, if you want to break it down even more, given that we assume Obama Sr. is the genetic Father:dontknow:(don't see the resemblance myself), he was previously married to a wife in Kenya. There is no documentation where he and his first(and possibly a 2nd) wife were legally divorced. Also, I have found NO proof that Big O and Stanley Ann Dunham were legitimately married in the first place. If so, Big O would have been guilty of Polygamy and not recognized in the States as being legally married to Stanley Ann at the time. There also seems to be a question in the termination of that marriage!
Dictionary: (http://www.answers.com/library/Dictionary-cid-63369) po·lyg·a·my (pə-lĭg'ə-mē) http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/pron.gif


Home (http://www.answers.com/) > Library (http://www.answers.com/main/what_content.jsp) > Literature & Language (http://www.answers.com/main/words.jsp) > Dictionary (http://www.answers.com/library/Dictionary-cid-63369)


n.
The condition or practice of having more than one spouse at one time. Also called plural marriage.
Zoology. A mating pattern in which a single individual mates with more than one individual of the opposite sex.


I would think that both definitions would be in order in this case, given the circumstances, for Big O and Stanley Ann!

So, Now what?

[phatjack81]

About the only thing we can do is clean house in congress, get rid of everyone who voted for all this crap they've been passing, Rep. or Dem. and that includes the people when the Reps. were the majority, starting with the ones up for reelection this year. We gotta find good people in our own states that'll listen to us not the parties, special interest groups or the President. It'll be hard to find someone with a backbone because they're few and far between. And stop voting for a D or an R, vote on what they stand for, how they voted in the past, who lines their pockets and who their friends are. The Progressives are in both parties and they're trying to take us to same place , except one is taking us on a train and one is taking us on a jet.

[Scooter Geezer]

They're still investigating it. Now if we can get the mainstream media to investigate anything on President Obama that would be amazing.

Let's see now. Time Magazine has featured Obama on the cover for 13 straight issues now (and counting). They are so happy with themselves they are peeing on themselves.

Do you really think there is any chance of any negative info getting past editors like that???

It ain't gonna happen.

Geezer

[markamoore]

What just happened to the reply post from CentralScrutinizer?
It was there and now it's gone!

A reply to his/her reply:
As posted from Cornell:

"OUTSIDE" the confines is what you quoted and as is follows!

U.S. Code (http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/uscode.html/) : Title 8 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/8/toc.html) : Section 1401 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/8/chapters/12/subchapters/iii/parts/i/sections/section_1401.html) (g)
(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 person born on or after December 24,


I read this, meaning that a lot of stipulations are involved even "IF" this were the case. The case in which "her" mother and father do not seem to fit the bill on.
Maybe just me, but I don't see where this is even relevant.:dontknow:

[CentralScrutinizer]

Stanley Ann Dunham could not have automatically transferred citizenship to Barack Obama Jr., due to her age at the time of his birth. Therefore his citizenship would have been determined by the citizenship of his Father, which was British by law at the time.



Clarification:1) Barack Obama is not legally a U.S. natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between "December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986?
Presidential office requires a natural-born citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. citizen parents, which of course is what exempts John McCain though he was born in the Panama Canal. US Law very clearly stipulates: ".If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16." Barack Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama's mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which means though she had been a U.S. citizen for 10 years, (or citizen perhaps because of Hawai'i being a territory) the mother fails the test for being so for at least 5 years **prior to** Barack Obama's birth, but *after* age 16. It doesn't matter *after*.
In essence, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. citizenship. At most, there were only 2 years elapsed since his mother turned 16 at the time of Barack Obama's birth when she was 18 in Hawai'i. His mother would have needed to have been 16+5= 21 years old, at the time of Barack Obama's birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen.
I think you may be referring to Title 8, CHapter 12, Subchapter III Part I Sect, 1401 (g) - which 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

So, did you mean that he is a natural born citizen regardless since she was 18?

"14+2= 16 years old, at the time of Barack Obama's birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen."

[CentralScrutinizer]

I read this, meaning that a lot of stipulations are involved even "IF" this were the case. The case in which "her" mother and father do not seem to fit the bill on.
Maybe just me, but I don't see where this is even relevant.:dontknow:


You seriously don't know what that means??
Maybe it's just me, but you're the one who brought it up :dontknow:
They are not talking about "her" parents - they are talking about her, the "citizen parent"

According to you, even if he was born outside the USA he would still be considered a "natural born citizen".

[markamoore]

I think you may be referring to Title 8, CHapter 12, Subchapter III Part I Sect, 1401 (g) - which 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

So, did you mean that he is a natural born citizen regardless since she was 18?

"14+2= 16 years old, at the time of Barack Obama's birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen."


See highlighted above and also my statement at the end of my last reply!:dontknow: Seems as though several requirements are involved with the parents of "the parent" for this to be relevant!

[CentralScrutinizer]

See highlighted above and also my statement at the end of my last reply!:dontknow: Seems as though several requirements are involved with the parents of "the parent" for this to be relevant!No - you are misunderstanding the passage.

[markamoore]

You seriously don't know what that means??
Maybe it's just me, but you're the one who brought it up :dontknow:
They are not talking about "her" parents - they are talking about her, the "citizen parent"

According to you, even if he was born outside the USA he would still be considered a "natural born citizen".



Hold on now, you are not getting the point!
US law did not govern Big O, remember!
The following negates any and all US law, except "dual citizenship" which would automatically disqualify him from the position in question!

Obama's British citizenship was short-lived. On Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:
1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963...

2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.




You tell me how the stipulations of Big O's citizenship, "if" they were legally married, is not equally involved in transferring citizenship to little O, by law governing him, at the time. It would be irrelevant of the United States Law (by default/proxy) due to the citizenship of the paternal father, regardless of where little O was borne(within the US or not).
All this + the fact of his travels to Indonesia, in which US citizens were banned from doing at the time, along with the fact Indonesia would not have allowed him to enter the country as such!

Now do you get my point?
It's no wonder he does not want to publicly disclose "any" information! In totality, it's a tangle of misrepresentations and concoctions wherever and everywhere he has been.

Let's see, from what I gather, if all the above were true.
He would be: British-American-Kenyan-Indonesian, Right?

[CentralScrutinizer]

Now do you get my point?
One thing at a time Mark.
What exactly are you refering to with this, is this not the premise for your argument?


Stanley Ann Dunham could not have automatically transferred citizenship to Barack Obama Jr., due to her age at the time of his birth. Therefore his citizenship would have been determined by the citizenship of his Father, which was British by law at the time.
She most certainly did tranfer US citizenship (regardless of place of birth) to him the moment he was born since
A: She was over 14
and
B: She lived in the US for at least 5 years with two being after the age of 14.

The rest of the code is not a requirement, all that means is IF she were a member of the armed services, or a child of the same, then she wouldn't be penalized for the residency requirement. Say she served in Iraq for 2 years , that would count the same as if she were in Kansas.

Obama was a US citizen at birth because his mother was a US citizen and meets the requirements, correct?
Just trying to figure out what specific code / law you are refering to when you say she needed to be 21. :dontknow:

[dogmanX]

If its false ,its false, If it is true it will be covered up. So what differance will it make?

[Duug]

If its false ,its false, If it is true it will be covered up. So what differance will it make?

So far,...it seems to be the case that the powers that be don't quite wanna delve into it yet. Soon as he's screws the pooch nuff where everyone feels it,....he'll get the boot.

Everyone should keep the pressure on at all levels till the issue is resolved.

[Captain_s54]

At any rate and by any standard it seems that the chosen one is the product of a fence jump. That makes him a mutt.

[Wolfen]

At any rate and by any standard it seems that the chosen one is the product of a fence jump. That makes him a mutt.


Well at least you didnt call him a halfbreed :roll:. I dont know what everyone's ancestry is...but I am pretty sure the MUTT term would apply to a great majority of us In this country.

[VTX1300cnME]

Are you saying Mark that a child, with a US birth certificate and established birth in the US must be in the US for at least 10 years or lose that citizenship? And if so, what would their citizenship revert too?

Bull

Only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both citizens of the U.S.) may be president of the United States, though from time to time that requirement is called into question, most recently after Arnold Schwarzenegger, born in Austria, was elected governor of California, in 2003. The Constitution (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/fed/blfedindex.htm##6) originally provided a small loophole to this provision: One needn't have been born in the United States but had to be a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. But, since that occurred in 1789, that ship has sailed.


It doesn't matter. . if his father wasn't a US citizen, and he was born abroad. . he's S.O.L. Your argument as to Minor or adult is a moot point. . . as it's been established in this thread his father was NOT a US citizen.

If this document is true, he's not eligible. Period.

Glenn's right, if he really is an ELIGIBLE US citizen, why wouldn't he just show is BC? Why is it such an issue? To be president, he must prove he's US born. . so why is he dodging the issue??

[HondaPartsGuy]

Ya know ? I am a conservative republican and some of the things I hear and see from the far right are just plain embarrassing. Really ? Does anyone really believe that the CIA , FBI and the Secret service would actually allow someone to take the office of President of the United States without completely checking his background and confirming his eligibility ?:roll: Do you have any idea the amount of intelligence the President is allowed access to ? Do you really believe they would allow anyone to have access to all that without knowing where and who he's been with every single day leading up to his election ?

He has been elected. Its over.Deal with it !

Listen I don't like it any more then the rest of you do , but if we don't start focusing on the issues at hand and fighting him over his decisions we will never stop any of this. Want to make a difference ? Get on the phone and contact all of your elected representatives and scream loud as hell ! Make your voices heard. Right now the big issue coming down the pipe is the healthcare issue. If everyone who opposes him would just focus on that one single issue and fight him with everything we have , combined we just might make a difference. But when folks are still reeling from the fact that he was elected , and are contesting his mere eligibility to be in office ? That is just counter productive.

[Glennok]

Want to make a difference ? Get on the phone and contact all of your elected representatives and scream loud as hell ! Make your voices heard.

Will do me no good to do that. My Senators are Coburn and Inhofe, and they already hate the poser and everything he does. :thumbup:

[Wolfen]

Does anyone really believe that the CIA , FBI and the Secret service would actually allow someone to take the office of President of the United States without completely checking his background and confirming his eligibility ?:roll: Do you have any idea the amount of intelligence the President is allowed access to ? Do you really believe they would allow anyone to have access to all that without knowing where and who he's been with every single day leading up to his election ?



Very very good point...but it was made before and dismissed by what normally seem to be educated members that have been arguing this point.

This seems to be the far rights version of the Gore/Bush recounts, YOUR BOY / GIRL LOST whoever you voted for... deal with it and get to the real issues.

[Wolfen]

Will do me no good to do that. My Senators are Coburn and Inhofe, and they already hate the poser and everything he does. :thumbup:


You are right... why even bother... they hate him already.... But what the heck have they done about it????

But its cool :thumbup:, why get involved...someone else will do it for you.


This exactly the attitude that has the american people being screwed by both sides of the aisle. When we get tired of being screwed by one side, we simply turn around and let the other side begin.

[Bull117]

Ya know ? I am a conservative republican and some of the things I hear and see from the far right are just plain embarrassing. Really ? Does anyone really believe that the CIA , FBI and the Secret service would actually allow someone to take the office of President of the United States without completely checking his background and confirming his eligibility ?:roll: Do you have any idea the amount of intelligence the President is allowed access to ? Do you really believe they would allow anyone to have access to all that without knowing where and who he's been with every single day leading up to his election ?

He has been elected. Its over.Deal with it !

Listen I don't like it any more then the rest of you do , but if we don't start focusing on the issues at hand and fighting him over his decisions we will never stop any of this. Want to make a difference ? Get on the phone and contact all of your elected representatives and scream loud as hell ! Make your voices heard. Right now the big issue coming down the pipe is the healthcare issue. If everyone who opposes him would just focus on that one single issue and fight him with everything we have , combined we just might make a difference. But when folks are still reeling from the fact that he was elected , and are contesting his mere eligibility to be in office ? That is just counter productive.

Well stated...and I agree with the red herring and distraction from the real issues. One must see through the forest inspite of the trees...

Bull

[Terminals]

Ya know ? I am a conservative republican and some of the things I hear and see from the far right are just plain embarrassing. Really ? Does anyone really believe that the CIA , FBI and the Secret service would actually allow someone to take the office of President of the United States without completely checking his background and confirming his eligibility ?:roll: Do you have any idea the amount of intelligence the President is allowed access to ? Do you really believe they would allow anyone to have access to all that without knowing where and who he's been with every single day leading up to his election ?

He has been elected. Its over.Deal with it !

Listen I don't like it any more then the rest of you do , but if we don't start focusing on the issues at hand and fighting him over his decisions we will never stop any of this. Want to make a difference ? Get on the phone and contact all of your elected representatives and scream loud as hell ! Make your voices heard. Right now the big issue coming down the pipe is the healthcare issue. If everyone who opposes him would just focus on that one single issue and fight him with everything we have , combined we just might make a difference. But when folks are still reeling from the fact that he was elected , and are contesting his mere eligibility to be in office ? That is just counter productive.

Guy, this isn't a Republican / Democrat issue at all.
It is a rule of law issue.
In case you are not aware of it, the first person to issue a challenge
in a court of law was a lifelong democrat and attorney,
who had himself run for office. Phillip J Berg.

many ways to continue with this discussion.....

Why was the first thing Obama did when he became president,
to sign an executive order sealing ALL his records?
Order # 13489
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/executive_orders.php?year=2009&Submit=DISPLAY

He campaigned on his will be
"the most transparent administration in history".

As we have now seen, most if not all,
of his campaign promises have now been broken.

bottom line....
SCOTUS needs to take the case and rule on the legal issues being raised.

For me, this issue is not political it is a legal one.

SCOTUS felt they were burned by being involved in the
2000 election issue. Evidently some of the Justices believe
that was just a political issue, and they should not have gotten involved.
Possibly this is why they have reluctant to take one of these
cases that have been filed.

I expect you have seen the articles,
showing the military changing orders of officers that have also
brought up whether he is legally Commander and Chief.

Evidently there is a real legal issue here.... and it needs a resolution.

:dontknow:

[Terminals]

Will do me no good to do that. My Senators are Coburn and Inhofe, and they already hate the poser and everything he does. :thumbup:

No matter stay in touch with them,
and let them know how you want them to vote.

You might also call the other Congressman from your state
and thank them for a vote they did that you agreed with.

Americans need to be proactive and communicate with OUR elected officials.
They work for US. Let them know you opinions.

:thumbup:

[HondaPartsGuy]

Guy, this isn't a Republican / Democrat issue at all.
It is a rule of law issue.
In case you are not aware of it, the first person to issue a challenge
in a court of law was a lifelong democrat and attorney,
who had himself run for office. Phillip J Berg.

many ways to continue with this discussion.....

Why was the first thing Obama did when he became president,
to sign an executive order sealing ALL his records?
Order # 13489
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/executive_orders.php?year=2009&Submit=DISPLAY

He campaigned on his will be
"the most transparent administration in history".

As we have now seen, most if not all,
of his campaign promises have now been broken.

bottom line....
SCOTUS needs to take the case and rule on the legal issues being raised.

For me, this issue is not political it is a legal one.

SCOTUS felt they were burned by being involved in the
2000 election issue. Evidently some of the Justices believe
that was just a political issue, and they should not have gotten involved.
Possibly this is why they have reluctant to take one of these
cases that have been filed.

I expect you have seen the articles,
showing the military changing orders of officers that have also
brought up whether he is legally Commander and Chief.

Evidently there is a real legal issue here.... and it needs a resolution.

:dontknow:

So what you are suggesting is that Obama has "fooled" or "slipped one past" the most intelligent agencies and officers of this country ? Are you suggesting that all of our military secrets and foreign policy information is being made available to someone who is not a legal U.S. citizen ? Is this what you really believe ?

[roydamnmercer]

The birth certificate issue is like a puppy chasing his tail....it's cute and funny, but yields the same results...nothing but folly.

Let it go.


Now that puppy is growing and growing. He is eating everything in sight and he is $#itting and pi$$ing on everything he can. He's no longer cute; he's a menace.



roy d....and we should drop him off at the pound and maybe some nice third world country will come along and adopt him

[Terminals]

So what you are suggesting is that Obama has "fooled" or "slipped one past" the most intelligent agencies and officers of this country ?

Who certifies that a candidate is legally able to run for and be elected to the presidency?
It is the party of the candidate. So in this case it would be the DNC.
I am not sure I would list them in the category of "most intelligent" in this country?

Are you suggesting that all of our military secrets and foreign policy information is being made available to someone who is not a legal U.S. citizen ?

One can be a citizen of this country and not be eligible to be elected to the Presidency. Arnold (Governor of California) is a legal US citizen and is not eligible.

off topic for a second....
I find it interesting that after Obama got elected and now was seeing the
briefings for the president, how he has changed his policies to more closely match the policies of Bush, who he so regularly criticized.

Is this what you really believe ?

You maybe missed the point I was making about a "legal issue"
being the real discussion here.
I am not an attorney, but in reading the various articles about
the "legal" aspects of Obama's eligibility, one has to wonder.

Yes I now believe this is a valid question,
for the good of the country, no matter how they find,
this needs to be answered and then laid to rest.

This is why I think the SCOTUS needs to hear and rule on the matter.


Do you not wonder why Obama sealed ALL his records?
It was evidently a great concern to him, having his records sealed.

[HondaPartsGuy]

off topic for a second....
I find it interesting that after Obama got elected and now was seeing the
briefings for the president, how he has changed his policies to more closely match the policies of Bush, who he so regularly criticized.

I have often wondered what it must be like for a new president taking office. Just imagine all of the things you would learn about ! So many things that are probably held from the public. Things they don't think we are capable of handling , and things we just probably don't want to know about. Nevertheless , I am sure that the presidential advisors play heavily into his decision making process. Things that Bush was strongly advised to do that Obama may have been oppossed to (without full knowledge). After being briefed and being strongly advised I'm sure he would change his tune real quick. Ever notice how quickly that position ages men ? I see Obama going gray real soon.




Do you not wonder why Obama sealed ALL his records?
It was evidently a great concern to him, having his records sealed.
While it does sound suspicious for someone who campained on "complete transparency" I have to believe there were other reasons besides hiding his citizenship status. Don't get me wrong , I am definately not a fan of his ! I am strongly opposed to most everything he has done since he took office. I understand your point about the legallity of it all,but this really needs to be put behind us.


HPG

[Terminals]

HPG
You are correct about this "distraction" needing to be laid to rest.

I now think the only way for this to happen is a ruling from SCOTUS.
Otherwise this will lag on for many months.

Obama is very adept in his use of misdirection and I wonder if this
controversy actually plays into his plan somehow? :dontknow:

[Duug]

You are correct about this "distraction" needing to be laid to rest.

I now think the only way for this to happen is a ruling from SCOTUS.
Otherwise this will lag on for many months.

Obama is very adept in his use of misdirection and I wonder if this
controversy actually plays into his plan somehow? :dontknow:

As stated,..it's a Rule of Law thaing. There's enough question to deserve an answer. If he refuses,...then by default he loses. In essense he's bluffed his way into the WH thanx to the DNC sitting on their hands.

[markamoore]

HondaPartsGuy & Wolfen: What you believe and are suggesting in dropping the whole issue is "exactly" what they are counting on happening. There is something "rotten" in Denmark and a whole lot of people STILL want to know (what, when, why, who and how) and are well within OUR rights to know.

Newest update:
This is just the skinny, go here for the full story!

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106137



BORN IN THE USA?
Bill would force Obama to reveal birth documents
Hawaii senator: 'Why wouldn't they be available to the public?'



http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/image.espero.JPG
Hawaii state Sen. Will Espero
Hawaii state Sen. Will Espero, a Democrat, has confirmed plans to introduce legislation through which the state's lawmakers would force the public disclosure of all President Obama's birth documents held by the Hawaii Department of Health, including President Obama’s long-form original birth certificate.

[markamoore]

Stirring the ole' Pot a little!!!!!!!!!!!




BORN IN THE USA?
Obama's parents didn't live at newspaper birth address
Barack's dad had bachelor pad, mother left Hawaii with baby


http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=107337

[CentralScrutinizer]

Stirring the ole' Pot a little!!!!!!!!!!!




BORN IN THE USA?
Obama's parents didn't live at newspaper birth address
Barack's dad had bachelor pad, mother left Hawaii with baby


http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=107337
Awesome - another world net daily article. :rolleyes:

Hey mark - you never answered my question. Do you have an answer based on facts that do not come from WND?

She most certainly did tranfer US citizenship (regardless of place of birth) to him the moment he was born since
A: She was over 14
and
B: She lived in the US for at least 5 years with two being after the age of 14.

The rest of the code is not a requirement, all that means is IF she were a member of the armed services, or a child of the same, then she wouldn't be penalized for the residency requirement. Say she served in Iraq for 2 years , that would count the same as if she were in Kansas.

Obama was a US citizen at birth because his mother was a US citizen and meets the requirements, correct?
Just trying to figure out what specific code / law you are referring to when you say she needed to be 21. :dontknow:

[markamoore]

Awesome - another world net daily article. :rolleyes:

Hey mark - you never answered my question. Do you have an answer based on facts that do not come from WND?



Answer? Do you not concur with the fact of his Citizenship "by decent as the law states" from his proposed birth father, which fell under British Law at the time of his birth. "Dual Citizenship" is a dis-qualifier from the office of POTUS!

When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948.That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children:
British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.
In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.

Obama's British citizenship was short-lived. On Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:
1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963...

2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.






I'm sorry to disappoint you, but that is from Historical Data and not WND, fine sir!

"If" he was borne in Hawaii (considered an outlying possession of the US at the time admitted: August 21, 1959), the law you quoted was for someone borne "OUTSIDE" the geographical boundaries or outlying possession of the US, meaning the shortened limits of that law would apply if he were borne in Kenya. Agreed?

See Cornell link and text below for effective date of 1986—Subsec. (g). quote you provided



U.S. Code (http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/uscode.html/) : Title 8 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/8/toc.html) : Section 1401 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/8/chapters/12/subchapters/iii/parts/i/sections/section_1401.html) (g)
(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:


Still, you have to take into consideration the dual-citizenship status, Correct!
You tell me, I'm just asking the same questions as a lot of other people are asking from what I have found in my research.
Are you studied in United States Constitutional Law? I am not, just bringing up some points that I have found myself, along with quotes from WND.
I seriously doubt WND had anything to do with writing British Law, at any given time, little alone in 1948!


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-notes.html





http://www.vtxoa.com/images/insignia.gif (http://www.cornell.edu/)http://www.vtxoa.com/images/unit_name.gif (http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/)

Search Law School (http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/search.cfm)
Search Cornell (http://www.cornell.edu/search/)
LII / Legal Information Institute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/)

home (http://www.vtxoa.com/)
search (http://www.vtxoa.com/search/)
find a lawyer (http://lawyers.law.cornell.edu/)
donate (http://www.vtxoa.com/donors/)





U.S. Code collection (http://www.vtxoa.com/uscode/)

main page (http://www.vtxoa.com/uscode/)
faq (http://www.vtxoa.com/uscode/faq.html)
index (http://www.vtxoa.com/uscode/titles.html)
search (http://www.vtxoa.com/uscode/search/)
http://www.vtxoa.com/uscode/images/loc_233x100.gif




TITLE 8 (http://www.vtxoa.com/forums/usc_sup_01_8.html) > CHAPTER 12 (http://www.vtxoa.com/forums/usc_sup_01_8_10_12.html) > SUBCHAPTER III (http://www.vtxoa.com/forums/usc_sup_01_8_10_12_20_III.html) > Part I (http://www.vtxoa.com/forums/usc_sup_01_8_10_12_20_III_30_I.html) > § 1401 (http://www.vtxoa.com/forums/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html)



NOTES:


Source

(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 1, § 301, 66 Stat. 235 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=statRef&target=date:nonech:nonestatnum:66_235); Pub. L. 89–770 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=89-770), Nov. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 1322 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=statRef&target=date:Nov. 6, 1966ch:nonestatnum:80_1322); Pub. L. 92–584 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=92-584), §§ 1, 3 (http://www.vtxoa.com/forums/../uscode08/usc_sec_08_00000001----000-.html), Oct. 27, 1972, 86 Stat. 1289 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=statRef&target=date:Oct. 27, 1972ch:nonestatnum:86_1289); Pub. L. 95–432 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=95-432), §§ 1, 3 (http://www.vtxoa.com/forums/../uscode08/usc_sec_08_00000001----000-.html), Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 1046 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=statRef&target=date:Oct. 10, 1978ch:nonestatnum:92_1046); Pub. L. 99–653 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=99-653), § 12, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3657 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=statRef&target=date:Nov. 14, 1986ch:nonestatnum:100_3657); Pub. L. 103–416 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=103-416), title I, § 101(a), Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4306 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=statRef&target=date:Oct. 25, 1994ch:nonestatnum:108_4306).)
Amendments

1994—Subsec. (h). Pub. L. 103–416 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=103-416) added subsec. (h).
1986—Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 99–653 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=99-653) substituted “five years, at least two” for “ten years, at least five”.
1978—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 95–432 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=95-432), § 3, struck out “(a)” before “The following” and redesignated pars. (1) to (7) as (a) to (g), respectively.
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 95–432 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=95-432), § 1, struck out subsec. (b) which provided that any person who was a national or citizen of the United States under subsec. (a)(7) lose his nationality or citizenship unless he be continuously physically present in the United States for a period of not less than two years between the ages of 14 and 28 or that the alien parent be naturalized while the child was under 18 years of age and the child began permanent residence in the United States while under 18 years of age and that absence from the United States of less than 60 days not break the continuity of presence.
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 95–432 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=95-432), § 1, struck out subsec. (c) which provided that former subsec. (b) apply to persons born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934, except that this not be construed to alter the citizenship of any person born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934 who, prior to the effective date of this chapter, had taken up residence in the United States before attaining 16 years of age, and thereafter, whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, complied with the residence requirements of section 201(g) and (h) of the Nationality Act of 1940.
Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 95–432 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=95-432), § 1, struck out subsec. (d) which provided that nothing in former subsec. (b) be construed to alter the citizenship of any person who came into the United States prior to Oct. 27, 1972, and who, whether before or after Oct. 27, 1972, immediately following such coming complied with the physical presence requirements for retention of citizenship specified in former subsec. (b), prior to amendment of former subsec. (b) by Pub. L. 92–584 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=92-584).
1972—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 92–584 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=92-584), § 1, substituted provisions that nationals and citizens of the United States under subsec. (a)(7), lose such status unless they are present continuously in the United States for two years between the ages of fourteen and twenty eight years, or the alien parent is naturalized while the child is under the age of eighteen years and the child begins to reside permanently in the United States while under the age of eighteen years, and that absence from the United States of less than sixty days will not break the continuity of presence, for provisions that such status would be lost unless the nationals and citizens come to the United States prior to attaining twenty three years and be present continuously in the United States for five years, and that such presence should be between the age of fourteen and twenty eight years.
Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 92–584 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=92-584), § 3, added subsec. (d).
1966—Subsec. (a)(7). Pub. L. 89–770 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=89-770) authorized periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization by the citizen parent, or any periods during which the 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, to be included in order to satisfy the physical presence requirement, and permitted the proviso to be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952.

Effective Date of 1986 Amendment

Section 23(d) of Pub. L. 99–653 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=99-653), as added by Pub. L. 100–525 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=100-525), § 8(r), Oct. 24, 1988, 102 Stat. 2619 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=statRef&target=date:Oct. 24, 1988ch:nonestatnum:102_2619), provided that: “The amendment made by section 12 (http://www.vtxoa.com/forums/../uscode08/usc_sec_08_00000001----000-.html) [amending this section] shall apply to persons born on or after November 14, 1986.”

Effective Date of 1978 Amendment

Section 1 of Pub. L. 95–432 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=95-432) provided that the amendment made by that section is effective Oct. 10, 1978.

Effective Date

Chapter effective 180 days after June 27, 1952, see section 407 of act June 27, 1952, set out as a note under section 1101 (http://www.vtxoa.com/forums/../uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001101----000-.html) of this title.

Waiver of Retention Requirements

Section 101(b) of Pub. L. 103–416 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=103-416) provided that: “Any provision of law (including section 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 (http://www.vtxoa.com/forums/../uscode08/usc_sup_01_8.html) U.S.C. 1401 (http://www.vtxoa.com/forums/../uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html) (b) (http://www.vtxoa.com/forums/../uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html#b)] (as in effect before October 10, 1978), and the provisos of section 201(g) of the Nationality Act of 1940 [former 8 (http://www.vtxoa.com/forums/../uscode08/usc_sup_01_8.html) U.S.C. 601 (http://www.vtxoa.com/forums/../uscode08/usc_sec_08_00000601----000-.html) (g) (http://www.vtxoa.com/forums/../uscode08/usc_sec_08_00000601----000-.html#g)]) that provided for a person’s loss of citizenship or nationality if the person failed to come to, or reside or be physically present in, the United States shall not apply in the case of a person claiming United States citizenship based on such person’s descent from an individual described in section 301(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (as added by subsection (a)).”

Retroactive Application of 1994 Amendment

Section 101(c) of Pub. L. 103–416 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=103-416) provided that:
“(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the immigration and nationality laws of the United States shall be applied (to persons born before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 25, 1994]) as though the amendment made by subsection (a) [amending this section], and subsection (b) [enacting provisions set out above], had been in effect as of the date of their birth, except that the retroactive application of the amendment and that subsection shall not affect the validity of citizenship of anyone who has obtained citizenship under section 1993 of the Revised Statutes [former 8 (http://www.vtxoa.com/forums/../uscode08/usc_sup_01_8.html) U.S.C. 6 (http://www.vtxoa.com/forums/../uscode08/usc_sec_08_00000001----000-.html)] (as in effect before the enactment of the Act of May 24, 1934 (48 Stat. 797 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=statRef&target=date:nonech:nonestatnum:48_797))).
“(2) The retroactive application of the amendment made by subsection (a), and subsection (b), shall not confer citizenship on, or affect the validity of any denaturalization, deportation, or exclusion action against, any person who is or was excludable from the United States under section 212(a)(3)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 (http://www.vtxoa.com/forums/../uscode08/usc_sup_01_8.html) U.S.C. 1182 (http://www.vtxoa.com/forums/../uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001182----000-.html) (a)(3)(E) (http://www.vtxoa.com/forums/../uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001182----000-.html#a_3_E)) (or predecessor provision) or who was excluded from, or who would not have been eligible for admission to, the United States under the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 [former 50 App. (http://www.vtxoa.com/forums/../uscode50a/usc_sup_05_50.html) U.S.C. 1951 (http://www.vtxoa.com/forums/../uscode50a/usc_sec_50a_00001951----000-.html) et seq.] or under section 14 of the Refugee Relief Act of 1953 [former 50 App. (http://www.vtxoa.com/forums/../uscode50a/usc_sup_05_50.html) U.S.C. 1971l (http://www.vtxoa.com/forums/../uscode50a/usc_sec_50a_00001971----000-.html)].”

Applicability of Transmission Requirements

Section 101(d) of Pub. L. 103–416 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=103-416), as amended by Pub. L. 104–208 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=104-208), div. C, title VI, § 671(b)(1), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–721 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=statRef&target=date:Sept. 30, 1996ch:nonestatnum:110_3009%E2%80%93721), provided that: “This section [amending this section and enacting provisions set out above], the amendments made by this section, and any retroactive application of such amendments shall not effect the application of any provision of law relating to residence or physical presence in the United States for purposes of transmitting United States citizenship to any person whose claim is based on the amendment made by subsection (a) [amending this section] or through whom such a claim is derived.”

Admission of Alaska as State

Alaska Statehood provisions as not conferring, terminating, or restoring United States nationality, see section 21 of Pub. L. 85–508 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=85-508), July 7, 1958, 72 Stat. 339 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=statRef&target=date:July 7, 1958ch:nonestatnum:72_339), set out as a note preceding former section 21 (http://www.vtxoa.com/forums/../uscode48/usc_sec_48_00000021----000-.html) of Title 48 (http://www.vtxoa.com/forums/../uscode48/usc_sup_01_48.html), Territories and Insular Possessions.




LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.


I'm certainly no law professer, Just Sayin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[eXe]

It's a forgery...

...says he was born in a hospital...

Everyone knows he was born on the floor of his grandmother's hut...

...she remembers it "like it was yesterday"...

:p

[CentralScrutinizer]

Do you not concur with the fact of his Citizenship "by decent as the law states" from his proposed birth father, which fell under British Law at the time of his birth. "Dual Citizenship" is a dis-qualifier from the office of POTUS!
No - I don't concur. It's never been disputed that BO Sr. was not a US citizen. BO Jr's dual citizenship expired on his 21st birthday....it's a non issue. It's never been disputed and it has never been an issue.

As for the rest Mark - I just asked a simple question. Where are you getting this:

In essence, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. citizenship. At most, there were only 2 years elapsed since his mother turned 16 at the time of Barack Obama's birth when she was 18 in Hawaii. His mother would have needed to have been 16+5= 21 years old, at the time of Barack Obama's birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen.

The closest I can find is the correct and current code I previously posted, and please note:
"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"
Your huge highlighted red text above is irrelevant. Of course the amendment applies to people born after 11/14/86....it does not say "only". http://www.vtxoa.com/forums/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif

Your argument falls apart once actual facts are considered.

Since you've established through your world net daily article that not only his mother, but also his father and grandparents lived in Hawaii at two separate addresses.... is it your position that a very pregnant 18 year old left Hawaii and the wonderful medical facilities there in order to fly halfway around the world to a 3rd world country to give birth. Then, sneak back into Hawaii - all of this totally unnoticed by anybody? Why would anyone do this, does that sound rational to you? Is this really your position?

[markamoore]

No - I don't concur. It's never been disputed that BO Sr. was not a US citizen. BO Jr's dual citizenship expired on his 21st birthday....it's a non issue. It's never been disputed and it has never been an issue.

As for the rest Mark - I just asked a simple question. Where are you getting this:



The closest I can find is the correct and current code I previously posted, and please note:
"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"
Your huge highlighted red text above is irrelevant. Of course the amendment applies to people born after 11/14/86....it does not say "only". http://www.vtxoa.com/forums/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif

Your argument falls apart once actual facts are considered.

Since you've established through your world net daily article that not only his mother, but also his father and grandparents lived in Hawaii at two separate addresses.... is it your position that a very pregnant 18 year old left Hawaii and the wonderful medical facilities there in order to fly halfway around the world to a 3rd world country to give birth. Then, sneak back into Hawaii - all of this totally unnoticed by anybody? Why would anyone do this, does that sound rational to you? Is this really your position?




Why would it have to state "only", when it plainly states the actual date it became effective? O's birth was August 4,1961, waaaaaayyyyyyy before the "5&2" year modification to the ammendment took effect.
His birth, under current law at the time would have reverted to the 10 year with 5 being after the age of 16 for the mother. His British Citizenship, by decent from the father, would have to be taken into account as US law would have no effect on a non-citizens nationality or physical origin. We haven't even touched on the fact that he went to school in Indonesia. At the time, he nor his mother could have gained access into that country legally by holding US citizenship nor could "he" have been enrolled into public school!
The source you quoted, "Cornell Law" is where the information came from.
I didn't write the friggin thing, I'm simply quoting from your published source.
Here is the link, again:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-notes.html

1986—Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 99–653 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=99-653) substituted “five years, at least two” for “ten years, at least five”.

Effective Date of 1986 Amendment

Section 23(d) of Pub. L. 99–653 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=99-653), as added by Pub. L. 100–525 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=100-525), § 8(r), Oct. 24, 1988, 102 Stat. 2619 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=statRef&target=date:Oct. 24, 1988ch:nonestatnum:102_2619), provided that: “The amendment made by section 12 (http://www.vtxoa.com/forums/../uscode08/usc_sec_08_00000001----000-.html) [amending this section] shall apply to persons born on or after November 14, 1986.”



Would you not also deem it irrational and unprobable for Stanley Ann to show back up in Washington State within 15 days after his birth to attend extension classes at University of Washington?

[CentralScrutinizer]

Why would it have to state "only", when it plainly states the actual date it became effective?
Mark - I know you really don't WANT it to apply to BO, but of course it clearly states directly in the code:
"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"
There isn't anything confusing about that language, is there? The "effective date" will never supercede what is written into the code itself. You can't pick and choose what you want to apply and what you don't.


Would you not also deem it irrational and unprobable for Stanley Ann to show back up in Washington State within 15 days after his birth to attend extension classes at University of Washington?
After the birth of my son, my wife went back to work after about two weeks. I think a lot of people do.
I can say what she definitely would not have done - fly halfway around the world to give birth in a hut! :lol:

[markamoore]

Mark - I know you really don't WANT it to apply to BO, but of course it clearly states directly in the code:
"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"
There isn't anything confusing about that language, is there? The "effective date" will never supercede what is written into the code itself. You can't pick and choose what you want to apply and what you don't.



After the birth of my son, my wife went back to work after about two weeks. I think a lot of people do.
I can say what she definitely would not have done - fly halfway around the world to give birth in a hut! :lol:


It's not what I want that's important!
I may be wrong but the provision you quoted is part of a different section, that being the following:

(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 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode22/usc_sec_22_00000288----000-.html) of title 22 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode22/usc_sup_01_22.html), "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

The wording and the section seems to contradict with the applicable date(s) of amendment(s) and when they become effective!
Agree or not, that is what it states!

It plainly states that the effective date of the 10/5 year requirement changing to 5/2 year requirement took effect and shall apply to persons born on or after November 14, 1986.

You also mentioned the specific that it did not state "only".
What would be your interpretation of the wording "may be included" in the proviso you quoted?
Not that it's relevant because Stanley Ann would not fall under the governing statutes of this particular provisio(n) nor would either of her parents.
Unless there are other amendments with accompanying incorporation dates, I don't find this provision as relevant to the subject.

[CentralScrutinizer]

I don't find this provision as relevant to the subject.
OK then...once again....please tell us WHAT you are refering to when you say:
In essence, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. citizenship. At most, there were only 2 years elapsed since his mother turned 16 at the time of Barack Obama's birth when she was 18 in Hawaii. His mother would have needed to have been 16+5= 21 years old, at the time of Barack Obama's birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen.

The only thing I can find that is even remotely similar to that statement is the OLD version of section (g) - which now doesn't read that way at all and has a retroactive date of 12/24/1952. Also, giving an effective date of 23(d) doesn't have anything to do with 23(g) if that is what you are trying to say.

If that is not what you are refering to, then please tell us what it is.

I am simply trying to figure out where you get this 16+5=21 equation.

If it's not section (g) - then what? Simple question.

[markamoore]

OK then...once again....please tell us WHAT you are refering to when you say:


The only thing I can find that is even remotely similar to that statement is the OLD version of section (g) - which now doesn't read that way at all and has a retroactive date of 12/24/1952. Also, giving an effective date of 23(d) doesn't have anything to do with 23(g) if that is what you are trying to say.

If that is not what you are refering to, then please tell us what it is.

I am simply trying to figure out where you get this 16+5=21 equation.

If it's not section (g) - then what? Simple question.

To me, section (h) applies, even if we are to believe she gave birth in a kenyan hut ;)

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

(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.



We agree that we don't agree with the effective dates of the applicable provisions, even though your quoted provision clearly states "this" proviso(n), which is a separate subsection altogether.
Why have you sidestepped the question of "dual citizenship" regardless of where he was or was not borne and what provisions governs over his birth by decent.

[Spamaster]

When I turned 18 they gave me two choices, file for citizenship or live here for 7-years straight. I chose the latter, better than filling out guvment forms.

[markamoore]

When I turned 18 they gave me two choices, file for citizenship or live here for 7-years straight. I chose the latter, better than filling out guvment forms.


That would make you a "naturalized" citizen, no disrespect intended, just sayin! A whole different situation than what we are discussing.
Were you required to renounce your former citizenship, wherever that may have been?

[Spamaster]

That would make you a "naturalized" citizen, no disrespect intended, just sayin! A whole different situation than what we are discussing.
Were you required to renounce your former citizenship, wherever that may have been?

I had dual citizenship, US and German. Since I was not born on US soil but had US parents that is how that happened. I received information from both US and German governments stating I need to decide which I want. The Germans tried to encourage me to go their route.

[CentralScrutinizer]

We agree that we don't agree with the effective dates of the applicable provisions, even though your quoted provision clearly states "this" proviso(n), which is a separate subsection altogether.
Why have you sidestepped the question of "dual citizenship" regardless of where he was or was not borne and what provisions governs over his birth by decent.

My effective date is at least in the appropriate section (g). You seem to want to use an effective date applying to a different section entirely (d). Wouldn't it say otherwise if they didn't mean it to be retroactive, like the notation you mistakenly attributed to (g) here:

Section 23(d) of Pub. L. 99–653 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=99-653), as added by Pub. L. 100–525 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=100-525), § 8(r), Oct. 24, 1988, 102 Stat. 2619 (http://www.vtxoa.com/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=statRef&target=date:Oct. 24, 1988ch:nonestatnum:102_2619), provided that: “The amendment made by section 12 (http://www.vtxoa.com/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00000001----000-.html) [amending this section] shall apply to persons born on or after November 14, 1986.”

Unless you can show that (g) -not (d)- also only applies to people born after a certain time period, your argument really doesn't hold water.

I've not sidestepped the dual citizenship issue. See a few posts prior. quoted here for simplicity:
It's never been disputed that BO Sr. was not a US citizen. BO Jr's dual citizenship expired on his 21st birthday....it's a non issue. It's never been disputed and it has never been an issue.

[Supertoft]

I don't think we will ever really know.