Sheriff Joe's posse: 'Probable cause' Obama Birth Certificate a Fraud-now a Criminal Case!

Originally posted by oghamxx
My mom was delivered by a midwife. The only record of her birth was in the church. The church burned. 40 years later a state judge issued a 'birth certificate' based upon sworn statements by her and her mother. Is it legal/lawful? She could vote in local, state and federal elections! Social Security accepted it!

what year was your Mom born?

reply to post by micpsi


Would you care to show where it is defined as such? There is absolutely no definition within the Constitution for natural-born citizen. This means it was left up to the courts to decide. The first case that approached this issue was Lynch v. Clarke. This said that as long as a person was born on US soil they were a natural-born citizen. A similar decision was reached in In re Look Tin Sing. This all culminated with United States v. Wong Kim Ark which once again defined natural-born citizenship in terms consistent with birthright citizenship. In fact the leading precedence for Wong Kim Ark was Lynch v. Clarke. As far as I know no court cases have been raised since then that have changed the definition of natural-born citizen being synonymous with birthright citizenship.

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


EDIT: Sorry thought you were asking what the law meant.

reply to post by Xcalibur254
I don't think so...there's nothing referring to being present at the birth, just reference to the citizen themselves having been physically present in the US for the required times under the qualifications given, or as being physically present abroad as an unmarried child and member of the household of a person meeting the specific requirements then given.

If you can clarify where exactly you're getting anything about being present at the birth itself out of the text, I'd appreciate it.

reply to post by truthRconsequences357


Well let em bring them on, I know I am ready for business! It is time we get this country back on the constitutional standards and get to the bottom of this. I am ready to fight for my rights! let em riot, I can take care of myself!!!!!

Originally posted by spyder550
So these dingbats are stating exactly what the other dingbats have been stating all along. Lots of speculation and this sheriff is an attn. w____ gets another 15 min. No proof just inuendo. What has he been doing all of this time with his -- I love this -- posse. Somebody wasted some money.

Who are you? Archie Bunker - calling people dingbats?
Your no proof statement is bull #.
Ignore ignoramuses who can't deny ignorance.

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


It means that at least 2 of the 5 years has to be after the individual was 14. Since Obama's mother was 14 at the time she came here she would have had to be 19 for her child to acquire citizenship. The "at least 2 years" stated has nothing to do with this case since his mother was already over 14. The "at least 2 years" means that the youngest you can come is 11 and by the time you were 16 if that person had a child, they would acquire citizenship automatically, because 2 of their 5 years they had to be present in the U.S. would have been after they were 14.

reply to post by Brandon88


Let's try to explain this again. A person must have spent five years of their life living in the US to confer citizenship. At least two of those years must come after the age of fourteen. If a person did not live in the US until the age of 14 they would need to wait five years before being able to confer citizenship if they gave birth outside the country and its territories. If a person spent their whole life in the US up until the age of 14 they would still need to live in the US for two more years before being able to confer citizenship on a child born abroad. That is what the line you have isolated means. Ann Dunham lived in the US from the time of her birth until 1967. When she gave birth to Obama she had lived in the US for 18 years. Since she had lived in the US for 18 years and was only 18 years old it would mean that she had lived in the US for at least two years after the age of 14. In this case she had lived in the US for four years after the age of 14. Last I checked four was at least two.

Ahhh.... finally. It took a while but now we have finally gotten here. Now that a reputable commission of lawyers, officers, etc. has investigated the certificate and deemed it a forgery, the truth is finally getting out.

Now, Obama could settle this whole thing by just allowing the American public a view of that "real" actual birth certificate locked up in a vault in Hawaii.

Oh, and the best part is going to be the thousands of lawsuits coming to contest the validity of Obama in every single State of the Union. This should shut him down once and for all.

Ahhh... there was a time when talk like this about Obama wasn't even allowed. But now, things have sure changed.

reply to post by Brandon88


She was born in Wichita, Kansas, then moved to California, then Ponca City, Oklahoma, then to Vernon, Texas, then to El Dorado, Kansas, then to Seattle, Washington, then to Mercer Island, Washington. Finally she moved to Hawaii in 1960, which means Hawaii had been a state for a year. Can you please explain what you mean when you say she didn't move here until she was fourteen? Last I checked Kansas, California, Oklahoma, Texas, and Washington were all part of the United States.

reply to post by Brandon88


Speaking of the law, I believe it has to be consecutively. As I am an American of thirty years; if I father a child in another country, that child is an American. Regardless of the mothers affiliation. As I do not believe Obama is an American, I must beg the question how is he not if his mother were born on our soil. Is it the male dominate? The years abroad if not born abroad by mother or son? I sincerely as a conservative hope Obama is invalidated, but if he was born abroad and proved as such why wasn't his birth notified to the closest consulate or embassy to prove such. If that is the case; his presidency should be null and void. Call it what you will, there are protocals, if you missed the boat, you missed the boat.

29INFDIV

reply to post by hapablab


1920 before Hawaii was a state, cert issued in 1960 or 61 before computers were used. She never sought nor held public office

Originally posted by truthRconsequences357
Why this lying,bi-sexual, Marxist,foreign national POTUS will never be prosecuted for any of his' treasonous 'crimes!
The 'Black Backlash' Threat

And he has an army of 'thugs' in waiting!

Here's some of Obama's supporters:
Just Some Of Obama's Army of 'THUGS!'
And with other support coming from the New Black Panthers, SEIU, YDSUSA.org,,theactivist.org, ,working families party and IUSY.org 'thugs'--I can see how proud you 'lefties' must feel!

When Obama said his presidency would be transparent we sure as hell didn't know he was saying that his personal records would be invisible.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


Under Sec. 301 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, the act in effect at the time of Barack Obama's birth, the following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(7) "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 ten years, at least five 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 by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph."

The law you stated my friend does not apply to Obama at the time of his birth this is the one that does. I understand what your saying now I didn't know the prior history of his mother but he still is not qualified for the presidency.

reply to post by Praetorius


Yeah I was definitely wrong with that. I think I've got it now though. A person must have spent five years in the US with two of these years occurring after fourteen. However, time spent in the military or as part of an international organization counts. As does time spent abroad for an unmarried dependent as long their citizen parent is with them and they are in the household of someone in the military or part of the government. This allows children of dignitaries and servicemen to confer birthright citizenship on their own children even if they have never spent time in America.

reply to post by Brandon88


You're actually quoting from the same code that I am. The difference however is you are quoting from the current version of that code. The amendment that changed "five years, at least two" to "ten years, at least five" was not passed until 1986. This was also not a retroactive amendment so Obama would have been subject to the original 1952 provisos which use the "five years, at least two" language.

So...do we oust him as president...or does mainstream news just seem to completely ignore it and noone does a thing? I really hope Sheriff Joe is already on a plane...

Originally posted by Brandon88
reply to post by Skewed

 

He should be removed from office and anything he has done should be null and void.

I agree, Bradon88. Cato Institute recently posted an article about the peoples right to nullify a court or governments judgements: Nullify Obama

John Adams wrote, “It is not only the juror’s right, but his duty to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the instruction of the court.” Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”