Photo - Obama's Kenyan Birth Certificate (political fraud)

reply to post by Mak Manto

And really! Who is doubting it's validity!

Orly Taitz? Is that who's doubting it?

Well, just as I expected, had you read the link you would know who was doubting it's validity.

reply to post by Mak Manto

And you're wrong.

He did show it offline, OneClick.

I am really not going to watch a video with 'shut up alright' in the title.
Does it show Obama holding his real long form certificate...or is that the same idiotic ranting report that you put on before? There is little point placing you tubes again and again when it has been responded to before. Wow, it's folded....that must mean it's real.
People are so gullible.

reply to post by oneclickaway


Or, you're just not able to accept the truth. I read the blog, but it's from a guy who's not able to accept that Obama is our president.

Honestly, if don't like Obama this much, you better hope he's not reelected in 2012.

It's getting old that you keep saying he's not a natural-born citizen.

Originally posted by Mak Manto
Benevolent is right, OneClick.

Besides, President Obama showed his short form BOTH ON AND OFF the internet.

He was born in Hawaii.

The US Constitution does not state a definition of what a natural-born citizen is.

Though, if you're born in the country to a mother who's a US citizen, you're a natural-born citizen in my book.

To say that both your mother and father have to be US citizens is ridiculous.

Nevertheless, naysayers, the US constitution has no definition of what a natural-born citizen is.

What YOUR BOOK says means nothing. YOU are not the law of the land.

The constitution is. The constitution most certainly does state what a natural born citizen is. It is found in the Law of Nations. The constitution specifically states the congress has the power to punish crimes committed against the Law of Nations. The defined definition of natural born citizen is clearly stated in the Law of Nations. The constitution clearly states you must be a natural born citizen to be POTUS.

Sorry, but the constitution and what the Law of Nations state beats anything your self illusioned book says!

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by FollowTheConstitution
You can NOT have DUAL CITIZENSHIP and be a Natural Born Citizen.

Show me proof of this one little piece of information.

reply to post by FollowTheConstitution

 

Ooh! blogs used for proof! My favorite resources! Anybody can wrote anything they want on Internet blogs. If you honestly believe all this nonsense about a book called "Law of Nations" written by someone who wasn't even American, then I don't know what to tell you.

BTW, British Nationality Law has NO EFFECT of US law. So, it doesn't matter what the BNA says. It's irrelevant to US nationality law. Using another country's laws to prove something about someone born in the US is irrelevant.

Originally posted by KnoxMSP
Where does his father's citizenship go?

His father's citizenship doesn't matter. It's OBAMA's citizenship that matters. And being BORN a citizen on US soil makes him a natural born citizen.

[edit on 29-8-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

Um, that blogs you refer to was written by an attorney well versed in law.

What proof do you have? NONE! Surely you are not rlying on what has been posted on the internet being submitted as proof real proof, are you? What makes your internet blogs any better proof than any other blogs?

Lets see, who shall we believe? Some far left wing internet site like factcheck, which is owned by the very same organization that had Obama and Bill Ayers sitting on their borad? Or should we give more weight to reputable lawyers well versed in law? Boy that is a hard choice there I tell ya! LOL

And the Law of Nations is just not some book written by someone that isn't American. That so called book IS what our founding fathers based our laws and constitution from. It is specifically cited in our constitution granting congress the power to punish anyone that violates any of the laws that written in the Law of Nations. What part about that do you not get?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

BTW, British Nationality Law has NO EFFECT of US law. So, it doesn't matter what the BNA says. It's irrelevant to US nationality law. Using another country's laws to prove something about someone born in the US is irrelevant.

Originally posted by KnoxMSP
Where does his father's citizenship go?

His father's citizenship doesn't matter. It's OBAMA's citizenship that matters. And being BORN a citizen on US soil makes him a natural born citizen.

[edit on 29-8-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

WRONG! British nationalty most certainly does have an effect on Obama. That is why it is called DUAL citizenship!

Our laws here may not have any effect on what British laws are, but the same holds true for the British. Their laws have no effect on our laws here. BOTH can claim him as a citizen since he is a citizen of both.

If it were that simple as you think, then explain the custody cases currently going on where one parent is a US citizen born here, and the other is a foreign citizen, when their child was born here as a US Citizen, the foreign parent takes the child to their country and now refuses to return the child. The foreign country refuses to return the child claiming the US has no authority to take the child away. If it were like you want to believe where someone born here where US law has no effect on their laws, then they could not claim this child and keep the US from taking the child back. But that is not the case!

Consider this. What if a person born here like Obama with dual citizenship, and then something happens where say, their father was some big ranking politician of a foreign country and was taken hostage by some other country. This would put the President in a very bad situation because he would have to choose between two countries that he is a citizen of.

Or what if that country of his father was to end up in war against the US??? And what if his father was the President of that country? How would that affect the US by having a dual citizen here as President where his father became President of his country and we ended up going to war against each other?

Can you HONESTLY believe that would not have any effect on the choices our President would have to make against his own country that his own father was also a President of?

This is why you can never allow dual citizens to become President. This is why the constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen. This will always serve in the best interest of the US to protect us against foreign enemies! Obama is a US citizen at best (IF he was in fact born here which has not been proven) and he is also a foreignor since he is still to this day a British citizen, and even possibly a citizen of Indonesia.

Originally posted by FollowTheConstitution
And the Law of Nations is ... specifically cited in our constitution granting congress the power to punish anyone that violates any of the laws that written in the Law of Nations.

Of offenses against the law of nations:

THE law of nations is a system of rules, deducible by natural reason, and established by universal consent among the civilized inhabitants of the world ... This general law is founded upon this principle, that different nations ought in time of peace to do one another all the good they can; and, in time of war, as little harm as possible, without prejudice to their own real interests.

Dictionary:

law of nations
n : the body of laws governing relations between nations [syn: international law] [ant: civil law]

The law of nations as referenced by the Constitution is not the book. It's an International Law. Vattel's book was written ABOUT the law of nations. The Constitution is referencing the law, not someone's book about the law.

While the BOOK, the "Law of Nations" did influence the writing of the Constitution, the BOOK itself is not a law and does not make law. It is Vattel's thoughts on the law of nations.

If the framers of the Constitution were talking about a book, they would have indicated such.

You have made the extraordinary claim that the Constitution references a BOOK instead of a LAW and you are required to provide extraordinary evidence.


[edit on 30-8-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

Although this is ON TOPIC it slightly deviates from recent posts related to interpretations of constitutional eligibility.

Here is a rather objective background piece on Ms. Taitz. If you are as confused as I am, this might shed some light on her story. It is NOT a smear job. There are many useful resources within the article. I apologize if it has been already posted in the 120+ pages.\

Think of it as a "Refresher" course on how we got here.

www.ocweekly.com...

Carry on. Kurious

Interesting read, Kurious. I'm not done yet, but enjoying it.

One more thing... From Vattel's Book:

3. Definition of the law of nations.

The Law of Nations is the science which teaches the rights subsisting between nations or states, and the obligations correspondent to those rights.

[edit on 30-8-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

Thank you, Benevolent!

Finally someone else can tell Constitution that the Law of Nations does not represent the rules for the country!

CLICK ON THIS LINK TO SEE A VERY SIMPLE CHART THAT LAYS OUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, CITIZEN AND NATIVE BORN CITIZEN.....
www.theobamafile.com...

Emmerich de Vattel was a Swiss jurist who attained world preeminence in international law. This was primarily the result of his great foundational work, which he published in 1758. His monumental work -- The Law of Nations -- applied a theory of natural law to international relations. His scholarly, foundational, and systematic explanation of the Law of Nations was especially influential in the United States.

The Law of Nations was so influential in the United States because his principles of liberty and equality coincided with the ideals expressed in the U. S. Declaration of Independence. In particular, his definitions in terms of Law governing nations regarding citizenship, defense of neutrality, and his rules for commerce between neutral and belligerent states were considered authoritative in the United States.

Many have said that de Vattel's Law of Nations was THE primary reference and defining book used by the framers of the U. S. Constitution. It is really not possible to overstate the influence of de Vattel's Law of Nations as the primary reference book in the drafting of the U. S. Constitution. Emmerich de Vattel's Law of Nations is almost beyond comparison in its value as a defining document regarding U. S. Constitution intent and interpretation. The Law of Nations, or the Principles of Natural Law, published in 1758, is the first, and ONLY, definitive work the Framers of the U. S. Constitution used for the inclusion of the "Natural Born Citizen" phrase. It nails what is meant by the "natural born citizen" phrase of Section 1, Article 2, of the U. S. Constitution.

It is amazing how perfectly, precisely, and explicitly what Emmerich de Vattel, wrote in paragraph 212, of book 1, chapter 19, of The Law of Nations entitled CITIZENS AND NATIONS, applies to the Obama FRAUD. Quite clearly and explicitly it defines why Obama, can NOT possibly be qualified to be the President of the United States. Obama MUST be disqualified from the office of President of the United States according to the U. S. Constitution Section 1 Article 2.


"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN."
It's About
Loyalty The Founders wanted the President to be a Natural Born Citizen to ensure that the ONE person sitting at the top of the Executive branch had UNQUESTIONABLE, UNWAVERING loyalty to the United States, first and foremost.

At one point, the delegates writing the Constitution in 1787 considered THREE "presidents" in the Executive for "checks and balances." They considered a "natural born citizen" clause for Senators as well. Debating those issues, they felt that a "natural born citizen" clause for Senators would limit the pool of possible candidates and could cause bad feelings with immigrants needed to "jump start" the newly-formed republic.

In the end, the Framers compromised that Senators be required to be US residents for 9 years, while striking the "natural born citizen" clause for the office.

The Framers also compromised on ONE Executive vs. THREE. But to ensure "checks and balances," the Framers inserted in Art II, Sect. 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..."

The natural born citizen clause was NOT an accident, nor was it an inane rule to be restrictive to immigrants, and it certainly isn't just a "political" issue. Loyalty to the US is the reason the natural born citizen clause was inserted into the Constitution.
1st U. S.
Congress
Parents (pl) In the official copies of the THIRD U.S. Congress (1795) margin notes state "Former act repealed. 1790. ch. 3." referencing the FIRST U.S. Congress (1790).

Document ONE: the actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 states, "...children of citizens [plural, i.e. two parents] of the United States...shall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States..." (THIRD CONGRESS Sess. II. Ch.21. 1795, Approved January 29, 1795, pp. 414-415. Document margin note: "How children shall obtain citizenship through their parents" Document margin note: "Former Act repealed 1790 ch.3.") See Attachment A.

Document TWO: the actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790 states,
"...children of citizens (NB: plural, i.e. two parents) of the United States...shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States..." (FIRST CONGRESS Sess. II Ch.4 1790, Approved March 26, 1790, pp. 103-104. Document margin note: "Their children residing here, deemed citizens." Document margin note: "Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, & c. Exceptions.") See Attachment B.

Document THREE: the actual text of the Constitution from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789, and subsequent official printings, of the Constitution of the United States of American: Article II Section 1 Clause 5 states,
"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…" See Attachment C.
www.theobamafile.com...

This Chart defines the three different types of U.S. Citizens as referenced in the U.S. Constitution and caselaw.

Constitutional TermParentsConjunction (And, Or)Location of BirthConjunction (And, Or)OtherLegal Reference

Natural Born Citizen


(Obama is not one of these)
Both are U.S. Citizens at time child was bornAND Born in the U.S. mainland

A. U.S. Const., Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 5


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


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


D. Resolution of 110th Congress 2nd Session April 10, 2008 submitted by Obama, Clinton and others
Citizen of the U.S. Born to at least 1 U.S. Citizen Parent (under federal statute) OR Born in the U.S. mainlandOR Naturalized


A. U.S. Const. 14th Amend., Sec. 1


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


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

Native Born Citizen Born in the U.S. mainland


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


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


Note: The above chart is attributed to and used by permission from www.TheObamaFile.com

I'm not disagreeing that Vattel thought a natural born citizen should be a person born to 2 citizens. But that doesn't automatically translate to what the Constitution means. That's a logic jump that I, for one, am not willing to make. There is no indication that the Founding Fathers accepted his definitions.

Believe whatever you wish. It's not my intent to change your mind. But you're certainly not going to change mine. Sorry.

By the way, you should actually READ Perkins v. Elg. Nowhere in there does it define a Natural Born citizen.

They didn't accept that as a definition.

Tell me, Constitution, if you will. Don't post anything from a link. I want your own words here.

If the Law of Nations is law for natural-born citizens in this country, then why is a child who's born in the United States of two illegal immigrants a natural-born citizen?

Because, Constitution, the Law of Nations is not constitutional law.

Originally posted by Mak Manto
They didn't accept that as a definition.

Tell me, Constitution, if you will. Don't post anything from a link. I want your own words here.

If the Law of Nations is law for natural-born citizens in this country, then why is a child who's born in the United States of two illegal immigrants a natural-born citizen?

Because, Constitution, the Law of Nations is not constitutional law.

A child born in the United States of two illegal immigrants is NOT a natural born citizen. Where did you ever come up with that idea???

A child born in the United States by two illegal immigrants is just a US citizen by birth rights. Anchor bavy. But they are NOT natural born citizens because their parents are not US Citizens.

Now if their parents became US citizens by naturalization and THEN their child was born after they became naturalized US citizens, then the child would be a natural born citizen.

The same holds true if only one parent was not a US citizen because the citizenship would be born as dual citizenship and you can not be a natural born citizen if you are born with dual citizenship. BOTH parents MUST be US citizens at the time of the child's birth to be a natural born citizen and the child must be born on US soil.

The following statement was published by Obama’s official web site, Fight The Smears:

“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…”

As you can see above, Obama has ADMITTED he is a dual citizen and was so at the time of his birth!

Take Judicial Notice of the US State Department’s current policy under the Obama administration with regard to dual citizenship:

“The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance. However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.“


So there you have it! By Obama's own admission and by the US State Department currently under Obama's own administration, there is no way possible to argue that the framers of the constitution would ever allow for a dual citizen to become President, muchless be considered a natural born citizen!

Originally posted by FollowTheConstitution
“The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance. However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.“


So there you have it! By Obama's own admission and by the US State Department currently under Obama's own administration, there is no way possible to argue that the framers of the constitution would ever allow for a dual citizen to become President, muchless be considered a natural born citizen!

Where exactly does it say that? I do not see "president" or "natural born" anywhere up there.

Where exactly does it say that? I do not see "president" or "natural born" anywhere up there.


Article II

Section 1 - The President

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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

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

Take Judicial Notice of the US State Department’s current policy under the Obama administration with regard to dual citizenship:

“The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance. However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.“

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

The following statement was published by Obama’s official web site, Fight The Smears:

“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…”

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

OK, now all it takes it simple basic reading skill of the english language to know the framers of the constitution never intended to allow a DUAL citizen to ever become POTUS after the date of signing the constitution. This is why they specified "natural born citizen" as a requirement because to be a natural born citizen means there is no way possible to be born with dual citizenship.

People seem to confuse the word "natural" in the context it was used in the constitution as being anyone born on US soil is natural born simply because they were merely born here. That is not at all what it means. By natural it means born with SOLE ALLEGIANCE to the country you are born in which the only way that be accomplished is by born by US Citizen parents! BOTH parents must be US Citizens in order to be born without having any possiblity of having dual citizenship and/or having any allegiance owed to any foreign country.

Merely by taking what the constitution itself says, and based on what the US State Department says about dual citizenship, along with the undisputable fact Obama was born a dual citizen owing allegiance to the UK and the US both, IF he was in fact born here, there is no way possible he was a US NATURAL born citizen. At best, he was born just a US citizen "IF" in fact he was really born on US soil.

To this day Obama is still a dual citizen. But even IF he took the proper steps to denounce his British citizenship, it still does not change his status at the time of his birth. You can't be a non-natural born citizen at birth and then later gain natural born status by simply denouncing your foreign citizenship years later after the fact.

His status at the time of his birth is all that matters. At the time of his birth he was born a dual citizen, period! That means it is impossible to be born a US NATURAL born citizen.

All together now....put on our simple common sense caps and say...OMG!!!

reply to post by FollowTheConstitution


Sorry to say, Constitution, but they are natural-born citizens. They have that right if they are born in the United States.

[edit on 1/9/09 by Mak Manto]

Originally posted by Mak Manto
reply to post by FollowTheConstitution

 

Sorry to say, Constitution, but they are natural-born citizens. They have that right if they are born in the United States.

[edit on 1/9/09 by Mak Manto]

No they are not. You obviously don't understand what the law is.

Actually, I wanted to ask you on that...

So, you say that for a person to be President, both of their parents have to be natural-born citizens of the United States?

This is why you're saying Obama is not our president?