Eligibility Update: Patriot’s Heart v. Soetoro Filed; Apuzzo, Kerchner on Obama’s British Citizenship (Updated)
According to the Patriot’s Heart Network, a number of Plaintiffs, including Georgia citizen grand jury foreman Carl Swensson (and being represented by attorney Stephen Pidgeon), have officially filed a Petition for the Convening of a Federal Grand Jury:
FINAL Patriots Heart v Soetoro-PetitionforGJ
More than fifty percent of the petition involves a full 27 exhibits.
Chalice of PHN released the following today:
Patriot’s Heart Network (PHNMedia.com), in the name of our members and represented by Attorney Stephen Pidgeon, along with Carl Swensson (RiseUpForAmerica.com) Robert Debeaux, Robert Pinkstaff, and Dr. Penny Kelso have successfully filed a petition in the US District Court in Washington, D.C. requesting a Federal Grand Jury be assembled to look into high crimes against the United States of America and against our 1st amendment rights. Defendants on the Petition are Barry Soetoro, (aka Barack Obama) Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and the Media. These crimes include Conspiracy, False Personation, Intimidation of Voters, Fraud and False Statements, Fraud and related activity, Treason and Misprision of Treason. The motion for relief seeks the appointment of a Federal Grand Jury by the Chief Judge of the DC Court, Royce Lamberth.
This issue about Natural Born Citizenship status and the eligibility to be President is NOT a fringe issue. It is not mere fodder of the misdirected gullible tin hatter clubbers. The mocks of those who attempt to minimize and/or toss away sincere American voices as those who just have ‘no clue.’ Qualification to serve as President is a SERIOUS Constitutional issue and it is time that “We The People” get the answers in which We are entitled. We have been ignored, mocked, and laughed at by many. We remain undeterred in our determination to move forward.
For the past several months, we have alerted the various branches of government to our grave concern about the eligibility of this President to hold this position of power. Two weeks ago, we served Congress with testimony of the grave concerns of 1.2 million voices. In return, we received signed receipts and/ or photographic evidence that We the People have served Congress notice of these Constitutional issues! (Information about the trip is available HERE) Through joint efforts with Rise Up For America, we provide information on how citizens across the country can follow-up with their elected Congressional officials. Attorney Generals have been duly informed as well. One action, PHNMedia encourages all to take is to ask their Senators and Representatives to Define Natural Born Citizen. We did so in DC and found neither Senator interviewed knew the meaning, but they voted to confirm the Electoral College! The video or audio evidence of these interviews will be valuable as part of this case.
Yesterday, another step in our journey for the truth has been taken.
The Petition filed yesterday will go before Chief Judge Royce Lamberth (Bio Here ) This Petition calls for the convening of a Federal Grand Jury. Read the full Petition HERE. The allegations of Treason, Fraud, and Misprision are not to be taken lightly! Our complaint calls out Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Obama, Pelosi, Dean AND IMPORTANTLY the media! However, make no mistake, once a Grand Jury is convened, others may be identified for their complicity in this cover-up. High crimes against our Republic are taking place while those responsible to act and report on such matters remain deafening in their silence. It is crime punishable by terms from 3 to 20 years in jail for falsifying birth documents.This is more serious when it is in pursuit of a Federal job. We the People have not seen the proof Obama is eligible to be President. This Petition before the District Court lays out with solid evidence and reasoning, the fact that our First Amendment Rights were abridged by the crimes of the defendants on the petition.
We, the plaintiffs in this case encourage all of you to read the 181 page Petition. There are other action points we offer for your consideration. Please visit www.phnmedia.com to be kept abreast of these. Join www.phnmedia.net to become part of the Plaintiff voices from Patriots Heart Network.
It’s simple, really. We the People, DEMAND from the Media to accurately “Define Natural Born Citizen.” We DEMAND from all branches of our government PROOF that the person in the White House is NOT a Usurper. We demand proof of his eligibility. If eligibility is not established, then our nation and all of the laws return to January 19, 2009. Every action that a Usurper takes are nullified when lack of eligibly to serve is established. It is the US District Court where such matters are heard. It is in this court where We the People demand Redress through the appointment of a Federal Grand Jury.
We cannot do this alone. We DEFINITELY need your help! Join us today!
Update: Attorney Mario Apuzzo of Kerchner v. Obama had originally written an article in April (updated in July) concerning Mr. Obama currently being a British citizen that bears repeating (excerpted):
…The British Nationality Act of 1948 provides in pertinent part as follows:
“4. Subject to the provisions of this section, every person born within the United Kingdom and Colonies after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth:
Provided that a person shall not be such a citizen by virtue of this section if at the time of his birth—
(a) his father possesses such immunity from suit and legal process as is accorded to an envoy of a foreign sovereign power accredited to His Majesty, and is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies; or
(b) his father is an enemy alien and the birth occurs in a place then under occupation by the enemy.5.—(1) 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 ….”
Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama’s father became a British citizen under Section 4 by being born on the soil of an English Colony, Kenya. Under Section 5, when Obama was born in 1961 in Hawaii or some other place, he automatically became a British citizen by descent from his father who was a British citizen under Section 4.
Obama has deflected attention to his British citizenship by focusing the public’s attention on his former Kenyan citizenship. Notwithstanding what Obama may lead the public to believe, this British citizenship is not a type of citizenship that he has since lost. Moreover, this citizenship did not expire with Obama’s 21st birthday nor is it one that had to be registered in any specified period of time.
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. [sic] is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall. [sic] if his father becomes. [sic] . . . a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subjection (1). [sic] become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December. [sic] 1963.”
Under the Kenyan Constitution of 1963, Obama’s father and Obama became citizens of Kenya. But neither Kenya’s independence from Great Britain, nor the Kenyan Constitution, nor the Kenyan Independence Act of 1963, as amended, caused Obama to lose his British citizenship with which he was born. Obama concedes that his citizenship converted from British to Kenyan but he adds that he then lost this Kenyan citizenship when he did not confirm it upon reaching the age of 21. There are no known statements from either Obama or his campaign contending that he eventually lost his British citizenship. Rather, the statements have been that his British citizenship converted to Kenyan citizenship when Kenya obtained its independence from Great Britain in 1963 and that he then lost Kenyan citizenship under the Kenyan constitution and laws when he did not renounce U.S. citizenship at age 21. But since Obama never lost his British citizenship, it does not matter that Obama may have lost his Kenyan citizenship as he contends.
Let us now see how Obama did not lose his British citizenship. The Kenyan Constitution which came into effect in 1963 at Article 97 provides the following:
“97. Dual citizenship
1. A person who, upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one years, is a citizen of Kenya and also a citizen of some country other than Kenya shall, subject to subsection (7), cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date unless he has renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of allegiance and, in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament.”While the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults, it allows dual citizenship for children. Kenya’s Constitution does, however, specify that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possess citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship, swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya, and in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament. It may be true that Obama did not take any action to preserve his Kenyan citizenship as was required by the Kenyan constitution. But there is no evidence that Obama ever renounced his British citizenship which he originally acquired at his birth under Section 5 of the British Nationality Act of 1948 and which he did not lose under the Kenyan Independence Act of 1963, as amended. Whatever his father may have done regarding his Kenyan and/or British citizenship did not affect Obama’s British citizenship with which Obama was born. Hence, under the Kenyan Constitution, Obama presumably lost his Kenyan citizenship by not renouncing his U.S. (assuming he was born in the U.S.) and British citizenships, by not taking an oath of allegiance to Kenya, and by not registering his declaration to take up residence in Kenya. But under British law, he did not lose his British citizenship because he never renounced that citizenship.
The fact that Obama still has British citizenship is further supported by the following:
“Under United Kingdom law as it has been since the British Nationality Act, 1948, the acquisition of another nationality by a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, of whatever age, makes no difference whatever to his status as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and, therefore, he remains a British subject.
Moreover, it is not possible, under United Kingdom law, for the nationality of a child who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies to be changed by the decision of his parents. Only the child, when he reaches the age of 21, can renounce his citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies if he is then in possession of another nationality, but during the child’s minority neither the child nor his parents can do anything to forfeit his birthright of British nationality.”
Children Bill [Lords], HC Deb 27 June 1958 vol 590 cc743-830.“It is now the law that all persons born in the United Kingdom or its Colonies, or in countries which were Colonies at the time when they were born, have British nationality whether they are legitimate or illegitimate. . . .
Also, it is part of our law that children of a British male born abroad can have British nationality.”
British Nationality, HC Deb 16 July 1963 vol 681 cc341-3.Additionally, if one examines the British Nationality Act of 1981, as amended, there is nothing there which shows that Obama, once having the British citizenship that he acquired by descent from his father at the time of his birth, automatically lost it at age 21. On the other hand, the act contains provisions concerning “declaration of renunciation” at Section 10, 12, and 13. Not that doing so would make Obama an Article II “natural born Citizen,”there is no evidence that Obama ever filed any “declaration of renunciation” of his British citizenship.
What does this mean? Under the Kenyan Constitution, Obama is presumably no longer a Kenyan citizen because he did not renounce at age 21 his British citizenship and his U.S. citizenship (assuming he was born in the U.S.). Obama is still however a British citizen not only under English common law (in the words of Coke and Blackstone, a natural-born subject of the United Kingdom) but also under British citizenship statutes. Neither Kenya’s 1963 constitution nor any statute erased the consequences of the British common law and nationality statutes that were in effect at the time of Obama’s and his father’s birth. Obama’s continuing British citizenship is further confirmed by English law which provides that persons born in countries which were Colonies at the time when they were born are still British citizens. Hence, Obama continues to be a British citizen despite Kenya’s independence and new constitution.
Charles Kerchner, lead Plaintiff in the above case, recently took out another ad in the Washington Times weekly edition; he also manages and solicits support at ProtectOurLiberty.org.
I really have to admit — after having read Mr. Apuzzo’s article once more, I am becoming convinced that Mr. Obama really could still be a British citizen. The question is whether or not Mr. Obama, at or after becoming a legal adult, specifically renounced his Kenyan, British or US citizenship.
According to the above, Mr. Obama’s British citizenship would not have automagically waned into non-existence unless he would have specifically denounced it. And there we have the other crux of the argument.
What do I mean?
While it may be true that if the public will ever be able to investigate Mr. Obama’s background documentation, including his long-form birth certificate (or whatever “vital records” are on file in the great State of Hawaii), it may actually show his being physically born in the State, the truth of the matter is that it’s also very likely that he maintains his British citizenship — the one “hidden-in-plain-sight” disqualifier for Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the American Constitution.
So, to me, it appears that Mr. Obama was not only born a British citizen, but may continue to be a Subject of Her Majesty the Queen to this day.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- Obama’s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know
- Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation
- Newsmax.com: Obama Birth Certificate Not Released
- What’s the Difference Between a Birth Certification Versus a Birth Certificate?
- Keyes v. Lingle: Forensic Examiner and IT Expert Disprove Certification of Live Birth
- Obama Citizenship Facts
- The State Department and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10, 2008)
- Citizen Grand Jury Updates and Eligibility Lawsuit Listing
-Phil
Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)
76 responses to Eligibility Update: Patriot’s Heart v. Soetoro Filed; Apuzzo, Kerchner on Obama’s British Citizenship (Updated)
Today Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily referred to Obama Sr. as Obama Jr.’s “father” in quotes in his editorial. You’d have to read it for context, but I believe there’s evidence somewhere that Obama’s biological father is not who he has claimed he is. If true, that would throw Obama’s citizenship into total question…we really would not know what kind of citizen he is.
I also happen to believe he was born in Kenya. Whatever is hidden on his birth certificate must be truly explosive…perhaps both of these things.
I have read about 50 pages of the Patriot’s Heart filing, and it is outstanding. It’s a complete compilation of all the information that has come out in the last 15 months along with quotes from the Founding Fathers and the Bible in the context of the founding of this country. I don’t know anyone who could read it and not be moved to action.
Dual Loyalties a Birth are a Disqualification for Being a Natural Born Citizen
http://www.thebirthers.org/USC/loyalties.html
RJ
All this is just dawning on you now? The BC has always been a smokescreen and many of us have been sreaming this at the tops of our lungs for months.It was one thing for Leftists to ignore the evidence,but unbelievable that truthseekers followed the celeb lawyers harping on the BC until now.The PHN criminal complaint is excellent because it has nailed something a few of us have been saying for years.And that is simply that the organic Con. was nullified in 1871 after 3 years of rewriting,and we lost all standing in 1946.The martial law goes back to 1861 and reaffirmed with outright war delcared on Americans in 1933.That is why all cases have failed.Even if a lawsuit was perfect and revolved around the NBC issue it would fail.The PHN Petition only mentions the agency and rulings pertinent to this crisis,but in total it was the APA Act of 1946 that added the fourth Branch to our government under a new constitution.People will still think this is crazy,but will learn the truth before year’s end.We are in the Endgame and part of it is to destroy the USA.At least there is a good fight in this now with the CGJs,military complaints,and now this PHN petition.Berg and Orly damged the cause.Apuzzo has a strong case but it will fail.If Orly’s case plays out it is by design,which is my guess after that default.Her many errors are delaying things unitl Fall for a few reasons.
If Obama is indeed a British subject, it does present potential problem. In theory, if Obama were visit Britain, Britain could exert their legal citizenship claim on him and keep him there as their British subject.
Where as I would love to get to the bottom of this issue and I support these citizen grand juries. I just feel that they do not hold the correct constitutional weight that they need. To me they are one-sided. It has appeared that anyone who wanted to become a grand jury citizen just had to sign up in their area. I believe that for the most part, these people were already on board the birth train and had already pre-determined their thoughts prior to any evidence being presented. Therefore, no matter what you presented before them, they would be automatically inclined to see it as such. I also think anyone who is an Obot that signed up, would be the same.
I just think the process has been tainted before it began. I think the jury selection must be impartial from the get go. These people walk in and boom are hit with the evidence and then makes their decision. No soliciation on it.
This Petition calls for the convening of a Federal Grand Jury.
The D.C. district court already has a grand jury convened: It just indicted Von Brunn in the Holocaust Memorial Shooting. So the district court will say, “thanks, but no thanks; we already got one.”
Besides, if citizen grand juries are empowered by the Constitution (as many have argued), then why do they have to beg the court to empanel a federal grand jury?
I really have to admit — after having read Mr. Apuzzo’s article once more, I am becoming convinced that Mr. Obama really could still be a British citizen.
Debunked months ago by Dr. Conspiracy.
Phil,
I don’t know about you, but it seemed to me that the Patriot’s Heart Network petition was littered with unnecessary hyperbole. In addition, it contained some far-reaching speculation and hearsay. I don’t know why so many people keep repeating things that are practically irrelevant to this issue or that sound like partisan rhetoric instead of legal complaints and petitions.
There’s no use whatsoever in mentioning his religious beliefs (past or present), likening his current policies to Nazi programs, or actually accusing him of treason – which has a very specific meaning and, as we currently speak, does not apply to this issue.
Why is it so hard for anyone to present a case with just the facts and without involving personal politics or rhetoric? It is petitions and cases like this that make the entire debate appear absurd – even if they do touch on some key points in the rest of their comments or complaints. Just the facts. Is it really too much to ask? Do they enjoy being laughed out of court because they can’t present a case without the partisan jackassery?
Now, I do believe Apuzzo is correct in his assessment of Obama’s British citizenship, even if his current status is irrelevant to natural-born citizenship. It may help demonstrate that Obama couldn’t be a natural-born citizen if he is still a British one today – and has been since the time of his birth – but I don’t think it’s necessary in order to prove that fact in a court case.
Nevertheless, any bit of information that sheds light on the absurdity of “birthright” citizenship as being equivalent to “natural-born” citizenship and its constitutional purpose is a plus.
Phil,
I think you have stumbled upon something… You stated, “Mr. Obama’s British citizenship would not have automagically waned into non-existence unless he would have specifically denounced it.”
Perhaps this is why the First Grandma summoned a voodoo priestess to the White House…
http://www.drudge.com/news/124238/witchcraft-white-house
Benaiah
[...] from Phil regarding the Swensson vs. Soetoro Petition. If you have a chance you should visit the The-Right-Side-Of-Life website for more details. I am delighted to see the Grand Jury concept being pushed in this [...]
What a great term – “automagically.”
“…automagically waned into non-existence unless he would have specifically denounced it”
If Arnold S. can’t “automagically” wane his place of birth to run for POTUS, why should Obama be able to do it?
I read on another blog that there might be a possibility that Obama’s COLB had been left blank in the “father” category. But wouldn’t that disqualify him as well? It would not be a legal document?
How utterly appalling it was to read that two “Senators” don’t know the definition of “Natural Born Citizen!” It’s chilling to realize that many other senators probably don’t know (or, in the case of Pelosi, Reid and other Dems don’t want the public to know!) the definition, either.
Thanks for this post and for your continuing efforts to keep us all up to date on this extremely important matter!
john,
Taking the theory a tad further, if he is a British subject, he is therefore liable to be blackmailed.
-Phil
Maureen,
Interesting. You’ve presented a completely different tone than I would have expected from you in the past.
Nevertheless, regardless of outcome, it is only in a theoretical jury empaneling that one would get 100% statistically unbiased individuals as a part of said gathering.
-Phil
Bob,
Show me the law where two simultaneous grand juries cannot be empaneled.
Playing cute, aren’t you? If you had paid any attention to my blog as I’ve been covering citizen grand juries, you would have known that such private gatherings cannot enforce the law and can only make presentments to authorities.
The only direct official language I see whereby Mr. Obama would have lost his British citizenship is the quote during the parliamentary debate on what “should have” occurred, versus what did occur. The rest of the piece, while well done, doesn’t address what the law actually states, if any different than how I’ve covered it.
-Phil
I got to page 3 of the 181 page petition and had already found 7 birther “facts” for which there is no evidence whatsoever – just birther wishful thinking. This is even worse than one of Orly’s amusing filings. This is deeply dishonest – surprising for such self-proclaimed religious folk.
Bob: I believe that the currently convened Grand Jury in DC could take up this issue. Full disclosure would come if they would subpoena the documents.
David, I agree. It would have helped had they hired a professional proof-reader!
I was impressed, until they dropped in the blog commentary. They accuse treason and cite its meaning, but the definition makes it appear a stretch to apply it to this issue. Not that it’s impossible, but they should have at least argued the case.
Not to mention that in one place they gave Stanley Ann Obama’s age at BHO’s birth as 17 and at another place as 18.
Sad to say but we have now many, many in the population – either by being naturalized, on green cards, awaiting citizenship – who just don’t have a true loyalty to the country. They have come for emergency situations or just what can be handed out to them without investing personally much of themselves that would create a more solid bonding. Therefore they could care less if their “president” is not even a loyal citizen himself. In fact, since their own loyalties are elsewhere with still great personal ties to their countries of origin, they might even favor a leader with “broader” loyalties.
I remember the crisis in Haiti when we went in to secure things. The many interviews with Haitian communities in the U.S. showed at the time, even in those now citizens for years or those here legally, that they were ready to return to Haiti and desired to do so, once the U.S. settled things there for them with the belief that they would also be taken care of by the U.S. in any future disruption. And these are the ones easily herded by Obama to his side – even if that side is opposite to the Constitution and even current law. The only expectation of anyone today is of those who always are the ones who directly or indirectly support even those who could care less!
It only took
**** ONE!*****
member of Congress to start demanding a special Prosecutor
To get an “Ham Sandwich Indictment vs a Republican! (Libby)
So Grass Roots law suits Gaining Immediate Restraining orders prohibiting any, (Unduly Attesting , or Playing Ignorant) whatsoever Democrat or Independant or Republican, from being placed on any upcoming election, local or State or Federal levels ;
WILL BE THE
*** HELL FIRE ***
ON THE BARRY LEWD SHIP BY WHICH ALL THE MAGGOTS JUMP THAT SHIP!!!
COULD IT BE WITH OUT THE HELL FIRE POLICALLY WHERE POLITICIANS ARE BEING DIPOSED FOR AIDING AND ABETTEING
That without squeezing the lewd local Polical Genitals of co-conspirators, is worse than nothing because the Judges do not have the “Appropriate Political nuise”. AROUND THEIR NECKS AND
ONLY WRITE CASE LAW AGAINST JUSTICE?
(I e who believes that individual Congress people do no Know what “Natural Born Citizen is?). Are the just playing Ignorant to not be held liable?
Show me the law where two simultaneous grand juries cannot be empaneled.
Nice attempt to shift the burden, but when requesting relief from the court, the petitioner always has the burden of demonstrating that the relief requested can be granted. And the question goes to practicality: Why convene another grand jury when there already is one doing the exact job grand juries are supposed to do?
If you had paid any attention to my blog as I’ve been covering citizen grand juries, you would have known that such private gatherings cannot enforce the law and can only make presentments to authorities.
Nonresponsive; try again: If (as it has been argued) that citizen’s grand juries are permitted under the constitution to make presentments, then why the begging of a federal court to convene a federal grand jury to perform the exact function that it is claimed that a citizen’s grand jury already possesses?
The only direct official language I see whereby Mr. Obama would have lost his British citizenship is the quote during the parliamentary debate on what “should have” occurred, versus what did occur.
It is really rather simple: The KIA of 1963 repealed the section of BNA of 1948 that granted CUKC status to Kenyans. The BNA of 1981 did repeal the section of the KIA of 1963 that repealed that section of the BNA of 1948. But the BNA of 1981 also repealed the section of BNA of 1948 that granted CUKC status (so that section wouldn’t be revived when the governing section of KIA of 1963 was repealed). As such, there is no basis in British law to say Obama has any sort of British citizenship. Apuzzo’s entire thesis is based on a law that no longer exists.
The British Home Office (you know, the folks who might actually know a few things about British citizenship laws) explains all of this.
I like that your assumption is that the definition that has been used by you and the other birthers (what a coincidence that everybody here who doubts the president’s birth certificate also independently found a definition of natural born that happens to exclude Obama!) is the correct one. It couldn’t be that you guys are grasping for straws, it must be that two sitting senators and every current legal scholar who has commented on “natural born citizen” is completely wrong, and that you, Christinewjc, are among the few to know the actual definition, with your vast legal knowledge that comes from being told by Donofrio and Taitz what they believe natural born citizen to mean.
I still think the Citizens’ Grand Juries are important because the practice has now been brought to light and revived after decades of not being used. At least now, people know that citizens can form their own grand juries without having to answer to a prosecutor. In modern times, we have been led to believe that there MUST be a prosecutor or a judge presiding; that’s how much the power of the people has been eroded by all branches of government.
I believe that the reason PHN submitted the filing that they did is to detail ALL of the evidence against Obama’s being a natural born citizen so that the judge could justifiably convene his own grand jury. This was in response to the judge’s opinion of July 2 that stated that presentments are constitutional, but there was no legal way for his court to accept one. Therefore, PHN is now issuing a petition for him to convene his own grand jury so that the legitimacy cannot be questioned. The members would all be from DC, his district, which would overcome the objection the judge had about that with the presentment.
So their document is a response to his opinion and attempts to address all of his objections. If it does, and it seems to, then he should act on it.
Chalice of PHN was on BlogTalkRadio last night, and she stated that there are three categories of complaints in Judge Lamberth’s court: criminal, civil and “miscellaneous.” Their filing has gone under the latter because it is a petition rather than a lawsuit. It presents evidence of wrongdoing compiled over many months. One would think that with all of the information contained therein, any reasonable person would see that there are legitimate doubts about Obama’s natural born status.
Benaiah, you wrote
“Perhaps this is why the First Grandma summoned a voodoo priestess to the White House…”
All I can say is and look what happened http://birthers.org/img/comics/arthur.png
Bob,
I hate to break the news to you, but Dr. Conspiro has his head so far up his own place where the sun don’t shine that he should be Olbermann the Doberman’s cohost.
See the operative term in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 is natural BORN citizen, not something that MAY happen years later.
Was Obama born under the jurisdiction of the British Nationality Act of 1948? Yes he was.
If he was born under another nations laws that dictated his birth he is not a natural born citizen, but a born citizen.
The same men who wrote the Constitution also said that having dual citizenship was an automatic dis-qualifier for even remaining a citizen in the most general sense of the word.
Carl and Phil
You say = “You don’t have standing”
“Presentments didn’t have standing or the American Grand Jury process was going about its business in the wrong way.”
“Why do you think you are better than these people?”
We are on the same side!!!
No one should have more standing than We The People “natural born US citizens”. Naturalized citizen have these same rights to do any thing except run and hold The Office of President of The United States.
When someone says “You don’t have standing” to me (or any other “natural born US citizens”) about this case it’s like a slap in the face with the hand that is holding the Bill of Rights in it. This is like a child of 12 saying that the dog has messed up the floor and a parent says you can’t say that only your mom or dad (or an adult) can say that because we have standing. To suggest that the child cannot see what the dog has done, because the child is not an adult, is ignorant on the adult’s part. Especially when the 12-year-old child will probable have to (pay the price) clean it up. The parents are in charge of the house hold including the child and the dog but the child still has to smell the discharge from the dog until the parents get around to noticing it and cleaning it up or having the child clean it up. It’s even worse when the parents ignore the discharge and do nothing.
Well we are not children. We are, We The People that the Declaration of Independence, Constitution of the United States, and Bill of Rights was written by and for.
THAT MEANS WE ARE IN CHARGE.
We The People that made up the Grand Jury for the August session for American Grand Jury saw that this man and his bunch are crapping in the White House (We The People’s House) and using the Declaration of Independence, Constitution of the United States, and Bill of Rights for toilet paper. The same Documents that they have sworn to protect! It doesn’t take men of such great stature as you two to see that. We The People, (the common people), can see that this is being done and it’s taking too long for men of great stature as you two to get anything done. Evidently other men of greater stature than you are not listening to you.
Get off that Blue Blood Mentality and wake up. You are in the United States of America. The country of the Common People – We The People, and we don’t have to be blue bloods to see that this is wrong and the Bill Of Rights give us the right to go up there and remove the ones who are corrupt and to remove those who are not doing anything about the corruption. Yes this means judges, elected servants, and appointed servants. Optimum word is Servant. They have a contract position for a period of time (if they did not lie on their qualifications to get the job) and, (if they do the job right and do not break the law). Some contracts can be renewed (re-elected or re-appointed). But the same stipulations go for the 2nd period and so on. There is no deviation for tenure.
So what we are saying to the courts is, “Do your job”, and “Don’t make us come up there”. It’s like mom or dad saying “Don’t make me pull this car over”. You two are not the only drivers of the car.
You are not the only ones who can say that you have standing. After all according to what you too have been saying, the term “You don’t have standing” was a term used by the courts to get rid of cases that they did not want to here. Don’t cut us down while we are trying to help you do what we also see needs to be done.
Phil:
The English have an old saying “Once a Brit, always a Brit” (or something like that) – and you can bet that the Big O has no proof of renouncing same.
Some fascinating research on Politijab:
A member (who is a retired judge) has been researching French Citizenship law, specifically with reference to how France granted citizenship to people of Huguenot descent.
Until October 19th, 1945 any American of Huguenot descent was under French Law “français naturalises.” And prior to August 10, 1927 under French law those same people would have been “français naturels.”
As a result of those laws, seven American Presidents would have been citizens of France at birth. And one other (George Washington) would have gained French citizenship when the law was first passed to grant French natural born citizenship (using the Birther translation of “naturels”) to overseas Huguenots on 1790.
Three of them would have died still being natural born French. They would be:
George Washington
Ulysses S. Grant
Theodore Roosevelt
Two presidents would have been born “français naturels” but (because of the 1927 law) died “français naturalises.” They would be:
William Howard Taft
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Three others would have lost their French citizenship as a result of the 1945 change. They would be:
Harry Truman
Lyndon Johnson
Gerald Ford
Only Washington would have been covered by the “grandfather clause,” so, if Birthers are correct that you cannot ever have been a dual citizen and be natural born American, then at least seven prior presidents have been “usurpers.”
And these are only the French ones.
If and when Obama is found ineligible to be our president then I hope that his election is declared null and void including the election of his VP, Joe Biden, and that a new presidential election is held. This hopefully would prevent the advent of the line of succession that starts with the Vice President and proceeds to the speaker of the House. We do not need either of these as our president.
I would also like to see when Obama is found out as a fraud that he, at least, will be prosecuted and sent to jail and/or deported to his country of origin, i.e., the country in which he presently has citizenship.
NewEnglandPatriot:
Read it and not be moved to action??? Try the court system. Try the 50 to 100 czars who now run much of the mec hanism of the country. Try judge Royce Lamberts of the DC Circuit (hope I’m wrong). Try the MSM. Try the Biggie Talking Heads (Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.). Try Congress; either house. Try the DOJ. Try the US Attorneys.
etc.
Christinewjc wrote:
No need to be appalled; it’s not really true. I checked Black’s Law Dictionary, and though the senators’ explanations were kind of disjointed, they had it mostly correct:
“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.“
Phil,
Just a bit more constitutional reference exposing Obama’s lies:
http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2009/08/21/constitutional-nuclear-bomb-blasts-obamas-eligibilty-to-smithereens/
Enjoy, it is quite fitting when you learn of the sources of my information.
NewEnglandPatriot,
On Farah and the “father” remarks one has to read the latest by Dr. Corsi that shows that Madelyn and Stanley Dunham lived at 6085 Kalaniana’ole Hwy along with Ann Obama (student) while Obama Sr. lived at 625 11th Ave in Kaimuki. This is from the Polk Directory 1961-1962. Place this with the Laforgges (?)(the owners) not officially listed as residing at the Kalaniana’ole address until 1963 when the senior Dunhams moved into the apartment where they remained til they died. Put all the other pieces of the puzzle together and there is serious doubt that Obama Sr. was the father. If the marriage was a sham (not legal), Obama would not be entered into the birth certificate and Barack Obama would have been “Barry Dunham.” In 1964, Obama Jr.’s name was listed on the divorce decree, but remember that the “legal marriage” was based solely upon Ann Dunham’s sworn oath. If she took that document to legally change Obama’s name she would have revealed herself as a perjurer as how can you have a legal marriage and an illegitimate child. She let it drop until in 1970 when Obama entered Punahou and the truth of his name would have been revealed. In 1970 Ann Soetoro returned from Indonesia and Barack Obama Sr. returned from Kenya and stayed at the Senior Dunhams apartment for one month. This would be ample time to enter Obama’s name as “Barack Hussein Obama II” on the corrected copy of the original birth certificate (pen and ink changes were standard on the form in those days). This could have been explained as a “youthful indiscretion” that the two parents were correcting belatedly.
If the birth certificate were revealed all the dirty little truths and his fictional “family” would evaporate. His autobiography would crumble and his credibility shot forever. His philosophical base of copying his African roots would be nothing but flim-flam nonsense.
I’m a birther too, but I don’t accept the Kenyan birth because of too many unanswered questions. The most simple one is Obama Sr.’s Univ of Hawaii abbreviated transcript shows an UNINTERUPTED course of study. HE DID NOT GOT TO KENYA IN 1961 and most assuredly Ann Dunham did not go to Kenya alone. The whole scenario does NOT work. The travel time and obtaining of necessary documents if born in Kenya to move the infant Obama, the OLD SYSTEM of air travel in 1961 from Kenya would simply NOT be enough time to allow Ann Dunham to be in Seattle to start her night classes there on 19 Aug 1961 — 15 days after Obama was born.
BUT FORGET THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE…
I support the Leo Donofrio/Mario Appuzo tact of “natural born citizen.” It is the best chance to reveal the truth and settle the eligibility issue. The importance of the birth certificate revelation issues when weighed against this case loses. I’m pulling for Apuzzo with fingers crossed. We desparately need the courts to define “natural born citizen.” The U.S. Congress could do this — and Constitutional experts seem to say this is really their job — but they refuse to do so. Somebody needs to force this issue and it seems like the whole world is against us who hold these “birther” beliefs.
[...] Update: Swensson v. Soetoro Filed; Eligibility Update: Swensson v. Soetoro Filed; The Right Side of Life Eligibility Update: Swensson v. Soetoro Filed; Apuzzo, Kerchner on Obama̵… [...]
HistorianDude,
It’s truly fascinating what happens when one analyzes the facts in pursuit of the truth.
-Phil
Kalani,
Thanks for stopping by and posting some commentary (I think you’ve commented here previously as well). I like your theories as they seem to connect what dots are publicly known and they seem to continue to be confirmed as more and more info is revealed about Mr. Obama’s history.
Keep it up.
-Phil
“Why is it so hard for anyone to present a case with just the facts and without involving personal politics or rhetoric? It is petitions and cases like this that make the entire debate appear absurd – even if they do touch on some key points in the rest of their comments or complaints. Just the facts. Is it really too much to ask? Do they enjoy being laughed out of court because they can’t present a case without the partisan jackassery?”
That one is very simple to answer, Phil. If facts were presented there would be nothing to present. This so-called “Petition – For the Convening of a Federal Grand Jury” is a made-up document by a supposed attorney, Steve Pidgeon. There is no such thing in federal law (nor any other jurisdiction that I can find).
Did you read it? Their very first “substantive” paragraph (2) begins with an absolutely unsubstantiated statement, and it gets worse from there.
If there is a disqualification due to dual-citizenship (which is certainly not in any of the current law) then that’s what they need to try to hang their hats on. All the rest of it is chasing a rabbit down a deep hole. And that assertion is tenuous, at best, with current law, not what they wish the law to be.
I will agree it’s a “novel” approach, since Judge Lamberth has already ruled their fantasy grand juries have no basis in law, to then follow up with this so-called petition. I fully expect him to do one of two things…ignore it or tell them he’s not going to refer it.
As an aside and totally of this topic (except for the bad lawyering you mentioned), did you see where Judge Carter has ordered ALL PARTIES to court on September 8 for motions hearings on several matters, and has ONCE AGAIN ordered Orly to serve the Amended Complaint and Summons on the named defendants? He’s given her several chances here, and just gave her another on service, but it would seem he’s finally losing patience. One would have thought her multiple-times disbarred felon “law clerk” would have fixed all those pesky procedural problems for her. ;0)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18982606/KEYES-v-OBAMA-MINUTES-OF-IN-CHAMBERS-ORDER-by-Judge-David-O-Carter-ORDER-SETTING-SEPTEMBER-8-2009-HEARING-ONMOTIONS-03118632973
[...] A long, drawn out explanation here - and more simply put here [...]
Wouldn’t it be great if Obama traveled to England and was required by British law – as a British citizen – to do something that British citizens must do? That is, assuming he is still a British citizen. How funny would that be? Would it be enough evidence for the blind followers to admit that perhaps Obama wasn’t a natural-born citizen of the United States according to the intent of our Founders?
Let’s hope some of those limey politicians have some fortitude to do such a thing. It would be deliciously entertaining.
“The same men who wrote the Constitution also said that having dual citizenship was an automatic dis-qualifier for even remaining a citizen in the most general sense of the word.”
Please cite where exactly it says this in the Constitution please.”
HistoryDUD,
Again a bomb with no explosion. The French citizenship laws concerning Huguenots does not nearly say what you want.
The master law is the the law of 15 Dec 1790 and it states, “All persons born in a foreign country and descending in any degree of a French man or woman expatriated for religious reason are declared French nationals and will benefit from rights attached to that quality if they come back to France, establish their domicile there and take the civic oath.”
They were not made citizens of France at birth, subject to the laws of France and owing allegiance to France. They had to repatriate themselves to France to become citizens, this is the same as Israel’s Law of Return. The other laws just changed the mechanics of that law, not the laws spirit.
Unlike O’Bambi who at birth was a British subject. Neither Bamabi nor his parents had to do anything, the One was born a subject of her royal Britannic majesty Queen Elizabeth II.
Two US citizen parents born on US soil is what a NBC is.
I guess this is what makes us the Birthers and you guys the AfterBirthers?
Although you are correct the Naturalizations laws up to the 1950′s prohibited any exercise of dual citizenship. In fact the founding fathers specifically made dual citizenship grounds to loose US citizenship even born US citizenship. In 1983 on his trip to Kenya (not Pakistan Obama) took the oath of allegiance to Kenya, and with willful intent renounced his citizenship as per the framers intent. And remember we only have the framers intent to determine a natural born citizen on this issue.
“I read on another blog that there might be a possibility that Obama’s COLB had been left blank in the “father” category. But wouldn’t that disqualify him as well? It would not be a legal document?”
ROTFL. Where do you get this stuff from?
“any reasonable person would see that there are legitimate doubts about Obama’s natural born status.”
Actually, false. Any reasonable person who understands the Constitution clearly sees that this is a witch hunt that claims to uphold the Constitution when in truth, there is another underlying agenda. Birthers have spread false and misleading information to promote their underlying agenda.
“NewEnglandPatriot says:
I don’t know anyone who could read it and not be moved to action.”
I’m certainly not moved, so count me out.
There is no Federal common law. All federal conventions are statutory. There must, therefore, be a statute that authorizes the convening of a federal grand jury on the instigation of a citizen petition. You cannot point to such a law, because none exists.
I’m afraid you are going to be very disappointed when Judge Lamberth kicks this one out, too.
Somehow I think that Judge Lamberth will not be too interested.
He has been to Birthestan before and knows the routine. Birthers file heaps of rambling nonsense…judge dismisses or denies..rinse.. repeat.
Meet Judge Lamberth! Go to down to the last page.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17175985/cgj07022009order
Hey what ever happened to all the earlier CGJ ‘presentments’ back a few months ago?
….crickets…..crickets….
Phil,
I often come by your site just to get a goog laugh and the pseudo intellectual gymnastics of Obama’s supporters…
The latest regarded the absurd claim that some of our presidents were French, on account of being descendents of Hugenots…
At reference.com I found the reason why they were NOT french, even if you grant the assertion that they had Hugonot forebearers…
realist,
Except I wasn’t the one asking
Yes, I did see that.
-Phil
Sue,
The only “underlying agenda,” whatever that is to which you refer, is only the projection upon sites such as mine by individuals such as yourself. It is not a part of this site’s purpose or reality.
Or, perhaps you can show me concrete evidence that my search for what is true and constitutional is not the basis for my questions.
-Phil
DCA,
By no means has anything stopped.
-Phil
Someone had mentioned PERKINS v. ELG on another thread. I found two things interesting about the case. First, the Court did not note any difference between native born and natural born citizen. Maybe someone has already mentioned that. The other point is that the Court recognized “problems incident to dual nationality.” I would guess that the application of dual nationality to the requirements of the presidency would be one of those problems. (Obama admitted that he was a British citizen at birth.) The Court was very clear that the its ruling here was specific to this case only. In Perkins, “respondent promptly made her election and took up her residence in this country accordingly, … .” Obama did not make his election, but he was still a minor when he came back to the United States; Elg was not a minor. Also, the existence of the other country’s laws was not discarded.
From Perkins:
The opinion [does not discuss the right of election of a native citizen of the United States when he becomes of age to retain American citizenship and does not refer to the repeated rulings of the Department of State in recognition of that right, the exercise of which, as we have pointed out, should not be deemed to be inconsistent with either treaty or statute. We are reluctant to disagree with the opinion of the Attorney General, and we are fully conscious of the problems incident to dual nationality and of the departmental desire to limit them, [307 U.S. 325, 349] but we are compelled to agree with the Court of Appeals in the instant case that the conclusions of that opinion are not adequately supported and are opposed to the established principles which should govern the disposition of this case.
This from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return (scroll down)
Concurrently with making all Protestants resident in France into full-fledged citizens, the law enacted on December 15, 1790 stated that : ‘All persons born in a foreign country and descending in any degree of a French man or woman expatriated for religious reason are declared French nationals (naturels français) and will benefit to rights attached to that quality if they come back to France, establish their domicile there and take the civic oath.’
Unless I have looked at the wrong law (or this source incorrectly states the law), the past presidents do not appear to have French citizenship.
Phil,
we know that when Barry enrolled at Occidental, he had citizenship in four countries (US, Great Britain, Indonesia and Kenya). I think the theory he applied for foreign aid in college has legs. I know others believe the NBC issue is a disqualifier for Obama and represents the best way to determining eligibility, but I am keenly interested in seeing the college documents released.
If Obama did apply for foreign aid, that is considered a renunciation of citizenship, because it recognizes the country of origin (whatever country he asserted foreign citizenship)and, since it occured when he was 18, it must be accepted that he is no longer a US citizen (if he applied for foreign aid).
Obama could regain his citizenship, but that would be via statute and make him naturalized, not natural born (that is, if he even is natural born, which I believe he is not). I believe the birth certificate to be third in level of importance: 1) Natural Born citizen, 2)Did he apply for foreign aid? and 3) the birth certificate.
This we know for sure: President Training Wheels wouldn’t know the word “transparency” if he tripped over it.
Phi,
“Or, perhaps you can show me concrete evidence that my search for what is true and constitutional is not the basis for my questions.”
One example is your list of documentation that you demand to be released by President Obama.
Another example is your comments regarding the muslim faith.
Dear Phil -
Good day to the troops! I wonder if Connerat got his idea about this issue from Gen Apuzzo. See Connerat vs. Obama – 4/14/2009:
He has unlawfully seized power, knowing full well that he is ineligible; in fact, under the British Nationality Act of 1948, he remains a British subject, having never renounced his born allegiance, acquired via his father, to the United Kingdom. The specter of allowing and supporting a British President was an anathema to the Founding Fathers, and in particular to the first Chief Justice of the United States, John Jay, who believed the insertion of the words “natural born” to be of tremendous import, as stated in his July 25, 1787 letter to Gen. George Washington, the presiding Officer of the Constitutional Convention, in Philadelphia. “Permit me to hint,” wrote Jay, “whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the Administration of our national Govt., and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the Am. Army shall not be given to nor devolve on any but a natural born Citizen.”
Best to the Georgia, North Carolina corps,
Joe
Article II, section 1, clause 5 read’s, natural born Citizen,
not natural-born citizen, or Natural Born Citizen.
The upper case “C” is there for a reason….
“American” does not necessarily imply “State Citizen”!!
“Americans” can also be born in D.C., or Puerto Rico,
neither of which are States of the Union.
READ ON …
Notice how the existence of two classes of citizens in America
is clouded by use of the terms “citizen” and “American” below;
as we now know, in the Qualifications Clauses the term “Citizen”
is spelled with an UPPER-CASE “C”:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art2frag5_user.html#art2_hd22
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; 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.
[Ed. Note how a lower-case "c" creeps into this research discussion, however.]
QUALIFICATIONS
All Presidents since and including Martin Van Buren were born in the United States subsequent to the Declaration of Inde[p.434]pendence. The only issue with regard to the qualifications set out in this clause, which appears to be susceptible of argument, is whether a child born abroad of American parents is “a natural born citizen” in the sense of the clause. Such a child is a citizen as a consequence of statute.94 Whatever the term “natural born” means, it no doubt does not include a person who is “naturalized.” Thus, the answer to the question might be seen to turn on the interpretation of the first sentence of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, providing that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States” are citizens.95 Significantly, however, Congress, in which a number of Framers sat, provided in the Naturalization act of 1790 that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, . . . shall be considered as natural born citizens. . . .”96 This phrasing followed the literal terms of British statutes, beginning in 1350, under which persons born abroad, whose parents were both British subjects, would enjoy the same rights of inheritance as those born in England; beginning with laws in 1709 and 1731, these statutes expressly provided that such persons were natural–born subjects of the crown.97 There is reason to believe, therefore, that the phrase includes persons who become citizens at birth by statute because of their status in being born abroad of American citizens.98 Whether the Supreme Court would decide the issue should it ever arise in a “case or controversy” as well as how it might decide it can only be speculated about.
94 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401 .
95 Reliance on the provision of an Amendment adopted subsequent to the constitutional provision being interpreted is not precluded by but is strongly militated against by the language in Freytag v. CIR, 501 U.S. 868, 886–887 (1991), in which the Court declined to be bound by the language of the 25th Amendment in determining the meaning of “Heads of Departments” in the appointments clause. See also id., 917 (Justice Scalia concurring). If the Fourteenth Amendment is relevant and the language is exclusive, that is, if it describes the only means by which persons can become citizens, then, anyone born outside the United States would have to be considered naturalized in order to be a citizen, and a child born abroad of American parents is to be considered “naturalized” by being statutorily made a citizen at birth. Although dictum in certain cases supports this exclusive interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702– 703 (1898); cf. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308, 312 (1961), the most recent case in its holding and language rejects it. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971).
96 Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103, 104 (emphasis supplied). See Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 661–666 (1927); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 672–675 (1898). With minor variations, this language remained law in subsequent reenactments until an 1802 Act, which omitted the italicized words for reasons not discernable. See Act of Feb. 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604 (enacting same provision, for offspring of American–citizen fathers, but omitting the italicized phrase).
97 25 Edw. 3, Stat. 2 (1350); 7 Anne, ch. 5, Sec. 3 (1709); 4 Geo. 2, ch. 21 (1731).
98 See, e.g., Gordon,Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 L. Rev.1 (1968).
–
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Dan Smith, NY
Phil,
I read with interest Kalani’s comments about what Farah thinks about Obama and the timeline.
1. The issue if Obama was born in Kenya.
2. Obama adopted as infant.
3. Obama adopted, reclaimed citizenship.
I answer all of these the same: I don’t know, and no amount of circumstantial evidence will settle the issue. Speculation, no matter how logical, will provide peace for those invested in the Constitutional process.
I could consider many different pathways of how Obama got here from there. The only one that matters is the Constitutional issue, is he eligible for the office he holds. We already KNOW that he is a liar(to many to cite), and is likely corrupt (Rezco/Blago/Pharma/ect.), but the question really is about the Constitution and Voter Fraud. Dirty politics, lies, obvious racism, excesses, drug abuse, homosexuality, and intimidation tactics don’t make you ineligible for office.
The problem today has to do with the internet and the media. The media is no longer the watchdog of the public, they are part of the corporate/executive branch conglomerate, or simply put, propaganda. Any intelligent human being has to wonder why Obama can’t release a long form BC, why he has multiple SS #’s, why nobody can remember him at Columbia University, but can’t forget him at Harvard, why there are no available records for his dead mothers travels. Need I go on here?
Perhaps this was always the way the games were played, but the balance to all this has become the internet and sites like yours make the public actually question. Perhaps the real story here has always been the ‘lack of a story’ by the traditional media. I sense that people have become ‘aware’ that the media has been subverted, that they have been manipulated. Hopefully, this can be overcome with the natural processes foreseen by our founding fathers, before the public feels the need for either a violent solution or a territorial divorce.
Historian Dude and Sue still very hard at work trying to convince us Birthers we are wrong about Obama’s eligibility…..
I want a Poll to see if those 2 OBots have changed anyone’s mind.
I have to commend Phil on his patience in dealing with those children.
I wonder if Malia and Sasha realize that they too are not natural born Citizen’s,
as their father who was born a British Subject and has yet to prove he is a citizen of the U.S.?
I would check out their “long form BC as well… Dan Smith, NY
Teo Bear:
Oh, how sad. The bomb went off and its residue is all over your argument.
You quoted the law as follows:
If you actually had bothered to read that sentence, you would have noticed that you were wrong to then claim…
Because that is not what the law says at all.
They were absolutely made citizens of France (“naturels Francaise”) at birth purely because of their descent and with no additional action necessary. This is “the quality” to which the law refers. And this is exactly the same as any other national law that grants citizenship via jus sanguinis. Even that of the United Kingdom.
What they did not get without repatriation was “rights attached to that quality.” And this is (again) exactly the same as any other national law that grants citizenship via jus sanguinis. Even that of the United Kingdom. Even (by the way) that of the United States.
It is exactly the situation that Obama finds himself under regarding British citizenship. Even as a British citizen under UK law he cannot gain the “benefit from rights attached to that quality” unless he repatriates to the UK. And he has not done so. Neither, by the way, did any of the eight US Presidents who were (by French law) citizens of France.
The circumstances are identical.
And the absurd Birther psuedolaw regarding dual citizenship and natural born citizenship is demonstrated for the nth time to be unrefined nonsense.
Or even where they said it anywhere else outside of the Constitution.
And, after all these and other things will be said again and again, and more display of lawyership and scholarship will be applauded or booed, more money will be spend by one or another party, and the country will further slip in contentiousness, a little, simple question will still hover over everything – a $12 fee to the Hawaii DH will sure solve this matter.
Why mister Obama, embodiment of wisdom, statemanship and humanity doesn’t exercise this expense to spare the country of strife?
Why does he make the choice of confrontation instead of appeasing?
Is a $12 fee that much for him or for his supporters? If so, I (and so many others) would gladly write a check in behalf of mister Obama for this purpose.
Yes sir -
Sue,
Even though I already know you seethe with bitterness and hatred towards my site, the truth of the matter is that questioning anything about this President’s background is not, in and of itself, a harbinger of being otherwise not interested in the truth.
Then again, the biases that you have towards me and/or my site show that you are clearly not after the truth. Of course, this is your prerogative; it would just be nice for you to quit projecting them on my site in your commentary.
-Phil
Pat Smith:
Oh, Pat…. please don’t think that for a second. We fully accept that we will never convince most of you, because you do not actually care about the evidence or the law.
And if you think this is “working hard,” I feel very bad for your boss. If this was hard work it would be so much less fun.
And it does not matter if we convince you or not. Nothing that takes place in Birther blogs matter. What matters is what takes place in the courtroom. And to this point, we Obots are pretty satisfied with how that’s been going.
Feedback is a gift, Pat. If you do not care about the arguments that actually influence the decision makers, even if they don’t change your mind, well that’s okay too. But you can’t say nobody told you.
Rich:
Not even close! The wishful thinking and fantasies you guys entertain just get funnier as the objective slips further and further away from you.
Here’s what the State Department says:
You will note that applying for foreign aide doesn’t make the list.
Poppet:
You have accidentally stumbled onto another of the reasons the “de Vattel” definition is so absurd. De Vattel did not say that children of non-citizens were not “natural born” citizens. He said they were not citizens at all.
If he is right (and you Birthers just love him) then most Americans are not citizens either. Even if our ancestors got here 150 years ago.
Jefferson’s father was Peter Jefferson, a planter and surveyor in Albemarle County (Shadwell, then Edge Hill, Virginia.) He was of Welsh descent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson
According to Stephen Oppenheimer 96% of lineages in Llangefni in north Wales derive from Iberia. Genetic research on the Y-chromosome has shown that the Welsh, like the Irish, share a large proportion of their ancestry with the Basques of Northern Spain and South Western France, although the Welsh have a greater presumed Neolithic input than both the Irish and the Basques.[24] Genetic marker R1b averages from 83-89% amongst the Welsh.[2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_people
The Huguenot rebellions, sometimes called the Rohan Wars after the Huguenot leader Henri de Rohan, refers to events of the 1620s in which French Protestant Huguenots, mainly located in southwestern France, revolted against the central Royal power of the French government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huguenot_rebellions
Good thing Tommy Jefferson was grandfathered in! He may have some of that Frenchie blood.
On a somewhat related note, although the proof may be less stringent, you still have to have 50% Hawaiian blood to benefit from the Hawaiian Lands Program. You still have to be a natural born citizen to be president. The framers didn’t require DNA testing or a genealogy report, just being natural born.
Pat Smith says:
August 23, 2009 at 2:11 pm
“Historian Dude and Sue still very hard at work trying to convince us Birthers we are wrong about Obama’s eligibility…..
I want a Poll to see if those 2 OBots have changed anyone’s mind. ”
The ultimate clue that you are consumed by a conspiracy fantasy is that even in the face of overwhelming evidence that what you believe about Pres Obama is not true, you continue to cling to any scrap of possibility that it is true. People like you will never believe Pres Obama is eligible. This is why the President will never give you the time of day. No matter what he showed you, you would always want to see something more and nothing you were shown would ever change your mind anyway so why would he bother. You birthers had your moment in the sun, and you are now declining because your Queen Orly has shown the world what a bunch of goofballs you are.
“Even though I already know you seethe with bitterness and hatred towards my site, the truth of the matter is that questioning anything about this President’s background is not, in and of itself, a harbinger of being otherwise not interested in the truth.”
Then again, the biases that you have towards me and/or my site show that you are clearly not after the truth. Of course, this is your prerogative; it would just be nice for you to quit projecting them on my site in your commentary.”
Phil,
Bitterness? Hatred? Talk about projecting.
Please explain to me why you think the Muslim faith (religion) has anything to do with someone’s citizenship?
Pat Smith,
I do not comment here to change anyone’s mind.
“I have to commend Phil on his patience in dealing with those children.”
Save your insults for someone they might work on.
earl,
Seriously — this site doesn’t exist to have my or others’ opinions validated by you.
-Phil
Sue,
Yes, you’re projecting, considering that the overwhelming majority of commentary by you on my site is of a condescending, bitter and hate-filled tone.
I’ve already profusely explained this. I’ve never claimed that any sort of faith impugns upon the presidential eligibility clause.
-Phil
Sue,
I would therefore recommend getting a life away from the blogosphere — as long as it doesn’t entail politics.
-Phil
“Yes, you’re projecting, considering that the overwhelming majority of commentary by you on my site is of a condescending, bitter and hate-filled tone.”
Whatever you say Phil, after all, it is your blog.
“I’ve already profusely explained this. I’ve never claimed that any sort of faith impugns upon the presidential eligibility clause.”
Actually Phil, I believe you have in a reply comment to HD. The gist of your comment was “Muslim = further proof of divided loyalties, blah, blah, blah.”
Sue, Earl, and Historian Dude,
Why don’t you become Facebook Friends, and “Socially” enlighten one another?
http://www.facebook.com/frank.arduini
“It’s simple…We DEMAND from the Media to accurately “Define Natural Born Citizen.” We DEMAND from all branches of our government PROOF that the person in the White House is NOT a Usurper. We demand proof of his eligibility.”
Now that Orly finally has been discredited, Pidgeon steps in for the Obama Campaign and files a petition destined for failure and to bring more ridicule to legitimate Eligibility Issues.
Phil,
“I would therefore recommend getting a life away from the blogosphere — as long as it doesn’t entail politics.”
This is my source of entertainment for free. It is interesting to see what kind of “wild and crazy” stuff birthers come up with.
misanthropicus: Thanks. That was brilliant!
Sharon 2: Thanks to you, too. Very interesting anthropological information.
[...] According to Dr. Penny Kelso (now that’s scary), Barry Soetoro was born in Indonesia. The lawsuit also names Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean as defendants. « Pole Dancing Doll: [...]