BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen...

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
"Unlike Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so doesn't make it so." Judge Clay D. Land.
“[W]e find that the Constitution has recognized
the general principle of public law, that allegiance
and citizenship depend on the place of birth.‘
This doctrine of citizenship by reason of place of
birth is spoken of by the writers on the subject as
the jus soli or common law doctrine.”
Perkins v. Elg, 99 F.2d 408, 410 (App.D.C. 1938)
modified and affirmed, 307 U.S. 325 (1939).
<quoted text>

LQQK @ the picture woo woo...;-)
Explains better for your intellectual group...;-)

Of Trees and Plants and Basic Logic: Trees are plants but not all plants are trees.“natural born Citizens (NBC)” are “Citizens at birth (CAB)” but not all “CAB” are “NBC”!

http://cdrkerchner.files.wordpress.com/2012/0...

http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/t...

Old Goat wrote:

<quoted text>they were "constrained" by a State, under an Act, remember in those days, states made citizens.
Your post is Irrelevant.

Sorry, but an alien could not then or now be a member of Congress per US law, not state law.

Meanwhile you are still avoiding the issue of the Naturalization Act of 1790. Aliens had to be under the jurisdiction of the United States for a period of two years prior to naturalization. If only citizens were under the jurisdiction thereof, no one could have been naturalized.

Face it. UR busted.

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
Non sequitur. Infantile.
They were constrained by US law in dominions of the US: under US jurisdiction.
“That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years ....” Naturalization Act of 1790.
OK birfoon, how could any alien have resided within the limits and UNDER THE JURISDICTION of the United States for two years BEFORE taking an oath of allegiance according to your fantasy?
Sorry, the Fourteenth Amendment specified "ANY PERSON".
The Fifth Amendment specifies "NO PERSON" and "ANY PERSON," not only citizens.
UR screwed.

The 14th Amendment (1868) of the U.S. Constitution and/or the Wong Kim Ark (1898) decision of the U.S. Supreme Court did NOT amend Article II of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment and Wong Kim Ark defined who are "born Citizens" of the U.S., not who are "natural born Citizens" of the U.S. Natural born Citizenship is obtained by natural law and facts at birth, not the laws of men. This video explains who is a "natural born Citizen". This is an issue of sole allegiance at birth and national security. New essay by Commander Kerchner revealing the Founder's Intent for citizenship status requirements to be President and Commander in Chief of the military.

http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/pro...

Another founder of our nation and great historian of the American Revolution named David Ramsay contemporaneously defined in a 1789 essay what the term "natural born Citizen" means. Read a copy of Ramsay's original dissertation at this link. Other research papers from history on the term "natural born Citizen" published long before the current controversy was created by the 2008 election debacle can be read at this link. The paper by Breckenridge Long in 1916 is a particularly good one.

Barack Hussein Obama II may or may not be a born Citizen of the USA depending on what the 1961 contemporaneous birth registration documents sealed in Hawaii reveal. And Americans have good reason to be greatly concerned about the truth as to where he was physically born as opposed to where his birth may have been falsely registered by his maternal grandmother as occurring in Hawaii as this Catalog of Evidence details. But he can never be a "natural born Citizen of the United States" since his father was a foreigner, a British Subject who was never a U.S. Citizen and was not even an immigrant to the USA. Since his father was a British Subject and not a U.S. Citizen when Obama was born, Obama was born a British Subject. The founders and framers are probably rolling over in their graves knowing this person was sworn in as the putative President and Commander of our military.

The founders rejected acquisition of Citizenship by birth on the soil without consideration as to who were the parents. That is clear from the history and evolution of the writing the eligibility clause in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which specifies who can be President and Commander in Chief of the military.

So, can a "born Citizen" be President of the USA? The answer is a resounding NO per the founders and framers. Being a "born Citizen the United States" is a necessary but NOT sufficient part of being a "natural born Citizen of the United States". But only a "natural born Citizen" can be the President of the USA. Obama is not constitutionally eligible (to constitutional standards) to serve as President and Commander in Chief of the military.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/09/is-being-bo...

http://www.scribd.com/collections/2465213/Res...

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, because aliens do not share in the obligations of citizenship, it does not follow that they are beyond the jurisdiction thereof. If that were true, then no one could have been naturalized under the Naturalization Act of 1790 which required aliens to reside in the US and under the jurisdiction of the US for a period of two years PRIOR to naturalization.
Again:
Many aliens under US jurisdiction, both resident and non-resident, are taxed by the federal government per federal law, the power of which derives from the Constitution. Get real.
BTW, BirfoonBoy, a tax is levied by the government over persons in the US under its jurisdiction. If they were not under the jurisdiction, the tax could not be levied. And, BTW, a monetary tax does fall under the general category of burden. Your use of 'tax' in the general sense does not exclude "tax" in the narrow sense. Capisce?
<quoted text>

nice, but you totally missed the boat. You can't spin your way out of it.
Aliens are not under the jurisdiction of the US Constitution, until they are citizens, this is why we make treaties, you treat my citizens correctly, I will treat your citizens correctly.

Obama is an illegal immigrant.

His mother changed his citizenship status (for wherever that may be)when they moved to Indonesia and there is no record of Obama ever applying for citizenship to this country when he moved to his grandparents home in Hawaii.

Obama Changed His Name In Canada?

Interview with attorney Stephen Pidgeon. Attorney Pidgeon claims he found a record for a name change from “Barak Mounir Ubayd” to “Barack Hussein Obama” on October 14th, 1982 in Skookumchuck, British Columbia. Attorney Pidgeon also discusses his new book titled “The Obama Error”

http://patriotupdate.com/22077/obama-changed-...

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, but an alien could not then or now be a member of Congress per US law, not state law.
Meanwhile you are still avoiding the issue of the Naturalization Act of 1790. Aliens had to be under the jurisdiction of the United States for a period of two years prior to naturalization. If only citizens were under the jurisdiction thereof, no one could have been naturalized.
Face it. UR busted.
<quoted text>

as you stated they were under the control of a State, this was during the period when the individual States made citizens.
You are correct an alien can not be a member of Congress, they are not under the jurisdiction of the Constitution, a citizen. Even an Act does not bring them under the jurisdiction of the Constitution, if it did why have a naturalization process.
Grow a brain!

American Lady wrote:

Obama Changed His Name In Canada?
Interview with attorney Stephen Pidgeon. Attorney Pidgeon claims he found a record for a name change from “Barak Mounir Ubayd” to “Barack Hussein Obama” on October 14th, 1982 in Skookumchuck, British Columbia. Attorney Pidgeon also discusses his new book titled “The Obama Error”
http://patriotupdate.com/22077/obama-changed-...

Ooooh so maybe that is why Jacko has such an interest in this thread.

67. The Obama Apology Tour
68. Obama’s Marxist Czars
69. Obama’s Muslim Czars advocating for Islamic Sharia Law in America70. Cap & Trade Tax
71. agenda 21
72. Obama’s Terrorist Appeasement
73. The Islamization Of NASA
74. Muslims exempted from Obamacare
75. Obama’s Mistreatment Of Israel
76. The NDAA to imprison Americans at will the New Start Treaty in Russia the 111th Democratic Congress
77. Violating the rules of the U.S. House•
78. Inappropriately handing out the legislative powers of Congress.
79. Upending the legislative process Usurping the powers reserved to the states in the U.S. Constitution.
80. Barack Obama has advocated that the nation should move beyond the constraints of the founding document .
81.President Obama informed Congress and the American people that he and he alone will decide which laws coming to his desk are constitutional or not. 82.FEMA Camps 83.Obama mistreating our friends
84. obama apologizing to afghanistan85.$535 MILLION on shovle ready jobs that NEVER were86.Obama's Latest Executive Order Doubles Down on the Frack Attack&#12288;Americans, hear what your president is saying: I’ll work within the system. But if they won’t move, then…I will dictate where we’re going.
The arrogance of this man and the way he rewrites all of American historyand obama adds something new everyday ,, cause he never stops hurting our America.

As President of the United States, Barack Obama wants us to know he killed Osama Bin Laden. The SEALs? Pfffffftttt ... nope. Barack Obama did it. If you don’t believe him, wait till the campaign commercials tell you. Don’t believe them? Well, just in time for the election, Hollywood will provide us with an in-kind contribution of a propaganda film.

This morning, my dad called and pointed out that Barack Obama may just be the most successful killer to ever take up residence in the White House — more successful even than the 19th Century vampire slayer who first led the Republican Party into the White House. In fact, consider the serial killing spree Barack Obama has been on:

Osama Bin Laden
Our credit rating
The coal industry
The oil and natural gas industry
The healthcare sector
Job creation
Economic growth
Small businesses

http://patriotupdate.com/22178/a-killer-among...

Just Sayin wrote:

<quoted text>
Ooooh so maybe that is why Jacko has such an interest in this thread.

Very possible....huh....;-)

American Lady wrote:

Obama Changed His Name In Canada?
Interview with attorney Stephen Pidgeon. Attorney Pidgeon claims he found a record for a name change from “Barak Mounir Ubayd” to “Barack Hussein Obama” on October 14th, 1982 in Skookumchuck, British Columbia. Attorney Pidgeon also discusses his new book titled “The Obama Error”
http://patriotupdate.com/22077/obama-changed-...

I have suspected Obummer was born on the Ocean Liner Canberra on it's maiden voyage from Hawaii to Vancouver BC.

Hmmmm, the French CAC-40 has been taking a nose dive since April 18th and I suspect that means Sarkosy will probably not win reelection. It was like our stock market in 2008. The closer we got to the November elections, the further the stock market dipped. Why? Well, the investors were pretty sure Obama would win the election and that would mean bad news for the economy.
And it looks the same way in France. When INVESTORS see bad news on the horizon, they change course.

This is Hotel Obama; you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave

Hotel California
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

American Lady wrote:

This is Hotel Obama; you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave
Hotel California
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Ooooops forgot the link:

This is Hotel Africa; you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave
http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/OpEd/comment/...

Old Goat wrote:

<quoted text>Totally Irrelevant!
Obummer was born a subject of GB, never stateless.

Trying to change the subject?

Sorry BirfoonBoy, your idiosyncratic and hopelessly convoluted belief concerning the meaning of jurisdiction went up in flames.

It is your nonsensical belief that only US citizens are under the jurisdiction of the United States.

It was your hopeless contention that US jurisdiction over aliens was conferred by the Jay Treaty. However, the Jay Treaty was not established until some years after adoption of the Constitution.

It is also your contention that US jurisdiction over aliens is generally derived through treaties. Again a hopeless cause. As stated earlier, if the US government did not have jurisdiction over aliens within its territory under the Constitution, it would not have the authority to create such jurisdiction using powers that it did not possess. In addition, your foolishness would require that the US have a treaty with every country in the world in order to have jurisdiction over all aliens in the US. Rubbish.

And, your theory also fails in the instance of a stateless person. By what treaty does the US obtain jurisdiction over the stateless within its territories?

Then there is the Naturalization Act of 1790 which required aliens to be under the jurisdiction of the United States for a period of two years before becoming a citizen. If only citizens were under the jurisdiction of the United States, then one could have ever been naturalized under the act. This proves conclusively that the US Congress in 1790 understood "under the jurisdiction of the United States" to mean something utterly at odds with your infantile definition.

“They alone are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who are within their dominions and under the protection of their laws, and with the consequent obligation to obey them when obedience can be rendered; and only those thus subject by their birth or naturalization are within the terms of the amendment.” Justice Stephen Field.

Grow up!

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
There he goes again, throwing feces and hoping nit sticks.
A de jure stateless person is someone who is "not considered as a national by any state under the operation of its law".[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statelessness
Again, was the Jay Treaty in force AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION? Don't think so.
How would the Jay Treaty be relevant to a STATELESS alien not born under US or British jurisdiction and never a British subject or US citizen?
<quoted text>

You birthers are so silly. Running around screeching like owls at the world....and NO PROOF OF A SINGLE SHRED OF ANYTHING. There is nothing in your pile of crappola that proves your statements. Please tell the class WHERE IS YOUR PROOF?
All this is is a 100% speculation job. Vivid imaginations running amok, is what this is.
TRY delving into reality.
First you claim he was born in Kenya....then another claims he was born on a boat going to Vancouver BC....then another claims something else.
All the crappola you have submitted so far is NOTHING. One of your documents isn't even HIS!! but you claim it belongs to him...eventhough it shows Trippler Hospital on the certificate...
( Please tell the class how being born at Trippler hospital could happen, since it was a MILITARY POST HOSPITAL, and neither parent was in the military....) BUT, IF THE DOCUMENT WAS HIS, then haven't you dimwits JUST PROVEN that he was BORN IN THE USA?? DUH????
Stop following a fool named Oily Titz, and get a life for a change. SHE"S NUTS! She doesn't have the common sense of a gnat. She's not NORMAL....SHE IS DERANGED....
You idiots are living proof that if there's a Jim Jones type out there, you'd be dumb enough to follow him to the death! gawd.

American Lady wrote:

This is Hotel Obama; you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave
Hotel California
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Ya gotta love the Eagles.

Oolongti wrote:

You "OBOTS" are so silly. Running around screeching like owls at the world....and NO PROOF OF A SINGLE SHRED OF ANYTHING. There is nothing in your pile of crappola that proves your statements. Please tell the class WHERE IS YOUR PROOF?
All this is is a 100% speculation job. Vivid imaginations running amok, is what this is.
TRY delving into reality.
First you claim he was born in Kenya....then another claims he was born on a boat going to Vancouver BC....then another claims something else.
All the crappola you have submitted so far is NOTHING. One of your documents isn't even HIS!! but you claim it belongs to him...eventhough it shows Trippler Hospital on the certificate...
( Please tell the class how being born at Trippler hospital could happen, since it was a MILITARY POST HOSPITAL, and neither parent was in the military....) BUT, IF THE DOCUMENT WAS HIS, then haven't you dimwits JUST PROVEN that he was BORN IN THE USA?? DUH????
You idiots are living proof that if there's a Jim Jones(OBAMA) type out there, you'd be dumb enough to follow him to the death! gawd.

BACKatcha bub.....;-)

Just Sayin wrote:

<quoted text>
Wojar Wojar Wojar
You keep making a target of yourself with all your "all knowing" insults.
The government issued redeemable "bills of credit"-which -raised enough capital to fuel the Treasury in 1775. Sound familiar?

And who paid off the bills of credit? The tooth fairy?

Sorry, but the government received monies from the states (not a whole lot though), and that was from TAXPAYERS. BTW, bills of credit ultimately get paid by the TAXPAYER.

Following adoption of the Constitution, George lived in the executive mansion, and his lavish parties, fine wines, whiskeys, etc., were not paid on his dime. Who do you think picked up the tab?