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

Old Goat wrote:

<quoted text>it most certainly is a particular status, it denotes a person has two countries that he owes allegiance to and is not recognized by the US Constitution for obvious reasons.

RU on drugs? Since dual citizenship was not recognized, dual citizens had no particular status as dual under the Constitution. Their US citizenship was considered without any regard to operation of foreign law, which had no force or effect in the US. A dual citizen was expected to be "true and faithful alone to our government" as though the foreign citizenship did not exist -- because it was not recognized.

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry BirfoonBoy, failure to recognize dual citizenship merely does not formally admit that it has particular status.
Congress could declare all Italians as naturalized dual US citizens. There is nothing in the Constution to prohibit such action. The simple fact is children of German parents born in Pennsylvania were dual citizens.
“Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.”-Senator Lyman Trumbull, Cong. Globe 39th, 1st Sess 498 (1866).[Jan 30th.]
Get real.

Old Goat wrote:

<quoted text>In this country we have only two type of citizens, Natural Born and Naturalized, one is acquired by birth in this country to citizen parents, the other is acquired through the Law of Naturalization and neither are dual-citizens.

OG is still herding his goats in circles. Will they ever get home?

Indeed, there are only two types of citizen, natural born and naturalized. Persons who are also considered citizens of foreign countries are treated as though their foreign citizenship does not exist. They are expected to be "true and faithful alone to our government". There is no particular status, separate from other citizens, accorded to such persons under US law.

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
Goat Herder is still herding in circles.
Sorry, Goat Herder, but it was allowed. Persons born of alien parents WERE considered natural born citizens under the Constitution, and NO FOUNDERS OR THEIR PROTEGES OBJECTED. They were fully aware that some countries applied jus sanguinis citizenship law. No such persons were required to renounce foreign citizenship acquired per operation of foreign law.
“I am bound to say that the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind, so far as I have had the opportunity of knowing it, is that birth in this country does of itself constitute citizenship.” Lynch v. Clarke, 3 NY Leg. Obs. 236, 250 (N.Y. Ch. 1844).
<quoted text>

In a revealing new book, The Amateur, author Edward Klein interviews President Barack Obama’s physician, Dr. David Scheiner, MD, who blasts the president’s health care plan and says that President Obama has an “academic detachment” that he could never break through.

The doctor fears that if the health care plan is “the failure” he believes it will be, because of runaway costs and other problems, then any health reform will be set back for years to come.

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Okay, let us put our thinking caps on now. Chester was born in the U.S. in 1828, his father was naturalized in 1843 when Chester was about 14 years old. They did not have modern computers back then and someone would have to suspect something, go the the right court house, look through all the documents from 1828 until Chester became president and they did not have microfilm or computers back then.
Sooo, it is not our fault that they were not able to find the information way back then. But, AGAIN, they knew you have to have TWO U.S. citizen parents to be a U.S. NBC, RIGHT!!!
But we KNOW that Obama's father never was a U.S. citizen at anytime. If he had been, he would not have been deported!!!

Sorry Rouge, the question of his father's naturalization was not even raised. If "they" could not find the record, they could simply have said "there is no known record of his (William's) naturalization".

Do you know why the question was not raised? Because no one thought it mattered. This is because it was understood that birth in this country confers natural born citizenship.

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
They didn't know? When William Arthur was naturalized AFTER the birth of Chester, it was a matter of public record, as are all naturalizations. Naturalization was not performed in secret. When Arthur's eligibility was questioned, the issue raised was his PLACE OF BIRTH. If "they" did not look it was because it was not considered a matter of consequence. That should give you a clue.

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
He couldn't hide his father's naturalization, the record of which which was public, and occurred well after Arthur's birth on August 31, 1843 in the State of New York. He also did not destroy the family bible (now in the Library of Congress) that showed he was born in 1829, when his parents lived in Fairfield, VT. Apparently birfoons would like to believe in the joyride to Canada theory. Dream on.
<quoted text>

Okay Wojo, Just when was it discovered that Chester's father was not a U.S. citizen util after Chester was born? Show my the date and person who discovered it.
And I am not talking about Chester's inner circle who, just like Obama's inner circle, covered up the facts.

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry Rouge, the question of his father's naturalization was not even raised. If "they" could not find the record, they could simply have said "there is no known record of his (William's) naturalization".
Do you know why the question was not raised? Because no one thought it mattered. This is because it was understood that birth in this country confers natural born citizenship.
<quoted text>

Okay, so the question of Chester's father's naturalization was not raised, so what. Again, Libtardian Logic dictates that since no one challenged Chester Arthur's father's naturalization, then we should not challenge Obama's. Since when does two wrongs make a right?
Oh, where you born a citizen of this country?

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
But the fact that they KNEW his father had to be a citizen at the time Chester was born leads me to believe that Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen on that one issue alone.
<quoted text>
Okay, let us put our thinking caps on now. Chester was born in the U.S. in 1828, his father was naturalized in 1843 when Chester was about 14 years old. They did not have modern computers back then and someone would have to suspect something, go the the right court house, look through all the documents from 1828 until Chester became president and they did not have microfilm or computers back then.
Sooo, it is not our fault that they were not able to find the information way back then. But, AGAIN, they knew you have to have TWO U.S. citizen parents to be a U.S. NBC, RIGHT!!!
But we KNOW that Obama's father never was a U.S. citizen at anytime. If he had been, he would not have been deported!!!

Rouge: "But the fact that they KNEW his father had to be a citizen uhat the time Chester was born leads me to believe that Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen on that one issue alone."

Really? "[T]hey KNEW his father had to be a citizen at the time Chester was born"? How did Rouge come up with this gem?

Rouge: "[S]omeone would have to suspect something".

Wasn't that the whole point? They did suspect "something". Duh!

Rouge: "go the the right court house, look through all the documents from 1828 until Chester became president"

Duh! The Democratic party was a national party with officials in every county in every state. They didn't need computers.

Rouge, please take your thinking cap off. It's making you dizzy.

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
They didn't know? When William Arthur was naturalized AFTER the birth of Chester, it was a matter of public record, as are all naturalizations. Naturalization was not performed in secret. When Arthur's eligibility was questioned, the issue raised was his PLACE OF BIRTH. If "they" did not look it was because it was not considered a matter of consequence. That should give you a clue.

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:

Hey Wojo, why did you get so upset the other day when I found that piece about the Muslims in the U.K. who were drugging up Christian children and raping them? And then after I asked you if you were a Muslim, you did not answer? Are you ashamed of being a Muslim?

RU nuts?

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:

<quoted text>
Okay Wojo, Just when was it discovered that Chester's father was not a U.S. citizen util after Chester was born? Show my the date and person who discovered it.
And I am not talking about Chester's inner circle who, just like Obama's inner circle, covered up the facts.

Huh? Do you have a point? Discovered? Nobody cared at that time. It was irrelevant. The fact is that it could have been discovered and nobody cared. Got a clue why?

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
He couldn't hide his father's naturalization, the record of which which was public, and occurred well after Arthur's birth on August 31, 1843 in the State of New York. He also did not destroy the family bible (now in the Library of Congress) that showed he was born in 1829, when his parents lived in Fairfield, VT. Apparently birfoons would like to believe in the joyride to Canada theory. Dream on.

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
RU on drugs? Since dual citizenship was not recognized, dual citizens had no particular status as dual under the Constitution. Their US citizenship was considered without any regard to operation of foreign law, which had no force or effect in the US. A dual citizen was expected to be "true and faithful alone to our government" as though the foreign citizenship did not exist -- because it was not recognized.
<quoted text>

a dual-citizenship is not recognized by the US Constitution.

Trumbull declaring:
The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Thursday evening’s episode of the Glenn Beck Program will likely go down in the history books as one of the very few (if not only) recorded instances of another human being exposing President Obama’s myriad personal and professional inconsistencies in such a detailed and profound way. In fact, viewers might even consider burning themselves a DVD copy to serve as a record of what historians will one day prove.

On Friday, The Blaze will provide more details on the president’s past deeds and associations, along with an additional clip from Beck‘s Thursday’s broadcast. Until then, ask yourself the following question: Do you know anybody like Obama?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/do-you-know-a...

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
OG is still herding his goats in circles. Will they ever get home?
Indeed, there are only two types of citizen, natural born and naturalized. Persons who are also considered citizens of foreign countries are treated as though their foreign citizenship does not exist. They are expected to be "true and faithful alone to our government". There is no particular status, separate from other citizens, accorded to such persons under US law.
<quoted text>

Bullshit!
Trumbull declaring:

The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

All naturalized must take the following.

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.......

No such thing as a dual-citizenship.

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:

<quoted text>
Okay, so the question of Chester's father's naturalization was not raised, so what. Again, Libtardian Logic dictates that since no one challenged Chester Arthur's father's naturalization, then we should not challenge Obama's. Since when does two wrongs make a right?
Oh, where you born a citizen of this country?

"So what"? RU on drugs? It shows that in 1881 no one considered his father's citizenship relevant. It was understood that birth conferred citizenship even before the 14th Amendment (Arthur was born in 1829), and the opposition focused on his PLACE OF BIRTH.

“Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.”-Senator Lyman Trumbull, Cong. Globe 39th, 1st Sess 498 (1866).[Jan 30th.]

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry Rouge, the question of his father's naturalization was not even raised. If "they" could not find the record, they could simply have said "there is no known record of his (William's) naturalization".
Do you know why the question was not raised? Because no one thought it mattered. This is because it was understood that birth in this country confers natural born citizenship.
<quoted text>

The Sun is coming back to life and will save us from Global Cooling!!! Praise be to the Sun Gawd!!!

Monster Sunspot Fires Off Powerful Solar Flares
By Tariq Malik | SPACE.com

A huge sunspot that dwarfs the Earth is unleashing a series of powerful solar flares as it moves across the surface of the sun, NASA scientists say.
The sunspot AR 1476 was detected by space telescopes on May 5. The huge sunspot is 60,000 miles (100,000 kilometers) across, so large that when it was first seen in views from NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory spacecraft, mission scientists dubbed it a "monster sunspot."
Earlier this week, space weather scientists predicted the sunspot would erupt with powerful solar flares, and those predictions have since come true. So far, the sunspot has fired off several flares, including a strong solar storm early Thursday (May 10).
"Solar activity has been at high levels for the past 24 hours with multiple M-class solar flares observed," stated an update Thursday from the Space Weather Prediction Center, a joint service of NOAA and the National Weather Service. Sunspot region AR 1476 was responsible for nearly all of the sun's storm activity, center officials said.[Worst Solar Storms in History]
On Thursday, sunspot AR 1476 unleashed a powerful flare at 12:18 a.m. EDT (0418 GMT) that registered as a class M5.7 eruption. M-class solar flares are medium-strength sun storms that can still unleash powerful blasts of radiation and magnetic solar plasma. So far, the sunspot has not triggered huge explosions from the sun, which scientists call coronal mass ejections.
On the scale of solar flares, X-class storms are the most powerful and can interfere with satellites and infrastructure on Earth when aimed at our planet. M-class storms are the second-most powerful flares and can set off geomagnetic storms that create dazzling northern lights displays when the eruptions reach Earth. C-class flares, the weakest category, have little effect on Earth.
http://news.yahoo.com/monster-sunspot-fires-o...

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
RU nuts?

No, but you certainly are!

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:

This is for Johannes from Yucaipa, CA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
You demanded to know how "I" knew that this May would be the coldest May in 100 Years in the U.K. and I told you it was a U.K. Meteo forecast. Well, we are only one third the way through May and it looks like the U.K. is very wet and very cold. If it is snowing in Scotland, it would be safe to say that it is below freezing in some places, don't you?
Now, here is the actual forecast from last month. Please note it is not MY forecast.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/921...
I suppose Johannes will say it did not snow in Scotland this month.

Sorry, you are wrong once again. I NEVER demanded to know how you knew it was the coldest May in 100 years. The point I brought up is that you posted your 'Coldest May in 100 Years' when it was still April. That is what I questioned. DUH!!!!!

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
“Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.”-Senator Lyman Trumbull, Cong. Globe 39th, 1st Sess 498 (1866).[Jan 30th.]
<quoted text>

"So what"? RU on drugs? He said "a citizen" and not a "Natural Born Citizen"!!! Get the wax out of your eyes.
Oh, still haven't answered why you get so upset when we bring out crimes committed by Muslims!

Old Goat wrote:

<quoted text>a dual-citizenship is not recognized by the US Constitution.
Trumbull declaring:
The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Trumbull, Bingham, and Howard all considered children born in the US of aliens to be US citizens.

Evidently they didn't share in BirfoonBoy's fanciful definition of "under the jurisdiction thereof".

Grow up!

“A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).

“Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.”-Senator Lyman Trumbull, Cong. Globe 39th, 1st Sess 498 (1866).

“Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth—natural-born citizens.” John Bingham, Cong. Globe 37th Cong., 2nd Sess. 1639 (1862).

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
RU on drugs? Since dual citizenship was not recognized, dual citizens had no particular status as dual under the Constitution. Their US citizenship was considered without any regard to operation of foreign law, which had no force or effect in the US. A dual citizen was expected to be "true and faithful alone to our government" as though the foreign citizenship did not exist -- because it was not recognized.
<quoted text>

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry BirfoonGirl, but birfoon interpretation of the 14th Amendment is based on Vattel. According to Vattel (and therefore birfoon law), gramps' son would have been an ALIEN. There simply is no such thing as a person born in the US as a citizen, either by common law or per Vattel who is not a natural born citizen. the concept of a "14th Amendment citizen", born in the US, who is not natural born is without basis.
Sorry.
<quoted text>

Wizzo
take the matter up with the Framers and Congress. As the 14th Amendment really was designed to protect blacks citizenship after the Civil War. But it applies now to anchor babies, and Obama. As he isn't a Constitutional natural born citizen, because of his foreign father. And his British subject Kenyan citizenship transferred to his son Barack Jr. at birth. As did American citizenship via the mother. Obama could have been born in Canada, it would not matter. He has Dual citizenship. And take precludes he being President. The Framers were very clear on this, numberous writing are available to read on the subject. It is obviously an uncomforable zone for Liberals to enter. For to truly understand the Founders would destroy their false prince. Obama knows he has dual citizenship, and doesn't care....like you.

that precludes he being President.