BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 190408 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Jan 8, 2009, titled BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen.... In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

Old Goat

United States

#99822 Aug 14, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh? RU on LSD? Sorry, BirfoonBoy, the US Constitution supersedes all treaties, no matter what you think, in your fractured comprehension, what a treaty may specify.
Bottom line: No treaty can deprive a natural born citizen of his birthright per the Constitution.
"Every person born in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at
once a citizen thereof, and needs no naturalization.
A person born out of the jurisdiction can only become
a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty
or by authority of congress, in declaring certain
classes of persons to be citizens, or by enabling foreigners
individually to become citizens by proceedings
in judicial tribunals." See head notes, Westlaw, US v. Ark.
MORON.
<quoted text>
One can't be subject to the jurisdiction of the US, if he is a citizen of another nation at birth, our Constitution does not recognize a dual-citizenship.
American Lady

Danville, KY

#99823 Aug 14, 2012
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#99824 Aug 14, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, the 14th amendment conferred citizenship to ALL PERSONS born in the United States, inter alia.(Subject to certain exceptions, such as persons born of foreign ambassadors.)
Last time I checked, "all persons" is not limited to African-Americans.
Now go look up "plain meaning".
<quoted text>
wojar.

Yes. You are right. After our Republican friends used hard earned taxpayer money to invade our free Southern States, they established harsh military dictatorships to rule over a defeated White population. As part and parcel to this nefarious scheme to increase their political power, our Republican friends disenfranchised White males and enfranchised the African.

After the 60s 70s "know nothing" revolutionaries seized control of academia and all elements of Big Government they worked hard to erase this most dastardly era of American history from the collective memory of the now subjugated White population. Fortunately, we still have an excellent docudrama that was filmed during the lifetimes of many of the victims and the oppressors of this despicable era.

Although the film is often said to be "racist" by Godless revolutionary ruling class activists, no one has ever convincingly argued that the film does not accurately depicts the Republican reconstruction era, an era which today, has led to the destruction of the family unit and the "right" of two persons of the same sex to "marry" one another.

The film is three hours in length. For anyone who was born after the revolution, and who desires to know the unfettered truth that led to today's unfortunate predicament of the besieged White woman and man, it is well worth the time needed to view it. You may download - or stream - the entire film from this link:

Source: http://tinyurl.com/87fmb7o

Ronald
Old Goat

United States

#99825 Aug 14, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Learn how to read, birfoon.
Again: citizenship according to statute does not depend upon natural allegiance per jus soli doctrine.
That means, birfoon, if a statute confers citizenship, it does not depend upon natural allegiance per jus soli doctrine.
Capisce? Eh? MORON?
<quoted text>
So, citizenship does not depend upon the jus soli doctrine.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#99826 Aug 14, 2012
American Lady wrote:
US Department of State confirms Vattel
Statement On the Occasion of Switzerland's National Day
...

Natural Born Citizen Defined
...
Thomas Jefferson
In Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774-1789, Volume 21, Pages 250-251 ( http://tinyurl.com/8zvmgy ), we see notes from Thomas Jefferson from December 1783.
The first question is
“Qu. 1. Can an American citizen, adult, now inherit lands in England?”
to which Thomas Jefferson begins his answer with
“Natural subjects can inherit–Aliens cannot.
There is no middle character–every man must be the one or the other of these.”
(In other words, dual nationality did not exist. Citizenship was singular.)
Thomas Jefferson also wrote this in his answer:
“An alien is the subject or citizen of a foreign power.
The treaty of peace acknowleges we are no longer to owe allegiance to the king of G.B. It acknowleges us no longer as Natural subjects then.
It makes us citizens of independent states; it makes us aliens then.”
(So, in the context of these notes, an “alien” is an American citizen and not a British subject.)
The second question is
“Qu.2. The father a British subject; the son in America, adult, and within the description of an American citizen, according to their laws. Can the son inherit?”
and Thomas Jefferson answers, before dealing with an objection,
“He owes allegiance to the states. He is an alien then and cannot inherit.”
(For the adult “alien” citizen son, the state of the British father does not descend to him, neither with respect to nationality/allegiance nor with respect to property.)
The third question is
“Qu. 3. The father a British subject. The son as in Qu. 2. but an infant. Can he inherit?”
Thomas Jefferson’s answer:
“1st. by the Common law.
We have seen before that the state of the father does not draw to it as an accessory that of the son where he is an adult. But by the common law.”
...So, it stands to reason that Thomas Jefferson is calling the MINOR son of the British subject a NATURAL SUBJECT by the common law in following the state of the father, even though the minor son is in America following the Treaty of Paris, called the “treaty of peace” in Thomas Jefferson’s answer to Question 1.)
“An alien is the subject or citizen of a foreign power.
The treaty of peace acknowleges we are no longer to owe allegiance to the king of G.B. It acknowleges us no longer as Natural subjects then.
It makes us citizens of independent states; it makes us aliens then.”
Here is the bomb-
When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Therefore Obama is an alien of the United States and an Alien is not, can not, nor EVER be a “Natural Born Citizen”
http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/natural-born-...
----------
Don't know what I'll do after November...
Won't have "anyone to make "fools" out of :)
Nah... I'm sure there's "plenty" of those around...
Here is the BOMB.

You have no clue what UR talking about.

Incidentally, an American child can inherit land owned by a parent in many foreign countries. What may have been English law at one time is neither here nor there. UR a fool.
Old Goat

United States

#99828 Aug 14, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh? RU on LSD? Sorry, BirfoonBoy, the US Constitution supersedes all treaties, no matter what you think, in your fractured comprehension, what a treaty may specify.
Bottom line: No treaty can deprive a natural born citizen of his birthright per the Constitution.
"Every person born in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at
once a citizen thereof, and needs no naturalization.
A person born out of the jurisdiction can only become
a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty
or by authority of congress, in declaring certain
classes of persons to be citizens, or by enabling foreigners
individually to become citizens by proceedings
in judicial tribunals." See head notes, Westlaw, US v. Ark.
MORON.
<quoted text>
Yes all persons born in the US are citizens, if they are not born citizens of their father's country of origin.
American Lady

Danville, KY

#99829 Aug 14, 2012
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
wojar.
Yes. You are right. After our Republican friends used hard earned taxpayer money to invade our free Southern States, they established harsh military dictatorships to rule over a defeated White population. As part and parcel to this nefarious scheme to increase their political power, our Republican friends disenfranchised White males and enfranchised the African.
After the 60s 70s "know nothing" revolutionaries seized control of academia and all elements of Big Government they worked hard to erase this most dastardly era of American history from the collective memory of the now subjugated White population. Fortunately, we still have an excellent docudrama that was filmed during the lifetimes of many of the victims and the oppressors of this despicable era.
Although the film is often said to be "racist" by Godless revolutionary ruling class activists, no one has ever convincingly argued that the film does not accurately depicts the Republican reconstruction era, an era which today, has led to the destruction of the family unit and the "right" of two persons of the same sex to "marry" one another.
The film is three hours in length. For anyone who was born after the revolution, and who desires to know the unfettered truth that led to today's unfortunate predicament of the besieged White woman and man, it is well worth the time needed to view it. You may download - or stream - the entire film from this link:
Source: http://tinyurl.com/87fmb7o
Ronald
After the 60s 70s "know nothing" revolutionaries
http://sixties-l.blogspot.com/2008/04/bill-ay...

Peeping for the Panthers

She declined in favor of attending Yale Law School. There, she
studied under the infamous Thomas ("Tommy the Commie") Emerson.
Emerson introduced her to Charles Garry, an attorney for the Black
Panther Party. When Panthers were put on trial in New Haven,
Connecticut, for the torture and murder of Alex Rackley, Hillary
monitored the trial – on behalf of the Panthers.(Although this is
the subject of an urban legend, the monitoring did, in fact, occur.)
Her aim, and that of the students she organized, was to look for
"civil rights violations" that could be used as technicalities to
dismiss the charges against the Panthers.

"Our Law Firm was a Communist Law Firm.

http://sixties-l.blogspot.com/2008/04/hillary...
Old Goat

United States

#99830 Aug 14, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is the BOMB.
You have no clue what UR talking about.
Incidentally, an American child can inherit land owned by a parent in many foreign countries. What may have been English law at one time is neither here nor there. UR a fool.
looks like you have had your lunch eaten!
American Lady

Danville, KY

#99831 Aug 14, 2012
Preventing the rise of a 'messiah'

http://sixties-l.blogspot.com/2008/04/prevent...

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#99832 Aug 14, 2012
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>For hundreds of years citizenship of the child has been based on the citizenship of the father. In 1776,the United States declared independence and when they framed their Constitution that was ratified in 1789 they had the forethought to use the term Natural Born Citizen in Article II Section 1 to specify allegiance to The United States to insure that the son of a foreigner would never get the opportunity to be in position to destroy our country from within. In 2008,too many ObamaZombies and treasonous fools decided that the Constitution didn't apply to Obama.
Sorry, Birfoon, for hundreds of years, citizenship was based upon place of birth in this country. C.f., the numerous court decisions in THIS COUNTRY. What country RU from?
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
RE: BirfoonBoy: "So, I guess we never have any US citizens born outside of our borders?"
Huh? RU on drugs?
Again: citizenship according to statute does not depend upon natural allegiance per jus soli doctrine.
Get a clue.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#99833 Aug 14, 2012
Old Goat wrote:
<quoted text>
1. One can not be subject to the jurisdiction, there of, if he is subject to a foreign power, he must be naturalized.
2. All persons born subject to a foreign power in the US are aliens. The US can not take away the birth right a child has been given by his father and his country of origin, unless naturalized.
Wowee Zowee. The birfoon still cannot distinguish between subject OF a foreign power (per operation of foreign law that has no force or effect in this country) and subject TO a foreign power, such as a foreign ambassador.

Why am I not surprised? The birfoon cannot understand the English language!
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Tee hee hee.
1. The 14th amendment does not include the "subject to a foreign power" clause and is not subservient to the Civil rights Act of 1866.
2. Persons born subjects of a foreign power per operation of foreign law are NOT subject to a foreign power.
Please learn the English language, BirdoonLady.
Tee hee hee.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#99834 Aug 14, 2012
Old Goat wrote:
<quoted text>One can't be subject to the jurisdiction of the US, if he is a citizen of another nation at birth, our Constitution does not recognize a dual-citizenship.
Sorry, BirfoonChild, despite the fact that UR trying to change the subject, after getting UR arse handed to you, the simple fact is that the Founding Fathers were well aware of the fact that foreign countries could claim US citizens as their own. But that is of no moment. The United States decides who her citizens are. The United States is a sovereign nation. No foreign country can dictate who is or is not a US citizen.

Sorry, loser.

"Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent
right of every independent nation to determine
for itself, and according to its own constitution and
laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its
citizenship." US v, Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 668 (1898).
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh? RU on LSD? Sorry, BirfoonBoy, the US Constitution supersedes all treaties, no matter what you think, in your fractured comprehension, what a treaty may specify.
Bottom line: No treaty can deprive a natural born citizen of his birthright per the Constitution.
"Every person born in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at
once a citizen thereof, and needs no naturalization.
A person born out of the jurisdiction can only become
a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty
or by authority of congress, in declaring certain
classes of persons to be citizens, or by enabling foreigners
individually to become citizens by proceedings
in judicial tribunals." See head notes, Westlaw, US v. Ark.
MORON.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#99835 Aug 14, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, Birfoon, for hundreds of years, citizenship was based upon place of birth in this country. C.f., the numerous court decisions in THIS COUNTRY. What country RU from?
<quoted text>
Ok Wojar, what is it about Obama you like? What he's done for the economy, foreign relations, the military....what?
American Lady

Danville, KY

#99836 Aug 14, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh? RU on LSD? Sorry, BirfoonBoy, the US Constitution supersedes all treaties, no matter what you think, in your fractured comprehension, what a treaty may specify.
Bottom line: No treaty can deprive a natural born citizen of his birthright per the Constitution.
"Every person born in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at
once a citizen thereof, and needs no naturalization.
A person born out of the jurisdiction can only become
a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty
or by authority of congress, in declaring certain
classes of persons to be citizens, or by enabling foreigners
individually to become citizens by proceedings
in judicial tribunals." See head notes, Westlaw, US v. Ark.
MORON.
<quoted text>
Paris Peace Treaty
(PEACE TREATY of 1783)
Text Version

In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.

It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch- treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences that have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish to restore, and to establish such a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse , between the two countries upon the ground of reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience as may promote and secure to both perpetual peace and harmony; and having for this desirable end already laid the foundation of peace and reconciliation by the Provisional Articles signed at Paris on the 30th of November 1782, by the commissioners empowered on each part, which articles were agreed to be inserted in and constitute the Treaty of Peace proposed to be concluded between the Crown of Great Britain and the said United States, but which treaty was not to be concluded until terms of peace should be agreed upon between Great Britain and France and his Britannic Majesty should be ready to conclude such treaty accordingly; and the treaty between Great Britain and France having since been concluded, his Britannic Majesty and the United States of America,...John Jay, Esqr., late president of Congress and chief justice of the state of New York, and minister plenipotentiary from the said United States at the court of Madrid; to be plenipotentiaries for the concluding and signing the present definitive treaty; who after having reciprocally communicated their respective full powers have agreed upon and confirmed the following articles.
...

Article 7:
There shall be a firm and perpetual peace between his Brittanic Majesty and the said states, and between the subjects of the one and the citizens of the other, wherefore all hostilities both by sea and land shall from henceforth cease. All prisoners on both sides shall be set at liberty, and his Brittanic Majesty shall with all convenient speed, and without causing any destruction, or carrying away any Negroes or other property of the American inhabitants, withdraw all his armies, garrisons, and fleets from the said United States, and from every post, place, and harbor within the same; leaving in all fortifications, the American artilery that may be therein; and shall also order and cause all archives, records, deeds, and papers belonging to any of the said states, or their citizens, which in the course of the war may have fallen into the hands of his officers, to be forthwith restored and delivered to the proper states and persons to whom they belong.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/mile...

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#99837 Aug 14, 2012
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
wojar.
Yes. You are right. After our Republican friends used hard earned taxpayer money to invade our free Southern States, they established harsh military dictatorships to rule over a defeated White population. As part and parcel to this nefarious scheme to increase their political power, our Republican friends disenfranchised White males and enfranchised the African.
Huh? UR disenfranchised? RU an illegal alien?
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, the 14th amendment conferred citizenship to ALL PERSONS born in the United States, inter alia.(Subject to certain exceptions, such as persons born of foreign ambassadors.)
Last time I checked, "all persons" is not limited to African-Americans.
Now go look up "plain meaning".
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#99838 Aug 14, 2012
Can't forget immigration and didn't I see something about "O" making his own brew? Billy Beer!! From the standpoint of what is right for this country, I cannot find "any" reason why an "American" would support him. Whether he is who he says he is or not, doesn't matter because he sux at "playing" president.
American Lady

Danville, KY

#99839 Aug 14, 2012
Obama’s immigration policy emerges
Applicants will be disqualified for offenses such as drunk driving, but not for driving without a license.

http://www.minutemanproject.com/

“zero nuclear weapons”

Since: Sep 08

Perryville

#99840 Aug 14, 2012
American Lady wrote:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad .com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/how- could-stanl.html
http://zachjonesishome.wordpress.com/2009/08/...
http://rense.com/general82/stan.htm
tee hee hee
Rense's radio program and website, Rense.com , cover subjects such as 9/11 conspiracy theories,[2] UFO reporting, paranormal phenomena, Holocaust denial.

Rense's show has been accused of being among "conspiracy-oriented Internet radio shows that often feature antisemites and extremists" by the Anti-Defamation League.

http://www.adl.org/Learn/Ext_US/pike/affiliat...

Now we see American Lady's true color's !!!!!!!!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#99841 Aug 14, 2012
Old Goat wrote:
<quoted text>So, citizenship does not depend upon the jus soli doctrine.
Nope.

Learn how to read, BirfoonBoy. Learn how to think!

Do you think naturalized citizenship depends upon the jus soli principle? Huh? Ya know, naturalized citizens are, in fact, citizens.

And natural born citizens (persons born citizens in the US) are also citizens. Wowee-Zowee!

Got a clue yet?
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Learn how to read, birfoon.
Again: citizenship according to statute does not depend upon natural allegiance per jus soli doctrine.
That means, birfoon, if a statute confers citizenship, it does not depend upon natural allegiance per jus soli doctrine.
Capisce? Eh? MORON?
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#99842 Aug 14, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh? UR disenfranchised? RU an illegal alien?
<quoted text>
Professor wojar.

You seem to be fond of referencing the Republican's 14th Amendment. Have you actually ever read it?

Ronald

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Bernie Sanders Appeals to Democrats' Elizabeth ... 7 min Butters 75
News Gay marriage (Mar '13) 7 min woodtick57 59,814
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 7 min RoxLo 1,234,889
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 7 min - Lady Liberty - 328,786
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 7 min IBdaMann 53,535
News Benghazi controversy explained 10 min kuda 177
News Can Rick Santorum escape his past? 10 min woodtick57 40
News Ireland same-sex marriage 11 min Josh 390
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 19 min Joe the Plumber 182,937
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 39 min dirtclod 164,487
More from around the web