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

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:

<quoted text>
But Obama is getting desperate!!! At the same time the Lame Stream Media and many Democrats are treating him like a leper.

You've advamced outrageous, untrue and unfounded statements time and time again. I've asked you for proof at least 50 times, got maybe 5 responses, all of them dead wrong. Other 45 requests have either gone unanswered or "if you're so smart, find it yourself". Last time I asked was why you pointed out to me that Obama's friends at GE had moved some manufacturing of jet engines to the Czech Reopublic. At least 10 times now I've asked why you bothered pointing that out to me. No reply. Can you for once be honest and say you erred, that in fact, the jet engine plant was established in the Czech Repub in 2008 - when GWB of "Mission Accomplished" fame was President?

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:

<quoted text>
But Obama is getting desperate!!! At the same time the Lame Stream Media and many Democrats are treating him like a leper.

Why was the last poll 47-43?(A week ago, CNN-Time Warner I believe) I know it's early, too soon to call, but why would a number like that make him nervous?

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:

<quoted text>
And way to often they interpret the law based on .... politics. Why else would the 9th Circuit Court be the most over turned court by the USSC?!?

And why else would the score be 133-0? All those judges bsed their rulings on politics? Every single one of them? Were they also ALL Democrat-appointed judges? All Commies? All afraid of Obama? ALL cowards, as were both Houses, the Supreme Court, John McCain and the whole shebang, plus 195 countries that recognised him as President? Why are you so deluded? How can you sleep?

American Lady wrote:

..... In this state of things, the treaty must, upon the grounds which I have already stated, be deemed to operate as an admission that he was in future to owe no allegiance to the State of New York, but he was to be deemed a British subject.
The question then arises as to what was the operation of the treaty upon his son, the demandant, who was then an infant of tender years and incapable of any election on his own part. It appears to me that upon principles of public law as well as of the common law, he must if born a British subject, be deemed to adhere to, and retain the national allegiance of his parents at the time of the treaty.
Vattel considers the general doctrine to be that children generally acquire the national character of their parents,
Vattel, B. 1, ch. 19. sec. 212, 219,<<<<---< <
and it is certain, both by the common law and the statute law of England, that the demandant
Page 28 U. S. 170
would be deemed a British subject.
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/28...
B. 1
ch. 19.
sec 212.
Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
B. 1
ch. 19
sec. 219.
Vagrants.
Vagrants are people who have no settlement. Consequently, those born of vagrant parents have no country, since a man's country is the place where, at the time of his birth, his parents had their settlement (§ 122), or it is the state of which his father was then a member, which comes to the same point; for, to settle for ever in a nation, is to become a member of it, at least as a perpetual inhabitant, if not with all the privileges of a citizen. We may, however, consider the country of a vagrant to be that of his child, while that vagrant is considered as not having absolutely renounced his natural or original settlement.

BirfoonLady -- on the wrong page as usual.

"This question as
here presented, does not call upon the court for an
opinion upon the broad doctrine of allegiance and
the right of expatriation, under a settled and unchanged
state of society and government. But to decide
what are the rights of the individuals composing
that society, and living under the protection of
that government, when a revolution occurs;"
JOHN INGLIS v. THE TRUSTEES OF THE SAILOR'S SNUG
HARBOUR IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, 28 U.S. 99, 120 (1830).

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:

<quoted text>
And yes, Obama has claimed he was born in Kenya

Unlike Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so doesn't make it so.
Judge Clay D. Land

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
Unlike Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so doesn't make it so.
Judge Clay D. Land

He also said GE engines moved to the Czech republic during Obama's tenure. We all know it was in 2008, during his "Mission Accomplished" heros's GWB's tenure. And he oft repeats it in his fertilized birther mind and is convinced it's true. But, challenged to explain the discrepancies in dates, remains silent.

BUT.....here iT IS...;-)

Loading


INGLIS v. TRUSTEES OF SAILOR'S SNUG HARBOUR
28 U.S. 99 (____)
Supreme Court of United States.




The question then arises as to what was the operation of the treaty upon his son, the demandant, who was then an infant of tender years, and incapable of any election on his own part. It appears to me, that upon principles of public law as well as of the common law, he must if born a British subject, be deemed to adhere to, and retain the national allegiance of his parents, at the time of the treaty. Vattel considers the general doctrine to be, that children generally acquire the national character of their parents (Vattel, B. 1, ch. 19. sec. 212, 219); and it is certain, both by the common law and the statute law of England, that the demandant
[ 28 U.S. 170 ]

would be deemed a British subject. The argument itself assumes that the demandant now acts officially in that character, and that ever since his arrival of age he has adhered to his British allegiance.
Upon the whole, upon the point of alienage as presented in the case, the following are my opinions under the various postures of the facts.
1. That if the demandant was born before the 4th of July 1776, he was born a British subject.
2. That if he was born after the 4th of July 1776, and before the 15th of September 1776, he was born an American citizen; and that it makes no difference in this respect, whether or not his parents had at the time of his birth, elected to become citizens of the state of New York, by manifesting an intention of becoming permanently members thereof, in the sense which I have endeavoured to explain.
3. That if the demandant was born after the 15th of September 1776, when the British took possession of New York, and while his parents were there residing under the protection of, and adhering to the British crown as subjects, de facto, he was born a British subject, even though his parents had previously become citizens of the state of New York.
4. That if the demandant was born after the 15th of September 1776, and could be deemed (as I cannot admit) a citizen of the state of New York in virtue of his parents having, before the time of his birth, elected to become citizens of that state, still his national character was derivative from his parents, and was under the peculiar circumstances of this case, liable to be changed during the revolutionary war; and that if his parents reverted to their original character as British subjects, and adhered to the British crown, his allegiance was finally fixed with theirs by the treaty of peace.
5. That it was competent for the British government to insist, at all times during the revolutionary war, upon retaining the allegiance of all persons who were born or became subjects; and for the American states to insist in the like manner. But that the treaty of peace of 1783 released all persons from any other allegiance than that of the party to whom they then adhered, and under whose allegiance they
[ 28 U.S. 171 ]

were then, de facto, found. That if the demandant's father was at that time so adhering, it was a final settlement of his allegiance on the British side; and that the demandant, unless born after the 4th of July 1776, and before the 15th of September 1776, remained, to all intents and purposes, a British subject

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx...

Now Obama is attacking the National Guard and Reserve's pay and it all centers around the weekend drill pay.
One weekend a month they "drill" for two days. Twelve hours on a Saturday and another twelve hours on Sunday for which they are paid FOUR drill days. But if you cut them any more, the will stop volunteering!
Look at it as if they are being paid overtime. They work the regular civilians jobs, 40 hour/5 days, then they drill, 24 hours/2 days, and then the go home and work another 40 hours/5 days. Do the math and that is 104 hours in 12 days. Not easy!!! And they should be paid for what they do!
They are subject to be called up at anytime whether for a state emergency or a national one. Fires, floods, snow blizzards, wars, etc. And yet you Libtards see them as slaves. Shame on you and Obama!

Review: Change Guard, Reserve Pay; Jul 02, 2012

WASHINGTON -- America's citizen soldiers, who train in their hometowns for a weekend a month and two weeks a year, receive more money for one day of training at home than their fellow National Guard and Reserve members earn for a day serving in the war zone.
Pentagon officials defended the pay discrepancy as incentive for National Guard and reservists who give up their weekends and must be ready on a moment's notice to serve. But it's one of many problems in the complex Guard and Reserve compensation system detailed in a new Pentagon review that recommends changes to make the salaries and benefits more equitable across the board.
The study noted that Guard members and reservists get two days' pay for each day of weekend training -- totaling four days' pay for the weekend every month. In contrast, when they are called up to active duty and are deployed overseas to Afghanistan, they get a day's pay for a day's work. As an example, an officer in the reserves or the Guard could get $407 for a day of weekend duty, but get $269 for a day on active duty, or $318 for a day deployed to Afghanistan. Enlisted members could get $171 for a day of weekend duty,$134 for a day on active duty and $161 for a day deployed to war.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/07/02...

Jacques Ottawa wrote:

<quoted text>
And why else would the score be 133-0? All those judges bsed their rulings on politics? Every single one of them? Were they also ALL Democrat-appointed judges? All Commies? All afraid of Obama? ALL cowards, as were both Houses, the Supreme Court, John McCain and the whole shebang, plus 195 countries that recognised him as President? Why are you so deluded? How can you sleep?

No, maybe not ALL, but most!

Jacques Ottawa wrote:

<quoted text>
You've advamced outrageous, untrue and unfounded statements time and time again. I've asked you for proof at least 50 times, got maybe 5 responses, all of them dead wrong. Other 45 requests have either gone unanswered or "if you're so smart, find it yourself". Last time I asked was why you pointed out to me that Obama's friends at GE had moved some manufacturing of jet engines to the Czech Reopublic. At least 10 times now I've asked why you bothered pointing that out to me. No reply. Can you for once be honest and say you erred, that in fact, the jet engine plant was established in the Czech Repub in 2008 - when GWB of "Mission Accomplished" fame was President?

maybe he is writing a Novel and this is part of the plot?

Republicans post fiction

Justice Gray misrepresented earlier Supreme Court rulings:

In his reasoning, Justice Gray misrepresented four prior Supreme Court rulings. None of these four rulings supported the jus soli principle that Justice Gray was contending:

In Inglis v. Trustees Of Sailor's of Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830), the Plaintiff was born in New York during the Revolutionary War. His father was a British subject who never became an American citizen. The Plaintiff's exact birthdate was unknown. During the Revolutionary War, control of New York alternated between American and British forces. The Court ruled that, even if New York was under American control at the time of the Plaintiff's birth, the Plaintiff would still be a British subject by birth, and not an American citizen, because the plaintiff's nationality at birth would have "followed that of his father".

http://intensedebate.com/people/triper57/2

By the way, wonder what "happened to my comment on Justia being "scrubbed" @ Post# 624....??????
Hummmmm
Scrubbed too....;-)

There is no proof in Kenya that Obama's mother was ever in Kenya, and the Kenyan government has denied that she was. There is proof in Hawaii that Obama's father did NOT return to Kenya in 1961 because the INS records show that he was in Hawaii on August 4 1961. So, if Obama's mother had gone to Kenya, she would have had to have traveled 10,000 miles while in late pregnancy to a country with Yellow Fever and ALONE. How likely is that? In contrast, there is a birth certificate in Hawaii showing that Obama was born in Hawaii. The facts on it were repeatedly confirmed by the officials of both parties, further confirmed by the Index Data (a public file showing the birth certificates on file), and still further confirmed by the birth notices in the Health Bureau Statistics section of the newspapers in 1961.

re: "In his reasoning, Justice Gray misrepresented four prior Supreme Court rulings...."

Gee. Too bad. The Wong Kim Ark ruling was passed six to two (one not voting) and it is the law.

American Lady wrote:

Justice Gray misrepresented earlier Supreme Court rulings:
In his reasoning, Justice Gray misrepresented four prior Supreme Court rulings. None of these four rulings supported the jus soli principle that Justice Gray was contending:
In Inglis v. Trustees Of Sailor's of Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830), the Plaintiff was born in New York during the Revolutionary War. His father was a British subject who never became an American citizen. The Plaintiff's exact birthdate was unknown. During the Revolutionary War, control of New York alternated between American and British forces. The Court ruled that, even if New York was under American control at the time of the Plaintiff's birth, the Plaintiff would still be a British subject by birth, and not an American citizen, because the plaintiff's nationality at birth would have "followed that of his father".
http://intensedebate.com/people/triper57/2
By the way, wonder what "happened to my comment on Justia being "scrubbed" @ Post# 624....??????
Hummmmm
Scrubbed too....;-)

Nice work. You always have well-researched postings and not much namecalling. Thank you.
http://www.iedu.com/Documents/Manifesto1892.h...

Obama never claimed to have been born in Kenya. And he wasn't born in Kenya. Only 21 people came to the USA from Kenya in 1961.

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:

<quoted text>
No, maybe not ALL, but most!

Please prove it, by citing studies, statistics, particularly as you imply that most judges have been appointed by Democrats.

What about those GE engines?

Obama never claimed to have been born in Kenya. And in fact he was not born in Kenya. He was born in Hawaii. Only 21 people came to the USA from Kenya in 1961, and the idea that Obama's mother traveled ten thousand miles alone to give birth in Kenya and then returned with Obama to make two of the 21---when there is no evidence that she was ever in Kenya--is completely loony.

American Lady wrote:

BUT.....here iT IS...;-)
Loading
INGLIS v. TRUSTEES OF SAILOR'S SNUG HARBOUR
28 U.S. 99 (____)
Supreme Court of United States.
The question then arises as to what was the operation of the treaty upon his son, the demandant, who was then an infant of tender years, and incapable of any election on his own part. It appears to me, that upon principles of public law as well as of the common law, he must if

So what's your point?

Do you have a point?

Do you know what a point is?

Would you know it if a point slapped you in the face?

The court made it quite clear that the question presented in Inglis was limited to circumstances "when a revolution occurs" and did not relate to "the broad doctrine of allegiance."

In other words, it has NOTHING TO DO WITH citizenship of persons born in ordinary times.

UR on the wrong page, BirfoonLady.

Just Sayin wrote:

From "The Obama Timeline"
It is said that Dunham and Obama, Sr. visited his homeland of Kenya at the beginning of their long summer break from the University and that Obama was born in Africa.As the summer progressed, the airlines would not have allowed a very pregnant Dunham fly all the way back to Hawaii, and Dunham therefore would have given birth in Kenya.
Dunham’s high school classmate Susan Blake recalls that during a 1961 visit to Seattle Dunham was excited about her husband’s plans to return to Kenya. Blake does not indicate whether Dunham was going to Kenya with her husband, but it is not illogical to believe that the newlyweds would travel together to Obama Sr.’s homeland in order for Dunham to “meet the parents,” with the trip taking place over the summer when university classes were not in session.
It is also said that Obama's Kenya relatives were not too happy to see him bring home a white wife.

There is absolutely no evidence in Kenya that Obama's mother was there in 1961, and there is good evidence in the INS files that Obama's father actually was in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.

This is what the Kenyan government said about it officially:

Jon Chessoni, first Secretary at the Kenyan Embassy in Washington, DC, said, speaking of inquiries the Embassy received about President Obama being born in Kenya:“When this matter first came up, the Kenyan government did its research and confirmed that these are all baseless claims.”

The notion of Obama’s mother, late in pregnancy, traveling alone (WND has shown that Obama senior was in Hawaii on August 4, 1961) from Hawaii where there are good hospitals, to Kenya, where there was Yellow Fever and bad hospitals, and doing so without any INS record of her leaving the USA or any record of her arriving in Kenya—---is completely absurd. And the fact that there is a birth certificate showing that she gave birth in Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu makes it even more absurd.

Ellen wrote:

Obama never claimed to have been born in Kenya. And he wasn't born in Kenya. Only 21 people came to the USA from Kenya in 1961.

What have the Birthers been saying all along?

Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

Evidence that would cause one to conclude that is true?

1. A Kenyan birth certificate presented by Lucas D. Smith, that has never been proven to be a fake or fraudulent birth certificate.

2. Kenyan Government officials making statements like, "Obama is a son of Kenyan soil", and "Obama is a Native Kenyan", along with citizens from Kenya who say the same.

3. Obama's US Literary Agent releases a
in 1991 Booklet:'Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii'.

4. Newspaper accounts stating that Obama was a Kenyan-born US Senator.

Now what has Obama given us to prove his alleged Hawaiian birth?

A fraudulent short form birth certificate, proven by Obama's release of a fraudulent long form birth certificate, that has already been proven to be a fake or fraudulent birth certificate.

Obama has released nothing proving his alleged Hawaiian birth!

This is why we know that he, as well as his birth certificate is a fraud.

I am still waiting for anyone to explain how a registrar's stamp can be moved on a document if the document was created as a scan only.

We are not talking about an enhancement here, we are talking about an addition to a document being made by a computer after the document was scanned!

A scanned copy only creates a document with one layer in the file.
Only by making changes to the scanned document are layers added to the file.
OCR was NOT used on the document that Obama released.

You can only do that if the registrar's stamp was added to the document by a computer process after the initial scan was completed.
If the document was only a copy of an original document that was previously stamped, that stamp could not be moved.
Explanations please?