Obama's mother is a US citizen, but no one knows if Barry is one

[jofortruth]

Personally, I am a little offended at this remark--I consider this section (Rockefeller/Brzezinski's Obama puppet's Secrecy of Government is worse than Stalin + Hitler) to be one of the most important at the forum. It was moved, because this is the appropriate section for this issue.

I think more people start in the General Discussion main section is all I was saying. There are many important sections in this forum, in fact so many it's hard to find things, especially if you are a new person to the forum. I was saying I wished it had not been moved so quickly after posting. I know after some time posts get appointed a home which is currently here.

My comments were not directed at saying your section was not important.  

[Dig]

I think this is what has happened - A Distraction. Then we won't look into all the other things we need to look into. The political gameplaying is disgusting.

There was an uproar over McCain. Lawsuits were filed and people did question his legitimacy. However, the rules are different when someone is born to US Citizens on a military base. I have something on this in my documentation.

jofortruth...W T F ?

I am sorry, but W T F ?

And believe me, I know from which I speak. I hammered on Protean for months about this shit and in the end was forced to see the glaring constitutional issues. And to me the constitutional issues were not the eligibility, but the 1st amendment. They actually set up legislation to curtail god given first amendment rights surrounding this issue. It is complete insanity, yet a very key part of the entire globalist agenda.

Just for reference sake:

Kim Jung Il...NOT BORN IN NORTH KOREA

Adolph Hitler...NOT BORN IN GERMANY

Current British Royals...NOT OF BRITISH DECENT

Current Israeli Government...NOT OF THE LAND

Tienanmen square massacre...they brought in troops from hundreds of miles away

First Panamanian President...A Frenchman

It goes on and on and on and on...the founding fathers were well aware of what it meant to be "born of the land or natural born".  The reason I got so upset about this issue is that we are being prevented from even speaking of it. We are added to Israeli Mossad Bullshit Terror lists if we dare openly debate the subject. Infragard (an anti-constitutional agency on its face exposed by Matthew Rothschild-hopefully minimal if any relationship to Evelyn) issued an intelligence report to the FBI explaining that people who question Obama's birth should be surveilled because "if it is found out that he is not born here then there may be a constitutional crisis".  That is of course bullshit fear crapola, there is no constitutional crisis with exposing the truth. The constitution stood up to 10x worse shit than this. Infragard is a constitutional crisis. He simply would be denied a second term, likely would have to resign in disgrace, and grand juries and the American people can investigate the matter further to seek redress of grievances as completely called for in the first amendment/first god given right in the bill of rights.

The fact that Infragard used fear to tell people to back the F off is a clear indication that this is not a distraction but a major issue.

Now, secondly, John McCain...

HE WAS NOT BORN ON A MILITARY BASE AND EVEN IF HE WAS IT IS NOT CONSIDERED NATURAL BORN (BORN OF THE LAND)-THIS IS A FACT!

He was born somewhere in Panama. It was not US soil, and he is not a natural born US citizen. This is on record, confirmed, and incontrovertible. It is a matter of fact and is the only reason he was appointed to be the GOP nominee. He was losing his ass off in the primaries and then his wife confronted the "powers that be" with a plan. She is a damn smart woman and the heir to a beer treasure...in the club so to speak. She 1st fired all the saboteurs in her husbands campaign and then told the elites "Look, you want your puppet Obama? Fine, I could care less, but make my husband the GOP nominee. You better because my husband is the only one who will not attack the eligibility issue and you guys are f-d with that issue."

Then out of nowhere, they flipped the votes in New Hampshire primary giving all the Ron Paul votes to McCain (this is also on record, exposed by the exit polls where every district who supposedly voted for McCain also voted to end the wars. It was vote rigging of the highest order). And just like that, McCain rose to the top out of nowhere stunning all the political analysts not in the club. You can go back to all of the TV archives days before and after the New Hampshire primary and it is more obvious than than the Building 7 implosion.

So if you want to say that you do not believe this is a major issue, fine. But for you to say that we should not openly discuss it, based on your cursory analysis that many of us have debunked 100 which ways but loose, is messed up.

[jofortruth]

Dig,

You are obviously very passionate on this issue but please don't take what I said out of context.

Based on his being born to a US Citizen mother, he is a citizen. That's the main point.

All the other issues surrounding this, of course, should be discussed and his feet held to the fire. That is a separate issue and an important one.

Yes, you bring up an important point that hasn't been raised in this discussion - THE 1ST AMENDMENT issue. Our right of free speech must not be curtailed on any issue. That is what makes America so great!

As far as McCain, where is the research on this issue in our forum? I was under the impression he was born in Panama to two US Citizens while his dad was in the military? Is that not right? We have a lot of kids born to military personnel when deployed. Do you not think those kids are US Citizens? Any research you can point me to on this? Thx.

Another important issue, but that doesn't have to do with my post here, is VOTE RIGGING! There is nothing more disgusting than someone who would cheat at the ballot box which is one of the few ways WE THE PEOPLE voice their opinion. This indeed needs to be rectified, if possible.

You missed my point, Dig. I never said this isn't a major issue. I said "focus on the real issue". He is a citizen, IMO! Focus on the deception, covering up info, using this as a wedge between the people and as a distraction, and for a possible future misuse, etc etc etc. There are many real issues to deal with surrounding this event, focus on those, and yes scream to high heavens on those issues. That is our right, and I'm not negating it with my post.

The post is about "is he or isn't he a citizen", and that is it! He is a Citizen, even though through a different avenue.

Sure, we can discuss all the other things surrounding this because it is our 1st Amendment right to do so. I agree! An important point!

 

P.s. If you weren't the one who moved my post, I apologize. It just seems you are one of the most active MODS, and so you probably get blamed for doing this more than some. 

[Dig]

Dig,

You are obviously very passionate on this issue but please don't take what I said out of context.

Based on his being born to a US Citizen mother, he is a citizen. That's the main point.

All the other issues surrounding this, of course, should be discussed and his feet held to the fire. That is a separate issue and an important one.

Yes, you bring up an important point that hasn't been raised in this discussion - THE 1ST AMENDMENT issue. Our right of free speech must not be curtailed on any issue. That is what makes America so great!

As far as McCain, where is the research on this issue in our forum? I was under the impression he was born in Panama to two US Citizens while his dad was in the military? Is that not right? We have a lot of kids born to military personnel when deployed. Do you not think those kids are US Citizens? Any research you can point me to on this? Thx.

Another important issue, but that doesn't have to do with my post here, is VOTE RIGGING! There is nothing more disgusting than someone who would cheat at the ballot box which is one of the few ways WE THE PEOPLE voice their opinion. This indeed needs to be rectified, if possible.

You missed my point, Dig. I never said this isn't a major issue. I said "focus on the real issue". He is a citizen, IMO! Focus on the deception, covering up info, using this as a wedge between the people and as a distraction, and for a possible future misuse, etc etc etc. There are many real issues to deal with surrounding this event, focus on those, and yes scream to high heavens on those issues. That is our right, and I'm not negating it with my post.

The post is about "is he or isn't he a citizen", and that is it! He is a Citizen, even though through a different avenue.

Sure, we can discuss all the other things surrounding this because it is our 1st Amendment right to do so. I agree! An important point!

 

P.s. If you weren't the one who moved my post, I apologize. It just seems you are one of the most active MODS, and so you probably get blamed for doing this more than some.  

OK, the way I see it, you are bringing up a few points:

1] Obama's citizenship

2] McCain's citizenship

3] Who moved your post

I will answer the last one first. It was me. I did it because this is the room that has been discussing his citizenship for a year now, all of the reference material and evidence is in this room.

On to #2, McCain's citizenship. He likely was a naturalized US citizen which is not a natural (born of the land) US citizenship. There have been discussions concerning whether US territories are an acceptable place of birth to be eligible for president/vice president which still should be clarified but that does not pertain as the area where McCain likely was born was never a US territory. US military bases are not "of this land". They are mind controlled sanitized lock ups where there is absolutely no freedom of speech nor are there other protected god given rights by the US constitution. Natural Born refers to someone born of this land, actually a state in the United States (so even DC has a question mark... that is to say if you do not question the mysterious extra constitutional oddity concerning WTF DC actually is).  But territories and DC IMO would be open for debate because it would likely be "of the land". The reason why the states are the sticking point is because to be President of "The United States" it is thought that you would have to be "of the land" of one of the states (States create the United States, no States...no United States). Military Bases could be said in some instances to be "territories of the United States" if they are indeed territories of the United States. Panama was never a territory of the United States and at best there was an informal lease for some area of Panama for some US troops back when McCain was born. It was never "US land" as far as McCain's birth is concerned.  The military base argument is such absolute bullshit as it attempts to invoke some "support the troops" Karl Rove insanity. It has nothing to do with not supporting the troops and the elite know this. The elite stick our sons and daughters in 700 bases in 140 countries, poison them with DU, vaccines, non potable water, electrocute them with Halliburton construction, false flag them Dick Cheney style, rape them, demonize them if they speak the truth, use them as cannon fodder every chance they get, treat them worse than guinea pigs in the most sadistic experiments, radiate them en masse and use them as political footballs as in the "military base birth" argument. For sanity's sake here is just one of the examples of how to define natural birth from our own government documents:

if you read the constitution you will find that Congress has the responsibility to create laws for immigration and naturalization.  They, however, have no responsibility nor authority to create laws pertaining to the eligibility of the US President.  That actually would be unconstitutional as it would allow the legislative branch to have an unequal and imbalanced power over the executive branch.  So the only way to adjust the constitution would be for a constitutional convention which has not occurred in relation to "country born/natural citizen."  The 14th Amendment allowed for any race to be eligible, but did not in any way, shape, or form allow Panamanian nationals to be the president.

In addition, the US State Department further clarifies the insanity of the "born in US bases" bullshit with their 1995 document:
--------------------
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

7 FAM 1116.1-4 Not Included in the Meaning of "In the United States"

(TL:CON-64; 11-30-95)

a. A U.S.-registered or documented ship on the high seas or in the exclusive economic zone is not considered to be part of the United States. A child born on such a vessel does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of the place of birth (Lam Mow v. Nagle, 24 F.2d 316 (9th Cir., 1928)).

b. A U.S.-registered aircraft outside U.S. airspace is not considered to be part of U.S. territory. A child born on such an aircraft outside U.S. airspace does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of the place of birth.

c. Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html

U.S. Constitution
Article II
Section 1

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.
-----------------------------------------

If you could be so kind as to read this entire thread it may allow you some insight to how big this issue actually is.  All of the things I have mentioned have already been discussed (like 3 times).  If after going through all of the evidence and arguments, you still have some questions about this please feel free to post it here.

thanks

MORE: 7 pages of analysis into the McCain issue: http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=25013.0


Now onto this issue about Obama's citizenship (#1 for those keeping track)...

The reason that Barry Soetoro is likely not a US citizen is that all of his possible citizenship has been terminated when he renounced citizenship when in Indonesia. We have no record of him re-applying to be a US citizen. Secondly, he has not provided a long form birth certificate so it is possible that his original "faux natural citizenship" is indeed a fraud (this obviously should be legally investigated to find out for sure, but with such an important issue why is the administration spending millions to not allow the general public to legally investigate? Even at the individual investigator's expense?). If it is indeed found out that the natural citizenship is a fraud then it is likely he was born in the territory of Kenya which at the time makes him a British subject who had no record of truthful US citizenship, naturalized or not.

If he was a natural citizen, there would be a record. If he was a naturalized citizen there would be a record. No record has been made available, so the suspicion is more than legitimate.

[jofortruth]

Thx, Dig, for the McCain forum links. I've been so busy on so many topics, I missed this area. Will be interesting to view.

Ron Paul Comments on Meaning of “Natural Born” Qualification for President - December 26th, 2008
http://www.ballot-access.org:80/2008/12/26/ron-paul-comments-on-meaning-of-natural-born-qualification-for-president/

A comment by a Texan who says that he or she recently talked on the phone with Congressman Ron Paul about the meaning of “natural-born” in Article II, for presidential qualification. According to the comment, Paul said, “There is no law that actually defines ‘natural born’, so the argument could go on forever with thousands of different interpretations. The consensus is that he is a U.S. citizen, and therefore eligible.” Thanks to Bill Van Allen.

I have heard him on video say something about this, but can't find it. He takes a similar position. It's an interpretation problem that one day the Supreme Court will be forced to clarify.

[jofortruth]

On the McCain issue from the US Code:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1403.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sup_01_8_10_12_20_III_30_I.html

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1403

§ 1403. Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904

(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

(b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

This seems pretty clear cut to me!

We must be careful in the current environment because there people out there with different agendas who are confusing things for their own agendas. It's disgusting, IMO! Trust but verify everything, and everyone is my motto!

[America2]

I think this is what has happened - A Distraction. Then we won't look into all the other things we need to look into. The political gameplaying is disgusting.

There was an uproar over McCain. Lawsuits were filed and people did question his legitimacy. However, the rules are different when someone is born to US Citizens on a military base. I have something on this in my documentation.

Could point about AH-Nuld in one of your previous replies - I was thinking the same thing too, all this hoopla over Obama's birth certificate could be just that...CONDITIONING for the former A-list movie star/bodybuilder to get into the White House without anyone put up any kind of uproar. After all-wasn't it DEMOLITION MAN in 1993 that said how Arnold became the US President in their utopia government after the Constitution was ratified?

Don't be surprised to see an Arnold/Palin or Palin/Arnold or Arnold/Romney ticket in 2012.

[citizenx]

I'm thinking Arnold/Arnold like "The Sixth Day".

[Freeski]

Could point about AH-Nuld in one of your previous replies - I was thinking the same thing too, all this hoopla over Obama's birth certificate could be just that...CONDITIONING for the former A-list movie star/bodybuilder to get into the White House without anyone put up any kind of uproar. After all-wasn't it DEMOLITION MAN in 1993 that said how Arnold became the US President in their utopia government after the Constitution was ratified?

Don't be surprised to see an Arnold/Palin or Palin/Arnold or Arnold/Romney ticket in 2012.

That's an interesting angle! "Why such a fuss over Arnold? Look at Obama!"

[Rebelitarian]

OBAMA IS NOT A US CITIZEN...  YOU CANNOT FAKE A FOOTPRINT ON A BIRTH-CERTIFICATE !!!!!


Barack H. Obama - Born in Kenya IV - The Real Birth Certifiacte AT LAST!
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMF51vXblFI
 
Alex Jones - Phil Berg interview !!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21-1cWqZG4g
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBEothvYfkY
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TgKU1LGyv8
 
 
Obama Forgery Exposed (Dr. Polarik Official Use)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDIVEfVGLBQ

Michelle Obama speaking at the LGBT Delegate (The World as it Should Be)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxh1PvjP0Ug

Grandmother says Obama born in Kenya

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bloHSojeLAw

Kenyan Ambassador admits Obama born in Kenya

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH4GX3Otf14


Obama in 1980 said he was born in Mombasa, Kenya

http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/12/03/obama-in-1980-said-he-was-born-in-mombasa-kenya/

[Dig]

Thx, Dig, for the McCain forum links. I've been so busy on so many topics, I missed this area. Will be interesting to view.

Ron Paul Comments on Meaning of ?Natural Born? Qualification for President - December 26th, 2008
http://www.ballot-access.org:80/2008/12/26/ron-paul-comments-on-meaning-of-natural-born-qualification-for-president/

I have heard him on video say something about this, but can't find it. He takes a similar position. It's an interpretation problem that one day the Supreme Court will be forced to clarify.

Well that is all nice and cool, but it has nothing to do with what I posted and the documented letters and correspondances by the founding fathers on what natural born means. It means "of the land". Ron Paul is not going to side track his exposure of the private federal reserve to deal with something that we should be doing. He is there to allow us to see the freedom message clearly. The freedom message is more powerful than any individual and more powerful than any public servant position. The freedom message is his commitment and using him as some volley point to deal with something we can all easily figure out ourselves seems odd at best, distrating more likely.

[Dig]

On the McCain issue from the US Code:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1403.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sup_01_8_10_12_20_III_30_I.html
 

This seems pretty clear cut to me!

We must be careful in the current environment because there people out there with different agendas who are confusing things for their own agendas. It's disgusting, IMO! Trust but verify everything, and everyone is my motto!

Yes...that is for a NATURALIZED citizen which is not a NATURAL BORN citizen. This is the difference. Your argument seems to be based on a belief that any citizen (even one who just got their citizenship at the age of 100 in some lottery) is eligible to be president. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the United States Constitution which clearly states:

Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 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."

The constitution was adopted in 1791. McCain was not a citizen in 1791 and he is not a natural born citizen.

There exists reasonable suspicion that Barry Soetoro is not natural born and that he may not even be a citizen.

You do not have to trust one word I posted, go out and verify all of it on your own. I'll be here all week. Tip your waitresses and bartenders.

[jofortruth]

#15 of this document:
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/faq.html#president

The first Congress enacted a citizenship law which stated that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens". [Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, 1 Stat. 104. Quoted below] This strongly suggests that the phrase was understood by the framers of the Constitution to refer to citizenship by birth.

First Congress: (1st Paragraph)
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=227

"And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."

[Dig]

Could point about AH-Nuld in one of your previous replies - I was thinking the same thing too, all this hoopla over Obama's birth certificate could be just that...CONDITIONING for the former A-list movie star/bodybuilder to get into the White House without anyone put up any kind of uproar. After all-wasn't it DEMOLITION MAN in 1993 that said how Arnold became the US President in their utopia government after the Constitution was ratified?

Don't be surprised to see an Arnold/Palin or Palin/Arnold or Arnold/Romney ticket in 2012.

Arnold is 100,000% exposed as a Nazi Rothschild puppet who has stolen hundreds of billions for the euro-elites in california. he is ineligible and it is completely known. they may just appoint him to emperor of the north american union. It hardly makes it constitutional and will only expedite the awakening to how batshit insane the psychopathic incestuous genocidal committee of 300 actually are. All the more reason to expose the insanity of the terrorism inflicted by the foreign usurpers on the American people who dare look at the reality of this issue.

[jofortruth]

"All Citizens are also Nationals, but not all Nationals are Citizens"

[citizenx]

...they may just appoint him emperor of the north american union.

LOL

Why not emperor of the north pole?

Emperor penguin?

Oops, that's the south pole.

[jofortruth]

Re: Arnold the Terminator.    Senator Orrin Hatch was pushing for legislation to amend the Constitution in 2003 so that Arnold could run for President. This man should be kicked out of the Senate for suggesting such, and probably for other reasons also:

Hatch is pushing Arnold bill
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/595096558/Hatch-is-pushing-Arnold-bill.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Opportunity_to_Govern_Amendment
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=26717.0

A constitutional amendment, proposed by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, is called the Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment.

Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment

The Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment is a Constitutional Amendment proposed in July 2003 by US Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) to repeal the nativist clause prohibiting foreign-born individuals from holding the office of President or Vice President of the United States. Hatch's amendment would allow anyone who has been a US citizen for twenty years to seek these offices. In the wake of the California recall election of 2003, this proposal is widely seen as an attempt to make California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger eligible for the presidency. The text of the amendment reads as follows:

    Section 1. A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been for 20 years a citizen of the United States, and who is otherwise eligible to the Office of President , is not ineligible to that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States.

    Section 2. This article shall not take effect unless it has been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States not later than 7 years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

Another Congressman also attempted this so Kissinger could run for President. Thank god, neither of them got their way!

[Dig]

#15 of this document:
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/faq.html#president
 

First Congress: (1st Paragraph)
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=227

You do realize that you are quoting a law which was repealed five years later right?

[jofortruth]

You do realize that you are quoting a law which was repealed five years later right?

Have a link to how it changed? That's the difficulty of this. Things change over time. It would be much easier, of course, if there was one place that charts the evolution of all of these changes. If you know of a place, please advise. However, I don't think one exists. Would make it too easy to check up on DC. 

[Nailer]

Yes, that is a good question and you have a right to your opinion! It would be helpful if we knew the answers to those questions for sure, but that doesn't change what the law said at the time of his birth. That's the issue i'm looking into.

look it up... during the time obammy was supposed to have been born in Hawaii  , anyone could get a birth certificate for children born outside the USA,, there were two versions  a hospital  "recorded " certificate  signed by doctor and had all parents info and then there was the " Accepted " certificate  where a parent could get a Hawaii BC for thier child  that was under a year of age , no doctor or hospital info required.

[jofortruth]

look it up... during the time obammy was supposed to have been born in Hawaii  , anyone could get a birth certificate for children born outside the USA,, there were two versions  a hospital  "recorded " certificate  signed by doctor and had all parents info and then there was the " Accepted " certificate  where a parent could get a Hawaii BC for thier child  that was under a year of age , no doctor or hospital info required.

Are you going on just what someone said, or have a link to show this?

[Dig]

Have a link?

yeah, go one page back and read the right side margin on the bottom. It is important to quote the entirety of the law and the connecting issues regarding it.

Here are a few things for you to consider:

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857): In regard to the "natural born citizen" clause, the dissent states that such citizenship is acquired by place of birth (jus soli), not through blood or lineage (jus sanguinis)

Again, this is the current policy:

Regarding people born at U.S. military bases in foreign countries, current U.S. State Department policy (as codified in the department's Foreign Affairs Manual) reads:

"Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."[19]


ANother thing to consider (this one I like because it gives all the power to the states, but there are pitfalls with that too):

1857 opinion of Supreme Court Justice Benjamin R. Curtis

In his opinion dissenting from the decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857) Justice Benjamin R. Curtis wrote in considerable detail on this topic. His writing there is too lengthy to requote here in entirety; partially requoted, Justice Curtis wrote, (Note: this does not mention "Natural Born" in a legal context)

The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language "a natural-born citizen." It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in the history of this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred Citizenship to the place of birth. At the Declaration of Independence, and ever since, the received general doctrine has been, in conformity with the common law, that free persons born within either of the colonies, were the subjects of the King; that by the Declaration of independence, and the consequent acquisition of sovereignty by the several States, all such persons ceased to be subjects, and became citizens of the several States, [...] .
The Constitution having recognized that persons born within the several States are citizens of the United States, one of four things must be true:
  First. That the constitution itself has described what native-born persons shall or shall not be citizens of such State, and thereby be citizens of the United States; or,
  Second:. That it has empowered Congress to do so; or,
  Third. That all free persons, born within the several States, are citizens of the United States; or,
  Fourth. That it is left to each State to determine what free persons, born within its limits, shall be citizens of such State, and thereby be citizens of the United States.
If there is such a thing as Citizenship of the United States acquired by birth within the States, which the Constitution expressly recognizes, and no one denies, then those four alternatives embrace the entire subject, and it only remains to select that one which is true.
[...]
The answer is obvious. The Constitution has left to the States the determination what person, born within their respective limits, shall acquire by birth citizenship of the United States; [...] [6][italics in original]

all can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States

[jofortruth]

You do realize that you are quoting a law which was repealed five years later right?

This speaks to the intent of the Founders, don't you think? I would think that most laws have been changed since 1790. 

[Freeski]

Why change laws at all? That which governs less governs best. Put up like 10 basic laws and carve it in stone! We don't need multiple variations on "killing" (manslaughter, vehicular homicide, crimes of passion, screw that) -- just say "don't kill". Same goes for theft and all other violations of human liberty.

Keep it simple, stupid.

It's the semantic complexity that is killing us all!

[Dig]

This speaks to the intent of the Founders, don't you think? I would think that most laws have been changed since 1790. 

Actually, it does not. The first congress was filled with racist nutcases, WTF? No amount of cutsie winking smiley face icons is going to change the fact that McCain was the only GOP candidate who had constitutional eligibility issues. Nor will it change the fact that McCain was out of the race and then magically stole the nomination which was decided right before the New Hampshire stolen primary. Nor will it change the fact that Huckabee was used by Haass and the CFR to block Romney (and I am no Romney fan) from seriously challenging the washed up, warmongering, and 'out of the running' candidate McCain.

Nor will it change the fact that Infragard admits that Obama likely is not eligible, nor will it change the fact that high level Democrats also admit he is likely not eligible for presidency under the constitution. Nor does it change the fact that thousands of random citizens have uncovered evidence that Soetoro is not eligible which is continued to be thought of as some bullshit "constitutional crisis" which it is not and never will be.

What this all proves is that as JFK said...

We are opposed to a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy. They control the elections, the control the primaries. They do not give a crap about the constitution and the country is waking up to the fact that this scientific and banking elite are acting in open treason to the law of the land, sea, and air of the US. This exposes these foreign usurpers for what they are...a bunch of doo doo heads that will soon hear from all of us as they did in India. When that happened they just got up and left.

George Orwell's 1984 explains exactly what the solution is and Mark Dice mentioned it on the show a few days ago. Once the masses wake up, we will not need to conspire, we will not need to meet, we will not need to plan. It will become second nature to us to use the constitution to interpret what is going on. It is already happening for us and other sovereign nations and individual cultures all over the world.

[jofortruth]

yeah, go one page back and read the right side margin on the bottom. It is important to quote the entirety of the law and the connecting issues regarding it.

Here are a few things for you to consider:

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857): In regard to the "natural born citizen" clause, the dissent states that such citizenship is acquired by place of birth (jus soli), not through blood or lineage (jus sanguinis)

Again, this is the current policy:

Regarding people born at U.S. military bases in foreign countries, current U.S. State Department policy (as codified in the department's Foreign Affairs Manual) reads:

"Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."[19]


ANother thing to consider (this one I like because it gives all the power to the states, but there are pitfalls with that too):

1857 opinion of Supreme Court Justice Benjamin R. Curtis

In his opinion dissenting from the decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857) Justice Benjamin R. Curtis wrote in considerable detail on this topic. His writing there is too lengthy to requote here in entirety; partially requoted, Justice Curtis wrote, (Note: this does not mention "Natural Born" in a legal context)

The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language "a natural-born citizen." It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in the history of this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred Citizenship to the place of birth. At the Declaration of Independence, and ever since, the received general doctrine has been, in conformity with the common law, that free persons born within either of the colonies, were the subjects of the King; that by the Declaration of independence, and the consequent acquisition of sovereignty by the several States, all such persons ceased to be subjects, and became citizens of the several States, [...] .
The Constitution having recognized that persons born within the several States are citizens of the United States, one of four things must be true:
  First. That the constitution itself has described what native-born persons shall or shall not be citizens of such State, and thereby be citizens of the United States; or,
  Second:. That it has empowered Congress to do so; or,
  Third. That all free persons, born within the several States, are citizens of the United States; or,
  Fourth. That it is left to each State to determine what free persons, born within its limits, shall be citizens of such State, and thereby be citizens of the United States.
If there is such a thing as Citizenship of the United States acquired by birth within the States, which the Constitution expressly recognizes, and no one denies, then those four alternatives embrace the entire subject, and it only remains to select that one which is true.
[...]
The answer is obvious. The Constitution has left to the States the determination what person, born within their respective limits, shall acquire by birth citizenship of the United States; [...] [6][italics in original]

all can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States

Yes, I have a copy of that State Dept document.

Yes, we are Citizens of our respective States. If one leaves the USA, and is a dual citizen in some other country, they can vote from abroad in their last State of residence also, which is more proof that we are Citizens of our States. (fyi)

I will look into the Dred Scott issue and also into how the 14th amendment plays into this. I get the feeling the 14th amendment will come into play if it ever reaches the Supreme Court. There is a lot of talk referencing this amendment.

Have my homework cut out for me, indeed. However, this is a fascinating subject, and I'm glad we are discussing it. I see this becoming a Supreme Court case fairly soon, if this citizenship issue keeps percolating when it comes to Presidents. It will have to be decided, as it is open ended as shown by different interpretations, even here. This forum is a microcosm of how this is not clear cut issue.

[Dig]

Yes, I have a copy of that State Dept document.

Yes, we are Citizens of our respective States. If one leaves the USA, and is a dual citizen in some other country, they can vote from abroad in their last State of residence also. (fyi)

Yeah, I will look into the Dred Scott issue and also into how the 14th amendment plays into this. Have my homework cut out for me, indeed. However, this is a fascinating subject, and I'm glad we are discussing it. I see this becoming a Supreme Court case fairly soon, if this citizenship issue keeps percolating when it comes to Presidents. It will have to be decided, as it is open ended as shown by different interpretations even here.

The Supreme Court has openly admitted they are compromised and need to be investigated. There is a whole board on here about it. The constitution was written at an 8th grade level. I do not need to hear a bunch of corporate appointed puppets to explain what we can all easily see in plain sight. WTF? invoking the current overtly compromised SCOTUS on an issue they have absolutely nothing to do with? Where the hell did that shit come from?

SCOTUS just ruled 5-4 that corporations have more god given rights than an individual. And they also ruled 9-0 that government controlled corporations own all your privacy including thoughts if the technology can provide it. That was before the Goldman Sachs appointment of the Kagan.

And as far as the Soetoro puppet, there is 100% certainty that obstruction of justice and free speech is rampant. At least you are admitting that the title of this thread is inaccurate and probably should be changed.

[Rebelitarian]

Why change laws at all? That which governs less governs best. Put up like 10 basic laws and carve it in stone! We don't need multiple variations on "killing" (manslaughter, vehicular homicide, crimes of passion, screw that) -- just say "don't kill". Same goes for theft and all other violations of human liberty.

Keep it simple, stupid.

It's the semantic complexity that is killing us all!

Cuz killing someone in self-defense or by a car isn't the same as plotting a person's death.  There are different levels and circumstances or killing.

[jofortruth]

The Supreme Court has openly admitted they are compromised and need to be investigated. There is a whole board on here about it. The constitution was written at an 8th grade level. I do not need to hear a bunch of corporate appointed puppets to explain what we can all easily see in plain sight. WTF? invoking the current overtly compromised SCOTUS on an issue they have absolutely nothing to do with? Where the hell did that shit come from?

So, what do you propose we do about that right now? Do you have a way around the Supreme Court? We unfortunately have to work within the system we currently have, or change it. How do you propose we do that?

There are different interpretations out there on the definition of Natural Citizen, we have been talking about this for how long now? You can bet this will reach the Supreme Court at some point just like the 2nd Amendment case did. Do you remember that one?

I do agree the corruption reaches all levels of government, but until we find a way to deal with that, we are stuck with these goons whether it be foolish Congressmen, an out of touch President, or god creatures in our Supreme court. Certainly you understand that.

I feel you don't like it when people disagree with you, yet you spoke earlier of FREE SPEECH, 1st Amendment and how important that is?   I don't get it.

And I will cutesy all I want Mr Dig   We are both trying to find answers, and that is our commonality!

[Freeski]

Cuz killing someone in self-defense or by a car isn't the same as plotting a person's death.  There are different levels and circumstances or killing.

Damn, this is off topic I know (sorry) but you have hit on the key: intent!

Here's how justice should work:

1) Did the accused kill someone?
2) If yes, then why and under what circumstance?
3) Should the accused be punished or not?
4) What is an appropriate penalty? Jail, reparation, both or exoneration?

Let a jury decide.

[jofortruth]

Yes, it would be nice to stay on topic please. This is an important issue!

[jofortruth]

OBAMA IS NOT A US CITIZEN...  YOU CANNOT FAKE A FOOTPRINT ON A BIRTH-CERTIFICATE !!!!!

Yes, I seems he was born in Kenya and that he had dual citizenship. But once again his mother was a US citizen, and that counts for something.

Also, is Berg your main teacher on this subject? If so, I think you should branch out. I'm not so sure he is the authority on this subject as he makes people think. Other than Alex, who else is an authority on this subject? Any other names you know of? We should be investigating them all, if there are any others.

[Dig]

So, what do you propose we do about that right now? Do you have a way around the Supreme Court? We unfortunately have to work within the system we currently have, or change it. How do you propose we do that?

We have to work within the constitution. When the SCOTUS operates outside of their constitutional government responsibilities as public servants, we need to communicate that legally and constitutionally.

Please do not be fooled...

WE LOVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT. WE ARE THE PEOPLE PROTECTING AND EDUCATING OTHERS ABOUT HOW AWESOME THIS GOVERNMENT IS WHEN OPERATING WITHIN ITS LEGAL PARAMETERS.

They are the violent, radical, bloody revolutionary, fundamentalist psychopaths attempting to rebell against our constitutional government. Their fanaticism stems from their psychopathic fundamental belief in HG Wells, Aldous Huxley and other radical futurists. Their plan has always been to destroy this government and this country. We are protecting the constitutional confines of our government which at its foundation is liberty, justice, freedom, and god given rights.  Who the heck would not want that? A .00001% of the population who think they have a right to own us and everything on the plant. Is it not obvious who the radical fundamentalist revolutionaries are?

There are different interpretations out there on the definition of Natural Citizen, we have been talking about this for how long now? You can bet this will reach the Supreme Court at some point just like the 2nd Amendment case did. Do you remember that one?

They are exposed. You present a semi articulate argument concerning McCain, but you have absolutely zero argument concerning the Soetoro puppet as long as they keep denying and obstructing justice and speech.

I do agree the corruption reaches all levels of government, but until we find a way to deal with that, we are stuck with these goons whether it be foolish Congressmen, an out of touch President, or god creatures in our Supreme court. Certainly you understand that.

I understand that their matrix of deception is imploding and it is our job to show the obvious solution (which has always been the solution) the constitution.

I feel you don't like it when people disagree with you, yet you spoke earlier of FREE SPEECH, 1st Amendment and how important that is?   I don't get it.

You feel your first amendment rights have been subverted and wish to petition the government for redress. Dude, I ain't standing in your way. Please, petition. I support your right to petition the government for redress. I may not agree that you know the difference between violations of free speech and someone who has flaws in communication skills and constrained by the confines of being imperfect (all humans are). But, I support anyone petitioning their government for redress. Not sure what it has to do with this thread which you started and seem at a loss to defentd the title of, but whatever.

And I will cutesy all I want Mr Dig  

I realize that, that is why I wrote what I wrote.

[citizenx]

Re: Arnold the Terminator.    Senator Orrin Hatch was pushing for legislation to amend the Constitution in 2003 so that Arnold could run for President. This man should be kicked out of the Senate for suggesting such, and probably for other reasons also:

Hatch is pushing Arnold bill
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/595096558/Hatch-is-pushing-Arnold-bill.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Opportunity_to_Govern_Amendment
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=26717.0

 

Another Congressman also attempted this so Kissinger could run for President. Thank god, neither of them got their way!

So now you admit this IS an important topic, Jo?

Yes, it would be nice to stay on topic please. This is an important issue!

BTW, here's one of Ahhnohhld in costume as the Emperor of the North Pole:

[jofortruth]

Like I said, this forum is about FREE SPEECH and for discussion. I don't think either of us has all the answers, but we are seeking answers.

This is an important issue, and it should continue and hopefully in a mature manner, Dig!

[Freeski]

Maybe, where one was born doesn't actually matter at all? As an American Patriot, wouldn't you prefer a Cuban-born champion of liberty over an American-born commie as your president?

[Rebelitarian]

Yes, It seems he was born in Kenya and that he had dual citizenship. But once again his mother was a US citizen, and that counts for something.

Also, is Berg your main teacher on this subject? If so, I think you should branch out. I'm not so sure he is the authority on this subject as he makes people think. Other than Alex, who else is an authority on this subject? Any other names you know of? We should be investigating them all, if there are any others.

The point is he is not a natural-born citizen, maybe a naturalized citizen but not a natural-born one, hence his Presidency is an un-Constitutional xenocracy of which expressly forbidden by the US Constitution. Remeber the Revolutionary was against xenocratic rule because back then we were just a British colony with no government of our own.  How much clearer does this issue have to be ?

[citizenx]

Maybe, where one was born doesn't actually matter at all? As an American Patriot, wouldn't you prefer a Cuban-born champion of liberty over an American-born commie as your president?

Personally, yes.

"Guantanamera", not Guantanamo.

But that is not the law, admittedly.  Not the constitution.

[Dig]

Yes, I seems he was born in Kenya and that he had dual citizenship.

Where did you come up with dual citizenship? What are you talking about? Please show one document which said he was a dual citizen.

But once again his mother was a US citizen, and that counts for something.

It sure does, it likely would expose serious fraud by her and her being a US citizen would allow the courts to pursue this fraud without having to extradite her from somewhere else. But that is hardly the issue of natural born citizenship, or any form of citizenship. I think that although she is likely important to any legal and constitutional investigation, I think her service with the CIA leading to the genocides of the time are enough nightmares for her to deal with. I pray she sees the insanity of what the CIA has done to this country as Ron Paul and many others have so that we can quickly and peacefully stop the radical fundamentalist terrorists from continuing to compromist the United States' national security and more importantly the security and rights of the people in the United States. Fraud against the people of the United States is the charge that forced Nixon to resign. That is at the very least what can be done to expose another puppet of the banksters and technocrat foreign usurpers.

Also, is Berg your main teacher on this subject? If so, I think you should branch out. I'm not so sure he is the authority on this subject as he makes people think.

Well than you are drastically uninformed, misinformed, or something else. He has been the most thorough with legal and constitutional analysis and investigation. He also exposed all of the CoIntelPro operations including the Mossad agent.

Other than Alex, who else is an authority on this subject? Any other names you know of? We should be investigating them all, if there are any others.

You could be if you just read through and folllowed up with Protean, Rebelitarian, and numerous others here and elsewhere.

It really ain't that confusing.

His place of birth is questioned, he obstructs justice to simply answer this question (on behalf of his puppet masters) and he revoked any possible citizenship when in Indonsia.

HIS NAME IS NOT EVEN BARACK OBAMA, IT IS BARRY SOETORO, WTF?

HE ALSO HAS USED FRAUDULENT SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS ON GOVERNMENT APPLICATIONS WHICH IS A FEDERAL CRIME, THIS IS INCONTROVERTIBLE.

[jofortruth]

So now you admit this IS an important topic, Jo?

If it wasn't an important topic, I would haven't started it, citizenx. I think you know that.