tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post8094675895346535832..comments2023-10-24T06:55:53.274-07:00Comments on Talk Wisdom: THE Pertinent Question: If There's Nothing to Hide and it’s Not a Forgery, Then Why Not Show the Original Document? [Updates!]Christinewjchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-90377611188703498342012-01-23T15:20:57.503-08:002012-01-23T15:20:57.503-08:00Ah, I see now. Paul Irey has finished his new, upd...Ah, I see now. Paul Irey has finished his new, updated evidence as to why the Obama BC is a forgery. <br /><br />I won't ask who this '50-year typography expert' is. If it's Irey himself, he should subject it to a second opinion; if it's someone else, that someone should identify himself so we'll know that Irey already <i>has</i> that second opinion. I'm sure Mr. Woodman is preparing to tear this one apart as well.<br /><br />You're right, it really isn't about the birth certificate, is it?GMpilothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07189308176043748343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-84661422466253683412012-01-23T15:00:56.750-08:002012-01-23T15:00:56.750-08:00CJW:”The Indonesian Citizenship Law states that ch...CJW:<i>”The Indonesian Citizenship Law states that children's citizenship is derived solely from the citizenship of the father. Children of citizen mothers and foreign fathers are considered foreigners and require visas to remain in the country until the age of 18, at which time they may apply for citizenship.”</i><br /><br />Article 3 of Indonesia's constitution says that a child cannot acquire Indonesian citizenship if it would create dual citizenship unless the child is able to renounce said citizenship (which an American child is unable to do). Obama was, I believe, six years old when he entered Indonesia, and his nationality had already been established as American. He could not have changed it, by either Indonesian OR US law. School records notwithstanding, Obama attended school in Indonesia as a foreigner, not as a citizen. Since Indonesia's constitution does not prohibit anyone within its borders from getting an education, the argument collapses.<br /><br />Indonesian citizenship is given to:<br />1. A child born of the marriage of an Indonesian couple; <br />2. A child born of the marriage of an Indonesian man and foreign woman -- <b>the status of which does not cause dual citizenship;</b> <br />3. A child born of the marriage of a foreign man and Indonesian woman, both of whom request Indonesian citizenship for their child -- the status of which does not cause dual citizenship; <br />4. A child born to an unmarried Indonesian woman, the status of which does not cause dual citizenship; <br />5. A child born in Indonesian territory that is not provided with citizenship by his or her parents; <br />6. A child born in Indonesian territory whose parents are unknown; <br />7. A child born in Indonesian territory whose parents have no citizenship. <br /><a href="url" rel="nofollow">http://www.expat.or.id/info/revisiontocitizenshiplaw.html</a><br /><br />Emphasis mine. Note that in all cases, the operative phrase is “a child born of/in/to”--which Obama was not.<br />Keep it up, hostess--I can do this as long as you can. Longer.<br /><br />I'll take a look at this breaking 'story' on YouTube. But I tell you now: when such a case has to go to the court of public opinion <i><b>before</b></i> it goes to a court of law, it's already as good as lost.GMpilothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07189308176043748343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-19006695742731940792012-01-23T12:31:27.823-08:002012-01-23T12:31:27.823-08:00Update 1/23/12:
YouTube Video Link: BREAKING! Oba...Update 1/23/12:<br /><b><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMBAJGQcEnQ" rel="nofollow">YouTube Video Link: BREAKING! Obama BC Is Forged! 100% Certainty! 50 Year Typography Expert Claims.</a></b>Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-17417079920993239022012-01-23T09:42:31.192-08:002012-01-23T09:42:31.192-08:00I read about the Indonesian law that requires citi...I read about the Indonesian law that requires citizenship in the country for a child to attend its <i>public</i> schools at <a href="http://www.theobamafile.com/_family/SoetoroDunhamMarriage.htm" rel="nofollow">The Obama File.</a><br /><br />I first read about it years ago, but had forgotten that little Barry attended a Catholic School there. However, information in the divorce papers indicates that Barry was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, and therefore Indonesian citizenship was transfered to him in that way.<br /><br />Two paragraphs to share from that link:<br /><br /><i>Indonesian Law<br /> <br />"The Indonesian Citizenship Law states that children's citizenship is derived solely from the citizenship of the father. Children of citizen mothers and foreign fathers are considered foreigners and require visas to remain in the country until the age of 18, at which time they may apply for citizenship. They are prohibited from attending public schools and must attend private, international schools, which usually are more expensive."<br /><br />U. S. State Department</i><br /><br />Apparently, that statement is taken from the U.S. State Department.<br /><br />Next:<br /><br /><i> Was There An Adoption<br /> <br />Obama arrived in Indonesia at about the age of five according to most accounts, although it was possible he arrived at the age of six, according to a few sources. At some time, Lolo Soetoro adopted Barry, and Barry would have automatically become an Indonesian citizen according to the country’s laws in the 1960’s, which stipulated any child is immediately granted Indonesian citizenship upon completion of the adoption process.<br /><br />As evidence that an adoption occurred, there are the following artifacts:<br /><br />1. The registration document from the Roman Catholic, Franciscus Assisi Primary School, in Jakarta, Indonesia. Barry Soetoro is registered as a "citizen" of Indonesia.<br /><br />2. According to Indonesian legal experts, only Indonesian citizens could attend state-operated public schools.<br /><br />3. In the divorce documents (page1 and page2 [see them at link]), Lolo Soetoro is described as "father" -- "husband has not contributed to support of wife and children" -- "oldest child in university" -- and this curious note, "both mother and child are U. S. citizens while father an Indonesian citizen"<br /><br />There is accumulating evidence that Anna was something of an expert at taking advantage living abroad, while carefully keeping one foot in the US of A for herself and her children. </i><br /><br />*******<br />At this point, voters deserve to know the absolute and final truth about Obama's eligibility for the 2012 election. That is what is most important. The upcoming court case is related to that issue. IMO, Obama should release his school transcripts and put the matter to rest - one way or the other.Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-34956659379803260812012-01-22T22:59:51.599-08:002012-01-22T22:59:51.599-08:00Okay, their bandwidth opened up today. After I rea...Okay, their bandwidth opened up today. After I read it, I learned that you had reformatted to provide links. <br />Thank you anyway.<br /><br />I also found out that www.usconstitution.net has suddenly been designated an attack site <b>if</b> one tries to link there through the words “natural born citizen”. Hmmm. As the Article II website declares, <i>”In politics, there are no coincidences…not of this magnitude.”</i><br /><br />Article II cites some good examples, but they give away the game at the very end. The last five paragraphs start with <i>”The U.S. Constitution is not a dictionary,”</i> and then descends into an orgy of conspiracy-spinning, accusing 'the political left' of <i>”knowingly electing and getting away with seating an unconstitutional president in order to alter Article II requirements”</i>. <br />But they can't provide any more evidence for that than they can for Obama's non-qualification for the office he holds. <br /><br /><i>”The press would not ask any questions and the American people were already too ill-informed of their constitution to know or too distracted by daily life to care. The press would provide the cover, swearing to the lies of an unconstitutional administration put in power by criminal actors focused only on their lofty political agenda of forever altering the American form of government.”</i><br /><br />From this statement alone, it's plain that the people at Article II PAC have even more contempt for the American public than they claim the press does. Using emotional arguments in what is supposed to be a discussion of legal documents won't work in an actual court of law, and it shouldn't apply here either. It's an admission that their case can't stand on its own merits. It also doesn't change the facts.<br /><br />BTW, <i>does</i> Indonesian law require citizenship of the country for a child to attend its schools?<br />Just a reminder...GMpilothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07189308176043748343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-8318606250549027272012-01-22T11:40:23.208-08:002012-01-22T11:40:23.208-08:00Since you appear to be unable to access the site, ...Since you appear to be unable to access the site, I have copied and pasted most of what is there one the front page in the original blogpost. This way, you can access the links within the post.Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-70212003769893341642012-01-22T10:38:09.654-08:002012-01-22T10:38:09.654-08:00Congratulations! Gingrich won in South Carolina! T...Congratulations! Gingrich won in South Carolina! The GOP may finally have its non-Romney candidate. Interest is growing: will it be the non-Muslim versus the real Mormon, or the non-Muslim versus the non-principled?<br />It's still way too early to say: in 1988 <b>Pat Robertson</b> took the primaries in Washington, Nevada, Alaska and Hawaii; states far, far away from Virginia, where the people couldn't get a good look at him. He got nowhere in New Hampshire, and faded quickly after that. More recently, we've all witnessed <b>Rick Perry</b>'s meteoric rise and fall.<br />Well, Newt's your new champion. I <i>almost</i> hope he wins the nomination.<br /><br />BTW, it's not “Democrat Party”--that's just lazy language. It's “Democrat<b>ic</b> Party”.GMpilothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07189308176043748343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-25844441288277551562012-01-22T09:41:58.434-08:002012-01-22T09:41:58.434-08:00I repeat: I could not access the 'Article II F...I repeat: I could not access the 'Article II Facts” site because <i><b>their</b> bandwidth had been exceeded</i>. I did try to copy-and-paste, and that didn't work either. I'll be fair, and try again today, but if I can't get through, I can't get through.<br /><br />CJW: <i>”When you state that a person can become a <b>citizen</b> retroactively, I can understand that. But IMHO (and according to much of the documents I have read), one cannot become a <b>natural born citizen</b> retroactively. You either are one at birth, or you are not! Plus, a person can lose their U.S. citizenship!”</i><br /><br />The United States Code said otherwise:<br /> <br /><i>...Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, <b>and usually confer natural-born status on persons</b> born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are <b>natural-born citizens of the United States.</b> Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.</i> (emphases mine)<br /> <br />The same law, as you were told, applied to Hawaii. Hawaii was a US State at the time of Obama's birth. <br />Hawaii is where Obama was born (and no one has ever proven otherwise). Therefore, Obama is a NBC. <br />Whatever your humble opinion, those are the <i><b>facts</b></i>.<br /><br /><b>8 USC 1841</b> also lists the ways one can lose US citizenship:<br /><br />-Becoming naturalized in another country <br />-Swearing an oath of allegiance to another country <br />-Serving in the armed forces of a nation at war with the U.S., or if you are an officer in that force <br />-Working for the government of another nation if doing so requires that you become naturalized or that you swear an oath of allegiance <br />-Formally renouncing citizenship at a U.S. consular office <br />-Formally renouncing citizenship to the U.S. Attorney General <br />-By being convicted of committing treason<br /> <br />If, as you suggest, Obama was enrolled in an Indonesian school and the law required him to renounce his US citizenship, the US government is not required to acknowledge that. They could claim prior rights to him <i>because</i> he was US-born, and by US law, a minor may not renounce citizenship.<br />All this seems to hang on the belief that schools in Indonesia <i>require</i> a student to be a national citizen. <i><b>Do they?</b></i> That shouldn't be too difficult for your sources to find out. I'll be waiting.GMpilothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07189308176043748343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-68735322079241974432012-01-22T08:31:26.834-08:002012-01-22T08:31:26.834-08:00Also see:
CITIZENSHIP STATUS of the PRESIDENTS OF...Also see:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.art2superpac.com/UserFiles/image/!Presidents-Eligibility-Grandfather-Clause-Natural-Born-Citizen-Clause-or-Seated-by-Fraud.pdf" rel="nofollow">CITIZENSHIP STATUS of the PRESIDENTS OF USA</a> [Note: PDF]Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-52096342491491018672012-01-22T08:29:23.352-08:002012-01-22T08:29:23.352-08:00The U.S. Constitution is not a dictionary. The def...The U.S. Constitution is not a dictionary. The definition of “is” is not in the constitution either. Yet this is the text that would later be issued in Congressional Research Service talking points memos distributed to members of congress, to protect an individual that all members of congress know and understand to be an “unconstitutional” resident of the people’s White House – Barack Hussein Obama II.<br /><br />Once again, as the political left was unable to alter the U.S. Constitution by way of legitimate constitutional process, they resorted to altering the constitution via precedent setting, in short, knowingly electing and getting away with seating an unconstitutional president in order to alter Article II requirements for the office via breaking those constitutional requirements.<br /><br />The press would not ask any questions and the American people were already too ill-informed of their constitution to know or too distracted by daily life to care. The press would provide the cover, swearing to the lies of an unconstitutional administration put in power by criminal actors focused only on their lofty political agenda of forever altering the American form of government.<br /><br />The people would be caught up in a steady diet of daily assaults on their individual freedom and liberty and overlook the most obvious constitutional crisis in American history, the seating of an unconstitutional and anti-American president. [SOURCE CREDIT]Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-52404865799515448612012-01-22T08:28:08.114-08:002012-01-22T08:28:08.114-08:008. All of these efforts failing in committee and t...8. All of these efforts failing in committee and the 2008 presidential election looming with an unconstitutional candidate leading the DNC ticket, Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO] tries to attach the alteration to a military bill in S.2678: on February 28, 2008 – “Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act – Declares that the term “natural born Citizen” in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution, dealing with the criteria for election to President of the United States, includes any person born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces.” – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] – (This was the first effort to also assure that GOP Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain [AZ] would be cleared to run against the DNC primary victor.)<br /><br />From June 11, 2003 to February 28, 2008, there had been eight (8) different congressional attempts to alter Article II – Section I – Clause V – natural born citizen requirements for president in the U.S. Constitution, all of them failing in committee — All of it taking placing during Barack Obama’s rise to political power and preceding the November 2008 presidential election.<br /><br />In politics, there are no coincidences… not of this magnitude.<br /><br />Finally on April 10, 2008, unable to alter or remove the natural born citizen requirement to clear the way for Barack Obama, the U.S. Senate acts to shift focus before the election, introducing and passing S.R.511: – declaring Sen. John McCain a “natural born citizen” eligible to run for and hold the office of president. There was never any honest doubt about McCain, the son of a U.S. Navy Commander. The Sponsor of the resolution is Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO]<br /><br />S.R.511 States that John Sidney McCain, III, is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. S.R511 passed by a 99-0 unanimous consent of the Senate, with only John McCain not voting. The basis was – “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens;” – a condition not met by Barack Hussein Obama II. – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT]; Sen Webb, Jim [VA]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (They had made certain that John McCain would run against Barack Obama)<br /><br />However, in the McCain resolution is also this language – “Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States; – Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;”<br /><br />The U.S. Constitution is not a dictionary. The definition of “is” is not in the constitution either. Yet this is the text that would later be issued in Congressional Research Service talking points memos distributed to members of congress, to protect an individual that all members of congress know and understand to be an “unconstitutional” resident of the people’s White House – Barack Hussein Obama II.<br /><br />con'tChristinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-22276047018228944962012-01-22T08:27:17.634-08:002012-01-22T08:27:17.634-08:002. On September 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers [MI] in...2. On September 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 67: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]<br /><br />3. On February 25, 2004, Republican Senator Don Nickles [OK] attempted to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural-born citizen requirement for president in S.2128: – “Natural Born Citizen Act – Defines the constitutional term “natural born citizen,” to establish eligibility for the Office of President” – also getting the definition of natural born citizen wrong. – Co-sponsors Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]; Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA]<br /><br />4. On September 15, 2004 – as Barack Obama was about to be introduced as the new messiah of the Democrat Party at the DNC convention, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] introduced H.J.R. 104: – “Constitutional Amendment – “Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No co-sponsors.<br /><br />5. Again on January 4, 2005, Rep John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 2: to the 109th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the Office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]<br /><br />6. Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] tries again on February 1, 2005 in H.J.R. 15: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No Co-Sponsor<br /><br />7. On April 14, 2005, Rep Vic Snyder [AR-2] tries yet again with H.J.R. 42: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4]<br /><br />con'tChristinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-11717898763733099442012-01-22T08:26:33.621-08:002012-01-22T08:26:33.621-08:00Read about the attempts made to eliminate the &quo...Read about the attempts made to eliminate the "natural born citizen" requirement from qualifications for POTUS - BY THE DEMOCRAT PARTY!<br /><br /><a href="http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html#Attempts%20to%20Redefine%20or%20Amend%20Article%20II" rel="nofollow">Attempts to Redefine or Amend Article II</a>.<br /><br />Why would they have done that if the qualification would have not held back Obama (or anyone else) from running for president?<br /><br />Partial copy: (go to link to access the links to the bills)<br /><br />5. Attempts to redefine or amend Article II “natural born Citizen” Clause of the U.S. Constitution:<br /><br /> <br /><br />The effort to remove the natural-born citizen requirement from the U.S. Constitution actually began in 1975 – when Democrat House Rep. Jonathon B. Bingham, [NY-22] introduced a constitutional amendment under H.J.R. 33: which called for the outright removal of the natural-born requirement for president found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution – “Provides that a citizen of the United States otherwise eligible to hold the Office of President shall not be ineligible because such citizen is not a natural born citizen.”<br /><br />Bingham’s first attempt failed and he resurrected H.J.R. 33: in 1977 under H.J.R. 38:, again failing to gain support from members of congress. Bingham was a Yale Law grad and member of the secret society Skull and Bones, later a lecturer at Columbia Law and thick as thieves with the United Nations via his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations.<br /><br />Bingham’s work lay dormant for twenty-six years when it was resurrected again in 2003 as Democrat members of Congress made no less than eight (8) attempts in twenty-two (22) months, to either eliminate the natural-born requirement, or redefine natural-born to accommodate Barack Hussein Obama II in advance of his rise to power. The evidence is right in the congressional record…<br /><br />1. On June 11, 2003 Democrat House member Vic Snyder [AR-2] introduced H.J.R 59: in the 108th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsors: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]; Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10]; Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]; Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49]; Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18]; Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4].<br /><br />con'tChristinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-91512917464364728502012-01-22T08:19:10.100-08:002012-01-22T08:19:10.100-08:00I just clicked on the link and it works fine. Try...I just clicked on the link and it works fine. Try the copy and pasting method:<br /><br />http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html<br /><br />Even if it is provided by a super-pac, does that mean that the information is false or unreliable? Of course not.<br /><br />When you state that a person can become a <b><i>citizen</i></b> retroactively, I can understand that. But IMHO (and according to much of the documents I have read), one cannot become a <b><i>natural born citizen</i></b> retroactively. You either are one at birth, or you are not! Plus, a person can lose their U.S. citizenship!<br /><br />The current case in the Georgia court is an argument about whether or not Obama is eligible to be placed on the ballot in Georgia for the 2012 election. It isn't about the 2008 election. As was stated in one of the comments I shared from another site, there is the possibility that Obama LOST his U.S. citizenship when his mother married Soetoro, moved to Indonesia, enrolled him in school there (which required, at the time, a renouncement of allegiance to any other country)and then brought Obama Jr. back to the states as an immigrant.<br /><br />Look, as I stated before, I'm no expert on any of this. However, I think that it is highly suspicious that Obama REFUSES to release his school transcripts. Why? What is he hiding? Isn't it possible, or even plausible, that they might reveal that he was given money as a foreign student to attend U.S. colleges and universities?<br /><br />Perhaps you have been correct all along. It doesn't have anything to do with the birth certificate. It has more to do with loss of U.S. citizenship when his parents brought him to Indonesia, plus foreign aid for him to attend college in later years in the U.S.<br /><br />Obama refuses to disclose the truth about much of his past. He should heed his own words:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhFB7-w2MY8" rel="nofollow">Youtube: Obama - The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.</a>Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-75180109697479476152012-01-21T22:17:26.566-08:002012-01-21T22:17:26.566-08:00As you have seen, Christine, for every document th...As you have seen, Christine, for every document there is an equal and opposite document regarding this topic. The only reason this has been a <i>debate</i> at all is because certain people wish to overturn the 2008 election. Some other people feel that Obama's predecessor didn't win the 2000 election—he was <i>selected,</i> not elected, by the Supreme Court. All that faded away fast after 9/11/01 but there are people who nurse doubts to this day about that. <br /><br />You may quote Vattel's <i>Law of Nations</i> or even founder John Jay as much as you like, but what I quoted to you earlier is the <i>actual law</i> of the land, the United States Code. You asked how someone could be made a citizen retroactively, <b>and I showed you</b>. You repeated a long-debunked claim that Obama traveled to Pakistan on a non-US passport because US citizens were not allowed to go there at the time, and I showed you that that was false.<br />You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. <br /><br />First the birfers claimed Obama wasn't even an American, demanding he show his BC. Now that he's done it, they want to see his “REAL birth certificate” (whatever that is). Nothing will ever convince them, except for the impossible ability to travel back in time and witness his birth, and nothing will <i>ever</i> satisfy them except to see him gone, and his name obliterated from memory.<br />You claim that this is not a birfer issue, but it must be. Otherwise, this circus has played all these months just because the subject happens to have dark skin, and that wouldn't look nice, would it? <br /><br /><i>”I don't claim to be an expert on the topic of the Constitution, but I CAN READ and individuals more scholarly than me (including the Framers) have written extensively on the meaning of natural born citizen status concerning the position of POTUS.”</i><br /><br />It's not a question of whether you CAN READ, hostess. It's what you DO READ. Who do you think has a more comprehensive grasp of this subject—World Net Daily, or the US Code? <br />I was unable to access the “Article II Facts” page because their bandwidth had been exceeded. But I find it noteworthy that <b>their URL has the word 'superpac' as part of their domain name</b>. Somebody's got a dog in that hunt.<br /><br />BTW, the only person I know who isn't a 'natural-born' US citizen is one of my nieces. Her birth was a Caesarian one.GMpilothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07189308176043748343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-69787514663377036752012-01-21T10:24:06.529-08:002012-01-21T10:24:06.529-08:00P.S. GM - I don't claim to be an expert on th...P.S. GM - I don't claim to be an expert on the topic of the Constitution, but I CAN READ and individuals more scholarly than me (including the Framers) have written extensively on the meaning of natural born citizen status concerning the position of POTUS.<br /><br />Here is a link with a comprehensive analysis about the meaning of natural born citizen which might be advantageous concerning the debate that is going on here at this blog and around the nation via the Internet:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html" rel="nofollow">Article II Facts</a><br /><br />Excerpt:<br /><br /><br /><b>Because this fear of foreign influence on a future President and Commander in Chief was strongly felt, Jay took it upon himself to draft a letter to General George Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, recommending/hinting that the framers should strengthen the Citizenship requirements for the office of the President. <br /><br />John Jay was an avid reader and proponent of natural law and particularly Vattel’s codification of natural law and the Law of Nations. In his letter to Washington he said that the Citizenship requirement for the office of the commander of our armies should contain a “strong check” against foreign influence and he recommended to Washington that the command of the military be open only to a “natural born Citizen”. Thus Jay did not agree that simply being a “born Citizen” was sufficient enough protection from foreign influence in the singular most powerful office in the new form of government. Rather, Jay wanted to make sure the President and Commander In Chief owed his allegiance solely to the United States of America. He wanted another adjective added to the eligibility clause, i.e., ‘natural’. And that word ‘natural’ goes to the Citizenship status of one’s parents via natural law.<br /><br />Below is the relevant change to Hamilton’s proposed language detailed in Jay’s letter written to George Washington dated 25 July 1787:<br /><br />Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.<br /><br />See a transcription of Jay’s letter to Washington at this <a href="http://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/johnjay1787lettertogeorgewashington.jpg" rel="nofollow">link</a>.</b><br /><br />MUCH more and many more links to explore at the Article II facts links at the beginning of this comment.Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-34646874633719240162012-01-21T10:12:13.758-08:002012-01-21T10:12:13.758-08:00There is another problem with Obama. The issue of...There is another problem with Obama. The issue of Obama refusing to release his college records was revisted this week by Fox’s White House reporter Ed Henry who asked Obama spokesman Jay Carney about it at a daily briefing. Carney brushed off the question. Henry did not ask whether Obama went to college as a foreign student.<br /><br />If it turns out Obama did go to college as a foreign student, it would lend credence to the argument that he does not meet the Constitutional mandate for natural born citizenship to be president.<br /><br />See <a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2835648/posts" rel="nofollow">Free Republic.com</a><br /><br />As posted previously, Gov. Huckabee brought this up during an interview on O'Reilly.<br /><br /> <br /><i>Huckabee on O’Reilly: Did Obama Get ‘Foreign Student’ Loans in College?<br />Friday, January, 20, 2012 Kristinn <br /><br />Appearing on the Fox News Channel’s top-rated O’Reilly Factor this evening, former Arkansas Governer Mike Huckabee (R) suggested that President Barack Obama be challenged to prove whether he was treated as a “foreign student” in college.<br /><br />Huckabee made the remark in the context of a discussion with host Bill O’Reilly on Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, dithering over releasing his tax returns.<br /><br />Huckabee, who ran for president in 2008, urged Romney to say that he would release his tax returns when Obama released his college transcripts–and his college admissions records to show whether Obama received loans as a “foreign student.”<br /><br />While some will accuse Huckabee of going ‘birther’, others will understand that Huckabee is referring to Obama being adopted and raised for a time in Indonesia by his mother’s second husband, Lolo Soetoro, and whether Obama went to college as an Indonesian citizen to get advantageous treatment.</i>Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-64112052674374526072012-01-20T21:21:53.050-08:002012-01-20T21:21:53.050-08:00CJW: ”Why are you accusing me of lying? There are ...CJW: <i>”Why are you accusing me of lying? There are people who will side with Obama no matter what dishonesty he has been involved in and that's the truth!”</i><br />Well, the usual reason to accuse someone of lying is because they <b>are</b>. There are people who will side against Obama no matter what dishonesty he hasn't been involved in, and that's also the truth!<br /><br />Now, about that other stuff:<br />Angela's simply wrong. <br /><br /><i>”President Obama doesn’t have to have been BORN in another country to have lost his citizenship via adoption by his mother’s husband in Indonesia. Indonesia did not allow for dual citizenship at the time (if it does even now). There are steps for such individuals to take to recover their US citizenship, but they must be taken before a certain age.”</i><br /><br />Since Obama was BORN in the US, he could not have 'lost his citizenship' by ANY means that the US government is obliged to acknowledge. I haven't bothered to see if Indonesia allows for dual citizenship, but in Obama's case it is irrelevant. He did not need to 'recover' his citizenship, because he never lost it in the first place.<br /><br /><i>”What passport did he use to travel to Pakistan? Not a US passport. They weren’t permitting Americans to travel in Pakistan at the time.”</i><br /><br />If by 'at that time' she is referring to the early 1980s, she is wrong again: <br /><br /><b>The truth is that it was neither impossible nor difficult for Americans to visit Pakistan in 1981 according to a contemporary New York Times article and a followup article written by an American, Barbara Crossette, who visited there: </b><br /><br /><i>… It is possible to cross from India to Pakistan by train from Amritsar and Delhi, but border procedures can be long and complicated. A road crossing at Wagah is also open for a few daylight hours. Check schedules, and allow several extra hours for border formalities.<br /><br />Tourists can obtain a free, 30-day visa (necessary for Americans) at border crossings and airports. Transportation within Lahore is plentiful, with taxis, scooter rickshaws and horse-drawn tongas (especially in the old city) readily available.</i><br /><a href="url" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/14/travel/lahore-a-survivor-with-a-bittersweet-history.html</a><br /><br />Please note the date of the article: June 1981. Crossette most certainly traveled to Pakistan on <i>her</i> US passport; the State Department 'ban' did not exist (and it would have been an 'advisory' if it had—very few countries are on the 'banned' list).<br /><br />CJW: <i>”Aren't you concerned that the social security number that Obama is using was not issued to him? It didn't pass muster with the site (forget it's name) where illegal aliens can be caught using fraudulent SS numbers in order to get jobs.'</i><br /><br />Oh, <i><b>that</b></i> old thing:<br /><br /><a href="url" rel="nofollow">http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/03/more-social-security-troubles-for-the-president/</a><br /><br />Read it and weep. Or don't; it'll still be true, either way.<br /><br />Older question revisited: <i>”How does one become a natural born citizen 'retroactively'?"</i> <br /><br />SEC. 305. [8 U.S.C. 1405] A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. <b>A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth.</b> A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. <br /><br />For someone who claims to love the Constitution, you really don't know much about it, do you?GMpilothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07189308176043748343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-59773444248629317832012-01-20T18:55:12.995-08:002012-01-20T18:55:12.995-08:00Oh look! Gateway Pundit has the video up where Hu...Oh look! Gateway Pundit has the video up where Huckabee questions Obama's transcripts on O'Reilly:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/01/huckabee-on-oreilly-did-obama-get-foreign-student-loans-in-college-video/" rel="nofollow">Gateway Pundit: Huckabee on O’Reilly: Obama Needs to Prove He Didn’t Get “Foreign Student Loans” in College (Video)</a><br /><br />A good comment there:<br /><br /><br /><i>angela commented:<br />President Obama doesn’t have to have been BORN in another country to have lost his citizenship via adoption by his mother’s husband in Indonesia. Indonesia did not allow for dual citizenship at the time (if it does even now). There are steps for such individuals to take to recover their US citizenship, but they must be taken before a certain age.<br /><br />It is quite irrelevent, assuming he lost his citizenship through his mother’s action as a minor, so long as he MIGHT have taken action on his own to recover it when he reached the age of majority, and DID NOT do so. What passport did he use to travel to Pakistan? Not a US passport. They weren’t permitting Americans to travel in Pakistan at the time.<br /><br />This is not a “birther” issue. The birth certificate has been shown. It’s the only thing that has been.</i><br /><br />Ha! There is also a link to the "Obama 52"<br /><br /><a href="http://www.obama52.com/backup.htm" rel="nofollow">Obama 52 Playing Cards - FEATURING: Czars, Tax Cheats, Socialists, Marxists, Communists, Radicals and more!</a>Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-63452954611366676492012-01-20T18:43:52.363-08:002012-01-20T18:43:52.363-08:00Click on the link that reads:
E-Verify ‘flags’ Ob...Click on the link that reads:<br /><br />E-Verify ‘flags’ Obama’s Social Security Number<br /><br />at the link above.Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-5493055381131857482012-01-20T18:34:25.812-08:002012-01-20T18:34:25.812-08:00E-Verify is what I was trying to recall re: the s...E-Verify is what I was trying to recall re: the social security number.<br /><br />Here are a bunch of links about this story:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.wnd.com/?s=Obama%27s+social+security+number&submit.x=10&submit.y=11" rel="nofollow">WND.com</a>Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-75057387138104394542012-01-20T18:12:06.452-08:002012-01-20T18:12:06.452-08:00Why are you accusing me of lying? There are peopl...Why are you accusing me of lying? There are people who will side with Obama no matter what dishonesty he has been involved in and that's the truth!<br /><br />The experts who did the research on the online fraud of a BC (and their explanations) can be found if you just do a search. The fact that none of the cases got into court so far is why they can't present their evidence.<br /><br />Tonight, Huckabee brought up a good point about why Obama refuses to release his college transcripts - and even Huckabee stated something like this: "it will show whether or not he attended school with a foreign aid scholarship!" There is some speculation that perhaps this is the very reason why he is hiding his transcripts - or maybe it's because he got terrible grades?<br /><br />Aren't you concerned that the social security number that Obama is using was not issued to him? It didn't pass muster with the site (forget it's name) where illegal aliens can be caught using fraudulent SS numbers in order to get jobs.<br /><br />So many questions....<br /><br />The truth will come out someday.Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-65190761486305149172012-01-20T17:33:48.392-08:002012-01-20T17:33:48.392-08:00CJW: ”There are many experts who state that [Obama...CJW: <i>”There are many experts who state that [Obama's BC] is a FORGERY!”</i><br /><br />Who <b>are</b> these alleged experts?<br />Paul Irey is a former Air force clerk (What? Not cryptanalysis?) and is famous for his comment on Obama's certificate: "I knew it was a forgery before I even looked at it." <br /><br /><a href="url" rel="nofollow">http://rcradioshow.blogspot.com/2011/06/paul-ireys-biased-analysis-i-knew-it.html</a><br /><br />But he went on to do an analysis anyway. Mr. John Woodman examined Irey's claims and ripped them apart; later Irey himself admitted that his work was flawed. In fact, although he never printed a retraction anywhere (AFAIK), he sent an email to Orly Taitz, Jerome Corsi, Doug Vogt, and others advising them of the problems with his analysis and asking them not to use it. (Orly did anyway.)<br />Irey is of course hard at work on an updated version.<br /><br /><a href="url" rel="nofollow">http://rcradioshow.blogspot.com/2011/12/conversation-with-paul-irey.html</a><br /><br />Would any real expert allow work that he had disavowed to be filed as evidence in a court? I doubt it!<br /><br />If he is an example of the 'experts' the birfers can muster, Obama can continue to sleep at night. The magic reset button remains elusive.GMpilothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07189308176043748343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-85649990273981768802012-01-20T16:53:48.867-08:002012-01-20T16:53:48.867-08:00CJW: ”MANY in the legal profession would wholehear...CJW: <i>”MANY in the legal profession would wholeheartedly disagree with both of you!”</i><br />Let them. MOST in the legal profession do <i>not</i> disagree with me. <br /><br />Your 'citizens' quote from AP Morse can be applied to the singular as well as the plural, and you know that. I'm not going to waste electrons by parsing words with you.<br /><br /><i>”Why was [McCain's] eligibility argued in Congress and not Obama's? Was some sort of "deal" done?”</i><br />If you have to <b>ask</b>, then that means you have no evidence whatever of any 'deal'. If you got 'em, show 'em.<br /><br /><i>”In April 2008, the U.S. Senate approved a non-binding resolution recognizing McCain's status as a natural-born citizen. … How does one become a natural born citizen 'retroactively'?"</i><br />I quote from my previous post:<br /><br /><i>Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:" <br />Footnote: Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. <b>These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born</b>, for example.</i> (emphasis mine)<br /><br />McCain was a military child, born in the Panama Canal Zone to American parents. Full stop.<br /> <br /><i>”How does one become a natural born citizen 'retroactively'?"</i><br />Glad you asked.<br /><br />Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. <b>Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.</b> (emphasis mine)<br /><a href="url" rel="nofollow">http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html</a><br /><br />Any other lies you'd like to spread? I've heard them all, but birfers do manage to surprise me with their ingenuity.GMpilothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07189308176043748343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-29389529437882637872012-01-20T16:15:57.879-08:002012-01-20T16:15:57.879-08:00Still, in the case of Obama - there has NOT been e...Still, in the case of Obama - there has NOT been evidence of an original paper document! Why is it being hidden? How could the online one have been "scanned" and put online if there wasn't an original paper document from which it was copied?<br /><br />Answer: There are many experts who state that it is a FORGERY!Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.com