It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Born In Kenya? His Grandmother Says Yes

page: 24
31
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


So, a child born in an Embassy in Iran would be considered 'eleigible' to be President??

We have certain 'territories', just to include Micronesia, Puerto Rico, and Guam....can a person born in any of THOSE territories ALSO be 'eligible' to be a President??




posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Both of Mcains parents were US citizens, therefore he is a natural born citizen......The question is this: With this much controversy about Barack's eligibility and citizenship, why:

Has he not released a true Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii?

Did he and the DNC file the motion to delay the discovery or production of documents that would ONCE AND FOR ALL answer the questions.....



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Has anybody else asked these basic questions:

When did the US begin requiring that babies have US Passports?

If Barack Obama were born in Kenya, how could his mother and her newborn baby depart Kenya without leaving a record of depature? How could both mother and child enter into the United States without there being a record of their entry?

When entering the United States, how did Obama's mother prove that baby was hers absent a Kenyan passport or US passport for the baby?

Is it reasonable to believe that Obama's mother had some kind of political influence over a Hawaiian hospital that it would issue a birth certificate stating that baby Barack was actually born in Hawaii? What would be in the hospital's interest to do such a thing?

Berg makes claims about Obama's grandmother being present for Obama's birth in Kenya. Rather than rely on the grandmother's testimony, where is Obama's Kenyan birth of record?

Baby Obama's birth in Kenya would have to had been registered in Kenya in order for the baby to have been given a passport enabling the baby to leave the country and enter the United States.

Berg doesn't address any of these questions. Reason dictates that he should have.

Bottom line: Is it reasonable to assume that Obama was born in Kenya and his mother registered his birth in Kenya, then flew home to Hawaii using a Kenyan passport for baby Obama. Once in Hawaii, jumped in a cab to the hospital closest to her home and then registered Obama's birth there as if she had given birth to the infant at her home all by herself?

There definitely would have to be other players in that scheme? A doctor or midwife, at the least. Is it reasonable to assume all of that?

Was US and Kenyan Customs in on the scheme as well? After all, they would have to erase Obama's mother's port of entry and departure records. Regarding Kenya, it's government would have to dispose of even more records. Is it reasonable to assume that?

Or, citing Murphey's Law, is baby Obama being born in Hawaii the simplest explanation?



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Check the source in my last post. It lists all of the conditions that must be met in order to be a natural born citizen. But, yes, US territories are considered US soil, and as long as one parent is a US citizen who meets the minimum requirements, then the child is considered a natural born citizen. Same with embassies and military installations.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


It's not that simple. Address this:


"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."
7 FAM 1100 ACQUISITION AND RETENTION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY.PDF

Text of 14 Amendment of US Constitution:


Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No one shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
en.wikipedia.org...




[edit on 18-10-2008 by Areal51]



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Then, JR....since Barack Obama was born in Hawai'i....AFTER it became the fiftieth State...what is the point of THIS thread?

BTW, Alaska is the 49th State...is Sarah Palin also not a citizen?

AND, Mrs. Palin's husband, as recently as 2006, was still involved in a secessionist faction, hoping to make Alaska a soverign nation, independant of the USA.

Not making this up, it's on record.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Areal51
 


First, please read my complete post.


Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
But, yes, US territories are considered US soil, and as long as one parent is a US citizen who meets the minimum requirements, then the child is considered a natural born citizen.


As to the questions you posed in your previous post, they have all been addressed in this thread. I have no desire to do your research for you.

reply to post by weedwhacker
 


The point of this thread is that someone (Berg) is alleging that Obama was not born in Hawaii. Sarah Palin was born in Idaho, and even if she had been born in Alaska, her natural born status would still not be in dispute. Her husband's participation in the AIP has nothing to do with this topic whatsoever.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 



The requirements for citizenship and the very definition thereof have changed since the Constitution was ratified in 1788. Congress first recognized the citizenship of children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, under the first naturalization law: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." (See ref. for the Act of 1795)[10][11]

The Fourteenth Amendment mentions two types of citizenship: citizenship by birth and citizenship by law (naturalized citizens): "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

All persons born in the United States, except those not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government (such as children of foreign diplomats) are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. Persons born in the United States, and persons born on foreign soil to two U.S. parents, are born American citizens and are classified as citizens at birth under 8 USC 1401. There is some debate over whether persons who were born US citizens and are classified as citizens at birth under U.S. law should also be considered citizens "by birth," whether they should all be considered to be "naturalized," or whether they should be considered "statutory citizens." There is also some debate over whether there is a meaningful legal distinction between citizens "at birth", citizens "by birth" and "statutory citizens" since U.S. law makes no such distinction, nor does the Fourteenth Amendment use the term "at birth." Current U.S. statutes define certain individuals born overseas as "citizens at birth."[12] One side of the argument interprets the Constitution as meaning that a person either is born in the United States or is a naturalized citizen. According to this view, in order to be a "natural born citizen," a person must be born in the United States, or possibly an incorporated territory; otherwise, they are a citizen "by law" and are therefore a "statutory citizen," (not necessarily, however, a naturalized citizen, which implies a pre-existing foreign citizenship).[2] Current State Department policy 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."[13] However, the State Department is of the opinion that this does not affect those who are born abroad to U.S. citizens and who otherwise meet the qualifications for statutory citizenship
US legislation and legal arguments

[edit on 18-10-2008 by Areal51]



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 07:50 PM
link   
As far as i'm concerned....they are all US citizens to me until proven otherwise by a federal court.

I've never thought that not being born in the country made much of a difference if you lived your entire life here...but it's still not legal and should be treated that way until changed by law.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 07:51 PM
link   
This would make the third case against Obama.
I believe the real story, and I could be wrong..is that Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, and Barack's name was changed to Barry Soetoro, and he became a citizen of Indonesia. THAT is the only was he could go to school there. Barry Soetoro (Barack Obama) NEVER had his name changed legally back to Obama, and never dropped his citizenship of Indonesia..I do not believe someone running for President of the United States can have duel citizenship..THAT is the reason, I believe that Obama has not shown the LONG version(which is required) of his Birth Certificate, THAT may be why he has yet to show his medical records, or school records. The certificate of live birth, that he turned in, is NOT the one required.


Barack Obama Birth Certificate Hawaii lawsuit documents

www.pr-inside.com...



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Areal51
 


And your point is???? I have already stated numerous times in this thread that the provisions of US Code, Title 8, Section 1401 must be met in order for someone to be considered a natural born citizen, which is the section of the US Code that defines what a natural born citizen is. There have been changes to this Section since 1961, however they were not retroactive, so the provisions in place at that time are the ones that Obama must meet.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


I did read all of your post. But you are not addressing my point that McCain's citizenship is NOT one of natural-born. There is plenty to digest. And besides that, the sources that I've cited make it plainly clear that he has statutory status.

Personally, I don't care that he has statutory status. Maybe others do. But I doubt if taken up with a court they could conclude that he has natural-born status given the language of the 14th Amendment.

John McCain was declared a US citizen. That is true. He was not, however, declared a US natural-born citizen.

You don't have to research for me, I think I've proven myself quite capable of doing my own. However, if you can point me to a court decision or official documents that declare John McCain as a natural-born citizen, I'd like to see that.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by MissysWorld
 


Here's the thing that really peeves me off about this. The Attorney General should investigate and confirm the eligibility of everyone who files paperwork to be put on the ballot for any federal government position. If this was done, then all three suits would be tossed out immediately as the vetting would have already been done! This is one thing that needs to be addressed by Congress as soon as possible, regardless of the outcome of these court cases!



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


My point is that you are citing code out of context.

But, hey, you're not a lawyer or judge, and neither am I. The difference is I am using legal arguments to back up my conclusion rather than just code.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Areal51
 


Apparently, you are not reading my posts, or you would not still be beating a dead horse. Go read US Code, Title 8, Section 1401. If you actually do that, you will not keep insisting that McCain is not a natural born citizen. BOTH OF HIS PARENTS WERE US CITIZENS AND BOTH HAD RESIDED INSIDE THE US! The Code is very, very clear that this constitutes natural born citizenship status!!!!



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Well, that makes perfect sense.

And I agree.

Problem is, we have a system of bureaucracy.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


I read it.

Section US CODE, Title 8, 1401 does not mention the phrase "natural-born" even one time. The phrase "natural-born" does not appear.

That is why I have reiterated that John McCain has "statutory citizenship". His status is neither "natural-born" or "naturalized".

For our purposes, the only place "natural-born" appears is the US Constitution Article 2, Section 1.

[edit on 18-10-2008 by Areal51]



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Areal51
 


It most certainly does! In the very first sentence!

"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:"

That is the definition of natural born citizen, i.e. at birth!



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by MissysWorld
 


Missy....don't you realize that anyone can 'sow' the seeds of doubt, just by making a 'suggestion' right here on the "INTERNETS"??????

Sheesh!!! Why won't anyone just see the facts when shown in their faces??

Look....investigate Michelle....find our HER maiden name, if you're so intent on 'smearing' Barack Obama....ask HER family what they think of him!!!!!

I mean, who here would allow their daughter to marry someone they didn't already appove of?

((OOPS....I just realized....Sarah Palin has a pregnant 17-year-old daughter who is being FORCED to marry the under-18-year-old boy who made her daugther pregnant. Yet, this Under-18-year-old isn't being charged with 'Statutory Rape'....Wow!!! That is amazing, glad that the laws of Alaska are so different than the Laws of the 'Lower 48'.))

BTW....from the viewpoint of Alaska, saying the 'Lower 48'....they kinda, sorta forget to realize that there's another State, you Betcha!!

The Proud Fiftieth State of the USA is, Aloha!!! HAWAI'I !!!!!

AND, oddly enough, it's way SOUTH of even the 'lower 48'.....

To say that Sarah Palin is an idiot is to demean all other Dan Quayles of the World.

Point: Was Barack Obama born in Kenya? NOOOOO!!!!!

His FATHER is from Kenya! His father did not....ummm...impregnate his mother in Kenya!!!! (Well, maybe that happened, but who knows where John McCain's father impregnated HIS wife....the point is, the law is...WHERE to be born, not where the fetus began).

Does anyone see how stupid this 'disussion' is??

For example....anyone may chime in...assume your parents get married in...say, New York....in say....1955. THEN, they Honeymoon in Europe and you are conceived, in a Hotel Room in Paris....but your Parents then fly back to Upstate New York....and nine months later, YOU are born! Well, congrats!!! BUT...the fact that your parents 'conceived' you while in Paris means nothing???

Of course....this is the Primary dilemma, the 'Elephant in the Punch Bowl', as it were.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


I can see that you are quite frustrated, JR. However, you are mistaken.

"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:", refers to what those persons who meet the following in subsections A-H shall be considered.

Those who meet the criteria of subsections A-H of US CODE: Title 8, 1401 shall be considered "nationals and citizens".

That's not saying that they would be considered "natural-born" citizens.

Further, "...at birth" simply refers to the time when the child is born. When that child shall be considered a national and citizen because it meets the critieria of subsections A-H.

[edit on 18-10-2008 by Areal51]



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join