See other Editorial Articles
Title: Is lucysmom As Gullible and Naive as her posts indicate? Could it be possible?
Source:
LP
URL Source: http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=257643#C32
Published: Mar 3, 2009
Author: me
Post Date: 2009-03-03 16:27:49 by James Deffenbach
Keywords: None
Views: 2277
Comments: 261
There is a bit of hypocrisy going on here. This kind of abuse of the court system is rightly condemned by conservatives when the target of the suits are corporations but now applauded when the target is an individual. Any looney tune can file a suit and issue a subpoena requesting any personal information he desires (you don't even need a lawyer to do it) and the target is forced to respond. It could even happen to you. IMHO, there is something obscene about demanding the scope of personal information that these suits are after. The "birthers" demand the right to poke through the details of Obama's early life longing for anything to use against him. They are using the court system to harass and hound while wrapping them selves in the noble cloak of patriotism. They make the word dirty. lucysmom posted on 2009-03-03 10:40:46 ET Reply Trace
Poster Comment: The "birthers" are merely asking for actual PROOF that Obama is in fact an AMERICAN. His long form birth certificate, which could be produced at almost no cost, could confirm that he is or prove that he is not. Why is he and the DNC spending huge sums of money to keep it hidden if it actually proves that he is a citizen? I suspect that it proves the opposite for there would be no other reason not to disclose it.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-192) not displayed.
.
.
.
#193. To: bluegrass (#190)
It's easy. Jus sanguinis applies only when a child is born overseas and only then in determining US citizenship. The flaw in your [il]logic is that the US recognizes British jus sanguinis citizenship over its own law. The US, in fact, does not. The US could care less if the chil;d of a non-diplomat has a right to dual citizenship. US citizenship cannot be "watered down" via jus sanguinis if a child is born jus soli. The US does not bifurcate children born on its soil as "ciziten" and "natural born" citizen. And you do not see "three types". You see the estblishment of two. Natural born post-bellum and citizen ab initio bellum.
My point exactly. Thanks for playing and I hope you enjoy the Obamatoon.
INA: ACT 301 - NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property; (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person; (d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States; (e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person; (f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States; ``snip~ Show me where the above law distinguishes between "citizen": and "natural born" citizen. Thanks in advance.
Wha...huh? I'd love to call thatg circular reasoning but I see no reasoning apparent.
Some things are just none of your business unless the person wishes to tell you. lucysmom posted on 2009-03-03 16:03:16 ET Reply Trace lucysmom is delusional. That's my contribution to this thread.
_________________________________________________________________________ The bar for you exists in a perpetually low state anyway.
There is none thus the 14th amendment.
From your first site. Note the plural: By birth, either within the territory of the United States or to U.S. citizen parents.... BTW, as an aside, there's a legal distinction between citizen and subject. British rules regarding natural born subjects don't follow into natural born citizen for one very good reason: subjects never become king.
You mean minus the common understanding of the day? If true, why hasn't this been an issue before? I know I'm not natural born and I've known it my whole life.
And she is an Obamabot but I guess that might go along with being delusional.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Yea...there are instances when a child is born in circumstances outside of the first clause above, i.e., non jus oli, so if that be the case then citizenship might only be ocnferred if both parents are citizens. Obama was born within the territory of the US so it doesn't matter.
Common understanding of the day being similar to pre-quickening abortion being legal as a common understanding of the day as well? That asked...still doesn't matter. There is no constitutional common law.
Oops. British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): "Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.”
United States v. Rhodes, 27 Fed. Cas. 785 (1866). ”All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well..…since as before the Revolution." There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are in theory born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons. 2 Kent, Comm. 1; Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 1; 1 Bl. Comm. 366; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand. Ch. 583.”
You don't know what you think you know. You were just shown the law. You were just shown that there is no legal distinction made between "citizen at birth" and "natural born citizen". Henceforth, if and should should you choose to continue to promote that canard then you are doing so from a position of knowing the truth yet willfully choosing to contravene it.
So you're agreeing with me now or shooting yourself in the foot?
Feel free to wax elqoently how British law trumps US law in the US. Thanks...
As Obama was born both a British subject and an American citizen, I don't see how he could ever be considered natural born. There are many natural born fools that would make the argument that he is a natural born citizen, however.
He was born subject to the jurisdiction of the US. I don't see how he could ever be considered natural born. IN response to your own challenge, you've been provided the law that clearly shows that he is, I can only conclude that you have no interest in the promoting the truth.
By Obama's own admission: Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.” You can't have it both ways. Sorry. He was a dual citizen at birth, not a natural born citizen.
As you appear to push the interests of one man over that of the law and the rest of the country, I'd say the same about you. You're a partisan. I'm not.
From US COde: Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
Chuckles...yet here I am the one quoting US law while you quote British law. Citye the US law that makes British law supreme. I'll wait. You're a partisan. I'm not. Suuure...
Cite the appropiate Title, Chapter and Section of the US Code that supprts that legal decision. I'll wait.
a. U.S. nationals and citizens may possess dual or multiple nationality and owe allegiance to one or several foreign states. They may even have identified themselves more closely with the foreign state than with the United States, thereby calling into question the propriety of extending protection to them. Since each country establishes its own law of nationality, dual nationality cannot be eliminated, may result in confusion, and could complicate the ability of the U.S. Government to protect its nationals/citizens. b. The United States has no special arrangements with individual countries to “permit” dual nationality. U.S. Government policy toward dual nationality is the same regardless of other nationalities involved. c. While a person who has dual or multiple nationality resides in the United States, the right of the United States to claim his or her allegiance is held to be paramount of the right of the other countries of which he or she may be a national. Conversely, while a person who has dual nationality resides abroad in a foreign country of which he or she also is a national, the right of that country to claim his or her allegiance is paramount to that of the United States... 7 FAM 1111.4 Dual or Multiple Nationality (TL:CON-64; 11-30-95)
Because Obama by line of his father was subject to British law until the early 80's. That alone should be the 2x4 that would wake up anyone that doesn't have a hardon for Obama/Dems. Suuure... Spoken like a partisan. I despise The Feds and their toady political parties. Haven't you figured that out yet?
And yet you've shown no US law that states or recognizes citizenship jus soli as being inferior to the jus sanguinis citizenship laws of another country. ON the other hand, I have provided to you US law which clearly shows that the US does not recognize jus sanguinis citizenship as rendering moot the fact of natural born citizenship to anyone born jus soli. IN other words, you lost about several posts ago and won't admit it.
LOL! Are you also looking for chapter and verse from a court that it's daytime when the sun shines? Do you need someone to show you how to wipe your bum too? You're a riot.
You missed this: "While a person who has dual or multiple nationality resides in the United States, the right of the United States to claim his or her allegiance is held to be paramount of the right of the other countries of which he or she may be a national."
"While a person who has dual or multiple nationality resides in the United States, the right of the United States to claim his or her allegiance is held to be paramount of the right of the other countries of which he or she may be a national." Wha...huh? From my previous post: ON the other hand, I have provided to you US law which clearly shows that the US does not recognize jus sanguinis citizenship as rendering moot the fact of natural born citizenship to anyone born jus soli. war posted on 2009-03-06 13:22:47 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
Nope. Just the law as is applicable to support your argument will suffice. But thanks for offering.
My point was that regardless of what's said, US law tacitly recognizes dual citizenship by virtue of that paragraph.
The law is the US Constitution. As Obama's using technicalities to fend off questions (much like the Bush administration did), it's up to him to prove that he is what he claims to be rather than hide behind other lawyers. But please, knock yourself out and act like the Bushbots did when confronted with questions about their magical chimp.
Actually, what the US recognizes, op cit, is that its declarations of citizenship are superior to any foreign claims thereof or do you need the word "paramout" defined for you?
So you're agreeing that Obama was born a dual citizen? If so, why does the Constitution (the law) make a distinction between natural born citizens, citizens and naturalized citizens?
PART of the law is the US Constitution. Part of the law is also what Congress legislates Articlke VI USCON This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. it's up to him to prove that he is what he claims One must "prove" only what the law compels him to prove or, absent any law, what those, e.g. a judge, acting legally under the color of law compel one to do. Obama has not been so compelled and for good reason; that good reason is that there is no reason...
I haven't seen the actual British law. So I have no idea. And it's irrelevant anyway. He IS a natural born citizen. If so, why does the Constitution (the law) make a distinction between natural born citizens, citizens and naturalized citizens? Asked and answered.
British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5 b): Citizenship by descent. 5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth: (b) that person's birth having occurred in a place in a foreign country other than a place such as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph, the birth is registered at a United Kingdom consulate within one year of its occurrence, or, with the permission of the Secretary of State ~snip~ Do you have any proof that Obama's birth was registered at a British consulate within one year of his birth?
Obama admits he was born with dual nationality. Are you saying Obama's wrong about his citizenship? BTW, was McCain a natural born citizen?
If he was actually boron on base yes. If not...no. His BC claims that he was born on base. Obama admits he was born with dual nationality. As if I'd take your word for it. How many laws do you need to see or do you just enjoy being pummelled?
You're parsing it incorrectly: "that person's birth having occurred in a place in a foreign country other than a place such as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph, the birth is registered at a United Kingdom consulate within one year of its occurrence" Kenya was a Brit colony, not "other".
Comments (234 - 261) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestShow me the law. I see three types of citizens in the Constitution.
#194. To: war (#192)
which the SCOTUS made painfully clear that my vote and your vote not only mean squar but that we don't have a right to vote for POTUS anyway..
#195. To: bluegrass (#190)
#196. To: bluegrass (#194)
#197. To: James Deffenbach (#0)
I believe that Obama advocates transparency in government, not in revealing personal information to all comers.
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?”
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#198. To: X-15 (#197)
#199. To: bluegrass (#190)
Show me the relevant data from the era when the US Constitution was written that defined a natural born citizen
#200. To: war (#193)
Citizenship is one of the most coveted gifts that the U.S. government can bestow, and the most important immigration benefit that USCIS can grant. Most people become U.S. citizens in one of two ways:
#201. To: war (#199)
There is none...
#202. To: X-15 (#197)
lucysmom is delusional. That's my contribution to this thread.
Lord Acton
#203. To: bluegrass (#200)
By birth, either within the territory of the United States or to U.S. citizen parents....
#204. To: bluegrass (#201)
You mean minus the common understanding of the day?
#205. To: war (#204)
#206. To: war (#204)
#207. To: bluegrass (#201)
I know I'm not natural born and I've known it my whole life.
#208. To: bluegrass (#206)
#209. To: bluegrass (#205)
#210. To: war (#208)
#211. To: bluegrass (#210)
As Obama was born both a British subject and an American citizen
#212. To: war (#211)
He was born subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
#213. To: war (#211)
I can only conclude that you have no interest in the promoting the truth.
#214. To: bluegrass (#212)
#215. To: bluegrass (#213)
As you appear to push the interests of one man over that of the law and the rest of the country, I'd say the same about you.
#216. To: bluegrass (#212)
He was a dual citizen at birth, not a natural born citizen.
#217. To: war (#214)
#218. To: war (#215)
yet here I am the one quoting US law while you quote British law.
#219. To: bluegrass (#218)
Because Obama by line of his father was subject to British law until the early 80's.
#220. To: war (#216)
Cite the appropiate Title, Chapter and Section of the US Code that supprts that legal decision.
#221. To: war (#219)
#222. To: bluegrass (#221)
You missed this:
#223. To: bluegrass (#220)
Are you also looking for chapter and verse from a court that it's daytime when the sun shines? Do you need someone to show you how to wipe your bum too?
#224. To: war (#222)
Wha...huh?
#225. To: war (#223)
Just the law as is applicable to support your argument will suffice.
#226. To: bluegrass (#224)
My point was that regardless of what's said, US law tacitly recognizes dual citizenship by virtue of that paragraph.
#227. To: war (#226)
#228. To: bluegrass (#225)
The law is the US Constitution.
#229. To: bluegrass (#227)
So you're agreeing that Obama was born a dual citizen?
#230. To: bluegrass (#205)
#231. To: war (#229)
#232. To: bluegrass (#231)
BTW, was McCain a natural born citizen?
#233. To: war (#230)
Do you have any proof that Obama's birth was registered at a British consulate within one year of his birth?
.
.
.