Re: SWALLOW their "legal" BS, BUY their DVDs
Bob is MISSING the simple FACT that BRITISH law would have had NO AFFECT on Obama’s American CITIZENSHIP, which is based on AMERICAN law.
7 FAM 081 SUMMARY
a. Dual nationality is the simultaneous possession of two citizenships.
b. Dual nationality results from the fact that there is no uniform rule of international law relating to the acquisition of nationality. Each country has its own laws on the subject and confers its nationality on individuals on the basis of its national policy and law. For example, the laws of some countries provide for automatic acquisition of citizenship at birth or through marriage. Some persons born in the United States may be surprised to learn that they also possess derivative nationality of another country through a grandparent. Today, it is not uncommon for individuals to possess not just dual nationality, but multiple nationalities. While dual nationality can provide the individual with many benefits, such as the ability to work freely in the other country, it can also impose burdens, including military service, taxes, etc.
c. If you receive inquiries about dual nationality, you may refer the inquirer to our brochures on this subject, Dual Nationality and Advice About Possible Loss of U.S. Citizenship and Dual Nationality, which are available on the Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs Internet page.
d. International law recognizes that each country determines who is a national of that country.
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
The SUPPOSED “parentage” requirement of the SUPPOSED “natural born citizen” argument was MANUFACTURED BS that has NO basis in law.
“Leading up to the 2008 Presidential Election and in the ensuing months after, a number of lawsuits were filed nationwide challenging both President Barack Obama and Senator John McCain‟s10 status as “natural born Citizens” under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. See, e.g., Berg v. Obama, 574 F. Supp. 2d 509 (E.D. Pa. 2008); Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D.N.H. 2008); Cohen v. Obama, No. 08-2150, 2008 WL 5191864 (D.D.C. Dec. 11, 2008), aff‟d by 2009 WL 2870668 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 8, 2009); Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, 958 A.2d 709 ( Conn. 2008). As to President Obama‟s status, the most common argument has been waged by members of the so-called “birther” movement who suggest that the President was not born in the United States; they support their argument by pointing to “the President‟s alleged refusal to disclose publicly an “official birth certificate‟ that is satisfactory to [the birthers].” Rhodes v. MacDonald, No. 4:09-CV-106, 2009 WL 2997605, at *1 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 16, 2009), reconsideration denied by 2009 WL 3111834 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 18, 2009).
The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on constitutional interpretation. Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs‟ argument is that “[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there‟s a very clear distinction between a „citizen of the United States‟ and a natural born Citizen,‟ and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.” Appellants‟ Brief at 23. With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom , President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President.
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark , we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”15
The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs' arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Irish, 864 N.E.2d at 1120. Thus, we cannot say that the trial court erred when it dismissed the Plaintiffs case. 16 See generally McCalment v. Eli Lilly & Co., 860 N.E.2d 884 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (holding that the plaintiffs‟ arguments had been sufficiently addressed by Indiana Supreme Court precedent and therefore the trial court did not err when it granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted); see also, e.g., Diaz-Salazar v. I.N.S., 700 F.2d 1156, 1160 (7th Cir. 1983) (noting in its recitation of the facts that despite the fact father was not a citizen of the United States, he had children who were “natural-born citizens of the United States”), cert. denied 462 U.S. 1132, 103 S. Ct. 3112 (1983).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's grant of the Governor's motion to dismiss.
STEVE ANKENY AND BILL KRUSE V. GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF INDIANA , No. 49A02-0904-CV-353, IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA , November 12, 2009
Anyone born in the United States is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, even the children of ILLEGAL ALIENS.
"Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. The Immigration and Naturalization Service moved to deport him in September of 1980, and at an October hearing he was granted voluntary deportation within 90 days. Diaz-Salazar appealed the decision to deport him to the Board of Immigration Appeals and requested a joint hearing with the woman whom he considered to be his common-law wife.
The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago ; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States ."
Diaz-Salazar v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 700 F2d 1156 (1983)
"The United States is one of the few industrialized countries in the world that grants automatic citizenship to nearly every child bom in the country, even the children of illegal immigrants. For instance, England , the originator of this practice, reversed course 14 years ago. Canada is currently considering doing the same. Is it time for us to reconsider our policy of granting birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens? That is the question we will address today.
I know this is a sensitive issue. Afterall, our birthright citizenship policy is anchored in the first section of the 14th amendment to the Constitution which states, "All persons bom in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States ." It was written after the Civil War to guarantee citizenship to those formerly held in bondage and to their descendants."
SOCIETAL AND LEGAL ISSUES SURROUNDING CHILDREN BORN IN THE UNITED STATES TO ILLEGAL ALIEN PARENTS, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1995, House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Immigration AND Claims, Jointly with the Subcommittee ON THE Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington , DC .
Patrick in California
Founder, ALLIANCE for PEACE & PROSPERITY
"It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin' on ya is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so." -- Uncle Remus
--- In email@example.com , BOB GREGORY <rhgusn@...> wrote:
> *There is a lot of good research in the previous message. But most of it
> deals with U.S. law.
> Think about this for a minute. We all seem to easily accept the idea that a
> child born of two American parents in a foreign country is an American. We
> understand that a child born of one American parent and one foreign parent
> is an American if the American parent meets certain requirements about
> having actually lived in the United States . SO WHAT IS SO HARD about
> believing than other countries can have similar laws? Great Britain DID
> have such a law at the time of Obama's birth and DOES have such a law now.
> In British law it is called BRITISH CITIZENSHIP BY DESCENT. This follows
> the Roman principle of "jus sanguinis." So just as my son, though born in
> France , did not acquire French citizenship, a child of a Briton born in the
> U.S. can automatically be a British Citizen and NOT automatically be an
> American citizen.
> The British law in effect in 1961 was the British Nationality Act of 1948.
> Under it, married male citizens of the United Kingdom and British colonies
> automatically passed British citizenship to their children. So, at the very
> best, we have two laws butting heads. As an American, if you had a child
> born in England , France , Germany or wherever and you were a U.S. citizen,
> you would probably not take kindly to the foreign nation unilaterally
> deciding that your child was not American because you would know that jus
> sanguinis applied. It can't work one way for Americans and another way for
> the British.*
- At 10-0720 02:17 am, you wrote:
FACT: The United States concluded the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty in 1903 under Theodore Roosevelt's administration, whereby the new Republic of Panama (Clue) conveyed to the United States "in perpetuity" the ten mile wide strip across the isthmus of Panama for construction of a canal.
Article 3 of the treaty grants all the "(described) rights, power, and authority ... which the United States would possess and exercise if it were the sovereign of the territory ...."
Actual ownership of the Zone's land area appears to have remained with Panama.
- It was rumored early in the announcement of his candidacy that McCain was born off base in the local hospital at the time his father was stationed in Panama.
- Re: "Article 3 of the treaty grants all the "(described) rights, power, and authority ... which the United States would possess and exercise if it were the sovereign of the territory ...."
Actual ownership of the Zone's land area appears to have remained with Panama."
Newsflash: That dog don't hunt!
Apparently some will go to any length, or in this case shortcut, in an attempt to bend reality to match their preconceived / ill conceived notions.
FACT: Article III is a whopping ONE WHOLE PARAGRAPH !
(FYI: It is a grossly popular and simple technique whereby those who disseminate propaganda and/or disinformation take a snippet OUT OF CONTEXT to support their assertions, whereas to leave such intact and show such its entirety, the truth of the matter would become self evident!)
Since apparently no expertise in either U.S. Geopolitical History (ala Monroe Doctrine), Treaty or Contract Law, Context, or perhaps even Commonsense 101 could manifest in such a brief response, so as to remove any doubts, or subsequent lame a**ed assertions, let's simply get everyone herein up to speed.
First the Back Story:
FACT: Since 1821 the Territory known as the isthmus was Part of Columbia;
FACT: The People of the isthmus made several failed attempts to secede from Columbia, the last attempt was the Thousand Days War (1899-1902)
FACT: When the Senate of Columbia rejected the Hay-Herran Treaty in 1902, the U.S. Congress (as is later stated in the Hay-Banau-Varrilla Treaty)
passed an act approved on June 28, 1902, by which the President of the United States is authorized to acquire control of (ie SIEZE) the necessary territory (i.e. the ENTIRE area of the isthmus which would thus become the Republic of Panama) of the Republic of Colombia, and the sovereignty of such territory (i.e. isthmus/Republic of Panama) being actually vested in the Republic of Panama,
FACT: It WAS the Military POWER of the United States ALONE, which was chiefly responsible for enabling / creating the hatchling Republic of Panama to break away/secede from what was previously sovereign territory of Columbia in November 1903
Does everybody Get That Now?
FACT: The Republic of Panama ITSELF WOULD NOT EVEN EXIST TODAY, if not because of the effort and expense of the United States of America to bring the Republic of Panama into existence.
ERGO, when the newly formed Republic of Panama proclaimed its "independence" from the backbone of the U.S.A. in November 1903, Panama's FIRST Official Act, Right Then & There was the Hay-Banau-Varilla Treaty with the U.S. and explains the necessity, and LOGIC, behind the very FIRST Article of Same. To Wit:
(EMPHASIS ADDED, MINE)
"The United States GUARANTEES AND WILL MAINTAIN THE INDEPENDENCE of the Republic of Panama."
(i.e. Commonsense 101, as otherwise Columbia would otherwise have laughed at such proclamation of independence, and would have once again merely sent their troops to suppress the insurrection/rebellion)
The newly formed Republic of Panama's gratitude or "consideration" to the U.S. for bringing about their very existence, becomes patently apparent under Art. II specifically @:
"The Republic of Panama grants to the United States in perpetuity the use, occupation and control of a zone of land and land under water for the construction maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of said Canal of the width of ten miles extending to the distance of five miles on each side of the center line of the route of the Canal to be constructed; "
Such is further CLARIFIED and explicitly expressed under Article III, To Wit: (In its Entirety with EMPHASIS ADDED, MINE)
"The Republic of Panama GRANTS TO THE UNITED STATES ALL THE RIGHTS, POWER AND AUTHORITY WITHIN THE ZONR MENTIONED AND DESCRIBED IN ARTICLE II OF THIS AGREEMENT and within the limits of all auxiliary lands and waters mentioned and described in said Article II WHICH THE UNITED STATES WOULD POSSESS AND EXERCISE IF IT WERE THE SOVEREIGN OF THE TERRITORY within which said lands and waters are located TO THE ENTIRE EXCLUSION OF THE EXERCISE BY THE REPUBLIC OF PANAMA OF ANY SUCH SOVEREIGN RIGHTS, POWER OR AUTHORITY."
i.e. Again, Commonsense 101 - The fledgling Republic of Panama, being 100% dependent on the military might of the U.S. for its very existence and survival, and the Fact that this (U.S.) Canal Zone ran right through the middle if Panama, dissecting it in half, therefore Panama gave to the U.S., and SOLELY to the U.S. alone, the Non-Transferable Sovereignty of this Canal Zone, "to the entire exclusion of the exercise by the Republic of Panama of any such sovereign rights, power or authority."
i.e. 1) If the U.S. did not follow through with its plans and actually build the Canal, then NO DEAL (Keep in mind that previously both Great Britain as well as France began to construct a canal across the isthmus, only to eventually abandon their efforts)
2) Just as Our own Constitution does not grant any power to either of Our three branches of federal gov't, to re-delegate any of the powers and/or authorities specifically granted to such by same, (Separation of Powers doctrine) Article III of the Hay-Banau-Varilla Treaty made it expressly clear that the U.S. could NOT Sell, Assign. or otherwise Re-Delegate its exclusive Sovereign Right, Powers & Authority Interests over the Canal Zone to ANY OTHER Nation, or Private Party/Parties in the World, who could subsequently use such to "divide and conquer" the Republic of Panama! (DUH!)
(Entire Hay-Banau-Varilla Treaty @ http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/pan001.asp )
Now, to bring everyone up to Present Day,
FACTS: The Carter-Torrijos Treaty which purportedly returns the U.S. Canal Zone (Much to the delight of the World's Marxist Central Banksters) to the Republic of Panama is TOTALLY NULL & VOID!
1) First off, the DeConcini Reservation contained therein which was approved by the U.S. Senate, was unacceptable to General Torrijos. So being the Globalist / Marxist Puppet in Chief that he actually was and still is, "Jimmy the Weasel" Carter allowed Gen. Torrijos to have a secret counter-reservation that was never submitted to the U.S. Senate, therefore the Treaty signed by Torrijos is radically different from the one ratified by the U.S. Senate, ergo making such Treaty/Treaties automatically Null & Void.
2) However, even if the EXACT Same Treaty were to have been signed by Mr. Peanut and Gen Torrijos, nevertheless STILL the Treaty would be Null & Void!
Now, are there any U.S. Constitution scholars herein who can state WHY such would be, and IS the FACT of the Matter?
Here is your Clue: U.S. Constitution Article IV Sec 3 Clause 2
Oh, and just FYI:
May the warm and fuzzy, Clueless Ignorance permit the American Sheople to sleep comfortably every night, in spite of the Fact that the Communist Chinese Army's front companies and corporations ( Panama Ports Company; Hutchinson-Whampoa; COSCO; etc.,) have already established a beachhead, a mere nine hundred miles from Our southern Border, and have acquired Control of the ports of Cristobal on the Atlantic end, and Balboa on the Pacific end, of the Canal Zone, which coincidentally just happens to be the most strategic waterway in this hemisphere, as well as acquiring Control of the U.S. built Rodman Naval Base, giving the Communist Chinese a virtual monopoly on the Pacific side.
And even if the Traitors in D.C. cannot get their Super (Easy To Divide & Conquer America) Highway built on Schedule, no matter, that OTHER Marxist Puppet in Chief, Slick Willie Clinton sealed Our Fate in Chinagate by illegally transferring Military Secrets via GM Hughes and Loral Space thus allowing the Communist Chinese to equip all of their intermediate range Nuclear Missiles sitting in those Container Ports in the Canal Zone which are now under their exclusive Control, with Multiple Warhead MIRV Technology and PIN POINT ACCURACY!
And Gee, with all of the fuss over the Mexicans illegally invading Our Country, Our Lame Stream Media apparently does not have the Time, or perhaps the desire, to cause Us further Stress by reporting on all of those Cases of illegal entry by the Communist Chinese! Too Bad.
Ignorance is BLISS, until it Kills You!
Do have a Great Day! It could very easily be your last!
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of
civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.
Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be
their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which
James Madison, U.S. President and primary Author of the Federalist
Papers. Letter to W.T. Barry, August 4, 1822.
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
Leviticus 19:36; Deuteronomy 25:15-16
I John 4:6
Wisdom is the principal thing; Therefore get wisdom. And in all your
getting, Get understanding. Proverbs 4:7
All Rights Reserved
It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a
prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty
to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude
is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his
guilt. John Philpot Curran (1750-1817)
Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have
found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be
imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted
with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are
prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.
Frederick Douglass, "If There Is No Struggle, There Is No Progress"
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, vze4bqdp@... wrote:
<Non gradus anus rodentum deleted>