Legal suit questions the citizenship of Obama

Two things for sure, the horse will be absolutely dead and dust free by the time they get done with this beating...

 

Again, as long as this is an unsettled issue before a US court it is not a "dead horse" being beaten.

 

It's not about the birth certificate - or where he was born.

If he was adopted by his step father in Indonesia then he lost his U.S citizenship because Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship. At the time of adoption he would have become an Indonesian citizen.

Obama would have had to reapply for U.S citizenship upon turning 18 years of age. Which is something that he appears not to have done.

 

I'm still not sure who's beating this horse, the PA judge, or us ?

And I'm starting to think this horse may not be dead, anyway. Why is this judge, from Blue State Nightmare PA. pushing this ?

 

Can you document where adoption deprives one of citizenship in their nation of birth please?

 

1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

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;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

 

Nationality Act of 1940, Section 317(b). A minor child follows the naturalization and citizenship status of their custodial parent.

 

Here are the facts to date concerning the case (directly from Philip J. Berg's website): http://www.obamacrimes.com/

 

Contrary to what people might think, this "little" story has HUGE implications. The office of the President of the United States has been in jeopardy for a very long time now; and if Obama is elected, and then it turns out that his citizenship is not valid, our entire country will be thrown into a turmoil.

The economy is bad now; consider what will happen if such a thing were to come to light, and we were suddenly without a president or vice-president because of an invalid election.

Consider the implication to the Democratic Party if it turns out they backed and helped elect an ineligible candidate....

The best thing Obama could do is provide the documents and thus have the case thrown out as frivolous...so why isn't he?

 

For Roger:

http://www.americanpatrol.com/MISCN...AMA/OctSurpriseVideo081012.html?v=gA6_k3NtXZs

:flower:

 

Michelle admits Barack Hussein is naturalized citizen

Can this be real?

http://africanpress.wordpress.com/2...riotic-she-asks-on-a-direct-telephone-to-api/

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78259

If this IS ligit, then Barack Hussein must step aside.

 

Actually, it could mean that he's not even an American right now if he never re-applied when he moved back to Hawaii.

 

From a site named "obama crimes dot com"... :laugh: :wavey:

I appreciate the laugh... :thumbs:

 

Look right under the clip...

This episode is brought to you by:
www.nohussein.org
www.obamacrimes.com

There goes that obama crimes dot com site again... I am sure they're nonpartisan. :thumbs:

About as nonpartisan as no hussein dot org...

 

The site belongs to Philip J. Berg the lawyer that brought the case against BHO to the PA Court. He has the latest updates regarding the case posted on the site. I can't help what he named the site. Laugh all you want but if you want the most up-to-date info regarding the case Berg's website is the best source.

 

Who is Loran Baxter? I thought Al Gore invented the internet.

 

Did you bother to look at the info posted on Berg's http://www.obamacrimes.com before you started attacking the site? All I saw there (on the opening page) were copies of the legal briefs submitted to the PA Court, along with Berg's legal response to BHO's/DNC's request to dismiss, and any action (or lack thereof) taken by the PA Court. But please don't let me keep you from putting your foot in your mouth.:tonofbricks:

 

Before you get all excited about what Factcheck has to say you better read this:

Source: http://www.obamacrimes.com/index.ph...-main/21-factcheckorg-credibility-in-question

 

No it couldn't. As a natural born (Hawaii) citizen, Obama's citizenship could not be taken away simply by being adopted.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroyim_v._Rusk


Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)[1], was a United States Supreme Court decision that set an important legal precedent that a United States citizen cannot be deprived of American citizenship involuntarily.

The decision had the following effects:

* No one who had become a U.S. citizen through birth in the United States or through naturalization could have citizenship taken away without consent. However, the question of how such consent might be indicated remained somewhat open. Until a later case — Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980) — was decided by the Supreme Court, the U.S. government continued to hold to the view that intentionally performing an action which Congress had designated as expatriating (i.e., citizenship-losing) could be interpreted as clear evidence of consent to lose U.S. citizenship.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Loss of citizenship

As a historical matter, U.S. citizenship could be forfeited upon the undertaking of various acts, including naturalization in a foreign state, service in foreign armed forces, and voting in a foreign political election (with a few exceptions, such as municipal and local elections as opposed to presidential and other national elections). However, a line of U.S. Supreme Court decisions beginning with Afroyim v. Rusk constitutionally limited the government's capacity to terminate citizenship to those cases in which an individual engaged in conduct with an intention of abandoning their citizenship. In the wake of administrative practice changes adopted by the U.S. Department of State during the mid 1990s, it is now virtually impossible to lose one's citizenship without expressly renouncing it before a U.S. consular officer.[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law

 

Again, a guy name his site Obama Crimes? The same guy who decided we don't trust his birth certificates so lets file a law suite. You want to push this as a non-biased factual site? Go ahead, not even McCain is questioning his citizenship.