On February 2, the California Supreme Court refused to hear Keyes v Bowen, 188724, the case that argued the Secretary of State must investigate whether a presidential candidate meets the qualifications to be president, before listing him or her on the ballot. The case had been brought by (America’s Independent Party Presidential Candidate) Alan Keyes in 2008. Keyes plans to ask for U.S. Supreme Court review of this case.
The California Court of Appeals decision in this case will now stand. On October 25, 2010, the Court of Appeals had ruled that if a qualified party certifies a presidential nominee, the Secretary of State must list him or her on the November ballot. The decision says, “Section 6041 gives the Secretary of State some discretion in determining whether to place a name on the primary ballot, but she has no such discretion for the general election ballot…with respect to general elections, section 6901 directs that the Secretary of State must place on the ballot the names of the several political parties’ candidates.” The word “must” is in italics.
The Court of Appeals decision acknowledges that in 1968, California Secretary of State Frank Jordan refused to list the Peace & Freedom Party’s presidential nominee on the November ballot. That candidate was Eldridge Cleaver, and he was only 33 years old at the time. The decision, in effect, says the Secretary of State in 1968 should have listed Cleaver.
Whatever wrote: “If I am wrong, Paulie, can you explain why Jay & Washington changed Hamilton’s draft?
What is the difference between someone who is “born a citizen” and a “natural born citizen”?
Response:
The problem with Hamilton’s “born a citizen” phrase was that at the time of the adoption of the Constitution it was presumed by the drafters of the Constitution that State citizenship was primary and federal citizenship derivative . Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366, 377 (1918)(“. It is said, however, that since under the Constitution as originally framed state citizenship was primary and United States citizenship but derivative and dependent thereon”).
This presumption of State citizenship’s primacy was reaffirmed by Chief Justice Taney in the Dred Scott decision when he wrote: “Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges [of citizenship] by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393, 405 (1857)
In other words, Justice Taney believed that national citizenship is dependent upon state citizenship and that each state has the right to confer rights and privileges of citizenship upon whoever the state wishes.
By changing the language to “No Person except a natural born Citizen”, the drafters of the Constitution ensured that the term “natural born Citizen” with its common law meaning would be embodied in the document and it would take a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to change its common law definition and thereby taking the right to define a citizen away from EACH STATE’S legislature.
RedPhillis
Obama was not born in Kenya if you mean # II. If you mean # 1 then the answer is yes. Being
born in Kenya in 1936 circa could make a
person a national of Zanzibar.
Get off Kenya it is a red herring to misdirect one
from Zanzibar.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
He might be hiding something. If so, i don’t think it’s where he was born. Or, he might want his opponents chasing their tails over a silly non-issue that makes them look stupid and insane instead of concentrating on the many reasons why he is a terrible president.
I have always said this is not going to be settled in the courts. No judge is going to risk ridicule and his career with this hot potato. He will do whatever he can to get this off his plate.
Getting to the bottom of this is the job of our deliberately incurious press.
Again, I don’t think Obama was born in Kenya. I do think he should authorize the release of his long form birth certificate, and the fact that he won’t understandably makes people curious as to why he won’t. I think it is quite possible, although certainly not certain, that he is hiding something.
Mr. Seidenberg, can you give me the names of the two AIP office-holders?
I have read these sites before.
Read them again. There’s a lot there.
Paulie
I have read these sites before. They do not conform with the true facts.
During the campaign in 2008, Obama’s high school teacher came forward and lied that
she heard of his birth at a dinner at the Outridgger Canoe Club in Waikiki. I believe
she was one of the many plants that came forward to cover that he was born on Mombasa
Island.
I too am an alumni of the University of Hawaii
(1970) and a former home owner in Waikiki.
The Outrigger Canoe Club was next door to the
Elks Club in Diamond Head, not in Waikiki.
Therefore, she lied and that lie a truck could
drive through. Obama first arrived in Honolulu
in June, 1962. He should know where the
Elks Club and the Outrigger Canoe Club are located in Diamond Head.
Obama’s spin doctors can not tell the truth.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg,
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Canue
Refer to answer above in #56
paulie
If you would read the above. Then how can you
explain the case of Ludwig Hausdling.
The Case of Ludwig Hausdling.
In 1885 United States Secretary of State Frelinguysen gave his opinion at 2 Wharton’s
Digest 319 about Sectrion 1992 & 1993 of the
Revised Statues of the United States relating
to the case of Ludwig Hausdling.
“fact of birth, under circumstance, implying
alien subjection, establishes of itself no right
of citizenship”.
In the case of Barack H. Obama II who was as a person upon his birth on August 4, 1961, was under “alien subjection” of the Sultan of Zanizbar.
Under the laws of Zanizbar, at the time of his
birth, Barack H. Obama was a national of the
Sultanate of Zanzibar. He Barack H. Obama II
did not lose that Subject status when he became
an adult.
If he was a citizen of Kenya and did nothing when
he became 23 years of age, Obama would have lost the dual citizenship states if he had another
country he was citizen of. If not the Hague Convention of Nationality of 1930 would apply.
This is way Barack H. Obama came up with the
line. “I have lost my dual citizenship (Kenya Citizenship), to keep people from looking at
his citizenship/subject status more closely.
It wound work, Too many people can see through the lies of Barack H. Obama II and
also the lies of John S, McCain III.
Both are illegal aliens!
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg,
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Why would I be reading books about this? Refer to my previous answer.
Paulie
My suggestion is you should read the following book by Wolfgang J. Mommsen & Stig Forster.
BISMARCK, EUROPE, AFRICA: The Berlin Africa Conference 1884 – 1885 and the Onset of
Partition.
This book would give you background as to why
Barack H. Obama I was able to get the British
Goverment to issue his 1959 Protected Persons
Passport as a national of the Sultanate of Zanibar
while being born in Kenya.
As a side note Henry Morgan Stanley and the Russian Minister to the Conference came to an
agreement that Mombasa Island was excluded
from “sphere of influence” and to remain with
the Sultan of Zanzibar. This was because the
Sultan of Zanzibar was excluded from the 14
goverments invited to the Conference in 1884.
I read this 15 years before Mommsen & Forster
wrote the above book. In 1974 when the United
States Goverment started talks with the Soviet
Union on the Status of Wrangell Island (sometime given as Wrangel Island of the
Arctic Ocean) at a meeting in Anchorage, Alaska,
the issue of Henry Morton Stanley talk with the
Russian Minister came anew over the missing
George Washington DeLong and the 1884 Organic Act of Alaska, viz., Wrangell Island,
Herald Island, and the Three DeLong islands
being added to Alaska as “territory known as
Alaska”.
This related to the meeting between Stanley,
Bennett, and Mr. & Mrs. U. S. Grant over the
loss of DeLong in the Arctic, viz., Henry M. Stanley offer to find DeLong as he found Livingston.
Remember also that the Russian current
claims in the Arctic is based on the sovereignty
over Bennett Island. However, Bennett Island
was included in Alaska in 1884.
At the Law of the Sea Conference in Greenland
in 2008, I raised these issues anew with Mr.
Negroponte (number 2 at the U.S. Department of State) after a line dance at the Hotel Arctic.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg,
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
@ 55 Apparently you are not capable of scrolling up so I’ll have to paste my answer again.
The executive summary is
1) Your questions and arguments have already been addressed at the links I already gave you, which I will now give you again.
2) I have other things to do and I consider this issue to be an idiotic distraction for the reasons I already explained (more than once!)
3) There is no point in me running back and forth giving you the answers when you can just as easily go there yourself and read them
4) You really should get a more meaningful hobby.
Here is the long version once again for those of you who have trouble with the scroll bar, with apologies to those that don’t have that particular problem.
Anyway, this discussion is redundant: just explore the links PAC posted at #9
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/, http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/, http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/,
http://badfiction.typepad.com/ , http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/ , http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/
Read everything on those sites – that is, open up each article and read the full thing, not just what appears on the front page. And bear in mind that older posts go back for multiple pages; read all the old posts in full as well.
Then, if there are still any questions, perhaps we can discuss the issue at that point.
Although, really, why bother?
Bush was not any more loyal to the constitution just because no one claims he was born in another country (that I know of). Clinton was not loyal to the constitution either, even though he didn’t steal two elections to get into office as shrub did. Bush Sr. was not loyal to the constitution, even though he did not lie about oral sex in the white house and obstruct investigations, etc.
All of these people are disloyal to the ideas on which America is based.
The idea that being native born, or natural born however you wish to define it, makes someone a more loyal American and more fit for office has been disproven by the available evidence from real life.
If anything, that clause should be amended out of the constitution.
While it is still in place, I favor the broader interpretation under which you would be qualified for the presidency, but I would not.
If I am wrong, Paulie, can you explain why Jay & Washington changed Hamilton’s draft?
What is the difference between someone who is “born a citizen” and a “natural born citizen”?
How does the requirement for a “natural born citizen” provide a stronger check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government than a “born a citizen”?
Those are the questions you have to answer to have a cogent argument. Making bald assertions and posting links to irrelevant anti-American propaganda doesn’t prove anything.
Put up or shut up.
See the cited sources to see why you’re wrong.
Born in the US = natural born citizen
Incorrect. Although one may be naturalized at birth under a statutory law passed by Congress as per the Constitution’s Article I, Section 8; a natural born citizen must be born to an American father (or if he be born a bastard, an American mother.)
(Monarchist, Euro-symp) Hamilton’s draft wanted the weaker requirement that the President merely be “born a citizen,” but Jay and Washington changed it to “natural born Citizen” in order “to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government.”
Under natural law (i.e. the “Laws of Nature and (of) Nature’s God,”) the condition of the child follows from the condition of the father, from the parents. Hence, a “natural born Citizen.”
Hope this helps.
don lake // Feb 11, 2011:
Refer to sources cited in my previous comment, which address “dual citizenship” and all other birther claims at great length and detail.
………. I have better things to do, especially with the nation of MY BIRTH literally falling apart.
#38 Mark Seidenberg // Feb 9, 2011:
“…….. look at issues that Chelene Nightingale made. No wonder the AIP Convention and AIP State Central Committee wanted nothing to do with
her race for Governor of California …………”
per as early as August 2009 ………
Doesn’t matter. See #45.
Paulie
I have some type of error in the above URL. I will try to give correct website below.
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2010/05/08/dual-citizenship-usurper/
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Refer to sources cited in my previous comment, which address “dual citizenship” and all other birther claims at great length and detail.
I have better things to do.
My fellow former military officer, academy man whore Mac Insane, whom I literally despise, was NOT born in the USA, an American military base, or a USA embassy / consulate ……
If you ever find your self shaking hands with this crumb bum, be sure to wash them thoroughly after wards ……..
Paulie,
I came across this article. Please read it. Then give your comments.
http://www.doctorbulldogwordpress.com/2010/05/08/dual-citizens-usurper/
It is an article from Doctor Bulldog & Ronin of
May 8, 2010. Entitled: “DUAL CITIZENS = PRESIDENCY – ARROGATED .
It fact are in error, but the laws issues are correct, but based on the wrong facts. The
facts are that Barack H. Obama I obtained
his British Protected Persons Passport in
1959, he claimed to be a subject of the Sultan
of Zanzibar, thereby entering the United States
as an alien with the nationality of Zanzibari.
That is why it stated Barack H. Obama was an
ARAB on his passport, viz., a Subject of an
Arab Sultan (Zanzibar National) under British
Protection. {This was explained to me over two
telecoms with the Home Office in London in
2008 while doing research for Keyes v, Bowen.}
I am aware that the use of the word ARAB on
Obama’s Passport got people thinking Obama
was an Arab by race. That was just because
the British Govenment was trying to show that
Barack H. Obama I was a person born in Kenya
but was a national of Zanzibar Sultanate.
That is like persons born in Western Canada and
claim United States Citizenship under the Garfield Act of 1872 or persons born in the
Republic of Panama and claiming collective
naturalization as United States Citizens under
the Act of August 4, 1937 (Section 2).
As a side note even though John S. McCain III
had a United States Citizen mother and a putitive
United States Citizen father, viz., John S. McCain
II who at the time of so-called “Senator” McCain’s birth on August 29, 1936 in the Colon
Hospital (owned at that time by the Panama Rail
Road Company) was not part of the class for
collective naturalization.
Reason, the McCain and Wright never had a lawful marriage in TJ at Ceasar Bar in Baja California, Mexico in January, 1933. Because
all marriages in Baja California had to be at
offices of the Civil Registry. Bars are not the
location allowed under Baja California law.
This issue of sham marriage became well known
in 1978, when Ike and Tina Turner tried to end
there sham marriage from TJ.
At no time did John McCain II with Roberta Wright (John S. McCain III’s mother) go to the only court in the world that could have given John S, McCain acknowledgement by his putitive father, prior to his 21st birthday. That court was in Panama City, Republic of Panama.
Because the United States Government ratified
the Hague Convention on Nationality of 1930
(in 1937), which was also ratified by Mexico and
Panama, Roberta Wright could be the only source that John McCain III has to be included
in the class of persons cover by Section 2 of the
Collective Republic of Panama Naturalization Act of August 4, 1937, and thereby become a
naturalized United States Citizen.
However, this Act of August 4, 1937, required
Roberta Wright to be either employed on
August 29, 1936 as a employee of the United
States Government or the Panama Railroad
Company or its successor, for United States
Citizenship to attach to John S. McCain III.
According to John McCain III’s birth certificate
which was provided by the President of the
Panama Railroad Company from the records
of the Colon Hospital (which that Railroad
owned) in ROBINSON v. McCAIN in 2008,
Roberta Wright was not employed by either
the United States Government or the Panama
Railroad Company.
What did this make John S. McCain III, viz.,
he was not a citizen of United States and he
was born out of wedlock. Also he was a native
born citizen of the Republic of Panama who
did not make a lawful entry in to the United
States with his mother in December, 1936.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
bor
Totally irrelevant whether he was born in legal wedlock or not. Born in the US = natural born citizen, regardless of anything else.
Anyway, this discussion is redundant: just explore the links PAC posted at #9
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/, http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/, http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/,
http://badfiction.typepad.com/ , http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/ , http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/
Read everything on those sites – that is, open up each article and read the full thing, not just what appears on the front page. And bear in mind that older posts go back for multiple pages; read all the old posts in full as well.
Then, if there are still any questions, perhaps we can discuss the issue at that point.
Although, really, why bother?
Bush was not any more loyal to the constitution just because no one claims he was born in another country (that I know of). Clinton was not loyal to the constitution either, even though he didn’t steal two elections to get into office as shrub did. Bush Sr. was not loyal to the constitution, even though he did not lie about oral sex in the white house and obstruct investigations, etc.
All of these people are disloyal to the ideas on which America is based.
The idea that being native born, or natural born however you wish to define it, makes someone a more loyal American and more fit for office has been disproven by the available evidence from real life.
If anything, that clause should be amended out of the constitution.
While it is still in place, I favor the broader interpretation under which you would be qualified for the presidency, but I would not.
Paulie
Barack H. Obama I was a bigomist under the laws
of Hawaii when he married Stanley Ann Dunham
in 1961. That issue could also have a legal effect
because it could show the Barack H. Obama II was born out of legal wedlock and the Hague
Convention on Nationality of 1930 could have
a legal effect on citizenship and subject status
under the laws of Zanzibar in effect on August 4,
1961.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
can you provide an exact quote and page number?
There are no such requirements. “Dual citizens” can be natural born citizens. Again, refer to the sites I already posted. They discuss that in a lot of detail.
And, I have yet to see actual evidence that Obama is or ever was a dual citizen, not that it would matter.
Nor have I seen any evidence, or even anything that would make me take seriously the possibility that Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii, USA.
The links are already posted by me in this thread. Reading is fundamental.
Paulie
Read the article by George Neumayr in American Spectator entitled: “Neocolonial Dreams From Obama’s Mother”. 9/16/2010.
Barack Obama’s claimed in his book DREAMS OF MY FATHER that he lost his duel Kenyan
Citizenship, because the laws of Kenya did not
allow adults to be dual citizens. However, there
was no where in the Constitution of Kenya that
Obama could claim Kenya Citizenship because
his father entered the United States under a
British Protected Persons Passport that stated
he was a Subject of a Arab Sultan under British
Protection, viz., the Sultan of Zanzibar,
I am informed that former President of Tanzania
Ali Hassan Mwinyi was issued the same type of
British Protected Persons Passport showing he
was a Subject of the Sultan of Zanzibar because
of the status of his paternal grandfather, viz.
a Subject of an Arab Sultan under British Protection.
Obama at birth was and still is a Subject of foreign Arab Sultan. Therefore, he has a
duel loyalty and would not met the requirements of being a Natural Born Citizen
even if he was Native Born.
However, Obama was born on Mombasa Island
in the Indian Ocean and departed with his mother on the ninth day after birth aboard the
SS Uganda for England.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg,
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
@ 40 Incorrect.
See the websites previously cited. Any child born in the US, regardless of the citizenship status of either or both parents, is a natural born citizen of the US.
Nor have I seen any evidence that Obama ever claimed was ever a dual citizen of Kenya, not that that would even matter.
Again, look through the websites I already cited. Everything you are claiming is refuted there in a lot of detail.
Paulie
In order to clearly explain the legal status of non-United States Citizen Barack H. Obama II,
one need to understand the law in effect on
August 4, 1961 his date of birth.
On 24 December 1952, the Immigration and
Natioality Act of 1952, became effective.
In the case of a child born to one U.S. Citizen
parent and one alien parent (not in the Republic
of Panama) , the U.S. Parant now had to be physically present in the United States or its
outlying possessions (viz., American Samoa or
Olohega Island) prior to the childs birth 10 years, at least 5 years of which were after the
age of 14.
When Barack Obama was born his mother was only 18 years of age and his alien father who was
a Subject of the Sultan of Zanzibar with # 1
wife and 2 children in Kenya. Barack H. Obama
claims he lost his Kenya Citizenship on August 4,
1982 or in the alternative August 4, 1984. neither of those dates are correct since he had
no Kenya Citizenship to lose, because he was
a Subject of the Sultan of Zanzibar on his birth,
viz., August 4, 1961. I read the Kenya
Constitution and found no way that Obama met
the Cizienship requirement of the Government
of Kenya.
This whole claim by Obama that he was a Dual
Citizen of Kenya is just a red herring. He was
trying to hide that he was a Subject of Sultan
of Zanzibar at the time of his birth on August 4,
1961.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg,
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
it is not just blondes,
That is true.
Paulie
As to your post #32 & #37, it is not just blondes,
look at issues that Chelene Nightingale made. No wonder the AIP Convention and AIP State Central Committee wanted nothing to do with
her race for Governor of California.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
American Independent Party
Miss South Carolina might be qualified to be a birther:
And here it is in context:
HERNANDEZ-GOMEZ: Senator Obama, you say you’re a Christian, but Ambassador Keyes said that your record runs counter to Jesus’ teachings. What’s your reaction to your opponent’s assertion that your own Lord and Savior wouldn’t even vote for you?
OBAMA: (laughs) Well, you know, my first reaction was, I actually wanted to find out who Mr. Keyes’ pollster was, because if I had the opportunity to talk to Jesus Christ, I’d be asking something much more important than this senate race. I’d want to know whether I was going up, or down–
(laughter)
OBAMA: –there are all sorts of questions, I think, that I’d be interested in.
Look, I’m very proud of my Christianity, and it sustains me and it’s part of what motivates me to get involved in public service. As I said before, I started in this town, in Chicago, organizing with churches, and the enormous faith and resilience and courage that was shown by persons of faith made all the difference in the world, in terms of setting up after-school programs for youth, or making sure that we have affordable housing in many communities that are having tough times all across this state.
But, what I don’t think is appropriate, as a public servant, is for me to assume my faith is absolute and to, therefore, presume that people who are of different faiths, and have different perspectives, are somehow evil, or wrong, or that I can’t have a dialogue with them and arrive at common ground.
MAGERS: Thank you very much. Mr. Keyes?
KEYES: But of course, the question involved here wasn’t people of different faiths, but people who profess the same faith, and that faith is faith in Jesus Christ. And the question, I think, that I would pose to the Lord is not whether I’m “going up” or “going down.” I want to know where He stands, so that I may follow Him.
I want to know where He stands with respect to the will of the Father, to Whom He looks. And on these questions, like abortion, He says the taking of innocent life is an abomination.
On these questions, like traditional marriage, He says He created us male and female, and that the wrong use of the body in this way is, again, as the Scripture says, an abomination. He defined marriage not as the union of man and man, or woman and woman, but as man and woman, and “the two become one flesh”–something that is possible only in the course of procreation.
So, when I look at where Christ stands, and I look at where Senator Obama stands, based upon that record of Christ’s understanding which we acknowledge as Christians to be the true record, I say, “Well, Christ is over here. Senator Obama’s over there. The two don’t look the same.”
And that means that I’m not thinking about Alan Keyes. I am thinking about the Lord.
And to say I don’t have the right to do that means that you’re trying to suggest that my faith-shaped conscience has no place in our politics. And yet, if I go into the voting booth or into public life without my faith-shaped conscience, then I have no conscience.
For, the Lord said I must love Him with my whole heart, soul, mind, and strength. There’s nothing left over. Without faith, there’s just a faith-shaped void where the conscience ought to be.
And I challenge all the voters of this state who profess to believe in Christ: “How can you vote from such a faith-shaped void?” Without the Lord, your vote will not be based upon that faith which ought to shape your life. And for anyone to suggest that you leave it behind–
MAGERS: (talking over) Thank you, sir.
KEYES: –at the door of the voting booth or public service, suggests something utterly incompatible with what the Lord ourself told us, Himself, rather, told us–
MAGERS: (talking over) Thank you, sir.
KEYES: –about the meaning of life.
MAGERS: Senator Obama, you have thirty seconds.
OBAMA: I don’t need Mr. Keyes lecturing me about Christianity. That’s why I have a pastor. That’s why I have my Bible. That’s why I have my own prayer. And I don’t think that any of you are particularly interested in having Mr. Keyes lecture you about your faith.
What you’re interested in is solving problems like jobs, and health care, and education. I’m not running to be the minister of Illinois. I’m running to be its United States Senator.
3 debates:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/184058-1
10/21/04
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/184143-1
10/26/04
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/183783-1
09/29/04
All the transcripts are at
http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcripts.php?p=2
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100124103947AAboURK
Q: “So what, I am running for Illinois Senator, not the presidency”?
in October of 2004, during the ABC Chicago Affiliate’s broadcast of the Obama-Keyes debates, Obama openly admitted that he was not a natural born citizen. (C-Span aired the uncut version of the debates, which contained this exchange, in the second half of April, 2005) In this debate, between Obama and Keyes, Keyes faulted Obama for not being a “natural born citizen”, Obama replied, “So what, I am running for Illinois Senator, not the presidency”, admitting that he was not eligible to be president.
Have you heard of this debate?
Do you believe it is true?
Do you know where to find the video containing this exchange today?
A: Alan Keyes says the exchange never took place. (You’d think if it DID happen, Keyes would be the first to jump on it since he DID sue Obama over eligibility in the now-dismissed case Keyes v Obama.) The claim is that Keyes said that Obama wasn’t a natural born citizen, and Obama replied: “I am not running for President of the United States, I am running for United States Senator”.
There is, however, the following quote from the actual C-Span debate: “I am not running to be the minister of Illinois, I am running to be its United States Senator” http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/184058-1 at 45:30. Close enough to be the source of the rumor.
Also the transcript: http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=370
OBAMA: I don’t need Mr. Keyes lecturing me about Christianity. That’s why I have a pastor. That’s why I have my Bible. That’s why I have my own prayer. And I don’t think that any of you are particularly interested in having Mr. Keyes lecture you about your faith.
What you’re interested in is solving problems like jobs, and health care, and education. I’m not running to be the minister of Illinois. I’m running to be its United States Senator.
@ Mark,
Does Keyes have a videotape copy of the debate between Obama and Keyes for the Illinois Senate race where Obama shrugged off questions about his foreign birth by noting that he wasn’t running for President?
Probably a birther:
No wonder we’ve seen no press releases from AIP on the State of the Union or State of the State speeches, Tunisia, Egypt, or for that matter anything else….
[email protected] just in case y’all are actually putting the out, just not sending them to us.
Mark @ 19, wow. Is this the kind of information you waste your time on? Unbelievable.
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/the-natural-born-citizenship-clause-updated.html
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html
If you want to get rid of Obama, just wait until 2012- lawsuits like these are a waste of time and money.
And even if there was clear merit to them, the Establishment would do what they could to make sure the judges ruled in their favor, and they would succeed.
Some quick introductions:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/category/constitutional-terms/nativenatural-born/
Again, see the links at 9 and 20. It’s not as complicated as some try to make it out.
The Constitution relies upon the English common law, which is no surprise – most of the framers were British lawyers. Blackstone is surely more relevant than de Vattel, isn’t he? de Vattel wasn’t writing about the common law – he was writing about natural law.
@23, they were seated because of Article 1, Section 5 that allows both Houses to be the judge of their own members. They ignored teh qualification requirements in Article 1, Sections 2 and 3. That doesn’t make it right. It means those Congresses shirked their duties and violated the law. Unfortunately, there is no criminal penalty for that… (and there should be!)
As for native born vs. natural born, see de Vattels’ The Law of Nations for what the terms really mean.
Obama was no more born in Hawaii than John McCain was born in Arizona–and neither one are natural born citizens, either.
As far as this case goes, punting the quals check to the parties is derelection of duty by the court. But they routinely do that anyway…
Keep in mind that from time to time people who do not meet the constitutional qualifications for office (John Eaton, Henry Clay, Armistead Mason) have been chosen for the Senate (not sure about the House.) What did Congress do? Seated them anyway. Congress has likewise chosen to certify that Obama is eligible to be president. If you think they’re wrong, make Obama’s ineligibility the centerpiece of your campaign to unseat your Representative and your Senator and beat them. Posting long rambling things on a relatively small political website (no slight intended – I love it here, but Yahoo/CNN/Fox this ain’t) isn’t a very efficient way to get your message out.
One thing birtherism proves is that Alan Keyes would be an awful president. Not because he is right or wrong about what he says about this or anything else, but because in his judgment Orly Taitz (Esquire) is the most qualified attorney to argue his case. That Keyes would pick her as his legal representative speaks volumes.
LOL Birthers.
Do you know the difference between Native Born and Natural Born? They are both terms of art. Natural Born citizens are all Native Born citizens. But not all Native Born citizens are Natural Born citizens under the Constitution of the United States.
That’s an opinion, not a fact.
I’ve been delving into scholarship on that issue lately, and some people maintain as you say, whereas others state that in fact the two terms are one and the same. My natural bias is to agree with the less exclusionary definition.
I don’t consider whose sovereignty Mombasa was under to be relevant here, since the evidence I have looked at clearly shows Obama was born in Hawaii, not Mombasa.
I have dual citizenship, since my mother was born in Canada. I am native born yes, but I do not rise to the status of natural born, because in addition to being born in California, I was declared to be a citizen of Canada under the laws of Canada, because of my mother being a British Subject at her birth in Canada.
I disagree with your interpretation. I think you are in fact a natural born citizen since you are a native born citizen.
If you explore the sites linked by Porn Again Christian, wikipedia articles on related issues and references therein, you’ll see that I am far from being alone in that interpretation.
Since his mother was born in the US, it seems illogical that his “naturalness” would have anything to do with her being under 19, even if he had been born outside the US, which he wasn’t.
Anyway, this discussion is redundant: just explore the links PAC posted at #9
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/, http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/, http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/,
http://badfiction.typepad.com/ , http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/ , http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/
Read everything on those sites – that is, open up each article and read the full thing, not just what appears on the front page. And bear in mind that older posts go back for multiple pages; read all the old posts in full as well.
Then, if there are still any questions, perhaps we can discuss the issue at that point.
Although, really, why bother?
Bush was not any more loyal to the constitution just because no one claims he was born in another country (that I know of). Clinton was not loyal to the constitution either, even though he didn’t steal two elections to get into office as shrub did. Bush Sr. was not loyal to the constitution, even though he did not lie about oral sex in the white house and obstruct investigations, etc.
All of these people are disloyal to the ideas on which America is based.
The idea that being native born, or natural born however you wish to define it, makes someone a more loyal American and more fit for office has been disproven by the available evidence from real life.
If anything, that clause should be amended out of the constitution.
While it is still in place, I favor the broader interpretation under which you would be qualified for the presidency, but I would not.
Paulie
Do you know the difference between Native Born
and Natural Born? They are both terms of art.
Natural Born citizens are all Native Born citizens.
But not all Native Born citizens are Natural Born
citizens under the Constitution of the United
States.
You say he was born in the United States. I say he
was born on Mombasa Island. Let’s look at the
status of Mombasa Island on August 4, 1961.
Will you agree that on the day of August 4, 1961,
Mombasa Island was under the sovereignty of the
Sultan of Zanzibar? Also that the flag of the Sutanate of Zanzibar flew over Fort Jesus on
August 4, 1961 because of an 1895 agreement between the British Government and the Government of the Sultan of Zanzibar?
A side note on this. At the Congress of Berlin,
the United States Delegate and the Russian Delegate came to an agreement about the
status of Mombasa Island. That was reflected
in the Treaty of Washington of February 25, 1905
on the status of extraterritorial rights in Zanzibar.
President Roosevelt on his visit to Mombasa commented about that Treaty of Washington
at a dinner there. This was the same trip that
Roosevelt visited the Pope in Rome, viz, the only
time Roosevelt visited the Pope.
The United States had extrateritorial rights in
Zanzibar under the treaties of September 21, 1833
and July 3, 1886.
Note also that Mombasa Island was not one of the “mainland domains” of the Sultan under the
Treaty of Washington of February 25, 1905.
To the area of separation of “mosque and state”
the United States Goverment has granted the
Kizimkaki Dimbani Mosque $21,500 in grant money. This is how Obama does combine issue
of “state religion” and pork at the same time.
The Kizimkaki Dimbani mosque was the mosque
that Obama paternal grandfather prayed in during his conversion from Roman Catholicism to
Islam in 1919.
I have dual citizenship, since my mother was born
in Canada. I am native born yes, but I do not rise
to the status of natural born, because in addition
to being born in California, I was declared to be
a citizen of Canada under the laws of Canada,
because of my mother being a British Subject at
her birth in Canada.
Obama’s Grandfather was naturalized in Zanzibar
in 1919. On August 4, 1961 at Obama’s birth he
became a Subject of a foreign sultan and owed
a legal duty to him for his life time. That would
not make him a Natural Born Citizen of the
United States, even if he was native born. How
ever Obama was born on Mombasa Island and
his mother at the time of his birth was just to young to pass on citizenship, because she had
to reside in the United States for five years after
her 14th birthday under United States law at that
time.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Stanley Ann D. Obama (or D’Obama in some sites) went into labor at the Mombasa Airport
False, and silly. See detailed refutation in links above. She went into labor and gave birth in Hawaii, USA.
Paulie
Stanley Ann D. Obama (or D’Obama in some sites) went into labor at the Mombasa Airport
while waiting for a flight to take her to connect
with a flight to London on August 4, 1961.
A doctor from the hospital next to the airline
terminal drove with her to Mombasa Island
to deliver baby Obama.
Stanley Ann gave birth on Mombasa Island,
not in Honolulu. She did not return with baby
Obama to Honolulu until June, 1962.
Therefore, Obama was born on Mombasa Island
and not Oahu Island.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
That would be irrelevant.
He was born in the US, so he’s a natural born citizen, period, end of story.
His mother was also American, further making even more absurd any notion that he isn’t. Even if she was an “illegal” Mexican immigrant, along with his father, he would still be a natural born citizen if he is born in the US.
Which he was.
Does Porno have proof of a secret American father of Barry?
Or is he just saying Barry is a natural born bastard?
And just because Obama was actually born in Hawaii does not make him born in Mombasa.
Dunno what Zanzibar has to do with anything since Obama was actually born in the Hawaiian Islands, USA.
Porn Again Christian
First you need some understanding of the rulers and law of Zanzibar.
When Barack H. Obama II was born on August 4,
1961 his sultan was Abdullah ibn Khalifah of Zanzibar.
The only reason his father, Barack H. Obama I was able to get a British Protected Persons Passport so he could come to the United States and attend the University of Hawai’i in 1959 was
because his father was naturalized in 1919 by a
Decree of Sultan Sayyid Sir Khalifa II ibn Harub
Al-Said of Zanzibar.
This is because the British Government did not issue passport to sons of convicted Mau Mau terrorists. Obama’s grandfather was convicted
in 1949 and was let out of prison in 1951, because
his lawyer found a copy of the 1919 nautalization
decree showing that he was not a Subject of George VI, but was in fact a Subject of the Sultan
of Zanzibar. Therefore Barack H. Obama II has a legal loyalty from birth to a foreign sultan.
You should noted that the mosque that Obama’s
grandfather prayed in just got a $21,500 grant
from the United States Government, viz., Kizimkazi Dimbani Mosque at Dimbani, Zanzibar. This is a good example of separation of
church (sic. Mosque) and state separation and pork all at the same tiime.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg,
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
yes, but we keep spending more and more time at the shooting range of the local armory ……….
miss me yet? 🙂
You haven’t read the thread linked at comment #7 and the links people posted in it, have you?
You really should.
Obama was born in Hawaii, not Mombasa Island or anywhere near it.
You could begin by reviewing the massive amounts of information at http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/, http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/, http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/,
http://badfiction.typepad.com/ , http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/ , http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/ and others.
Birther claims are disconnected from reality.
Porn Again Christian
I am well aware that Mombasa Island is in the
sister city program with Honolulu. \
Just because someone is born in the sister city
of Honolulu does not make them Hawaiian.
Obama first showed up in Honolulu in June,
1962 after his mother completed an academic
year of study in Seattle, Washington.
During the period September 1961 to June 1962 Obama and mother were living on Capitol Hill, Seattle, Washington. At the same
time Obama’s daddy was in school in Honolulu.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Obama was born in Hawaii, and is a natural born citizen of the United States. See the discussion which already took place in the comments at
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/01/jim-duensing-running-for-libertarian-nomination-for-president-of-usa/
Now the case is going to the United States
Supreme Court.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Obama was born a Subject of the Sultan of
Zanibar, because in 1919 his paternal grandfather was the included in a naturalization decree by the grandfather of the
current Sultan of Zanizbar, viz., Jamshid.
Mombasa Island in the Indian Ocean off the coast of Kenya on August 4, 1961 was under
the sovereignty of the Sultan of Zanzibar.
The flag of that sultan flew over Fort Jesus,
Mombasa Island on August 4, 1961 as a sign
that Mombasa Island was under the sovereignty of the Sultan of Zanzibar.
Obama was never a citizen of Kenya at birth,
because Mombasa Island on August 4, 1961
was under sovereignty of the father of Sultan
Jamshid.
At the time of Obama’s birth the Sultanate of
Zanzibar was a British Protectorate. Therefore
at birth Obama was a British Protected Person
under the terms of the British Nationality Act
1948, because Zanzibar was an Arab State under British Protection by an agreement issued in 1895.
In 1949, Obama’s grandfather was conviced of
being a Mau Mau terrorist and went to prison
until 1951. He got out of prison because his
lawyer proved that he was not a Subject of
George VI of England, but was in fact a Subject
of the Sultan of Zanzibar with a copy of the
1919 Naturalization Decree. That same decree
got Obama’s father a British Proected Persons
Passport. Which was used to get a student
visa to attended the University of Hawai’i.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Warning!
This thread will now turn into an endless circle jerk as Mark Seidenberg, Don Grudmann, and probably Don Lake and Cody Quirk before too long, along with a person who posts under a lot of different names including francis barto, call each other the same names and engage in the same “I know you are but what am I” level of discussion, repeating the same things they have said over and over and over and over and over again on numerous past CP threads on IPR.
Warning!
Don Grundmann is not the chairman of the American Independent Party nor was he the
chairman in the past.
Grundmann has not been a member of the
State Central Committee of the American Independent Party since September 2, 2008.
Grundmann has not been a member of the
National Committee of the American Independent Party since September 2, 2008.
Grundmann was removed as an Area Director
of the American Independent Party in early
2008, by then AIP State Chairman Ed Noonan.
Grundmann is not a member of any County
Central Committee of the American Independent Party in the State of California.
Grundmann has asseverated that he is the
Chairman of the Constitution Party of California, which according to the last registration figures by Secretary of State Debra Bowen was at 163 elector.
The registration of the American Independent
Party on the same date that the Constitution
Party was at 163 was at 413,032 electors.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
None of them are legitimate.
Even though they were all legitimately born in the United States as US Citizens, they all want to involve government way too much in people’s lives, just in different ways.
Looks like we lose either way then. Obama still doesn’t have to prove himself to the voters of the US or California. I can’t help but wonder which is the more illegitimate one between the two; keyes or Obama? For that matter, which is the more illegitimate between Keyes, Obama, and Nightingale?
Keyes v Bowen is simply part of the elaborate, and unfortunately very successful, effort to give conservative mole Alan Keyes ” street cred ” within the patriot/conservative movement; i.e.; to give him credibility as a conservative standard bearer when he is in fact a deep cover mole within the movement who is working for its neutralization and destruction. He will use this continuing lawsuit to draw attention away from his back stabbing of the conservative movement as has been documented at TheCorruptionOfAlanKeyes.blogspot.com. He is the most successful mole within the conservative movement – a traitor who will always put his own advantage, and especially those of his controllers/masters, ahead of our nation. He can be trusted as well as anyone could trust Nancy Pelosi. Take away the surface differences and the fake rhetoric and they are the same – enemies of our nation.
Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party