Who's Obama's top advisor ? It may scare you

You are aware there was no U.S. Air Force untill 1947 ? Before 1947 there was the U.S. Army Air Forces. Notice that it's plural, "forces" not "force."

The father in question served in the U.S. Army during WW ll. a combat vet of the Battle of the Bulge.

He remained in the Army until the creation of the USAF in 1947. After the war he returned to the USA but he transferred to the newly created USAF in 1948 and was one of the first Mast. Serg. to serve in the USAF. He was sent to England in 1949 where he served there for a few years then back to the CONUS on the HMS Queen Mary. A few month in America and then a couple of years being stationed in Japan. Join the Air Force and see the world. That's the way it was during the 50's and 60's.

I know former airmen who served on a USAF SAC base in Libya for two years before we got kicked out of that country.

It was common back then to serve over seas for two, four and even six years. During the first half of the 1900's you had Army soldiers serving in the P.I. for ten or more years or sailors who served in the Asiatic fleet for six years before returning to the CONUS. I have friends who joined the Army during the 60's and served their entire tour of active duty in Germany. It was their choice.

 

Oh you are talking about Wheelus.. It was cool and a real benefit to Libya.. Were you ever there yourself?

 

absolutely. My father was an officer in the US Army Air CORPS which was what the folks who were in it called the USAAF. It did remain a combat arm until after the war. But since I never said a word about what branch of service your "friend's" father might have been in, one wonders why you would ask such a question?

So... he married a British woman during WWII... but doesn't bother to take her back to the states with him at the end of the war.... four years after the war, and after transferring to the air force, he goes back to England and hooks back up with his wife whom he hasn't seen for years... and fathers a child with her. What a responsible man your pal's dad seems to have been. A republican, no doubt.

 

I never said that, you are either trolling or making (*)(*)(*)(*) up about someone you don't know.

As a soldier he returned to the CONUS with his war bride in 1945 or 46. When he became part of the Air Force in 48 he was ordered back to England and returned with his wife.

They had two children while stationed in England. The first born off base in a civilian hospital. The second born on base in a U.S. Air Force hospital.

After his tour of duty in England the family returned to the CONUS on the Queen Mary.

Then he was ordered to Japan and packed up the bags grabbed his wife and children and boarded a U.S. Navy troop transport for Japan.

The facts are the oldest son who was born off base in England had dual citizenship for the first 19 years of his life. The second son born on the USAF base hospital didn't have dual citizenship.

We aren't dealing with American law but British Common Law.

It's like the misinterpretation of the XlV Amendment. Those who can't comprehend "Natural Law" claim that children of illegal aliens born on U.S. soil are U.S. citizens. While the Mexican government claims under "Natural Law" that the children are Mexican citizens, "son follow the condition of his father." That the children owe their allegiance to Mexico not the USA.

Every six years when Mexico holds it's presidential elections you can see tens of thousands of American anchor babies adults who claim to be U.S. citizens lining up in Los Angeles, Santa Anna, etc. voting for who will be Mexico's next president. Why ? Because they are Mexican citizens.

>"Mexican Constitution, Chapter II, Article 30, paragraph II, states that you are a Mexican by birth if born on foreign territory, sons or daughters of Mexican parents born in national territory."<

 

So he had a British bride..

 

what the Mexican constitution or British common law has to say about their view of citizenship does not change the fact that, if your buddy's dad was stationed in England on active duty, and his wife had a baby anywhere in the world while her husband was on orders out of CONUS, the child is a natural born citizen.... eligible to be president.

Your buddy was puling the wool over your eyes if he got you to believe otherwise.

 

Kinda looks that way.

Not sure what year she was naturalized as an American citizen.

There were 100,000 British war brides during WW ll.

http://www.americainwwii.com/articles/war-brides/

 

She probably wasn't naturalized by 1951 if she was still living in England in 1951.

 

U.S. military bases overseas are considered sovereign U.S. territory.

No my buddy wasn't pulling the wool over my eyes, he was trying to avoid the draft. He wasn't good at it.

Back to the intent of the topic.

The intent of the United States constitutional requirement that the President of the United States be a natural born Citizen of the United States is: (1) to reduce the likelihood that a President of the United States would have a former, or present, attachment to a foreign country (because such an attachment could influence one to make decisions that would not promote the interests of the United States); and (2) to increase the likelihood that the interests of any President of the United States will coincide with those of the United States.

So what is a natural born citizen ? It use to be until very recently one who was born on U.S. soil.

At one time the father had to be an American citizen.

Winston Churchill's mother was a U.S. citizen. Did that make Sir Winston Churchill an American citizen ?
How about today ?

 

That's not true... read the statutes. If Churchill had been born in the US , he would be a natural born US citizen unless his father was in the US as a diplomat.

A baby born to US parents abroad doesn't have to be born on a military base.

 

no they are not. we exercise extraterritoriality over overseas bases, not sovereignty.

 

We are talking about 1874 when Winston was born. Back then nobody gave a damn what the citizenship the mother was. It was still "son follow the condition of his father."

What's your take on this federal law / law of the land that was in effect for 34 years ?

&#8221;When one parent was a U.S. citizen and the other a foreign national, the U.S. citizen parent must have resided in the U.S. for a total of 10 years prior to birth of the child with FIVE of the years after the age of 14.&#8221;

If your brain housing group isn't working get out the calculator.

Mother born: December 23, 1942

Gives birth to a child on U.S. soil on August 4th, 1961 at 18 years and 8 months of age.

Father is a foreigner, not a U.S. citizen or a legal immigrant.

Five years after her fourteenth birthday would be December 23, 1961. Short by almost five months for her child to be a natural born citizen.

It was the law from December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986

Guess who wouldn't have been a natural born citizen under the statue between 1952 and 1986 ? That 's probably the easiest question you've been asked in some time.

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=C...verseas us military bases sovereignty&f=false

What about Gitmo ?

 

the bolded sentence only applied to children born outside the US. Obama was born inside the US.

It seems like every post you put up has a sliver of truth that is overwhelmed each and every time by waves and waves of falsity. Why IS that?

 

what about it? Is it sovereign US territory? No. We lease it. We exercise extraterritoriality over it.

 

You are correct expatriate, I stand corrected.

It's a shame that this lady wasn't traveling abroad when she gave birth to her child. The world would be a lot safer place today.

It would be best if judges stopped legislating from the bench and Congress stop amending the Constitution without having a Constitutional convention and just follow the intent of the Constitution. If there's a question that needs to be answered on the original intent of the Constitution and the answer or definition can't be found in the Constitution, or from the notes of the authors of the Amendment, then as SCOTUS Chief Justice John Jay said that Vattel's "Law of Nations" will be the law that will be used.

 

Depending which guest country the base is located on, the guest host is turning over some sovereignty to the U.S. military. Some times 100 % sovereignty.

In England during WW ll complete sovereignty was turned over to the U.S. military on it's bases. It even went further that any crimes including murder or rape that were committed off the U.S. base against British subjects that British law enforcement would turn over the accused to U.S. military authorities and that the U.S. military would prosecute the accused and if found guilty the U.S. military would sentence the convicted and carry out the sentence. Since the U.S. Army didn't have a hangman, they had borrow the British hangman to hang the American soldiers who were convicted of capital crimes.

Shepton Mallet as an American Military prison during World War II.
>" During World War II part of the prison was taken over by the American government for use as a military prison and as the place of execution for American servicemen convicted under the provisions of the Visiting Forces Act (1942) which allowed for American Military justice to be enacted on British soil...

8 military executions were carried out at Shepton Mallet, representing 26% of the 70 executions of American servicemen serving in the European Theatre of Operations (ETO). (Figures of 19 and even 21 executions in the UK have been given in some accounts but are definitely not correct.) Of these 18 men, nine were convicted of murder, six of rape and three of both crimes. Their racial mix was : ten African American, three Latino and five white ..."<
http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/sheptonm.html

>" These were not crimes against enemy soldiers or against civilians actively supporting the enemy. These 96 soldiers murdered 26 fellow American military personnel, and killed or raped 71 British, French, Irish, Italian, Polish and Algerian civilians, in addition to the one soldier executed exclusively for desertion...

Surprisingly, the Army found that it had no qualified hangman, so English hangmen conducted 16 executions for crimes committed in Britain, but British hangmen could not serve outside England. Matters became so serious that Eisenhower ordered a U. S. Army brigadier general to hang four condemned soldiers one chilly morning in Sicily in 1943. The Army finally found a hangman, with claimed experience in Texas and Oklahoma. That was untrue &#8211; he had no previous practice, but the Army remained unaware of his deception and promoted him from private to master sergeant in a single day, but he botched at least one-third of the hangings he conducted. Seven of the 96 condemned met their ends by firing squads. Ricochets and bad marksmanship sometimes marred the proceedings..."<
http://thefifthfield.com/published-books/the-fifth-field/

What about the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba ? The U.S. Marine corps slang word for the base is "gitmo." Funny, before 2001 most Americans except Marines or sailors even knew what a gitmo was. It's not even an acronym but a Marine Corps slang word like the word "gook" which has nothing to do with Asians as Marxist culturalist would like you to believe.

Doesn't the U.S. Navy have complete sovereignty on Guantanamo Bay Naval Base ? Castro seems to think differently.

I've been on the (rock) aka Okinawa, Japan two times. First in 69 on my way to the Nam and when returning back to the world (CONUS) in 70. At the time the U.S. had 100% complete sovereignty over ever U.S. base, station and camp on Okinawa and there were a lot of them.

But then again, Okinawa was still under WW ll military occupation and U.S. authority went beyond the fence. Japan's sovereignty over Okinawa wasn't returned over to them until May of 1972.

Now joint NATO bases in Italy today, America has no sovereignty rights on these bases.

 

She has been the worst political adviser to a President and for this country in my memory except for perhaps Halderman.

 

Which was why the location of his birth should have been completely cleared up from the getgo leaving no doubt as to his citizenship. He did not inherit it from either of his parents. I too made the mistaken assumption that since his mother's citizenship was not in doubt his wasn't , but then learned the law at the time was as the bolded part you mention stated and his mother did not transfer citizenship to him. When that came to light he should have completely cleared up the matter by releasing ALL pertinent documents but instead he choose to use it to political advantage.

 

As in dividing the people.

Those birthers did have a legitimate legal question and Obama refused to answer it and instead used it for his own political gain.

What if Ann Dunham wasn't on U.S. soil on August 4th, 1961 ?

Funny thing is, or maybe not so funny but my birth certificate was issued on the day I was delivered at the hospital and the hospital still has records that my mother was admitted to the hospital. BTW, the hospital bill was paid by my father all $78. of it. Mom must have had a private room.

 

it's only an issue if you think that he wasn't born in Hawaii as he claimed and as the state of his birth confirmed. He provided a certified copy of his birth certificate early on... and crazy birthers - like you, I'd imagine - demanded more. If I had been his advisor, I would NEVER have authorized Hawaii to give anybody any more than they give any other citizen - a computer generated short form copy of the stuff from the state database....nothing more. I would have laughed my ass off while birther nuts choked on their own bile.

 

no other presidential candidate had ever had to produce such malarky.... none. Birthers were - and remain - a minuscule minority of the American population. I wouldn't want any candidate from either party being hamstrung by a tiny minority of irrational voters. If they have problems with the nominee of one of the major political parties, seek therapy. Don't foul up the atmosphere of a presidential campaign with your silliness.

 

I saw that birth certificate, it was dated August 8th four days after after Obama's birth. Hawaii's Department of Health must be as slow as the recovery of the Obama economy.

But why did it take Obama almost four years after the birthers were asking to see the birth certificate back in 2008 ?

Is Hawaii the only state in the union where birth certificates are private records and not public ?

Something stinks.

I hope the birthers start digging into this when the Incompetent in Chief has vacated the White House. I hope Obama doesn't forget taking Valerie Jarrett with him to Rancho Mirage. But I think Rancho Mirage is a little to white and a little to conservative for her. She will go back to the hood on the south side where her former neighbors Bill Ayres and Bernardine Dohrn will be waiting to give her a welcome home party.

 

birfers.... the gift that never stops giving. With any luck, they'll throw the next election Hillary's way with their nonstop insanity.

 

Not true,

But first things first, Hillary Clinton (Lib-D) was the first birther in 2008, remember ? She was the first person to challenge if Obama was a natural born citizen.

Back during the early 1800's a Presidential candidate natural born citizenship was challenged. His name was Chester Arthur, I forget if he was a Whig or a Democrat.

Mitt Romney's father citizenship was challenged when he was on the Republic primary ticket in 1968.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...can-born-father-was-eligible-to-be-president/

How short your memory is, don't you remember when liberals argued that Sen. John McCain wasn't a natural born citizen because he was born in the U.S. Canal Zone in Panama ?

And next year you are going to see both liberals and those conservatives who believe in the rule of law and the intent of the Constitution who will be challenging Sen. Ted Cruz claiming he's not a natural born citizen. (*)(*)(*)(*), the conservatives are already asking the question.

One legal scholar opinion already opining for next year challenges.

>" There are two ends of the spectrum as which just about everyone agrees: (1) A person born in the United States to parents both of whom are United States citizens is a &#8220;natural born Citizen&#8221;; and (2) a person born outside the United States to parents neither of whom is a United States citizen is not a &#8220;natural born Citizen&#8221; even if citizenship later is obtained through naturalization. These are what law professor Lawrence Solum refers to as &#8220;cases of inclusion and exclusion.

Rubio, Jindal and Cruz, as did Obama, fall between those points of inclusion and exclusion. Rubio and Jindal were born in the United States to parents neither of whom was a United States citizen at the time; Cruz was born in Canada to parents one of whom (his mother) was a United States citizen.

Under the law existing at the time of their birth, each became a citizen of the United States at birth. Rubio and Jindal by the 14th Amendment, Cruz by statute..."<

2016 should be really interesting.