Save Our State  

Go Back   Save Our State > General Forum (non official Save Our State business) > Elections, Politics, and Partisanship

Elections, Politics, and Partisanship Topics relating to politics, elections, or party affiliations of interests to SOS associates

WELCOME BACK!.............NEW EFFORTS AHEAD..........CHECK BACK SOON.........UPDATE YOUR EMAIL FOR NEW NOTIFICATIONS.........
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-22-2009, 05:10 PM
DerailAmnesty.com DerailAmnesty.com is offline
"SZinWestLA"
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,003
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kathy63 View Post
I can be silent no more.

A photo of obamadinejad shining shoes suggests he is capable of gainful employment. The concept is ridiculous, hence the joke.

Nope, that take on the joke would require that, rather than Obama being the one shining the shoes, the person displayed in such activity be Antonio Villaraigosa, Fabian Nunez or Janice Hahn.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-23-2009, 08:36 AM
Kathy63 Kathy63 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 380
Default

Not Janice Hahn. You know what she did, putz that she is. They need an entirely new category for Janice Hahn. The only mystery is WHY is she still holding any kind of office? She should have been run out a couple of years ago.

Otherwise, I would agree up to a point. obamadinejad is at least as employable as Antonio Villaraigosa or Fabian Nunez.

That said. Tony the Thug did admit he was capable of cleaning toilets. With a shoe shine presidebt and a toilet cleaning mayor, SURELY we can find something for Nunez to do.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-23-2009, 09:50 AM
LAPhil LAPhil is offline
Continent Thief
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Tralfamador
Posts: 454
Default

Well, Obamaman's closed to a gap of minus 18 in the strongly approval/disapproval ratings, and his overall is 45% approval, 55% disapproval. At this rate he just might pass Bush.
__________________
OPEN BORDERS AND MASS AMNESTY

Ich Bin Ein Arizonan!

"I entirely reject the concept, however, of "anchor babies." If parents are found to be here illegally, then the whole family, children as well, should be sent back to the parents' country of origin."
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-25-2009, 12:22 PM
Jeanfromfillmore's Avatar
Jeanfromfillmore Jeanfromfillmore is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,287
Default

I was reading some comments made on an article relating to the passage of the healthcare in the Senate, and one really struck me. It said "For the first time in my adult life, I'm ashamed of my country." Of course it was a rebuttal to what Michele Obama said, but it saddened me, because for the first time in my life I'm ashamed of my country. I'm ashamed that we have what we have in DC representing us, and that I was a Democrat for so many years. What a sad day for our country to have come to this, where we have such trash running this country. Educated trash that the uneducated put in office.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-25-2009, 01:08 PM
Cruisingfool's Avatar
Cruisingfool Cruisingfool is offline
Oath Keeper
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 156
Exclamation British Law declares Obama a British citizen!

British Law declares Obama a British citizen!
Post & Email
Thursday, December 24, 2009 A.D.
British Law declares Obama a British citizen!
THE FACTS, THE LAW, THE INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION
Legal Analysis by John Charlton


The Union Jack, symbol of British tyranny and oppresion to the American revolutionaries, has flown over the head of Barack Obama from his birth.

(Dec. 24, 2009) — Barack Hussein Obama has written 2 biographies about himself and has publicly spoken of his origins in many public speeches. He claims as his biological and legal father, a man who went by the name Barrack Hussein Obama. That is the more common Kenyan spelling of the name. His claimed father also went by the names “Barak” and “Barack”, the former when he penned an article in an journal on economics, in Nairobi, in the 60’s, the latter when he registered at the University of Hawaii. The latter form appears on the electronic image of Obama’s alleged Certification of Live Birth.

If we apply the provisions of British and Kenyan law to the simple facts, which Obama claims about himself — though in truth there is not documentation that the public has seen to confirm the truth of these facts — the inescapable conclusion is that Obama was born a British subject and is now, still to this day, a British citizen.

The laws and regulations which lead to this conclusion are the official British Consular Registry Stipulations, the British Nationality Act of 1948 and of 1981, Kenya Constitution, and the Kenya Independence Act of 1963.


Let’s see how these apply to Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.

The Consequence of Obama’s alleged birth story is that he’d be born a ‘British Citizen by Descent’
The British Consular Registry uses the criteria set forth in the British Nationality Act of 1948 Section 5(1) of the United Kingdom and Colonies to determine who would be qualified as a “British Citizen By Descent.”

Section 5-1 reads thus:

5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth:

Provided that if the father of such a person is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of this section unless—

(a) that person is born or his father was born in a protectorate, protected state, mandated territory or trust territory or any place in a foreign country where by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance, or other lawful means, His Majesty then has or had jurisdiction over British subjects; or

(b) that person’s birth having occurred in a place in a foreign country other than a place such as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph, the birth is registered at a United Kingdom consulate within one year of its occurrence, or, with the permission of the Secretary of State, later; or

(c) that person’s father is, at the time of the birth, in Crown service under His Majesty’s government in the United Kingdom; or

(d) that person is born in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of section one of this Act in which a citizenship law has then taken effect and does not become a citizen thereof on birth.

The man Obama claims as his father is Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr., a man born in the Kenya Colony in 1936. Being born in the Kenya Colony, he was a British subject or citizen. Obama was born after the commencement of this above quoted act, ergo, Obama Jr. is a British citizen-by-descent.

The Consequence of Obama’s alleged birth story is that he’d become a Citizen of Kenya in 1963
According to the Kenya Constitution (87), Obama became a Kenyan citizen in 1963, by virtue of the fact that his claimed father was born in the Kenya colony.

The Constitution of Kenya, Section 87, reads thus:

87*. Persons who became citizens on 12th December, 1963
1.Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on llth December, 1963, as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person, shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963:Provided that a person shall not become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of this subsection if neither of his parents was born in Kenya.
2.Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on llth December, 1963, as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person, shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
Therefore Obama Jr. became a citizen of Kenya, Dec. 12, 1963, when his father did. Moreover, when his father returned to Kenya, upon graduation from Harvard, he obtained employment with the Kenyan Government as a senior Economist.

Note, that while the Kenyan constitution prohibits dual citizenship for those 21 years old or older, it does not do so for minors (cf. section 97 of the Kenyan Constitution).

The Consequence of Obama’s alleged birth story is that he’d remain a British citizen-by-descent after 1963
According to the Kenya Independence Act of 1963, Obama would have retained his British citizenship status.

This is the legal conclusion of the provisions of Chapter 54, section 3 of that act of Parliament:

3.—(1) Any reference in subsection (2) or subsection (3) of this section to a colony, protectorate or protected state shall, subject to subsection (7) of this section, be construed as a reference to a territory which is a colony, protectorate or protected state (within the meaning of the British Nationality Act 1948) on the appointed day, and, accordingly, shall not include a reference to Kenya or any part thereof.

(2) Subject to subsection (6) of this section, a person shall not cease to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies under section 2(2) of this Act if he, his father or his father’s father —

(a) was born in the United Kingdom or in a colony; or

(b) is or was a person naturalised in the United Kingdom and Colonies; or

(c) was registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies; or

(d) became a British subject by reason of the annexation of any territory included in a colony.

(3) A person shall not cease to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies under section 2(2) of this Act if he was born in a protectorate or protected state, or if his father or his father’s father was so born and is or at any time was a British subject.

(4) A woman who is the wife of a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall not cease to be such a citizen under section 2(2) of this Act unless her husband does so.



Since Obama’s claimed father was born in Kenya Colony, which was in 1936 part of the British Empire, and furthermore, since his father’s father, Hussein Onyango Obama was born in the British Protectorate of Kenya in 1895 (cfr. Dreams of My Father, p. 376; 425-426) , and was therefore a British Protected Person under the British Nationality and Status Act of 1914, Obama Jr retained his British citizenship status after Dec. 12, 1963.

Obama’s alleged childhood history raises the question that he was adopted by an Indonesian citizen, and therefore became an Indonesian citizen in 1966-67
According to the laws of Indonesia, in force in the 1960’s, Obama would have become a citizen of Indonesia if he was adopted by Lolo Soetero at the age of 5 or younger.

It is not yet known whether he was adopted, of if he was, in what year this may have occurred. Facts to support such an adoption are thus: an Indonesian school record which indicates that he was an Indonesian citizen, bearing the name Barry Soetero, and the Dunham-Soetero Divorce Decree of 1981, which indicates a non-minor as a child of the marriage.

That Obama goes by the name “Barry” was evidenced recently, when he called into a radio show and spoke with the outgoing Governor of Virginia. On that occasion he identified himself as “Barry from D.C..” When questioned about this phone call, the White House said that it “would not be inaccurate” to say the person calling was Barack Hussein Obama, Jr..

The Presumption is that Obama did not revoke his British Citizenship on Aug. 4, 1979
According to the British Home Office: U.K. Border Agency, to renounce British Citizenship one must be at least 18 years of age and fill out a declaration, using form RN.

Therefore, upon reaching the age of 18, on Aug. 4, 1979, Obama could have revoked his citizenship. However, the British Government has never affirmed that he has. Therefore in law we must presume that he has not, if his birth story is true.

There is ground to suppose Obama renewed his Kenyan Citizenship in 1982
The Kenyan constitution establishes that upon reaching the age of 21 years, a Kenyan citizen must renounce all other citizenships, if he wants to retain his Kenyan citizenship. There is a 2 year window in which he must make such a renunciation. In Obama’s case this window opened on Aug. 4, 1982, and closed on Aug. 4, 1984. It is known that Obama visited Kenya 2 years after his father’s death (which occurred in 1981), and thus in 1983, during this window of opportunity.

The Consequence of Obama’s alleged birth story is that in 1983, he’d become a British-overseas-citizen and remain such today


Obama acknowledges his British citizenship, by bowing to his Queen, Elizabeth II.
The British Nationality Act of 1981 changed the nomenclature for citizenship status.

The pertinent provision of that act is found in Chapter 61, Part III, and reads as follows:

PART III BRITISH OVERSEAS CITIZENSHIP

s 26 Citizens of U.K. and Colonies who are to become British Overseas citizens at commencement.

Any person who was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies immediately before commencement and who does not at commencement become either a British citizen or a [British overseas territories citizen] [FN1] shall at commencement become a British Overseas citizen.

By “commencement”, the Act signifies Jan. 1, 1983, the date upon which it went into force.

Hence according to this Act, Obama Jr. would have gone from being classified a British citizen-by-descent, to a British Overseas Citizen.

In summary, Obama was born a British citizen-by-descent, and remains a British Overseas Citizen even today — if his birth story is true. He was also a citizen of Kenya prior to age 21, and may still be one. He seems also to have been a citizen of Indonesia from 1966-1980’s, but this is uncertain.

[Editor's note:

There was another article at The Post & Email with a similar title and subject, but which I was asked to pull by its author, since the author feared being attacked by Obama supporters. I owe all the research to this author, but this article is entirely my own creation, inasmuch as I have not cited the author in anything, and wrote all the above myself, excluding the cited laws.]
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-25-2009, 01:10 PM
Cruisingfool's Avatar
Cruisingfool Cruisingfool is offline
Oath Keeper
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 156
Default Obama is a British Citizen!

Link
Obama is a British Citizen! THE FACTS, THE LAW, THE INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION!
Posted by KC on December 24, 2009 at 1:18am

Obama is a British Citizen!
THE FACTS, THE LAW, THE INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/12/...itish-citizen/


Pass it far and wide. I realize there have been other lawsuits, but this should have legs. It’s well written and documented by the British.


Natural Born Citizen can only be established by being born of the soil (within the lands of the United States), and of TWO parents who are already U.S. Citizens at time of Birth.


It’s clearly defined by the Framers. Now read the article above.


Then top it off with the article below, and everything else we know of regarding the election, the lawsuits, the cover-ups, the corruption, the affiliations, the money trail, turning his back on our allies, not willingly saying the Pledge of Allegiance during the campaign, the American Flag Pin, the lack of respect for our Constitution, our laws, our traditions, and lack of respect for our history, all the bits and pieces that don’t quite fit for a real NBC President.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...wMGU1ZjZhOG...


Why did Obama sign an Executive order to grant Interpol immunity from American Law? He did this in the last 10 days.



We have to find a way to get this info onto Talk Radio, in newspaper, whatever it takes. I know we have tried before, but we didn’t have this information from Great Britain. Leo Donofrio was right.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-25-2009, 01:13 PM
Cruisingfool's Avatar
Cruisingfool Cruisingfool is offline
Oath Keeper
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 156
Default Why Does Interpol Need Immunity from American Law?

Link
Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Why Does Interpol Need Immunity from American Law? [Andy McCarthy]

You just can't make up how brazen this crowd is. One week ago, President Obama quietly signed an executive order that makes an international police force immune from the restraints of American law.

Interpol is the shorthand for the International Criminal Police Organization. It was established in 1923 and operates in about 188 countries. By executive order 12425, issued in 1983, President Reagan recognized Interpol as an international organization and gave it some of the privileges and immunities customarily extended to foreign diplomats. Interpol, however, is also an active law-enforcement agency, so critical privileges and immunities (set forth in Section 2(c) of the International Organizations Immunities Act) were withheld. Specifically, Interpol's property and assets remained subject to search and seizure, and its archived records remained subject to public scrutiny under provisions like the Freedom of Information Act. Being constrained by the Fourth Amendment, FOIA, and other limitations of the Constitution and federal law that protect the liberty and privacy of Americans is what prevents law-enforcement and its controlling government authority from becoming tyrannical.

On Wednesday, however, for no apparent reason, President Obama issued an executive order removing the Reagan limitations. That is, Interpol's property and assets are no longer subject to search and confiscation, and its archives are now considered inviolable. This international police force (whose U.S. headquarters is in the Justice Department in Washington) will be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States and affects both Americans and American interests outside the United States.

Interpol works closely with international tribunals (such as the International Criminal Court — which the United States has refused to join because of its sovereignty surrendering provisions, though top Obama officials want us in it). It also works closely with foreign courts and law-enforcement authorities (such as those in Europe that are investigating former Bush administration officials for purported war crimes — i.e., for actions taken in America's defense).

Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we immunize an international police force from the limitations that constrain the FBI and other American law-enforcement agencies? Why is it suddenly necessary to have, within the Justice Department, a repository for stashing government files which, therefore, will be beyond the ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media, and the American people to scrutinize?

Steve Schippert has more at ThreatsWatch, here.

12/23 07:59 AMShare
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-26-2009, 08:25 AM
LAPhil LAPhil is offline
Continent Thief
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Tralfamador
Posts: 454
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeanfromfillmore View Post
I was reading some comments made on an article relating to the passage of the healthcare in the Senate, and one really struck me. It said "For the first time in my adult life, I'm ashamed of my country." Of course it was a rebuttal to what Michele Obama said, but it saddened me, because for the first time in my life I'm ashamed of my country. I'm ashamed that we have what we have in DC representing us, and that I was a Democrat for so many years. What a sad day for our country to have come to this, where we have such trash running this country. Educated trash that the uneducated put in office.
Jean, do you know who said that? That's beautiful, I'd really like to know! And as for the rest of your post, I couldn't have said it any better except to add the word corrupt to educated trash.
__________________
OPEN BORDERS AND MASS AMNESTY

Ich Bin Ein Arizonan!

"I entirely reject the concept, however, of "anchor babies." If parents are found to be here illegally, then the whole family, children as well, should be sent back to the parents' country of origin."

Last edited by LAPhil; 12-26-2009 at 08:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-26-2009, 01:35 PM
Jeanfromfillmore's Avatar
Jeanfromfillmore Jeanfromfillmore is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LAPhil View Post
Jean, do you know who said that? That's beautiful, I'd really like to know! And as for the rest of your post, I couldn't have said it any better except to add the word corrupt to educated trash.
I didn't take note Phil as to who exactly said it. It was over on Topix, but that one sentence really struck me, and I realized that I felt the same way. I am ashamed that our political representatives are not representing us as a country anymore. They are the educated, and yes corrupt, trash we have in DC. When you think of an embezzler you think of them as trash, but that's exactly the way I think of our politicians, just educated trash.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-28-2009, 04:38 PM
Kathy63 Kathy63 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 380
Default

Has obamadinejad said anything - ever - that would lead a reasonable person to conclude he would be a loyal American? He has been, always, and is, exactly what he said he was, a citizen of the world. It seems natural that he would give interpol immunity in the US. They are the highest law enforcement authority he knows of.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright SaveOurState ©2009 - 2016 All Rights Reserved