mrsat_98
05-15-2008, 10:35 AM
http://www.hawaiiankingdom.info/C1126750129/E20080305175848/index.html
More on "Natural born citizen" - McCain and Obama
In the Hawaii Reporter Leon Siu has taken up the question of what exactly a "natural born citizen" means in the constitutional requirement for the U.S. presidency in relation to McCain and Obama. He notes the legislation drafted by Sen. McCaskill and co-sponsored Obama that I mentioned last week, and says this:
Why would Obama, a Democrat, be so keenly interested in making sure that his likely opponent is not disqualified by the “natural-born Citizen” requirement stipulated in the U.S. Constitution? What’s in it for him?
Here’s the answer: Obama was also born in a foreign country — Hawaii.
Numerous actions and admissions by the U.S. government since 1893 indicate that Hawaii is not a lawful territory or state of the U.S. and that Hawaii is actually a foreign country under hostile occupation by the U.S. Therefore, the claim that Hawaii is a state of the U.S. is fraudulent.
In recent years, the fraud began to unravel and in recent months, the pace has accelerated considerably. Court decisions and public policy making in Hawaii are running into the brick wall of the inconvenient truth: the Hawaiian Kingdom still exists!
Though severely impaired by the illegal occupation by the U.S., the sovereignty of the independent, neutral nation, the Hawaiian Kingdom, was never extinguished. Therefore, the Hawaiian Kingdom has existed in continuity since its founding in 1810 as a self-governing, independent nation.
That means Obama was born not in the U.S., but on the foreign soil of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Obama shares McCain’s predicament of constitutional ambiguity with regard to the citizenship qualification for the presidency. Obama, like McCain is foreign born.
Obama’s co-sponsoring of the bill to accommodate McCain’s citizenship qualifications for U.S. president is not an outpouring of magnanimity toward McCain. It is a calculated, self-serving, pre-emptive measure to ensure that his own (Obama’s) foreign-born status would be likewise accommodated, should the question arise of his Hawaiian birth.
Obama’s sponsorship of the bill reveals that there are those in his camp, and perhaps Obama himself, who know that the Hawaiian Kingdom still exists as a nation foreign to the U.S.
Most likely the bill will pass to allow McCain’s citizenship quirk to qualify him for president; it would likewise ensure Obama’s candidacy.
Nevertheless, Obama’s curious co-sponsorship (possibly instigation) of the “natural-born Citizen” bill indicates that he takes the implications of Hawaii’s stature as an independent nation seriously enough to cover his bases.
However, as I noted earlier, McCaskill's draft bill would define "natural born citizen" to include "any person born to any citizen of the United States while serving in the active or reserve components of the United States Armed Forces." That would not apply to Obama, so whether his Hawaii birth has anything to with his co-sponsorship of this bill I don't know.
Meanwhile, the Yale Law Journal blog has a post about the issue, with a link to the 1988 Journal article (PDF) on the subject that was mentioned in the NY Times last week (h/t Steve L.).
More on "Natural born citizen" - McCain and Obama
In the Hawaii Reporter Leon Siu has taken up the question of what exactly a "natural born citizen" means in the constitutional requirement for the U.S. presidency in relation to McCain and Obama. He notes the legislation drafted by Sen. McCaskill and co-sponsored Obama that I mentioned last week, and says this:
Why would Obama, a Democrat, be so keenly interested in making sure that his likely opponent is not disqualified by the “natural-born Citizen” requirement stipulated in the U.S. Constitution? What’s in it for him?
Here’s the answer: Obama was also born in a foreign country — Hawaii.
Numerous actions and admissions by the U.S. government since 1893 indicate that Hawaii is not a lawful territory or state of the U.S. and that Hawaii is actually a foreign country under hostile occupation by the U.S. Therefore, the claim that Hawaii is a state of the U.S. is fraudulent.
In recent years, the fraud began to unravel and in recent months, the pace has accelerated considerably. Court decisions and public policy making in Hawaii are running into the brick wall of the inconvenient truth: the Hawaiian Kingdom still exists!
Though severely impaired by the illegal occupation by the U.S., the sovereignty of the independent, neutral nation, the Hawaiian Kingdom, was never extinguished. Therefore, the Hawaiian Kingdom has existed in continuity since its founding in 1810 as a self-governing, independent nation.
That means Obama was born not in the U.S., but on the foreign soil of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Obama shares McCain’s predicament of constitutional ambiguity with regard to the citizenship qualification for the presidency. Obama, like McCain is foreign born.
Obama’s co-sponsoring of the bill to accommodate McCain’s citizenship qualifications for U.S. president is not an outpouring of magnanimity toward McCain. It is a calculated, self-serving, pre-emptive measure to ensure that his own (Obama’s) foreign-born status would be likewise accommodated, should the question arise of his Hawaiian birth.
Obama’s sponsorship of the bill reveals that there are those in his camp, and perhaps Obama himself, who know that the Hawaiian Kingdom still exists as a nation foreign to the U.S.
Most likely the bill will pass to allow McCain’s citizenship quirk to qualify him for president; it would likewise ensure Obama’s candidacy.
Nevertheless, Obama’s curious co-sponsorship (possibly instigation) of the “natural-born Citizen” bill indicates that he takes the implications of Hawaii’s stature as an independent nation seriously enough to cover his bases.
However, as I noted earlier, McCaskill's draft bill would define "natural born citizen" to include "any person born to any citizen of the United States while serving in the active or reserve components of the United States Armed Forces." That would not apply to Obama, so whether his Hawaii birth has anything to with his co-sponsorship of this bill I don't know.
Meanwhile, the Yale Law Journal blog has a post about the issue, with a link to the 1988 Journal article (PDF) on the subject that was mentioned in the NY Times last week (h/t Steve L.).