Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Sorry, He’s Not A Natural Born Citizen

February 8, 2012 by  

Sorry, He’s Not A Natural Born Citizen

And I’m not talking about President Barack Obama, who has produced a (fake) copy of his birth certificate only to prove that he really isn’t a natural born citizen.

I’m talking about Tea Party hero Marco Rubio, the Senator from Florida who is being touted by the Republican establishment as the likely pick for the GOP Vice Presidential nominee.

Rubio’s parents came to America from Cuba sometime between 1956 and 1959 (the exact date is in dispute) and became naturalized U.S. citizens in 1975. Rubio was born May 28, 1971. This fact makes him a U.S. citizen, but it does not make him a natural born citizen according to the definition intended by the founders.

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, says, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President…”

Arguments over what constitutes “natural born” abound. But the Naturalization Act of 1790 probably defines the Founders’ intent better than anything. It reads: “…the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.”

Rubio’s parents were not citizens at the time of Rubio’s birth, so Rubio can’t be President.

And by the way, Obama’s fake birth certificate proves his ineligibility to hold the office, for if the elder Barack Obama from Kenya, East Africa is Obama II’s father, he was not then and never was a U.S. citizen. Hence, Obama is not a child “of citizens of the United States.”

The mainstream media will not tell you any of this.

Hat tip: wnd.com

Bob Livingston

is an ultra-conservative American who has been writing a newsletter since 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Sorry, He’s Not A Natural Born Citizen”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Michael J.

    Sorry, Rubio is not the one either. He would do nothing to stop the flow of illegal aliens past our borders.

    On another note, Obama’s attorney has disected the meaning of the phrase “Natural born citizen” thusly: The constitution does not define the term “natural born citizen” and therefore is open to interpetation.
    By definition, the word natural means that if it exists in nature, it is natural and the word citizen by itself implies only that a person be a citizen of a country with no exclusive country in mind. In effect, Obama’s attorney has stated that any human on the planet is eligible to be the president of The United States.

    • http://Comcast JimBob

      Michael J, I can’t tell if you’re saying you agree with obooba’s attorney or not. If Rubio isn’t a natural born citizen, then obooba sure as hell isn’t either. It is just going to take more states like Georgia and Arizona to stand up to the fake president and get him out of office. We don’t need to wait until November..

      • Sue

        Well at least it’s good to know all the anchor babies being spit out here these days can never be president.

      • Michael J.

        JimBob,
        I am merely paraphrasing the words of Obama’s attorney, Mr. Jablonski.
        I support Orly Taitz quest for the truth concerning Obama’s eligibility.

        • http://google Jerry

          To Bad a Judge in Ga doesn’t agree. (and Indiana)

          • smilee

            Neither court has agreed to anything except to allow discovery to go forward. These cases are going nowhere, this has happened before and got to the SC and they refused to hear it

        • TIME

          Michael,

          You may want to explore Orly Taitz. Look at the Martindale Hubbell.

      • clarence swinney

        Bob, where is your proof docu was fake?

        • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

          Dear clarence swinney,

          A number of experts in typography and photoshop have testified in court and/or been quoted saying the document Obama presented as a copy of his long-form birth certificate is a forgery. If you choose to look at their evidence it is pretty obvious it is a fake, and a bad one at that.

          Best wishes,
          Bob

          • vicki

            You don’t even have to be an expert to tell that the LFBC is a forgery. The white halo around the text that keep the pattern of the security paper from reaching the text show the alterations. The whole point of the pattern in security paper is to show altered text.

            The forgery is so bad that it is difficult to believe that it was not done intentionally to see how gullible the public might be.

          • http://naver samurai

            Everything about Obama bin Laden is a fake. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • mrTexas

        (offensive comment removed)

    • Robert

      The “natural born Citizen” is accurately defined in an article in “THE POST & EMAIL” dated: Monday, February 06, 2012 A.D.

      “Founder and Historian David Ramsay defines “natural born Citizen” in 1789″ — yes, in 1789! He knew them all and their intent was that “both parents” must be Citizens of the United States in order for the child to be “natural born”. Hopefully an email to the editor will get him to forward the article to Boards of Elections in all States, including Federal, and Congress and Presidential candidates.

      • Sue

        We’ve been skirting around the issue for to long. Both parents must be citizens of the United States before the birth of their child. Then and only then may He/She run for the Presidency of the U.S. Obama has always been ineligible. Rubio and Jindahl are also.

        • smilee

          WRONG!! Both Obama and Rubio are eligable to be president and despite all being said here nothing will change that

          • http://naver samurai

            Wrong answer smilee and Sue is right. Both parents must be native born U.S. citizens. Sheesh! Don’t know your Constitution. Of course, you libtard never know anything truthful. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • don crites

        Cannot help but wonder ,,,did obama’s hatchet men get to the Judge in GEORGIA OR PERHAPS HIS FAMILY WAS THREATENED….WE KNOW OBAMA IS A FAKE BUT NO ONE IN WASHINGTON SEEMS TO CARE, JUST THINK HOW WE COULD DESTROY ALL OF HIS ACTIONS IF CONGRESS OPENED THEIR EYES TO HIS FAKE DOCUMENTS. NOT ONE STUDENT CAN REMEMBER HIM ATTENDING COLLEGE. HE WANTS TO BE KING OF THE NEW WORLD AND THE MEDIA OR CONGRESS WANTS TO HEAR THIS AND IF HE IS REELECTED WE COULD HAVE A REVELOUTION IN THIS COUNTY. HIS VACATION COST 4 MILLION…DID HE PAY FOR THIS…IS HIS EXPENSE ACCOUNT AUDITED…THE FED RES NEEDS TO BE AUDITED TOO

      • Kinetic1

        Bob’s “proof” of intent is nothing of the sort.
        “…the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.”
        First, this says noting about both parents, and this is clearly a definition for cases where the child was born outside of the U.S. but retains his/her citizenship.

    • Mark Are

      If that is the case, I say we vote in Lech Walesa.

      • NC

        Mark are, I’ll vote for Lech as long as he promises that, if elected, he will stay away from the Republican Party Platform. We have been wrecked by that least one too many times!2001-2008 but I’m not calling any names!

        • http://naver samurai

          Not as bad as from 2009 to the present. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

    • Bud Tugly

      “Arguments over what constitutes “natural born” abound. But the Naturalization Act of 1790 probably defines the Founders’ intent better than anything. It reads: “…the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.”

      And by the way, Obama’s fake birth certificate proves his ineligibility to hold the office, for if the elder Barack Obama from Kenya, East Africa is Obama II’s father, he was not then and never was a U.S. citizen. Hence, Obama is not a child “of citizens of the United States.”

      Bob, your first paragraph refutes your second. No one disputes that Obama’s mother was a US Citizen, therefore, according to what you have written, no matter where he was born, Obama is considered a “natural born” US citizen unless the rule only applies to male parents.

      Please clarify.

      • rosina

        As I read it BOB, it says ‘citizens’ which is plural which means more than one.
        In other words, it MUST mean mother AND father and not only one of them.
        That is how I read it anyway.

        • Flashy

          Would not the plain understanding of the use be referring to the thousands of citizens.

          I ask two questions…the reference would read as if the plural was used to mean the many overseas traveling around the globe. Use of the singluar would imply there weren’t numerous travelers. using the plural may be including all and meaning one of the many.

          Or … have you considered the writing style of the period and what was common usage in writing back then ? languages do evolve. Try reading Shakespeare in the original, and such was 400 years ago. The passage of two hundred involves a vast change in writing, speaking, and use/definition.

          • USAF VET

            Languages may “Evolve”, but if you read it as it is stated, the meaning is still there, and is still just as clear as it was written over 200 years ago. Both parents have to be citizens of the United States for the child to be considered a natural born citizen. Don’t try to complicate it by trying to change the original intent to match your own twisted version of what the constitution is saying.

          • Matt Newell

            Don’t forget that women at that time (1780) did not have many rights. Thus it was the father who passed citizenship to the children. Using that as a template, neither Obama or Rubio would be eligible.

          • Flashy

            “Don’t try to complicate it by trying to change the original intent to match your own twisted version of what the constitution is saying.
            ” <—USAF

            You mean like what the Radical Right, GOP and American Taliban (as well as the Birthers) try every day?

          • JeffH

            Flashy, I’m taking a shot(at you)here but what USAF means is don’t try to confuse the readers with your Marxist/Alinsky doublespeak! The regulars here have been on to you for a long time and the newer readers tend to spot your “Marxis community organizer” tactics fairly quickly. You’ve got no cedibility here or haven’t you noticed?

        • Roger

          He was not “children”, either– he was only one child. Come on you guys, don’t you understand English?

      • Vietnam Vet.

        Bud I have researched this subject extensivily and what ai have found is that his mother must have lived in the US for 5 years past her 16th birthday in order to convey citizenship to her son. the fact that she was only 18 when he was born prohibits her from doing this. It has been awhile since I read this but it is in the contistution.
        hope this helps you form an opinion one way or the other and better yet piques your interest to research on your own.

        have a good day

        • Bud Tugly

          Thanks fellow vet

      • http://comcast the fisherman

        Is that all we have to say other then what is good for the country. Marco is beging to sound like Trump. Or maybe marco has some bones in the closet of his past

      • ChristyK

        The reason the founders used “natural born” (born to US citizen Parents) was they did not want the president to have any connection or loyalty to a foreign nation. They wanted the president loyal only to the USA. Anyone with a foreign citizen parent could be led to support the foreign nation over the USA.

        I have said for a long time, that if Rubio really cared for this nation, he would come out and say publicly that he will not consider being VP or president because he is ineligible because his parents were not US citizens when he was born. He can continue to serve this country in the House or Senate.

        • Flashy

          Why would he say that when he is by any sane stretch of the imagination, qualified and eligible for the office?

          • Vicki

            We are discussing facts here flashy, not your imagination.

            http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2710016/posts

          • USAF VET

            Why would he say that?? Because, by definition, he is not qualified to be President. He is NOT a natural born citizen of the United States of America. Wake up Flushy, methinks you need some real edification.

          • smilee

            What a joke your referral is, it lists four SC Cases and identified none; the rest is all commentary and no facts

          • http://naver samurai

            You’re the joke smilee. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • Nadzieja Batki

          Why do the Libs have such a hard time understanding simple language? Rubio is ineligible to be VP or President. What is so difficult to comprehend?
          All the childish “but I want to be” does not change the Constitution and Rubio should bow out gracefully from such presumption.

          • Flashy

            Well Nad…perhaps when the right stops trying to say Blue is Red, and Green is yellow…we can begin discussing compromises and move this nation forward. until the right does have that moment of lucidity, it’s just best they go sit in some corner and complain, get out of the way and let America get down to repairing the damage wrought the past 30 years.

          • AZMarc

            The big R party has been compromising on the constitution for far too long. It is time to stand up for the constitution against people like you.

        • professor

          Christy, Rubio has said that he was NOT eligible to be president. He said that he was born in this country, but, it was before his parent had become citizens! Neither of his parents were Americans, they were “foreigner,” when he was born…so, what is hard to understand about that!

          Rubio can be a citizen, he just cannot be president!

      • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

        Dear Bud Tugly,

        First, citizens plural. Second, Obama’s mother was a minor and unable to transfer citizenship.

        Best wishes,
        Bob

        • Michael Willemsen

          The purpose of the “natural born citizen clause” was to confer citizenship on the freed slaves. The clause would fail in its purpose if it required the parents to be citizens, because prior to the 14th amendment no slave could be a citizen. (Dred Scott v. Sanford.) Moreover, some of the slave parents were born outside of the United States. Later cases applied the provision to persons other than freed slaves and their children. These are classic examples of decisions that construe the Constitution to carry out the intent of the framers. (Here, of course, the framers are the the congress of 1866 who wrote the “natural born citizen” provision.)

          • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

            Dear Michael Willemsen,

            The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with whether a person is a natural-born citizen.

            Best wishes,
            Bob

    • http://google Leonard W. Giddens

      You are so right. When this clown spoke to a group in Miami about the next republican President in spanish, that said it all for me. This is America, if you don’t speak our language you have no business in our politics.

    • Gwynne Chesher

      Lunatic birthers should not be able to use the internet, vote or reproduce.

      • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

        Dear Gwynne Chesher,

        Thanks for your intelligent contribution to the conversation.

        Best wishes,
        Bob

  • http://boblivingston john clifton

    How else would you expect him to explain, everything is in BO’s favor, I thought everyone knew that. What a waste of a president.

  • http://none Necee

    What I find interesting is that like the people of certain religion…you are only consider the father of Obama…His Mother and her parents were “natural born citizens”. In my religion the child is what the mother is…

    • David in MA

      Good, but not in America…..Go back to Israel.

      • Flashy

        Sorry…but if you have any sources that say in this country the child is determojed to have descended from the father’s lineage and the mother’s lineage is inconsequential, please let us all know.

        • David in MA

          Same as you, custon & tradition.

          • David in MA

            Like the wife takes the husbands name as do the children….seem simple to me, your relying on a religious application.

          • Flashy

            Ummm…my wife, and many of her friends, kept their maiden names and/or hyphenated them. My daughter chose my name, but uses both interchangeably. I know she has bank accounts in both names.

            What you view as ‘custom and tradition” isn’t necessarily so across the land. There is a world outside of your city block y’know.

          • http://google Susan

            Sorry, not all women take their husband’s name anymore. I am deleting this account, I don’t like being exposed to such ugliness and the hatred of God’s children. Whether you like it or not, Obama is our President, get over it.

          • http://naver samurai

            Bye bye Susan. Don’t go away mad, just go away. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • DaveH

          “determojed”?
          And that from a guy who attacked my literacy yesterday? Unfounded, of course, as are most of Flashman’s statements.

          • Flashy

            Actually DaveH..I didn’t attack your literacy. I merely pointed out the article you linked from the Cato institute was one you appraently did not read…most likely because it had words of more than two syllables.

            That’s a statement of opinion based upon fact.

            As for my typo’s? They are typo’s. Live with it.

          • Opal the Gem

            “That’s a statement of opinion based upon fact.”

            Fact? Flashy you only post opinions based on your opinion or to make simple enough for even you the only “facts” you ever have exist only in your head.

          • JeffH

            “That’s a statement of opinion based upon fact.”? Yep, you’re another one who believe his opinions are facts…I beg to differ…I know you have a difficult time seperating the two but just so I can be of help…just for you Flashy.

            opinion -
            1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

            2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

            fact -
            1. something that actually exists; reality; truth

            2. something known to exist or to have happened

        • Martin Tyska

          At least two Supreme Court cases reference the term “natural born citizen”. The Venus, 8 Cranch 253 case of (1814). In this case the court references a well known legal text Nattel’s Law of Nations. In Book 1, Chapter xIx, Paragraph 212, Nattel states that for a person to be considered “natural born”, the parents (plural) must be citizens (plural). Moreover, he goes on to state that a childs Father must be a citizen, to be considered “natural born”. The other Supreme Court Case is Minor v Happetsett of (1875). In this case the Court states that “natural born” means a person who’s parents (plural) are citizens (also plural).

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Necee may not be Jewish or Israeli.

    • Michael

      The law states plural parents, so that would both mother and father. This will rule out children of queers…….

      • David in MA

        ROTFLMAO!

      • Sue

        And you would be ruled out in count of stupidity

        • vic

          Shut up, liberal idiot.

      • professor

        How did a homosexual muslim get elected! He isn’t “natural-born” AND has “boyfriends!”

        • professor

          And, third, he is an illegal!

        • TIME

          Professor;
          Hell now thats an easy question to answer, We don’t have a POTUS we have a CEO.

          Therefor a CEO need not be natural born.
          This also applys to anyone on the Board of Directors – aka – what we all call the Congress.

          See its a simple case of Ocam’s Razor. The DC Act of 1871 was where we went from a “Common Law nation under the ORIGINAL Constitution” to a “De Facto form under Lex Fori Law,” now also under UCC MT law.

          Thus we don’t have a Government we have a Corporation and all of you were born into “SERVITUDE” to that noted Corporation based on the 13th and 14th Amendments.
          As well, we are all NOW due to the DC act of 1871 – the Original Constitution & Bill of Rights don’t apply to you.
          We are no longer SOVERIGEN, nor are the States where you live.
          In plain words you are a SLAVE to the United State’s and always have been.

          Please do yourself a really big favor, take some time Google;
          Bill Foust Youtube feeds, please just sit back and learn.
          You may also want to google the Season of Treason 1 & 2.

          Learn when the problems started and you will have the keys to fix the Problem or like so many others just keep doing the same old stupid things over and over again, by the way so just how well is that working out again? $16 Trillion and the money just keeps on blowing down the road.

          All of you Have a nice day.

          • JeffH

            :)

    • Robert Bryan

      Necee,America only came into existence because of the Reformation that took place in the Christian West. The history of the Common Law and concepts of limited representative government enerate from sources that gave deference to a Christian worldview acknowledging ideas of Creator endowed human rights that no manmade government grants. Israel had rejected the concept of self-government under the Prophet/Judge Samuel for a king(Saul). Your religion centered in a theological oligarchy would never have generated an America in the first place.Our cultral heritage is Christian with the father in a central role while never deminishing the power of the mother to help direct the future of the family. America would cease to be America if your religion were to rule our culture today.

      • Mark Are

        Hmmmm…maybe you’re on to something. And maybe the reason America is ceasing to exist as it was is because a foreign anti Christian religion has crept in unawares, called JUDEO Christianity, which for all intents is ZIONISM with a different name.

        • ohoh

          Amen!

        • Maranatha! Mark

          Ahhhh… the Anti-Semites chime in! Hate to break it to you Nazis, but there is no “Christianity” with out the Jews and the Old Testament of the Bible, when you get down to it. And, no I am not Jewish, just understand the simple truth of the Bible – “…first to the Jew then the Gentile”, ever wonder why?

          • Flashy

            ““…first to the Jew then the Gentile”, ever wonder why?”

            Ummmm, because it was realized there had to be someone that paid full priced retail ? LOL

    • Kelly Abraham

      You must be Jewish. I love all people, but Obama is not a “natural born” citizen! Read the Constitution!

      • Flashy

        Just checked to make certain. You must have an abridged vrsion. I did not find anything stating “Obama is not a “natural born” citizen”.

        • Don

          Flushy, obama is not a NATURAL BORN citizen, now you read it, so get use to it, DAH !!!

          • Flashy

            Says you. And just to let you know….you don’t count. Until you can get a SCOTUS ruling saying otherwise, I’ll stand with the common understanding AND practice observed for 200+ years applies. You’re born in this Country on this soil…you’re a naturally born citizen.

            This includes both Sen. Rubio and the Pres.

          • Vicki

            Which SCOTUS ruling would you like flashy? Here are several:

            http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2710016/posts

          • MRMO

            HO FLASH YOUR LOVER BOY OBUMMER SAID IN ONE OF HIS EARLY SPEACHES HE WAS BORN OUT OF THIS COUNTRY. KENYA HAS A BIG SIGN THAT SAYS WELCOME TO THE BIRTH PLACE OF OBUMMER, HIS GRANDMOTHER WHO IS IN KENYA SAID SHE WAS IN THE ROOM WHEN HE WAS BORN OVER THERE. AND ONLY HIS MOTHER WAS A CITIZEN NOT HIS COMMIE LOVING FATHER…
            WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS WHY HE EVER GOT IN THE RACE FOR PRESIDENT TO START WITH. A PERSON SHOULD HAVE TO PROVE THEY CAN BE A IN THE RACE BEFORE THEY CAN RUN….

          • Flashy

            Vicki..read the cases. ’nuff said

      • NC

        Kelly, ask the ACLU! They know more about the US Constitution than any body here by a hundred yards!! They are experts!! Check their record!

        • Nadzieja Batki

          The ACLU only studied and study the Constitution to distort it. How difficult can that be for you to understand?

          • Flashy

            Even as the take on right wing causes ? or is that when they read it ‘correctly” ?

          • NC

            Nadzieja, Sean Hannity, Ollie North, and Rush Limbaugh surely appreciated the ACLU’s liberal “distortion of the Constitution” when the ACLU came to their aid to SUCCESSFULLY defend their Constitution rights. OBVIOISLY THE ACLU DOES NOT ASK YOUR POLITICS!!!

          • smilee

            NC
            no one distorts the constitution more than these three

          • http://naver samurai

            Wrong smilee. The Atheist Communist Looney Liberal Union is the worst. Remember its founder set out to destroy or warp the Constitution. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

    • HomeschoolingVixen

      If religion plays a part, Necee, consider then that Jesus Christ, himself was listed under the lineage of King David through his earthy father, Joseph. He was not claimed under Mary’s side of the family in the Bible.

      And aside from that, I do believe that the definition days that both parents must be Natural born citizens.

      So…either way, Barack Obama is ineligible!

      • NC

        Homeschoolingvixen, Isreal is a whole nest of Jews! Ask them how they determine who is a Jew!! Christians don’t get to say what’s right about everything! Even American Christians!

        • Nadzieja Batki

          What are you babbling?

          • JeffH

            …because that’s is all NC ever does…but at least he/she’s not yelling…yet… :)

  • Max Penn

    The big difference between Obama and Rubio is Rubio was born in America. Lots of evidence shows Obama born in Kenya. Even the Kenya’s say that.

    • Brian

      No, because to anyone paying attention this was never about where Obama was born. It has always been about the citizenship of his parents.

      • vic

        Thats part of the issue but Obumma has produced an incomplete faked Hawaiian birth certificate and then he produced a SSN from Connecticut, where he was neither born and NEVER resided. The # is from someone who was either born or died in 1890. Now how could that have happened??? (Sarcasm)

        • Flashy

          Hmmmm now it’s being claimed Pres. Obama’s SS# was one given to a person who died in 1890? Sorry, difficult to keep up with the birther arguments. I’d ask the same question since a person who died in 1890 wasn’t alive to receive one when they were issued. So yeah, good question since SS #s weren’t given out until 45 years after the dead person died. Now how do you suppose THAT person got theirs? ZOMBIE ATTACK !

          • Dale on the left coast

            Flash . . . I think that should have been 1980 . . . wasn’t that about the same time he switched from Sowetoro to O’bammy?

        • NC

          Vic, if you can “prove” what you “know” you can get a gig on Hannity and the President kicked out of office! Otherwise your ignorance is hanging out!

  • Kevin

    If the definition as you’ve interpreted it, is in fact true and accurate.
    Then all these so called “Anchor Babies” aren’t citizens either….

    • Mark Are

      That’s right. If two Americans are in Morocco and have a baby there, the baby isn’t Moroccan it is American. If two Mexicans are in America and have a baby here, it isn’t American, it’s Mexican. Otherwise it is one big ass joke.

      • Paul Smith

        The baby is Moroccan if the laws of Morocco says s/he is (as we do in the U.S.) Dual nationality, dual allegiance. I wouldn’t be real happy with a baby born in Morocco of Moroccan parents (naturalized U.S. citizen) who lived in Morocco for his/her first 15 years and educated in a Madrassas. Now you would think that such a candidate would be found out and eliminated (by vote) but we know from experience how a charismatic candidate might hide records and history to prevent us from knowing him/her. I know it’s unlikely but the parallels to our current usurper-in-chief make it a frightening possibility.

        • Dale on the left coast

          Paul . . . very few countries in the world bestow citizenship for the Accident of Birth . . . the US still does . . . large mistake and needs to be changed now!!!

        • Patti

          My son was born in Morocco (on a military base) – and at age 18 had the choice to “pick” his citizenship. Seeing as he had only been there a few months of is life, and loves our country – our USA – he had no problem “picking” – but had one hellava time getting his birth certificate from the government so he could continue working here!! He hadn’t left the country since we returned stateside in 1976.

  • David

    Still beating that old dead horse, eh?
    Just goes to show you’ve got nothing of value to share (let alone any ‘real’ facts) about anything.
    If the conservatives/republicans had anything of value to add to the mix, we’d be doing finely economically, but since all they (and you) have to offer is rehashing old BS and trotting out worthless propaganda, perhaps you ought to find something better to do with your time.

    • http://Comcast JimBob

      Maybe you should find something better to do with your time than bashing other true Americans. You know what they say about opinions, and it’s obvious where yours emanated from…

      • Flashy

        “Maybe you should find something better to do with your time than bashing other true Americans”

        Errr…jim. hate to be the one breaking this to you, but he wasn’t bashing other true Americans..he was bashing anti-Americans and America haters. y’know…the ones who constantly drag down all that is great about this country?

        Those dissing on Clint Eastwood for talking up America etc ?

        • DaveH

          You’re not a typical American, Flashman. You’re a liar, a thief, a slanderer, a plagiarizer, and probably many other immoral things that I don’t yet know about. You represent the Liberal Class well.

          • DaveH

            Ask me to prove those, Flashman.

          • NC

            DaveH you could couldn’t carry Flashy’s jock in a debate! You pay him the highest compliment YOU fire every bad title you can think of at him!!HE OWNS YOU!!!

          • JeffH

            NC…”he own’s you”? LMAO…yeah, right and so do you…ROFLMAO! I guess he owns Mr. Livingston too…LMAO again!

            Do you ever post under the name “denisso”?

      • http://twitter.com/ericbischoff Eric Bischoff (@ericbischoff)

        DaveH shows his true colors slandering not just one person but an entire group of the population he happens to dislike and disagree with.

    • Sue

      You mean like such dead horses as anyone that dares to not like Obozo is a racist? Everyone in Arizona that supports SB1070 and wants to rid this country of illegals is racist also? That the fact that the unemployment rate skyrocketed AFTER Obozo took office is all GWB’s fault? Those dead horses?

      • MRMO

        HAY SUE
        DO NOT WORRY ABOUT THE UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS, OBUMMER AND HIS TEAM ARE FIXING THEM SO HE WILL LOOK BETTER FOR THE ELECTION, JUST DO NOT TRY TO CHECK THEM OUT. HELL IN ONE MONTH THEY WENT FROM 9.5 TO 8.2, ALL IT TAKES IS A PENCIL TO LOOSE A FEW MILLION PEOPLE FROM THE WORK FORCE… A DOT HERE A COMMA THERE WALAAAA …

    • vic

      David needs to shut up and support a TRUE American and patriot like Ron Paul. But then his welfare check would go away and he’d have to work. Can’t have that.

      • skippy

        LOL vic!! :)

        • Brian

          THAT’S a big BINGO!

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear David,

      Thanks for a cogent rebuttal. (sarcasm intended)

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • Debo

        I have been away for a long time,and have just returned,but nothing has really changed here. It’s the same old irrational rantings of small diseased minds.As for Mark Rubio,he is well qualified to be president of these united states,because he was born on United States soil.The Consitution says natural born,nothing about citizenship of parents.If I came from another country legally with my pregnant wife and she gave birth our child would be qualified to be president of the United States.And Mr Livingston you should know better than to keep this nonsense going. You’re turning out to be nothing more than a propagandist and a fraud. What you’re doing doesn’t make good dialogue it’s poisoning the atmosphere. I am sure you can do better.Have a pleasant day.
        Debo.

        • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

          Dear Debo,

          You are correct that the Constitution says natural-born. In your example, your child would be native-born, but not natural-born. There is a difference whether you choose to see it.

          Best wishes,
          Bob

          • Vicki

            One of the very interesting things I find in the liberal argument is the claim that natural born citizen is not defined in the Constitution. There are a LOT of phrases in the Constitution that are not defined yet the liberal seems to use them without question. Why the focus on this particular phrase, which was well understood by the writers of the Constitution. So well in fact that they could not conceive of citizens devolving to the point of asking what the meaning of “is” is.

            The founders were aware that an educated electorate was required to keep liberty.
            “1789 January 8. (to Richard Price) “…wherever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government…”[5]”
            http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/quotations-education

          • Bert Cundle Sr.

            Bob L.: Natural: Born Refered to English Decent… ( The Makers of THIS Government.)
            Native: Born of the Indian Tribes Before We got here!

          • Debo

            Mr Livingston.
            We’re quibling with words.Whether natural born or native born you’ve got to be born in the United States in order to be president. John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone and he ran for president. How is it that Obama who was born in Hawaii a US state isn’t qualified to be president according to your reasoning? I think you guys make things up to suit your biased agenda. There is no way in hell that Obama could be president if he wasn’t born in the United States of America. So from a rational person to another (I think you’re rational) please stop the birther nonsense, it’s embarrasing.
            Peace.
            Debo.

          • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

            Dear Debo,

            You write: “We’re quibling with words.” Words are very important. They have a certain meaning that, while it may evolve over time, cannot be changed on a whim.

            You write: “Whether natural born or native born you’ve got to be born in the United States in order to be president. John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone and he ran for president.” Yes, McCain was born to two American citizens on a U.S. military installation. Congress determined it was, essentially, American soil. But no matter, if you read the excerpt from the Naturalization Act of 1790 and subsequent acts, he would have qualified regardless of his place of birth.

            You write: “How is it that Obama who was born in Hawaii a US state isn’t qualified to be president according to your reasoning?” I believe I explained this in the article and in subsequent posts. If it is still not clear I suggest you reread them.

            You write: “There is no way in hell that Obama could be president if he wasn’t born in the United States of America.” You have much to learn about how the power elites operate. When the DNC submitted its official certificate of nomination it sent one with different language than all that been used previously. The phrase that the candidates for president and vice president are legally qualified was removed. For a detailed summary go here: http://theobamafile.com/_eligibility/DNCConspiracy.htm

            You write: “So from a rational person to another (I think you’re rational) please stop the birther nonsense, it’s embarrasing.” The so-called “birther nonsense” as you describe it is important. I take the U.S. Constitution very seriously. What is embarrassing is that you and so many Americans don’t.

            Best wishes,
            Bob

    • Doug Rodrigues

      Dave, substitute the word Liberal instead of the word Republican to have a more logical and accurate description of what is wrong with this country.

    • Ray Bronk

      The problem here is not necessarily his being naturally born or not, rather it’s that what transpired later. He got his education in Indonesia. My understanding is if you wish an education there, you have to give up your citizenship of whatever country you have, and become a citizen of Indonesia. I am not aware of him reapplying to become a citizen of this country.

      Secondly, if Bush had done this, the democrats would be crying fowl. I wonder why it is that Dear Barrack has spent tens of thousands of dollars sealing his records. And here we are squawking about Romney’s taxes? I also wonder why it is the democrats aren’t crying treason with the signing of the NDAA. At this point in time, I almost don’t care if he is a citizen or not, he has committed treason several times now and no one has called him on it. Now, just so you think I am partison, Ron Paul hasn’t called for his impeachment either. So there’s something for you all to think about. You all just wait, Ezekiel Ch38 and 39, will spell Russia and her doom. i know I am covering a lot of subs here. just to let you know I’m not crazy or anything like that.

      • Dave May

        There is a formal process to renounce ones citzenship, and one must be of legal age to do so. It cannot be renounced for you. Second, having lived in Indonesia I can tell you I am aware of children attending school that were not citzens and they did so without issue.

  • T-Texas

    I am glad that some one is finally taking notice of what Article II section 1 says, now my question does Rommey meet the requirements of the Constitution?

    • David in MA

      NO!

    • texastwin827

      Romney’s father, George Romney was an American citizen as were his parents (Gaskell Romney & Anna Amelia Pratt). His father was born in the Mormon colonies in Mexico but both parents were American citizens.

      George Romney’s parents returned to the US, along with his father, during the Mexican Revolution. George Romney also ran for the Republican presidential candidate, in 1968, against Nixon.

      So, even thought Romney touts his parents as “immigrants from Mexico” they were US citizens, living in Mexico.

      • Bert Cundle Sr.

        IT’S N O T AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP!!! It’s ” United States ” Citizenship! Speaking for America… “DOESN’T Make you a UNITED STATES Citizen!!! [ STARS & STRIPES is NOT “THE” AMERICAN FLAG! { It is (1) ONE of the AMERICAN FLAGS!!!You will learn that before you get your Citizenship LEGALY!!!

  • john

    Baloney. That definition applies to children born outside of the US. IE, “even if born outside the US, if both parents are citizens then the child is a natural born citizen”. Has zero to do with the citizenship of a child born within the US to parents here legally. Rubi, whether you like him as a potential candidate or not, is a natural born citizen of the US.

    • David in MA

      ” if both parents are citizens ”
      Neither obozo nor Rubio’s parents “both” were citizens…
      Rubio’s [arents were both still Cuban citizens & obozo’s father was not.
      Crips, what does it take to get the moron eliment to understand?

    • http://Personalliberty Tony

      To John:
      Right ON!! Next, Obama’s mother was a natural born citizen of the U.S. so he’s a citizen eligible to be president. Marco Rubio, also,
      was born in Miami, Florida in 1971. Therefore, he was born on American soil, technically, he’s a natural born citizen. Everybody else here get with the facts. Thanks!!

      • David in MA

        Do you understand the difference between “NATIVE BORM” & “NATURAN BORN”? Apparently not—–go to your room!

        • David in MA

          “NATURAL BORN”

          • Flashy

            Yea…C-Section babies are OUT OF HERE !

        • Flashy

          OK Dave…i gotta ask. Do you think the words ‘native born” would have been used back then, especially within the framework of “natives’ referring to the Indian populace?

          Or are you of the opinion the drafters sthought of a distinct meaning between “native born” and “natural born”? Today they may have a slight, very slight, connotation of difference. But back then?

          How’s this…find anything in the writings of the period which refer to “native born” used in a different context than “natural born” in the same document or subject.

          • Vicki

            For flashy (and others) A primer with lots and lots of references.
            http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm#ref04

          • Flashy

            Thanx Vicki. It was very humorous. I even printed it out to display to firends that yes indded, there are unbalanced people walking around thinking they have a grip on reality ….

      • Sue

        How can you possibly think this? His PARENTS were not citizens at the time of his birth you dolt

        • http://Personalliberty Tony

          To Sue and Everybody else:
          Look lady, for the last time Marco Rubio and Obama are native born citizens. Also, Obama’s mother along with grand parents and great grand parents are native born citizens for 3 generations. Therefore,
          Obama is a native born citizen. Again, with Marco Rubio, he was born in Miami, Fl. in 1971. Granted his parents were applying for citizenship but he was born on this soil. Thus, this constitute he’s a
          native/natural born American citizen eligible to run for president. Thanks!!
          P.S. If you’re going to attack Obama, then attack his policies not faulty propaganda that he was “born” elsewhere. Have a good day!!

          • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

            Dear Tony,

            Your saying that natural-born and native-born are the same does not make it so, no matter how many times you say it, or how rudely you try and make your point.

            Neither is a natural-born citizen as understood by the Framers.

            Best wishes,
            Bob

          • Martin Tyska

            To Tony, The Constitution does not say “native born citizen”‘, it says “natural born citizen” and there is a difference. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, “natural born” refers to persons born to parents (plural) who are citizens (also plural) of the United States.

          • Flashy

            Has the SCOTUS defined the terms to be different? Is there anything from the beginning period showing the term “native born” to be used in any manner ?

            BTW…when did the term “native born’ start being used to differentiate from ‘natural born”? The last year or so?

          • Vicki

            Dear Tony. Proof by bald assertion does not carry much weight in this group.

            Flashy asks about the supreme court and its opinion/use of the term “natural born citizen”

            “If a person was born in the U.S., of a non-citizen parent, Supreme Court has consistently referred to such person as a “native-born citizen”, never as a “natural born citizen”. Whenever the Supreme Court has referred to an individual as a “natural born citizen”, the individual was always U.S.-born of U.S.-citizen parents. ”

            http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm#ref04

            For Tony. The above blue is a cite to backup an assertion. Try them. They are fun.

          • http://Personalliberty Tony

            To Mr. Livingston:
            Sir, i don’t want to get into an unpleasant debate with you but you’re going to have to get in touch with reality. As sybucket put it, this bizarre claim that Obama or Rubio aren’t native or natural
            born citizens make conservatives look nuts. In general, this sounds like a plot from the book/movie “The Manchurian Candidate”. Basically,
            i re-emphasize, be in touch with reality. To beat Obama, concentrate
            on his policies, not some paranoid fantasy. Thanks!!

          • MRMO

            HO TONY.
            THE GRANDPARENTS DO NOT MATTER ITS THE PARENTS THAT COUNT… BY THE WAY HE HAD GRANDPARENTS ON HIS FATHERS SIDE ALSO, THEY WERE NOT AMERICANS. HAVE SOME MORE KOOL-AID…

          • Vicki

            Tony says:

            To Mr. Livingston:
            Sir, i don’t want to get into an unpleasant debate with you but you’re going to have to get in touch with reality.

            Following up a bald assertion with an ad hominem. Nice. Not very useful but it is entertaining.

            As sybucket put it, this bizarre claim that Obama or Rubio aren’t native or natural born citizens make conservatives look nuts.

            Argument to ridicule. Another infamous fallacy. And apparently deliberate attempt to confuse by equating native with natural when used in the context of born citizen.

            In general, this sounds like a plot from the book/movie “The Manchurian Candidate”. Basically,
            i re-emphasize, be in touch with reality.

            A return to ad hominem with a smattering of argument to authority.

            To beat Obama, concentrate
            on his policies, not some paranoid fantasy. Thanks!!

            And back to ad hominem.

            So what facts do you offer to justify your position that Obama is a natural born citizen within the context of the Constitution? We have shown our work now you show yours.

          • Flashy

            Vicki…source please? I’d like to read the reference.

          • Flashy

            reason i ask is the link stated what you pasted, but has no supporting SCOTUS cases where such was used to differentiate. A quick LawScan search turned up zip.

          • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

            Dear Tony,

            You are locked into a false paradigm. You have been conditioned to believe that the government and the media would never lie to you and that they don’t have their own agenda. I understand that escaping from conventional wisdom is a difficult task, and to some, very frightening. There are many layers that must be peeled away before you find the truth, and each layer reveals frightening and uncomfortable realities. I have presented you with the truth. You can choose to see it, or you can choose to ignore it. However, you cannot refute it so you resort to ad hominems.

            Best wishes,
            Bob

          • vicki

            Flashy says:

            The reason i ask is the link stated what you pasted, but has no supporting SCOTUS cases where such was used to differentiate. A quick LawScan search turned up zip.

            Your lawscan search may have failed due to the bad side effects of having data online.
            http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/justiagate_natural_born_supreme_court_citations_disappear.html

    • Brian

      So the president of Mexico and his wife could be on an official trip to the US and if his wife gives birth that child, according to you, is a natural born American citizen.

      Which is pure crap.

      • texastwin827

        Actually, Brian, under the current opinions, the President of Mexico’s child would hold dual citizenship…Mexican and US.

  • JAB

    Lets not go overboard on Rubio. At least he would get the fence built and stop the flow of illegals. He would help elect lots more conservatives to Congress, which would make any amnesty proposal sure to be defeated.
    The section from 1790 quoted pertains to those born abroad from citizens; the question of those born here from non-citizens is another question.
    BTW, when it refers to those born to citizens, that could mean someone born to any one citizen, like a mother… That wording doesn’t necessarily mean that both parents have to be citizens.

    • David in MA

      GEEZ, another moron!

    • Brian

      I see. As long as its a Republican you are willing to over look what you have likely condemned Obama for. I think the word is hypocrisy.

      • Sue

        No actually if it was a Democrat and he or she was willing to build a damn fence and rid this country of all illegals and actually have a SPINE and lock them all up before he gives them a bus ticket (one way) home then I wouldn’t care if both of his parents hadn’t been citizens at the time of his birth.

    • vic

      Rubio is not naturally a born citizen as defined by having BOTH parents be citizens of the US. This makes him ineligible for POTUS but not to serve in Congress. He voted for the unConstitutional NDAA tho so I will no longer vote for him.

  • Flashy

    OK…let’s put this to rest and lay the cards on the table and forget about it as it’s obvious some folks will never accept reality.

    You’re a “birther”? Fine…there’s nothing against the law preventing you from being, and rightly being viewed as, a prime candidate for a room with padded walls and barred windows.

    [Note; I am not stating this against the author/commentator. It's the posters which this is directed. I am not intentionally violating any censure rules by criticizing the authors. I believe the authors are sane and well-grounded knowing exactly what they write, and my belief is no well-grounded person is a "birther'.]

    You want to read the Constitution in ways no reasonable reading would conclude and it goes against centuries of precedence? Be my guest. You want to cite some vague meaningless reference to “the Founders” knowing there were hundreds of them and the intents and thoughts were all over the board and such reference is meangingless? Go right ahead.

    But to say rubio is not qualified for the office of the Presidency or that President Obama is not qualified because his father was not a citizen?

    Ummmm…guess what.

    Andrew Jackson’s parents emigrated to the U.S. from Ireland. Jackson is the only president having two immigrant parents. Woodrow Wilson and Thomas Jefferson’s mothers were both born in England. James Buchanan and Chester Arthur’s fathers were born in Ireland. Herbert Hoover’s mother was born in Ontario, Canada.

    Both the Senator and the President were born in the US. They are both “natural born citizens”. They are both eligible to hold the office. What part of any of that is difficult to understand?

    • David in MA

      What part of the Constitution don’t you understand that addresses that delimia….those who were here at the time could become president and those to follow had to have two citizen parents to become president…
      another moron?, Nope, this one is an idiot. :>)

      • Flashy

        What part do you not understand? According to your “interpretation”, never recognized in any court…Jackson, Hoover, Wilson, Jefferson, Buchanan and Arthur are all invalid presidencies.

        Like I said…you want to be public with the fact you’re a prime candidiate for a room with padded walls? Such is your Right.

        • Brian

          Jefferson was a citizen at the time the Constitution was ratified making his presidency legit. Read the Constitution before you try to tell those of us that have what it says.

          • Flashy

            Ok…for sake of putting your mind at ease…now how about Hoover, Jackson, Buchanan, Wilson, Arthur? You’re stating, for public reading, that 6 out of 43 Presidents were illegally holding the office. More than 15%. is that correct using your “interpretation” ?

          • Vicki

            Flashy writes:

            “Ok…for sake of putting your mind at ease…now how about Hoover, Jackson, Buchanan, Wilson, Arthur? You’re stating, for public reading, that 6 out of 43 Presidents were illegally holding the office. More than 15%. is that correct using your “interpretation” ?”

            Since Arthur is the ONLY one other than Obama I do not understand your math. Living in another world perhaps?
            http://thenaturalbornpresidency.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2009-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2010-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=1

        • Gary

          In 1875 the US Supreme Court ruled: A “Natural Born Citizen” is a person born whose parents were both American Citizens, before the child was born. Obama’s Father was NEVER an American citizen, his Mother Denounced her citizenship after she married Obama’s father and move to Kenya. Rubio parents became American citizens after Rubio was born. Romney’s parents were both American citizens before Romney was born. Neither Obama or Rubio are qualified to be President. Romney is. Obama should be impeached, but the Republicans want follow the Constitution anymore than the Democrats on mater, because they want to run Rubio for the Office of Vice-president and/or President. The internet is free (for now)look it up.

          • Flashy

            case name?

          • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

            Dear Gary,

            (And Flashy)

            Minor v. Happerset (1875)
            “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

            Best wishes,
            Bob

          • texastwin827

            Gary…Romney may talk about his parents being “immigrants” from Mexico but they were not…BOTH were US citizens, born to parents that were US citizens. They were living in Mormon colonies in Mexico and came back to the US when the Mexican Revolution started.

            While Romney’s father WAS born in Mexico, he was born to TWO US citizens and both his sets of grandparents were also US citizens.

    • NotaDemAss

      I believe you think the term “birther” is derrogatory. Simply put, the man occupying the highest office in this land has not put forth documents PROVING he is eligible. He and his cohorts have put forth a lot of mumbo jumbo rhetoric and legalese arguments to distract from the main fact. That fact still being, he has not put forth the mandatory documentation that is not faked.

      So Flashy, please answer for all the US citizens who are asking for the same proof from Barry Soetoro that all candidates for POTUS must submit — why has be spent nearly $3 million so far to hide those documents and any documents pertaining to his foreign student scholarship, passport, college records AND the birth certificate?

      Every time I see the term Birther used to demean the citizenry of this country who expect the laws to be upheld by the persons running for and holding the office of President, I have to proudly and loudly avow myself to be a “birther”. Thank you very much.

      • Flashy

        Same reason Reagan had his sealed. And almost every modern president has had theirs sealed.

        So you’re proud calling yourself a “birther” knowing people snicker at you behind your back (if not to your face) and mothers take thier child by the hand and walk a bit wider around you? Whatever floats your boat …

        Do you also diss Clint Eastwood for talking up America?

        • NotaDemAss

          are you in grade school? we are talking about more than college records. and, your childish playground jabs show your true intellect — that and your liberal left-wing rantings…. pathetic

          • Flashy

            Naw…I did my time in grade school a few decades ago. Quite honestly, with me…and everyone I know without exception that I’m aware of, will honestly state a Birther who “believes” is a person who is a few fries short of a Big Mac Deal.

        • vic

          Flash, the snickers are all at yr own expense, I assure you. Yr one of the geniuses that thinks stealing from others to give to someone else is “good”. Then go live in Europe or Greece. they’ll show how ell that works.

          • Flashy

            Actually Vic…when the crisis hit full bore, Europe tried the policies which are suggested for be implemented here in the US. worked well for them didn’t it? As they rely on us to be the engine to bring them out of the mess they dug deeper?

      • Vicki

        NotaDemAss writes:

        That fact still being, he has not put forth the mandatory documentation that is not faked.

        And the faked one clearly shows he is not eligible cause one of his parents is NOT a U.S. Citizen at the time of his claimed birth.

    • Robert

      Please take the time to investigate:
      The “natural born Citizen” is accurately defined in an article in “THE POST & EMAIL” dated: Monday, February 06, 2012 A.D.

      “Founder and Historian David Ramsay defines “natural born Citizen” in 1789″ — yes, in 1789! He knew them all and their intent was that “both parents” must be Citizens of the United States in order for the child to be “natural born”. Hopefully an email to the editor will get him to forward the article to Boards of Elections in all States, including Federal, and Congress and Presidential candidates.

    • http://Personalliberty.com Jo

      WHO ARE YOU?? EITHER YOU ARE COPYING AND POST OR YOU HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO DO BUT RUN BLOG , I SAW YOUR EXACT ARGUMENT ON ANOTHER POST!! AND YOU ARE WRONG!! ALL THE PRESIDENTS PARENTS YOU MENTIONED WERE CITIZENS AT THE TIME OF THE BIRTH!! MISINFORMATION!!

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear Flashy,

      I am not amused by your disclaimer. And, again you are posting inaccuracies.

      I have written before that Jackson was probably not eligible to be president. His past is murky—he deliberately hid it—but evidence shows he was probably born aboard a ship before it landed in the U.S. His parents were from Ireland.

      Thomas Jefferson was a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted, as was Washington, Adams, Madison, Monroe, JQ Adams, Van Buren and Harrison.

      Wilson’s mother was born in England. I have not researched when she became a citizen. But if it was before Wilson was born, he was a natural-born citizen.

      Hoover’s mother was born in Ontario, Canada. I have not researched when she became a citizen. However, if it was before Hoover was born, he was a natural-born citizen.

      James Buchanan was born April 23, 1791. His parents were citizens at the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. He was a natural-born citizen.

      Chester A. Arthur’s father was born in Ireland, emigrated to Canada and moved to Vermont. I’m not aware of when he became a citizen. If it was before Arthur was born, he was a natural-born citizen.

      Regardless, whether they were or not natural-born is irrelevant. What is relevant is today and whether Rubio and Obama are qualified to be president. My argument is they are not.

      As usual, your rebuttal consists of fallacies and non-sequiturs.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • Jennifer

        For the record, Chester Authur did hide the fact that his father was not a legal citizen of the United States. I can not remember where I read this but it may be easy to look up. Authur’s father became a citizen of the US in Authur’s 3rd year of his term.

      • Flashy

        Mr. Livingston, my disclaimer was not for amusement. It was to ensure complete understanding that in my opinion, you are fully aware what you write.

        Thank you for doing deeper research into the parentage of past presidents. Some you have cleared up, others remain clouded as to whether in the very questionable interpretation you put forth(one which I believe incorrect and without any court precedence) their presidencies were valid.

        I did forget to add Taft to the list. There is a slight problem with Ohio being a state in that apparently statehood wasn’t ratified by Congress until 1950 something. Since Taft was born in Ohio, and in theory was not a state at the time of his birth…he wasn’t a “natural born”.

        As to the impact today, I would proffer that if the prior presidencies were never overturned, especially Taft since it was his administration which brought us the 16th Amendment, the correct interpretation is that which court after court in this land have upheld. That being under the recognized requirements for the presidency, Pres. Obama and Mr. Rubio are both eligible for the office.

        As you will note, I have since the time I was erronoeusly accused of having several names posting here, studiously avoided calling into question the accuracy of the Commentators ‘facts’ used in their articles. However, if you read of anything I state as fact and such is erroneous, please feel free to correct such. I have no problem with having correct facts. Will you also be making such corrections for the others as well ?

        Thank you.

        Respectfully

        Flashy

        • libertytrain

          flasher, I understand your pain at being corrected, but I don’t understand why you think Ohio residents wouldn’t become citizens upon Statehood. That’s how it worked for the other States, up to and including Alaska and Hawaii.. Dear “desperatately wanting to appear as a learned flasher” please advise. Give me a link that says Ohio residents would not become citizens upon Statehood.

          • Flashy

            From what I know, apparently Ohio was never ratified as a sstate. this was discovered in the 1950′s, and Congress passed a retroactive ratification. Thus, in theory, people born in Ohio before the 1950′s were not ‘citizens’ nor ‘natural born’ since Ohio was, technically, not a state.

            I assume if i am in error, I will be corrected soon hereafter.

          • libertytrain
          • Flashy

            Thanx liberty. The Ohio argument was told to me by someone who claimed the Income tax wasn’t legit.

          • ChristyK

            Ohio may not have been a state, but it was a territory and therefore part of the US.

          • Flashy

            So he was a citizen. However….(now we get to “natural born” etc argument)

        • Dale on the left coast

          “There is a slight problem with Ohio being a state in that apparently statehood wasn’t ratified by Congress until 1950 something. Since Taft was born in Ohio, and in theory was not a state at the time of his birth…he wasn’t a “natural born”.”
          Flash . . . Ohio wasn’t a state . . . then it was a Territory . . . what Country was the territory in Flash? I would sugest it was in the USA . . . isn’t critical thinking and logic wonderful . . . LOL

          • Flashy

            Not arguing that point Dale. But we then have to ask…was Taft a “natural born” citizen as per the requirements of office? I could make a better argument Taft was ineligible than Rubio or Obama.

          • libertytrain

            Ohio was a State beginning in 1803. Taft was born in Ohio in 1857.

          • Vicki

            Flashy says:

            Not arguing that point Dale. But we then have to ask…was Taft a “natural born” citizen as per the requirements of office? I could make a better argument Taft was ineligible than Rubio or Obama.

            This should be fun. Make your case flashy. Be prepared to show your work.

        • Vicki

          Flashy writes:

          I did forget to add Taft to the list. There is a slight problem with Ohio being a state in that apparently statehood wasn’t ratified by Congress until 1950 something. Since Taft was born in Ohio, and in theory was not a state at the time of his birth…he wasn’t a “natural born”.

          Let us propose a scenario in which ohio was not and is not a state of the US. Let us further propose that this land called ohio is not and never was a territory of the US. Let us further propose that Taft was born in this very same land. (called ohio).

          In the above scenario Taft is STILL natural born because BOTH OF HIS PARENTS were citizens at the time of his birth.
          —————————————————————–
          NBC William Howard Taft (1909-1913) Born: September 15, 1857 in Cincinnati, Ohio.
          Father- Alphonso Taft was born in Townshend, Vermont on November 5, 1810.
          Mother- Louisa “Louise” Maria Torrey was born in Boston, Massachusetts on September 11, 1827.
          —————————————————————-
          http://thenaturalbornpresidency.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2009-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2010-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=1

          • Flashy

            Vicki…i did some quick research last night. the argument that Taft was ineligible for the office since he was not born in a state has been used as basis for fighting the Income Tax. he signed the bill sending the amendment to the states for ratification…thus, that is the argument.

          • vicki

            Flashy writes:

            Vicki…i did some quick research last night.

            Too bad you didn’t share with us your research.

    • Martin Tyska

      Flashy, your entitled to your opinion, but not your facts. Fact are facts. The Supreme Court case The Venus of (1814), it references Vattel’s book Law of Nations. In that book Vattel states that in order to be called ” natural born” a person needs to be born of parents who are citizens and goes on to emphasize that the “father” must be a citizen. Look it up, go to the Archives of the Supreme Court and look up The Venus (1814). Look up Vattel’s book, Law of Nations, Book 1, paragraph 212. Then look up Supreme Court Case, Minor v. Happetsett (1875), a voting rights case, and again you find the Court says that “natural born” means having parents (plural) that are citizens. If your going to lecture, do it from a position of knowledge, not opinion. The fact is that Obama was not properly vetted and now that he has been, we’re afraid to face the unprecedented and monumental consequences.

      • Flashy

        Read both. Now please explain how Venus is applicable when the question wasn’t one the Court addressed. Explain it in the next case you cite because the Court explicitly stated it was not going to touch on that subject.

        Thanks

    • Ray Bronk

      ok, so I’ll simplify this. I am presuming that both parents of these Presidents were at the time of the child’s birth, citizens of the US. now, according to the guy who was putting together the 14th Admendment of the United States felt this way, and his views were not questioned at all.

      Now with Rubio, his parents were not citizens at the time of his birth. So he is a Native born citizens. Very Simple. Read that primer. Fascinating stuff. Like i said in earlier posts, he’s already committed treason several times and no one has the balls to call him on it. It was Barack who said if that language of the NDAA was not put in there, he would not sign it. And the stupid House went along with it. I know this is off the original track.

  • David in MA

    Mr. Rubio seems like a nice person and appears to be very intellegent and might make a great president, but, unfortunatily as per the Constitution cannot be. If people would stop and think of why the writers of the Constitution put that in there they would realise it was to prevent America from becoming a country governed like Britan, with their social classes, etc. Well, lo and behold, WE have allowed some of that into America thanks to the education system and now people think there is nothing wrong with that type of society…
    America, do you like being called “Middle Class”?, Do you associate anything with that, like “Upper Class” & “Lower Class”?
    Another rude awakining should be obozo as (albiet illegal)president takes vacations (ie:”upper class” citizen) which costs 8, 10, 14 MILLION DOLLARS to the American taxpayer and then goes before the people telling them they need to pay “their fair share” re: TAXES!
    America via the impact of socialism/communism/marxism, etc., has become a country that the Founders did not want it to be……THAT is the fault of the under educated average American. It is OUR fault for electing people to government like Bwarney Fwrank, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters and barack obozo, on & on & on…..
    America needs another Ronald Reagan, Marc Rubio maybe could have been the one, but he cannot, so who can, who would use a person like Marc Rubio in government to return America to the vision the Founders had for America? If we get a chance to vote in the scheduled upcoming elections (I fear obozo is going to declare martial law and annoint himself king)think well on who YOU will vote for and I ask you to consider what is best for America.
    And, please, do not vote for anyone on this list or matters will only get worse, in my opinion. http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/gov_philosophy/dsa_members.htm
    Thanks for your time.

    • Brian

      Classes had nothinhg to do with it. Its in there so foreign nationals couldn’t become president and occupy the executive office for that foreign country. It is frankly a matter of national security.

    • Skyraider6

      hey dave do they really want to awaken the best fighting force in the world, the American

    • Mario Gingras

      Are you saying that the founding fathers put that natural born clause in there to keep the government from being highjacked kind of like whats going on now

  • Patriot II

    Re Obama’s lawer (Lier) It SEEMS like Any one can do anything they dang well please if they are backed up by the Liberal Communist Media and communist/marxist minorities in this country, so if you want to run and be virtually assured of getting elected, just make sure you are on the Democrat ticket. (free Pass)
    Ref: Bull clinton; “It depends on what the definition of “IS” is.

    What a BuNch of BULL CRAP these Lib’s/Dems/MARXISTS get away with!!

    • steve in AZ

      BINGO,sir!! And,thank you.

      Are the libs on this site so desperate for exposure to rational thought that they must infest the conversation? Did the Huffington Post shut down? Be gone,vermin.

      DONATE NOW so we can VOTE RON PAUL 2012!!!

  • http://marcum1@wildblue.net coal miner

    Is Barack Obama a Natural-Born Citizen? – Urban Legends
    http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama_citizen.htm -
    Email rumor claims Barack Obama is ineligible for the presidency because by virtue of certain laws in effect at the time of his birth he is not a natural-born U.S. …

    • David in MA

      Agreed….Problem is, Congress has no balls and has waited to long to oust this POS. I guess Congress is hoping he will loose the election and just fade away……I hope they are right because now there seems to be no other option. BUT, look at the damage obozo and his henchmen & henchwomen have placed on America, it will take years to straighten out, if it ever can be.
      Pray for the Oath Keepers.
      Hope for the Lone Wolf.

      • Flashy

        Coal miner…David from MA didn’t read the link :)

        • Brian

          If about.com says so it MUST be true.

          I wish liberals woukd think instead of react.

          • Flashy

            It gave references which you may want to read…

    • http://marcum1@wildblue.net coal miner

      Also,

      Hawaii Was Not a State When Obama was Born There and his …
      http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/obama-birth.htm – Cached
      One says Obama was born in Hawaii before it became a part of the United States and is, therefore, not a U.S. citizen by birth, which is a requirement for being president.

      • Brian

        Obama was born in the 60s. Hawaii became a state in 1959 and a territory before that.

        • http://PersonalLibertyDigest az-ike

          How do you know Obama was born in the 60s since he has never provided an independently verified legal birth certificate?

  • Bett

    I liked Rubio till I learned he w/93 other Senators voted in the NDAA which takes away right to trial for arrest the gov’t deems necessary!! Out Gov’t has desecrated our US Constitution and our foundation is shook to the core that anything goes. It must be stopped, reversed. Our Sovereignty is at stake and you think another President will fix it? Agenda 21 by UN is here people, we need the one who has warned Congress in 2002 this was coming to put a stop to it. All his predictions came true and you still call him a flake? With that kind of wisdom and respect to the oath to defend the Constitution, even with him as President 6months, we will turn from the iceberg heading to sink this titanic, Ron Paul will restore America!

  • Larry

    Thanks for the info Bob and then Romney can not be leagally be the president either since his father was born in Mexico, right? When is somebody going to get enough intestinal fortitude to do something about all of this and put a STOP TO IT…..or do we not have anybody on the REAL AMERICANS side that will save us before it is TO LATE????? I can not figure just what they are going to have power over when they have us on our knees and have every thing we have? Oh, I forgot, now that have have everything we have they are going after what the, what they call rich, have too! But what will they have now that they want a different kind of money, a one world common curency. WHAT A MESS!!!!! May God bless and save us before it is to late.

  • Daniel

    The courts in Georgia do not agree,Obama is a natural born citizen. Court Doc: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MALIHI,Georgia was trying to have Obama’s name off there ballot. I think the main reason why they were not experts for what was brought up in court. What is written black & white a lawyer and or judge some how fines a gray area that they can interpret there way even if it is clear.

    • David in MA

      I believe the judge was got to.
      All evidence presented supported that obozo is non-citizen, no evidence was presented that he was…..AND, this should have been a default decision for the plaintiff that obozo is not eligable to be president. Up to SCOTUS it goes!

    • Flashy

      The courts? Errrr…an administrative law judge issued an opinion which has no effect except to enlarge the coffers of those using the Birther movement for policial and financial gain.

      if you are so believing this will have any effect, would you like to wager high stakes on how far it gets through the appeals process of the administrative system and if it will reach the state court system?

      laughable…

    • DaveR

      The essence of Judge Mahili’s decision in Georgia is that anyone who is born in USA regardless of citizenship of his/her parents is a natural born citizen. If his decision which relies on the Indiana decision in 2009 is upheld on appeal, the only route left open to disqualifying BHO will be back to proving he was not born in Hawaii, that his purported birth certificate is a fraudulent document. Judge Mahili rejected the evidence presented by Attorney O. Taitz because it was given by expert witnesses who were properly qualified to that court as experts. Maybe another chance will arise after Sheriff Arpaio produces his report.

  • Donald

    Yes he is. Unfortunately!

  • trp878

    I agree, Rubio does not meet the Natural Born citizen laws laid out in the Constitution as cited by other sites. No matter what spin they put on the articles, he does not qualify. Their cite of something or another was not exactly true. The founding fathers did make the exception at first, however they placed a time certain deadline for non natural citizens because none of the potential candidates were Natural Born citizens. Now however, like so many things are spewed and twisted to try to convince ignorant people that wrong is right. As stated, if the story is told enough naive people will aver to it’s authenticity

  • les

    every one is over looking one thing. The U.S newest law on immagration has stated that any children born in America by illegal immagrants is automatic aU.S. citzen, so what is the issue here. It seems to be two faced?

    • David in MA

      Those childrren, as it stands now, would be “NATIVE BORN”,
      not “NATURAL BORN”, THEREFORE NOT ELIGABLE TO BE PRESIDENT!

    • Larry

      Yes, Les, you need to get your facts straight. The law on the books is that your parents have to have been born in America and so do you if you want to be president. Look it up.

      • Flashy

        I am unaware of such law. got a cite? (FYI…the Constitution is not legal statute nor is it “law”.)

  • Clearbrook

    Most important here is to read the entire Law in Context. Sorry, He is a natural born Citizen. Even if one or both of his parents were here illegally, but he was born within the United States, and did not declare citizenship elsewhere, he is a Natural Born Citizen…

    A couple of other people have pointed that out here. But the Naturalization Act of 1790 is what he is drumming as to “intent”. Sorry, but although the Constitution does not define Natural Born Citizen, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution does seem to make citizenship clear.

    “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside…”

    The key phrase is “…born or naturalized…” which indicates in plain language that you are one or the other to enjoy citizenship and its rights. And the Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed and replaced by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which does not make it a good candidate to stand upon, being shifting sand. Maybe the same problem, perhaps? The Naturalization Act of 1795 ends with this:

    “SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

    SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the Act intituled, “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.”

    Funny thing. It strikes out that language that the Author here wants to stand upon as the “intent” of the Constitution. Had it been the “intent” of the Constitution, not only would there be no need to strike this from the law, but to do so would seem to be contrary to the “intent” of the Constitution, and by that reasoning, should have been left in!

    • NotaDemAss

      there still is no proof where he was born — sorry – he has it all hidden and sealed — for some reason……

    • David in MA

      stop reading into this that which you want it to be.

      • Clearbrook

        That is *exactly* the advice that I would give you. Honestly, I wish you were correct simply because I would *like* it to be that way. But it is not!

        ;’{)

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear Clearbrook,

      I’m not sure if you’re referring to Rubio or Obama here. No matter. Neither are Natural-born.

      Minor v. Happerset (1875)
      “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • Flashy

        To quote the relevant paragraph

        “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

        Thus reliance upon this case would be erroneous as the Court declined to discuss the issue finding the question answered without going further.

        • Clearbrook

          Thanks. I suspected as much. Your expansion on the citation makes my point quite clear.

          ;’{)

      • Clearbrook

        Bob,

        For the most part I agree with a lot of your positions. To be perfectly clear and keep this on track, I was talking about Marco Rubio.

        “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

        I’ll trust you on the citation. I have no reason to doubt it’s veracity.

        From your article:

        “Rubio’s parents came to America from Cuba sometime between 1956 and 1959 (the exact date is in dispute) and became naturalized U.S. citizens in 1975. Rubio was born May 28, 1971.”

        I am assuming that your line of reasoning here is that because they were not citizens at the time of his birth, Rubio, regardless of whether he was born on the soil of this country or not, cannot be a natural-born citizen. The flaw with that logic is simple: The language of your citation is inclusive, not exclusive. In other words, if his parents were citizens at the time of his birth, there would be no doubt as to his status as a natural-born citizen. The full citation may have more to say than that, but you have not given me that, so I can only speculate that it does not say anything stronger than this. What you have given me does not exclude a child born of legal aliens here on our soil at the time of their child’s birth. Even were this one particular citation to somewhere else in the body of what it says to exclude all others from being considered natural-born citizens, it is a lone citation, certainly outweighed by years of fairly consistent rulings that those born on U.S. soil, including those so called Anchor Babies, are considered to be natural-born citizens. Were the Law to be written that defines this differently, in line with what you desire to interpret the law to mean, I would agree, since the Constitution itself does not define natural-born citizens in its body.

        Thank You Sir,

        Mel

    • Paul Smith

      The 14th Amendment does not address ‘natural born citizen’ therefore it is irrelevant.

      • Clearbrook

        The 14th does not define natural-born citizens per se, you are correct. However, it only includes two categories, and natural-born citizens must be one of these two categories to *be* citizens, per the clear language here. It is fair to argue that this does not specifically address natural-born citizens, but absent law (that has not been repealed) that defines natural-born citizens as not being all citizens born here in the U.S., it is also fair to argue that the Constitution itself does not exclude that possible (and currently accepted) interpretation.

        At this point, the Law rules. You cannot argue that Constitutionally, Rubio could not be President, and therefor could not be Vice President. You can argue that it is questionable, but not Unconstitutional. And I don’t think the Law defines him as a citizen, born here in the U.S., who is *not* a natural-born citizen. That Law would make it illegal for him to be President, were such a Law to exist. But it does not!

        Thanks,

        ;’{)

        • Patriot II

          Unclearbrook;

          You must be a Lawyer, or you sound like one with a mouth full of Bull Crap. lol!

    • Richard Gibbard

      I was wondering when someone would bring up the 14th Amendment.

    • Martin Tyska

      Clearbrook, you are missing the point of the argument. The disagreement is not wether he is a “citizen”, the question is wether he is a “natural born citizen” as is proscribed by the Constitution? The term “natural born citizen” as was understood by the Framers is to be found in Vattel’s book Law of Nations. Vattel defines “natural born citizen” as a person who’s “father” is a citizen. Moreover, at least two Supreme Court reference the term “natural born citizen” and both cases validate Vattel’s description of the term. I’m speculating here, but I think the reason for so precise a definition is because the founders did not want the President to have a dual allegiance. In Obama’s case, because his father was not a citizen of the U.S., the British could have legally claimed him as a subject of the Crown.

  • Wizard

    It matters not if he was born on Uranus if the criminal globalist running this country deem Rubio the best to be their front man he will be the next President. Constitution be damned. It’s all a pointless arguement. Obama will get a new term and will declare himself supreme ruler and there will be no more elections. And the sheeple will bow down and piss on themselves whenever he opens his suck. What’d ya think about that?

    • David in MA

      I think we should
      pray for the Oath Keepers
      and
      hope for the Lone Wolf.

    • Patriot II

      Wizard, you spoke more truth than you know.

  • dee

    Rubio is a Rino through and through. He voted for the Patriot Act and NDAA and he has done absolutely nothing about illegal immigration in this state. I find his yes votes for the Patriot Act and NDAA completely unforgiveable due to the fact that he is the son of Cuban immigrants. If anyone should understand what an oppressive government looks and acts like, it should be Rubio. IMHO he is a disgrace to his parents.

    Rubio is a pretty boy, talking head who has been thoroughly indoctrinated by the University(s)he attended. I’m sorry I ever voted for him and I pray every single day he isn’t the Vice Presidential candidate.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD_ybaXhXno David Platter

    In law the use of the word “Intent” carries a lot of weight in court. It is clear what the intent of the law was regarding a natural born citizen. The fact that they go on to define it makes the intent even more clear.

  • JGS

    No matter what the Constitution states, and it is the Law of the land, the final conclusion on this will be based on the Judge from Georgia, who found that OBuzzo is qualified to be president. These Judges twist and turn the wording of the Constitution so much that its true wording is beginning to mean nothing. Somehow this must stop, but how?

    • Paul Smith

      That is patently false. The Ga. judge is a small cog in a big wheel. Now matter which way this was decided, it will go to an appeals court and from there to either the State Supreme Court or, more likely, to the SCOTUS.

      • Flashy

        LOL … it won’t get past first base in headed to the courts.

  • http://Yahoo.com Peter

    All criticism of Natural Citizen in America is seen very openly but I wonder when shall the Original American Indian will be a President of America in their original Country? Who is American than the other and yet all came from other Countries? eg. German, Irish, and Europe,etc.

  • jopa

    Coal Miner;Very good links to the urban myths.Now this should clear up this Orly Taitz myth once and for all.Whew I am so glad we all can agree that President Obama is a legitimate President once and for all.It’s half time folks and we have had 32 straight months of job growth.USA USA USA.

    • Dale on the left coast

      Jopa . . . 32 months of job growth? Where you livin . . . Kenya?
      You are right . . . O’bammy is qualified to be president of Kenya . . . even the Kenyans say so . . .

  • Rafael

    If what you saying is: It reads (Constitution): “…the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.” This doesn’t mean or say anything about legal resident’s born children in the US. Only says that any citizen can inscribed his children in an embassy outside the US. Duh

  • LoudAmerican from Twitter

    this article says: became naturalized U.S. citizens in 1975. Rubio was born May 28, 1971. This fact makes him a U.S. citizen, but it does not make him a natural born citizen according to the definition intended by the founders.

    As long as child is to be born to two U.S. citizen parents, they are eligible to become the President. So long as he/she was born in the United States that person is still a natural born citizen no matter if their parents were born here or not.

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear LoudAmerican from Twitter,

      Rubio is a citizen. He is not a natural-born citizen and therefore not eligible to be president.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

  • Paul Smith

    The Naturalization act of 1790 clearly says that children born overseas to citizen parents were like (as) natural born citizens and not the same thus indicating that there was a difference between the two. Natural born citizens are born on the soil of citizen parents. Obama is a usurper and, if born in Hawaii as he claims, a traitor.

    • Clearbrook

      That Law was repealed and rewritten in 1795. Check it. Sorry, wrong law to cite since it is repealed and no longer carries any weight at all, quite possibly just because they saw the argument you would like to make here.

      ;’{P~~~

      BTW, I mention that above.

      • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

        Dear Clearbrook,

        Yes the law was repealed by subsequent laws passed re: immigration. However, its language is relevant as it reflects what the Framers understood natural-born to mean at the time the Constitution was written.

        Best wishes,
        Bob

        • Flashy

          Just a minor question…did the “Framers”, “Founders”, SCOTUS, etc ever state what a “native born” was? Or is that something that popped up the last few years?

          • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

            Dear Flashy,

            Why would they be concerned about “native-born?”

            Best wishes,
            Bob

  • Paul

    The debate on natural citizenship only serves to distract attention away from more significant issues, and that is the intended function of all such insipid and manipulative political debate. It is nothing but more theater for our sick social psychopathologies…
    It would be more appropriate for everyone to recognize, we are now in the final process of destroying the Earths ability to support life itself. Our ‘economic’ systems, and their reliance on sophisticated chemical technologies, have completely circumvented simple common sense in most of the developed world. In addition, our reliance on digitized electronic information processing (instead of simple-direct observation) has all but destroyed our ability to even comprehend the level of intellectual impairment we are mutually enjoying…
    The practice of subjecting human living tissue to microwave and digitally pulsed EMF energy, is THE major cause of many behavioral diseases in the developed west. There is plenty of research data available.
    Some of you will comment that I am ‘off subject’. My reply would be: It is our political, moral, and intellectual systems, which are off subject. When our oceans have been made into radioactive cesspools- filled with industrial filth, and we are all choking on toxic air, it won’t make much difference where anyone is “from”, nor much difference whether anyone ‘ intended’ to survive or not.

    • newcomer1800

      Your observations contain alot of truth but you are wrong about the constitution. The constitutuion is important even if some of our modern evils do threaten our very existence. If we honorthe constitution and support those who believe in limited government many of these problems would be addressed. Globalism will not solve our pollution and waste. Those guys just take carbon credits and keep doing what they always do. The rest of us have to pay the price for global domination. Seek individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness if you want to solve the world’s problems. There is no doubt that conservation is important but the “boogie man” is much bigger than the current pillage of our mother earth. The green movement is being used for much bigger purposes. I think that is where this discussion of “natural born” connects so well. The issue is really about self-government and independance. The founding Fathers simply wanted to protect the system of government which they had created. The concentration of powers within the executive branch of government requires an extra measure of pre-caution not required in the legislative branch. The president is one individual but power is distributed among many within the congress.

  • Doubtful Avenger

    David never said you only consider the father’s citizenship. He said you have to consider both in order to determine if a person is natural born. The point here is that Rubio was not born to citizens – they became citizens later. Obama was not born to two citizens, but only one. If it had been two citzens, it would not have mattered if he was born in Hawaii or Kenya. If he continues to refuse to respond to litigation in the six states with pending challenges, he may lose by default. Too bad!
    Oh, and Flashy – man up! Your spouse has a hyphenated name? And your daughters? Why don’t you?

    • ValDM

      A correction, if you don’t mind : The O’boy claims he was born in 1961. In 1961 the age of majority was 21. Stanley Ann Dunham was NOT 21 when she gave birth to the O’boy; therefore could NOT confer citinship to her offspring.

      The bottom line here is that we have a foreign-national father & an underage mother……….no citizenship possible.

  • Skyraider6

    Regardless obummer is useless for our wellbeing

  • sybucket

    Ladies & Gentleman- I am a consertive Republican, Life member of the NRA and well enough educated to know that his entire subject is a Mountain of BS. Both the President and the Mr. Rubio were born in this country. Obama IS the President and all your bleeating isn’t going to change ANYTHING! Mr. Rubio is as qualified as the rest of us to be Presidnet. It’s time to stop this ignorant crap and find a descent canadate who can beat Obama at the Polls. Period.

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear sybucket,

      Your education is sorely lacking.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • Sybucket

        Mr. Livingston just how many hairs do you want to split here? My education is sorly lacking? That will come as a great suprise to the University I went to. I’ll have to tell them your opinion. In addition, I know how to read and understand WHAT I read and any person born on US Soil is a Citizen. This crap about “Natural” and Native” born is just that-Crap-, Mountains of Road Apples- and if you don’t know and understand that then I guess I have to question YOUR education. Everyone on the forum should take the time to look up the Words “Natural” and Native” in the dictionary.They would find that they have essentieally the same defination. To wit:

        NATIVE- “Born in a particular place or country” “belonging to a place because of the circumstances of birth” “Grown, produced or having it’s origin in a particular reagion” “Native implies birth or origin in a particular place” “one born or reared in a particular place”

        NATURAL-”Born in or with one” Being such by nature” “A natural child”

        NATURALIZED-”To confer the rights and privliges of citizenship on.”

        This entire argument is a vast wast of time for all concerned. Obama is the President, like it or not. Rubio is, by brunt of being born here, elligible for the office. Why don’t we all move on and stop insulting each other just because you don’t like someone else’s opinion? The REALLY important goal is making Obama a one term President!

        Onward and upward!

        • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

          Dear sybucket,

          Performing the requirements to obtain a degree does not an education make. You write: “I know how to read and understand WHAT I read and any person born on US Soil is a Citizen.” I do not argue this point.

          You write: “This crap about “Natural” and Native” born is just that-Crap-,” The Framer’s of the Constitution (Madison primarily) were very intelligent men. They chose their words carefully because they understood that words have meaning. In no other place other than for the qualifications of President did they insert the word “natural-born.” It is not found in the qualifications for the House, it is not found in the qualifications for Senate. Therefore, the President being a natural-born citizen was important to them and is evidence that it was different from being just a citizen.

          You write: “This entire argument is a vast wast of time for all concerned.” I strongly disagree. Constitutional issues are never “a vast wast (sic)of time.”

          You write: “Why don’t we all move on and stop insulting each other just because you don’t like someone else’s opinion?” I have not insulted you. I merely stated the obvious.

          Best wishes,
          Bob

    • http://Personalliberty Tony

      To Sybucket:
      Right on BRO!! For i have the same views and agree with 100% in stopping this ignorance. One thing, though, a better firearm organization to join is Gun Owners of America. Also, Dr. Piazza’s
      group, Front sight, is excellent too. Thanks!!

    • ohoh

      So what you’re saying, is that all your experience has taught you that it’s OK to disregard the rule of law. Viva les pragmatistes!

  • Paul Smith

    Your ‘qualifications’ notwithstanding, sybucket, your opinion, like Paul’s, is irrelevant and rejected. You people who care nothing for our Constitution and our laws make me puke.

  • http://personallibertydigest Gottaplenty

    When the intent is carried out to be action like we are faced with at this time, and the constitution is constantly trampoled on as it has been in the last 3 1/2 years we had better keep after our representives to get back on track, Or the constitution will have no impact at all….

  • sybucket

    Then get a bucket because all your hollering about this birth issue makes the rest of us look like idiots. Your concern for the Constitution is admirable, except if you read it you didn’t understand it. “Natural Born” means born in the United States. Obama IS the President so all this hollering about his birth status is what is irrelevant. Do you actueally think that he will be removed from office at this stage of the game? Get real. And did you know that Nixon was born in Mexico City? His parents were citizens, therfore he was a citizen. I have a friend born in Tokyo of an American mother and a Japanese father. She is an American citizen. I have friends born in Gibralter of American father, English Mother. They are American citizens.

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear sybucket,

      There is a difference between being a citizen and a natural-born citizen. You don’t need anyone to make you look like an idiot. Your screed grounded in ignorance does that for you.

      Best wishes,
      Bo

      • simian pete

        Bob,

        The ape guy (me) has been reading some of the replies and trying to understand the humans’ thinking.
        What could be happening is “voter nullification” of the Constitution. Most of us know what “jury nullification” means. When a jury refuses to find the accused “guilty” because the “law” is (according to the jury) wrong…

        So you have a written law (de jure ) then you have the fact or reality (de facto). The jury nullifies the written law in using reason – disregarding the “logical argument” codified in the law ..

        NOW we have voters – who elected Mr. Obama president – nullifying the Constitutional requirement of
        natural born citizenry. The checks and balances did not fail – the Constitution was nullified by the American people. The American voter was the jury … and the voters, like a jury, nullified the Constitution.

        Congress followed, nullifying the Constitution, when they approved the vote of the Electoral College …. So did the Supreme Court when Mr. Obama was sworn in twice !!! The De Facto “reality” is the Natural Born Citizen requirement has been nullified – by the will of the people.

        I don’t like it myself ! The voters should have stuck with the Constitution ! Oh well ….

        So

        • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

          Dear simian pete,

          You have broken the code.

          Best wishes,
          Bob

    • JT

      Whether or not he will be removed from office is another issue. It is a related issue, but not the one at hand here. The point here is that our Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and determines what government is, and more importantly IS NOT, allowed to do. It is NOT allowed to retroactively “declare” that a person is a natural-born citizen, making them eligible to hold the office of President, as the Democrat-controlled congress did in a special vote during the Summer FOLLOWING our fake President’s inauguration.

      Our nation’s founders placed a different set of standards on the office of President, and with good reason. Someone can attain citizenship by simply being born here or having one American parent. But, the requirement of being a natural-born citizen means that parents cannot come here from, say China, or Iran and give birth and establish the child’s citizenship here, and then two weeks later go back to their own country and have that child grow up and run for POTUS 30 years later.

      Your examples do not prove your point. Nixon was a natural-born U.S. citizen, because BOTH of his parents were U.S. citizens. Your friend is a citizen, but NOT a NATURAL-BORN citizen, so she cannot run for POTUS. Do you get it now? This really isn’t rocket science, and I fail to see why so many people are completely unable to comprehend it.

      BTW, if he ALREADY WAS eligible to be President, then WHY did it require an ACT OF CONGRESS to officially declare that he’s now eligible?? And WHY did he claim to be a foreign citizen in order to get a foreign student scholarship? Either he committed fraud to get a free college education ( possibly renouncing his U.S. citizenship in doing so), OR he committed fraud in order to become POTUS. It’s one or the other.

      But the real point here is that neither of these things have EVER even been addressed by BO, the White House, or the Congress. The way the question of his citizenship has been handled from the beginning is as damning and suspicious as the main issue itself.

      We all know he will not be removed from office because of this (can you imagine the riots that would result?), but just remember this: the number of people claiming that this is all BS does NOT make it BS. In other words, if something is true, even 150 million people refusing to believe it will not make it untrue.

    • Paul Smith

      Livingston has it right – they are citizens and NOT natural born citizens. By law, there is a difference in those two terms as there is in naturalized citizen and native citizen.

      The judge in Georgia should get his walking papers handed to him for his incredibly basic legal error. I expect that an appellate court will bitch-slap him shortly.

      • Flashy

        You wouldn’t care to place a small wager on that would you?

    • Dale on the left coast

      “I have a friend born in Tokyo of an American mother and a Japanese father. She is an American citizen. I have friends born in Gibralter of American father, English Mother. They are American citizens.”
      And guess what Bucket . . . none of them are eligible to be President . . . that requires Natural-born of US ParentS . . . note the “S” . . . complicated I know . . .

  • chuckb

    just to prove a point, see what wimps the republicans in congress are, they have no fortitude no guts they are afraid to even mention barrys nationality. turn the tables around, if barry was elected on the republican ticket i will guarantee you he would not have survived the first year in the white house. the bolsheviks would have tarred and feathered him, he would be running from lions in kenya.

  • cpw

    To whom it may concern,
    I recently read an article which I feel explains quite a bit of this ‘Birther’ movement. Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice. ‘Research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. Low intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice.’…lower cognitive capacity can lead to multiple simple ways to represent the world, and one those can be embodied in a right-wing ideology where ‘People I don’t know are threats’. ” Much of the present research suggests the our prejudices are primarily emotional in origin rather than cognitive.” Obama’s father was balck and his mother was white…this is still an issue in 2012?

    • Clearbrook

      Wow,

      Racebaiting from the someone who seems to be on the Left? You are *not* really a HATED Conservative, now are you? Just a HATER? Right?

      Prejudice, eh? And as obviously flawed as that comment was, you *must* be a “Birther” with Conservative Beliefs. But even that does not make sense, now does it? Are you confused and conflicted yet? Should I call someone from the Nanny State to protect you? Gee, I don’t know what to do for you…

      Funny, isn’t it, who is generally “Conservative” (in the TRUE sense of the word) and who is not. Demographically, the older you are, the more likely you are to be Conservative. So, by your reasoning, old people are not wiser, but just plain more stupid, losing their mental capacity and drooling old codgers who could not follow a “pseudo-rational/emotional” argument with someone of superior PC (Probably Crap)understanding like yourself. Their parents *really* didn’t know anything, and teenage rebellion is the ultimate expression of intelligence.

      Frankly, you strike me as immature with that outlook. Good Luck getting anywhere with it!

      ROFL!!!

      • cpw

        With all due respect Clearbrook, your rant appears to prove the researcher’s conclusion that “prejudices are primarily emotional in origin rather than cognitive”. Polling data and social and political science research do show that prejudice is more common in those who hold right-wing ideals than those of other political persuasions. The article (not my opinion)is based on two studies that followed babies since birth (1958 & 1970)assessing intelligence @ age 10 or 11 and as adults ages 30 or 33. The research does not imply that all liberals are brilliant and all conservatives are stupid. The research is a study of averages over decades with a large group. You may feel attacked by this ‘pseudo science’ of social research but I’ve found it helpful in understanding why people still persue this issue from the right. Not too many from the left would bother where the POTUS was born at this point because the arguement is mute- immature? really?

    • JT

      The fact that YOU view this as an issue of race speaks volumes about your own prejudices. I have found that “thinking in terms of race” is much more common on the political left than it is among conservatives.

      The issue here is one concerned with the citizenship of BO’s father, as it relates to that of BO. It matters not what color he is, it MATTERS whether or not he was eligible for the office of POTUS, according to the law. We would have the same situation if his father was a white guy from New Zealand.

      Calling people stupid and racist because they don’t support obama really is a tired and jaded line, no matter how “cleverly” you think you’ve presented it.

      I didn’t vote for obama because he was (and is) a completely unqualified junior politician devoid of any real accomplishments. As if that wasn’t reason enough, he also sat in the congregation of Rev. Wright’s racist , anti-American “church” for twenty years, and then claimed that he “never noticed”. There are plenty of non-whites that I would consider voting for, but it just so happens that obama isn’t one of them.

      I’d venture to say that the number of people who support BO because of the color of his skin FAR outnumber those who choose not to for that reason. That’s racism as well.

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear cpw,

      So rather than form a rebuttal you resort to the last bastion of those lacking an argument: cries of racism. So who has the lower cognitive capacity?

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • cpw

        Dear Bob, I believe the link between low IQ/ right-wing ideology/ prejudices is well founded. (I omitted homophobia, also cited in recent studies, as it doesn’t apply). Do you truely understand/know first hand the motives of ALL people making the arguement Obama’s election is a illegal based on thier understanding of the constitution? Is the POTUS’ race really not an issue with anyone? Racism doesn’t exist anymore? and you question my cognitive capacity?

        • Nadzieja Batki

          We do question your “cognitive capacity” as well as your pretentious IQ.

  • Vincent P Price

    The part of the Constitution referred to does NOT deal with persons born in this country, it merely preserves the rights of persons born of US citizens living or traveling elsewhere. If Rubio was born within the US, then he is a natural born citizen.

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear Vincent P Price,

      You response is incoherent and your knowledge of the Constitution sorely lacking.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

  • Bert Cundle Sr.

    Qualifications & Support are in the pit! Support For The Rules are under attack! Democracy has become Mob Rules! Respect is on thin ice!
    I’m Still Older than the last 3 Presidents were in office. But useless.

  • Don

    The person who occupies the white house now is an imposter. The damage is done. What we have to do from now on is not to ever let it happen again. I will do my best to help usher him and his socialist cronies out in November.

  • Don

    True, as good a man is Marco Rubio, he is ineligible to hold the office as president, according to the US constitution. Ruth Bader Ginsburg should be impeached for her anti-american comments. For her to make those comments against the constitution, after she swore to uphold and defend it is treasonous!

  • http://gmail.com sancheleezy

    Bottom line is that Marco Rubio was born here and the fact that Obama cannot irrefutably prove that his father was makes him every bit as eligible to be President as the present occupant. Plus he believes in the U.S. Constitution, which is a big factor which would make him a much better person for the job. Let us wake up and deal with the facts and stop this unconstitutional legislation from being enacted and rid our Congress of inept crony politicians. Vote only those that believe in the U.S. Constitution and practice such—-Vote Ron Paul in 2012.

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear sancheleezy,

      You write: “Plus he believes in the U.S. Constitution, which is a big factor which would make him a much better person for the job.” Apparently not. He voted for the unConstitutional NDAA.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • http://PersonalLibertyDigest az-ike

        Dear Bob,

        Thank you for providing this forum. I don’t know how you have the patience to reply to the OBOTs idiocy and obscufusion.

        The term ‘natural-born’ derives its meaning from the child naturally, at birth, assuming citizenship from his parents. Other means of gaining citizenship are determined by laws and are, therefore, not ‘natural.’ The only ‘citizenship’ that is further qualified in the Constitution is the ‘natural-born’ citizenship requirement for President and Vice-President. Both the courts and Congress know the NBC definition, otherwise, why would Congress have made so many attempts to change the law—7 or 8 times in the 1990s?

        Even if Rubio’s parents were permanent U.S. residents, they were still citizens of Cuba when he was born. Therefore, Marco was a ‘natural-born’ citizen of Cuba, inheriting his parents’ legal Cuban citizenship. He may have been a ‘native’ born U.S. citizen according to law, but could never be a ‘natural-born’ U.S. citizen since he was already a natural-born Cuban citizen. It is important, if one believes in the Constitution and the Rule of Law, to make that distinction.

        Either we are a nation of Law, or we let individual’s opinions determine the law. We can’t pick and choose which constitutional provisions to accept or reject. After the Obama experience, we should never again either support or vote for ANY presidential candidate who has not willingly and independently proven his constitutional eligibility.

        While discussing eligibility, I have two questions for you and your readers on the 2012 candidates. Please note, I am making no accusations—just seeking information.

        Since Rick Santorum is also a first generation American, does anyone know the dates of his parents’ naturalization in relation to his U.S. birth?

        If an individual is born, or a least a resident, in a U.S. Territory but leaves to live permanently in another country before the Territory gains statehood, does the individual still qualify for U.S. citizenship? If the minor children (also born or resident in the Territory before statehood) of the said individual eventually return to the U.S. as adults, how do they attain U.S. Citizenship? Simply declaring they are still U.S. citizens doesn’t seem reasonable since anyone could walk in from the foreign country and claim U.S. citizenship? Any answers?

        Thank you,

      • http://PersonalLibertyDigest az-ike

        Hi Bob,
        I was trying to reply to your comment at 2:29, but your website rejected it as a duplicate. Sorry, but I can’t find my comment anywhere within the comment section.

        • libertytrain

          I think you replied. It says duplicate when you hit the enter twice, at least that’s happened to me. Also refresh your page before you decide your comment isn’t there….

          • JeffH

            …been there, done that…

  • Liztalk

    The reason “the mainstream media won’t tell you any of this,” is because to say that Pres Obama is ineligible to hold office – is a LIE. To say that Pres. Obama is not a U.S. citizen is a LIE. To say that Pres. Obama’s birth certificate is fake – is a LIE. And the mainstream media may have problems, but they try not to spread LIES. Unlike you, Mr. Bob Livingston, who uses this faulty belief (which is based in political purpose and bigotry) and your website here to spread LIES.

    Everyone knows or SHOULD KNOW that a person can be a U.S. citizen and United States born, even if a parent was not born in the U.S. That’s how my mother and father are U.S. citizens. Their parents were born in Italy. Both of my parents were born in the U.S. They could have run for president! It’s not that hard to understand.

    Stop spreading lies! Mr. Livingston, you have a pulpit here; it may not be “mainstream” media, but people listen to you. Be responsible and stop the agenda-at-all-costs preaching and obvious discrimination.

    • Liztalk

      The Naturalization Act of 1790 does NOT say that ONLY those born outside the U.S. to citizens of the U.S. are considered natural born. It simply defines those people so they can be INCLUDED as natural born. To read that Act as if it excludes those born in the U.S. from non-citizens – is twisting the meaning to your liking.

      And you do remember, anyway, that Pres. Obama’s MOTHER was a U.S. citizen when she gave birth to Barack in Hawaii? Right? Or did you conveniently forget that?

      Maybe you like those old laws in England that would punish a child, put them in jail if a parent and grandparent committed a crime? There are some third world countries that do that now.

      If you exclude people from being a true U.S. citizen (natural born) if only one parent has not been born in the U.S. then, through time, you would have millions of people who were not U.S. citizens and ineligible for certain rights and to run for the office of president. If my parents weren’t considered U.S. citizens, or natural born because their parents were born in Italy, then I would be ineligible to run for president by your logic.

      • JT

        Liztalk claimed:

        “Obama’s MOTHER was a U.S. citizen when she gave birth to Barack in Hawaii? Right? Or did you conveniently forget that?”

        Was he? Were YOU there? If he was in fact born in Hawaii, then WHY did it require an ACT OF CONGRESS by way of a special vote during the Summer FOLLOWING his inauguration to officially declare that he’s now a citizen and therefor eligible?? And WHY did he claim to be a foreign citizen in order to get a foreign student scholarship? Either he committed fraud to get a free college education ( possibly renouncing his U.S. citizenship in doing so), OR he committed fraud in order to become POTUS. It’s one or the other, but either way, he’s a fraud.

        Liztalk also claimed:

        “If my parents weren’t considered U.S. citizens, or natural born because their parents were born in Italy, then I would be ineligible to run for president by your logic.”

        No, apparently this is all too much for your brain to process. That is not the logical conclusion of what was said, it is merely the result of your own misinterpretation of it. Nobody said that your parents aren’t citizens, and if they both are, then you are eligible to run for POTUS (at least with regard to your citizenship). You really are having a rough time with basic logic these days, hmmm?

    • JT

      Evidently you haven’t been paying attention, Lizzy. Your parents may indeed be U.S. citizens, but they are NOT natural-born U.S. citizens, and are therefor NOT eligible to run for president.

      The fact that you believe that they are eligible does not make it true, it only makes you mistaken. Ironically, you claim that “It’s not that hard to understand.”, although YOU don’t seem able to understand it yourself.

      Oh, I especially enjoyed your comment regarding bigotry. More baseless accusations of racism from the left…what a shock.

      Here’s a little tip for you: If you need to make up “facts” as you go along, and engage in adolescent name-calling to support your point, then perhaps you don’t have a point worth supporting to begin with.

      • Liztalk

        Both my parents were “natural born” because they were both born in the United States. Read the Wikipedia definition I posted below of “natural born” – and you will see and understand that to be born in the United States means you were naturally born here. Your parents don’t have to be born in the U.S. Simple!

        If one parent is a U.S. Citizen and you are born abroad, then you are still “natural-born.” Got it?

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear Liztalk,

      I did not say that Obama was not a citizen. If he was indeed born in the U.S., he is a citizen. That does not make him a natural-born citizen according to the Constitution. His father was a British subject, if the fake birth certificate is to be believed. As to his mother, she was a minor at the time of his birth and unable to confer upon him citizenship.

      Obama would have been better served to fess up to Frank Marshall Davis as being his rightful father and he wouldn’t have had to produce a phony birth certificate. Of course, his narrative wouldn’t have been nearly as compelling… the product of an illicit relationship between an older adult and a minor child.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • Liztalk

        Pres. Obama’s mother, Stanley Anne Dunham, was born November 29, 1942 in Wichita, Kansas. She was 19 years old. She did not have to “confer” citizenship upon her child. He was a natural born citizen as soon as he was born – in Hawaii, of a natural born, U.S. citizen.

        Here’s the definition, and please, no twisting of the truth to serve your agenda:

        ****

        Natural-born-citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution
        From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        Part of the constitutional provision as it appeared in 1787
        Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for election to the office of President or Vice President. This requirement was an attempt to allay concerns that foreign aristocrats might immigrate to the new nation and use their wealth and influence to impose a monarchy.
        The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The Congressional Research Service has stated that the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion indicates that the term means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth,” including any child born “in” the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.[1]
        The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court and lower courts dealing with the question of eligibility for citizenship by birth, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate’s eligibility as a natural-born citizen.
        ****

        By this definition, both Mr. Rubio is natural-born, because he was born in the U.S. and Pres. Obama, because he was born in the U.S. AND he was born of a U.S. citizen, his mother.

        • professor

          Just because you find information on “wikipedia” doesn’t mean that it is necessarily the truth. As I understand it, anyone can place false or misleading information on Wikipedia.” It is not a reliable source to quote..it leans to the “radical” and eliminates most things conservative.

          People have got to quit arguing in favor of foreigners squatting in the White House. “Natural-born” has been defined by our scholars.
          Some of you sound as if you are still arguing about the definition of “IS.” No wonder this country is on the brink…with some of the “numb num” posts trying to defend the indefensible!

          I just don’t get it. There is absolutely “No upside” to having a president with ties to another country. We must have a patriot leading our country, someone having allegiance only to America! We have already experienced an illegal foreigner in the oval office, and how is that working for you?

          If you want to live under a foreign-ruler, but a one-way ticket.

          • professor

            Correction….”it takes but a one-way ticket.”

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Having a guilty conscience about the possibility that your own parents may not be citizens of this country.

  • 2WarAbnVet

    Neither Obama nor Rubio meets the standard …

    Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
    “the original common law definition of an Article II ‘natural born Citizen’ . . . is a child born in the country to a United States citizen mother and father’ . .

    • Flashy

      2War…read the entire cxase. jeesh … the relevant paragraph was pasted above and the Court explicitly stated it was not addresing the question.

  • http://wjdlawcenter.com William J. Dennison II

    Um…No. A natural born citizen is one who is a citizen as a direct result of his natural birth (as opposed to one who applies for and is granted citizenship at some point after birth). Rubio is a natural born citizen. As is President Obama (if indeed he was born in Hawai’i).

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear William J. Dennison II,

      You are incorrect, as I have pointed out.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

  • gnafu

    Sorry, Rubio cannot be considered for Vice President or President of the United States. And, Obama should not be sitting in the Oval Office if indeed he does not want to furnish proper data to prove otherwise. Rubio’s parents did not become citizens of the United States until After Rubio was born. Therefore, Rubio is not a natural born citizen.Rubio has not hidden his parent’s or his birth place and date. He has not tried to cover up school records, social security number legality or important data that should be made available to proper authorities. Yet, he can’t be elected to the highest office in the United States. That is how it should be. We need fine, honest Senators like Rubio. May I suggest he stays as a Senator for his term then go home and make a differnce in the community where he lives.

  • Alex

    Marco Rubio’s family, like so many of the Miami Cubans, claim to love Cuba—but they sure did not love it enough to stay and fight for it!

    The anti-Revolution Cubans only want to turn Cuba back into the casino/brothel it was prior to the Revolution–an exploitative island escape for nefarious Amerikkkan Capitalists.

  • Old Henry

    Absolutely correct Bob. In the last several days I have been getting email newsletters from GOPUSA, etc. claiming that not only Rubio, but also Jindahl are Natural Born. So, the lie machine is in full tilt.

    I did, however, see an interview with Rubio on Newsmax TV where he unequivocally stated he would not run as VP. One reason he gave was that the Senate needs people like him to carry out the agenda of conservatism. I had the feeling that there was another unspoken reason – that he knows he is not eligible to be POTUS.

  • Dave May

    On the comment about US tradition of citizenship going with the dad not the mother I believe there is a misunderstanding. Actually the founding fathers felt that citizenship went with the mother. If a child was born to a slave girl and a white master the child was a slave. In the few cases were a child was born to a free mother and a slave father the child was free. It is in the slave laws, codes, and court cases of all the original slave states. It is not a Jewish tradition as was earlier implied but more of a Roman and Christian tradition to grant personhood or citizenship based upon the mothers status. I am NOT addressing the other concerns about Obama with this comment. I am not a birther, and I think this author is well intended even if I disagree with him on both Obama and the Senator from Florida.

    Several of our founding fathers were bastards including Franklin and Hamilton. In fact, it was Hamilton that submitted the “natural born citizen clause” IMO and it is only an OPINION he meant a child born to citizen(s) meaning to the citizens of the country not to a union of citizens. As I stated above this is supported (IMO) by the slave laws and codes of the area.

    Besides the 14th Amendment states “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The courts have ruled since the 1880s that this means a person born here even to ILLEGAL aliens are citizens. In fact, the only exception has been the children of active duty diplomats here serving their country.

  • Mario Del Conte

    Any questions concerning Obama’s qualifications or lack there of to serve as president should be referred to Eric Holder. He will certainly see to it that justice is done.

    • Sheryl Stanley

      Heh….. Good one!

  • professor

    And, it is “idiotic” for anyone to think that the patriotic Americans (back then) actually wanted the children of every illegal foreigner that managed to crawl into this country to drop a kid…should have “anchor babies.” That was not the intent, but it has been twisted by the radical communists so that they can dilute the vote of real Americans with those of illegal, foreign anchor-babies!

    No other country in the world gives away “citizenship to their country” as cheaply as discount coupons! Only the self-destructive
    U.S. citizens would cheer such stupidity!

  • Mario Gingras

    I wonder how many of you realy read the bible because all the way from Adam on they refer to the father not the mother.The nature of sin is passed by blood of the father thats how we can say Jesus was born without sin because there is no blood tes from the mother check it out medical science has proved it so religiondon’t wash here I say he isn’t elegible

  • Bundoker

    Bob …
    As for Obama … time to do something about his tenure has become like a handful of sand through one’s fingers …we have reacted too late; our main hope is November. I think your take on Senator Rubio’s status is correct if … Big IF, he was born before his parents became citizens is documented.

    Back to Obama’s status … one responder to your article commented that he [Obama) would be better off claiming his rumored father, mentor and US citizen Franklin Marshall Davies was his dad.
    PS. Like your articles

  • Sheryl Stanley

    C’mon people! The Supreme Court of the United States defined a “natural born citizen” as one who had been born in the United States, and whose parents (plural) are citizens. This automatically excludes Obama, because his father never became a citizen; nor, apparently did he ever intend to. In addition, the fake birth certificate notwithstanding, witnesses including Obama’s grandmother have stated that Obama was actually born in Nigeria.
    HOWEVER….. Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida. His parents were not citizens at the time of his birth, but they later became citizens. There doesn’t seem to be anything in the Supreme Court decision that says that Mr. Rubio’s parents had to have been citizens at the time of his birth; it only stipulates that they be citizens, which they now are and have been since 1975. The way I read it, it appears to me that Mr. Rubio IS qualified to be president. Mr. Obama is not so qualified.

  • Jenasus

    Obama has dual citizenship. Indonesia and USA and was born in Kenya according to his Grandma.
    Obama is an imposter and has no right to be POTUS.
    Impeach Obama now before he destroys the rest of America.
    Obama is leading America to its darkest days of the Age of Enslavement by proliferating Class Warfare and poverty.

    • professor

      The illegal muslim is not a U.S. Citizen! Lets acknowledge that right up-front.

      He has hidden his “true identity” from Americans, and spent Millions to do it. Evidently this means nothing to our minorities (most of which are foreigners themselves) or the radicals of this country.

      BTW, one third of our population is made up of foreign minorities..
      thanks, to a government that encourages illegal hordes to enter our country. So, why wonder about the government wanting an illegal for president, as well! There won’t be an America much longer with these policies…it will be instead a “collective of foreign tribes!”

  • Dave May

    Actually according to the Courts children of diplomats born whilst the parents are serving their country here are NOT considered US citizens due to diplomatic immunity. One would assume the same applies to heads of state visiting here. In fact, a few children have been born to foreign heads of state here and there has never been a claim of citizenship asserted. (Mainly Arab families were the mother had some complication that was known long in advance.)

  • Real Facts

    Sorry, folks. The article is just wishful thinking. (or headline-hunting).

    As “Natural Born Citizen” is not defined anywhere in the Constitution itself; that leaves it to Congress to define it via Legislation (like the vast majority of stuff that the Constitution talks about, but does not define in detail).

    The currently accepted definition of a “Citizen at Birth” (which the Courts so far have equated with “Natural Born Citizen” – i.e. the courts consider this matter settled, and the article’s assertion of a “debate” is false), is found here, in US Code Title 8.

    US Law on defining citizen at birth

    (a) in the link above covers Rubio. He was born inside the United States itself, same as Obama. Both thus qualify for the Presidency.

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear Real Facts,

      Your link is irrelevant. The argument is not that Rubio or Obama are not U.S. Citizens. The argument is whether they are natural-born citizens. As I posted above, the Framer’s of the Constitution (Madison primarily) were very intelligent men. They chose their words carefully because they understood that words have meaning. In no other place other than for the qualifications of President did they insert the word “natural-born.” It is not found in the qualifications for the House, it is not found in the qualifications for Senate. Therefore, the President being a natural-born citizen was important to them and is evidence that it was different from being just a citizen. I have also pointed out above relevant text and SCOTUS decisions to define what makes a natural-born citizen.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

  • http://ewebsmith.com/info Emmett Smith

    Ask Obama if this matters but, Rubio was born in Miami. That makes him as natural as one can get and he doesn’t support and wants to stop illegal immigration. He is proud to be an American and cherishes the American Dream. This anchor baby’s got my vote before anyone else.

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear Emmett Smith,

      As I wrote: Rubio is not qualified to hold the office of President because he is not a natural-born citizen. He is a citizen because he was born in the U.S., according to the 14th Amendment.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • marvin warshay

        Bob Livingston clearly does not understand that Amendments to our Constitution clarify or outright change our Constitution. So it makes no sense to say that Rubio is not qualified to be President because the clarification was only according to the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, and not according to the original US Constitution. Once an Amendment is passed it is the US Constitution, and takes precedence over any provision that it amended.

        • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

          Dear marvin warshay,

          This is a non sequitur.

          Best wishes,
          Bob

  • http://ewebsmith.com/info Emmett Smith

    Just wondering – My ancestors were born in Wells and Ireland to citizens of those countries before they immigrated here in 1692 when the USA did not exist. 13 of their descendents fought in the Revolution. Regardless, they were considered native and somehow morphed into citizenship even though it was never officially awarded. Is there a law that says that if you were here when the Republic was formed that you are automatically a citizen or should I give back my US passport and file for one from Ireland or Wells and have my birth certificate corrected? When did the descendents of my ancestors start becoming citizens and are any of us eligible to be President? Are you or yours? Can an American Indian be President?

    • Flashy

      “Can an American Indian be President?”

      If he/she was a staunch whacked Conservative, these folks would be saying yes. If he/she was anything to the left of Attila the Hun, they’d say no because of tribal connections and treaties etc…and then they’d start warping the Constitution beyond any sensible, sane recognition to meet their argument. And they’d toss in vague meaningless words like “framers” and “Founders” etc etc,

      • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

        Dear Flashy,

        Another non sequitur.

        Best wishes,
        Bob

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear Emmett Smith,

      You write: “Is there a law that says that if you were here when the Republic was formed that you are automatically a citizen… When did the descendents of my ancestors start becoming citizens ” They became citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted.

      You write: “and are any of us eligible to be President?” Read Article II Section 1 for your answer.

      You write: “Can an American Indian be President?” Yes, if he or she meets the qualifications under Article II Section 1.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

  • professor

    Radicals don’t want to admit that there is a different between “a citizen” and “a natural-born citizen.”

    For them it is like playing a game of chess that they lost hours ago, but they still keep moving the same piece bank and forth because they won’t admit that they have lost the game.!

  • JeffH

    Natural-born citizen

    Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

    The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.

    Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”
    •Anyone born inside the United States *
    •Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
    •Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
    •Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
    •Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
    •Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
    •Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
    •A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

    * There is an exception in the law — the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

    Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families
    http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear JeffH,

      I disagree, based on what I wrote and:

      Minor v. Happerset (1875)
      “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

      While all the situations you cite fulfill the requirements to make them citizens, it doesn’t make them all natural-born citizens.

      • JeffH

        Bob, I’m not disagreeing with you, I am just trying to find a clear explanation of the framer’s intent and it’s clear my cite hasn’t done that. I believe I have found just that on the Federalist Blog.
        http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/

        Natural-Born Citizen Defined

        One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature – laws the founders recognized and embraced.

        Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue of “natural law and national law.”

        The fact is that Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen nor was his father an immigrant to the USA nor was his father even a permanent resident of the USA. Obama’s father was merely sojourning as a transient in the USA as a student for a few years and returned to Kenya. Thus, Obama is not and never can be an Article II “natural born” citizen of the USA.

        It is very clear that Obama can never be considered a “natural born citizen” no matter where he was born because his father was not a U.S. citizen. Both parents must be citizens at the time of birth of the child in the USA for the child to be a “natural born citizen” per our Constitution’s framers intent and the “natural law”, as codified by Vattel in 1758 in his legal reference treatise, “The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law”.

        • JeffH

          “Natural born citizenship” is defined in the 250 year old scholarly book, “Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law”, written in 1758, decades before our Constitution and was used as a scholarly reference by our U.S. Constitution’s framers. Some excerpts, “… natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. … I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country”.
          http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/goatsledge/20081109%20Obama%20Citizenship%20Facts.pdf

          • JeffH

            Vattel’s Influence on the term a Natural Born Citizen

            The term Natural born Citizen appears in our Constitution, in Article 1, Section 2, with these words, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”

            Before the Constitution the closest reference we have to Natural Born Citizen is from the legal treatise “the Law of Nations,” written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758. In book one chapter 19,

            § 212. Of the citizens and natives.

            “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
            http://www.thebirthers.org/USC/Vattel.html

        • JeffH

          Bob, thanks once again…It is very clear to me now. I had to search and search to finally confirm exactly what you have been saying all along and it is very clear what the framer’s intent was when they wrote Article 1, Section 2 into the Constitution.

          I would hope that other’s will take the time to look deeper into the “natural born” qualifications for POTUS and recognize exactly what the framers had intended when they wrote it.

  • James

    The Naturalization Act defined citizenship for general Americans. The requirement for presidents is unique. Being ‘natural born’ means being born of parents who are also citizens of the U.S. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen. While that fact was dicta in the High Court cases that stated it, it is on record. Dred v. Sandford (1856) was one of them.

    • JeffH

      James, correctomundo… :)

  • marvin warshay

    Sen. Rubio is a “Native Born” American citizen, a citizen at the time of his birth, and thus eligible to run and serve as President of the United States. He was born in the United States. So, it doesn’t matter whether or not, one or both of his parents were US citizens at the time of his birth.

    THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE TALKED NONSENSE! AND SO DID SO MANY OF THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE IN! All that you have to do is look up what is a “Natural-born American Citizen”, which was, in accordance with our US Constitution, defined by later statues. This is one of the beauties of our wonderful US Constitution. It realized that not everything was clearly defined within the Constitution; so it defined how clarifications to certain parts should be clarified (by statutes and out-and-out Amendments to the Constitution. HERE IS THE STATE SCOOP!

    “Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

    The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.

    Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

    Anyone born inside the United States *
    Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
    Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
    Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
    Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
    Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
    Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
    A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.”

    * There is an exception in the law — the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear marvin warshay,

      You used a lot of words to add nothing to the conversation. The Constitution makes a distinction between a natural-born citizen and a citizen. Read Article II, Section 1. Only in qualifications for President is the term natural-born used. In Article I, Section 2, in describing the qualifications for a Representative, the term “Citizen of the United States” is used. In Article 1, Section 3, under qualifications for Senate, the term “a Citizen of the United States” is used. Clearly the Framers intended the President not be a naturalized citizen or just a citizen at birth. My argument has been made, it is sound, and backed by the Constitution and subsequent Supreme Court rulings. You can accept it, or you can ignore it if you like. But what you cite here in no way refutes it.

      Rubio is a citizen, without question. But there is a difference between being a citizen and being a natural-born citizen. He is not a natural-born citizen and therefore he is unqualified to hold the office of President and therefore not qualified to be the Vice Presidential nominee.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

  • JeffH

    ???

  • JeffH

    :)

  • http://marcum1@wildblue.net coal miner

    No one, but the Supreme Court can resolved this matter.

    Obama Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Primer
    http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm -
    1 day ago … Aren’t Obama eligibility challenges merely partisan attacks by Republicans against a Democratic president? 37. What is “Quo Warranto”? 38.

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear coal miner,

      You write: “Aren’t Obama eligibility challenges merely partisan attacks by Republicans against a Democratic president?” For Republicans? Some yes and some no.

      For me? No. The questions merely focus on establishing eligibility and are quite reasonable. Besides, this article was focused on Rubio.

      However, the responses indicate that many are prepared to dismiss any questions about Rubio, but not Obama. In those cases, the answer is yes. It is partisanship… or perhaps racism.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • cpw

        Dear Bob, glad to see you aknowledge some who persue this may be motivated by race…

        good luck with the ‘fight’

  • GMiller

    Here’s what we need to help get Obama on his way out:

    http://obamaballotchallenge.com/obamas-defense-team-has-finally-met-its-match

  • Earl, QUEENS, NY

    I find it disappointing that you would lash out at what sounds like a true conservative American. I find it pathetic that you didn’t acknowledge in this article how much better Rubio would be for America than Obama has been in the past 3 years. Marco Rubio sounds better to me than any of the 4 remaining GOP candidates. ….. As for the place of birth, I also wonder about the lemon which you seem to worship – Ron Paul. Was Paul even born on this planet????? LOL!!

  • charlie macdonald

    I am a Canadian, and I am having a real hard time understanding why and how the people of the USA have let the Obamanation go on so long. He is destroying your country to the point of no return. Why has he not been impeached and charged with High Treason? I can agree with the article about his ineligibility to be the President because of his fathers citizenship. I also heard that there is no paper work to show that he gave up his African citizenship in Kenya; but if that is a fact, why is the opposition GOP/Republicans/Tea Party etc, and the democratic (the good ones at least) party members not remove him immediately. They always have Hillery to fall back on. I think he is a Muslim (how can he claim to be a christian when Muslims are not allowed to leave their faith or be killed? I do not hear the Muslims issuing a death notice like they do for others who leave the faith) ,socialist, Jew hater that is only looking at one term and does not fear an election as he will have his dictatorship in place by then and is looking at being the leader of the One World Government in the end. Of course he will have to tangle with Clinton, Blair or Sorros and the Illuminati for that prestige position. PS – why do I care as a Canadian; because as goes the USA, so goes Canada and the rest of the world.

    • Jim C.

      One reason Obama hasn’t been impeached is because the Democrats control the U.S. Senate. Even if the House of Representatives impeached (i.e., “charged”) Obama, the Senate would have to “convict”. In the language of a criminal trial, the House is the “prosecutor”, and the Senate is the “jury”. It would be as if the prosecutor (House) charged Obama with a crime, but the jury (Senate) acquitted him.

  • Grimm666

    To: c.macdonald, I don’t understand what is going on my own country. We live in this country, and again, yes, we don’t understand why our elected officials, no….there not officals, over 1/2 of these people, are all full of crap, there in this positions for one thing and one thing only….the MONEY, the POWER, and they think that we the people are stupid, that, we would or could not remember just what they have failed to do for the very people who have put there trust in them and was folled long enough to elect them to these offices. I know that you have seen these “bumper stickers”, that say: “Vote all of them out”! What we in this country MUST do, vote all of these people out, we need to do this, One term in ANY elected Office!

  • JM

    Did anyone buy one of the newer mugs with a picture of Obama’s original Birth Certificate with a foot and thumb print? WHOOPS! I am wrong it says, Made in Kenya. I hate it when they sell counterfeit and call it original.

  • James Coke

    I think the description of “natural born” citizen in this article is absolutely off base. The Constitution does NOT say that to be a “natural born” citizen one’s parents must be citizens. The obvious meaning of “natural born”, as used in the Constitution, is that the actual physical birth must occur within the boundaries of the U.S. The requirement that both parents must be citizens applies to anyone born OUTSIDE the U.S. This article relies on a slick sleight of hand to try and make the point that both parents must be citizens, even though the child is born IN the U.S. I believe that’s utterly false. In my opinion, Rubio is clearly a “natural born citizen”.

    • FLW

      James, you are absolutely correct. Nice to see that someone else here has actually done their research,

  • toom

    Mcain was not born in the United States. He was born on American Territory. That is not being born in one of the 50 States. He should not have ran. Why was that not questioned. He was technically born in another country. American territory is not the United States.

  • http://twitter.com/ericbischoff Eric Bischoff (@ericbischoff)

    I am sure that if Rubio is vetted by the powers that be, then the Supreme Court will at some point ram down our throats their self serving version of natural born.

    But that’s not the part of Rubio I don’t like. I don’t want another tail wagging the dog. It’s enough that the entire American body of politics is deadly afraid of AIPAC and that they control most of our foreign policies, with Rubio now we’d also have to be wagged by the Cuban right.

    Enough already with unfit minority ideologies having their way with our foreign policies.

  • Christian Matsumoto

    The problem with your arguement is, is that he is still eligible to be Vice President, but not President.

    • http://boblivingstonpl.wordpress.com Bob Livingston

      Dear Christian Matsumoto,

      The problem with your argument is that you have obviously either not read or not comprehended Article II Section 1 of the Constitution and are therefore talking out of your hat.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

  • FLW

    What a foolish article. The Naturalization Act of 1790 pertains to the NATURALIZATION of non-native-borns. It’s irrelevant to Rubio and Obama.
    Obama and Rubio are both natural born citizens, since they were born on US soil to non-foreign agents. And no, Vattel is not relevant (there is scant evidence that his work influenced the Constitution) and Minor is not relevant (Minor does NOT define the requirements for NBC.)
    Get better reading glasses and suck it up.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.