Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Suspending All Logic

June 8, 2012 by  

Suspending All Logic
BIOGRAPHY.COM
Because Barack Obama Sr. was not a U.S. citizen, Barack Obama Jr. is not a natural-born citizen.

Believing without doubt the official birth narrative of President Barack Obama — that he was born to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. in a hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii, on Aug. 4, 1961 — requires a complete suspension of logic.

Last month, I pointed out in How Can Anyone Be A Birther? a partial list of reasons to doubt the official story. Note that I say it’s only a partial list. There is enough evidence to produce reasonable doubt in the minds of reasonable people that Obama is not a natural-born United States citizen as required in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

Obama has for several years claimed he was born in Hawaii. He has also claimed, through his official biography with a literary agent and as a young man in Hawaii, that he was born in Kenya.

Both of those are not possible. Therefore, one is a lie. Obama is, among other things, a liar.

 

 

No official original long-form birth certificate for Obama has ever been shown to media or to investigators. The only evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii comes from a liar – Obama — and in the form of an electronic document that investigators and document experts have determined is a forgery.

Former Senior Hawaii elections clerk Timothy Lee Adams claims in a Master’s thesis that there is no long-form birth certificate for Barack Obama on file in Hawaii. Adams writes in his thesis that Hawaii elections officials are aware of this fact.

From the thesis:

For starters, just because there is no long form birth certificate on file in Hawaii, that doesn’t rule out President Obama being born elsewhere in the United States, or even in Hawaii. What it does mean is this: President Obama’s official autobiography is false. Whether the President was born in the United States or no, we have no public documentation to prove that one way or the other. We do know that no hospital in Hawaii has any record of his birth there. We do know, that a child born quote, “In hospital, in Hawaii,” in the first half of the 1960s would have been issued a standard, long-form birth certificate, complete with all the normal birth documentation, signature of the attending physician and so on.

Adams also writes that his supervisors in the elections office also knew and admitted to him there was no long-form birth certificate on file for Obama.

The mainstream media and Congress have abdicated their responsibilities on the Obama narrative. Worse, they are complicit in Obama’s lie. The Hawaii elections clerk is also complicit in the lie, having emailed the Arizona Secretary of State that a long-form birth certificate is on file in the Hawaii elections office. These lies have convinced many to suspend all logic.

In his novel 1984, George Orwell wrote, “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” It has worked so well that the act of questioning the words of a liar who claims a forged document is legitimate has become crazy conspiracy theory nuttery.

But if you are willing to suspend all logic and believe the lie, there’s still the issue of Obama’s “father’s” citizenship, which disqualifies Obama regardless of his birth place.

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 “Suspending All Logic”

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

  • http://liberty Tony

    To Everyone:
    Please drop this nonsense, Okay!?! I talked about this yesterday, but, the man is a natural born citizen. State of Hawaii has proves this upteen times. What do you need, a film taping Obama’s birth in the Hawaiian hospital!?! Sheesh!! Have a good day!!

    • R Classen

      Regardless of whether he is eligible to ‘legally’ be the president or not, HE IS. Americans will rue the day they ever elected him. The man’s whole life story is a fairy tale……fiction. He is the definition of the term “golden boy”. Question is who’s?

      • Mike in MI

        Sadly…R. Classen, you’re painfully right. -
        We’re going to pay for President Used Scumbag for a long, long time. Unless he is somehow indicted, impeached and sent off to Antarctic exile, prison or whatever penalties for high crimes and transgressions against the Constitution can be brought against Scbg his obscene dreams will come true… barring some incredible miracle God’s people can unitedly believe God to intercede with. But, I don’t see enough believers uniting on anything (or even agreeing that there is a problem that needs resolution) or carrying out whatever we on our part have to do to get Him to do it. Just praying for something is never sufficient to indicate any reality of believing (It’s just lining up for some sort of spiritual welfare – free lunch without committing anything of self.)
        But, then of course, getting an impeachment action would have to rely on a Congress that is, as Bob says, complicit with Scumbag.
        One of Scbg’s dreams is to get rid of the internal combustion fossil fuel engine. I think that could happen indirectly. I was driving today and realized rural roads are getting kinda rough – nothing new in MI. Then I realized that our counties and municipalities are having trouble getting financed. Well, Duh. Ding-dong sucked all the wealth out of the system and gave it away for Ishmaelite outreach (islamics) and teacher bonuses (which isn’t that much different).
        So anyway, what are the roads going to look like in a few winters? Probably a stock market graph…not something our low-slung cars can negotiate. That’ll turn off the economy in a big way unless people have mountain bikes and rappeling equipment to get to town.
        Voila!…the internal combustion engine non-functional.
        Gonna be lots of stuff like that.

      • Kate8

        Mike in MI – I think you are right about how things will be phased out. Scbg likes to do things indirectly, to get around the will of the people. Won’t matter about the cars or the roads, anyway… No one will be able to afford the gas and maintenance but the elite.

        One things I’ve noticed about “God’s people”: the elite have succeeded quite nicely in making sure that everyone is, not only divided, but actually hostile against other factions. Each denomination thinks they have it right, and caution their flock against any of the others… Sad.

        And it’s the same with the alternative news outlets, many of which claim to be responding to a higher calling. I visit many diverse sources, and it seems that they’ve all been fed disinfo and are at each other’s throats, each accusing the others of being disinfo agents… It’s enough to make you scream. It is part of the psy ops to confuse everyone with disinfo. Most of them probably don’t even know they are being used. Some probably do. In any case, the result is that we can’t trust any of them. Makes it hard to know what kind of action to take.

        One guy even was saying that Obama was actually a mole for the good guys. Sheesh. Well, if he was, at least, due to his ineligible status, his actions would all be voided when the dust settled. Found that one really hard to swallow.

        Meanwhile, from all appearances, the situation continues to degrade…

        I did read this article this morning, which says that Romney does NOT have the nomination in the bag. Ron Paul is still standing strong, with many delegate votes still in question.

        http://dprogram.net/2012/06/08/7-secrets-destroying-the-candidacy-of-mitt-romney-that-the-rnc-does-not-want-you-to-know/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wordpress%2FBcwy+%28Deprogram%29&utm_content=Yahoo%21+Mail

        Just maybe, if we keep the faith… I do believe that miracles can happen.

      • Mike in MI

        K88 – amen, amEN and AMEN
        You been learnin’ some stuff from the time since my recollections of early posts I read from you. Early from the point I joined the parade, anyway. ‘Tsa’ride! Goes fer me, too. I’ve learned and emptied my bucket, and that made room to learn more. Funny seems like there’s basically one group who’ve stayed static. Course, maybe, Mr. Livingston sees a different perspective from nearer to the “Four Corners” vista (or whatever they call that mountain down there where one can see far and wide).
        Haven’t we all?
        Ther’ve been a few changes on this site in the last few years. I sure love talking to the old, right(eous)and virtue driven stalwarts…even if I don’t give a retort. Correspondence doesn’t always require an indication of opinion. No use responding if the time isn’t right or the point adequately developped.
        Thanks, Bob L. for setting this up and for following thru…and for joining in on salient points (from your position on the salient).

    • Bellerophon

      A lengthy list of reasons for doubting the Obama birth narrative has been presented. Do you have an equally lengthy list of why we should believe the narrative and reject the doubts? The people who study this subject are those who are not willing to accept the “received wisdom from on high” at face value. We doubters are much stronger in our belief based on evidence than you are in your belief based on pure faith of the word of someone who is a serial liar. I regret that your naivete is probably representative of all too many people in our country. By welcoming such an alien into a leadership role in our country, you may have contributed to our undoing as a nation.

      • S Johnson

        No matter if there’s a belief in whether he’s a natural born citizen or not! he has already commited many impeachable acts! I sure don’t understand some peoples insistance on denying outright lies on his part! “Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me!

      • ehancock
      • Toy

        I understand that Kissinger gave Obama or…whatever he’s calling himself now, his first job.
        If that’s true what came out of it was inevitable!

    • kategray

      It would appear to you that the laws of America mean no more to you than a hang nail. This is the most important position in this country and we want to have respect for it. By disregarding the CONSITUTION you are disrespecting this COUNTRY and we are the laughing stock to the rest of the world because we have an ILLEGAL sitting in our WHITE HOUSE.The democrats have pulled the greatest CON-JOB in the historyof this NATION because they did not even check his certificate and they were in power in the house and senate at the time.

      • AZ-Ike

        Kate,
        Yes, the Democrats pulled the greates con-job in history, but please dont continue with your theory that it was because they didn’t check his birth history. The Democrats knew from the before Obama starte his campaign that he isn’t a natural born Citizen. For years various Members of Congress have been trying to change the law so the natural born Citizen clause would not apply. They all know exactly what it means: a person born IN the country to parents who are both citizens OF the country.

        Nancy Pelosi sent 49 states verification letters in 2008 stating Obama was the Democratic candidate for President. Only Hawaii received a different verification letter stating Obama was the constitutionally eligible Democratic candidate for President. Still think the Democrats didn’t know he wasn’t eligible to run?

        Although being born in the U.S. is necessary, it is only half of the citizenship requirements for the highest Office in the land. Obama is not, and never was, eligible to become President of the United States and being voted President by a majority of the Electoral Votes does not make him a legal President. Everything he has done, signed, etc. is unconstitutional and needs to be nullified by Congress and the supreme Court–primarily so it wan’t set a precedent for future ‘illegal’ officials.

        The fact that Obama, Congress and the courts have removed any possibility for the People to question him and other unconstitutional acts that all three branches of government have forced on us shows already that tyranny is the status quo of our government. It is even more disappointing that most of our State governments are complicit in the tyranny against the People.

        Officially, it is the People who decide what is constitutional or not, and the People have spoken; Obama is a fraud. Unfortunately the People of the United States have yet to realize that all governments in the United States are governing by coercion of the People and totally ignore ‘consent of the governed.’ The only way to change that is to change ALL the corrupt, career politiciant and judges who will desperately try to maintain the status quo.

        We will see what the elections of 2012 will bring–reelecting the corrupt, incumbent politicians, or cleaning house for a new attempt at restoring our constitutionally guaranteed Rights and Liberties.

      • Kate8

        kategray – The thing is, the democrats knew he was not American born. Pelosi and others repeatedly tried to pass bills which would allow a foreign-born person to run for POTUS, but failed. Since they couldn’t change the law, they decided to cover it up.

        He was groomed for this office, to be a shill for the communist factions of the NWO. Much of his funding came from the old Soviets, and they are on record as having told an investigative reporter that Barack Obama (who was yet unheard of) would be the next POTUS. It was all pre-planned.

        Just look at how they pulled off such a con on the gullible, wide-eyed Leftist idiots in America. The media portrayed him as almost a god, and the Lefties swooned. Red flags were flying all over the place warning of what he was up to, but, like warnings on drug ads, they did not register with his devotees.

        It amuses me when people on the Left state staunchly that he is Hawaiian born and legit, in spite of the overwhelming evidence otherwise, showing themselves to be the people without reason that Bob is talking about.

        It’s sad that we have so many who are willing to put party before the American people and the good of the nation. It is sad that we have so many who have succumbed to the mind-control due to indoctrination and fluoridation, and who knows what else…

        We already know that these people cannot be counted on to save America. They are too far gone. We can only have pity on them, and know that, had we been more awake and vigilant over these past decades, they would not have been sacrificed to the forces of evil. We have to accept some of the responsibility for their weak-mindedness.

      • Mike in MI

        K88 – “…due to indoctrination and flouridation and whatever else”
        It’s safe to add “medication” to that list. One of the reasons there is a hue and loud cry for ObamaCare is the numbers of people chronicly medicated. They just don’t feel it’s their fault they got sick, or depressed, or bad genes (seldom true), or tempted by the sugar god, or attacked by a horde of consenting partners, or, or, or, …ad infinitum. They understand OBlame-a-nother…
        “It’s someone else’s fault…can’t be me.”
        Just wait ’til the medications start to disappear – then reappear in some flea market or black market…as they most certainly will. That’s where the money always is.

        • CB

          I definitely think everyone should have medical care when they are sick. That said, it is absolutely appaling the amount of money that is spent on prescription drugs. Doctors go through a lot of prescription pads to keep the pharmecutical companies rich and their patients sick. Yes, there are those times when you actually can benefit from meds, but no one should be on prescriptions permamently. Many seniors are on as many as 10-12 different meds. Neither the Pharmecutical Companies or the Doctors have any knowledge of the complicated interactions of taking so many drugs. It is easy to whip out the prescription pad and send the patient along their way,when Docotors should be counseling patients about eating nutritious foods so they can heal their bodies and get well. Too many people consider pro active health care as getting a flu shot.

      • Kate8

        CB – The flaw in the “medical care” logic is that the same people who are waiting with the drugs and the treatments for our illnesses are the ones who are putting the fluoride and other toxins in the water, tampering with our food, polluting our air, and doing everything possible to insure a steady stream of sick folks to partake of their offerings. Which, BTW, never really make you well. They just keep you enslaved to “disease management”, drugging your ever-changing (due to side-effects) symptoms.

        What if we all became informed about how to take care of our own health? What if we grew our own food and demanded that they stop “treating” all of the water with toxic chemicals “for our benefit”? How about we learn about all of the wonderful natural ways to heal ourselves, which really do make us better? How about we learn to live in union with our soul/spirit, and heal the inner wounds and sickness which is at the root of all illness?

        The medical system is part of the system of the beast. It is controlled by the Rockefeller family, the American faction of the NWO, and it was set up for our ultimate degradation and demise. There are other and better ways. It is absolutely not necessary for us to have to pay unto poverty to have medical “care”. Another gorilla in the room when discussing whether we have the “right” to medical care paid for by others, or whether we must fork over to pay for the less fortunate, because (for some reason) the costs are beyond the reach of all but the most wealthy. Receiving such “care” is not often in one’s best interest at all

        • CB

          Best thing one can do is to eat the proverbial apple a day and stay away from doctors, unless absolutely necessary. In other words, eat yourself well and you can avoid the need for doctors. I do not mean this to sound uncaring, but many times people are better off without medical care and the resulting prescription drugs. Bottom line see a doctor only when necessaryand hopefully when you really need medical care it will available for you.

      • Jeff

        Do you have any idea WTF you are talking about? Where does the Constitution say “natural born citizen” depends on the father’s birthplace? If you had a toe to stand on, don’t you think a lawsuit would have been filed by now? I’m sure you could get Thomas and the Scalito twins, at least, to disqualify Obama because he’s just so, so, so. . . icky!

        I suggest you take to your bed until the scary, scary Black man goes away.

    • Gary L

      Tony, it is amazing to me how you and your kind can be so obtuse.
      You are all so intent on implanting your noses in Obama’s back side you cannot see the truth because of the butt cheek blinders you all wear. Whether you will admit it or not, you really have no interest in the truth. Your wish and intent is the perpetuation of the pathetic status quo.

      • Kate8

        Gary L – Then again, there’s always that! LOL.

        Very aptly stated!

      • Mike in MI

        Gary – Why be amazed???
        It’s already been proven that it’s mostly a genetic defect, mutational in nature. It aso makes them (liberals) inordinately curious, seek variety, diversity and change in life – leap before you look sort of lifestyles. “Fairness” to all is a big characteristic, sharing and they want to share their hypersensuality with everybody they can.
        So, some day they’ll totally outnumber “normal” people…to become the new “norm”. At that point, if not already, the world will become chaotic, lawless, without order. Either that, or in efforts to establish some degree of reasonableness – - – martial law, total control and coercion.
        But, before that, their effects will far outstrip their numbers. (How many unruly kids did it take in a classroom to stop the continuity of the learning environment? 3? 5? 2?
        No, usually only one out of 30 is sufficient to cause discord and confusion enough to mess up everybody’s experience.) But, what are you going to do? People like them want them to develop unfettered, unrestrained learning and “freedom from unwarranted constraints”.
        Can we say NEA?

      • Karolyn

        Kate – I agree with everything you said other than the “beast’ part. It is so weird that when somebody of a certain age goes to the doctor and is not on any medication, they are thought of as an oddity. It’s like everybody has to belong to the prescription club. I qualified for Medicare this year and refused Part b because I don’t need it, but I guess I’ll eventually be penalized and have to get it. Ridiculous!

    • Tom

      A “natural born citizen” is a subset of citizen. To be a natural born citizen, both parents must be citizens at the time of birth. Which.by definition, makes Obama unqualifie if you believe that his “birth certificate” is real.

      And yes, that also makes Marco Rubio unqualified because his parents became naturalized citizens after his birth.

      • Winddrinker

        Tom, Rubio is “unqualified as well.” But, the talking heads at Fox News always bring up Rubio as a “good candidate” for VP.. So, Fox, in their own way, is promoting ANOTHER “unqualified candidate.” What is wrong with those people, like Hannity.

        And, Rubio has his own agenda… Not to matter that he grew up in this country, he is aligned with the interests of Hispanics and Latinos in America. They put him in office.
        Rubio has been reluctant to throw his hat in the arena, I believe, because he knows that he is not constitutionally qualified..

      • Douglas patriot

        Mitt Romney is also not legally/ constitutionally qualified either as his father was born on a mormon colony in chihuahua mexico and his birth certificate shows him as a mexican citizen. Also be it known that John McCain is also not qualified by the same criteria. Most people believe he was born on a military base in its hospital and if this were true I would have no problem withit. The truth however is that he was born in a panamanian hospital off base subcontracted to handle births so yeah now I have a problem, just as I do with obama/soetoro and rubio. Something is very rotten lately since all we are offered as presidential front runners are non citizens ineligable by the constitution the highest law of the land!!

      • Dorian Douglas

        Sam & others.

        If BO was born in the US, he is a NatBorn citizen (14th Amendment), and so is Rubio.

        I don’t know where BO was born. But I knew immediately on seeing the short form (& later the LF) that they were not legit, because both show his father as “Kenyan”. Kenya wasn’t yet a country then! Later, I learned the name of the hospital changed AFTER BO was born, but both forms show the NEW name, so are not copies of any original.

        But that doesn’t necessarily prove he is or isn’t a citizen. It wouldn’t surprise me that Soros may have planted false evidence to get us to chase our tails!

        But none of that matters now. We are poised to solve the problem if we focus on getting rid of him in November. If we continue this issue, we are only giving the Progressive media an excuse to distract the undecideds from his record. We are not changing any more minds about his citizenship.

        Focus!

        Dorian Douglas

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        Douglas Patriot, I am NO fan of romney but he is a natural born citizen. It doesn’t matter where his father was born as long as his father was a citizen. The candidate must be a natural born citizen. The candidate’s father and mother must only be citizens. By virtue of his parents being citizens and his (romneys) being born in the US, he (romney) is a natural born citizen.

      • Winddrinker

        Douglas, I don’t know where your are getting your information about Romney not being a “Natural Born Candidate” but your source is wrong.

        Romney has already released to the public his “legitimate Birth Certificate.” He was born of parents that were BOTH American Citizens…..(For your info, NO OTHER COUNTRY, except this one, bestows “Citizenship” on children born in their country to foreign parents!)

        You don’t have to worry about Romney’s citizenship status. If there is anyway that the libs can get Romney disqualified…they are already working on it! But, they won’t be able to prove that he is not Natural Born.

      • Kate8

        What no one seems to be addressing is that, regardless of where Obama was born, regardless of who his real daddy was, regardless of whether he is a Marxist or the antichrist…, HE IS GUILTY OF FRAUD.

        He has lied about everything. He’s admitted that he’s submitted forgeries to the American people as “proof”. He adamantly refuses to release ANY records that would show us who he is. He took money from foreign entities to fund his campaigns, and has been involved in very unethical dealings. He continues to violate and decimate the Constitution, and has waged war against America.

        Defrauding the America people is a serious crime, all by itself. Everything else just adds insult to injury. Whether he was born in Hawaii, Kenya or Mars, he lied about it. He forged documents to perpetrate his fraud, and declared them to be true. The truth is, there is reason to doubt everything about him. His whole life appears likely to be fiction.

        Is this not the real issue here? Are we so far past brain-dead that we waste time arguing over the details and missing the gorilla in the room?

        Good grief.

        • winstonsmith6079

          Native – foreign – native – foreign – ad absurdum! Everyone is SO focused on this ‘sapling’ that they don’t see the FOREST they’re standing in! It’s an old magician’s trick called “misdirection”.
          You or I apply for a job … ANYWHERE … and just above the place for your signature is a line that says: “ANY falsification on this document will be cause for IMMEDIATE TERMINATION!” I guess that wasn’t on his application to be president.

          • RichE

            winstonsmith6079,
            The forest is made up of saplings. If the sapling is bad the forest is bad. The Constitution says, “we the people” and that is the sapling. If, “we the people” can’t come up with a way to resolve issues then our forest will die.

    • Viet Nam Vet 67-68

      Tony you are obviously an Obamination supporter and devoid of reasonable thought, 0ver 200 experts in forged document professionals have deemed this Long Form Birth Certificate a Forgery, even an attorney that was hired by Obamination to state his case in Court stated that his Long Form Birth Certificate was a FORGERY. No other document has been released by any agency and all files have been closed for anyone to see so what evidence do you have to prove any thing about Obamination that makes him legal. His birth certificate if that is what you say is proof of his citizenship states his father was a British Citizen at the time of his birth automatically makes him ILLEGAL, so remove your head from your Socialist/Communist Ass and you may see the Light.

      • nc

        Viet Nam, AND YET HE STILL SERVES! In spite of all of the Trump-Koch money they can’t even get a law suit to the Supreme Court or buy a single Congressman to present a bill to kick him out of office after 3 years of screaming! They took Slick Willy all the way to impeachment with one little spot on a blue dress and what “is” is BUT THEY CAN’T TAKE CLEAR(?) “FORGERIES” AND MAKE A CASE AGAINST PRESIDENT OBAMA! ALLAH BE PRAISED!!!(ACTUALLY I AM A SOUTHERN METHODIST)

      • ehancock

        They are not clear forgeries. They are only what birther “experts” call forgeries. And they have not proven that they are experts, and they certainly have not shown that they are impartial. That is why Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and the National Review do not believe the “experts.”

    • Winddrinker

      Tony, you obviously have not a clue what it means to be a “Natural Born Citizen.” After all the discussion on this topic, only a moron could have made the statement you did..

    • Georte

      OK jack ass LET”S SEE his BC,.His school records, His Passport history and all documents related to his past.. There aren’t any and HE will not release them.. This is all smoking mirrors to convince fools like you that HE is for real.. NOT THE CASE.. HE is a lier and a trader to this great country..

      • NotThatEllen

        I think you mean “Smoke AND Mirrors”! The term is from old time magic shows. Smoke and mirrors were said to be used to create the illusions you would see performed on stage.

      • Ernie

        You are so right but “trader” should be “traitor” and that he definately is…He wants to bring down America and turn it into a sosialist/muslim country…..God Help us

      • Kate8

        NTEllen – Still at it? Do you just come here to be grammar police?

    • ROSINA

      So that is why the Liar in Chief has paid millions to hide all his background, schools, etc.
      So that is why the relevant pages in the archives of hawaii, showing arrivals in 1962 have disappeared????
      So that is why the Kenya birth certificate has been hidden?
      And kenya proudly proclaims him as the Kenyan president of the USA???
      Who is kidding whom?

    • cayuga 333

      Regardless of where he was born -his father’s nationality makes him ineligible to be president. He was never properly vetted in 2008 as the media and electorate swooned over his charisma, pushing aside caution for the promise of the messiah coming. The result is we are now paying dearly for our rush to get a person of color in the POTUS.God help us all if we are fools enough to re-elect this pretender! As a retired Army officer(LTC),I am thankful I never had to serve under this impostor.

    • alex

      talk about stupid people, just read the last sentence of the article about his father

    • Sam

      Where he was born is of no consequence. His father was not a U.S. citizen. End of story. Those of you who want to cling to his false claim of being born in Hawaii may do so. Whatever his origins, he is dismantling our country and he needs to be removed from office before he pushes us under total UN control. Follow Wisconsin’s lead.

      • Jeff

        Where do you guys get this stuff? Can you cite anything from the Constitution saying someone’s parents have to be citizens for him to be eligible to be president? Natural born citizen applies to where the baby was born; not the father. Take a look at the 14th amendment.

      • JeffH

        Jeff, how ignorant are you? The 14th Amendment has no bearing here. Only Article 2 Section 1 can be applied to the qualifications of president…”natural born citizen”.

        Educate yourself, don’t remain ignorant!

        The 14th does not address “natural born”, only born citizen or naturalized citizen.

        Obama may be a born citizen but he cannot be a “natural born citizen”. To become president requires one to be a “natural born citizen” born to citizen “parents” – plural…mother and father.

        The Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution reads:

        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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

        The Fourteenth Amendment was drafted to alleviate several concerns harbored by many U.S. citizens prior to its ratification. The most obvious concern related to the status of the recently freed slaves. Five years before hostilities commenced in the Civil War, the Supreme Court declared that people of African descent living in the United States were not “citizens” of the United States, but merely members of a “subordinate and inferior class of human beings” deserving no constitutional protection whatsoever (dred scott v. sandford, 60 U.S. [19 How.] 393, 15 L. Ed. 691 [1856]). The Fourteenth Amendment vitiated the Supreme Court’s holding in Dred Scott by making all blacks “born or naturalized in the United States” full-fledged citizens entitled to the same constitutional rights provided for every other U.S. citizen.

        • Jeff

          I still want to know why your posts in another of these discussions were adorned with swastikas.

          In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of Perkins v. Elg, regarding a young woman, born in New York a year after her father became a naturalized U.S. citizen. However, when she was about four her parents returned to Sweden taking her with them, and they stayed in Sweden. At age 20, this young woman contacted the American diplomats in Sweden and, shortly after her 21st birthday, returned to the United States on a U.S. passport and was admitted as a U.S. citizen. Years later, while she was still in America, her father in Sweden relinquished his American citizenship, and, because of that, the Department of Labor (then the location of the Immigration & Naturalization Service) declared her a non-citizen and tried to deport her. The young woman filed suit for a declaratory judgment that she was an American citizen by birth. She won at the trial level, and at the circuit court – where she was repeatedly described as “a natural born citizen” [39]- and finally in the U.S. Supreme Court, where the court decision quoted at length from the U.S. Attorney-General’s opinion in Steinkauler’s Case (mentioned above) including the comment that the person born in America and raised in another country could yet “become President of the United States”.[40]

          I have seen no restrictive definition of “natural born citizen” that you could use to deny Obama’s legitimacy, not that you need any, of course.

        • Jeff

          Jane, you ignorant slut!

          Although eligibility for the Presidency was not an issue in any 19th century litigation, there have been a few cases that shed light on “natural-born citizen”. The leading case is Lynch v. Clarke,[32] which dealt with a New York law (similar to laws of other states at that time) that only a U.S. citizen could inherit real estate. The plaintiff, Julia Lynch, had been born in New York while her parents, both British, were briefly visiting the U.S., and shortly thereafter all three left for Britain and never returned to the U.S. The New York Chancery Court determined that, under common law and prevailing statutes, she was a U.S. citizen by birth and nothing had deprived her of that citizenship, notwithstanding that both her parents were not U.S. citizens or that British law might also claim her through her parents’ nationality. In the course of the decision, the court cited the Constitutional provision and said:
          Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.[33]
          And further:
          Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question.[34]
          The decision in Lynch v. Clarke was cited as persuasive or authoritative precedent in numerous subsequent cases, including In re Look Tin Sing,[35] on the issue of whether the child, born in the U.S., to two Chinese parents (who were prevented by federal law from becoming U.S. citizens) was a U.S. citizen, notwithstanding the nationality of his parents or the fact that he had traveled to China with them and not returned to the U.S. for many years. The federal court held in a decision written by U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen J. Field) that he was a citizen by birth, and remained such despite his long stay in China, cited the decision in Lynch v. Clarke and described that case:
          After an exhaustive examination of the law, the Vice-Chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen, and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.[36]

        • Jeff

          Jeff (I think we know what the H is for):

          This appears to be the operative case and, surprise, surprise, it involves the 14th Amendment you wingnuts hate so much:

          U.S. Supreme Court
          United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
          United States v. Wong Kim Ark
          No. 18
          Argued March 5, 8, 1897
          Decided March 28, 1898
          169 U.S. 649
          APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
          FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
          Syllabus
          A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,

        • Jeff

          Achtung JeffH:

          Here’s more if you can read English:

          U.S. Supreme Court
          Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)
          Perkins v. Elg
          No. 454
          Argued February 3, 1939
          Decided May 29, 1939*
          307 U.S. 325
          CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
          FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
          Syllabus
          1. A child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States. P. 307 U. S. 328.
          2. As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, the same person may possess a dual nationality. P. 307 U. S. 329.
          3. A citizen by birth retains his United States citizenship unless deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by his voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles. P. 307 U. S. 329.
          4. It has long been a recognized principle in this country that, if a child born here is taken during minority to the country of his parents’ origin, where his parents resume their former allegiance, he does not thereby lose his citizenship in the United States provided that, on attaining majority, he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties. P. 307 U. S. 329.
          Expatriation is the voluntary renunciation or abandonment of nationality and allegiance. P. 307 U. S. 334.
          5. This right of election is consistent with the naturalization treaty with Sweden of 1869 and its accompanying protocol. P. 307 U. S. 335.
          6. The Act of March 2, 1907, in providing “That any American citizen shall be deemed to have expatriated himself when he has been naturalized in any foreign state in conformity with its laws, . . . ” was aimed at voluntary expatriation, and was not intended to destroy the right of a native citizen, removed from this country during minority, to elect to retain the citizenship acquired by birth and to return here for that purpose, even though he may be deemed to have been naturalized under the foreign law by derivation from the citizenship of his parents before he came of age. P. 307 U. S. 342.
          Page 307 U. S. 326
          This is true not only where the parents were foreign nationals at the time of the birth of the child and remained such, but also where they became foreign nationals after the birth and removal of the child.
          7. Recent private Acts of Congress for the relief of native citizens who have been the subject of administrative action denying their rights of citizenship cannot be regarded as the equivalent of an Act of Congress providing that persons in the situation of the respondent here have lost the American citizenship which they acquired at birth and have since duly elected to retain. P. 307 U. S. 349.
          8. Threats of deportation by the Secretary of Labor and immigration officials, and refusal by the Secretary of State to issue a passport, upon the disputed ground that the person affected has lost his native citizenship and become an alien wrongfully in the country, involve an actual controversy affording basis for a suit for a declaratory judgment that he is a citizen and for an injunction. P. 307 U. S. 349
          9. In such a suit, the Secretary of State is properly included in the declaratory provision of the decree, that he may be precluded from refusing to issue the passport solely upon the ground that the citizenship has been lost. Id.

          TAKE YOUR NAZI PROPAGANDA AND GOOSE-STEP TO IT!!!

      • JeffH

        Jeff, two reasons I used the Socialist Worker’s Party swastica as an avatar.

        1. To show you where a part of your progressive roots come from .
        2. Because it renders an ignorant progressive like yourself uncontrollable and livid

        • Jeff

          Maybe you can get someone to read the case citations I posted for you. If you’re not too busy shaving your head, getting tattoo’d, or burning crosses.

          • JeffH

            Jeff, unfortunately you have no case and obviously you have nothing to argue, but you do a wonderfull job of displaying your progressive roots, based soley on ridicule. Now I have to check out because I’m going to the shooting range to hone in my accuracy.

          • Jeff

            Sorry. I left out desecrating synagogues, burning books, and subjugating a continent. Maybe somebody at the shooting range can read.

          • Jeff

            You “ruled” just like Uncle Clarence Thomas does. You read nothing, understand nothing, ask no questions, but you “know” the right answer from the beginning. You could be the 1st Nazi on the Supreme Court.

      • JeffH

        Jeff, I refuse to enter into childish exchanges with ignorant liberals like yourself. When you have nothing else in your arsenal…ridicule becomes the norm.

        FYI, your reference to the NY Supreme Court case doesn’t set precidence over US Supreme Court rulings and is therefore irrelevant.

      • ehancock

        Perkins vs Elg was a US Supreme Court case, as was Wong Kim Ark, which ruled that:

        “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

        III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

        That quite clearly says that every child, EVERY child, born in the USA is Natural Born—except for the children of foreign diplomats. And it says that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law (hence not from Vattel), and it says that the same rule applied in England, and in the 13 colonies, and UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

        BOTH Perkins vs Elg and the Wong Kim Ark case ruled that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen applies to every child born in the USA. Only naturalized US citizens are not Natural Born.

        http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/

        • Jeff

          I agree and it appears this view was codified by passage of the 14th amendment. It’s always difficult to determine the meaning of an undefined term like “natural born citizen” but if it were necessary that both parents be citizens, you can be sure either Hillary or McCain would have been able to block Obama’s candidacy in court in ’08.

      • ehancock

        Re: “It’s always difficult to determine the meaning of an undefined term like “natural born citizen”

        I disagree. It is easy.

        Here is how you determine it.

        Supposing I was to say to you: “A southpaw is a pitcher from south of the Mason Dixon line.” And you would reply: “No. It means a left-handed pitcher.”

        We could go round and round on that discussion until someone had the bright idea of showing how people actually use the term, and, of course, doing that shows that you are right, a southpaw is a left-handed pitcher.

        So, we simply have to do the same thing for the use of the term Natural Born at the time that the Constitution was written. That is all. And what do we find? We find lots of quotations by American leaders using the term in the common law sense, and none using it in the Vattel sense.

        Here is one of the best examples, written shortly after the Constitution went into effect, in 1803:

        “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

        As you can see, that refers to the place of birth. Natural Born Citizens were “those born within the state.” There is no reference to parents whatsoever.

        And I have somewhat similar, quotations for John Adams and Alexander Hamilton using Natural Born subject–and no quotation by them referring to parents when Natural Born Subjects became Natural Born Citizens. And there are LONG (that is why I do not put them here) quotations by Ben Franklin, John Adams and John Jay in a draft treaty with Britain using Natural Born Citizen as the US equivalent of the British Natural Born Subject, and as we know a Natural Born Subject does not require even one British subject as a parent. It simply refers to the place of birth.

        Hence the evidence of the use of the term shows that the Wong Kim Arc decision was indeed right, that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law, and not from Vattel, and that it refers to the place of birth.

    • http://gravatar.com/wandamurline wandamurline

      No, what we need is for the state of Hawaii to bring forth the original birth certificate from their vault and have at least 10-20 news outlets having the opportunity to see it. I remember a time back when the new governor of Hawaii, who is a friend of Obama, decided to release the birth certificate….I remember the article stating that he could not find it and sudddenly all of the information from the governor went missing. How about we also get to see his college records, his draft papers, his passports from the 1980′s? In Obama’s own words, not mine “The only people who will not disclose the truth, are people with something to hide”…..so he must be hiding something.

      • john

        they can’t…. there is none…..according to the socialist -gov. abercrombie and anyone who were involved with the dept of health.

      • Winddrinker

        The State of Hawaii does need to be made to produce the “Original Long Form Birth Certificate” they “claim” to have.

        What happened to Arizona?? Why did they “backdown” and give in! I believe that all they got was a letter stating that Hawaii indeed had the original form….like their word is worth anything..

      • Kate8

        It seems that those who attempt to defy Obama and are in a capacity to offer official proof against him either clam up or meet with untimely misfortune. It’s not rocket science to see what’s at play here.

        Even if someone does survive long enough to come forward, think about all of the heads which would have to roll. This cover-up has been so pervasive, so encompassing… who is going to be willing to expose themselves to let it happen?

        • RichE

          Kate8, are you saying Obama got Trump to shut up? Wow! I wonder if Obama could shut up my neighbors dog?

      • Kate8

        RichE – Trump is just another distraction. He’s doing what he does: pop off at the mouth. What he’s not doing is investigating, or hiring investigators. He’s just fanning existing flames.

        There is some reason why the American people are being kept focused on this issue, and I’m just not sure what it is. How is it that he’s the only one in public office who is able to get away with such outrage? And yet, he continues to erode our Bill of Rights, to the point of claiming the authority to whack us at his pleasure? WTH?

        I’m sure Breitbart’s demise was a message to journalists everywhere. Actually, Breitbart is not alone in his sacrifice. Many journalists have been dying and disappearing, right along with the (over 100 now) microbiologists who have worked on some aspect of biological warfare. And there is still more… Too much to go into here.

        These things are not being commonly reported in the MSM. Just as, when more citizens start to disappear, it won’t be reported. After all, if it’s not in the MSM, it didn’t happen.

      • ehancock

        The officials in Hawaii–both parties–have repeatedly stated that they have Obama’s birth certificate on file. No, Abercrombie never said that he could not find it. That is a birther creation.

        Here is the latest confirmation:

        http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/06/hawaii-very-officially-verifies-barack-obamas-birth-certificate/

        Prior to that Hawaii also confirmed that it had Obama’s birth certificate and that EVERY fact on the BC published by Obama was accurate in the confirmation to Arizona, which the Secretary of State of Arizona accepted.

        And Hawaii also confirmed that it had Obama’s birth certificate on file before the presidential election, and again about a year later, and then the Republican governor of Hawaii said that he was born in Kapiolani Hospital. And these confirmations are further confirmed by the Index Data and by the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961. Those notices appeared in the Health Bureau Statistics section of the newspapers, which as the name implies only came from the DOH, and the DOH at the time only sent out birth announcements for people born in Hawaii.

      • ehancock

        Abercrombie never said that he could not find it, or that it is not in the files. That was made up by a birther site.

        In fact, Hawaii has repeatedly confirmed that it has Obama’s birth certificate and that it confirms the facts on Obama’s published long form birth certificate.

        Here is the latest confirmation: http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/06/hawaii-very-officially-verifies-barack-obamas-birth-certificate/

        And the confirmations by the officials in Hawaii–from both parties–are further substantiated by the “Index Data”–a public file of the birth certificates on record by year showing that there is a file for Obama in 1961–and by the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961. The birth notices in the Health Bureau Statistics sections of the papers were only sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii—as the name Health Bureau Statistics implies—and the DOH of Hawaii at the time only sent out those notices for births in Hawaii.

    • Douglas patriot

      Liberalism truly is a major mental disorder. It is a societal aids of the mind and you are strongly infected. the poser and usurper is not and will not ever be my prez.

    • Rol

      Hey bud, Obummer brought this on himself, no one else. If he would’ve brought all documents forward, this includes school transcripts, birth certificates and any other FACTS, there would not be a big deal now, would there! The supposition that his birth certificate from Hawaii is false does leave a question; that is, why did it take so long to provide it? what purpose was there to stall before showing a copy? why is it that he refuses to release his school transcripts? is it possible that future wise, like his birth certificate, be released at latter date? the inference is forgeries need time to make.

      You see bud, he did it to himself! Question to you; do you have a problem showing your birth certificate? School transcripts? Unless you were really a poor student, trouble maker etc and it would jeopardize your job, yeah, I could see why you would hesitate in providing these things. So, what is being alluded to; rational thinking, something has taken place here that keeps getting scuttled or shuffled and it’s no wonder the theories abound.

      • ehancock

        Re: “n the 60′s a black person’s race was listed as “negro”, not “African”.

        Yes. But in Hawaii there was not list of races that you could check off. And no one stood over your shoulder and told you what words to use. “American” is not a race, but some people in Hawaii entered that word as their race, and some have said that their parents or grandparents entered “Italian”–and that was accepted. So we know, and in fact the Hawaii officials have confirmed, that there was no control over what word you could use to describe your race.

        The remaining question is whether it was likely that Obama’s father used the world African. Well, it turns out that the common word used to describe their race by African exchange students in the 1960s was African. And it turns out that the word used in Kenya by the colonial authorities (who were still in charge in 1961) to describe the black residents of their country was African.

        Oh, and Kenya did exist in 1961. It was the Kenya Colony (changed from British East Africa in 1920), Kenya for short.

        And Kapiolani Hospital did exist. How do we know? It is the same name used on the birth certificates of the Nordyke Twins, born one day after Obama at the same hospital, and the birth certificates of the Nordyke Twins are on WND’s site.

    • JUKEBOX

      One of the most glaring discrepencies is that his father is listed as African/American, which is a term that was not used in this country until 1978.

      • Karolyn

        He is not. He is listed as “African.”

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        In the 60′s a black person’s race was listed as “negro”, not “African”.

      • ehancock

        Replying to: “In the 60′s a black person’s race was listed as “negro”, not “African”.

        Yes. But in Hawaii there was not a list of races that you could check off.

        And no one stood over your shoulder and told you what words to use.

        “American” is not a race, but some people in Hawaii entered that word as their race, and some have said that their parents or grandparents entered “Italian”–and that was accepted. So we know, and in fact the Hawaii officials have confirmed, that there was no control over what word you could use to describe your race.

        The remaining question is whether it was likely that Obama’s father used the world “African.” Well, it turns out that the common word used to describe their race by African exchange students in the 1960s was African. And it turns out that the word used in Kenya by the colonial authorities (who were still in charge in 1961) to describe the black residents of their country was African.

        Oh, and Kenya did exist in 1961. It was the Kenya Colony (changed from British East Africa in 1920), Kenya for short.

        And Kapiolani Hospital did exist. How do we know? It is the same name used on the birth certificates of the Nordyke Twins, born one day after Obama at the same hospital, and the birth certificates of the Nordyke Twins are on WND’s site.

    • EdinNola

      Tony, you are an idiot. I for one will not drop the issue of the contract which we have with our government being wantonly ingored and violated. Obama has not ever shown legitimate evidence of his birth place, although that is not the determining factor in his eligibility and you know it. He IS NOT a natural born citizen. By way of example, as if it were necessary, McCain is a natural born citizen – BECAUSE his parents were citizens. Birthplace has no bearing in this regard. Obama IS NOT a natural born citizen because his father (as he claims) was not a citizen at the time of his birth, or at any other. Stop this mindless repitition of disinformation. So far as Hawaii is concerned, there may well be a legal question as to distortion of the truth.

      Regarding anything Obama SAYS, you would be well served to regard it as a falsehood, no matter what it is. He lives in a made-up fairy tale world, and very little if anything that he says publicly represents the truth.

    • Hammer

      Tony, that is your opinion and there are millions who believe differently than you who will NOT drop this case. Obama, himself, has made comments that raise doubt on his eligibility. He has extremely close ties with friends and relatives who also will state to the contrary of your way of thinking.
      Also, I can show you a news article that stated, during an interview, that those who know of obama’s true background, have been threatened, and a prime example of just who I am talking about is Bill and Hillary Clinton. Their daughter’s life hung in the balance for a while as bill and hillary were threatened that if they open their mouths about obama, Chelsea’s life would be next as one politician was killed while in his office.
      I have that entire news article saved for future reference also. Why do you think NO ONE has ever made even a remote effort to investigate this so called president?? Why do you think that the hour long meeting between obama and hillary was behind closed doors with those two the only ones in the room?? Then, directly after that meeting, hillary immediately dropped out of the presidential race?? And, bill clinton, himself, is the one who started this “Birther” thing. He openly admitted it as I watched a video of him stating this fact.
      So, Tony, if you wish to believe what you stated here, that is fine but don’t expect everyone to think as you, it will never happen as there are too many PATRIOTIC AMERICANS who are appalled with the fact that obama openly stated that our U.S. Constitution is a worthless document and so is the paper it is written on. And, that obama is responsible for the biggest debt increase within his first 3 years of office, more than any president in the History of our country.
      All True Americans have a very strong and valid reason why NOT to trust this man, want him out of office and tried for Treason against our Country and our Citizens. Obama has been in violation of so many offenses but yet Congress will take no action?? You tell us what is wrong with this picture!! And, while you are at it, give us even ONE good reason why we should trust this man, and don’t try to tell us that it is because he is our president.
      He may hold that title but he is NOT my president nor will I ever recognize him as such.

    • kf

      Tony, You are sooo right. This birther stuff has gone on waaay too long. Obama should put all of this to rest and just show the world a valid draft card and a social security number that will pass E-verify. At least the world will have something legitimate to look at.

    • http://www.facebook.com/roy.koch.33 Roy Koch

      AND— Who the Hell Are YOU Tony???, to Tell me, or anybody else that He is Nat. Born?? Because the HNIC says so?? He’s never told the truth, OR Worked a day in his Zebra Life!

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      Tony, you absolutely astound me! You are faced with the truth here on this site over and over again, yet you refuse to accept it! I know that you refuse to believe that obummer’s birth certificate is a fake even though it’s been proven, even though obummer’s lawyer admitted in a court of law that it was a forgery! What is the matter with you?!? You have been told repeatedly that a candidate MUST be a “natural born citizen”. It has been explained to you. You have been shown proof of the definition of ” natural born citizen” by way of links to supreme court rulings on the definition. I don’t think that there’s a person on earth who’s claiming that obummer’s father ws a citizen. What is it you don’t understand?!? Simply by virtue of obummer’s people telling you that he is a natural born citizen, you refuse to see the truth. And then astoundingly, you want the rest of us to believe it too! What is the matter with you?!? We have a liar and a criminal at the head of our country. He is destroying our country and yet people like you are hypnotized into believing utter hogwash! Our enemy has invaded and we can’t even get the majority of people to SEE it!!! WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH YOU?!?

      • Daveh234

        I know if Nancy says something she is always right….so, sorry Tony…..I am one who is certainly not going to vote for you in the next election. You sound, according to everyone here who are all smarter than anyone else, like you are are mistaken in your conclusions. Don’t think you’d make a good candidate for anything.

      • Kate8

        Nancy – Wow! That was amazing. Very well said.

        You really can’t talk to a liberal because they never allow themselves to be swayed by facts. They are true believers… And besides, many of them who post on these threads are paid shills. They are paid to express such opinions, so they don’t care if they look stupid.

      • Jeff

        Humor me, Nancy. Show me the rulings of which you speak.

      • ehancock

        Obama’s lawyer never said any such thing.

        The birth certificate from Hawaii has been confirmed many times. Here is the latest:

        http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/06/hawaii-very-officially-verifies-barack-obamas-birth-certificate/

        In addition to confirmations by the officials, it is also confirmed by the Index Data–a list of the birth certificates on file by year, showing that one exists for Obama in 1961–and by the birth certificates in the Hawaii newspapers.

    • Gino

      No Tony we don’t need a movie of his birth, just a offical copy of his birth. I can do it, you can do it. Not a copy or a copy of a copy. This is all the result of Obama not just presenting his original certificate. Do you get it yet !!! As for the other documents Obama’s refused to expose does show a consistant pattern. So much for Mr. Transparent. These are all areas that the media has not vetted, yet review the Repub’s with a fine tooth comb. And they claim to be objective.

      • ehancock

        Obama has shown the official copies of both his short form birth certificate and his long form birth certificate. He has shown images of both of them, and he has shown the actual physical copies of the documents themselves. In fact the official physical copy of the long form birth certificate was passed around in the White House press room and everyone there got a chance to hold it, examine it, and feel the seal on the back–where it is supposed to be. Three Republican and several Democrat officials in Hawaii have confirmed the facts on Obama’s birth certificate.

        Mitt Romney has shown only a xerox copy of a document alleged to be his short-form birth certificate. No one has felt the seal. No officials have confirmed the facts on it. And no “Index Data” showing that his birth certificate is on file has been shown (as it has for Obama).

    • MarK Tracy

      Tony – go back to your mistaken certenty – facts have no meaning to you

    • Dale on the left coast

      Folks just want to see the BC Tony . . . the original, unmolested BC . . . not the photoshopped stuff we have seen so far . . . did you not have to show your for your drivers licence and your passport?

    • PatriotDiva

      Afraid of the turth coming our about your messiah Tony?

    • ladybug

      Tony, With all the talk about Obama’s place of birth, college records, and history that he has spent over a million dollars to keep hidden, how can you say it should be dropped and accepted? If he is a natural born citizen, why wouldn’t he prove it? He put out that mock up of a BC that was quickly proved false; so why not put out the real one? Why doesn’t he just prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt?

    • c.a.e.

      When were you born??? What year ??? I was born in 1946 and if you were born in that time frame ALL birth certificates stated your race NOT ” AFRICAN AMERICAN ” THIS IS SUCH CRAP!!!!! THE MAN IS NOT BORN IN THIS COUNTRY PERIOD !!!!!

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003892436805 Surflaunch Overlord

      Obama, Master of time travel as an infant.
      Born in a hospital that didn’t exist until 17 years later.
      He truly is omnipitant
      Resources: http://www.kapiolani.org/women-and-children/about-us/default.aspx

      Forgive us our ignorance and pass the Kool-Aid.

      • ehancock

        The hospital that Obama was born at, Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital, did exist in 1961 when he was born.

        How do we know?

        Because there are birth certificates on WND’s web site for the Nordyke Twins, who were born one day after Obama, and what is the name of the hospital on their birth certificates? Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital.

    • MillstoneDee

      Why does someone spend MILLIONS of his own money to suppress information on his birth, education, and personal relationships with VERY progressive (socialist) connections? No one remembers him growing up in schools, college transcripts sealed, how he paid for his education was never answered and who goes to Pakistan during spring break in college?
      Covering up, destroying, and a clearly fraudulent paper trail (African, for instance on his so called birth certificate, should have been Negro or Colored in the ’60s) should make EVERY American suspicious that a charlatan is in the White House. Our Founding fathers are rolling in their graves.

    • carrobin

      I’d need a lot more evidence than vague references to unnamed “experts” and such. (Some nerve mentioning the name of Orwell in this story!) I’m annoyed with Obama because he’s the absolute opposite of a “socialist”–he’s been following the GWBush track far too closely for my taste–but his birthplace is not a factor.

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

        Dear carrobin,

        You write: “I’d need a lot more evidence than vague references to unnamed “experts” and such.” The evidence is provided through hyperlinks in the article.

        You write: “(Some nerve mentioning the name of Orwell in this story!)” Why are you bothered by an Orwell quote? Are you a relative of his?

        You write: “I’m annoyed with Obama because he’s the absolute opposite of a “socialist”–he’s been following the GWBush track far too closely for my taste–but his birthplace is not a factor.” So you are saying the Constitution and rule of law mean nothing to you.

        Best wishes,
        Bob

    • D.

      Natural born citizen is a baby whose parents are BOTH US citizens! Obama’s father was NEVER a US citizen. You need to educate yourself on Natural Born!

      • ehancock

        The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth, not the parents.

        “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

        • Jeff

          I’ve read a lot of your posts and you’re pushing against a rope with this crowd. They know the TRUTH and nothing like facts will deter them. That they haven’t filed a successful lawsuit should tell you all you need to know about their “evidence.” You know that there are judges out there who would order Obama ineligible to run in a second if only given a shred of real evidence. Even wingnut judges can’t respond to mere bloviating by these idiotic bloggers.

    • Don

      Come on Tony, you know that a Natural Born citizen requires two citizen parents, not one which would make Obama only native born citizen. I am really tired of people like you who prefer to remain ignorant of the facts. Supreme Court case Minor v. Happerstadd states quite clearly what a natural born citizen is, and Obama isn’t one. Stop trying to create your own reality! Facts are facts! Whether Obama was born in the United States or not, he still should never have bememe presiden.

      • RichE

        Don,
        Read the opinion. It says she’s a, ‘natural born citizen’ with this one definition so we don’t need to look at other definitions. It only proves that both parents and born in U.S. in one definition not the definition.

      • Jeff

        Don:

        You’re simply wrong. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, held that despite the 14th amendment, women were ineligible to vote in the face of a statute saying only men could vote. As to the issue of her citizenship, the Court specifically avoided ruling on the subject as it was not an issue in the case:

        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
        Page 88 U. S. 168
        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.

    • Corrine

      Hello,

      Can you read ENGLISH ????? If you read the article above you would know he was/is NOT a “natural born” citizen….for the last time, “natural born” means both parents HAVE to be U.S. citizens…..his father was born in Kenyan.

      • ehancock

        You can say “for the last time” all that you want to, and you can continue to spout your theory that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to two US citizen parents. But it isn’t true. The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth.

        “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

      • Jeff

        The article is written not in English but in STUPID. It cites nothing supporting its conclusion. Can you cite anything authoritative supporting your interpretation of “natural born citizen?”

    • http://aol J.R.

      Odumbo was not born in the USA and you need to wake up smell the coffee His own Attorney admitted it was a fake Brith cert he is an Illegal alien and a commie muslim. He is not able to hold office of the president at all and congress wont go after him because they could be charged with High crimes just like Odumbo will be wait ti;; Nov and all the truth will be forth comming

      • RichE

        J.R.
        Since Obama supports woman’s rights, abortion and homosexuals it doesn’t seem logical he would be a Muslim.

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        RichE, in my opinion, obummer hates Americans. Therefore he is encouraging them to sin and be evil. He wants to turn them to satan. In addition, muslims are encouraged to lie to infidels. It is called “taqiyya”. Anything to further the cause of islam.

    • http://gravatar.com/pweiters9 pweiters9

      6/8/12, At this point, I don’t care where he came from. On Nov. 6, let’s send him back.

    • fred13

      What kind of moron are you??? Just the fact that he even admitts to of his father not being a citizen is enough. He doesn’t qualify to be in office.

    • http://don'thaveone jim

      Why have you believed the BS about his birthplace being Hawaii. Where there is smoke there is fire..

      • ehancock

        The fact that Obama was born in Hawaii is proven by his birth certificate from Hawaii, confirmed by the officials repeatedly (Republican and Democrat), further confirmed by the Index Data (a public record of birth certificate files by year, showing that there is one for Obama in 1961) and by the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers. And by the way, Hawaii is thousands of miles from the nearest foreign country, and very few women traveled late in pregnancy in 1961.

    • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

      “Tony,”
      IF OFFICIALS REFUSE TO RELEASE THIS PRESIDENT’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE, THAT IS A BIG DEAL. PERIOD. AMERICANS HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO KNOW THE Constitution WAS UPHELD IN THE ELECTION OF THIS PRESIDENT. WE ARE REQUIRED AS CITIZENS TO ABIDE BY THE LAW. IF THIS PRESIDENT HAD GOOD SENSE, HE WOULD “CLEAR-UP” ANY SPECULATION ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS BIRTH. THIS BIRACIAL PRESIDENT HOLDS A-L-L THE BLAME FOR THIS FIASCO. PEOPLE, GET THIS TROUBLE-MAKING FOOL OUT OF THE White House – P-L-E-A-S-E!

      CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

    • just rambling

      Tony,did hi show proof that his father was a citizen of OUR COUNTRY?
      To Impeach him would LEGITIMATIZE him.

    • Mary Ann Ludwig

      The state of Hawaii has “proven” nothing. Obama has proven nothing. He can’t. He can only lie and dissemble. He was a contract signatory of a Socialist organization, but lies about being a Socialist. He just can’t open his mouth without lying. You want him as your president? Fine. Go somewhere else and enjoy. Leave the United States to actual qualified men and women.

    • Baf

      You are incorrect. There is more evidence to prove otherwise and Hawaii’s own Governor issued a document research and none could be found in any Hawaii hospital or in the Registrar’s office in the town that he claimed he was born. Recently, the publication of his own biography written by himself for his first book says he was born in Kenya. The released LONG form (which is a complete joke) has been PROVEN (as you say) to be a forgery and several Intel and Adobe experts have issued legal statements to the fact and are willing to testify in any court. The name of the hospital on the document was not changed until several years after his birth. The Registrar’s number on the document is not in sequence with other births for that time frame and his father’s ethnicity was listed as African-American. In 1961, a black man’s race would have been documented as “negro”. Then there is the type style changes and we could go on and on. There are several people who also claim different stories, so who is telling the truth.

      One fact that we all know is that the man who is currently called President of the US has not told the truth on anything that he has done since taking a political role as Senator or President. So for you to say that there is proof, please provide some. I think we would all like to be enlightened.

      • ehancock

        That is not true. Abercrombie never said any such thing. The story that he said that they could not find it was made up by a birther site.

        The officials in Hawaii have repeatedly said that they have Obama’s birth certificate on file, and that it shows that facts on the published long form birth certificate are accurate.

        Here is the latest confirmation:

        http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/06/hawaii-very-officially-verifies-barack-obamas-birth-certificate/

        That was preceded by the confirmation to Arizona, which was accepted as proof by Arizona’s conservative Republican secretary of state, and that was preceded by the director of health of Hawaii saying that she had seen the original birth certificate in the process of being copied onto security paper to make the official copy, and that the official copy was accurate, and that that was what she gave to Obama’s lawyer. Further back ther were confirmations by Republican officials before the presidential election, and again about a year after it, and then by the Republican governor of Hawaii.

        These confirmations are further supported by the “Index Data”—a public file of the birth certificates that are on file, and it shows that there is a birth certificate file for Obama under 1961. And, of course, there is also the birth notices in the Health Bureau Statistics section of the Hawaii newspapers in 1961. As the name shows, the items in the Health Bureau Statistics section were only sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii, and at the time the DOH only sent out such notices for births IN Hawaii.

        Re: “several Intel and Adobe experts have issued legal statements to the fact and are willing to testify in any court.”

        Actually, only self-described “experts”–who have not proven their expertise, and who certainly have not shown that they are fair an impartial–have said any such thing. There is a reason why Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and the National Review do not believe these “experts.”

        Re: “The Registrar’s number on the document is not in sequence with other births for that time frame…”

        Actually it was, but you are assuming that the sequence was in chronological order. It has been proven that the Nordyke Twins, who received their birth certificates a day after Obama, had a number lower than he did. And then, another Hawaii birth certificate was found, one that was still later in time that year than the Nordyke Twins, a month or so later, and it had a LOWER number than they did and than Obama did. So the number sequence was NOT in chronological order.

        Re: “and his father’s ethnicity was listed as African-American. In 1961, a black man’s race would have been documented as “negro”.”

        Actually, the birth certificate does not say “African-American.” It just says “African.”

        There is a reason for the African, and it is that Hawaii did not make a list of races that you could pick from, and they did not have someone standing over you saying: “African is not a race, use Negro.” You could use whatever words you wanted, and some in Hawaii used “American” as their race—though that also is not a race.

        So, since you could use any word you wanted, what was the likely word that Obama’s father would use? Well, the commonly used word that African exchange students used in the 1960s was AFRICAN. And, what was the word that the colonial government used in Kenya in 1961 to describe the black residents of that country? Answer: Africans.

    • http://windstream Joe

      his own attorney said the form is not real and is a forgery. How can you support this poser?

      • ehancock

        Obama’s attorney never said any such thing. That was made up by a birther “reporter.”

    • Jet

      WHERE???????

    • Schlumbio T

      you are a total idiot, who does not know anything about the “real world”

      • ehancock

        Obama’s attorney never said any such thing. That was made up by a birther “reporter.” Even WND did not use the claim that Obama’s attorney said that the birth certificate was forged. That is because she never said it.

    • Diane

      Back in 1961 The Term “Negroes” was excepted and used. The term “African-American” was not promoted or applied yet.
      The White House released lists Obama’s birth as August 4, 1961. It also lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father. was born in Kenua, East Africa. Here is a red flag Kenya did not even exist until 1963, this is 2 years after Obama’s birth and 27 years after his father’s birth. How could Obama’s father have been born in a country that did not exist then and “British East Africa Protectorate is the name of the location that formed Kenya in 1963. Kenya became a nation on December 12, 1963
      http:”WWW.nationsonline.org/oneworld/Kenya.htm#Search

      The certificate also lists the place of birth “Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital”. this is not possible because the hospital in 1961 was not named referred to or called that. That name arrived and developed in 1978 when there was a merge with another hospital.
      Post-colonial history (from Wikipedia)
      http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kenya

      Yes, he owes America the truth not a trillion dollar deficit along with paying $102 000.00 for his dog trainer Michelle has 22 servants and he has used everything that is supposed to be there to assist him to get his job done for us the citizens, over three times more than any other president for his lavish tax payer spending and his egregious life style that needs to be terminated.

      • ehancock

        Re: “Back in 1961 The Term “Negroes” was excepted and used. The term “African-American” was not promoted or applied yet.”

        Answer: The word used on Obama’s birth certificate is African, NOT African-American.

        So, how come “African” and not “negro?”

        Answer: In Hawaii there was not a list of races that you could check off. And no one stood over your shoulder and told you what words to use. “American” is not a race, but some people in Hawaii entered that word as their race, and some have said that their parents or grandparents entered “Italian”–and that was accepted. So we know, and in fact the Hawaii officials have confirmed, that there was no control over what word you could use to describe your race.

        The remaining question is whether it was likely that Obama’s father used the world African. Well, it turns out that the common word used to describe their race by African exchange students in the 1960s was African. And it turns out that the word used in Kenya by the colonial authorities (who were still in charge in 1961) to describe the black residents of their country was African.

        Re: “Here is a red flag Kenya did not even exist until 1963, ”

        Answer: Actually Kenya did exist in 1961. It was called the Kenya Colony (changed from British East Africa in 1920), Kenya for short. And it was in East Africa. Hence, “Kenya, East Africa” is correct.

        Re: Hospital allegedly not existing in 1961 “because the hospital in 1961 was not named referred to or called that. That name arrived and developed in 1978 when there was a merge with another hospital.”

        Answer: Kapiolani Hospital did exist in 1961.

        How do we know? It is the same name used on the birth certificates of the Nordyke Twins, born one day after Obama at the same hospital, and the birth certificates of the Nordyke Twins are on WND’s site.

      • RichE

        Diane,
        Have you thought about voting him out of office?

    • G

      Enjoy the KOOL AID.

    • http://gravatar.com/wtfaz wtfaz

      tony
      I hate to burst your bubble but if you take the time to listen to this I feel that you will change your mind in a big way.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=X6tvti9um6k

      • ehancock
        • RichE

          ehancock, you’ve got 38 more SSN’s to debunk. Just kidding.

          from: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/02/obamas-social-security-number/
          I submitted an affidavit from a licensed investigator Neil Sankey, showing that according to most reputable National databases Lexis Nexis and Choice Point Barack Obama used as many as 39 different social security numbers, none of which were issued in the state of Hawaii, where he resided. (Submitted as an exhibit with the complaint)

      • ehancock

        Millions of people have errors in their social security numbers and millions have multiple SS numbers, caused mainly by the millions of errors made by Social Security clerks making data entry errors over the years.

        The reason that no one in Congress or Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck or the National Review gives a damn about all the social security claims is that they all know about the millions of errors. Obama is not using another person’s social security number. The SS Administration made a goof and issued the same number twice.

      • ehancock

        You cannot prove that he used those SS numbers, only that they are in his file. To prove that he used them you would have to contact an employer or a state that issued a driver’s license and asked for an SS number as proof of citizenship. You have not, and cannot, do that.

        So, when you say that “he used,” you are only speculating.

        Yes, there are multiple SS numbers in his file. But there were in mine, and there are in millions of peoples’ files. The cause was the millions of data entry errors. That is why no official and no conservative leader is making much of the Social Security number speculation.

        Keep on dreaming about numbers.

    • wtfaz

      Not to burst your bubble tony but you need to hear the truth.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=X6tvti9um6k

      • ehancock

        Keep on dreaming about numbers.

        • Jeff

          There’s the truth and The Truth. The problem with the latter is it is impervious to facts.

  • http://liberty Tony

    Correction proved!!

    • JeffH

      Tony, I addressed this issue with you the other day but you just ignored it. The fact of the matter is that Obama is not a “natural born citizen” and never could be. Time to repeat the lesson and reference the 4 Supreme Court cases that confirm and define the definition of “natural born citizen” , it’s origin and why the term “natural born citizen” is in the Constitution.

      The Supreme Court of the United States has given the definition of what a “natural born citizen” is. Since being a natural born citizen is an objective qualification and requirement of office for the U.S. President, it is important for all U.S. Citizens to undertsand what this term means.
      http://usa-wethepeople.com/2010/04/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/

      Let’s cut through all the opinion and speculation, all the “he says”, “she says”, fluff, and go right to the irrefutable, constitutional authority on all terms and phrases mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: the Supreme Court of the United States.

      There are 4 such cases which speak of the notion of “natural born citizenship”.

      Each of these 4 Supreme Court cases will cite or apply the definition of this term, as given in a book entitled, The Law of Nations, written by Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss-German philosopher of law. In that book, the following definition of a “natural born citizen” appears, in Book I, Chapter 19, § 212, of the English translation of 1797 (p. 110):

      § 212. 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. . . .

      iIt should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

      Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfil his constitutional duties accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully, because unconstitutionally.

      • JeffH

        Tony, just so ya know, Obama’s father was never a US citizen which means Obama could never be a “natural born citizen”…thus, the birth certificate really becomes unimportant other than confirming that his father was not a citizen of the US>

      • Jeff

        (offensive comment removed)

      • JeffH

        Jeff, thanks for the intelligent and well thought response. It’s a good thing having ignorant liberals like yourself posting these comments so other commenters recognize what you’re made of. Keep on posting.

      • ehancock

        The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth, not the parents.

        “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

        “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

        “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

  • JimCO

    Probably because the Associated Press made no such reference; the identification of Barack Obama as “Kenyan-born” was added to the Sunday Standard’s version of the AP story by someone else (who misspelled the politician’s given name as “Barrack” in the process) and is apparently unique to that publication. The full text of the “Jack Ryan Abandons Senate Bid” article as originally issued by the Associated Press is retrievable from the LexisNexis archive of global news sources, and it contains no reference (in the lead-in or elsewhere) to Barack Obama’s being “Kenyan-born”

  • Rasta

    Where do you find these idiots?

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

      Dear Rasta,

      Another compelling argument from the debate team star. You are mesmerizing.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

  • Wyatt

    The truly sad part of this tale is that fraud is now in the White House and has intimidated Congress into complacency . Either that or all of Washington is involved in a plot to destroy our country . As for the MSM you know had there been any question of an issue like this within the Republican Party , the story would be front and center each and very day in the papers and News program .
    With all the evidence that has been unearthed , and is continuing to be exposed there has to a point where this can be no longer ignored . If an individualwill lie about this , what else will he lie about and what IS he lying about .

    • Gary L

      Wyatt,

      Congress is not complacent. They are COMPLICIT.
      Perhaps not all, but many.

      • Aileen

        Of coarse they are complicit, not one word from anyone in office to take action in demanding him to leave office on his own or to oust him. This should make us all skeptical of everything Congress does. If he wins in November it will be by fraud and intimidation. Black Panthers and Acorn? Do not forget them.

      • Karolyn

        I would think ALL of them, even Rand and Ron Paul. The information is so readily available to anyone in the world, any congressperson not aware of what is going on is living in a cave or is just ignoring things in favor of keeping their foothold (and maybe their life?) I have come to the conclusion that ANYTHING is possible. However, NO ONE other than the inner circle really knows the real truth.

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        Absolutely, Gary L! Congress is definitely complicit! They don’t want to rock the boat because all they care about is “getting theirs”! They ALL stand by as the enemy has invaded our country and is defeating us! They are ALL guilty of treason!!!

    • alex

      they are holding comment until after the election if romney wins they will bring up the fact that his father was born in mexico did he fver get his U.S. citizenship

      • Nadzieja Batki

        A verification may be done at the U. S. Citizenship and Imigration Services for Romney.Will anyone be permitted to check is questionable.
        As for children born overseas of Military Personnel stationed overseas:
        Department of State issued a Certificate of Birth Abroad,
        on a form headed: DEPARTMENT OF STATE
        FOREGN SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
        Certification of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America
        The certificate is signed by a Consul of the United States of America

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        It is my understanding that even if romney’s father was born in Mexico, his parents were US citizens. That makes him (romney’s father) a US citizen. romney’s father does not need to be “natural born”, only romney himself. He (romney) was born in the US and his parents were citizens. So he is qualified. I am no fan of romney but at least he is legal!

    • JUKEBOX

      If this fraud were a Republican, he would be serving time at a Federal Prison.

  • The Professor

    It is said that if you tell a lie long enough with enough confiction, the lie morphs into the truth, even though it is still a lie.
    Obama can thank his mama for starting this lie when he was just a cute little baby.
    Today, Hawaii, Obama, and every liberal out there continues to feed this lie out of necessity. Their Socialist livelyhood depends on it, the Constitution be damned.

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      “Cute little baby”? More like “Rosemary’s baby”!

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        Come on! I thought I’d get a rise out of people. Has no one heard of “Rosemary’s Baby”?

      • Kate8

        Nancy – Some here are, no doubt, too young to know of Rosemary’s Baby.

        I think you just may be right about it, though. It does fit, doesn’t it?

  • HarryButtle

    “No official original long-form birth certificate for Obama has ever been shown to media or to investigators”.

    What are you talking about?

    Obama releases long-form birth certificate
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20057812-503544.html

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

      Dear HarryButtle,

      That is a forgery, according to investigators and electronics documents experts.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • KJQ

        I’m one of the latter. I downloaded the PDF from the White House web site myself and examined it. That e-document is a forgery (i.e. has been tampered with electronically).

        Bob, I’m glad you mentioned Obama’s father’s citizenship because this IS more important and invalidates Obama’s candidacy. the USSC defined ‘natural born citizen’ to mean BOTH parents being US citizens.

      • alex

        the birth certificate is minor was his father ever a U.S. citizen

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        Don’t forget, obummer’s lawyer admitted in a court of law that the birth certificate that he submitted to the American people IS a forgery!
        http://visiontoamerica.org/9248/barack-obamas-lawyer-admits-birth-certificate-is-forged/

      • Kate8

        Nancy – Yes. And I found it an absolute outrage that his lawyer claimed that, as it was not a valid BC, it could not be entered into evidence!

        Where is the issue of fraud?

      • ehancock

        Re: “Yes. And I found it an absolute outrage that his lawyer claimed that, as it was not a valid BC, it could not be entered into evidence!”

        She never said any such thing. What she said, and it is the truth, is that New Jersey does not require a birth certificate for people who run for president, and so it would be simply a waste of time for the court to see a birth certificate.

        The officials in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that Obama’s birth certificate exists and that the facts on the birth certificate that Obama published are accurate. Here is the latest confirmation: http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/06/hawaii-very-officially-verifies-barack-obamas-birth-certificate/

        That follows several other confirmations, by Republican and Democrat officials (including the former Republican governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle), and it is further confirmed by the Index Data–a public list of the birth certificates on file that shows a birth certificate for Obama filed in 1961–and by the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers’ Health Bureau Statistics section in 1961. As the name shows, the notices in the Health Bureau Statistics section were only sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii, and the DOH at the time only sent out the notices for births in Hawaii.

    • liberalbasher1955

      Yes on that too many poeple have allready come out an admited that there is no long form BC for BHO on record in Hawaii !

      • ehancock

        That is not true.

        Officials in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that Obama’s birth certificate exists and that the facts on the birth certificate that Obama published are accurate. Here is the latest confirmation: http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/06/hawaii-very-officially-verifies-barack-obamas-birth-certificate/

        That follows several other confirmations, by Republican and Democrat officials (including the former Republican governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle), and it is further confirmed by the Index Data–a public list of the birth certificates on file that shows a birth certificate for Obama filed in 1961–and by the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers’ Health Bureau Statistics section in 1961. As the name shows, the notices in the Health Bureau Statistics section were only sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii, and the DOH at the time only sent out the notices for births in Hawaii.

    • Mis

      @harrybuttle…..believing something just because someone says it’s a fact, doesn’t make it the truth. So many in this country have “blind faith” in obamas words….perhaps because America is so desperate for the hope and change he promised but failed to deliver. Obama has had over 3 years to show his true character and it’s hardly Presidential. I would think that would be enough for his supporters to see what he is. I’m convinced this man and his wife are frauds and both deserve long prison sentences and so do the officials from Hawaii who assisted this preposterous lie. Hawaii is guilty of a crime against all the people of America!

    • Gary L

      HarryButtle,
      An OBama attorney has come out and acknowledged that the birth certificate is a fake.

      • ehancock

        NO she didn’t. A birther “reporter” said that she did, but she didn’t.

    • jb aukamm

      Sorry, everyone here is missing the boat, you are all buying into the scam! Both sides don’t get the real story. The official birth certificate Obama has released is the short form issued to the grand parent since his mother is a US citizen, the grandmother is the one who posted the newspaper announcement of his birth. All people, like John McCain born outside the US can get that short form issued. The official long form is issued by a hospital or doctor if the birth was on US soil. Obama’s mother was a US citizen! Normally he would be a naturalized US citizen no matter where he was born. His problem was that after being born in Kenya as a US citizen, his mother moved to Indonesia and married a man named Soetoro. This is the story he is trying to hide, because Barack changed his name to Barry Soetoro and became a citizen of Indonesia when his step father adopted him. If you look at all his paper trail after that, he is Barry Soetoro and followed his mother back to the US. Barry needed to file a new form with the state department for reinstatement of citizenship and he would have been granted that automatically. He never filed that form and since the US does not allow dual US and Indonesian citizenships, Barry Soetoro is still an Indonesian. His mother filed that form for herself and Maya her daughter, but not Barry.

    • Douglas patriot

      Yet another in your face blatant forgery!! The man is using the SSN# of a dead man from connecticut and could not now or ever pass a background check or a govt screening for a job. How did the usurper ever even get a passport or drivers license. It’s like he bought all this stuff on a street corner in honolulu like the illegals do in so many other american sanctuary cities!

    • http://www.facebook.com/roy.koch.33 Roy Koch

      I have a Long Form Deed to a Big Bridge in New York that I’d love to sell your Gullible Butt!!

    • Surflaunch

      Oh yeah, that forgery with the name of a hospital on it that did not even exist untiul 7 years later.
      I completely forgot about that piece of toilet paper.
      Now that we know Obama is also a master of time travel.
      Please excuse us all for our ignorance.

    • Carl Manning

      Harry,

      Most foreign intelligence agencies around the world were able to determine within minutes that it was a forgery when it was released on April 27th, 2011. This was amateur work. Forensic, counterfeiting, and typography experts along with computer experts were able to ascertain it was a forgery within hours and days of the release. The MSM didn’t even bother with trying to verify this document. They accepted it on face value as bonafide truth from the dictator because they were threatened by the FTC and FCC government agencies with revocation of their broadcasting licenses. Some journalists who attempted to cover Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse’s press conference on March 1st of this year have already given sworn affidavits that they and their families were threatened. Some even quit their professions over these threats. Many of the mainstream talk radio idiots got in line with the GOP on this because they’re just “carrying the water” for the GOP, or were they possibly also threatened by the government??? In the face of all that the GOP has done to destroy this nation, it is mind-boggling how the usual Neocons, Sean Insanity, Rush Bimbo, Machine-gun Annie Coulter, and others still support this political party and can still call themselves “Conservatives”. They are so deluded with their support and belief in the government’s 911 lie; their entire careers have been based on LIES spoonfed to them by the CIA-controlled media. There is nothing even remotely “CONSERVATIVE” about the GOP today, and their complicity in High Treason for allowing Obama to even step foot in the Oval Office is the clarion call to abandon this party altogether. The REAL story behind this whole ineligibility issue is whether or not a deal was made behind the scenes between the DemoCommies and the Neocon Republifascists. How else can you explain the confidence the Dems had in putting forth a candidate that they knew was never qualified to begin with? Hillary and Bill and many others in the DNC Establishment knew Obama wasn’t qualified before he ever became the Democrat’s nominated candidate. As Bettina Viviano, a Hollywood Producer who attended a DNC fundraiser for Hillary in 2008 has testified in a sworn affidavit, Obama had his goonsquad murder Bill and Hillary’s good friend, the Arkansas Democratic Party Chairman, Bill Gwatney, to send a message to them both to not go public with the ineligibility issue. She had overheard Bill Clinton pointing out to others at the soiree that he knew Obama was ineligible and intended to go public with this information. Even after Obama assassinated Bill Gwatney, Bill remained undeterred and defiant, so Obama then sent word through DNC backchannels that “Chelsea would be next” if he went public. Bill and Hillary complied and buried the issue, but was Hillary offered the SOS position possibly as a deal to buy her/their silence??? I believe there had to have also been a deal with the GOP Establishment. Did the GOP make a deal that they would be silent and feign ignorance in return for a free pass in the MSM for a future ineligibile Marco Rubio Presidency or Vice-Presidency??? Or, is it all simply that neither one of these parties really gives a damn about the Constitution to begin with??? Or, is it simply that the GOP is entirely compromised, blackmailed, bribed, and corrupt along with the State governments and judges who have been willing accomplices in all of this??? Maybe, it’s a combination of all of these to explain this. I will not be rewarding any of the GOP’s Treasonous behavior whatsoever at all levels of government; I’m voting strictly a Third Party ticket straight down the line just as I have done for the last several elections. THE GOP IS OUR ENEMY, TOO!!! The sooner we realize this, the better off we will be. The hour is terribly late; all we have left is a prayer.

      • Karolyn

        So I guess no congressman or woman, no mainstream journalist, no politician or other person other than those who write blogs has any balls? EVERYBODY, from the little people working in t he registrar’s office in Hawaii to the FBI to every congress person is in on the great conspiracy?

        • RichE

          Karolyn, wouldn’t it be logical to include the Electoral College in the conspiracy since they actually make the final decision?

      • Karolyn

        Absolutely, Rich. You just can’t tell me that there is nobody in this country (which is still free btw) who could make the big break if there was sufficient evidence. What about Trump? For all his money and bravado, why hasn’t he pursued the issue? Why did he drop the issue, now pick it up again, but still not bring out any new info? Obviously, there is NOT enough evidence, otherwise somebody would have the story of the century. Surely, Trump has no fear and would love to bring about the fall of Obama. The thing is all Trump has is a big mouth and a lot of money.

        • RichE

          Karolyn,
          I think Trump would change his mind if someone would inform him that JoeBiden would then be president. Sorry Joe.

      • AZ-Ike

        Amen. The best way we can even attempt to restore the Constitution and the Rule of Law is to refuse to reelect any incumbent politician–Democrat or GOP–at every level of government. We are supposed to have a government by consent of the governed. We actually have a government in which the People have NO voice at all.

      • CB

        You paint a very bleak picture. I do not disagree with you, but what do you suggest for people to do? What do see the military doing? Will they go along as they are sworn to do? Already there are several military personnel who are speaking out against the POTUS. That number would likely grow under your scenerio. Again, while I do not disagree, I still have hope for a better outcome. Of course, pray, pray, pray for this great Country.

      • Kate8

        Karolyn – There are people who are pursuing this, like Sheriff Arpaio, Jerome Corsi and others. They also live with death threats, and the knowing that the entire government is in on the conspiracy.

        Congress has been neutered long ago. Those bunch of weasels will stoop to anything to cover their b*tts. The courts have been taken, too. Judge Roll dared to rule against Obama. When one’s family…children… are threatened, they cave.

        Congress knows what’s coming, and they are feathering their own nests. We can’t count on them. They fear us along with the rest of the scumbags, because we know that we know that they’ve betrayed us.

        Our government has been infiltrated and usurped from the inside. It is now us vs them. I heard that 80% of the military is on our side, but I wouldn’t bank on it.

        It IS a huge conspiracy. This is easy when it is so compartmentalized. Hundreds, thousands of groups, many not even understanding their part. Just look at how Agenda 21 is progressing.

        They’ve been at it for a century. They’ve hired the best to help them with all aspects of it. If you really want to understand what, how and who, it’s available. Just don’t keep blowing it off just because you don’t know and don’t want to know.

      • Carl Manning

        Trump is no idiot. He knows how evil the CIA is. He likely knows how the CIA killed JFK, JFK Jr, Princess Diana, RFK, MLK, Paul Wellstone, the DC madam, and Jeanette Palfrey. He is likely thoroughly acquainted with the political hits Obama ordered on Donald Young, Nathan Spencer, Larry Bland, “Lieutenant” Quarles Harris, Bill Gwatney, and possibly many others. Surely, he knows how Clinton murdered Ron Brown, Vince Foster before they were about to testify against Clinton and countless others from his CIA/drug-trafficking days in Mena, Arkansas. He also knows Clinton murdered former CIA Director, William Colby who was getting too close to the truth about the Vince Foster assassination. Trump knows he’s dealing with a criminal cartel full of serial murderers when he’s dealing with the US Presidency. He knows they can “suicide” or “accident” anybody out of the picture without leaving a trace of evidence. He likely knows that the CIA controls the USA MSM. The CIA is a NWO organization. Trump knows you can’t get 100 judges to rule in your favor consistently with a mountain of evidence against you without bribery and “coercion”.

  • Carfield

    I can’t believe the stupidity of these remarks. He has produced his birth certificate and Hawaii is in the US of A. Also, don’t forget, his mother is American so he would automatically be a citizen. Is it because he is black???? John McCain was not born in the US and I didn’t see anyone requiring him to prove it. Wake up people – all this hate is going to destroy us within – then will you be happy?????

    • CJ

      We’ll be happy when fools like you start using common sense and accept evidence over hocus-pocus. You use lies to support your fantasy, then argue against pure logic.

      • alex

        the reason the dumocraps keep the birth certificate story alive is the misdirection LOOK AT HIS FATHER

    • Kwizmiss

      McCain had to prove his citizenship at the very beginning of campaigning because the DNC demanded it. However, both his parents were US citizens at his birth making him eligible for the Presidency. If Pres. Obama’s book and the Hawaiian birth certificate are indeed factual, then Pres. Obama has never been qualified to be the president according to the constitution. DUH!

      • liberalbasher1955

        That would never stop the democrats. A little thing like the consitution ? Come on ! thats just a piece of paper till they wanna hide behind it.

      • Douglas patriot

        McCain is not elligable because he was born in a panamanin hospital on panamanian soil that was subcontracted to handle all births at that time off base in a nearby city, otherwise as you say he would be elligable but sorry he is not!

        • CB

          I’ll say again: The United States signed a treaty with Panama stating that the babies born of American Servicemen stationed in the Canal Zone would be automatic American Citizens. This was done because the hospital that the military contracted with to serve the military and their spouses, was situated just ouside the border of the Canal Zone and Panama City.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Douglas patriot you are wrong.If there was no base clinic or base hospital to deliver a child of our military personnel, the facility that was used by our military would “become” for that child’s birth as if he was born on a base hospital. Then the paperwork would have to be procured and signed by the Consul of the United States of America.

    • jimster

      McCane did have to prove he met the constitutional requirements to be president the first time he ran for president, as you know he was born in Panama on a US military base to American parents, which meets the requirements.

      • alex

        and he was born on U.S. soil

    • Mis

      @carfield….obama is approx 10% black and about 40% arab…..so stop with the black racist remarks…..why is it that the only time I hear about racisim is from a Democrat or the potus himself. He has the record for being the most devisive potus in history and he relishes any opportunity to make the racism accusation. 95% of blacks voted for this potus just because he said he was black……isn’t that racist? Check the mirror, you have kool aid stains around your mouth.

    • ROSINA

      Wrong Carfield.
      mccain had to show his documents.
      Yes, he was born in Panama, BUT on a US BASE which officially becomes US territory.
      Both his parents were citizens as he is.
      BOTH< BOTH parents.
      So stop reciting nonsense.

      • CB

        I agree. Also, children born of American Servicemen stationed in the Canal Zone, by treaty with Panama, are American Citizens. I believe that is the case with McCain.

      • Douglas patriot

        NOT!

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Douglas patriot, it appears that you do not know how the military and the State Department deals with childrens’ births abroad of soldiers stationed overseas.

    • Walt

      Carfield Says: “Also, don’t forget, his mother is American so he would automatically be a citizen.”

      Here are the facts about this issue. According to the Nationality Act of 1940: Chapter II, (Nationality At Birth) Section 201, paragraph (g)

      This addresses the issue of a parent conveying citizenship to a child if one parent is a citizen and the other a non-citizen of the U.S.

      The requirement states that the citizen parent (in Obama’s case, his mother) must have lived in the U.S. for 5 years after the age of 16, prior to giving birth; thus requiring Obama’s mother to have been at least 21 years of age to be legally able to convey basic U.S. citizenship (not “natural born citizen” status). Obama’s mother was not 21 years old when she gave birth to Obama. Stanley Ann Dunham was born on Nov. 29, 1942 and her son Barack Obama was born in August 4, 1961, making her 18 years old at the time of Barack Obama’s birth. In fact, based on a 9 month gestation period, Obama’s mother was 17 years old when she got pregnant by the Kenyan polygamist.

      • Douglas patriot

        Obama gave up his US citizenship when his step father adopted him and got him citizenship in indonesia. FACT!

      • ehancock

        Obama was not adopted in Indonesia, which requires the action of a district court, and no court papers have been found. Nor have Soetoro’s blood children referred to Obama as “brother,” because he was never adopted. He was only, for a time (until the divorce), a stepbrother.

        Obama was never a citizen of Indonesia, as a telephone call to the Indonesian Embassy in Washington will confirm.

    • Gary L

      There are those blinders again.

      • IDart

        If you cannot even get his supporters to admit that there is a difference in the defination of “citizen” and “natural born citizen” then you are wasting your time.

    • JUKEBOX

      Carfield, you are being a racist when you call Obama “BLACK”, because by definition, he is a MULATTO.

    • Dale on the left coast

      Garf . . . he has actually produced TWO . . . both electronic forgeries . . . which of the forgeries is the one that does it for you?

    • R L Morgan

      Number one he is not black, he is a half breed claiming the black label as a point of expediancy or so he can use the sympathy race card. The Black race should be insulted that he is claiming to be the first black president. He is as much white as he is black and he is a disgrace to both races with his socialist ideology. The man is being used as a pawn to bring down the country that is a shineing city on a hill to downtrodden people all over the world.

      • Karolyn

        In the real world, people who are mixed and of a dark complexion consider themselves black.

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      Carfield, do you know how to read? Do you know how to click on the many links that have been posted proving that the birth certificate obummer posted was a forgery? Do you even BOTHER to look? It has been settled! obummer’s attorney admitted IN A COURT OF LAW that the birth certificate that obummer presented to the American people IS A FORGERY!!!
      http://visiontoamerica.org/9248/barack-obamas-lawyer-admits-birth-certificate-is-forged/
      Stop saying the same thing over and over when it has been proven and admitted to being a forgery! obummer has not give ANY evidence to ANYONE to prove that he is a citizen, let alone a “natural born” citizen. He is a communist plant!!!

      • CB

        Natural born citizens do not have to produce a forged birth certificate. If you lose or misplace yours, just go to the court house and get another one. Since birth certificates are a matter of public record, you can check on your friend or neighbor while you’re there.

      • ehancock

        Obama’s lawyer never said any such thing. A birther “reporter” said that she said it, but she didn’t say it.

        Obama has shown his short form and long form birth certificate and the facts on them have been repeatedly confirmed by the officials in Hawaii, and by the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers and by the “Index Data.”

        http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2011/04/in_hawaii_its_easy_to_get_birt.html

        Only birther “experts,” who have not proven that they are real experts, and who certainly have not shown that they are fair and impartial, have said that Obama’s birth certificate is forged. That is why Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and the National Review do not believe them.

  • 4LoveOfGod&Country

    Vote them all out. A person complicit in a lie is himself dishonest. We have a fraud occupying OUR White House & a self rather than WE THE PEOPLE interested legislative branch that won’t do anything about it. VOTE in November. May God bless the USA.

  • Benton Bain

    Stanley Ann Dunham was not a patient at either hospitals in Honolulu on Aug, 4, 1961 when supposedly Hussein Obama was born there.

  • Warrior

    Forget about little barry, the story to watch is going to be how the “progressives” are going to orchestrate little joey’s newly developed physical ailment so billary can be inserted into the veep slot. It’s comin.

    • Karolyn

      I thought I already heard that Biden was bowing out .

      • Neil

        Kind of sad when this happens. Maybe Barry found someone new at his gay bash in L.A.

  • CJ

    The Republicans are considering the same outcome by thinking Marco Rubio should be considered for VP. If the main purpose for a vice is to take over for the head guy, shouldn’t they meet the same quals? Rubio has offered his official certificate, but he does not meet the ‘natural born’ definition… unless you use Orwell’s offered explaination.

  • Beata

    I think (therefore I am) that the true question is, not where Barack was born (who cares how you spell it), but WHERE WAS HIS FATHER BORN, (IF HE IS HIS FATHER). Let’s get some of the investigation going in that direction! By the way, where was Arnold Schwarzeneger born? Didn’t we have this same discussion, showing my age, when Henry Kissinger was in the public eye. Come on you great investigators, get on this before November! PLEASE!
    Granny in OHIO.

    • liberalbasher1955

      The Arnold was born in Austria. So can’t run for president. BHO ? We really don’t know where he was born. His grandmother and him both said at diferent times Kenya ! But we all know how he writes his books. It was a composite of several people that became BHO. Thats it ! A little bit of Ayers. A little bit of Rev. Wright. A little bit Mao Zedong. Take your pick folks !

  • http://palantirmusings.wordpress.com palantirmusings

    At this point, I don’t really care if he was born in the U.S. or not. He was never qualified to be President of the United States because he is a liar, a coward, and a communist/islamofacist sympathizer. That alone should have been enough for people in 2008. But, with all his “qualifications”, or lack thereof, being white washed by the mainstream media and the implication made by them that you would be racist if you did not vote for him, it was inevitable that the young and the ignorant in this country would vote for him. However, having experienced the malevolence of his policies and the now unmasked policies of the general Democrat party, I think we are in for the treat of a landslide defeat for them this November. At that point, it might be useful to declare the Obama presidency as null and void by proving he was Kenyan-born in order to quickly roll back all the damage he has done. Supreme Court justices being the first order of business.

    • Daveh234

      “The young and the ignorant” are at fault. You have such a high regard for your fellow Americans! Why is everyone an idiot if they disagree with your opinion. This is how things are. The Republicans are as responsible as anyone for the strangling of our rights as anyone. But those who voted are idiots, oh wait, only those who voted the way you didn’t want them to.
      Your a pitiful excuse for a human for dragging your knuckles and saying such crap.

      • alex

        dave, there is a BIG difference between an idiot and someone who is ignorant but in your case i would say they are the same

      • JUKEBOX

        Ignorance and stupidity needs to be painful!

      • http://palantirmusings.wordpress.com palantirmusings

        JUKEBOX: Unfortunately, it is. The youth, stupidity, and ignorance that swept Obama in office is painful for all who must endure the policies imposed on the country at large.

        • RichE

          STUPID YOUTH then maybe we should improve the public school system? Nah! Bad idea, socialism, big government, bad, bad idea.

      • Daveh234

        Alex, what you said makes no sense about what I was saying.
        My point is valid. period.
        I am neither youthful nor ignorant, by the way.
        That is your opinion. It is wrong.
        ‘Nuff said.

      • http://palantirmusings.wordpress.com palantirmusings

        I think this quote from Winston Churchill says it all…. ““If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”

  • Terry

    The fact remains the the democratic controlled congress in 2008 went deeper into Sen. John McCains record of birth and covered up anything about BHO is laughable ! How do you answer the charge his father isn’t a US citizen ? That is undeniable. How do you answer the charges of faked or forged documents handed to the news media and the state of Arizona. It took two years to get it ! The democrats and BHO caused this. The fact that this could damage the entire political structure of the country is why both the dems and repubs are trying to sweep this under the rug. Only a left wing zealot wouldn’t see the holes in the Democrats and BHO’s case. What is sadder is the Republicans will let this slide.

  • http://Personalliberty.com Ron b

    you really would have to wonder…where did Obama really come from? Who’s backing him?..and why is he working so hard to destroy this country right along with his cronnies?

    • vanessa

      Ron b the answer is George Soros who wants the one world government. If you guys think Hillary is better then you better read “The Shadow Party” Hillary was the one who was supposed to do Soros’s bidding in the first place. This is all a set up. Elect Obummer he fails then Hillary rides in on a white horse and “saves” the day. Only the day is a nightmare because she’s in deeper than he is.

      • Winddrinker

        Vanessa, I do believe that billary is “as bad or worse” than the illegal Kenyan-born foreigner. She is hard at work, as we post, giving away the sovereignty of our country.
        It is stunning at the rate in which American sovereignty is disappearing as our leaders are abdocating our rights to international powers and making our congress obsolete.

      • Ted Crawford

        Not at all surprizing, considering ole Georgies background. He aided the Nazis in rounding up, imprisoning, torturing and killing, not just his fellow countryman but members of his own race, and sharing in the bounty of confiscated goods! That’s not even the frightening part !
        Organizations like the Nazis normally get all the good they can from their ” useful idiots ” and then subject them to the same treatment as their other victims. Soros not only managed to escape that fate but he kept the loot! This guy must be diabolically clever and devious!
        We discount him at our own peril!

      • Gary L

        There are many involved in the dimantling of our sovereignty. They are more thatn willing to piss on our rights and even worse, the constitution. Such actions should be viewed as treasonous. But much of congress is complicit with such actions.

    • JUKEBOX

      Those are the answers to the $16 trillion question!

    • Walt

      Where did Obama come from? One issue that hasn’t been addressed here is the fact that Stanley Dunham (Obama’s grandfather) was a CIA agent and that his daughter (Stanley Ann Dunham) was also employed by the CIA, working for the CIA front organization USAID in the far east. It is also well known that Stanley Ann Dunham’s parents were active in communist circles. Whether their activities were as CIA plants or as true believers is really unknown; however, they showed no objection to allowing Barack to associate with a known communist Frank marshall Davis, who Obama referred to as a “mentor” and who treated him like a son.

      If indeed the Dunham’s had influence within the CIA, in it’s early days, right after WWII, it would be an easy task to set up or provide all the necessary documents to allow their “golden boy” grandson to climb the political ladder with all the right credentials (SSN, college degrees, etc.) In fact, it is alledged that Elena Kagan’s appointment to the Supreme Court is “payback” for his Harvard Law Degree documentation.

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      One word! satan!!!

      • brett

        ha! the church lady, good one!

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      This is a possibility. Lots of speculation. Lots of circumstantial evidence not no definitive proof.
      http://patdollard.com/2012/05/new-film-claims-communist-frank-marshall-davis-is-barack-obamas-biological-father/

  • http://yahoo bob peters

    Tsk Tsk the democruts drank all the koolaid..None left for you repubs…Just a few rinos got to drink…Oh well,your american capitalist society is about to crumble and you can do nothing about it! just whine! Want some cheese??? tsk tsk

    • Nadzieja Batki

      If America fails who will the rest of the world have to sponge off?

      • Hammer

        What drugs did you say you are on?? You are fantasizing again and should seek the help of a mental institution. It is apparent that your brains are fried due to overdosing on obamaphen, one of the worst drugs in our country today.
        This drug has had a seriously adverse side effect on your thinking and some how, it is apparent that you have acquired a severe case of Optiorectalistus. In case you are not quite sure of what this medical condition is, it is the problem of your optic nerves attaching themselves to your rectum. The end result is that it gives you a rally crap_y outlook on life.
        Now go see your doctor for a cure, you are in serious need of one as you are becoming more delusional with the passing of each second.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Hammer, first check to whom you are replying to and if you are not sure reread before you post your comment. You can also write in the person’s name that you are replying to.

    • liberalbasher1955

      bob peters says:

      June 8, 2012 at 8:17 am

      Tsk Tsk the democruts drank all the koolaid..None left for you repubs…Just a few rinos got to drink…Oh well,your american capitalist society is about to crumble and you can do nothing about it! just whine! Want some cheese??? tsk tsk

      Sir you better hope it doesn’t crash ! This man BHO has so divided this nation in just over three short years that I believe that if the national system crashes along with the division produced by this man. We could look like the old USSR with state fighting state. Breaking up and balkanising. The left has caused so much unrest with all the class warfare and cultural attacks. A collapes would be produce chaos ! We must not forget that we are a young nation. But we’re not a melting pot anymore. The left has seen to that. With this multiculturalism BS being taught in the schools and universities.Thats why this man was never givien the scrutiny required before he was elected. He was given a free pass. Why you ask ? Because of the white guilt instilled in the young whites of this country. Yes I’ll call a spade a spade ! That has to stop ! This man is a charlatan, lair, and fake ! He was that from day one in chicago. That alone should have sent up reds flags. His entire white house staff came from that den of criminal politicians. People they can’t keep a govenor out of jail ! But we elect a POTUS from their ranks !We really deserve this man. I found this in a paper in europe. There is alot more like it.

      This quote was translated into English from an article appearing in the Czech Republic as published in the Prager Zeitung of April 28 2011.

      “The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting an inexperienced man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of Idiots such as those who made him their president.”

      This is so very true !!

      • CB

        I would agree with you in that it is the American voter who puts politicians in office.
        As long as they are content to grab on to an electronic bite and run with it to the nearest ballot box, we are hopelessly lost. Voters seem to fall into one of three catorgories: Fully invested in their chosen political party so much so that regardless of the facts, they always vote for the same party, voters who don’t really like politics and avoid the political ‘news’ until elections come around. They will vote for whatever name sounds familiar, thereby keeping in office lifetime politicians who do not deserve to be there. And the one that rally touches my heart, when a voter is sooo impressed by a robotcall, or a knock on the door by someone soliciting votes or has ‘seen’ the candidate at a rally. An actual handshake is a sure fire vote getter. Those people should do the country a favor and stay home on election day. I vote for voter ID’s. .

  • Aileen

    I will only say that Obama is a liar from the day of his birth to this very moment. He has not shown that he is a proven leader in any way other than the strong arm Chicago politics he lives. His father was not an American citizen which disqualifies him outright. Nothing he has said or done has been truthfull. Now that he can ‘evolve’ in one way does that mean he evolves in every way? This man is dangerous and needs to be removed from office. He thinks he is god and that he knows better than anyone of us. I know he doesn’t know what is best for me and mine. His motivation is to destroy America. We will all regret his reign of terror.

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      Oh, come on. Maybe(?) he told the truth. Once…….? Maybe…….? When he was a little kid…….? Oh, probably not. You’re probably right.

  • old hillbilly

    In the fourth year of presidency… no one knows who the great pretender is, or much about anything he accomplished. Sealed college records, no real birth certificate, a very sordid past of drugs, irresponsibility, and communist revolutionaries, says the straw man is a very dangerous person. If his mouth is moving, it’s lying & mocking what America was. (Lowest spending in history, biggest job creator in history???)… meanwhile highest unemployment in the black communities that support him. Can anyone name a business created in a slum… other than bulldozing the rubble left behind by welfare generations that continue to be fed & chained like dogs?

    What is his mode of operation… government offices & czars filled with communists and subversives who are working night and day bringing our economy to a screeching stop by regulations and edicts that strip the wealth of America… almost none appointed with advise and consent! Borders & language ripped to shreds… An unending war against Christianity, while spending billions of public money for muslims, Hamas, muslim brotherhood, etc. Can we name anything significantly well done?

    Are we to believe “birthers” are complete idiots for “not believing” in Obama? Legally, one lie is enough to discard testimony in court… and the bummerites literally scourge anyone who doesn’t trust BO!!! Are we to believe the Obamaites can’t eventually create fake birth certificates that look like the real ones, after three years of trying & failing & being prompted by those who unwittingly prove what a legitimate certificate is? How many fakes does it take to prove a lie? The first one! Believe & Trust… $5 trillion new unpayable debt & no end in sight, a nation divided as never before… needs the background in full of this pretender!

    • Gary L

      Well said Hillbilly. Unfortuntely, the truth, though rare these days, appears to be of little value or interest in our society today. The truth is not worth much if it is never known.
      That is why they try so hard to hide it from us.

    • ROSINA

      Excellent summary.
      But you forgot one thing-he thinks he is one of the BEST presidents along with Lincoln and FDR (another commie) or maybe it was another one.
      Talk about full of himself-he can write better speeches than his speechwriters???
      He can anything better than anyone else?????
      Except make a speech without a teleprompter!!! Ha! Ha!

  • http://www.meetup.com/White-Plains-Tea-Party/ Jonny Cool

    We all know the Media and the Whitehouse are working together and the people are suffering because of this. The so called mis-spoke {Lies} coming out of the Highest position in the land is overwhelming to say the least. We have our God Given rights to not only Vote out such a U.N.-Delegate but to also shut off such corrupt news and their propaganda that they spread. For an example this morning watching Darrel Issa questioning Eric Holder on whether or not he knew about the Fast and Furious Gun fiasco is irrelevant. It is his job {Eric Holder} to know what is going on and he did not do it. His position should be vacated immediately without question. Same as the U.N. Delegate in Charge.We must as Americans continue our pressure on these types and put back people in these positions with Honesty and Valour before our beloved Country falls apart.United we Stand Divided we Fall.

    • Carl Manning

      Therein lies the Achilles’ Heel of our Republic. The Justice Department is not even Constitutional. It is a creation of Congress that grew originally innocently out of the President needing a lawyer to consult with Congress on the Constitutionality of executive powers in reference to legislation being passed by Congress. What it has become is something the Founding Fathers would be horrified by: a means whereby the President can remain above the law, punish his political enemies, and secure Dictatorial powers in the land. This Achilles’ Heel of our Republic has now been exploited by the KGB Communist plant in the White House and his Communist associates. It may just be too late to save our Republic now. I always knew this day would eventually come to our Republic; our (in)Justice Department answering only to the President and the CIA acting as a completely unaccountable criminal enterprise answering to the President was a glaring open advertisment to all of the world that we were a Dictatorship-in-waiting, given the right infiltration. Get used to it because these guys aren’t going away ever.

  • Lulubelle

    George Soros for one plus any Americans who feel that polical correctness is accepting any african american just because they are black.How about the integrity & character of ANY person? Barack Obama is neither……..

    • JUKEBOX

      He’s not a genuine black either, only halfway

  • Chester

    For those of you who believe, heart and soul, that Obama was NOT born in the US, tell me one single item that would change your mind that you could NOT have some “expert” decide was either forged or made up out of whole cloth. I have heard umpteen million excuses as to why that long form birth certificate HAD to be a forgery, but no one has even attempted to say WHO forged it or why. The paper was of the right age, the ink was of the right age, yet it HAD to have been forged quite some time after his birth, so start explaining all the discrepancies in your own logic.

    • Bev

      I don’t believe there is a “paper copy” to compare it to. Are you even aware of the work that has been done to prove the forgery of the long form. Perhaps you should do some research. Experts in the field of document forensics have unequivocally stated that this so called birth certificate is a huge forgery. Goebbels would’ve loved you in Nazi Germany.

    • Ted Crawford

      Nice try comrade! The document in question here was generated electronically, neither paper nor ink was used!

    • Steve E

      Sounds like you are talking about a well made counterfeit $20 bill in your description. It fools a lot of people.

    • jb aukamm

      REad my post above, he never produced a long form, only a short form, the kind issued to US citizens born outside the US. It is clear he was not born in Honolulu, his grandmother did the announcement in the paper and his mother was never a patient in the Honolulu hospitals. Since she was not yet 21 and living in Kenya and then Indonesia, BHO was not a natualized US citizen, BHO was a Kenyan before being adopted by an Indonesian and changed his name to Barry Soetoro.

      • JUKEBOX

        I would like to see a copy of the passport they used to bring little Barry Soetoro back to Hawaii, as well as the court papers changing his name back to Barak Hussein Obama, Jr.

    • liberalbasher1955

      First sir when BHO was born the word black wasn’t used. “Negro” and “colored” remained the popular terms until the late 1960s. So that is one glaring problem with that BC. In other words they did what they do best. Not doing their homework !

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      Cheter, I don’t know where you get your news but you need to find another source! Like the others said, no one has ever seen a paper copy of obummer’s birth certificate. So if someone told you that the paper and ink were correct for the time, they’re flat out lying to you! It was posted online, had supposedly been scanned. Experts (and kids) immediately proved that the document had not been scanned but had been created by using “Photo Shop”. Then a full investigation was carried out by Arizona Sheriff, Joe Arpaio. his experts proved beyond all doubt that the document was not a scanned copy but WAS indeed a forgery! Then in April there was a court case in New Jersey, contesting obummer’s right to have his name on the ballot. The lawyer representing obummer admitted that the birth certificate that he presented to the American people was indeed a forgery!

      http://visiontoamerica.org/9248/barack-obamas-lawyer-admits-birth-certificate-is-forged/

      She claimed that since the document was a forgery, it couldn’t be used as evidence against him and that no one could prove that he wasnt a citizen. Anyway, get a new news source! Yours sucks!!!

  • CB

    The real mystery for me is that the Democratic Party did not properly vet Obama
    before they ran him as a candidate for president. Throughout all the controversy over Obama’a birthplace, the Democratic Party has been silent. If Obama is not a US natural born citizen as our Constitution demands, then who is behind the scenes that brought this man to the national stage and then to the presidency. Why are so many Democratic officials and newspeople cooperating in the national lie? There is no way that anyone could pull off a scam of this magnitutde without a lot of help. This my fellow citizens is a freightening thought.

    • ROSINA

      it has recently come to light that approx. 80 of the Demoncraps in Congress Really belong to the Communist party. Allen West was practically eviscerated for detailing this and what their purpose has been.
      So, they naturally would not bother to vet another trained marxist, who frequented a marxist preacher and church would they?

      • CB

        I had not heard this, but it comes as no susrprise. I think it runs much deeper. I also believe that the news organizations are withholding much from the American Citizens.
        Thank goodness for the truth seekers.

    • Steve

      Thank you CB,
      Finally the right question. Follow the dollars.

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      CB, there is a relatively small group of “elite” individuals who control everything. They decide who runs and who wins. They manipulate everything by virtue of their money and power. They control the congress, the senate and the main stream media. They have been running their agenda in secret for many years. Lately, due to the introduction of the Internet, their secrets are coming to light. Their plans for us are reaching the end stage and many things are coming out. Even as these things are happening you won’t hear about them on the news or from your representatives. They DON’T represent YOU!!! The whole point is to stop you from finding out so that you will be obedient and not try to stop them. They have already destroyed our country. Let me say that again, they have already destroyed our country! Our economy has already started to crash and we WILL have complete collapse. It has already begun. They are expecting riots and chaos and have developed a plan to confiscate everything we own and lock us up in the FEMA camps. They are staffed and ready to go. Start reading online. When you find something, keep following the links until you find the evidence that will convince you. I know it sounds crazy. But when you keep following the crazy claims you will eventually be led to a government document that confirms it for you. Keep going. Get out of the dark.

  • OOOOPPert EEEEpert

    the most compelling reason: For race, these idiots who forged it, put “AFRICAN”……AFRICAN is not a race, for there are white AFRICANS…at that time, the 60′s,, they would’ve have put either BLACK or NEGRO….

    • Karolyn

      His father’s nationality was indicated as “African”.

      • JUKEBOX

        Egyptians are from Africa, but they are not called African. Africa is a Continent, not a country. Even in the Bible, they are not called Africans.

      • Karolyn

        Come on Jukebox. People from Africa are Africans. People from America are Americans.

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        Karolyn, birth certificates do NOT ask for nationality. They ask for race. African is NOT a race and in the 60s, his race would have been listed as Negro, not African, not black. Negro!

      • Kate8

        Karolyn – Do people from say, Canada, Mexico or Brazil, refer to themselves as American? Or has that come to mean from the US?

        I ask because I’ve never heard anyone from any part of the Americas refer to themselves as American, other than people from the US. If they did, it would be assumed that they meant the US.

      • Karolyn

        OK. Maybe my analogy was a bit off. However, black people from Africa are referred to as African unless you know the particular country they come from. I don’t think they would have referred to Barack, Sr. as “negro” because he was actually from another country. Of course, it was different in those days, and one can only surmise what it was like in Hawaii.

      • Kate8

        Karolyn – They would still not have used African to describe race. There are many Africans who are not black. There are many Arabs and whites who are from the African continent.

        Nope. The term back then was negro, and it was a perfectly acceptable one in those days. It was before the advent of PC.

  • http://liberty Tony

    To Everyone here:
    I swear this frivilous issue is getting so irritating that i’m banging my head against a four foot concrete wall!! For the last and 1,000th time, Obama and Rubio are natural Born Citizens that are eligible to be President of this nation. First of all, how many times to the world has to prove to you’ll that Obama’s birth certificate is genuine!?! HONESTLY!! Then ,when it comes to Rubio, his parents were legal residents waiting for full citizenship when he was born in Miami,Fl. Granted, his parents didn’t become full citizens until 4 yrs later. Yet, according to the 14th amendment ,which it seems you people want to abolish, this would automatically meet the right citizen requirements for him to run for president.
    Now, when coming to Obama, if you want to defeat him then these are the issues to use.
    First of all, why did he give AIG those bonuses they didn’t need? True, those bonuses were paid back but they never should of been issued from the outset. Secondly, he said he would cut the deficit in half: however, the deficit has doubled under his tenure. Thirdly, why are we still in Afghanistan, a wasteful war. He’s pulled troops out, nevertheless, troops are going to be stationed there to 2024. Fourthly, and finally, why does he go on T.V. like a pop-star, instead of doing what he should be doing. That’s working on these problems along with the Econ. If we would concentrate on those issues, there would be a chance to defeat him. But, when you keep running on this baloney, it takes the mind off these dilemmas. Which will only make it easier for him to get re-elected.
    Finally, i want to be careful not to sound like the P.Cers here. Also, i don’t want to use the ethnic card. Yet, it seems underlying reasons you individuals are upset is because a “brother” is in the W.H. and he will be re-elected again because of his competition or more like lack of!! Then, you’re afraid a Latino Man will get elected in 2016. He, too, has talked about taking a “brother” as a V.P. by the name of J.C.Watts. Therefore, the days of the Anglo-male President is over. If this wasn’t the case, you’ll wouldn’t be dealing with such a petty item. Truly analyze plus reflect on this for awhile. TGIF!!

    • CB

      The voters proved that racism is no longer a factor when they voted for Obama. The tone of your comments and your use of the terms, ‘brother’ suggest to me that you are using the ethnic card.

    • Winddrinker

      Tony, the only thing I got out of your post is that you are doing nothing but “playing the RACE CARD!” (You all don’t like the Kenyan because he is a “brother.” Sniff, Sniff)

      Catch a Grip!

      • http://liberty Tony

        Windrinker:
        You’re the one who needs to get a grip!! TGIF!!

    • Walt

      Tony, you are so uninformed about the difference between basic citizenship and “natural born citizenship” that it makes me bang my head as well.

      Please stop commenting on this issue until you do the proper research on the subject, because you are embarrasing yourself with your lack of knowledge on this issue.

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

      Dear Tony,

      You write: “I swear this frivilous (sic) issue is getting so irritating that i’m (sic) banging my head against a four foot concrete wall!!” If this issue is frivolous as you say, why have you posted here eight times?

      You write: “For the last and 1,000th time, Obama and Rubio are natural Born Citizens that are eligible to be President of this nation.” Repeating a lie 1,000 times or 1 million times does not make it any less a lie.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • Kate8

        Bob – It’s at the point where there is no way to reason with people like Tony. He is a true believer.

        You came up with the best possible answer. I’m actually blown away by it.

        Good job.

      • brett

        touche bob. takes one to know one!

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      Tony, YOU are an ABSOLUTE IDIOT!!!

  • Ed

    I have been on this earth 72 years, have a MBA and have retired from Special Forces (LTC) and civil service, held many jobs that required me to have a security clearance. Each time I moved into a different position that required a clearance I was veted to the max, I think because I was born in Peru. Regardless of that the FBI and other agencys gave me a through working over which I didn’t onject to because the security of our country came into play. I can’t understand why the man sitting in the highest office in the land with his hand on the bomb wasn’t vetted. To me this sounds like a terrible conspiracy at the highest levels of our government involving both parties, one participating and the other just ignoring the facts. God save America. Ed

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      You are absolutely right!!! It IS a conspiracy!!! There can be no other explanation!!!

      • CB

        It’s freightening to think of how deep the conspiracy must be. Makes one want to run to the proverbial hills…but where are they ? We all should pray everyday for this Country. There is always hope in prayer.

  • brett

    supposition, conjecture, hear say, and circumstantial evidence, surprised this hasn’t been tried on megan’s court.

  • brett

    i would much rather choose the lie of the audacity of hope and change, than continue on with the lie of trickle down capitalism that is making this country poor and subservient while captains of global industry get richer.

    • CB

      Your preference to choose the lie damages the entire Country.

      • brett

        sorry, i know this is old news, but i only just caught this. you didn’t specify which lie. although i can easily guess ha ha!

    • Mis

      brett……you’re a lunatic of magnaimous proportion

      • brett

        thank you said the pot to the kettle. to cb: so you prefer crappy pay? credit card debt? student loan debt? underwater mortages? don’t you miss the days where a hard days work earned you a paycheck that would pay the bills and afford the ability to develop savings? are you so wrapped up in your passion that your reason escapes you from reality?

        • CB

          Sorry, Charlie. I mean brett. I don’t have any of the problems you mentioned. It’s the current leadership and the resulting economic conditions that are causing those problems Stop depending on the government and you won’t have those problems either. The current White House occupant wants you to be dependent on Uncle Sam and as his slave, you will never prosper. So, you need to decide what it is you want. Freedom or government security. If you choose freedom, you need to know that the Democratic Party is now a socialist party and socialism does not allow freedom. Years ago, there used to be a Oldsmobile commercial on TV. They promoted the car to the younger generation by saying that “It’s not your father’s Oldsmobile. Well, brett, it’s not your father’s Democratic Party anymore either. Think about it.

      • brett

        well cb, i happy that you are comfortable in you own complacency. our current eco. started long before this admin. and if you wish to speak of oldsmobles, this isn’t my mother’s republican party any more either. i work for a living. hard, physical, long hours, for crappy pay while the owners profit at my expense. six years of loyalty and dedication and i’m just a labor figure. can’t even get benefits thanks to legal loopholes. i’m not looking for hand outs from uncle sam, but i didn’t serve my country only to have gov’t put its’ interest ( the money that runs this co. ) before mine.

        • CB

          brett, I hear your frustration. You are right, that things have changed with both parties. That said, I have to align with the Replublican Party, because I cannot accept the socialist ways that the Democratic Party has adopted. While the Democrats appear to be ‘for’ the working man, that is an illusion. They use labor leaders, for their money and influence with union members, but they do not care about the workers. They want your vote and will be’ for’ anybody and everyboy to that end. The Republicans are thought to be ‘for’ the rich people. Actually, they are supported by people who are trying to get ahead. People who do not want the restrictions put upon them be government, designed to hold them down so they cannot succeed. Democrats want you to be dependent on the government. There is very little difference in the amount of wealth that the Democrat leadership has vs the Republican leadership. So, do not distracted by that myth. Be a truth seeker.

      • brett

        cb, you’re not getting me and that’s my own fault. i’m not talking about people who align to one party or an other. i’m referring to the power behind the politics. big money runs this country. sometimes we benefit, but mostly we are expected to be compliant and grateful. the media, including fox, manipulates our perspectives. too many people vote for all the wrong reasons, mostly political commercials payed for by special interest. my question is: do you wish to continue trickle down economy? big money does!

        • CB

          brett, there are certain conditions that cannot be controlled. With each election, voters express either satisfaction with the incumbant or they choose someone else to take control hoping that things will be better. As far as the trickle down theory goes, if we depend on the improvement to work it’s way down to us, we are usually left waiting. We are better off trying to create our own trickle up conditions by working to improve our own circumstances.
          I know, it’s hard, but if you set your mind in that direction, you will surely be rewarded. Bottom line: if something isn’t working, we have to try something else.
          By the way, I forgot to thank you for your service. Your government does owe you.

      • brett

        cb, thanks for at least being reasonable but you’re avoiding any of my main points. i will accept your gratitude, but i was just a deck swabbing squid. our concern should be for all the vets who served in a combat or combat support role and may have had a physical or mental trauma. many of whom are lost in the system because the private sector doesn’t have the means to help and the public sector has been starved of funds from decades of cut backs to welfare programs. not all welfare recipients are crack or meth heads. some of the homeless that you do and don’t see are vets, most of the rest are outliers with mental issues and are unable to deal with the complexities of our society. gutting welfare has hurt us all. peace be with you and god speed.

    • JUKEBOX

      What about all the politicians, starting with Obama, who are getting richer every day?

      • brett

        that’s what’s wrong with our gov’t, it’s all adout the benjamins. whom ever sells out to the highest bidder. special interest want to keep us in this trickle down economy, true capitalism profits roll back in, not pool ( collect ) at the top. maybe if we all stop bickering over misperceived ideologies and spent more time in the real world.

    • liberalbasher1955

      brett said
      “i would much rather choose the lie of the audacity of hope and change, than continue on with the lie of trickle down capitalism that is making this country poor and subservient while captains of global industry get richer.”

      Then sir you just told all how much of a fool you are ! You’ll accept a lie because of your ideolog ?. Sorry sir I wont give up my place in the lifeboat for any people that are so set to go down with their ship !

      Refute these facts sir ?

      Republicans Vrs Democrats

      Controlling Cnogress over the last 30 years !

      Jobs 39,761,000 net new Jobs

      Jobs created when Democrates controlled congress (12years) =8,1000,00 net new jobs
      Jobs created when Republicans controlled congress (10years) = 21,773,000 net new Jobs
      Jobs created when congress was split (8years) =9,888,000 net new Jobs

      Defeicits ($7.304 Trillion)

      Total when Democrates controlled congress (12 years) = $5.022 Trillion
      Total when Republicans controlled congress (10 years) = $1.219 Trillion
      Total when congress was split (8 years) = $1.063 Trillion

      National Debt. (12.878 Trillion = 93.4% of all debt in our history)

      Total new debt when democrates controlled congress (12 years) = $7.859 Trillion.
      Total new debt when Republicans controlled congress (10 years) = $3.238 Trillion
      Total new debt when congress was split (8 years) =$1.781 Trillion.

      Economic Growth ($11.873 Trillion of GDP growth)

      Total Growth when Democrates controlled congress (12 years) = $3.887 Trillion
      Total growth when Republicans controlled congress (10 years) = $5.623 Trillion
      Total Growth when congress was split ( 8 years) = $2.383 Trillion

      Draw your own conclusions, but these are undiputed facts from Government sources.

      Sources -
      Democrates controllec congress from 1987 – 1994 and from 2007 to now
      Republicans controlled congress from 1995 – 200 and from 2003 – 2006
      There was split congress at 1980 -1986 and 2001 & 2002

      Links

      Jobs (link not working)

      Deficits http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals see table 1.1

      Natinal Debt- (link not working)

      Did this reasearch in 2010

      • CB

        I’m sorry, could you repeat that?

      • brett

        i’m not accepting any lie, i’m choosing between two. i don’t understand your life boat reference. and your statistics are no more than different sides to the same coin. i would ask that you spend a little more time reading my posts and responding with a more reasoned argument.

    • THG 1956

      Brett , I have those things you isted If you’ve tried to ive higher than your finances woud aow and got yoursef in debt , that’s nobodys faut but your on .

      • THG 1956

        Sorry guys ……my L key was stuck , other than rewrite , please place L’s where they go . Here’s some LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL Thank You

      • brett

        i’m not speaking of my personal debt, but the debt that faces our nation. this has been the problem with education in our country for too long, it doesn’t encourage objective reasoning.

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      brett, I don’t know how old you are but Im old enough to remember Reagan’s “trickle down” years and I can tell you it worked just fine. Anyone who wanted to be employed was employed. We could afford our houses, cars and food. Before Reagan instituted his “trickle down” formula, mortgage interest rates were in the 18% range. Inflation was around 20%. Unemployment was high. Times were tough. We lived it. My husband had been transferred and we were forced to sell our home. It took 18 months to sell it and we had to accept 20% less than it was evaluated at. Reagan turned things around and times were good until Bush I got into office. Things have gone down hill since. I’d definitely take trickle down now except that the heads of the corporations are so crooked now that those days are over. Nothing will improve for the American people because the jobs are gone and the economy is in collapse! But don’t complain about “trickle down”. It was better than socialism.

      • brett

        neb nancy: so, you’re forgetting the self induced recession of ’83? you lost 20% value of your home when? you can thank schultz bedding down with banks for all the easy credit everyone used to spend our way out of that recession. reagan, for his time bloated the debt with gov’t spending, and even though our military needed improvement doesn’t excuse all the money spent. finally, i was proud as a taxpayer to see the statue of liberty restored. by todays standards, reagan wouldn’t survive in the gop. and i’m sorry, but i’m not as well programed to perceive socialism as you do. if we take the best of ‘isms they can coexist. firestone, ford, and herhsey are all great examples of social welfare capitalism. i do not wish to be curt, but no one here is even attempting to read into what i’m writing.

  • http://liberty Tony

    To Everyone:
    What’s the point of discussing this article any farther. It’s obvious, you people have been reading way too many Tom Clancy novels. If you’ll want to continue this paranoia fantasy, then be my guest. Anyway, it’s painfully clear Obumda is going to win big because of what you all are doing despite what Wayne Root “told you” yesterday. Hopefully, by 2016 there will be sanity here and a Rubio/Watts Ticket can prevail to bring about a bright future. Fare thee all well for the rest of the week and weekend!!

    • Mis

      @tony….why don’t you take a brillo pad and scrub those kool-aid stains off your face

    • GiveMeLiberty

      Tony, please get OFF our radar scope. We (conservatives) appreciate debate but getting dribble from the other side is wasting our time. When ‘clear and present’ (to paraphase a Tom Clancy book) evidence exists that the most powerful government figure in our country is being dishonest, how can we trust that individiual, with anything? The RULES (LAW) for being ELIGIBLE for being President are clearly laid out in the Constitution for a reason. Nothing paranoid, nothing lunatic about being honest or having integrity, or in this matter demanding integrity. Once the Rule of Law is gone, the entire republic we love will be gone. Now, GET OFF our radar scope.

      • http://liberty Tony

        To GiveMeLiberty:
        What’s waste is this foolishness that you’ll are trying to promote. If you want to insist on this silliness then knock yourselves out!! The only ones off “radar scope” are you all. Next, you with a majority here aren’t conservatives. You see a conservative is someone who conserves, maintains, protect. This term came from the late President Theodore Roosevelt. What you people are is hard core reactionaries, who don’t have a clue of what’s going on. In addition, you’ll want to take this country back 40-200yrs. That’s before the 19th amendment and the Emancipation Proclaimation. I would recommend everyone here read the books,writings with essays of the late W.F.Buckley. He warned of this type of behavior and where it would lead. Straight down the sewer drain. Have a good weekend!!

    • liberalbasher1955

      Sir in what fairy tale land are you living in ? Who has said anything about doing away with the 19th amendment and the Emancipation Proclaimation. Where that came from I can’t imagine.

      • http://liberty Tony

        The same “FairyTale” land that you and your ilk live in!! Have a good weekend!!

    • liberalbasher1955

      I had to check that again. About the 19th amendment but not the Emancipation Proclaimation. You sir are so far left you can’t see anything. That statement about those being repealed was asinine in the extreme !

    • liberalbasher1955

      Did you cry too when Scott Walker won in Wisconsin ? Keep on living in the leftist/union bubble you and your ilk live in !

  • Wumingren

    The Left denies any problem with Obama’s citizenship because they simply do not want to admit that they have no credibility left. Citizenship does not matter to them anyway; you will recall that they had entertained the idea of changing the law on citizenship to allow the likes of Arnold Schwarzenegger to run for the office of president after being governor of California. Of course, his governorship wasn’t among the stellar, so the Left has quietly let that idea fade.

    As for Obama’s background, reasonable people require proof of the positive. Would any reasonable person believe the claims of, say, a mobster who said, “Jimmie Hoffa ain’t dead. He just retired to a secluded location, changed his name, and had plastic surgery to alter his image. Trust me, he ain’t dead, and I didn’t kill him.” It is not to be believed, and it does not become more believeable just because other mobsters chime in and say, “Yeah. Like da boss says. He ain’t dead. I seen him pack his suitcase.”

    That Obama has spent millions of dollars to ensure that his past official records remain sealed tells the reasonable person that there is something to hide. When I entered military service, I had to have a thorough background investigation in order to assume the duties that were to be assigned. Because of the nature of those duties, I had to be a natural born citizen. I also had to swear an oath that I was not then nor had I ever been a member of the Communist Party. I was an enlisted man, not an officer. I certainly was not the Commander in Chief, who, as far as we should all be concerned, must be required to pass the same sort of background checks that I did. No one should ever be allowed to file as a presidential candidate without first passing a background check.

    • ROSINA

      You know Wumingren that when i applied for a visa to the US one of the first questions WAS -did i belong to the Communist party, or did i ever belong to any organisation with Communist principles and ideas. I wonder whether it is still there???
      There are so many already here even in the demoncrap party that it should be irrelevant now.
      McCarthy did not do a good enough job!

    • liberalbasher1955

      Sir it is hard to govern when the other side controlls the legislature and the state senate. He had no chance of governing at all ! Now you have Sen. Dick Durbin (D) Ilinios. Putting forward legislation that those states that are in the black bail out those in the red. Great idea Dickey I know the fact that your state is drowning in red ink had nothing to do with that bill ! LOL! Plus The Arnold was to busy with the maid ! LOL !

  • Steve E

    While campaigning, Romney should say that Obama did not go to Occidental College, Columbia University or Harvard Law School. Then when others say he did, Romney can say “Prove it, there are no records of him or his grades available”. He can keep saying that until the records of the three colleges are forced out to be produced. If they are never produced, Romney can say: “See I told you, he has no college records”. People in their right mind will then start doubting that he ever went to college. Then they will have to produce them (if they actually exist) to the public. After that, we will be able to see the records and see just what is really going on. That’s the strategy Romney should use in his campaign.

    • http://liberty Tony

      Well Steve E, that will only make Obama’s re-election win that much easier. Farewell!!

      • Steve E

        That may depend on whether he show his records.

    • Karolyn

      Actually, former girlfriends from college have come forward, and there are pictures of him on campus. He lived with one of the women. Of course, someone will say she is just another paid actor, just like the literary agent who said that indicating he was born in Kenya in his bio was just a mistake. I believe that even if someone had a dated videotape of his birth in Hawaii, someone would say it was a fake. No matter what is brought forward, there will always be naysayers who want to cling to their beliefs. Personally, I am on the fence at this point, where I previously believed everything.

      • Steve E

        She doesn’t have access to his college records. The people want to see the records, the whole records, and nothing but the records. I can show anyone my college records if they wanted to see them. Why can he?

  • http://end-irs.org Jack J. Morris

    THE GREATEST TERRORIST LIVES IN THE WHITE HOUSE
    I DEMAND THE ARREST OF OBAMA ON CHARGES OF HIGH TREASON
    Barack Hussein Obama who is really Barry Soetero, an Indonesian citizen – not a natural born American as required by our Constitution – sits as our president and Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces through the deception and chicanery of the Democrat Communist Party which is guilty of high treason. I say this not lightly, but this interloper has allowed our government to be thoroughly infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization sworn to the destruction of western civilization and of the United States of America. To top off his impudence and treachery, he has given this sworn enemy 1.5 Billion Dollars and did so without advice and consent of Congress.
    OBAMA IS GUILTY OF TREASON
    When Obama said Mubarak must go, he did so because he knew the Muslim Brotherhood would take over. That is exactly what happened when the so-called Arab Spring played out and what Obama wanted. Now that they are fully entrenched in power, Obama is borrowing money from China – since we have none left – to give $1.5 billion of American taxpayer money to the Muslim Brotherhood which now rules in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood’s sworn goal is to destroy western civilization and the U.S. If this alone is not clear treason, I would like to know what is!
    The Muslim Brotherhood’s mission in the West is sedition in the furtherance of shariah’s supremacist agenda, which would replace our Constitution. They have no interest in peaceful assimilation and co-existence with non-Muslim populations. It has long been clear that Obama has no intention of honoring the Constitution since it only gets in his way! NOTE: He did not consult with Congress to get permission to give that $1.5 billion away to Egypt and he has repeatedly ignored Congress thus assuming the role of dictator! He looked to the UN for permission to attack Libya rather than consult Congress.
    Radical Islamists, including the Muslim Brotherhood have infiltrated the Obama administration. No surprise since he is a Muslim, hates America, hates Jews, hates capitalism, etc. Here are a few of his brother Muslims privy, in most cases, to top secret documents: Huma Abedin, Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; Eboo Patel, Obama Administration Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships; Imam Mohamed Magid, Homeland Security Countering Violent Extremism Working Group Member (the wolf guarding the sheep); Rashad Hussain, State Department Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation; Mohamed Elibiary, appointed a member of the Homeland Security advisory council which meant Elibiary had access to security documents; Salam al-Marayati, Founder and Executive Director of Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC); Arif Alikahn, Former Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Policy Development to name some. Is it any wonder that Obama declared that the U.S.A. is one of the largest Muslim countries on earth? Of course, this is a lie, but that is his specialty. Since most if not all of the above must have security clearance, this is flagrant treason on the part of Obama and he should be brought to trial on said charge and be forced to pay back all the money he and his wife have been paid or squandered, much on their own pleasures. He should go from the White House to the jail house and rot there.
    I hesitate to make this letter too long, but another treasonous act was to give away seven islands off the coast of Alaska (against the wishes of Alaska) and the surrounding island waters loaded with oil beds to Russia without consulting congress. He also gave away $2 Billion to Brazil to allow them to drill off their coasts, saying we would be their best customer. He thus is encouraging Brazil to drill off coastal waters, but our American oil companies are forbidden to do so! He is giving aid and comfort and is in collusion with our enemies. That is treason! PLEASE CIRCULATE THIS LETTER.
    =====================================================================================
    By Jack J. Morris, author of UNTROUBLING A TROUBLED WORLD – PEACE 4 EVER, Visit: end-irs.org (See website and read under VIGNETTES, CODE 445 OBAMA HAD GAY LOVERS KILLED and CODE 441 OBAMA – PUTIN LOVE AFFAIR Visit website: end-irs.org for torrid details.

    • CB

      Amen to that!

  • oldbill

    A child born within the US, with a Mexican Mother and a Mexican Father, is a natural born US Citizen. I don’t believe that a child of foreign parents, born in the US or its territories, should be a citizen, much less considered a natural born citizen.A child born of a US Mother and a US Father, outside of the US or its territories, is not a natural born US Citizen. If this issue matters so much, Congress needs to define the issue and tender an amendment to the US Constitution. In our system of law, if Mr. Obama says he is a natural born US Citizen, the burden of proof lies on the accusers, not the accused. I personally believe that if a person comes to the United States, serves Honorably in the US Military, applies for and becomes a US Citizen, then he/she should be eligible to be President. George Washington was not a natural born US Citizen, and the Constitution was written to allow him and his fellow Patriots to lead the country they sacrificed to bring into existence.

    • Walt

      No “Oldbill”, a person born in the U.S. of 2 foreign parents is just a citizen, no different in legal status than a naturalized citizen. As to the Goerge Washington comment, Article II , Section 1 allowed for all those who accepted citizenship in the newly formed Republic to be eligible to ascend to the Presidency. In other words, they were “grandfathered” in. The first 7 Presidents up to Jackson were eligible to be President under this provision. This clearly defines the intent of the Founding Fathers to only allow those who were born to parents who were either a “basic citizen” or a “naturalized” citizen to become President and Commander-In-Chief.

    • http://www.ugguru.com/VoluntaryCompliance Patriot-Guru

      oldbill,

      You are incorrect about Washington’s eligibility to become President. See below:

      Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5:

      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.

  • S.J. Jolly

    Bottom line: The Birthers are absolutely convinced that no black man could be in the Oval Office (sans wearing servants livery) legimately, and NOTHING is going to convince them otherwise.

    • JUKEBOX

      For the hundreth time, calling Obama black is a racist statement, regressing to a pre civil war definition of a NEGRO, based on the percentage of Negro blood i their genealogy.

    • liberalbasher1955

      Another asinine comment ! Why is it that the old fallback of the left is racism ! It doesn’t matter if he is green with antennas. If there is any doubt about his legal right to be POTUS it should have been ironed out before the election. I believe all will agree that there is considerable doubt ! When you have professionals talking of forged documents and SSN’s belonging to dead people. What do you expect ?

  • Skyskiers

    IT’S NOT ABOUT THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE:

    I’ve contacted my congressmen and Senators numerous times and gave them the proof that our current Resident in the White House is Barry Soetoro (aka Obama) an Indonesian illegal-alien! Where Barry was born is not the issue. He became an Indonesian (by his own admission in his book) through his adoption (at 5 yrs old) by Indonesian citizen Lolo Soetoro. Barry’s 1981 Foreign Student ID verifies that he was still an Indonesian (at 22 years of age) and is currently an illegal-alien occupying our White House.

    We need to ask for Barry Soetoro’s birth certificate because there
    is no such person as Barrack Hussein Obama!

    • CB

      I believe the current resident of the White House controls the state department.

    • ehancock

      Obama never said that he became an Indonesian citizen in his book, or anywhere. And, he was never an Indonesian citizen, as a telephone call to the Indonesian Embassy in Washington will confirm.

  • uvuvuv

    i don’t care where he was born, hawaii wasn’t mainstream american enough at that time to count for citizenship. my question is, both his mother and father were round faced, so how did he end up with a narrow face?

    • brett

      f*cking hilarious. any one ever see the big red one? there’s a scene where they are taking a mental hopspital from the germans. a gunfight breaks out in the dinning room and one of the patients picks up an mp 40 and starts spraying the room while the other patients blissfuly continue to eat, the whole time he’s yelling i’m sane, i’m just like you, i’m sane.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1473623846 George Thomas Horvat

    I know for a fact that Obama is a native born Beautician and comes from the planet Beauticia. When he arrived here on the planet Earth he immediately set about on his mission to conquer this planet. The day is coming soon when all will bow down to the mighty Beauticians.

    • Karolyn

      Love it! :-)

    • http://liberty Tony

      To Mr. Horvat:
      This is the best post yet, i’ve seen written on this article. (LOL)!!

      • Kate8

        Just goes to show how easily amused some are by cheap entertainment.

      • Karolyn

        Better than Ben Crystal’s jokes! :-)

  • Larry

    I am a 63 year old true “African-American”, without a doubt, who did not vote for the man. He is nothing but a habitual liar. If not for this fact, his poor old grandmother would undoubtedly still be alive. This has fueled the misery that the country has been gripped by a gift (his actual change production) to “we the people” (the vast majority/poor of people). The only colors that counts for anything are green, silver, and gold. To be without either is the cause of much suffering for sure. Race is merely a secondary thing in deed. I will turn 64 if I make it through Tuesday next. Over all of these years, this Obama has been the worst president and the one that caused me to suffer the most without question. I agree with him, to a certain extent, that George W. Bush is responsible for the mess that is going on in this world and country. However he needs to abandon this stance. He has chosen to continue the insanity that “W” put into place but to a much greater degree. At least, os lowly folks were given a few crumbs by George W, Now! Obama with his reverse Robin Hood actions took the Bush Shiite to the extent of taking from poor to give to the rich to a new extreme at best. The real culprit in this case was Ronald Reagan with his type of “less government”, combined with “deregulation” and “trickle down theory” which is what we are seeing the results of now days. Politics are in dire need of revamping. The whole institution is wholly and totally dysfunctional as I see it. The people within it are over paid and tend to be around too long. They are even allowed to be blatantly criminal in their actions devoid any prospect of repercussions. Stop the madness please people.
    Semper Fi,
    Do or Die

    • brett

      i concur. although for the most part we take too much stock in the office of the pres.. i ‘ll give palin credit for admitting that it is a meat puppet position.

  • MARC

    No matter what hapens “some CONgressman” needs to implement a policy of pre-validating any and all candidates for Prezz and VP, etc.. (Sec of State, etc…) at the level of the Federal Elections Commission. Their Commissar is dropping the ball – big time. Perhaps it is time for some severe prosecutions; many in Hawaii, and gee, what about ‘any’ person posing as an officer (CIC ) of the Armed Forces, posing as a Senator, and more . Who cares !! Prosecute them all.
    And tell Don Trump et al to produce some facts, from here, Hawaii and Kenya and Indonesia. Facts.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002022049140 James Sexton

    Douglas Patriot,
    John McCain was born to americians, his father was an high ranking naval officer, his mother was born in america, as his father and grand father both were, both of them were high ranking naval officiers.
    IN ADDITION TO WHICH, THE US SENATE VETTED JOHN McCAIN AND VOTED ON HIS INFO, WHICH WAS VERIFIED AND THE SENATE VOTED 99 TO 0 THAT McCAIN
    WAS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
    None of the above was done for obama, in fact, its doubtful obama is even an american citizen. And Patrick Leahy, Vt. communist rep. stated the requirements to be a natural born citizen. google it if you do not choose to accept the info. I did.

  • a sane txn

    Amazing, we have so many legal scholars here,it boggles the mind,a person DOES NOT have to have a passpoirt below the age of 16,if accompanied by parent/gaurdian.nobody can give up your citizenship for you,not even your Mother,only you,and only if you are 18 YO,…..NOW on vetting,do you really believe that someone at the CIA,FBI would not both make a name for themselves,as well as become very wealthy if he were not a native born citizen,by letting those facts be known?

    • Carl Manning

      Are you really sane??? Many of them know that if they speak, they will lose their job and or their lives. They also know the MSM will never cover their stories anyway because the MSM is controlled by the CIA. This is common knowledge in the CIA/FBI ranks. Two former CIA Directors, William Colby and William Casey, have made statements to this effect.

      • Kate8

        Carl Manning – Thank you. Finally someone else who can see through to how things really work inside government.

        It amazes me that so many think the guv is on the up and up. Good grief. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are evil and corrupt beyond belief.

        It’s hard for decent, honest folks to understand what happens at the top. Eventually, though, when you’ve looked deep enough into the bowels of the beast, you realize that there is no limit to the darkness. It’s all about power, money, betrayal… all for the big pay-off, whatever that is. Money? A place in the bunkers? Who knows. Maybe just a living for some. Or because they like danger and intrigue. Or they just got caught up in it.

        In any case, self-preservation is always a good motivator.

  • http://georgewfitz.wordpress.com yutts

    The thesis is correct, the birth certificate issue is but one of many questions left unanswered in the history of Obama.

    Here’s another. How can our elected officials be so spineless as to let this whole situation go un challenged. Something of this magnitude in the history of our country. ESPECIALLY watching what Obama is doing to this country and still taking no action!!

    Another question. When we do have someone that is actually attempting to prove right from wrong, the Sheriff Joe Opaio (sp?) in Arizona, there is not one congressman in Washington DC that is willing to come to his aide? What will there answer be to all of us when (if) history proves that Obama is not who he says he is??

    We’ve got to clean house in Washington.

    SEND NO INCUMBENT BACK TO WASHINGTON IN 2012.

    GOD SAVE OUR NATION!

  • RichE

    Unsuspended logic

    What is the origin of the term, ‘natural born citizen’? Did the framers pull it out of thin air? Since they didn’t provide a definition it’s reasonable to assume the term was in common use otherwise a newly coined term would be subject to anyone’s definition and I don’t think the framers would make that mistake.

    William Blackstone 1765: “The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject. The thing itself, or substantial part of it, is founded in reason and the nature of government; the name and the form are derived to us from our Gothic ancestors.”

    Hamilton 6/18/1787: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”

    Jay 7/25/1787: “Permit me to hint, whether it would not be side & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen.”

    The Electoral College: (The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.)

    Transliteration: The term ‘natural born citizen’ is a transliteration of the term, ‘natural born subject’. The term ‘natural born subject’ is defined in British common law as anybody born British, is subject to or swears allegiance. The two terms were use in Colonial law. The term ‘subject’ is found more often before the Constitution and ‘citizen’ more often after.

    Choose one:
    A. The term ‘natural born citizen’ and ‘natural born subject’ are the same.
    B. Vatel; Both parents citizens and place of birth not relevant.
    C. Blackstone; Citizenship is inherited from either parent or the soil.
    D. The Electoral College makes the definition
    E. The framers made a mistake

  • Bill

    Well duh!! The question is why has there been no legal action taken to determine what most know to be true? Must we wait until the muslim-marxist sitting in the White House sees to ‘the death of America’ as he believes?

  • Richard

    The real reason Obama’s parents went to Kenya for the birth was MONEY!!! The second was LIABILITY on the part of the doctors. Does anyone think a doctor from Hawaii would want to be the doctor of record for someone from Seattle and Kenya with no job and a questionable source of income? Get smart, there were almost NO Negros in Hawaii in 1961 and racism was just as bad there as it was in our southern states. The reason Stanley Ann and Barack went to Kenya was so the kid would have a place in the family money tree by being born there. The real cruncher here is the footprint on Birth Certificate 32018, dated 8/4/61. Obama’s foot print is the SAME today, only larger, than is shown on the birth certificate 32018 which is available by Googling Birth Certificate 32018. Next question: Who in the hell is pulling the puppet’s strings and writing his Tele-Prompter words? Public Enemy #1 is: Most of the media. Nikita Kruschev said we would kill our selves from within. The media is the weapon.

    • RichE

      Richard,
      I’m voting yours the “Most Logical” reason, Hawaiian racial liability.

    • Karolyn

      Unbelievable! What I want to know is how did someone get his current footprint? Did a Secret Service agent secretly make a mold from a footprint on the beach in Hawaii? :-)

      • Kate8

        I have said that he could prove himself by offering his footprint. He didn’t want to do that, either. Why not?

        Did someone actually get it, or are you mocking? Did I miss something?

      • Karolyn

        Rich’s post, Kate. He mentions a footprint matching.

  • oldbutnotadumbass 2012

    That is the number one reason I didn’t voted for him!!!I look at it this way,if he couldn’t prove to the public without a doubt ,that he was a natural born citizen ,people in this country (of course, they would have to be in their right mind) should have not voted for him1111

  • winstonsmith6079

    A few hundred dollars and a day or so of work by a junior Aide and EVERY legitimate document, from his BC to school transcripts could be presented to quell ANY arguments! So, WHY HAS OBUMMER SPENT 3 1/2 YEARS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO HIDE THEM?

  • http://none bob good

    I’ve looked into obama’s qualification to be president for years. He came here from indianesia as Barry Seotoro, a muslim, on a foreign student visa.. He did poorly in school
    from his early records-no records in his later schools.
    Did he get affirmative action preference? WHO paid for his travel to kenya, pakinstan? What passports did he use. Who financed these travels.. He’s on tape admitting coming fron Kenya. The Keyan ambassadorknew he was from Kenya. His grtandmother in Kenya claimed to have been at the hospital when he was born. I’ve seen his Kenya birth certificate listing hospital, physician etc. His roommate said he was a marxist, he admitted being attracted to the marxist professors. He’s on tape admitting his kenyan birth.
    In summary Obama is a fraud. Hehas no known good qualities. He could not become a boys s cout as it requires honesty, patriottism,andten more other chartacteristics, of which he has none.
    I have had high security clearances and with Obama’s associates ,neither he not his csars could get a security clearance

    • ehancock

      You are making up the “foreign student visa” thing. If there were such a visa, the Bush Administration would have found it. Also you really do not have good evidence on Obama’s grades. After all, he did graduate Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School.

      • ehancock

        Re: “He’s on tape admitting coming fron Kenya.”

        Answer: Videos can be forged. The one that you are referring to WAS forged. Notice that there is no audience reaction when he supposedly said “I was born in Kenya” (what happened was that he said “I was not born in Kenya,” and the forger cut out the “not.”)

        Re: “The Keyan ambassadorknew he was from Kenya. ”

        The Kenyan ambassador, whose first language was not English, has said that he thought the question was about Obama’s father and that he never said, and does not believe, that Obama was born in Kenya. And there is no evidence IN Kenya of Obama being born there or even of Obama’s mother arriving there.

        Re: “His grtandmother in Kenya claimed to have been at the hospital when he was born. ”

        Answer: NO she didn’t. Birthers cut off the tape before she was asked “Whereabouts was he born” and at that point she said repeatedly that he was born in Hawaii. And there is another interview, with the Hartford Courant newspaper, in which she said that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama’s birth was IN A LETTER FROM HAWAII.

        Re: “I’ve seen his Kenya birth certificate listing hospital, physician etc.”

        Answer: You have seen one of the three forgeries, the latest of which was from the convicted felon Lucas D. Smith—who claimed to have gotten it in Mombasa, buy who has repeatedly refused to show that he had ever gone to Kenya (and who used USA date formats on the forgery, [month/day/year] and not the British format [day/month/year] used in Kenya).

        The notion of Obama’s mother, late in pregnancy, traveling alone (WND has shown that Obama senior was in Hawaii on August 4, 1961) from Hawaii where there are good hospitals, to Kenya, where there was Yellow Fever and bad hospitals, and doing so without any INS record of her leaving the USA or any record of her arriving in Kenya—is absurd. And the fact that there is a birth certificate showing that she gave birth in Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu makes it even more absurd.

        Oh, and a grand total of 21 people came to the USA from Kenya in 1961.

  • Average Joe

    For persons born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true:
    1.One of the person’s parents was a U.S. citizen when the person in question was born
    2.The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child’s birth;
    3.A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday.
    Obama was born on August 4, 1961. His mother was 18 years old at the time of his birth (On August 4, 1961, at the age of 18, Dunham gave birth to her first child, Barack Obama II.). Do the math… 4 years within the US between her 14th birthday and the birth of her son not 5 as required under the law at the time.
    Now, considering the law on the books at the time of Obama’s birth, even if he was born in Hawaii as claimed…he would still not qualify as a United States Citizen…let alone a “Natural Born Citizen”.At this point, it does not matter where he was born, since he does not meet the criteria as set forth in the law in effect at the time of his birth….period.

    This is the Law …as applied to Barrack Obama at the time and place of his birth.

    “On December 24, 1952, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (the “1952 Statute”) became effective. As under the previous statute, where both parents were U.S. citizens, one parent would have to have resided in the United States prior to the child’s birth in order to transmit U.S. citizenship. The meaning of residence previously applied under the 1940 Statute was essentially the same as under the 1952 Statute.

    In the case of a child born to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent, the U.S. citizen parent now had only to be physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions prior to the child’s birth for 10 years, at least 5 of which were after the age of 14. “Physical presence” was different from the concept of “residence” which had applied under the previous statute. The physical presence requirement could be satisfied by mere presence in the United States even if the person had not established a legal residence there. ”

    http://americanlaw.com/citabrd.html

    Barrack Obama is a Kenyan Citizen by birth, by virtue of his father’s nationality and his mother’s non-physical presence in the U.S. for 5 years prior to his birth in Hawaii at the age of 18…..That is about as simple as it gets…..Obama…not a U.S. citizen…end of story……

    • ehancock

      Obama was born in Hawaii, as his birth certificate and the repeated confirmations and the Index Data and the birth announcements all show.

      The meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth, not to the parents. Hence Obama—and Jindal and Rubio and all 300 million US citizens who were born in the USA–is a Natural Born US Citizen. The only kind of a US citizen who is not Natural Born and hence not eligible is a naturalized US citizen.

      “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

      • Average Joe

        “Obama was born in Hawaii, as his birth certificate and the repeated confirmations and the Index Data and the birth announcements all show.”

        False..No actual Birth Certificate has been presented into evidence at all…only documents that have been determined to be forgeries….and since the courts refuse to hear any cases….no evidence at all can be determined.

        As for what Mr. Meese has to say, it has no relevence on the law as it was written at the time of Obama’s birth. Mr. Meese is free to proclaim anything his heart desires…simply proclaiming something to be so…doesn’t nessesarily make it so. Do you simply believe that because Meese held a title of importance….within the Reagan Admin….that somehow, his words are the final say?

        The Law applied, is the law on the books at the time of birth…period. If he wasn’t eligible to be a citizen under the law…then it stands to reason that he couldn’t possibly be a natural born citizen…by any stretch of the imagination….

        If you still don’t get it…read the law again and again until you do…slow down if you need to in order to grasp the concept…rather than grasping at straws……

      • Corrine

        ehancock…….sorry, you are wrong ! This is the definition and requirement of a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN is that BOTH of a presidential-applicants parents must have been NATURAL BORN CITIZENS, that means that BOTH of a presidential-applicants parents must have been born on American soil, or American controlled (Military) territory!

    • Kate8

      ehancock – I refer you to Bob Livingston’s comment above: It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat a lie, it will never be true.

  • oldbutnotadumbass 2012

    P.S.The people who voted for him created most of this mess to start with.If they,those that voted for him,had known the “LAWS” of the land,And Loved this country,Oboma would not be president right now,and none of this would have never happened.Thats what happens in histroy, when people are ill informed not to bright,or just out right don’t give a Dam.(or a combination of all three).God Bless America (Again)!!!!!,

    • Karolyn

      Do you REALLY believe McCain would have made a difference?

      • Kate8

        I really have to agree with you on this, Karolyn. McCain has supported everything Obama has done. Which means he would have done much the same, since he would be taking instructions from the same club.

        But then, the final party nominees for POTUS are always the selections of the controlling elite, so you can be sure there is not much difference between them. The only thing that Obama has over the past two selections from the Right is that he is better at reading a teleprompter.

      • Karolyn

        Actually, we would probably be even worse off with McCain – he’s such a hawk.

  • http://none priscela

    AMERICAN VOTERS MADE A BIG MISTAKE TO PUT MUSLIM HUSSIEN OBAMA IN TH WHITE HOUSE-AMERICA HAS A PRIESIDENT WE CHOULD CHOOSE THE RIGHTR ONE A DECENT ONE NOT THE OEN WHO DESTROY THIS COUNTRY LOOK AT WHAT HAPPEN TO THIS COUNTRY ; SO RUIN AND SO DOWN THINK ABOUT IT.

  • http://facebook David Hendrick Behrens

    Liberals don’t care if Obama was born in Kenya, as he proudly claimed for years or in Hawaii, when he changed his birth place, before he started to campaign in 2008. Liberals don’t care, Obama and his supporters are just stalling, they won’t clear this matter up and just show some Hawaiian offical legal birth papers, proving once and for all that Obama was born in Hawaii. But they won’t show any legitimate papers, they just won’t or can’t as there are no legitimate papers of any kind, anywhere to be found and so they just show some bad copies, that could be easily changed and forged and look very suspicious to legal experts and all who see and exam them and doubt they are real or legal…

    No wonder we millions of American Citizens, think Obama and his buddies, liberal supporters are lying and are just going to continue to lie and stall and keep hoping they can stall for years and have this issue just go away. It will never go away, even in Jan 2013 when Obama is back in Chicago in his mansion, smiling and knowing he suckered and pulled a fast one, on America and missed out, going to court or being impeached…..

    • Karolyn

      Do you really believe that the President of the US, with all of his resources, could not produce a document that would pass muster? That is what gets me about the certificate that was produced and found to be a forgery by some. I find it hard to believe that a better document could not be produced. It just doesn’t make sense.

      • ehancock

        Do you really believe the Mitt Romney, with his millions of dollars, was not able to manufacture a short-form birth certificate (which is all that he has shown; he has not shown the long form) that shows that he was born in Detroit?

        Obama’s birth certificate has been confirmed by officials of both parties, and by the Index Data:

        http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-04-23-obama-birth-certificate.htm

        and by the birth notices that appeared in the “Health Bureau Statistics” section of the newspaper, which as the name implies was provided to the newspapers only by the DOH of Hawaii, and at the time the DOH only sent out such notices for births IN Hawaii.

      • Kate8

        ehancock – Really? Words are cheap. People lie.

        If it’s there, show it to us. The original. Put up or shut up.

        It doesn’t make sense that, if it does exist, and is legitimate, why it’s kept hidden.

        There’s just too much evidence that it’s just more lies.

      • ehancock

        Re: “If it’s there, show it to us. The original. Put up or shut up.”

        Romney has not shown the original either.

        The legal birth certificate of a state is the official copy. THAT is the one that is shown to get US passports, and THAT is the one that a court would look at, if a court wanted to see it–which it doesn’t,. The official copy has the state seal. The original doesn’t. And the original is never removed from the files.

        Since Romney has not shown his original either, the short form and long form birth certificates of Obama are sufficient. Especially since they have been confirmed repeatedly by the officials in Hawaii–of both parties–and by the Index Data–and by the birth notices in the Health Bureau Statistics section of the newspapers, which as the name implies were only sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii,and at that time the DOH only sent out notices for births in Hawaii.

        Hawaii is thousands of miles from the nearest foreign country. The chance of Obama’s mother traveling thousands of miles, or tens of thousands if you consider the Kenya story, late in pregnancy in 1961–when few pregnant women traveled–is virtually nil. AND there is a birth certificate for Obama in Hawaii.

      • Kate8

        ehancock – You guys are a riot. “And there is a birth certificate for Obama in Hawaii”.

        And you know this, how? You’ve seen it? Do tell.

        Officials in Hawaii have stated that there IS NO BC for him in file in Hawaii. They have failed to produce anything but proven and obvious forgeries. That’s what happens when you hire “experts”, who are too young to understand the subtle changes in terms and so forth that were used back then, to do your forgeries.

        And gee, how is it that all records of travel and births for that area are missing for…just that ONE WEEK?

        Yes, generally official copies are used as evidence. But, originals are kept for a reason. When they are legally summoned, they need to be produced. They continue to refuse to allow ANYONE in any capacity to view this mythological document. Why? BECAUSE IT DOESN’T EXIST.

        Like Bob said, it doesn’t matter how many times you repeat a lie, it’s still a lie. You Lefties don’t seem to get that. It’s amazing how you will believe what you want to believe, even when it flies in the face of all evidence and testimony to the contrary.

        YOU KNOW NOTHING. Belief does not make something true. You are a true-believer, and that makes you just another useful idiot.

        • Jeff

          You know more than the experts. How original. I run into street people every day who are more persuasive than you.

      • ehancock

        Re: “Officials in Hawaii have stated that there IS NO BC for him in file in Hawaii. ”

        That is not true. In fact, the officials in Hawaii have repeatedly stated that there IS a birth certificate on file for Obama. No, Abercrombie did not say that Obama’s birth certificate cannot be found. That was made up by a birther site.

        Actually, three Republican and several Democrat officials have stated that Obama’s birth certificate is in the files, and that the facts on Obama’s published long form birth certificate are accurate. Here is the latest confirmation:

        http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/06/hawaii-very-officially-verifies-barack-obamas-birth-certificate/

        That follows a similar confirmation for the state of Arizona, accepted as proof by the Secretary of State of Arizona, and that follows the confirmation of the former Republican governor of Hawaii and the current director of health of Hawaii, who stated that she saw the original long form being copied onto security paper to make the official long-form copy. And these confirmations are further supported by the Index Data–a public file that shows what birth certificates are on file, and which shows a birth certificate for Obama listed under 1961—and by the birth notices in the Health Bureau Statistics section of the newspapers, which as the name shows includes only notices sent to the papers by the DOH, and in 1961 the DOH only sent out those notices for births in Hawaii.

        Re: “They have failed to produce anything but proven and obvious forgeries.”

        No, only birther “experts”–who have not proven that they are experts and who certainly have not proven that they are fair and impartial–have said that the birth certificate is forged. There is a reason that Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and the National Review do not believe these “experts,” and it is that they have not proven their expertise and have not shown that they are impartial. Birthers belive these “experts,” but Ann Coulter and the National Review do not, and for good reason. And there has not been any cry in Congress to investigate an alleged forged birth certificate.

    • Carl Manning

      Obama will never leave office. He is now dictator for life; many of us like yourself just don’t know it yet. You’ll soon find out. Enjoy what little make-believe freedom we have left. Go fire up your grill, pop some brews, shoot some fireworks, hang out Old Glory, sing the national anthem, and keep on convincing yourself that this is “the greatest nation on Earth, the Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave”, but you’re about to find, much to your horror, how deluded you are very soon.

      • Corrine

        In reply to Carl Manning : If B.O. declares martial……you will see a war right here !

    • ehancock

      Obama did not claim it for years. A publicity writer for a publishing firm wrote it, and has admitted to making the mistake.

      A grand total of 21 people came to the USA from Kenya in 1961. What are the odds that Obama’s mother traveled more than ten thousand miles at enormous expense and high risk (both stillbirth and Yellow Fever) to be one of the 21? And, what are the odds that at the same time she was able to get a birth certificate for her child that shows that he was born in Hawaii?

      • RichE

        It’s a miracle! Joseph and Mary being kicked out of Hawaii, having to travel to a stable in Kenya. Did the Kenyan newspaper say if he was born in a stable? I wonder if Christos is a natural born citizen?

        • CB

          If by Christos, you mean Christ,the answer is yes as he was from the line of David. You can look it up.

          • RichE

            CB
            It’s the other way around, if by Christ you mean Christos. Christos is Greek the language of the New Testament.

            Wow! Christos could be president, Now that adds a wrinkle.

          • CB

            Christos is the Greek for for Christ. It is not a language.

          • CB

            Sorry for the typo on previous posting. Christos is the Greek word for Christ.

    • ehancock

      Re: “ehancock – You guys are a riot. “And there is a birth certificate for Obama in Hawaii”.

      And you know this, how? You’ve seen it? Do tell.”

      Answer: Have you seen the original of Romney’s birth certificate? No you haven’t. It is in the file. That is how birth certificates work. The copy in the file is not show, only the official copy is sent out.

      Re: “Officials in Hawaii have stated that there IS NO BC for him in file in Hawaii. ”

      Answer. That is a lie. Here is the latest of many confirmations:

      http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/06/official-hawaiian-birth-certification-appears-in-court/

      http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/06/hawaii-very-officially-verifies-barack-obamas-birth-certificate/

      And, in addition to the many confirmations–by officials of both political parties–the existence of the birth certificate in Hawaii is also confirmed by the Index Data:

      http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2011/04/in_hawaii_its_easy_to_get_birt.html

      Re: “They have failed to produce anything but proven and obvious forgeries. ”

      What the above means is only that a number of birther “experts” have claimed that Obama’s birth certificate is forged. But they have not shown that they are experts, and they certainly have not shown that they are fair and impartial. They are simply people who hate Obama saying whatever they want to to make it appear that he was not born in Hawaii.

      There have been plenty of real experts, including John Woodman–a member of the Tea Party, who says that he despises Obama’s policies–who have shown that Obama’s birth certificate is not forged:

      http://www.amazon.com/Barack-Obamas-Birth-Certificate-Fraud/product-reviews/0983759251/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

      And:

      http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/473-Keystone-Kops.html

      Re: “And gee, how is it that all records of travel and births for that area are missing for…just that ONE WEEK?”

      That is what Corsi said, and no one has confirmed it. Moreover, he was referring only to the travel documents for Hawaii, and there were no direct flights from Hawaii to Kenya. And the likelihood of a woman traveling late in pregnancy in 1961 remains very low.

      Re: Yes, generally official copies are used as evidence. But, originals are kept for a reason. When they are legally summoned, they need to be produced. They continue to refuse to allow ANYONE in any capacity to view this mythological document. Why? BECAUSE IT DOESN’T EXIST.”

      Answer: Dream on. Obama and Romney have shown official copies. Both are legal proof of birth in the USA. Obama’s has been confirmed by officials and by the Index Data and by the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers–in the Health Bureau Records section of the papers, which was sent to the papers by the DOH and only for births in Hawaii. Romney’s has not been confirmed at all.

      Re: “YOU KNOW NOTHING. Belief does not make something true. You are a true-believer, and that makes you just another useful idiot.”

      Actually that applies to you. Notice that I have given the facts? The facts are that a birth certificate exists for Obama in Hawaii and its existence has been repeatedly confirmed by officials, by the Index Data and by the birth notices. AND, Hawaii is thousands of miles from any foreign country.

  • TML

    I was in agreement right up until the end…

    “But if you are willing to suspend all logic and believe the lie, there’s still the issue of Obama’s “father’s” citizenship, which disqualifies Obama regardless of his birth place.”

    No, it doesn’t. And I think you know that, else your article would focus on such.
    Nartual-born does not require two parents to be American citizens if born on American soil… it requires one parent. And I even used your own source, the Law of Nations, to prove it once. So indeed, Bob, you are suspending logic on that one issue… give it up.

    That said, I do agree however that reasonable doubt exists since a valid original birth certificate has not been presented. Indeed, if Obama was not born on American soil, with his father not a citizen, despite his mother’s citizenship, then he would not be natural born.

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

      Dear TML,

      I have disproved your fallacy before.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • TML

        No you did not… YOU tried to use the Law of Nations by Emmerich de Vattel to prove that two parents are required, and I pointed out how it specifically says…

        “I say, that, in order to be of the country [natural born], it is necessary that a person be born of a father [singular] who is a citizen” – Law of Nations

        If you would like to retain your sexist bigotry to assume that only the father can singularly give a child a natural born status, I suppose you can, but logic without sexist prejudice tells us that by this statement, a mother or father, by themselves, who is a citizen, is all that is required for the child to be considered natural born if born on American soil.

        You’re suspending logic, sir.

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

          Dear TML,

          I have used Minor v. Happersett.

          I also wrote that Founders took the term from Law of Nations, which says:
          “§ 212 Of the citizens and naturals,” Vattel writes: “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.”
          The entire article can be found here: http://personalliberty.com/2012/02/23/the-natural-born-question/

          There is also: http://personalliberty.com/2012/02/08/sorry-hes-not-a-natural-born-citizen/

          Best wishes,
          Bob

      • TML

        Bob, that court case was not to rule upon whether or not two parents were required to be natural born, and it’s wording was the same grammatical issue as this…

        “The nativeS, or natural-born citizenS, are THOSE born in the country, of parentS who are citizenS.”

        It’s grammatical… it isn’t specifying that two parents are required.

      • TML

        Additionally… to further support my stance that Vattel did not write parentS meaning two parents are required, and that it is grammatical, I offer you to reconcile the quote I provided, with the one you provided.

      • TML

        Bob says, “http://birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html”

        That’s all well and good, but still remains ignorant of the portion that I quoted… even underlining the portion which supports their view and ignoring the last sentence of the quoted paragraph.

        Again… how do reconcile this quote…

        “ The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations

        …with this quote…

        “I say, that, in order to be of the country [natural born], it is necessary that a person be born of a father [singular] who is a citizen” – Law of Nations

        ???

        • RichE

          TML,
          If you’re not aware, there is a known translation error in one of the English versions of “The Laws of Nations”. To be safe I’d think it logical if the both of you worked from a copy in the original language that was available at the time of the Constitution.

      • JeffH

        TML, under no circumstances that exist can Obama ever be considered a “natural born citizen”.

        The Supreme Court of the United States has given the definition of what a “natural born citizen” is. Since being a natural born citizen is an objective qualification and requirement of office for the U.S. President, it is important for all U.S. Citizens to undertsand what this term means.
        http://usa-wethepeople.com/2010/04/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/

        Let’s cut through all the opinion and speculation, all the “he says”, “she says”, fluff, and go right to the irrefutable, constitutional authority on all terms and phrases mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: the Supreme Court of the United States.

        There are 4 such cases which speak of the notion of “natural born citizenship”.

        Each of these 4 Supreme Court cases will cite or apply the definition of this term, as given in a book entitled, The Law of Nations, written by Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss-German philosopher of law. In that book, the following definition of a “natural born citizen” appears, in Book I, Chapter 19, § 212, of the English translation of 1797

        212. 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. . . .

        Vattel did not invent the notion “natural born citizen”; he was merely applying the Law of Nature to questions of citizenship. In fact the term first appears in a letter of the future Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention, where the Framers were consulting 3 copies Vattel’s book to complete their work (according to the testimony of Benjamin Franklin).

    • Corrine

      In reply to TML : Nartual-born does not require two parents to be American citizens if born on American soil… it requires one parent. WHAT ?!?!? It does too ! How old are you and what kind of school did you go to ?!?!?! Maybe you should go back !

      • TML

        Then I invite you to address this;

        “I say, that, in order to be of the country [natural born], it is necessary that a person be born of a father [singular] who is a citizen” – Law of Nations by Emmerich de Vattel

        There is nowhere that the Constitution, or any court ruling defines natural born citizen as specifically and deliberately requiring two or both parents.

        • RichE

          TML
          I’m a bit thin, but the Law of Nations is international law and International law doesn’t have the right to tell a sovereign what to do with their people. Also, Vattel was one of six of the authors, the other five didn’t talk about citizenship.

      • ehancock

        Vattel was a Swiss philosopher who was respected on matters of international law, but not on domestic law–which is what elections are. He is not mentioned even once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law is mentioned about twenty times. And Vattel recommended that every country should have a state religion and force people to join it, and we did not follow that. So there is no evidence that we followed Vattel.

        Besides, the US Supreme Court has ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case (six to two, one not voting) that the meaning of Natural Born came from the common law, and hence not from Vattel, and that the meaning of Natural Born in the common law refers to the place of birth.

      • TML

        RichE says, “I’m a bit thin, but the Law of Nations is international law and International law doesn’t have the right to tell a sovereign what to do with their people.”

        Not saying that the Law of Nations dictated the founding of the country, only that it is the best source of definition which may have influence the founders ideas of natural born. Since natural born citizen is never defined by the founders or the Constitution, we simply look to these writings to help understand what the founders may have meant. Bob Livingston actually makes a good argument for the validity of referencing the book, although he sought to use it to prove that two parents are required, while it SPECIFICALLY states as I quoted above that only one parent (albeit the father) is all that is required. If we then remove the sexist bigotry from our train of thought and logic, it would indicate that either the mother or father (singular) is all that is required, as long as the child is born on the native soil.

        • RichE

          TML,
          What I meant to say is basing, ‘natural born citizen’ on Vattel and “The Law of Nations” is a bit thin if you consider “The Law of Nations” is international not domestic law, Vattel was not a recognized authority on domestic law, Vattel was one of the six authors, two of the authors were mentioned by the founding fathers, Vattel was not mentioned by the founding fathers.

      • TML

        ehancock says, “So there is no evidence that we followed Vattel.”

        Well, Bob Livingston himself makes a very good argument in a past article for evidence that the Law of Nations could have influenced many ideas of the founders, especially since “natural born citizen” is never defined by a founder in any writing or the Constitution. The most people point to is a court ruling which is not an actually ruling on the subject of natural born citizen and it’s requirements; vaguely saying parents in the plural form grammatically to the reference of natural born citizens as plural. It does not specifically say two parents are required.

        ehancock says, “Besides, the US Supreme Court has ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case (six to two, one not voting) that the meaning of Natural Born came from the common law, and hence not from Vattel, and that the meaning of Natural Born in the common law refers to the place of birth.”

        Common law, and reference to birth place, does not specify that two or both parents are required.

        • RichE

          TML,
          It’s thin. “The Law of Nations” is international law not domestic law. The Constitution is domestic law not international law. Vattel’s statement is in the French language. Wouldn’t it be logical to assume if the framers used Vattel’s statement they would have noted that they used a statement in French from a book on international law to define a domestic law? But, they didn’t.

      • brett

        to bob 2:30 pm.ish, … natives…born in this country. the majority of the lineage of americans is that of foreign soil.

      • ehancock

        Re: “Not saying that the Law of Nations dictated the founding of the country, only that it is the best source of definition which may have influence the founders ideas of natural born.”

        No, the best source of the definition was the common law, which by far most of the writers of the US Constitution were familiar with since they were mainly lawyers. Vattel is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law is mentioned about twenty times.

        “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

      • ehancock

        Re: “Well, Bob Livingston himself makes a very good argument in a past article for evidence that the Law of Nations could have influenced many ideas of the founders..”

        Yes undoubtedly Vattel could have and did in some things. But did it influence the Natural Born Citizen definition?

        Surely IF it had influenced the founders in that definition, they would have told us.

        There were two possible definitions, Vattel’s definition, and the far more common definition in the common law. The common law was far more commonly understood than Vattel. It is referred to in the Federalist Papers about twenty times, while Vattel is not mentioned even once.

        So, if they had meant Vattel and not the common law, they would have told us.

        But there are no letters or articles saying: “Let us use the Vattel definition” or “two citizen parents should be required.” There is absolutely nothing like that.

        The common law definition was common. The Vattel definition was uncommon, especially since no English translation of him used the words “Natural Born Citizen” until ten years after the Constitution was written. The writers of the US Constitution were mainly lawyers, familiar with the common law. There are many examples of them using Natural Born the way that it was in the common law, and no examples of them using it the Vattel way.

        No wonder the US Supreme Court has ruled that the meaning of the term Natural Born comes from the common law, hence not from Vattel.

    • ehancock

      The facts on Obama’s birth certificate have been repeatedly confirmed in writing by the officials in Hawaii–both parties. They are further confirmed by the Index Data

      http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-04-23-obama-birth-certificate.htm

      And they are still further confirmed by the birth notices that appeared in the Health Bureau Statistics section of the Hawaii newspapers in 1961. As the name implies, the listings in the Health Bureau Statistics section came only from the department of health of Hawaii, and the DOH of Hawaii at the time only sent out birth certificates for children born in Hawaii.

      Hawaii is THOUSANDS of miles from any foreign country.

      The notion of Obama’s mother, late in pregnancy, traveling alone (WND has shown that Obama senior was in Hawaii on August 4, 1961) from Hawaii where there are good hospitals, to Kenya, where there was Yellow Fever and bad hospitals (or in fact to any country outside the USA), and doing so without any INS record of her leaving the USA or any record of her arriving in Kenya (or in any other country for that matter)—is absurd. And the fact that there is a birth certificate showing that she gave birth in Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu makes it even more absurd.

  • ASIM ALI

    REGARDLESS OF HIS FATHERS STATUS; HIS MOTHER IS/WAS A US CITIZEN MAKING OBAMA A US CITIZEN OR DUAL STATUS UNTIL HE TURNED 18 AT WHICH POINT HE WOULD HAVE TO PICK ONE.

    • Corrine

      NO ! You can not have dual citizenship…….YOU can only have U.S. citizenship to become
      POTUS !

      • ehancock

        Actually, at least three US presidents have been dual citizens of the USA and another country. Jefferson and Madison were made full voting citizens of France (eligible to serve in the government of France), and Woodrow Wilson was a dual citizen at birth because his mother never relinquished her British citizenship despite becoming a US citizen when she married Wilson’s father. There are even reports that Grant and Eisenhower were dual citizens of the USA and Germany due to old German laws that made the GRANDchildren of its citizens citizens of Germany at their birth.

  • Corrine

    This is in reply to Douglas patriot : IT DOES NOT matter where you are born as long as your parents are both U. S. citizens ….is that CLEAR enough !?!?!?

    • ehancock

      NO, the place of birth matters. If you are born in the USA, the citizenship of the parents do not matter. That is because the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth.

  • http://msn Kerri

    Obama is not a natural born citizen because his father was not an American Citizen. He was a citizen of the British impire and under their juristiction. The man is a fraud and a lier and has raped our country. Funny how his beleifs change with the political wind like his “evolution” on gay marrage just before an election.

    • ehancock

      The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth, not to the parents. There is nothing in the Constitution that bars dual citizens from being president, and at least three have been (Jefferson and Madison were made full voting citizens of France; Woodrow Wilson was a dual citizen at birth because his mother never relinquished her British citizenship).

      “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

      In addition to Meese, FOUR state courts and one federal court have ruled exactly the same thing, that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen was defined by the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision and that the court said that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law and includes every US citizen who was born in the USA. That is why when birthers tried to convince the members of the Electoral College to change their vote to vote against Obama, not one of them did. The Electoral vote from the Electoral College was exactly the same as in the general election.

      • AZ-Ike

        Just because Meese works for the Heritage Foundation doesn’t make him correct. The Founding Fathers, having just won a long fought Revolutionary War against the English monarchy, did not adopt English common law as the guide for our government. In fact, they based our government on the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God–establishing government that derived just powers from the consent of the governed.

        The Founding Fathers used the definition of natural born Citizen from deVatel’s Law of Nations in order to avoid any possibility of someone with dual allegiance from ever assuming the Presidency and from being Commander-in-Chief of our military forces. According to our Founders, it required both soil and blood to become a natural born Citizen–and to avoid the possibility of any other nation claiming allegiance from the U.S. citizen.

        You can never refer to the 14th Amendment as the source of being a natural born Citizen. A citizen by law is by definition not ‘naturally born’ a citizen. He is MADE a citizen, not BORN a Citizen.

      • ehancock

        IF the writers of the Constitution had meant to use Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen and not that of the common law, they would have told us. They didn’t, and not one of them ever wrote an article or a letter saying: “Natural Born Citizen should be based on two citizen parents” or “let us use the Vattel definition.” There is nothing like that at all.

        Yes, they did read Vattel, but they read a lot of other things too. They read Blackstone far more than Vattel, since they were mainly lawyers, and the meaning of Natural Born in Blackstone says that it comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth.

        Meese is right.

      • Kate8

        ehancock – Funny how you guys use SCOTUS decisions as the final word when it’s something you agree with, but disregard it totally when you don’t.

        It doesn’t matter how many times you post your arguments, you have no credibility. YOU DO NOT KNOW. Your opinion is worth nothing. We want PROOF from the only place from which it can come. Otherwise, it all remains speculation.

        Fake SS numbers. Forged documents everywhere. Dual citizenship (the possiblity still looms that he is NOT a US citizen AT ALL). Aliases. He had to give up his law license because HE LIED about having used aliases.

        The man is a liar. There is absolutely NO REASON why anyone should take his word for anything. If he can’t prove his assertions, …if he’s too afraid to show his records and transcripts so we see who he is…. The whole thing is ridiculous, and people like you are enablers and complicit in maintaining this fraud.

        When there is this much question, this much evidence of fraud, then he must be FORCED to prove himself or get the h*ll our of our WH.

        Romney must prove himself, as well. No one should be above reproach. No one should be above the Law.

        You people shame this nation.

        • Jeff

          Kate:

          When you’re talking about the meaning of an undefined clause like “natural born citizen,” Supreme Court decisions are the only place it would make sense to look. You can disagree with the Supreme Court but to actually define the legal meaning of the phrase, your personal opinion is about as important as my dog’s.

  • Skyskiers

    THERE IS AN ILLEGAL ALIEN IN THE WHITE HOUSE!

    AND IT’S NOT ABOUT THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE:

    I’ve contacted my congressmen and Senators numerous times and gave them the proof that our current Resident in the White House is Barry Soetoro (aka Obama) an Indonesian illegal-alien! Where Barry was born is not the issue. He became an Indonesian (by his own admission in his book) through his adoption (at 5 yrs old) by Indonesian citizen Lolo Soetoro. Barry’s 1981 Foreign Student ID verifies that he was still an Indonesian (at 22 years of age) and is currently an illegal-alien occupying our White House.

    We need to ask for Barry Soetoro’s birth certificate because there
    is no such person as Barrack Hussein Obama!

    • AZ-Ike

      The problem is that no one in our current government, federal or state, will do anything about it.

      The problem can only be solved by us. We must stop electing corrupt politicians from both major political parties to every level of government. The questions that must be asked of every person running for an elected position in any government is “Do you believe in the Constitution as it was written and intended?” and “Will you support and defend the Constitution as the Rule of Law and the ‘supreme Law of the Land?” Of course, most will lie and say yes. Then we must ask why they have allowed, even aided and abetted, an unconstitutional President and voted for unconstitutional laws.

      We will be far better off, by electing new representatives to government at every level–even if some of those choices turn out to be mistakes–than to continue to electing the corrupt incumbent politicians who have brought us ‘soft tyranny.’ Once they get out guns, it will no longer be ‘soft.’

    • ehancock

      Neither of Obama’s books say that he became an Indonesian citizen, and in fact he didn’t. You can check by calling the Indonesian Embassy in Washington and asking. He was never an Indonesian citizen, and he never had an Indonesian passport.

      • Kate8

        ehancock – Obama’s books? What?! LOL.

        You are using his BOOKS as proof of anything?

        His books were written (by Bill Ayres) to try to establish a background for an absolute nobody. TWO (auto?)biographies about someone who was NOTHING. Does that not give you pause at all?

        LIES. MORE LIES. You can say anything in a books. The man is a fraud from the get-go, and a PROVEN LIAR.

        AUTHENTIC, ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS, please. PROOF.

        Is there anyone on the Left with a brain? With a shred of integrity?

      • ehancock

        No. I’m not using Obama’s books as proof. I am responding to a birther that said that his book said that he was an Indonesian citizen. His books did NOT say that he is an Indonesian Citizen.

        And he is not, and never was, an Indonesian citizen, as a telephone call to the Indonesian Embassy will confirm. Ask for the press officer.

      • ehancock

        Re: “Original documents please.

        Romney has not shown the original of his birth certificate either. Only the short-form official copy.

        People chose to believe it, even though Detroit is about a mile from Canada, or less. Hawaii is thousands of miles from the nearest foreign country, and Obama’s official birth certificate has been confirmed by three Republican officials in Hawaii, by the birth notices in the newspapers, and by the Index Data:

        http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-04-23-obama-birth-certificate.htm

        Here is the latest confirmation from the officials in Hawaii that they have Obama’s birth certificate on file and that the image of it shown by the White House is correct:

        http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/06/hawaii-very-officially-verifies-barack-obamas-birth-certificate/

        and:

        http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/06/official-hawaiian-birth-certification-appears-in-court/

      • ehancock

        Re: “Original documents.”

        Romney has not shown the original of his birth certificate either, only the official copy of the short form birth certificate.

        Obama has shown both the short form and the long form, and the facts on both of them have been confirmed by the officials in Hawaii. Here is the latest confirmation:

        http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/06/hawaii-very-officially-verifies-barack-obamas-birth-certificate/

        In addition to the confirmations–which by the way were by officials of both parties—there is also the Index Data, a public file of the birth certificates on record which shows that there is one for Obama under the 1961 listing, and the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers.

  • AZ-Ike

    An update on Arizona Secretary of State, Ken Bennett.

    I have tried for more than two weeks to get an appointment with Ken Bennett to discuss various issues pertaining to the 2012 election and AZ’s election statutes–particularly(but not exclusively) a discussion of how Presidential Electors are nominated in Arizona. I finally received a call from a Mr. Drake who told me he was Bennett’s assistant. Although he said I could send a letter or email (which I have done before and was not answered) he absolutely refused to set up an appointment either with Bennett or himself–as they are just too busy.

    The only conclusion one can reach is that yes, Bennett caved to current unconstitutional government, both federal and State, and that neither Bennett, an elected official, nor any appointed subordinate in his office, feels the need to meet with Arizona’s voters. Clearly Bennett does not deserve reelection to his office–and possible deserves to be sued for violating his Oath of Office–to support the Constitution.

  • http://comcast the fisherman

    Hey this crap has gone on to long . The other birther is Marco Rubio. Now lets switch over to him . Then we can pick the less of the two evils. Or do you want to speak of the same old crap that you use to.

  • AZ-Ike

    For those who think Romney has proved his natural born Citizenship with the release of his long form COLB:

    The questions is not whether Romney was born IN the U.S., but whether his parents were both citizens OF the U.S. at the time of his birth. To prove natural born Citizenship, both the individual’s BC and his parents’ BCs or naturalization papers must be produced. In Mit Romney’s case, we know his father, George, was born in Mexico. We don’t know if George became a naturalized citizen when he returned with his father to live in the U.S. If he didn’t, then one must look back to Mitt’s great grandfather’s birth. When and where did it occur and how did his great grandfather obtain U.S. citizenship.

    • ehancock

      The real issue is whether Romney’s “Michigan birth certificate” is real. It looks forged, and it is only the short-form birth certificate, not the long-form with the signature of the doctor.

      However, IF it is real, then Romney is a Natural Born Citizen because the citizenship of parents is irrelevant. Why irrelevant? Because the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth, not the parents, the place.

      Four state courts and one federal court have ruled the way that Ankeny v. Gov State of Indiana did, which was this statement: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” And not one single court has ruled that two citizen parents (or even one citizen parent) are required to be a Natural Born Citizen.

  • Simpleman

    Can anybody feel the radiation thats spewing all around the world yet????? This should be your number one concern …..

    • RichE

      What? Band together to save our miserable lives? Nah, that’d be logical. You need sex, violence and a common enemy.

  • Skyskiers

    SCROLL DOWN AND CLICK ON THE LINKS TO EDUCATE YOURSELF “ehancock.”
    But I Know that you are a desperate ObamaZombi and you would throw your own grandmother under a bus to get your Czar re-elected.

    NATURAL BORN, NATIVE BORN OR NATURALIZED – WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
    A study of the Constitution, reveals the meanings of ‘natural born’, ‘native born’ and naturalized citizens.

    A NATURAL BORN American is a child of TWO American citizens (BOTH) born on American soil, or an American possession ( see John McCain ) or legally outside the country at the time of the birth. The important thing is that BOTH parents are American citizens.

    A native born American is the child of parents who are here legally, with one or BOTH of them NOT an American citizen at the time (OF HIS/HER BIRTH). If both parents are citizens of another country at the time, then at the age of 18 the child can choose to retain his American citizenship or return to the country of his parents and claim their citizenship. NATIVE BORN ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE A U.S. PRESIDENT!

    A naturalized American is one who has entered the country legally and after meeting all of the necessary prerequisites, has asked for the right to become an American and passed all of the tests that are required. NATURALIZED CITIZENS ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO A U.S. PRESIDENT!

    NOTE:

    If any NATURAL BORN American become a foreign national, he/she automatically losses their NATURAL

    BORN CITIZEN status. After re-acquiring their American citizenship through the NATURALIZATION

    process, he/she is no longer legally considered a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!

    After going through the NATURALIZATION PROCESS you are a NATURALIZED CITIZEN and

    NATURALIZED CITIZENS are not eligible to be a U.S. PRESIDENT!

    Obama’s Indonesian grade-school records prove that he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro,

    (a foreign national) because his name is listed as “Barry Soetoro.” To date, there is no

    proof that Barry ever changed his name to “Obama” or ever re-acquired his American

    citizenship.

    But even if Obama went through the NATURALIZED process to re-acquire his American

    citizenship, HE WOULD ONLY BE A NATURALIZED CITIZEN; NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!

    NOW YOU KNOW WHY BARRY HAS SPENT OVER $2 MILLION HIDING ALL OF HIS PERSONAL

    RECORDS!

    I admire and respect Marco Rubio and I think that he would make a great president; however Marco Rubio has the same problem that Obama has: both of them are not NATURAL BORN CITIZENS! BOTH OF THEM ARE NATIVE BORN CITIZENS.

    Many Americans are confused or are mis-informed about what the presidential requirements are.

    The most critical requirement is this: Any candidate to hold the office of the president of these United States; MUST BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!

    The definition and requirement of a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN is that BOTH of a presidential-applicants parents must have been NATURAL BORN CITIZENS, that means that BOTH of a presidential-applicants parents must have been born on American soil, or American controlled (Military) territory!

    Obama’s father was never a citizen, thus Obama is not eligible to be our president; nor is he legally our president (AT THIS TIME)!

    Marco Rubio’s parents are Naturalized Citizens and they became citizens three years after Marco Rubio was bron in Florida; thus (to my disappointment) Marco Rubio is not eligible to be our president either.

    The Founding Fathers wanted to make sure that no future presidential-applicant would have DUAL-CITIZENSHIP or DUAL-LOYALTY! Their purpose was to protect all future American governments from being infiltrated by potential enemy-agents; who once they gained access to the presidents power, could then harm America (and the American people) by mis-using that power.

    EXACTLY WHAT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS DOING TODAY!

    Educate yourself by viewing the following links.

    1.) Click on the link to view “Illegal Obama propped up by congress!”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3aCfR8rmrw

    2.) Click on the link to view “Guaranteed proof that Obama is a Usurper!”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1DHZmeMXyE&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

    3.) Click on the link to view “SELECTIVE SERVICE NUMBER FILING IS FRAUDULENT!”

    http://www.debbieschlussel.com/4428/exclusive-did-next-commander-in-chief-falsify-selective-service-registration-never-actually-register-obamas-draft-registration-raises-serious-questions/

    4.) Click on the link to view “Obama 119 yrs old, The Soc Sec Number FRAUD!”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9MLPbinBiI&feature=player_embedded

    5.) Click on the link to view “The Mystery of Barack Obama continues.”

    http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports/the-mystery-of-barack-obama-continues/

    NOW YOU KNOW THAT THE CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN VIOLATED! ALL PATRIOTS WILL GET ON THE PHONE AND CALL THEIR CONGRESSMAN OR SENATOR AND DEMAND THE RESIGNATION OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, JOE BIDEN, NANCY PELOSI AND HARRY REID. ALL FOUR OF THESE POLITICIANS CONSPIRED TO DEFRAUD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! AND THEY SUCCEEDED!

    The Capitol Switchboard is 202-224-3121. You can contact either Senators or Representatives.

    Keep calling your Congressmen today, toll free numbers include 1-877-851-6437 and 1-866-220-0044, or call toll 1-202-225-3121 AND REGISTER YOUR OUTRAGE and PROTECT YOUR FREEDOM!

    CALL PRESIDENT OBAMA, 202-456-1111 and 202-456-1414 expressing your outrage at this betrayal of Americans.

    DO NOT BE SILENCED – MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!

    • Carl Manning

      Do not waste your time calling these complicit traitors about the ineligibility issues. They are only listening to party bosses and “K’ Street lobbyists with campaign cash and bribes in hand. However, if you really can’t keep yourself from calling them, because you really want to believe that you have truly “REPRESENTATIVE” government in the District of Criminals, then perhaps you could be so kind and give them this message for me: Tell them that if Obama remains in power, they will be executed and likely dumped in an unmarked grave for the High Treason they have committed. That might just get their attention, but I seriously doubt it.

    • ehancock

      Re: “A NATURAL BORN American is a child of TWO American citizens…”

      No. A Natural Born American is simply a US citizen who was born on US soil as opposed to a naturalized US citizen, who of course was not born on US soil.

      “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

      And Meese is by no means alone. So far four state courts and one federal court have ruled the way Meese said simply on Obama, and several other courts have done the same on other US-born children of foreigners. Some examples:

      Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

      “Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

      Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

      “The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”

      What makes the third child different from her siblings? She was born in the USA.

    • ehancock

      Re: “Obama’s Indonesian grade-school records prove that he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro,

      (a foreign national) because his name is listed as “Barry Soetoro.” ”

      Answer: Obama used an Indonesian name when he was in Indonesia, his step-father’s name. I used an Asian name when I was in Asia. Neither Obama nor I changed our names legally nor were we adopted. Adoption in Indonesia requires the action of a district court. If there were any such court action, the court papers would have been found by now. Moreover, if Obama had been adopted, the blood children of Soetoro would have addressed him as “brother”–but they never have. He was simply a legal step-brother at one time (until the divorce).

      Oh, and Obama was never a citizen of Indonesia, as a telephone call to the Indonesian Embassy in Washington will confirm.

    • Jeff

      It’s awfully easy to make an argument when you don’t have to cite any authority other than right-wing blogs or websites. From where are you getting your definitions? The issue is the meaning of the phrase “natural born citizen.” Your post has added nothing to the conversation other than your opinion – about as persuasive as my dog’s.

    • CB

      I believe that the conspiracy has reached all the way to the Supreme Court. Even before the election, they refused to take up the case of Obama’s citizenship.

      • Jeff

        That’s so totally believable! Roberts, Thomas, and the Scalito twins conspired with the others to hush up what only you know to be the truth. Are you sure your initials aren’t GB, Glen?

      • Jeff

        Do you guys have any idea how crazy you are?

    • Jeff

      Sky:

      “The definition and requirement of a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN is that BOTH of a presidential-applicants parents must have been NATURAL BORN CITIZENS, that means that BOTH of a presidential-applicants parents must have been born on American soil, or American controlled (Military) territory!”

      Please show us where this is stated – some case, etc.

  • Carl Manning

    Obama went to college here as a foreign student likely listed on college records as from “Indonesia” or “Kenya”. We know he told the neighborhood mailman at the Ayers’ house that he was a “foreign student” going to college here. Obama’s been a con-artist and KGB-educated plant all of his life. He had to surrender his law license when he lied about who he was on his law license application. Coming from Chicago, being a Sunni Muslim, a sexual deviant, and beholden to Russia as a highly trained KGB agent, there is no end to what crimes he has committed and is capable of doing without batting an eye. His political goals are in line with Russia and Sunni Islam. His mission is to use the US military to effect a Caliphate in the Middle East that will be allied with Russia. The Muslim Brotherhood is to be placed in positions of power previously held by former secular dictators. His domestic mission is to utterly destroy the US economy, establish martial law and dictatorship, and then pave the way for the Russians to invade America, especially by preventing an American nuclear counterattack. The only solace I can take from any of this is that when Obama takes off his mask, which is already beginning to slide off his face, he will execute all of the members of Congress in BOTH parties who aren’t Communist agents. The GOP will finally get its just reward for HIGH TREASON. Ironically, by avoiding the ineligibility issue to save their own hides and avoid a Constitutional crisis, they will lose their lives and create massive pandemonium and horror on an unprecedented scale. So, this election, if indeed we even have one, go out and vote for your favorite GOP traitorous whore if you like, but do understand this: YOU’RE VOTING FOR A DEAD MAN!!!

    • ehancock

      All of that is crap. There is absolutely no indication that Obama–who had attended a US high school–was a foreign student. The idea that he was came from an April Fool’s article originally published on April 1, 2009. Here is what Dr. Conspiracy says about the mailman’s memories:

      Quoting Corsi:

      ” Corsi: Do you recall the conversation in the early 1990′s with Mary [Ayers]?
      Hulton: Yeah. One day she came up to the door when [unintelligible] when I came up to the house with mail. She started talking to me enthusiastically about this young black student that they were helping out and she referred to him as a “foreign student.”

      What’s wrong with this picture? Barack Obama had graduated from Harvard in 1991. When he arrived in Chicago where Ayers lived, it was to teach at the University of Chicago Law School; he was not a student, foreign or otherwise.”

      • ehancock

        Re: “He had to surrender his law license when he lied about who he was on his law license application. ”

        You made that up. Obama and his wife voluntarily relinquished their law licenses because if they had kept them they would have had to perform Pro Bono work—-free legal representation, which is required—-and they were too busy to do that.

        Quoting from another site:

        “The law license of Barack Obama was voluntarily retired and Michelle Obama’s license was voluntarily placed in inactive status according to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois (IARDC). Neither of them are practicing law at this time nor do their present jobs require a law license. Both records indicate no public record of discipline or pending proceedings and we have not found any evidence of malpractice.

        A spokesperson the IlIARDC told TruthOrFiction.com that neither Barack nor Michelle Obama had any history of disciplinary actions.”

        http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/Obama-Law-License.htm

        • CB

          That is not saying much for the Obama’s. That they would rather give up their law licenses then to be required to do Pro Bono work. Most attorneys covet their hard earned licenses. Guess community organizing takes a lot of time. No disrespect intended, just observing.

    • Jeff

      Carl:

      When exactly did Obama attend school in Chicago? What school?

  • Skyskiers

    NOTE:

    The third link in the post “NATURAL BORN, NATIVE BORN WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE; NO LONGER WORKES. So I’m re-posting the THIRD LINK, which reveals the story of Obama’s fraudulent selective service registration.
    http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Military/News/ObamaDraftReg-20081114.pdfHere is the working link”

  • Skyskiers

    here is the link again. Some how it got corrupted as I posted it.

    http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Military/News/ObamaDraftReg-20081114.pdf

    • ehancock

      There is a difference between Natural Born and Native Born, but all native born US citizens are also Natural Born US citizens. The only kind of a US citizen who is not Natural Born is a naturalized US citizen.

      “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

      • CB

        No one speaks of the status of babies born of Mexican Illegals in the US. I am given to understand that by nature of them being born in the United States, that they are automatic citizens, regardless of the parents nationality. Are those babies possible future candidates for the highest office in the land?

      • brett

        hey, cb i don’t know, maybe you could ask romney. i might certainly be wrong here because i’ve only heard it passing and otherwise don’t care, but i am to understand that his parents move up from mexico ( some kind of religious issues ). i will add that i know nothing of their immigrant status or which country he was born in.

        • CB

          As I understand it, there is no question about Romney’s citizenship. It is a made up arguement to counter the Obama citizenship controversy, same with John McCain.. Although, I think there is some question to President Obama’s citizenship, it’s beginning to take on a life of it’s own, with the constant bantering supporting each sides position. I don’t see either side agreeing. At this point my position is that the current POTUS is in over his head and does not seem able to solve our Countrys problems. Therefore, it makes sense to let somebody else try. If we elect a new president, Obamas cititzenship will no longer be an issue. Some people are tooo emotionaly invested in their political party to adopt this wisdom.

      • ehancock

        Re: “Are those babies [the children of illegal immigrants] possible future candidates for the highest office in the land?”

        The answer is YES. We have the right to vote for anyone who is a Natural Born US citizen who is over the age of 35 and has resided in the USA for 14 years.

        The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth. There is nothing in the meaning that excludes children because their parents were illegally her in the USA.

        In fact, there has already been a case:

        Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

        “Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

        The father was an illegal immigrant. The two children are Natural Born Citizens.

      • brett

        cb, i’m not surprised that this bs about the renegade punching bag maccain has been slow to pick up on the left. rumors.

  • http://gravatar.com/brotherpatriot BrotherPatriot

    Now this is the kind of truthfull fact filled reporting that draws someone like me out for a comment…

    Good job, Mr. Livingston. I appreciate your tone of the column and the simple gesture of calling it like it is. Mix in some serious common sense and by shining the light on the gross pulsing mass (that is the Obama equation) perhaps we as a people can begin to correct this huge wrong. God bless, Sheriff Joe!

    Yeah, I see it the same way…seriously…there is sooo much evidence that 1984 is present in our lives that it’s the only way to explain how things have gotten so far out of hand. Now…you have to ask yourselves, “Who would want this and why?”.

    That answer is one that I’m hoping you all are becoming of aware of is the truth instead of just some crazy conspiracy theory. My brothers & sisters of this world…it stops being a conspiracy Theory when the information is based in facts.

    Then it’s just a Conspiracy Fact.

    Wake up. Stop listening to the MSM…stop believing that America is a Democracy.

    Learn who the Illuminati are and how they infiltrated the Masonic equation.

    Invite God back into your life no matter what name you call him by. Live morally and live in His Light.

    God Bless.

  • 2¢ worth…

    Well I’m getting tired of all this.. He is, no he isn’t.. He’s a liar, no.. Your the liar. Why must we deal with this e v e r y s i n g l e day? Look, the g’ment spends our tax money like it was their own.. Why not benefit the people for a change? Put this matter on the Nation’s stage. Bring the proof as you see it so that it can be acknowledged or disputed WITH PROOF as well, get the congress, the supreme court and all witnesses together and let them hear and speak their proof then when the dust settles and the proof bears the truth, THEN do something about it.. I await, I want to see this happen.. I’m getting tired of the witless accusations and the refuted rhetoric that spews over the media like a cess pool.. We need proof, not innuendos.. PROOF! Then we need officials with back bones who will abide by this proof and mete out justice one way or the other and clear this smog from our Country. If Obama is indeed illegal then he should be ousted just like Nixon was.. Just like we wanted Clinton to be.. I do not like what’s going on in this county where freedoms are being taken away, police action emulating goose stepping Nasties and citizen separation.. I look forward to this election and if the ‘other’ guy gets in I’m going to watch the Nation, the laws and the separation closely and if nothing changes then I will know absolutely that we’re being controlled by outside forces and their NOT communists, their NOT liberals.. Thir the NWO elitists..

    • ehancock

      The proof is already available. Two different copies of Obama’s birth certificate, repeated confirmations by the officials in Hawaii (of both parties), the Index Data

      http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2011/04/in_hawaii_its_easy_to_get_birt.html

      And the birth notices in the Health Bureau Statistics section of the newspapers in Hawaii, which as the name implies only took their notices from the department of health of Hawaii, and at the time the department of health only sent out notices for births in Hawaii. Oh, and Hawaii just happens to be several thousand miles from any foreign country.

  • Karolyn

    I just had to make an off-topic comment here. Gas here is now $3.05 per gallon. Where are those naysayers who thought I was off my rocker by calling the talking heads on their predictions of $5+ gas everywhere by summer? Somebody told me that in another part of the state it was below $3!

    • JeffH

      California gas prices in Fresno $3.99 – $4.29

      • brett

        local refinery issues.

      • Jeff

        So, the low gas prices on the East coast are because of Reagan/Gingrich/Romney (take your pick) while the high Fresno prices are because of Obama? I can’t believe you actually live in California. Are there more like you in Fresno? Fortunately, your vote won’t count. May as well vote for the Nazi Party, huh?

      • JeffH

        Jeff, I want to thank you once more for posting a comment that fully demonstarates to eberyone just how ignorant progressive can be. Please stick around and continue to stick your foot in your ignorant progressive mouth by suspending all logic.

        • RichE

          You’re such a broken record JeffH. You never point out where the logic was suspended.

          • Jeff

            When anyone clearly points out how JeffH is simply wrong in his analysis, he does not even attempt a logical argument. He just attacks the person who proved him wrong as ignorant, lacking in logic, or, worse, of being “progressive.” In Nazi-speak, I think “progressive” is synonymous with “Jewish.”

          • RichE

            I’d say Jews, with their traditions, are more conservative less progressive, but initially they did believe in one god and that was probably progressive at the time.

        • Jeff

          Yavol. Glad to be of service.

      • JeffH

        Jeff, and RichE, I learned at an early age you don’t argue with children. Much later in life it became obvious that one can’t get a logical arguement from childish progressives. They tend to “suspend all logic” and depend wholly on their emotions.

        “Глупо, как глупо ли…, добившегося это болезнь”
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL6wbsGx9qw

        • RichE

          Sorry you can’t communicate. Is that because of your childhood?

      • JeffH

        To point out to you, RichE, how even your logic has been suspended…I was merely stating what the gas prices were in Fresno are, nothing more…yet it was Jeff that made a feeble attempt, ala ALINSKY, to turn my comment into something bigger and, of course, you joined the chorus.

        Nuff said, point made!

        • RichE

          Your comment was direct at me not Jeff. You cannot use Jeff as an example. You’re a dysfunction Brocken record.

          • JeffH

            Two things you should realize RichE, I did use Jeff as an example and I did direct my comment at you.

            Both are irrefutable facts.

            Why are you even responding?
            answer: because you’re also an ignoramous!

          • RichE

            I admit it, I was totally ignorant of your mental condition.

          • JeffH

            Thanks for admitting you ignorance Rich E. :)

      • JeffH

        RichE, as I said to Jeff, I’ll reiterate for you. “thank you once more for posting a comment that fully demonstarates to everyone just how ignorant progressive can be.”

  • JeffH

    The Georgia ballot challenge is headed for the US Supreme Court.

    David Welden, a citizen of Georgia, filed a complaint under Georgia law challenging the qualifications of Obama to appear on the GA ballot for the office of President. He then contacted Liberty Legal Foundation and requested our assistance. We have been representing him in this action since December. Liberty Legal Foundation filed an opposition to Obama’s motion to dismiss. The Georgia court agreed with our reasoning. On January 3, 2012 Judge Malihi denied Obama’s motion. The court’s short opinion also clearly stated that Georgia law allows Mr. Welden to challenge candidate Obama’s Constitutional qualifications to hold the office of President. A hearing was held on January 26, 2012 and Judge Malihi ruled on February 3, 2012 that Obama is a “natural born citizen”. While we (as well as all established legal precedent) disagree with the Judge’s determination, this ruling allows Liberty Legal Foundation to argue the substantive Constitutional issue of eligibility through the appeals process.
    http://libertylegalfoundation.org/certification-class-action/georgia-ballot-challenge/

    • JeffH

      The reason the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to address the(previous) Obama Article II eligibility issue(s) is because every case that has come to them so far reflected a lower court dismissing on procedural grounds, or a court ruling on the Article II issue when it had no authority to do so. In either case, the Supreme Court would not have been able to address the Article II issue, it would be forced to rule on the procedural issues or the lack of jurisdiction of the lower court. That is why Liberty Legal Foundation’s appeal from the Georgia courts is different.

      David Welden, our plaintiff in the Georgia eligibility case, had clear standing because Georgia state law granted him standing. In fact, no defendant or court ever questioned our plaintiff’s standing to bring his case. So, the Georgia courts had jurisdiction to rule on the Article II issue. Because of that, Liberty Legal Foundation’s petition to the U.S. Supreme Court represents the first real opportunity for the Supreme Court to address the substance of whether Obama is an Article II natural born citizen. All previous cases were mired in procedural muck. Our Georgia case is a clean ruling on the substantive legal issue. If the Supreme Court is going to accept any case on Obama’s eligibility before the general election, it should be ours.

      Van Irion, Founder
      Liberty Legal Foundation

      • ehancock

        If the US Supreme Court decides not to take the Georgia case, as is highly likely, it will not be because of lack of standing. It will be because it agrees with the ruling in the Georgia case, and that is what is most likely. In the highly unlikely possibility that the US Supreme Court takes the case, the birther side will lose badly.

        Why? Because it is perfectly clear that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen does indeed come from the common law, as the Wong Kim Ark ruling has already decided. And in the common law, it referred to the place of birth, not the parents, the place of birth.

      • JeffH

        Educate yourself! The issue here is “natural born citizen”, not citizen…which the court correctly applied the 14th Amendment in US vs Wong Kim Ark as “citizens”, not “natural born”.

        In the case of “natural born citizen”, they correctly cited the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar with when they wrote it…” 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”.Parents cannot mean one because it is plural, which mean both parents.

        United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

        In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment.

        In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:

        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.

        On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”

        I hope this clears up your question and you now have a clear understanding.

      • ehancock

        Re: “it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of “PARENTS” who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. ”

        Educate yourself. Examine the quotation. Does it say that two citizen parents are REQUIRED?

        No it doesn’t. All it says is that if you have every possible way of being a Natural Born Citizen, then there is no doubt that you are a Natural Born Citizen.

        An analogy: If the court said that it was never doubted that if you wore both suspenders and a belt you would hold your pants up, does that mean that you have to wear both suspenders and a belt to hold your pants up???

        No it doesn’t. And the Minor vs Happersett decision does not rule that you have to have two citizen parents and be born in the USA either. It does not say it. It does not say, ever, that two citizen parents are required, nor does it say that birth in the USA are required. It only says that if you had both two citizen parents and birth in the USA there was no doubt that you were a Natural Born Citizen. You could be a NBC because of two citizen parents (or because of one). Or you could be a NBC because of birth in the country. But if you had ALL of them, then no doubt exists.

        But that does not say two citizen parents are REQUIRED.

        In any case, the Wong Kim Ark decision was AFTER the Minor vs Happersett decision, and hence it would overturned the Minor vs Happersett decision on NBC (IF Minor vs Happersett actually was a decision, and it wasn’t). And the Wong Kim Ark decision said:

        “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

        III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

        That clearly says that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law (hence not from Vattel). And it says that EVER child born in the country, except for the children of foreign diplomats, is NATURAL BORN. And it says that the same rule that applied in England and in the colonies and in the early states, applies under the Constitution.

      • JeffH

        ehancock, obviously you have a comprehension problem and I’m afraid I’ve provided all of the links needed to help you understand the “natural born citizen” issue as it relates to Obama.

        I can’t help you any further…but I suspect you really can’t admit what is actually true.
        Obama is not and never can be a “NATURAL BORN citizen”…emphasis on natural born.

      • ehancock

        It is you who have a comprehension problem.

        Here are the actual words of the Wong Kim Ark ruling:

        “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

        III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

        That clearly says that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law (hence, not from Vattel), and that it refers to the place of birth (hence, not the parents). And it says that the same rule applied in England, and in the American colonies and in the early states, AND under the U.S. Constitution.

        That is why Meese said:

        “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

        For further reference:

        http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/

      • ehancock
      • ehancock

        For further reference:

        “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

        “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen

      • JeffH

        Your arguement is non sequitur.

        MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. US SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT STATES THAT OBAMA IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT.

        Precedent that must be followed is known as binding precedent. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, a lower court must honor findings of law made by a higher court. On questions as to the meaning of federal law including the U.S. Constitution, statutes, and regulations, the U.S. Supreme Court’s precedents must be followed.

        It can no longer be denied that there is controlling US Supreme Court precedent concerning the definition of a natural-born citizen according to Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution.

        This is not a remote obscure reading. It is, when revealed, a clear undeniable holding and binding precedent established by the highest Court of our nation which specifically defines an Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizen as a person born in the US to parents who are citizens.

        Therefore, Obama – according to US Supreme Court precedent – is not eligible to be President.

        Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,‘ and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

        “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 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

        Whether the holding here was influenced by Vattel is not truly important. Sure, it looks just like Vattel’s definition, but Vattel does not make legal precedent – the US Supreme Court does. All that matters here is what the Supreme court held.

        By recognizing Mrs. Minor as a member of the class of persons who were natural-born citizens, they established her citizenship. Establishing her citizenship was required before they could get to the issue of whether she had the right to vote. In doing so, the Court in Minor directly construed Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution.

        The Court also noted that some authorities include as “citizens” those born in the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. The Court refers to these people as a different “class”. The Court in Minor refused to comment on the “citizenship” of such persons since Mrs. Minor was not in that class. They didn’t need to reach the 14th Amendment to determine if Mrs. Minor was a US citizen since the Court previously established that she was a “natural-born citizen”.

        “It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen PARENTS(emphasis) within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.“

        This class is specifically defined as “natural-born citizens” by the Court. The other class – those born in the US without citizen “parents” – may or may not be “citizens”. But the Minor Court never suggested that this other class might also be natural-born citizens.

        It’s quite the opposite. The Minor Court makes clear that this class are not Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizens. If this other class were natural-born there would be no doubt as to their citizenship.

        The Minor Court refrained from making a “citizenship” determination as to that class, but the Court did note that they were a different class. Later, in 1898, the Court in Wong Kim Ark took the question on directly as to who is a citizen under the 14th Amendment, but that case did not directly construe Article 2 Section 1, whereas Minor did.

        In order to avoid construing the 14th Amendment, the Court in Minor had to define those who fit into the class of “natural-born citizens”. Mrs. Minor fit into that class. Mr. Obama does not.

        The class of natural-born citizens was perfectly defined in the Minor case.

        Therefore, we have a direct determination by the US Supreme Court which defines a natural-born citizen as a person born in the US to parents who are citizens. The citizenship of this class has never been in doubt. The citizenship of the other class was in doubt. But even if that doubt was erased – as to their citizenship – that they are not natural-born citizens was established as precedent by the Supreme Court in Minor. In order for that precedent to be reversed, one of two things are necessary:

        1- a Constitutional amendment which specifically defines “natural-born Citizen” more inclusively than Minor did , or;

        2- a Supreme Court case which overrules the definition of natural-born citizen in the Minor case

        We have neither.
        http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/us-supreme-court-precedent-states-that-obama-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/

      • JeffH

        FYI, the Senate Judiciary Committee does not set legal precidence, the Supreme Court does. The Senate Judiciary Committee can only render opinions and their’s is obviously an erroneous opinion.

        Question, why would you trust politicians in the first place? It’s obvious to so many that they, in general, lie, cheat and steal with few exceptions.

      • ehancock

        Re: “MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. US SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT STATES THAT OBAMA IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT.”

        But it isn’t binding precedent. It is dicta. Look up dicta.

        Moreover, it does not even say that two citizen parents are required. All that it says is that there was never a doubt that if you were born in the USA and had two citizen parents you were without question a Natural Born Citizen.

        But that DOES NOT say that two citizen parents are required. An analogy would be: “It was never doubted that if you wore both suspenders and a belt you would hold your pants up.” That does not say that both suspenders and a belt are required.

        And, guess what, the Wong Kim Ark case was after the Minor vs Happersett case, so if Minor vs Happersett really were a ruling, and not dicta, the Wong Kim Ark case would have overturned it, and the Wong Kim Ark case ruled (six to two, one not voting) that EVERY child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is NATURAL BORN.

        For more information on the Minor vs Happersett ruling see:

        http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/

        • Jeff

          Excellent analysis. I really liked the link to the Congressional Research Service. You’ll never convince JeffH of anything because he’s a committed Nazi. He adorned all his posts with swastikas in a different blog. Just so you know you’re not engaging in an actual legal or intellectual argument.

          • RichE

            Jeff,
            Wow! The Birthers are Nazis. That would explain a lot. Can you make a case?

          • Jeff

            I was not referring to all birthers. Just JeffH based upon what he says and the SWASTIKAS he prominently adorned his posts in another of these “conversations.”

          • RichE

            I don’t know similar agendas. If you’re a Birther please raise your right hand. Yep, I just proved it, Nazis and Birthers both raise their right hands. Now all I need is a video.

      • ehancock

        Re: “FYI, the Senate Judiciary Committee does not set legal precidence, the Supreme Court does. ”

        We are in total agreement. And, as you know, the US Supreme Court has ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case (six votes to two, one not voting) that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is Natural Born. It also ruled that the meaning of Natural Born came from the common law (hence not from Vattel).

        Still, when one of the conservative members of the Senate Judiciary committee, Senator Hatch, agrees with Meese (Ronald Reagan’s attorney general) and the Congressional Research Service, and four state courts and one federal court that the US Supreme Court has actually defined Natural Born, and that it comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth, it is worth noting.

      • JeffH

        Again, non sequitur!

        The 14th Amendment specifically confers only “citizenship”. In Minor, the US Supreme Court directly recognized that natural-born citizens were a class of citizens who did not need the 14th Amendment to establish citizenship. The class of natural-born citizens was perfectly defined in the Minor case.

        Since Minor, no Amendment has been adopted which changes that definition, and no other Supreme Court case has directly construed Article 2 Section 1.

        The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark only construed the question of who was a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment, it did not construe Article 2 Section 1. Therefore, Minor and Wong Kim Ark do not compete with each other at all. Minor is the standing precedent for construction of the natural-born citizen clause in Article 2 Section 1, and Wong Kim Ark is the standing precedent as to “citizenship” under the 14th Amendment.

        WONG KIM ARK SPECIFICALLY DEFERRED TO PRIOR PRECEDENT REGARDING THE DEFINITION OF NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

        The Minor Court failed to mention that the words “natural-born” were repealed from the naturalization act of 1795.

        Additionally, the current US Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual, at “7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency“, comments on the 1790 act as follows:

        “This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.”

        The Minor Court also noted that the “substance” of the 1790 act, which granted US citizenship at birth via naturalization, had remained as law up until 1875 when the Minor case was decided. So, clearly, while citizens may either be born or naturalized, some born citizens are simultaneously naturalized at birth. Naturalized citizens are not natural-born citizens. Therefore, they are not eligible to be President.

        I am not arguing that Obama was naturalized. But Minor does establish that not all “born citizens” are “natural-born”. Minor also gives an unequivocal definition of who fits into the class of natural-born citizens. Obama does not fit into that class. Born in the US to a citizen mother and a British/Kenyan father, Obama was born with dual nationality and dual allegiance, part US citizen, part foreigner. Minor makes a clear distinction between natural-born citizens and aliens or foreigners.

        Wong Kim Ark is specifically limited to determining who is a citizen under the 14th Amendment.

        Minor is specifically limited to determining who is a US citizen, natural-born.

        According to the US Supreme Court precedent established by Minor, Obama is not eligible to the office of President of the United States.
        _______________________________________________

        FYI, There was a time when Hatch seemed to be a conservative, but he has changed dramitically. Hatch is not a conservative. Oren Hatch is just another Big Government Republican who supported TARP and the auto bailouts.

        • Jeff

          Heil:

          Minor specifically did not address the issue of Ms. Minor’s citizenship. Therefore, anything said concerning the matter is not a holding but dictum and therefore not controlling as precedent.

      • ehancock

        Re: “The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark only construed the question of who was a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment, it did not construe Article 2 Section 1.”

        You are correct that the Wong Kim Ark case is a citizenship case, not a presidential eligibility case. You are wrong in saying that the US Supreme Court did not define the meaning of Natural Born. It did, and here is the quotation:

        “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

        III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

        That quotation quite clearly says that the meaning of Natural Born, the Natural Born portion of NBC comes from the common law. Hence Meese and other Constitutional scholars are correct in saying that it comes from the common law. And it says that the meaning of Natural Born refers to the place of birth. There is no mention of parents.

        If the writers of the US Constitution had meant Natural Born Citizen to refer to parents, and not to the very common meaning at the time, the meaning in the common law, they would have told us.

        Re: “WONG KIM ARK SPECIFICALLY DEFERRED TO PRIOR PRECEDENT REGARDING THE DEFINITION OF NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.”

        There is not a word in the Wong Kim Ark ruling saying that two citizen parents are required or that the Minor vs Happersett case said that two citizen parents are required. And in fact, the Minor vs Happersett case DID NOT say that two citizen parents are required. It did the equivalent of saying that if you wear both suspenders and a belt you will without doubt hold your pants up, but that does not say that both suspenders and a belt are required.

        Re: “The Minor Court failed to mention that the words “natural-born” were repealed from the naturalization act of 1795.”

        Irrelevant. The Minor vs Happesett decision was a decision on voting rights, not on citizenship.

        Re: “In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes

        That refers to the law that made the foreign-born children of US citizens Natural Born Citizens. It does not refer to the common meaning of Natural Born Citizen at the time that the Constitution was written, which came from the common law. That is why Meese said that there was doubt about the foreign-born children of US citizens. But he said that there was never any doubt about the US-born children of everybody, regardless of their citizenship.

        “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

        Re: “But Minor does establish that not all “born citizens” are “natural-born”.

        If the statement: “It was never doubted that wearing suspenders and a belt will hold your pants up” establishes something, then the statement in Minor vs Happersett establishes something. It would have established something if it had said that both were REQUIRED, but it did not say that. You are attempting to get the meaning “required” out of the statement that there was no doubt about having both of the two possible things makes you an NBC. It won’t fly. In fact, it is a laugh.

        Minor is a voting rights case. Wong at the very least is a citizenship case, and its research on the meaning of Natural Born was very thorough.

      • JeffH

        Again ehancock, your arguement is non sequilur.

        The US Supreme Court did not hold that the Constitution granted voting rights to men while denying such rights to women. The Court in Minor held that the Constitution did not grant anybody a right to vote, man or woman.

        But in doing so, the US Supreme Court first had to determine if Mrs. Minor was a US citizen. The Court’s holding states that she was a US citizen because she was born in the US to parents who were citizens.

        The Court in Minor did make a direct holding that Mrs. Minor was, in fact, a US citizen. The Court established her citizenship by definining the “class” of “natural-born citizens” as those born in the US to parents who were citizens. Then the Court included Virginia Minor in that class thereby deeming her to be a US citizen.

        Thus, Minor v. Happersett did set precedent by defining the “class” of “natural born citizen” as those born in the US to PARENTS(plural) who were citizens.

        That you refuse to accept that is your error, not mine.

        • Jeff

          You are wrong. The case simply decided that the 14th amendment did not invalidate a state statute limiting voting to men. Her citizenship, while assumed due to her birth in the U.S. and the citizenship of her parents, was not an issue in the case. Thus, while the Court stated in dictum that she was clearly a citizen, it clearly did not say that only if both parents are citizens is the child born here a citizen.

        • Jeff

          “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 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 at 167-168 (1874)

          The Court acknowledged a difference of opinion concerning the necessity of the parents to be citizens but said, very clearly and in English: “For purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” They were saying she’s a citizen; she just can’t vote. They DID NOT say, even in dictum, that it was necessary for both her parents to be citizens in order for her to be a natural born citizen.

          I know you’re probably just following orders but really, use some sense in making your arguments.

      • ehancock

        JeffH said: “The Court’s holding states that she was a US citizen because she was born in the US to parents who were citizens.”

        We are in agreement that the court held that she, Minor, was a US citizen. The court did not hold that both US parents or birth in the USA was required. It did not say that both were required to be a US citizen or that both were required to be a Natural Born Citizen. It merely said that if you had both then you were without doubt a Natural Born Citizen.

        But that does not say whether or not one of the two might be sufficient.

        For example. If I say: “It was never doubted that in a building with both an elevator and stairs people could get from the first floor to higher floors,” that does not mean that both required. You can get from lower floors to higher floors using only stairs or using only the elevator.

        If the statement had said: “Both are required,” that would be different. But it doesn’t.

        So you are deceiving yourself and others that the Minor vs Happersett ruling said that both are REQUIRED.

        And, in fact, the Minor vs Happersett decision is not even considered to be a ruling on this matter. It is a sentence about NBC status in a voting rights case. It is not, unlike the Wong Kim Ark decision, part of an extensive discussion of what the common law means. It is what lawyers call “dicta.” And, if it were a ruling, not dicta, the Wong Kim Ark decision was after it and hence would have overturned it.

        In any case, you are deceiving yourself that the statement that it was never doubted that the children of US citizens born in the USA are Natural Born Citizens requires BOTH birth in the USA and two US parents. It may simply require one of those two criteria. And, as JeffH has pointed out, the ruling then goes on to say that it does not have to decide which of the two criteria apply. It is therefore not a ruling.

        And it does not say that both are required any more than the statement that “It was never doubted that in a building with stairs and an elevator people would be able to get from lower floors to higher floors” is a statement that both stairs and an elevator are REQUIRED.

      • JeffH

        Au contraire ehancock,

        I’ll emphasize in hope that you’ll get it:

        “even though this case did not require the justices to determine whether or not someone was a natural born citizen, the court MADE REFERENCE to natural born citizens.”

        The Chief Justice’s opinion entertained the following on the issue of natural born citizens:
        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(that means both parents had to be citizens) 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 [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

        Since this case(MINOR) references the 14th Amendment and therefore obviously follows the 14th Amendment, the precedent set here seems to indicate three crucial facts:

        1.Affirmation that the Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. RESORT must be had elsewhere to ascertain that, and
        2.That there is no dispute that children born in the United States to parents that are U.S. citizens are natural born citizens, and
        3.Children that are born in the United States without reference to the citizenship of their parents are not without doubt citizens.

        {***resort definition: to have recourse (to) for help, use, etc.; to go, esp often or habitually; repair}

        The ruling is important to this discussion in that it did not grant additional rights via the 14th Amendment to citizens of the United States. In essence, it did not allow the 14th Amendment to be in contradiction with the original holdings of the U.S. Constitution.

        With respect to this discussion, unless so stated it would appear that the 14th Amendment cannot change the understanding of natural born citizen known in the original text of the U.S. Constitution.

        What is obvious, and there does need to be a clear and concise ruling by the Supreme Court specifically regarding “natural born citizen”.

        Hopefully, the Supreme Court will hear and rule on the Georgia eligibility case and remove all doubt. We can argue until we’re blue in the face and I’m confident the Supreme Court will rule as the framers had intended.

        au revoir

      • JeffH

        ehancock, though we do not agree, thank you for your civility. :)

      • ehancock

        JeffH said:

        ““even though this case did not require the justices to determine whether or not someone was a natural born citizen, the court MADE REFERENCE to natural born citizens.”

        Answer: Yes it did, but a reference in a ruling is not necessarily a ruling. Lawyers describe remarks made that are not part of the logic of the ruling as DICTA, and that is what the reference to Natural Born is in the Minor vs Happersett case, unlike the decision in Wong Kim Ark, in which the long discussion of the common law and its way of granting citizenship was a key part of the ruling.

        http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/

        Re: “It was never doubted that all children born in a country of PARENTS(that means both parents had to be citizens) who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or “natural-born citizens”,….as distinguished from aliens or foreigners….”

        You do not get it. The statement “It was never doubted” is not the same thing as saying: “It is REQUIRED.”

        I have given several examples. Here is my first one again: It was never doubted that if you wore both suspenders and a belt you would hold your pants up.” Does that say that wearing BOTH suspenders and a belt are required to hold your pants up? Obviously not.

        Yet you believe that a statement by the chief justice that simply listed all the possible ways of being a Natural Born Citizen actually requires you to have all those ways. No, it doesn’t. The statement that it was never doubted that if you had A+B makes you Y does not mean that you must have both A and B. A may be sufficient. B may be sufficient. Both MAY be required, but the ruling does not say.

        Under strict construction, if a ruling does not say “both are required,” the ruling does not say that both are required.

        Re: “Children that are born in the United States without reference to the citizenship of their parents are not without doubt citizens.”

        Answer: Doubt has nothing to do with it. People used to doubt that the earth was round.

        In fact, I can make the statement that “men who do not wear suspenders cannot be sure without doubt that their pants will not fall down.” And that statement might even be true, about the doubt part. But it is not true about the pants falling down. If you do not wear suspenders your pants might fall down or not–but the doubt has nothing to do with it.

        Re: “it would appear that the 14th Amendment cannot change the understanding of natural born citizen known in the original text of the U.S. Constitution.”

        Answer: In this I agree with you completely, as does Meese. The meaning of Natural Born in the phrase Natural Born Citizen cannot be changed by citizenship law, and that is what the citizenship portion of the 14th Amendment is, and also it does not use the words Natural Born.

        So I agree with you that the 14th does not affect. What does affect is the MEANING of Natural Born at the time that the Constitution was written, and both the US Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark and historical research shows that the meaning comes from the common law, not from Vattel or from some other natural law theory, and that it referred to the place of birth.

        The obvious way to determine what Natural Born meant when the Constitution was written is to examine the way that the phrase was used at the time, and I cannot find a single case in which it was used to parents AT ALL, much less to two citizen parents. It was used only the way that it is used in the common law.

        Here, for example, is the way that it was used in 1803, shortly after the Constitution went into effect:

        “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

        As you can see, that quotation refers only to the place of birth. Natural Born Citizens were “those born within the state.” There is no reference to parents.

        And here is how it was used about twenty-five years later, in 1829:

        “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

        And there are other examples of the common law use of the term for John Adams, Ben Franklin and Alexander Hamilton, and others. And I cannot find any, and birther lawyers have not been able to find any, examples of American leaders at the time using the term Natural Born to refer to parents.

        Re: “What is obvious, and there does need to be a clear and concise ruling by the Supreme Court specifically regarding “natural born citizen”. ”

        Meese, four state courts and one federal court, and the US Electoral College (none of whose members changed her or his vote to vote against Obama despite birther and two-fer urging) all think that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen is perfectly clear and that it comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth.

        What is most likely to happen is that one of the four state or one federal court rulings will eventually be appealed to the US Supreme Court, and the court will turn down the appeal without making a comment, and that will indicate that the court agrees with the lower court ruling and not with birthers. You are welcome to dream that the US Supreme Court will reverse the Natural Born Citizen definition spelled out in Wong Kim Ark, but it is only a dream.

      • ehancock
      • JeffH

        ehancock, I’ll post this as my final post and hope that you are somehow able to comprehend the meaning, but I will not hold my beath waiting for a miracle.

        ***John Bingham, aka “father of the 14th Amendment”, was an abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins. Ten years earlier, he stated on the House floor:

        “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

        Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:

        “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

        Key words being “not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty” – note, the framers intent alwats was that one had to be born of citizen parents, thus allegiance would not be to any foreign soveriegnty, only to the US. The framers therefore established that the born child inherits the allegiance of his fathers country – Obama’s father was a citizen of British/Africa .

        No other Representative ever took issue with these words on the floor of the House. If you read the Congressional Globe to study these debates, you will see that many of the underlying issues were hotly contested. However, Bingham’s definition of “natural born citizen” (born of citizen parents in the US) was never challenged on the floor of the House.

        Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s holding in Wong Kim Ark did not address Presidential eligibility, nor did it define “natural born citizen”. It simply clarified who was a “citizen”. Had the framers of the 14th Amendment sought to define natural born citizen, they would have used the words “natural born” in the Amendment. But they didn’t.

        It is proper to say, with regard to US Constitutional law, that this was the House definition as stated on the floor by Representative Bingham. And this definition was never opposed on the floor. And that is exactly where it should have been opposed if it were not the truth.

        Debate upon issues of Constitutional law such as this belong on the House floor. And when an issue this important comes before the nation on the floor of “the people’s House”, and the issue is not challenged by any Representative of the people, then it’s certainly proper to infer that the House of Representatives, as a whole, agreed with that definition. After all, our nation is governed by debate on the floor of the House. But there never was debate on this issue because it was a proper statement of Constitutional law.

        The definition of natural born citizen as stated on the House floor = born in the US to parents who are citizens.

        It’s not like those cats were incapable of correcting each other’s mistakes. Since no Supreme Court case ever stated a different definition of “natural born citizen”, and no Represenative ever challenged Bingham on this point, the House definition stands and officially remains unchallenged as of today. If the House wants to change this definition, let them bring the issue to the floor now and properly debate it.

        • Jeff

          No case has directly addressed presidential eligibility in this context. That’s why there’s a conversation. If you read the Congressional Research link provided by ehancock, it’s about as exhaustive a review of relevant law a you’ll find.

      • ehancock

        Re Bingham:

        Bingham ALSO SAID:

        “Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”

        It seems that by 1869 he had changed his mind from what he said in 1866.

        More importantly, Bingham was NOT the author of the 14th Amendment. He was the author it the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE of the 14th Amendment. He was not the author if the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.

        Who was the author of the citizenship clause? Senator Lyman Trumball.

        And here is what Lyman Trumball said:

        “By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House ; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born…. I read from Paschal’s Annotated Constitution, note 274: ‘All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together.’ Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” —Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)

      • ehancock

        Re: “Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s holding in Wong Kim Ark did not address Presidential eligibility, nor did it define “natural born citizen”.

        You have said this before in the face of the actual words from the US Supreme Court ruling in Wong Kim Ark. Here are the words AGAIN:

        “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

        III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

        Those words say that the meaning of Natural Born come from the common law. That means they do not come from Vattel.

        And, since the common law was about the place of birth, jus soli, it means that the meaning of Natural Born refers to the place of birth, not to the parents. And that is what the quotation says, that every child, repeat EVERY, born in England of alien parents was NATURAL BORN. And then it says that the same rule applied in the English Colonies, meaning the 13 original American colonies, and in the United States, and it says that it applies under the US Constitution.

        It also quotes with approval a ruling in New York State courts that held:

        “It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects.”

        I have found that birthers at this point tend to say: “But that was about Natural Born Subjects, not Natural Born Citizens.”

        Well, sure. But if there were a difference in the parent requirement between subjects and citizens, the writers of the US Constitution would have told us. In other words there would be articles or letters saying: “Since we are now citizens, let us make a law that says Natural Born citizens require two citizen parents, while Natural Born Subjects did not require any.” But there is no such law. Yes an early naturalization act ADDED the ability of US citizens abroad to have Natural Born citizen children, based on the citizenship of the parents, but that law–and in fact NO legislation or article–ever said that a US born child required one or two citizen parents to be considered Natural Born.

        You have said that Bingham’s words in the US House of Representatives have some impact on the meaning of Natural Born. But that is not the way that the Constitution works at all. The words that count are those in a Supreme Court ruling, and that ruling said that the meaning of Natural Born refers to the place of birth and that the children of alien citizens born in the USA are Natural Born. That is the law.

        And, although you have said that the Wong Kim Ark case did not define Natural Born Citizen, you are wrong. The actual words shown above show that it DID. And four state courts and one federal court so far have recognized that fact. Indeed, here is the relevant quotation from one of those cases: Ankeny v. Gov State of Indiana, which ruled:

        “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

        That says two things, that that court by itself recognizes that the original meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth, not the parents, and that the court is guided in this decision, confirmed in it, by the ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case (which you said, wrongly, did not define the term NBC) that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth “regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

        Since a majority of the US Supreme Court defined the term Natural Born Citizen in Wong Kim Ark to refer to the place of birth and not the parents, that is the law in the USA. And that is why Meese said that it was the law, and that is why not one single member of the US Electoral College changed their vote to vote against Obama. That is because it is WELL KNOWN that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth.

        And, I have shown that BIngham changed his mind on the meaning of Natural Born Citizen, to one based on the common law, and that Trumbull always had that view, and in fact I can show that dozens of other constitutional experts have always had that view, going back to 1803 and 1829, when the writers of the books were familiar with the men who had actually written the US Constitution.

        So, not only did the US Supreme Court rule that Natural Born comes from the common law, but the historical record of the term’s usage shows it too. Yes, Bingham got the meaning wrong until he changed his mind. But Bingham was not one of the writers of the US Constitution. Those men, Adams, Hamilton, Franklin, etc.—can be shown to use the term Natural Born ONLY as it was used in the common law. No example can be found of them using it to refer to parents.

        So, not only did the US Supreme Court rule that Natural Born refers to the place of birth, but in fact the US Supreme Court was correct. It actually does come from the common law and does refer to the place of birth. If the writers of the US Constitution had meant to use the term Natural Born Citizen in some way other than they had actually been using it, which was the way that it was used in the common law, they would have told us.

      • JeffH

        ehancock, I’ll try this one more time…natural born was defined In the Wong Kim Ark case:

        Chief Justice Waite said: “Allegiance and protection are, in this connection” (that is, in relation to citizenship,) “reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance.” “At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar,

        The Supreme Court did define “natural born citizen” whether you will admit it or not!
        Read it and comprehend it if you are capable: *—”it was never doubted that all children, born in a country, of [ 169 U.S. 680 ] 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 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. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider,

        —” that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.” Minor v. Happersett, (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. —”(*meaning-natural born)

        —”The decision in that case was that a woman born of “citizen parents”(*meaning natural born) within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.”—

        • RichE

          So Minor could run for president, but couldn’t vote for herself. Yep, that’s a decision worth supporting.

          • JeffH

            Ignorance is bliss!

          • RichE

            “Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring.”

          • JeffH

            “A small amount of knowledge can mislead people into thinking that they are more expert than they really are.”

          • RichE

            Don’t confuse understanding with knowledge.

          • JeffH

            RichE, I’m glad to see you’re not letting your education get in the way of your ignorance.

          • RichE

            “Teach your children well”

      • JeffH

        ehancock,

        “The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” – George Mason

        Could a natural-born citizen perhaps be synonymous with the British term “natural-born subject”?
        http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/
        It is very doubtful the framers adopted the doctrine found under the old English doctrine of “natural-born subject.” The British doctrine allowed for double allegiances, something the founders considered improper and dangerous. The American naturalization process required all males to twice renounce all allegiances with other governments and pledge their allegiance to this one before finally becoming a citizen.

        House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a ‘double allegiance.’ By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.” – It wouldn’t be practical for the United States to claim a child as a citizen when the child’s natural country of origin equally claims him/her because doing so could leave the child with two competing legal obligations, e.g., military duty.

        Whatever might had been the correct understanding of “natural-born citizen” prior to 1866, the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment certainly changes the view because for the first time we have a written national rule declaring who are citizens through birth or naturalization. Who may be born citizens is conditional upon being born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States – a condition not required under the common law. The legislative definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “Not owing allegiance to anybody else,” which is vastly different from local jurisdiction due to physical location alone.

        This national rule prevents us from interpreting natural-born citizen under common law rules because it eliminates the possibility of a child being born with more than one claim of allegiance.

        The primary author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard, said the “word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”

        This remark by Howard puts his earlier citizenship clause remark into proper context: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

        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 advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between nations are not claimed, or at least with those nations whose custom is to not make citizens of other countries citizens without their consent. Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866) made clear other nation’s citizens would not be claimed: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

        Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

        Bingham of course was paraphrasing Vattel whom often used the plural word “parents” but made it clear it was the father alone for whom the child inherits his/her citizenship from (suggesting a child could be born out of wedlock wasn’t politically correct). Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the allegiance of the Nation. As the court has consistently ruled without controversy, change of location never changes or alters a persons allegiance to their country of origin except by acting in accordance to written law in throwing off their previous allegiance and consenting to a new one.

        It should be noted this allegiance due under England’s common law and American law are of two different species. Under the common law one owed a personal allegiance to the King as an individual upon birth for which could never be thrown off. Under the American system there was no individual ruler to owe a perpetual personal allegiance to.

        The constitutional requirement for the President of the United States to be a natural-born citizen had one purpose according to St. George Tucker:

        That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to he dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. …The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.

        Charles Pinckney in 1800 said the presidential eligibility clause was designed “to insure … attachment to the country.” President Washington warned a “passionate attachment of one nation for another, produces a variety of evils”

        What better way to insure attachment to the country then to require the President to have inherited his American citizenship through his American father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return in later life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues, and thus, making such a citizen indistinguishable from a naturalized citizen.

        Extending citizenship to non-citizens through birth based solely upon locality is nothing more than mere municipal law that has no extra-territorial effect as proven from the English practice of it. On the other hand, citizenship by descent through the father is natural law and is recognized by all nations (what nation doesn’t recognize citizenship of children born wherever to their own citizens?). Thus, a natural-born citizen is one whose citizenship is recognized by law of nations rather than mere local recognition.

        Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed this in 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”*

        When a child inherits the citizenship of their father, they become a natural-born citizen of the nation their father belongs regardless of where they might be born. It should be pointed out that citizenship through descent of the father was recognized by U.S. Naturalization law whereby children became citizens themselves as soon as their father had become a naturalized citizen, or were born in another country to a citizen father.

        Yes, birth is prima facie evidence of citizenship, but only the citizenship of the nation the father is a member.
        ______________________________________________
        * Temporary sojourners like transient aliens were a description applied to aliens other than resident aliens. The difference being temporary aliens were here for temporary purposes, such as work, travel, visitation or school, who had no desire to become citizens or was prevented from becoming citizens by law. Resident aliens were those who desired to become citizens and had renounced their prior allegiances and had taken the legal steps to become citizens or reside within some state per state law.

        In regards to questions about the citizenship of the mother: Mothers citizenship rarely ever influenced the citizenship of their children except in certain situations such as the father dying before the child was born or when the identity of the father was unknown.

      • ehancock

        Dear JeffH

        I sympathize. Honestly I do, and so I will do my best not to mock, but you are simply wrong.

        And it is not just me who says it, but all the leading constitutional scholars and most recently Four State Courts and one federal court. These five courts ruled specifically on the Natural Born Citizen status of Obama, and there have been several others who have simply stated that the US born children of foreign citizens are Natural Born US Citizens.

        I have also shown that this meaning of Natural Born Citizen is not something new, but it was in fact the way the phrase Natural Born Citizen was used in America by American writers at about the time that the Constitution was written. This is hardly surprising because it was the way that it was used in the common law for 300 years before the Constitution, and most of the writers of the Constitution were lawyers.

        I have also shown that the actual words in the Wong Kim Ark judgement stated that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law (which historical research confirms) and that the meaning in the common law referred to the place of birth (ditto) and that every child born in the USA is Natural Born except for the children of foreign diplomats. That is a ruling of a the US Supreme Court, and the four state courts and one federal court who have ruled on Obama’s Natural Born status have cited that ruling.

        Now you say: “I’ll try this one more time…natural born was defined In the Wong Kim Ark case:”

        Answer: Yes it was defined in the Wong Kim Ark case, and it defined the meaning as coming from the common law and referring to the place of birth. It even said that the children of aliens were Natural Born if they were born in the country.

        Re: “Chief Justice Waite said: “Allegiance and protection are, in this connection” (that is, in relation to citizenship,) “reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance.” “At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, ”

        Answer: But Chief Justice Waite did not deliver an opinion in the Wong Kim Ark case. The quotations that you show are from the Minor vs Happersett case.

        Re: “”it was never doubted that all children, born in a country, of [ 169 U.S. 680 ] 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. ”

        Answer: Once again, does that say that two citizen parents are required? No. Does it say that one citizen parent is required? No. Does it say that BOTH citizen parents and birth in a country are required? No.

        What does it say? It says that it was never doubted that if you had every possible way of being a Natural Born Citizen—parents and birth in the country–you were without doubt a Natural Born Citizen.

        That is like saying that If you have the highest mark in the class and you fulfilled all the requirements of graduation, you can graduate. But do you have to have the highest mark in the class? No. Do you have to fulfill all the conditions? Maybe. But the statement certainly does not say that you have to have both. More importantly, the Minor vs Happersett statement on Natural Born Citizen status is dicta. It is an isolated statement in a case about voting rights. And, one of the courts that ruled that the Wong Kim Ark judgement applies has in fact stated that the Minor vs Happersett quotation does not apply. It said:

        “Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.“ (http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/at-least-one-court-has-very-specifically-ruled-that-minor-v-happersett-says-no-such-thing-as-what-birthers-claim/

        Re: “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

        Answer: You are making the mistake of thinking that I am relying on that sentence. It does say that the court does not have to make a decision on the matter, quite true. And that is what others point to. But I don’t have to. I rely on strict construction. Remember strict construction? One of the rules is that “if the court does not say it, the court does not mean it.”

        So all that the court did in the Minor vs Happersett case was to say that it was never doubted that if you had both quality A and quality B–birth in the country and citizen parents–there is no doubt that you are a Natural Born Citizen. But that does NOT say that both are required. If you have just A, you may be a NBC, or if you have just B, you may be. If you have both, there is no doubt, but having no doubt is not required either.

        Once again, I sympathize. Honestly, I do. You seem to be desperate to find something that will make Obama–and Jindal and Rubio–not eligible to be president.

        Although you surely must know that the meaning of NBC must have come from the common law and must refer to the place of birth, you have hopes that if the Supreme Court ruled differently in Minor vs Happersett or Bingham said differently, that situation will blow away, and we will suddenly require suspenders and a belt, er, both birth in the USA and citizen parents.

        But that is not what the common law said, and it is not what Minor vs Happersett said, and the Wong Kim Ark case said in clear words that the meaning of NBC refers to the place of birth. And that is what Meese said and the four state courts and the one federal court, and the Electoral College (none of whose members changed their votes to vote against Obama) did too.

        Although I sympathize with your feelings, I cannot imagine what your motive for the two-citizen fantasy might be. I cannot imagine that it purely a legal notion. Lawyers know that the roots of terms in the Constitution generally come from the common law. No. It is a political motive. Well, if so, there are plenty of reasons to vote against Obama. You can vote against him even if you believe that he is a Natural Born Citizen.

        As I have said, it is highly unlikely that the US Supreme Court will take an appeal of one of the Obama NBC cases. It will simply not accept the appeal without comment, and that will mean that the lower court’s ruling is upheld.

        But if the court actually accepted the case, the birther side would lose TERRIBLY, most likely in a unanimous decision or at worst eight to one. You would for sure lose the votes of Scalia and Alito, whose parents–you may know–were NOT US citizens at birth. It is entirely possible–though I’m not sure–that their parents were naturalized before they were born. If you believe that that would make them feel any differently, you are mistaken. After all, the notion that the writers of the Constitution sincerely believed that the US-born children of foreigners were not as good as the US-born children of US citizens would be irritating to justices who actually are the US-born children of foreigners, regardless of whether their birth occurred before or after the parents’ naturalization. And the idea that they, the justices, would become different people, rise to a higher plane, if their parents were naturalized before their birth rather than after it, will be perplexing to them as well. The other justices will simply know that NBC comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth.

        Sure, I would agree with you IF there was real language in the Constitution that said that two citizen parents were REQUIRED, but it doesn’t. And the meaning of NBC does not mean two citizen parents. Under good strict construction and libertarian principles, if a law or the Constitution does not say “it is forbidden,” it is not forbidden. And there is nothing in the Constitution that forbids the US-born children of foreigners from becoming president.

        IF there were real language that two citizen parents are required, I would agree with you. But the Declaration of Independence said: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” So, unless the Constitution specifically said that the US-born children of foreigners are NOT equal to the US-born children of US citizens, then it makes sense to consider that they are equal. That is the law currently. I support it. You have the right to try to change it, to try to make the US born children of foreigners NOT eligible. Yu have the right to try to make anchor babies not citizens or not Natural Born citizens, whatever you desire. But unless and until you get that change in the Constitution, it is not the law.

        • Jeff

          You don’t understand. Jeff H can’t be wrong; he just can’t. In his little world, everyone agrees so how can he be wrong? When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When the law is on your side, argue the law. When all the law and facts are against you, by all means argue the ignorance of the other side.

      • JeffH

        Sorry to disappoint ehancock, but wrong I am not.

        “Intelligence is not to make no mistakes, but quickly to see how to make them good.”
        -Bertolt Brecht

      • JeffH

        The Supreme Court is the highest court in the federal system. It is the only court specifically established in the Constitution.

        A Supreme Court ruling cannot be overturned by any particular entity, which includes the President of the United States and Congress.

        In the Constitution, the United States Supreme Court is essentially granted the power of the “supreme law of the land,” and all of its decisions are meant to be final. For this reason alone the Supreme Court has the power to hear cases from other jurisdictions to render the final decision in matters of dispute regarding decisions made by lower courts.

        However, there is one particular situation in which a Supreme Court ruling can be overturned. A Supreme Court ruling can only be overturned by the Supreme Court itself. Such a situation will prove to be rare.

        Congress cannot override a Supreme Court decision.

        If the decision interprets the Constitution or an Amendment, Congress cannot override the decision except by calling for a Constitutional Convention to change that provision of the Constitution or Amendment. (Not likely) This would require cooperation from the States, and is not something Congress could accomplish on its own.

        If the decision interprets a federal law, Congress can amend or replace the law to correct its deficiency.
        _______________________________________________________

        Supreme Court Opinions – After oral argument is completed, the Justices meet in closed session to discuss the case. Justices work with their law clerks to draft the opinions that will be the Court’s final decision about the case. Opinions are lengthy, carefully-written, and extensively footnoted documents that serve as a record of the Court’s decision on each case.

        There are four main types of opinions. “The most important type is the majority opinion.”

        The majority opinion is, as the name suggests, the opinion of the majority of judges hearing the case. In most cases, a majority opinion requires five Justices, unless one or more Justices have recused themselves from a given decision.

        The majority opinion is important because it “defines the precedent that all future courts hearing a similar case should follow.”

      • ehancock

        JeffH said:

        “Sorry to disappoint ehancock, but wrong I am not.”

        You sound like Yoda. Are you trying to pretend that you are Yoda–cute and furry with big ears?

        If you were trying to say: “I’m not wrong,” the answer is that you are wrong.

        The US Supreme Court has ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case (six to two, one not voting) that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth. Four state and one federal court have now specifically pointed to that decision as a ruling on the meaning of Natural Born Citizen for eligibility purposes, and that is the way that other experts hold as well.

        Re: “The Supreme Court is the highest court in the federal system. It is the only court specifically established in the Constitution. ”

        Agreed, and the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case that the meaning of NBC comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth.

        Re: “A Supreme Court ruling can only be overturned by the Supreme Court itself. Such a situation will prove to be rare.”

        Agreed. The chance of the US Supreme Court overturning Wong Kim Ark is just about nil. The chance of it making a ruling other than the finding in Wong Kim Ark that NBC comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth, is again nil. IN FACT, it would be far more likely for the US Supreme Court—-with Alito and Scalia and Roberts (whose mother’s maiden name was Podrasky) leading the way—-to make a rousing, ringing, overwhelming declaration that every US-born citizen has the same eligibility rights regardless of whether her parents were US citizens or foreigners.

        Historical research shows that that was the way that the writers of the US Constitution used the term, the way that it was used in the common law, and the US Supreme Court has confirmed that that was the way that the writers of the US Constitution used the term in the Wong Kim Ark case.

        You dream that the US Supreme Court will take the case and rule differently than in the Wong Kim Ark case, requiring two US parents. But it isn’t going to happen. It isn’t going to happen, not because such a decision might cause riots, but simply because IT ISN’T IN THE CONSTITUTION. There is not a word in it about two citizen parents being required. And, considering the family background of three of the Conservative justices, a ringing statement that every child born in the USA, except for the children of foreigners, is far more likely.

      • ehancock

        Sorry, I seem to have missed some points.

        JeffH also said:

        ““The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” – George Mason”

        Here is a good answer to that:

        http://www.redstate.com/ironchapman/2012/05/24/english-common-law-and-american-law-a-digression/

        A better answer in this case is that it does not matter whether the US adopted the English common law. The issue is whether the phrase Natural Born comes from the common law or from some other place. The fact is that the common law was, wait for it, COMMON, and hence the likelihood of the phrase coming from the common law was very high. More importantly, if the phrase did not come from the common law, if the number of parents required for NBC status was different than in the commonly used common law, then you would expect the writers of the US Constitution to tell us about that change.

        IF they had told us that there was a change, that they were not using the common law in the meaning of Natural Born or that they had different parent requirements in mind, they would have told us—-and they never did.

        Re: Dual allegiances. That is correct. We do not recognize dual allegiances. If you have citizenship in two or more countries and one of them is the USA, under US law you have only one allegiance, to the USA. Hence if you have dual citizenship–as Jefferson and Madison actually did have, having been made citizens of France–as far as allegiance is concerned we consider that they have, and should have, only allegiance to the USA.

        There is nothing in the constitution that bars dual citizens from becoming president, and as you can see, Jefferson and Madison did become president. Still another one who was a dual citizen, but in this case at birth and not when he became president, was Woodrow Wilson, who was a dual citizen due to his mother—who never relinquished her British citizenship when she automatically became a US citizen when she married Wilson’s father. There are some reports that Eisenhower also was a dual citizen at birth, due to his grandparents being German and German laws making the grandchildren of its citizens German at birth.

        Here is what Madison said about allegiance:


        “It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”

        That indicates that Madison did not worry about dual allegiance. The quotation makes clear that he was aware that dual citizenship can occur. But he indicates (as Blackstone held, by the way) that there can be only one allegiance despite dual citizenship. And he holds that the only criterion of allegiance in the United States is the place of birth. Notice, the he says that “place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”

        Re: “The legislative definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “Not owing allegiance to anybody else,”

        The legislative definition of “subject to the jurisdiction” refers to foreign diplomats (and at the time American Indians), neither of whom were subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. Everyone else in the USA (and now American Indians, due to a law passed in 1925) are subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. It is amusing to think that someone else, a foreign citizen visiting the USA is not “subject to the jurisdiction of the USA”–because that would mean she or he would not have to obey our laws.

        Re: “The primary author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard,”

        The primary author of the citizenship clause was Sen. Lyman Trumbull, and I have already shown his opinion on the matter, and I have show Bingham’s final opinion on the matter as well.

        Re: “If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen.”

        Agreed, a naturalized citizen cannot be a Natural Born Citizen.

        Re: “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.”

        Funny then that Madison thought that the most certain criterion of allegiance was the PLACE of birth. Apparently he thought–and British law thought, and the law in the American colonies thought–that the natural law situation with regard to children was jus soli, and not jus sangunius. In other words, our natural law says that the place of birth is the criterion, and there is NO writer of the US Constitution or other American leader at the time who has written that it is different or that it should be different.

        Once again, if the writers of the US Constitution had said, in the document itself or anywhere else, that they were following some Natural Law principle and that two or one citizen parents were the rule, that would be the law. But they didn’t say it.

      • JeffH

        ehancock, my arguement is solid and with merit. Your arguement, although clinging incoherently to British “common law”, is ultimately weak, without strength.

        I do see, through your frustration, that you are now making responses based on emotion, not on rational thought. You’ve resorted to name calling and ridicule. Very typical of ignorant liberals and progressives.

        In case you’ve not learned your lessons well, I’ll remind you of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals
        rule 5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

        Unfortunately for you, your ridicule is not a potent weapon.

        • RichE

          If the term wasn’t common wouldn’t the framers be obligated to include a definition? That would have been very uncool of them to just pull something out of thin air. So, at the time, which definitions were common British, Vattel, Greek, any others?

      • JeffH

        RE: England “Common Law”…Nothing can be clearer on the subject of the abrogation of the tradition of English common law in the drafting of the Constitution then the words of the man called the Father of our Constitution. James Madison.

        James Madison, Jr. (March 16, 1751– June 28, 1836) our fourth President and the man called the Father of our Constitution wrote to George Washington concerning the progress of the convention.

        “What can he mean by saying that the Common law is not secured by the new Constitution, though it has been adopted by the State Constitutions. The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions equally liable to legislative alterations. I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed.

        What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.” Letter to Geo Washington October 18, 1787

        Madison’s letter to George Wasgington was echoed not 47 years later in the case of Wheaton V. Peters, by Justice John McLean.

        It is clear there can be no common law of the United States. The federal government is composed of twenty-four sovereign and independent states, each of which may have its local usages, customs, and common law. There is no principle which pervades the union and has the authority of law that is not embodied in the Constitution or laws of the union. The common law could be made a part of our system by legislative adoption. WHEATON V. PETERS, 33 U. S. 591 (1834)

        Another founding father, George Mason IV (December 11, 1725 – October 7, 1792) a delegate from Virginia to the U.S. Constitutional Convention, who is called the “Father of the Bill of Right,” had said during the debate on ratification in Virginia that Constitution was not founded on English common law through a single example on treaties, bluntly stated that English common law was not the common law of the United States.

        Though the king can make treaties, yet he cannot make a treaty contrary to the constitution of his country. Where did their constitution originate? It is founded on a number of maxims, which, by long time, are rendered sacred and inviolable. Where are there such maxims in the American Constitution? In that country, which we formerly called our mother country, they have had, for many centuries, certain fundamental maxims, which have secured their persons and properties, and prevented a dismemberment of their country. The common law, sir, has prevented the power of the crown from destroying the immunities of the people. We are placed in a still better condition — in a more favorable situation than perhaps any people ever were before. We have it in our power to secure our liberties and happiness on the most unshaken, firm, and permanent basis. We can establish what government we please. But by that paper we are consolidating the United States into one great government, and trusting to constructive security. You will find no such thing in the English government. The common law of England is not the common law of these states. I conceive, therefore, that there is nothing in that Constitution to hinder a dismemberment of the empire. George Mason, June 19, 1788

        Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743 – July 4, 1826,) a Founding Father and author of the Declaration of Independence who found the term subject so distasteful he did not cross it out from a draft of the Declaration of Independence, he obliterated it.

        If not English common law then which political philosophy could have influenced our Founding Fathers. Overlooked is the importance of the Law of Nations written 8 years before Blackstone’s Commentaries, and of which Blackstone refers to on several occasions.
        ________________________________________________
        Emer (Emerich or Emmerich) de Vattel (April 25, 1714 – December 28, 1767) codified The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law in 1758. The Law of Nations has been referred to by a host of our Founding fathers.

        Benjamin Franklin’s (a signer of our Constitution) letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775

        “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and send the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author”?

        James Wilson (1742 – 1798) was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States and a signer of the United States Declaration of Independence. Wilson was a major force in drafting the United States Constitution. He was one of the six original justices appointed by George Washington to the Supreme Court of the United States.
        “When the United States declared their independence, they were bound to receive the law of nations, in its modern state of purity and refinement.” Justice James Wilson Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199, 281 (1796) ”

        James Otis Jr. American Statesman and cconsidered father of the American Revolution. The phrase “”taxation without representation is tyranny,” is often associated with him.
        In his pamphlet “The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved,” he argues that the colonial charters were constitutional arrangements. He then goes on to quote Vattel, that the right to establish a constitution lies with the nation as a whole, and the Parliament lacked the right to change the fundamental principles of the British Constitution.

        Samuel Adams (1722 – 1803) was an American statesman, political philosopher, and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. Member of the First and Second Continental Congress.
        “Vattel tells us plainly and without hesitation, that ‘the supreme legislative cannot change the constitution,’ ‘that their authority does not extend so far,’ and ‘that they ought to consider the fundamental laws as sacred, if the nation has not, in very express terms, given them power to change them.’” Samuel Adams, 1772

        John Adams(1735 – 1826) was member of the First and Second Continental Congress, appointed to the committee to draft the Declaration of Independence, and second President of the United States. “The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me.” John Adams

        Alexander Hamilton (1757 – 1804 ) American revolutionary war hero, lawyer and founding father. Multiple citations of Vattel and the Law of Nations are attributed to him.
        Lawyers for the plaintiff argued that the legislature was the supreme law-giving authority of the state, and was subject to no control except that of the people. However, the New York State Constitution had adopted the common law of England, as part of the Constitution of New York. This British feature, of making past precedents part of the Constitution, Hamilton turned on its head, by arguing that, since the law of nations was part of the common law, the decisions of the New York Legislature must be consistent with the law of nations, in order to have validity. And Hamilton used Vattel as the standard for defining the law of nations.

        James Duane (1733 – 1797) American jurist, member of the committee of Sixty which started the revolutionary war in New York, member of the Continental Congress, signer of the Articles of Confederation, member of the New York Convention to ratify the US Constitution.
        Duane placed his praise for Vattel into the court record in the Rutgers v. Waddington case, over which he presided as judge, while Hamilton appeared for the defense. Comparing Vattel to a previous author on the law of nations, Duane stated, “This last work, says a writer, is evidently rather an introduction than a system; and it served only to excite a desire to see it continued with equal perspicuity and elegance. The honor of this task was reserved for the great Vattel, whose work is entitled to the highest admiration!”

        George Washington (1732 – 1799) American revolutionary leader and hero, Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army, first President of the United States.
        Besides borrowing Vattel’s Law of Nations from the New York City library for over two hundred years, Washington relied heavily on Vattel’s work to the point that he was accused by Citizen Genet, the Ambassador from the French Republic of supporting Vattel’s Law of Nations over France’s quarrel with England, by writing, “you bring forward aphorisms of Vattel, to justify or excuse infractions committed on positive treaties.”

        In closing, there are so many more references to the importance Vattel and the Law of Nations played in both our Declaration and Independence it is very difficult to reference them all here. I would strongly suggest you check out the excellent research by rxsid over at the freerepublic which can be seen here.
        http://209.157.64.201/~rxsid/

        But you need to make a choice, will you allow your heritage to be stolen from you as you sleep and awake to lick the boots of your masters have placed on your neck as you become nothing more than a subject of the government?

        Or, are you willing to bend your knee to the Divine Providence that our founding fathers had no shame to kneel before and ask for the strength to regain the heritage of a citizen of free and independent nation?

        HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’S STATUS BE “GOVERNED” BY GREAT BRITAIN?

        It can’t!

      • JeffH

        ehancock, Would’a, could’a, should’a just doesn’t cut it. See the logic, don’t suspend all logic!

      • ehancock

        In response to JeffH:

        Let us suppose that you have dress regulations at the local beach, and they say “everyone shall wear pants.” Does that mean that everyone has to wear shirts?

        No it does not. It is not permitted under strict construction principles to interpret a regulation, and for that matter a law or a ruling or the Constitution, to say something that it does not actually say. If the regulations forgot about shirts, too bad. Make new regulations, but until they are enacted, shirts are not required.

        Well, the US Constitution does not say “US-born children of foreigners are not eligible.” Hence they are eligible. It is as simple as that.

        For the US Constitution to bar the US-born children of foreigners it would either have to say that they are barred itself, right in the document. Or, at the very least, there would have to be considerable evidence that Natural Born specifically meant the requirement of two citizen parents.

        Sure, the writers of the US Constitution read Vattel. But they read a lot of other things too. Just because Vattel said “parents,” does not mean that the writers of the Constitution got the definition from Vattel. He had recommended several things that the US Constitution did not adopt, such as a state religion, and we did not adopt that. So, it is by no means clear that we adopted Vattel’s definition. IF we had, surely the writers of the Constitution would have said so. Why? Because obviously there was the other definition, the common law definition, and the common law definition was FAR more common than the Vattel definition.

        So it is with obvious desperation that the birthers insist that the definition must have come from Vattel or from some “natural law,” and not from the common law.

        But it doesn’t matter. Under strict construction the most libertarian definition must apply. Without proof that the US-born children of foreigners do not have the right to be president, it is not permitted to take away their right to be president. And there is no proof. No proof at all. The writers of the Constitution never said “let us adopt Vattel” or “two citizen parents should be required.”

        Yes, of course, if there were an article or a letter saying “We are using Vattel’s definition” or “under natural law both parents have to be citizens,” then that would indicate that the writers of the US Constitution were leaning that way. But there is no such letter or article.

        That being the case, all strict construction justices on the US Supreme Court will inevitably rule that the meaning of NBC does not require two citizen parents. And that, actually, is the way that five courts–four state one federal–have ruled so far. And not one court has ruled for the two-parent definition. Not one. All of them said that the Wong Kim Ark case defined the meaning of NBC to come from the common law and include all children born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats. But even if that were not the case, the US Constitution still does not say, “The US-born children of foreigners are not eligible.”

        So, in addition to the US Supreme Court ruling in Wong Kim Ark that NBC comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth. And, in addition to the historical record of writings at the time showing that American leaders used the term NBC just the way that it was used in the common law, and never in the two-parent sense (or to refer to parents at all). There is the simple fact that the US Constitution does not say “the US-born children of foreigners are not eligible,” and under strict construction principles they thus must be eligible. If you do not like it, you have the right to write to your congressman and senators and ask them to change the US Constitution, but unless they do, the US-born children of foreigners are eligible.

        In any case, that is the way that the Wong Kim Ark decision and four state courts and one federal court and the US Electoral College and Meese and Tucker and Rawle are reading the law so far, and the chance of the US Supreme Court reversing this is considerably lower, vastly lower, than Scalia, Alito and Roberts and the swing justice and the liberal justices all getting together and saying: “OF COURSE the US-born children of foreigners are just as eligible as the US-born children of US citizens. If the writers of the US Constitution had meant them not to be eligible, they would have told us, and they didn’t.”

        Re: “HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’S STATUS BE “GOVERNED” BY GREAT BRITAIN?

        It can’t!”

        Answer: Since there have already been three or four US presidents who were dual citizens, obviously it can.

      • JeffH

        ehancock, you are wrong! I’ve laid out every piece of information that proves you are wrong and you just can’t accept it.

        Bottom line, as per my examples, obviously Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” did influence the thoughts of the framers as they wrote the Constitution and as my examples prove. The framers despised England and they abhorred English Common Law. That is why they fought the British in the Revolutionary War and that is why the framers constructed the Constitution as it is ,to hold the office of President to a higher standard of citizenship, natural born, than any other citizen.

        It’s been explained thoroughly in every concievable manner yet you still hold to your “would’a, could’a, should’a” arguementive mentality.

        YOU ARE WRONG, AS PROVEN, AND THAT’S THE BOTTOM LINE!

        • RichE

          Stomp, stomp, stomp, you forgot to stomp your feet JeffH.

          • JeffH

            RichE says DUH! Just brilliant I might add, just brilliant!

            …as I’m ROFLMAO!

      • ehancock

        JeffH said:

        “I’ve laid out every piece of information that proves you are wrong and you just can’t accept it. ”

        What you have done is give THEORIES. But those theories are not accepted by the US courts. It is not merely my opinion that your theories are wrong, but that of Meese and four state and a federal court and the members of the Electoral College (not one of whom changed her or his vote to vote against Obama out of the theory that two citizen parents are required).

        Re: “obviously Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” did influence the thoughts of the framers as they wrote the Constitution and as my examples prove.”

        Yes the writers of the US Constitution read Vattel, but they read a lot of other things too. The issue is whether they were influenced by his opinion that two citizen parents are required as opposed to the definition in the common law. The common law was considerably more common than Vattel, and it is mentioned in the Federalist Papers about twenty time while Vattel is not mentioned even once.

        There are examples of American writers at about the time of the writing of the US Constitution using the term Natural Born Citizen the way that it was used in the common law, and none using it the way that it was used in Vattel.

        Re: “The framers despised England and they abhorred English Common Law.” “fought a war” etc.

        Such terms as Habeas Corpus obviously come from the common law, and the first Constitution of the State of New York, that of 1777 (written mainly by John Jay) said:

        “XXXV. And this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare that such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on the 19th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same. ”

        In other words in 1777, right during the Revolution, the state of New York made the common law of England the law of the state until legislation passed by the legislature amends or changes it. Obviously the common law could not have been such a terrible thing. In any case the US Supreme Court has ruled that the meaning of Natural Born came from the common law, and that ruling is supported by historical evidence showing that the American writers are about the time of the adoption of the Constitution used the phrase Natural Born the way that it is used in the common law, and not the way that it was used by Vattel.

        Re: “The framers constructed the Constitution as it is ,to hold the office of President to a higher standard of citizenship, natural born, than any other citizen.”

        We are in total agreement. The Natural Born Citizen clause does hold the office of President to a higher standard than any other office. Senators and Representatives need only be citizens, meaning that they can be naturalized citizens, and several have been. But the President can only be a Natural Born Citizen, meaning not a naturalized one.

        Some have tried to change that. Some believe that even naturalized citizens should be eligible. But the Constitution is clear that they currently are not eligible.

        Only Natural Born citizens are eligible, and as Meese points out, that refers to the place of birth. That is the way that the Wong Kim Ark case ruled, and that is the way that four state courts and one federal court have ruled on Obama, and numerous other court rulings have said that the US-born children of foreigners are Natural Born Citizens. That was the way that the term was used at the time that the Constitution was written, according to the historical evidence, and that is the way the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case.

        There is nothing in the US Constitution that specifically says that the US-born children of foreigners are a lower category of citizens, to be distrusted, not to be allowed to be eligible to be president. And there is nothing in the writings of the Americans at the time that the Constitution was written that said such a thing either. Unless the law specifically says that something is banned, it is allowed. Hence the US-born children of foreigners are allowed to be president. They are just as eligible as the US-born children of US citizens. IF the writers of the Constitution had wanted to ban them from being president, they would have said so.

      • JeffH

        Your arguement is moot, based on assumptions and without merit!

        The simple truth in evidence is Obama’s own declaration that he was born of a British father and is therefore not a “natural born Citizen.”

        The Constitution is a modest document. Much of its meaning is in what is usually called common law. Some(like ehancock) assume common law refers to Blackstone or English Common Law. The framers and many justices, Joseph Story among them, have referred to Vattel as our common law. Given that the first school of law established at a college in the Congress United (between the Revolution and the ratification) was that created at William and Mary by Thomas Jefferson, when James Madison was its president, and among its first students was John Marshall, and the stated structure of the curriculum was Law of Nations based upon Vattel and Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. Can there be any doubt about the intent of the framers when justices including subsequent Chief Justice John Marshall cited Vattel when quoting “born on the soil of parents who are its citizens?”

        When the principal author of the 14th amendment, John Bingham, cites Vattel “about which there has never been doubt,” the meaning of “natural born Citizen” is confirmed for at least the twentieth time.

        Framer Dr. David Ramsay pointed out in 1791:

        A citizen of the United States means a member of this new nations. The principle of government being radically changed by the revolution, the political character of the people was also changed from subjects to citizens.

        The difference is immense. Subject is derived from the Latin words, sub and jacio, and means one who is under the power of another; but a citizen is an unit of a mass of free people, who, collectively, possess sovereignty.

        The Constitutional power to define “natural born Citizens” was not intended to be left to the states. It was our common law, understood by every jurist of the time in the most quoted, the most cited, and the most important legal document in the framing of our Republic. The Law of Nations was the most cited legal reference by almost a factor of four between 1789 and 1821 (followed by Bynkeshoek and Pufendorf).

        There was an article written in a New York newspaper in 1789 describing a visit to George Washington’s New York office. Washington hadn’t yet entered the office when the reporters were admitted. Being reporters they noted that Washington, on his his first day as president had one book open on his desk, Vattel’s Law of Nations. Law of Nations is a readable compendium of what was described as natural law drawing from and citing philosophers from Aristotle to Vattel’s contemporaries. Read it online or from Amazon or the library. Several of our framers, including Alexander Hamilton, describe it as our common law.

        When Wong Kim Ark is raised, that is a common smokescreen. Horace Gray was appointed by the only other usurper to sit in the White House, Chester Arthur, and his decision only applied to citizens, not natural born citizens. It is a confusingly-written document, but eventually cites Minor v. Happersett in which Vattel is cited. Since Wong Kim was never presumed to be a natural born citizen – he was born in San Francisco but of non-citizen parents – natural born citizenship was not at issue, and not determined yet Gray did cite Minor v. Happersett in which Vattel is cited.

        Keep swimming in circles if you like…I’m right you’re wrong and I’ve made my case based on the Constitution and the historial citations of our founders and framers.

      • ehancock

        Re: “Your arguement is moot, based on assumptions and without merit!’

        Answer. Is that why four state courts, one federal court, Edwin Meese and the Electoral College have all ruled the same way as my argument, and that not one court has ruled that two citizen parents are required???

        Re: “The simple truth in evidence is Obama’s own declaration that he was born of a British father…”

        Answer: Six US presidents in addition to Obama have had foreign parents, of which only two, Jefferson and Jackson, fell under the Grandfather clause. In addition to Chester A. Arthur, whom you call “usurper” (but there is no evidence whatever that he hid the fact that his father was not a citizen), there was James Buchanan (and there is no evidence that his father was naturalized before Buchanan was born). Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover’s mothers were foreign born. They became US citizen by law automatically when they married US husbands. But that was not the equivalent of being naturalized since they did not have to swear an oath or give up their foreign citizenship. Because Wilson’s mother did not give up foreign citizenship, Woodrow Wilson was a dual citizen of the USA and Britain at birth.

        Re: “and is therefore not a “natural born Citizen.”

        Answer: Obviously the Chief Justice of the USA disagrees. He swore in Obama, twice. And four state courts and one federal court disagree as well.

        Re: “The framers and many justices, Joseph Story among them, have referred to Vattel as our common law.”

        Answer: Still, there is no evidence that the writers of the US Constitution used Vattel’s two-parent definition and not the jus soli foundation of the common law.

        Under strict construction you are not allowed to infer “Vattel was popular, so they must have followed him” or “Vattel was read, so they must have used him.” There has to be real evidence, and there isn’t any. There IS evidence that they used the term Natural Born Citizen just the way that it was used in the common law.

        Re: “John Marshall cited Vattel when quoting “born on the soil of parents who are its citizens?”

        Answer: Yes he did. But did he say that two citizen parents are required to be Natural Born? No he did not. He said that birth on the soil and citizen parents were necessary to be a native. Here are his words: ” The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”

        You do not have to be a native or an indignes to be president. You have to be a Natural Born Citizen. Marshall’s use of “indigenes” points up the fact that the words Natural Born Citizen did not appear in a translation of Vattel until ten years after the Constitution was written.

        The words Natural Born had been in use in the common law for 300 years before the Constitution was written, and the writers of the Constitution were mainly lawyers.

        Re: “When the principal author of the 14th amendment, John Bingham, cites Vattel “about which there has never been doubt,” the meaning of “natural born Citizen” is confirmed for at least the twentieth time.”

        Re Bingham. Don’t you read? There is another quotation from Bingham, a later one, indicating that he had changed his mind.

        He said: ““Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”

        Hence Bingham is evidence for the common law and not for the two-parent theory.

        Re: “Framer Dr. David Ramsay pointed out in 1791:

        “A citizen of the United States means a member of this new nations. The principle of government being radically changed by the revolution, the political character of the people was also changed from subjects to citizens.”

        Ramsay did not define “Natural Born.” He never used the word Natural Born. He thought in order to be a US citizen you had to have citizen parents. In other words he was giving a definition of “citizen”–which is no longer important because the 14th Amendment has defined the meaning of citizen. If asked, “what does Natural Born” mean, he would have to reply, as did all the others at the time, that being Natural Born refers to the place of birth. In any case, neither he nor anyone else at the time said that Natural Born requires two citizen parents, and we have the evidence of Tucker and Rawle that the meaning came from the common law because THAT WAS THE WAY THAT THEY USED IT.

        RE: “The difference is immense. Subject is derived from the Latin words, sub and jacio, and means one who is under the power of another; but a citizen is an unit of a mass of free people, who, collectively, possess sovereignty.’

        Answer: And who could deny that there is indeed a difference between citizen and subject? But do citizens require more parents than subjects do? Or do subjects require more parents than citizens do? Or do they both require the same number of parents (two). Is the parent requirement different in a NB subject than in a NB citizen? Is the citizen requirement in a NB citizen different than the citizen requirement of an NB subject? If so, does the NB subject require more or less???

        If the parent requirement actually is different, then some article or law would have said it, and there is nothing.

        Re: “The Law of Nations was the most cited legal reference by almost a factor of four between 1789 and 1821 (followed by Bynkeshoek and Pufendorf).’

        Blackstone was cited many times more than Vattel. Professor Donald Lutz, who researched who the Founders actually quoted from, found William Blackstone nearly tied for most-quoted, with St. Paul and Montesquieu. Vattel was a distant 30th.

        Re: “There was an article written in a New York newspaper in 1789 describing a visit to George Washington’s New York office. Washington hadn’t yet entered the office when the reporters were admitted. Being reporters they noted that Washington, on his his first day as president had one book open on his desk, Vattel’s Law of Nations. ”

        Yes, they read Vattel. They read a lot of other things too, particularly Blackstone.

        Re: “Law of Nations is a readable compendium of what was described as natural law drawing from and citing philosophers from Aristotle to Vattel’s contemporaries.”

        I suggest that YOU read it. There is not a word in Vattel’s Law of Nations that recommends that a country should not pick a foreigner to be its sovereign. Vattel does not say that a leader or THE leader of a country should be even a citizen. There’s no mention of it. And, in fact, he gives several examples of countries picking foreign nobles to be their kings and emperors, and he never says that doing that is a bad thing. So, if our founders were actually following Vattel, they would have (1) followed his recommendation that there be a state religion; (2) not required that the president be even a citizen, much less a two-parent citizen.

        Re: “When Wong Kim Ark is raised, that is a common smokescreen. Horace Gray was appointed by the only other usurper to sit in the White House, Chester Arthur, and his decision only applied to citizens, not natural born citizens. ”

        SIX justices voted for that decision, not just Gray, and you are simply claiming that Chester Arthur was a usurper. There is no evidence at all that he hid the fact that his father was not a citizen.

        Re: “natural born citizenship was not at issue..”

        Answer: In order to determine whether or not Wong Kim Ark was a citizen, the court had to determine the meaning of Natural Born. That is because Wong Kim Ark was a citizen by birth, not by statute. And what made him, and all the other citizens born in the country a citizen? The fact that he was Natural Born. So the court had to determine the meaning of Natural Born, and it did, and it ruled that the meaning came from the common law and referred to the place of birth. Since six justices voted for that, it is the law.

        Re: “I’m right you’re wrong..”

        Nope. You are wrong, as Meese and the five courts and the Electoral College and the chief justice who swore in Obama all agree.

        • RichE

          Gentleman, perhaps we’re too emotionally close. Take Obama out of the equation. What should the term, “natural born citizen” mean? Who would the framers want to be president? After reading the founder’s letters it’s clear to me their intent was to insure the president’s allegiance would be to the Republic, the people, and the Constitution and not to a foreign power, king, family or even political party, but to the people. How can this be expressed in words?

      • JeffH

        ehancock, not only do you have a comprhension problem, I am beginning to question whether or not you are just plain stupid.

        You say “Nope. You are wrong, as Meese and the five courts and the Electoral College and the chief justice who swore in Obama all agree.”

        None of these examples you just cited can decide issues regarding Constitutional law, other than the Supreme Court of which Chief Justice Roberts sits on the bench, who did, with a slightly flawed delivery, swear in Obama.

        Chief Justice Roberts was merely performing a function as required by law, to administer the oath. I’d hope you’re smart enough to realize Justice Roberts could not make a singular and arbitrary ruling on the issue by himself. He simply cannot do that.

        The only way a president is vetted is through the states. No Federal branch or agency, including The House of Representatives, are allowed, by law, to vett the POTUS. Not Congress, not the Senate, the FBI, CIA, ICE or the DHS.

        The issue of vetting a presidential candidate is the responsibility of each states Secretary of State. Unfortunately, most state Secrataries of State do not fully vett candidates. The federal government cannot vett any political candidate.

        Feel free to continue your illusion that the Common Law of England is the premis for the Constiturion and the common laws of theUnited Staes…it’s not.

        • Jeff

          Why have you not been able to find a Judge to rule in your favor? W appointed plenty of wingnut judges in his 8 years and you’ve got 4 automatic votes on the Supreme Court for anything anti-Obama. Yet, with all your certitude, you’re still baying at the moon. Why do you think that is?

      • JeffH

        RichE says, “After reading the founder’s letters it’s clear to me their intent was to insure the president’s allegiance would be to the Republic, the people, and the Constitution and not to a foreign power, king, family or even political party, but to the people.”

        Thank you and you are correct. A natural born citizen has no foreign allegiance because he is born of this land of citizen parents. A child naturally inherits the citizenship and allegiance of his father’s country upon his birth.

        That Obama’s father was a British subject and not a US citizen is what should disqualify Obama from being the POTUS. That is a Constitutional issue, not a “birther” issue. Obama has never denied his fathers birthplace

        Chester Arthur had dual citizenship and never should have been allowed to become POTUS. That is the irony of political corruption, the usurpation of the Constitutional, the supreme law of this nation.

        • RichE

          JeffH,
          Are you saying both parents or just the father?

      • JeffH

        RichE, Persons, eligible for the presidency, have no first generation ties to a foreign nation, whereas ineligible persons always do.

        ALL statutory citizens are born with a tie to another nation by birthplace and/or blood, but NEVER is that the case with any natural born citizens who are only American.

        A statutory citizen (bestowed by man’s pen) can never be a “natural born” citizen (bestowed by God/nature).

        As a “dual citizen,” Barack Obama had choices about his citizenship. His father was a Kenyan. His mother was an American. He was born in America. He was a “native born,” 14th Amendment American citizen. He was also a citizen of Kenya and a British subject — he had choices about being a Brit, an American, a Kenyan or combination. According to the U. S. State department, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country.

        Obama may have made the choice to be a US citizen, a statutory citizen “native born” but he could never be a “natural born citizen” because his father was not a citizen, he was a British subject.

        • RichE

          JeffH,
          My question is simple, both parents or just the father?

          • JeffH

            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.

          • JeffH

            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.

            The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between nations are not claimed, or at least with those nations whose custom is to not make citizens of other countries citizens without their consent. Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866) made clear other nation’s citizens would not be claimed: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

            Whatever might had been the correct understanding of “natural-born citizen” prior to 1866, the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment certainly changes the view because for the first time we have a written national rule declaring who are citizens through birth or naturalization. Who may be born citizens is conditional upon being born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States – a condition not required under the common law. The legislative definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “Not owing allegiance to anybody else,” which is vastly different from local jurisdiction due to physical location alone.

            This national rule prevents us from interpreting natural-born citizen under common law rules because it eliminates the possibility of a child being born with more than one claim of allegiance.

      • JeffH

        RichE, the child always inherits the fathers citizenship and allegiance.

        When a child inherits the citizenship of their father, they become a natural-born citizen of the nation their father belongs regardless of where they might be born. It should be pointed out that citizenship through descent of the father was recognized by U.S. Naturalization law whereby children became citizens themselves as soon as their father had become a naturalized citizen, or were born in another country to a citizen father.

        Yes, birth is prima facie evidence of citizenship, but only the citizenship of the nation the father is a member.

        Mothers citizenship rarely ever influenced the citizenship of their children except in certain situations such as the father dying before the child was born or when the identity of the father was unknown.
        http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/

        • RichE

          I would agree, at time of Constitution, inheritance was commonly from the father, but this isn’t the time of Constitution.

          • JeffH

            The Constitution is still the “Supreme Law” and the meaning is the same today as it was 250+ years ago despite the revisionists attempt to cloud it by saying otherwise.

            The 14th Amendment confirms that and the US Supreme Court has also confirmed that..

          • Jeff

            What if Obama had been born in Hawaii but the father’s name listed as “unknown?” I think the idea a child can inherit citizenship from his father but not his mother would never fly in any court – not nearly 150 years after the passage of the 14th Amendment and nearly 100 years post-women’s suffrage.

            But all the authority points to “natural born citizen” being interpreted as a citizen at birth, meaning the citizenship of the parents is irrelevant. This is the overwhelming weight of authority, but you will never be convinced because there has never been a case deciding this exact point (i.e. one’s qualification to be President). Therefore, there remains this patina of doubt to which you clutch. As conservative as the judiciary currently is, if you can’t get a court to buy your argument, it has little legal merit.

      • ehancock

        Re: ““After reading the founder’s letters it’s clear to me their intent was to insure the president’s allegiance would be to the Republic, the people, and the Constitution and not to a foreign power, king, family or even political party, but to the people.”

        Are you saying that the US-born child of a foreign citizen has less allegiance to the USA than the US born child of a US citizen? If so justices Alito, Scalia and Roberts (whose mother’s maiden name was Podrasky) will disagree with you strongly. Moreover, since Alito and Scalia may even be dual citizens of Italy (Italy allows it based on the citizenship of grandparents), they will disagree with you on the idea dual citizenship bars eligibility, and the more broad idea that a dual citizen is likely to be less loyal to the USA than one that has only the citizenship of the USA.

        Re; ‘Chester Arthur had dual citizenship and never should have been allowed to become POTUS.”

        There is no evidence that Arthur hid the fact that he was a dual citizen or that his father was not a US citizen, and the same goes for James Buchanan (there is no evidence that his father was naturalized before he was born). Jefferson and Madison both were made citizens of France by the French national assembly, so they were for sure dual citizens when they were president. Woodrow Wilson was a dual national of England and the USA at birth due to his mother never relinquishing her British subject status. Some reports say that U.S. Grant and Eisenhower were both dual nationals at birth—Eisenhower due to old German laws that made the grandchildren of citizens German citizens at birth.

        Re: “A natural born citizen has no foreign allegiance because he is born of this land of citizen parents.”

        That is a birther theory, not supported by any evidence. Three state and one federal court and Meese and the Electoral College all disagree with it. You are right to say that the final judgement is made by the US Supreme Court. But you are dreaming that the US Supreme Court will find differently from the lower courts in this case. They know the legal precedent is the Wong Kim Ark case, which ruled that every child born in the country is Natural Born, and they know that the historical evidence of the use of the term Natural Born confirms that it comes from the common law and that in the common law it referred to the place of birth, not the parents.

        Re: “After reading the founder’s letters it’s clear to me their intent…”

        Under strict construction principles you are not allowed to make a ruling based on your speculation about “intent.” IF a law does not say “shirts are required,” the fact that the writers of the law forgot to say it is irrelevant. Until they write a new law that says “shirts are required,” they are not required.

        And the US Constitution does not say “the US born children of foreigners are not allowed to be president.” All that it says is that the person must be a Natural Born citizen, and that simply means a US citizen who was not naturalized.

        • RichE

          ehancock,
          My post was from a philosophical not literal point of view. I think allegiance was the primary concern, of the founders, for candidate president.

      • JeffH

        ehancock says “And the US Constitution does not say “the US born children of foreigners are not allowed to be president.” All that it says is that the person must be a Natural Born citizen, and that simply means a US citizen who was not naturalized.”

        Can you not comprehend what you just said? Once you become a citizen through naturalization, you’re a citizen, period. You have the same rights and responsabilities of natural born citizens with the sole exception that you cannot be president.

        A common misunderstanding of “natural born” citizenship comes from the Fourteenth Amendment, but a strict reading of the fourteenth amendment is quite clear that this only conveys an at birth naturalized citizenship. Those born in the United States at the time of adoption and afterwards were only citizens. Those who wrote the amendment knew exactly what they were doing. Because of the distinctive use of “natural born citizen” and “citizen,” in Article II, Section 1 the simple fact that being born in the United States does not make one a “natural born citizen,” it only makes one “a citizen.”

        To make the freed slaves citizens, naturalization was the only power the 14th Amendment granted Congress to use. Look it up in the Constitution. Congress had no intention and no authority to making everyone born under the 14th Amendment “a natural born citizen.”

        There is no doubt that anyone born under the 14th Amendment who is not subject is a “naturalized citizen,” or just “a citizen,” as the Amendment states. They are not natural born citizens.

        To further understand why this is so, is to look at the first clause carefully.

        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 words “born or naturalized” are joined with the conjunction “or,” and logically an or implies either of the two are equal. What they are equal in is being a citizen. Not “a natural born citizen.” This expressly negates the idea that simple birth of a person who is “subject to the jurisdiction” confers the coveted “natural born” status. If the term “citizen” did in fact convey a “natural born” status, then who were naturalized would be considered “natural born.”

        The Constitution directly specified 3 types of citizens, at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment as those who are “citizens,” those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and natural born citizens. The architects of the Fourteenth Amendment had two to choose from in granting citizenship under this amendment, they choose just a citizen, and rejected “a natural born citizen.”

      • ehancock

        Re: “Once you become a citizen through naturalization, you’re a citizen, period. You have the same rights and responsabilities of natural born citizens with the sole exception that you cannot be president.”

        That is precisely right. Every Natural Born Citizen over the age of 35 and having lived in the USA (except for presidents who have already served two terms) is eligible.

        NO Naturalized citizen, regardless of age is eligible.

        SO, who are the Natural Born Citizens???

        The US Supreme Court has stated that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the Common Law (that does not mean that we adopted the common law, simply that we are using the same terms) and that it refers to the place of birth.

        Re: “A common misunderstanding of “natural born” citizenship comes from the Fourteenth Amendment,

        That also is right. The meaning of Natural Born citizen does not come from the 14th amendment. It comes from the common law. The same meaning of Natural Born Citizen that was actually used in America (not Switzerland) when the Constitution was written still apples. And that meaning, as the Wong Kim Ark case and the historical research shows, refers to the place of birth and not to parents.

        Re: “…the simple fact that being born in the United States does not make one a “natural born citizen,” it only makes one “a citizen.”

        On the contrary, since the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth, the simple fact of being born in the USA (unless you are the child of a foreign diplomat) makes you both a citizen and a Natural Born Citizen. It does NOT make you a naturalized citizen. To be naturalized you have to have been born outside of the USA and then go through the normal naturalization procedure, waiting seven years, taking a test, swearing an oath. NO child born on US soil has to do that for the obvious reason that she or he is a full fledged US citizen at birth. And since the meaning of Natural Born is “born in the country” she or he is a Natural Born US Citizen at birth.

        Re: “Look it up in the Constitution. Congress had no intention and no authority to making everyone born under the 14th Amendment “a natural born citizen.”

        We are in complete agreement. The US Congress had no desire to change the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. It came from the common law and applied to children born in the country before the 14th Amendment and after the 14th Amendment.

        Re: “The words “born or naturalized” are joined with the conjunction “or,” and logically an or implies either of the two are equal. What they are equal in is being a citizen.”

        Yes, we are in agreement. As I said before the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with Natural Born status. The 14th Amendment is designed to confer citizenship. It makes Natural Born and naturalized citizens equal in most ways (naturalized citizens still can be deported, which is a tremendous difference) but it does not confer Natural Born status. Only fulfilling the criterion of NBC can do that, and the criterion is birth in the country.

        Re: “If the term “citizen” did in fact convey a “natural born” status, then who were naturalized would be considered “natural born.”

        We are in total agreement. The term citizen does not convey natural born status. Only fulfillment of the criterion of Natural Born status can do that, and the criterion is birth in the country.

        Re: “The Constitution directly specified 3 types of citizens…”

        The Constitution refers to citizens and Natural Born Citizens. Natural Born Citizens are a category within citizens. The other category are naturalized citizens. There are thus only two kinds of citizens: naturalized citizens and natural born citizens.

        Re: “I think allegiance was the primary concern, of the founders, for candidate president.”

        I agree with you (on a philosophical basis), and as Madison wrote, the sole criterion of allegiance used in the USA is the PLACE of birth.

        In a speech before the House of Representatives in May of 1789, James Madison said:

        “It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”

        Review the quotation carefully. Madison says that two criteria are possible, place and parentage, but he says that PLACE (the same criterion that yields Natural Born status) is the most certain, and then he lists PLACE as the one criterion that applies in the United States.

      • ehancock

        Re: “The Constitution is still the “Supreme Law” and the meaning is the same today as it was 250+ years ago despite the revisionists attempt to cloud it by saying otherwise.”

        We are in complete agreement that the meaning of the term Natural Born Citizen is exactly the way that it was used at the time that the Constitution was written, and historical research shows how the term was used at the time. Here is an example of how it was used:

        “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

        As you can see, the meaning of the phrase referred only to the place of birth, not to the parents. Natural Born Citizens were “those born within the state.”

    • ehancock
  • uvuvuv

    my racine county birth certificate from 1948 is what was then called a photostat, or a black on white photo. they didn’t have photocopiers then, this is how they had to do it. in 1960 they didn’t have photocopiers like they do now, one of the first was called a thermofax that required peeling a film off the finished copy. other copiers used coated paper with a gritty texture that smudged easily. i didn’t see the present type of copier until my college days starting in 1966. the birth certificate presented by obama is a copy of this later type. this is just like dan rather’s famous letter that used fonts that weren’t available on the typewriters used then. for example as you type your replies here, this is how typewriters printed then. this type face is called elite. now compare this text to that of obama’s birth certificate.

    • ehancock

      Yes, the long form birth certificate is a modern photocopy of the original in the files onto security paper, with the seal and the signature then added to it. That is the way that a modern official copy is made. The short form birth certificate—which is the same as the birth certificate shown by Romney—is a modern computer print out, generated by a clerk entering the data from the document in the files. The facts on both of them have been repeatedly confirmed by the officials in Hawaii—officials of both parties–and by the Index Data and by the birth notices in the newspapers.

      • ehancock

        Since Obama’s long form is a modern photocopy, it does indeed use type that was used at the time. But PDF does not necessarily show the type the way that a photocopy does.

  • brett

    for cb and anyone truly paying attention: my 7:50pm should have said the private sector did not have the want, there is certainly the means. and just to be clear, the charitable service that average joe’s contribute pales in comparison to what some charitable organizations waste on their own administration.

  • lean and mean 2012

    There is a good chance of Removing obama in 2012,lets hope so,this country could not tsake another 4 years of this “guy”(gay?)

    • Working Man

      Lean and mean 2012? I bet. Anyone sitting at a PC is usually bald, fat and ugly or has no life of his own.

      • JON

        Being bald applies to the men, but the rest of it definitely fits many of the haters on here.

  • ONTIME

    There is mounting doubt from evidence being collected that Barrak Sr. may not be the true sire of the invalid Barry, so not only does he not have a valid BC, he may not even have a valid Ol’man he can refer to. He may have known his mom but did his mom know who his Pop was? As mixed up and misconstrued as this guys origin is, it is is probably so embarrassing that he cannot bring himself to cope with his own lack of credentials, no wonder he is a lying pecker head…….the left has hired a mentally unstable crybaby to lead from the rear.

    • Jeff

      You would think that after 8 years of that idiot W that you guys would just shut up. But that would presume that Conservatives have the capacity for shame. Conservatives, no matter how wrong they are, are always right. It’s part of the DNA. Go blow your Uncle Dick Cheney.

    • ehancock

      There is mounting doubt that the father of Mitt Romney was George Romney. Haven’t you noticed the clear resemblance between Mitt and Harpo Marx?

      • Jeff

        I don’t doubt it. George Romney was a great guy, capable of admitting when he was wrong and changing his position for a reason. Mitt is a rich prick jerk and he always has been. Can you imagine a college student in the 60s demonstrating in favor of the war while pursuing every deferment to keep his own rich butt safe? Now, he’s claiming he really wanted to go. He’s so full of it I don’t know if he even knows he’s lying.

  • Skyskiers

    ehancock you are pathetic. Your tactics (from MEIN KAMPF) “Tell the
    big lie, shout it from the rooftops, and REPEAT THE LIE, REPEAT THE
    LIE, until you wear down the oppositition; won’t be successful today!

    Barry Soetoro is an illegal alien because he was adopted by (Lolo
    Soetoro) an Indonesian citizen. Barry is still an Indonesian citizen
    TODAY! That’s the reason for his lawyers spending millions of dollars
    hiding his state-side school records.
    HERE IS THE TRUTH YOU CAN’T HIDE, ehancock.

    Emerich de Vattel was a Swiss philosopher, diplomat, and legal expert
    who lived from 1714 – 1767, and whose theories laid the foundation of
    modern international law and political philosophy. Vattel’s book on the
    Law of Nations was released in 1758; in English, OUR FOUNDING
    FATHERS USED VATTEL’S LAWS TO DEFINE “NATURAL BORN
    CITIZEN!”

    THE FOLLOWING IS A DIRECT QUOTE BY EMERICH DE VATTEL!
    “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.”

    “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.”

    NOTE: DURING THAT 14 YRS THE RESIDENT HAS TO BE A

    CITIZEN!

    Click on the link for the full story.
    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22782

    • ehancock

      Re: “Barry Soetoro is an illegal alien because he was adopted by (Lolo
      Soetoro) an Indonesian citizen..”

      Birthers have made up the story of Obama being adopted. He never was. Adoption in Indonesia requires the action of a district court, and there hasn’t been any court documents found. Nor have Soetoro’s blood children addressed Obama as
      “brother”–because he never was. He was only for a time, until the divorce, a step-borther. Yes he used Soetoro’s name, but that is not illegal. In fact, I used an Asian name while I was in Asia. Obama never legally changed his name from Obama to Soetoro. And, for sure, he was never a citizen of Indonesia—as the Indonesian Embassy in Washington will confirm.

      The “millons of dollars.” That also is made up by birthers. There never was a lawsuit against Obama just for his birth certificate or just for records. Yes, there were lawsuits to keep him off the ballot and to stop the election, which Obama fought. But he fought to stay on the ballot and to allow the election. He never fought to hide records. And, in fact, he has shown his birth certificate—twice, the long form and the short form. The facts on both of them have been repeatedly confirmed by the officials in Hawaii, by the Index Data–a public volume listing the birth certificates on record by year–and by the birth notices in the Health Bureau Statistics section of the newspapers, which at the time were sent to the papers only by the DOH, and the DOH only sent them out for births in Hawaii.

      Re Vattel. Yes, that is what he said. He also said that every country should have a state religion and force people to join it.

      So, obviously, the question is whether the writers of the US Constitution followed Vattel, and the answer is that there is no evidence for it. Instead, they got the definition of Natural Born from the far more commonly used source at the time, the common law. The common law is mentioned about twenty times in the Federalist Papers, while Vattel is not mentioned at all. IF the writers of the Constitution had meant Natural Born Citizen to mean something other than what it meant in the common meaning at the time, the meaning in the common law, they would have told us. But there are no articles or letters saying “let us use the Vattel definition,” or “NBC should mean two citizen parents, not the place of birth as in the common law.”

      Since there is nothing like that, the US Supreme Court has ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case that the meaning of natural born citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth and that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is Natural Born.

      • Jeff

        Republicans have a strained relationship with truth and the things they believe. They believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God because their Grandaddy said so. They believe any damn fool thing anybody says about Obama, no matter how factually incorrect, because it fits their narrative: he’s foreign, he’s Muslim; he’s different; socialist; apologizing, etc. – all baloney but all accepted as absolute truth – just like the talking snake! No wonder these people would rather believe Rick Santorum than the great majority of chemists and physicists on issues like global warming.

  • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

    “Karolyn,”
    THE ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER Senator John McCain WOULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE. Senator McCain WOULD HAVE MADE MANY PEOPLE FEEL COMFORTABLE. I WANT A CAUCASIAN-MALE PRESIDENT – THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I VOTED FOR Senator McCain IN 2008. CAUCASIAN MALES ARE V-I-T-A-L TO THE “HEALTH” OF THIS NATION. PERIOD. [Let's not play games, people. Let's be "real" about our feelings.]. MANY PEOPLE IN THIS THREAD SEEM TO BE “CIRCLING AROUND” THIS POINT. YES – A REPUBLICAN-CAUCASIAN-MALE PRESIDENT IS THE ULTIMATE IDEAL. THIS COUNTRY IS BEING “TORN APART” BECAUSE THE PERSON OCCUPYING THE Oval Office DOES NOT LOOK LIKE MORE THAN SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF THIS COUNTRY’S POPULATION. IT IS IMPORTANT – IN 2012 – FOR CAUCASIANS AND NEGROES TO BE HONEST WITH EACH OTHER.

    CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

    • Jeff

      Finally, an honest man. A bigot, but an honest one. Much more than can be said for Romney.

  • Skyskiers

    ehancock ducks and doges the TRUTH. SIN has many tools but the handle that fits them all is a lie!
    Distortions, half-truths and outright lies are the first weapon of choice in the PROPAGANDA WARS the
    democrat/liberals have been waging against the American people.

    THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW THAT BARRY SOETORO IS A MARXIST!
    EVEN THE CONGRESS KNOWS THAT BARRY SOETORO IS AN ILLEGAL ALIEN. THE REASON BARRY
    SOETORO GOT ELECTED IS BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS ARE TRAITORS AND THE REPUBLICANS ARE
    COWARDS1

    READ THE ARTICLE FIRST, THEN WATCH THE VIDEO

    Click on the link to hear a private investigator explain that Obama is using a FAKE social security number from Connecticut.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-9QeJqSneA&feature=player_embedded

    THIS IS THE REAL BARRY SOETORO!

    This is an article written by an ex IRS investigator. Very interesting.

    Trump is correct, Barry Soetoro, AKA Obama is hiding something in his past that is very bad. and it may not be his citizenship. (Trump would not say this if he did not know something and he has the money to get the dirt.) As an IRS tax examiner, one of many former federal jobs, I have seen what it appears Barry Soetoro has done, mostly by illegal aliens, attempting to acquire a new identity in the U.S. and/or criminals looking to acquire a new ID.

    Barry, AKA Obama, was lawfully adopted by a foreign national, Lolo Soetoro, and Barry’s name was legally changed to “Barry Soetoro”. (Barry’s own admission) Barry Soetoro was also made an official legal Indonesian citizen. (again Barry’s own admission) The adoption would be noted in Barry’s vital statistics record in Hawaii on his original birth certificate.

    OR Lolo Soetoro may have always been Barry’s legal birth father. The public does not know for sure at this point who Barry’s father really was and Barry himself may not know. Barry was raised as a Muslim in Indonesia and attended a Catholic funded school that permitted all faiths to attend. Barry’s mother dropped him as a dependent for some reason, maybe even when Barry was adopted by Lolo Soetoro. His mother’s passport records dropped Barry as a dependent indicating Barry was no longer a legal dependent of his mothers. (The passport records of his mother have been produced showing Barry was no longer a dependent when Barry was permanently residing in Indonesia.)

    Barry went to Hawaii to live with his alleged grand parents after Lolo Soetoro and Barry’s mother divorced. A “certificate of live birth” can have names changed on it including a child’s birth name, and birth parent’s names. Even a modified date of birth can be on a “certificate of live birth”. This occurs frequently for adopted children where the birth parent does not want the child to know who they are. The public has no idea who Barry’s real birth father is or who Barry’s real birth mother is. (Barry could have been adopted by his mother) The original birth certificate is the only legal vital statistics record of a person’s birth parents, birth location, birth date, etc. I can get a “certificate of live birth” for a dead person; I cannot get a birth certificate of a dead person without “Deceased” on it. (I’ve tried)

    There is no evidence Barry Soetoro ever lawfully changed his name to “Barrack Hussein Obama”. There is no proof Barry Soetoro was born with the name “Barrack Hussein Obama”. I’m willing to bet the name “Barrack Hussein Obama” is not present on the real birth certificate as Barry’s birth name or as Barry’s birth father. I have pictures of me with my mother and Jimmy Buffet. that doesn’t make him my father even if I start using the name Jimmy Buffet.

    The public knows Barry Soetoro finished high school in Hawaii as Barry Soetoro and attended Occidental as Barry Soetoro where he did drugs and flunked out of school. After dropping out of Occidental, Barry showed up in New York, homeless and on drugs. (Barry’s own admission) Barry then hooked up with a Pakistani to live with and traveled back to Indonesia on his new boyfriend’s dime to renew his Indonesian passport and traveled to Pakistan with him.

    Ask any law enforcement officer in a large city or detective and they will tell you homeless young men on drugs in large cities usually end up as male prostitutes. Barry ended up as a world traveler with a degree. (Not likely) Barry Soetoro returned to New York from Pakistan and began using the fictitious name “Obama” for some reason.(again Barry Soetoro’s own admission) One could only suspect that a person addicted to drugs returning from Pakistan to New York , the main route for Afghan heroin into the U.S., maybe Barry had a reason to start using a new name. There are literally over 1 million open warrants on file in New York . maybe Barry is one of them?..

    After spending some time in New York allegedly working under the name “Obama”, It appears Barry used the fictitious name “Barrack Hussein Obama” for the first time to file his federal taxes in Connecticut at a Post Office Box for the purpose of evading paying taxes in New York and/or to establish a new identity. (This is a felony with no statute of limitation.)

    When the IRS received Barry Soetoro’s federal tax filing, the IRS could not attach the name Barrack Hussein Obama to the SSI number provided or the address provided. So the IRS assigned the fictitious name “Barrack Hussein Obama” a tax ID number for a person from Connecticut (Where Barry unlawfully filed a federal tax form using a false name.

    Barry Soetoro began using the tax ID number as his SSI number when using the fictitious name Barrack Obama. This is why Barry Soetoro has a Connecticut SSI number. When I worked for the IRS, I saw this occur more than once and yes, it is a felony to knowingly file a fraudulent federal tax forms.

    Most of the politicians that cheat on their taxes claim it was an accident. That is how they get away with their tax cheat crimes. Using a fake name is no accident.

    It appears Barry fled New York to Chicago using his new identity to get a job. He likely ordered a fake diploma to bolster his new identity as “Obama”. Fake Diploma’s were very big in the 80′s and diploma mills were even being used by federal workers to get promotions. There is evidence his alleged attendance at Columbia was faked (Barry never attended Columbia ) and Barry lied his way into Harvard (he had no transcripts to get in. Including telling the Saudi royal family he was fighting in Afghanistan with the Muslim Jihad against the Russians, so they would help him get into a law school.

    The Saudi’s apparently loved Barry’s story of Jihad in Pakistan/Afghanistan and paid for Barry to attend Harvard under the name “Obama”. The Saudi family has admitted to paying for Obama to attend Harvard and gave Harvard a gift of $20 million dollars. Harvard in turn made their special attendee President of the law review a person that never wrote a single law review..

    I guess that is what $20 million buys at Harvard. It is unlikely Barry was a Jihadist and was most likely a drug mule if anything, maybe even a CIA street hire to haul Afghan heroin back to New York, so the Afghans could buy U.S. made stinger missiles with U.S. dollars to shoot down Russian helicopters?.
    I hired people over seas to do work below my pay grade all the time, even foreign nationals. I think this is the story Barry told the Saudi’s, but he was most likely really just a drug mule/dealer and probably still wanted on an outstanding warrant in New York .

    Barry’s selective service registration is not normal either. Click on the link for info on Barry’s Selective Service number.
    http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Military/News/ObamaDraftReg-20081114.pdf

    After I looked at Barry’s selective service filing I noticed it was most likely fraudulent too based on the name he used. Barry did not start using the name “Obama” until he returned from Pakistan (long after he flunked out of school in California ) His selective service record (maintained in Chicago coincidentally) shows he registered at a Hawaiian post office as “Obama” in Sept 1980.
    Problem, Barry was getting high in California at Occidental in Sept 1980 (Barry’s own admission) and was not using the fictitious name “Obama” at that time. Barry began using the fictitious name “Obama”
    only after he returned from Pakistan.

    The selective service filing is fraudulent. NEW NOTE – On the the Selective Service Registration, Barry did not have the Connecticut Tax ID number he used on the Registration until after he began using the name “Obama” in New York. More evidence his Selective Service filing is fraudulent.

    Barry returned to Chicago and attended a semi-Christian radical black church with his first female love Michelle. Barry admits keeping in touch with Phil Boener, who traveled to New York from Occidental to be with Barry and was most likely Barry’s first love.

    Barry still could not get a real job, because he was still a fraud, even with his Harvard degree in hand he could lie and take the Bar exam, but he could not work as a lawyer for a major law firm without a back ground investigation and he would never pass one. So, Michelle got Barry a job at her law firm.
    Barry never filed a case alone and never filed a motion. He wrote lots of memos according to the law firm where Barry worked. (I think they knew Barry was a fraud and didn’t want to be sued by previous clients)

    Barry rescinded his law licenses, so as not to be disbarred for fraud. The Bar knows Barry lied on his application. Michelle also had to turn over her law license for her involvement in corruption with the Chicago mayors office.

    With time on his hands Barry, a well spoken black man, was able to get elected to a state office, oddly because he looked for fraud in his opponents voter registrations and got his opponent disqualified from running.
    Barry a well versed liar was a natural in state politics. He used his political influence to get himself a position as a lecturer at Chicago’s law school. Barry embellished this position as a
    “professor of law” which everyone knows is completely false. Barry was not a professor or even a specialist at anything but lying.

    On a whim Barry ran for United States Senate for the State of Illinois. Politicians do this all the time to make a name for themselves even if they can’t win. At the time the Republican Ryan was a shoe in for the Senate seat, so no real Democrat contenders entered the race, but Barry did.

    On a fluke after the primary Ryan’s wife Jeri Ryan (Seven of nine from Star Trek) went public that her husband was making her have sex with other people while he watched. Ryan dropped out and Alan Keys moved from Maryland to run against Barry Soetoro.

    The election got all kinds of press because there were no blacks in the U.S. Senate and one of these black men was going to be a Senator. Alan Keys did his best to warn everyone Barry was not who he claimed to be, but the public saw him as a carpet bagger.

    Barry kept the lie going and presented himself as a clean black man that talked like a white man. Illinois elected Barry to the U.S. Senate. The Democrats had already began scrubbing Barry’s back ground when Ryan dropped out. Phil, Barry’s boy friend from Occidental, was found working in California as a communications specialist (receptionist) for a dental hygienist school and given a diploma from Columbia and cover story. The rest of Barry’s drug friends were all given jobs or money by the Democrat machine to keep quiet.

    Because Barry was such a news maker as the only Black in the Senate, and he could speak like a white man he was made key speaker for the Democrat convention. Barry then decided to run for President to keep the lie going.
    No one thought to question Barry’s back ground in the Democratic party. They helped cover up the ugly back ground. The only person jumping up and down warning Barry was not who he claimed to be was
    Alan Keys and he was discarded as just an angry loser.

    Now we have a complete fraud sitting in the Office of the President. Clearly the most corrupt, inexperienced, and ignorant President in the history of the United States who’s only quality is that he can lie with a straight face.

    Barry Soetoro is more of a fraud than Bernie Madoff and we can only hope his house of cards will one day fall down. This is what the main stream media is feeding to the American people as a fine up standing leader who deserves a second term as our President. This needs to be passed around all over the Internet.

    • Jeff

      Why, exactly, did you leave the IRS? Psychiatric disability? You’re full of conjecture but a bit short on evidence.

  • oldbutnotadumbass 2012

    At least Mcain had more experiances than Obama,thats for sure!!!!

  • Gangbuster 2012

    I will agree with you on that ,oldbutnotadumbass.

  • Gangbuster 2012

    I didn’t vote for him that same reason!!!!!

  • middle man 2012

    I don’t think we will have around for much longer(at least I hope not).

  • middle man 2012

    I mean Obama !!!

    • Jeff

      Assuming you guys are sober on Election Day and remember where your polling place is. You’ll go vote for that liar Romney because he’s so experienced in foreign policy. Wait, he’s got the whole Bush Neocon team to help him occupy a few more countries – Syria, Iran – am I forgertting anyone? Or are you just assuming he’s lying about that, too? That’s the best you can hope for with Romney – that he’s too dishonest to actually do the things he’s saying he will. The one campaign where you hope the candidate will break his campaign promises.

      Is lying one of the tenets of the Mormon Church? Just wondering.

  • Karolyn

    I would like to thank ehancock for all the great info. You appear to have answers for everything birthers are saying. Unfortunately, as they say about their opponents, they will never believe anything other than what they have their minds set on. I must admit that I have wavered in my own belief about the topic but have yet to be convinced that he is not who he says he is. As long as there is no solid proof to the contrary, that is still my stand.

  • needfulthings

    NO ! YOU have suspend all logic, IF you really had a document expert, they could NOT determined a “DIGITAL COPY” is a forgery or NOT !!!! It’s a copy dumb sh!t . A COPY (from what ever means) will not show the official STAMPED SEAL of the issuing agency. Your so called experts ain’t !!!! You are a sick MO-FRO that needs money/attention or both and this is the only way you can obtain money or yer 15 minutes of fame !!!

    • ehancock

      Precisely.

      The birthers’ “experts” are claiming that there is a forgery based on their interpretation of the image of the long-form birth certificate. But we do not know that they are really experts.

      What we DO know is that they hate Obama and that such conservative leaders as Ann Coulter and the National Review do not believe them. Other experts, such as John Woodman, a member of the Tea Party who dislikes Obama’s policies, says that there is nothing wrong with his birth certificate.

      http://www.amazon.com/Barack-Obamas-Birth-Certificate-Fraud/product-reviews/0983759251/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

      And remember that Hawaii is thousands of miles from the nearest foreign country and that the number of women who traveled late in pregnancy in 1961 was very very low.

      And remember that officials of both parties in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed the existence of Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate and the facts on it (including that he was born at Kapiolani Hospital, which by the way did exist in 1961). And the existence of Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate is further confirmed by the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961 and by the public Index Data file that shows that a birth certificate file for Obama was created in 1961.

  • Pingback: Obama’s family fraudulent identity. « CITIZEN.BLOGGER.1984+ GUNNY.G BLOG.EMAIL

  • http://Yahoo Helen Ramsey

    Obama’s REAL father is Frank Marshall Davis who, at the age of 55, impregnated his teenage mother. Marriage to Obama Sr. was the eliminate the problem for Communist member Davis. Therefore, being born in Kenya makes him a citizen since his father and mother were both US citizens. The resemblance is remarkable. Let’s call for a DNA test since Davis (died in ’87) had 5 children. Search “Dreams from My Real Father” and you can view the evidence for your self. As my Mom always said, “Oh what a web we weave when we practice to deceive.” –Old Helen

    • RichE

      Wow! Why isn’t this birther issue a reality show on TV?

    • ehancock

      Re Davis:

      Romney’s REAL father was Harpo Marx. Haven’t you noticed the resemblance?

      If you want to make up stories about Davis, then we can make them up about Harpo Marx.

      Obama was not born in Kenya. He was born in Hawaii.

    • Jeff

      Helen:

      Sounds like the beginning of an interesting book. How would the law consider his paternity since Barack, Sr. acknowledged paternity and the President is now 50, having grown up believing him to be his father. A good vehicle for exploring the whole issue of citizenship, birthplace, and rightwing paranoia. Doesn’t have to be true – just plausible.

      • RichE

        “plausible” Geez! any more restrictive regulation?

      • RichE

        Jeff,
        Sorry. Yes, you said JeffH was a Nazi and you didn’t say the Birthers were Nazis, but it made sense the Nazis would infiltrate the Bithers and it made sense why this issue won’t die. The Nazis won’t let it die.

      • needfulthings

        OH GAWD jeff !!!! Now we gotta play ‘WHOS YER DADDY” WHEN ARE YOU CRAZIES GONNA GO AWAY????

        • Jeff

          I was talking about a work of fiction to illustrate the seams in the law of citizenship. Like a Jodi Picoult novel.

          • needfulthings

            Thanks for clearing that up Jeff.

  • RichE

    JeffH, are you a Nazi?

    • jopa

      RichE; I don’t believe him to be a true Nazi even though a lot of his past posts were indicative of a person with a white supremest type principles.I thought at one time he even belonged to the KKK as many do on this site.In the end most have realized he has no credibility whatsoever.

      • Jeff

        Just because he has no stolen art in his house in Fresno doesn’t mean he’s not a sympathizer.

      • RichE

        jopa,
        It’s an epiphany. When Jeff said JeffH was a Nazi this whole birther issue made sense. Hitler got into the labor unions via skilled rhetorical hate-speech. My epiphany is the type of group doesn’t matter; the group can be conservative or liberal. What matters is the group listens to and encourages hate-speech. I never did understand the association of socialism to Nazism, but now I do. Nazism isn’t socialism it’s hate centric Nationalism.

        Thanks Jeff I learned something.

    • JeffH

      “It’s too bad that stupidity isn’t painful.”
      – Anton LaVey

      “The wise understand by themselves; fools follow the reports of others”
      -Tibetan Proverb

      • RichE

        First you say, ‘ignorance is bliss’ then you say, “It’s too bad that stupidity isn’t painful” Did you know Hitler was a Sadomasochist?

  • Illana Olsen

    Mike in MI: Teacher bonuses???? What in the world are you talking about?????! I am a teacher in Michigan, and I have lost $600 per month from what I was making about two years ago. Does that sound like a bonus to you?

  • lean and mean 2012

    I Guess Only Nov2012 we will know for sure

  • Gangbuster 2012

    This time maybe people will get wise,and vote in the way that it will help America!!!!

    • RichE

      Gangbuster 2012,
      Sorry to rain on your parade, but that’s what was said last time and the time before that. I don’t know what it would take to make/insure a perpetually corruption free society. Throughout history the natural progression for societies is to flourish, become corrupt and then die. In that vein it would take something unnatural yuk!

  • Karolyn

    Here’s a site that answers all allegations of birthers. I am certainly not a skeptic, but I’m happy they exist. They help to keep things balanced.
    http://politics.skepticproject.com/articles/obama/obama-was-not-born-in-the-united-states/#obama_cannot_be_president_because_both_parents_must_be_citizens_for_one_to_be_eligible

  • Karolyn
  • Pingback: Hawaii goes radioactive on Obama’s eligibility « CITIZEN.BLOGGER.1984+ GUNNY.G BLOG.EMAIL

  • Thinking About

    YADA, YADA, YADA, I am glad so many of you feel Obama is not a citizen of the US, not born in the USA and have nothing better to do in your life but run this story over and over until you think everyone will believe the garbage you deliver. You apparently don’t like our Constitution and are living under some made up rules and there is really not a cure for your illiness. Perhaps when the healthcare bill becomes fully functional you will be able to seek therapy for your condition. Sorry you have had and are having such a difficult life.

    • RichE

      Thinking About,
      Why would you waste your time telling us we’re wasting our time?

      • Thinking About

        Perhaps one of these days a big light will come on for the birthers, maybe they will read US Code Title 8 Section 1401 and just maybe they will spend their money to go into courts and have the courts explain to them they have been wrong. Just maybe.

        • RichE

          Thinking About,
          Are you saying I’m a birther and please define birther?

  • FEDUP!

    Tony: Please explain how it has been proven? I really want to know! I can’t seem to find anything at all proving it. Please help me! I do however see a lot of proof that he is not. Didn’t his own lawyer say it is a forgery therefore it can’t be used against him? That is what I have been finding? You? I say enough of the BS Sheesh. Our country is falling apart by design. Wake Up!

    • Karolyn

      Have you checked out the links I posted above? If not, why not? If nothing else, what the skeptic writes is plausible. How can you be so sure your sources are absolutely correct? In truth, we cannot be sure of ANYTHING!

    • ehancock

      Re: “Didn’t his own lawyer say it is a forgery therefore it can’t be used against him?”

      Answer: No she didn’t say it. That was made up by a birther “reporter.”

  • FEDUP!

    Thinking about: I doubt you think at all. Thanks for nothing!

    • Thinking About

      Have you ever?

  • http://wildeyguns.com Wildey

    That birth claus in our Constitution isn’t so much about where the President was born but about his culture. In time, America had adapted a unique culture which was expressed in our Constitution. The Founders wanted to put every safe guard into the Constitution they could to insure the Presidents would have that cuture. Obama is 180 degrees out of whack with the American culture. Regardless of whether he was born in Hawaii, and I think Kenya is a better bet, he in no way lives up to his oath to the Constitution. He is a wouldbe communist function like a fascist. It seems to me his acts contrary to the Constitution are more than enough to kick him out of the country. If the Constitution isn’t considered law, then what is it?

    • RichE

      Wildey,
      Obama is, if anything, Mr. Rags-to-Riches, the epitome of the American Dream. Wow! I can’t believe you said he’s 180 out of phase with the American Dream. The Nazis won’t have any trouble infiltrating your clan.

      “I hate you, you hate me” Geez! You’re nothing but a cathartic hate moron.

    • ehancock

      If you feel that culturally he is not an American, you have the right to vote against him. That is all.

      He was born in Hawaii, as his birth certificate proves. Only 21 people came to the USA from Kenya in 1961, and there is no evidence that Obama’s mother and Obama were among them. There is also proof, confirmed by WND, that Obama’s father was actually in Hawaii on August 4, 1961—so the idea that Obama’s mother traveled ten thousand miles while late in pregnancy to Kenya without her husband is ridiculous.

  • RichE

    Walks like a duck, talks like a duck, must be a duck.

    From: http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/05/early-use-of-the-term-natural-born-citizen/

    3) Then, in 1774, a translation by J. Patsall was published of Quintlian’s Institutes of the Orator. This was an ancient Roman manual on how to be a public speaker.
    In that book, Quintilian advises his pupils, “Therefore, If possible, every word, and the very tone of voice, should bespeak the natural born citizen of Rome, that the language may be purely Roman, and not so by a right different from birth and education.”

  • RichE

    After the Declaration of Independence, the terms, “natural born subject” and “natural born citizen” were used interchangeably. After the Constitution, “natural born citizen” becomes the term of choice.

  • RichE

    I love it!!!!!!!!!!! “Natural born citizen” for dummies

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/natural-born-citizenship-for-dummies/

  • ehancock

    Obama has already released a real birth certificate. In fact, he has released a real birth certificate twice–the short form and the long form–and the facts on them have been repeatedly confirmed by the officials in Hawaii (Republicans and Democrats) and by the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers, and by the Index Data (a public file showing the birth certificates that are on file that shows one for Obama under 1961).

    http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2011/04/in_hawaii_its_easy_to_get_birt.html

    • RichE

      Campaign finance, I’m taking a fork on the Birther Trail, can the presidency be bought? Money talks, but is it covered by freedom of speech? The birther focus is on dotting every ‘I’ and crossing every ‘T’ in “natural born citizen”, but how will that prevent a power from buying a “natural born citizen”? What is the best way to insure America is led by a true citizen of the Republic, a disciple of democracy? I like it, a natural born disciple of democracy.

      • ehancock

        The best way is the traditional way, to vote for the candidate you prefer.

    • needfulthinks

      Ehancock’s got it RIGHT ! Thats just the way it is, that’s the truth, a fact(s) ! I also know that “SOME PEOPLE” ya just can’t reach, they are full of hate and will never see the issue for what it is ………. people making money off of FOOLS ! .. I’m done with this subject and off the Central Michigan to meet ELVIS !!!!!! grin

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.