Tuesday, February 3, 2015

7 'Facts' About The Obama Birth Certificate Controversy

Actually, the first "fact" is an erroneous contention which is refuted outright by the second fact....






(NewsMax) The "birther" scandal has been made light of by the media and by President Obama. However, if it were the case that Obama's birth certificate were forged or otherwise invalid, under Article Two of the U.S. Constitution he would be ineligible to be the president of the United States.

Here are seven facts about Barack Obama's birth certificate controversy:

1. Some people, dubbed by the media as "birthers," allege that Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii, but in his father's home country of Kenya. According to The Huffington Post, even if Obama had been born in Kenya, "the president still would have been a U.S. citizen at birth, because his mother was an American, a fact which nobody to this date denies."

2. In 2008, Jim Geraghty from the National Review Online suggested Barack Obama release his birth certificate to "debunk some rumors." In his article Geraghty wrote, "one could argue that he would not meet the legal definition of natural-born citizen under because U.S. law at the time of his birth required his natural-born parent (his mother) to have resided in the United States for “ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.” Obama's mother was 18 when he was born which means she did not meet this requirement.

Read The Full Story

89 comments:

  1. The BC is a poor forgery like everything else with Obama. NOw what is the question??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. THAT is what birthers CLAIM---and they claim it over and over and over and over (what else would you expect? They are birthers after all).

      The fact that Hawaii sent the short form and long form birth certificates to Obama and that ALL the facts on the published copies are exactly the same as on what they sent to him has been repeatedly confirmed by the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii----including the former Republican governor of Hawaii, a strong supporter of Sarah Palin.

      And birther sites have not shown their readers all (or actually ANY) of the many real experts who say that layers are normal when complex documents are scanned, compressed, put into pdf----and then that file is opened in Adobe Illustrator (that is what Adobe Illustrator is SUPPOSED to do)..


      And birther sites have never been able to answer this:

      http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/11/blogger-shows-obama-birth-certificate-artifacts-caused-by-xerox-machine-no-joy-in-birtherville/

      Delete
    2. Why haven't American leaders done all in their power to defend our constitution, including vetting candidates? Also, why hasn't Obama held a 'Fireside Chat', and answer any and all questions the Americans have about him?

      Delete
    3. Obama's background was checked---"vetted" if you will---by three of the toughest teams of checkers in the world. All of them would have been delighted to prove that Obama was not eligible, and not one of them did. Those were the teams of Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Mitt Romney.

      BTW, you can do a bit of "vetting" yourself. If you can show any rational way that Obama was born in a foreign country considering all the following FACTS, then post your answer on this site and call your congressman and senators and tell them.

      For Obama to have been born in a foreign country:

      (1) Obama’s relatives would have had to have been rich enough (and they weren’t. In 1961 Obama’s grandfather was a furniture salesman, and his grandmother was a low-level employee in a bank [she did not become a vice president until 1970], and his father went from Kenya to Hawaii on a free flight) and dumb enough to send their daughter at high risk of stillbirth to a foreign country to give birth—-—despite there being fine hospitals in Hawaii;

      (2) Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled overseas ALONE (since WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961) and somehow got Obama back to the USA without getting him entered on her US passport or getting a visa for him (which would have had to have been applied for in a US consulate in that country and the records would still exist);

      (3) Obama’s relative would have had to have gotten the officials in Hawaii to record his birth in Hawaii despite (as birthers claim) his being born in another country and somehow got the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley to lie (and since the woman’s father’s name really was Stanley, Obama’s relatives would have had to have found one of the very few women in Hawaii with fathers of that name to do it).


      (Oh, and there isn’t even proof that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961, and very very few 18-year-olds did, and EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad late in pregnancy in 1961 because of the risk of stillbirths. Yet birther sites hope that a few GULLIBLE people will just assume that she was one of the few to have a passport and one of the extremely few women to travel abroad late in pregnancy, and that the birth certificate is forged and the officials of BOTH parties who have confirmed it and the Index Data and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers and the teacher who wrote home are all lying. )

      In short, Obama was vetted, and he was really born in Hawaii, and because the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and includes every child born in the USA---yes EVERY child including anchor babies---he is a Natural Born Citizen and eligible to be president.

      Delete
    4. Mark, like all Kool Aid drinkers can't stand the truth or the facts; all you have to offer is a schol child's response equivalent to na-na-na-nana! Grow up you mentally disordered lefty useful idiot!

      Delete
    5. Anonymous, Obama's BC is a fraud. There was no hospital in Hawaii at the time he was born with the name that is on his birth certificate. The Name Kenya is on his birth certificate. The country was not called Kenya at that time. His mother was 18, so she had not resided in the U.S.5 years after she was 16, which was the law then. He had not been vetted by Congress. If he were legal, he would not be afraid to let us see his background. I heard Obama say on a video in 2007 (I believe that was the year), that he was born in Kenya. His bio gives his birth place at Kenya. Remember, the country was not called Kenya when he was born. You have been snookered

      Delete
    6. Obama's BC is not a fraud, and the BIRTHER research that "that there was no hospital in Hawaii at the time with the name that is on his birth certificate" is wrong. (What else would you expect? It is birther research.)

      A hospital with precisely the same name as on Obama's birth certificate did exist in Hawaii in 1961, and we know this for certain. For CERTAIN.

      How do we know for certain? Two ways. First, there are birth certificates for the Nordyke Twins on WND's web site, and as you know, WND is a birther site---so it is highly unlikely to have forged those birth certificates. And the birth certificates for the Nordyke Twins have the name of the hospital on it. And what was the name of the hospital? Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital.

      Here's the site: http://www.wnd.com/2009/07/105347/

      And you can search for Obama's long form yourself and see that it says "Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital"---so the names were exactly t he same.

      The second way is really simple.

      You (or somebody rational, not necessarily you, of course) can call up Kapiolani Hospital, ask for the PR department, and ASK them what the name was in 1961 (it was Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital). Here's the telephone number: (808) 983-6000)

      Okay, so the birther research was crap. (How did they get it wrong? Simple, there were several hospitals founded by Queen Kapiolani. The "researchers" simply picked the wrong one and showed that it merged with another hospital. If they had picked the right one, it would have said Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital from an earlier name change which was in the 1930s.)

      So much for the stupidity about the hospital name.

      Now for the truly dumb statement "the country was not called Kenya at the time."

      Why is that so dumb? Because, duh, people can come to the USA from COLONIES just the way that they can come from countries. At the time there were a lot of COLONIES in the world, and Kenya was one of them. Of course it wasn't a country. It was a colony.

      And what was the name of the colony? Answer: It was called THE KENYA COLONY. And where was it located? In East Africa. So the entry "Kenya East Africa" on Obama's father's place of birth line is correct.

      Re: "His mother was 18, so she had not resided in the U.S.5 years after she was 16, which was the law then..."

      Answer, once again, you are dumb. That law applied ONLY to births outside of the USA, and Obama was born inside the USA, in Hawaii.

      Delete
    7. Continuing:


      Re: "He had not been vetted by Congress."

      Answer: Obama's election was confirmed by the US Congress twice UNANIMOUSLY (and that included the votes of Rep. Michele Bachmann and Rep. Ron Paul). And his background was vetted by three of the toughest vetting teams in the world---those of Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Mitt Romney. And NONE of them had a shred of evidence that Obama was born anywhere else than in Hawaii.

      Re: " If he were legal, he would not be afraid to let us see his background."

      Answer: However, he DID let us see his background. He showed his short form and long form birth certificates from Hawaii, and the officials in Hawaii confirmed that they sent them to him and that ALL the facts on the published copies match what they sent.

      Re: " I heard Obama say on a video in 2007 (I believe that was the year), that he was born in Kenya."

      Answer: Sure you did. And did you also hear that radio broadcast from the tooth fairy?

      Re: " His bio gives his birth place at Kenya."

      Answer: That is where ALL the crap about Obama being born in Kenya comes from. And, guess what, it is a mistake. The literary agent who wrote the bio admitted to making the mistake and not checking with Obama and not telling him when it was published---so he could not fix it.

      BTW, a bio by a literary agent is never proof of a place of birth? What is proof of a place of birth? Answer: A birth certificate, of course---and Obama's birth certificate shows that he was born in Hawaii, and the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that they sent it to him and that ALL the facts on the published copies match what they sent to him.

      Re: "Remember, the country was not called Kenya when he was born..."

      Answer: This has been answered above. Once again, you can come to the USA from colonies just the way that you come from countries----and the name of Kenya at the time was THE KENYA COLONY.

      Talk about "snookered." That's what happened to YOU.

      Moreover, you are so gullible as to assume that Obama's mother had a passport in 1961 (there is no evidence that she did and at the time very very very few 18-year-olds did). And you are so gullible as to believe that she traveled abroad ALONE (since WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii all of 1961) in the last few months of her first pregnancy------at a time when virtually no women in the last few months of pregnancy traveled abroad because of the relatively high risk of stillbirths.

      You are so GULLIBLE as to assume that both of those highly unlikely things happened AND that Obama's birth certificate is forged AND that the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii are lying about it AND that the Index Data and the birth notices on two separate microfilm rolls in two separate libraries are forged. AND you were also willing to believe that Kapiolani Maternity & Maternity Hospital had a different name and that you could not come to the USA from colonies.

      I hope that there are a few rational people visiting this site who are not as gullible as you.

      Delete
    8. For some of you deniers, there are some things you can look at yourself to see why this birth certificate is a forgery. The name given as to the hospital where Obama was born was not changed to that name for ten years after this certificate was supposedly written. How did they know to put a name that didn't exist at that time?

      Another little tidbit of information is the race of BO's father. It is listed as African. At the time of this document, Blacks were listed as Negro or Colored. There was no African American for more than ten years. So how did these people know to list him as African? That is like calling anyone from this country not a Caucasian or Black, but rather American. Why has this hospital where he was born never erected a statue, put up a plaque, or made any kind of notation that he was born there?

      A couple other things you can look at: why was Obama's mother's name signed as Dunham and not Obama? On records such as this the name is supposed to be signed as it is typed out, or it shows there could be a forgery.

      Look at the time of the birth given. Do you see how the P.M. is typed out? On any typewriter, a capital letter, if the shift key is not completely pressed, will be above the line of the normal keys. The "M" is below the line. That is an impossibility. There were no printers or word processors at that time to printout these forms. They were done strictly by typewriters.

      You can also look at lines of the name of the hospital and the address. The lines printed on those lines on the left side of the page don't line up with the x's on the right side of the page. The x's are about a half line below the other data. Why was that done? Usually, people typing aren't going to try and realign the paper to fit a box each time they come up to that line.

      What I have listed is just a few things that is wrong with this document. Maybe you libs are going to have trouble in accepting facts.

      Delete
    9. Re: ". The name given as to the hospital where Obama was born was not changed to that name for ten years after this certificate was supposedly written. How did they know to put a name that didn't exist at that time? "

      That was BIRTHER research. It is not true. The name of the hospital was exactly the same as on Obama's birth certificate. Precisely the same.

      How do we know for sure? Two ways, both of which anyone can see for themselves---so why not check what I say?

      First, there are birth certificates shown for the Nordyke Twins on WND (a birther site). Those are photos of the original birth certificates sent to the parents of the Nordyke Twins (white on black type). And the were born one day after Obama, as the birth certificate shows. And what is the name of the hospital?

      Answer: It is Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital. And what is the name of the hospital on Obama's birth certificate. It is Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital.

      Here is the WND site with the photos of the birth certificates of the Nordyke Twins.

      http://www.wnd.com/2009/07/105347/

      The second way to prove that the name of the hospital was Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital in 1961 is even more simple---wait for it---it is to call up the hospital and ASK what the name was in 1961?

      Here is the telephone number: (808) 983-6000---ask for the Public Relations Department.

      (How did birther "researchers" make their mistake? Simple---Queen Kapiolani founded several hospitals for women. They simply picked the wrong one and showed that IT merged with another hospital.

      The rest of the above crap has the same degree of correctness and stems from the same MOTIVE.


      For example: "Look at the time of the birth given. Do you see how the P.M. is typed out? On any typewriter, a capital letter, if the shift key is not completely pressed, will be above the line of the normal keys. The "M" is below the line. That is an impossibility. There were no printers or word processors at that time to printout these forms. They were done strictly by typewriters."

      Answer: Simple, you have forgotten that MANUAL typewriters tended to SKIP---meaning that the carriage went up and down when ordinary type was shifted to capital letters, and sometimes the letters did not come out even with the other letters. (A short memory.)

      Other "anomalies" are explained by this:

      http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/11/blogger-shows-obama-birth-certificate-artifacts-caused-by-xerox-machine-no-joy-in-birtherville/

      ALL the claims are explained by the motive of the person who posted the claims. It is the same motive that caused birther sites to LIE about what Obama's Kenyan grandmother said. She really said that Obama was born in HAWAII in three interviews. Birthers only showed PART of one of them, cutting off the tape recordings on their sites just before she said: "In Hawaii, where his father was studying at the time"---now, I wonder what was the motive for them doing that?


      Delete
    10. Further to: "Re: ". The name given as to the hospital where Obama was born was not changed to that name for ten years after this certificate was supposedly written. How did they know to put a name that didn't exist at that time? "

      THAT claim comes from one of the standard "Four Simple Questions" e-mails and Web postings that birther sites have put online for the last five years or so. Many of the sites do not allow the answers to the four questions to be posted----now, I wonder why not?

      Here are all four questions and answers:

      Question: “In 1961 people of color were called “Negroes.” So how can the Obama “birth certificate” state he is “African-American” when the term wasn’t even used at that time?”

      ANSWER: First it does not say “African-American.” It says “African.” Only African.

      The explanation is simple. In Hawaii you were allowed to use any word you wanted to describe your race. There was no checklist, and no one stood over you saying what you had to enter. There are entries in Hawaii of people listing their race as “American.” So you were allowed to use any word you wanted.

      And what was the word that African exchange students commonly used to describe their race in the 1960s? Answer: African. AFRICAN.



      Delete
    11. Continuing:

      Question: “… Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole 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 yet exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known then as the “British East Africa Protectorate”.”

      Answer. You are out of date with that name. Kenya stopped being called the British East African Protectorate in 1920. In that year it was renamed. What was the name? THE KENYA COLONY.

      In short, it was called Kenya (Kenya short for “The Kenya Colony”), and it was in East Africa, so the entry Kenya, East Africa is correct.

      Question: On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is “Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital”. This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called “KauiKeolani Children’s Hospital” and “Kapi’olani Maternity Home”, respectively. ”

      Answer: You are referring to two other hospitals. But, Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital DID exist in 1961.

      How do we know? Well, on WND’s site there are birth certificates for the Nordkye Twins, born one day after Obama in the same hospital, and what is the name of the hospital on their birth certificates? Answer: Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital.

      Question: "Perhaps a clue comes from Obama’s book on his father. He states how proud he is of his father fighting in WW II.

      I’m not a math genius, so I may need some help from you. Barack Obama’s “birth certificate” says his father was 25 years old in 1961 when Obama was born. That should have put his father’s date of birth approximately 1936. If my math holds (Honest! I did that without a calculator!!!) Now we need one that hasn’t been altered to satisfy the author’s goals to verify that WW II was basically between 1939 and 1945. Just how many 3 year olds fight in Wars? Even in the latest stages of WW II his father wouldn’t have been more than 9 years old. Does that mean that Mr. Obama is a liar, or simply chooses to alter the facts to satisfy his imagination or political purposes ?"



      Answer: Obama’s book clearly says that his GRANDfather fought in WWII, not his father. His GRANDfather. and in fact Obama’s GRANDfather really did fight in WWII. Obama’s book did not say, nor did Obama (though there is a forged video that claims that he said it) that his father, who was indeed too young to fight in WWII, fought in WWII. He said, and his book said, that his GRANDfather fought in WWII. (Why not check these things before posting???)

      And now a question for rational readers. What do you suppose led someone to claim that Obama's book says that his father fought in WWII---without apparently reading the book---when simply LOOKING at the book would show that it says that Obama's GRANDfather fought in WWII (which, in fact, he did).

      Delete
  2. There is a petition for congress to investigate in Obama's forged birth certificate and stolen SSNs. Go to orlytaitzesq.com. Scroll down and click on the Statue of Liberty picture to petition.
    PLEASE don't GIVE UP! Remove Obama = Restoration of our liberties!
    If Obama is removed for his ineligibility, then all of his laws are also illegal. And Biden would only be the remaining POTUS for a couple of months until an early election. Doesn't necessarily mean Boehner would run and win.
    Please pass this on to others! Together we can make a huge difference.

    To learn more about this issue go to
    youtubeDOTcom/watch?v=BUcyb5pm­­­­­UKI

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As shown above, Obama's birth certificate is not forged.

      And you are out of date, and wrong, about the SSN being "stolen."

      First birthers said that Obama got his SSN from "Daniel Ludwig"----but then Ludwig's SSN was published, and it was not the same as Obama's. Then birthers said that Obama got his SSN from "Harrison J. Bounel." But the Social Security Administration has testified in court that it has no file for "Bounel" or any similar name.

      Finally, Obama's CT SS number was the result of a data entry error. (Did you think that SS clerks never made mistakes? Well, they did---millions of them.)

      Obama's Connecticut SS number was caused by a data entry error. SS numbers were generated by the zip code of the applicant’s address. Obama’s address in Hawaii was in zip code 96814, and the zip code for Danbury, CT. is 06814.

      As already noted, millions of people have multiple social security numbers and errors in their socials security numbers that were caused mainly by data entry errors:

      http://www.cnbc.com/id/38678753/How_Many_Social_Security_Numbers_Do_You_Have

      http://www.securityworldnews.com/2010/08/12/20-million-americans-have-multiple-social-security-numbers-associated-with-their-name/

      http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20013733-501465.html

      Delete
    2. Notice that Frank Brown has not responded to one single fact. He simply showed that he has a potty mouth. The FACTS are shown above.

      Delete
    3. A natural born citizen and a citizen are not the same as found in A2S1..Many of you are claiming they are the same.

      Read A2S1 and see where they are separated by 'or"

      .A2S1... 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

      The citizen was only eligible if he were alive during the time of the adoption of the Constitution...He was grandfathered in due to we were a young nation at this time and many of our dignitaries were not born from citizen parents so they decided to let those at the time at time to be eligible...Otherwise it would not have said only a natural born citizen is eligible.....Obama is only a Citizen of the United States due to his father was never a citizen....That gave Barry dual citizenship so he could not possibly be considered natural born....Barry is citizen as found in the 14th Amendment and is equal to a naturalized citizen.

      14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,

      Delete
    4. I agree with you that a Natural Born Citizen and a Citizen are not the same. The category CITIZEN includes both Natural Born and Naturalized Citizens. The category NATURAL BORN CITIZEN excludes Naturalized citizens. Therefore Naturalized citizens cannot be president because they are excluded, but all Natural Born Citizen are eligible at the age of 35.

      That's the only difference. And the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law (not from Vattel, who was not mentioned even once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law was mentioned about twenty times and always with praise). And in the common law the meaning refers to citizenship AT BIRTH (not being naturalized), and that status always included every child born in the country except for the children of foreign diplomats and members of invading enemy armies.


      “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.]

      "Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."---The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett)

      "Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”---Senator Lindsay Graham (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)


      More reading on the subject:

      http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/

      http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012

      http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/vattel-and-natural-born-citizen/



      http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html

      Delete
    5. You are grasping at straws to claim that the natural born citizen which was a term coined to be used to eliminate the naturalized citizen from eligibility....COME ON MAN...The Citizen and the Natural Born Citizen that are born on soil can not possibly be the same..You have to skew the 14th Amendment and add words to make that even thinkable....The Natural Born Citizen is not even referred to in the 14th due to they were never meant to mean the same as a citizen born on soil or that is naturalized.....And the difference between the two is, the Natural Born Citizen has citizen parents as described in Vattel's Law of Nations and used by Jon Jay to ensure that the ONE person sitting at the top of the Executive Branch had UNQUESTIONABLE, UNWAVERING loyalty to the United States, first and foremost ....It takes only common sense to show you are wrong.

      It is very clear in Wong Kim Ark that he was only declared a CITIZEN....He was not made a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN or was he made eligible to be President....There would have been some tar and feathers waiting for that court in making a Chinaman born on soil from immigrant parents eligible for President when they were all being deported at the time due to their excessive influx into the country...He was lucky to have even been declared a CITIZEN at best and many are claiming that should not be legal because we then invite people to have anchor babies, and our founders surely wouldn't have meant for a natural born citizen to be equal to a anchor baby.....Great real,

      John Bingham in the Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session 1866, Who are natural born citizens?
      “All persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born Citizens.” In other words, by John Bingham’s own clear statement, it is not sufficient to just be born in the Republic to citizen parents in order to qualify as a natural born Citizen. One must also be born “of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.”
      “Who are natural born citizens?” Evidently NOT the children of dual citizens. To this I wholeheartedly agree.


      Delete
    6. 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)”

      Notice how similar that is to what the Heritage Foundation book wrote:


      “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: "..The Citizen and the Natural Born Citizen that are born on soil can not possibly be the same..."

      That is what the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case---so, unless and until the US Supreme Court reverses its ruling or there is a Constitutional Amendment that reverses it (neither of which is the slightest bit likely), EVERY child born on the soil of the United States of America---yes, even including Anchor Babies (if you don't like that, and one runs for president, don't vote for her or him) is a Natural Born US citizen.

      The Heritage Foundation book and the articles cited are right, and you are wrong.

      Delete
    7. we do have several cases that have questioned the status of citizenship and many quotes from the framers of the Constitution to support that a natural born citizen can only being 1. born on U.S. soil and 2. born of citizen parents.

      “As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.” (The term “to-day”, as used by ...Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.)

      Notice that Bingham declares Houard to be a “natural-born citizen” by citing two factors – born of citizen parents in the US.

      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))

      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 nbc, 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 Representative 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.

      Delete
    8. Re: "Notice that Bingham declares Houard to be a “natural-born citizen” by citing two factors – born of citizen parents in the US."

      Yes, you can have two factors or three factors or ten factors---but you don't HAVE TO. Birth on US soil is sufficient--the rest is additional emphasis.

      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)”

      Notice how similar that is to what the two men who had known the writers of the Constitution, Tucker and Rawle, wrote:


      "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)

      "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)

      Notice how similar what Bingham said is to what the Heritage Foundation book says:


      “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.]

      THEY are right, and you are wrong.

      Delete
    9. So you believe Jon Jay had the eligibility clause inserted into the Constitution with the intent that everyone born on soil (anchor babies) could be President....lol...COME ON MAN....Do you have any common sense at all....As far as Bingham statements, everyone knows that you take the most stringent requirements of the definition, not the least on quoting only a portion of what he has said.

      English Common Law makes everyone a Subject to the King of England....We would never have used it to define a natural born citizen due to citizens of the United States are not subject to the government. The government is subject to it's citizens...You have reached troll status now.

      Delete
    10. Challenge: Show me where Wang Kim Ark was made a Natural Born Citizen....exact wording.

      He was Born on Soil = CITIZEN

      GAME OVER

      Delete
    11. Mark Garrett said: "So you believe Jon Jay had the eligibility clause inserted into the Constitution with the intent that everyone born on soil (anchor babies) could be President....lol...COME ON MAN....Do you have any common sense at all.."

      Answer: John Jay was a lawyer and was using the term Natural Born the way that he was familiar with from the common law. There is no evidence that he used it any other way. The effect is simply to exclude Naturalized citizens. It does not exclude any citizen who was born on US soil. The Wong Kim Ark decision and the Heritage Foundation book are right---and you are wrong.

      Re: Wong "made a natural born citizen."

      Basic logic. When EVERY person born on the soil is a Natural Bron citizen, and Wong was born on the soil, therefore Wong is a Natural Born Citizen.

      And the ruling says that EVERY child born on the soil is a Natural Born Citizen.

      Re: "We would never have used it to define a natural born citizen due to citizens of the United States are not subjects."

      Tucker and Rawle, the two legal scholars who knew the writers of the US Constitution, disagree with you. Both of them use the term exactly the same as it was used in the common law.


      "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)

      "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)

      In short, the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case, and the Heritage Foundation book are right, and you are wrong.

      Delete
    12. I didn't ask for your basic logic...that is not proof...I want a statement from the SCOTUS decision that Wong Kim Ark was made a Natural Born Citizen.

      In the majority decision of the US Supreme Court case Wong Kim Ark, the court cited favorably to a prior US Supreme Court case, i.e. the Minor v Happersett case where it was held that the 14th Amendment, as a part of the US Constitution "does not say who shall be natural born citizens", but the 14th Amendment does say who shall be born US citizens.

      Ergo: a born US citizen is not necessarily a natural born citizen.

      The majority decision of the US Supreme Court in the Minor v Happersett case also recognized unsolved doubts if native-birth on US soil was sufficient to make a US citizen at all.

      This was also cited favorably by the US Supreme Court in the majority decision of the Wong Kim Ark case.

      The majority decision of the US Supreme Court in the Minor v Happersett case, also favorably cited by the majority decision of the Wong Kim Ark case, held that a natural born citizen was a person who was not only native-born on US soil, but also born to US citizen parents.

      The majority decision of the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark also favorably cited cited Horace Binney's recognition of two types of born US citizens.

      One being "the child of an alien, if born in the country" and the other being "the natural born child of a citizen".

      In essence the US Supreme Court has consistently held that native-birth on US soil does not suffice to make a natural born citizen of the US, but does in most cases suffice to make a born US citizen, and further the court held that the term "natural born" is exclusively peculiar to US citizen parents.

      The US Supreme Court has never held or ruled that native-birth on US soil was sufficient to make a natural born citizen of the US.

      WAITE, C.J., Opinion of the Court
      SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
      88 U.S. 162



      Delete
    13. OK, can you read the first line without being distracted....Wong Kim Ark is declared a "CITIZEN" not a "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN"

      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,

      GAME OVER... No need to reply to anymore of your nonsense.

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649

      Delete
    14. Mark Garrett said: "I didn't ask for your basic logic...that is not proof...I want a statement from the SCOTUS decision that Wong Kim Ark was made a Natural Born Citizen.

      I post for RATIONAL people. That apparently does not include Mark Garrett.

      Since, duh, the Wong Kim Ark case was about citizenship, not eligibility to be president, the US Supreme Court had no reason to declare that Wong Kim Ark was a Natural Born Citizen. Its need was to declare him a CITIZEN---and that is what it did.

      But, in order to show that he was a citizen, the US Supreme Court showed the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. That was required as part of the logic of the case---what is known as "Ratio decidendi" (Here's a definition): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratio_decidendi

      There is no doubt that these words appear in 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."

      And ten or 11 appeals courts have all ruled that they mean that EVERY child born on US soil (except the children of foreign diplomats and members of invading enemy armies) is a Natural Born Citizen. And the current US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of one of those cases----leaving the ruling that EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born citizen standing.

      THAT is the law. The Heritage Foundation book on the Constituiton is correct, and you are wrong.

      Delete
    15. So if we follow British Common Law, as the reference to the definition of a "Natural Born Citizen" then I would presume that all you had to do to become the King Of England is be born on the land there...lol....No, it only means you become a "Citizen of the United States in comparison and not eligible for President....And the SCOTUS only gave Wong Kim Ark the title of CITIZEN due to that it is IAW the 14th Amendment...I guess you didn't read that far and maybe you are just easily distracted, or it could be that you just twist the facts so that we can have just anyone that happens to be dropped on the soil here as our President...There is no end to your stupidity and how far you are willing to lie for this guy...Are you on the payroll or something, due to no one can be this determined to ignore the simple facts I am giving you.

      Delete
    16. Mark Garrett said: "OK, can you read the first line without being distracted....Wong Kim Ark is declared a "CITIZEN" not a "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN"

      Answer: It does not matter whether they declared WONG a Natural Born Citizen or not. Repeat, it does not matter. The rule that they stated was that EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen, and that is the rule. That is what they said and that is what ten or eleven appeals courts have all recognized that they said. So it's the law. Which, duh, is why not one single member of the US Electoral College changed her or his state's vote to vote against Obama out of the notion that he was not a Natural Born Citizen and why the US Congress confirmed Obama's election unanimously twice and why the ten or 11 appeals courts all said that the Wong Kim Ark decision said that every child born on US soil is a Natural Born US Citizen. They are not wrong; the Wong Kim Ark decision really did say that, and I have shown its words above.

      Re: "So if we follow British Common Law, as the reference to the definition of a "Natural Born Citizen" then I would presume that all you had to do to become the King Of England is be born on the land there."

      Answer: Poor Mark Garrett has lost it---gone off the bend. He is showing why Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and the National Review have all called birthers CRAZY.

      To answer briefly---the criterion to be a Natural Born SUBJECT in Britain is to be born on the soil. The criterion to be Queen or King is to be the first born child (they just changed the rules to allow female children to be the first born) of a reigning monarch.

      Delete
    17. "The rule that they stated was that EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen, and that is the rule".

      No that is not the rule and that is not how they spelled it out in Wong Kim Ark

      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.

      I. In construing any act of legislation, whether a statute enacted by the legislature or a constitution established by the people as the supreme law of the land, regard is to be had not only to all parts of the act itself, and of any former act of the same lawmaking power of which the act in question is an amendment, but also to the condition and to the history [p654] of the law as previously existing, and in the light of which the new act must be read and interpreted.

      The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States." By the original Constitution, every representative in Congress is required to have been "seven years a citizen of the United States," and every Senator to have been "nine years a citizen of the United States." and "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." The Fourteenth Article of Amendment, besides declaring that 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, also declares that 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.
      Again, all persons born on US soil are 'Citizens"....YOU ARE WRONG

      Delete
    18. This statement....

      "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."

      ....clearly says that EVERY child born in England....of alien parents....was a natural-born subject.'

      And then it says that the same RULE applied in the colonies and in the early states and continues to apply UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

      THAT is a clear statement that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders.

      THAT, of course, is what the Heritage Foundation book says too, a few years ago, and that is what Bingham said even before the ruling and Tucker and Rawle said many decades before the ruling.

      As for your nutty notion that the Wong Kim Ark ruling DID NOT SAY it, both the quotation itself and the ten or eleven rulings from the appeals court cases----all of which said that EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen and none of which supported the birther view-----shows that you are wrong.

      Here are some of them:

      Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency..."

      Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “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.”

      Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”


      Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”


      Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”

      And on October 1, 2012, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of the last of the rulings shown above, the Farrar case, which had ruled that "children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents." By rejecting the appeal, the US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court to STAND.

      Delete
    19. Give up on English Common Law, it is not what Jon Jay used to define a Natural Born Citizen...and you can not argue this any further without sounding like a broken record.

      Your stance is: The rule that they stated was that EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen, and that is the rule".

      No that is not the rule and that is not how they spelled it out in Wong Kim Ark

      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.

      Run you're finger over that statement (it is the 14th Amendment and what they used to make WKA a "CITIZEN") and try to absorb what it is saying....."born" or "naturalized" in the United States are "CITIZENS"...I will keep spoon feeding this to you over and over until you get it....It is the end of your game here due to your theory that British Common Law was used does not coincide with the 14 th Amendment of the Constitution....BORN ON SOIL = CITIZEN.

      Delete
    20. Mark Garrett said: "Give up on English Common Law, it is not what Jon Jay used to define a Natural Born Citizen...and you can not argue this any further without sounding like a broken record."

      Too bad, Mark Garrett, John Jay---who was an expert on the English common law---was referring to the English common law. In fact, he wrote the English common law into the first Constitution of the state of New York, and he was a LAWYER and a Justice, and he was steeped in the common law, and if he had meant to use the legal term "Natural Born Citizen" any differently than in the common law, he would have said so.

      So, the Heritage Foundation book on the constitution is right...


      “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 Mark Garrett is wrong.

      And then Mark Garrett quotes the 14th amendment, pointing out that it says: "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.:

      Answer. That is right. All persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction ARE indeed citizens of the United States.

      The above amendment changed the US citizenship law. HOWEVER, it did not change the meaning of Natural Born.

      Prior to that change in the law, a black person born in certain states was Natural Born but not a citizen, and hence she or he was not a Natural Born Citizen.

      But that person was always Natural Born and hence a black person born in the south after the 14th amendment became a Natural Born CITIZEN.

      Re: ".BORN ON SOIL = CITIZEN."

      Answer: YES, and

      BORN ON SOIL = Natural Born Citizen ALSO.

      Delete
    21. Continuing:


      That is why the "two citizen parent required" theory has lost every single case. Every one. Here are some examples:

      Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency..."

      Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “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.”

      Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”

      Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”

      Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion."

      Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”


      Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”

      And on October 1, 2012, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of the last of the rulings shown above, the Farrar case, which had ruled that "children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents." By rejecting the appeal, the US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court to STAND.

      Poor nutty Mark Garrett thinks that his THEORY about the meaning of Natural Born Citizen is true while the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court ruling and the Heritage Foundation book and the ten or 11 appeals court rulings are wrong. But that is just another example of why Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and the National Review all call birthers CRAZY.

      Delete
    22. You are WRONG, you are trying to spin the 14th Amendment to make your point ..You do not need to look at slaves to figure it out.

      To determine who the CITIZEN is as used in the Eligibility Clause we only have to look to the 14th Amendment to read that a person born on soil is only a citizen and is no longer eligible due to he was grandfathered in to include only those that were alive during the adoption of the Constitution....The 14th does not mention the natural born, so you are adding to what is written and causing you to use faulty logic..So now we only have to look to what the SCOTUS has ruled in the past prior to Obama to determine how they decided as to where the person was born and then if the parents were citizens..This is exactly what I posted before on Wang Kim Ark and how he was found to be a CITIZEN by the court IAW the 14th...Anyone with a ability to reason can see that that the court decided by the place of birth and the status of the parents..duh,

      Every natural born citizen SCOTUS case before Obama was decided on born on soil and the parents were citizen. Vattel was used by the courts in deciding, due to it is the only reference that refers to the natural born citizen,
      7. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): It quoted the same definition of “natural born Citizen” as did Minor v. Happersett. Hence, Wong did not change the definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen." It declared under the Fourteenth Amendment a child born on United States soil to alien parents who were domiciled and legally residing in the United States and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United States a “citizen of the United States,” It did not find him an Article II “natural born Citizen.” The Wong Kim Ark holding which relates to a Fourteenth Amendment born "citizen of the United States" cannot be relied upon to define an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Defining what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is depends upon what the Framers intended that clause to mean in 1787. The Framers defined national citizenship during the Founding in the historical context of the American Revolution, a context which did not exist in 1898. In that context, the Founders had to provide for who were the original citizens and who were their descendents. To define these terms, the Framers relied upon the same law that justified the Revolution itself. That law was natural law and the law of nations and not the English common law. From that law, they came to call the original citizens "citizens of the United States" and their descendents, the "natural born Citizens." The Framers then gave Congress the power to naturalize all other persons who may in the future also qualify to be “citizens of the United States.” Under natural law and the law of nations as commented upon by Vattel, whom the Framers relied upon to explain that law, this meant that only the children of citizens (either “natural born Citizens” or naturalized) could ever be “natural born Citizens.” All other citizens would only be “citizens of the United States.” Wong Kim Ark dealt with defining what a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” was in 1898. Justice Gray's general statements in Wong Kim Ark as to what a "natural born subject" (which under English common law also included naturalized subjects) was in the colonies under English common law before the Revolution made by him for the purpose of defining a “citizen of the United States” in 1898 do not answer the question of what the Founder's definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen" was in 1787. In fact, given the Revolution and the need to constitute a new society, to the Framers the English common law was neither relevant nor useful in providing that definition. Justice Gray’s decision can at best be used to define what an original citizen was before the adoption of the Constitution which definition he used to justify his declaring Wong a Fourteenth Amendment born

      Delete
  3. Impeach the impostor now

    ReplyDelete
  4. What's it going to tqke for this impostor in the White House and the Democrats in Congress to realize we are at war.We need to send troops to Syria now Obama.You are not protecting the people of America and therefore you should be thrown out of office now.At least Bidin loves America,he was born here,you weren't.Get the hell out of our country before more people get killed you idiot.America doesn't sit back while innocent people are getting killed and children getting raped and killed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obama is not an "impostor." He really was born in Hawaii, as his birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials of both parties and the Index Data file and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers in 1961 by the DOH of Hawaii (and ONLY the DOH of Hawaii could send birth notices to the "Health Bureau Statistics" sections of the newspapers, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii).

      Delete
    2. They sent the birth notices to the paper after someone could call in from home that witnessed a baby being born....That is why the address on the fake BC is from the grandparents...There are no birth records that can be found that Barry's mother ever gave birth in a Hawaiian Hospital and the Former Governor of Hawaii and long life friend of the Obama family could not find the evidence he promised would put an end to the birthers...He has a phone but couldn't manage to call his buddy Barry and get permission to view the original Long Form Birth Certificate....You have to be a naive moron to not be able to see through these lies.

      Delete
    3. Mark Garrett said: "They sent the birth notices to the paper after someone could call in from home that witnessed a baby being born....That is why the address on the fake BC is from the grandparents."

      The address is that of the grandparents because Obama's mother was still living with them at the time.

      Re: There are no "birth records...in a hospital."

      Hospitals often destroy their records after two or three decades. They don't have to keep birth records for decades because that is what birth certificates do. And Obama has shown his Hawaii short form and Hawaii long form birth certificate, and the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that they sent them to him and that all the facts---repeat ALL the facts---on the copy that the White House has put online are exactly the same as on what they sent to him.

      BTW, I'll bet birther sites never showed you this:

      http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/04/kapiol …

      THAT is only a small additional confirmation to the birth certificate and the confirmations by the officials and the Index Data and the birth notices---but it is significant that birther sites did not show it to their readers. (They did not show the confirmations or the Index Data or the birth notices either, of course).

      Delete
    4. Re: "...the Former Governor of Hawaii and long life friend of the Obama family could not find the evidence...."

      Answer: Actually, birther sites made that one up completely---every single word. Abercrombie never said it or anything like it at all. And THREE Hawaii officials all stated in writing that they HAD seen the original birth certificate in the files, which is where it is supposed to be.

      Re: "Moron."

      If you claim to be rational, and you believe that you have the facts, then you should be able to answer this:

      For Obama to have been born in a foreign country:

      (1) Obama’s relatives would have had to have been rich enough (and they weren’t. In 1961 Obama’s grandfather was a furniture salesman, and his grandmother was a low-level employee in a bank [she did not become a vice president until 1970], and his father went from Kenya to Hawaii on a free flight) and dumb enough to send their daughter at high risk of stillbirth to a foreign country to give birth—-—despite there being fine hospitals in Hawaii;

      (2) Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled overseas ALONE (since WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961) and somehow got Obama back to the USA without getting him entered on her US passport or getting a visa for him (which would have had to have been applied for in a US consulate in that country and the records would still exist);

      (3) Obama’s relative would have had to have gotten the officials in Hawaii to record his birth in Hawaii despite (as birthers claim) his being born in another country and somehow got the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley to lie (and since the woman’s father’s name really was Stanley, Obama’s relatives would have had to have found one of the very few women in Hawaii with fathers of that name to do it).


      (Oh, and there isn’t even proof that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961, and very very few 18-year-olds did, and EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad late in pregnancy in 1961 because of the risk of stillbirths. Yet birther sites hope that a few GULLIBLE people will just assume that she was one of the few to have a passport and one of the extremely few women to travel abroad late in pregnancy, and that the birth certificate is forged and the officials of BOTH parties who have confirmed it and the Index Data and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers and the teacher who wrote home are all lying. )

      The one question for a rational person (not necessarily for you, of course), is that since all those things are FACTS, then what is the possibility that Obama was born in a foreign country---one chance in a billion, one in 20 billion, one in a hundred billion?

      BTW, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and the National Review have all called birthers CRAZY. (Now, I wonder why???)


      Delete
    5. Just keep denying, you are only showing how naive you are to believe in such lies that the Governor of Hawaii did not make that claim that he would put the Birthers to rest when it was publicized in several newspapers at the time that he would end the Birther Conspiracy....Here are the list of Hospitals that claim Obama's mother had never been there or that there were records of Obama being born there...Records of a state Senator or the President of the United States are safeguarded and would not have been destroyed unless there was something there that they did not want us to see..Microfilm records are easily maintained without no need to destroy them...And there should had been at least one person that should have remembered a black child being born there....notta single person can verify that he was a baby born in Hawaii,it does not pass the smell test...And then why hasn't Obama appeared in court yet with his original LFBC in hand to put this to rest.If he were legit he would like nothing more then to rub it in their face or if he were a man of honor he would hve proved it without a shadow of a doubt and not pretend that the orgianial is hidden away in Hawaii with only a few that have said it exist and one less that suspiuosly died in a airplane crash when news came out that she was part of a cult in Indonisa with Obama's mother....All he does is just stand before us a smirks and winks that he has one and it is up to us to get him to bring it forward....He has had many opportunities to do this and to allow law enforcement that visited the Dept of Health in Hawaii to examine it...They were denied entrance and were treated disrespectfully, and told that it is not available for viewing due to a recent law passed in Hawaii..go figure..

      https://socialismisnottheanswer.wordpress.com/hospitals-in-hawaii-to-obama-you-were-not-born-here/

      Delete
    6. Re: "such lies that the Governor of Hawaii did not make that claim that he would put the Birthers to rest when it was publicized in several newspapers at the time that he would end the Birther Conspiracy..."

      Answer: That is roughly what he did say. What he did NOT say was that he could not find the birth certificate. THAT was made up by a birther site.

      And, since THREE officials in Hawaii all found the birth certificate in the files where it is supposed to be, it is loony to think that Abercombie was saying that he could not find the birth certificate.

      So, what was he saying. He was saying that since birthers have claimed that Obama's birth certificate was forged, he was trying to find ANOTHER document in addition to the birth certificate to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii. Well, there are such documents, the birth notices sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 for example.

      But Abercrombie was unable to find anything else. Well, too bad, but that is CERTAINLY not proof that he did not find Obama's birth certificate. It only indicates that he could not show something IN ADDITION to the birth certificate.

      If you claim to be rational, and you believe that you have the facts, then you should be able to answer this:

      For Obama to have been born in a foreign country:

      (1) Obama’s relatives would have had to have been rich enough (and they weren’t. In 1961 Obama’s grandfather was a furniture salesman, and his grandmother was a low-level employee in a bank [she did not become a vice president until 1970], and his father went from Kenya to Hawaii on a free flight) and dumb enough to send their daughter at high risk of stillbirth to a foreign country to give birth—-—despite there being fine hospitals in Hawaii;

      (2) Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled overseas ALONE (since WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961) and somehow got Obama back to the USA without getting him entered on her US passport or getting a visa for him (which would have had to have been applied for in a US consulate in that country and the records would still exist);

      (3) Obama’s relative would have had to have gotten the officials in Hawaii to record his birth in Hawaii despite (as birthers claim) his being born in another country and somehow got the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley to lie (and since the woman’s father’s name really was Stanley, Obama’s relatives would have had to have found one of the very few women in Hawaii with fathers of that name to do it).


      (Oh, and there isn’t even proof that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961, and very very few 18-year-olds did, and EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad late in pregnancy in 1961 because of the risk of stillbirths. Yet birther sites hope that a few GULLIBLE people will just assume that she was one of the few to have a passport and one of the extremely few women to travel abroad late in pregnancy, and that the birth certificate is forged and the officials of BOTH parties who have confirmed it and the Index Data and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers and the teacher who wrote home are all lying. )

      The one question for a rational person (not necessarily for you, of course), is that since all those things are FACTS, then what is the possibility that Obama was born in a foreign country---one chance in a billion, one in 20 billion, one in a hundred billion?

      BTW, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and the National Review have all called birthers CRAZY. (Now, I wonder why???)




      Delete
    7. Re: "Here are the list of Hospitals that claim Obama's mother had never been there or that there were records of Obama being born there."

      Under the HIPPA legislation, hospitals are not allowed to disclose such information. Besides, who says that they still have the files from five decades ago (they don't have to keep birth records that long, you know because THAT IS WHAT BIRTH CERTIFICATES DO.)

      And Obama's birth certificate says that he was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital (which, BTW, did exist at that time and with precisely the same name as on Obama's birth certificate----and we know this from other birth certificates issued at the same time), and the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii, including the former Republican governor, have repeatedly confirmed that they sent the short form and long form birth certificates to Obama and that ALL the facts on the copies put online are exactly the same as what they sent to him.

      Delete
    8. How could they send it if the Governor can not find it...He admitted here that he was going to use every source in his power to locate THE LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE...Do you think he would need a team of people to find it, there are red flags all over his statements here due to if the former Governor said it was there then he shouldn't need a team to find it.

      https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A2KLqIC0edVUoxQAJRT7w8QF;_ylu=X3oDMTByZ2N0cmxpBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQDBGdwb3MDMg--?p=Governor+Abercrombie+will+put+end+to+Birthers&vid=b7f8d3262d9856b1b04108cd5171e950&l=3%3A28&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DVN.608046290148527497%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DDLjCcTbfkQ0&tit=CNN%3A+Birthers%2C+the+story+that+won%26%2339%3Bt+go+away&c=1&sigr=11bs5prfa&sigt=11fljvebh&sigi=11rea4h4e&age=1293502703&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av&&tt=b

      Delete
    9. Re: "How could they send it if the Governor can not find it..."

      Answer: He did NOT say that he could not find the birth certificate. He was looking for an additional document to prove the birth certificate (since birthers claimed that it was forged). Once again, he DID NOT SAY that he could not find the birth certificate. (IF you can find the words: "I cannot find the birth certificate"---well, show them.) And, of course, Abercrombie's inability to find or to show some other document besides the birth certificate is not evidence that there is no birth certificate.

      IN CONTRAST, three officials in Hawaii (Onaka, Fukino and the late Fuddy) all stated that they had seen the original birth certificate in the file, and Fuddy stated that she had seen it in the process of being photocopied onto security paper and that she had given the result to Obama's lawyer. So THREE officials state personally based on their own eyesight that the original exists, and two of them said that they had sent it to Obama, and one said that she had given it to Obama's lawyer---and ALL of them have confirmed that the facts on the copy that the White House put online are exactly the same as on what they sent to him.

      Here are SOME of the confirmations:

      Here are the confirmations of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii, repeated confirmations (and by the way, the one to the secretary of state of Arizona, a conservative Republican, was ACCEPTED by the secretary of state of Arizona, who then put Obama on the ballot):

      http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/heres-the-birth-certificate/

      In addition, the former Republican governor of Hawaii---a strong supporter of Sarah Palin's----indicted that she believed her officials (Onaka and Fukino), and that the birth certificate was sent to Obama:

      But that is not all. There is a FOURTH Hawaii official, unnamed, who must have seen the original birth certificate in the files---the clerk who prepared the short-copy (which, BTW, is the official birth certificate of Hawaii).

      Short-form birth certificates are created by a clerk reading the information from the document in the file, and filling out the computer form that generates the printed short-form birth certificate. The officials in Hawaii have confirmed that they sent a short-form to Obama. So, unless they are lying—and they were Republican officials–the only way that Obama’s birth certificate could have been forged was that it was forged in 2007 and slipped into the file just before the clerk looked at the file. That is not very likely, is it? And it is especially unlikely since at the time Obama was not even the candidate of the Democrats. He was still in the primaries at the time, and he was only a junior senator from Illinois.

      Delete
    10. Continuing:


      So, once again (1) Abercrombie did NOT say that he could not find the birth certificate; and (2) many officials in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that they saw the original in the files and that they sent the official copies to Obama and that the facts on the copies put online match those on what they sent.

      THAT is more than sufficient. However, in addition there are the birth notices in the 1961 newspapers and the Index Data file:

      Here are the birth notices of Obama's birth in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961:

      http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php

      (And as you can see the section of the paper is called "Health Bureau Statistics". Well, as the name indicates, and as both the papers and the DOH confirm, ONLY the DOH could send notices to that section of the paper, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii.)

      Here is the Index Data file:

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

      But even that is not all. There is a note from an INS inspector of Obama's father who was checking on Obama's father's residence status, and who wrote: "They have one child, born in Honolulu." (See the last portion of the handwritten note shown below):

      https://radiopatriot.wordpress.com/2011/04/30/breaking-news-obama-sr-was-an-illegal-immigrant-foia-reveals/

      IN CONTRAST, there is no indication whatever that Obama’s mother even had a PASSPORT in 1961----and very very few 18-year-olds did at the time----and EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad in the last few months of pregnancy.

      Yet birthers hope a few GULLIBLE people will just assume that both of those happened and that Obama’s birth certificate is forged and that the officials of both parties are lying, and that the Index Data and the birth notices are forged, and that the INS inspector made an error in his “one child, born in Honolulu” note, and that the teacher who wrote home was lying. But you’d have to be terribly GULLIBLE to think that all of that happened.



      Delete
    11. You are full of crap....In the video Ed Henry flat out ask him if he was going to make the original BC public where everyone can see it....The Governor never corrected him or said I already have made the BC public or that they don't believe it is true so why would they believe anything else is true....It was all about the BC and nothing else....Donald Trump was all about the BC, the road signs "where is the Birth Certificate" were all about the BC, and the media was all about releasing the BC and it was due to Hawaii was only releasing a computer generated BC that everyone gets from the state instead of a original copy of the BC..I don't even care to prove how many errors there are on the one Obama posted on the WH website before he got it right with Snoops.. Abercrombie has proven there is no original so there can be no original copy...You sir are a troll, and a very bad one at that.

      Challenge: Show me where Abercrombie has provided proof that the original LFBC is on file and has the doctors signatures and the Hospital.....Show me a picture of the original with Abercrombie holding it for us to see, because that is what he would do if he had found it....He did not prove anything or did provide additional proof....They only generated a forgery and there is a dead woman from a plane crash now because of and two Governors that could not prove it existed, without a doubt...What would you do if you were the Governor to prove it existed, send a fake copy that law enforcement experts are claiming is a blatant forgery.

      Delete
    12. Re: ".In the video Ed Henry flat out ask him if he was going to make the original BC public where everyone can see it...."

      YOU are full of crap. YOU have not even provided a link to the alleged video.


      Re: "Challenge: Show me where Abercrombie has provided proof that the original LFBC is on file...."

      Answer: Why should he, when the statements of the three officials before him---all of whom said that they had seen the original in the files and one of whom said that she had had it copied onto security paper to make the official long form birth certificate and that it was sent to Obama-----are sufficient.

      Re: "There is a dead woman...."

      Fuddy was just one of FOUR officials who confirmed Obama's birth certificate including the former Republican governor of Hawaii (a friend of Sarah Palin's), and all three of the others are still alive. And Obama's birth in Hawaii is also confirmed by the public Index Data file and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii back in 1961 (and only the DOH could send birth notices to that section of the paper, called the "Health Bureau Statistics" section, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii). So, if she were murdered (which is unlikely and the police in Hawaii say that he died from an irregular heartbeat, but say that she had been murdered) then the motive for the murder could have been that she was about to cut someone out of her will or a jilted lover did it, or she was about to investigate a major drug company. All of those motives are just as strong as the notion that Obama killed one of four officials who confirmed his birth certificate----when there isn't even a shred of a hint that she was going to change her story and NOT confirm it.

      Finally, notice that Mark Garrett has never even attempted to respond to this:

      For Obama to have been born in a foreign country:

      (1) Obama’s relatives would have had to have been rich enough (and they weren’t. In 1961 Obama’s grandfather was a furniture salesman, and his grandmother was a low-level employee in a bank [she did not become a vice president until 1970], and his father went from Kenya to Hawaii on a free flight) and dumb enough to send their daughter at high risk of stillbirth to a foreign country to give birth—-—despite there being fine hospitals in Hawaii;

      (2) Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled overseas ALONE (since WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961) and somehow got Obama back to the USA without getting him entered on her US passport or getting a visa for him (which would have had to have been applied for in a US consulate in that country and the records would still exist);

      (3) Obama’s relative would have had to have gotten the officials in Hawaii to record his birth in Hawaii despite (as birthers claim) his being born in another country and somehow got the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley to lie (and since the woman’s father’s name really was Stanley, Obama’s relatives would have had to have found one of the very few women in Hawaii with fathers of that name to do it).


      (Oh, and there isn’t even proof that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961, and very very few 18-year-olds did, and EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad late in pregnancy in 1961 because of the risk of stillbirths. Yet birther sites hope that a few GULLIBLE people will just assume that she was one of the few to have a passport and one of the extremely few women to travel abroad late in pregnancy, and that the birth certificate is forged and the officials of BOTH parties who have confirmed it and the Index Data and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers and the teacher who wrote home are all lying. )



      Delete
    13. I posted the link to the video above with Ed Henry questioning Abercrombie...Here is another video that you need to watch of all the discrepancies in the fake BC that Hawaii officials sent to prove that Obama is eligible....Do you know anything about scanners and the differences in computer generated documents...Well you will get a lesson if you take the time to watch them tear the fake certificate apart.....and this is only a few that stand out the most that they show...there are many more that show that there must have been magic typewriters there in Hawaii that used computer fonts back in the 60s....You only need one discrepancy to prove it to be a fake so unless you can prove them all wrong then don't bother replying back.

      http://www.westernjournalism.com/sheriff-joe-arpaio-obama-eligibility-investigation-results-live-stream/

      Delete
    14. Mark Garrett said: "I posted the link to the video above with Ed Henry questioning Abercrombie..."

      Answer: Of course, IF he had posted a link to a video in which Abercrombie said that he could not find the video, he would have posted it HERE to both prove that he posted it, and to show that Abercrombie said it. Neither are true.

      Re: "Here is another video that you need to watch of all the discrepancies in the fake BC that Hawaii officials sent to prove that Obama is eligible."

      Answer: Poor Mark is now returning to the "it was forged" side of the birther lunacy.

      http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/11/blogger-shows-obama-birth-certificate-artifacts-caused-by-xerox-machine-no-joy-in-birtherville/

      Re Sheriff Joe, Zullo and the Cold Case Posse:

      https://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2014/10/31/was-the-ccp-birth-certificate-investigation-pay-to-play/


      http://www.wfsb.com/story/27170194/birther-posse-chief-i-accepted-10000-gift-from-source


      http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2014/09/arpaio-had-no-evidence-former-deputy-chief-says/

      http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2013/08/joe_arpaios_sham_investigation.php



      Oh, and this is what the National Review has been saying about Sheriff Joe for YEARS.

      http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292780/conspiracy-again-editors

      Delete
    15. Count about 6 post up and you will see the link to the Ed Henry interview with Governor Abercrombie...It looks just like this one.

      https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A2KLqIC0edVUoxQAJRT7w8QF;_ylu=X3oDMTByZ2N0cmxpBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQDBGdwb3MDMg--?p=Governor+Abercrombie+will+put+end+to+Birthers&vid=b7f8d3262d9856b1b04108cd5171e950&l=3%3A28&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DVN.608046290148527497%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DDLjCcTbfkQ0&tit=CNN%3A+Birthers%2C+the+story+that+won%26%2339%3Bt+go+away&c=1&sigr=11bs5prfa&sigt=11fljvebh&sigi=11rea4h4e&age=1293502703&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av&&tt=b

      All you're videos are full of denial and do not address these issues that are in the video I posted.You are not looking for the truth here, you are obviously a troll....What do you have to say about these since I am not satisfied by reading your links to character assassination attempts on Sheriff Joe and Mr Zullo as forensic evidence..When I read an article and it attacks the people personally I automatically discredit it as evidence or the lack of....The fact is The Sheriff and Mr Zullo are law enforcement experts and have very good credentials and they back up their claims...They have nothing personal against Obama but we can see that Obama would have him dead if he had not gained so much public attention from this....The fact that they are taking donations is due to they have expenses and they are not using public funds due to they have come under increased attacks due to they are only trying to do their jobs as requested by some 200 local residents in their county....These discrepencies were not addressed in your video that my video covered....Imagine that, you didn't answer anything.

      1. The seal and the date (including their backgrounds) can be moved around in the document and taken completely off the document....Not possible with OCR or any other type of scanned document.
      2. The green background can be turned on and off showing that is was computer generated, not scanned...It was placed into the document
      3. There are white halos around the text showing that it was laid on a white background first and then the green background added later. (This one was answered but was not proven)
      4. OCR scanning was not used as claimed by the WH....Three test failed in being able to identify text in the document, Fonts being recognized, and words being able to be edited...If it were actually scanned using OCR....This further proving it was not scanned, but computer generated
      5. Only 9 layers are found as with a computer generated document, when up to 45 layers are shown when the exact same document is scanned
      6. Noise is consistent within the document showing it was not in accordance when a original document that is scanned...The layers show it was built on a computer instead of being scanned from a original copy.
      7 The WH later claims that the document was optimized for download and that should explain the discrepancies....This was found to be untrue due to the document only has 9 layers instead of the 45 that should be seen from optimization...Another lie, why did they lie.
      8. The computer has been identified that generated the document...The forger is know as well but will not be revealed until a later date.
      9.The postal stamp on the Selective Service Registration has been fabricated....The 08 is cut and inverted from a stamp that should have 4 numerals instead of 2....It is off centered as well and does not match the postal stamp that used the 4 numerals 2008 of that year.
      9.An affidavit has been signed by a witness that claims in 2008 Barack Obama was introduced as a foreign exchange student to this person on the front lawn belonging to Weather Underground Terrorist. Bill Ayers.

      Delete
    16. Here is more evidence of the forgery....Words spelled wrong on a stamp...geez

      http://www.storyleak.com/obama-birth-certificate-confirmed-forgery-according-top-experts/

      Delete
    17. Proof that this was built on a computer with Photo Shop.


      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g30VCl_cgk

      Delete
    18. More proof the document is computer assembled

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2L5a_KS6iw

      Delete
    19. Another One with 50 years experience.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJqLe0qBjHs

      Delete
    20. Re:

      "https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A2KLqIC0edVUoxQAJRT7w8QF;_ylu=X3oDMTByZ2N0cmxpBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQDBGdwb3MDMg--?p=Governor+Abercrombie+will+put+end+to+Birthers&vid=b7f8d3262d9856b1b04108cd5171e950&l=3%3A28&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DVN.608046290148527497%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DDLjCcTbfkQ0&tit=CNN%3A+Birthers%2C+the+story+that+won%26%2339%3Bt+go+away&c=1&sigr=11bs5prfa&sigt=11fljvebh&sigi=11rea4h4e&age=1293502703&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av&&tt=b"

      That does not say that he was looking for the birth certificate much less that he could not find it.

      Re nutty claims that Obama's birth certificate is forged. That is what birthers say, and they say it over and over and over---what else would you expect them to say, they are birthers after all.

      However, they are lying, and their lie comes from the same motive that leads them to claim that in the TV interview with Abercrombie he was talking about not finding Obama's birth certificate and not talking about trying to find some other document.

      The motive behind the above and the motive about the claim that Obama's birth certificate is forged are the same as what caused birthers to say that Obama's Kenyan grandmother said he was born in Kenya----when she actually said that he was born IN HAWAII in three interviews (of which birthers showed only part of one, cutting off the tape recordings on their sites just before she was asked where he was born and she replied: "In Hawaii, where his father was studying at the time...").

      People who would do that are willing to lie about layers (they are normal when a complex document is scanned, optimized, compressed, put into pdf and then the PDF file is opened in Adobe Illustrator. Illustrator works with layers and it is designed to find them. And elements in a pdf document that is opened in Illustrator can be moved around---that is what Adobe Illustrator is designed to do.

      But birthers have never been able to answer this:

      http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/11/blogger-shows-obama-birth-certificate-artifacts-caused-by-xerox-machine-no-joy-in-birtherville/

      Delete
    21. Continuing:


      and they have not shown all, or any, of the real experts who say that Obama's birth certificate is not forged (If they were honest, they would show the experts and then answer them, but they hide the experts from their readers the same way they hid two and a half interviews with the Kenyan grandmother---and for the same MOTIVE.)

      Dr. Neil Krawetz, an imaging software analysis author and experienced examiner of questioned images, said:“The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious.”

      Nathan Goulding with The National Review: “We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it.… I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.”

      John Woodman, independent computer professional, who is a member of the Tea Party (who says that he hates Obama’s policies but found no evidence of forgery) said repeatedly in his book and in various articles on his Web site that the claims that Obama’s birth certificate was forged were unfounded.

      Ivan Zatkovich, who has testified in court as a technology expert, and consultant to WorldNetDaily: “All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document.” And, by the way, when WND received Zatkovich’s article that said that he found nothing wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, WordNDaily simply did not publish it.

      Jean-Claude Tremblay, a leading software trainer and Adobe-certified expert, who has years of experience working with and teaching Adobe Illustrator, said the layers cited by doubters are evidence of the use of common, off-the-shelf scanning software — not evidence of a forgery.“I have seen a lot of illustrator documents that come from photos and contain those kind of clippings—and it looks exactly like this,” he said.

      Birthers’ claim that Obama’s birth certificate is false is well understood to be caused by their own motives—they hate Obama and would like to harm him.

      And it is irrational (to say the very least) to think that Obama’s relatives had enough money (Obama’s grandfather was just a furniture salesman and his grandmother a low-level employee in a bank at the time; and his father came to Hawaii on a free flight) or crazy enough to spend LOTS of money on a long and expensive and risky (incidents of stillbirths were high at the time) overseas trip for their pregnant daughter—–when there were perfectly good hospitals in Honolulu, Hawaii.


      Delete
  5. The white house nor the Capital belongs to either national party. These buildings belong to the U.S. or America public There is no deed of ownership to any one person. oboma is living in our house and should be evicted. With out the proper papers he could not get a job at Burger King. He should be read his rights; Hand cuffed and jailed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obama has the proper papers. In fact, he has shown his short form and long form birth certificate from Hawaii, and the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that they sent them to Obama and that ALL the facts on the published copies are exactly the same as what they sent to him.

      Here are the confirmations of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii, repeated confirmations (and by the way, the one to the secretary of state of Arizona, a conservative Republican, was ACCEPTED by the secretary of state of Arizona, who then put Obama on the ballot):

      http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/heres-the-birth-certificate/

      Delete
  6. Impeach,Impeach,Impeach,Impeach,Impeach Impeach this non citizen.Donald Trump was right all along.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Every child born on US soil is a Natural Born US citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats, and Obama's birth on US soil has been proven by (1) his Hawaii birth certificate; (2) the repeated confirmation of their sending it to Obama and all the facts on it being the same as what they sent by the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii; (3) the public Index Data file; (4) the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 (and ONLY the DOH could send birth notices to that section of the papers, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii); (5) the Hawaii teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, after hearing of the birth of a child to a woman NAMED STANLEY from the head of obstetrics at Kapiolani Hospital; (6) the INS inspector who checked on Obama's father's residence status and wrote: "They have one child, born in HONOLULU."

      Delete
    2. Sorry but you are incorrect in your statement that everyone born in the US is a Natural Born Citizen. Everyone born on US soil is a NATIVE BORN CITIZEN. The statement Natural Born Citizen was used in the Constitution to define someone who is eligible to be president meaning that both parents must be US citizens at the time of the child's birth. See Vattel's Law of Nations 1758 used by the Founding Fathers to define Natural Born. Hence, obama is NOT eligible to be president but then neither is Cruz, Rubio or Jindal. But then we have a congress that is completely ignorant of the laws in our Constitution.

      Delete
    3. Everyone born on US soil---except for the children of foreign diplomats and members of invading enemy armies----is a Natural Born Citizen.

      The term come from the common law---not from Vattel (who was not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law was mentioned about twenty times and always with praise).


      “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.]

      "Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."---The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett)

      "Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”---Senator Lindsay Graham (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)

      More reading on the subject:

      http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/

      http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012

      http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/vattel-and-natural-born-citizen/

      http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html

      Delete
    4. Every child "born" in the United States can be found in the 14th Amendment and is equal to a naturalized citizen...They can not possibly be equal to a NBC.

      14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,

      Now look at A2S1....The citizen was grandfathered in to only be eligible to were alive then due to it states: or a "Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution"

      Learn to read and interpret correctly:
      A2S1... 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

      Delete
    5. Re: "Every child "born" in the United States can be found in the 14th Amendment and is equal to a naturalized citizen...They can not possibly be equal to a NBC."

      Answer: That is the law.

      Your INTERPRETATION of it is wrong.

      The US Supreme Court ruled that EVERY child born on US soil is a NBC, and if you don't believe that the US Supreme Court ruled that, then TEN appeals courts all ruled that the US Supreme Court ruled that.

      So that is the law----which, duh, is why the Chief Justice of the USA swore Obama in several times after each of his elections. And it is also why no member of Congress has claimed that Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen----in fact, they voted to confirm Obama's election twice (surely if ONE member of congress thought that you had to have TWO citizen parents, they would have at least spoken out against his confirmation).

      Here are SOME of the ten appeals court rulings, all of which have said that the US Supreme Court ruled that EVERY child born on US soil is a NBC (except of course for the children of foreign diplomats).


      Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency..."

      Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “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.”

      Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”

      Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”

      Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion."

      Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”

      Delete
    6. Continuing:


      In short, the Heritage Foundation book on the constitution is right----and you are wrong.



      “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.]


      Delete
    7. So the SCOTUS claims that a citizen is equal to a natural born citizen..How can that be when they are separated in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5....The 10 appeals courts are simply wrong and they have no authority to change the SCOTUS rulings by misinterpreting the SCOTUS..Wong Kim Ark was found to be a "CITIZEN" not a "Natural Born Citizen" ....This is a mockery and a grave error, the same that they did when they approved a federal mandate to force states to buy health insurance....Oh they covered that by making it a tax instead of a mandate...Do you not see some problems here

      Delete
    8. A2S1... 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

      Can you see the "or" in the statement....that means that the Natural Born Citizen or the "Citizen that was alive during the time of the adoption of the Constitution were eligible at the time and can not possibly be the same.....I don't care how many court cases you quote, the truth is Barack Hussein Obama is a CITIZEN due to his father is a foreigner and that gives his son dual allegiance...You must think our founding fathers were idiots....No, you are the idiot to not realize that they would have never allowed a British Subject, so soon after fighting for our freedom from England, would have allowed a British Subject to be our President....And furthermore that the court that found Wong Kim Ark, (a Chinaman), to be made a natural born citizen (when he was made only a citizen) and be eligible to be our President when they were all being deported...Do you live in the real world?

      Delete
    9. Re: "Wong Kim Ark was found to be a "CITIZEN" not a "Natural Born Citizen" .



      Re: "Sorry, but Wong Kim Ark does not deal with natural born citizenship."

      Actually, the ruling deals with two things---citizenship, since that was what the case was about----and Natural Born status because defining that was necessary in order to establish the definition of citizenship at birth. That kind of precedent is known as "Ratio decidendi." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

      You have stated that you disagree with the ten or 11 rulings ALL of which say that the Wong Kim Ark ruling did indeed define Natural Born Citizen and that it includes EVERY child born in the USA. But your stupidity is not the law.

      The Heritage Foundation book is correct, and you are wrong.

      Delete
  7. No I don't want him impeached. Bill Clinton was impeached, but still hung around the White House for several years. I think we should tar & feather him,and if Michelle pitches too big o fit, tar & and feather her too.If kids ugly, tar and feather them too. DAMN IT, IT IS TIME WE GOT MEAN.

    ReplyDelete
  8. No matter where he was born, he is NOT a "natural born citizen". His father was NOT a US citizen. If he was born in Hawaii, which I doubt, then he is a "us citizen" only, NOT eligible to be potus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obama was born in Hawaii for sure. The facts are overwhelming. And your definition of Natural Born Citizen is wrong. It includes EVERY child born on US soil (and Obama was for sure born on US soil, in Hawaii) regardless of the citizenship of their parents at the time.

      “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.]

      "Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."---The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett)

      "Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”---Senator Lindsay Graham (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)

      “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.]

      "Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."---The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett)

      "Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”---Senator Lindsay Graham (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)

      More reading on the subject:

      http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/

      http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012

      http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/vattel-and-natural-born-citizen/



      http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html

      Delete
    2. The problem you have is you make the citizen and the natural born citizen the same and they can not possibly be the same in A2S1 or there would have been no reason to separate them or even mention a citizen

      NBC = Born on soil + citizen parents

      Citizen = Born on soil or Naturalized....(REF 14th Amendment)

      Delete
    3. The Heritage Foundation book on the constitution is right----and you are wrong.



      “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.]


      (See some of the appeals court cases above.)


      More reading on the subject:

      http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/

      http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012

      http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/vattel-and-natural-born-citizen/



      http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html

      Delete
    4. John Jay, who later went on to become the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court had the clause inserted into the Constitution via a letter he wrote to George Washington, the leader of the Constitutional Convention.
      John Jay wrote: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

      The Law of Nations was so influential in the United States because his principles of liberty and equality coincided with the ideals expressed in the U. S. Declaration of Independence. In particular, his definitions in terms of Law governing nations regarding citizenship, defense of neutrality, and his rules for commerce between neutral and belligerent states were considered authoritative in the United States.

      Many have said that de Vattel's Law of Nations was THE primary reference and defining book used by the framers of the U. S. Constitution. It is really not possible to overstate the influence of de Vattel's Law of Nations as the primary reference book in the drafting of the U. S. Constitution. Nations, or the Principles of Natural Law, published in 1758, is the first, and ONLY, definitive work the Framers of the U. S. Constitution used for the inclusion of the "Natural Born Citizen" phrase. It nails what is meant by the "natural born citizen" phrase of Section 1, Article 2, of the U. S. Constitution.

      It is amazing how perfectly, precisely, and explicitly what Emmerich de Vattel, wrote in paragraph 212, of book 1, chapter 19, of The Law of Nations entitled CITIZENS AND NATIONS, applies to the Obama FRAUD. Quite clearly and explicitly it defines why Obama, can NOT possibly be qualified to be the President of the United States. Obama MUST be disqualified from the office of President of the United States according to the U. S. Constitution Section 1 Article 2.

      "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not 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 a 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."
      The Founders wanted the President to be a Natural Born Citizen to ensure that the ONE person sitting at the top of the Executive branch had UNQUESTIONABLE, UNWAVERING loyalty to the United States, first and foremost.

      At one point, the delegates writing the Constitution in 1787 considered THREE "presidents" in the Executive for "checks and balances." They considered a "natural born citizen" clause for Senators as well. Debating those issues, they felt that a "natural born citizen" clause for Senators would limit the pool of possible candidates and could cause bad feelings with immigrants needed to "jump start" the newly-formed republic.

      In the end, the Framers compromised that Senators be required to be US residents for 9 years, while striking the "natural born citizen" clause for the office.

      The Framers also compromised on ONE Executive vs. THREE. But to ensure "checks and balances," the Framers inserted in Art II, Sect. 1, 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..."

      Delete
    5. John Jay was a lawyer and a justice and was using the term Natural Born in the same way that it was used in the LAW, the common law that he had written into the first constitution of the state of New York, making the common law of England the law of New York until it is replaced by laws passed by the state. It is absurd to think that Jay, a lawyer, was using the term any differently than in the common law. This is supported by the facts that Vattel is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law is referred to about 20 times, and by the quotations from Tucker and Rawle, who knew the writers of the US Constitution and used the term Natural Born Citizen exactly the way that Natural Born Subject was used in the common law.

      All that Jay wanted to do was to exclude naturalized citizens from becoming president. He never said---and he would have if he had wanted to---that he wanted to exclude the US-born children of foreign citizens from becoming president.

      BTW, the US-born children of foreign citizens have fought and died loyally for the USA in two world wars----and there is not a smattering of evidence that they were any less loyal than the US-born children of US citizens, and there isn't any evidence that John Jay or George Washington thought so either.

      The term "Natural Born Citizen" excludes naturalized citizens, but it does NOT exclude any other US citizens.

      Delete
  9. If current POTUS is not litgitament via birth rights then why in the hell has he been in our highest public political servant seat ? If the prove is out there bring it out. Then follow all legal proceeding that need to happen after said outing .

    ReplyDelete
  10. There is no evidence that Obama's mother ever was in Kenya. So why would he have been born there? Obama is a terrible president but unfortunately we are stuck with him until the end of his term.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The fact that his father has never been a citizen of the United States makes Barry ineligible....Both parents have to be citizen parents for the child to be a natural born citizen as required in the eligibility clause....Barry is only a citizen as found in the !4th Amendment and as found in A2S1 they were only eligible if they were alive during the time of the adoption of the Constitution....and I don't think Barry is that old...lol

      Delete
  11. Didn't we hear that Barry Sotero was adopted by his Indonesian step-father when he was a minor? Doesn't adoption provide the citizenship of Indonesia? How would a non-citizen get an Indonesian passport in order to travel to Pakistan? If he was born in Kenya, or Hawaii, doesn't the adoption trump that and make him an Indonesian citizen? And, if the judiciary actually acts and finds Barry Sotero to be unqualified for POTUS, then wouldn't any law he signed into effect be invalid?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You heard wrong. He wasn't adopted, and he was never a citizen of Indonesia----nor did he ever get an Indonesian passport. Don't believe me? Well, you----or someone rational who is visiting this site (not necessarily YOU of course) can check for yourself. It is easy. All that you have to do is call the Indonesian Embassy, ask for the press officer and ASK.

      Here's the telephone number: (202) 775-5200

      Delete
  12. Leaving aside one of the above Anonymous's attempts to say that anyone born on U.S soil is a "natural born" citizen, let's just stop and think for a minute. And it's really very simple, when you consider the context. For, the whole point of the exercise in the constitutional Framers putting that eligibility requirement in the contract for that particular office - and that particular office ONLY, may all be reminded. for good reason, now to be pointed out - was so that the candidate, if elected - who would then as well become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces - would have no DUAL OR CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES. Like a naturalized citizen. And like a DUAL CITIZEN. Like Obama.

    The concrete proof that there is a difference - and was in the minds of the constitutional Framers - between merely a 'citizen' and a 'natural born' citizen is in the fact that Alexander Hamilton, at the Constitutional Convention, proposed that the office of the presidency only require that the person be a "citizen" - and his proposal WAS SPECIFICALLY TURNED DOWN, in favor of the more stringent "natural born" citizen category. The NBC requirement was also reflected in the advice of John Jay, a learned statesman of the time (who became the first Chief Justice of the new United States Supreme Court, not so incidentally), in a letter to G. Washington as Chair of the proceedings, that the presidency only go to someone with NO FOREIGN ALLEGIANCES - particularly because of this Commander-in-Chief role of the office.

    Some have asserted that the Framers were going by English common law; which talks about 'natural born SUBJECTS'. These men were decidedly NOT going by anything that considered them 'subjects'; they were Freemen now, sovereigns in their own right, and damned proud of the fact It is as clear as day that they were going by E. de Vattel's definition of a 'natural born' citizen, which was of one born on the soil of two citizen parents - having no other allegiances. And if any of the delegates were wondering about the precise definition of a 'natural born' citizen, and the difference between that description and that of a mere 'citizen', all they would have had to do was consult their respected and learned elder mentor, Benjamin Franklin, who was siting right there as a member of the delegation, and who was very familiar with Vattel's writings, in his 'The Law of Nations,' which spelled all of these sorts of things out.

    The bottom line: Obama is a Usurper in and of that office. And needs either to resign from it (especially after authorizing a document to be posted on the official White House web site that has proven to be a forgery; a felony in its own right). Or be removed from it.

    Let's hope that he makes the wise choice, in this extremely important matter. A matter that determines whether we are operating under the rule of law - to say, the Constitution. Or under the rule of man. Which is to say: the rule of tyranny.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stan said: "no DUAL OR CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES. Like a naturalized citizen. And like a DUAL CITIZEN. Like Obama."

      Answer: First, the writers of the US Constitution did not believe that loyalties CAN be divided. They believed, like Blackstone, that a person CAN have only one allegiance, and that was to the country of his place of birth.

      "...every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once." (Blackstone https://books.google.com/books?id=jAU9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=every+man+owes+natural+allegiance+where+he+is+born,+and+cannot+owe+two+such+allegiances,+or+serve+two+masters,+at+once.&source=bl&ots=RRrAJlX7_l&sig=K44TdgGGApcwghwQOvy4VXjZmnI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=J1jTVOSgEoKXgwSEtoCACA&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=every%20man%20owes%20natural%20allegiance%20where%20he%20is%20born%2C%20and%20cannot%20owe%20two%20such%20allegiances%2C%20or%20serve%20two%20masters%2C%20at%20once.&f=false)

      We KNOW that the writers of the Constitution did not believe in divided allegiance because this is what Madiso wrote:

      "“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."

      Notice that Madison says that there are two criteria of allegiance---but the ONE that he mentions that applies in the United States is PLACE---the place of birth.

      So the founders did not believe that allegiance could be divided, and they had only one criterion of allegiance, the place of birth----which is why they required that a president COULD NOT BE NATURALIZED. She or he had to be Natural Born---not naturalized---and the meaning of Natural Born in the common law for hundreds of years before the US Constitution was written always included EVERY child born on the soil of the country (except for the children of foreign diplomats and invading enemy armies).

      In short, the Heritage Foundation book on the US Constitution is correct:


      “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 you are wrong.

      More reading on the subject:

      http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/

      http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012

      http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/vattel-and-natural-born-citizen/

      http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html

      Delete
    2. Regarding Vattel.

      Yes, some of the writers of the US Constitution did read Vattel. But then they read a lot of other things too. As Anonymous above notes, they read Blackstone---a lot---and the fact is that Vattel is not mentioned even once in the Federalist Papers, while the Common Law was mentioned about twenty times, and always with praise.

      So, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision (six justices to two justices, one justice not voting) was right; the term really did come from the common law. And the same for the Heritage Foundation book, and your notion that it came from Vattel is wrong.

      Delete
  13. During the 2nd Session of the 37th Congress in 1862, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, the principal author of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, defined 'natural-born citizen' on the House floor and no one disputed his definition. In fact no one has disputed his definition on the House or Senate floor since. The definition of 'natural-born citizens' remains as follows:

    "The Constitution leaves (WHAT?) no room for doubt upon this subject. The words ‘natural-born citizen of the United States’ occur in it, and the other provision also occurs in it that ‘Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of (WHAT?) naturalization.’ To naturalize a person is to (WHAT?) admit him to citizenship. Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth - natural-born citizens. There is no such word as white in your Constitution. Citizenship, therefore, does not depend upon complexion say more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who, by the terms of your (WHAT?) laws and a compliance with their provisions becomes (WHAT?) naturalized, a (WHAT?) adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the (WHERE?) Republic, of (WHO?) parents (PLURAL) owing allegiance to (WHO?) no other sovereignty, are (WHAT?) natural-born citizens."

    On March 9, 1866, during debate over the Fourteenth Amendment, Rep. Bingham stated:

    “I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that (WHO?) every human being born (WHERE?) within the jurisdiction of the United States of (WHO?) parents (PLURAL?) not owing (WHAT?) allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the (WHAT?) language of your Constitution itself, a (WHAT?) natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the (WHO?) Congress of the United States ever had the (WHAT?) power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen (NOT A NAtRUAL-BORN CITIZEN!) of the United States.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 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)”

      Notice how similar that is to what the Heritage Foundation book wrote:

      “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 short, the Heritage Foundation book and the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case, and the ten or 11 appeals court rulings on the matter are right----and you are wrong.

      Delete

Posted By: Chris Carmouche