If you recall in 2008 on Obama's own campaign website Fight The Smears, it stated:
'The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.'
Does Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution specifically call for a native born Citizen to be president? No it does not. It states:
'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;....'
Here is the link to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website that the above information is no longer available.
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html
Because we all refused to believe democrats and now republicans would ever allow the implementation of the Communist Manifesto we paid for it to happen via our public schools and now we have enough communists or Progressives (one in the same) who control our information.
We lost everything the founders created.
There still people who claim to be conservative who still send their kids to government schools and somehow are expecting a middle of the road outcome.
There no longer any information reality! We surrendered the right to have our government be honest long ago.
A president can tell a nationwide audience about his red line and a year later claims he never said it and 1/2 the country just ignores it because he is the right color.
Because we accept lying this is the best we can expect from government. Until lying is a impeachable offense NOTHING WILL EVER CHANGE.
Move to chat, out of breaking news.
I actually had a note sent from a FR poster here....
just asserting that “there is no such thing as natural born citizen”
I used to enjoy watching 3 stooges cartoons, but REALLY! our educational system has hit a new bottom!
wow!
Shhhhhhhhh! Don’t tell xzins!
They have scrubbed much more than that specific interpretation:
Go to the USCIS website and search for:
“Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage”
When you go to many of the links that returns they have the same statement that the page no longer exists.
They did a large general scrub job.
tinfoil hat stuff. the usc has not changed and there has only ever been two forms of citizen.
People the world over are carefully watching the progress of Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse’s.
It is at the top of every news hour. It is the headline of every newspaper. It is the lead story of Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and Sean Hannity.
or?
Your link NEVER proved anything. Regulations and websites cover more than one term without meaning that the terms have separate definitions.
And links die all the time. When a link dies to a horse training site, I don’t accuse the owners of trying to hide some valuable training technique!
Surprise, surprise.
....not...
I WANT MY CONSTITUTION BACK!
the reason the founders put the wording in the document is key to it’s definition
their stated intention was to insure anyone obtaining the most powerful office in the land would not have split allegiances... at least by birth.
this is why they used the term ‘natural born citizen’. it’s the only position with such a requirement. as such, in order to insure a person does not have split allegiances... at birth... this would require no direct familial connections to another country.
flip the question around for the obvious result:
if the founders intended to allow people with multiple citizenship possibilities to be president... why did they use the term ‘natural born’? how was the term ‘natural born citizen’ connected with ‘split allegiances’ in their discussions?
to think someone with multiple choices for citizenship at birth somehow doesn’t have split allegiances is just ignoring the obvious to further a political agenda.
which comes down to something very simple:
do you support the Constitution or not
What about those who are born via Caesarean Section instead of naturally, or whose mothers are given pain killers during the birth process?
Remember how the Obot running a legal research service scrubbed his site of at least 25 Minor v. Happersett references? I suppose that after Barry’s inauguration twice, the issue is moot regarding Barry. That is, unless Barry lied about where he is born, which would still distinguish him from Ted Cruz (whom JR is supporting in 2016) because of Barry’s underage mom compared to Cruz.
Per Donofrio:
“At this point, we do not know who committed these acts of sabotage. Since neither Obama nor McCain meet the Supreme Court’s definition of a ‘natural-born citizen’ in Minor v. Happersett, the deception might have been undertaken on behalf of either one.
“Regardless of who you supported in 2008, or whether you agree with the assertion of Minor’s relevance, every American should be outraged that 25 Supreme Court cases were surgically sabotaged and then passed off to the public as if the tampered versions contained the ‘Full Text of Case’. This is the very definition of ‘Orwellian’ fascism. It’s propaganda. And there is no place for it in the United States. The sacrifices for truth and justice which created and have sustained this nation are wantonly debased by the subversive deception emanating from Justia.com servers.”
Geebus! They didn’t scrub anything. They completely revamped their website. Says so on the home page. Here are the new links to what you need.
This is the best evidence you can come up with for the existence of multiple types of US citizenship beyond natural born and naturalized?
Bump