Hawaii elections clerk: Obama not born here

World Net Daily ^ | 6/10/10 | Joe Kouvacs

[pissant]

A college instructor who worked as a senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu in 2008 is making the stunning claim Barack Obama was definitely not born in Hawaii as the White House maintains, and that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Obama does not even exist in the Aloha State.

Tim Adams, a former senior elections clerk for Honolulu, now teaches English at Western Kentucky University.

"There is no birth certificate," said Tim Adams, a graduate assistant who teaches English at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Ky. "It's like an open secret. There isn't one. Everyone in the government there knows this."

Adams, who says he's a Hillary Clinton supporter who ended up voting for John McCain when Clinton lost the Democratic nomination toObama, told WND, "I managed the absentee-ballot office. It was my job to verify the voters' identity."

He says during the 2008 campaign when the issue of Obama's constitutional eligibility first arose, the elections office was inundated with requests to verify the birthplace of the U.S. senator from Illinois.

The hottest book in America is the one that exposes the real Obama and all his men (and women)! Get your autographed copy only from WND!

"I had direct access to the Social Security database, the national crime computer, state driver's license information, international passport information, basically just about anything you can imagine to get someone's identity," Adams explained. "I could look up what bank your home mortgage was in. I was informed by my boss that we did not have a birth record [for Obama]."

[DontTreadOnMe2009]

Move to your own server?

Use HostGator for $4.95 a month ..... unlimited emails etc.

[DontTreadOnMe2009]

Good thinking.

Who will help us?

Would $1,000 get any investigation done, I mean by hiring someone in Hawaii, a detective that’s right a private detective !!!

$5,000?

50 FReepers kick in? I would.

500 FReepers?

[DontTreadOnMe2009]

commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))”

So every anchor baby also owes allegiance to Mexico, Iran, Korean, so according to this should NOT be an American citizen?

Do I understand this right?

Cuz I personally know over 100 anchor babies who laugh at how stupid we are and how easy it is to bring 25 relatives to the USA (from my charity work in LA if you must know) ............

[Danae]

Is that water? I thought it was oil......

[DontTreadOnMe2009]

Is that water? I thought it was oil......

Snake oil?

[Danae]

There are ways to get around that.

[thecodont]

Cuz I personally know over 100 anchor babies who laugh at how stupid we are and how easy it is to bring 25 relatives to the USA (from my charity work in LA if you must know)

I understand that at the turn of the last century, an aspiring American immigrant would need, among other things, an American "sponsor" (relative or friend who could vouch for his/her character and support him/her), good health, no criminal record, and a desire to get naturalized as soon as possible.

[DontTreadOnMe2009]

Cuz I personally know over 100 anchor babies who laugh at how stupid we are and how easy it is to bring 25 relatives to the USA (from my charity work in LA if you must know)
I understand that at the turn of the last century, an aspiring American immigrant would need, among other things, an American “sponsor” (relative or friend who could vouch for his/her character and support him/her), good health, no criminal record, and a desire to get naturalized as soon as possible.

---

Where the hell did that requirement go to ...???

[Red Steel]

I was recruited by psychic messages in my dreams.

Aaw come now, you've told us you are paid a salary. Go a little farther by telling us how you were recruited - at least something?

[rxsid]

Vattel's definition for "natural born citizen" was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War.
John Bingham, "father" of the 14th Amendment, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, REAFFIRMED the definition known to the framers by saying this:

commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"

So every anchor baby also owes allegiance to Mexico, Iran, Korean, so according to this should NOT be an American citizen?

Do I understand this right?

Cuz I personally know over 100 anchor babies who laugh at how stupid we are and how easy it is to bring 25 relatives to the USA (from my charity work in LA if you must know) ............

----------------------------------------------

The comment by the "father" of the 14th Amendment was in regards to "natural born citizen" specifically. He, Bingham, clearly reiterates Vattel's definition the framers knew and used for the requirement in the Constitution. Born in country, to citizen parentS (and thus parents who do not owe allegiance to a foreign country...either parent). No rebuttal was recorded on that point.

Therefore, the framers of the 14th Amendment CLEARLY would not consider an anchor baby as being a "Natural Born Citizen."

Regarding them being a "citizen", it's equally clear the 14th Amendment framers would not have intended for them (anchor baby's) to be granted "citizenship" either (let alone be considered a natural born citizen).

"Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.

Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. [Edit: Notice how Senator Howard mentions "natural law?" Guess who wrote about natural law. Vattel. Guess who reitterated Vattel's NBC defintion. Bingham, the father of the 14th. THEY ALL KNEW VATTEL & his NBC definition as did the framers!] This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens [Edit: LIKE ANCHOR BABY's], who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship. "

Continued:
http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html

The author's of the 14th CLEARLY never intended for the Amendment to apply to FOREIGN mother's here ILLEGALLY to deliver their baby (who is here ILLEGALLY as well) on American soil. It's all a shame.

Just like this anchor baby citizenship crap, Barry (assuming Sr. was his legal father at birth) could never be a natural born citizen as know and intended by the framers. With his born with FOREIGN citizenship and his FOREIGN father, the framers would consider him a usurper of the office. You see, if one (or both) of your parents are foreigners, you (the child) can, and most often do, inherit by birthright their FOREIGN citizenship as well. That born child now has multiple allegiances and multiple citizenship's AT birth. No chance they could be considered a "natural born" citizen of the U.S.

So here, surrounding the framers of the 14th Amendment, we can see two VERY important discussions:

1. They knew EXACTLY what the framers definition for Natural Born Citizen was (from Vattel: born in country, to citizen parents (who therefore don't owe alligience to a foreign country). Furthermore, clearly, they never intended anchor baby's to be considered "natural born" citizens.
and
2. They clearly didn't intend for someone here ILLEGALLY with zero allegiance or attachment to this country to be able to give birth here and have that (foreign) child then be granted 14th Amendment citizenship.

So, according to those who created the 14th Amendment, anchor babies would not (& should not) be considered "citizens" (let alone, "natural born" citizens).

These issues are precisely why more American's MUST read and understand their history else we suffer from the progressive/socialist/communist perversions of OUR Constitution!

[jamese777]

Right. We know the architects of the 14th Amendment knew exactly what the framers meant when they put the NBC requirement into the Constitution:

Vattel’s definition for “natural born citizen” was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War.
John Bingham, “father” of the 14th Amendment, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins, REAFFIRMED the definition known to the framers by saying this:

commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))”

---

However in MANDOLI V. ACHESON, 344 U. S. 133 (1952), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that:
“We find no warrant in the statutes for concluding that petitioner has suffered expatriation. And, since Congress has prescribed a law for this situation, we think the dignity of citizenship which the Constitution confers as a birthright upon every person born within its protection is not to be withdrawn or extinguished by the courts except pursuant to a clear statutory mandate. [Footnote 12] The judgment of the Court of Appeals should be reversed, with directions to remand the case to the District Court for the entry of an order declaring that the petitioner is a citizen of the United States.”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/344/133/case.html

Where is the “clear statuatory mandate” that defines a natural born citizen as a person having two parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty?” There is no such statute.
In fact, the current statute that defines “Nationals and Citizens-at-birth” clearly states that a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a citizen-at-birth.
http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title8/8usc1401.html

[rxsid]

How can a USURPER command our armed forces?
How can a USURPER sign any treaties with foreign governments?
How can a USURPER sign anything into law, let alone the health care monstrosity?

HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

Factcheck.org goes on to say this about Obama Sr., Jr. and the British Nationality Act of 1948:

In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html

 

Even the modern day State Department rules discusses the problems associated with dual citizenship:

7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:

(e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.

...

the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that dual nationality is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both." See Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952).

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86563.pdf

So, back to the question: "HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?"
It can't. Of course not. Yet, right there, on his campaign web site F.T.S., it's stated that a foreign government "governed" Barry from birth and the reason it did, was that Barry inherited that foreign citizenship by way of his foreign national father (no matter where he was born), a fact backed up by Factcheck.org. Assuming, of course, that Sr. was his legal father at birth.
How, then, could he possibly be a "Natural Born Citizen" of the U.S.?
Barry Soetoro, the divided citizen at birth!

Barack Obama a/k/a Barry Soetoro *	NOT Obama / Soetoro
* This assumes HI birth. A citizen of 2 countries at birth.

http://www.jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com

Furthermore:  Hawaii's Territorial Law, Chapter 57 - "VITAL STATISTICS, I", shown beginning pg 23 of 29, (the law in effect in 1961) allowed the parents (or grandparents or other relative) of baby's born anywhere in the world to be eligible to apply for a Hawaiian birth certificate. A mailed-in form (without mention of a hospital, doctor, or midwife) signed by one of his grandparents (who forged the parent signature(s)) would have been enough to set up a birth record and a birth certificate at the Dept of Health. The Dept of Health would (presumably) then have automatically sent the names of the parents, their address as given on the mailed-in form , the gender of the child, and the date of birth to the Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin. The address given for the parents in the newspaper announcements is actually, however, the August 1961 home address of Obama’s maternal grandparents Stanley and Madelyn Dunham [6085 Kalanianaole Highway], and not the 1961 home address of Barack Obama, Sr. [625 11th Ave].) This notification would then have automatically generated the newspaper announcements. (This was the practice of the Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin at the time).

Bottom line: Even IF (big IF) he was born in HI, he inherited his father's foreign citizenship as well, making him a US citizen by US law and a subject to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England by inheritance, birthright and England's law. He could not be considered a Natural Born Citizen as known by and as intended by the framers.
 
==============================================================================
 
What follows, is a bit of information with regards to the Constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen" (specifically) and NOT about the entire makeup, functions, origins and influences that made/make up our form of government, a Constitutional Republic. Clearly, the framers relied upon many different sources to create our new form of government.

Who, or "what" constituted a natural born citizen was well known to the framers. Jay would not have made such a suggestion to the others (Washington & the rest of those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention) unless there was a clear understanding of what that term meant. The definition comes from a source that not only were the framers familiar with, but the founders (many who were both) as well. And yes, even though most could not speak French, most read French (except, notably, Washington who would defer to Jefferson when such interpretation was needed).

 

NBC in the Constitutional drafts:

June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States." Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).

July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable 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 word born is underlined in Jay's letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.] http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:

September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: "I thank you for the hints contained in your letter"
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483

September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay's letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison's notes of the Convention
The proposal passed unanimously without debate.

 

Original French version of Vattel's Law of Nations:

Emer de Vattel, Le droit des gens, ou Principes de la loi naturelle, vol. 1 (of 2) [1758]

From Chapter XIX, 212 (page 248 of 592):
Title in French: "Des citoyens et naturels"
To English: "Citizens and natural"

French text (about citizens): "Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile : lies a cette societe par certains devoirs et soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages."
-------------------
To English: "The citizens are the members of the civil society: linked to this society by certain duties and subject to its authority, they participate with equality has its advantages."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
French text (about "natural" born citizens): "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens"
-------------------
To English, gives this: "the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens"

A detailed, historical, etymology of the term "Natural Born Citizen" can be found here: http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/index.htm

Prior to the Constitution

"This 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel is of special importance to scholars of constitutional history and law, for it was read by many of the Founders of the United States of America, and informed their understanding of the principles of law which became established in the Constitution of 1787. Chitty's notes and the appended commentaries by Edward D. Ingraham, used in lectures at William and Mary College, provide a valuable perspective on Vattel's exposition from the viewpoint of American jurists who had adapted those principles to the American legal experience."

Vattel's Law of Nations, built upon "natural law - which has it's roots in ancient Greece, was influenced by Leibniz.
Even Blackstone affirmed the basis of natural law:
"This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original” (1979, 41). In this passage, Blackstone articulates the two claims that constitute the theoretical core of conceptual naturalism: 1) there can be no legally valid standards that conflict with the natural law; and 2) all valid laws derive what force and authority they have from the natural law."

Thomas Jefferson (for one example) had the 1758 version as well as a 1775 version in his own library:
Thomas Jefferson's Library: A Catalog with the Entries in His Own Order (under a section he titled "Ethics. Law of Nature and Nations."

In AUTOBIOGRAPHY by Thomas Jefferson, he states: "On the 1st of June 1779. I was appointed Governor of the Commonwealth and retired from the legislature. Being elected also one of the Visitors of Wm. & Mary college, a self-electing body, I effected, during my residence in Williamsburg that year, a change in the organization of that institution by abolishing the Grammar school, and the two professorships of Divinity & Oriental languages, and substituting a professorship of Law & Police, one of Anatomy Medicine and Chemistry, and one of Modern languages; and the charter confining us to six professorships, we added the law of Nature & Nations..." This was 8 years prior the the writing of the Constitution! [See the "Law of Nature & Nations" section of his personal library to get an idea of what he included in this curriculum in America's 1st law school].

Note: Vattel, is one of only 10 "footnotes" in Jefferson's Biography, from Yale.

Prior to Jay's famous letter to those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention, we see (one of many exchanges between the founders) a letter from Madison ("father" of the Constitution) to Jay:

"James Madison, as a member of the Continental Congress in 1780, drafted the instructions sent to John Jay, for negotiating a treaty with Spain, which quotes at length from The Law of Nations. Jay complained that this letter, which was probably read by the Spanish government, was not in code, and "Vattel's Law of Nations, which I found quoted in a letter from Congress, is prohibited here.[29]"
From: Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. How the Natural Law concept of G.W. Leibniz Inspired America's Founding Fathers.

The concepts of "natural law" and the phrase "Laws of Nature" (of which Law of Nations is built upon) are found within the Declaration of Independence itself:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Those (& others) are clearly NOT derived from English law, but rather from natural law concepts (which can be found in Vattel's Law of Nations for ex.).

The Constitution

The concepts of "natural law" continued in the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union

...

Article 1. section 8, clause 10:

"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations"

Again, those phrases are not from English common law, but rather from natural law and even mention Vattel's book by name, "Law of Nations."

After the Constitution is penned

Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789.
David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period.

Ramsay REAFFIRMS the definition a Natural Born Citizen (born in country, to citizen parents (plural)) in 1789 A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789)

The Naturalization Act of 1790, which states (in relevant part) "that the children of citizens [plural] of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens"

Of course, the Act of 1790 was repealed by the Act of 1795 (which did NOT attempt to define or extend the definition for NBC). What the 1st Congress had tried to do in 1790 was to EXTEND the known definition (of born in country to citizen parentS) to those born outside of sovereign territory, to citizen parentS. Of course, they can't do that. Congress (by itself) doesn't have the Constitutional authority to define (or EXTEND) the Constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen." Only a SCOTUS decision on the intent of the framers, or an amendment to the Constitution can do that.

The same definition was referenced in the dicta of many early SCOTUS cases as well...some examples:

"THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss

The New Englander, Volume 3 (1845) states: "The expression ‘citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states."
Note: the "New Englander" was NOT a student law review. The first student law review appeared 30 years later, in 1875/76 at the Albany Law School..

Vattel's definition for "natural born citizen" was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War.
John Bingham, "father" of the 14th Amendment, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, REAFFIRMED the definition known to the framers by saying this:

commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"

SCOTUS, in an 1887 case cites Vattel a number of times and reitterates that his work was translated into English in 1760:
"Vattel in his Law of Nations, which was first printed at Neuchatel in 1758, and was translated into English and published in England in 1760" U S v. ARJONA, 120 U.S. 479 (1887)

It's interesting to note that (non binding) Senate Resolution 511, which attempted to proclaim that Sen. John McCain was a "Natural Born Citizen" because he was born to citizen parentS, even they referenced the (repealed) Naturalization Act of 1790: "Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen'".
Obama, himself, was a signatory of that resolution knowing full well (no doubt) the requirement has always been about 2 citizen parents.

The point is, with the exception of the repealed Act of 1790 which tried to EXTEND the definition, the meaning of the term "Natural Born Citizen" has ALWAYS been about being born within the sovereign territory or jurisdiction of the U.S. to 2 citizen parents (& therefore parents who do NOT owe allegiance to another, foreign, country).

[etraveler13]

Quite right. Obama could not be natural born because his father was not a US Citizen at any time in his life before Obama Jr was born, for that matter, he never became a US Citizen. So, at best obama is a citizen, at worst, not a citizen at all, but in no scenario is he, with events known at this time, a Natural Born Citizen.

Therefore, he is not qualified under the constitution to be President of the United States.

[CommieCutter]

“Which, of course, has been my point all along, that Obama and the Marxists are only using Obama’s skin color to seize control of as much of the country as possible while at the same time betraying the cause of African-Americans to prosper in America.”

---

Divide and conquer.

[jamese777]

How can a USURPER command our armed forces?
How can a USURPER sign any treaties with foreign governments?
How can a USURPER sign anything into law, let alone the health care monstrosity?

---

How can a “usurper” become the nation’s Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief? Well, its complicated but here’s the prescription:
1) Get 69 million popular votes to your main opponent’s 59 million.
2) Win 365 Electoral College votes without a single faithless elector choosing someone else.
3) Have Vice President Cheney count and certify your Electoral College votes at a Joint Session of Congress with no objections or points of order raised from any Senator or Congressman/woman.
4) Get sworn in on Inauguration Day by Chief Justice Roberts.
5) Have no court overturn your election or your eligibility in 69 attempts including 8 rejections by the Supreme Court of the United States.
6) Have the loyal opposition party treat you as if you are the President by inviting you to their Congressional retreats and Senate minority caucus meetings.
7) Have the US military follow your orders.
8) Sign bills into law that are upheld and implemented.
9) Realize the US has operated under the “De Facto Officer Doctrine” since the late 19th Century which confers the power of the office to anyone who assumes an office even if they are later found to be invalid for that office.
10) Have no court or act of Congress find you to be ineligible.
11) Have the Senate confirm your cabinet appointments and Supreme Court nominations on the votes of members of both major political parties.
12) Have the only person with legal standing to sue you for directly harming his opportunity to be president, John Sidney McCain, refuse to sue.
13) Have no elected official from the opposition party file a lawsuit against you or join any existing lawsuit or even file an amicus brief in support of any eligibility lawsuit against you.
14) Have the Governor and Attorney General of the state that you were born in confirm your birth there even though they are members of the opposition political party.
15) Have the 14th Amendment to the Constitution say 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...”
16) Realize the there is no law in the US Code that forbids dual citizenship, there is only state department guidance that dual citizenship can be complicating.
17) Have any automatically conferred dual citizenships that you may have held as a child expire decades ago.

18) BINGO, you’re the President and Commander-in-Chief for a year and a half now.

That’s how you do it.

[Yosemitest]

Where is your PROOF?

The second "registered" the first.

See?
Just click on them for the source information.

Can you not read the "Date and Place of Birth" on the second?
They both agree!

But LIBERALS can't TOLERATE the TRUTH!

[Kleon]

Where is your PROOF?

I'm not totally up to speed on the latest fake birth certificates, but wasn't one of them being shopped around by admitted con man Lucas Smith?

Why are birthers always so quick to believe such shady characters?

[Yosemitest]

There is nothing "SHADY" about them

The only thing "SHADY" ... is ...


THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT IN CHIEF,
HIMSELF!!!

[rxsid]

A prescription to usurp the office of the Presidency.
For the most part, that list looks as though it comes from some kind of Communist manifesto. Does it?

Amazing. Any freedom, liberty and Constitution loving citizen in the U.S. should be outraged. Now, if only they can be "pried" away from the ole' boob-tube for more than an intermission...

[Genoa]

Dude. The bottom one was exposed a week later by the faker himself. He had typed it himself with a used typewriter on expensive paper, made a fake seal with a shilling coin, folded it, and photographed it on his bedspread. He had photos documenting the whole scam. It was all over the Internet. It was a punk job designed to embarrass WND and Orly Taitz.