Free Republic

This all the cover the Republicans need to appoint a Special Prosecutor.

It can not be claimed that they are doing it for political reasons, when senior executives are claiming 5th amendment protections against self incrimination. In doing so they are claiming they may have committed a crime, it would be the special prosecutors job to determine if one was committed or not. I don't see another viable option.

The meaning of the term-of-art ‘natural born citizen’ has been addressed, and confirmed by the US Supreme Court. The idea that all persons who are a citizen at birth, are ‘natural born citizens’ can not possibly be accepted for the simple reason that NO part of the Constitution can be interpreted in such a way as to make any part of the Constitution irrelevant. This principle is Verba intelligi ut aliquid operantur debent, which means 'words must be understood to have some effect. What that means is that the Constitution MUST be interpreted in such a way that every word in relevant. The idea that ‘citizen at birth’ equates to ‘natural born citizen’ ignores the word ‘natural’. If the intention was otherwise, they would have simply said a ‘born citizen’, or a ‘citizen at birth’ or ‘born a citizen’. So it is clear they intended something else. So - what does the word ‘natural’ mean in the context of ‘natural born citizen’?

There are two types of law. There is ‘positive law’ - this is man-made law, such as the Constitution, laws from Congress, state law, local ordinances, and so on. And then there is ‘natural law’ - this is the law of nature, or the divine. An example of 'natural law' would be when the founders wrote the Declaration of Independence, and stated :

“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”. When they are talking about 'unalienable rights', they are talking about 'natural law'.

So, the term ‘natural born citizen’ means EXACTLY what it says, a citizen at birth according to natural law.

OK - what is a citizen by natural law? Remember, a natural law is one that is unwritten. So a citizen by natural law, would be a citizen that would require no man made ‘positive’ law to be a citizen. So, when is someone a citizen without need of any positive law? When they can be nothing else. Does that sound familiar? Ever heard someone answer a question with the word ‘naturally’, because the answer could be nothing else? “Does Monday come after Sunday? Naturally!” Who can be nothing other than a citizen at birth, and therefore requires no positive law?

There are 4 basic variables governing citizenship. Born in or out of a country. Both parents are citizens. One parent is a citizen. Neither parent is a citizen.
The first (where born) is combined with the other 3 to determine whether or not a child is a citizen at birth. There are laws written to govern every situation - except one. The only situation not covered by positive law is when a child is born in a country, and both parents are citizens of that country. Why? Because no law is required, the child is a citizen ‘naturally’. Both sides want to ignore this FACT.

There is a legal term Jura naturæ sunt immutabilia - and it means, "The laws of nature are unchangeable".

The Congress CAN NOT declare a person a 'Natural Born Citizen', because they CAN NOT change the definition, it's immutable.

The idea that Ted Cruz meets the NBC clause is ridiculous, Ted Cruz is a US citizen NOT by natural law, but by statutory law, as written in the Immigration and Nationality Act (either section 301, or section 320).

Just look at the titles of the chapters those sections are in! The title of the chapter section 301 is in - CHAPTER 1 -- NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND BY COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION. We know that Cruz was not considered a 'US National', he is a Citizen, so his citizenship would be from "COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION". The title of the chapter containing section 320? CHAPTER 2 -- NATIONALITY THROUGH NATURALIZATION, that says it all, all persons who are 'citizens by birth' through these sections, are citizens "THROUGH NATURALIZATION". Also, notice these are not 'Citizens at birth', they are 'Citizens BY birth'. There is a BIG difference, persons who automatically acquire Citizenship via section 320, are not actually a US citizen until they move to the US and establish permanent residence. Until that time they are 'nationals', who qualify 'by birth' to automatically become Citizens when they permanently move to the US.

That is why it was always clear that you must be born on US soil to be president, because ALL US citizens, born outside the US, even if a citizen bt/at birth, they are 'naturalized US citizens', and NOT 'natural born Citizens'.

Maybe where a person is born shouldn’t really matter. I’ve seen many immigrants who are much more patriotic than natural born American’s. But there is a process to go thru if that is the case, and that process is the Amendment process. But that probably wouldn’t go through. So what do they do? They simply ignore that part of the Constitution. The real danger is what part do they decide to ignore next?

'Natural Born Citizen' simply means, a person born a Citizen according to the law of nature.

What is important about the 'law of nature'? There is a legal term Jura naturæ sunt immutabilia - and it means, "The laws of nature are unchangeable".

The Congress CAN NOT declare a person a 'Natural Born Citizen', because they CAN NOT change the definition, it's immutable.

The idea that Ted Cruz meets the NBC clause is ridiculous, Ted Cruz is a US citizen NOT by natural law, but by statutory law, as written in the Immigration and Nationality Act (either section 301, or section 320).

Just look at the titles of the chapters those sections are in! The title of the chapter section 301 is in - CHAPTER 1 -- NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND BY COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION. We know that Cruz was not considered a 'US National', he is a Citizen, so his citizenship would be from "COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION". The title of the chapter containing section 320? CHAPTER 2 -- NATIONALITY THROUGH NATURALIZATION, that says it all, all persons who are 'citizens at birth' through these sections, are citizens "THROUGH NATURALIZATION". Also, these are not really 'Citizens at birth', the are 'Citizens BY birth'. There is a BIG difference (and you will notice that Cruz 'spokespeople' will always say 'by birth'), persons who automatically acquire Citizenship via section 320, are not actually a US citizen until they move to the US and establish permanent residence.

That is why it was always clear that you must be born on US soil to be president, because ALL US citizens, born outside the US, even if a citizen at birth, are 'naturalized US citizens', and NOT 'natural born Citizens'.

These posts are getting beyond stupid.

All you need to do is look at the IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT itself, and it clearly states that Cruz's Citizenship is through 'Naturalization'. I guess you can't understand that 'Naturalization' can be an automatic process.

Here is section 320, the one that applies to Cruz.

"Sec. 320. [8 U.S.C. 1431] (a) A child born outside of the United States automatically becomes a citizen of the United States when all of the following conditions have been fulfilled:

(1) At least one parent of the child is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization.

(2) The child is under the age of eighteen years.

(3) The child is residing in the United States in the legal and physical custody of the citizen parent pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence.

(b) Subsection (a) shall apply to a child adopted by a United States citizen parent if the child satisfies the requirements applicable to adopted children under section 101(b)(1) . "

The title of the chapter that section is in? "CHAPTER 2 -- NATIONALITY THROUGH NATURALIZATION"

Cruz is obviously a naturalized US citizen. And contrary to belief, he WAS NOT a US citizen at the time of his birth! Notice the law says "automatically becomes a citizen of the United States when all of the following conditions have been fulfilled". So, Cruz was not even a naturalized US citizen until he was 4 years old, and his family moved to the US, and condition "3" was satisfied!!!

Why do people refuse to accept the plain simple truth, if you want to change the Constitution there is a process for that, you can't simply choose to ignore whatever parts you want to, otherwise the whole thing is useless!

You seem to hold the belief that 'Natural Born Citizen' is to be construed to mean the same as 'Citizen at Birth', is that correct?

According to the rule of Constitutional Construction, Verba intelligi ut aliquid operantur debent, words should be interpreted to give them some effect.

If what you hold is true, what meaning is given to the word 'Natural'? Thank you.

It seems that a great many people seem to incorrectly equate 'Natural Born Citizen' to 'Born a Citizen'.

The problem with that, is that it's impossible, under the rules of Constitutional Construction.

Verba intelligi ut aliquid operantur debent.

"None of the words are without force and effect, except those superseded by amendments, unless such amendments are repealed. Except for the statement of purpose in the preamble, every word was intended by the Framers to be legally normative, and not just advisory, declaratory, aspirational, or exhortatory. Verba intelligi ut aliquid operantur debent. Words should be interpreted to give them some effect.". http://www.constitution.org/cons/prin_cons.htm

What that means is that you can't simply ignore the word 'Natural' when construing the term of art 'Natural Born Citizen'. It must have a purpose.

So, without any question, it is clear that 'Natural Born Citizen' CAN NOT mean 'Citizen at Birth', because it would be ignoring the word 'Natural'.

So, what does 'Natural' mean? IMHO, it means simply that, Born a Citizen according to the laws of Nature. I believe the Supreme Court has already construed it as such, will they review that? Possibly. But I know one thing for certain, they would have to completely change the rules for Constitutional Construction to rule that NBC means Citizen at Birth.

This is hilarious!

Carter?!?!? The guy that used to make a point of carrying a couple of EMPTY suitcases, to try to represent himself as a common man???

What you seem to be missing, is that 'naturalization' is not a process you go through that ends in a test, and raising your right hand. A 'Naturalized' Citizen is one who requires some positive law for their Citizenship. Reread the SCOTUS opinions in that context, and you will see that, that is consistent with what the court says. What this means, is that someone can be a 'naturalized' Citizen, and the 'naturalization' occurs at birth automatically. So they are both a 'Citizen at birth', and a 'naturalized Citizen'.

A perfect example of this is Ted Cruz. He is both a US citizen at birth, and a naturalized US citizen.

A way to look at this, that might make it easier to see, is to look at it in a negative context. Would the repeal of any law, prior to Cruz's birth, have resulted in Cruz not being a US citizen? The simple answer is yes. This applies to ALL man made laws, even the 14th Amendment.

One additional thing, 'Citizen at birth' does not equate to 'Citizen by birth'. Many people, such as Cruz (and 14th Amendment anchor babies), are 'Citizens AT birth', but the term 'Citizen BY birth' means something completely different, and only 'natural born Citizens' are Citizens BY the fact of their birth alone. So, reread the opinions again, with that understanding, that 'BY birth' does equate to 'natural born Citizen', and 'AT birth' does not.

There is a VERY big difference between Watergate, and Benghazi, Nixon was a Republican, and Republicans react very differently to betrayal than Democrats. Case in point - Bill Clinton. And it will be the same with Obama.

When Republicans support a President, they want someone that they think is better than them. Someone who will do a good jobs for the country. When Democrats support a President, they want someone who will make them feel good about themselves. That is why social issues like abortion are such a benefit for Democrats, they don't want someone who makes them feel guilty about their decision to kill their baby, they want someone who is going to tell them they did the right thing.

Democrats project, they think lying is part of human nature, they lie, so having a President that lies also, is a good thing - they don't feel as bad about their lying. That is unless he makes you feel guilty about something else, then he is a holier than thou hypocrite who needs to go!

Republicans will have the same reaction when a President lies whether he is a Republican or a Democrat. Democrats will have a completely different reaction when a President lies, depending on whether or not the President is a Republican, or a Democrat.

Isn't it a little bit ironic that MSNBC keeps bringing this subject up now? I mean with the Alabama Supreme Court (with two justices who have expressed doubts about Obama having proven his eligibility) case approaching, MSNBC is now pushing Cruz is NBC even if he was born outside of the US with a non USC father. That would mean Obama would still be eligible even if he was born somewhere else - like, say, Kenya.

I just find the timing of this to be very suspicious.

Which parts of the Constitution do you choose to follow?

I'm a conservative, I believe the entire Constitution is relevant, otherwise none of it will be!

That is 100% incorrect, there IS a US Supreme Court case that construed the term of art 'Natural Born Citizen', the case is Minor vs Happersett.

Virginia Minor was a lawyer from Missouri, who claimed that the newly ratified 14th Amendment gave her the right to vote, and she sued the Missouri registrar of voters Happersett for not registering her. She claimed that in not allowing women to vote, Missouri was not granting her full citizenship, and thereby under the 14th Amendment, which made her a citizen, she should now be allowed to vote.

As the main component of this case, the Supreme Court stated that Missouri was not denying her citizenship by not allowing her to vote, because it could not deny her citizenship, because the US Constitution explicitly granted it to her. They construed the term-of-art 'Natural Born Citizen' to do this.

This is from the opinion - "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.".

The court decided that Minor was already a Citizen, because since she was born in the US, to US citizen parents, then she was a 'Natural Born Citizen'.

This case was also cited as precedent in numerous cases, most notably, Lockwood, Ex Parte. In that case the court state the following:

"In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word 'citizen' is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since; but that the right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment did not add to these privileges and immunities. Hence, that a provision in a state constitution which confined the right of voting to male citizens of the United States was no violation of the federal constitution.".

So, is Cruz also a Natural Born Citizen of Canada?

Cruz WAS naturalized. 'Naturalized', is not a process that ends with a test. To be naturalized, means that there is some positive (man made) law that has been written to make you a citizen.

There are two types of laws, 'natural' and 'positive'. 'Natural' laws are the unwritten laws of nature, 'positive' laws are man made laws.

There are laws that have been written that state that Cruz is a citizen at birth, and without those laws, he would not have been a citizen at birth. He was 'naturalized' automatically by the fact of his birth.

Is someone born in the US, to two US citizen parents a citizen at birth? Yes. Is there a man made law stating such? No. Why? Because one is not required. Such a person is a Citizen by 'natural' law, and is 'naturally' a citizen. Notice the context of the word 'naturally'? It means because nothing else can be true. The same is true in the context of 'natural born citizen', and 'natural law', it is true, because nothing else can be true.

An easier way to look at this might be to look at it in a negative context. Could any law be removed or changed to remove the situation that allowed Cruz to be a citizen at birth? Yes. Is there any law that could be repealed or changed that result in a person being born in the US, of two Citizen parents, not being a US citizen at birth? NO! That is because they are a citizen via 'natural law'.

That would make sense, if the media has to now cover for Obama being eligible even if he was born out of the country.

To me it looks like the media may be trying to argue for Cruz being eligible. Why might they need to do this? IF the evidence that is going to come out in AL case shows that Obama was actually born outside of the US, then the media want's the public to have the perception that it still doesn't matter. 'Hey... Ted Cruz is eligible, and so it Obama'. If the public accepts the idea that NBC equates to 'Citizen at Birth', then they will argue that it doesn't matter where he was born. They will also probably argue that he was always told he was born in Hawaii, and he doesn't know anything about the BC being forged.

And it might work. Most of Obama's supporters will stand by him even if it is shown he was not born in Hawaii. They will accept the 'Citizen at Birth' (yes I know SAD was not old enough to convey US citizenship) definition. Why? Because they want to.

If that is the definition, and there are many on FR to accept it, I'm trying to get an answer from one of those if Cruz is a US NBC, and a Canadian NBC?

This is where Orly comes in to play.

Orly Taitz has been successful at obfuscating the real issue, that Obama's father was never a US citizen, and therefore Obama can not be a Natural Born US Citizen. She has done more to define what the average, uninformed, person considers as a 'birther', and that being someone who believes Obama was not born in Hawaii, than anyone else on the planet. It's classic disinformation.

LOL

You are clearly now beyond the pale.

They have show multiple Selective Service registration cards from the same post office as Obama's, just days before, and after his, and all the others show the year digits in the same relative position to rest of the stamp - different than Obama's. I guess the clerk could have slammed the stamp down, on an angle, with 10 tonnes of force, twisting it at the exact moment of impact to make a clear impression on all of the stamp except the century digits. What you are saying is as nonsensical as this example.

That would fall under the category of 'mootness'. Like many of the trolls here state, Obama won the election, so there is nothing you can do. There is some truth to that. And if there is nothing the legal system can do, the courts will dismiss the case as being 'moot'.

BUT, a case can get around the 'mootness' by showing that the situation is repeatable. That is what they are doing here. They are telling the court, we need to continue with this case, so that in the future, when this happens again, a legal precedence is established. An example of this, and a case cited, is Roe v Wade. By the time the case reached the courts, Roe had already had her baby - so it was a 'moot' issue. The case continued, so the courts could decide on future situations.

There is one major problem with your theory. Yes, many things can effect what parts of a stamp show up, or don't show up. And to the level of ink any particular place on the stamp. The fact that the century digits are not present does not show the stamp to fraudulent. The fact that the '80' on the stamp is in the wrong location does indicate that the stamp is fraudulent.

There is ZERO chance that parts of the stamp, such as the rings, and the post office show clearly, AND the year digits ('80') show clearly, and the year digits would be in a different location, relative to the other clear parts of the stamp, from other impressions made with the same stamp.

That looks like a moiré pattern which safety paper was designed to produce when copied. It does that so one can distinguish a copy from the original.

Very logical. So.... Since a scanner uses the same technology to read a document, then why doesn't Obama's "scanned" BC on the WH website show the same security pattern?

Of course not, that would have been incredibly stupid.

Had Hillary had evidence, and used it publically in 2008, she would have splintered off the black vote from the Democratic party, and as a result, she would have lost the election to McCain.

The idea that the evidence doesn't exit, because Hillary would have used it, is ludicrous. The fact that one of her supporters (Berg) started the talk of Obama not being eligible speaks volumes of whether or not Hillary's camp had the info. But since Obama wasn't going to go quietly, and was willing to destroy the Democratic party instead of stepping down, left Hillary with no option but to bury the info she had.

I believe there is some true to what the President of Chechnya had to say.

I just listened to a neighbor of these kids when they were growing up, and she talked about what great kids these were.

The education system is controlled by liberals. One of the tenants of liberalism is that the individual is never responsible for their problems. You failed a standardized test? It’s not because you didn’t study hard enough, it’s because the test is biased. Your dad can’t get a good job? It’s not because he partied his way through school, it’s because of greedy corporations. This lack of personal responsibility also means that the individual is not capable of fixing their problems. What good would trying harder in school do if the test is biased and I’m just going to fail anyway? This leads to a sense of hopelessness/depression/anger, there is no way for an individual to improve their situation (except for voting for liberal politicians of course!).

The liberal/American mindset is conditioning people to feel hopeless whenever they have a problem. That hopeless will sometimes lead to violence.

Look at almost every episode of major violence in Americas near history, and who where the perpetrators? In almost every case, it’s a hopeless liberal!

These are the people I would be looking into.

Notice the apparent weight of the bag. Also notice the bottom of the backpack, and how there appears to be something somewhat pointy sticking out? Maybe the top of a pressure cooker?

Calling *BS* on this one. No way the attack could have been planned and carried out in a week.

It need not have been planned and executed in a week. Iran has already stated that there are many terrorist cells already in America. They have publically stated that these cells will be given the go ahead to attack if Iran's nuclear facilities are attacked.

I would image that there is always at least one of these cells ready to launch an attack. All they would need, would be the go ahead to launch their attack.

The purpose of this attack very likely might be Iran feeling that an attack on it's nuclear facilities was imminent, and Iran deciding that flexing it's muscles might give Obama pause in allowing an attack against Iran.

I believe that is not the case, it appears that they were TATP (triacetone triperoxide) bombs.

The court did not just 'not actually pronounce' Mr Wong Kim Ark a 'natural born citizen', the court explicitly stated that he wasn't when it said -

"The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."

I installed ‘TuneIn’ on my phone, and tuned it to 1330 WEBY, it sounds like Gallups, but does not sound like Mike Zullo is on.

I do not know what is going on. There is someone talking about ChristianRescue.org . I don’t know if this is an old show or not.

I also can not access the live stream.

You’re talking about mootness. When Roe v Wade was decided, the baby had already been born.

The court will decide the issue to determine how the SOS should handle situations in the future.

Will the court actually require Obama’s BC? I would doubt it, the SOS could say, if it’s an issue, we will start checking in the future. If the defense say ‘we don’t need to check, the media, and the voters, validate the candidate that might leave an opening to prove them wrong. That’s what I’m hoping for.

I was already boycotting Starbucks, mainly because I think their coffee stinks! But now there are multiple reasons to not drink their crud.

Anyone curious as to how the Sun effects the climate, there is an excellent book called ‘The Chilling Stars’. It explains how it is actually the Sun, more specifically the Heliosphere that impacts the number of Galactic Cosmic Rays reaching the Earth’s lower atmosphere. And how these GCR’s create the building blocks of clouds. Less GCR’s reaching the Earth, means more clouds, greater albedo, and lower temperatures. Fewer GCR’s reaching the Earth, means fewer clouds, and lower albedo, and higher temperatures.

Let me ask a simple question of those who believe Cruz is a natural born citizen of the US.

Is he also a natural born citizen of Cuba? Is Cruz also a natural born citizen of Canada?

Yes, that was it. My mistake, he said he is a citizen by birth. Glad I was able to cast a vote his way.

If those are his words, he is 100% wrong. The is a distinct difference between 'by birth', and 'at birth'.

He may have been a US citizen 'at birth', but he may have also been a Canadian citizen at 'at birth', and a Cuban citizen 'at birth'. It is the individual laws of those countries that determine whether or not he is a citizen of that country.

But the phrase 'by birth' means something completely different. It means that the mere act of his birth has made him a citizen, and a law is not required. That is only when a person is a citizen by natural law and a person is a citizen by natural law only when they are born in a country in which their parents are citizens. Are they citizens of that country 'by birth' - naturally, because they can be nothing else.

The reason Catholics are for illegal immigration is because they assume that the Mexicans will be catholic, and increase the money going into church coffers. Good luck with that idiots! The Mexicans will only send the money back home!

undocumented immigrants are “family people” who “came to make a contribution to American society,”

BS!!! ILLEGAL immigrants DO NOT want to be Americans, they want to work here, and send the money back HOME to MEXICO!

Another reason I no longer consider myself catholic - Catholics are abortion (YES THE MAJORITY DO!) supporting socialists!

Sounds like a good use of ammo to me.

That is why the government is buying the entire ammunition supply.

Does anyone remember that the 60's radicals like the Weathermen believed? They believed that a race war was brewing, and they were positioning themselves to create a new government after the current one collapsed. That race war never developed.

The 60's radicals are now in charge - what is about to happen??? They are creating the race war they have been waiting for.

Why? Simple - to destroy the Republic, and replace it with a Marxist Democracy.

As a Republic, the states have too much power, therefore the Republic must be destroyed. The easiest way is to create a new civil war, and allow the federal government to take over. The initial 'race war' will lead to martial law, and the federal government assuming many of the roles of the state governments. Some of the states will baulk at this, and a new civil war will result. This 'civil war' may or may not be a violent one, but it will result in a new form of government, with a strong federal government over weak state governments - the opposite of what we are supposed to have now.

Your *opinion* is 100% wrong. The meaning of the term-of-art 'natural born citizen' has been addressed, and confirmed by the US Supreme Court.

Your opinion can not possibly be accepted for the simple reason that NO part of the Constitution can be interpreted in such a way as to make any part of the Constitution irrelevant. What that means is that the Constitution MUST be interpreted in such a way that every word in relevant.

Your *opinion* of the term 'natural born citizen' ignores the word 'natural'. If the intention was as you believe, they would have simply said 'a born citizen', or 'a citizen at birth' or 'born a citizen'. So it is clear they intended something else.

So - what does the word 'natural' mean in the context of 'natural born citizen'? There are two types of law. There is 'positive law' - this is man-made law, such as the Constitution, laws from Congress, state law, local ordinances, and so on. And then there is 'natural law' - this is the law of nature, or the divine. An example would be when the founders wrote the Declaration of Independence, and stated - "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 is a form of natural law.

So, the term 'natural born citizen' means EXACTLY what it says, a citizen at birth according to natural law.

OK - what is a citizen by natural law? Remember, a natural law is one that is unwritten. So a citizen by natural law, would be a citizen that would require no man made 'positive' law to be a citizen. So, when is someone a citizen without need of any positive law? When they can be nothing else. Does that sound familiar? Ever heard someone answer a question with the word 'naturally', because the answer could be nothing else? "Does Monday come after Sunday? Naturally!".

Who can be nothing other than a citizen at birth, and therefore requires no positive law? There are 4 basic variables governing citizenship. 1) born in or out of a country. 2) Both parents are citizens. 3) One parent is a citizen. 4) Neither parent is a citizen. The first (where born) is combined with the other 3 to determine whether or not a child is a citizen at birth. There are laws written to govern every situation - except one. The only situation not covered by positive law is when a child is born in a country, and both parents are citizens of that country. Why? Because no law is required, the child is a citizen 'naturally'.

Both side want to ignore this FACT. Maybe where a person is born shouldn't really matter. I've seen many immigrants who are much more patriotic than natural born American's. But there is a process to go thru if that is the case, and that process is the Amendment process. But that probably wouldn't go through. So what do they do? They simply ignore that part of the Constitution. The real danger is what part do the decide to ignore next?

I have a hdhomerun prime, and am currently using Windows Media Center. I have media center extenders in the garage, and on the outside patio. I’m hoping to replace the extenders with Raspberry Pi based htpc’s in the future.

Hdhomerun has now updated their prime’s to act as DLNA servers. I’ve looked at using XBMC on the Rpi, but until there is a PVR addin with DTCP-IP support, it’s not worth replacing the extenders.

Didn't you read your link?

(1)A foreign child of less than 5 years age who is adopted by a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, if such an adoption is declared legal by the Pengadilan Negeri at the residence of the person adopting the child.

SAD married Soetoro either March 5th 1964, or March 5th 1965. Maya has stated that her father adopted Barry. If he adopted him around the time of the marriage, it's pretty clear that under Indoneasian law, Barray became a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia automatically.

Barry’s conception is estimated to have occurred in late October 1960 or early November 1960. I haven’t seen any evidence placing Stanley Ann and Malcolm X together at that time.

That assumes Obama was born in August.

Following her graduation from high school, Stanley Ann spent the summer in Chicago, working as an Au Pair. She had been accepted to attend the University of Chicago, but her father decided that she couldn't go. She was made to come home to Seattle, and the family suddenly moved to Hawaii.

In Dreams Obama writes that SAD was in Chicago between her junior, and senior years. I believe that this is either a mistake, or a lie, based on the fact that Dreams states that SAD saw the movie Black Orpheus when in Chicago working as an Au Pair. This is AFTER the summer between her junior and senior years. I believe it's probable that SAD was working as an Au Pair in Chicago the summer before she planned on attending the University of Chicago.

Something happened the summer of 1960 that caused SAD's parents to pull her out of Chicago, and the family to move to Hawaii. What happened? I believe SAD got pregnant.

After the family moved to Hawaii they discovered that there were not a lot of black men there. One of the few was SAD's father's good friend Frank Marshall Davis. That would cause obvious problems after the baby was born. Enter Obama Sr.

Obama Sr was well known, being the first black to attend the University Of Hawaii. Obama was aproached, and was asked if he would allow the Dunhams to use him as the babies father. Obama agreed, and received some monetary support from the Dunhams.

I believe that Obama does have a Hawaii birth certificate. I also believe that the file that Obama released does not accurately represent it. I believe there is some information on Obama's original birth certificate that shows that this fraud occured. What if Obama's original birth certificate showed an April birth date? Or March? Or maybe something else that excludes the possability of Obama Sr being his father? Obama's entire life, and more importantly the book that made him, are all a bunch of lies.

This EXACT same thing has happened to me today.

I frequent 2 different car forums (I have a 72 Corvette, and a 65 Dodge Dart), and BOTH required that I log in. I haven't had to login to those forums in a VERY long time.

I also had to log into Facebook - I hadn't had to log into it for a long time also.

I just looked at my update history (Start -> All Programs -> Windows Update -> View update history) and there where 10 updates that went in last night at 3am (I leave my PC always on).

It's disconcerting, because typical behavior of a key mapping virus is to delete your cookies so that you are forced to log into your web accounts, such as banking. The virus can then map your user id's and passwords as you are forced to login.

Can you see if you had the same updates go in last night? The ones I had were:




Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool - February 2013 (KB890830)

Security Update for Windows 7 (KB2778344)

Security Update for Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5.1 on Windows 7 SP1 x86 (KB2789645)

Update for Outlook 2003 Junk E-mail Filter (KB2767887)

Security Update for Windows 7 (KB2799494)

Security Update for Windows 7 (KB2790655)

Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer 9 for Windows 7 (KB2792100)

Security Update for Internet Explorer 9 for Windows 7 (KB2797052)

Security Update for Microsoft .NET Framework 4 on XP, Server 2003, Vista, Windows 7, Server 2008 x86 (KB2789642)

Security Update for Windows 7 (KB2790113)

Read the text, it's very clear.

"The order of dismissal is vacated and the appeal is reinstated".

This is simply reinstating the appeal of the dismissal of the case, it's not reinstating the case.

All of the most fervent pro-aborts are certainly those who either had an abortion themselves or encouraged another to get one. Their fury directed at the pro life movement is simply a self defense mechanism, to help them deal with the guilt they can never shake.

Exactly.

This is also where IMHO most of the vitriol for Sarah Palin comes from. Every women, who is not a socialpath, who decides to have an abortion, reaches a point where they tell themselves that 'any woman in my position would do the same thing'. When someone comes along and says 'I was in that position, and I didn't have an abortion', it makes them VERY angry. How dare they make them feel guilty about the decisions they made.

A very sad fact is that 40% of all women will have an abortion sometime in their life, and almost all of those will become Democrat partyline voter so they don't have to feel guilty about their past.

If they want true equality, then I think that every MOS (Military Occupation Specialty) should be maintained at the same proportion as that of the service as a whole.

For example, WM's (Woman Marine) compose around 6% of the USMC. Therefore, they should represent 6% of all those with MOS 0311 (infantry rifleman).

ALL female recruits should be directed to MOS's that are underrepresented until those MOS's consist of a proportional number of females.

Standards must not be modified, current standards are already at minimum requirements in the USMC.

That is what, IMHO, is required to make things 'fair'.

Anyone care to guess what the result of a 'fair' policy would be?

Just last night I made some wings for my wife and I for dinner. Wings are something my wife and I like to have when we can't think of anything else - it's the old standby.

I usually cook around 10 for me, and 6 for my wife. We always by the large tyson bag. We used to get 2 to 3 dinners out of a bag, last night there was a total of 20 wings in the bag! I commented to my wife about it, and she said it was the same price as always, they just cut WAY back on the amount in the bag.

The I saw this article. Looks like we got Al Gore to blame!

I agree.

I originally supported Dr Taitz, both financially, and through online comments. It wasn't until I actually saw her in the Georgia courtroom that I realized the only explanation for her actions was that she is acting to INTENTIONALLY obfuscate the truth! That is the only explanation to her actions.

Everything that Dr Taitz has done to this point has had the effect of either 1) forming the narrative the 'Birthers' are crazy, or 2) advancing the idea that 'Birthers' beliefs have been dismissed repeatedly by the courts.

Dr Taitz IS working in support of President Obama! There is not other logical explanation.

Anyone who claims to be Catholic, and supports Notre Dame, is a hypocrite!

I’m a Catholic, and I believe that the church should excommunicate anyone who supports abortion, and as such, everyone at Notre Dame should cease calling themselves Catholic at once!

Still open most likely birth locations: Kenya, HI, WA, IMO.

You forgot to mention WhiteRock, BC.

There is evidence that SAD's Aunt lived in Blaine WA at that time. Blaine is a small border town across the Canadian border from WhiteRock.

Since SAD was scheduled to attend UofW in Sept 61, and had a 'due date' shortly before that, SAD may have been sent to live with her aunt till the baby was born.

The border at that time was very porous, and SAD delivers BHO in hospital in WhiteRock.

Everything else that occured, such as the use of Virginia Sunahara's BC as a root for BHO BC is the same as the theory of a Kenyan birth.

Here is one bit of information. In 1961 the average length of stay in a hospital for maternity stays was 8 days. And that is a US average. Drive through birthings were not yet in practice at all at that time.

OK. Obama born in mid July. SAD needs to be in Washington in mid Sept to start school there.

Arrives in Hawaii, and registers foriegn birth. No big deal, perfectly legal. Allows BHO to register in University as foriegn student, and he has Pakistani roomate in foriegn dorms.

All is good until BHO must show he was actually born in Hawaii. Even though he has a Hawaii BC, it shows registration of foriegn birth.

BHO needs NEW Hawaii BC, and in comes Virginia Sunahara's BC. A BC that is gauranteed not to be requested by anyone else. Even has third charachter of name of 'R' for alignment purposes.

Funny thing about that letter from Hawaii to the Arizona SOS, it said that basically BHO has a Hawaii BC with much of the same information on it that the WH released BC has. But one critial piece of info is NOT confirmed - the actual birth date.



I believe that SAD hated her race, and she hated America. She got pregnant and wanted to provide her baby with additional 'oppurtunities', such as an African heritage. She went to Africa to experience it's superior culture, and to birth her baby, and provide it with it's heritage. She arrived in Hawaii sometime in early August, and registered BHO as foriegn birth.

When BHO needs NBC, people start looking for donor document. A perfect document is found for a baby born Aug 5, Virginia Sunahara. WH released document based on Virginia Sunahara's as BHO's. Nothing technically illegal is done. As long as Hawaii stays silent, and they are legally obligated to do so, then the fraud can not be exposed.

No judge can, or will boot a sitting President from office.
That is a good thing.

But a Judge can order a Secretary of State to confirm the eligibility of a candidate. And give that SOS any needed legal backing to obtain such proof as necessary.

So, while a judge can not remove a President from office, he can ensure the release of document that would otherwise be hidden.

A judge is not going to have Obama removed from office, but what if he orders document be released, and those documents where to show that Obama, as a result of being adopted by the member of a foriegn military, and being removed from his USC mother's passport while living overseas, lost his US citizenship. And that he regained it by naturalizing at a later date? While that might not provide a means for Obama's removal by a court, it's release to the public might be enough to start an impeachment process.

I agree that Obama will never be removed by court. The only way he will be removed is through impeachment. And the only way that is going to occur, is if there is public information that Obama is not a NBC. And that is not going to happen unless a court orders the release of documentation that shows that.

The ‘culture’ at blame is called liberalism.

In 1968 a book was released by the man who is now President Obama scientific advisor. This book was called ‘The Population Bomb’.

This book set in course the liberal agenda. That agenda is spelled out in a memo called the Jaffe Memo(http://static.infowars.com/2011/12/i/article-images/jaffememo-watersterilants.pdf). One of the goal of the liberal agenda is to weaken the family structure. The idea is that it is this family dynamic that results in children being born, and therefore it must be weakened to lower the population growth.

The side effect is that children who are still born, despite the best effort of those supporting this liberal agenda, are born into a culture that is not conducive to child development.

Read the memo. Look at how much of today’s ‘liberalism’ was defined in 1969!