obama birth certificate: yes or no

[turzovka]

Huh? When was his half sister given multiple choices?

Well how many hospitals were there in Honolulu in 1960 that the family might have been close to? The sister in Hawaii in two separate interviews claims two different ones. So do other sites claim two different ones according to this article.

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/its-a-miracle-barack-obama-born-in-two-different-hospitals/blog-20464/
There is also a discrepancy in what hospital Barack Hussein Obama was born in, even if he was born in Hawaii. Reports by his own sister in two separate interviews state that he was born at two different hospitals– Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital–in Honolulu.

Someone is lying. According to Obama’s Kenyan (paternal) grandmother, as well as his half-brother and half-sister, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya, not in Hawaii as the Democratic candidate for president claims. His grandmother bragged that her grandson is about to be President of the United States and is so proud because she was present DURING HIS BIRTH IN KENYA, in the delivery room. -This, according to several news sites and Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg (see video below) who is, surprisingly, a life long democrat himself.

--- Are you following? The lies, the inconsistencies, the cover ups, the reluctance to say anything for 2 ½ years until they got a forgery together. The B.S. is endless.

For this elaborate conspiracy to take place like you believe then back in 1961 they would have had to fake a newspaper birth announcement. Did they know when he was born he was going to run for President? Birthers are idiots.

If you really wanted to know the truth, instead of just looking for things to help your side of the story, you could read the investigations and evidence. No, Obama’s mother was not claiming Hawaiian birth for little bamba because he might be president one day. It was for many other financial and other advantages to being a natural born American. No, I am not going to do the research for you unless you pay me. No one here wants to believe their man could be a con artist so neither will they admit to the hordes of evidence telling them he is.

 

[Hawkeye2j]

You are right the is a lot of bs but it is all coming from the birther side

 

[Syriusly]

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’

Elk recognized only two kinds of citizenship Natural born and Naturalized.

Since people born in the United States are not naturalized citizens- they are natural born citizens.
As Elk points out.

Elk CLEARLY states:
"all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States"

OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER. Everyone knows Obama was born a British Subject, so he was not eligible for citizenship!
)

Elk is an interesting case- regarding whether an Indian born within the United States- and owing allegiance to his sovereign tribe was born a citizen

Elk also clearly states:

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment,
than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government,
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Note the distinctions there
Children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government
Obama was not born within the domain of any other government

Note again the distinction here:
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Obama was not born to a foreign diplomat

What is not mentioned by the courts is what you claim- that a person born with citizenship in another country is not a citizen.

Matter of fact- Elk doesn't care about the citizenship of the person's parents at all.

"The Slaughterhouse cases follows Elk and it states:
"The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States."

"Matter of fact- Elk doesn't care about the citizenship of the person's parents at all."

YES, IT 100% DOES, when it says:
"By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 , 306"

Maybe you missed where it said: "all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens"

The ONLY way you can owe no allegiance to an alien power is to not a foreign parent to create that divided allegiance!

And Wong Kim Ark settled that question- you do realize that Wong Kim Ark supercedes Slaughterhouse- right?

As the Court recognized in Wong Kim Ark- reference to the statement from Slaughterhouse:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Mr. Justice Miller, indeed, while discussing the causes which led to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, made this remark:


The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.


16 Wall. 73.

This was wholly aside from the question in judgment and from the course of reasoning bearing upon that question. It was unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities, and that it was not formulated with the same care and exactness as if the case before the court had called for an exact definition of the phrase is apparent from its classing foreign ministers and consuls together -- whereas it was then well settled law, as has since been recognized in a judgment of this court in which Mr. Justice Miller concurred, that consuls, as such, and unless expressly invested with a diplomatic character in addition to their ordinary powers, are not considered as entrusted with authority to represent their sovereign in his intercourse [p679] with foreign States or to vindicate his prerogatives, or entitled by the law of nations to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors or public ministers, but are subject to the jurisdiction, civil and criminal, of the courts of the country in which they reside. 1 Kent Com. 44; Story Conflict of Laws § 48; Wheaton International Law (8th ed.) § 249; The Anne (1818), 3 Wheat. 435, 445, 446; Gittings v. Crawford (1838), Taney 1, 10; In re Baiz (1890), 135 U.S. 403, 424.

That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which

Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection" (that is, in relation to citizenship),
reciprocal obligations.
The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

And then the court in Wong Kim Ark said that a person born in the United States of parents with foreign citizenship is born a United States citizen

The fact, therefore, that acts of Congress or treaties have not permitted Chinese persons born out of this country to become citizens by naturalization, cannot exclude Chinese persons born in this country from the operation of the broad and clear words of the Constitution, "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."


VII. Upon the facts agreed in this case, the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth. No doubt he might himself, after coming of age, renounce this citizenship and become a citizen of the country of his parents, or of any other country; for, by our law, as solemnly declared by Congress, "the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people," and


any declaration, instruction, opinion, order or direction of any officer of the United States which denies, restricts, impairs or questions the right of expatriation, is declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the Republic.


Rev.Stat. § 1999, reenacting act of July 7, 1868, c. 249, § 1; 15 Stat. 223, 224. Whether any act of himself or of his parents during his minority could have the same effect is at least doubtful. But it would be out of place to pursue that inquiry, inasmuch as it is expressly agreed that his residence has always been in the United States, and not elsewhere; that each of his temporary visits to China, the one for some months when he was about seventeen years old, and the other for something like a year about the time of his coming of age, was made with the intention of returning, and was followed by his actual return, to the United States, and


that said Wong Kim Ark has not, either by himself or his parents acting [p705] for him, ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, and that he has never done or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom.


The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent 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. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

Every subsequent decision has cited Wong Kim Ark.

A US citizen is not a natural born citizen, that is your problem. The ONLY "citizens" that are eligible are ones that were alive at the adoption of the Constitution as Article 2, Section, Clause 5 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;”

Are you trying to tell me that Obama was alive when they signed the Constitution?

LOL- Most U.S. citizens are indeed natural born citizens- and I certainly have no problem. I am not the one who is arguing an idiotic theory accepted by no one- that would be you.

You were the one who brought up Slaughter House- which discussed American citizenship- not natural born citizens- and I pointed out that Wong Kim Ark addressed that.

And as the courts have pointed out repeatedly- the logic of Wong Kim Ark means that anyone born in the United States- other than the children of diplomats- is a natural born citizen.

Remember- no one believes your theory- created just for Obama- not the voters, not the Electoral College, not Congress, not Chief Justice Roberts, nor any judge who issued a decision on the issue.

Just a nutty theory- destined to go down with the income tax deniers in history.

 

[Syriusly]

there you go again,somehow a foreigner running our country is far more important to you than our government institutions murdering 3000 of its own citizens.

A foreigner running our country means we NO LONGER HAVE A COUNTRY, WAKE UP!

No foreigner is running our country- well at least my country which is the United States.

Maybe a foreigner is running whatever third rate country you live in.

 

[Syriusly]

Huh? When was his half sister given multiple choices?

Someone is lying. According to Obama’s Kenyan (paternal) grandmother, as well as his half-brother and half-sister, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya, not in Hawaii as the Democratic candidate for president claims. His grandmother bragged that her grandson is about to be President of the United States and is so proud because she was present DURING HIS BIRTH IN KENYA, in the delivery room. .

Yep- that would be Birthers- lying again.

His step grandmother, half brother and half sister never said he was born in Kenya.

Just Birther lies.

 

[Syriusly]

By definition we don't have an illegal President- he was legally elected by the Electoral College and confirmed by the U.S. Congress- twice.

No one who matters believes your nutty theories.

Nope, he was not legally elected, because he was never eligible to be on the ballot, IN ANY STATE! TOO BAD!

And yet he's POTUS. Face it dude, no matter how loud you scream, no one is going to care.

I'm not a dude and no he's not POTUS, he's USURPER. Only a qualified candidate can be POTUS and Obama is not qualified!

That's funny, he keeps ordering drone strikes. Wonder why no one is listening to you?

Because they are all corrupt, DUH! The Supreme Court already admitted that they were evading the eligibility issue, so it's quite obvious!

The truth ALWAYS prevails, mark my words!

The Supreme Court was laughing at you.

As we all are.

 

[Syriusly]

Elk is an interesting case- regarding whether an Indian born within the United States- and owing allegiance to his sovereign tribe was born a citizen

Elk also clearly states:

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment,
than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government,
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Note the distinctions there
Children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government
Obama was not born within the domain of any other government

Note again the distinction here:
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Obama was not born to a foreign diplomat

What is not mentioned by the courts is what you claim- that a person born with citizenship in another country is not a citizen.

Matter of fact- Elk doesn't care about the citizenship of the person's parents at all.

"The Slaughterhouse cases follows Elk and it states:
"The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States."

"Matter of fact- Elk doesn't care about the citizenship of the person's parents at all."

YES, IT 100% DOES, when it says:
"By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 , 306"

Maybe you missed where it said: "all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens"

The ONLY way you can owe no allegiance to an alien power is to not a foreign parent to create that divided allegiance!

And Wong Kim Ark settled that question- you do realize that Wong Kim Ark supercedes Slaughterhouse- right?

As the Court recognized in Wong Kim Ark- reference to the statement from Slaughterhouse:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Mr. Justice Miller, indeed, while discussing the causes which led to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, made this remark:


The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.


16 Wall. 73.

This was wholly aside from the question in judgment and from the course of reasoning bearing upon that question. It was unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities, and that it was not formulated with the same care and exactness as if the case before the court had called for an exact definition of the phrase is apparent from its classing foreign ministers and consuls together -- whereas it was then well settled law, as has since been recognized in a judgment of this court in which Mr. Justice Miller concurred, that consuls, as such, and unless expressly invested with a diplomatic character in addition to their ordinary powers, are not considered as entrusted with authority to represent their sovereign in his intercourse [p679] with foreign States or to vindicate his prerogatives, or entitled by the law of nations to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors or public ministers, but are subject to the jurisdiction, civil and criminal, of the courts of the country in which they reside. 1 Kent Com. 44; Story Conflict of Laws § 48; Wheaton International Law (8th ed.) § 249; The Anne (1818), 3 Wheat. 435, 445, 446; Gittings v. Crawford (1838), Taney 1, 10; In re Baiz (1890), 135 U.S. 403, 424.

That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which

Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection" (that is, in relation to citizenship),
reciprocal obligations.
The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

And then the court in Wong Kim Ark said that a person born in the United States of parents with foreign citizenship is born a United States citizen

The fact, therefore, that acts of Congress or treaties have not permitted Chinese persons born out of this country to become citizens by naturalization, cannot exclude Chinese persons born in this country from the operation of the broad and clear words of the Constitution, "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."


VII. Upon the facts agreed in this case, the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth. No doubt he might himself, after coming of age, renounce this citizenship and become a citizen of the country of his parents, or of any other country; for, by our law, as solemnly declared by Congress, "the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people," and


any declaration, instruction, opinion, order or direction of any officer of the United States which denies, restricts, impairs or questions the right of expatriation, is declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the Republic.


Rev.Stat. § 1999, reenacting act of July 7, 1868, c. 249, § 1; 15 Stat. 223, 224. Whether any act of himself or of his parents during his minority could have the same effect is at least doubtful. But it would be out of place to pursue that inquiry, inasmuch as it is expressly agreed that his residence has always been in the United States, and not elsewhere; that each of his temporary visits to China, the one for some months when he was about seventeen years old, and the other for something like a year about the time of his coming of age, was made with the intention of returning, and was followed by his actual return, to the United States, and


that said Wong Kim Ark has not, either by himself or his parents acting [p705] for him, ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, and that he has never done or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom.


The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent 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. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

Every subsequent decision has cited Wong Kim Ark.

LOLOLOL, you posted the following paragraph and had NOT IDEA that you posted the definition of a natural born citizen.

"Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection" (that is, in relation to citizenship),
reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."

WOW, you really are an idiot, aren't you?

No, you are. There never was a doubt a citizen born with 2 parents being citizens are natural born. As to those born with one parent, some have doubts, others don't. And the doubt was never answered.

It remains unanswered.

And Obama remains president.

Nope, because we know what the law was at the time and what the courts had to follow and it clearly said a citizen was someone born and NOT SUBJECT TO ANY FOREIGN POWER. The only way to not be subject to a foreign power is to have 2 US citizen parents, then your allegiance is not divided and is FULL.

'we' being you and your nutty theory.

Wong Kim Ark says otherwise- very clearly.

As does Plyer v Doe.

As did the court in Ankeny.

No one agrees with your nutty theory.

 

[Syriusly]

Elk is an interesting case- regarding whether an Indian born within the United States- and owing allegiance to his sovereign tribe was born a citizen

Elk also clearly states:

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment,
than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government,
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Note the distinctions there
Children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government
Obama was not born within the domain of any other government

Note again the distinction here:
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Obama was not born to a foreign diplomat

What is not mentioned by the courts is what you claim- that a person born with citizenship in another country is not a citizen.

Matter of fact- Elk doesn't care about the citizenship of the person's parents at all.

"The Slaughterhouse cases follows Elk and it states:
"The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States."

"Matter of fact- Elk doesn't care about the citizenship of the person's parents at all."

YES, IT 100% DOES, when it says:
"By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 , 306"

Maybe you missed where it said: "all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens"

The ONLY way you can owe no allegiance to an alien power is to not a foreign parent to create that divided allegiance!

And Wong Kim Ark settled that question- you do realize that Wong Kim Ark supercedes Slaughterhouse- right?

As the Court recognized in Wong Kim Ark- reference to the statement from Slaughterhouse:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Mr. Justice Miller, indeed, while discussing the causes which led to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, made this remark:


The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.


16 Wall. 73.

This was wholly aside from the question in judgment and from the course of reasoning bearing upon that question. It was unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities, and that it was not formulated with the same care and exactness as if the case before the court had called for an exact definition of the phrase is apparent from its classing foreign ministers and consuls together -- whereas it was then well settled law, as has since been recognized in a judgment of this court in which Mr. Justice Miller concurred, that consuls, as such, and unless expressly invested with a diplomatic character in addition to their ordinary powers, are not considered as entrusted with authority to represent their sovereign in his intercourse [p679] with foreign States or to vindicate his prerogatives, or entitled by the law of nations to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors or public ministers, but are subject to the jurisdiction, civil and criminal, of the courts of the country in which they reside. 1 Kent Com. 44; Story Conflict of Laws § 48; Wheaton International Law (8th ed.) § 249; The Anne (1818), 3 Wheat. 435, 445, 446; Gittings v. Crawford (1838), Taney 1, 10; In re Baiz (1890), 135 U.S. 403, 424.

That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which

Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection" (that is, in relation to citizenship),
reciprocal obligations.
The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

And then the court in Wong Kim Ark said that a person born in the United States of parents with foreign citizenship is born a United States citizen

The fact, therefore, that acts of Congress or treaties have not permitted Chinese persons born out of this country to become citizens by naturalization, cannot exclude Chinese persons born in this country from the operation of the broad and clear words of the Constitution, "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."


VII. Upon the facts agreed in this case, the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth. No doubt he might himself, after coming of age, renounce this citizenship and become a citizen of the country of his parents, or of any other country; for, by our law, as solemnly declared by Congress, "the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people," and


any declaration, instruction, opinion, order or direction of any officer of the United States which denies, restricts, impairs or questions the right of expatriation, is declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the Republic.


Rev.Stat. § 1999, reenacting act of July 7, 1868, c. 249, § 1; 15 Stat. 223, 224. Whether any act of himself or of his parents during his minority could have the same effect is at least doubtful. But it would be out of place to pursue that inquiry, inasmuch as it is expressly agreed that his residence has always been in the United States, and not elsewhere; that each of his temporary visits to China, the one for some months when he was about seventeen years old, and the other for something like a year about the time of his coming of age, was made with the intention of returning, and was followed by his actual return, to the United States, and


that said Wong Kim Ark has not, either by himself or his parents acting [p705] for him, ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, and that he has never done or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom.


The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent 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. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

Every subsequent decision has cited Wong Kim Ark.

LOLOLOL, you posted the following paragraph and had NOT IDEA that you posted the definition of a natural born citizen.

"Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection" (that is, in relation to citizenship),
reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."

WOW, you really are an idiot, aren't you?

No, you are. There never was a doubt a citizen born with 2 parents being citizens are natural born. As to those born with one parent, some have doubts, others don't. And the doubt was never answered.

It remains unanswered.

And Obama remains president.

It's so funny how you all TRY to take it out of context, but I catch you every time!

It says EXACTLY

it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

When it defines natural born citizen, it clealy says that they are born to CITIZEN PARENTS and says they have NO DOUBTS about this...therefore that means that we have the definition for natural born citizen AND OBAMA DID NOT HAVE 2 CITIZEN PARENTS so it's impossible for him to be natural born...

It then says some authorities go further and include as CITIZENS, not natural born citizen, but just citizens, when you pull words out here and there, you take away the whole meaning.

It's really not that hard to understand...Natural born citizens are those born to citizen parents END OF STORY!

Thats what you keep saying.

And no one agrees with your convoluted interpretation.

 

[Syriusly]

does one exist ?? or does it just exist in the digital world...

we as a country will eventually need to know..

Obama Jokes About Birth Certificate During Kenya Visit

Personally, I'd like to see his college transcripts. You know. The ones he won't release.

That would tell everyone exactly where he came from. Who paid for college and why.

I've never been a birther but the fact he won't release those transcripts makes people wonder why the hell doesn't release them.

Is there something in them that he doesn't want anyone to see??

I suspect that he may have lied about being a Kenyan, possibly to receive aid as a foreign student.

Another example of how Birthers rely upon lies, speculation and innuendo.

Instead of facts.

How are these not facts?

The earliest mention of “natural born Citizen”, by two of the most instrumental Founders, is in the Constitutional Drafts. The original draft contained different qualifications for the President (shown below) than the final copy that we know today. This change came about after correspondence between General George Washington and John Jay (President of the Continental Congress, who later became the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court), in which they were worried about foreign influence being admitted into the administration and national government. These letters and events are dated and read as follows:

June 18th, 1787 – The “Original” Draft of the Constitution suggests in Article IX, Section 1 that: “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: Miscellanies, 1774-1789, page 407).



July 25, 1787 (5 weeks later) – John Jay writes a letter to General Washington saying: “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.] (Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand’s Records, Volume 3] LXVIII, page 61. John Jay to George Washington)



September 2nd, 1787 (5 weeks later) George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: “I thank you for the hints contained in your letter”. (Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand’s Records, Volume 3] page 76.)



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. The proposal passed unanimously without debate. (Madison’s notes of the Convention – September 4th, 1787)



A Natural Born Citizen is a “citizen by nature” or a citizen “according to Natural Law”, hence the word “natural” and that is where the Founders/Framers got their definition, which I establish below. Natural Law defines a natural born citizen as someone who is born in a country of citizen parents and is described in Book I, Section 212, of Vattel’s Law of Nations. The full definition is below:

Vattel’s Law of Nations §212. Citizens and natives:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

There is indisputable evidence that Vattel’s treatise, THE LAW OF NATIONS OR PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS, was used in writing our founding documents (Constitution & The Declaration of Independence). The initial piece of evidence that confirms America adopted Natural Law, also known as the “Laws of Nature”, is the first line of The Declaration of Independence where it states:

“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.”.

Secondly, we have the 1775 letter from Benjamin Franklin himself (below), thanking Charles Dumas for the 3 copies of Vattel that he had recently sent to America. Ben Franklin’s Actual letter from the Congressional Records. The letter below proves beyond doubt that the Founders consulted Vattel’s Law of Nations, while writing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.



We also have Congressional records from March 10, 1794 confirming that Congress again ordered more copies of Vattel’s Law of Nations. This order states:





Furthermore, the 28th Congress (which met from 1843 to 1845), recorded in the Index of the Appendix of the Congressional Debates, that we are to look to “Vattel” for the definition of “natural Allegiance”, as shown below:





The next instance of “natural born citizen” is in 1862 and is also from the Congressional Record. This definition of natural born citizen confirms Vattel’s definition and is given by Representative John Bingham, who would later author the 14th Amendment. Bingham’s recorded definition reads as:

“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.” (Congressional Globe, House of Representatives 37th Congress, 2nd Session, pg 1639)




Section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 clearly defines “who are citizens” and it validates Vattel’s definition. The “citizenship clause” shown below, was not in the original bill and was added in as an amendment to help in its passage and it states:

”all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States”.



When the Civil Rights Act went over to the House, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, Father of the future 14th amendment, is on record (shown below) in the House and confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction, while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866 and addressing Trumbull’s citizenship clause amendment to the Civil Rights bill:

“I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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” (1866 Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 1291)



After the Civil Rights Act of 1866 had been enacted into law over President Andrew Johnson’s veto, some members of Congress voted for the 14th amendment in order to eliminate doubts about the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, or to ensure that no subsequent Congress could later repeal or alter the main provisions of that Act. Thus, the Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment parallels citizenship language in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and likewise the Equal Protection Clause parallels non discrimination language in the 1866 Act.

Some people think that the 14th Amendment changed the Civil Rights Act definition of a citizen, however the author of the citizenship clause to the 14th Amendment, Jacob Howard clearly states in the 14th Amendment Debates that the citizenship clause addition to the 14th Amendment was only “declaratory of existing law” (Civil Rights Act) and is on record stating:

“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.” (Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 2890)

During the 14th Amendment debates, several Senators questioned as to the meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and Lyman Trumbull, author of the Civil Rights Act and the one who inserted the citizenship clause into the 14th amendment along with it’s author Jacob Howard, states on the record:
“The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens. ‘ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. ‘What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” (Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 2893).




Trumbull’s words prove without any doubt, that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the exact same thing as “not owing allegiance to any foreign power” and that the 14th Amendment changed nothing regarding the definition of a citizen. Moreover, 5 years after the enactment of the 14th Amendment, the Civil Rights Act definition of citizen is enacted into the 1873 Revised Statutes, confirming again that the 14th Amendment made no such change! Sec. 1992 of the United States Revised statutes of 1873.



The Annotated Statutes of Wisconsin (1889) enacted a full 20+ years after the 14th amendment clearly agrees, as it states “Who are Citizens” and uses the same exact phrase from the 1992 statute of the 1873 Revised Statutes listed above, which cites the Civil Rights Act as its source for the definition.



The West Virginia Supreme Court tells us to “Look to Vattel on Citizenship” (pg 191) as shown below:


The cite by Vattel from the screenshot above lists “page 101, section 212 of his “Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns”, which is the same text that I referred to above from Vattel and precisely reflects the Civil Rights Act & Rep. Bingham’s definition.

SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT RELATING TO NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AND NATURAL LAW.

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘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;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’ Const. art. 2, 1; art. 1, 8. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 , 306

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814)
Chief Justice Marshall (partial concur partial dissent)
“The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:”
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

As you can see, the judge is citing Vattel, author of THE LAW OF NATIONS, OR PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE for his definition of natural born citizen, which is exactly where our Founder’s got their definition.

SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT CONFIRMING THAT NATURAL LAW AKA THE “LAW OF NATIONS” IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.

The Nereide – 13 U.S. 388 (1815)
“It is not for us to depart from the beaten track prescribed for us, and to tread the devious and intricate path of politics. Even in the case of salvage, a case peculiarly within the discretion of courts because no fixed rule is prescribed by the law of nations, Congress has not left it to this department to say whether the rule of foreign nations shall be applied to them, but has by law applied that rule. If it be the will of the government to apply to Spain any rule respecting captures which Spain is supposed to apply to us, the government will manifest that will by passing an act for the purpose. Till such an act be passed, the Court is bound by the law of nations which is a part of the law of the land.”

Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino 376 U.S. 398 (1964)
As early as 1793, Chief Justice Jay stated in Chisholm v. Georgia that, “Prior . . . to that period [the date of the Constitution], the United States had, by taking a place among the nations of the earth, become amenable to the law of nations.” 2 U. S. 2 Dall. 419 at 2 U. S. 474. And, in 1796, Justice Wilson stated in Ware v. Hylton:
“When the United States declared their independence, they were bound to receive the law of nations, in its modern state of purity and refinement.” 3 U. S. 3 Dall. 199 at 3 U. S. 281.
Chief Justice Marshall was even more explicit in The Nereide when he said:
“If it be the will of the Government to apply to Spain any rule respecting captures which Spain is supposed to apply to us, the Government will manifest that will by passing an act for the purpose. Till such an act be passed, the Court is bound by the law of nations, which is a part of the law of the land.” 13 U. S. 9 Cranch 388 at 13 U. S. 423.
As to the effect such an Act of Congress would have on international law, the Court has ruled that an Act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains. MacLeod v. US, 229 U. S. 416, 229 U. S. 434 (1913)

Lovely- and all addressed by Wong Kim Ark.

Anyone born in the United States, other than a child of a diplomat, is born a citizen of the United States.

And there are only two types of citizenship- natural born- i.e. born a citizen- and naturalized.

Obama is a citizen and was never naturalized- he is by definition natural born.

 

[Syriusly]

There was never any disagreement. He has a half sister who didn't know what hospital he was born in and named the wrong one when asked. No big deal really... I can't even tell you the name of the hospital my siblings, or my parents, were born in.

No, but if you were given a multiple choice question with two possible answers I bet you would get it right every time.

Not only was his half sister confused, he's also got a grandmother and cousin in Kenya who could have sworn they were present when he was born, --bad memories in that family

Nope- just more birther lies.

 

[Syriusly]

there is a lot of disagreement... maybe cause snopes and the obama campaign site got them mixed up.

then there is that letter, and dr. corsi getting pitched...

i'd like to see a copy of the newspaper with the announcements.

baskin robbins... a picture of neil walking with grandpa and little b.

and who wouldn't want to have a peek into that vault. don't know if geraldo is available for that... wouldn't be any more controversy though.

There is no more controversy. It's already been proven that Obama is not a natural born citizen.

There is no controversy- Obama has been declared a natural born citizen by the State he was born in, was accepted onto the ballot by every Secretary of State of all 50 states, was declared a natural born citizen by several judges, and the voters, the Electoral College, Congress and Chief Justice Roberts all accepted Barack Obama as an eligible- and legally elected candidate.

There is no controversy- there is only the ranting of a few nutjobs.

 

[Syriusly]

Who cares. He's the Pres. Live with it.

NO, he's the Usurper. He's not eligible to be Pres! Wake up and do some research!

And what exactly do you think you can do about it?

Well considering I've taken my case all the way to the Supreme Court and they denied it. Justice Thomas admitted they were evading the issue in this video (and they all laugh hahaha):


I've been to Congress about a dozen times to drop of my evidence and have hit at least 200 offices. I personally handed my evidence to Trey Gowdy & Jason Chaffetz, so they have it. Not sure why they do nothing!

Because they all think you are a nut- and they are all laughing at you like the Supreme Court did.

They do nothing because no one agrees with your nutty theories or your nutty cause.

You think you know more than the voters, and Congress and the Supreme Court- and that is pretty much guaranteed to be delusional.

I don't think I know more than anyone, I just know that the evidence I have, proves that I know exactly what I am talking about. You can ignore the evidence all you want, but that doesn't make it disappear. It's STILL there and it proves you WRONG! Not my problem, that's your problem!

It is your problem in that you believe a nutty Konspiracy theory that no one else believes.

 

[turzovka]

There is no controversy- Obama has been declared a natural born citizen by the State he was born in, was accepted onto the ballot by every Secretary of State of all 50 states, was declared a natural born citizen by several judges, and the voters, the Electoral College, Congress and Chief Justice Roberts all accepted Barack Obama as an eligible- and legally elected candidate.

There is no controversy- there is only the ranting of a few nutjobs.

Yes, we know what took place with the process. That has never been the issue.

The issue was the guy was not a natural born U.S. citizen and has illegally become our president. And nobody in a position of authority even seems to care.
The issue is there are millions like you who love to be on the winning side no matter what irritating evidence says otherwise, but is so quickly buried. Put a label on us and end everything with 'LOL'
The issue is this president of ours is a phony, a coward, a scoundrel and a liar. And so are all the people surrounding him. And that does not bother you because you are a liberal and you will defend anything sent your way.
The issue is stupid people like me take the time to produce evidence and links and inexplicables and people like you come back and say "that never happened" or "that has been debunked" --- and that is all it takes for liberals and others to relax and say to themselves, "good I feel better now, I was worried for a minute there."
The issue is this nation ignores God or does not take Him seriously and they have completely misguided lives and priorities. Consequently we have a rotten govt, media, education system, and culture.

 

[Hawkeye2j]

There is no controversy- Obama has been declared a natural born citizen by the State he was born in, was accepted onto the ballot by every Secretary of State of all 50 states, was declared a natural born citizen by several judges, and the voters, the Electoral College, Congress and Chief Justice Roberts all accepted Barack Obama as an eligible- and legally elected candidate.

There is no controversy- there is only the ranting of a few nutjobs.

Yes, we know what took place with the process. That has never been the issue.

The issue was the guy was not a natural born U.S. citizen and has illegally become our president.
The issue there are millions like you who love to be on the winning side no matter what irritating evidence says otherwise, but is so quickly buried. Put a label on us and end everything with LOL.
The issue is this president of ours is a phony, a coward, a scoundrel and a liar. And so are all the people surrounding him. And that does not bother you because you are a liberal and you will defend anything sent your way.
The issue is stupid people like me take the time to produce evidence and links and inexplicables and people like you come back and say "that never happened" or "that has been debunked" --- and that is all it takes for liberals and others to relax and say to themselves, "good I fell better now, I was worried for a minute there."
The issue is this nation ignores God or does not take Him seriously and they have completely misguided lives and priorities. Consequently we have a rotten govt, media, education system, and culture.[/QUOTE]
Wow, I thought this idiotic birther movement died out.

 

[washamericom]

there is a lot of disagreement... maybe cause snopes and the obama campaign site got them mixed up.

then there is that letter, and dr. corsi getting pitched...

i'd like to see a copy of the newspaper with the announcements.

baskin robbins... a picture of neil walking with grandpa and little b.

and who wouldn't want to have a peek into that vault. don't know if geraldo is available for that... wouldn't be any more controversy though.

There is no more controversy. It's already been proven that Obama is not a natural born citizen.

There is no controversy- Obama has been declared a natural born citizen by the State he was born in, was accepted onto the ballot by every Secretary of State of all 50 states, was declared a natural born citizen by several judges, and the voters, the Electoral College, Congress and Chief Justice Roberts all accepted Barack Obama as an eligible- and legally elected candidate.

There is no controversy- there is only the ranting of a few nutjobs.

let me see if i have this right. the last state in (1959) has a declaration that transcends the nation and constitution ? i think we've had this conversation before sky.

 

[washamericom]

There is no controversy- Obama has been declared a natural born citizen by the State he was born in, was accepted onto the ballot by every Secretary of State of all 50 states, was declared a natural born citizen by several judges, and the voters, the Electoral College, Congress and Chief Justice Roberts all accepted Barack Obama as an eligible- and legally elected candidate.

There is no controversy- there is only the ranting of a few nutjobs.

Yes, we know what took place with the process. That has never been the issue.

The issue was the guy was not a natural born U.S. citizen and has illegally become our president.
The issue there are millions like you who love to be on the winning side no matter what irritating evidence says otherwise, but is so quickly buried. Put a label on us and end everything with LOL.
The issue is this president of ours is a phony, a coward, a scoundrel and a liar. And so are all the people surrounding him. And that does not bother you because you are a liberal and you will defend anything sent your way.
The issue is stupid people like me take the time to produce evidence and links and inexplicables and people like you come back and say "that never happened" or "that has been debunked" --- and that is all it takes for liberals and others to relax and say to themselves, "good I fell better now, I was worried for a minute there."
The issue is this nation ignores God or does not take Him seriously and they have completely misguided lives and priorities. Consequently we have a rotten govt, media, education system, and culture.

Wow, I thought this idiotic birther movement died out.

not yet, it's still early.

 

[turzovka]

There is no controversy- Obama has been declared a natural born citizen by the State he was born in, was accepted onto the ballot by every Secretary of State of all 50 states, was declared a natural born citizen by several judges, and the voters, the Electoral College, Congress and Chief Justice Roberts all accepted Barack Obama as an eligible- and legally elected candidate.

There is no controversy- there is only the ranting of a few nutjobs.

Yes, we know what took place with the process. That has never been the issue.

The issue was the guy was not a natural born U.S. citizen and has illegally become our president.
The issue there are millions like you who love to be on the winning side no matter what irritating evidence says otherwise, but is so quickly buried. Put a label on us and end everything with LOL.
The issue is this president of ours is a phony, a coward, a scoundrel and a liar. And so are all the people surrounding him. And that does not bother you because you are a liberal and you will defend anything sent your way.
The issue is stupid people like me take the time to produce evidence and links and inexplicables and people like you come back and say "that never happened" or "that has been debunked" --- and that is all it takes for liberals and others to relax and say to themselves, "good I fell better now, I was worried for a minute there."
The issue is this nation ignores God or does not take Him seriously and they have completely misguided lives and priorities. Consequently we have a rotten govt, media, education system, and culture.

Wow, I thought this idiotic birther movement died out.

not yet, it's still early.

Yes. And I thought this idiotic movement "evolution w/o an I.D." would have died out before it ever got started.

But there are just as many pompous phonies promoting that as is your group of know-it-alls. You see, I am sure Obama was never born in Hawaii based on facts, documented papers and a host of contemporary witnesses. You, on the other hand, allegedly are content to listen to CBS and CNN and your favorite newspaper as the gospels. Not to mention the "great American hope" in the White House himself. That's surely enough to make you an expert. Especially because none of those aforementioned sources could ever have a reason to want to promote their favored position.

Recall it was Hillary's camp, not ours, who were first quite leery of the facts. Also realize, everyone backs away from pursuing the truth because they become ridiculed by the pompous LEFT media and govt sources and liberals all around us. Cannot win. And the clueless all around us just join in as though they are sure of something they really have no education on.

 

[Syriusly]

There is no controversy- Obama has been declared a natural born citizen by the State he was born in, was accepted onto the ballot by every Secretary of State of all 50 states, was declared a natural born citizen by several judges, and the voters, the Electoral College, Congress and Chief Justice Roberts all accepted Barack Obama as an eligible- and legally elected candidate.

There is no controversy- there is only the ranting of a few nutjobs.

Yes, we know what took place with the process. That has never been the issue.

The issue was the guy was not a natural born U.S. citizen and has illegally become our president.
The issue there are millions like you who love to be on the winning side no matter what irritating evidence says otherwise, but is so quickly buried. Put a label on us and end everything with LOL.
The issue is this president of ours is a phony, a coward, a scoundrel and a liar. And so are all the people surrounding him. And that does not bother you because you are a liberal and you will defend anything sent your way.
The issue is stupid people like me take the time to produce evidence and links and inexplicables and people like you come back and say "that never happened" or "that has been debunked" --- and that is all it takes for liberals and others to relax and say to themselves, "good I fell better now, I was worried for a minute there."
The issue is this nation ignores God or does not take Him seriously and they have completely misguided lives and priorities. Consequently we have a rotten govt, media, education system, and culture.

Wow, I thought this idiotic birther movement died out.

not yet, it's still early.

You see, I am sure Obama was never born in Hawaii based on facts, documented papers and a host of contemporary witnesses. .

You mean you swallow the Birther lies, speculation and innuendo wholesale.

The con men selling the Birther fiction love the gullible- you are money in the bank for them.

 

[turzovka]

There is no controversy- Obama has been declared a natural born citizen by the State he was born in, was accepted onto the ballot by every Secretary of State of all 50 states, was declared a natural born citizen by several judges, and the voters, the Electoral College, Congress and Chief Justice Roberts all accepted Barack Obama as an eligible- and legally elected candidate.

There is no controversy- there is only the ranting of a few nutjobs.

Yes, we know what took place with the process. That has never been the issue.

The issue was the guy was not a natural born U.S. citizen and has illegally become our president.
The issue there are millions like you who love to be on the winning side no matter what irritating evidence says otherwise, but is so quickly buried. Put a label on us and end everything with LOL.
The issue is this president of ours is a phony, a coward, a scoundrel and a liar. And so are all the people surrounding him. And that does not bother you because you are a liberal and you will defend anything sent your way.
The issue is stupid people like me take the time to produce evidence and links and inexplicables and people like you come back and say "that never happened" or "that has been debunked" --- and that is all it takes for liberals and others to relax and say to themselves, "good I fell better now, I was worried for a minute there."
The issue is this nation ignores God or does not take Him seriously and they have completely misguided lives and priorities. Consequently we have a rotten govt, media, education system, and culture.

Wow, I thought this idiotic birther movement died out.

not yet, it's still early.

You see, I am sure Obama was never born in Hawaii based on facts, documented papers and a host of contemporary witnesses. .

You mean you swallow the Birther lies, speculation and innuendo wholesale.

The con men selling the Birther fiction love the gullible- you are money in the bank for them.

Except... they are not lies.

I find you the very gullible one. So gullible you are beyond reach. Keep in mind, there are a lot "smart people" who are certain God does not exist, so this should not come as such a surprise.

So let us agree to disagree since we both think so highly of ourselves. I have learned some quests are simply untenable.

 

[Syriusly]

There is no controversy- Obama has been declared a natural born citizen by the State he was born in, was accepted onto the ballot by every Secretary of State of all 50 states, was declared a natural born citizen by several judges, and the voters, the Electoral College, Congress and Chief Justice Roberts all accepted Barack Obama as an eligible- and legally elected candidate.

There is no controversy- there is only the ranting of a few nutjobs.

Yes, we know what took place with the process. That has never been the issue.

The issue was the guy was not a natural born U.S. citizen and has illegally become our president.
The issue there are millions like you who love to be on the winning side no matter what irritating evidence says otherwise, but is so quickly buried. Put a label on us and end everything with LOL.
The issue is this president of ours is a phony, a coward, a scoundrel and a liar. And so are all the people surrounding him. And that does not bother you because you are a liberal and you will defend anything sent your way.
The issue is stupid people like me take the time to produce evidence and links and inexplicables and people like you come back and say "that never happened" or "that has been debunked" --- and that is all it takes for liberals and others to relax and say to themselves, "good I fell better now, I was worried for a minute there."
The issue is this nation ignores God or does not take Him seriously and they have completely misguided lives and priorities. Consequently we have a rotten govt, media, education system, and culture.

Wow, I thought this idiotic birther movement died out.

not yet, it's still early.

You see, I am sure Obama was never born in Hawaii based on facts, documented papers and a host of contemporary witnesses. .

You mean you swallow the Birther lies, speculation and innuendo wholesale.

The con men selling the Birther fiction love the gullible- you are money in the bank for them.

Except... they are not lies.

I find you the very gullible one. So gullible you are beyond reach. Keep in mind, there are a lot "smart people" who are certain God does not exist, so this should not come as such a surprise.

So let us agree to disagree since we both think so highly of ourselves. I have learned some quests are simply untenable.

Oh you can believe whatever lies, speculation and innuendo you want to.

Because you certainly do not believe anything based upon facts, documented papers or a host of contemporary witnesses.