Arizona GOP Chairman Tom Morrissey explains why he questioned Obama’s birth certificate…
Too many things affirm that we have allowed a foreign national to usurp the presidency. Not only the fake birth certificate amateurishly created using Adobe layering techniques, but also:
1. Obama’s father NOT a U.S. citizen.
2. Dual citizenship while Obama lived many years in Indonesia as Barry Soetoro, since U.S. law says that anyone who obtains citizenship in another country automatically invalidates his or her prior U.S. citizenship.
3. Obama’s own family members and officials in Kenya have attested to his birth in Kenya.
4. Although Hawaiian law in effect at the the time Obama was born allowed foreign births to be reported as having occurred in Hawaii, the fact that Obama has failed to provide a genuine birth certificate patently proves that his mother didn’t bother to obtain a Hawaiian birth certificate for her son born in Kenya.
5. Why Obama is using a social security number from a Connecticut man born in 1890 who died in Hawaii when Obama was 15.
6. His selective service number is bogus.
7. Make Obama show us his school records and other records he has been hiding.
You know it makes me sick that this is peing permitted to happin in the country I was born in and spent 2 years fighting for in a foreign land, I personally feel that anyone running for office should have served in some branch of the armed services , and definatly be a citizen of this country otherwise they could have alegiance to another country and that could very well influence thier actions in office , I think that is why the “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” is stressed. Now they are claiming foter fraud, and fixed voteing machines. The very fact that Obama had 100% of the votes in certain areas of the country , which is a stitistical impossibility , I think there should almost definatly be a check of the voteing machines and a recount of the ballots, That plus thew fact that our millitary votes were not counted because the ballots were sent late and the (plane containgin the votes crashed ) on the way back , leads me rto believe that Obama muct be drug form the White House kicking and screaming if need be and placed in a nice cold dark prison cell for doing all this damage to our country !!!
(1) The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth not to the citizenship of the parents of a US-born citizen so it does not matter what the citizenship of Rubio’s parents or Jindal’s parents or Obama’s father was at the time of birth. All that matters is the place of birth, and Obama was born in Hawaii, as has been shown overwhelmingly by his birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials of BOTH parties (including the former Republican governor, a friend of Sarah Palin), and by the public Index Data file, and by the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers in 1961 by the DOH of Hawaii (and only the DOH could send notices to that section of the paper, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii).
2. Dual Citizenship has absolutely no effect on Natural Born Citizen status and in fact Jefferson and Madison were dual citizens when they were president, having been made full voting citizens of France, and Woodrow Wilson was a dual citizen of the USA and Britain, since his mother never relinquished her British status when she married his father. Also, Obama was never a citizen of Indonesia, a simple telephone call to the Indonesian Embassy will show (ask for the press officer).
3. Obama’s relatives NEVER said that he was born in Kenya. That was made up entirely by birther sites, who cut off the tape recording just before Obama’s Kenyan grandmother was asked “Whereabouts was he born?” She answered that question by saying repeatedly that he was born in Hawaii, and she said in another interview that the first that her family in Kenya heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter from Hawaii. A LETTER FROM HAWAII. Moreover, the Kenyan government said that it investigated the claim that Obama was born in Kenya, and that it is not true. Moreover, WND determined with a FOI Act request that Obama’s father stayed throughout 1961 in Hawaii—-so, what do you think are the chances that Obama”S mother traveled 10,000 miles to Kenya at enormous risk and expense and ALONE? The bottom line is that Obama was not born in Kenya, and neither his relatives or he ever said that he was.
4. Obama has provided a genuine birth certificate TWICE—-the short form and the long form. And he has shown both the images of them on the Web and the actual official physical copies of them. on security paper with the seal attached, to the press. One reporter even photographed the long form and said that she felt the official seal. The officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have stated that they sent the birth certificate to Obama, and that the facts on it were exactly the same as on the birth certificate that the White House put online. And Hawaii law in 1961 DID NOT ALLOW a birth certificate to be issued to anyone who was not born in Hawaii.
5. Re Social Security: The Connecticut SS number was caused by a data entry error. SS numbers were generated by the zip code of the applicant’s address. Obama’s address in Hawaii was in zip code 96814, and the zip code for Danbury, CT. is 06814.
Millions of people have errors in their social security numbers and multiple social security numbers caused mainly by data entry errors:
6. His Selective Service card WAS indeed forged. It was forged by the birther who put it online. HOW do we know. Well, for one thing, he did not even claim to have gotten it from Obama or from the Obama campaign.
7. Re College Records. Why should Obama show his college records? Bush did not show his college records, nor did Romney, nor did any president or presidential candidate (a few showed grade-point averages, but not complete transcripts of all their courses and grades). HOWEVER, we do know because Harvard Law School has said it, that Obama graduated from Harvard Law School Magna Cum Laude.
8. The fact that in some small Black districts Obama got 100% of the vote is not unusual when his overall vote from Black voters was 95%. The Military votes WERE counted. Who told you that they weren’t????
The meaning of natural born citizenship does NOT come from common law. Please see my many responses below. Assuming that Obama was born in the United States, he was not only born a dual national of the United States and Great Britain, but at present he continues to be such. Some maintain that American law on citizenship cannot be subjected to any foreign law. But such an argument does not resolve the question of Obama’s dual nationality, for each nation has the sovereign right to make its own citizenship laws and one nation cannot deny another nation that right. This point can be better understood when we consider that McCain was born in Panama to U.S. citizen parents and U.S. citizenship law declared him a U.S. citizen even though he was born in Panama and Panamanian law may have declared him a citizen of Panama. Neither Panama nor any other nation questioned the United States’ right to pass a law that gave McCain U.S. citizenship by descent from his parents even though he was born in Panama. Great Britain, being a sovereign nation, has the same right as does the United States to pass such citizenship laws. Now let us examine the British law that applies to Obama and his father and which makes Obama a British citizen not only at the time of his birth in 1961 but still today.
The British Nationality Act of 1948 provides in pertinent part as follows:
“4. Subject to the provisions of this section, every person born within the United Kingdom and Colonies after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth:
Provided that a person shall not be such a citizen by virtue of this section if at the time of his birth—
(a) his father possesses such immunity from suit and legal process as is accorded to an envoy of a foreign sovereign power accredited to His Majesty, and is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies; or
(b) his father is an enemy alien and the birth occurs in a place then under occupation by the enemy.
5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth ….”
Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama’s father became a British citizen under Section 4 by being born on the soil of an English Colony, Kenya. Under Section 5, when Obama was born in 1961 in Hawaii or some other place, he automatically became a British citizen by descent from his father who was a British citizen under Section 4.
Obama has deflected attention to his British citizenship by focusing the public’s attention on his former Kenyan citizenship. Notwithstanding what Obama may lead the public to believe, this British citizenship is not a type of citizenship that he has since lost. Moreover, this citizenship did not expire with Obama’s 21st birthday nor is it one that had to be registered in any specified period of time.
Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that: “1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya. [sic] is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall. [sic] if his father becomes. [sic] . . . a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subjection (1). [sic] become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December. [sic] 1963.” These provisions made Obama’s father and Obama citizens of Kenya, respectively. But neither Kenya’s independence from Great Britain nor the Kenyan Constitution caused Obama to lose his British citizenship with which he was born. Obama concedes that his citizenship converted from British to Kenyan but he adds that he then lost this Kenyan citizenship when he did not confirm it upon reaching the age of 21. There are no known statements from either Obama or his campaign contending that he eventually lost his British citizenship. Rather, the statements have been that his British citizenship converted to Kenyan citizenship when Kenya obtained its independence from Great Britain in 1963 and that he then lost Kenyan citizenship under the Kenyan constitution and laws when he did not renounce U.S. citizenship at age 21. But since Obama never lost his British citizenship, it does not matter that Obama may have lost his Kenyan citizenship as he contends.
Let us now see how Obama did not lose his British citizenship. The Kenyan Constitution which came into effect in 1963 at Article 97 provides the following:
“97. Dual citizenship
1. A person who, upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one years, is a citizen of Kenya and also a citizen of some country other than Kenya shall, subject to subsection (7), cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date unless he has renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of allegiance and, in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament.”
Hence, while the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults, it allows dual citizenship for children. Kenya’s Constitution does, however, specify that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possess citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship, swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya, and in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament. It may be true that Obama did not take any action to preserve his Kenyan citizenship as was required by the Kenyan constitution. But there is no evidence that Obama ever renounced his British citizenship which he originally acquired at his birth under Section 5 of the British Nationality Act of 1948. Whatever his father may have done regarding his Kenyan and/or British citizenship did not affect Obama’s British citizenship with which Obama was born. Hence, under the Kenyan Constitution, Obama presumably lost his Kenyan citizenship by not renouncing his U.S. (assuming he was born in the U.S.) and British citizenships, by not taking an oath of allegiance to Kenya, and by not registering his declaration to take up residence in Kenya. But under British law, he did not lose his British citizenship because he never renounced that citizenship.
The fact that Obama still has British citizenship is further supported by the following:
“Under United Kingdom law as it has been since the British Nationality Act, 1948, the acquisition of another nationality by a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, of whatever age, makes no difference whatever to his status as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and, therefore, he remains a British subject.
Moreover, it is not possible, under United Kingdom law, for the nationality of a child who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies to be changed by the decision of his parents. Only the child, when he reaches the age of 21, can renounce his citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies if he is then in possession of another nationality, but during the child’s minority neither the child nor his parents can do anything to forfeit his birthright of British nationality.”
Children Bill [Lords], HC Deb 27 June 1958 vol 590 cc743-830.
“It is now the law that all persons born in the United Kingdom or its Colonies, or in countries which were Colonies at the time when they were born, have British nationality whether they are legitimate or illegitimate. . . .
Also, it is part of our law that children of a British male born abroad can have British nationality.”
British Nationality, HC Deb 16 July 1963 vol 681 cc341-3.
Additionally, if one examines the British Nationality Act of 1981, there is nothing there which shows that Obama, once having the British citizenship that he acquired by descent from his father at the time of his birth, automatically lost it at age 21. On the other hand, the act contains provisions concerning “declaration of renunciation” at Section 10, 12, and 13. Not that doing so would make Obama an Article II “natural born Citizen,” there is no evidence that Obama ever filed any “declaration of renunciation” of his British citizenship.
What does this mean? Under the Kenyan Constitution, Obama is presumably no longer a Kenyan citizen because he did not renounce at age 21 his British citizenship and his U.S. citizenship (assuming he was born in the U.S.). Obama is still however a British citizen not only under English common law (in the words of Coke and Blackstone, a natural-born subject of the United Kingdom) but also under British citizenship statutes. Neither Kenya’s 1963 constitution nor any statute erased the consequences of the British common law and nationality statutes that were in effect at the time of Obama’s and his father’s birth. Obama’s continuing British citizenship is further confirmed by English law which provides that persons born in countries which were Colonies at the time when they were born are still British citizens. Hence, Obama continues to be a British citizen despite Kenya’s independence and new constitution.
This all leads to the question of how can Obama be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was at birth both a U.S. citizen (assuming he was born in the U.S.) and a British citizen which alone disqualifies him from having that status? But to make matters worse, Obama continues to be a British citizen at a time that he is currently the President of the United States. Can we reasonably conclude that the Founding Fathers, who had just fought a war with Great Britain and who did not want a foreigner to occupy the Office of President, would have allowed a British citizen, who carries that status not only from birth but also to the time he occupies the Office, to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of its Military? Another question is how can a would-be President and Commander in Chief of the Military with current dual citizenship obtain a security clearance which he would need to access classified U.S. government information needed by him to carry out the sensitive functions of that Office?
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
http://beforeitsnews.com/obama/2011/12/finally-the-united-states-supreme-court-has-ruled-that-obama-is-ineligible-to-serve-as-president-1454078.html People believe what they want to believe disspite the facts. 9/11 Truthers have no facts. Believe reporters rather than Law Enforcement with 30 years each. I was a coolade drinker for 35 years till it was proven to me that the maine stream media lies and misinforms by going to the first story were it happend. Basicly if it makes the Dem’s look bad they don’t talk about it. If it makes the Rep’s look bad they repeet it.
John. The media hides or ignores the truth. And they want nothing to do with the eligibility issues. In fact…everyone that did try to deal with it is off the air. What does that tell you?
Simple def. of Fascist – “Some one who ignores or brakes the law when it is socially and or politically correct to do so by a minority.” A majority would change the law. Fascist Capitalist = Felon. Fascist Socialist = Nazi Felon.
What rock have you been living under!
Not a talking point. Teenage thinkers call people names when they have no talking points.
Ellen…you are a liar and a HUGE BO A… KISSER>>>
luvzforplay I get sick every time i think of it and it. their has to be something done about it. I’m a veteran myself he is not a American he bought this last election of course most all of the people that voted for him is just scum and want all the free stuff well i got something for them that won’t cost them a penny .Makes me sick when i see someone that is so dam stupid that they can’t see what he is.I seen a car with one of his bumper stickers today and it just makes me mad & sick. we have no one in Washington that will stand up. They could be charged with treason also they did take an oath to defend the constitution & the American people. I’m going to set tomorrow and write a letter and make copies and mail them to Washington 98% of them are all alike so the same letter will work . He and his boot lickers should be charged with murder over Benghazi it was all his plan and he didn’t want no survivors that knew about the plan. That is the reason he didn’t send help when they ask for it .
Let me make a suggestion.When you write your letters save them to Word then copy and paste them to an email,,, send. Then print a copy. Sign then fax to as many as you have time . Also call and voice your opinion. I know it takes time and might not make a diffefence, but I have to try. Now that I am retired and have the time I spend at least 3 days a week emailing, faxing and calling. Belive it or not, but there are 3 screeners who pick up and when they hear it is me they ask.. “How are you today Mr. Hamilton?
I have been making a list of all the phone and fax numbers so far this is what I have so far. Will try to finish tomarrow.
Daniel Akaka Fax 1 (202) 224 -126 Phone 1 (202) 224-6361
Lamar Alexander Fax 1 (202) 228-3398 Phone 1 (202) 224-4944
Neil Abercrombie Fax 1 (202) 225-4580 Phone 1 (202) 225-2726
Gary Ackerman Fax 1 (202) 225-1589 Phone 1 (202) 225-2601
Robert Aderholt Fax 1 (202) 225-5587 Phone 1 (202) 225-4876
John Adler Fax 1 (202) 225-0778 Phone 1 (202) 225-4765
Todd Akin Fax 1 (202) 225-2563 Phone 1 (202) 225-2561
Rodney Alexander Fax 1 (202) 225-5639 Phone 1 (202) 225-8490
Jason Altmire Fax 1 (202) 226-2274 Phone 1 (202) 225-2565
Robert Andrews Fax 1 (202) 225-6583 Phone 1 (202) 225-6501
Michael Arcuri Fax 1 (202) 225-1891 Phone 1 (202) 225-3665
Steve Austria Fax 1 (202) 225-1984 Phone 1 (202) 225-4324
John Barrasso Fax 1 (202) 224-1724 Phone 1(202) 224-6441
Max Baucus Fax 1 (202) 224-9412 Phone 1 (202) 224-2651
Evan Bayh Fax 1 (202) 228-1377 Phone 1 (202) 224-5623
Mark Begich Fax 1 (202) 228-3205 Phone 1 (202) 224-3004
Michael Bennet Fax 1 (202) 228-5036 Phone 1 (202) 224-5852
Robert Bennett Fax 1 (202) 228-1168 Phone 1 (202) 224-5444
Jeff Bingaman Fax 1 (202) 224-2852 Phone 1 (202) 224-5521
Christopher Bond Fax 1 (202) 224-8149 Phone 1 (202) 224-5721
Barbara Boxer Fax 1 (202) 224-0454 Phone 1 (202) 224-3553
Sherrod Brown Fax 1 (202) 228-6321 Phone 1 (202) 224-2315
Sam Brownback Fax 1 (202) 228-1265 Phone 1 (202) 224-6521
Jim Bunning Fax 1 (202) 228-1373 Phone 1 (202) 224-4343
Richard Burr Fax 1 (202) 228-2981 Phone 1 (202) 224-3154
Roland Burris Fax 1 (202) 228-3333 Phone 1 (202) 224-2854
Robert Byrd Fax 1 (202) 228-0002 Phone 1 (202) 224-3954
Joe Baca Fax 1 (202) 225-8671 Phone 1 (202) 225-6161
Michele Bachmann Fax 1 (202) 225-6475 Phone 1 (202) 225-2331
Spencer Bachus Fax 1 (202) 225-2082 Phone 1 (202) 225-4921
Brian Baird Fax 1 (202) 225-3478 Phone 1 (202) 225-3536
Tammy Baldwin Fax 1 (202) 225-6942 Phone 1 (202) 225-2906
J. Gresham Barrett Fax 1 (202) 225-3216 Phone 1 (202) 225-5301
John Barrow Fax 1 (202) 225-3377 Phone 1 (202) 225-2823
Roscoe Bartlett Fax 1 (202) 225-2193 Phone 1 (202) 225-2721
Joe Barton Fax 1 (202) 225-3052 Phone 1 (202) 225-2002
Melissa Bean Fax 1 (202) 225-7830 Phone 1 (202) 225-3711
Xavier Becerra Fax 1 (202) 225-2202 Phone 1 (202) 225-6235
Shelley Berkley Fax 1 (202) 225-3119 Phone 1 (202) 225-5965
Howard Berman Fax 1 (202) 225-3196 Phone 1 (202) 225-4695
Marion Berry Fax 1 (202) 225-5602 Phone 1 (202) 225-4076
Judy Biggert Fax 1 (202) 225-9420 Phone 1 (202) 225-3515
Brian Bilbray Fax 1 (202) 225-2558 Phone 1 (202) 225-0508
Gus Bilirakis Fax 1 (202) 225-4085 Phone 1 (202) 225-5755
Rob Bishop Fax 1 (202) 225-5857 Phone 1 (202) 225-0453
Sanford Bishop Jr. Fax 1 (202) 225-2203 Phone 1 (202) 225-3631
Tim Bishop Fax 1 (202) 225-3143 Phone 1 (202) 225-3826
Marsha Blackburn Fax 1 (202) 225-3004 Phone 1 (202) 225-2811
Earl Blumenauer Fax 1 (202) 225-8941 Phone 1 (202) 225-4811
Roy Blunt Fax 1 (202) 225-5604 Phone 1 (202) 225-6536
John Boccieri Fax 1 (202) 225-3059 Phone 1 (202) 225-3876
John Boehner Fax 1 (202) 225-0704 Phone 1 (202) 225-6205
Jo Bonner Fax 1 (202) 225-0562 Phone 1 (202) 225-4931
Mary Bono Mack Fax 1 (202) 225-2961 Phone 1 (202) 225-5330
John Boozman Fax 1 (202) 225-5713 Phone 1 (202) 225-4301
Madeleine Bordallo Fax 1 (202) 226-0341 Phone 1 (202) 225-1188
Dan Boren Fax 1 (202) 225-3038 Phone 1 (202) 225-2701
Leonard Boswell Fax 1 (202) 225-5608 Phone 1 (202) 225-3806
Rick Boucher Fax 1 (202) 225-0442 Phone 1 (202) 225-3861
Charles Boustany Jr. Fax 1 (202) 225-5724 Phone 1 (202) 225-2031
Barbara Boxer Fax 1 (202) 224-0454 Photo 1 (202) 224-3553
F. Allen Boyd Jr. Fax 1 (202) 225-5615 Phone 1 (202) 225-5235
Kevin Brady Fax 1 (202) 225-5524 Phone 1 (202) 225-4901
Robert Brady Fax 1 (202) 225-0088 Phone 1 (202) 225-4731
Bruce Braley Fax 1 (202) 225-6666 Phone 1 (202) 225-2911
Bobby Bright Fax 1 (202) 225-8913 Phone 1 (202) 225-2901
Paul Broun Fax 1 (202) 226-0776 Phone 1 (202) 225-4101
Corrine Brown Fax 1 (202) 225-2256 Phone 1 (202) 225-0123
Henry Brown Jr. Fax 1 (202) 225-3407 Phone 1 (202) 225-3176
Ginny Brown-Waite Fax 1 (202) 226-6559 Phone 1 (202) 225-1002
Vern Buchanan Fax 1 (202) 226-0828 Phone 1 (202) 225-5015
Michael Burgess Fax 1 (202) 225-2919 Phone 1 (202) 225-7772
Dan Burton Fax 1 (202) 225-0016 Phone 1 (202) 225-2276
G.K. Butterfield Fax 1 (202) 225-3354 Phone 1 (202) 225-3101
Steve Buyer Fax 1 (202) 225-2267 Phone 1 (202) 225-5037
Maria Cantwell Fax 1 (202) 228-0514 Phone 1 (202) 224-3441
Benjamin Cardin Fax 1 (202) 224-1651 Phone 1 (202) 224-4524
Thomas Carper ax1 (202) 228-2190 Phone 1 (202) 224-2441
Robert Casey Jr. Fax 1 (202) 228-0604 Phone 1 (202) 224-6324
Saxby Chambliss Fax1 (202) 224-0103 Phone 1 (202) 224-3521
Tom Coburn Fax 1 (202) 224-6008 Phone 1 (202) 224-5754
Thad Cochran Fax 1 (202) 224-9450 Phone 1 (202) 224-5054
Susan Collins Fax 1 (202) 224-2693 Phone 1 (202) 224-2523
Kent Conrad Fax 1 (202) 224-7776 Phone 1 (202) 224-2043
Bob Corker Fax 1 (202) 228-0566 Phone 1 (202) 224-3344
John Cornyn Fax 1 (202) 228-2856 Phone 1 (202) 224-2934
Mike Crapo Fax 1 (202) 228-1375 Phone 1 (202) 224-6142
Ken Calvert Fax 1 (202) 225-2004 Phone 1 (202) 225-1986
Camp, Dave Fax 1 (202) 225-9679 Phone 1 (202) 225-3561
Campbell, John Fax 1 (202) 225-9177 Phone 1 (202) 225-5611
Cantor, Eric Fax 1 (202) 225-0011 Phone 1 (202) 225-2815
Cao, Anh Fax 1 (202) 225-1988 Phone 1 (202) 225-6636
Capito, Shelley Fax 1 (202) 225-7856 Phone 1 (202) 225-2711
Capps, Lois Fax 1 (202) 225-5632 Phone 1 (202) 225-5111
Capuano, Michael Fax 1 (202) 225-0819 Phone 1 (202) 225-6131
Cardoza, Dennis Fax 1 (202) 225-0819 Phone 1 (202) 225-6131
Carnahan, Russ Fax 1 (202) 225-7452 Phone 1 (202) 225-2671
Carney, Christopher Fax 1 202) 225-9594 Phone 1 (202) 225-3731
Carson, Andre Fax 1 (202) 225-5633 Phone 1 (202) 225-4011
Carter, John Fax 1 (202) 225-5886 Phone 1 (202) 225-3864
Cassidy, Bill Fax 1 (202) 225-7313 Phone 1 (202) 225-3901
Castle, Michael Fax 1 (202) 225-2291 Phone 1 (202) 225-4165
Castor, Kathy Fax 1 (202) 225-5652 Phone 1 (202) 225-3376
Chaffetz, Jason Fax 1 (202) 225-5629 Phone 1 (202) 225-7751
Chandler, Ben Fax 1 (202) 225-2122 Phone 1 (202) 225-4706
Childers, Travis Fax 1 (202) 225-3549 Phone 1 (202) 225-4306
Christensen, Donna Fax 1 (202) 225-5517 Phone 1 (202) 225-1790
Chu, Judy Fax 1 (202) 225-5467 Phone 1 (202) 225-5464
Clarke, Yvette Fax 1 (202) 226-0112 Phone 1 (202) 225-6231
Clay, Wm. Lacy Fax 1 (202) 226-3717 Phone 1 (202) 225-2406
Cleaver, Emanuel Fax 1 (202) 225-4403 Phone 1 (202) 225-4535
Clyburn, James Fax 1 (202) 225-2313 Phone 1 (202) 225-3315
Coble, Howard Fax 1 (202) 225-8611 Phone 1 (202) 225-3065
Coffman, Mike Fax 1 (202) 226-4623 Phone 1 (202) 225-7882
Cohen, Steve Fax 1 (202) 225-5663 Phone 1 (202) 225-3265
Cole, Tom Fax 1 (202) 225-3512 Phone 1 (202) 225-6165
Conaway, Mike Fax 1 (202) 225-1783 Phone 1 (202) 225-3605
Connolly, Gerry Fax 1 (202) 225-3071 Phone 1 (202) 225-1492
Conyers, John Fax 1 (202) 225-0072 Phone 1 (202) 225-5126
Cooper, Jim Fax 1 (202) 226-1035 Phone 1 (202) 225-4311
Costa, Jim Fax 1 (202) 225-9308 Phone 1 (202) 225-3341
Costello, Jerry Fax 1 (202) 225-0285 Phone 1 (202) 225-5661
Courtney, Joe Fax 1 (202) 225-4977 Phone 1 (202) 225-2076
Crenshaw, Ander Fax 1 (202) 225-2504 Phone 1 (202) 225-2501
Crowley, Joseph Fax 1 (202) 225-1909 Phone 1 (202) 225-3965
Cuellar, Henry Fax 1 (202) 225-1641 Phone 1 (202) 225-1640
Culberson, John Fax 1 (202) 225-4381 Phone 1 (202) 225-2571
Cummings, Elijah Fax 1 (202) 225-3178 Phone 1 (202) 225-4741
Jim DeMint Fax 1 (202) 228-5143 Phone 1 (202) 224-6121
Christopher Dodd Fax 1 (202) 224-1083 Phone 1 (202) 224-2823
Byron Dorgan Fax 1 (202) 224-1193 Phone 1 (202) 224-2551
Richard Durbin Fax 1 (202) 228-0400 Phone 1 (202) 224-2152
Dahlkemper, Kathy Fax 1 (202) 225-3103 Phone (202) 225-5406
Davis, Artur Fax 1 (202) 226-9567
Davis, Danny Fax 1 (202) 226-9567 Phone 1 (202) 225-2665
Davis, Geoff Fax 1 (202) 225-5641 Phone 1 (202) 225-5641
Davis, Lincoln Fax 1 (202) 225-0003 Phone 1 (202) 225-3465
Davis, Susan Fax 1 (202) 225-2948 Phone 1 (202) 225-2040
DeFazio, Peter Fax 1 (202) 225-0032 Phone 1 (202) 225-6416
DeGette, Diana Fax 1 (202) 225-5657 Phone 1 (202) 225-4431
DeLauro, Rosa Fax 1 202) 225-4890 Phone 1 (202) 225-3661
Deal, Nathan Fax 1 (202) 225-8272 Phone 1 (202) 225-5211
Delahunt, William Fax 1 (202) 225-5658 Phone 1 (202) 225-3111
Dent, Charles Fax 1 (202) 226-0778 Phone 1 (202) 225-6411
Diaz-Balart, Lincoln Fax 1 (202) 225-8576 Phone 1 (202) 225-4211
Diaz-Balart, Mario Fax 1 (202) 226-0346 Phone 1 (202) 225-2778
Dicks, Norman Fax 1 (202) 226-1176 Phone 1 (202) 225-5916
Dingell, John Fax 1 (202) 226-0371 Phone 1 (202) 225-4071
Doggett, Llyod Fax 1 (202) 225-3073 Phone 1 (202) 225-4865
Donnelly, Joe Fax 1 (202) 225-6798 Phone 1 (202) 225-3915
Doyle, Mike Fax 1 (202) 225-3084 Phone 1 (202) 225-2135
Dreier, David Fax 1 (202) 225-7018 Phone 1 (202) 225-2305
Driehaus, Steve Fax 1 (202) 225-3012 Phone 1 (202) 225-2216
Duncan, John Fax 1 (202) 225-6440 Phone 1 (202) 225-5435
Ensign, John Fax1 (202) 228-2193 Phone 1 (202) 224-6244
Enzi, Michael Fax 1 (202) 228-0359 Phone 1 (202) 224-3424
Edwards, Chet Fax 1 (202) 225-0350 Phone 1 (202) 225-6105
Edwards, Donna Fax 1 (202) 225-8714 Phone 1 (202) 225-8699
Ehlers, Vernon Fax 1 (202) 225-5144 Phone 1 (202) 225-3831
Ellison, Keith Fax 1 (202) 225-4886 Phone 1 (202) 225-4755
Ellsworth, Brad Fax 1 (202) 225-3284 Phone 1 (202) 225-4636
Emerson, Jo Ann Fax 1 (202) 226-0326 Phone 1 (202) 225-4404
Engel, Eliot Fax 1 (202) 225-5513 Phone 1 (202) 225-2464
Eshoo, Anna Fax 1 (202) 225-8890 Phone 1 (202) 225-8104
Etheridge, Bob Fax 1 (202) 225-5662 Phone 1 (202) 225-4531
Feingold, Russ Fax 1 (202) 224-2725 Phone 1 (202) 224-5323
Feinstein, Dianne Fax 1 (202) 228-3954 Phone 1 (202) 224-3841
Faleomavaega, Eni Fax 1 (202) 224-1152 Phone 1 (202) 224-5641
Fallin, Mary Fax 1 (202) 226-1463 Phone 1 (202) 225-2132
Farr, Sam Fax 1 (202) 225-6791 Phone 1 (202) 225-2861
Fattah, Chaka Fax 1 (202) 225-5392 Phone 1 (202) 225-4001
Filner, Bob Fax 1 (202) 225-9073 Phone 1 (202) 225-8045
Flake, Jeff Fax 1 (202) 226-4386 Phone 1 (202) 225-2635
Fleming, John Fax 1 (202) 225-8039 Phone 1 (202) 225-2777
Forbes, Randy Fax 1 (202) 226-1170 Phone 1 (202) 225-6365
Fortenberry, Jeff Fax 1 (202) 225-5686 Phone 1 (202) 225-4806
Foster, Bill Fax 1 (202) 225-0697 Phone 1 (202) 225-2976
Foxx, Virginia Fax 1(202) 225-2995 Phone 1 (202) 225-2071
Frank, Barney Fax 1 (202) 225-0182 Phone 1 (202) 225-5931
Franks, Trent Fax 1 (202) 225-6328 Phone 1 (202) 225-4576
Frelinghuysen, Rodney Fax 1 (202) 225-3186 Phone 1 (202) 225-5034
Fudge, Marcia Fax 1 (202) 225-1339 Phone 1 (202) 225-7032
Franken, Al Fax 1 (202) 224-1152 Phone 1 (202) 224-5641
Gillibrand, Kirsten Fax 1 (202) 228-0282 Phone 1 (202) 224-4451
Graham, Lindsey Fax 1 202) 224-3808 Phone 1 (202) 224-5972
Grassley, Charles Fax 1 (202) 224-6020 Phone 1 202) 224-3744
Gregg, Judd Fax 1 (202) 224-4952 Phone 1 (202) 224-3324
Gallegly, Elton Fax 1 (202) 225-1100 Phone 1 (202) 225-5811
Garamendi, John Fax 1 (202) 225-5914 Phone 1 (202) 225-1880
Garrett, Scott Fax 1 (202) 225-9048 Phone 1 (202) 225-4465
Gerlach, Jim Fax 1 (202) 225-8440 Phone 1 (202) 225-4315
Giffords, Gabrielle Fax 1 (202) 225-0378 Phone 1 (202) 225-2542
Gingrey, Phil Fax 1 (202) 225-2944 Phone 1 (202) 225-2931
Gohmert, Louie Fax 1 (202) 226-1230 Phone 1 (202) 225-3035
Gonzalez, Charles Fax 1 (202) 225-1915 Phone 1 (202) 225-3236
Goodlatte, Bob Fax 1 (202) 225-9681 Phone 1 (202) 225-5431
Gordon, Bart Fax 1 (202) 225-6887 Phone 1 (202) 225-4231
Granger, Kay Fax 1(202) 225-5683 Phone 1 (202) 225-5071
Graves, Sam Fax 1 (202) 225-8221 Phone 1 (202) 225-7041
Grayson, Alan Fax 1 (202) 225-0999 Phone 1 (202) 225-2176
Green, Al Fax 1 (202) 225-2947 Phone 1 (202) 225-7508
Griffith, Parker Fax 1 202) 225-9903 Phone 1 (202) 225-1688
Grijalva, Raul Fax 1 202) 225-4392 Phone 1 202) 225-4801
Guthrie, Brett Fax 1 (202) 226-2019 Phone 1 (202) 225-3501
Gutierrez, Luis Fax 1 (202) 225-7810 Phone 1 (202) 225-8203
Hagan, Kay Fax 1 (202) 228-2563 Phone 1 (202) 224-6342
Harkin, Tom Fax 1 (202) 224-9369 Phone 1 (202) 224-3254
Hatch, Orrin Fax 1 (202) 224-6331 Phone 1 (202) 224-5251
Hutchison, Kay Bailey Fax 1 (202) 224-0776 Phone 1 (202) 224-5922
Hall, John Fax 1 (202) 225-3289 Phone 1 (202) 225-5441
Hall, Ralph Fax 1 (202) 225-3332 Phone 1 (202) 225-6673
Halvorson, Deborah Fax 1 (202) 225-3521 Phone 1 (202) 225-3635
Hare, Phil Fax 1 (202) 225-5396 Phone 1 (202) 225-5905
Harman, Jane Fax 1 (202) 226-7290 Phone 1 (202) 225-8220
Harper, Gregg Fax 1 (202) 225-5797 Phone 1 (202) 225-5031
Hastings, Alcee Fax 1 (202) 225-1171 Phone 1 (202) 225-1313
Hastings, Doc Fax 1 (202) 225-1171 Phone 1 (202) 225-1313
Heinrich, Martin Fax 1 (202) 225-4975 Phone 1 (202) 225-6316
Heller, Dean Fax 1 (202) 225-5679 Phone 1 (202) 225-6155
Hensarling, Jeb Fax 1 (202) 226-4888 Phone 1 (202) 225-3484
Herger, Wally Fax 1 (202) 226-0852 Phone 1 (202) 225-3076
Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie Fax 1 (202) 225-5823 Phone 1
Higgins, Brian Fax 1 (202) 226-0347 Phone 1 (202) 225-3306
Hill, Baron Fax 1 (202) 226-6866 Phone 1 (202) 225-5315
Himes, Jim Fax 1 (202) 225-9629 Phone 1 (202) 225-5541
Hinchey, Maurice Fax 1 (202) 226-0774 Phone 1 (202) 225-6335
Hinojosa, Ruben Fax 1 (202) 225-5688 Phone 1 (202) 225-2531
Hirono, Mazie Fax 1 (202) 225-4987 Phone 1 (202) 225-4906
Hodes, Paul Fax 1 (202) 225-2946 Phone 1 (202) 225-5206
Hoekstra, Peter Fax 1 (202) 226-0779 Phone 1 (202) 225-4401
Holden, Tim Fax 1 (202) 226-0996 Phone 1 (202) 225-5546
Holt, Rush Fax 1 (202) 225-6025 Phone 1 (202) 225-5801
Honda, Michael Fax 1 (202) 225-2699 Phone 1 (202) 225-2631
Hoyer, Steny Fax 1 (202) 225-4300 Phone 1 (202) 225-4131
Hunter, Duncan Fax 1 (202) 225-0235 Phone 1 (202) 225-5672
Inhofe, James Fax 1 (202) 228-0380 Phone 1 (202) 224-4721
Inouye, Daniel Fax 1 (202) 224-6747 Phone 1 (202) 224-3934
Isakson, Johnny Fax 1 (202) 228-0724 Phone 1 (202) 224-3643
Inglis, Bob Fax 1 (202) 226-1177 Phone 1 (202) 225-6030
Inslee, Jay Fax 1 (202) 226-1606 Phone 1 (202) 225-6311
Israel, Steve Fax 1 (202) 225-4669 Phone 1 (202) 225-3335
Issa, Darre Fax 1 (202) 225-3303 Phone 1 (202) 225-3906
Johanns, Mike Fax 1 (202) 228-0436 Phone 1 (202) 224-4224
Johnson, Tim Fax 1 (202) 228-5765 Phone 1 (202) 224-5842
Jackson, Jesse Fax 1 (202) 225-0899 Phone 1 (202) 225-0773
Jackson Lee, Sheila Fax 1 (202) 225-3317 Phone 1 (202) 225-3816
Jenkins, Lynn Fax 1 (202) 225-7986 Phone 1 (202) 225-660
Johnson, Eddie Bernice Fax 1 (202) 226-1477 Phone 1 (202) 225-8885
Johnson, Henry Fax 1 (202) 226-0691 Phone 1 (202) 226-0691
Johnson, Sam Fax 1 (202) 225-1485 Phone 1 (202) 225-4201
Johnson, Timothy Fax 1 (202) 226-0791 Phone 1 (202) 225-2371
Jones, Walter Fax 1 (202) 225-3286 Phone 1 (202) 225-3415
Jordan, Jim Fax 1 (202) 226-0577 Phone 1 (202) 225-2676
Kaufman, Ted Fax 1 (202) 228-3075 Phone 1 202) 224-5042
Kerry, John Fax 1 (202) 224-8525 Phone 1 (202) 224-2742
Kirk, Paul Fax 1 (202) 224-2417 Phone 1 (202) 224-4543
Klobuchar, Amy Fax 1 (202) 228-2186 Phone 1 (202) 224-3244
Kohl, Herbert Fax 1 (202) 224-9787 Phone 1 (202) 224-5653
Kyl, Jon Fax 1 (202) 224-2207 Phone 1 (202) 224-4521
Kagen, Steve Fax 1 (202) 225-5729 Phone 1 (202) 225-5665
Kanjorski, Paul Fax 1
Kaptur, Marcy Patrick Fax 1
Kildee, Dale Fax 1
Kilpatrick, Carolyn Fax 1
Kilroy, Mary Jo Fax 1
Kind, Ron Fax 1
King, Peter Fax 1
King, Steve Fax 1
Kingston, Jack Fax 1
Kirk, Mark Fax 1
Kirkpatrick, Ann Fax 1
Kissell, Larry Fax 1
Klein, Ron Fax 1
Kline, John Fax 1
Kosmas, Suzanne Fax 1
Kratovil, Frank Fax 1
Kucinich, Dennis Fax 1
Landrieu, Mary Fax 1
Lautenberg, Frank Fax 1
LeMieux, George Fax 1
Leahy, Patrick Fax 1
Levin, Carl Fax 1
Lieberman, Joseph Fax 1
Lincoln, Blanche Fax 1
Lugar, Richard Fax 1
LaTourette, Steven Fax 1
Lamborn, Doug Fax 1
Lance, Leonard Fax 1
Langevin, James Fax 1
Larsen, Rick Fax 1
Larson, John Fax 1
Latham, Tom Fax 1
Latta, Robert Fax 1
Lee, Barbara Fax 1
Lee, Christopher Fax 1
Levin, Sander Fax 1
Lewis, Jerry Fax 1
Lewis, John Fax 1
Linder, John Fax 1
Lipinski, Daniel Fax 1
LoBiondo, Frank Fax 1
Loebsack, David Fax 1
Lofgren, Zoe Fax 1
Lowey, Nita Fax 1
Lucas, Frank Fax 1
Luetkemeyer, Blaine Fax 1
Lujan, Ben Fax 1
Lummis, Cynthia Fax 1
Lungren, Dan Fax 1
Lynch, Stephen Fax 1
McCain, John Fax 1
McCaskill, Claire Fax 1
McConnell, Mitch Fax 1
Menendez, Robert Fax 1
Merkley, Jeff Fax 1
Mikulski, Barbara Fax 1
Murkowski, Lisa Fax 1
Murray, Patty Fax 1
Mack, Connie Fax 1
Maffei, Dan Fax 1
Maloney, Carolyn Fax 1
Manzullo, Donald Fax 1
Marchant, Kenny Fax 1
Markey, Betsy Fax 1
Markey, Edward Fax 1
Massa, Eric Fax 1
Matheson, Jim Fax 1
Matsui, Doris Fax 1
McCarthy, Carolyn Fax 1
McCarthy, Kevin Fax 1
McCaul, Michael Fax 1
McClintock, Tom Fax 1
McCollum, Betty Fax 1
McCotter, Thaddeus Fax 1
McDermott, Jim Fax 1
McGovern, James Fax 1
McHenry, Patrick Fax 1
McIntyre, Mike Fax 1
McKeon, Howard Fax 1
McMahon, Mike Fax 1
McMorris Rodgers, Cathy Fax 1
McNerney, Jerry Fax 1
Meek, Kendrick Fax 1
Meeks, Gregory Fax 1
Melancon, Charlie Fax 1
Mica, John Fax 1
Michaud, Michael Fax 1
Miller, Brad Fax 1
Miller, Candice Fax 1
Miller, Gary Fax 1
Miller, George Fax 1
Miller, Jeff Fax 1
Minnick, Walt Fax 1
Mitchell, Harry Fax 1
Mollohan, Alan Fax 1
Moore, Dennis Fax 1
Moore, Gwen Fax 1
Moran, James Fax 1
Moran, Jerry Fax 1
Murphy, Christopher Fax 1
Murphy, Patrick Fax 1
Murphy, Scott Fax 1
Murphy, Tim Fax 1
Murtha, John Fax 1
Myrick, Sue Fax 1
Nelson, Ben Fax 1
Nelson, Bill Fax 1
Nadler, Jerrold Fax 1
Napolitano, Grace Fax 1
Neal, Richard Fax 1
Neugebauer, Randy Fax 1
Norton, Eleanor Holmes Fax 1
Nunes, Devin Fax 1
Nye, Glenn Fax 1
Oberstar, James Fax 1
ReObey, David Fax 1
Olson, Pete Fax 1
Olver, John Fax 1
Ortiz, Solomon Fax 1
Owens, Bill Fax 1
Pryor, Mark Fax 1
Pallone, Frank Fax 1
Pascrell, Bill Fax 1
Pastor, Ed Fax 1
Paul, Ron Fax 1
Paulsen, Erik Fax 1
Payne, Donald Fax 1
Pelosi, Nancy Fax 1
Pence, Mike Fax 1
Perlmutter, Ed Fax 1
Perriello, Tom Fax 1
Peters, Gary Fax 1
Peterson, Collin Fax 1
Petri, Thomas Fax 1
Pierluisi, Pedro Fax 1
Pingree, Chellie Fax 1
Pitts, Joseph Fax 1
Platts, Todd Fax 1
Poe, Ted Fax 1
Polis, Jared Fax 1
Pomeroy, Earl Fax 1
Posey, Bill Fax 1
Price, David Fax 1
Price, Tom Fax 1
Putnam, Adam Fax 1
Quigley, Mike Fax 1
Reed, Jack Fax 1
Reid, Harry Fax 1
Risch, Jim Fax 1
Roberts, Pat Fax 1
Rockefeller, John Fax 1
Rep. Radanovich, Fax 1
Rahall, Nick Fax 1
Rangel, Charles Fax 1
Rehberg, Denny Fax 1
Reichert, Dave Fax 1
Reyes, Silvestre Fax 1
Richardson, Laura Fax 1
Rodriguez, Ciro Fax 1
Roe, Phil Fax 1
Rogers, Harold Fax 1
Rogers, Michael Fax 1
Rogers, Michael Fax 1
Rohrabacher, Dana Fax 1
Rooney, Tom Fax 1
Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana Fax 1
Roskam, Peter Fax 1
Ross, Mike Fax 1
Rothman, Steven Fax 1
Roybal-Allard, Lucille Fax 1
Royce, Ed Fax 1
Ruppersberger, C.A. Fax 1
Rush, Bobby Fax 1
Ryan, Paul Fax 1
Ryan, Ti Fax 1
Sanders, Bernard Fax 1
Schumer, Charles Fax 1
Sessions, Jeff Fax 1
Shaheen, Jeanne Fax 1
Shelby, Richard Fax 1
Snowe, Olympia Fax 1
Specter, Arlen Fax 1
Stabenow, Debbie Fax 1
Sablan, Gregorio Fax 1
Salazar, John Fax 1
Sanchez, Linda Fax 1
Sanchez, Loretta Fax 1
Sarbanes, John Fax 1
Scalise, Steve Fax 1
Schakowsky, Janice Fax 1
Schauer, Mark Fax 1
Schiff, Adam Fax 1
Schmidt, Jean Fax 1
Schock, Aaron Fax 1
Schrader, Kurt Fax 1
Schwartz, Allyson Fax 1
Scott, Bobby Fax 1
Scott, David Fax 1
Sensenbrenner, F. James Fax 1
Serrano, Jose Fax 1
Sessions, Pete Fax 1
Sestak, Joe Fax 1
Shadegg, John Fax 1
Shea-Porter, Carol Fax 1
Sherman, Brad Fax 1
Shimkus, John Fax 1
Shuler, Heath Fax 1
Shuster, Bill Fax 1
Skelton, Ike Fax 1
Slaughter, Louise McIntosh Fax 1
Smith, Adam Fax 1
Smith, Adrian Fax 1
Smith, Christopher Fax 1
Smith, Lamar Fax 1
Snyder, Vic Fax 1
Souder, Mark Fax 1
Space, Zack Fax 1
Speier, Jackie Fax 1
Spratt, John Fax 1
Stark, Fortney Fax 1
Stearns, Cliff Fax 1
Stupak, Bart Fax 1
Sullivan, John Fax 1
Sutton, Betty Fax 1
Tester, Jon Fax 1
Thune, John Fax 1
Tanner, John Fax 1
Taylor, Gene Fax 1
Teague, Harry Fax 1
Thompson, Bennie Fax 1
Thompson, Glenn Fax 1
Thornberry, William Fax 1
Tiahrt, Todd Fax 1
Tiberi, Patrick Fax 1
Titus, Dina Fax 1
Tonko, Paul Fax 1
Towns, Edolphus Fax 1
Tsongas, Niki Fax 1
Turner, Michael Fax 1
Udall, Mark Fax 1
Udall, Tom Fax 1
Upton, Fred Fax 1
Vitter, David Fax 1
Voinovich, George Fax 1
Van Hollen, Chris Fax 1
Velazquez, Nydia Fax 1
Visclosky, Peter Fax 1
Warner, Mark Fax 1
Webb, Jim Fax 1
Whitehouse, Sheldon Fax 1
Wicker, Roger Fax 1
Wyden, Ron Fax 1
Walden, Greg Fax 1
Walz, Tim Fax 1
Wamp, Zach Fax 1
Wasserman Schultz, Debbie Fax 1
Waters, Maxine Fax 1
Watson, Diane Fax 1
Watt, Melvin Fax 1
Waxman, Henry Fax 1
Weiner, Anthony Fax 1
Welch, Peter Fax 1
Westmoreland, Lynn Fax 1
Whitfield, Ed Fax 1
Wilson, Charlie Fax 1
Wilson, Joe Fax 1
Wittman, Robert Fax 1
Wolf, Frank Fax 1
Woolsey, Lynn Fax 1
Wu, David Fax 1
Yarmuth, John Fax 1
Young, C.W. Bill Fax 1
Young, Don Fax 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alVzyfptF80 Here are the experts in Law enforcement.
You mean Sheriff Joe?
I’d say he is much more of an expert than you are Ellen
Actually, Obama was indeed born in Hawaii, as has been proven overwhelmingly by his birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii and the Index Data file and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 (and only the DOH could send notices to the “Health Bureau Statistics” section of the paper, and the DOH of Hawaii only sent out notices for births IN Hawaii).
The claim that there is anything wrong with Obama’s birth certificate comes only from birther “experts”—who have not showed that they are even experts, and who CERTAINLY have not showed that they are fair and impartial. Those are two reasons why Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, the National Review an the conservative secretary of state of Arizona (who asked Hawaii to confirm the facts on Obama’s birth certificate, and when Hawaii did, ruled that Obama would be on the state ballot, and he was) do not believe the birther “experts.”
And, the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case (which btw was AFTER Minor v. Happersett) that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth, and that hence every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born US Citizen.
More reading on the Natural Born Citizenship issue:
Save your rhetoric for Huffpo Ellen. You aren’t going to get far around here.
I do not post for you. I post for any rational person who may be visiting this site and seeking the facts. I have posted the facts above.
Ellen; You have posted opinions above. I can provide as many or more links to opinions that argue the opposite. Will you consider them facts?
So, please provide your links, and I will show my links, and let any rational person who visits this site and wants to see the truth decide between them. They will decide between links at birther sites, who hate Obama, and objective links, such as the Wall Street Journal, the National Review , Wikipedia, and the Economist. I will also post some anti-birther sites so that the reader can see both sides of the issue.
Confirmations that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii:
Here is the latest of the confirmations:
And it says that Hawaii has Obama’s birth certificate on file, and that it has checked the information on the birth certificate published by the White House against the one in the files and found that they match. The word used was MATCH. That means that the facts are exactly the same.
Here is the confirmation sent to the Secretary of State of Arizona (and accepted as valid confirmation by him):
As you can see, that not only answers all 12 questions that were asked by Bennett, but it says “additionally” that it checked the information in the copy attached and that it matches the document in the files.
Turning back to the early confirmations that Hawaii has Obama’s birth certificate and that the facts on Obama’s birth certificate are accurate:
Here is the second of the confirmations by the officials in Hawaii:
Notice where it says that the document in the files VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii. So, not only is there an official Hawaiian birth certificate in the files, but it says right on it that Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii has never allowed the Department of Health to issue a birth document of any kind that says on it that anyone was born in Hawaii unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii, and that is what the officials in Hawaii have confirmed twice.
And here is the confirmation by the governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican, that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital
Here is the statement by the teacher who recalled writing home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii in Kapiolani Hospital of a child to a woman named Stanley:
Here is the Index Data:
Here are the birth notices that appeared in the Hawaii newspaper in August 1961. At the time only notices sent by the DOH of Hawaii appeared in that section of the newspaper (headed “Health Bureau Statistics”, and the DOH only sent out those notices for births in Hawaii
Fortunately for me, I am not obsessed like you. You are on a paid mission to present opinions and observances and the statements of known obamanites as “facts’. As you can tell, it’s not working with any of these readers. Yet you persist. Which tells me you are paid to do it. No unpaid, sane person would continue this losing battle. I’m just a concerned citizen who knows the truth and have better things to do with my life. Unless, of course, someone pays me. The “birth certificate” and other “documents” have been overwhelmingly proven to be false. It’s all a dead horse at this point. I will say you are earning your money, unless you are being paid a commission on the minds you change.
All Ellen can do is copy and paste what others have written and said. She is not trying to convince the readers here. She is trying to convince herself. If people were allowed to see BHO’s real BC (not the fraudulent forgery, then the matter would be settled once and for all. Even if he was born here he has committed crimes and acts of treason.(see my above post) and shoul;d be arrested, tried. and recieve the proper punishment. We all know if he was a Rebublican he would be in Gitmo by now. He has the money and power backing him to keep him in office. It is obvious BHO is a marionette. He has no experience whatsoever. He has to be told what, when, where and how to do whatever he is supposed to do. The decisions he makes… “yes, I want fries with that.”
Ellen keeps trying and trying, but still cannot prove a thing she says, except with heresay. Check out her posted links above. PSST she is in love with this phony. HAHAHAHAHA
I post only the facts. I do not post for you but for any rational person who may be visiting this site and seeking to see the facts.
And here is more reading for you. Go stuff it Ellen. I am done arguing with idiiots like you. If it was up to me i’d throw all you obots out of the country and make you go and live in Cuba. I have HAD it with you people.
In response to Puzo, a birther site, here are some sites with the facts:
The Wall Street Journal said:
“Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn.”—http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320190095246658.html?KEYWORDS=obama+born+bush+birth+certificate+hawaii+connecticut++
Paul Ryan, the recent vice presidential candidate, who has good chance of being the Republican presidential candidate in 2016 certainly does not believe the birther story:
You notice that I do not swear or call names. I simply cite the facts.
Oh yes wikepedia is such a reliable site! And i am really going to click on a site entitled obamaconspiracy. You are an idiot. As is say, you are not going to get anywhere around here.
I do not post for you, I post for any rational people who may be visiting this site and desire to see the FACTS.
Paul Ryan, the recent vice presidential candidate, who has good chance of being the Republican presidential candidate in 2016 certainly does not believe the birther story:
You do not like Wikipedia and the Wall Street Journal, but you prefer birther sites. Well, that reflects your attitude. However, I do not post for you but for any rational person who may be visiting this site and seeking to see the facts.
Ellen, those are not facts, that’s all the BS hearsay you’ve posting for years now – give it up! Your nothing but an Obumass troll worshiper and you statements and so-called proofs hold no legal weight, period! Go away, just go away.
NOTICE that I do not call names. I simply post the facts. I do not post for you, but for any rational person who might be visiting this site and desires to see the facts.
ellen——you have made my day——-i have seen a blivie in writing
Ellen: Look at this link and explain it, please.
Answer: A person traveling from Hawaii to Kenya in 1961 would not be entered in the Hawaii INS records in any case. Why not? Because there were no direct flights from Hawaii to Kenya of course. They would have to go through New York, and the New York INS records are not missing, or is there any claim that they have been altered.
Some things that show that Obama was born in Hawaii:
1. Obama’s two official birth certificates, with the state seals on them. (The official physical copy of the long-form birth certificate was handed around in the White House press room, and one reporter said that she had felt the seal and took a photo of the document. http://turningthescale.net/?p=541)
2. The confirmation of the facts on the two birth certificates (short form and long form)—-that Obama was born in Hawaii—by THREE Republican officials in Hawaii and several Democrats, and by the public Index Data file. The acceptance of the written confirmation of the facts on Obama’s birth certificate by the conservative secretary of state of Arizona.
3. The notices of Obama’s birth in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961 that were sent to the papers “Health Bureau Statistics” section by the DOH of Hawaii—-and only the DOH could send those notices. (Also, the claim that the DOH could have been influenced by lying relatives turns out to be false because whenever there was a claim of a birth outside of a hospital, Hawaii insisted on a witness statement.)
4. The absence of a US travel document for Obama in 1961. Nor has there been an application for such a travel document found.
5. The teacher, who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii in Kapiolani Hospital in 1961 and writing home about it (about the birth to a woman named Stanley to her father, also named Stanley).
6. Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said repeatedly in the taped interview that he was BORN IN HAWAII, and she said in another interview (Hartford Courant) that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter FROM HAWAII.
7. Hawaii is thousands of miles from any foreign country, and it was rare for women to travel late in pregnancy in those days. WND has proved with a FOI Act request that Obama’s father remained in Hawaii throughout 1961, which would have meant that she would have had to have made that long, expensive and risky trip without him—and that is hardly likely at all.
My best friend was born in Hawaii on Aug. 22, 1961 and her birth certificate doesn’t look anything like his. Why???? He’s lying and you believe it. Amazing…I have the website with his Kenyan birth certificate. Do you want it…..?
OLD copies of birth certificates used the white-on-black image process of old photocopy machines. That is why your friend’s bc and those of the Nordyke Twins are white type on a black background. The short-form birth certificate is different from the 1961 copy because, duh, it is the short form, and the long-form birth certificate is a modern photocopy of the original in the files onto security paper with the seal attached.
The “Kenyan birth certificate” is a forgery, and the one with the footprint on it was posted by a convicted felon, one of whose crimes was forgery, and who claimed to have gotten the BC in Kenya—but who has constantly refused to show evidence that in fact he had ever GONE to Kenya.
(It is truly nutty to believe that Obama was born in Kenya, when the Kenyan government says that it investigated, and that he wasn’t born in Kenya, and when Obama’s Kenyan relatives say that he was NOT born in Kenya [including his Kenyan grandmother]) and when only 21 people came to the USA from Kenya in 1961 and when it cost the equivalent of $10,000 in 2012 dollars in those days for ONE person to go from Hawaii to Kenya. and when since it has been proven that Obama’s father did not leave Hawaii in 1961, Obama’s mother would have had to have made the trip alone.)
Ellen is wrong on both counts. The Supreme Court ruled that Wong is a US Citizen but not Natural Born. “Natural Born Citizen” – Both parents have to be US Citizens and the birth on US Territory. Not Natural Born Citizens are; 2 – Both parents are US Citizens and the birth on forgine territory. 3 – One parent is a US Citizen and the birth on US Territory. 4 – Neather parent is a US Citizen and the birth on US Territory. 5 – Naturalized citizen by law.
obama’s birth certificate is a forgery. Experts have testfyed in 3 different courts with no challege from obama’s lawyers. The Hawaniian news papers posted a declaration of birth NOT a live birth. On YouTube type, obama’s birth certificate. The people who know how to Photo Shop can take it apart. If it were a real document they couldn’t do that. Sherrif Joe Arpaio and his cold case posse say it’s a forgery and his selictive service card. obama’s SSN was not issued to him.
The Wong Kim Ark case ruled that Wong was a citizen, true, because that was the question to be decided in the case. But it ALSO (have you heard the word “also” before? It is a highly useful word) ruled that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth. Here are its words:
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
That quotation clearly says that the meaning of Natural Born came from the common law and referred to the place of birth (hence not the parents) and that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born US Citizen. And so far a total of NINE state and federal courts have ruled that the Wong Kim Ark decision is the key decision on eligiblity.
Re the claim that the birth certificate is forged. It isn’t.. Only birther experts and Sheriff Joe, who are not exactly impartial on Obama, have made those claims. Millions of people have errors in their SSNs, and the selective service card was indeed forged–IT WAS FORGED BY THE BIRTHER WHO POSTED IT.
You’re sick…get some help.
She really is sick as are all Obots. If Obama killed a puppy live on tv and the ate it she would rationalize it and say something like the puppy was already dead and what proof do we have that he actually ate the puppy? These people are truly insane. The only hope is that they drop dead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alVzyfptF80 Here are the experts in law enforcement.
Do you mean Sheriff Joe?
Sure, he is an impartial official. Sure he is. Sure.
As long as you persist in using the demeaning term “birther” to describe those who don’t agree with you, you have ZERO credibility as one who just wants to debate the TRUTH.
Lose the Liberal HATE speech and flush the label “birther”. Otherwise your copy/paste argument has NO merit. You’re a hypocrite if you don’t.
SO …even if all this were true, WHAT REASON do you give for Obamas ABSOLUTE REFUSAL and High cost of LAWYERS to keep his RECORDS sealed?? and the false Social Security Number??? DO I HEAR CRICKETS from you on these questions?? please answer !!
Answer: No Problem.
The answer is that his records are NOT sealed. He has shown both his short form birth certificate and his long form birth certificate, and the officials of both parties in Hawaii and the Index Data and the birth notices in the Health Bureau Statistics sections of the 1961 newspapers in Hawaii all confirm the facts on it. And he has not sealed any other records. They are simply private. No president has shown college records or passport records. Some have shown medical records, but others didn’t (Romney didn’t, and did not show his college records or passport records either). College records, passport records, etc. of Romney and Obama and your records and my records are not ‘”sealed.” They are protected under state and federal privacy laws that have existed for decades, and those laws apply to everyone.
The Connecticut SS number was caused by a data entry error. SS numbers were generated by the zip code of the applicant’s address. Obama’s address in Hawaii was in zip code 96814, and the zip code for Danbury, CT. is 06814.
Millions of people have multiple social security numbers caused mainly by data entry errors:
Does it take an expert to know that Abercrombie could not get his hands on any documents proving that a real BC was on file in Hawaii. Why was that? Oh…. because there is not a record of it on file. That is why. He was the governor who claimed he was going to settle this once and for all…..
Also, the fact that no hospital has records to show that Obama or his mother were ever in their beds? Oh must be a mistake, because 0 claimed to be born in two different hospitals… That’s not strange – nothing is strange about Zero’s records. These are all coincidental…. You have to be an idiot to just overlook all these obvious issue with reality. That’s why we call them 0bots. Because no matter how much evidence there is it will be ignored by the obots. they can’t think for themselves. Any court of law would convict a person of a crime with much less circumstantial evidence. This is a fact.. It happens all the time.
Wake up and smell the commie!
Abercrombie never said that he did not have the birth certificate. What he said was that he could not get any additional document to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii IN ADDITION to the birth certificate. birther sites deliberately misquoted him. He certainly did not say that he could not get the birth certificate, and at least four officials in Hawaii stated repeatedly in writing that they had seen Obama’s birth certificate in the files and that the facts on it were exactly the same as on the birth certificate that the White House posted. I have shown their confirmations. The confirmations include the former Republican governor of Hawaii, a Linda Lingle (a friend of Sarah Palin), and the public Index Data file, and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 and the Hawaii teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, after hearing of the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley.
Re Hospital. You obviously have not seen this:
More importantly, it is the birth certificate that is the official proof of a place of birth. Hospitals may or may not have kept their records for fifty years, but birth certificate files do because that is their job, and the Hawaii birth certificate does, and that is confirmed by the officials of BOTH parties, and the Index Data, and the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers, and the teacher who wrote home. These are the simple facts, and I have shown citations to back them up. I do not post for you, but for any rational person who may be visiting this site and seeking to see the facts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alVzyfptF80 Here are the experts in law inforcement.
Sure, Sheriff Joe. He is truly a fair and impartial public servant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se5zvGF6u9g Most people believe what they want to believe.
Wonder why they can’t find a doctor that was there or medical records from the hospital. Guess they didn’t find a doctor that would lie yet but they will.
i see many accusers but not too many if any acting on their positions—— i happen to agree that the great fraud does occupy the WH but no one seems to want to take the next step (not that i blame them) because of the retribution will be awesome and crushing—no holds barred—-but it will be a prevue for the people of what kind of tiger they have by the tail——hoped you enjoyed the election, it may the last some of us will participate in
That is because Obama really was born in Hawaii and really is a Natural Born US citizen. As for your nightmare that future elections will be cancelled, well, you are welcome to it. Keep on dreaming your nightmares. In 2016, Hillary is likely to run for president, and likely to win.
Sure Ellen we believe you just because you say so.
I’m glad you said that. It gives me a chance to post the links to the facts:
Here is the latest of the confirmations from the officials in Hawaii that Obama was born there:
And here is the confirmation by the governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican (and a friend of Sarah Palin), that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital
Only the bureau of health, the DOH, could send notices to that section which was called the “Health Bureau Statistics” section, and the DOH in 1961 only sent birth notices for children that it had issued birth certificates for, and it was not allowed to issue birth certificates to children who were born outside of Hawaii.
EVERYTHING…is hear say. NOTHING has been proven in court nor has a legal vetting occurred. Pelosi has refused to show anything that was used for vetting. This is not over by a long shot.
Why did the letter from the house endorsing 0bama get changed for his nomination to exclude certain language regarding constitutional eligibility?
nothing peculiar there. move along….
NOBODY in Hawaii can prove they have seen the real thing. Abercrombie the governor couldn’t get to the bottom of it.
Hearings on McCain’s eligibility (a war hero and son of an admiral) , but not on 0Bama.
Nothing strange there.
You really have to be an 0bot to beleive there is nothing wrong with 0bama’s records.
One parent does not a NBC. Native born maybe but still not legal for POTUS.
The meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth, not to the parents of a US-born citizen.
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
NBC definition does NOT come from the common law. Please see all my posts below.
If Obama’s biological father was not born in the US and he wasn’t, Obama simply does NOT have the right to be the US president. You say he was born in Hawaii and his grandmother said he was born in Kenya. She was there and I believe her!
Actually, I don’t care where he was born! He isn’t fit to be a US citizen and should be locked up for undermining the US government with his Marxist tactics and for selling weapons to Mexican drug dealers and for the murder of 4 Americans in Benghazi. Then there is voter fraud and buying votes with our money by giving freebies to those that are too lazy to work and contribute nothing of value to our society.
Since the meaning of Natural Born citizen comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth, not to the citizenship of the parents, the citizenship of Obamas’ father (or of both parents of Jindal and Rubio) does not matter.
His Kenyan grandmother NEVER said that Obama was born in Kenya. She said repeatedly in the taped interview that he was born IN HAWAII. Birther sites simply cut the tape and the transcription just before she was asked: “Whereabouts was he born?” She answered that by saying that he was born in Hawaii, and repeatedly that several times. And in another interview, with the Hartford Courant newspaper, she said that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama’s birth was in A LETTER FROM HAWAII.
It is not me who says that Obama was born in Hawaii. It is the birth certificate, and the confirmation of the officials of both parties in Hawaii (including the former Republican governor, a friend of Sarah Palin), the Index Data, the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers that were sent to the papers by the DOH in 1961 and the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, after hearing of the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley.
Benghazi was a terrible mistake on the part of the Obama administration. Unfortunately. mistakes and inefficiency are normal in government. If there were significant vote fraud the Republican governors and Republican secretaries of state of the swing states, and MItt Romney and Paul Ryan and the National Review and Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck would have said something about it.
So let me ask you Ellen, is there ANYTHING that you wouldn’t defend Obama for? Anything? If he shot someone on live tv would you jusfitfy it away somehow? Is there ANYTHING that would make you take off your rose colored glasses? ANYTHING?
Natural born citizenship does NOT come from the common law. Please see my many posts about the facts below
There are Natural-Born,Native and Naturalized citizens. ALL persons in these categories are “citizens” but they are NOT all “Natural-Born Citizens”. Being born on U.S. Soil is called Jus Soli (of the Soil). One’s blood ancestry is referred to a Jus Sanquinis (by the Blood).
The established definition,whether you like it or not,of a “NATURAL-Born Citizen” is:
“One born ON U.S. soil of Parents who are BOTH Am,ericans”. THAT person is undoubtedly a 100% American.
An NBC MUST meet the Jus Soli requirement IN ADDITION TO having Parents who are
both Americans at the time of One’s birth.
Wise up Ellen! Obama has never been nor can he EVER be the President of the USA under current Constitutional Law.
Hillary won’t run in 2016. What she has just done in Benghazi has just killed her chances.
You MAY be right that she does not run. But four years is a lot of time, and her mistakes will be weighted against the other primary candidates in the Democratic Party and the Republican Candidate. She is likely to acknowledge her mistake and take full responsibility and in four years her successes may outweigh her mistakes. On that basis if she runs, she is likely to win.
Yes things are only innocent “mistakes”. No one ever does anything intentionally wrong in Ellen’s fantasy world.
She will take full responsibility? How! Obama said the same thing. How will they do that? Just words to me. If she resigns and gets sentenced and goes to prison, then that is what I call taking responsibility. Liberals NEVER take responsibility for anything because they don’t have a conscience and therefore can not recognize truth or the difference between right and wrong. That’s what makes a lib a liberal. It’s really a mental illness and all libs should be institutionalized in a re-educational camp run by conservatives. However, since I am a compassionate conservative, I would give them the option to be exiled to Cuba where their political beliefs are more in line with their friend, Dictator Castro.
Leave Hill alone…she has a head ache!
It takes TWO American born parents to be NBC. BO may be a native but not a natural which does not qualify for POTUS. The real question is why the cover up?
@Ellen you may be right BUT he gave up US citizenship when his mother moved to Indoneisa and became a citizen of that country he never tried to git US citizenship back because he was taught to hate America thru his mentors, he is a Muslim and a socialist that has been put in place to bring America down plane and simple
What gave you the nutty idea that Obama gave up US citizenship? What gave you the nutty idea that his mother became a citizen of Indonesia? Neither is true. LEGALLY a US child CANNOT give up US citizenship, and in any case neither Obama nor his mother were ever citizens of Indonesia, as a simple telephone call to the Indonesian Embassy in Washington will confirm (ask for the press officer).
Re “taught to hate America,” “Muslim” , “socialist,” etc. These claims are not true, but if they were TOUGH on you. Obama was elected by more than 4.7 million votes more than Romney received, 332 Electoral Votes to Romney’s 206, and he will be the president of the United States for the next four years.
Have you lost your job yet. Hold on…it’s coming.
She probably doesn’t have a real job. It may be beneath her dignity to work for a living when everything she has she took from the taxpayers!
PHD> That explains a lot!!!!
Citizenship is not a question. NBC is…
The meaning of NBC, not citizenship, NBC, comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth. That was the original meaning of NBC, and it is still valid today. Here is how it was used in 1803:
“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)
(As you can see, Natural Born Citizen referred to the place of birth. There was no mention of parents, only of the place of birth. Natural Born Citizens were “those born within a state.”)
That is why Edwin Meese, Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, had this in his book:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
And that is what the US Supreme Court held in the Wong Kim Ark case, saying that the term NATURAL BORN came from the common law and referred to the place of birth. And seven state and one federal court have ruled on Obama, and one more on McCain, that the Wong Kim Ark case is the key ruling and that the meaning comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth and that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born US citizen. That is why Jindal, and Rubio, and, yes, Obama—all of whom were born in the USA with two, or in Obama’s case one foreign parent, are ALL Natural Born Citizens.
Hey Ellen, if i wanted to bother to take the time i could post and refute every single thing you have stated on this blog but as i said before i am done arguing with you obots. The time for arguing is over. I have wasted much too much time doing it in the past but nothing pentetrates your dense skulls. I truly hope and pray that the IPAB denies you and your loved ones in the future and that you and your loved ones suffer severe consequences as a result, possibly even death. That is the LEAST that you deserve for unleashing this horro known as Hussein onto the rest of us.
Meant to say denied you and your loved ones medical care.
This is going to have be broken up into several posts as it is much too long for one. From Mario Apuzzo, attorney. Yes i know Ellen we are supposed to believe you vs an attorney. Riiiight. There are two United States Supreme Court decisions that show that the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” is not found in the Fourteenth Amendment or in any other part of the Constitution, but rather in the common law. The Supreme Court decided these cases after the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868. In the first case, the Court decided whether the person was a “natural-born citizen” and in the second one whether the person was a “citizen of the United States.”
Chief Justice Waite, in Minor v. Happersett, in 1875, stated: “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.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875). Additionally, it is important to note that, even though the Fourteenth Amendment was already in place, Justice Waite stated that there is doubt as to whether a child born in the United States to foreign parents is a citizen (Id. at 167-68) and that the Fourteenth Amendment did not affect the citizenship of men or women. Id. at 170. It is also critical to note that Justice Waite did not refer to the English common law when defining a “natural born citizen,” for we shall see that the English common law did not consider the citizenship of the child’s parents when declaring that child a “natural born subject.” Rather, Justice Waite refered to the “common law” that as we shall see below has its origins in the law of nations and natural law and which became U.S. common law.
Justice Grey, 23 years later in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) repeated what Justice Waite said in Minor about the need to resort to common law when defining “natural born Citizen:” “In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: ‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.” U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).
In both of these cases, the Supreme Court did not look to the Fourteenth Amendment to define what a “natural born Citizen” is. Rather, both courts said that the meaning of that term must be found by resort to the “common law.” What do both of these Supreme Court decisions tell us? First, they show that there is a difference between a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” and an Article II “natural born Citizen.” If the two terms were the same, the Supreme Court in both of these cases would not have said that the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” is not contained in the Constitution, for the Fourteenth Amendment was already part of the Constitution and the Court could have easily said that the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is contained right in the Fourteenth Amendment. Second, the Supreme Court in both of these cases also said that the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” is not contained in the Constitution but rather in the “common law.” Here we have clear evidence that the United States Supreme Court itself has recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment does not define what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is and has stated that its definition may be found only in the “common law.” Hence, we can see that simply being declared a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment does not make one an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor Congressional Acts has changed the meaning of a “natural born Citizen,” for these sources address only the question of what is a “citizen” and do not touch upon what is a “natural born Citizen.” “The Fourteenth Amendment and the domestic citizenship statutes necessarily mean that Congress left determination of what categories of citizenship are “natural born” to other law. . . .” Gabriel J. Chin, Why Senator McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship, Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 08-14 (2008). Also, for one to be declared an Article II “natural born Citizen,” one must satisfy the “common law” definition for that term. The question then becomes to what “common law” are we to look for the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen?”
Given the profound differences between the citizenship rules associated with the English common law and those connected with American national citizenship, it is evident that the Founders did not use English common law to define what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is but rather used the law of nations for that purpose which became incorporated into and became federal common law. George Mason, the “Father of the Bill of Rights” and one of the “Founding Fathers” of the United States, proclaimed: “The common law of England is not the common law of these states.” ( Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention, 19 June 1788). To the extent that the English common law was relied upon in the colonies and States, that law was at the time that the Constitution was adopted “to a greater or less extent, recognized as the law of the States by which the Constitution was adopted.” The English common law would, however, be applied to determine questions of citizenship only if the written law was silent, i.e., there was no statute or federal or state court decision on the subject. Ludlam, Excutrix, & c., v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863). But the Founders did not rely upon the English common law to define the new national United States citizenship that they created for the new Constitutional Republic. Rather, the Founders replaced the English common law with the law of nations which became the new U.S. federal common law and the law of the federal government.
Upon independence from Great Britain, the United States “were bound to receive the law of nations, in its modern state of purity and refinement. Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199. 199, 281 (1796). In The Nereide, Justice Marshall stated that the “Court is bound by the law of nations, which is part of the law of the land.” 13 U.S. 388, 423 (1815). “The courts have always considered the law of nations to be part of the law of the United States.” M. J. Glennon, Constitutional Diplomacy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press 1990), at 245. There are numerous other authorities that state that the law of nations became the national law of the United States. Even William Blackstone recognized the importance of the law of nations which he considered “universal law” and the life blood of a nation wanting to be part of the “civilized world.” 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 67 (1769). Hence, the law of nations, when not codified into any Act of Congress, became the common law of the United States.
The Framers did not define an Article II “natural born Citizen” because they did not see a reason to. It was a term that was well defined by the law of nations and well-know by civilized nations. Given that citizenship affects “the behavior of nation states with each other” (Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), all civilized nations knew what the definition of citizenship was. The Founders believed that the common law was discoverable by reason and was forever present, a “discoverable reflection of universal reason.” Sosa. So since the Constitution did not define “citizen” or “natural born Citizen,” “resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations” found in the law of nations, as defined by scholars, jurists, and commentators of the time who devoted “years of labor, research and experience” to the subject. The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677, 700 (1900
The Founders also understood what “natural allegiance” was. They knew that “liegance, and faith and truth, which are her members and parts, are qualities of the mind and soul of man, and cannot be circumscribed within the predicament of ubi.” (p. 76). Calvin’s Case (1608) (7 Coke, 1, 6 James I.) They understood that an English “natural born subject” residing out of the kingdom or jurisdiction of the king still owed allegiance to the king of England. Id. Hence, they understood that “natural allegiance” or “allegiance by birth” does not depend upon locality or place; that it is purely mental in its nature, and cannot, therefore, be confined within any certain boundaries. . .” Ludham, 26 N.Y. at 363. They understood that natural allegiance or allegiance by birth did not depend upon boundaries or place but rather upon parentage. Id. at 364. The Founders understood that “as long as the parents continue to owe allegiance to the crown of England, so long will their children, by the rules of the common law, whether born within or without the kingdom, owe similar allegiance, and be entitled to the corresponding rights of citizenship.” Id. at 365. Finally, the Founders also understood that even though a child may be born on U.S. soil, if he was born of a British father, the Crown of England owed that child the same protection that it owed the father. Id. at 370-71.
Simply stated, the definition of “natural born subject” as found in the English common law simply did not work for the Founders. Great Britain was a monarchy and the new nation was a Constitutional Republic. Great Britain did not have a President to be democratically elected by the people but the new nation did. Great Britain was not concerned with foreign influence making its way into the hereditary monarchy but the Founders were concerned about the Office of President being attacked from within and without with foreign influence infecting not only the voters but also the political leaders themselves. The Founders understood that citizenship and allegiance went together. The born-in-country-to-two-U.S.-citizen-parents formula was the best way for them to assure that only a person with undivided allegiance and loyalty to the United States would be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. This test was not tied to the physical territory alone, which the Founders understood and which Lord Coke confirmed did not assure anyone’s natural allegiance. The Founder learned from Vattel that under the law of nature, the condition of a child follows the condition of his parents and not the place of his birth. Vattel, Sec. 212-15. Hence, their test combined both the soil with the allegiance of the child’s parents into the child at the time of birth. For the Founders, this was the best way to assure sole and absolute allegiance in the new-born child.
The Founders knew that the States had their own laws on how they defined citizens and how they naturalized aliens. United States v. Rhodes, 27 F.Cass. 785, 791 (1866). They also knew that these laws were not uniform. The Founders in Article I, Sec. 8, cl. 4 took away from the States the power to naturalize a person and gave it exlusively to Congress so that it could make uniform the laws of naturalization. The Founders also wanted a uniform definition of “citizen” and “natural born Citizen,” for how could they have wanted uniform laws regarding naturalization and not the same for citizenship. Further evidence that they wanted this uniformity may be found in Article IV, Sec. 2 which states: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” This clause shows that the Founders also wanted to take away from the States not only the power to naturalize but also the power to define citizenship, for “a person becoming a citizen in one State, would thereby become a citizen of another, perhaps even contrary to its laws, and the power thus exercised would operate beyond the limits of the State.” Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 36 (Wheat) (1824). The law of nations provided them with those definitions which were also accepted by other civilized nations and which allowed them to establish a national standard for citizenship that would be incorporated and become part of United States national law.
Article I, Section 8, cl. 4, which gives Congress the power to make uniform the naturalization laws, also provides further evidence that the Framers were not influenced by English law (statutory and common) in defining what a “natural born Citizen” is. Prior to the Founding and throughout its period, English Parliament had the power to and did exercise that power to declare children born in or out of the Kingdom to English “natural born subject” parents “natural born subjects” themselves. But the Framers gave to Congress in Section 8 the power to only make uniform the naturalization laws and no power to make anyone a “natural born Citizen.” The “natural born Citizen” part of the Naturalization Law of 1790 was probably only a stopgap measure to grandfather children, born abroad to U.S. citizens during that time period, to be eligible to be President. It had the same effect as the “citizen” grandfather clause of Article II. It used the words “natural born Citizen” rather than just the word “citizen” because the Constitution had already been adopted and its Article II grandfather clause which used the word “citizen” no longer applied for children born after 1787 and its effect would only be retroactive, for those children were declared “natural born Citizens” only retroactively. Since its effect was only retroactive, only to cover a small period of time, and needed to grandfather additional children to be President, Congress probably saw no harm in declaring those children “natural born citizens,” even though it had no constitutional authority to do so. Hence, by the time 1795 arrived, the Third Congress, knowing well its limited powers on the subject matter probably decided that there was no longer any need for the grandfather effect that had been needed in 1790, removed the words “natural born,” and left in just “citizen.” At that point, whether a child born out of the country to U.S. citizen parents was a “natural born Citizen” would be decided, like what an Article II “natural born Citizen” was, not by any Act of Congress or the English common law but by the law of nations (jus gentium) that was based on natural law and which became incorporated into our federal common law. The Third Congress would not have removed the words “natural born” from the clause if the Framers and Congress accepted the English notion that Parliament had the authority to declare who was a “natural born subject.” The Framers had to view “natural born Citizen” differently than how the British viewed a “natural born subject.” Such a different view of the term explains why the Framers only gave Congress the power to naturalize and not the power to declare anyone a “natural born Citizen.”
If the Framers used the English common law as their guide in defining “natural born Citizen,” the First Congress in the 1790 Act would not have made “natural born Citizen” status only retroactive. The Third Congress would not have changed “natural born citizen” of the 1790 Act to say just “citizen” in the 1795 Act. The framers of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 would have used the term “natural born citizen” rather than just “citizen.” Congress in all its citizenship acts would have used “natural born Citizen” rather than just “citizen” in describing a child born on U.S. soil and within the jurisdiction of the United States. The English bestowed “natural born subject” status on both its born subjects and those it naturalized. Hence, what is most revealing of our nation as a whole not accepting English common law to define a “natural born Citizen” is the Fourteenth Amendment’s use of the term “citizen” rather than “natural born Citizen” to describe a child born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Congress in 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1408 uses the same exact test to declare a child a born “citizen” rather than a “natural born citizen.” If the English common law model were the standard for the Framers, why would our legislative history reveal that other than in Article II and for only a short time in the 1790 Act, our nation has never used the term “natural born Citizen” in any of our laws. Why did we conserve “natural born Citizen” status in such a fashion? Why did we not easily bestow the status upon children born within or without the United States to United States citizen parents as the English under their laws bestowed “natural born subject” status upon children born within or without the Kingdom to “natural born subject” parents? The answer is that we, as a nation, had a different standard than they did for the term, a standard that emanated from natural law which became the law of nations (jus gentium) and which was incorporated into American common law.
After the Constitution was adopted, every State still had the right to enact laws that denied citizenship at birth to some children born in that State, such as children of African or Native-American descent, and children whose parents were not U.S. citizens. These States would not have denied citizenship to any such individual if the nation had adopted the doctrine that everyone born on U.S. soil is a “natural born Citizen.” Additionally, all States were unanimous in granting citizenship at birth to children who met both the jus soli ( born on United States soil) and the jus sanguinis criterion (born to U.S. citizen parents). Some states routinely denied citizenship at birth to children who met only one of these criteria but never both. This difference among the States would not have occurred if the United States had adopted the English common law jus soli concept as part of its national citizenship law. This difference of opinion that existed as to what constituted a “natural born Citizen” or even a “citizen” was commented upon by the Court in Minor v. Happersett.
The Fourteenth Amendment put to rest the sole question of what constituted a “citizen” of the United States. For birthright citizenship, by combining both jus soli and “subject to the jurisdiction,” it can be reasonably argued that the amendment as intended by its framers required both jus soli and jus sanguinis to be united in the child at time of birth. However, the way the Wong Kim Ark Court interpreted the amendment, it is now viewed as requiring for the most part only jus soli. But the amendment only goes to define what a “citizen” is and in no way has amended what is an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
Further proof that the Founders in defining citizenship did not accept English common law but rather the law of nations which was based on natural law can be found in the Congressional debates concerning the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. When commenting on the proposed amendment on May 30, 1866, Senator Howard said: “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 their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Govern- of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, May 30, 1866, P. 2890, col. 2. The doctrine that children, if legitimate, follow, in regard to their political rights and duties, the condition of their fathers, is founded on natural law. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. at 368. Note that Senator Howard said that the amendment was only declaratory of “natural law” which became “national law” which in turn became the “law of the land.” The Senator is telling us that citizenship was defined by federal law which under Article VI of the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. He did not refer to any British common law or individual state law as being the basis for how citizenship was defined. Rather, his reference to “natural law” connects to the law of nations which was based on “natural law.” And the law of nations, as incorporated into the laws of the new Republic, did become the new national law of the United States. Moreover, in providing the list of those parents who would disqualify children born on U.S. territory from becoming a citizen, Senator Howard included parents who were foreigners, aliens, ambassadors, or foreign ministers. Note that the list included “foreigners” and “aliens.” Hence, the exclusion was not only for the children of ambassadors and enemy aliens, as was the rule of the English common law, but also for the children of “foreigners” and “aliens.” This exclusion was also repeated by Senator Johnson who stated that the child would have to be born on U.S. soil to “parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.”
Furthermore, everything that the Founders established about citizenship in the United States is not consistent with British common law that treats the subject. The English common law did not use the concept of “natural born subject” as a means to protect the head of the military and civilian government of Great Britain from foreign influence. Rather, the British were very liberal in granting “natural born subject” status so as to create for its monarchy-based empire as many subjects as possible. We saw an extreme of this policy when Great Britain insisted on impressing American sailors into its military which practice lead to the War of 1812. But John Jay, in writing to General George Washington on July 25, 1787, was very specific that the Commander in Chief of the military would have to be a “natural born citizen” (underlining born in the original) so as to assure that no foreigner would hold that office. The Founders accepted Jay’s recommendation and included in Article II the “natural born Citizen” clause. Hence, Americans were very cautious in granting “natural born Citizen” status because they had a democratically elected President and Commander in Chief of the Military and representative form of government which they needed to protect from foreign influence. This was consistent with the law of nations.
The English common law did not distinguish between a “natural born subject” and a naturalized subject. “The English common law provided that an alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject.” Co. Litt. 129 (quoted and cited in United States v. Rhodes, 27 F.Cass. 785, 790 (1866).). Under English common law, once a person became naturalized, he or she was deemed to be a “natural born subject.” Hence, under English common law a naturalized citizen was considered a “natural born subject.” Hence, giving the “natural born Citizen” clause the same meaning as a “natural born subject” would have allowed a naturalized citizen to be eligible to be President of the new Republic. But Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 mandates that only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President. The clause is written as “No person except . . . shall be eligible . . .” which means that one must be a “natural born Citizen” in order to be eligible to be President, with no exceptions. The way we have interpreted the “natural born Citizen” clause since the beginning of the Republic, a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President. But assuming the “natural born Citizen” clause had the same meaning as a “natural born subject,” with the Constitution as written it would not have conveyed in any manner that a naturalized citizen was not eligible to be President. No where do we find in the Constitution any statement that a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President. To reach this conclusion, we have always relied upon the “natural born Citizen” clause itself which we have compared with the fact that the Framers prescribed in Article I that naturalized citizens were eligible to be Senators (“nine Years a Citizen of the United States”) and Representatives (seven Years a Citizen of the United States”) . The manner in which the Framers provided that Senators and Representatives needed to be “Citizen of the United States” for only a certain amount of years shows that the naturalized citizen class was included within “Citizens of the United States” and not within “natural born Citizens.” This shows that naturalized citizens were not part of “natural born Citizens.” Hence, equating the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” to a “natural born subject” would have allowed naturalized persons to be President, a result that we have rejected from the beginning of the Constitutional Republic. Such a meaning would have created an exception to the “natural born Citizen” clause which would have eviscerated the clause itself. Additionally, since Congress has the power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 to make uniform the naturalization laws, such a meaning would have given Congress the power to decide who could be President by simply changing the naturalization requirements. The Framers, fearing that Congress would allow foreign influence to creep into the office of President if it were given the power to select the President, did not give Congress such power.
English common law did not distinguish between “natural born subject” and “subject.” The Founders, the framers of the 14th Amendment, all Congresses in their Acts, and virtually all courts in their decisions have treated “natural born Citizen” and “citizen,” as two separate and distinct terms. This dichotomy is consistent with the law of nations which did make such a distinction. This distinction shows that “citizens” could be created by the Fourteenth Amendment and Congressional Acts but an Article II “natural born Citizens” could only be created by satisfying the natural law standard as expressed in the law of nations (place of birth and parentage).
Unless they were ambassadors/diplomats or alien enemies, the English common law considered irrelevant the citizenship of the child’s parents when determining whether a child born on English soil was a “natural born subject.” The Founders knew from the law of nations that in England, the “single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.” Vattel, Sec. 214. This would have been consistent with the monarchy’s desire to make as many “natural born subjects” as possible for its growing empire. The U.S. common law went beyond these two exceptions and did consider relevant the condition of the child’s parents when determining whether the child was to be afforded U.S. citizenship at birth. See the cases cited above. Under the law of nations, such a child born in the country to foreign parents was considered to have been naturalized under English law. But again, the Framers would not have allowed such a naturalized child to be considered a “natural born Citizen,” for they permitted the latter to be President but not the former. The maxim that was applied in this connection is recognized in the law of nations and was partus sequitur patrem (the child follows the condition of the father). Shanks v. Dupont, Barry v. Mercein, 46 U.S. 103 (1847); Ludlam, 26 N.Y. at 376; Ex parte Reynolds, and United States v. Ward.
The English common law had no concern for whether a person consented to be declared a “natural born subject.” This phenomenon was made much worse by the British not allowing any “natural born subjects” to expatriate and forcing them to be bound to the King for life through their perpetual natural allegiance. The English common law provided for perpetual natural allegiance which a subject could never renounce (once a British subject always a British subject). The English common law did not allow for a “natural born subject” to elect upon becoming of age another citizenship. English common law did not recognize a “natural born subject” as losing his or her allegiance to the King through the act of naturalizing in another country. But U.S. common law and statutes provided that an alien or U.S. citizen could expatriate and become a different citizen from that which he/she was born. For the Founders, consent was the foundation of citizenship. It was through that consent that the Founders expected U.S. citizens to give their absolute and sole allegiance to the U.S. This consent which was expressed as a transfer of allegiance to the U.S. was also critical to an alien becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen. It was expatriation that allowed foreigners to come to America, naturalize, and procreate a child on U.S. soil, which allowed that child to be born with sole allegiance and loyalty to the U.S. and eligible to be President. The Founders’ knowledge of consent as the basis for citizenship and acceptance of expatriation and election of citizenship upon becoming of age, had their source in the law of nations and not in the English common law which did not involve itself with these concepts.
While the English common law recognized that “the king cannot reckon upon the full and absolute obedience” of persons who were either born with or voluntarily chose to have a dual allegiance, the English were not concerned in the least that their notion of “natural born subject” created, in not taking into consideration the citizenship of the child’s parents, dual allegiance problems. Reeve, History of the English Law. But American courts recognized that U.S. citizens born on U.S. soil to foreign parents or born abroad to U.S. citizen parents had double allegiance which significantly affected that person’s allegiance and political and military rights and obligations. U.S. law explicitly warns about the dangers and problems of dual allegiance. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 344-48 (1939); Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717, 723-26, 733-36 (1952). America even went as far as passing curfew and exclusion laws during World War II which deprived freedom of movement and association to 14th Amendment American “citizens” of Japanese descent (their mothers and fathers were Japanese nationals) because of “pressing public necessity” and the need to provide America with every possible protection against espionage and sabotage which jeopardized America’s survival. The Court stated that this government action was justified because the “segregation of the disloyal from the loyal” within American 14th Amendment “citizens” of Japanese descent was not possible. See Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1945). In other words, we could not place at risk the survival of our country for the sake of trying to determine who was loyal or disloyal to the cause. Our nation took the drastic action that it did against 14th Amendment “citizens” of Japanese descent because they were dual nationals and children of aliens or foreigners. Hence, even though these persons were 14th Amendment citizens, we still considered and treated them as being subject to a foreign power. Can we just imagine what would have happened if President and Commander in Chief Truman would have been a 14th Amendment “citizen” with a Japanese father. To be consistent, I guess our nation would have had to place him in a concentration camp too with the rest of the other 14th Amendment citizens of Japanese descent. Would our hypothetical President Truman have dropped the bomb on Japan? Would he have if his Japanese mother or father lived in Japan?
Pre-revolutionary English statutes that provided that the foreign born children of British “natural born subjects” were deemed “natural born subjects” did not require that the parents had to reside in Great Britain at or prior to the time of the child’s birth. U.S. statutes, on the contrary, required that the father had to be a resident of the U.S. at the time of the child’s birth in order for the father to be able to transmit his U.S. citizenship to his foreign born child. These statutes also attached importance to when the child was born, for they were made only retrospective until changed many years later. The Naturalization Act of 1790 declared these children to be “natural born Citizens,” and later in the Naturalization Act of 1795 just “citizens,” but only retrospectively. It was not until the act in 1885 that Congress declared these foreign-born children to be “citizens,” both retrospectively and prospectively. See Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927). Hence, U.S. law, in these foreign born children cases, attached just as much importance to the actual U.S. residence of the father and when the child was born than it did to the foreign born child descending from the U.S. citizen parents. Also, American statutes considered these children only “citizens” and not “natural born Citizens.” This limitation was contrary to the English statutes which deemed these children “natural born subjects.” As an aside, consider that the Senate in formulating Resolution 511 relied in part upon the Naturalization Act of 1790 to declare McCain a “natural born Citizen.” This was error for two reasons: (1) the act was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which removed the “natural born” language and just kept in “citizen;” and (2) Congress declared the foreign born children of U.S. citizens to be “natural born Citizen” only retrospectively. In other words, only those children already born at that time were so declared, not children to be born in the future like McCain.
The gap in citizenship for children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents that was left by Congress between 1802 and 1855 shows that when the courts have been faced with citizenship issues with no statute or constitutional provision to help them resolve that issue, they have not hesitated to resort to common law for an answer. We have seen that
history shows a virtually unbroken tradition of transmitting American
citizenship from parent to child “at birth,” under statutes that imposed
certain residence requirements. Supra, at 5-6; see also Bellei, supra, at 835,
91 S.Ct., at 1071. A single gap occurred when, for a brief period of time,
the relevant statutes (perhaps inadvertently) failed to confer citizenship upon
what must have been a small group of children born abroad between 1802
and 1855 whose citizen-fathers were also born between 1802 and 1855.
Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308, 311-312, 81 S.Ct. 1336, 1338-1339, 6
L.Ed.2d 313 (1961); Weedin, supra, at 663-664, 47 S.Ct., at 773-774;
Wong Kim Ark, supra, at 673-674, 18 S.Ct., at 466-467. But even then,
some courts, recognizing the importance of the right, found common-law
authority for the transmission to those children of their parent’s American
citizenship. Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356, 362-372 (1863); see also
Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand.Ch. 583, 659-663 (N.Y.1844).
Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998) (J. Breyer dissenting).
At the time of the Wong decision, Congress had decided that only Caucasians and African races could become citizens by naturalization. On May 6, 1882, Congress had already passed the Chinese Exclusion Act which meant that Chinese laborers and miners were excluded from entering America and Chinese already in America were denied the opportunity to naturalize. By declaring Wong a “citizen,” Justice Gray circumvented the will of Congress and of the People that prevailed at that time. This was an usurpation of legislative powers as expressed by the will of the People of that time. Our naturalization laws today do not discriminate because of, among other things, race or nationality. Hence, there is no further need today to correct the social wrong that the Wong Kim Ark Court may have perceived but which it had no constitutional authority to correct. That the Wong Kim Ark Court was willing to make Wong a Fourteenth Amendment U.S. “citizen” by (1) legislating from the bench important national immigration policy; (2) disregarding the correct meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” as expressed by one of the framers of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Rep. John A. Bingham confirms the understanding and the construction the Framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on the proposed civil rights act of 1866 that was being discussed in the House on March 9, 1866: “I find no fault with the introductory clause, 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…”) and of the Fourteenth Amendment (Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan, the author of the amendment’s citizenship clause, described the clause as excluding not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers”); (3) disregarding the existing U.S. Supreme Court cases of The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873) (“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”) and Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) (which Justice Gray had himself written 14 years earlier and in which he said that “[t]he evident meaning of these last words [subject to the jurisdiction] 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”); and (4) in defining national U.S. citizenship, incorrectly utilizing the inapplicable English common law that prevailed in the British American colonies prior to independence and in the new states thereafter and prior to the adoption of the Consitution rather than correctly using the law of nations which controlled such a national and internation question and that was accepted by the new nation after adoption of the Consitution and which became U.S. common law, does not prove in any way that the Founders used English common law to define “natural born Citizen.” Also, Wong Kim Ark did not address what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is. Rather, it only declared Wong a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment (a member of American society), under the unique facts of that case which the Court believed cried out for a change in our Chinese immigration policy but which change should have been provided by Congress under Article I, Sec. 8, cl. 4 of the Constitution and not by the Court.
That the Framers adopted the law of nations definition of what a “natural born citizen” is does not mean that they adopted for the new Constitutional Republic every aspect of the law of nations. This also does not mean that the English common law was totally rejected in the new nation. As we have already stated above, English common law did become the law of the individual states in many aspects and was used in many ways by state and local governments. But the English common law was not adopted for the operation of the new nation and federal government. Vattel was looked to for guidance in writing the Declaration of Independence (he wrote that the people have the right to overthrow a tyrannical sovereign for purpose of promoting their happiness) and for the new nation’s federal constitution and form of federal government. The Framers were concerned with prescribing the eligibility standards for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the military, an office that is found only in the federal constitution. Additionally, the term “natural born Citizen” is only found in relation to this office. (Under Article I, Sec. 2 and 3, respectively, Senators and Representatives need only be “citizens.”) Along with “natural born Citizen” (in the original 1758 French text called, “Les naturels, ou indigenes,” first translated into English in 1759 as “the natives or indigenes,” and eventually into “natural born citizen” in 1797), concepts such as individuals and states are free in nature, purpose of government (promote commerce, revenue, agriculture, tranquility, happiness, stability, and strength), constitutional republic, written constitution, amending the constitution, separation of governmental powers, supremacy of the Constitution and federal law, independent judiciary, judicial review, naturalization, and punishing offenses against the law of nations, concepts which the Founders incorporated into the new Constitution, can all be found in Vattel’s treatise on the law of nations.
The Founders knew that the new nation was currently populated with many persons who came to the colonies and states as newly-arrived immigrants. They also knew that the new nation, with its great territorial size and opportunities, would also welcome many future generations of new immigrants. The Founders were also well aware that they created the new Republic and its Constitution also for posterity and wanted to safeguard the new nation for future generations. Hence, for children born after the adoption of the Constitution, the Founders wanted any future President and Commander in Chief of the Military to have absolute and sole allegiance to the new nation by birth. This meant that they wanted that office to be available only to children born in the United States of citizen parents. They rejected any person who may develop foreign influence by divided loyalties from birth. The founders found Vattel’s law of nations definition of a “natural born Citizen” acceptable for what they needed in a future President.
Hence, we can see that it is not reasonable to maintain that the meaning of “natural born Citizen” can be found in the English common law. Rather, that definition may be found in the law of nations as commented on by E. Vattel. All aspects of national citizenship laws during the Founding era and the adoption of the 14th Amendment were consistent with the law of nation’s definition of citizenship.
Having just won a revolution, the Founders were faced with constituting a new nation. Under the constitutional plan devised by the Founders, they had to identify who were the members of the new nation. They called these members “citizens” of the United States. Thus, they created our first generation of United States “citizens.” These persons were either born abroad or in the British colonies before July 4, 1776 or abroad or in the new States thereafter, but in all cases inhabited one of the colonies or States and were loyal to the American revolution. The Founders under Article II grandfathered these original “citizens” to be eligible to be President. Under this plan, once the new nation had its first generation “citizens,” it was placed in position to have in the future its Article II “natural born Citizens,” who would be born in the United States after the adoption of the Constitution and descend from mothers and fathers who were both original “citizens.” Given that America was already a land of immigrants and that the Founders expected that many more immigrants would come to its shores in search of a new life and to share in its vast resources, they gave Congress in Article I, Sec. 8, cl. 4 the power to naturalize aliens and thereby create more future first generation United States “citizens.” Having become a naturalized “citizen,” one would then be in a position to procreate with another “citizen” (born or similarly naturalized) a “natural born Citizen” who would be eligible to be President.
Throughout American history, there have been no doubts or disputes as to who is a “natural born Citizen.” As we have seen, it was not English common law but the law of nations that became United States common law that defined a “natural born Citizen.” It defined such a citizen as being born in the country to parents who are themselves citizens. It is this definition which our United States Supreme Court incorporated into our federal common law. It is this definition that creates subsequent generation “citizens” who are “natural born Citizens.” They are subsequent generation because born in the country to a mother and father who are citizens.
On the other hand, throughout our history, there have been doubts and disputes as to who may be a born “citizen” (as distinguished from a “natural born Citizen” or a naturalized citizen). These disputes have concerned the question of whether to be a “citizen,” must a child be simply born on U.S. soil and be subject to its jurisdiction, without any reference to the citizenship of the parents (jus soli which follows the old English common law), or must that child also be born to U.S. citizen parents (jus soli and jus sanguinis united which follows the law of nations’ definition and which any way only applies to “natural born citizens”). This dispute has concerned the question of whether we should declare a child a first generation “citizen” (in effect having the same status as one of the original first generation “citizens” which Article II grandfathered to be eligible to be President). The dispute has not been with whether we should declare that child a subsequent generation “natural born Citizen.” The Fourteenth Amendment settled who could be a “citizen” by bestowing such status upon those born in the United States or naturalized here and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. “Citizens” who meet this Fourteenth Amendment definition can be either first or subsequent generation United States “citizens.” If first generation, they are simply “citizens.” If subsequent generation, they are not only “citizens” but also “natural born Citizens.” Congress has also declared who may be a born “citizen” through legislation and has thereby not only confirmed what is already stated in the Fourteenth Amendment but has also granted citizenship to children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents (one or two). Senator McCain, being born in Panama, falls into the two United States-parent category. The question of whether foreign-born children, born to two United States parents and thus falling in this category (by definition they would be subsequent generation “citizens” but not born in the United States) are “natural born Citizens” has not been resolved by any Court. If such a child were born to just one United States citizen parent, he or she would not only acquire the allegiance and loyalty of the nation on whose soil he or she may be born but also that of his or her foreign parent’s nation and thereby further compromise his or her claim for “natural born Citizen” status.
A study of citizenship and nationality case law, statutes, treatises, and other sources shows that one acquires allegiance and loyalty through citizenship. Obama has admitted that under the British Nationality Act 1948 when he was born, his father was a British subject/citizen and not a U.S. citizen and that he himself was a British subject/citizen by descent from his father. Therefore, what is clear and established by his own factual admissions is that Obama cannot satisfy the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” for he was born with allegiance and loyalty not only to the United States (assuming he was born here) but to the same degree also to Great Britain. The best that Obama can be is a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen,” assuming that he was born in the United States and assuming that one born subject to a foreign power can also be born subject to the full and complete legal and political jurisdiction of the United States. In such a case, he would be a subsequent generation “citizen” through his American mother but only a first generation “citizen” because of his foreign father. If Obama was not born in the United States or if being born in the United States he was not born subject to its jurisdiction, then he is not even a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment or any applicable Congressional Act. Hence, we can see that Obama is missing the mandatory Article II constitutional status of being at a minimum a second generation “citizen” through both a citizen mother and citizen father. What creates further allegiance and loyalty problems for Obama is that his birthright British citizenship, which continues in effect until today, also allowed him to gain Kenyan citizenship from the age of 2 to the age of 21 or 23. Being 47 years old when he was elected, just his Kenyan allegiance and loyalty occupied him for almost one-half of his then life span.
It is Obama’s being only a first generation U.S. citizen because of his father not being a United States citizen at Obama’s birth that caused his divided allegiance and loyalty at birth (United States v. British and Kenyan) and disqualifies him to be President and Commander in Chief. It is through his father that Obama was born with allegiance and loyalty to Great Britain (which continues until today), which then converted to allegiance and loyalty to Kenya. It does not matter that his mother was a United States citizen because at birth Obama inherited allegiance and loyalty to a foreign power (Great Britain) from his father just as he would have inherited allegiance and loyalty to a foreign power if born to parents who were both non-United States citizens. By Obama’s mother being a United States citizen at his birth, Obama was just spared acquiring even another foreign allegiance and loyalty. Just like a naturalized citizen who–despite taking an oath renouncing all foreign allegiances and loyalties and which incidentally Obama has never done–cannot be President because he or she is born with allegiance and loyalty to a foreign country, Obama, born with allegiance and loyalty to a foreign country, also cannot be President. All this leads to the inescapable conclusion that Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and is therefore ineligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg, New Jersey 08831
August 20, 2009
Updated June 23, 2011
We know from the historical record and from the way the Constitution is framed that the Founders relied heavily upon Emmerich de Vattel and his highly acclaimed treatise, The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature (1758), as a crucial and fundamental guide in knowing what the law of nations was. Alexander Hamilton was the key organizer of the movement to hold the Constitutional Convention that produced the Constitution. No one played a more important role than Hamilton in the adoption of the Constitution. Of all the Founders, he was the one most influenced by Vattel. http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id5.html. In 1784, Hamilton, as the lawyer for the defense, arguing in the case of Rutgers v. Waddington, quoted prolifically from E. Vattel’s, The Law of Nations. The Waddington case shows how Vattel shaped Hamilton’s thinking. Hamilton argued that the law of nations was part of the common law and that the decisions of the New York Legislature must be consistent with the law of nations. Hamilton used Vattel as the standard for defining the law of nations. Hamilton argued that state law was superseded by national law and the law of nations. He also argued that the intent of the state legislature had to be that their laws be applied in a fashion that was consistent with national law and the law of nations. Judge James Duane in his ruling described the importance of the new republic abiding by the law of nations, and explained that the standard for the court would be Vattel. He ruled that the New York statue passed under the color of English common law must be consistent with the law of nations.
Thomas Lee (University of Chicago Law), in his essay, “The Safe-Conduct Theory of the Alien Tort Statute,” said: “The treatise by the Swiss thinker Emmerich de Vattel entitled The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns was the supremus inter pares of the international law texts the founding group used during the crucial decade between 1787 and 1797. The Founders also read and cited other leading authorities, most notable Hugo Grotius and Samuel Pufendorf, but Vattel was their clear favorite. ”
Vattel, in his masterpiece legal treatise, The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature, in Book I, Chapter XIX, analyzed citizenship and related topics. The Founders knew that Vattel defined a “citizen” simply as any member of society. They also knew from reading Vattel that a “natural born Citizen” had a different standard from just “citizen,” for he or she was a child born in the country to two citizen parents (Vattel, Section 212 in original French and English translation). That is the definition of a “natural born Citizen,” as recognized by numerous U.S. Supreme Court and lower court decisions (The Venus, 12U.S. 253(1814), Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242 (1830), Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) , Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F. Cas. 582 (C.C.W.D. Ark 1879), United States v. Ward, 42 F. 320 (1890); Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), Ludlam, Excutrix, & c., v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863) and more) and the framers of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the 14th Amendment, the Naturalization Act of 1795, 1798, 1802, 1885, and our modern 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401. It should be noted that during the Founding and throughout American history, there has always been a distinction between a general “citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born citizen” on the other. The law of nations did not make any specific requirements for one to be a “citizen” of a nation, for such a person was basically just a member of the civil society. Before and after the revolution, the Founders considered anyone who resided in the colonies or States and who adhered to the revolutionary cause to be a “citizen,” regardless of place of birth or condition of the parents. But the law of nations did provide for a strict definition of a “natural born citizen,” i.e., a child born in the country of citizen parents. And the Founders also adopted that stricter definition for an Article II “natural born Citizen” which applied only to one wanting to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.
Precedence is set from specific cases and MAY BE admissible in some instances but that is up to a court ruling. BO is NOT a NBC because of one parent being foreign. This would take a court to decide if they want his specific circumstances to be allowed as NBC (which would make no sense but then not much does anymore). But…there is not one court in the land that will take the case. So the question will probably never be answered. But why in the world are there not bills moving to clarify once and for all what the qualifications for POTUS are, what is truly an NBC and what is the procedure for VETTING? NOTHING is being done to settle this question.
It IS that way because that is the way the Washington Power brokers want it. Democrats, Republicans, the UN and One-World Globalists want it just the way it is. With the Communist Media covering them the majority of Americans DON’T KNOW who is the real power in this country.
And it ain’t the American electorate.
Russian news agency Pravda can’t believe how ignorant the people who voted for obama are. Don’t they know he’s a Communist. I think he’s a Fascist Socialist. Not as bad as President Francois Metterrand.
So you see dense Ellen, the Founding Fathers did NOT rely on common law now did they? If anyone wants to read what i posted without it being all broken up please go to http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html
Lord Monckton of England, a well-known Brittish mathmatician and lecturer says with his calculations and using the various and sundry methods of mathmaticians where he breaks down everything. It is quite a long piece he has written, says: There is only ONE in Six TRILLION chances that Obama is eligible. This man knows his stuff. This man is an objective observer using mathmatics. So go figure. There are the computer graphics experts in Israel and Russia as well who says Obama is a FRAUD.
No problem. If you use as your base 50 or more lies then the result of your calculations will be trillions upon trillions of chances that whatever the lies that you are using are probable. However, if you mix in the truth, such as (1) layers are normal in pdf; (2) it wasn’t kerning, it was the normal skipping of manual typewriters; (30 pdf can at times distort letters, particularly in complex documents and when they are faintly typed and when they are on security paper; (4) there are about six leading experts who say that the birth certificate is not forged; (5) birther “experts” are not impartial; they all hate Obama—-the calculations come out very differently.
Snark generator ON.
OK, got it.
Everything everyone else says are lies and everything you say is the truth. Right.
Straight from the schoolyards of 50 years ago. You haven’t made faces and cried “Nyaa-Nyaa” yet but I suspect that’s coming.
Have you any idea how incredibly stupid you sound? Every Lib-Line of the day following one after the other. Well, you refuse to show adulthood by losing the “birther” scat so whatever juvenile insult you receive is deserved.
So, Nyaa-Nyaa, ellen, it is you who is the LIAR.
Snark machine OFF.
One in 6 trillion chances makes it impossible by human reasoning that Obama is eligible, so this man should not be in our White House. It seems the only way some will believe Obama is ineligible is for him to confess it. Then those would not likely see the danger to our country. They would not see what is happening to this Republic. Those who will not see or care are blinded by something beyond human reasoning. Could it be they are sold out to evil?
As I said, if you use a base of a lot of lies, then the calculation will show for sure that the chances that the lies are true is high. Monckton is using the lies that pdf does not generate layers (of course it does) and that there was “kerning” (it was the normal skipping of a manual typewriter), etc.
What are the chances that the Hawaii birth certificate, and the confirmation of the facts on it by officials of both parties and the Index Data and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 and the Hawaii teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, after hearing of the birth of a child to a woman named Stanley—are all lying? And Hawaii is THOUSANDS of miles from the nearest foreign country, and Obama’s Kenyan relatives NEVER said that he was born in Kenya; they said that he was born in Hawaii. And the Kenyan government confirms that Obama was not born in Kenya.
You missed some facts there Ellen. FYI
Well, I do mean to be politically incorrect, but while I’m doing it, I want to be factually correct, so let me fix something in people’s mind.
The legal name of our Fraudulence-in-Chief isn’t “Sorento” and never has been.
I mean, does this unqualified, illegal, phony, lying, racist, bigot, half breed, foreign national, Muslim POTUS look Italian?
As a baby, Barry was legally adopted by an Indonesian government thug named Soetoro (nickname “Lolo”) who married the woman who’d whelped the kid, Stanley Ann Dunham. In so doing, Soetoro conferred upon our little red diaper baby the legal name Soebarkah (nickname “Barry”) and made him formally both a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia and a Muslim.
None of this can be disputed. There are records that our POTUS-With-An-Asterisk hasn’t been able to seal by Executive Order, including Stanley Ann’s Indonesian government passport information. Like lots of babies, little Soebarkah traveled on his mom’s passport until he got his own Indonesian travel documents.
That passport, by the way, is how our Kenyan Keynesian traveled to Pakistan in 1981. A private American citizen wasn’t allowed to enter Pakistan on a U.S. passport at that time. Indonesia (then as now) is the most populous Muslim country in the world.
When Stanley Ann mailed Barry back to live with her parents in Hawaii at the age of 10, the kid was “a good Muslim schoolboy” named Soebarkah who had lost his American citizenship by virtue of immigration to Indonesia and adoption by Soetoro.
No action was taken subsequently either to naturalize the kid as a U.S. citizen or to change his legal name back to “Barack Hussein Obama II,” so….
Yeah, he’s not only not a natural born citizen by virtue of his legal parentage (no matter where it’s argued that he’d been born) but he’s not a U.S. citizen at all.
And his legal name is still Soebarkah, nickname “Barry.”
This is now far we have fallen. BO is a joke. “My Father Was Born In Kenya” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H75OM42F5Y
Hey folks, Best to ignore Ellen her love for this unqualified, illegal, phony, lying, racist, bigot, half breed, foreign national, Muslim POTUS goes too deep. BHO could shoot her husband in front of her and she would believe BHO had a good reason and would defend him.
As you can see she has no life or else she would not be spending all here time here..
How can anyone defend Satan — aka Barrack Obama?
Hey Christian….Ask Ellen.
I do not call names. I simply post the facts. I do so for any rational person who may be visiting this site and seeking to see the facts.
You post lies ellen.
I am NOT seeking any facts from YOU. YOU are an Obamatoid brainwashed shrew.
Ellen a husband has? Poor guy! Maybe she is Sandra Fluke working for Obama! Maybe an ACLU lawyer!
To be President one MUST BOTH be Born here AND have parents who are BOTH Americans when one is born. The US Supreme Court has affirmed this in Minor v. Happersett. A Natural-Born American is “One Born ON US Soil (Jus Soli) of Parents who are BOTH Americans”. Obama’s Father was a foreigner and he was not ann American. That makes Obama,Jr. DISQUALIFIED. McCain likewise was also DQ’d because HE was born in Colon,Panama and NOT on US Territory.
The key Supreme Court case is the Wong Kim Ark case, which BTW was AFTER Minor v. Happersett, and it ruled (six justices to two, one not voting) that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth, not to the parents of a US-born citizen. Thus Rubio and Jindal and, yes, Obama, all of whom were born in US soil of two or in Obama’s case one foreign parent, are all Natural Born Citizens due simply to their place of birth. That is why when the birthers tried to convince the members of the Electoral College to switch their votes to vote against Obama four years ago, not one Elector changed her or his vote; the vote was exactly the same as in the general election. And that will be the same this year.
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).
BTW, the “birth certificate” that claims to show that McCain was born in Colon, Panama and not where he said, which was in the family hospital on the Naval Base, is a forgery. Like Obama, McCain was born on US soil—are you thinking that a US Naval Base is not sovereign territory???–and, simply because of their place of birth, both were eligible in 2008, and Obama is eligible today. The US Senate had a resolution to clarify McCain’s eligibility. There was none for Obama because his birth on US soil and the fact that the US Supreme Court ruled that everyone born on US soil (except for the children of foreign diplomats) is a Natural Born US citizen is well known.
Come on Ellen post good links. You keep saying you only post the facts. You have not posted a PROVEN fact yet. All you do is copy and paste what other people say. Prove the EXPERTS wrong. YOU CAN’T!!! You are so disillutioned and have major tunnel vision. I pity you. So sad.
OK let set the BC issuse on the side. How do you defend the crimes and acts of treason this unqualified, illegal, phony, lying, racist, bigot, half breed, foreign national, Muslim POTUS has committed??? If he were a Republican he would be in Gitmo.
Obama’s Acts of Treason:
1. Perpetrating acts of fraud, perjury and conspiracy in his refusal to confirm his lawful eligibility to serve as president under the U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 1,constituting impeachable offenses of high crimes and misdemeanors adumbrated in U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 4;
2. Surrendering sovereign U.S. war-making to foreign powers and international authorities by attacking Libya without consulting Congress, in violation of U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8Â and U.S. Code Title 50, Chapter 33:1541-1548;
3. Accepting foreign title and office while acting as U.S. President and without consulting Congress when in 2009, Obama assumed the Chairmanship of the UN Security Council, the international body responsible for declaring war on behalf of the UN, in violation of U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 9;
4. Making bribery attempts in word and in deed, as Obama administration offered bribes to at least three Federal candidates for office: Joe Sestak, Andrew Romanoff and Jim Matheson, in violation of U.S. Code Title 18, Section 201;
5. Defying a Federal Court Order by refusing to halt the unconstitutional implementation of the “Patient Healthcare and Affordable Care Act of 2010, popularly known as “ObamaCare,” in violation of U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 3, and Article III, Sections 1 & 2;
6. Defying a Federal Court Order by refusing to grant lawful deep water drilling permits, in violation of U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 3, and Article III, Sections 1 & 2;
7. Executive Branch creation and implementation of regulations asserting unconstitutional force of
Federal law on matters explicitly rejected by or contrary to the will and intent of Congress, specifically the EPA implementation of Cap and Trade, in violation of U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 1 and Section 8;
8. Refusing to secure our broken borders from illegal alien invasion, international criminal incursion, and terrorist cadre penetration, in violation of U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3 and Article IV, Section 4;
9. Executive Branch malfeasance and impeding the administration of justice by preventing the U.S.
Department of Justice from investigating crimes committed for the direct benefit of the President by presidential associates including: voter intimidation at the hands of the New Black Panthers and ACORN election fraud, in violation of U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 3, and U.S. Criminal Code Section 135,(Comp. St. Â§ 10305);
10. Direct mobilizing and funding of mob violence, sedition and insurrection,as witnessed in Wisconsin, by the President’s own reelection campaign group Organizing for America, and including open statements of incitement to the insurrection by the President himself, in violation of U.S.Penal Code, Chapter 115, Section 2383;
11. Executive Branch usurpation of lawmaking powers voiding duly enacted legislation of Congress by improperly preventing the U.S. Department of Justice from defending established Federal law – specifically the Defense of Marriage Act, in violation of U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 3;
12. Adhering to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort, as witnessed by consorting with, supporting and installing to powerful Federal positions persons who in writing, word and deed have called for and promoted the overthrow of America’s constitutionally guaranteed Republican form of government, and the overthrow of the United States Constitution; including
but not limited to William Ayers, Bernadette Dohrn, Cass Sunstein, John Holdren, Dalia Mogahed, Harold Koh, and Eric Holder, in violation of U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section IV and U.S. Penal Code, Section 2385.
Under US Law Obama IS a Traitor and a Spy.
See 18USC,Part 1,Chapter 115,Sec.2381
The UCMJ at Article 902.102
Obama IS a Criminal degenerate and belongs in the BRIG! Obama currently stands accused of Treason by many people,including my own formal complaint lodged with Ronald Machen,US Attorney for the District of DC where the Usurpation of the Presidency occurred.
You are so right Bob, but will never happen, This unqualified, illegal, phony, lying, racist, bigot, half breed, foreign national, Muslim POTUS hss too much money and power backing him. Any and all controversy will be handled like the rest of the crimes and acts of treason. He is our supremen ruler and dicktator!
Meaning of natural born citizen does NOT come from the common law! See my comments above for more details.
It is defined by the “Law of Nations” which is incorporated by reference IN the US Constitution at Article 1,Sec.8:
A Natural Born Citizen is “One born in a Country of ParentS who are Citizens”
Minor v Happersett affirmed this.
Under Immigration and Naturalization Law,Military bases in foreign Countries are NOT US Soil. In any event, a Senate Resolution NEVER trumps a Constitutional Requirement. Those MUST be changed ONLY by the process outlined in the US Constitution for amending the Constitution. Meese was wrong as are YOU! By your WARPED interpretation ALL “Anchor Babies” are Natural-born even if they are Communist North Koreans and not here legally. As I said…WARPED.
McCain was legally vetted in court as qualified. Is there anyone in this room that has any kind of handle on reality?
McCain had American Parents (Jus Sanquinis) HOWEVER he did NOT meet the Jus Soli requirement. TO HELL witth the Senate Resolution. McCain was born OUTSIDE the Panama Canal Zone. McCain was born in Colon Hospital,Colon,Panama which,in addition to Panama City,Panama fell inside the five mile northern parameter of the PCZ but was SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED by that treaty from being part of the PCZ because Colon and Panama City were two of Panama’s MAJOR Cities/Capital.
Let me be clear, Ellen you are not helping me by posting old propaganda. People are beginning to realize that stuff is as phony as my altered birth certificate, selective service registration and stolen CT SS#.
There’s even a sheriff with a real posse, that knows the truth and is closing in on me fast. So please don’t rile up anymore patriots with those annoying debunked lies, besides it’s the media’s job to lie for me.
People are catching on to the truth thanks to accurate articles by attorneys explaining that Wong Kim Ark deals with whether he is a citizen but doesn’t address who is a “natural born citizen” as did Minor v. Happersett, which confirmed a “natural born citizen” is one born in the nation of TWO citizen parents.
There’s also no point in pushing that discredited foolish nonsense about our winning the Revolutionary War and then turning right around and adopting English common law, rather than creating our own American common law. Even I have to admit attorney Mario Apuzzo, nailed that one with his article: Barack Obama Is Ineligible to be President, For He Is Neither a “Natural Born Citizen” Nor a “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.”
Make no mistake, it’s not my fault the Constitution is being ignored. Well actually it kind of is now, since I’m the one bribing everyone with billions in bailouts to keep ignoring it, but I never lied about being ineligible. In fact I even admitted my father was a British citizen of colonial Kenya in that book Ayers wrote for me, which made me a British citizen too, and further disqualified me pursuant to 1948 British Nationality Act.
The fact that I’m not an eligible “natural born citizen” should have mattered. Having foreign citizenship (Britain, Kenya and Indonesia) should have mattered. However, who would have ever imagined that I could usurp the Presidency without any proof I’m even a U.S. Citizen!
It’s amazing. Well enjoy your free cell phone and rationed health care. Sorry, but you’re going to be peeved at how much that will cost you. Now that it passed, don’t bother reading the bill to find out what was in it, you’ll find out soon enough!
It’s good to be King!
1. Mario Apuzzo, Esq., “Barack Obama is Ineligible …”
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/10/barack-obama-is-ineligible-to-be.html (October 28, 2012 & updated November 10, 2012)
2. Leo Donofrio, Esq., “Why Obama is ineligible – regardless of his birthplace.”
3. TPC, “Is Barack Hussein Obama II Even a U.S. Citizen?” http://www.obamabirthcertificate.net/2012/06/is-usurper-obama-even-us-citizen.html (6/24/12)
Mr. Barry…LMAO… thanks!
Joe Arpaio and GOP Chairman have it right, the docs are very suspicious. Serioulsy it’s pretty obvious these forgery.
YEP. STILL TALKING ABOUT it.
That is gettingt to be a JOKE , If this is truth what is the problem? he got into office by DECITE and you are setting back saying send me money so I can futher the serch,REALLY? your a very rich man and you haven’t found all the EVIDENCE?
HEY STUPID< GO TO YOU TUBE HE ADMITS HE WAS BORN IN KENYA.
I am begining to wonder if you really want to know? THE PEOPLE DO and we believe he was NOT BORN HERE by his own addmission.,HE IS TELLING YOU,WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM???
Fact is, in arguendo,IF he WERE born in Hawaii that wouldn’t help him. His Father was a Brit when Jr. was born. Jr. was born a Brit also under the British nationality Act of 1948.
George Washington was born in British America.
How about THOSE apples (or cherries)
He was an illegal president!!!
Guess what Seorge Washington was not our first POTUS
If you were actually serious with that Democrat Grade Idiocy then please READ the Constitution for a change. Washington was a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution therefore eligible.
And you VOTE?
OMG have mercy on us all.
It seems Ellen is a troll paid to defend the pretender. While admitting she is a competent twister of facts and non-facts, she doesn’t seem to realize that she’s wasting her time on this site. We all are confident in what we believe. So, the question is; why does she spend so much time on this site with her fables? If she is 100% confident in her presentation, why doesn’t she just go her own way and allow us to wallow in what she calls illusions? Because she is paid by the libs or dems or admin or whoever to try to break down the truth by quoting “sources” and presenting them as “factual” when indeed, they are no more factual than what she says our sources are. What makes her believe anybody on this site will be swayed by her attempts? Simply, she doesn’t. But, she is being paid to do so, so why not? I can tell even she doesn’t believe her posts. She’s just putting out there what others are giving her. If what she says is true, why bother to try and change minds? Because she is being paid to.
As I said earlier, she has a mental illness called liberalism. Her case is a bit more severe than the average progressive. The average progressive doesn’t believe or care if they are right. Ellen believes she is right. when she obviously isn’t! That makes her dangerous and a potential threat to our way of life. She could be more productive if she were to re-locate to Cuba. Maybe we should set up an Ellen relocation fund for free. Liberals love free stuff!
phd. Just wondering how your profile fits into people that believe that the metaphysical mythological is reality and should be in charge of everything?
Ellen is a nobody. She is neither dangerous nor a threat to anyone. Obama is the one who is a threat to our way of life! The best thing to do is ignore her. She loves the attention.
She gets a nickle pr post…and food stamps.
In 20008 Hillary Clinton stoppe in England on he rway to Africa, while there she visited the British archives where she saw OIbamass birth certificate, it was signed by his Father and he was b orn a British citizen, he is not an America, Hillarty came back and tried ot change the constitution so Ob ama could run legally, so did John Conyers and Clare McCaskell, they couldn’t so Obama ran anuywa and won, no one came froward and said a word naturally they would not try to change the Constitution ot suit him if he was already legal sdo there he is, running our country into the goround.
Obamas father was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood for 30 years so here we have a Presdient who has done every thing he can to please the Muslim Brotherhood and his handlers, the Rothchilds, he is a usurper and no one turned him in and they all knew about it, the media refers to him as Mr. President and never say a word aobut anything other than his leadership and not the wars he has caused which ultimately wind up with the leaders of these countries dead or in hiding, while the muslim brother hood takes over. Obama brings in 80,000 muslims a month for the last year, even if we were ot get him ourt of office he has brought the war to us, please tell thep boys who are in Afghanistan now and being killed by people they are teaching to be soldiers , tell them the war is over or there are good ones in with the bad, we are stuck with his leavings, millions of them.
Bush and Obama have hooked us up with mexio, is there a worse scenario? they have16 million illegals waiting at the door ot work , this was the perfect time ot get rid of Unions, now they can once again work for coolie wages and do it 6 and 7 days a week and their children too, who will say no? Obama has ruined htis country and everyone is complicit, they should all be thrown out and replaced with niw vetted people who want to help america, not communism , not nazism and no behind the scenes rulers like the Rothchilds who have been choosing our President since the beginning, the very beginning, get rid of the CFR and the UN who does everyones bidding and are now getting too big for their britches, and rich on our money. tiem for a big change .
You need to post links to back up your statements.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Secretary of Hillary Clinton’s suspicious, self-diagnosed “concussion” presents some interesting ...