Check out the West Wing Week on the White House website.
Play the video and you will not only get to see Barack Obama greeting new Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan in the Oval Office with some small talk, but, if you stay tuned for the mailbag segment, you’ll get to see one of those personal Obama documents you’ve always wondered about.
No, it’s not his birth certificate.
It’s his passport.
Now, why do you suppose the White House is eager to show off Obama’s passport and explain he really does get it stamped when he goes from country to country – just like ordinary Americans?
I strongly suspect it represents a chance for him to show off what it says inside the document – that he was born in Hawaii in 1961.
With the latest poll showing 58 percent of Americans not believing the president’s nativity story, I think this was a deliberate piece of government-sponsored propaganda.
Joseph Farah, WND.com
Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.
Follow @WestJournalism
About Breaking News
Loading ...
And I'm supposed to believe that the President's Passport would say anything other than Hawaii on it as his place of birth??????? I don't think I'm that stupid.
HOW COME IT TOOK 2 YEARS TO COME UP WITH THIS …………..MY GUT FEELING IS HE DID THIS JUSTSO HE CAN TAKE THE HEAT OFF AT THIS TIME ….HE IS NOT WHAT HE SAYS HE IS …..ALL A FRAUD IN TIME THIS ALL WILL COME OUT ………HOPE IT WONT BE TOO LATE…..
If he has a legal passport, then why not display your legal and original Birth Certificate? Gee, I wonder what Social Security number he used in order to obtain his Passport? There is nothing legal or honest about Obama. Practically every action is against our country in round about way, if he just does not come out and say something negative, but then there are the time when he actually puts down our country and its citizens. How can anyone believe this man who has not lived up to his oath of office to protect and defend our Constitution? He defend Hamas before he defends the American Citizens. He has taken over the office of the Presidency illegally with the help of the accomplices in Congress. All of them must go!!! Wake Up America!! We all need to focus on restoring our country, pray and read on all candidates and as Glen Beck states Question without Fear. In God We Trust.
Because Obama has ALREADY shown his legal birth certificate, the Certification of Live Birth. He cannot show the original because he does not have a copy. Hawaii will not send it to him. Hawaii has not sent out copies of the original birth certificate since 2001 to ANYONE. The facts on Obama's official birth certificate were confirmed by the heads of the Department of Health and Department of Vital Records of Hawaii, who are members of a Republican governor's administration, and most recently by the governor herself.
LOL! HELLO ELLEN THE BOTT!
THIS IS JUST MORE OF THE SAME OLD CANNED B/S FROM YOU!
HAVE THE FAGGOT REPROGRAM YOU!
Once again you are not discussing the facts. The issue here is whether Obama has shown his real birth certificate, and the facts are that he has. The Certification of Live Birth, which is what he posted, is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and it is the only one that Hawaii has sent out to anyone since 2001.
ELLEN,
You are a bott!
Get it!
You are not real!
So The Prez allowed his passport to be shown. So what? What we are interested in is seeing the passport he used when he traveled to Pakistan or other questionable places. He still remains a man of mystery. Too many hidden things. The things of darkness will eventually be revealed.
Maybe Obama needs a new name "Prez. Prince of Darkness" and the Mama Obama "First Lady: Devil Woman"
Donna,
Lol! Good names you came up with for those two fools!
Michelle Colburn,
I so agree with you!
The old passports are the key to exposing this fake!
The passport that he traveled on when he went to Pakistan, which at the time was relatively peaceful and had travel articles written about it in US newspapers and magazines, was a US passport. He never had either an Indonesian or a British passport.
ELLEN, BOTT, JOHN McPHERSON !
WHAT KIND OF MIND WARP DO YOU HAVE?
BAD DREAM?
I DON'T THINK SO!
JAMES NEEDS TO REPROGRAM YOU!
You never discuss the facts. You only call names. The facts in this discussion are that it was possible to travel to Pakistan on a US passport and Obama had neither a British or an Indonesian passport.
ELLEN,
PLEASE READ MY PRIOR POST TO YOU!
WHAT IS IT THAT YOU DO NOT GET THE FACT THAT WE ARE ON TO YOU?
YOU ARE NOTHING MORE THAN ANOTHER OBAMA PLANT ON THIS SITE!
You STILL are not discussing the facts. The facts are that Obama had neither a British nor an Indonesian passport. He had a US passport, and that is what he traveled to Pakistan on. Pakistan was NOT on any "no travel list" nor did it keep US tourists from visiting.
Ellen,
You are a bott! You are not real! Get it?
You are STILL not discussing the facts. The facts are that Obama had neither a British nor an Indonesian passport. He had a US passport, and that is what he traveled to Pakistan on. Pakistan was NOT on any "no travel list" nor did it keep US tourists from visiting.
How do you explain his false Social Security number, issued in Connecticut to a person from the 1800's? Hmm?
The whole video stinks of lies and corruption. Notice the cheesy grins? Naww…this person is as corrupt as they come and all the others are just "doing the devils bidding" for their "prestigious" jobs. It isn't "money" that is the root of all evil, it is the LOVE of money that is the root of all evil. The things you are willing to do to get it. Believe me when I say all these people will end up paying their dues. God is Just.
This "person" hid too much for too long…just because it is brought out now, after he has had almost 2 years to get the things he needs fabricated, done, doesn't mean I will believe him. He is just too corrupt. The whole government is.
Angel,
You have it exactly correct!
His passport is a forgery. How in the hell did he go to Pakistan and Idonisha in 1980/1981 when Americans were not allowed. Pakistan was a hostile country. Truly his passport is a forgery like everything else. I would bet he paid a lot of money for that passport. I want to see his school records and how he recieved financial assistance. FORGERY FORGERY FORGERY. After all he is a criminal! I wish he would just DIE. I am so sick of Obama I could scream
AMEN!
Second Amen Carolyn!
Sharri,
I too am so tired of these jerks in the white house!
Who told you that Americans were not allowed into Pakistan in 1981? It is wrong. Pakistan was never on any "no travel list" nor did it keep Americans out. In those days it was relatively peaceful and US newspapers ran travel articles recommending visiting. Obama had a US passport from at least the time when he returned alone from Indonesia (He certainly did not travel to the USA on a foreign passport because that would have required a US visa on that passport, and there is no record of him applying for a US visa in Jakarta at that time). So, he had a US passport, and he could use it to travel to Pakistan,and he did.
The embassies of Indonesia and Britain will tell you if you call that Obama never had a passport from either of those countries. He used his US passport.
JAMES THE FAGGOT! ELLEN THE BOTT HAS GOTTEN TO BE A LITTLE OLD!
CAN YOU NOT BE MORE CREATIVE?
You never discuss facts. You only call names. the facts in this discussion are that Pakistan was not on any "no travel list' nor did it keep US tourists from visiting, and Obama did not have a passport from either Britain or Indonesia.
ELLEN!
REALLY!
YOU ARE A BOTT!
GO TO A LIBERAL SITE TO DO YOU SPIN 7 LIES!
EVERY ONE IS ONTO YOU HERE!
You still are not discussing the facts. The facts are that Pakistan was not on any "no travel list" nor did it keep us tourists from visiting, and Obama did not have either a British or an Indonesian passport. He did have a US passport probably from the time that he traveled to Indonesia the first time and certainly from the time that he returned from Indonesia to Hawaii without his mother.
Ellen,
You are a bott! I am not going to discuss issues with some one who is not even a real person!
You never discuss the facts at all. The facts are that Obama had neither a British nor an Indonesian passport. He had a US passport, and that is what he traveled to Pakistan on. Pakistan was NOT on any "no travel list" nor did it keep US tourists from visiting.
AMERICANS DON`T BELIEVE HIM HE IS THE WORST TRAITOR WE EVER HAD IN USA.
USA HAS BEEN DECEIVE ONE MORE TIME. THIS MAN IS MUSLIM KENYAN MARXIST PROFESSOR. SPEAKETH FAIR,BELIEVE HIM NOT. PROVERBS 26:25
SAD TO SEE SO MANY AMERICANS BELIEVE ON THIS IMPOSTOR. AMERICANS VOTE FOR CANDY MAN THEY GOT THE BOOGIE MAN. OBAMA=NERO+HITLER. OBAMA IS IN THE BUNKER.
2 THESSALONIANS 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie: read the whole chapter. WE LIVE ALICE WONDERLAND WORLD. http://www.obamacrimes.com/ WHERE IS HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE?
More lies from BHO.
Deb Beatty,
True! Nothing but lies!
Am I the only one that paid attention to the date of birth on this passport? Did he or did he not just celebrate his birthday on 4 Aug? The dob on the passport is 6 Aug 1961. I smell a rat.
U R correct, the non citizen DOB was 8-4. I believe that his parents at least twice named different hospitals in Hawaii, where they said he was born.
Look again, the published passport also says 04 August, though it is hard to see.
Look at the image of the passport more clearly. It says 04.
Good eye, now run with that one. This president is a crook far worse that Tricky Dick was.
He doesn't know when or where he was born! Lots of rats in the House on the Hill
Donna,
What is so bad we do not know what name is his true name either! Additionally to his birthdate & country of birth.
Of course we know his true name. Since he never officially changed his name it is the same as it always was, Barack Hussein Obama II.
Obama never officially changed his name, so it is still the same one as on his official birth certificate, which is the same as it is now.
Ellen,
You are a bott! You are programmed to spin & lie on the issues! Sorry but as i have pointed out in the past! You have no facts to back your comments!
Obama never changed his name legally, so it is the same as on his birth certificate, the Certification of Live Birth, which is the official birth certificate of Hawaii.
need to look a bit closer to the picture. As much as I also DON'T like this 1/2 whit arab, the date is the (4)
If you pause the video and the date is blurry, it looks like it might be a "6", but if you watch it a couple times, it is clearly a "4'.
But that doesn't matter. The fraud is still a friggin' fraud.
Can't stand this America-hating, arrogant prick.
Get his butt out of the White House ASAP!!!!
Look again. If you look closely, it reads 04.
So his Democratic buddies made him one, big deal
All the comments before mine express my exact sentiments. Not much I could add to rhem.
Agree that this means nothing – doubt if he had to prove anything to get the President passport! Also, noticed the passport shows bithpace as Hawaii, when I got mine I needed to give city and state and that is what appears!
But King Louie Obama is above having a common person's passport and thus has a royal passport. So let it be written, so let it be done———-
Ginny Exactly!
What i would love to see is his old passports!
You posed the question: "… Now, why do you suppose the White House is eager to show off Obama’s passport and explain he really does get it stamped when he goes from country to country – just like ordinary Americans? …"
I propose that his passport has a recent issue date, cannot be corroborated with historical documents that prove his place, time, and date of birth, and that it is just a political propaganda ploy, intended to divert attention away from the real issue of whether he actually is a "natural born citizen" of this nation, and, thus, eligible to hold the office of President of the United States of America.
Any other assertion would just be the result of intellectual sloth.
He cannot, has not, and will not produce the evidence that he is legally eligible to hold the office to which he was elected. The man is a total fraud.
Obama has already produced the evidence, the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and the officials of Hawaii have confirmed the facts on it twice.
ELLEN EVEN IF YOU ARE A BOTT YOU KNOW BETTER!
STOP LIEING ELLEN!
NOT A NICE THING TO DO EVEN IF YOU ARE A JAMES THE FAGGOT BOTT!
You never discuss facts. You only call names.
The facts in this discussion are that Obama has already posted the Certification of Live Birth, and it is the official and ONLY birth certificate that Hawaii issues. It is the birth certificate that Hawaii sent to Obama in 2007.
ELLEN,
THERE IS NO NEED FOR MY TO RESPOND TO A AUTOMATED BOTT!
SERIOUSLY GO TO A LIBERAL SITE TO SPIN 7 LIE NOT HERE!
It has been said that there is not a man in an ivory tower that an accurate pen cannot puncture. Mr. Obama is no exception to this rule. Bring on the men with the accurate pens………
The men with the pens are working in the dark. The courts have shut the lights to truth. We are facing an ugly situation, very very ugly.
WELL STATED A-PEN!
The Regime has never ever been about the truth so why would it start now? While it is very clear that he was not born in Hawaii, what really stumps me is why will not the socialist release his college records. Probably the records contain more evidence that he is not a citizen and what far left groups he constantly assoicated with. He boast about what he did in college but is not proud enough to release the documents.
He was and is being propped up by George Soros. The "new passport" only proves that he is a fake. Where is the old passport?
He won't show school records because they will show he received aid as a foreign student.
That passport shows travel stamps only from 2009. I am not a conspiracy theorist but is it hard to believe the POTUS couldn't snap his fingers and get one printed up??? We are not that gullible but someone must come up with his passport from 1980-1981 to really get the ball rolling and get his ass back to where it belongs, the middle east. Have you ever heard the way he pronounces the words koran and pakistan??? With inflection and tone just like a native from there would. I have lived all over this country and have been corrected for mispronouncing local words numerous times, i.e. Prescott, Az ('it's Preskit, like a biscuit') or Willamette Valley where the accent is on the middle syllable. The truth will come out sooner or later; the wait is very frustrating.
PROPAGANDA!
THIS PARTICULAR PASS PORT IS IN FACT LEGITIMATE! WNETTLES IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! HIS CURRENT PASS PORT WAS ISSUED UPON HIS BECOMING ELECTED TO OFFICE & PRIOR TO HIS ARRIVAL TO THE WHITEHOUSE. THERE FOR IT HAS NO HISTORICAL INFORMATION WHICH WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO DOCUMENTING HIS PRIOR TRAVELS.
If it was issued based on fraudulent documentation issued by Hawaii then it isn't legitimate. The only way we will ever know his legal status is by holding hearings where every twist and turn this snake has made can be assembled . There is still the 1.8 mil paid to Perkins & Coie that likely produced what you saw.
The documentation is NOT fraudulent. Why should a Republican Administration forge Obama's birth documents. For that matter, why should the officials in a Republican governor's administation say that he was born in Hawaii if he were not born in Hawaii. The allegations that the published birth certificate was forged were made only by two guys who will not give their names. The McCain Campaign (and probably the Hillary Campaign too) looked into the allegations of forgery, and found that there were nothing to them.
Re the $1.8 million. There never has been a lawsuit against Obama just for the birth certificate or just for documents. By far the largest part of the money, far more than a majority, was spent fighting lawsuits that tried to stop the election. Then there were lawsuits trying to stop the Electoral College from voting, others that tried to stop the Congress from certifying the election, and others that tried to stop the Inauguration. In this country you have to fight every lawsuit against you, no matter how stupid.
A-PEN WE AGREE!
I believe we are all in 100% agreement….he's a fraud, but he still believes he is in campaign mode….and we are ALL STILL STUPID enough to buy into his lies and BS.
I just heard on Fox News, that Obama's saying he is of the Christian faith. To begin with, if he was a Christian, he wouldn't be lying all of the time, or anytime. He doesn't know what the meaning of Christian is. The last time I checked, Christian, means Christ Like. Does he fit that description? But he's lying again, he is muslim. He sure is trying to keep that hid. We know why. He wants to be Obama, the Messiah, who saves the world by turning them all into muslims. I didn't know you were supposed to kill people if they didn't accept your religion or more like your cult. The Christians say just the opposite of that. The muslims, think they are doing God a service, if they kill you, if you won't accept their beliefs. How deceived can you get. We need to pray for them, they are God's creation like us, that God will open their eyes to how deceived they are, and turn them from this cult, and their wicked ways.
AN AMERICAN PASSPORT IS "NOT" EVIDENCE THAT A PERSON WAS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES. IT JUST SHOWS THAT HE OR SHE IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. OBAMA WILL CONTINUE TO FOOL THE PEOPLE WITH ALL KINDS OF DOCUMENTS. WHAT WE NEED TO PROVE HE IS A "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" IS SHOW HIS AUTHENTIC BIRTH CERTIFICATE. WHAT IS HARD ABOUT THAT IF HE IS WHAT HE CLAIMS TO BE?
LITA, it proves absolutely nothing. The real legal status of this man will only be uncovered when his entire life is examined properly. We already know that people can get fraudulent identities by purchasing them. The odds are that Obama is indeed a fraud and the only way we will ever know for certain is by forcing the documents to be presented in a court. The likelyhood of that happening while he is still squatting in the Oval office is slim to nill. That leaves two options and one of those is going to be a last resort.
YOu are right. The official birth certificate of a state is proof, and Obama has shown that already.
ELLEN THE DUMB BOTT!
HOW MANY TIMES MUDT I DISPROVE YOU ON THIS ISSUE?
ARE YOU JUST A DUMB BOTT OR WHAT?
You never discuss the facts. You only call names. The facts in this discussion are that Obama has already shown the only birth certificate that Hawaii has issued since 2001, the one that was sent to him in 2007, the one that the officials in Hawaii have confirmed the facts on twice.
ELLEN! BOTT!
I HAVE GIVEN YOU THE FACTS MORE THAN JUST A FEW TIMES. AS USUAL IT FALLS ON YOUR DEAF EARS!
YOU SIMPLY DO NOT RESPOND WHEN PROVEN WRONG! SO WHAT POINT IS THERE TO DISCUSS ISSUES FURTHER WITH YOU!
ANY WAY! YOU ARE JUST A BOTT!
THE BIRTH DATE ON THE PASPORT SHOWN IS AUGUST 6, 1961 HE WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN BORN ON AUGUST 4, 1961, WHOSE PASSPORT IS THIS? HE APPOINTED KAGAN TO THE SUPREME FOR THE MAIN PURPOSE OF MAKING SURE HE GETS AWAY WITH THIS FRAUDULENT CLAIM THAT HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII. JUST PRODUCE YOUR AUTHENTIC AND LEGAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE, MR. OBAMA. THAT SHOULD NOT BE TOO HARD IF YOU ARE TRULY AN "NATURAL BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN" AS YOU CLAIM YOU ARE. STOP TRYING TO FOOL PEOPLE BY SHOWING A FRAUDULENT PASSPORT INSTEAD OF A LEGAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE. AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE NOT STUPID!!!
Look again. If you look closely, it reads 04.
Obama has already produced the authentic and legal birth certificate of Hawaii, the Certification of Live Birth, which is the official birth certificate of Hawaii and is used every year by thousands of people.
ELLEN,
RIGHT ABOUT 04 BUT WRONG AS USUAL ON EVEYTHING ELSE!
GET SMART! SHISH! DUMB BITT!
You never discuss the facts. You only call names. The facts are that if you look closely, the passport says 4 not 6.
LOL! ELLEN THE BOTT!
SAME OLD CANNED RESPONSE BUT SLIGHTLY ALTERED!
I AGREED WITH YOU ON THE DATE!
SISH! YOU ARE ONE STUPID BOTT!
pray for these enemies… this is the best weapon we will ever have… obama is not the anti Christ but just think what the world will experience when the real one is revealed … obama is of the anti Christ spirit and is absolutely no more a Christian than he is irish… God has told us to love our enemies… it does not mean to let them walk all over us… trashing our constitution and dissing the blood and committments of our military and forefathers, BUT IT MAKE OBAMA MORE OPEN TO THE DEALING OF GOD… SOOOOO PRAY FOR THESE ENEMIES OF ALL THAT IS RIGHT AND JUST AND GODLY… WE WIN IN THE END REGARDLESS… AND THEIR LOSS WILL BE ETERNAL… MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON OUR ENEMIES … THEY (THEIR ACTIONS) ARE ALSO THE ENEMIES OF GOD!!!
THIS IS HIS NEW PASSPORT THAT HIS SECRETARY FILED FOR HIM SINCE HE BECAME PRESIDENT. IT IS NOT THE ONE HE USED TO TRAVEL TO PAKISTAN YEARS AGO. HE HAS SPENT 1.7 MILLION TO 12 ATTORNEYS TO COVER UP HIS PAST. HE IS NOT GOING TO LET YOU KNOW THAT HE IS NOT ELGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT. LET'S DEMAND THAT STARTING 2012 ANY CANDIDATE MUST SHOW ABSOLUTE PROOF OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP BECAUSE AS YOU CAN SEE WITH MUSLIMS TAKING OVER THIS IS ESSENTIAL TO OUR FUTURE.
The $1.7 million is a myth. There has never been a lawsuit just for the birth certificate or just for documents. By far most of the lawsuits were attempts to stop the election, stop the Electoral College from voting, stop the confirmation of the election by Congress or stop the Inauguration. In our country, you have to defend against every lawsuit, no matter how stupid it is.
"you have to defend against every lawsuit, no matter how stupid it is"
True, indeed. Thank God the Supreme Court finally ruled against Orley Taitz this week; maybe it will slow some of the legal nonsense.
JAMES NO ONE IS BUYING THIS! ELLEN IS EITHER YOUR BOTT OR A STAFF MEMBER OF YOURS SO WHY NOT JUST CUT THE CRAP & GO AWAY!
YOU REALLY DO SUCK!
Now we can very freely be shown BO's passport. So why can't he shown so freely his REAL birth certifiicate? The cloud of controversy that hangs over him with where he is born and if he is truly a native born American, could be cleared up in just a few minutes with the same ease.
Let's see the Long-form birth certificate!
Native born is not natural born. It is much more than a spelling difference too.
Yes Native Born and Natural Born are not the same. All Native Born citizens are Natural Born, some Natural Born citizens may not have been Native Born (such as McCain). The latter may be true. The former is certainly true. ALL Native Born citizens are Natural Born Citizens.
That is because the meaning of Native Born at the time of the writing of the US Constitution was simply "born in the country." No American writer at the time of the writing of the original Constitution never used the term Natural Born to mean "two citizen parents." In those days it was in fact a synonym for Native Born. The difference in those days was that not everyone who was Native Born was automatically a citizen. That was done by the14th Amendment. Now, when a person is both a citizen and native born, she or he is a Natural Born Citizen.
There have been many federal law cases in which the US born children of one or two foreigners are described as Natural Born Citizens in the ruling of the courts.
SOME MORE B/S AS USUAL!
GET A LIFE!
Obama has shown the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and that is the only one that Hawaii has sent out to anyone since 2001. The officials in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed the facts on that document, and recently the governor of Hawaii did too. And, there is this witness, who recalls being told of Obama's birth in Hawaii in 1961 and writing home about it (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2170432/posts).
We have already seen his REAL birth certificate. The Certification of Live Birth is the official birth certificate of Hawaii. Hawaii has not sent out copies of the original birth certificate since 2001.
Re: "So why can't he shown so freely his REAL birth certifiicate?"
Answer: He HAS shown his real birth certificate. The Certification of Live Birth is the official birth certificate of Hawaii. Thousands of people use it to get passports every year. Hawaii has sent out only the Certification of Live Birth since 2001; that is what it sent to Obama when he asked for his birth certificate in 2007.
SAME OLD B/S!
You never discuss the facts. In this case the discussion is over whether Obama has shown his birth certificate. The facts are that he posted and showed to both Politifact and FactCheck the Certification of Live Birth, and that this document has been the official birth certificate of Hawaii since 2001. And, Hawaii sends out only the Certification of Live Birth and has sent out only the Certification since 2001.
I have an American Passport. I was born in Germany! My birth certificate has the Swatztica on it, because it was 1943. We need to see his long term birth certificate which shows where and who the Dr. was. Plus accedemic records- On those it also shows the place of birth and nationality.
I think this is the biggest hoax that has ever been perpitrated on the American people!
Obama has shown the official birth certificate of Hawaii and the facts on it were confirmed twice by the officials in Hawaii, who are members of a Republican governor's administration. Hawaii has not sent out copies of the original long form birth certificate since 2001.
MORE B/S!
We can see his official birth certificate, but we cannot see his long-form birth certificate because Hawaii does not send it out anymore. Obama has posted his official birth certificate, and he is the first and only US president to have done so.
Since no other president or candidate has himself shown full academic records (Bush's and Kerry's were both leaked by sources at the universities but not shown voluntarily), Obama certainly does not have to show his. However, if the Republican candidate in 2012 shows her or his transcript, most likely Obama will too.
EVEN MORE B/S!
You never discuss the facts. In this case the facts are that it is possible to determine whether the source is accurate or not by checking with the authorities. The source claims that Obama had British and Indonesian passports. If, however, you call the British and Indonesian Embassies, they will tell you that he did not have them.
ELLEN,
JUST HOW MANY TIMES TO I HAVE TO DISPROVE YOU ON THIS ISSUE?
THIS IS THE SAME OLD CANNED RESPONSE THAT YOU GIVE OVER & OVER AGAIN ON THIS SITE!
I PERSONNALLY BELIEVE YOU ARE A BOTT!
GO TO A LIBERAL SITE!
You never discuss the facts. You have not and cannot disprove without showing the facts. The facts are that a simple call to the embassies of Britain and Indonesia will disprove the claim that Obama had passports from those countries.
Again, you are not discussing the facts. You say you "disproved," but you did not. And you certainly did not in your latest comment. The facts are that if someone calls the British and Indonesian embassies and asks about the passports, she or he will learn that Obama never had either a British or an Indonesian passport.
You never discuss the facts. In this case the issue is the long-form birth certificate. And the facts are that Hawaii has not sent out copies of that since 2001.
ELLEN,
GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT SWEETY!
I HAVE ALREADY PROVEN YOU WRONG ON THIS ISSUE NUMEROUS TIMES.
No you haven't proven anything because you never discuss the facts. In this discussion the issue is the long-form birth certificate. Obama has not sent it out. That is because Hawaii did not send it to him. Hawaii has not sent out the long-form birth certificate since 2001.
He's lied about everything else why wouldn't this be a fraud too. He seems to be able to make everything happen the way he wants with his deceit
Passports are a dime a dozen, ask the terrorist and illegals. I want to see the real birth certificate! If he has nothing to hide, why has he spent so much on not having his birth certificate shown. Do you think everyone has drank from his kool? No one believes anything that comes out of the White House and the Liberal media … THis is one tired democrat that can not be bought.
His real birth certificate has already been posted. It is the Certification of Live Birth. It is the only birth certificate that Hawaii has sent out since 2001. Hawaii stopped sending out copies of the long form birth certificate in 2001. It only sends out the Certification to everyone. That is what it sent to Obama when he asked for a copy of his birth certificate in 2007.
WMR has been told by knowledgeable sources that Obama has, in the past, traveled on at least three passports: U.S., Indonesian, and British. http://www.exportblueprint.com/blog/1552/verified…
It is possible to check the accuracy of your "knowledgeable source' by simply asking the Indonesian and British Embassies whether Obama had ever had a passport from those two countries. They will tell you no, as they told me, but it is best to check for yourself.
why should we believe anything he does after all his campaign lies?? Why should we beleive congress when he has had his certificate of live birth out there for how long without a hospital name on it,doctors signiture etc….and the congress accepted that?or an attending physicians signiture etc..etc..
I am not buying anything this clown does,or what george bush did,they are both crooks and should be in jail for war crimes.Why is Obama still spending money on lawsuits about his eligibility if he has a regular birth certificate somewhere with real doctors names on it,a hospital name etc….
I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHY NO ONE CAN GET THIS MAN'S BIRTHCERTIFIC THIS WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IF HE WERE ONE OF THE COMMON PEOPLE.
I AM TIRED OF THIS GUY GETTING AWAY WITH THIS. PEOP0LE ACT LIKE THEY ARE AFAID OF HIM.
Velma Nay,
I so agree that it is frustrating how people & the media cover for him.
Obama has already shown his birth certificate. He was the first and so far the only US president to show his birth certificate. He posted it and showed the physical copies to both Politifact and FactCheck. The Certification of Live Birth si the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and the facts on it were confirmed twice by the officials in Hawaii, who are members of a Republican governor's administration.
B/S! YOU KNOW IT ELLEN!
YOu never discuss facts. You only call names.
In this discussions the issue is whether Obama has shown his birth certificate. The facts are that he has posted the Certification of Live Birth, and this document is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and has been the official birth certificate since 2001. It is also the only birth certificate that Hawaii has sent out since 2001. Also, in Obama's case, the facts on the Certification were confirmed twice by the officials in Hawaii.
ELLEN!
SAME OLD CANNED B/S RESPONSE!
I HAVE DISPROVEDED YOU MANY TIMES ON THIS ISSUE!
GO TO A LIBERAL SITE!
Memo to the West Wing on this passport…NICE TRY! FAIL!
I am totally NOT believing this propaganda site — I cannot believe they would attempt to pull this stupidity off, after all they have under their command any artist, director, actor, what have you, who could have done a better job at making this sound and look believable. What a bunch of Socialist Morons, even Stalin and Hitler had better videographers and that was in the olden days before TVIO.
That don't mean a thing. How stupid do they think we are, showing us stuff that don't prove a blasted thing about where he was born. November hurry up and get here!!!
Janita,
I agree with you that he is the largest liar in the history of our country! I further agree that he will fall very fast and hard!
Christine Scott,
True! Just more far left liberal progressive spin & lies!
Lol! Good comment girl friend!
I DON'T CARE WHAT THIS MUSLIM "FRAUD" SHOWS. ALL I'M INTERESTED IN, ARE THE "IMPEACHMENT" PAPERS. TO BELIEVE THEY'RE "LEGAL," IS WHEN I SEE HIM MOVE "OUT" OF THE WHITE HOUSE. TO BELIEVE THIS MAN IS A "CHRISTIAN," IS AN ABOMINATION. HIS "ACTION'S" SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. WHY DO THEY CONT. TO ASK A "PATHOLOGICAL" PREVARICATOR, QUESTIONS? DOES THIS MAKE SENSE? IT'S A GIFT, FROM SATAN.
I have to wonder, why does the President need a passport? He is the commander in chief of the U.S. Military. I served 22 years in uniform and though I traveled to to West Germany and South Korea, and other nations enroute. I NEVER showed a passport. I simply displayed my active duty military ID and passed customs with the MIL ID.
On the issue of health insurance, my wife and I have coverage through her work, the plan she enrolled in is set up for us to pay into the plan for the duration of her work there and then upon her retirement, we would both receive free care for life. If Obama Care changes this what happens to the money we paid in all those years and the paid up insurance that we are supposed to have upon her retirement?
Wonder why they blocked out the date of issue? Also, I believe it should state if it is a new, duplicate, or renewed passport. Does anyone know for sure? Except for that pesky long form birth certificate he's had enough time to get just about anything he wanted either removed or made up new. He will always be a fraud to anyone with any common sense or street savvy. Freaking Traitor.
Hawaii has not sent out the long-form birth certificate since 2001. It sends out only the new short-form birth certificate, which is now the official birth certificate.
Hello, the passport issue is that he traveled to Pakistan in the 80's when it wasn't allowed to do that with an AMERICAN passport. If he's so ligitimate why wait all this time to show these documents. I'm guessing your birth certificate has all kids of signitures: parents, doctors, time of birth, and hospital name. His has none of that !
Hello. Pakistan was NOT on any US no-travel list nor did it bar US citizens from visiting in 1981, which is when Obama went.
This is simply a made-up story. Pakistan International Airlines had an office on New York’s Fifth Avenue at the time, and it flew from New York to Karachi by way of London. It granted US tourists 30-day visas on arrival. The US government also did not bar travel to Pakistan. There were even travel articles in US newspapers recommending visiting Pakistan. So, any US citizen could visit using a US passport.
Obama had had a US passport probably from the time that he left Hawaii to go to Indonesia, and CERTAINLY from the time that he left Indonesia and returned to Hawaii to attend school. He made that trip without his mother, so he could not travel on her passport, and it could not have been a foreign passport that he used because that would have required a US visa, and no record of a US visa being issued to him in Jakarta has been found.
Obama never had an Indonesian or British passport, as calls to the embassies of these countries will confirm. He traveled on his US passport.
Obama has, by the way, already shown the official birth certificate of Hawaii, which is also the only one that Hawaii has sent out since 2001. That is the one that Hawaii sent to Obama in 2007.
Hello. Pakistan was NOT on any US no-travel list nor did it bar US citizens from visiting in 1981, which is when Obama went.
This is simply a made-up story. Pakistan International Airlines had an office on New York’s Fifth Avenue at the time, and it flew from New York to Karachi by way of London. It granted US tourists 30-day visas on arrival. The US government also did not bar travel to Pakistan. There were even travel articles in US newspapers recommending visiting Pakistan. So, any US citizen could visit using a US passport.
Obama had had a US passport probably from the time that he left Hawaii to go to Indonesia, and CERTAINLY from the time that he left Indonesia and returned to Hawaii to attend school. He made that trip without his mother, so he could not travel on her passport, and it could not have been a foreign passport that he used because that would have required a US visa, and no record of a US visa being issued to him in Jakarta has been found.
Obama never had either an Indonesian or a British passport, as the embassies of those countries confirm. So, he traveled on his US passport.
Re the birth certificate. Actually, Obama can post only the birth certificate that Hawaii has sent out since 2001, the Certification of live Birth, and that is what he has posted already. The facts on it–that he was born in Hawii in 1961– were confirmed twice by the officials in Hawaii, and recently the governor of Hawaii also confirmed.
To be sure, this is a short-form birth certificate, but MANY if not most states have not adopted short-form birth certificates as their official birth certificate.
Hello, Pakistan was NOT on any US no-travel list nor did it bar US citizens from visiting in 1981, which is when Obama went.
This is simply a made-up story. Pakistan International Airlines had an office on New York’s Fifth Avenue at the time, and it flew from New York to Karachi by way of London. It granted US tourists 30-day visas on arrival. The US government also did not bar travel to Pakistan. There were even travel articles in US newspapers recommending visiting Pakistan. So, any US citizen could visit using a US passport. Obama had had a US passport probably from the time that he left Hawaii to go to Indonesia, and CERTAINLY from the time that he left Indonesia and returned to Hawaii to attend school. He made that trip without his mother, so he could not travel on her passport, and it could not have been a foreign passport that he used because that would have required a US visa, and no record of a US visa being issued to him in Jakarta has been found.
Calls to the Indonesian and British Embassies show that Obama never had passports from those countries. You can call yourself and check; ask for the press officer. Since Obama did have a US passport and not an Indonesian or British passport, he traveled on his US passport.
HI ELLEN THE BOTT / JAMES McPHERSON THE FAGGOT,
SO GLAD THAT YOU WERE REPROGRAMMED SO THAT WE DO NOT HAVE TO READ THE SAME OLD B/S WHICH YOU EXCEL.
You never discuss facts. You only call names. The facts in this discussion are that Obama never had either a British or an Indonesian passport, but he had a US passport when he returned from Hawaii. Pakistan was no on any 'no travel list," so he used his US passport.
ELLEN,
TO TRY & DISCUSS FACTS WITH YOU IS BUT A WASTE OF ANYONE'S TIME.
EVEN WHEN ONE PRESENTS YOU WITH THE FACTS IT FALLS ON DEATH EARS!
YOU SIMPLY DO NOT RESPOND WHEN YOU ARE PROVEN WRONG!
QUESTION? SINCE YOU ARE SUCH A LIBERAL WHAT DO YOU CHOOSE TO MAKE POST ON THIS SITE? WHY WOULD YOU NOT BE POSTING ON A MORE LIBERAL SITE? I THINK WE ALL KNOW THE ANSWER TO THESE QUESTIONS! IN MY OPINION YOU ARE NOTHING MORE THAN ANOTHER OBAMA LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE WHO POST ON SITES LIKE THIS ONE FOR NO OTHER REASON BUT TO SPIN & LIE & CAUSE DISCONTENT.
GET A REAL JOB! WHILE YOU ARE AT IT I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT YOU GET SOME KIND OF A RESEMBLENCE OF A REAL LIFE AS WELL!
Obama really was born in Hawaii, as his official birth certificate from Hawaii shows, and the facts on that document were confirmed twice by the top officials of the Department of Health and Department of Vital Records of Hawaii, and most recently by the governor. And, there is even a witness who recalls being told of Obama's birth in Hawaii in 1961 and writing home about it at the time (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2170432/posts).
Obama's Kenyan grandmother never said that he was born in Kenya. In the taped interview she said repeatedly that he was born in Hawaii, and in another interview she said that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama's birth was in a letter from Hawaii.
Please post this "official birth certificate". He has never shown a birth certificate. First, Hawaii did provide all persons born in 1961 with official long form birth certificates which Obama refuses to provide to even a court. Second that document will show the legal father. Despite what you hear and claims made by others the fact is that Obama is only claiming to be "native born" which is not "natural born". He indeed knows the difference as he is careful to not claim otherwise as if defrauding the constitution is any less of a crime than lying about doing it.
Whatever other stories are in addition to that are moot. He admits his fraudulent status and defies the people by barring access to the courts where his illigitimacy can be put to rest. Keep on with ignoring that matter, it shows your really wanting truth.
ALL native born citizens are Natural Born Citizens. The original meaning of Natural Born, used by all the AMERICAN writers at the time of the writing of the Constitution was simply "born in the country.' NO American writer at the time ever used it to mean "two citizen parents" or in any other way than as a synonym for native born.
Obama cannot send out the long form birth certificate because he does not have it. Hawaii sent him the short-form Certification of Live Birth in 2007, which is what it has sent to everyone since 2001. The Certification of live birth is now the official birth certificate of Hawaii, used by thousands of people every year to get passports. The officials in Hawaii, members of a Republican governor's administration have confirmed the facts on the published birth certificate twice, once before and once after the election. Most recently, the governor of Hawaii has herself confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii.
NO court has asked for Obama's birth certificate, so Obama has certainly not refused to provide it to a court. IF a court were to ask for Obama's birth certificate, Obama would provide the Certification of Live Birth, which is the official birth certificate. Even the so-called "birther bill,' the one that would require future candidates for president to prove that they were born in America, asks for the official birth certificate.
Obama's published birth certificate shows his legal father. It does not show the name of the hospital or the doctor, but many states have adopted the short-form birth certificate, and that is the case with short-form birth certificates.
Simply being born in the USA makes a Natural Born Citizen. That is why Obama's election ws confirmed UNANIMOUSLY by the US Congress. There have been numerous federal lawsuits in which the courts have stated that the US-born children of one or two foreign citizens are Natural Born US Citizens.
Ellen, nice try. If you weren't into making up stories you might want to take a peek at what the founders used to come up with that term, Natural born". It is called the "Law of Nations". That set of works was so important it is actually part of the constitution. Now, if you would, try to deny that fact without being intellectually dishonest. Better yet, try to accept you are simply misguided and being misled by a group of people who have no use for the constitution. It would do us all a world of good to actually stop and think about why there is this need to secret Obamas' entire life before jumping on the bandwagon hitched to a known group of radicals who would just as soon fly a hammer and sicle over DC than the stars and stripes..
Re: "It is called the "Law of Nations". That set of works was so important it is actually part of the constitution. "
Where did you get this CRAZY idea? Vattel is not even mentioned in the Federalist Papers. Not even once.
You may have been mislead by the fact that the words Law and Nations are capitalized in the phrase Law of Nations in Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution. But the name of the book is THE Law of Nations, and The is not capitalized. Also, the capitalization of Law and Nations in this case is explained when you look at any section of the Constitution, and examine the capitalization. For example:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty…"
Notice that the words People, Order, Union, Justice, Tranquility, Welfare, Blessings and Liberty all are capitalized? That is why Law and Nations was capitalized. They did it for emphasis, not because it was a book.
Vattel, the author of The Law of Nations, was a Swiss philosopher. He was highly respected as an expert in international law, but elections and citizenship are domestic matters. And, the writers of the Constitution read many books besides The Law of Nations. They took some things from some writers and rejected other things. Vattel, for example, recommends that every state establish a state religion and force people to join it.
Moreover, we are not even certain that Vattel said that a Natural Born Citizen requires two citizen parents. He wrote in French, and he said that something that he called an 'indigines' requires two citizen parents. But we do not know what an 'indigines" is because Vattel does not use the term again. One thing that Vattel does NOT recommend. He does not recommend that the leader of a country be even a citizen, much less a citizen with two citizen parents. Vattel gives several examples of countries picking their sovereigns from the nobility of other countries, and he never said that that was a bad thing.
Getting back to "indigines.' It was a translator who made the rash assumption that this means Natural Born. This may be wrong. To be sure, an indigines probably is a citizen, since the parents are citizens, but where do we get the Natural Born from? From the TRANSLATOR, not from Vattel. Natural in French is naturel; Vattel does not use it. Born in French is ne; Vattel does not use it.
But these are side issues. The important factor is how AMERICANS at the time of the writing of the Constitution used the term. IF they used the phrase Natural Born as the translator claimed that Vattel used it, that would be good proof that a Natural Born Citizen requires two citizen parents. BUT THEY DIDN'T. They always used Natural Born to mean 'born in the country.' They never used it to mean 'two citizen parents.'
This includes John Jay, who used the phrase Natural Born Citizen in a letter to Washington. He, like John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Ben Franklin, and all the others, always used Natural Born to mean 'born in the country.' Madison, by the way said that there was a single criterion for allegiance in the United States, the place of birth.
Here is the book;
http://books.google.com/books?id=NukJAAAAIAAJ&…
What do you see? the first letter of any title or sentence is always a cap. Grammer won't save you there.
Why would the Federalist have a debate on the Law of Nations? That compilation was already accepted at the time .
While you allude to the discussions between the founders over citizenship you missed the reasons why they were concerned with it. First they had to determine who would be a citizen of the new nation and why. To settle this up front there was no reason to exclude based on anything other than the ability of any people to assimilate and have sole allegiance to the new nation was there?
If what you say is true, then they would have written "no person but someone with two US parents is eligible," but you know that they did not write that in the Constitution. And they did not write that even in letters between themselves or articles. They always used Natural Born to mean "born in the country." No one ever used it to mean "two citizen parents."
Re why should they have a debate on the Law of Nations? I have shown that the Constitution did not adopt some of the things that Vattel recommended in his book. If they had accepted something different from the law at the time that he had written in his book, they would have discussed it. The law and common meaning of "Natural Born" at the time was "born in the country.' If they had meant to do something different, they would have told us.
Yes, they were concerned about allegiance. But Madison has clearly said that the sole criterion of allegiance in the USA was the place of birth. In this, he was the same as Blackstone, who said that a person could have only one allegiance, to the country of her or his birth.
Sure, they were concerned about allegiance, but the evidence is that they considered birth in the USA sufficient grounds for allegiance. They barred foreigners from being president, and they barred naturalized citizens from being president. But there is no evidence that they barred the US-born children of foreigners from being president. if they had wanted to do so, it would have been easy to say so, but they didn't–not even in letters between each other.
And, they didn't follow Vattel in his recommendation to establish a state religion, so there is no evidence that they followed the view of the translator (which by the way was not published until about a decade AFTER the Constitution) that Natural Born Citizens should require two citizen parents. Vattel himself only said that an "indigines" requires two citizen parents.
As I said, the quotations of the Americans at the time showed that they always used Natural Born to mean "born in the country" and they never used it to mean "two citizen parents." And that also is the current law. There have been MANY federal lawsuits in which the judge has declared in the court's opinion that the US-born children of one or two foreign parents are Natural Born US Citizens.
For example;
Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):
Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.
Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):
Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.
Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):
The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.
What makes the third child different from the other two? She was born in the USA.
You are evading the pertinent proof, nowhere is the a source other than Vattel for that phrase.
The constitution was carefully worded to mean exactly what it says. Only we can alter it not judges or opinions of a simple majority or politicians alone although all try. Congress attempted to legislate the citizenship status of natural born once already and withdrew it after the SC pointed it out.
The cases you cite do not state natural born equates to naturalized anywhere. In fact they all deal with citizenship which may be legislated and specifically when a single parent falls within their realm to define. No citizen born on this soil of two citizen parents have EVER been subject to a citizenship test in any court..
Natural born does not equate to naturalized. No naturalized citizens are natural born. Only citizens born in the country are natural born. That is the way that the writers of the Constitution used the phrase.
For example, ames Wilson, who served in both the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, wrote in 1774 :
"Natural born subjects have a great variety of rights, which they acquire by being born in the king’s ligeance, and can never forfeit by any distance of place or time, but only by their own misbehaviour; the explanation of which rights is the principal subject of the law. 1. Bl. Com. 371."
It is clear in this that the meaning of Natural Born comes from "being born in the king's ligeance." It does not require two parents, and it does not bar someone who was a dual national.
Yes, Wilson wrote about a Natural Born SUBJECT. But that doesn't matter. The issue is the meaning of Natural Born. Natural Born did not suddenly take on a new meaning when we became citizens, or if it did, they would have TOLD US, and they didn't.
As I will show below, the meaning of Natural Born Citizen, when it was used by American leaders, was the combination of the old meaning of Natural Born, which was born in the country, plus the new word Citizen, a Natural Born Citizen is thus a person who is both a citizen and born in the country. A cross-eyed citizen is the combination of a citizen and a person who is cross-eyed, and a left-handed citizen is the same for left-handed and citizen.
The same applies for Natural Born Citizen. The meaning of it at the time that the Constitution was written was the combination of the old way that Natural Born was used by AMERICANS (not french or swiss) plus the word Citizen. Once again, naturalized citizens are NOT natural born, only citizens at birth, at the time of the writing of the Constitution only citizens born IN the country, are Natural Born Citizens.
McCain was not born in the country. That makes his Natural Born Citizen status somewhat questionable, because it was caused due to laws passed after the Constitution that declared that the children of US citizens born overseas are Natural Born Citizens. But persons born in the country have never had a law saying that they are Natural Born because they did not have to have one. It was known that the meaning of Natural Born at the time of the writing of the Constitution referred to birth in the USA.
John McCain was determined to have been upon US soil by comparison to a ship or port by the senate which is not binding and not an authority. That was done simply to evade the SC ruling which would have defined NBC thus blowing the Obama eligibility out of the water before it even got started. That is what should have occurred. There is no reason on earth to play games with this man, the public and the courts, NONE.
You said you can quote language of the period using natural born citizen. You have not yet done so.
In order for a debate to be productive you must honor your proposals otherwise they signal dishonesty.
I provided Vattel, the Washington posession of that source and even the constitutional adoption of the material as source. You provide opinion based on your purported sources. You provide cases where no court has or even can redefine NBC.
I would refer to the US Codes however the current laws do not apply to those born in 1961 yet the definition of NBC as sourced in the Law of Nations does. That is the source unless you can SHOW proof of another. Thank you.
I have done so in replies above and below.
Here are some more quotations:
The statute of Pennsylvania regarding elections of 1799 clearly shows that Natural Born simply means citizen at birth because there are no alternatives, a person is either Natural Born, naturalized or a foreigner who is not eligible to vote. There is no category of native-born but not Natural Born.
It reads: "That the elector is required to take an oath, 1, that he is a natural born citizen of the state &c; or 2 That he is a natural born citizen of some other of the United States; or 3, that having being a foreigner or alien, he has been naturalized." (http://books.google.com/books?id=ERgvAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA251&dq=%22a+natural+born+citizen%22&lr=#v=onepage&q=%22a%20natural%20born%20citizen%22&f=false)
Thomas Jefferson wrote in the first draft of the proposed first Constitution of Virginia that "All persons who by their own oath or affirmation or by other testimony shall give satisfactory proof to any court of record in this colony that they purpose to reside in the same [7] years at the least and who shall subscribe the fundamental laws shall be considered as a residents & entitled to all the rights of a person natural born." (http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&title=755&search=%22natural+Born%22&layout=html#a_1987094)
The first Constitution of the State of New York, in 1777, which was written mainly by John Jay, says: "Every foreigner of good character, who comes to settle in the State, having first taken an oath of affirmation or allegiance to the same, may purchase or by other means acquire, hold and transfer land or other real estate, and after one year's residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this state, except that he shall not be capable of being elected a representative until after two years residence."
IN these cases Natural Born can only mean "born in the country.' Yes, in some cases they use the word "subject" instead of citizen, but the issue is the meaning of Natural Born.
Washington read many books besides Vattel. Vattel himself never said that only "indigines" (or only Natural Born citizens, as the one translation AFTER the Constitution was written has claimed the Vattel wrote) should be leaders of the country.
RE;Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):
Again, Obama is not tested by laws enacted post birth. That case was never heard by the SC anyway as it would have been if not affirmed by the 9th circuit. That is what is known as judicial activism. Oddly our system allows all manner of acts to stand until stricken by the SC. They in no way impair the validity of the settled law of the Constitution.
You've read the federalist and the Declaration of Independance right? Then as you claim that being born on the soil is not the only factor is it? That places you back in the work of Vattel since there are no other works of reference other than English common law to derive a citizenship status from. Those are the only two sources are they not? Then do not refer to what "Americans" thought because they weren't consulted on this issue. That leaves us with John Jays' letter to Washington in which he pleads with Washinton to assure the presidency would have the ultimate protection from foreign influence. http://www.familytales.org/dbDisplay.php?id=ltr_j…
It can be shown that John Jay used the term Natural Born just the way that Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson and Franklin used it, and in fact the way that all the Americans at the time used it "born in the country."
There is a draft treaty with Britain in which Adams, Franklin and Jay used Natural Born Citizen as a synonym to the British phrase Natural Born Subject, and we know that a Natural Born Subject was simply someone who was born in Britain (other than the children of foreign diplomats). It makes no sense to give a British Natural Born Subject in American all the rights and privileges of a US Natural Born Citizen if the requirements on the US side were different from the requirements on the British side.
Then show it.
Okay:
(The spelling and capitalization are what they were at the time.)
Quote begins:
Draft Articles to Supplement the Preliminary Anglo-American Peace Treaty [ca 27 April 1787 [in Paris]
Articles agreed on by David Hartley Esq., Minister Plenipotentiary of His Brittanic Majesty for &c in behalf of said Majesty on the one part, and J.A. [John Adams], B.F. [Benjamin Franklin], J.J. [John Jay] and H.L [Henry Livingston, who was also at the US Embassy in France, but is not as famous as the other three], ministers plenipotentiary of the Unites States of America for treating of peace….in addition to the articles agreed on the 30th day of November 1782…The subjects of the Crown of Great Britain shall enjoy in all and every of Said United States, all Rights, Liberties, Privileges and Immunities and be Subject to the Duties and Allegiance of natural born Citizens of the Said States—and, on the other hand, all the citizens of the Said United States shall enjoy in all and every of the Dominions of the Crown of Great Britain all Rights, Liberties, Privileges and Immunities and be Subject to the Duties and Allegiance of natural born Subjects of that Crown, excepting Such Individuals of either Nation as the legislature of the other shall judge fit to exempt."
http://books.google.com/books?id=vemc7Vuqk1YC&…
End quotation
Another way of wording the same thing, in another draft, was that “the subjects of his Brittanic Majesty and the citizens of the United States shall mutually be considered as Natural born Subjects & enjoy all rights and privileges as such in the Respective Dominions and Territories in the manner heretofore accustomed.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=vemc7Vuqk1YC&…
What does this mean? It means that as far as the writers of this document were concerned (Adams, Franklin, Jay and Livingston on the US side), the term natural born citizen is equivalent to natural born subject.
The term “natural born citizen” meant to these US writers just what “natural born subject” meant to the British. It could not be that in the arrangement for equal treatment between the USA and Britain, that someone had to have two US parents to be treated just the same as a natural born subject in Britain who simply had to be born in the British realm.
Subjects and Citizens are different, sure, but the question is are they different where their parents are concerned? Why, unless there is a framer saying so, does "natural born citizen" require two parents while "natural born subject" merely requires birth in the country?
Now, if you agree so far there is one last point which so far you have refused to acknowlege. The term "natural born citizen" appears in no other works than the Law of Nations. If , as you purport, it was a commonly used term then you must provide reference to show the people were commonly using it so as to determine from that context what they had meant. It is a contrivance that you assert this to be true in order to escape the true source of the term and it's official meaning. To further provide proof of that source is that the volume Washington had in his posession was just recently returned. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/19/george-w…
If there is a source you have discovered other than Vattels compilation, lets have it.
Further, the Supreme court recognizes the law of nations, note all small case used in the opinion, as the work where DEFINITIONS arise. http://supreme.justia.com/us/18/153/case.html
re the law of nations all small case. This is NOT a reference to the book. It is a reference to the generic law of nations. That also was what the Constitution referred to despite capitalizing the words Law and Nations (but not the).
The quotation you reference reads: "The Act of 3 March 1819, c. 76, s. 5, referring to the law of nations for a definition of the crime of piracy, is a constitutional exercise of the power of Congress to define and punish that crime.
The crime of piracy is defined by the law of nations with reasonable certainty. Robbery or forcible depredation upon the sea, anima furandi, is piracy by the law of nations and by the act of Congress."
IF this were a reference to Vattel's book, it would include Vattel's name, and it would have been capitalized, and it would have referenced the words that Vattel used, if it did not quote them.
Are you going to produce a ""generic law of nations" now?
You call the Law of Nations "Vattels book" . It is a compilation Vattel assembled from the civilized nations laws. It wasn't his book at all but a reference for misters of governments to consult so as to not create undue tensions between nations.
Since it is your opinion that the constitution is powerless unless it can be referenced to a known source and you reference the "generic law of nations" then produce it.
Your response had better include the generic law you claim exists or it will be patently obvious you are intentionally avoiding an honest debate. Those who will follow reading here will see your argument for what it is, unfounded.
It is Vattel's book. His name is right on it. Yes, it is a compilation of laws and customs, but it also includes Vattel's recommendations such as every country should have a state religion.
Where did I say that the Constitution is powerless? Where did I even use the word "powerless." I said that in your reference it was not to Vattel's book. It was to the law of nations (generic). It has long been the Conservative view that there is no such thing as a generic law of nations. Nations simply make up their rules as they go along. However, the practices of nations in the past has for years been referred to as "the law of nations.' This is as generic as talking in general about "young love" or "spring flowers" or "government corruption.'
You claimed that an reference to the law of nations (NOT capitalized) in a Supreme Court case was a reference to what Vattel wrote. There is no mention of Vattel and he does not appear in a footnote.
This debate is over. Thank you for providing us with your opinions. It is obvious you are unable to support your claims and rely solely upon what will support your opinion regardless of the failure to show any support for them. The key issue is there must be a source for the original use of NBC which is found in the Law of Nations and without supporting evidence it originated anywhere else I rest intellectually satisfied that indeed the origin is the Law of Nations. Thank you for your time.
Sure, sure. You simply say that I am unable to support my opinions. But I have shown about a dozen quotations in which the writers of the Constitution and other American writers at the time used Natural Born to mean "born in the country.' You have not shown one quotation by any American at the time who used it the way that Vattel is claimed to have used it (AND, he only said that an "indigines' must have two citizen parents. The words Natural Born are the creation of a translator, who many have mistranslated the term since Vattel does not use the words natural or born or citizen but only indigines).
Re there must be a key source for the original use of Natural Born Citizen. Then, it would be to the letter of Jefferson to the ambassadors in 1777. Vattel's work was not translated "natural born citizens" until a decade or so AFTER the Constitution was adopted.
And we know that the writers of the Constitution did not adopt all of Vattel's ideas. The term Natural Born Citizen is simply a combination of Natural Born, which was used frequently by American leaders, and the new word Citizen. The meaning of Natural Born at the time was ALWAYS used by Americans to mean "born in the country."
You are welcome.
The reason I can simply say that is because it is true. You once again proved my point by assigning meanings to words you've found randomly. Let me remind you that the constitution may not be altered by opinion despite what you claim. No lower court may define anything constitutional however activist they are. The Law of Nations is period, proved to have been in the possession of and referenced directly in the Constitution. Only a person so desperate as to illigitimately place greater weight on a flimsy and obviously convoluted route to reach a desired outcome could relate to your claims. Indeed, when guilt is inescapable all manner of escape are employed. Yours is and has been tried many times by desperate souls to no avail.
I only have one concern now and that is how will you fare when a court does finally hear this and conclude as as I have, what is obvious and just, does not fit your wishes. Quite possibly it won't affect you at all and there is plenty of evidence that some people are just unable to accept the world in any other fashion than will suit their own warped view. Thankfully we have methods to help some, tolerate some and contain those too dangerous to let roam among us.
If the Supreme Court does hear the case, and it is most unlikely because four justices have to think that there is an issue, then you will lose nine to zero or eight to one. That is because the justices are familiar with the original meaning of Natural Born, and they know that it does not come from Vattel. The idea that it comes from Vattel is laughable. The words "Natural Born Citizen" did not appear in any translation of Vattel until a decade AFTER the Constitution was written.
The words "Natural Born Citizen" were used by Thomas Jefferson in 1777, and it can be shown that he–along with all the other American leaders at the time–used the Natural Born part of that phrase ALWAYS to mean "born in the country.'
The book The Law of Nations is not referenced in the Constitution. If it were, it would be the only book referenced, and so you would have heard about it in High School, and American leaders would have written letters and articles about how they were referencing Vattel's book. Yes, they read it, but they read a lot of other things too.
You allege that I assigned meaning to words. That is not true. The quotations show the way that Adams, Jefferson, Jay and others actually used Natural Born and in some cases Natural Born Citizen, and that is the way that Hamilton used them too. None of them ever used it to mean "two citizen parents.'
Vattels first compilation was released in 1758.
That predates and assures that almost any enlightened statesman of the era was familiar with it.
Give it up. You've lost and it is pitiful to see your clinging to straw.
Besides, the only reason this case hasn't been settled is because it is better to have an educated, so far as possible, public than an unprepared public with what is about to be the largest case of government fraud ever exposed in history. It may get ugly but it will be worth it for many generations to come to see justice prevail in the face of such widespread fraud and treachery.
Yes, and Vattel wrote in FRENCH. In French and in all translations until about a decade after the Constitution was adopted the words from Vattel were that an "indigines" required two citizen parents. And Vattel never said anywhere in the book or any other book what an "indigines" was. It was only in a translation about a decade after the Constitution that "indigines" was translated as Natural Born Citizen, and even that may have been a mistranslation because Natural in French is naturel, and Born is ne, and Citizen is citoiyen, and those three words are not used by Vattel, only "indigines."
Moreover, Vattel never says in the book what makes an indigines important. For example, he never said that only indigines should be rulers of their countries. In fact, he never said that even only citizens should be rulers of their countries.
Talk about pitiful. BIrthers and two-fers tried to get the members of the Electoral College to change their votes. Not one did. Birthers and two-fers tried to get the members of Congress not to confirm Obama's election. But Congress confirmed Obama's election UNANIMOUSLY.
IF this case were ever to get to the Supreme Court, and it is unlikely because four members of the court would have to think that there was an actual issue, the birther/two-fer side would lose nine to zero or eight to one. This is due to the fact that conservative justices on the court are well aware of the original meaning of Natural Born used by the writers of the Constitution.
I AGREE WITH YOU A-PEN!
Obama has proven that he is an NBC by showing the Certification of Live Birth, the official birth certificate of Hawaii.
ELLEN YOU KNOW THIS IS B/S!
Glad to see we are all in agreement about this ploy to cover up the real issue. Did any of you know that Kagan is the one who has received all the law suit claims about his natulaization issues and has repeatedly denied the claims? He owes – he owes…and hopfully he will get it come election time.
"Did any of you know that Kagan is the one who has received all the law suit claims about his natulaization issues and has repeatedly denied the claims?"
Huh? You apparently have no idea what you're talking about, and it's silly to make stuff up that's this easy to check–even the most gullible folks who frequent this site probably won't buy that.
Kagan was Obama's solicitor general, and was never a judge before recently joining the Supreme Court. The naturalization suits have been rejected by a variety of judges, none of whom were Kagan. In fact, at least 17 birther claims have been filed, with the proponents so far failing to win even one.
Those who have rejected claims include Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court as a whole, the Indiana Court of Appeals, a federal district court in New Jersey, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and federal judges, David O. Carter, James Robertson, R. Barclay Surrick, and Royce C. Lamberth.
james McPherson,
Same old b/s & spin from you!
Every one is on to you on this site!
Why don't you just post to your own blog or go to a liberal progressive site?
Get a real job!
JAMES THE FAGGOT YOU ARE RIGHT!
GET A LIFE & DAY JOB!
Sorry, I forgot the reference for St. George Tucker. It is: (http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=advanced_search.php)
Even if he was born in Hawaii, he is stil not a "natural born citizen"….his father was a subject of the British Crown (or perhaps Kenya or Indonesia). His mother could not convey citizenship.
It doesn't matter if he was born on Abe's lap at the Lincoln Memorial. His father wasn't an American which makes Obama a dual national at birth. Dual national does not equal natural born. He was at most a native born.
(Correction) I am a retired lawyer. Obama is a fraud.
ELLEN,
SAME OLD CANNED B/S RESPONSE BY YOU!
BOTT!
The discussion is over whether a Natural Born Citizen requires two citizen parents. You have not even discussed this.