Experts: Registrar stamps confirm Obama forgery

the next contestant · July 22, 2011

Get off the Obama thing and try me. Put your money where your brain should be, anytime. It is what I do and enjoy doing.

PS: You have failed to post one piece of "proof" about anything you talk about, all you do is throw out names and insults, but keep trying and you might break free of your Fluoride trance.

Sirius, he can't. He is just as bad as he trys to make rtrusty look. He is more of a single minded individual than what he claims rtrusty is. Someone this dedicated has got to be on the payroll. Because any normal person by now would have seen the easy to see issues that are presented. And besides, he no longer is swaying other people to his point of view. He lost that ability a long time ago, when he started throwing racists statements around just like the left does when they get cornered and no where left to go. Yup it's right out of the Obama/Lib play book. His kind will go down when the truth comes out. And it will cause there will be heck to pay when or if America goes into default.

So the best advice to give us all is to just ignore him like he is not even there. A fly on the wall. Bzzzzzz, bzzzzzzz away little fly, bzzzzz away. Lol.

Peace.

dtard · July 22, 2011

WRITE your senator! ask for impeachment, SHEEPLE CANT HELP YOU, so help yourself

the next contestant · July 22, 2011

You know I wish some of you people would just admit why you think President Obama birth certificate is fake!!! And why you think he is doing a bad job as president. Tell the truth set yourself FREE. It because he is a BLACK MAN.

To say you are a ultra maroon, would be an understatement.

But in all fairness, it should be pointed out that you apparently have the same reasons for not liking Bush, because he is a white man! Yeah, stings doesn't it. I was proud that there was a black man elected. I am ashamed that this black/white president has no idea how to run this country. And yes, if you don't like that last statement then you must have voted for him just because he is black. Big shocker! Because he has no other qualities to lead. And that would also mean that your judgement in the voting booth leaves a lot to be desired. Simply put his records of leading....ANYTHING have all been sealed. So there really is no way for you to due the research like the rest of us automatically do on our person that we like and want to see win.

So.... what's left? Not much, but hey he's black! Good job! you just made the dumbest of choices based on the color of his skin!

Now try to tell me who exactly is the racist here?

(Drops the mic and walks off stage!)

PartyTime · July 22, 2011

"When is the last time you ordered a copy of your birth certificate? These people are just trying to convince you to their opinion. Also a US mother has a baby and the baby is a US citizen!"

I would suggest you follow your own advice and do some real research then.

If a US citizen mother gives birth to their child outside this country that child is a US citizen under man made statutized law IF the mother meets the certain age and time requirements established under that law at the time they give birth to their child.

So in Obama's case, IF he was in fact not born here and was in fact born in Kenya as been reported by several Kenya prominant public officials and his Kenya Grandmother, then Obam's mother was NOT of the required age to be able to pass her US citizenship to her son. At that time under the LAW written and in effect at that time, she would have had to have been a US citizen residing in the US for at least 5 years after the age of 14. That would mean she would have to be at least 19 or older at the time she gave birth to her son. She was not! She was only 18 at the time, meaning she did NOT meet the minimum age requirement at that time to be allowed to legally pass her US citizenship to her son. That law has been changed years later, but it did not amend or change the prior existing law in effect at that time and everyone that was effected by that law remains effective today.

Now "IF" Obama was born in HI then naturally that would allow him US citizenship automatically under the man made United States statutory laws that exist today. However, these laws only deal with the right to US citizenship and have NOTHING to do with being a "Natural Born Citizen".

There is NO LAW on the books other than the one found in Law of Nations that defines the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. A Natural Born Citizen is NOT one that is just merely born in this country. Being born in this country merely grants you US citizenship under the man made statutory laws. It has NOTHING to do with whether you are a Natural Born Citizen are not. None of those man made laws pertainuing to US citizenship have anything to do with those that are born as Natural Born Cirizens. A Natural Born Citizen is by the Law of Nature and there is no man made law that can change that. This is WHY there is NO LAW written in any US Code pertaining to Natural Born Citizen because Natural Born Citizen is an automatic natural right under the law of nature. NO Law can change that which is why no man made law pertaining to natural born citizen exists!

A Natural Born Citizen is one born in the country and born owing SOLE allegiance to that country and no other. If you are merely born here where the man made law allows you to have US citizenship by birth of being just born here, but where you are also born a citizen of another country, which gives you DUAL citizenship at birth, you are born owing DUAL allegiance to both, the US and the other country you are a citizen of that was automatically granted to you through the citizenship of one or both of your parents foreignj citizenship,.

For example, assuming IF Obama was born in Kenya and assuming IF his mother was 19 at the time, Obama would automatically obtain US citizenship through his mother's citizenship AND he would be a British citizen of Kenya because of being born there.

Now IF Obama was born in HI then the opposite is true with the same results, where Obama being born here automatically grants him US citizenship AND through his father's citizenship he was automatically granted his British citizenship, making him a DUAL citizens at birth oweing DUAL allegiance to both the US and Britain. You can NOT be BOTH a DUAL Citizen AND a Natural Born Citizen at birth. You can only be one or the other! But not BOTH. That is flat out impossible!

Even Obama himself admitted he was born a DUAL citizen of Britain which was even posted on his web site during the election.

So while at BEST Obama MIGHT be a US citizen, depending on whether he was really born here or not, he is definitely NOT a Natural Born Citizen because his father was not not was he ever a US citizen! That made him a DUAL citizen at birth and even if he was to lose or give up that foreign citizenship some years later, that does not and cannot change what his status was at the time of birth! At the time of birth at best he was born a DUAL citizen oweing DUAL allegiance to both the US and Britain. Therefore he is NOT and CANNOT EVER be a Natural Born Citizen and that makes him NOT elegible to be POTUS of this country.

That is the law of the land, period! It has nothing to do with anything other than the law itself! It is either legal or is isn't and in this case it isn't! If you do not like the current law and feel differently about this where you think just being born here and/or by just having one US parent at the time birth should not matter even though you are born by one US citizen parent and one foreign parent giving you DUAL citrizenship at birth, then lobby to get an amendment passed to amend the constitution to remove the Natural Born Citizen requirement. Until there is any amendment made the law of the land is the law of the land and under the current law of the land Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen no matter WHERE he was actually born! At BEST, if he was born here that only gives him US citizenship under codified law, it does NOT grant him Natural Born Citizenship and their is no law that can nor does!

pureau79 · July 22, 2011

This site is for Dinar Vets NOT OBAMA haters, go find a political site to post this history. Frankly we are all sick of Dinar unrelated post. I know we don't have to read them but we have to see them in the subject news.

NOT if you skip the Off Topic Forum... If you only wish to see dinar related posts perhaps you may wish to skip the "What's New?" tab and peruse your favorite forums directly. The site was created for IQD related topics, but the owner of the site saw fit to add an "Off Topic" forum and like it says in the rules: anything goes in here, just keep it respectful. How much more clear can the site owner be? I have Obama fatigue as much as anyone and very much look forward to the day we can come together as Americans and elect candidates on the "content of their character", but for every individual who believes the matter is settled there is another who believes it is not. Those who believe it is open will not be persuaded by those who believe it is closed, and vice versa. I have grandchildren who are half black. I love them and I love their parents... both of them. I don't care whether O is half black or any other race. What I do NOT like about him is the destructive policies he and the whole of the Democratic Party are in pursuit of. Now, before any of you go on a tear about Democrat / Republican, I don't like where the Republican Party has gone either, but neither do I care for calls to censor the freedoms my ancestors gave their lives in defense of. My family came to America in the middle of the seventeenth century when there was no such nation as the America we have stewardship of. I despise the truth of our past and those crimes against humanity which prevailed here for generations, but this is still the greatest nation the world has ever known. I still love America and my countrymen. I am still proud to be American in spite of the evils men perpetrated against men.

America was founded on the belief that ALL men were created equal. It is not to say that all men have equal station, but that all men were created with the ability to go as far as their God-given talents can take them. This is NOT a black vs white issue. YES racial prejudices exist in the world. YES it is further exacerbated by the fact that whites mistreated blacks for generations. YES whites treated blacks as property and livestock. YES this was a horrible travesty against mankind. YES it was wrong for men to sell men as slaves. YES it was wrong for men to own men as slaves. The truth is that more white men owned black slaves, but it is equally true that there were black men who also owned slaves and there were black men who captured and sold their countrymen as slaves. YES black Americans have struggled for the equality our founding fathers regarded as an unalienable gift from the Supreme and unfathomable Providence of God. However, you are as incorrect to assume people here are "OBAMA haters". I do not hate the man. I pray for him sometimes. It is his policy that I hate. I hate the socialist Robin Hood agenda that steals from America's productive sons and daughters only to give what is stolen to those who cling (one hundred and forty-six years later) to the notion that this is only, solely, about race. The truth is that anyone who clings to racial hatred as an excuse and refuses to rise up and shake off the dust of the past is part of the problem. If a man uses the mistakes of the past generations to justify his own bad behavior or the hatred lurking in his own heart he is no better than the offenders who did the wrong and is in fact a hatemonger.

I believe there are many black Americans who epitomize the highest ethical standards of life and are truly worthy of the greatest respect. Obama ain't one of them... He is the POTUS and I respect the position, but his so-called stimulus spending is a thinly disguised effort to run America's financial system into oblivion. Barack H. Obama, George W. Bush, William J. Clinton, George H. W. Bush and many of their forebears have led America down the road to the wilderness we now find ourselves in. What, I ask you, are we going to do about it? Shall we remain divided as they want us to be? Politicians throw the race and class cards around very carelessly and solely to distract the people from the real issues. The problems we are facing as a nation will not respect race or class. I do not begrudge anyone's race, nor do I despise one who has become successful. There is no limit to success except in the minds of socialists who believe that "at some point, you've made enough money." It is my wish to be financially free and independent. It is God's place and not the Federal Government's to decide when I am blessed enough. It is good to be blessed in the city and blessed in the field. It is good when the grain bins and wine vats are overflowing. King Solomon was the wealthiest man in the history of the world. Providence made it so, not a regulatory agency. I don't care about the race thing. I only care that I die as free a man as the day I was born and that my children and yours are allowed to know that freedom is a taste heaven. I desire, if I make it past the great white throne judgement into eternity, that all my bretheren of all races will enjoy my sincerest friendship in the ultimate liberation of Providence and not by decree of government... ANY government. I embrace the principals embodied in the founding doctrines as set forth under the Constitution and as amended by the Bill Of Rights. No other authority than a government of the people, by the people and for the people is just. The charlatans in the Congress of the United States Of America have exceeded that authority. YES the unethical placement of one man is potentially damaging to the foundation of our nation. Let the people question whomever is in their heart to question and may GOD reveal the truth for all time.

mrmcwhipit · July 22, 2011

mrmcwhipit come with something better than calling names. With this reply from you I now know you live in house that leaks and no running water. Poor as dirt and praying no one knows you.

One would think the same of you with the remark, because he is black? ,that is just plain ignorant.

pureau79 · July 22, 2011

I am black and I don't like him and I think he is doing a bad job so I guess that makes me a racist? I have not seen one person who liked Obama, and then did independent research on him, continue liking him. You need to dig deep and go back into his CIA days. There is all sorts of info on him---and I am talking about info NOT put out by republicans or his enemies or by racists. And I am not some conspiracy nut or hater. I am a former solider in the US Army. I love this country and respect the president but I don't like him. One thing that makes me sick are the black people who like him simply because he is black. There is nothing wrong with being proud that there is a black president. But it is wrong to follow someone simply because of the base of their color. Some who like him care nothing about his ideology or politics and don't even bother to research or learn ANYTHING about him. To me that is more racist. I don't let the color of someone's skin determine Wether I like them or follow them.

So by your definition since I didn't like Bush that makes me racist against him. That is such a cop out. I am sick of people saying that anyone who disagrees with Obama is doing it only because he is black. If that was the case he would have never be elected. He only won because of non-minorities who voted for him. Black people don't even make up 20% of the population so even if every black person in the country voted for him that would still not be enough to make him win. So, I fail to see WHY these people would have voted for him in the first place IF they were racist.

Your points are very refreshing. Thank you for putting perspective on the argument. Great post and I just wanted to say hello to you. Thanks.

ajskj · July 23, 2011

Sirius, he can't. He is just as bad as he trys to make rtrusty look. He is more of a single minded individual than what he claims rtrusty is. Someone this dedicated has got to be on the payroll. Because any normal person by now would have seen the easy to see issues that are presented. And besides, he no longer is swaying other people to his point of view. He lost that ability a long time ago, when he started throwing racists statements around just like the left does when they get cornered and no where left to go. Yup it's right out of the Obama/Lib play book. His kind will go down when the truth comes out. And it will cause there will be heck to pay when or if America goes into default.

Oh, please. I know about birthers and the birth certificate. I have done a LOT of research on it. So when I see blatant lies and idiotic emails being posted...I correct it. I do not comment on posts about his policies.

I am no more on anyone's payroll than the birthers are, so give it a rest. We all know you are whining because your pet theories have been proven false.

So the best advice to give us all is to just ignore him like he is not even there. A fly on the wall. Bzzzzzz, bzzzzzzz away little fly, bzzzzz away. Lol.

Peace.

ajskj · July 23, 2011

"When is the last time you ordered a copy of your birth certificate? These people are just trying to convince you to their opinion. Also a US mother has a baby and the baby is a US citizen!"

I would suggest you follow your own advice and do some real research then.

If a US citizen mother gives birth to their child outside this country that child is a US citizen under man made statutized law IF the mother meets the certain age and time requirements established under that law at the time they give birth to their child.

So in Obama's case, IF he was in fact not born here and was in fact born in Kenya as been reported by several Kenya prominant public officials and his Kenya Grandmother, That is another blatant lie. His STEP grandmother said that his FATHER was born in Kenya. In the same phone call, she is ADAMANT that the PRESIDENT was born in Hawaii.then Obam's mother was NOT of the required age to be able to pass her US citizenship to her son. At that time under the LAW written and in effect at that time, she would have had to have been a US citizen residing in the US for at least 5 years after the age of 14. That would mean she would have to be at least 19 or older at the time she gave birth to her son. She was not! She was only 18 at the time, meaning she did NOT meet the minimum age requirement at that time to be allowed to legally pass her US citizenship to her son. That law has been changed years later, but it did not amend or change the prior existing law in effect at that time and everyone that was effected by that law remains effective today.Doesn't matter, since it has been proven beyond a doubt that he was born IN HAWAII which is IN THE US.

Now "IF" Obama was born in HI then naturally that would allow him US citizenship automatically under the man made United States statutory laws that exist today. However, these laws only deal with the right to US citizenship and have NOTHING to do with being a "Natural Born Citizen". Wrong again. There is only two kinds of citizenship....naturalized and natural born. There is nothing else.

There is NO LAW on the books other than the one found in Law of Nations that defines the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. A Natural Born Citizen is NOT one that is just merely born in this country. YES, it is. Being born in this country merely grants you US citizenship under the man made statutory laws. It has NOTHING to do with whether you are a Natural Born Citizen are not. None of those man made laws pertainuing to US citizenship have anything to do with those that are born as Natural Born Cirizens. A Natural Born Citizen is by the Law of Nature and there is no man made law that can change that. No, wrong again, CITIZENSHIP is bound by laws...and there is NOTHING IN ANY LAW that says someone born IN THE US can not be natural born.This is WHY there is NO LAW written in any US Code pertaining to Natural Born Citizen because Natural Born Citizen is an automatic natural right under the law of nature. NO Law can change that which is why no man made law pertaining to natural born citizen exists! That's laughably wrong.

A Natural Born Citizen is one born in the country and born owing SOLE allegiance to that country and no other. If you are merely born here where the man made law allows you to have US citizenship by birth of being just born here, but where you are also born a citizen of another country, which gives you DUAL citizenship at birth, you are born owing DUAL allegiance to both, the US and the other country you are a citizen of that was automatically granted to you through the citizenship of one or both of your parents foreignj citizenship,.

For example, assuming IF Obama was born in Kenya and assuming IF his mother was 19 at the time, Obama would automatically obtain US citizenship through his mother's citizenship AND he would be a British citizen of Kenya because of being born there.

Now IF Obama was born in HI then the opposite is true with the same results, where Obama being born here automatically grants him US citizenship AND through his father's citizenship he was automatically granted his British citizenship, making him a DUAL citizens at birth oweing DUAL allegiance to both the US and Britain. You can NOT be BOTH a DUAL Citizen AND a Natural Born Citizen at birth. You can only be one or the other! But not BOTH. That is flat out impossible! Wrong again. SEVERAL presidents have had parents born in foreign countries...and so had dual citizenship at birth. So, you can be British, Irish, or Canadian dual citizen, but not a Kenyan?

Even Obama himself admitted he was born a DUAL citizen of Britain which was even posted on his web site during the election. No, he USED to be a dual citizen. His Kenyan citizenship expired on his 22nd birthday.

So while at BEST Obama MIGHT be a US citizen, depending on whether he was really born here or not, he is definitely NOT a Natural Born Citizen because his father was not not was he ever a US citizen! That made him a DUAL citizen at birth and even if he was to lose or give up that foreign citizenship some years later, that does not and cannot change what his status was at the time of birth! That's true....and he was a natural born citizen at birth.At the time of birth at best he was born a DUAL citizen oweing DUAL allegiance to both the US and Britain. Therefore he is NOT and CANNOT EVER be a Natural Born Citizen and that makes him NOT elegible to be POTUS of this country.Blatant lie, and one not supported by case law.

That is the law of the land, period!Please point out the federal law that codifies that??? It has nothing to do with anything other than the law itself! It is either legal or is isn't and in this case it isn't! Wrong again...and the fact that SEVERAL Presidents have had the same birth issue means that, by precedent, you are wrong.If you do not like the current law and feel differently about this where you think just being born here and/or by just having one US parent at the time birth should not matter even though you are born by one US citizen parent and one foreign parent giving you DUAL citrizenship at birth, then lobby to get an amendment passed to amend the constitution to remove the Natural Born Citizen requirement.Don't have to, no LAW precludes someone who was natural born from being President. Until there is any amendment made the law of the land is the law of the land and under the current law of the land Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen no matter WHERE he was actually born! At BEST, if he was born here that only gives him US citizenship under codified law, it does NOT grant him Natural Born Citizenship and their is no law that can nor does!Wow...you have really lost it...

Natural-born citizen

Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

Anyone born inside the United States *

Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe

Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.

Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national

Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year

Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21

Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

_{* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.}

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

PartyTime · July 23, 2011

Yeah....done proving that you have no idea what you are talking about......

You haven't provided squat! All you have provided is how much of a brainwashed fooled you are. You cling to a bunch of BS made up garbage from all the America haters in this country and cling to it all as if it were gospel. You are beyond any help and are a total lost cause. Half your babbling doesn't even make sense. Perhaps you need to go back and reread your little play book by Alinsky because you can't even do a half decent job of following it correctly. LOL

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

See how much your ignorance shows? This has NOTHING to do with Natural Born Citizen. It only has to do with US citizenship. There is NO mention of the words "Natural Born Citizen" in any of the US Code. None! It does not exists. It is invented propanda made up by the haters of this country in their lame attempt to keep covering up this fraud!

desimo · July 23, 2011

I find some of the people here on DV interesting. Some of you here would even berate Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine. I can just hear: 'Benjamin, you are so stuck on that George thing. Don't you know that King George has done more for the colony economy than anyone else. You just don't want to see it.' "Isn't that give me liberty or give me death thing rather radical?"

People have a right not to like Obama and a right to scream from the rooftop if they believe there is something he is doing wrong. You all have a right to disagree but you do not have a right to belittle the messager. I know some of you would not agree you are being rude even if St. Peter himself told you so. You are as closed to anything negative about Obama as you claim the non-Obama people are of being willing to hear things positive.

ajskj · July 23, 2011

You haven't provided squat! All you have provided is how much of a brainwashed fooled you are. You cling to a bunch of BS made up garbage from all the America haters in this country and cling to it all as if it were gospel. You are beyond any help and are a total lost cause. Half your babbling doesn't even make sense. Perhaps you need to go back and reread your little play book by Alinsky because you can't even do a half decent job of following it correctly. LOL

ROFLMAOAY!! Of course it doesn't make sense to the intellectually challenged. I have presented FACTS. You present radical fringe element blogs.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

See how much your ignorance shows? This has NOTHING to do with Natural Born Citizen. IT HAS EVERTHING TO DO WITH NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. IT IS THE VERY DEFINITION. It only has to do with US citizenship. There is NO mention of the words "Natural Born Citizen" in any of the US Code. None! It does not exists.EXACTLY! Which means that YOU do not get to decide whom it EXCLUDES. It is invented propanda made up by the haters of this country in their lame attempt to keep covering up this fraudNo, you have been spouting invented propaganda that not only has no basis in LAW, it has also been proved false by the fact that SEVERAL PRESIDENTS would be considered ineligible if your idiotic definition were true. There are only TWO kinds of citizens...natural born and naturalized. Period.

Edited July 23, 2011 by ajskj

TRERUMPH · July 23, 2011

YOU SEE THIS IS WHAT RUSTY WANTS EVERYBODY TALKING AT EVERYBODY THIS OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE THING IS JUST ANOTHER WAY TO GET PPL HEATED WITH EACH OTHER.. NOW RUSTY HOW ABOUT THIS? DO SOME RESEARCH ABOUT HOW THE LOTTERY SUPPOSE TO PAY FOR EDUCATION AND THEY KEEP CUTTING THINGS LIKE BOOKS WHEN THAT IS SOMETHING IMPORTANT, LIKE OUR KIDS CANT GET A BETTER LEARNING CAUSE OF THAT. TALK ABOUT HOW YTHEY ARE DOING OUR SENIOR CITIZENS WITH MEDICADE OR CARE, CAN WE EVEN IN OFF TOPICS TALK ABOUT THE DINAR AND HOW ALL OF US CAN ONE DAY MEET UP AND REJOICE AND EVEN START OUR OWN POLITICAL PARTY( FAR FETCH) JUST SAYING.. WHO GIVES A FOX ABOUT A D#M BIRTH CERTIFICATE, AND YES RACISM PLAYS A PART IN THIS BUT NOT ALL, YOU JUST HAVE PPL THAT LIKES TO KEEP S##T GOING AND OH BY THE WAY ARE YOU A PUMPER WITH A DIFFERENT NAME CAUSE YOU SURE DO HAVE THEIR WAYS AND IM GOING TO SAY THIS AGAIN..WE GET IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THAT YOU DONT LIKE THE MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FOR WHAT EVER REASON JUST KEEP IT TO YOURSELF AND THIS TIME USE YOUR VOTE CAUSE IT COULD BE THE DECIDING FACTOR OF WHO GETS THE ELECTORAL VOTES FROM THAT STATE, AND BY THE WAY OR YOU VERIFIED OR EVEN A VIP??????? JUST KEEP TO WHAT WE ARE HERE FOR.... (SORRY ABOUT THE SHOUTING EVERYONE)...NOW LETSSS GOOOOO RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV.....

A D&M BIRTH CERTIFICATE, GET REAL!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mellow:

By Jerome R. Corsi

© 2011 WND

A close examination of the state registrar's stamp on the Obama birth certificate released by the White House indicates the document is forged, according to the preponderance of Adobe experts consulting with WND.

There are two different registrar stamps evident on the Obama birth certificate: The date stamp, indicating April 25, 2011, and the text and signature stamp containing registrar Dr. Alvin Onaka's signature.

Both registrar stamps appear to have been applied by a rubber stamp inked from a blotter.

Jerome Corsi's book, "Where's the Birth Certificate?" is available for immediate shipping, autographed by the author, only from the WND Superstore

The registrar stamps appear to be external objects that were imported into the document. The stamps were not impressions copied whole, the experts believe, but were created uniquely for the Obama document by a cut-and-paste process.

(Story continues below)

Moreover, the area around the date stamp indicates the image is not a scan of a paper document but a PDF file created electronically.

The inescapable conclusion from this analysis, the experts contend, is that the Obama birth certificate as presented by the White House on April 27 is not an authentic copy of an original 1961 document held in the file of the Hawaii Department of Health. Instead, they say, it's an electronic, manipulated document created most likely from pieces of authentic records– in other words, a forgery.

The experts include Mara Zebest, a nationally recognized computer expert who has served as contributing author and technical editor for many books on Adobe software, and Doug Vogt, who has filed a criminal complaint that charges Obama's birth record is forged.

Stamps are imported links

Viewed in Adobe Illustrator, the date stamp and the registrar text, along with the signature of Dr. Alvin Onaka, constitute two separate layers, indicating the date stamp was electronically placed on the electronic birth certificate, as seen in Exhibit 1, separately from the state registrar text and signature, as seen in Exhibit 2.

Exhibit 1: Group highlighted to reveal registrar date stamp external link

Exhibit 2: Group highlighted off to reveal registrar text/signature external link

That the registrar date stamp and the registrar text/signature stamps were both created by links to external objects imported into the Obama birth certificate is also confirmed by turning on "Links" in the "Window" menu in Adobe Illustrator.

As seen in Exhibit 3, further evidence that the two registrar stamps are external objects imported into the Obama birth document can be seen in that the date stamp and the registrar text/signature can easily be moved and repositioned anywhere on the document.

Moreover, as seen in Exhibit 3, moving the two registrar stamps leaves behind a white halo residue that indicates where the two external links had initially been pasted into the document.

Exhibit 3: Registrar stamp date object and text/signature objects separately repositioned on Obama birth certificate

Manipulated objects

Exhibit 4 reveals not only was the registrar date stamp imported from an external link, the imported object was scaled and then rotated -90° to be placed in the document.

Exhibit 4: Registrar stamp date object and text/signature objects separately repositioned on Obama birth certificate

In a similar fashion, Exhibit 5 reveals the registrar text/signature was also an imported object scaled and then rotated -90° to be placed in the document.

Exhibit 5: Registrar stamp text and signature scaled and rotated to be placed in Obama birth certificate

Identical pixel structure reveals 'cut-and-Paste' creation

An examination of the registrar text under magnification shows several letters that contain the exact pixel structure, a phenomenon that is only possible if the letter was produced by a copy, cut and paste process.

Exhibit 6 demonstrates that the "T" in "CERTIFY" was copied and pasted identically into the text of the registrar stamp eight times. But in four instances (the "T" in "ABSTRACT," the "T" in "TXE," the second "T" in "State," and the "T" in "DEPARTMENT"), the pixel structure is different, showing that these letters were not produced by a copy, cut and paste process.

Exhibit 6: Identical "T" letters (yellow highlight) in registrar stamp text compared with different "T" letters (underlined in green)

Exhibit 7 provides a second demonstration of letters in the registrar stamp with identical pixel structures. Yellow highlighting shows the letter "H" with identical pixel structures, compared to the letter "H" appearing with a different pixel structure as indicated by green underlining in the second "H" of "HEALTH."

Exhibit 7: Identical "H" Letters (yellow highlight) in registrar stamp text compared with different "H" letters (underlined in green)

Exhibit 8 gives a third demonstration. Identical pixel structures are seen in the "I" of "IS" and the two "Is" of "HAWAII" (yellow highlighting), compared to the "I" in "CERTIFY" and in "FILE" (green underlining).

Exhibit 8: Identical "I" letters (yellow highlight) in registrar stamp text compared with different "I" letters (underlined in green)

Other letters also show identical pixel structures: the "E" in "FILE," "HEALTH" and the first appearance of "STATE"; the "O" in the second "OF" and the "O" in "OR"; the "A" in "A" and the "A" in "HEALTH."

What this demonstrates, the experts say, is that the text of the state registrar stamp was assembled by a cut-and-paste job. It resembles, they explain, a crude ransom note assembled by cutting letters from various printed articles and pasting them together to form words.

The "TXE" or "TKE" misspelling and the smiley face

The experts wonder why a forger would not simply copy a registrar date stamp and paste it into the document whole, unless, for some reason they wanted to leave "signatures" – the "TXE" and the smiley face in the initial letter "A" of Dr. Alvin Onaka's signature.

As WND has reported, the "TXE" misspelling is clear when seen under magnification, as demonstrated in Figure 9:

Exhibit 9: The "TXE" misspelling in "THE RECORD"

Under higher magnification, it is clear that the "X" is not a result of a smear on the paper but is formed by a fundamentally different pixel structure than is apparent in the various "H" letters highlighted in yellow in Exhibit 10.

Exhibit 10: The "TXE" misspelling in "THE RECORD" seen under higher magnification

Under even higher magnification, as seen in Exhibit 11, it is even arguable the misspelled "X" is possibly a "K," formed leaning forward to the right in what may be referred to as a "walking K."

Exhibit 11: The "TXE" misspelling in "THE RECORD" seen under even higher magnification

The "X" or "K," under extreme magnification, appears to have been manipulated, based on the pixel structure.

The smiley face in "Alvin" is also apparent under magnification, as seen in Exhibit 12.

Exhibit 12: "Smiley Face" in "A" of "Alvin"

Under even higher magnification, as seen in Exhibit 13, the smiley face can be seen to have been created by placing a letter "E" into the forward loop of the "A" in "Alvin."

Exhibit 13: "Smiley face" in "A" of "Alvin" seen in higher magnification

In summary, an examination of the registrar date stamp and the registrar text/signature stamp in the Obama birth certificate reveals the following anomalies:

* There is a white halo effect behind the letters of text of both registrar stamps in the Obama document;

* The background security paper in the Obama document does not appear immediately adjacent to the letters in the document and shows up as white or gray space in the holes formed by the letters and spaces between the letters;

* The registrar date stamp and the registrar text/signature stamp in the Obama document appear as external linked objects visible when the layers are viewed in Adobe Illustrator;

* The registrar date stamp and the registrar text/signature stamp in the Obama document can be separately selected and moved around or repositioned on the document;

* Several letters in the registrar text/signature on the Obama document appear to have an identical pixel structure under magnification, indicating a cut-and-paste quality to the composition;

* There is a misspelled word in the text/signature stamp on the Obama document and a smiley face in the same stamp in the loop of the first letter of the registrar's signature.

Note also that in Exhibit 14, the scan of the authentic birth certificate, the embossed seal is clearly visible, a feature that is not easily observable on the Obama birth certificate.

Comparison to scanned birth certificate

As previously reported, WND has an authentic long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate issued by the Hawaii Department of Health on March 15, 2011, to compare against the Obama birth certificate.

As displayed in Exhibit 14, a scan of the authentic document after being run through Optical Character Recognition, or OCR, and viewed in Adobe Illustrator includes only one layer. The entire scan is either visible or switched off depending on whether the one layer is clicked to be visible or to be hidden.

Exhibit 14: Authentic Hawaii DOH-issued long-form birth certificate registrar date stamp, March 15

Exhibit 15 shows how the authentic registrar text/signature stamp looks in the authentic document scanned with OCR switched on.

Exhibit 15: Scan of registrar text/signature stamp authentic Hawaii DOH long-form birth certificate issued March 11

Exhibit 16 is a close-up of the registrar text/signature stamp from the Obama birth certificate.

Exhibit 16: Purported scan of Obama 1961 birth certificate presented by White House as a scanned copy of the original, April 27

Exhibit 17 shows the registrar date stamp in the authentic birth certificate scanned with OCR.

Exhibit 17: Registrar date stamp close-up taken from scan of authentic Hawaii DOH-issued birth certificate

Exhibit 18 is a close-up of the registrar date stamp from the Obama birth certificate.

Exhibit 18: Registrar date stamp close-up taken from Obama birth certificate

As seen in the comparison between Exhibits 16 and 17, the scan of the authentic birth certificate, even with OCR, displays none of the peculiarities of the Obama birth certificate scan, raising serious doubt that the PDF released by the White House is a scan of the original 1961 birth certificate as the White House represented.

In summary, an examination of the registrar date stamp and the registrar text/signature stamp in the authentic birth certificate scanned with OCR reveals the following:

* There is no white halo effect behind the letters of text of both registrar stamps in the authentic document;

* The background security paper in the authentic document appears immediately adjacent to the letters in the document and completely fills the space in the holes formed by the letters and spaces between the letters;

* The registrar date stamp and the registrar text/signature stamp in the authentic document do not appear as external linked objects visible when the layers are viewed in Adobe Illustrator;

* The registrar date stamp and the registrar text/signature stamp in the Obama document cannot be separately selected, moved around or repositioned on the document;

* No letters in the registrar text/signature in the authentic document bear any identical pixel structure under magnification, indicating a cut-and-paste quality to the composition of the text/signature stamp;

* There is no misspelled word in text/signature stamp on the authentic document and no smiley face in the same stamp in the loop of the first letter of the registrar's signature.

Optimizing the authentic document after it was scanned with OCR switched on failed to produce in the authentic document the anomalies observed in the registrar date stamp and in the registrar text/signature stamp in the Obama birth certificate.

The comparison of the scanned authentic birth certificate with the Obama birth certificate counters the argument that anomalies observed in the registrar date stamp and the registrar text/signature stamp are due to the Obama birth certificate having been scanned with Optical Character Recognition having been turned on, or with the file having been optimized.

To see the proof go here

http://tinyurl.com/45x8n98

Since I've learned that a lot of people don't look at or read all the evidence because it is just to much for you to read or handle so please don't make any comments till you've read everything.

Then your comments are welcome good or bad.

WHAT IS ALL THIS COMING FROM??????? LADIES AND GENTLEMAN THIS GUY ISNT EVEN VERIFIED OR A VIP AND HES POSTING BS SO WE CAN FUSS WITH EACH OTHER AND HAVE A HEATED CONVERSATION THAT DOES NOT DEAL WITH THE DINAR, SO HES HERE LIKE THE PUMPERS TO CAUSE PROBLEMS,... I SAY WE PAY NO ATTENTION TO HIS CRAP AND KEEP IT MOVING..

PartyTime · July 23, 2011

See how much your ignorance shows? This has NOTHING to do with Natural Born Citizen. IT HAS EVERTHING TO DO WITH NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. IT IS THE VERY DEFINITION. It only has to do with US citizenship. There is NO mention of the words "Natural Born Citizen" in any of the US Code. None! It does not exists.EXACTLY! Which means that YOU do not get to decide whom it EXCLUDES.

I suggest you go take some classes in law. It has nothing to do with natural born citizen and no matter how many times you try to says it does will not change the fact it does not.

I did not exclude it from the code. It does not exist in the code. If something is not specifically stated in a law then it does not apply to the law, period! You want to read into something that does not exist.

WHERE in the entire US code are the words "natural born citizen" stated? Nowhere! It does not exist. If it does not exist it does not apply to some other law that does exist.

There are more than just two types of citizens. Even a corporation is a citizen under the law. Do corporations become naturalized citizens? NO. Can they be natural born citizens? No. They are citizens under codified law. Just the same as those born here of a foreign parent or parents. They to are citizens under codified law.

There is only one type of citizen that is not under any cofied law and can't be under any codified law and that is the citizen that comes under natural law known as a Natural Born Citizen.

Anyone simply born here by one or two non US citizen parents are citizens under codified law. Natural law does not apply to them because they born as dual citizens of two or more countries because of their parents citizenships. In these cases the ONLY way they are allowed to be a US citizen is through codified law where the US allows them to be a US citizen by merely being born here.

Naturalization only applies to those that are born in a foreign country and relocate to this country and want to become a US citizen where they must go through the naturalization process in becoming a citizen.

There is only one past President that was not eligible and that was Chester Arthur and was not even found out about until recently in this century. Just because someone may have gotten away with something does not mean it makes it OK for everyone after to get away with it. In this case we know about it. In Arthur Chester's case no one at the time knew about it. He burned his family records to hide it from being found out, the same as we have Obama's records being sealed to hide them from the public so they don't find out. Only we all know he isn't eligible and not just by his documents that are released and proven to be a bad forgery, but by Obama's own admission that he is not eligible.

There are 5 terms of citizen defined

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-US-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same

The Natural Born Citizen Clause of Our U.S. Constitution Requires that Both of the Child’s Parents Be U.S. Citizens At the Time of Birth

The purpose of this essay is to show that one United States citizen parent is not enough to bestow “natural born Citizen” status upon a child. When interpreting the Constitution, we must decide whether we will look to the document as an original and static one whose meaning has already been established at a given time by the People and its Framers or one that is living and which can be changed over any given time by a court of law. See the address of Justice Antonin Scalia to the 2008 Annual National Lawyers Convention on November 22, 2008, at the Mayflower Hotel, in Washington, D.C. http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1193/pub_detail.asp. (advocates originalism rather than living constitutionalism). I submit that Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause has a fixed and knowable meaning which was established at the time of its drafting and should therefore be interpreted through the eyes of the original Framers that drafted and ratified the clause so as to determine what they intended the clause to mean (original intent theory). I also submit that we should interpret the “natural born Citizen” clause in a way that reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have declared the ordinary meaning of the text to be (original meaning theory). This is not living constitutionalism but rather originalism or textualism as applied to interpreting the Constitution. It is this latter approach that I will utilize in this article.

E. Vattel stated in 1758, as translated into English in 1797: "The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country." E. Vattel, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, Sec. 212 Citizens and natives. In Footnote 1 at the end of Sec. 212, Vattel stated that “as a general rule” the child inherits his father’s citizenship, or his mother’s but only if she is not married.

The first thing that we have to understand about what Vattel wrote is that he made a distinction between a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen.” A citizen is simply a member of the civil society who is bound to the society by certain duties and subject to its authority. “Citizens” also participate equally in all the advantages the society has to offer. On the other hand, a “natural born Citizen” means much more than just “citizen.” Vattel required that for a child to be a “natural born citizen,” or what he called in French in his 1758 first edition of The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, les naturels, ou indigenes (the “natives or indigines”-The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 (1814)), the child must be born in the country to both parents who are also citizens of the same country.

In the original French, Vattel wrote: "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens,” meaning the "natives or indigines" are those born in the country of citizen parents. Both the Framers and later English translators of Vattel's treatise replaced the words"natural born Citizen" for the words "natives or indigenes." From Madison's notes, we see that there were some delegates who were concerned about foreigners. For example, from Max Farrand's transcripts of Madison's notes (August 9 and August 13, 1787), there is the following concerning the House of Representatives eligibility requirements: "Mr. Gerry wished that in future the eligibility might be confined to Natives." The word "native" occurs multiple times in the notes for these two days. (The phrase "natural born citizen" was not used here by the delegates.). The word "native" was a synonym for the phrase "natural born citizen." The delegates had already used the term “natural born citizen” when proposing the requirements for President, Vice President, and either House of Congress and later used the word “natives” when referring to eligibility requirements for the House of Representative. There is further evidence of this in at least three works: Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England" (see Book the First: The Rights of Persons; Chapter the Tenth: Of People, Whether Aliens, Denizens or Natives.), translations of Quintilian's "Institutio Oratoria", and the 1797 English edition of Vattel's "The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law."

In the beginning of his definition, Vattel required that the children be born of “parents” who are citizens. The use of the word “parents” refers to both mother and father. If he required only one parent such as the father, he would have said “of fathers who are citizens” and not “of parents who are citizens.” He did later refer to “fathers,” but only because wives automatically acquired the citizenship of their husbands the same way children did. Hence, if Vattel meant to focus only on “fathers,” he would have used “fathers” throughout his definition and never mentioned “parents” when he first defined “natural born Citizen,” for there would not have been any need to use the word “parents” when “fathers” would have sufficed. Hence, Vattel would have focused on the citizenship of the father since that citizenship would determine that of both the mother and child. It is also noteworthy that Vattel had no problem allowing the child to inherit the citizenship of the mother when the mother was not married to the child’s father. Given that Vattel in effect really focused on the citizenship of both the child’s father and mother in defining a “natural born Citizen,” Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” does not violate the equal protection guarantee embedded in the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998); Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53, 121 S.Ct. 2053; 150 L.Ed.2d 115 (2001).

There is other evidence in his treatise that shows that Vattel meant to refer to both the child’s mother and father in his definition of a “natural born citizen.” When defining what a country is in Section 122, he stated the “term signifies the state, or even more particularly the town or place, where our parents had their fixed residence at the moment of our birth…. A man ought to preserve gratitude and affection for the state to which he is indebted for his education, and of which his parents were members when they gave him birth….” In commenting on the citizenship status of children born at sea at Section 216, he stated that a child born abroad a foreign vessel that is docked in a port belonging to their own nation is reputed born in the country, provided “she [the mother] and her husband have not quitted their native country to settle elsewhere.” In commenting upon vagrants in Section 219he stated: “Vagrants are people who have no settlement. Consequently those born of vagrant parents have no country, since a man’s country is the place where, at the time of his birth, his parents had their settlement (Section 122), or it is the state of which his father was then a member…” Given that Vattel in effect really focused on the citizenship of both the child’s father and mother in defining a “natural born Citizen,” Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” does not violate the equal protection guarantee embedded in the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998); Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53, 121 S.Ct. 2053; 150 L.Ed.2d 115 (2001).

There is also United States Supreme Court support for the position that Vattel's “Parents” meant mother and father. In the case of Dred Scott, Justice Daniel in his concurring opinion substituted the word “parent” for “father” and “parents” for “fathers.” Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856).

Historically, we have always treated the citizenship of the husband and wife as being merged in the husband. Historically, a women's citizenship merged into that of her husband upon marriage. Thomas Franck wrote: “n domestic law a woman had been, until the 19th century, a ‘femme couverte,’ incapable of acquiring rights in her own name…” T.M. Franck, Individuals, Groups and States as Rights Holders in International Law, In Canadian Council on International Law, The Impact of International Law on the Practice of Law in Canada-Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Canadian Council on International Law, Ottawa, October 15-17, 1998 (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999), 62, 64. See also K. Knop, Feminist Re/Statements: Feminism and State Sovereignty in International Law, 3 Transna’l L. & Contemporary Pr. 293, 323-328 (1993). “n every country, except where the English law prevails, the nationality of a woman on marriage merges in that of her husband, she loses her own nationality and acquires his.” Cockburn, Nationality 24 (1869). On matters of a married woman’s citizenship, we did not follow the English law. Rather we followed the “Continental private international law.” Secretary Sherman, in an instruction to the United States Minister at St. Petersburg, March 15, 1897; Foreign Relations, 1901, 443.

The rule that the wife followed the condition of her huband was carried into our own naturalization laws, wherein citizenship could be derived from a marital and child relationship. Historically, a number of U.S. laws have provided for the automatic naturalization of children or wives (not husbands) of naturalized U.S. citizens. In some periods of our history, these laws provided that married women derived citizenship from their husband and had no control over their status. Under the Act of 10 February 1855, a woman automatically became an American upon marrying a U.S. citizen or following the naturalization of her foreign husband. Kelly v. Owen, 74 U.S. 7 Wall. 496 (1868). Further, Section 3 of the Citizenship Act of 1907, which would have confirmed the general rule prevailing at the time, provided that any American woman who married a foreigner took the nationality of her husband. Indeed, our Supreme Court in Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299 (1915) upheld the constitutionality of the Citizenship Act of 1907 which provided “[t]hat any American woman who marries a foreigner shall take the nationality of her husband….” The Court applied this rule to an American woman born in California and held that she lost her American citizenship and took on his citizenship when she married a “native and subject of the kingdom of Great Britain.” The Court said that “the identity of the husband and wife is an ancient principle of our jurisprudence, and is still retained notwithstanding relaxation thereof.” The Court said that the husband and wife merge their identity, with dominance given to the husband. It said that the rule is dictated not only by domestic policy but more importantly by international policy. The Court added that Congress has such power to make such a rule as part of its power to deal with international relations with other countries and to keep the United States out of embarrassments and controversies with other nations. Id. at 311-12. “Until September 22, 1922, the status of the wife depended upon that of her husband, and therefore the children acquired their citizenship from the same source as had been theretofore existent under the common law.” In re Citizenship Status of Minor Children Where Mother Alone Becomes Citizen Through Naturalization, 25 F.2d 210 (D.C.N.J. 1928). The rule for woman finally changed with the 1922 Cable Act which established that a woman’s marriage to an alien no longer automatically stripped her of her citizenship. See FAM 1200 Appendix E, Loss of Nationality of Married Women Under the Act of 1907 and Successor Statutes (provides a full discussion on the status of women marrying aliens). On the rule that the wife’s citizenship automatically merged into that of her husband, it is also noteworthy that Section 1993 of the Revised Statutes of 1878 (48 Stat. 797) permitted the transmission of citizenship only by U.S. citizen fathers until it was amended prospectively on May 24, 1934, to permit transmission by U.S. citizen mothers. (The similar rights of women were also addressed by the 1994 amendment to section 301 INA (see 7 FAM 1133.2-1).)

The Framers were very familiar with William Blackstone. We can also see in the writings of Blackstone that the allegiance of both parents to the King was needed to avoid dual allegiance in the child. Blackstone wrote:

"When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king's dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty's English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king's embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England's allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband's consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain (emphais in the original)." William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357--58, 361-62 (1765).

We can see that even the English Parliament gave importance to a child having both parents be “in the allegiance of the king,” which under English common law meant the parents would have been “natural born subjects.” By having both parents be “natural born subjects,” the child would not have been born with any other conflicting allegiance other than the one that attached from the foreign soil. Parliament was willing to live with any allegiance attaching to the child from the foreign soil but not with any that may attach by descent from one of the parents, the latter one being by nature a much more stronger one. It was only later in time that the rule was made less restrictive and allowed for just the father to be a “natural born subject.”

There is historical evidence that the Founders also borrowed heavily from the Dutch when making the new nation. During the revolutionary period Dutch law provided for citizenship by jus sanguinis. There is considerable evidence that the Framers were also influenced by the citizenship law of Holland. “The American colonists had become familiar with the rights of citizenship possessed in other countries, both from the fact that some of them resided in Holland for a time, before they came to America, and from the further fact that the New York colony was essentially Dutch in its original settlement and government.” John S. Wise, A Treatise on American Citizenship (1906). In Holland, “[c]itizenship could be acquired in several ways. Probably the most common was birth. Some towns accepted everyone as citizen who was baptized in a local church. But more commonly it was required that one’s parents were citizens too. . . .” R. Po-chia Hsia & Henk F. K. van Nierop, Calvinism and Religious Toleration in the Dutch Golden Age 161(2002). “One’s parents” would necessarily included one’s mother and father. This Dutch law is consistent with Vattel’s definition of what is a “natural born citizen.”

Apart from the heavy Dutch influence upon the Founders, when the Framers drafted the Constitution, they relied heavily upon Vattel to guide them. Citizenship was a topic that affected U.S. relations with other nations. Given that citizenship affects "the behavior of nation states with each other" (Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), the Founders would have looked to the law of nations to define it for the purposes of the new nation. The law of nations definition on citizenship also gave uniformity to the subject area, which the Framers wanted to achieve for citizenship laws as they did for naturalization laws. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 36 (Wheat) (1824). They would therefore have referred to and accepted Vattel's law of nations definition to give meaning to what an Article II “natural born Citizen” was.

The meaning of a “natural born Citizen” as expressed by Vattel, including that both parents of the child must be citizens at the time of the child’s birth in order to make the child a “natural born Citizen,” was carried forward in American history following the Founding. The standard provided by Vattel has not changed in our jurisprudence and is still valid today as it was during the Founding. Also, the Fourteenth Amendment has not changed the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” Legislative activity by the early Congresses provides insight into the question of whether Vattel required one or two parents to be citizens. There are Congressional acts that were passed after the Constitution was adopted that give us insight into what the Framers of the Constitution meant by “natural born Citizen.” The 1790 First Congress, which included twenty members who had been delegates to the Constitutional Convention eight of whom were members of the Committee of Eleven that drafted the “natural born Citizen” clause, passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat.103,104) which provided that “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.” This phrasing followed the literal terms of British statutes, beginning in 1350, under which persons born abroad, whose parents were both British subjects, would enjoy the same rights of inheritance as those born in England; beginning with laws in 1709 and 1731, these statutes expressly provided that such persons were natural-born subjects of the crown.” The Naturalization Act of 1790 declared these children to be "natural born Citizens," but only retrospectively. See Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927). It is interesting to note that George Washington was president of the Constitutional Convention and President of the United States when this bill became law and if he had disagreed with the two U.S. citizen-parent requirement, he could have vetoed this bill. One would then at first think that this legislation strongly suggests that the Framers of the Constitution understood this phrase to refer to citizenship acquired from both of the child’s parents at birth, regardless of whether or not that birth had taken place in the United States. This statute shows what role the parents played in the minds of the early founders.

While only retrospectively, the First Congress was willing to declare a child born out of the United States to two United States parents a “natural born Citizen.” This was not consistent with what Vattel wrote in The Law of Nations of Principles of Natural Law, at Sec. 215. Children of citizens, born in a foreign country, where he declared these children just “citizens” and not “natural born citizens”: "It is asked, whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (Sec. 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot of itself furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say 'of itself,' for civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. . . .” (emphasis supplied). Clearly, Vattel addressed the question of whether these children are “citizens,” not “natural born citizen.” He does not address the question of whether they are “natural born citizens” because according to his own definition, a child had to be born “in the country” in order to be a “natural born citizen.” Being born abroad and therefore not “in the country,” such a child could not be a “natural born citizen.”

Vattel did did state that there was an exception to the "in the country" rule for children born abroad to citizen parents who were serving the armies of the state or in government service, for he considered these children to be "reputed born in the country." Vattel, Sec. 217. In this connection and as an aside which applies to the question of whether Senator McCain is an Article II “natural born Citizen,” it should be noted that according to Vattel, being physically born out of the country did not necessarily mean that one was not born “in the country.” Vattel explained that if a child was born “in the armies of the state,” that child was “reputed born in the country; for a citizen, who is absent with his family on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.” Vattel, Sec. 217. Since this child would have been born in the foreign “armies of the state,” he would normally not be granted citizenship in the country in which he was physically born. Additionally, the country on whose soil the child might be born might adhere to a jus sanguinis system of conferring citizenship (meaning that born on its soil alone would not confer citizenship and therefore allegiance and loyalty on the child). Being born under those conditions, this child would therefore be born with sole allegiance to the country of his parents and would qualify as a “natural born citizen” of that country.

While the 1790 act naturalized all "persons" and so included women, it also declared that "the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...." This prevented the automatic grant of citizenship to children born abroad whose mother, but not father, had resided in the United States. Citizenship was inherited exclusively through the father. As we have seen above, Congress did not remove the inequity until 1934. This focus on the father as the source of citizenship (but not meaning that the status of the mother was not considered) is consistent with what Vattel wrote in Section 212 of The Law of Nations. This is further evidence that the Framers relied upon Vattel in defining citizenship for the new Republic.

In 1795 the Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 which removed the words “natural born” from the term “natural born citizen” and thereby just left “citizens” as the status to be given to children born out of the United States. The fact that the 1790 Act as written was short lived and was only retrospective shows that Congress just wanted to make certain persons born abroad during the early years of the Republic “natural born Citizen” so that they could be eligible to be President. This sort of special allowance was comparable to the grandfather clause of Article II which allowed a “citizen” to be President provided that he was such at the time of the adoption of the Constitution which the Framers in 1790 knew occurred in 1789. It seems that the Third Congress passed this amendment to the 1790 Act to clarify for those living at that time who was and who was not a “natural born Citizen” per the Framers intent at that time, since the 1790 Act had introduced confusion into that subject regarding the use of those special words as found in Article II. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 714 (1898) (Fuller, C.J., dissenting) (statute “passed out of abundant caution to obviate misunderstandings” about the citizenship status of foreign-born children of Americans). It is again important to note that George Washington was also President in 1795, making him aware of this change by the Third Congress. If he disagreed with the clarification and change in the wording in the new 1795 Act, he would have vetoed it. The 1790 and 1795 Acts are contemporaneous evidence of who the Framers meant to include as “natural born Citizens.” Pryor, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L.J. 881 (1988).

Subsequent Supreme Court cases have stated that in interpreting the Constitution, we must look to the common law that the Framers accepted at the time of the Founding. There is strong historical evidence that the Framers in constituting the new Constitutional Republic rejected the English common law and accepted the new federal common law which emanated from the law of nations. On this subject, see my article included at this blog entitled, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law as U.S. Federal Common Law Not English Common Law Define What an Article II Natural Born Citizen Is. Indeed, as we will see below, our Supreme Court adopted that definition when defining a “natural born Citizen” and thereby incorporated it into U.S. federal common law.

The definition and two-parent requirement has been reiterated by the Supreme Court and other courts in the cases of 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), and Ludlam, Excutrix, & c., v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863). It has also been confirmed by renowned legislators, including Senator Trumbull, the author of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and Representative John A. Bingham, the architect of the 14th Amendment to our Constitution.

In the case of The Venus 12 U.S. 253, 289 (1814), Justice John Marshall said: "Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says 'The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.'”

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), did not directly deal with Article II "natural born Citizen." But there are parts of the Dred Scott decision that are relevant to the question of what is a “natural born Citizen.” The case clearly defined “natural born citizen.” While as repugnant as slavery was and still is, no court or amendment has over turned the meaning of “natural born citizen” from Dred Scott. The main point is that in deciding what a "citizen" was in 1857, both the majority and dissent went back to 1787 to examine what the Framers and the people of that time considered a "citizen" to be. The Court said that the Constitution must be understood now as it was understood at the time it was written. The judges did not disagree that one had to look back to the Founding Fathers. What they disagreed on is what the public opinion was at that time as to whether a freed slave was a citizen. In this regard, we know that the case was overruled by the Thirteenth Amendment. As to the “natural born Citizen” clause, the Court said: "The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights. Again: I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . ." Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 476-77 (1857). As can be seen from the quoted language, the Court actually removed from the Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” thus showing that it is not just one parent (the father) that needs to be a citizen, but the “parents,” i.e., both mother and father. Also, both Vattel and the Court stated that “if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” The controlling language is “a foreigner.” In the English language, the letter “a” is an indefinite article meaning one. Hence, the use of the word “a” shows that only one is required. We know that a child has both a mother and father and the “a” would necessarily refer to either the mother or father. Surely, if the child were born of one parent who was not a citizen, he would be “born there of a foreigner,” who would be either his foreign mother or father. As can be seen, it is our United States Supreme Court that has made this reading and interpretation of Vattel. This understanding of Vattel is not only correct but also binding upon us.

Chief Justice Waite, in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), 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." Here we can see that the U.S. Supreme Court in all three of these cases adopted Vattel’s definition of what a “natural born Citizen” is, and specifically repeated his two U.S.-parent test. Dred Scott even removed the word “father” and replaced it with the word “parents.”

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Act of April 9, 1866) first established a national law that provided: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.” Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866 (14 Stat. 27). Not being subject to a foreign power includes being free from any political and military obligations to any other nation and not owing any other nation direct and immediate allegiance and loyalty. The primary author of this Act was Senator Trumbull who said it was his intention “to make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States.” Additionally, he added if a “***** or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.” In order for this requirement to be satisfied, clearly both parents of the child must be U.S. citizens, for if one is not, the child would inherit the foreign allegiance and loyalty of foreign parent and would thereby “belong to a foreign Government.” Rep. John A. Bingham, who later became the chief architect of the 14th Amendment's first section, in commenting upon Section 1992 of the Civil Rights Act, said that the Act was “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” (emphasis supplied). Rep. Bingham said “parents.” He did not say “one parent” or “a mother or father.”

Now let us turn to the Fourteenth Amendment. Senator Trumbull, when commenting on that Amendment declared: “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” Sen. Howard added: “the word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.” On May 30, 1866, Senator Howard continued: "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. Again, only if the both parents of the child were citizens at the time of birth could the child be subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States, not owe allegiance to any foreign power, and not be a person “born in the United States who are foreigners [or aliens].”

There then followed Supreme Court cases that discussed citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. In The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873), in discussing the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause said: “[t]he 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.” Even the dissenting opinion affirmed that the citizenship clause was designed to assure that all persons born within the United States were both citizens of the United States and the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time of birth subjects of any foreign power. Again, only if both parents of the child were citizens at the time of birth could the child not be considered a citizen or subject of a foreign State born within the United States, be subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States, and not be subject to any foreign power.

In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the Supreme Court specifically addressed what is meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” and held: "The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired." Only if the child’s both parents were citizens at the time of birth could the child be “completely subject to their [u.S.] political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), did not address what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is as it applies to presidential eligibility. Rather, the Supreme Court there gave a new, divergent, and incorrect interpretation of the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and vetoed the will of the People and their Legislature to declare Wong a U.S. “citizen of the United States” under the unique circumstances of that case. While the case did approvingly cite Minor v. Happersett, since the case only dealt with what is a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States,” the holding of the case cannot be used to define what the Founders meant by Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause. While Justice Gray was correct in stating that it was public law that defined national citizenship, he was not correct in defining that law with reference to the English common law. Justice Gray went to great lengths to tell us what the English common law was during the colonies on the question of citizenship. But he failed to show that the Founders and Framers adopted that law to define the national citizenship in the new Constitutional Republic. Wong Kim Ark is the only United States Supreme Court case that up to that time relied upon English common law to define U.S. national citizenship. While he provided evidence that the English common law continued to be applied by the States to resolve local issues, Justice Gray provided no evidence that our public law used the English common law to define national citizenship. Indeed, the Court in Wong Kim Ark was misled by British authority that applied only during the colonial period. What the Court did through its decision and by relying on English common law is create a class of born “Citizens of the United States” who are born in the United States who are not necessarily eligible to be President because they are not born to a citizen mother and father. But regardless of whether the Court erred in relying on English common law to define a “citizen of the United States,” the decision did not change the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” for the case’s holding only defined what a “citizen of the United States” is under the Fourteenth Amendment and in the decision the Court also cited Minor and quoted its passage which included Vattel’s definition of what a “natural born Citizen” is. Justice Antonin Scalia, during his address to the 2008 Annual National Lawyers Convention on November 22, 2008, at the Mayflower Hotel, in Washington, D.C., gave three reasons in ascending order (the last being the most compelling) which would serve justification for overturning a prior case: how wrong was it, i.e., was it blatantly and malicious improperly decided ; how well has the public accepted the case; and did the decision cast the Court as a policy maker rather than an interpreter of the law. Given that the Wong Court did not give Congress and the Executive the wide deference that they deserve in exercising its immigration and naturalization powers (Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53, 121 S.Ct. 2053; 150 L.Ed.2d 115 (2001) and the Scalia factors, the Wong decision is a prime candidate for reversal.

We have seen that the citizenship status of the parents of a child determines whether that child is born a “natural born Citizen.” Why should we want the child’s parents to be citizens? Alexander Hamilton explained what happens to a person when he or she becomes a citizen of the country: "But there is a wide difference between closing the door altogether and throwing it entirely open; between a postponement of fourteen years, and an immediate admission to all the rights of citizenship. Some reasonable term ought to be allowed to enable aliens to get rid of foreign and acquire American attachments; to learn the principles and imbibe the spirit of our government; and to admit of a probability at least, of their feeling a real interest in our affairs. A residence of not less than five years ought to be required. " Alexander Hamilton, The Works of Alexander Hamilton, (Federal Edition), vol. 8 > EXAMINATION OF JEFFERSON’S MESSAGE TO CONGRESS OF DECEMBER 7, 1801 1 > paragraph 827. Additionally, the development in the formative years of a child’s minority of a relationship between citizen parents and their child is essential to the child’s ties and allegiance to the United States. Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53, 121 S.Ct. 2053; 150 L.Ed.2d 115 (2001) (addressing the importance of the tie between a child and his U.S. citizen father before the child’s 18th birthday as a crucial ingredient in the child attaching and owing allegiance to the United States and that the U.S. government has a “profound” important interest and objective in promoting that link; showing that a child must meet all statutory preconditions [would also mean constitutional requirements] no matter how much one may deem them to be unfair or onerous in order to be bestowed U.S. citizenship). But we have seen that United States Supreme Court case law, the early 1790 and 1795 Naturalization Acts, legislative history of the Civil Rights Act of the 1866, and the Fourteenth Amendment all conclusively show that Vattel was understood to say that both parents had to be citizens in order for a child to be a “natural born Citizen.” The Founders, our Supreme Court, Congress, and framers of the Fourteenth Amendment all adopted Vattel’s law of nations definition and two-parent requirement and made it part of Article II, United States citizenship federal common law, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the Fourteenth Amendment, respectively.

Obama is missing one of the two necessary natural conditions needed to make one a “natural born Citizen.” He would satisfy the birth-in-the-country requirement. But he would be missing the two-U.S.-citizen-parent requirement to be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Obama would be missing unity of citizenship and allegiance at birth which is necessary to be a “natural born Citizen.” One who meets the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is considered to have been born with sole and absolute allegiance to the United States and not owing allegiance by birth to any foreign state. Obama’s mother was probably a “natural born Citizen.” But because his father was a British subject/citizen and never a “Citizen of the United States” and Obama himself was a British subject/citizen” at the time of his birth, he was born with dual allegiances rather than just one to the United States. Therefore, Obama is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” because of his father's and his birth allegiance to Great Britain. That his mother was a United States citizen does not in any way alter that reality bestowed upon Obama by nature at the moment of his birth. Obama still acquired a complete and natural allegiance to Great Britain at the time of his birth. In other words, at birth he was as much a British subject/citizen as he was an American citizen, assuming he was born in Hawaii. His mother’s United States citizenship did not and could not change that. It also would not make sense to allow just one United States citizen parent to be sufficient to bestow "natural born Citizen" status on a child, for each parent has just as much influence as the other in creating in the child attachment to a nation.

The purpose of Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause is to exclude foreign influence from the Office of President and Commander in Chief. It “cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments . . .” Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:Sec 1472-73 (1833). Remember that Vattel said that if a child is born on a nation's soil to a non-citizen father (meaning parents), that place "will be only the place of his birth, and not his country." Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause looks only to the moment of birth and not thereafter. This interpretation is consistent with Jay’s underlining the word “born” in his 1787 letter to General (later President) Washington. In other words, to meet that special Presidential eligibility requirement, one must be born a “natural born Citizen” and cannot acquire that status later in life. Under the British Nationality Act 1948, when Obama was born in 1961 his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was a British subject/citizen by descent from his father. Under the British Nationality Act 1981, today Obama can still be a British Overseas Citizen (BOC). See my April 7, 2009 article on this topic at this blog entitled, Obama, the President of the U.S., Is Currently Also a British Citizen. Hence, when Obama was born he failed to meet the two-U.S.-citizen-parent test which caused him to be born subject to a foreign power. See my article at this blog entitled, Being Born Subject to a Foreign Power, Obama Cannot be President and Military Commander. It is inescapable that Obama is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” and is therefore not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Obama’s current citizenship status is the same as that which the Framers and Founders had during the Constitutional Convention. If he was born in Hawaii (which he has yet to conclusively prove), he is a “Citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment just as they were under natural law and the law of nations. And he is not a “natural born Citizen” as they also were not. Like a naturalized citizen who is not a “natural born Citizen” and therefore not eligible to be President, the Framers and Founders were born subject to a foreign power as was Obama. Being born subject to a foreign power, both the original Founders and Obama qualify as “citizens of the United States” but not as “natural born Citizens.” But the difference between Obama and the original Founders is that Obama cannot take advantage of Article II’s grandfather clause to make him eligible to be President. Obama is therefore not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

185 Gatzmer Avenue

Jamesburg, NJ 08831

9-8-09

Updated May 21, 2010

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

ajskj · July 23, 2011

Partytime....when will you learn that BLOGS are not experts???

There are TWO KINDS OF CITIZENS....NATURAL BORN AND NATURALIZED.....the Latin is JUS SOLI. Look it up.

Taking a course in law would not tell me that your definition s correct since there IS NO LAW THAT PROVIDES THE DEFINITION THAT YOU CLAIM. The plain fact is the by PRECEDENT your definition is wrong...since SEVERAL US PRESIDENTS have had dual citizenship at birth...and NEVER been declared ineligible because if it.

If you had ANY SORT of law knowledge, you would know that a class of citizen cannot be excluded unless by EXPRESS LAW.

WHERE in the entire US code are the words "natural born citizen" stated? Nowhere! It does not exist. If it does not exist it does not apply to some other law that does exist.

EXACTLY. Which means that a class of people cannot be excluded because of what YOU Decided the word means.

There is only one past President that was not eligible and that was Chester Arthur and was not even found out about until recently in this century

MUST you resort to blatant lies to try and prove your point?? The fact that Arthurs father was not a citizen until Arthur was WELL KNOWN when he was president.

HOOVER'S mother was born in Canada.

WILSON'S mother was English.

Buchanon's father was Irish.

BOTH of Jacksons parents were born in Ireland.

That's at least FIVE Presidents who had dual citizenship at birth.

In this case we know about it. In Arthur Chester's case no one at the time knew about it.

Another blatant lie.

Only we all know he isn't eligible and not just by his documents that are released and proven to be a bad forgery, but by Obama's own admission that he is not eligible.

ANother blatant lie. His documents were not only NOT forged, but verified by the issuing agency. You can also see his birth record in a bound book available for public viewing just by going to Hawaii and asking. It's in the book with all the other Hawaiian births in 1961. And no, he did not admit to being ineligible. He admitted that he held dual citizenship until age 22 which in NO WAY makes him ineligible.

Vattel was French...and his thoughts, while interesting, are not what the founding fathers were referring to. They were far more likely to have understood what the ENGLISH COMMON LAW called Natural born. Look it up.

ARK is the only case to take up natural born...and it's decisions do not support yours.

This is about as clear cut as you can get. Maybe you can understand this.....

Natural Born Citizenship Research

Friday, January 7, 2011

WONG KIM ARK FOR DUMMIES

For those who have trouble understanding U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, I have reduced the decision to Q&A form:

Question: What does the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment mean?

Justice Gray: It “affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.”

Question: How do you know that?

Justice Gray: Well, “the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption.” Hence it is “declaratory of existing rights and affirmative of existing law as to each of the qualifications therein expressed.”

Question: Why would they adopt an Amendment that meant the same thing as existing law under the original Constitution?

Justice Gray: “Its main purpose doubtless was, as has been often recognized by this court, to establish the citizenship of free negroes, which had been denied in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, and to put it beyond doubt that all blacks, as well as whites, born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States.”

Question: So in order to define the meaning of the 14th Amendment, we need to first define the existing law under the original Constitution?

Justice Gray: Yes, that is what declaratory means.

Question: So what was existing law under the original Constitution?

Justice Gray: Well, “[t]he Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words ‘citizen of the United States,’ and ‘natural-born citizen of the United States.” However,”[t]he Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words.” Hence, “t must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution….” as “[t]he interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”

Question: So how were these terms defined under the English common law?

Justice Gray: The English common law rule was “any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject.” Such 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.”

Question: But doesn’t the Constitution use the term “citizen” rather than “subject?”

Justice Gray: “The term citizen, as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term subject in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of governments” hence “subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives.” Accordingly, “[a]ll persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”

Question: So generally, anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen?

Justice Gray: Yes, the natural born citizenship clause “assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.”

Question: So the natural born citizenship clause and the 14th Amendment mean the same thing?

Justice Gray: Not sure how much clearer I can make it.

http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/2011/01/wong-kim-ark-for-dummies.html

TRERUMPH · July 23, 2011

Partytime....when will you learn that BLOGS are not experts???

There are TWO KINDS OF CITIZENS....NATURAL BORN AND NATURALIZED.....the Latin is JUS SOLI. Look it up.

Taking a course in law would not tell me that your definition s correct since there IS NO LAW THAT PROVIDES THE DEFINITION THAT YOU CLAIM. The plain fact is the by PRECEDENT your definition is wrong...since SEVERAL US PRESIDENTS have had dual citizenship at birth...and NEVER been declared ineligible because if it.

If you had ANY SORT of law knowledge, you would know that a class of citizen cannot be excluded unless by EXPRESS LAW.

WHERE in the entire US code are the words "natural born citizen" stated? Nowhere! It does not exist. If it does not exist it does not apply to some other law that does exist.

EXACTLY. Which means that a class of people cannot be excluded because of what YOU Decided the word means.

There is only one past President that was not eligible and that was Chester Arthur and was not even found out about until recently in this century

MUST you resort to blatant lies to try and prove your point?? The fact that Arthurs father was not a citizen until Arthur was WELL KNOWN when he was president.

HOOVER'S mother was born in Canada.

WILSON'S mother was English.

Buchanon's father was Irish.

BOTH of Jacksons parents were born in Ireland.

That's at least FIVE Presidents who had dual citizenship at birth.

In this case we know about it. In Arthur Chester's case no one at the time knew about it.

Another blatant lie.

Only we all know he isn't eligible and not just by his documents that are released and proven to be a bad forgery, but by Obama's own admission that he is not eligible.

ANother blatant lie. His documents were not only NOT forged, but verified by the issuing agency. You can also see his birth record in a bound book available for public viewing just by going to Hawaii and asking. It's in the book with all the other Hawaiian births in 1961. And no, he did not admit to being ineligible. He admitted that he held dual citizenship until age 22 which in NO WAY makes him ineligible.

Vattel was French...and his thoughts, while interesting, are not what the founding fathers were referring to. They were far more likely to have understood what the ENGLISH COMMON LAW called Natural born. Look it up.

ARK is the only case to take up natural born...and it's decisions do not support yours.

This is about as clear cut as you can get. Maybe you can understand this.....

Natural Born Citizenship Research

Friday, January 7, 2011

WONG KIM ARK FOR DUMMIES

WONG KIM ARK FOR DUMMIES

For those who have trouble understanding U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, I have reduced the decision to Q&A form:

Question: What does the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment mean?

Justice Gray: It “affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.”

Question: How do you know that?

Justice Gray: Well, “the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption.” Hence it is “declaratory of existing rights and affirmative of existing law as to each of the qualifications therein expressed.”

Question: Why would they adopt an Amendment that meant the same thing as existing law under the original Constitution?

Justice Gray: “Its main purpose doubtless was, as has been often recognized by this court, to establish the citizenship of free negroes, which had been denied in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, and to put it beyond doubt that all blacks, as well as whites, born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States.”

Question: So in order to define the meaning of the 14th Amendment, we need to first define the existing law under the original Constitution?

Justice Gray: Yes, that is what declaratory means.

Question: So what was existing law under the original Constitution?

Justice Gray: Well, “[t]he Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words ‘citizen of the United States,’ and ‘natural-born citizen of the United States.” However,”[t]he Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words.” Hence, “t must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution….” as “[t]he interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”

Question: So how were these terms defined under the English common law?

Justice Gray: The English common law rule was “any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject.” Such 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.”

Question: But doesn’t the Constitution use the term “citizen” rather than “subject?”

Justice Gray: “The term citizen, as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term subject in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of governments” hence “subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives.” Accordingly, “[a]ll persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”

Question: So generally, anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen?

Justice Gray: Yes, the natural born citizenship clause “assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.”

Question: So the natural born citizenship clause and the 14th Amendment mean the same thing?

Justice Gray: Not sure how much clearer I can make it.

http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/2011/01/wong-kim-ark-for-dummies.html

I TOTALLY AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAY SIR AND THE THING ABOUT IT THESE PPL LIKE RUSTY DONT DO THEIR HOME WORK THEY JUST PICK UP WHERE EVERYONE LEFT OFF INSTEAD OF DOING THEIR HOMEWORK AND THEY BRING IT TO THIS SITE BECAUSE WE HAVE A FEW THOUSAND PPL HERE TO START BS ABOUT A BIRTH CERTIFICATE HOW IGNORANT IS THAT?? THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT IS DIRECTLY AFFECTING THE US AND I KNOW FOR SURE ITS NOT A BIRTH CERTIFICATE....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PartyTime · July 23, 2011

Partytime....when will you learn that BLOGS are not experts???

There are TWO KINDS OF CITIZENS....NATURAL BORN AND NATURALIZED.....the Latin is JUS SOLI. Look it up.

Taking a course in law would not tell me that your definition s correct since there IS NO LAW THAT PROVIDES THE DEFINITION THAT YOU CLAIM. The plain fact is the by PRECEDENT your definition is wrong...since SEVERAL US PRESIDENTS have had dual citizenship at birth...and NEVER been declared ineligible because if it.

If you had ANY SORT of law knowledge, you would know that a class of citizen cannot be excluded unless by EXPRESS LAW.

WHERE in the entire US code are the words "natural born citizen" stated? Nowhere! It does not exist. If it does not exist it does not apply to some other law that does exist.

EXACTLY. Which means that a class of people cannot be excluded because of what YOU Decided the word means.

There is only one past President that was not eligible and that was Chester Arthur and was not even found out about until recently in this century

MUST you resort to blatant lies to try and prove your point?? The fact that Arthurs father was not a citizen until Arthur was WELL KNOWN when he was president.

HOOVER'S mother was born in Canada.

WILSON'S mother was English.

Buchanon's father was Irish.

BOTH of Jacksons parents were born in Ireland.

That's at least FIVE Presidents who had dual citizenship at birth.

In this case we know about it. In Arthur Chester's case no one at the time knew about it.

Another blatant lie.

Only we all know he isn't eligible and not just by his documents that are released and proven to be a bad forgery, but by Obama's own admission that he is not eligible.

ANother blatant lie. His documents were not only NOT forged, but verified by the issuing agency. You can also see his birth record in a bound book available for public viewing just by going to Hawaii and asking. It's in the book with all the other Hawaiian births in 1961. And no, he did not admit to being ineligible. He admitted that he held dual citizenship until age 22 which in NO WAY makes him ineligible.

Vattel was French...and his thoughts, while interesting, are not what the founding fathers were referring to. They were far more likely to have understood what the ENGLISH COMMON LAW called Natural born. Look it up.

ARK is the only case to take up natural born...and it's decisions do not support yours.

This is about as clear cut as you can get. Maybe you can understand this.....

Natural Born Citizenship Research

Friday, January 7, 2011

WONG KIM ARK FOR DUMMIES

WONG KIM ARK FOR DUMMIES

For those who have trouble understanding U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, I have reduced the decision to Q&A form:

Question: What does the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment mean?

Justice Gray: It “affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.”

Question: How do you know that?

Justice Gray: Well, “the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption.” Hence it is “declaratory of existing rights and affirmative of existing law as to each of the qualifications therein expressed.”

Question: Why would they adopt an Amendment that meant the same thing as existing law under the original Constitution?

Justice Gray: “Its main purpose doubtless was, as has been often recognized by this court, to establish the citizenship of free negroes, which had been denied in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, and to put it beyond doubt that all blacks, as well as whites, born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States.”

Question: So in order to define the meaning of the 14th Amendment, we need to first define the existing law under the original Constitution?

Justice Gray: Yes, that is what declaratory means.

Question: So what was existing law under the original Constitution?

Justice Gray: Well, “[t]he Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words ‘citizen of the United States,’ and ‘natural-born citizen of the United States.” However,”[t]he Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words.” Hence, “t must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution….” as “[t]he interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”

Question: So how were these terms defined under the English common law?

Justice Gray: The English common law rule was “any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject.” Such 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.”

Question: But doesn’t the Constitution use the term “citizen” rather than “subject?”

Justice Gray: “The term citizen, as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term subject in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of governments” hence “subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives.” Accordingly, “[a]ll persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”

Question: So generally, anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen?

Justice Gray: Yes, the natural born citizenship clause “assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.”

Question: So the natural born citizenship clause and the 14th Amendment mean the same thing?

Justice Gray: Not sure how much clearer I can make it.

http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/2011/01/wong-kim-ark-for-dummies.html

If you had ANY SORT of law knowledge, you would know that a class of citizen cannot be excluded unless by EXPRESS LAW.

Who is being excluded from any class of citizen? If Obama was born here he is a US citizen. That doesn't exclude him, it would include him. But he is NOT a Natural Born Citizen. And your misinterpretation of a case does not mean anything and there is NO precedent set on this issue. NO court has ever ruled on this issue. Those cases only ruled on a case pertaining to US citizen, NOT natural born citizen. But if anything these cases lean more towards supporting the fact he is NOT a natural born citizen.

And what you were provided with is more than what is written on just some blog. That is written by a very well informed attorney who has researched this more than all your libtards have done combined. He is an attorney that has filed one of these cases, not just some smuck from some blog. His research has revealed numerous documents written that clearly prove the meaning of natural born citizen. And he also cites this Wong case in support of this fact! Yet you come back citing some blog as your attempt to distort the facts after saying you can't cite from a blog. I guess any ole blog is OK as long as you are relying it. LOL

I'll take the evidence supplied and written by a well known attorney over your BS any day which anyone with the slightest amount of common sense can understand the meaning of natural born citizen and Obama ain't it! So keep lying to yourself if that makes you feel better. But all your lying to yourself will never change the fact he is not and cannot be a natural born citizen and at best IF he was born here that only makes him a US citizen, period! And as of now the place of his birth has still not be proven yet. Forged documents only prove he has something to hide which only adds more evidence to suggest he was not even born here which supoports everything these Kenya government officials said saying he was born there in Kenya.

Question: So the natural born citizenship clause and the 14th Amendment mean the same thing?

Justice Gray: Not sure how much clearer I can make it.

LOL

Some libtard decides to rewrite a ruling taking everything out of context by transforming his own misinterpretation of a case by making up his own question and answer session with a dead judge! LOL

The only dummy is the moron that wrote this garbage! Once again, garbage in, garbage out! LOL

TPSprayduster · July 23, 2011

If you had ANY SORT of law knowledge, you would know that a class of citizen cannot be excluded unless by EXPRESS LAW.

Who is being excluded from any class of citizen? If Obama was born here he is a US citizen. That doesn't exclude him, it would include him. But he is NOT a Natural Born Citizen. And your misinterpretation of a case does not mean anything and there is NO precedent set on this issue. NO court has ever ruled on this issue. Those cases only ruled on a case pertaining to US citizen, NOT natural born citizen. But if anything these cases lean more towards supporting the fact he is NOT a natural born citizen.

And what you were provided with is more than what is written on just some blog. That is written by a very well informed attorney who has researched this more than all your libtards have done combined. He is an attorney that has filed one of these cases, not just some smuck from some blog. His research has revealed numerous documents written that clearly prove the meaning of natural born citizen. And he also cites this Wong case in support of this fact! Yet you come back citing some blog as your attempt to distort the facts after saying you can't cite from a blog. I guess any ole blog is OK as long as you are relying it. LOL

I'll take the evidence supplied and written by a well known attorney over your BS any day which anyone with the slightest amount of common sense can understand the meaning of natural born citizen and Obama ain't it! So keep lying to yourself if that makes you feel better. But all your lying to yourself will never change the fact he is not and cannot be a natural born citizen and at best IF he was born here that only makes him a US citizen, period! And as of now the place of his birth has still not be proven yet. Forged documents only prove he has something to hide which only adds more evidence to suggest he was not even born here which supoports everything these Kenya government officials said saying he was born there in Kenya.

Question: So the natural born citizenship clause and the 14th Amendment mean the same thing?

Justice Gray: Not sure how much clearer I can make it.

LOL

Some libtard decides to rewrite a ruling taking everything out of context by transforming his own misinterpretation of a case by making up his own question and answer session with a dead judge! LOL

The only dummy is the moron that wrote this garbage! Once again, garbage in, garbage out! LOL

you have been served. as you see the response he or she has none only to insult someone is the response. A Master Care priceless moment.

ajskj · July 23, 2011

If you had ANY SORT of law knowledge, you would know that a class of citizen cannot be excluded unless by EXPRESS LAW.

Who is being excluded from any class of citizen?YOU claim that a natural born citizen would be excluded from running for president because of YOUR definition which has NEVER been codified into law. If Obama was born here he is a US citizen. That doesn't exclude him, it would include him. But he is NOT a Natural Born Citizen. You keep saying that but you are wrong.And your misinterpretation of a case does not mean anything and there is NO precedent set on this issue. NO court has ever ruled on this issue. Those cases only ruled on a case pertaining to US citizen, NOT natural born citizen. But if anything these cases lean more towards supporting the fact he is NOT a natural born citizen.The case decided natural born citizen to the degree that it has been explained. It does not jibe with your idiotic...and not based on aw....explanation. Therefore, you are WRONG.

And what you were provided with is more than what is written on just some blog.Just as you have...however, THIS blog was written by an EXPERT. That is written by a very well informed attorney who has researched this more than all your libtards have done combined. JUSTICE Gray is an ATTORNEY?? ROFLMAOAY!!JUSTICE GRAY is the JUSTICE who wrote the opinion OF THE COURT in the Ark case. Mario Puzo...who wrote your blog, is just an attorney. Educate urself.http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.htmlHe is an attorney that has filed one of these cases, not just some smuck from some blog. His research has revealed numerous documents written that clearly prove the meaning of natural born citizen. And he also cites this Wong case in support of this fact! Yet you come back citing some blog as your attempt to distort the facts after saying you can't cite from a blog. I guess any ole blog is OK as long as you are relying it. LOL ROFLMAOAY!! You keep digging yourself deeper....JUSTICE GRAY is an expert on this case....Your Puzo attorney is not.

I'll take the evidence supplied and written by a well known attorney over your BS any day which anyone with the slightest amount of common sense can understand the meaning of natural born citizen and Obama ain't itSo...you will stomp your foot and again refuse to see the FACTS right in front of you. Typical birther.! So keep lying to yourself if that makes you feel better. The only one lying here is you...and we all know WHY it makes you feel better to pretend that the black guy isn't eligible.But all your lying to yourself will never change the fact he is not and cannot be a natural born citizen and at best IF he was born here that only makes him a US citizen, period!MORE lies. And as of now the place of his birth has still not be proven yetProven beyond a doubt....born in Hawaii...verified by the state three times now. YOU just don't like it.. Forged documents only prove he has something to hide which only adds more evidence to suggest he was not even born here which supoports everything these Kenya government officials said saying he was born there in Kenya.Only whiners say the document that HAWAII VERIFIED IS FORGED.

Question: So the natural born citizenship clause and the 14th Amendment mean the same thing?

Justice Gray: Not sure how much clearer I can make it.

LOL

Some libtard decides to rewrite a ruling taking everything out of context by transforming his own misinterpretation of a case by making up his own question and answer session with a dead judge! LOL REALLY ought to do some research into WHO Justice Gray is before you make that statement. It only makes you look REALLY stupid.

The only dummy is the moron that wrote this garbage! Once again, garbage in, garbage out! LOLThat describes EVERY ONE of your posts.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. 18 Argued: March 5, 8, 1897 --- Decided: March 28, 1898 MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

Edited July 23, 2011 by ajskj

ajskj · July 23, 2011

JUSTICE GREYS COMMENTS explain what he was thinking. Too bad they don't agree with your BLOG.

PartyTime · July 23, 2011

JUSTICE GREYS COMMENTS explain what he was thinking. Too bad they don't agree with your BLOG.

So now you are a mind reader? LOL Well at least that explains it all then! LOL

Oh and BTW, Chester Aruther was not elegible to be POTUS. Just ice Gray was oppointed by Arthur which would make any rulings from him invalid since he was never properly appointed by a elegible POTUS. And it is also established that Gray made this ruling the way he did as an attempt to cover for Arthur in the event it was discovered he was not a natural born citizen. But no one found out during that time and it was only recently in this century was it discovered that he was not a natural born citizen and anything done by a defacto POTUS that was never elegible cannot stand as being legal, such as the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice. The same as the two Justices Obama appointed would have to be removed once the truth finally does come out. But hey, at least they are all trying to keep the fraud in the family! LOL

PartyTime · July 23, 2011

YOU claim that a natural born citizen would be excluded from running for president because of YOUR definition which has NEVER been codified into law.

WRONG! I never claimed no such thing. In fact, I claimed the opposite stating he is NOT elegible because he is NOT a natural born citizen and natural born citizen has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything written in the US Code. The US Code only makes law on who can be a US citizen under certain requirements that must be meet. Such as, merely being born in this country congress made a law that allows you to be a US citizen automatically by birth if you are born in this country which applies to anyone born of foreign NON-US Parents!

Natural Born Citizen does NOT exist in the US Code because that is an automatice birth right under NATURAL LAW! NOT man made law!

The case decided natural born citizen to the degree that it has been explained. It does not jibe with your idiotic...and not based on aw....explanation. Therefore, you are WRONG.

No, you are wrong. The case decided no such thing. The case decided an issue of just US citizenship and nothing more.

Just as you have...however, THIS blog was written by an EXPERT.

Expert only in your mind! LOL His so called expert opinion has taken the entire ruling completely out of context and he merely made up his own interpretation while pretending to have actually interview someone that has been dead for over a 100 years! LOL

JUSTICE Gray is an ATTORNEY?? ROFLMAOAY!!JUSTICE GRAY is the JUSTICE who wrote the opinion OF THE COURT in the Ark case

And? I never said he wasn't. What he wrote and what your pal wrote are two entirely different things. You take a bad misinterpretation of some smucks opinion and try to argue it as being gospel because his bad misinterpretation of what he made up in his own mind says what you want to hear.

Mario is a very good attorney and as you can tell just by his writing skill compared your pal's writing skills, Mario is MUCH more educated and is well educated in the law to be in a position to make legal determinations which is something your pal is not.

So...you will stomp your foot and again refuse to see the FACTS right in front of you. Typical birther

I do see the facts in front me. The facts are Obama is NOT a natural born citizen and AT BEST, he MIGHT be a US citizen "IF" he was actually born here which has yet to be proven!

The only one lying here is you...and we all know WHY it makes you feel better to pretend that the black guy isn't eligible.

Typical libtard garbage. When you have no facts and when all the evidence is against you, then resort to playing the race card. And Obama is NOT a black man. He is of mixed race and has more white in him than black. He is half white by his mother and part black and part arab by his father. And since you are so smart missy, what color am I?

MORE lies.

MORE libtard garbage. Again, when the facts and evidence cannot be disputed just resort to calling the facts and evidence lies because that is all you can do since no proof exist to rebut the facts and evidence against you. So play the little child and spout its lies! LOL

Only whiners say the document that HAWAII VERIFIED IS FORGED.

No, professionals well trained and educated in adobe programs say it is forged and very bad one at that. Funny how there hasn't been any experts to come out rebut all the experts saying it is a forgery. But that's OK, you don't need no experts. You can just resort to your stupid Alinsky tatics by resorting to name calling. LOL

REALLY ought to do some research into WHO Justice Gray is before you make that statement. It only makes you look REALLY stupid.

I do know who Justice Gray is. He the Supreme Court Justice that was appointed by Chester Arthur who was recently found out to have not been elegible to be POTUS which makes Justice Gray an unlawfully appointed justice who just happen to try to help out his buddy Arthur by attempting to make a ruling in such a way that might hopefully benefit his buddy in the event someone was to discover he was not a natural born citizen, by skewing a ruling that had nothing to do with a case pertaining to natural born citizen and only a case pertaining to just citizenship. There is NO Supreme Court Case that has ever defined the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. That is why they want the Supreme Court to hear it now so as to resolved this unanswered question to avoid any further conflicts in the future, But the court is refusing to hear the issue because they ALL KNOW that their ruling would end up proving Obama is NOT a natural born citizen. Otherwise they would have taken the case and put this issue to rest once and for all. But they KNOW they won't rule that way so the only thing they can do is just not select any of these cases to be heard. You do know they select what cases they will hear due to the number of cases they have submitted to them every year, don't you? And when they denied Apuzzo's case did you notice they never provided any reason for denying it which is something they normally always do?

So keep spouting off your lame rants if that is what makes you feel better. It doesn't change the truth! Truth will always prevail in the end. It may not come out now or in the near future, but it will come out eventually even though everyone knows the truth that he is not a natural born citizen. The only unanswered question is the actual place of birth which all the evidence that does exist all points to Kenya since the only evidence from Obama provided is proven to be forged documents! And using your words, these forged documents were proven to be a forgery by EXPERTS!

JUSTICE GREYS COMMENTS explain what he was thinking. Too bad they don't agree with your BLOG.

Rulings are not based on what someone MAY have been THINKING! That is all speculation as to what he MAY have been THINKING! What is actually written verbatim is all you can rely on and there is nothing in his ruling that rules on any meaning of natural born citizen. It is not there. It does not exist! If it did, these attorneys would not even be making this very argument in all their legal briefs. And they all have cited this Wong case as part of their case in support of the fact Obama is NOT a natural born citizen! Are you suggesting over a 100 different attorneys that filed cases citing the Wong case as evidence to support Obama is not a natural born citizen? I'll grant anyone there are a lot stupid attorneys out there, but over a 100 and all citing the same case? I'll take their legal opinions based on a case ruling over a bunch of quack libtards anyday.

So keep at it little one. You're gonna have to come up with a lot better than just spouting its a lie and only whinners say that and trying to pass off some poor misinterpretation invented by some nut head attempting to rewrite what a judges ruling actually says by pretending to be a mind reader that can read the mind of a dead guy that has been dead over a 100 years! LOL

rtrusty · July 23, 2011

So keep at it little one. You're gonna have to come up with a lot better than just spouting its a lie and only whinners say that and trying to pass off some poor misinterpretation invented by some nut head attempting to rewrite what a judges ruling actually says by pretending to be a mind reader that can read the mind of a dead guy that has been dead over a 100 years! LOL

Good Job

Chape · July 23, 2011

So keep at it little one. You're gonna have to come up with a lot better than just spouting its a lie and only whinners say that and trying to pass off some poor misinterpretation invented by some nut head attempting to rewrite what a judges ruling actually says by pretending to be a mind reader that can read the mind of a dead guy that has been dead over a 100 years! LOL

CRYPTO REWARDS!

Experts: Registrar stamps confirm Obama forgery

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

dogman

rtrusty

ajskj

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Recently Browsing 0 members

Testing the Rocker Badge!

Live Exchange Rate

Important Information