Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Omar is my new hero......He is good at his debates. Too bad congress can't be so logical and truthful

Censorship and Disinformation in America

05.05.2012


By Lawrence Sellin

AP photo

You will not see an article like this appear in any American mainstream media outlet. Barack Hussein Obama is an illegal President.

He is not now nor has he ever been eligible to be a candidate for or hold that office because his father was a British subject at the time of his birth.

Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires that all candidates for the Presidency be "natural born citizens." As defined in the binding Supreme Court precedent of Minor v. Happersett (1875) and confirmed in the subsequent ruling of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (189 8 and others, all candidates for the offices of President and Vice President must be second generation Americans, that is, US citizens of citizen parents at the time of birth.

President and Vice President are the only U.S. political offices with that requirement. It was the intent of the American Founding Fathers that the chief executive and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces would not have dual allegiance or loyalty to a foreign power.

There is no ambiguity, although the Democrat and Republican parties and the media are and have been deliberately trying to confuse the American public as to the true meaning of natural born citizenship.

Case in point.
On May 1, 2012, Fox News Channel anchor Bret Baier posted an explanation of the term natural born citizen that was so factually incorrect that it must be considered propaganda. It is well beyond the scope of this or perhaps any single article to document the full extent of the censorship conducted and the amount of disinformation disseminated, which has continued non-stop since the onset of the 2008 election cycle.

Why did that happen?

The cause stemmed from political expediency and cowardice. Since 1975, there have been numerous attempts by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress to redefine or amend the Article II "natural born citizen" clause.

Having failed to change it legally, politicians seized the opportunity to amend the Constitution by a political fait accompli through the unexpected victory of Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democrat Presidential primary.

Long before the 2008 campaign, however, Obama supporters were already helping the candidate either hide his genuine personal history or create a false one. The censorship and disinformation campaign about Obama's ineligibility had its origins in February 2008 about the time he began to overtake Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Presidential primary.

Anticipating a likely challenge, Obama supporters, instead of reacting defensively, went on the attack through a fabricated controversy, sustained by the media, which questioned the eligibility of Republican Presidential candidate Senator John McCain. The basis of the challenge was that McCain was born in a Panamanian hospital while his U.S. Navy officer father and his U.S. citizen mother were serving at a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone.

The fake controversy was settled in April 2008 through Senate Resolution 511, which, in essence, was a political deal struck between the Democrats and Republicans that would provide validation for McCain and, at least, cover for Obama on the issue of eligibility.

SR 511, a non-binding resolution with an unrecorded vote, had no force of law, but by passing it Congress created the conditions whereby the Constitution could be amended de facto through a back-room political agreement.

Republican involvement in SR 511 and the fear of being branded a "racist" prevented any meaningful vetting of candidate Obama after he secured the Democrat Presidential nomination in June 2008.

Thus began the conspiracy of silence and the disinformation campaign by the political establishment and the media. Given the effort to prevent discussion of Constitutional ineligibility, it should come as no surprise that the politicians and media also protected Obama from investigation of allegations involving a forged birth certificate, a forged Selective Service registration and the use of a Social Security Number not issued to him.

The Democrats and the media don't want to discuss ineligibility and criminality because they want Obama re-elected. The Republicans can't talk about those issues because of their dereliction of duty, their complicity in a cover-up and their unashamed cowardice.

Regardless of who wins the election in November, it is and has been the intention of both political parties and the media to bury forever questions regarding Obama's ineligibility and crimes. The truth would shake the American political system to its core because exposing Obama would also expose the endemic political corruption in Washington, D.C.

It is all about power and the financial rewards it reaps. The politicians and the media have it and they intend to keep it by any means necessary.

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of "Afghanistan and the Culture of Military Leadership". He receives email lawrence.sellin@gmail.com

Censorship and Disinformation in America - English pravda.ru

From Conception...To Election

"Preventing an individual with plural loyalties, whether by biological, political or geographic origins, which may present lawful or perceptable doubt as to his allegiances thereof, other than one with the fullmost sovereignty of advanced citizenry, which is that of one who remains Natural-born from conception to election, from assuming the great power of this fragile office, was, without tolerance or vulnerability, the exaction of purpose of our fathers to induce the mandate of presidential eligibility upon our blood-ransomed Constitution..." Pen Johannson ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.

Friday, March 23, 2012

INS DOC FOUND: U.S. CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO ONE EAST AFRICAN-BORN CHILD OF U.S. CITIZEN IN 1961!


IMPLICATIVE DISCOVERY: A government document found buried in the online reference section of a Boston Public Library archive bolsters a growing mountain of evidentiary data against Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president. The document indicates that a consular officer issued a single certificate of statutory citizenship, within the time frame including August 4, 1961, to a child born to a U.S. citizen between July 1st and December 31st, 1961 in the Kenyan region of Africa. The record also reveals that the certificate was the only one issued for this specific type of arrival in the U.S. over a span of more than 18 months, among thousands from other parts of the world.

By Dan Crosby
of THE DAILY PEN

NEW YORK, NY – A recently discovered rare immigration record found by researchers working on behalf of an ongoing investigation into the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama to hold the office of the U.S. presidency reveals that an American consular officer issued a single Certificate of Citizenship to only one passenger arriving in the U.S. from the Kenyan region of Africa between July and December of 1961.

The record shows demographic and status classifications for a passenger who was explicitly recorded at the INS Arrival Inspection Station as an individual being born to a U.S. citizen parent arriving from the Kenyan region of Africa between July 1st and December 31st, 1961.

This information and the dates of its documentation are disturbing given the rare nature of the issuance of certificates of citizenship for children who acquire their citizenship by birth to incoming U.S. citizens in this particular region of Africa.

Read about "Acquired Citizenship": CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP

These dates not only align with the alleged date of Obama’s birth on August 4, 1961, but also with evidence indicating that Ann Dunham departed from Hawaii beginning in February, 1961, shortly after her undocumented marriage to Obama Sr. The table below shows there were a total of 13 children of U.S. citizens who entered the U.S. from Africa's Kenyan region. It also shows there were 11 from the United Kingdom in the same time in comparison, to demonstrate the consistency of this class of arrivals, regardless of the country of embarkation.

These children were classified by the INS upon arrival based on a passport which already named them when they departed from the U.S. prior, or they received requisite documentation, pre-approved by the U.S. before embarkation, which identified them specifically as children of U.S. citizens who were up to 18 years old.

However, a child who enters the U.S. who was not named on a passport prior to the use of that passport to depart the U.S. must undergo another form of identification process upon returning. A child who did not exist when the parent departed the U.S., in the absence of a passport, must be classified as one of three definitions, a non-resident alien, a derived citizen by parentage or marriage, or a child with acquired citizenship by birth or legal adoption by a U.S. citizen. The following table shows the quantity of children who were granted acquired citizenship from Africa.

Also supporting this data is the implication of an African trip by the absence of Dunham’s passport information which is known to have existed from the 1960s, but which was said by State Department officials to have been conveniently discarded as a part of an administrative order to make more file storage space in the 1980s.

We know Dunham used a passport at that time on at least one occasion for her departure with Obama Jr. to Indonesia where the two lived with Lolo Soetoro, Dunham’s second husband. If Dunham had filed for a “renewal” of an old passport, rather than for a new passport in the mid 1960’s for the Indonesian trip, which would have been the common practice for the life of a passport, this would have been indicated on the missing application which would have been included with the series of documents released by an FOIA request in early 2010.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service published its annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 1963, for the year of July 1st, 1961 ending on June 30th, 1962. According to information on page 99 of the report the only certificate of acquired citizenry issued based on the grounds of birth to a U.S. citizen abroad was coincidentally also issued in the same time frame during which Barack Obama’s alleged birth date occurred on August 4th, 1961.
http://archive.org/stream/annualreportofim1962unit#page/99/mode/1up

Successive yearly reports add COC recipients to their roster for births in previous years as applicants receive those certificates for the year they were born. Table 48 shows the total COCs issued in that year (larger number on the left for each region under "Total") for those born under past years' columns. The quantity of recipients with births in each year tend to peak in the fourth year after the birth, according to the report.

COCs are more rarely issued in the same year unless the U.S. citizen parent returns to the U.S. more immediately after the birth. Obviously, the sooner U.S. citizen parent(s) return with their children born abroad, the sooner they would receive the COC after the birth. However, very few COCs (about one in 80) are issued to children the same year the report is published because most children born abroad to U.S. parent(s) don't return to the U.S. for three to five years, according to the report data.

COC delivery is also often delayed while the circumstances of the birth abroad are confirmed for older births who might apply for retroactive COC. However, when a newborn or very young child enters the U.S. bearing a foreign birth registration from an official medical facility or institution identifying the citizen parent, a COC is able to be expedited based on the registration form, the parent(s) testimony and inspection of the child by the INS. In those cases, a COC may be delivered in days, not months or years.

According to the INS, Certificates of Citizenship are issued upon arrival in the U.S. to those who have acquired statutory citizenship (not natural-born citizenship) by birth to at least one U.S. citizen parent within the previous year while that parent(s) was temporarily in another country. COC are notifications provided by the American Consulate Service, via the INS, to individuals born to at least one U.S. citizen abroad in order to provide interim citizen alien status while immigration status is processed and secured. COC are not issued to natural-born citizens or children born to non-U.S. citizen parents arriving in the U.S., nor are COC received through the same process as required for naturalized citizenship, according to the INS.



http://archive.org/stream/annualreportofim1962unit#page/14/mode/1up

A COAC is issued to an arriving child from abroad who is:

- born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one parent with “alien” non-citizen status, or
- born in the U.S. to two alien parents who both naturalize after the child’s birth, or
- born abroad to a U.S. citizen who did not live in (or come to) the United States for a period of time prior to the child’s birth, or
- adopted and is permanently residing in the United States and can become a U.S. citizen by action of law on the date on which all of the following requirements have been met:
- The child was lawfully admitted for permanent residence; and
- Either parent was a United States citizen by birth or naturalization; and
- The child was still under 18 years of age; and
- The child was not married; and
- The child was the parent’s legitimate child or was legitimated by the parent before the child’s 16th birthday (Stepchildren or children born out of wedlock who were not legitimated before their 16th birthday do not derive United States citizenship through their parents.); and
- If adopted, the child met the requirements of section 101(b)(1)(E) or (F) and has had a full and final adoption; and
- The child was residing in the United States in the legal custody of the U.S. citizen parent (this includes joint custody).

There is yet other historical documented evidence supporting the plausibility that Ann Dunham possessed a birth registration for Obama Jr. from Kenya. In 2009, divorce decree documents for Dunham and Obama Sr. revealed that a conspicuously missing page from the section of the court proceedings declaring the custody of Obama Jr. is the same page which corresponds to other divorce records where a birth certificate would be required by a judge in order to determine original parentage at birth for a custody ruling based on HRS 571.

As previously reported by Dr. Jerome Corsi of WND and other sources, the void of documented and testimonial evidence accounting for Ann Dunham’s presence in Hawaii between February and early August of 1961 implies that she had reasons to travel to Kenya shortly after her undocumented marriage to Obama’s alleged father in February of 1961. According to the widely accepted but highly suspicious uncorroborated account of events, Dunham would have been at least three months pregnant at the time of the marriage. It was documented that Obama Sr's father, living in Kenya at the time, denounced the marriage leaving the couple with a reconciliatory reason to travel there.

Following the completion of her classes at the University of Hawaii in winter 1961, the only evidence accounting for Dunham’s presence was months after the alleged marriage, in late August 1961. A transcript of registration to attend fall extension classes at the University of Washington, in Seattle, beginning in late August, 1961 was discovered in 2009.

The previous year’s INS report shows that no other Certificates of Citizenry by birth were issued to anyone arriving from the Kenyan region of Africa between July 1st, 1960 and June 30th, 1961. During this time, the INS recorded 282 alien arrivals from Kenya by air, and three U.S. citizens.

The arrival of these Kenyan aliens is corroborated by the African American Students Foundation Report of Activities 1959-1961 which documents the arrival of African students in the U.S. on September 7, 1960 from Nairobi, Kenya via the second sortie of the Airlift America Project, a project initiated in April 1959 by the AASF and Kenyan politician, Tom Mboya, to bring African students from Nairobi to study in the U.S.


However, the INS report appears to fail to account for 13 other passengers which were reported as members of the AASF transport from Kenya. The AASF Report states there were 295 passengers aboard the flights, not 282.
Of the 2397 arrivals from Africa who were originally classified by the INS as “Aliens” between July 1, 1961 and June 30, 1962, only one was from Kenya. INS procedures dictate that arrivals under the age of 18 not possessing a U.S. passport are issued “alien” status until the alleged parents of the child are officially issued a Certificate of Citizenry. The Certificate of Citizenry can then be used in conjunction with state birth registration procedures to acquire a birth certificate for the child.

It should noted that the AASF sent more than 800 students to the United States via the Airlift Project from East Africa in the early 1960s. Some of the student are not accounted by the 1961-1962 Immigration report as having departed from Kenya in the third airlift transport in fall of 1961. However, several of these students attended the University of Chicago where it has been widely speculated they had expenses paid for by six separate U.S. families including the family of Tom and Mary Ayers, parents of domestic terrorist and long-time Obama affiliate, Bill Ayers, with whom Obama served on the Annenberg Education Project Fund board for almost 10 years.

Recent testimony from a retired postal worker who delivered mail to the Ayers' Glen Ellyn, Chicago residence collaborates with AASF report accounts and indicates the Ayers may have a longer history of supporting foreign exchange students than initially suspected. Barack Obama II, was likely one of these foreign students supported by the Ayers in the late 1980s which would explain his engagement to serve with Ayers on the Annenberg Fund board, perhaps as appreciation for the Ayers' help.

A COC is also considered a primary form of identification by the State of Hawaii in 1961 to prove a foreign born infant’s residency in the U.S. prompting the issuance of a standard Certificate of Live Birth under Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17 which would then allocate the location of the birth to the mother’s residence.

Corroborating data from passenger arrivals of flights entering the U.S. between July 1st, 1961 and June 30th, 1962 indicates this one individual may have been originally classified as an alien upon arrival prior to application for derivative citizenship. The INS report shows there was only one individual who was originally classified by the INS as an alien arriving by air from Kenya. This individual was possibly inspected by INS officers in Hawaii upon arrival at the INS station located within Honolulu International Airport sometime in early August of 1961.





Unfortunately, the report does not give data supporting that this individual was accompanied by a U.S. citizen parent. This may be explained by the disparity of time between being classified as an “alien” in the interim until a COAC was granted and the collection of data for this report’s date of publication.

According to the INS report data, a voluntary birth to a U.S. resident in Africa in 1961, away from the quality of care offered at U.S. hospitals was extremely rare with only eight such cases in more than two years. The rarity of this event would leave an easily referenced recording of the birth abroad. Hawaiian law also specifies that documentation used to issue birth certificates by the Hawaiian Health Department includes certificates of citizenship issued by the Immigration and Naturalization Service upon arrival of children born to U.S. citizens abroad.

THE DAILY PEN: INS DOC FOUND: U.S. CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO ONE EAST AFRICAN-BORN CHILD OF U.S. CITIZEN IN 1961!

May 28, 2012


100% PROOF! Obama “RESOLVES” That He Is Not Eligible To Be President! (Condemning Info!)




http://prowlland.wordpress.com/2008/...is-ineligible/

Resolution 511

No where in this resolution do they have parent as singular ( one parent )

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Senate Proves Obama Is Ineligible

2008

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

definition : The natives, or natural-born citizens, are

those born in the country, of[ parentS] who are citizenS.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html

Congress tried to settle McCains Natural Born status by passing a resolution…. In doing so they, have proven Obama is ineligible to be POTUS. High lighted about 15 times parentS or citizenS

[plural ]

(both parentS must be citizenS of the U.S.)

Obama Sr. was not.

Obama says “same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”:

FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

April 30, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE S3645
JOHN S. MCCAIN, III CITIZENSHIP
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar
No. 715, S. Res 511.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 511) recognizing that
John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we are considering a bipartisan resolution to express the common sense of all in this Chamber that Senator MCCAIN is a ‘‘natural born Citizen,’’ as the term is used in the Constitution of the United
States. Last week the Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to report this resolution to the Senate. I urge Senators to come together to pass this bipartisan resolution without delay. Our Constitution contains three requirements
for a person to be eligible to be President—the person must have reached the age of 35; must have resided in America for 14 years; and must be a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ of the United States. Certainly there is no doubt that Senator MCCAIN is of sufficient years on this Earth and in this country given that he has been serving in Washington for over 25 years. ‘‘However, some have raised the question whether he is a ‘‘natural born citizen’’ because he was born outside of the United States. JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN, III, was born to American citizenS on an American Naval base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936. His father was serving in the Navy at that time. It is possible that at the time of our Nation’s founding, the Framers of our Constitution could not imagine how pronounced our commitments overseas would become but it would make no sense to limit the careers of children born to military families simply because they were stationed overseas. Similarly, it would not make sense to punish children born to foreign service families or Ambassadors stationed overseas or children born overseas to American missionaries. They are all American citizens at the time of their birth.

Numerous legal scholars have looked into the purpose and intent of the ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ requirement. As far as I am aware, no one has discovered any reason to think that the Framers would have wanted to limit the rights of children born to AmericanS or that such a limited view would serve any noble purpose enshrined in our founding document. Based on the understanding of the pertinent sources of constitutional meaning, it is widely believed that if someone is born to American citizenS anywhere in the world they are natural born citizens.
It is interesting to note that another previous Presidential candidate, George Romney, was also born outside of the United States. He was widely understood to be eligible to be President. Senator Barry Goldwater was born in a U.S territory that later became the State of Arizona. Certainly those who voted for these two Republican candidates believed that they were eligible to assume the office of the President. Because he was born to American citizenS, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator MCCAIN is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’. I recently asked Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, a former Federal judge, if he had any doubts in his mind. He did not. Former Solicitor General Theodore Olson and Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe also analyzed the issue and came to the same conclusion—that Senator MCCAIN is a natural born citizen eligible to serve as President.
Our bipartisan resolution would make it clear that Senator MCCAIN, born in 1936 on an American Naval base to U.S. citizenS, is a ‘‘natural born Citizen. We should act today on a bipartisan basis to erase any doubt that Senator MCCAIN is eligible to run for President because of his citizenship status. I ask unanimous consent that the legal analysis of Theodore Olson and Laurence Tribe be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP,
Washington, DC, April 8, 2008.
Re legal analysis of question whether Senator
John McCain is a natural born citizen eligible
to hold the office of President.
Hon. PATRICK J. LEAHY,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S.
Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
DEAR CHAIRMAN LEAHY: Pursuant to a request received from the staff of your Committee,
I enclose for your and your Committee’s consideration a copy of my and Professor Laurence Tribe’s analysis of the question whether Senator John McCain is a natural-born citizen eligible, under Article II of the Constitution, to hold the office of President of the United States. Professor Tribe and I are in agreement that the circumstances of Senator McCain’s birth to American parent[S], in the Panama Canal Zone make him a natural-born citizen within the meaning of the Constitution.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance in this matter.
Very truly yours,
THEODORE B. OLSON.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
Washington, DC, April 8, 2008.
Re legal analysis of question whether Senator John McCain is a natural born citizen eligible to hold the office of President.
Hon. ARLEN SPECTER,
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
DEAR SENATOR SPECTER: Pursuant to a request received from Democratic Committee staff, I enclose for your consideration a copy of my and Professor Laurence Tribe’s analysis of the question whether Senator John McCain is a ‘‘natural born citizen’’ eligible, under Article II of the Constitution, to hold the office of President of the United States. Professor Tribe and I are in agreement that the circumstances of Senator McCain’s birth to American parentS in the Panama Canal Zone make him a natural born citizen within the meaning of the Constitution.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance in this matter.
Very truly yours,
THEODORE B. OLSON.
MARCH 19, 2008.
We have analyzed whether Senator John McCain is eligible for the U.S. Presidency, in light of the requirement under Article II of the U.S. Constitution that only ‘‘natural born Citizen[s] . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.’’ U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5. We conclude that Senator McCain is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ by virtue of his birth in 1936 to U.S. citizen parentS who were serving their country on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone. The circumstances of Senator McCain’s birth satisfy the original meaning and intent of the Natural Born Citizen Clause, as confirmed by subsequent legal precedent and historical practice. The Constitution does not define the meaning of ‘‘natural born Citizen.’’ The U.S. Supreme Court gives meaning to terms that are not expressly defined in the Constitution by looking to the context in which those terms are used; to statutes enacted by the First Congress, Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783,
790–91 (1983); and to the common law at the time of the Founding. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655 (189. These sources all confirm that the phrase ‘‘natural born’’ includes both birth abroad to parentS who were citizens, and birth within a nation’s territory and allegiance. Thus, regardless of the sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, he is a ‘‘natural born’’ citizen because he was born to parentSwho were U.S. citizens. Congress has recognized in successive federal statutes since the Nation’s Founding that children born abroad to U.S. citizens are themselves U.S. citizens. 8 U.S.C. § 1401(c); see also Act of May 24, 1934, Pub. L. No. 73–250, § 1, 48 Stat. 797, 797. Indeed, the statute that the First Congress enacted on this subject not only established that such
children are U.S. citizens, but also expressly referred to them as ‘‘natural born citizens.’’
Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, § 1, 1 Stat. 103, 104. Senator McCain’s status as a ‘‘natural born’’ citizen by virtue of his birth to U.S. citizen parentS is consistent with British statutes in force when the Constitution was drafted, which undoubtedly informed the Framers’ understanding of the Natural Born Citizen Clause. Those statutes provided, for
example, that children born abroad to parentS who were ‘‘natural-born Subjects’’ were also ‘‘natural-born Subjects . . . to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever.’’
British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geol. 2, c. 21. The Framers substituted the word
‘‘citizen’’ for ‘‘subject’’ to reflect the shift from monarchy to democracy, but the Supreme Court has recognized that the two terms are otherwise identical. See, e.g., Hennessy v. Richardson Drug Co., 189 U.S. 25, 34– 35 (1903). Thus, the First Congress’s statutory recognition that persons born abroad to U.S. citizens were ‘‘natural born’’ citizens.
fully conformed to British tradition, whereby citizenship conferred by statute based on the circumstances of one’s birth made one natural born.
There is a second and independent basis for concluding that Senator McCain is a ‘‘natural born’’ citizen within the meaning of the Constitution. If the Panama Canal Zone was sovereign U.S. territory at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, then that fact alone would make him a ‘‘natural born’’ citizen under the well-established principle that ‘‘natural born’’ citizenship includes birth within the territory and allegiance of the United States. See, e.g., Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 655–66. The Fourteenth Amendmentexpressly enshrines this connection between birthplace and citizenship in the text of the Constitution. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1

(‘‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. * * * ’’) (emphases added). Premising ‘‘natural born’’ citizenship on the character of the territory in which one is born is rooted in the common-law understanding that persons born within the British kingdom and under loyalty to the British Crown—including most of the Framers themselves, who were born in the American colonies—were deemed ‘‘natural born subjects.’’ See, e.g., 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 354 (Legal Classics Library 1983) (1765) (‘‘Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king.* * * ’’). There is substantial legal support for the proposition that the Panama Canal Zone was indeed sovereign U.S. territory when Senator McCain was born there in 1936. The U.S. Supreme Court has explained that, ‘‘[f]rom 1904 to 1979, the United States exercised sovereignty over the Panama Canal and the surrounding10-mile-wide Panama Canal Zone.’’

0’Connor v. United States, 479 U.S. 27, 28 (1986).Congress and the executive branch similarly suggested that the Canal Zone was subject to the sovereignty of the United States. See,e.g., The President—Government of the Canal Zone, 26 Op. Att’y Gen. 113, 116 (1907)

(recognizing that the 1904 treaty between the United States and Panama ‘‘imposed upon the United States the obligations as well as the powers of a sovereign within the [Canal Zone]’’); Panama Canal Act of 1912, Pub. L. No. 62–337, § 1, 37 Stat. 560, 560 (recognizing that ‘‘the use, occupancy, or control’’ of the Canal Zone had been ‘‘granted to the United States by the treaty between the United States and the Republic of Panama’’). Thus, although Senator McCain was not born within a State, there is a significant body of legal authority indicating that he was nevertheless born within the sovereign territory of the United States.

Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause. For example, Vice President Charles Curtis was born in the territory of Kansas on January 5, 1860—one year before Kansas became a State. Because the Twelfth Amendment requires that Vice Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents, the service of Vice President Curtis verifies that the phrase ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ includes birth outside of any State but within U.S. territory. Similarly, Senator Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood, yet attained the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 1964.
[ webmasters memo : but he was never elected ]

And Senator Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961—not long after its admission to the Union on August 21, 1959. We find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier.
[ webmaster memo:........ but both parents were NOT citizens of the U.S. .... He was born a British subject ( stated by Obama himself ). There is no doubt that Obama has allegiance to Kenya... he put before the Senate a bill to tax Americas 7% so as to give to other countries. Wonder what country he had in mind ?] http://kilosparksitup.blogspot.com/2008/02/more-on-barack-obama-s2433-global.html
“I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that [every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of [ parentS ] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…[6]“
- Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment
http://grou.ps/zapem/blogs/3787]

Senator McCains candidacy for the Presidency is consistent not only with the accepted meaning of ‘‘natural born Citizen,’’ but also with the Framers’ intentions when adopting that language. The Natural Born Citizen Clause was added to the Constitution shortly after John Jay sent a letter to George Washington expressing concern about ‘‘Foreigners’’ attaining the position of Commander in Chief. 3 Max Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 61 (1911). [ webmaster memo:....Obama has allegiance to Kenya...] It goes without saying that the Framers did not intend to exclude a person from the office of the President simply because he or she was born to U.S. citizens serving in the U.S. military outside of the continental United States; Senator McCain is certainly not the hypothetical ‘‘Foreigner’’ who John Jay and George Washington were concerned might usurp the role of Commander in Chief. Therefore, based on the original meaning of the Constitution, the Framers’ intentions, and subsequent legal and historical precedent, Senator McCain’s birth to parentS who were U.S. citizens, serving on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, makes him a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ within the meaning of the Constitution.

LAURENCE H. TRIBE .
THEODORE B. OLSON.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to,the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the RECORD. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so rdered. The resolution (S. 511) was agreed to. The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, is as follows:

. 511 Whereas the Constitution of the Unitedof the President, a person must be a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ of the United States;
Whereas the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1,
is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit
the constitutional rights of children born to AmericanS serving in the military nor to
prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;
Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the
‘‘natural born Citizen’’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’; Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders; Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; [ webmasters memo : there is a grandfather clause that allowed the framers of the Constitution to run for President, never to be applied after their passing. I assume no NATURAL BORN citizens were old enough at the time to run for president.

Let me make another point : What was the need for the Grandfather clause ? Why even have a grandfather clause if this was not their intent.] and Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizenS on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936:
Now, therefore, be itResolved,
That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ under Article II,Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

____________________________________________

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html

definition : The natives, or natural-born citizens, are

those born in the country, of[ parentS ] who are citizens.

“All 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 [**18] as of England.”
Circuit Justice Swayne
http://www.thecommentary.net/1861-circuit-justice-swayne-defines-na…

“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 [ webmaster memo:........Obama amits he was a Brittish subject passed on the him by his father.... He was born a British subject ( stated by Obama himself ). ] 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.”
“Law of Nations” Book One, Chapter 19, 212
http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm

-stated on Barack Obama’s website:
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”
http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html

WAITE, C.J., Opinion of the Court
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

88 U.S. 162
Minor v. Happersett

Argued: February 9, 1875 — Decided: March 29, 1875

The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.

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 [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

http://thelibertypole.ning.com/

__________________________________________________ ___________________

Obamas own words:

FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

Natural Born Citizen

Justice Horace Gray Clearly Indicated Wong Kim Ark Was Not a Natural Born Citizen.

[Update in red below 10:25AM]
The SCOTUS decision in Wong Kim Ark has caused more confusion regarding the natural born citizen issue than any other case in US history. One particular passage has been fervently relied upon by Obama eligibility supporters in claiming the case establishes children of aliens – born in the US – as natural-born citizens.
I can understand such reliance. The passage below has been confusing for me as well. Yet, I never truly believed SCOTUS was stating that Wong Kim Ark could be President and Commander In Chief. I just couldn’t find the words to thoroughly distinguish the case.
However, it finally became clear today. The words of the passage suddenly re-arranged the focus of the majority’s intent. Here’s the infamous passage:
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment 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…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’
It appears at first glance that the passage claims children of aliens born on US soil are themselves natural-born citizens. And that’s certainly the hard line taken by Obama eligibility supporters. But a closer inspection reveals this is not what the court held.
Have another look:

“…and his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”

Justice Gray does a very revealing compare and contrast here:
- he compares two children
- on the one hand, he mentions the US born child of a resident alien
- on the other hand, he mentions the “natural-born” child of a citizen
Do you see the difference?
He clearly states that only one is natural-born: the child of the citizen.
He says that both are citizens. But only the child of the citizen is natural born – for this is what he is comparing the other one to. So the holding indicates Wong Kim Ark was as much a citizen as any other citizen despite not being natural-born.
– The Court does not say that the child of the alien is a natural-born citizen.
Had the court intended to state that both were natural born, they wouldhave said:
“…and his child, if born in the country, is as much a natural-born citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”
But that’s not what they said.

- By the Wong Kim Ark decision, both children – the alien born and the natural born – are entitled to the same rights and protections as citizens.
- But only one satisfies the requirements to be President: the natural born child.
- This is because natural born citizen status is only required for one purpose: to be President. There’s no other legal attachment to nbc status.
Being eligible to be President is not a right or protection of citizenship. For example, not all natural born citizens can be President. Those who are not 35 years old and/or have not been residents in the US for 14 years – though they may be natural born citizens – are NOT eligible to be President.
Here’s the final holding of the case:
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question…whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States…becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. (Emphasis added.)
This is the core holding of the case. It states that only one question is presented: whether the child is a citizen. The single question presented is not whether the child is a natural-born citizen.
If Justice Gray and the majority deemed Wong Kim Ark to be a natural-born citizen then that’s what they would have said. But they didn’t. And this in a very detailed and thorough opinion where “natural-born” was used to compare and contrast the children of citizens to the children of aliens.
I still don’t agree with the Court’s analysis of the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language in the 14th Amendment, but I’ll save that for another post.
My analysis above doesn’t conclusively establish that Obama is not eligible to be President. His case is distinguished from Wong Kim Ark’s in that Obama’s mother was a US citizen. His father was never a US citizen and as such Obama (admits) he was governed by Great Britain at birth.
This presents a unique question of first impression for the Supreme Court. Based upon my review of history and law, I don’t believe Obama is eligible to be President. But it’s certainly not an easy decision either way you look at it. Yet, this is the kind of difficult decision our Supreme Court exists to answer.
I continue to press this issue for fear that it will continue to erode the chain of command. The brave men and women of our military deserve to know for certain that their Commander is Constitutionally eligible to lead them.
SCOTUS ought to revisit Cort Wrotnowski’s case if they truly care about the future of this nation and the health of our republic… which is being torn apart by this issue as we speak.
I personally don’t care who the President is anymore. I’ll never care again. Both McCain and Obama have damaged the office and this nation severely by their willingness to put us through this. It doesn’t matter who the President is. We’ll still be at war. We will still have poverty, hatred, racism, fascism, sarcasm, nukes, etc… the new boss is the same as the old boss. We do get fooled again. Everytime. But if we let this sit and the chain of command erodes… Goodbye Ms. American Pie.

[ webmasters memo : there is a grandfather clause that allowed the framers of the Constitution to run for President, never to be applied after their passing. I assume no NATURAL BORN citizens were old enough at the time to run for president.Let me make another point : What was the need for the Grandfather clause ? Why even have a grandfather clause if this was not their intent.]

a person belongs is by the law of nations closely dependent on descent; it is almost as universal rule that the citizenship of
the parents determines it— that of the father where the children are lawful, and where they are bastards, that of the mother,
without regard to the place of their birth; and that must necessarily as the correct canon, since nationality is in its essence
dependent on descent. Foundlings must, of course, constitute an exception to this rule; they belong to the State in which they
are found.”
And the same principle is affirmed by Savigny.1 ” Citizenship,” says he, ” indicates birth in a legal marriage where the
father himself has the right of citizenship. ILLegitimate children acquire by origio citizenship in the native place of the mother.”
This rule of international law that the political status of the father is impressed upon the child where legitimate, and that of
the mother where illegitimate, is found in reason and established according to the dictates of sound policy. As stated by Vattel: 2
” By the law of nature alone children follow the condition of their father and enter into all their rights; the place of birth produces
no change in this particular, and can not of itself furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him.”
Generally no nation considers as aliens the children of its citizens or subjects born abroad; but, on the contrary, they are deemed
to be citizens or subjects. Now, should the common-law rule prevail in such country where such children are born, it is evident
that there would arise an immediate conflict between the place of birth and the country of the father, which might lead to very serious
consequences. Inasmuch as the country where such persons were born claims as citizens or subjects persons born abroad whose
fathers were citizens or subjects at the time of such birth, it should, upon principle, reciprocally recognize the right of a foreign nation
to claim as citizen or
1 Savigny on Private International 2 Vattel’s Law of Nations, sect. 215.
Law, sect. 851.
subjects the children born abroad whose fathers at the time of such birth citizens or subjects of such foreign nation.
The common-law rule making every person born within the limits of a nation, or rather within the power and
obedience of the sovereign, a citizen thereof, is manifestly impolitic. The Chinese, for instance, are a people foreign
to us in every respect; they have resided amongst us for upwards of thirty years, and during the whole of that time
have rigidly adhered to the peculiar customs, habits and methods of their forefathers. Although all this time surrounded
by American civilization itn has wholly failed to make any impression upon them; they segregate themselves from the
mass of people and establish a colony according to Oriental ideas in order that they may live in a manner similar to
those in China; the are antagonistic to our civilization; know nothing and refuse to know anything of our institutions
and are utterly incapable of self-government; they do not come here animus manendi, but as soon as the obtain a
competency, either by their labor or otherwise, the return to their native land to enjoy it. Their children born American
soil are Chinese form their very birth in all respects, just as much so as though they had been born and reared in China;
they inherit the same prejudices, the same customs, habits, and methods of their ancestors; in short, they are subject
to the same civilization and adhere to it with as much tenacity as did their forefathers.
Now it is evident that such persons are utterly unfit, wholly incompetent, to exercise the important privileges of an
American citizen, a title which it was aim of out ancestors to make as proud as the king; and yet under the commom-law
rule they would be citizens.
Again, to consider as a citizen a child born here and who only resided here the first five or six years of his life and
whose father was an alien and always remained such is manifestly contrary to the dictates of sound policy. In order to the
naturalization of his father we justly require of five years prior to his admission to citizenship. As remarked by
Chancellor Kent, 1 ” A moderate previous residence becomes material to enable
12 Kent Com, 29.
aliens to acquire the knowledge and habits proper to make good citizens, who can combine the spirit of freedom with a love
of the law. Strangers, on their first arrival, and before they have had time to acquire property and form connections and attach-
ments, are not to be presumed to be acquainted with our political institutions, or to fell pride or zeal in their stability and success.”
We also require a declaration to be made at least two years prior ti his admission to citizenship, that it is his bona fide intention
to become a citizen and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty,
and particularly to the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty of which he may be at the time a citizen or subject. He must also
have resided within the territory, where the court admitting him is held, for the period of one year prior to his admission, when
he must take oath that he will support the constitution, and that he absolutely renounces all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign
prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, and particularly by name to the prince, potentate, state or sorereignty to which he ownes
allegiance. It must also appear to the court admitting him that he is a man of good moral character,attached to the principles
of the constitution and disposed to the good order and happiness of the same; and yet in respect to his child, who is just as much
an alien as his father, we would, under the common-law, consider him a citizen without naturalization.”
If the common-law rule were to prevail in this country the policy adopted by Congress in respect to the admission of
foreigners to citizenship would be defeated; Congress has seen fit to confine the privilege of becoming a American citizen to the
Caucasains and African races; yet under the common-law rule the children of all persons, irrespective of race, who were born
within the United States would be citizens.
The evils which result from an indiscriminate admission of foreigners into the body politic are well exemplified by the action
of Caracalla, who ” for the purpose of a more extened taxation leveled all distinctions and communicated the freedom of the
city to the whole Roman world.” As a consequence, the pride of country and the observance of honor which characterized
the Roman ctitzen became extinguished and was no longer felt.
We will revert to the case of Lynch v. Clarke. The vice-chancellor, in commenting upon the rule as stated by Mr. Dana. 1 that if an Amercian
citizen goes to England and marries a woman who is an alien and has issue born in England, that that issue is not an alein, but a citizen
of the United States, abd that, upon the same principle, if an English subject, comes into the United States and marries a woman is an
Amercican, and has a child by her, born here, it can not inherit here, because the child folloes the allegiance of its father, says:
” This is manifestly a non-sequitur, because, in the first case put, the child, if born in England og an American father, unquestionably owes
allegiance in England, . is a subject of that country, and may inherit there. Yet he is, as the author says, a citizen of the United States, also.
( An embarrassing position to be in. ) And by the same rule, the child born here, of the English father, is a citizen, and may inherit as in England.”
The vice-chancellar is thus compelled to admit the absurd, untenable, and now exploded, doctirne of double allegiance.2
The vice-chancellar was laboring under a misapprehension when he stated that , in order to avert an imaginary evil which he contends the
rule of international law produces, to wit, the perpetuation of a “race of aliens,” the doctrine of elestion was resorted to; that is, that the child,
upon arriving at majority, would have a right to elect as his country either the place of his birth, or the country of his father. This doctrine has
never had a place in international law; but has prevailed, if it does not now prevail, in those countries where the common-law
rule, or a rule similar to it, existed; thus, ” England and Portugal the child of an alien, born therein, is English or Portuguese, but he may
elect ti recur to his nationality of parentage,” 3
14 dana’s abridgment, 701, ch. 131, 2 See Ludlum v. Ludlum, 81 Barb.
art. 2, sect. 8. 417; Rev. Stats. U. S. , sect. 1999
3 Hall on International Law, sect. 08.
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, so far as it relates to this question, and which is but declaratory
of the principles of international law, is as follows : —— “
All persons born, or naturalized, in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The phrase in the above section ” subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does not mean territorial jurisdiction, as has been held in some
cases, 1 but means national jurisdiction; that is the jurisdiction which a nation possesses ove those who are its citizens or subjects as such.
The phrase as used in the consitution was intended to have a negative opertation; that this is true, and that territorial jurisdiction was not
meant, is evident from section 1992,2 which is a part of section 1, of what is known as the ” Civil Rights Bill,” and which was enacted by the
same Congress which framed and proposed the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution; that section is as follows
” All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign powers, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be
citizens of the United States,” As before stated, generally every nation claims as a citizen or subject the child born abroad whose
father was at the time of such birth a citizen or subject of the country making such claim; and this is supposted by the principle of
international law before referred to. Now, it is obvious that such child would be subject to a foreign power, to wit, the
country of his father, which of course would exclude him from being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
In conclusion in the Slaughter House Cases. 8 in reference to the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment
before referred to, and which is decisive of the question ” the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ was intended to exclude
from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
1 McKay v. Campbell, 2 Sawyer, 129; 2 Rev. Stat. U.S.
Spencer v. Board, 1 McArthur, 177 3 16 Wall. 78.



Birth,therefore,does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and is essentail in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen
of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof, or in case he be illegitimate,
that his mother be a citizen thereof at the time of such birth.
George D. Collins


Senate Proves Obama Is Ineligible …in Resolution 511 « Texas My Texas

Thursday, May 31, 2012


Attorney Larry Klayman: Florida Judge Sets June Court Hearing For Obama Ballot Challenge

Obama Release Your Records on 1:14 PM

FLORIDA COURT SETS HEARING ON
OBAMA BALLOT CHALLENGE FOR JUNE 18, 2012

Judge Terry Lewis States "Natural Born Citizen" Definition Will Be Decided

Via Email from Sam Sewell

May 31, 2012, Tallahassee, FL - Activist attorney Larry Klayman announced today that Judge Terry Lewis of Leon County, FL has set a hearing on June 18th, 2012 at 9:00am to hear arguments from both sides about whether the eligibility of President Barack Hussein Obama can be determined in open court. Judge Lewis made crucial rulings in the famous Bush v. Gore case in 2000.

Florida's election statutes provide broad protections for voters to ensure that the integrity of the election system is beyond reproach. One of such laws allows voters to challenge the nomination of a candidate who is not eligible for the office he is seeking. Plaintiff Michael Voeltz, a registered the Democrat, challenged the eligibility of President Obama because he was not born to two citizen parents and thus not a "natural born citizen" as required by Article II the U.S. Constitution.

During the hearing over discovery issues, which Mr. Klayman wants to take the week of June 18, Judge Lewis noted that Mr. Klayman's brief cited legal authority that a president, to be eligible, must have two (2) U.S. citizen parents, but President Obama and the other defendants cited no authority to the contrary. Mr. Klayman had cited the U.S. Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875). Judge Lewis ordered further briefing on this issue prior to the hearing.

Klayman stressed that the eligibility is very important particularly with this president, Barack Hussein Obama. He added: "The framers were not stupid. They understood that a president with divided loyalties could present a security and other risks for our nation. Obama's Muslim heritage, which emanates from his Kenyan father (who had to be deported from the U.S.), frankly explains why he frequently sides with and takes actions to further the interests of Muslim nations against the United States; specifically his refusal to take forceful action against the Islamic Republic of Iran and its leaders over nuclear armament and human rights violations and atrocities."

In a CNN interview yesterday Donald Trump stated "Obama hates this subject" meaning the eligibility issue. This is because he appears not to be a legitimate American president, but instead an imposter who has fooled many. Unfortunately, the American people are the victims. It's time that Obama, despite his protestations in proving his eligibly, either put up or shut up by coming forward with real proof, not doctored, computer-generated "proof" that he is eligible. The courts should finally require this real proof as to whether he is eligible for office.

The case is entitled Voeltz v. Obama, et. al. (No. 2012 CA 467) and is being heard in the Circuit Court Of The Second Judicial Circuit In And For Leon County, Florida. To request an interview please contact Adrienne Mazzone at (561) 750-9800.

WATCH THE COMPLETE SHERIFF JOE PRESS CONFERENCE ABOUT OBAMA'S FORGED IDENTITY DOCUMENTS HERE: Sheriff Joe Press Conference Live-Stream | Article II Super PAC

SHERIFF JOE TEA-PARTY PRESENTATION VIDEO HERE: Lord Monckton - Sheriff Joe Video | Article II Super PAC

-ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: Article II Eligibility Facts | Article II Super PAC

http://www.scribd.com/doc/85065212/N...Mar-2012-pg-15

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogs...ida-judge.html

Originally Posted by AirborneSapper7

Thursday, May 31, 2012


Attorney Larry Klayman: Florida Judge Sets June Court Hearing For Obama Ballot Challenge

Obama Release Your Records on 1:14 PM

FLORIDA COURT SETS HEARING ON
OBAMA BALLOT CHALLENGE FOR JUNE 18, 2012

Judge Terry Lewis States "Natural Born Citizen" Definition Will Be Decided

Via Email from Sam Sewell

May 31, 2012, Tallahassee, FL - Activist attorney Larry Klayman announced today that Judge Terry Lewis of Leon County, FL has set a hearing on June 18th, 2012 at 9:00am to hear arguments from both sides about whether the eligibility of President Barack Hussein Obama can be determined in open court. Judge Lewis made crucial rulings in the famous Bush v. Gore case in 2000.

Florida's election statutes provide broad protections for voters to ensure that the integrity of the election system is beyond reproach. One of such laws allows voters to challenge the nomination of a candidate who is not eligible for the office he is seeking. Plaintiff Michael Voeltz, a registered the Democrat, challenged the eligibility of President Obama because he was not born to two citizen parents and thus not a "natural born citizen" as required by Article II the U.S. Constitution.

During the hearing over discovery issues, which Mr. Klayman wants to take the week of June 18, Judge Lewis noted that Mr. Klayman's brief cited legal authority that a president, to be eligible, must have two (2) U.S. citizen parents, but President Obama and the other defendants cited no authority to the contrary. Mr. Klayman had cited the U.S. Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875). Judge Lewis ordered further briefing on this issue prior to the hearing.

Klayman stressed that the eligibility is very important particularly with this president, Barack Hussein Obama. He added: "The framers were not stupid. They understood that a president with divided loyalties could present a security and other risks for our nation. Obama's Muslim heritage, which emanates from his Kenyan father (who had to be deported from the U.S.), frankly explains why he frequently sides with and takes actions to further the interests of Muslim nations against the United States; specifically his refusal to take forceful action against the Islamic Republic of Iran and its leaders over nuclear armament and human rights violations and atrocities."

In a CNN interview yesterday Donald Trump stated "Obama hates this subject" meaning the eligibility issue. This is because he appears not to be a legitimate American president, but instead an imposter who has fooled many. Unfortunately, the American people are the victims. It's time that Obama, despite his protestations in proving his eligibly, either put up or shut up by coming forward with real proof, not doctored, computer-generated "proof" that he is eligible. The courts should finally require this real proof as to whether he is eligible for office.

The case is entitled Voeltz v. Obama, et. al. (No. 2012 CA 467) and is being heard in the Circuit Court Of The Second Judicial Circuit In And For Leon County, Florida. To request an interview please contact Adrienne Mazzone at (561) 750-9800.

WATCH THE COMPLETE SHERIFF JOE PRESS CONFERENCE ABOUT OBAMA'S FORGED IDENTITY DOCUMENTS HERE: Sheriff Joe Press Conference Live-Stream | Article II Super PAC

SHERIFF JOE TEA-PARTY PRESENTATION VIDEO HERE: Lord Monckton - Sheriff Joe Video | Article II Super PAC

-ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: Article II Eligibility Facts | Article II Super PAC

New Ad - AZ Sheriff Arpaio - Obama Birth Cert & Draft Reg Card Are Forged! Wash Times Natl Wkly - 12 Mar 2012 - pg 15

Attorney Larry Klayman: Florida Judge Sets June Court Hearing For Obama Ballot Challenge | Birther Report: Obama Release Your Records

I would like to believe that this judge will show some backbone but we have seen how judges succumb to intimidation and threats from Soetoro's hired thugs. Look for this hearing to be dropped suddenly before the court date. Remember, you heard it here.

Very good video Airborne. Proof that even the ignorant among us can ascertain the truth when it's spelled out clearly!

Hawaii Senior Elections Clerk: 'Obama NOT Born in Hawaii'

5/31/12



In his interview with Wolf Blitzer, Donald Trump fumbled on the part where he was asked to name someone in a position of authority in Hawaii that questioned Obama's birth.

Well, we have an answer for him. Timothy Lee Adams, a Hawaii Senior Elections Clerk that does not believe Obama was born in Hawaii.

Adams emphatically states in his Masters Thesis: “. . .in my professional opinion, Barack Obama was NOT (emphasis added) born in the United States, and there is no Hawaii long-form birth certificate.” (Pg. 30, 31)

Contrast this man’s statement, a man who was vetted for military, civil, and academic service, with the Verification of Birth certified statement of Alvin T. Onaka, State Registrar, signed and issued to Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett on May 22, 2012. Onaka’s document says: “Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-14.3, I verify the following: A birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.” Now Onaka’s 12 point official Department of Health document bearing the seal of the State of Hawaii, also says, pt. 7, “Birthplace of Father: Kenya, East Africa,” providing official authentication and documentation that the sitting President of the United States does not carry the Natural Born Citizenship status as required by Article II, Sect. 1, clause 5, of our U.S. Constitution, the higher standard required to hold the office of President!

Here is a link to his Thesis' abstract.

Hawaii Senior Elections Clerk: 'Obama NOT Born in Hawaii'