Nov 1, 2014
Tea Party Tribune
Tea Party Tribune
Tea Party and Political News Reporting

NJ Ballot Access Challenge Hearing Update

   

NJ Ballot Access Challenge Hearing

Posted by Toria for clarity
Wong Kim Ark case is not applicable to natural born constitutional requirement
The 14th Amendment adopted into the Constitution in 1858 refers to
jus soli  of the soil, place / location of birth applies to just a citizen

Article II Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution states Natural Born jus sanguinis and applies to the President and Vice President.  (Latin: right of blood) determined by the citizenship of the parents and on the soil of that same citizenship, all natural born.

The attorney for the people Mario Apuzzo, Esq.   http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
***************************

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 10, 2012

Today, April 10, 2012, Nicholas E. Purpura and Theodore T. Moran had their Barack Obama primary ballot objection heard by Deputy Director and Administrative Law Judge, Jeff S. Masin, at the Office of Administrative Law, 9 Quakerbridge Plaza, Mercerville (Hamilton Twp.), New Jersey 08619. The case started about 9:30 a.m. and lasted to about 1:00 p.m. I represented the Objectors. Mr. Obama was represented by Alexandra Hill of the firm of Genova, Burn & Giantomasi of Newark, New Jersey.

We argued that Mr. Obama has not met his burden of showing that he is eligible to be on the New Jersey primary ballot by showing that he is a “natural born Citizen.” We argued that he has not presented any evidence to the New Jersey Secretary of State showing who he is and that he was born in the United States. We also argued that as a matter of law, Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” because he was born to a father who was not a U.S. citizen.

Obama’s attorney made a motion to dismiss the Objection in its entirety. She argued that it was not relevant to being placed on the ballot whether Mr. Obama is a “natural born Citizen,” where he was born, and whether he was born to U.S. citizen parents. She said that no law in New Jersey obligated him to produce any such evidence in order to get on the primary ballot. We argued that Mr. Obama under the Constitution has to be a “natural born Citizen.” We argued that under New Jersey law (the state constitution, statutes, and case law), Mr. Obama must show that he is qualified for the office he wishes to occupy and that includes showing that he is a “natural born Citizen,” which includes presenting evidence of who he is, where he was born, and that he was born to two U.S. citizen parents. We argued that the Secretary of State has a constitutional obligation not to place any ineligible candidates on the election ballot. Judge Masin denied Obama’s motion to dismiss and the case proceeded to trial.

After calling to the witness stand Mr. Moran and Mr. Purpura, who gave testimony as to why they brought the ballot challenge, and introducing documents showing there is a question as to Mr. Obama’s identity, I called Brian Wilcox to testify as an internet image expert. Mr. Wilcox was going to testify on how the Obama April 27, 2011, long-form birth certificate has been altered and manipulated either by computer software or by a human or both, producing a forged documents, and that since the image is not reliable, we need to see the original paper version. Obama’s lawyer objected to my proffered testimony. I then offered that I would not need to have Mr. Wilcox testify, provided that Obama stipulated that the internet image of his birth certificate could not be used as evidence by either Judge Masin or the New Jersey Secretary of States and that he presented to the court or the Secretary of State no other evidence of his identity or place of birth. Judge Masin also asked Obama’s attorney whether she would so stipulate. She did so stipulate, agreeing that both the court and the Secretary of State cannot rely on the internet birth certificate as evidence of Obama’s place of birth and that Obama has produced no other evidence to the court regarding his place of birth. She also argued that Obama has no legal obligation to produce any such evidence to get on the primary ballot. Judge Masin then took the issue under advisement. Having produced absolutely no evidence of his eligibility for the Office of President, Judge Masin will decide whether as a matter of law Obama has a legal duty to produce such evidence before he may be placed on the New Jersey ballot in light of the pending objection filed against him. If he decides that he does, then the Objection will be successful. If he decides that Obama has no such legal obligation, the Objection would fail on the first issue.

The second issue that Judge Masin addressed was whether the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” includes the requirement that the child be born to two U.S. citizen parents. Judge Masin relied heavily upon the fact that no court in the nation has yet ruled that Mr. Obama had to have two U.S. citizen parents at the time of his birth. I explained that most cases regarding Mr. Obama have been ruled in his favor on procedural grounds rather than on the merits of the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” He relied heavily upon U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and its use of the English common law to define U.S. citizenship. We also discussed the Indiana Ankeny decision and the Georgia ballot access cases. I explained how Wong did not hold that Wong was a “natural born Citizen,” but only a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment which does not define an Article II “natural born Citizen.” I explained that Wong distinguished between a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen,” explaining how Justice Gray used Horace Binney’s distinction between both classes of citizens. I argued that it is error to rely upon Wong as though it held Wong to be a “natural born Citizen.”

I argued that the Founders and Framers did not adopt the English common law to define the term, but rather natural law and the law of nations which under Article III became part of the “Laws of the United States.” I explained that the definition of a “natural born Citizen” comes from natural law and the law of nations as commented upon by Emer de Vattel in Section 212 of The Law of Nations (1758), which definition was recognized as American “common-law” in Minor v. Happersett (1875). I also explained that Wong Kim Ark confirmed Minor’s definition (a child born in a country to citizen parents) and did not change it.

I explained that Congress through the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 abrogated the English common law as the law to define U.S. citizenship and that through those acts it told us that a child born in the United States to alien parents was an alien and not a “citizen of the United States.” I went through the historical evidence, including but not limited to Emer de Vattel and St. George Tucker, which shows that the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” as a child born in the country to citizen parents and not as the English common law defined a “natural born subject.” I explained how Madison wrote to Washington that at the constitutional convention, the delegates did not adopt the English common law for the new republic. I explained that the English common law continued to have effect in the states, even being included in their constitutions and statutes, but not on the federal level where both the Constitution and Acts of Congress did not do the same as the states did. I explained that there is a constitutional distinction between a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen,” and that the two terms cannot be conflated and confounded as per Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, who told us that each clause of the Constitution must be given its own meaning. Judge Masin also reserved decision on the question of whether a “natural born Citizen” must be born to two U.S. citizen parents.

Judge Masin will be contacting counsel today or tomorrow morning either by telephone or email as to his decision, stating “yes” or “no” on both issues. He will then provide his written decision to the Secretary of State no later than Wednesday, April 11, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. Counsel will be able to object to Judge Masin’s initial decision. The Secretary of State a Republican will make the final decision. After her decision, the parties can then appeal to the New Jersey Appellate Division and then to the New Jersey Supreme Court. After that, the parties can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 10, 2011
Update April 9, 2012
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

####

199 Comments

  1. Alcum

    April 13, 2012 at 5:29 am

    Madison held that the child of aliens, if born on US soil, was a natural born citizen. Sorry. He did this on the floor of the First Congress. Case is closed.

    • Tiffany

      April 17, 2012 at 3:09 pm

      Obama was not bornon US soil. His grandmother stated she was present at his birth, she was an eyewitness and his birth was in Kenya.

      • ac322@hotmail.com

        April 17, 2012 at 4:38 pm

        Obama was not born in Kenya, nor did his grandmother state she was present and witnessed his birth.that is merely another birther lie. Youre swallowing a lot of nonsense from birhers. What his Kenyan grandmother actually said is that she was in Kenya when Obama was born in Hawaii. This is actually what is on the tape.

        Hawaii says Obama was born on US soil. Hawaii has the authority to state this and birthers have nothing to refute it. The matter is settled.

        • Deedee

          April 19, 2012 at 7:17 pm

          Obama himself admitted to being born in Kenya. The matter is NOT settled. It's a shame that his followers are so blind to the FACT that he's lied to the American people. He is an illegitimate person in the whitehouse. He needs to be arrested, tried, and convicted for being treasonous in his actions. He purposefully LIED to WE THE PEOPLE in order to get himself onto the ballots in 2008. He now has access to every national secret there is.

          • Alcum

            April 19, 2012 at 9:52 pm

            Obama did not "admit to being born in Kenya." Where do you get this nonsense? Just make it up as you go along? The matter IS settled, beyond dispute. It is birthers who need to be arrested, tried and convicted for treason, ipso facto, since their very claims rely on violating the states' rights and FFAC clauses of the Constitution which REQUIRE that you accept Hawaii's proof.

          • alyiana

            December 13, 2013 at 2:36 am

            yes he did on many occasions .. AND on the degeneres show .. it's on youtube right now.

          • Laci

            April 20, 2012 at 8:58 pm

            There is a U tube of his Grandmother in Kenya stating she was there when the O was born.
            Look it up. Along with this video that all should see and hear of different clips. Wake up. Common sense .. why spend all this time and money . Just show the real birth certificate. It is very simple to do. The real one? Why cause he has something to hide. The truth would stop all this.
            http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t=28

          • Alcum

            April 21, 2012 at 5:11 pm

            You are lying. There is no YouTube of his grandmother stating Obama was born in Kenya. In fact, the entire audio tape is available to you should you wish to stop lying. She stated that SHE was in Kenya when Obama was born IN HAWAII. This has been a well-debunked birther lie and it shows the birthers' lying tactics, because they tried to trick her. Then the part they released cut off before she corrected their mistake. She said he was born in Hawaii, as he was. There is no doubt about this. Hawaii proved it.

      • Lacy

        April 20, 2012 at 9:06 pm

        I saw on U tube where the grandmother stated he was born in Kenya

        all watch video this before is it taken off .

        http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t=28

        • Alcum

          April 21, 2012 at 5:12 pm

          The grandmother said no such thing. She stated that SHE was in Kenya when Obama was born IN HAWAII. You need to listen to the entire interview, which has been released and exposes birthers as purposeful liars.

        • Robert Kriegar

          April 22, 2012 at 7:29 pm

          Who's going to "take it off"? The bogey man?

    • Marylamb72

      May 6, 2012 at 11:58 am

      Why won't Obama provide a REAL BC?

  2. Victoria

    April 13, 2012 at 10:10 am

    Quote your source on Madison & Natural Born.

  3. AlCum

    April 13, 2012 at 5:40 pm

    Page 420 is Madison saying place of birth alone is sufficient and no further inquiry into parentage is necessary. “iIt is what applies in the United States.”

    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&…

    During debate on seating a member.

    It has never been the practice in the US, at any time, to require that a natural born citizen must have two citizen parents. This is simply a fabrication by Obama haters. Not only is there no precedent at all for it, the Supreme Court actually ruled otherwise in the Wong case, which has been cited for more than a century in this roper context. Birth on US soil is alone sufficient, even to alien parents. Our tradition since colonial times.

    • Emmanuel Tabones

      April 13, 2012 at 10:55 pm

      There are a lot of other questions surrounding Obama's citizenship. We know that his mother remarried and moved the family to Indonesia. Did he acquire the Indonesian citizenship of his stepfather? I for one would like to see his school records made available, especially those from Occidental College, but they remained sealed…..

      • AlCum

        April 14, 2012 at 10:10 am

        There is no question about Obama's citizenship. US law is quite clear. It is legally impossible for Obama to lose his US natural born citizenship in Indonesia, no matter what his stepfather does. US law simply does not permit a minor to be stripped of citizenship. All people's school records are "sealed." You're not entitled to see his Occidental records. What on earth do you expect thatmto show that would be relevant? You didn't fall for that hoax April Fools Day story that he applied as a "foreign student," did you? That's an admitted hoax.

        • graigthinks

          April 14, 2012 at 12:00 pm

          admitted by who. Proof.

          • Alcum

            April 14, 2012 at 2:23 pm

            http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/ob

            It was an April Fools Day joke. Associated Press never ran any such story, the Fulbright Scholarships for foreign students are limited to graduate studies while Obama was an undergraduate, Obama wasn't even living in Indonesia from the age of 10 and went to grade school and high school in Honolulu at Punahou School, his attendance at Occidental was under his true name, not "Barry Soetoro" as yearbooks confirm, and the group supposedly behind the information, "Americans for Freedom of Information," did not exist.

            It is a hoax.

      • Paul

        April 20, 2012 at 9:21 pm

        Was Obama’s mother even married to his father? What about the social security? Social Security number (SSN) is being used by President Obama: Jean Paul Ludwig, who was born in France in 1890, emigrated to the United States in 1924, and was assigned SSN 042-68-4425, Obama’s current SSN, in or about March of 1957. Ludwig lived most of his adult life in Connecticut . Because of that, his SSN begins with the digits 042, which are among only a select few reserved for Connecticut residents. Obama has never lived or worked in that state. Therefore, there is no reason on earth for his SSN to start with the digits 042. None whatsoever! Now comes the best part! Ludwig spent the final months of his life in Hawaii , where he died.

        • 4zoltan

          April 21, 2012 at 12:01 am

          Jean Paul Ludwig did not have the same SSN as President Obama. Ludwig's SSN according to the SSA Death Index is 045-26-8722.

          Also the Social Security Administration website has this note:

          "Note: One should not make too much of the "geographical code." It is not meant to be any kind of useable geographical information. The numbering scheme was designed in 1936 (before computers) to make it easier for SSA to store the applications in our files in Baltimore since the files were organized by regions as well as alphabetically. It was really just a bookkeeping device for our own internal use and was never intended to be anything more than that."

        • Alcum

          April 21, 2012 at 5:08 pm

          Why are you lying? Ludwig's Social Security number was not the same as Obama's. This is well established, yet you continue to post this ludicrous claim.

      • alyiana

        December 13, 2013 at 2:40 am

        he's been using OUR money his whole life here in the US .. it's all over the place

    • AlCumOn

      April 14, 2012 at 7:08 am

      What classic liberal claptrap. Take a quote completely out of context for the position you want to support and lob it into the discussion as if it''s definitive proof. Read from about five pages before the quoted bit ('"It is what applies in the United States.") and then read Jackson's angry and spirited rejection of Madison's arguments. Moreover, isn't it interesting that sober and responsible men like Madison and Jackson were debating in a legal forum whether or not Mr. Smith was a US citizen and therefore eligible for office. Where were the sober and responsible men that should have been determining Obama's citizenship status in a legal forum in 2007 and 2008 and where are they now? It is the height of hypocrisy to site this legal proceeding to bolster your case. What you bolster is the undeniable notion that the US Congress should long ago have convened hearings on who the hell Obama actually is and whether or not he's eligible for any US government job (since his Selective Service registration is also forged).

      • AlCum

        April 14, 2012 at 10:14 am

        Jackson's objection is irrelevant since Madison's position was the victorios one. There is si ply no need for any debate obpver Obama's status in light of the clear fact that all historical precedent declares his eligibility. The Madison quote clealy shows the intent and meaning of the Founding Fathers and is therefore completely relevant to quashing the claims of birthers that two citizen parents are needed. No such thing was ever stated by the Founders, with the single exception of determining whether those born OUTSIDE the US could also be natural born citizens.

      • Robert Kriegar

        April 22, 2012 at 7:34 pm

        Liberals, it seems, are far less given to "claptrap" than those of another ilk. It would seem that non-"liberals" are far more in favor of smoke and mirrors, jibes, and asides, than these so-called "liberals" that you refer to.

        I surmise that the easiest way to obtain the title "LIBERAL" are the possession of two basic skills in the space of one mind: Reading, and reading comprehension.

    • bcorp

      April 14, 2012 at 11:38 am

      Personal experience and fact AlCum- My mother and my oldest sister were declared non citizens, this was in the 20th century. I have to documented proof of this in my possession so your information is incorrect. My father was not a US citizen at the time, this law was subsequently changed as he became a citizen and now people assume just because a kid is dropped on USA soil they are citizens and qualify to become POTUS. Either we believe our founders were either wise or they were stupid. Their reasoning behind the "Natural born citizen", child of two USA citizens, was to assure we would have a president who was loyal to the country. Why? Dang, common sense and history of how mixed marriages between world leaders led to offspring that ruled one country, but they were loyal to another. This was not just a wise decision, it is just common sense, a quality of logical thought pattern that for some reason has escaped the liberal mind.

      • Alcum

        April 14, 2012 at 2:26 pm

        You're simply incorrect. The Supreme Court ruled in the Wong case just as Madison the Founder said. If you are born on US soil you are a natural born citizen regardless of your parents. "Further inquiry is not needed." There has never been any requirement that either of your parents be citizens. This is false and simply fabricated by birthers. There is not one single legal authority for the claim.

        • NJ_Tom

          April 15, 2012 at 12:33 pm

          All of the examples you offer pertain to "Citizen," not "Natural Born Citizen." Madison never mentioned the term "Natural Born Citizen," although, of course, Mr. Smith would have qualified under the "Grandfather Clause" which was made part of II.5.2 expressly because the Founders knew that none of them were natural-born citizens.
          In Wong Kim Ark, the court made reference, without modification, to the declaration in Minor vs. Happersett that a Natural Born Citizen is one born in the country of two citizen parents. What they decided was that Wong Kim Ark was a Citizen according to the 14th Amendment – never that he was a Natural Born Citizen.
          Regardless of the foregoing, there is the little matter of Obama's having submitted a forged Selective Service registration (as per the findings of the forensic experts of Sheriff Arpaio's Cold Case Posse.) Someone who did not register for Selective Service is, per US Law, barred from holding ANY elective Federal office. Add to this the fact that Mr. Obama's putative Connecticut-issued Social Security No. fails E-Verify and that he was introduced to the mailman who delivered to Bill Ayers' parents that he was a foreign student whom they were helping with his education (both of which facts are attested to in sworn depositions made under penalty of perjury) and there is more than enough reason to question his right to hold office.

          • NJ_Tom

            April 15, 2012 at 12:38 pm

            Correcting my numbering error – I should have referenced II.5.1

          • NJ_Tom

            April 15, 2012 at 12:40 pm

            Third time's the charm – II.1.5!

          • Alcum

            April 15, 2012 at 5:19 pm

            There is no reason at all to question Obama's eligibility as he is the first and only presidential candidate in US history ever to document it. you have made numerous blatant errors in your analysis. First, a natural born citizen is a citizen. The example Madison is referring to is a natural born citizen, as Smith was born on the soil of the nation. Natural born citizenship is the citizenship that is acquired by birth.

            In Wong Kim Ark, Wong was unequivocally declared to be a natural born citizen. You must read the decision. Also, you should read the dissent. In the dissent. Justice Fuller expressly states that the majority decision declares Wong to be eligible to be president of the United States — a natural born citizen. how is it that the critics of the Wong decision 120 years ago understood what it said but birthers today do not?

            Your reading of Minor v Happersett likewise is explicitly incorrect and you are contradicted by the actual words of the ruling. Minor did not declare a natural born citizen to be one born only of two citizen parents at all, in fact is expressly states it is not deciding any such thing. It says the child of two citizen parents is a natural born citizen. That is not exclusive, it goes on to say others might also be. Your reasoning is fallacious in the same sense that someone would erroneously conclude that since all dogs have four legs, all four legged creatures must be dogs.

            Likewise, your assertion about the Selective Service card being forged is entirely ludicrous and impossible. You seem unaware that the release of the card did not come through the Obama campaign and that Obama had absolutely nothing to do with its release. It was obtained directly from the Selective Service DURING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION under a freedom of Information Act request. It is exactly what is in their files, exactly as the day Obama signed it in 1980. The "findings" of the "Cold Case Posse" are utter nonsense and impossible to be true. Nor does Obama have a "Connecticut" Social Security number. Numbers ceased being issued strictly by state decades ago. It does not "fail E-Verify." That is a lie. He was not introduced as a "foreign student." He could not have been, as he was not a foreign student.

          • louisemowder

            April 22, 2012 at 10:31 am

            Thank you! You have stated the legal history of "natural born citizen" very plainly. Those who wish to argue with you simply hate *Obama,* and would do so on another issue, if this were not available.

          • Richard Coutu

            March 14, 2013 at 1:22 pm

            Alcum, I just want to thankyou for demonstrating how useful a college education can be when it comes to matters of research. You are doing excellently in stating the facts then backing them up with sources which can be verified by skeptics on this page. I personally hate Obama but I always enjoy seeing social conservatives squirm when comfronted with hard facts.

      • 4zoltan

        April 14, 2012 at 8:38 pm

        The understanding of the people alive in 1788 was that the term natural born citizen was derived fromt eh English legal term natural born subject. Some states like Massachusetts used bith terms interchangeable until the 1790s.

        Under English law anyone born in the realm was a natural born subject. Tthis was the Founders understanding of the term. And they applied it to the term natural born citiizen.

        William Rawle (a prominent Philadelphia lawyer and friend of Benjamin Franklin) wrote in 1826,

        "Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."

        The Founders were not stupid if thy had changed the meaning of the term natural born, they would have said so.

        • Alcum

          April 14, 2012 at 8:52 pm

          You are exactly correct. There is absolute zero authority anywhere in US case law, history or tradition that supports the birthers' claims; but there are specific writings such as Rawle's and in fact the US Supreme Court in Wong that state exactly what you said, and what James Madison proclaimed on the floor of Congress

      • usfrog

        April 15, 2012 at 10:56 am

        bcorp you are absolutely right.

        My personal experince also confirms that Natural Born Citizens are the children born on US soil of parents who are US citizens. I am not a Natural Born Citizen but a NATIVE born citizen because I was born on US soil but my father was not a US citizen at the time of my birth. Learned this in Civics class in 8th grade.

        AlCum is simply very confused.

        • Alcum

          April 15, 2012 at 4:08 pm

          bcorp is entirely incorrect, as are you. I am not confused in the least, as I have studied this issue thoroughly, unlike you. Your "experience" is completely irrelevant to the fact that your claim is wrong. your claim is proven wrong by all historical authorities, the US Supreme Court, US citizenship law and every single commentator on the subject from Founder James Madison ti William Rawle to the current Congressional Research Service.

          You cannot cite one single authority for your claim that two citizen parents are required. A "native born citizen" would of necessity be a natural born citizen,, because native born means born on the soil of the nation. Non-native citizens, like John McCain, can also be natural born citizens despite being born outside the US. Only in those cases is the citizenship of the parents relevant.

          You did not learn any such thing in 8th grade civics class unless you went to a school that intentionally taught lies.

    • candcantiques

      April 14, 2012 at 1:14 pm

      I have read page 420 and there is NOTHING about "natural born citizens" There is plenty about citizens but NOTHING about "natural born citizens". BUSTED

      • Alcum

        April 14, 2012 at 2:23 pm

        Natural born citizenship is citizenship at birth. The Supreme Court has said so.

        • Mashman

          April 16, 2012 at 12:35 pm

          WRONG!

          Minor v. Happersett, the court construes the term-of-art 'Natural Born Citizen' to mean born in the country of citizen parents. That ruling is binding precedent, and the reason no court will touch the issue.

          • AlCum

            April 16, 2012 at 4:56 pm

            You are entirely incorrect. Not only was this NOT precedent, it is not even what the court said. You need to actually read the Minor case to discover your error. The Supreme Court has ruled that even the child of two aliens is a natural born citizen when born on US soil. Case is closed on this point.

    • Mashman

      April 16, 2012 at 12:33 pm

      COMPLETELY WRONG!!

      Madison CLEARLY states that the issue is whether or not Mr Smith can take his seat in the house, and therefore the issue is "whether he has been seven years a CITIZEN of the United States, or not".

      It clear to anyone who cares to read it, that they are determining whether or not Mr Smith is a 'Citizen' NOT a 'Natural Born Citizen'!

      • Alcum

        April 16, 2012 at 7:00 pm

        Sorry but you are incorrect. In deciding whether Smith was a citizen at all the finding was that he was in fact a natural born citizen — a US citizen at his birth. While that standard is not necessary to serve in Congress, that standard includes eligibility for congressional service.

        Your problem is that you don't understand that citizenship at birth is what natural born citizenship is. The Supreme Court said so,

    • Bill

      April 17, 2012 at 5:50 am

      Alcum, your a liar. If you don't know The Constitution and The Federal Laws. Just "SHUT-UP" and let those that know deal with this situation.

      • AlCum

        April 17, 2012 at 6:17 am

        Bill, you're quite incorrect and apparently you are also quite ignorant of law and Constitution. I will ask you to go ahead and simply try to specify one thing I have posted that you mistakenly believe is a lie. I know that you won't because if you would bother to do actual research you will find I am absolutely 100% correct. You would not be counted among "those who know" but simply among those who wish they were right but have been proven wrong. I will await your response and then I will show you how you are wrong and I am right. Go.

        • Alex

          April 18, 2012 at 4:16 pm

          I just wanted to say that AlCum's comments are a very inspiring example of how to have a civil discussion in a comment thread. AlCum consistently bases his/her position on facts and evidence–and has encouraged multiple people to go ahead and inspect that evidence for themselves. Everyone else in this discussion seems to be relying on hearsay, personal experiences, or ad hominem attacks…none of which are in any way relevant to the debated topic.

    • Jim N

      April 19, 2012 at 8:55 pm

      I read several pages of the reference provided. No mention at all as to Natural Born Citizen or the definition thereof. It only discusses another member’s status as a citizen. The constitution requires the president to be a natural born citizen as distinguished from merely a citizen. In summary #fail AlCum. Obama is not a natural born citizen and is therefore not eligible to be president.

      • Alcum

        April 19, 2012 at 9:58 pm

        You're wrong. The debate was whether Smith was a citizen at birth. That is what natural born citizenship is. Minor v Happersett states clearly that there are only two kinds of citizens, natural born and naturalized.

    • jms

      April 19, 2012 at 9:11 pm

      The referenced Smith case is a debate on eligibility to the House of Representatives, not eligibility to the Presidency! . The Constitution does not require Congressmen to be Natural Born Citizens, only "seven Years a Citizen of the United States" That's why Madison says that no further inquiry is necessary after determining Smith's citizenship by his place of birth. Madison is not talking about the Natural Born Citizen clause at all — just ordinary citizenship! You don't even know what you're reading!

      • Alcum

        April 19, 2012 at 9:56 pm

        Stop, go back and read again. In the course of deciding the matter, as Madison stated, it was determined that Smith was a natural born citizen regardless of his parents' citizenship. It's irrelevant that he wasn't seeking the presidency, he could have even though his parents weren't citizens. As Madison proclaimed, no further inquiry is necessary. I of course know all that I am talking about. Madison was talking about citizenship at birth, which is natural born citizenship.

    • Bern A Buck Nanke

      April 20, 2012 at 5:35 pm

      Unless u are a historian – case closed ur re-writting of history through your source will NOT WORK for 99% of us.

  4. Big Dawg

    April 13, 2012 at 6:52 pm

    Maxin Waters stated on the floor of congress that we went to Mars. Does that make it true or law in any way? Hell no. Good try Kool-Aid!!

    • AlCum

      April 13, 2012 at 9:32 pm

      Please get real. James Madison wrote the Constitution. He knows what was meant by natural born citizen, and Obama meets it. This is not in dispute. There has never been any shred of evidence for any rule that your parents have to be citizens. It's simply untrue.

      • Susan Lambeau

        April 14, 2012 at 8:45 am

        Who says that Obama was born in the U.S. of A.

        • AlCum

          April 14, 2012 at 10:15 am

          Hawaii.

          • graigthinks

            April 14, 2012 at 12:03 pm

            Proof.

          • Alcum

            April 14, 2012 at 2:27 pm

          • Alcum

            April 14, 2012 at 2:36 pm

            The complete lack of any bit of evidence for any millions spent on any of this.

          • TheTruthNeverLies

            April 18, 2012 at 11:14 am

            It's an admitted fact and reality that he HAS spent millions covering up his records.. There's prima facie evidence of it.. His own lawyers are admitting that his "proof" isn't proof of ANYTHING.. Still no college transcripts etc etc.. all of these things did not just "disappear themselves". Obama has done everything in his power to hide his past and true identity and that should be obvious to ANYONE! Not to mention, after having run on a campaign of increased governmental transparency and "no more secrets.. no more secrets" his first act as "president", was to make all his records.. SECRET. To ignore this utter hypocrisy and suspect behavior and continue on ignoring the obvious is just insane and total prima facie proof of a person's lack of objectivity due to their having been blinded by bias and personal prejudice of one form or another.

          • Alcum

            April 18, 2012 at 7:28 pm

            No such thing is the case. Show us a cite where Obama "admitted: he spent millions covering up his records. You cannot, because there is no such evidence. It's false. It's utter nonsense on its face, since his records are out there. He RELEASED his birth certificate, both short and long form — something no other presidential candidate in history EVER did. How do you manage to claim he "spent millions" hiding something he put on the World Wide Web? That's not a very effective hiding place.

            Here's the origin of the lie: His campaign's legal expenses to the firm Perkins Coie was somewhere north of $2 million. Birthers like to claim that means ALL THOSE FEES went to defending birther cases — utter nonsense since at the time the short form already was online, plus most birther cases didn't even involve Obama but various state elections officials. The big Keyes case in California involving Obama was defended PRO BONO so it cost nothing. The fees to the law firm represented the normal legal costs of a national presidential campaign.

            And here's more to show how ridiculous the claim is: The legal fees paid out by the McCain-Palin campaign were MORE than the Obama-Biden campaign. That puts the lie to your claims.

            Finally, his first act as president was NOT to make all his records secret. He did no such thing. The Executive Order to which you refer is a perfunctory one signed by all incoming presidents regarding hadnling of executive branch records of the POTUS and the Vice President. Now HERE is the ultimate irony of your lie: Obama's order LOOSENED UP the prior restrictions on presidential records that Bush had imposed on HIS first day in office protecting MORE of the records of Bush and Cheney. Obama's order made MORE available, not less.

            Try looking this up, you will verify I am correct. You are the one with the blind bias and prejudice.

      • TruthSetsUFree

        April 14, 2012 at 10:17 am

        You moron. That excerpt says nothing about NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP. It only discusses general citizenship and whether or not that citizenship was interrupted at any time. Nice try, but your smokescreen fails.

        • AlCum

          April 14, 2012 at 10:25 am

          Citizenship at birth is natural born citizenship. The Supreme Court has stated there are only two kinds — natural born and naturalized, no other. A naturalized citizen can be elected to Congress but only someone born with US citizenship, such as Obama, can be president. Natural born citizenship cannot be "interrupted at any time." That's not even a coherent legal concept. And please leave your personal insults at the door.

          • candcantiques

            April 14, 2012 at 1:18 pm

            The SCOTUS never said any such thing. Natural born is a type of citizen. Naturalized is a WAY to become a citizen not a type of citizen. You are either a citizen or a natural born citizen. Thats it period.

          • Alcum

            April 14, 2012 at 2:11 pm

            You're entirely wrong and the Supreme Court has ruled on this. There is no such distinction as "citizen" and "natural born citizen." The ONLY distinction is between "naturalized" and "natural born" citizen." A natural born citizen is a citizen, and a naturalized citizen is a citizen. Either type can be a member of Congress, but only a natural born citizen — one who is a citizen at birth like Obama — can be a president.

            The Supreme Court said so in Minor v Happersett.

  5. Big Dawg

    April 13, 2012 at 6:58 pm

    The Supreme Court as it is should be impeached but for one. Obama, A PRIVATE CITIZEN, 3 days before the inaugeration, met with 8 members of the supreme court. A Quorum, with NO DOCUMENTATION OR NOTES of the meeting. Completely violating the law and rules. Ever wonder what happened behind those closed doors. Scalia has spoken out about this VIOLATION of LAW in many instances. An example of a Banana Republic not the Rule of Law!

    • nobamanreno

      April 13, 2012 at 10:20 pm

      Obama also met with the Hawaiian officials during his '08 campaign. Seems Hawaii didn't have "proper" identification to allow him on his "home" ballot. At this time McCain was being grilled about whether he was "A Natural Born Citizen" by the Congress.

      How many millions have been spent to suppress ALL of Obama's history?

      • AlCum

        April 14, 2012 at 10:16 am

        None.

  6. nobamanreno

    April 13, 2012 at 10:58 pm

    @AlCum, "Madison held that the child of aliens, if born on US soil, was a natural born citizen. Sorry. He did this on the floor of the First Congress. Case is closed. "
    The case you refer to is concerning qualifications for office in So Carolina.

    The qualifications for President provide more stringent regulations. The requirement of
    Natural Born Citizen is to protect the nation from a person who would be elected and hold dual
    citizenship. Obama has allegiance, by birth, to a Father who was a British Citizen (Kenyen territory) and
    a Step-Father who adopted him in Indonesia. Indonesia required that in order to adopt, the child must become
    an Indonesian citizen. That in itself is enough to disqualify Obama. To date, there is no documentation
    proving Obama renounced his Indonesian citizenship.

    Back to your reference, begin on page 414, Mr. Smith's citizenship is in question regarding his qualification to serve South Carolina, not serve as President of the United States.

    • AlCum

      April 14, 2012 at 10:19 am

      The only more stringent regulation to be president is that you must be a natural born citizen. A naturalized citizen can be a member of Congress. Smith was not claiming to be naturalized but natural born. Citizenship at birth is natural born citizenship. Madison said no citizen parents are required for is if gou are born on US soil. He wrote the Constitution. He knows it better than any birthers. Case is closed on this.

    • TruthSetsUFree

      April 14, 2012 at 10:19 am

      You nailed it nobamanreno

    • Robert Kriegar

      April 22, 2012 at 4:32 pm

      Everyone and their mother know quite well that if you are born on American soil, you are an American citizen. There is no doubt in that.

      Even further so, his mother is an American citizen, born on American soil-so, end of argument.

  7. Keith Milich

    April 14, 2012 at 12:08 pm

    Alcum said it all when he tells us in one word that Obama is a U.S. citizen just because of his Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth. His "proof" is a forged document that is not a Birth Certificate. It comes from Hawaiian officials. Hawaii is what… about 110% Democrat? I add the extra 10% because of the number of dead Democrats who continue to vote after death. We have no word or records from the Obstretician who delivered Obama, and he and his family can't even be consistant on what Hawaiian Hospital he was born in. We cannot see his educational records because the "most transparent administration in history" continues to hide the truth. Nice try Alcum.

    • Alcum

      April 14, 2012 at 2:36 pm

      It is a complete legal impossibility for the birth certificate to be a forgery. The US Constitution requires its acceptance as an official state action and Hawaii has publicly authenticated it. The case is settled. In fact, Obama is the only presidential candidate in US history ever to document his natural born citizenship by releasing his birth certificate — no other candidate ever had done so. By the way the governor of Hawaii in 2008 was a Republican and she affirmed Obama's natural born citizenship. you must certainly do have the word and records from the obstetrician, it's on the birth certificate with his signature.

      • nobamanreno

        April 14, 2012 at 9:59 pm

        Obama's sister, who WAS born in Indonesia, also has a Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii.

        • Alcum

          April 14, 2012 at 10:10 pm

          That is in fact a lie. Maya Soetoro does not have a Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii. Why are you making up falsehoods?

          • nobamanreno

            April 24, 2012 at 11:48 am

            prove it~

          • Alcum

            April 24, 2012 at 8:31 pm

            There is none. Case closed. Your turn!

          • Volc

            April 25, 2012 at 4:25 am

            …How can you prove something DOESN'T exist? That's not how it works. You prove your claim is legitimate, don't just make it without any evidence and then expect the rest of the world to take it seriously and prove a lack of something. Prove it exists first, then we'll talk.

          • Alcum

            April 25, 2012 at 5:01 am

            It doesn't exist and he knows it.

          • Rick Coutu

            March 14, 2013 at 2:00 pm

            Alcum you have the patience of a saint! You let childish insults roll off your back and respectfully answer every claim regardless of how ridiculous it is with facts. lol you must be a middle school educator…I would have lost my temper after the first time someone asked me to disprove something in which there was no evidence to begin with. Your patience and thoughtful comments are appreciated. Not everybody who joined the tea party is a nut like some posting here. These people were silent under Bush while a very select few of us have been consistent throughout administrations on matters of foreign policy and and economics. Under Bush these social conservatives called us america haters and isolationists and now that Obama is in office they call us patriots. They are nothing but idiots and sheep, pay them no mind and continue doing what you are doing.

      • Think about it

        June 22, 2012 at 4:49 pm

        No other President grew up in another country. We knew who they where, neighbors remembered them, we could all see high school year book pictures, etc. what do we know about this one? He grew up in a foreign country, he took money as a foreign exchange student to attend college in Cal., he has stated he was born in Kenya when it suited him. He has hidden all his school transcripts. What more do you need to have questions about should the Constitution of the United States of America be upheld? It is the responsibly, No the Duty of all USA citizens to make sure they Constitution is upheld.

        • AlCum

          June 22, 2012 at 6:32 pm

          Do you realize that none of what you say is actually true?

          Obama grew up in the US except for four years when he was 6 to 10. His picture is in an American high school yearbook. He did not take money as a foreign exchange student, he was from Hawaii. Neighbors and friends remember and talk about him. We know more about Obama than most other presidential candidates. He has not hidden his school transcripts at all. They are private for all people by law without Obama doing a thing. The Constition is upheld even more by Obama because he's he first presidential candidate in US history to prove his natural born citizenship through releasing his actual bir certificate.

    • 4zoltan

      April 14, 2012 at 5:55 pm

      Governor Lingle who said Obama was born there is a Republican.

      The Director of Health who made two statements and gave a press interview saying that Obama was bornin Honolulu was Also a Republican.

      • nobamanreno

        April 14, 2012 at 10:58 pm

        Where's the youtube of the statements or the transcript?

        Here is an article that has been buried. "Tim Adams, a former senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu in 2008, has maintained that there is no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate on file with the Hawaii Department of Health and that neither Honolulu hospital – Queens Medical Center or Kapiolani Medical Center – has any record that Obama was born there." http://www.wnd.com/2010/06/165041/
        There are so many that refute what these corrupt Governor's are saying. Either they were paid off or they
        were threatened. Fact is, all Obama need do is open his records….all of them. He is NOT who you believe he is…

        • Alcum

          April 14, 2012 at 11:05 pm

          They're online.

          Meanwhile. the Tim Adams claims have been thoroughly disproven. First, he was a temp employee in the elections division for four months, and he had no access to any birth records. His claim that Hawaii has no long form birth certificate for Obama is false on its face by the release by Hawaii of the long form birth certificate. Adams is a proven liar. Nothing refutes what the governor said, only liars with disproven claims. Obama does not need to open any other document at all, and no other president ever has done as much disclosure as Obama has. This case is closed.

          • Think about it

            June 22, 2012 at 4:54 pm

            What disclosure has he done? His school records are sealed he grew up in another country he has said he was born in Kenya in the past and now you say he has disclosed more than any other president. I can think of no other president that has had his school records closed.

          • AlCum

            June 22, 2012 at 6:35 pm

            More than your Messiah Romney.

            Hawaii is not a foerppreign country. Obama grew up in Hawaii except for four years in Indonesia. EVERYBODY'S school records are sealed. Obama did not seal them.

            He never said he was born in Kenya.

            If you can't think of any other president whose school records are sealed, then you don't know any other presidents because ALL of them have sealed school records just like every other American.

            Stop making things up.

        • 4zoltan

          April 15, 2012 at 8:23 am

          DOH Statement 10/31/2008 http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf

          DOH Statement 07/27/2009 http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf

          Governor Lingle statement May, 2010 http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/0

          Former Director of DOH Fukino April 11, 2011 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42519951/ns/politics-

          Former Director of DOH Fukino April 25, 2011 http://articles.cnn.com/2011-04-25/politics/birth

          "Takahashi explained that the "senior elections clerk" job that Adams held was a low-level data entry position dealing with voter registration and absentee ballots — Adams was one of dozens of temporary employees who staffed the pre-election rush. And he contradicted Adams's claims that Obama's lack of a birth certificate was an "open secret" or that voters contacted the office to ask about it."
          http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/0

          • nobamanreno

            April 15, 2012 at 10:25 am

            Adams signed an affidavit swearing what he knew was true. In the affidavit Adams swears, “During the course of my employment, I came to understand that for political reasons, various officials in the government of Hawaii, including then-Governor Linda Lingle and various officials of the Hawaii Department of Health, including Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the director of the Hawaii Department of Health, were making representations that Senator Obama was born in Hawaii, even though no government official in Hawaii could find a long-form birth certificate for Senator Obama that had been issued by a Hawaii hospital at the time of his birth.”

            Adams further swears his supervisors told him to quit asking about Obama’s birth records.

            “During the course of my employment,” Adams states in the affidavit, “I was told by senior officers in the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division to stop inquiring about Senator Obama’s Hawaii birth records, even though it was common knowledge among my fellow employees that no Hawaii long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Senator Obama.”

            “I can go get my long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate,” Adams told WND. “And so I don’t understand, this whole controversy should have been settled three or four years ago in about five minutes.” http://www.wnd.com/2011/01/254401/ . He also says that he was threatened "Despite the fact major newspapers and broadcast networks have avoided interviewing Adams or probing his allegations, the former official who supervised about 50 people in Honolulu said he seriously considered leaving the United States because of the disruption to his life and threats against him after going public with his claims." http://www.wnd.com/2011/04/283865/. The fact is, Obama has sealed his records. Obama refuses to the vetting process…..He is not who you think he is…

          • 4zoltan

            April 15, 2012 at 12:26 pm

            Does Adams name this supervisor?

          • 4zoltan

            April 15, 2012 at 1:34 pm

            In his affidavit he says:

            “I was employed at the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division from May 2008 through September 2008.”

            In his inteview on June 10th 2010, he says, "I was there from the start of the election cycle when they hired us in the spring until August of that year."

            On his MySpace page he says on August 17th, 2008,

            "Other events; I've been employed by the City of Honolulu, managing an office for the upcoming national and state elections, but I'm on leave til August 21st and I don't think I'll be going back."

          • 4zoltan

            April 15, 2012 at 2:29 pm

            Also from his MySpace page for April 16, 2008:

            "I will be using some of my insider information on my favorite Senator, Fmr Indiana Governor Evan Bayh, the man whose presidential run I derailed last year"

            He derailed? Delusions of Grandeur?

          • Alcum

            April 15, 2012 at 4:02 pm

            Adams, of course, is a proven liar. His foundational claim, that Hawaii has no long form birth certificate for Obama, is prima facie false, obviously since the state has disclosed it.. Obama is most certainly who we know he is, and so are you. We know who and what you are.

            Adams was a four-month temp employee doing data entry. He had no access to any birth records, which were not available to him. He is a liar.

      • nobamanreno

        April 24, 2012 at 11:48 am

        Like, Republicans don't lie? give me a break~

        • Alcum

          April 24, 2012 at 8:32 pm

          The US Constitution is quite clear on this matter. Why do you hate America?

  8. Lupin

    April 15, 2012 at 12:07 am

    I am a French attorney with over 25 years experience, including editing Emerich de Vattel's original texts in English translation for publication. I have no informed opinion as to whether Mr Obama meets your constitutional requirements or not. However I can say without doubt or ambiguity that Mr Apuzzo's analysis of what Vattel wrote is entirely wrong and misconstrued. Assuming for argument's sake that one were to equate Vattel's definitions of indigenes with that of your term "natural-born citizen" (which is highly debatable), Mr Obama would meet Vattel's definition as there is no such thing as a two-parents requirement in Vattel (only the use of a group plural in one sentence taken out of context) and further parents actually means blood relatives, not just mother/father.

    • AlCum

      April 15, 2012 at 8:47 am

      Thank you! You have confirmed what I have been saying for four years. The original French text of Vattel does not say "natural born citizens" and the mistranslation into English came well AFTER the phrase was used in the Constitution. It simply meant what it always meant, born on the nation's soil regardless of parents. This is not in dispute.

      • TheTruthHurts

        April 18, 2012 at 11:19 am

        It's actually completely irrelevant.. Obama had to surrender and abandon his U.S. Citizenship in order to become an Indonesian Citizen. He never repatriated and he even went to college AS A LEGAL ADULT as a foreign student, thereby reconfirming his abandonment of his status as a U.S. Citizen.. So the "natural born" aspect is moot.. He's legally a foreigner.. Before your overt bias and personal prejudice leads you to do what you want to do and simply dismiss these facts.. Obama's secret service name is "Renegade" which is defined as someone who "ABANDONS AND BETRAYS THEIR COUNTRY". If you think that's just all just a "coincidence" you have your head so far up your ass that's there's not a proctologist on this planet that can help you.. =/

        • 4zoltan

          April 18, 2012 at 5:09 pm

          President Obama lived in Indonesia from about the age of 6 to the age of 10. The Supreme Court ruled in the Perkins v. Elg case that a minor child can not give up their citizenship and that nothing the parents do can give it up for them. He attended elementary and hifgh school in Hawaii.

        • Alcum

          April 18, 2012 at 7:15 pm

          You are entirely incorrect from a factual and legal basis. Allow me to educate you. Under US law it is a complete impossibility for Obama to lose his US natural born circumstances under any circumstances. For any minor, it is not legally possible for citizenship to be surrendered or abandoned, The child cannot legally do it, nor can either parent legally renounce their child's citizenship.

          Basically, you simply fabricated your response without having any legal basis. He did not need any "repatriation" nor did he attend any college as any "foreign student." This is, bluntly, a lie. Did you know it was a lie or were you fooled?

  9. Jay

    April 15, 2012 at 8:15 am

    It should be of no concern as the AMERICAN PEOPLE come November will vote him out with or without his name on the ballot……

    • AlCum

      April 15, 2012 at 8:57 am

      He will be reelected by an even bigger landslide than 2008 because the AMERICAN PEOPLE remember well that it was Republicans and their policies that caused this economic disaster AND that they've continued to fight recovery efforts the entire time. Romney promises only a return to the same practices that created the collapse. No way.

    • Bill

      April 17, 2012 at 5:58 am

      It concerns me greatly Jay. If Obama which we all know is nothing but a fraud and liar is allowed to serve out his time, then we the American Tax Payers will be paying this four flushing phony a retirement check for the rest of his life. Retiremnt as a Senator and another check as President.

      • AlCum

        April 17, 2012 at 6:20 am

        The lion's share of all of the national debt and deficits are the responsibility of Republicans and their policies of not funding wasr and tax cuts. This is plain and simple fact. Obama and the Democrats are slowly eating into the massive GOP debt and deficits. I know you desperately want to believe otherwise and you will convince yourself I am wrong but that's the way it is.

        • ClinicalThinker

          April 17, 2012 at 2:14 pm

          As an independent I recall the GOP and a Democratic Congress doing its share to run up the debt.
          I more clearly recall Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress making it FAR WORSE at breakneck speed.

          Personally I would and will vote for Micky Mouse over Barack Obama.
          Thank heaven not all of us live in a state of conned delusion.
          We do not have to convince those like you we simply have to outnumber you.
          So far so good.

          Is Obama natural born?
          Not according to John Bingham who clearly states in Congress 1866 "born on US soil of CITIZEN PARENTS". Just to make it clear PARENTS was always plural according to my education.

          So case not so closed dear :)

          • AlCum

            April 17, 2012 at 4:41 pm

            The case most certainly is closed, sport. Bingham's statement is inclusive and not exclusive. The Supreme Court has ruled on this and the Founders themselves so stated, even the child of alien parents is a natural born citizen if born on US soil. Centuries of tradition and practice say so. Sorry. You're wrong.

            The debt and deficits are mostly due to GOP policies put into law that drain the budget, mostly tax cuts for the rich, unfunded Medicare changes and two wars on credit cards.

          • Richard Coutu

            March 14, 2013 at 2:18 pm

            I think you just replied to this woman!– -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3fsDKDgqFc not positive but I think it may be! hhahah

  10. AlCum

    April 15, 2012 at 9:04 am

    Apuzzo is also entirely incorrect in his reading of Minor v Happersett. That case does not support birther claims but contradicts them. The Supreme Court explicitly states in the very ruling that it is NOT defining who is a natural born citizen and that many authorities hold that the child of aliens may well be. The Wong case came later and did settle it. The matter is closed.

  11. DiogenesLamp

    April 15, 2012 at 10:58 am

    It is not the matter which is closed, but the minds who refuse to grasp the obvious. Your resort to Madison's defense of Mr. Smith is an example of such a thing. Madison's point was that Mr. Smith was a citizen of South Carolina when the State became part of the Nation, and therefore Mr. Smith became a part of the nation at that same time.

    The creation of the New Federal system under the US Constitution in 1787 changed all that. Among the things thrown out were the English notions of subjectship, to be replaced with "citizen". As a relic of a Monarchical based legal system, the feudal doctrine of jus soli was dispensed with, and replaced by the dual jus soli jus sanguinus system.

    The most obvious conflict with your notion that the Madison affair settles the issue is the fact that the founders saw the need to add an exception for themselves in Article II. If just being born in a State was enough to make you a "natural born citizen", why did they add the grandfather clause?

    • 4zoltan

      April 15, 2012 at 1:38 pm

      It could be argued that the exception was added for people like James Wilson (born in Scotland) and Alexander Hamilton (born in Nevis).

      Just weeks before the grandfather clause was added to the Constitution, there suggestions to make it a requirement that senators be "native born" and to increase the residency requirement to 14 years.

      James Wilson gave a speech in which he said it was unfair that people like him, who were helping to write the Constitution would be prohibited by it from holding certain public office.

      As Justice Story in discussing the grandfather clause explained:

      "This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country."

    • Alcum

      April 15, 2012 at 4:26 pm

      There is no conflict with my notion at all, the problem is with your limited understanding of the case. The grandfather clause was added, simply, because not everyone who was a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution was a natural born citizen of the United States — which had not yet been formed. Under it, whoever became a citizen of the US was eligible to be president.

      Now, to your other error, what Madison spoke to was larger than Smith. He noted that, as Rawle correctly stated 35 years later, that citizenship at birth — which is what natural born citizenship has always meant — is extended to all those born on the soil of the nation, regardless of parents except for foreign diplomats on post. This is not even remotely open to dispute.

      Finally, you committed an error in your claim that the Constitution changed jus soli to jus sanguinis. It did not such thing, and you are incapable of naming a single authority backing your claim. Replacing "subject" with "citizen" did nothing at all to change soil to blood. That's a ludicrous assertion and a complete fabrication. If jus sanguinis had come in the door, the Naturalization Act of 1790 would not have been necessary.

  12. DiogenesLamp

    April 15, 2012 at 11:04 am

    Here is a link to someone purported to be James Madison explaining that being born in a state is not enough to secure Federal Citizenship.

    The Newspaper is from 1810.
    http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/201

    • Alcum

      April 15, 2012 at 4:38 pm

      The link does not mention Madison. Sorry. We know that Madison disagreed with this claim in any case, as he stated on the Floor of the First Session of the First Congress, and as common law held at the time. The article, therefore, is merely incorrect. Read William Rawle's article.

    • 4zoltan

      April 15, 2012 at 5:07 pm

      Diogenes

      There are four opinions listed in the article.

      1) The United States Minister to London who issued Mr. McClure a passport based on him being a "native citizen"

      2) The United States Minister to France who refused to help the imprisoned McClure until he provided proof of citizenship

      3) Mr. Rodman, an American who tried to help McClure and said he was a citizen by his birth in Charleston.

      4) Publius who may or may not be President Madison and who says that birth in the United States waas not enough to give McClure citizenship.

      So you got two opinions for and two against citiizenship at birth.

  13. DiogenesLamp

    April 15, 2012 at 11:06 am

    <img src=http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/alex-her-clip2.jpg?w=450&h=313>

    • Alcum

      April 15, 2012 at 4:40 pm

      This has been proven to be incorrect. Anybody can say anything in a newspaper article. This does not make the information correct. The Supreme Court has ruled on this.

  14. nobamanreno

    April 15, 2012 at 10:31 pm

    Here's a new one~ http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/top-gop-choice-for-vp-

    This all needs to be resolved.

    • 4zoltan

      April 15, 2012 at 11:33 pm

      It was resolved back in 1787.

      The term "natural born Citizen" was derived from the English legal term "natural born subject". In English law anyone born in the realm was a natural born subject. This is the law that the Founders and Framers grow up with. Many of the Founders and Framers were lawyers trained in English law. The State of Massachusetts used both terms NBC and NBS interchangeably from the 1780s to the 1790s. Nowhere do the Framers tell us that they were changing the meaning of the term 'natural born".

      Wiliam Rawle a prominent Philadelphia lawyer (he founded Rawle and Henderson the oldest continous law firm in the US) describes the meaning of the term natural born:

      “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. “ 1826, A View of the Constitution of the United States

      So both Senator Rubio and Governor Jindal are eligible to be President.

    • 4zoltan

      April 15, 2012 at 11:45 pm

      BTW, some people are saying that Rick Santorum may not be eligible because he won't release his father's immigration papers.

      This is nonsense. Rick Santorum was born in the US, he is a natural born citizen.

    • Alcum

      April 16, 2012 at 5:08 am

      Rubio is eligible, but cannot be elected because he espouses the very same GOP policies that caused the nation's economy to collapse under Bush.

  15. Ash

    April 16, 2012 at 8:32 am

    interesting how you comment on an article where obama’s attorney says that his birth certificate was a forgery n you continue to say that it was real.

    • 4zoltan

      April 17, 2012 at 10:58 am

      I've listened to the three hours of video and nowhere does she say it is a forgery.

      Can you provide a link or time stamp to her actual words?

    • AlCum

      April 17, 2012 at 4:45 pm

      Obama's attorney never said any such thing. This is yet another figment of birthers' imagination. See if you can produce the clip of her saying anything remotely like that. You can't and you won't.

    • Alcum

      April 17, 2012 at 5:11 am

      You must have missed the news but this is a hoax. This supposed "Kenyan" birth certificate was digitally forged by an admitted hoaxster to put one over on birthers. It's actually an Australian birth certificate of someone else modified to fool you, and it obviously did fool you.

      The fact is, there is not a single shred of evidence supporting one single birther claim. All birther claims have been debunked.
      http://www.calldrmatt.com/Myth_Busting_106-Barack

      Birthers truly have nothing to go on.

  16. Tiffany

    April 17, 2012 at 3:16 pm

    Obama can be impeached on grounds of fraud! He fraudently supplied a fake birth certificate with the intention of deceiving the American citizens. He was fully aware as he went public that he supplied the certificate even though someon else created it. Another thing I heard in this article was his attorney state the State of New Jersey did not require proof of his birth in order to be on the ballot. Every state needs to enact laws immediately requiring any person running for the Presidency and Vice Presidency to provide verifiable proof of birth, ie a long form birth certificate (note a certificate of live birth). The fact all these years have gone by an this no legislation has been enacted concerning this issue says alot.

    • AlCum

      April 17, 2012 at 4:34 pm

      no, Tiffany, Obama cannot be impeached on any of the phony claims of birhers. He has not committed fraud, his birth certificate is genuine and proven so by the state that issued it.

      No state requires any presidential candidate to submit any proof of birth to be on their ballot, and none has. Romney for instance has not released his birth certificate. Obama remains the first and only presidential candidate in US history to release his birth certificate to the general public.

      Your suggestion that every state require a ling form birth certificate to be on the ballot would have blocked John McCain, since his Panamanian birth certificate cannot prove natural born citizenship, Dwight Eisenhower had no birth certificate at all, and one was created for him whence ran. Your suggestion has many problems.

      • HAH

        April 21, 2012 at 10:02 am

        Obama's birth certificate genuine? Then why would Obama's lawyer in the NJ lawsuit, Alexandra Hill, state that his birth certificate has indeed been forged? If it is genuine, and Hill would be in no danger of perjury to state that it is genuine, how would it help her case to state that it is a forgery?

        You really like Kool-Aid, don't you?

        • Alcum

          April 21, 2012 at 4:56 pm

          You're very confused. Let me help you. You're a victim of Obama Derangement Syndrome, wherein you gullibly swallow the flimsiest hokum as long as it's anti-Obama. None of it is actually true, but this doesn't stop you from guzzling the Kool Aid.

          Now, let me clue you in: The lawyer did NOT say "his birth certificate has indeed been forged." She simply said no such thing nor anything remotely like that. This was simply a birther lie. Other birthers, who are not quite as deranged as you, have even debunked this lest people completely dismiss all borthers — as they should.

          The birth certificate has been proven, beyond all dispute, to be genuine. Obama in fact is the first and only president in American history to publicly release his birth certifiate to document his eligibility.

          • Robert Kriegar

            April 22, 2012 at 7:15 pm

            Alcum-I think that in this instance, you misunderstand.

            The misunderstanding involved in this particular point in the argument centers around the agreed stipulation that the "internet image" of the birth certificate is a forgery (and the second stipulation was that no other proof had been proffered).

            Thusly, to explain to HAH, the stipulation of forgery says:

            1. We're not going to argue the point (because)
            A. It is not legally necessary for us to do so in the state of New Jersey as a matter of law, and
            B. It is an "image", and that THIS IMAGE has been, may have been, or could have been manipulated.

            2. In this court case, and in this location, no other "proof" of birth has been proffered.

            In neither event does it say that any ACTUAL birth document is either a fraud, or a forgery- as there was NO DOCUMENT.

  17. Sam Sewell

    April 17, 2012 at 6:43 pm

    Full News Release and background research for journalists here: http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2012/04/obama-i

    Are you interested in being a plaintiff? We have developed a "Do It Yourself Ballot Challenge Kit" that is useable in many states and is available at: http://doityourselfballotchallenge.org/

    • 4zoltan

      April 17, 2012 at 7:39 pm

      By now it should be pretty obvious that the ballot challenge route has been an abject failure. If anything, it has created a body of case law that declares President Obama a natural born citizen.

      These case will be used after the general election to shutdown any general election ballot challenges.

      Good work.

      • Robert Kriegar

        April 22, 2012 at 7:18 pm

        That particular point, by definition, is actually sad.

      • MichaelN

        February 22, 2013 at 6:03 pm

        There is NO WAY the Framers, Blackstone, Justice Swift, Horace Gray, Black's Legal Dictionary, or anyone else could have found in 17th century English common law, that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject, then adopted such an absurd notion, because it's NOT THERE at all, in fact the opposite is to be found.

        Lord Coke – Calvin's case….

        ""There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.
        1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.
        2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion.
        And 3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered"

        "it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born"

        So IF the Framers had observed the English common law principles to determine a "natural born Citizen (as is your absurd contention), then for a native-born child to be an Article II "natural born Citizen", the child would have to be born under the allegiance of a US citizen.

        I left this response for you at http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?postID=834844099

        @ 4zoltan

        As you can see, Justice Swift rejected English common law.

        You can also see that Swift's notion that native-birth sufficed to have one "considered as" a STATE citizen, was NOT to be found in English common law.

        Justice Swift could not possibly have got his definition of a "natural born citizen" from the English common law, because it was English common law's ruling that native-birth did NOT SUFFICE to make a natural born subject, and besides that, Justice Swift was a radical activist for the cause of establishing American common law and REJECTION of English common law.

        Your assertion that Swift found his construct of "natural born citizen" in English common law, has bitten you on the arse……… it's absurd where Swift doesn't agree with English common law.

        It doesn't get any clearer than this …………..

        Coke: "it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born"

        US Translation: native-birth does NOT suffice to make a natural born Citizen.

        But you ran away.

        So what have you to say now?

    • Alcum

      April 18, 2012 at 7:32 pm

      Why are you encouraging people to pursue a blatantly false claim? Obama has proven he is a natural born citizen — actually, Hawaii proved it — and no other president in history ever ha done so. Why do you hate America?

      • alyiana

        December 13, 2013 at 3:42 am

        he is not a natural born citizen.. matter of fact he has no claim here in the US at all .. he has not even a real birth certificate here and there is proof out there of this .. there is proof he is from kenya.. on youtube and his own memoirs as well. he's delusionally set up to be communist to hurt us .. he's already started this shit.. look to your congressman/woman, senator for truth about his communist powers .. your own people should know the truth about obama .. and you CANNOT prove to me anything because i watch, i listen, i read everything that comes through my email and other places i do research for and about obama.. it's out there .. you just have to know where to look.. i gave obama 5 years to prove himself .. he hasn't done it yet.. i'm not a racist .. i am anti-obama because i know he is a fraud hence why i didn't vote for him because i knew the truth on his campaign trail .. i listened to every debate .. i listened to what he particularly had to say and he lied even than .. i've got a book in front of me that shows me proof of more of his lies .. it's documented proof from around the world about obama … he is not my president .. never was .. never will be .. what he is trying to do is make the US .. USSR under communist rule and thumb.. congress is not helping matters any.. they fucking scared of him .. because they know they can be murdered next like everyone else in his path has been … but congress can only do so much …. it will take the people of the nation to fully wake up and see what is actually happening .. alcum .. i'll read what you have to say but you CANNOT lie to me .. i do not believe in anything you have to say because you are with that communist man .. he's a sunni muslim out to destroy us and yes he's proven to many he's a muslim .. there's documented proof of that too if you know where to look… so don't start in on me about obama this and obama that.. it's all lies coming out your mouth because you put him in office.. i didn't … i knew about his lies .. i saw through him even than .. obama is nothing but a fraud.. his wife is commie conspirator … and prove to me those kids were his? prove to me she gave birth to them? he's a gay man that became bisexual through marriage.. there's documented proof of this too. just do your research .. he has yet to PROVE to me or any court that he's truly a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN… the Constitution is the law of the land .. what he has SHOWN are all fakes .. hence why everyone that proved him to be "true" are all dying.. anyone in his life that can talk is dying except one woman .. and she proved what i thought to be true and correct .. she was his own classmate back in hawaii .. all he has proven is that he has lived in hawaii, chicago, indonesia, etc.. open your eyes and start the research on your own .. look to your own heart, mind, body, and soul.. don't look to obama to think.. don't look at birthers to think.. don't look at anyone but yourself and your research .. i've done a lot of research these past 5 years on obama .. i know what's true and what's a lie .. and what you spew out on this form is nothing but lies about obama that most of the nation has woken up and found out on their own .. the true matter about obama .. i'm sorry you're not one of those people that woke.. i was the one that never slept .. btw the woman that "proved" that fake was "true" is now dead.. what does that tell you? she died in a plane crash and she was the only one that died on that crash .. of 9 people including the pilot .. so now what?

  18. Forrest Strickler

    April 19, 2012 at 9:28 am

    obama attorney admits in court that the birth certificate is a fake. What more proof do we need. Take him off the ballott in all states. Forrest Strickler

    • nobamanreno

      April 22, 2012 at 10:55 pm

      yes

    • Alcum

      April 23, 2012 at 5:17 am

      The attorney did no such thing. You are making this up. Why do you expect the American people to act on your delusion? We reject you. Obama saved this nation from falling into the Second Great Republican Depression. We are not going back to Romney and the same GOP policies that decimated the middle class and destroyed the US economy.

      • jaby

        April 25, 2012 at 2:16 pm

        Red herring!

        • AlCum

          April 25, 2012 at 4:53 pm

          But true.

        • Anonymous

          May 17, 2012 at 12:50 pm

          Second

  19. 4zoltan

    April 19, 2012 at 4:34 pm

    No, she didn't. This has been proven to be an outright lie.

  20. ThePoopieOne

    April 19, 2012 at 8:40 pm

    Obama is a natural born killer

    • Alcum

      April 21, 2012 at 5:12 pm

      Well, he killed bin Laden while Bush was afraid to do so.

  21. Cameron

    April 20, 2012 at 8:50 am

    With a entitlement minded theiving liberal society, backed by a corrupt government hellbent on turning its subjects into simpering, begging mass of nobodies…its easy to visualize a ruler being in power who does not meet the basic requirements for office…a muslim who cares not whether your black or white, just that your rights need to be stripped, your constitution destroyed, and your monetary system pounded into the stoneage…worthless…and the last step…your physical elimination from this planet…don't agree? Just watch…sheeeple…eat your grule, sit in your corner while they tax and waste your hard work…and whip you for more…or better yet, pull down the blinders and pretend everythings AOK…and don't see it coming…thats easier…

    • Robert Kriegar

      April 22, 2012 at 7:21 pm

      George Shrub hasn't been in office for some time-how is it relevant for you to refer to him in this context?

  22. Lacy

    April 20, 2012 at 9:27 pm

    What about the Social Securit number, Obama is using? This man is so full of lies and what does he have to hide? Simply show all the records. Common sense, Nothing to hide, put them out there and NOT a forgery!

    Social Security number (SSN) is being used by President Obama: Jean Paul Ludwig, who was born in France in 1890, emigrated to the United States in

    1924, and was assigned SSN 042-68-4425, Obama’s current SSN, in or about March of 1957. Ludwig lived most of his adult life in Connecticut . Because of that, his SSN begins with the digits 042, which are among only a select few reserved for Connecticut residents. Obama has never lived or worked in that state. Therefore, there is no reason on earth for his SSN to start with the digits 042. None whatsoever! Now comes the best part! Ludwig spent the final months of his life in Hawaii , where he died.

    • 4zoltan

      April 21, 2012 at 12:05 am

      Jean Paul Ludwig's SSN was 045-26-8722.

      Form the SSA website:

      "Note: One should not make too much of the "geographical code." It is not meant to be any kind of useable geographical information. The numbering scheme was designed in 1936 (before computers) to make it easier for SSA to store the applications in our files in Baltimore since the files were organized by regions as well as alphabetically. It was really just a bookkeeping device for our own internal use and was never intended to be anything more than that."

    • Alcum

      April 21, 2012 at 5:06 pm

      You are lying about the Social security numbers. Look up Jean Paul Ludwig's. Look up Obama's. They are not the same.

      Why are you lying about this simple and easily disproven claim?

      • Robert Kriegar

        April 22, 2012 at 7:23 pm

        I'm thinking it's because their reding comp. skills are somehow stunted by party line mythology.

    • Bigdog

      May 9, 2012 at 6:44 am

      What's a brother to do ?

  23. Lacy

    April 20, 2012 at 9:40 pm

    If one has nothing to hide, common sense, than just show all the records! Simple. But he spends 2 million dollars and still puts out a fordge document! Why? There is a video out now that shows many clips of him speaking of his Muslin religion and much more. Look for it. Social Security number (SSN) is being used by President Obama: Jean Paul Ludwig, who was born in France in 1890, emigrated to the United States in
    1924, and was assigned SSN 042-68-4425, Obama's current SSN, in or about March of 1957. Ludwig lived most of his adult life in Connecticut . Because of that, his SSN begins with the digits 042, which are among only a select few reserved for Connecticut residents. Obama has never lived or worked in that state. Therefore, there is no reason on earth for his SSN to start with the digits 042. None whatsoever! Now comes the best part! Ludwig spent the final months of his life in Hawaii , where he died.

    • 4zoltan

      April 21, 2012 at 12:06 am

      Jean Paul Ludwig's SSN was 045-26-8722.

      Form the SSA website:

      "Note: One should not make too much of the "geographical code." It is not meant to be any kind of useable geographical information. The numbering scheme was designed in 1936 (before computers) to make it easier for SSA to store the applications in our files in Baltimore since the files were organized by regions as well as alphabetically. It was really just a bookkeeping device for our own internal use and was never intended to be anything more than that."

    • Alcum

      April 21, 2012 at 5:05 pm

      1) Obama has not spent $2 million, nor in fact has he spent any substantial amount at all, on any of this nonsense. The claim that he has is simply a birther lie.

      2) He did not put out a forged document. Hawaii, the issuer of the document, has publicly affirmed its authenticity, and that settles it. Case is closed.

      3) He has never spoken of his "Muslim religion." He is not Muslim. you cannot criticize him for attending Rev. Wright's Christian church for 25 years while simultaneously calling him a Muslim. Please make your lies consistent with each other.

      4) Obama is not using Jean Paul Ludwig's Social Security number. One look at them would confirm that, yet you birthers keep posting this lie. SSNs are not "reserved" for specific states.

    • Robert Kriegar

      April 22, 2012 at 7:25 pm

      Jean Paul Ludwig's SSN was 045-26-8722.

      If that is not enough for you, then invest in searching on that number in their database. This is easily enough addressed by yourself alone.

  24. mafra

    April 22, 2012 at 12:28 pm

    only a LEGIT potus who has committed impeachable offenses should be impeached… Obama however, apparently proven to be ILLIGETIMATE must be charged , tried and appropriately fined, punished, sentenced. To Impeach such a usurper would legalize all that crooks decisions…

    • Robert Kriegar

      April 22, 2012 at 7:26 pm

      There's is truly something wrong with you-you should seek professional help with that.

    • AlCum

      April 22, 2012 at 9:24 pm

      You are the traitor. Obama is the first and only presidential candidate in US history to publicly release his birth certificate and prove his eligibiliy. Why do you hate America?

  25. Jerry

    April 23, 2012 at 6:52 am

    actually, the stipulation made by Obama's attorney was to the validity of using an internet image, no comment was made about the actual certificate on display only the image. watch the video. unfortunately, the ALJ provided advice based upon the hearing and the NJ Secretary of State approved the ballot entry "indorsing" (sic) Obama. Not sure what "indorsing" means, must be Jersey term.

  26. Barbara Ann

    April 23, 2012 at 8:24 am

    This is a silly and desperate act to discredit Obama. My son is an American Citizen and so am I. My son's father is a New Zealand Cit and we never married. In fact my son's father hold's a New Zealand and British Citizenship. My son was born in California like I was. The Air Force enlisted my son and gave him one of the highest security clearances you can get. If they except him as a US Citizen… then end of story. If Obama was born in US to a US Cit Mother he a US Citizen. Period. Last but not least I think this natural born citizen rule is crap anyway. You tell me because someone was born in a small country that they can't come here become a Citizen and then become a SPY? Get over it. We have a black man as a two term president. In the end this is all becasue he is black. Its just disgusting how many bigots are in the country. I want another liberal black man to run after Obama's second term. I trust the blacks in this country more than you bigoted cruel whites! I don't freakin tell me some of your best friends are black! It's crap you are bigots!

    • AlCum

      April 24, 2012 at 4:34 pm

      You are correct, Barbara. Birtherism is rooted in racism. You never heard anyone ever ask a white candidate for his birth certificate. Not a Republican candidate, not a Democratic candidate. We always took their word for it. But when the black guy gets elected, the racist right needs some way to delegitimize him. So it's the birth certificate… even though Obama is the first candidate in our nation's history to show it to the public. It's pathetic, really.

      • alyiana

        December 13, 2013 at 4:42 am

        i'm gonna call your bluff because i am not a racist and i'm not a biggot .. i am not Oprah Winfrey which are both. I do not like Obama because of his lies before and after his presidency. I have truth in my hands that i will believe over you and Alcum. I happened to be doing my research like i've been doing since he decided on the Oprah Winfrey show that he was a candidate … i watched every debate .. i caught his lies .. i was never blinded .. i am fully awake to YOUR president .. i know the truth .. i know exactly what he's been doing .. he is a sunni muslim and he is a communist spy for putin .. putin can deny it all he wants .. i don't believe him either … i don't believe any of obama's supporters.. i don't believe birthers either.. i believe exactly what i have to be true and correct about obama .. he's already told the catholic church basically that they are not a religion in this country and told all other religions that they don't exist either .. it's his way or the highway .. and you two are climbing on board .. alcum Britain DOES HAVE a copy of his ACTUAL birth certificate.. it is in their records but you have to know where to look and you unfortunately do not know and i'm not a birther .. i will never be what you or anyone else is .. i know my findings are true and correct to where yours are false and fake.. i don't care if he is the first president to ever show credentials.. congress, senate, supreme court and the states have every right to ask him .. he came here and used our money to go to school on, was sent to russia to train in communism .. got his credentials in marxism. his law degree is paid for by the russians or the CIA.. he is a CIA spy .. i have proof of all of this .. and this place will not lie .. they cannot lie about this when there is proven fact everywhere about obama and they show just that in this book .. every substantial sustainable proof from kenya, russia, etc. you must look for it .. because it's there .. i'm not going to be giving it out because i say enough with words .. from what i'm told is that i'm continually watched on the internet .. like i say to that .. roflmfao.. like i care .. i have yet to let obama intimidate me … or any of his cronies .. i know the truth and i'm just waiting on just one person to come forward … i have said enough … just believe me you two are blinded … and one day i hope you do wake up and smell the roses and the coffee .. and i hope it is sooner rather than later …

  27. nobamanreno

    April 23, 2012 at 8:28 am

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=end
    Private Investigator Susan Daniels: Obama's Connecticut Social Security Number – Part 1 of 2 –

    • AlCum

      April 23, 2012 at 4:45 pm

      She's been proven wrong.

    • 4zoltan

      April 23, 2012 at 7:52 pm

      The crack investigator says that SSN were issued by the address of the where you resided. This is false. The SSA website says that it is based on the zip code of the return address on the ss-5 card.

      “Thus, the Area Number does not necessarily represent the State of residence of the applicant, either prior to 1972 or since.” SSA

      And the geographic locator prefex is meaningless:

      “Note: One should not make too much of the “geographical code.” It is not meant to be any kind of useable geographical information. The numbering scheme was designed in 1936 (before computers) to make it easier for SSA to store the applications in our files in Baltimore since the files were organized by regions as well as alphabetically. It was really just a bookkeeping device for our own internal use and was never intended to be anything more than that.”

      She says that there is a DOB of 1890, but her own data also shows a DOB of 1990. She never explains this second DOB. The fact is she uses public databases that have errors in them since they are dependent on the people who enter the data.

      She should know this. The fact that she apparently doesn’t speaks volumns about her abilities as an investigator.

      • AlCum

        April 23, 2012 at 8:23 pm

        It's pathetic. She used a credit header search. I've done those in my work and they aggregate all possible data, including SSNs of anyone who rented your apartment before you and after you. They come with the proviso that the data is simply a starting point and it up to you to winnow out the bad data.

        These birthers are, simply, insane.

  28. nobamanreno

    April 23, 2012 at 8:37 am

    Barbara, Obama's white half is not qualified either…..
    Come on……..throwing the race bomb doesn't work anymore.

    Another reason he is unqualified is due to his adoption by Soetoro, his
    step-father. He became an Indonesian citizen by that act. That in itself
    makes him unqualified, BUT there's more! There is NO documentation that
    proves he ever renounced the Indonesian citizenship. A person can not be
    a dual citizen, or citizen of another country and be the President of the USA.

    • AlCum

      April 23, 2012 at 4:44 pm

      You are completely incorrect. It is legally impossible under US law for a minor to lose US citizenship through any act of any other party or nation whatsoever. Your very claim is ludicrous! This is not even remotely open to dispute, as the law is specifically clear on this point. His stepfather could have adopted him (he did not) and made him swear off his US citizenship and had him sign a pledge and taken an Indonesian oath (he didn't) and Obama STILL could not have possibly lost his US citizenship.

      It's simply not permitted under US law.

      By the way, we do not recognize dual citizenship. If you are a US citizen, it doesn't matter what other country can claim you. Case is closed on this point.

  29. nobamanreno

    April 23, 2012 at 9:46 pm

    Nationality Act of 1940, revised 1952, Section 318(a) states, “A former citizen of the United States expatriated through the expatriation of such person’s parent or parents and who has not acquired the nationality of another country by any affirmative act other than the expatriation of his parent or parents may be naturalized upon filing a petition for naturalization before reaching age of Twenty-Five [25] years and upon compliance with all requirements of the naturalization laws with the following exceptions: (b) No former citizen of the United States, expatriated through the expatriation of such person’s parent or parents shall be obliged to comply with the requirements of the immigration laws, if he has not acquired the nationality of another country by any affirmative act other than the expatriation of his parent or parents, and if he/she has come or shall come to the United States before reaching the age of twenty-five years. (c) After his naturalization such person shall have the same citizenship status as if he had not been expatriated.”
    WHERE'S THE PROOF HE DID THIS?
    AND
    "Indonesia required Obama/Soetoro to do a bit more upon his 18th birthday. In fact the Indonesian law gives until the age of Twenty-One [21]. Soetoro/Obama would have had to sign an Affidavit relinquishing his Indonesian citizenship and said Affidavit had to be sent to the Indonesian Government before reclaiming any U.S. citizenship he may have once held.

    When it comes to the citizenship of individuals in other countries, we are prevented from interfering, Hague Convention 1930. During the late 1960′s all the way up until 2006 Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship. In 2006, Indonesia changed their laws to permit dual citizenship; however, Indonesia has had its battles with enforcing their new law permitting dual citizenship. " Berg
    Berg continues, " From the legal research we have done, it appears that Soetoro became an Indonesian citizen. When Soetoro/Obama was approximately four [4] years old his parents divorced and thereafter, Soetoro/Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia. Evidence points to the fact that Lolo Soetoro either signed a government form legally ‘acknowledging’ Soetoro/Obama as his son or ‘adopted’ Soetoro, either of which changed any citizenship status Soetoro/Obama had to a “natural” citizen of Indonesia. At the time Barry Soetoro was in Indonesia, all Indonesian students were required to carry government identity cards or Karty Tanda Pendudaks, as well as family card identification called a Kartu Keluarga. The Kartu Keluarga is a family card which bears the legal names and citizenship status of all family members.

    Soetoro/Obama was registered in a public school as an Indonesian citizen by the name of Barry Soetoro. Indonesia did not allow foreign students to attend their public schools in the late 1960’s or 1970’s, and any time a child was registered for a public school, the child’s name and citizenship status were verified through the Indonesian Government. I see no way for Soetoro/Obama to have attended school in Jakarta, Indonesia legally unless he was an Indonesian citizen, as Indonesia was under tight rule and was a Police State. See Constitution of Republic of Indonesia (Undang-Undang Dasar Republik Indonesia 1945), Law No. 62 of 1958.

    • 4zoltan

      April 23, 2012 at 11:00 pm

      “Hague Convention 1930″

      From the Hague Convention of 1930:

      Article 1

      It is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals. This law shall be recognised by other States in so far as it is consistent with international conventions, international custom, and the principles of law generally recognised with regard to nationality.

      Article 2
      Any question as to whether a person possesses the nationality of a particular State shall be determined in accordance with the law of that State.

      Article 3

      Subject to the provisions of the present Convention, a person having two or more nationalities may be regarded as its national by each of the States whose nationality he possesses.

      [skip]

      ADOPTION

      Article 17

      If the law of a State recognises that its nationality may be lost as the result of adoption,this loss shall be conditional upon the acquisition by the person adopted of the nationality of the person by whom he is adopted, under the law of the State of which the latter is a national relating to the effect of adoption upon nationality.

      Immigration and Natioanlity Act of 1952 does not allow for loss of citizenship by a minor until they reach the age of majority [Title III, Chapter 3, Section 355] and it does not list adoption as a cause for the loss of citizenship, so the Hague Convention’s section on adoption does not apply.

    • Alcum

      April 24, 2012 at 5:35 am

      Your post is completely irrelevant. Obama never lost his US natural born citizenship. US law made it impossible for that to happen. You're making things up now. No Indonesian law can deprive someone born on US soil of his natural born citizenship.

  30. nobamanreno

    April 23, 2012 at 9:46 pm

    continued….
    These facts indicate that Obama/Soetoro is an Indonesian citizen, and therefore he is not eligible to be President of the United States. and his father was listed as Lolo Soetoro, M.A according to the Indonesian school records. Indonesia did Constitution of Republic of Indonesia (Undang-Undang Dasar Republik Indonesia 1945), Chapter 13, Law No. 62 of 1958 (all citizens of Indonesia have a right to education). There was Under Indonesian law, when a male acknowledges a child as his son, it deems the son, in this case Soetoro/Obama, an Indonesian State citizen. See Constitution of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958 concerning Immigration Affairs and Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata) (KUHPer) (Burgerlijk Wetboek voor Indonesie).

    Furthermore, under the Indonesian adoption law, once an Indonesian citizen adopts a child, the adoption severs the child’s relationship to the birth parents, and the adopted child is given the same status as a natural child and the child takes the name of his step-father, in this case, Soetoro. See Indonesian Constitution, Article 2.

    The Indonesian citizenship law was designed to prevent apatride (stateless) or bipatride (dual) citizenship. Indonesian regulations recognized neither apatride nor bipatride (stateless or dual) citizenship. Since Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship; neither did the United States (since the United States only permitted dual citizenship when ‘both’ countries agree); and since Obama/Soetoro was a “natural” citizen of Indonesia, the United States would not step in or interfere with the laws of Indonesia. Hague Convention of 1930.”

    As a result of Soetoro/Obama’s Indonesian ‘natural’ citizenship status, Soetoro/Obama could never regain U.S. ‘natural born’ status, if he in fact he ever held such, which we doubt. Soetoro/Obama could have only become ‘naturalized’ if the proper paperwork were filed with the U.S. State Department, after going through U.S. Immigration upon his return to the United States; in which case, Soetoro/Obama would have received a Certification of Citizenship indicating ‘naturalized’. Berg continued, “Regardless, we have been unable to locate any records indicating that Soetoro/Obama attempted to and/or actually did take the proper steps through the State Department in order to be here in our Country legally” Further, there is no evidence that Soetoro/Obama ever ‘legally’ changed his name from Barry Soetoro to Barack Hussein Obama – therefore his legal name is still ‘Barry Soetoro’.

    So, if you can produce the documents that this is NOT true, I'll read them. Otherwise Obama is a Soro-Usurper and must be removed.

    Case is NOT closed, Mr Cum

    • Alcum

      April 24, 2012 at 5:37 am

      Case most certainly IS closed, and in fact was never even opened as it was proven wrong on its face at the very start.

      Your claims are irrelevant as it is a legal impossibility for Obama to have lost his US natural born citizenship as a child in Indonesia. We simply don't permit any such thing. The law is quite clear on this and the case is closed.

      • nobamanreno

        April 24, 2012 at 12:11 pm

        State the law.

        • AlCum.

          April 24, 2012 at 4:28 pm

          US citizenship law. This is well known, which is why birther lies never get legs. You're disproven right out of the starting gate. End of story and case closed.

        • 4zoltan

          April 24, 2012 at 11:12 pm

          Immigration and Natioanlity Act of 1952 does not allow for loss of citizenship by a minor until they reach the age of majority [Title III, Chapter 3, Section 355] and it does not list adoption as a cause for the loss of citizenship.

  31. 4zoltan

    April 23, 2012 at 10:27 pm

    "WHERE'S THE PROOF HE DID THIS? "

    He didn't need to do this as his mother was not an expatriate. Her US passport records indicate that she had a US passport continously from 1965 until her death in the the 1980's.

    Read Perkins v. Elg, a parent cannot give up a minor child's citizenship.

    Indonesian citizenship laws are immaterial, for US citizenship only US laws apply.

  32. leroy

    April 24, 2012 at 7:40 am

    It doesn't ,matter what color he is if he is not qualified to be the President. What a crock of shit Barbara Ann. The only bigot is you mam and I am black. You put a bad name on the blacks and I will have to say that I see more blacks being bigots than whites. Please refrain from posting such uneducated comments and throwing the race card in.

    • Richard Coutu

      March 14, 2013 at 2:53 pm

      "You put a bad name on the blacks and I will have to say that I see more blacks being bigots than whites" DOES NOT COMPUTE

  33. Kim

    April 24, 2012 at 8:06 am

    Instead of all this arguing over semantics and meanings of words, just ask yourself a few common sense questions

    How is it possible that Obama Sr and Ms Dunham were legally married, when he was already married in Kenya? How is it possible there is no legal record of this marriage?

    Why didn’t Barry know which hospital he was born in? In allowing family members to register the foreign birth of a child as a Hawaiian birth, did official mark those birth certificates in some way to show that they were not actually born in Hawaii?

    Why are there missing passport records to and from Hawaii in the summer of 1961?

    Why did Obama release a certification instead of a birth certificate, and then declare it was the only thing Hawaii gives out, when many others were given the long form birth certificate?

    Why did the state of Hawaii say they had his birth information on file, yet not state he was born in Hawaii? Why did Gov. Abercrombie say he would release Obama’s birth certificate and then release a statement saying it couldn’t be found?

    Why did Barry say his family lived together until he was two, when the evidence shows he and Ms Dunham were actually in Seattle in mid-August 1961 because she was attending school there? While Obama Sr was still in Hawaii?

    Why was he listed as a citizen in Indonesia with his step-father’s last name? What passport did he travel to Indonesia on and what happened to those records? What passport did he use to travel to Hawaii at age eleven to move in with the grandparents and is that the same passport he used to travel to Pakistan in 1981? Where did that passport go?

    In 2006 during a televised C-Span debate bewteen himself and Alan Keyes, Keyes stated he was ineligible to be a US Senator because he was not born here. Barry responded, not by saying that he was born here, but by saying that he wasn’t running for the presidency so his birthplace did not matter. Why?

    Why did he give an interview to the Chicago papers, in which he was referred to as the “Kenyan born Senator”?

    Why did he spend three years paying attorneys to keep this case out of court instead of just releasing the actual birth certificate?

    Why then, after the big production of finally releasing it, is his attorney now state this document is NOT evidence of his birth or place of birth?

    Why, after being sworn in , was his first act to sign an executive order sealing his records?

    • 4zoltan

      April 24, 2012 at 9:13 am

      Most if not all of your questions are false.

      Hawaii records released in 2009 indicate the the Obama’s were legally married in Hawaii, my guess is that Obama Sr. never told anyone that he was married in Kenya. all in all he strikes me as being a jerk. Also the Obama’s divorce records have been released, why would there be a divorce record if they were never married?

      President Obama has always maintained that he was born at Kapiolani, a high school newspaper reporter said he was born at Queens and that was picked up by other news outlets.

      The law on registration of foreign births was written into Hawaiian law in 1982. Even then a birth certificate would not say “place of birth” Honolulu.

      They did in their second statement of July, 2009. I would guess in the first statement they assumed people would understand that if they have his birth records on file then he can only be born in Hawaii, otherwise there would be no record.

      I assume you mean the immigration files. In 1961, there were virtually no foreign flights into Hawaii, most international flights stopped in the continental US before continuing on to Honolulu.

      Governor Abercrombie never said he would release the birth certificate as that would be illegal.

      He was two years old, I’m guessing he was not told the true story until later.

      He may have been listed as Indonesian to help get him into the school without a lot of questions. Much like some parents put down a relatives address as their own to get their kids into a better school district.

      Since he was a US citizen, he could travel on a US passport.

      The Keyes/ Obama debate story is pure urban legend. No one has ever been able to produce a video or transcript of that exchange. At one point in the debate, Obama did say that he was running for senator not to be a minister. that may be the source of the story.

      He never said he was “Kenyan born”.

      He released his actual birth certificate in 2008, why don’t you accept Hawaii BCs? What have you got agaionst Hawaii?

      Hawaii only issued computer generated BCs. They called them “Certifications”. Hawaii officials said that a “certification” a means the same as a “certificate”. Other people who have Hawaiian short forms also read “certification”. Because of the confusion, Hawaii then changed the short form to read “certificate”

      His attorney never made that statement. Under New Jersey law a candidate is not required to provided and proof of qualifications and it up to the challenger to prove the candidate is not eligible. She simply ointed out what was New Jersey law, and the judge agreed with her.

      He did not seal his records. He returned the records act to read exactly the same as it did before President Bush took office. President Bush added restrictions on government records. BTW, the executive orders (Bush/Obama) only concern government records from the administration, they do not cover personal records such as school records.

      Hoope this clears things up.

  34. nobamanreno

    April 24, 2012 at 8:13 am

    WHY?
    great post, Kim!

    AND, what has he done to damage this nation since he has been elected?
    Read, Trickle Down Tyranny, documented facts~ This unqualified president
    should have been arrested by now. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/006208397X?ie=UT

    • AlCum

      April 24, 2012 at 4:26 pm

      Obama saved the nation from the economically destructive path to disaster and total collapse into e Second Great Republican Depression, a path on which it was set by 30 years of harmful Republican policies.

      • alyiana

        December 13, 2013 at 4:54 am

        serious lies alcum .. and you are blinded

  35. nobamanreno

    April 24, 2012 at 10:16 am

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swdQByQsp2g&fe

    30-Year Constitutional Scholar: Natural Born Citizen Is One Born On Soil To Two Citizen Parents – 4/15/201

    • AlCum

      April 24, 2012 at 10:41 am

      He is of course legally incorrect in entirety. He should note, as a "constitutional scholar," that the US Supreme Court — which is the final word on what the Constitution says — has RULED that a natural born citizen need not have ANY citizen parent at all if the birth is on US soil. This has always been the case since colonial time. His position is entertaining but entirely unsupported and ruled illegal by SCOTUS. This is not in dispute.

      • nobamanreno

        April 24, 2012 at 12:14 pm

        And your accredidation is what Mr. Cum?

        • Alcum

          April 24, 2012 at 8:29 pm

          Using my brain, something birthers cannot do. All that I have posted has been proven correct out here in the real world. Please look into it sometime. FACT: The Supreme Court ruled on this more than a century ago and your "scholar: is incapable of being correct. He advances an argument that LOST at the Supreme Court. That's a non-starter. Oh by the way, slavery is now illegal too.

    • 4zoltan

      April 24, 2012 at 5:22 pm

      “I think Obama’s a citizen of the United States, a natural born citizen of the United States. I don’t feel why I should undercut a birth certificate in Hawaii–I don’t know what else you need.”

      “There’s some people who say that both parents need to be citizens. That’s never been the law…What they [the founders] were thinking about at the time was they were just concerned about foreigners coming in. But that’s not what we’ve got here. So I think she’s grabbing whatever straw she can, and I happen to be a straw.”

      http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2010/09/orly_taitz_embarrasses_chapman.php

      “No,” Ledewitz said. “And I’m not speaking about whether he’s a good president or a bad president or anything else. It’s just accepted law that people born in the United States are natural-born citizens. That’s just been the understanding for a long time.’

      “It has nothing to do with Obama you understand. If you were born here, you’re a natural-born citizen.”

      http://baldwin-whitehall.patch.com/articles/whitehall-man-is-aiming-to-remove-obama-from-pa-ballot#photo-8080552

    • 4zoltan

      April 24, 2012 at 5:29 pm

      "No," Ledewitz said. "And I'm not speaking about whether he's a good president or a bad president or anything else. It's just accepted law that people born in the United States are natural-born citizens. That's just been the understanding for a long time."

      "It has nothing to do with Obama you understand. If you were born here, you're a natural-born citizen."

      Bruce Ledewitz, Professor of Law, Duquesne University

      "I think Obama's a citizen of the United States, a natural born citizen of the United States. I don't feel why I should undercut a birth certificate in Hawaii–I don't know what else you need."

      "There's some people who say that both parents need to be citizens. That's never been the law…What they [the founders] were thinking about at the time was they were just concerned about foreigners coming in. But that's not what we've got here. So I think she's grabbing whatever straw she can, and I happen to be a straw. "

      Ronald Rotunda, Professor of Law, Chapman University

  36. motownmutt

    May 17, 2012 at 8:27 pm

    just a note on Ramsay vs. Smith (born in Charleston, S.C.) which was incompletely referred to above:

    “It is an established maxim, that birth is the criterion of allegiance,” declared Representative James Madison of Virginia in his colleague’s defense. “Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of [South Carolina].”

  37. Philip

    May 22, 2012 at 1:01 am

    Since Obama acknowledged his elementary school, it indirectly verifies acknowledgement of his alias. We need ALL passport records for Barry Soetoro as well as for the identity Barack Obama. If Barry's school records were transferred, then Barry had an education. . . Let's go to the other route and assume for the sake of argument that the alias Barry Soetoro had a fictitious and fraudulent school application, and was actually a United States Citizen impersonating an Indonesian, to unlawfully gain benefit from the facilities of that country. This would mean that Barack, alias Barry, has an almost lifelong history of identity, citizenship, and education fraud. Should you trust the word of such lifelong defrauder, or documents that he produced (either manufactured or brought forth)? All education records should be unsealed for BOTH names. I will allow the institutes to blackout (or whiteout) his individual grades and GPA, and I don't need to see his alleged Thesis. However, I do need to see when each class was attended, and the student name and student number (usually also SS#) on each semester's transcript.

    • AlCum

      June 30, 2012 at 10:47 am

      Sorry but no, you don't need to see any of this. Case is closed. Get over it.

  38. Dorene

    May 30, 2012 at 1:34 pm

    How about all the actual videos of Obama admitting he is not a citizen and was born in Kenya as well as the Kenyan president making that admission? Add that to the above and I don't see that there is any question as to whether or not Obama is qualified to be the President of the United States. The fact that he is, and his czars continue to act as elected officials, shows someone has a hold on someone or this would be front page news. What advantage is there to Obama admitting he is not a citizen, I just think he slipped up and now it's coming back to bite him. Even without his personal admission, the statements of others in Kenyan power should be good enough along with the irregularities in the various fake birth certificates. How about his use of unassigned social security numbers? That's certainly worth more research!

    • AlCum

      June 30, 2012 at 10:46 am

      There is no "actual video" of Obama admitting he is not a citizen or was born in Kenya. None. You are lying.

      Why are you lying?

      All presidents have "czars," dear. They're people appointed to agency positions and the media calls them czars for nicknames. Reagan had them, Bush had them, Clinton had them, Eisenhower had them. Fer chrissakes, take off your blinders.

      He is not usinunassigned Social Security numbers.

  39. Dave

    June 29, 2012 at 1:58 pm

    Natural born ! Does that exclude those born by Caesarean section ? That would make alot of sense. Especially for religious folk, who look down on those born by being "ripped from their mother's womb" instead of entering this world by natural birth. For thousands of years msocieties have considered being ripped from the womb as a sign of evil birth. Now it's all clear. Did Obama have a natural birth? Or was he ripped from the womb?

  40. MichaelN

    February 22, 2013 at 5:57 pm

    There is NO WAY the Framers, Blackstone, Justice Swift, Horace Gray, Black's Legal Dictionary, or anyone else could have found in 17th century English common law, that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject, then adopted such an absurd notion, because it's NOT THERE at all, in fact the opposite is to be found.

    Lord Coke – Calvin's case….

    ""There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.
    1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.
    2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion.
    And 3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered"

    "it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born"

    So IF the Framers had observed the English common law principles to determine a "natural born Citizen (as is your absurd contention), then for a native-born child to be an Article II "natural born Citizen", the child would have to be born under the allegiance of a US citizen.

  41. Pingback: WeAreChangeTV.US – Obama Lawyers Admit Birth Certificate Is A Forgery

Leave a Reply