Obama's Ineligibility Is Still The Elephant In The Room

There is an elephant in the room, and it is not the Republican Party. It is the failure of numerous U.S. citizens in positions of authority to properly vet the qualifications of Barack Hussein Obama and to share that knowledge with all U.S. citizens.

Since those in positions of authority have failed to do their duty, it is left to ordinary citizens to fill the void. Here is what this citizen has deduced from the available facts in making her own attempt to vet Barack Obama. First, I present my conclusion: In January 2008 Barack Hussein Obama II took an oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. For nearly four years he has been the principle violator of its provisions.

How so?

He is the only person on earth who currently has to fulfill the Constitutional requirement stated in Article II, Section 1:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

This statement gives a very short list of the qualifications needed to hold the most powerful elected position in our nation, yet Barack Obama is unable to fulfill the first requirement: He is not a natural born citizen of the United States. Obama declares that his father was from Kenya, thus making him a dual British-U.S. citizen at birth. For over four years, Barack Obama has perpetrated a lie that he is legally eligible to campaign for, be elected to, and hold the office of President of the United States.

Why is Barack Obama ineligible to be President, and how did he still manage to be elected in 2008 and re-elected in 2012? The following summary of facts compiled by Paul Hollrah, a two-time member of the U.S. Electoral College, explains the matter. In his treatise "The Obama Eligibility Question," Hollrah informs us that "the 'natural born' question rests principally on the necessity of both parents being U.S. citizens." His conclusion is based on numerous statements related to the drafting of the Constitution's citizenship requirement in Article II, Section 1 and its subsequent interpretation throughout U.S. history, including as recently as the McCain-Obama election.

First, "the Founders relied heavily on the work of Swiss philosopher Emerich de Vattel" who "in his 1758 legal treatise, The Law of Nations... defines the term 'natural born Citizen' as follows: '...The natives, or natural-born citizens are born in the country, of parents who are citizens...The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children...' (emphasis added)."

Second, "In 1866, John A. Bingham, chief framer of the 14th Amendment, which granted citizenship to the freed slaves, wrote as follows: 'Every human being born within the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty (emphasis added) is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.'"

Third, in the only defining precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) the Court concludes, “'At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.'”

Fourth, in 2008, former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson (a conservative Republican) and Harvard Law professor Laurence H. Tribe (a liberal Democrat) were tasked with researching whether Senator John McCain (who was born in the Panama Canal Zone,) is a natural born citizen. "In a March 19, 2008 memorandum, Olson and Tribe concluded that, 'Based on original meaning of the Constitution, the Framers’ intentions, and subsequent legal and historical precedent, Sen. McCain’s birth, to parents who were U.S. citizens serving on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, makes him a ‘natural born Citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution.'"

Fifth, "...in an April 10, 2008 statement, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, 'Based on the understanding of the pertinent sources of constitutional meaning, it is widely believed that if someone is born to American citizens anywhere in the world they are natural born citizens. Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen (emphasis added)."

And finally, in April 20, 2008 a Senate resolution approved by a vote of 99-0 (Senator John McCain abstaining) declared: “'Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘natural born citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.' Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) voted in favor of the resolution."

Now that we know the meaning of "natural born citizen," let's get back to the question of Barack Obama's citizenship at birth. Assuming, from his own declaration and the long form birth certificate posted on the White House web site, that Barack Hussein Obama II was born to Barack Hussein Obama of Kenya, East Africa and Stanley Ann Dunham of Wichita, Kansas, Paul Hollrah's analysis clearly demonstrates that President Obama was a dual citizen at birth. Only one of his parents (his mother) was a U.S. citizen; his father was from Kenya (a British colony at the time) and a subject of Great Britain. The British Nationality Act of 1948, Part 2, Section 5(1) reads,

"Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth..."

Because Barack Hussein Obama was a citizen of Kenya, Barack Hussein Obama II was thereby born "a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent" and was thus a dual citizen (British-U.S.) at birth. He is therefore not a "natural born citizen," because his parents (plural) were not both U.S. citizens.

The series of events in 2008 clearly indicate the Democratic Party was concerned with vetting the qualifications of John McCain. Why were they not equally diligent in researching the eligibility of Barack Obama? That question still remains to be answered. Hollrah's treatise points out that only one of the Democratic National Committee's 2008 certifications to the election boards of the various states (Hawaii's) affirmed that Barack Hussein Obama II met the constitutional requirements for the Office of President of the United States; the other forty-nine certifications read only that "...the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States..." (emphasis added). Let me repeat that: In 2008 the National Convention of the Democratic Party did not uniformly certify the legal eligibility of Barack Obama as a candidate for President! Yet his name appeared on the ballots of fifty states and the District of Columbia.

The Democratic Party thus failed to vet Obama as a candidate for office.

The Electoral College then failed to vet his qualifications as President-elect. Hollrah writes, "Between November 4, 2008, the date of the General Election, and December 15, 2008, the date on which the Electoral College met to cast their votes, most Democratic electors were made aware of serious questions relating to Obama’s eligibility. However, none of the Democratic electors raised a serious question about Obama’s eligibility prior to casting their electoral ballots… a violation of their oath of office and a complete and total subversion of the very purpose of the Electoral College." Federalist Papers #68, written by Alexander Hamilton in 1788, explains the role of the Electoral College in choosing a President. Hamilton explains that the Electoral College consists of representatives chosen by popular vote of the people who are entrusted to "vote for some fit person as President." Hamilton states that "the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station" and this "small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations." In other words, the Electoral College both vets (investigates the qualifications of) and chooses the President. The 2008 Electoral College failed in its responsibility to vet the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama.

There is one final opportunity for a President to be vetted before taking office. Hollrah informs us, "The third and final vetting opportunity occurs in early January following each election when the Congress meets in joint session to certify the votes of the Electoral College. As the final failsafe step in the electoral process, the members of Congress have the duty to insure themselves of the qualifications of the candidates selected by the Electoral College." The Congress failed to fulfill this duty when they voted to certify the 2008 Electoral College votes for Barack Obama.

Will the history of the 2008 election repeat itself?

Will the Democratic National Committee knowingly certify a candidate for office who is ineligible? (Hint: They already did.)

Will the Democratic Party electors of the Electoral College, scheduled to meet on December 17, 2012, cast their votes for Barack Hussein Obama II even though he is ineligible? Their response remains to be seen, but, according to Hollrah, their first duty is to uphold the Constitution.

Will the members of Congress certify the votes of the Electoral College, or will they fulfill their oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and reject any Electoral College votes for Barack Obama?
I challenge the electors and Congressional representatives of each state to personally vet Barack Obama for eligibility under the Constitution, as I have done, and to cast their votes according to their findings. For the sake of all U.S. citizens, the vetting process should also be done publicly prior to the Electoral College meeting and joint session of Congress. Experts should be called to give testimony to prove or disprove Obama's eligibility for office so that the electors, Congress, and all citizens of the United States can make an informed decision about Barack Obama's Constitutional eligibility to take the oath of office in January 2013.

Three simple qualifications: natural born citizen, 35 years old, 14 years a resident of the United States. Does Barack Hussein Obama II meet all of them? The future of our constitutional republic depends on the answer to that question and how our representatives respond to the careful examination of all facts.

The challenge is on to remove the elephant from the room.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.






About Evalyn Bennett
Evalyn Bennett is a Christian tea party patriot and secretary of the Lemhi County Tea Party in east-central Idaho. She earned a B.A. from Dartmouth College in 1983 and a M.S. Ed.in Counseling Psychology from the University of Kentucky in 1986. She has worked as a college career counselor and technical writer-editor, and home schooled her three children (two are now young adults). Evalyn resides with her husband and their teenage son on a small horse farm. She serves her rural community through volunteer work at church (playing the flute and teaching Bible studies), 4-H, and a therapeutic riding program.
  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Sam-Sewell/1065978509 Sam Sewell

    Does This Document
    Make Me ELIGIBLE to be POTUS? (or get a passport to go on a Dream Cruise?)

    Here is my birth
    certificate. No, wait that isn’t true. To be accurate I need to say, “Here is a
    scanned copy of my alleged “CERTIFICATE OF VITAL RECORD” that has not been
    vetted by qualified forensic document examiners.”

    http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2010/08/does-this-document-make-me-eligible-to.html

    Scanned documents aren't valid evidence of anything even if
    they are legitimate. The entire reason there is a professional field known as
    forensic document examination is that a great deal can be told from examination
    of the original document itself. Much, much less can be told by looking at a
    photocopy of a document and very little, if anything at all, can be told from
    looking at a digital image that purports to be an image of an original
    document. Too much opportunity for adulteration, no opportunity to examine the
    paper, the ink, and any impressions made on the paper, etc. These online
    arguments discussing images are like people studying animals by examining
    imitation scat.

    The documents Obama would like the public to accept would
    not meet the standards of "evidence" in any court of law, any
    administrative hearing, any congressional investigation, application for any
    license, passport. or official ID papers

    We the People will never know if Obama is a fraud unless the
    original documents are submitted to a panel of court approved certified
    document examiners. Certified Diplomate, American Board of Forensic
    Document Examiners

    Full
    Story Here: http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2011/05/eligibility-any-image-offered-on.html

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Sam-Sewell/1065978509 Sam Sewell

    The
    elected President is the foreign influence the founding fathers intended to
    prevent

    Today’s America is threatened by many
    foreign influences. Islam, as a political and legal system, is more dangerous
    than any nation because it is an international movement. In many ways the
    Islamic movement has been more successful than communism at influencing our
    nation. Most of us could not imagine that a man whose father was a communist
    and who was educated in a communist country who had a name like Boris Rumanov
    could ever be elected as President of the United States. Yet a man whose father
    and step father were both Muslim and whose early childhood education was done
    in a Muslim country and has a distinctively Muslim name is now President of the
    United States.

    http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2012/04/elected-president-is-foreign-influence.html

  • Vennoye

    There is a lawsuit in Florida now about this: Michael Voeltz, who identifies himself as “a registered member of the Democratic Party, voter and taxpayer in Broward County,” had challenged Obama’s eligibility, arguing that the “natural born citizen” clause was rightly understood in historical context to mean a child not only born in the U.S., but born to two American-citizen parents, so as not to have divided loyalties. Obama, however, readily admits to being born a dual citizen because of his father’s British citizenship.
    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/eligibility-challenge-returns-to-haunt-florida/#BwVLoiz4tiJd6wSM.99

  • The_Magic_M

    And if all courts, including SCOTUS, reject your "two citizen parent" fantasy, all you can do is resort to "they are all part of a huge conspiracy". That is not the position of a sane person, y'know?

  • TickTock

    Tick Tock, Tick Tock... too much BS from the Bamster's gliberals. It is time to march on DC and put the fear of God into the enemies of the Constitution and reaffirm the peace of Christ among American Citizens. Who wants to lead and when do we march? We demand the FBI fully investigate and make public ALL of Obama's records from colleges, passport office, selective service records and social security application. Why would "Transparent Barry" want to keep them so secret?

  • becky

    The democrat communists, IN FACT, knew what 'bamy was. That was the reason, before going to the other 49 states, they DELIBERATELY REMOVED the "natural born citizen" clause from their certifications. That way - until this election where they committed fraud in multiple states - they ONLY committed major, criminal fraud in ONE state. Hawaii.

  • Miko

    I agree with Oscar. I DO think his father was Frank Davis; the Dunhams, who raised him, were confirmed communists who conjured up a story about Barack Obama Sr. as the father. He was elected BECAUSE he was black, or 1/2 black.The birth certificate was forged, the second election was a sham, a total corruption, and the machine behind the Clintons and Obama that put the Democraps into long term power has been successful. Say goodbye to the U.S. Romney was the last hope for the U.S.

  • http://twitter.com/MacdonaldCory Macdonald Cory

    No one is again going to to do anything to uphold the Constitution of the United States. If you are black (or half-black) and a Democrat, the Constitution does not apply to you.

  • Sick and tired

    I am so tired of hearing all of this. Obama himself, on you tube, in a speech, admits he was born in Kenya. It's all over the Internet. Wake up people he was put in office to destroy our country so the one world govt. can be instituted. No one in Congress is going to do anything to impeach him they are all in on this. I contacted both of my republican senators from Georgia and got the same rehearsed speech that he is eligible. He is evil and he and the rest of congress all need to be in jail! Will that happen no sadly it won't. They are all destroying us and no one is stopping them. May God help us

    • William Rawle

      That was a hoax.

    • smrstrauss

      As William Rawle says, it was a hoax. It was a forged video.

      Obama never said that he was born in Kenya, and he wasn't.

      The Kenyan government said that he was NOT born in Kenya. It said that after the claim that he was born in Kenya, it investigated and found that he was not born in Kenya. And the officials of Hawaii of both parties say that he was born in Hawaii, confirmed by the Index Data file, confirmed by the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH in 1961 (and only the DOH could send notices to the "Health Bureau Statistics" section of the newspapers, and it only sent notices for births in Hawaii), and still further confirmed by the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley.

    • emjay98

      I saw Obama saying he was born in Kenya. He seemed quite proud of it until he decided to run for President.

    • smrstrauss

      No you didn't, You saw the forged video.

  • Cyni Cal

    I believe that the real elephant in the room, is the inability of a significant portion of the American public to think on it's own anymore. For example; why do we think the founding fathers cared about the need for being "natural born", as a primary qualification to be President? If we think about that a little, it makes sense that just being born on American soil was not the primary key! These men realized the tremendous power and influence wielded by the office of the President, and they wanted to be reasonably certain where his/her allegiances lie, before electing them to the highest office in the land. They wanted to be reasonalbly certain that the President, once elected, would always act in the best interests of America, because he/she is an American. And that as President, they would always act in a manner that upholds the constitution that the founders worked and fought so hard to create. They believed that a person born of American parents, in America ("natutral born"), would most likely be indoctrinated in the "American way", and not be predisposed to share their allegiance with any other sovereign nation. We can rationalize this issue any way we want, but with a little thought, it's not too difficult to understand what our founding fathers were thinking when they wrote "natural born". The words can mean whatever you want, if you are using them out of context simply to justify your actions; but if you read the entire context of the Constitution, the intent of the phrase "natural born" by our founding fathers, is not unclear, nor should it be in dispute.

    I believe the entire history of the man called Barack Obama, is unknown to most of America, simply because the mainstream press, for whatever reason, has suppressed it. Therefore, we do not know where his allegiances lie. I also believe that he himself helps keep the "birther" mystery alive, and in the public eye. It serves him well as an ongoing distraction, that functions as a tool to discredit and thereby discourage other investigations into his past. Anyone who questions something in Obama's past is automatically labled as a "birther" (a dirogatory term), and consequently disregarded by the "real authorities" (of all the information, that we need to know)...in the mainstream press. If a person knew just half of where and how Barry Soreto/Barack Obama spent his life, where he was born would be perhaps, among the least important pieces of information. Just to be clear, I am not standing in judgement of anything to do with the man, who now calls himself Barack Obama. I am a tax paying American citizen, and I simply have questions....many, many, many questions, of the man who says he wants to serve us as our President. I believe under our constitution, I have a right (as well as an implied responsibility), to ask and have answered, any and all questions regarding the man who literally holds our very lives, and the freedoms that we enjoy while we are alive, in his hands. I believe that he has a responsibility, as well as an obligation, to give us those answers. But to date he has not, having chosen instead to archive all pertinent information about his life; his schooling, his travels, his affiliations and his work history prior to his entering public life. Therefore, it is up to the other branches of government, that were established by the founding fathers to balance the power of the Presidency, to demand these answers. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the "Free Press", protected by the constitution for this very purpose, to assure that these investigations are instigated and carried out to satisfactory conclusions. It is not my job, as a citizen, to prove anything in this situation! Although the current mass media, through their lack of action, is seemingly telling me that they believe that it is. The current "puppet press", that seems to have a monopoly over TV network news, is nothing short of a cruel joke being perpurtrated on the American public! I believe that our country's founders would turn over in their graves if they could see what a sham the modern "press" in America has become.

    I also believe that all the (well meaning and upset) people who spend their time and energy making or writing mean-spirited comments about Obama's character, when no one even knows who he is, are as much a part of the problem as Obama himself. All that is accomplished by that, is that the masses of people who are currently mesmerized by him, just become more so. I believe that your time would be better spent doing a little research on these issues, and writing your congressman, and asking: why the many procedures put in place by their predecessors, to safeguard us against electing someone who does not qualify for office of the President of the United States of America, are not being followed! If all the self-proclaimed Libertarians would simply stick to asking the relevant questions, over and over again, until satisfactory answers are made clear and available to all, we would eventually find out who our sitting President really is. Then we would know how comfortable we all should be with our lives, and the lives of our children and grandchidren, in his hands.

    Unfortunately, you must pursue this line of logic and action on your own, as the current mass media seems to be on a mission to subvert any and all thinking that we might do for ourselves. After all, are regular people (without scripts and microphones), really qualified to do a little research, apply a little common sense to sort the chaff from the wheat, and form their own opinions, particularly on issues of grave importance??????? My guess is...if you did, you would make your great, great, great grandparents, very proud.

    • William Rawle

      "I believe under our constitution, I have a right (as well as an implied responsibility), to ask and have answered, any and all questions regarding the man who literally holds our very lives"
      There is nothing in the Constitution about school records, tax returns, passport records. You can ask to see them but no President or Presidential candidate is required to provide them (think Governor Romney and his tax returns). In terms of records, Obama has released more information about himself than any other President.

    • becky

      No but he IS required to PROVE that he is a "natural born citizen". 'bamy refuses to do this. Then the question becomes "why isn't he telling the American people?". And the ANSWER IS: because HE IS NOT AMERICAN. And that is WHY he is actively bent on destroying this country.

    • William Rawle

      Where does it say he is required to? Did any other President prove he was an NBC? He released his BC which has been verified by the state of Hawaii. No other President released their BC.

    • Cyni Cal

      Rawle, I think you completely missed my point. It's not the letter of the law, but rather the intent of the law to which I was directing my comments. The letter of the law is being rewritten on a daily basis, the intent however cannot be changed. What does happen over time however, is that we get so wrapped up in arguing the fine points of the various and everchanging interpretations of the "laws of the land", we quite forget what fears drove these laws in the first place, and why they were important to the men who wrote them. I for one can understand those fears, as I have many of those same fears myself, as I write to you today.

      I would be more than happy to read some of this "Obama released information", if you would be so kind as to point me in the right direction. I know quite a bit about many of our Presidents throughout our country's history, but virtually nothing of any substance about our sitting President. I would truly like to know who this man is, and why I don't already know that?

  • smrstrauss

    The meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law and refers to the
    place of birth. That is what the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim
    Ark case (which BTW was after the Minor v. Happersett case) in a six-to
    two ruling (one justice not voting).

    The Wong Kim Ark case
    also ruled that EVERY child born in the USA except for the children of
    foreign diplomats is a Natural Born US Citizen.

    And, Obama was born in the USA---in Hawaii. That is proven by
    his short form and long form birth certificates from Hawaii, and the
    confirmation of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii, and the Index
    Data file and the birth notices that were sent to the Hawaii newspapers
    by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961. And by the Hawaii teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, after hearing that a woman named Stanley had given birth in Hawaii.

    • http://www.facebook.com/ReginaldCarlJackman Reginald Carl Jackman

      In America we specify "natural born citizen"; in England they use "native born citizen". Natural born (jus sanguinis) is "of the blood". Native born (jus soli) is "of the soil". "Of the blood" existed from the time of our independence. "Of the soil" stems from Congress' power "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization", and that came into fruition with the 14th Amendment. A 14th Amendment citizen is not qualified for the presidency.

      The Wong Kim Ark faux pas was a good and technically correct statement in majority summary, but one which was stupidly misinterpreted by a later Indiana court: “Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, … if he hath issue here, that issue is a ‘natural-born subject’; and his child … If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.” (Note: The British “natural-born subject” is not the same as our “natural born citizen”.) The Indiana court equated the ordinary citizen, a child born in the country, to a “natural born citizen”. But the summary states only that the quality of the child’s citizenship is every bit as good as that of the “natural born citizen”. It does not say that the child is a “natural born citizen”.

    • William Rawle

      To the members of the Founding Generation "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" meant the same thing. Here are some of the naturalization acts passed by the Massachusetts legislature between 1785 and 1791:

      February, 1785, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.” in which it was declared that Nicholas
      Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be
      citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and
      privileges of natural born citizens.”

      February, 1786, "AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING MICHAEL WALSH.” in which it was declared that Michael Walsh “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be a citizen of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of a natural born citizen.”

      July, 1786,“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JONATHAN CURSON
      AND WILLIAM OLIVER” in which it was declared that Jonathan Curson
      and William Oliver “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free
      Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges
      and immunities of natural born citizens."

      March, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

      May, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING EDWARD WYER AND OTHERS THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken, to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

      October, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”

      November, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ALEXANDER MOORE, AND OTHERS, HEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Alexander Moore and others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and immunities of natural born subjects.”

      June, 1788, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MENZIES, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Menzies and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born subjects.”

      November, 1788, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”

      February, 1789, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JAMES HUYMAN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that James Huyman and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the Liberties, Privileges and Immunities
      of natural born subjects.”

      June, 1789,“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NATHANIEL SKINNER, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Nathaniel
      Skinner and others "shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens
      of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

      March, 1790, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS,
      THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others,
      “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of
      natural born subjects.”

      March, 1791, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN WHITE & OTHERS" in which it was declared that John White and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken, to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges, and immunities of natural born subjects.”

      Notice how they go back and forth using the term "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen", even after the Constitution was ratified. and this wasn't just any old state. This was Massachusetts home of the Boston Massacre, the Boston Tea Party, Paul Revere's ride, the Battle of Lexington and Concord and of Bunker Hill. If anyone understood the difference between "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" it would be the citizens of Massachusetts.

    • becky

      You are making one mistake though. Back in those days - going by THAT history - those people made citizens were able to participate in voting and buying property - and the most important issue - gaining and sustaining their PLACE IN CHURCH. This made them "assimilated" citizens. (Something people today have lost the meaning of.) And it was ONLY at that state/local level. Even earlier these people were called "FREEMEN". And it was used in every sense of the word. They weren't made Presidents of the country. The only ones who could be at that time, were those INVOLVED in the making of the Constitution and participating in the Constitutional Convention. Beyond that time period - the issue became a "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" as defined BY those authors.

    • William Rawle

      John Adams was the second President - he didn't participate in the Constitutional Convention. Neither did Thomas Jefferson.

    • smrstrauss

      Where did you get that nutty theory from? The meaning of Natural Born Citizen in the USA means what Natural Born Subject did in Britain and in the 13 American colonies before the Revolution. The words Natural Born had been used in the common law for 300 years before the Constitution to refer to citizenship due to the PLACE of birth and not the parents.

      Here is an example of how it actually was USED in the USA shortly after the Constitution was written:

      "Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. ...St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

      (Notice that quotation refers to the place of birth, not to the parents. Natural Born Citizens were "those born within the state.")

      Because of this historical evidence and the ruling of the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case, Edwin Meese, Ronald Reagan's attorney general, had this in his book:

      “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

      In short, the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law (not from Vattel), and refers to the PLACE of birth (not to parents).

    • becky

      So what. The Supreme Court has not been following the law itself for a very long time. John Roberts finally exposed that information to the sleeping public. And they STILL didn't care. And the Supreme Court WAS WRONG. The law is the law - no matter what idiots the likes of John Roberts says.

    • smrstrauss

      In this case the US Supreme Court is right, and so are the seven state courts and one federal court----all of which ruled that Obama is a Natural Born US Citizen (and the US Supreme Court rejected birther appeals of one of those cases). That is because historical research shows overwhelmingly that the meaning of Natural Born really does come from the common law, and really does refer to the place of birth. That can be shown by the fact that Americans at the time the Constitution was written used the term Natural Born the way that it was used in the common law, to refer to the place of birth, and never used it to refer to parents.

      An example:

      "Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. ...St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

  • reggiec

    I wonder if Obama under pressure will just admit who his real father is? If he does and admits his real daddy is Frank Marshal Davis; it solves the elegibility problem but it also shows just how great a liar he is.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Susan-Weselnick/100000765711383 Susan Weselnick

    Born? Slithered out from under a rock, is more like it.

  • http://twitter.com/rvsisters RVSisters

    So perhaps whoever orchestrated his rise, already had that figured out... No one would object to him or ask for "documents" Does anyone remember the movie "The Manchurian Candidate?" I still wonder about Obama.....

    • smrstrauss

      What documents? Obama has showed his birth certificate---short form and long form---from Hawaii. And the facts on it have been repeatedly confirmed by the officials in Hawaii of both parties, and the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii is further confirmed by the public Index Data file and by the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers Health Bureau Statistics section by the DOH of Hawaii (and only the DOH could send those notices to that section of the paper, and it only did for births IN Hawaii) in 1961.

      What other documents? Obama has not showed his college records, but then neither did Mitt Romney---or for that matter Bush or Clinton or any president or presidential candidate (a few showed grade point averages, which is not the complete transcript). the same goes for Obama's passport records. Romney did not show them either nor did Bush or Clinton, etc.

    • becky

      Anyone requesting the "birth documents" at ANY TIME of a person CLAIMED by someone to be born in Hawaii, would receive those documents during those years. The request, and the issuance of the short form, was what released the notice to the public. So let's see, 2 communist grandparents could tell the DOH he was born there, with NO proof - and get all of the above. So no - nothing has been proved. Your argument is so specious it's ridiculous. Nor is the issue proved by you because of your argument that Bush nor Clinton shared theirs. No other president has been actively TRYING TO KILL AMERICA. The argument of SANE people everywhere is that an American wouldn't be trying to kill America. Let him prove he's an America. But he doesn't - BECAUSE HE CAN'T.

    • William Rawle

      The BC says he was born at Kapiolani Hospital. This has been certified by the state of Hawaii. So you believe the grandparents went to the Dept. of health and told them their grandson was born in the hospital but we cann't prove it. that's funny and incredible ignorant.

    • smrstrauss

      That is what birther sites told you. But, duh, it is not true. In 1961 ONLY children born in Hawaii could get birth certificates from Hawaii, and when there was a claim of a birth outside of a hospital, Hawaii demanded proof in the form of witness statements. This was unnecessary in Obama's case because he was born in Kapiolani Hospital, as his long-form birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii show. But getting back to your claim, it is not true. In 1961 Hawaii DID NOT ALLOW the DOH to issue birth certificates to children born outside of Hawaii; the DOH of Hawaii only issued birth certificates to children who were born IN Hawaii.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Victor-Barney/100000502045724 Victor Barney

    If we REALLY DO HAVE A CIA, WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? DUH! Just saying, it either is or isn't, but it can't be both or is it? OUCH!

    • smrstrauss

      One reason that the CIA has not done anything is that it does not have to. Obama really was born in Hawaii, and the US Supreme Court really has ruled that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born US Citizen.

    • becky

      And we see just how legitimate the Supreme Court has become haven't we? Nothing they've done since Roe vs. Wade that involved rewriting existing law - as they saw fit - has been legitimate, legal, Constitutional, you name it. It has become nothing more than another rogue agency thanks to the destruction of our legal system by communists.

    • William Rawle

      The Supreme Court ruled that "that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born US Citizen" in 1898. That was long before Roe v. Wade.

    • smrstrauss

      Our system is base on the US Supreme Court having the final say on the meaning of the law unless and until a Constitutional Amendment is passed that overturns the US Supreme Court ruling or it reverses itself. In October, the US Supreme Court had a chance to reverse itself, but it didn't, it rejected an appeal of a ruling by a lower court that had held that the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case is the key ruling on the meaning of Natural Born Citizen and that the Wong Kim Ark case ruled that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born Citizen.
      You have the Constitutional right to petition your legislators asking them to pass a new Constitutional Amendment that defines Natural Born Citizen as requiring two citizen parents. But unless and until that happens, it means what the US Supreme Court says that it means, that it came from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth.

  • emjay98

    Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been subjected to all kinds of insults, threats, etc, for his vetting of Obama. He has proven that Obama is not legally a citizen of our country. He is called a "birther" along with all the people who are convinced of this crass and illegal intrusion into our White house. He should be accountable when he leaves office and made to prove his eligibility that he professed in order to become the president. All those who stood behind him and endorsed everything he has done, should ultimately have to pay for the error of their ways with a huge fine. I am talking about the media types who backed everything he has done. Everything he has accumulated as a result of this subterfuge should be taken away from him and he should be made to pay for all the money he has spent on the unnecessary travel he and his family have enjoyed. He should have to pay every cent back to our country for any salary he has received during this period. Then he should be sent to live in the custody of the rest of the criminal element.

    • smrstrauss

      Sheriff Joe is not exactly an impartial leader.

      http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292780/conspiracy-again-editors#

    • emjay98

      Funny you should point out national review, since they are so IMPARTIAL! Are you kidding? The document that Obama released to the public as proof of his eligibility to be president was taken apart by many knowledgeable people who pointed out the obvious discrepancies in that so called birth certificate. It was manufactured nonsense, and there was no doubt it had been made to satisfy the doubting public, but instead the errors on it were there for all to see. Why would he put a fraudulent document on the internet to prove he was a citizen, and have it be such a botched fake?

    • smrstrauss

      The National Review is a well known conservative publication and it would not trash the work of a conservative unless it had real reason to do so, and of course it does. But it is not only the National Review. The CONSERVATIVE secretary of state of Arizona, Sheriff Joe's own state, asked Hawaii to confirm that it had Obama's birth certificate on file and to confirm all the facts on the long form that Obama published, and Hawaii did that, and so the CONSERVATIVE secretary of state of
      Arizona concluded that was indeed proof that Obama was born in
      Hawaii and ruled that Obama would be on the ballot in Arizona (and he
      was, and indeed on the ballot on all 50 states). This action by the
      secretary of state of Arizona indicates that he does not believe Sheriff
      Joe but does believe the officials of the state of Hawaii (of which
      officials of BOTH political parties have confirmed that Obama was born
      there).

      Only birther "experts"---who have not proved that they are really experts, and who certainly have not proved that they are fair and
      impartial----say that there is anything wrong with the image of Obama's
      birth certificate. The birther "experts" include Paul Irey, who has repeatedly claimed that Obama did not attend Columbia College,
      despite the fact that Columbia University has stated that Obama did
      attend (and that he graduated). And they include Doug Vogt, who claims to have found the original altar of Abraham. It is such "experts" as these that the birthers rely on for their case.

      There are many real experts who say that there is nothing wrong with Obama's birth certificate, including John Woodman, who happens to be a member of the Tea Party and who dislikes Obama and Obama's policies, but shows that the birther "experts" are wrong. They also include Ivan Zatkovich, who was hired by WND to examine the image
      of Obama's birth certificate, and when he submitted his report that there was nothing wrong with Obama's birth certificate, WND simply did not publish it.

      As for Sheriff Joe and his posse:

      http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/07/exposed-sheriff-joe-arpaio-corsi-birther-scam-heres-the-proof-that-arpaios-posse-fabricated-evidence-and-lied-to-the-nation/

      and

      http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/07/indicting-the-sheriff-joe-and-the-cold-case-posse/

      It is clear that rational conservatives do not believe the "birth
      certificate was forged" claims. Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and the National
      Review certainly do not. Nor does Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan or Gingrich or Santorum or Huckabee.

    • becky

      Sorry - NO Hawaii DID NOT DO THAT! They hemmed and hawed and tried to do so in so many words. They DID NOT vouch for that document.

    • William Rawle

      Yes, they did on three separate occasions. Once to the SoS of Arizona, once to the Federal Court in Mississippi and once to the Sos of Kansas. Both SoSs were Republicans

    • smrstrauss

      They vouched for the FACTS on the document many times, and it is the facts that count. In fact, think a little bit (I know that this is going to be hard).

      Logically, even if Obama's birth certificate were forged (and it isn't, but consider only that IF it is), and if all the facts on it are accurate, as the officials in Hawaii of BOTH parties, and the Index Data and the birth notices in the newspapers all show, then, duh, Obama was born in Hawaii. And that makes him a Natural Born Citizen because the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats.

      So, IF Obama's birth certificate were forged, and I can show about six real experts who say that it wasn't, then there would be obvious questions as to who and why it was forged (perhaps it would have been forged by Obama's enemies, who knows?). BUT the investigation of all that would have to be later than the swearing in because the facts would still be that Obama was born in Hawaii (as he was, and the facts that confirm that are OVERWHELMING). And he is a Natural Born Citizen due to the Wong Kim Ark case. If HE forged his birth certificate (which he didn't), and it could be proved (which it can't) that would be a high crime, and he could be impeached. But, he didn't, and if he did, guess who would become president? Vice President Biden is who.

      Here is the latest of the confirmations:

      _http://www.obamabirthbook.com/wp-content/uploads/verification.jpg_ (http://www.obamabirthbook.com/wp-content/uploads/verification.jpg)

      And it says that Hawaii has Obama's birth certificate on file, and that it has checked the information on the birth certificate published by the White House against the one in the files and found that they match. That means that the facts are exactly the same.

      Here is the confirmation sent to the Secretary of State of Arizona (and accepted as valid confirmation by him):

      _http://www.azcentral.com/12news/Obama-Verification.pdf_ (http://www.azcentral.com/12news/Obama-Verification.pdf)

      As you can see, that not only answers all 12 questions that were asked by Bennett, but it says "additionally" that it checked the information in the copy attached and that it matches the document in the files.

      Here are the early confirmations that Hawaii has Obama's birth certificate and that the facts on Obama's birth certificate are accurate:

      Here is the first of the confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.

      _http://www.kitv.com/r/17860890/detail.html_ (http://www.kitv.com/r/17860890/detail.html)

      Notice where it says that there is an original birth certificate filed. Well, in 1961 foreign birth certificates, even those from other states, could not be filed in Hawaii. So the birth certificate in Obama’s files must be a Hawaii birth certificate. (The link may be out of date, sorry, but the others are more than sufficient.)

      Here is the second of the confirmations by the officials in Hawaii:

      _http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm_ (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm)

      Notice where it says that the document in the files VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii. So, not only is there an official Hawaiian birth certificate in the files, but it says right on it that Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii has never allowed the Department of Health to issue a birth document of any kind that says on it that anyone was born in Hawaii unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii, and that is what the officials in Hawaii have confirmed twice.

      And here is the confirmation by the governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican, that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital _http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answer s_the.html_ (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html)
      In addition to these confirmations, there is the Index Data:
      _http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2011/04/in_hawaii_its_easy_to_get _birt.html_ (http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2011/04/in_hawaii_its_easy_to_get_birt.html)
      And, of course, there are the birth notices that appeared in the Hawaii newspaper in August 1961. At the time only notices sent by the DOH of Hawaii appeared in that section of the newspaper (headed "Health Bureau Statistics", and the DOH only sent out those notices for births in Hawaii.)

    • emjay98

      http://www.infowars.com/obama-bombshell-new-birth-certificate-a-forgery/ This is just one copy of the forged birth certificate. Perhaps you will be able to tell that this is a forged document if you look closely.

    • smrstrauss

      Birthers and spoofers have forged several copies of Obama's birth certificate, and perhaps this is one of them. But the one published by the White House was not forged.

      Officials in Hawaii of BOTH parties have repeatedly confirmed the FACTS on it are exactly the same as the facts that are on the birth certificate in the files. Exactly the same; in fact, the word that they used is that they MATCH.

      In fact, only birther "experts"---who have not proved that they are really experts, and who CERTAINLY have not showed that they are impartial---have claimed that there is anything wrong with Obama's birth certificate. Those are two reasons why Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and the National Review do not believe them.

      The birther "experts" include Paul Irey, who has repeatedly claimed that Obama did not attend Columbia College, despite the fact that Columbia University has stated that Obama did attend (and that he graduated). And they include Doug Vogt, who claims to have found the original altar of Abraham. It is such "experts" as these that the birthers rely on for their case. There are many real experts who say that there is nothing wrong with Obama's birth certificate, including John Woodman, who happens to be a member of the Tea Party and who dislikes Obama and Obama's policies, but shows that the birther "experts" are wrong. They also include Ivan Zatkovich, who was hired by WorldND to examine the image of Obama's birth certificate, and when he submitted his report that there was nothing wrong with Obama's birth certificate, WorldND simply did not publish it.
      Other document experts:
      Dr. Neil Krawetz, an imaging software analysis author and experienced examiner of questioned images, said: “The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious.”
      Nathan Goulding with The National Review: “We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it. … I ’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.”
      And: _http://www.obamabirthbook.com/..._ (http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/09/genuine-world-class-computer-expert-evaluat es-obamas-birth-certificate-pdf/)
      More importantly the real issue is where Obama was born, and his birth in Hawaii is confirmed by his birth certificate AND the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii, AND the Index Data, AND the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers that were sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 (and ONLY the DOH of Hawaii could send notices to the "Health Bureau Statistics" sections of the papers, and in 1961 the DOH only did so for births IN Hawaii). Oh, AND also by the Hawaii teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, after hearing that a child was born in Hawaii to a woman named Stanley.

    • becky

      Legal doesn't HAVE to mean "impartial" as you put it. Why does the TRUTH scare all of you progressives so much? Just curious.

    • smrstrauss

      To be sure "legal" does not have to be impartial. But an "expert" who claims that Obama did not attend Columbia College, even though Columbia University says that he did, is for sure suspect as to his motives for saying that Obama's birth certificate is forged. I am not afraid of the facts. I show only the facts. Here, for example, are citations from the officials in Hawaii of both parties that Hawaii has Obama's birth certificate on file and that it shows that he was born in Kapiolani Hospital in Hawaii:

      Here is the latest of the confirmations:

      _http://www.obamabirthbook.com/wp-content/uploads/verification.jpg_ (http://www.obamabirthbook.com/wp-content/uploads/verification.jpg)

      And it says that Hawaii has Obama's birth certificate on file, and that it has checked the information on the birth certificate published by the White House against the one in the files and found that they match. That means that the facts are exactly the same.

      Here is the confirmation sent to the Secretary of State of Arizona (and accepted as valid confirmation by him):

      _http://www.azcentral.com/12news/Obama-Verification.pdf_ (http://www.azcentral.com/12news/Obama-Verification.pdf)

      As you can see, that not only answers all 12 questions that were asked by Bennett, but it says "additionally" that it checked the information in the copy attached and that it matches the document in the files.

      Turning back to the early confirmations that Hawaii has Obama's birth certificate and that the facts on Obama's birth certificate are accurate:
      Here is the first of the confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.

      _http://www.kitv.com/r/17860890/detail.html_ (http://www.kitv.com/r/17860890/detail.html)

      Notice where it says that there is an original birth certificate filed. Well, in 1961 foreign birth certificates, even those from other states, could not be filed in Hawaii. So the birth certificate in Obama’s files must be a Hawaii birth certificate. (This link is probably out of date, sorry. But the document does exist. In any case, the other citations are more than enough.)

      Here is the second of the confirmations by the officials in Hawaii:

      _http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm_ (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm)

      Notice where it says that the document in the files VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii. So, not only is there an official Hawaiian birth certificate in the files, but it says right on it that Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii has never allowed the Department of Health to issue a birth document of any kind that says on it that anyone was born in Hawaii unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii, and that is what the officials in Hawaii have confirmed twice.

      And here is the confirmation by the governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican, that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital _http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answer s_the.html_ (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html)
      In addition to these confirmations, there is the Index Data:
      _http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2011/04/in_hawaii_its_easy_to_get _birt.html_ (http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2011/04/in_hawaii_its_easy_to_get_birt.html)
      And, of course, there are the birth notices that appeared in the Hawaii newspaper in August 1961. At the time only notices sent by the DOH of Hawaii appeared in that section of the newspaper (headed "Health Bureau Statistics", and the DOH only sent out those notices for births in Hawaii.)

  • James Maxwell

    Loki the Liar has conived his way into the White House and now all of the political figures
    are scared out of their minds that the truth will come out and the American people will
    revolt and throw all of them out of office. Nothing scare a polician more than the though
    of losing their power over othes.

  • har82

    Every person sitting in Congress who certified this in 08 is - guilty - of sedition, or a traitor.
    And if ,, they do it again on December 17th of 2012, then they - all - need to be hung in the public squares of every city in this country.
    Seems Congress is afraid of the blacks rioting. Yes they are violent and may very well happen.
    But the alternative is far worse. How would they like red blooded Americans ,, rioting in the streets ??. maybe 160 million armed Americans ??.
    Aww, that wont happen. No one cares enough anymore. It's d a m n certain Congress doesn't care ... And for the record, a foreign national ,, can not legally ,, - declare martial law - .
    The way I see it, everything he's done since day one ,, has been illegal. So much for the - Rule of Law - in this country.

    • smrstrauss

      The above is an excellent example of why Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and the National Review all call birthers CRAZY.

    • har82

      Crazy or not , however you see it . The SOB is still not ,, A natural born citizen. NOT IN ANYBODIES BOOK , or by any ,, stretch of the word. The p,,,k is holding office illegally. PERIOD ...

    • smrstrauss

      Obama was born in Hawaii, and the evidence for that is overwhelming, and every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats, is a Natural Born US citizen.

      “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

    • har82

      Ya right . You just keep your head in the sand. We are all much better off . And - Natural Born Citizen - , means born of 2 ,,,, American citizens. Not one wh,,e , and a half baked kenyan gigolo. Funny how people like you only quote the parts you like of all that .. Why don't you quote the part of - both - parents being citizens hmm ??.

    • smrstrauss

      No, a Natural Born Citizen was defined by the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case, which BTW was after Minor v. Happersett, to have come from the common law and to refer to the place of birth. And the same ruling said that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats. That is why Meese said what he said above, and the same has been said by Senators Hatch and Graham and former Senator Fred Thompson and the Congressional Research Service, and the Wall Street Journal and the economist. And that is why when birthers tried to convince the 538 members of the Electoral College to switch their votes to vote against Obama four years ago, not one single one switched a single vote---the vote by the electors was exactly the same as in the general election. And that is why the US Congress confirmed Obama's election four years ago UNANIMOUSLY. Obama will be re-elected by the Electors again and confirmed again and sworn in again for his second term.

    • becky

      har82 is not crazy. Nor is he a "birther". That is just some stupid word you progressive/commie wackos came up with to use as an insult. Kind of like your kind calling republicans "racists". You do these things BECAUSE YOU CAN. Period. And because you are liars and corrupt. But those of us that still believe in America know YOUR LIES don't MAKE truth. No matter how many times you spew your lying vomit. Someday you will realize you are not swaying true Americans. Then YOUR gig will be up.

    • smrstrauss

      Early last year the group of people who do not believe that Obama was born in the USA and/or is not a NBC because of his father wanted to have a big meeting in Washington. It never came off, largely because of splits in the group and also because there was not enough supporters to make the meeting pay. However, as to the word " birthers" there was agreement. The meeting was going to be called: "THE BIRTHER SUMMIT." In other words, the birthers were calling themselves BIRTHERS. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the term, be proud of it. During Prohibition people who were against it were called "Wets," and people who were for it were called "Drys," and people who do not think that Obama was born in the USA or is a NBC because of the two parent notion (both of which are wrong) are called "birthers."

  • Blaine Nay

    Half the country voted only for the color of his skin. That, apparently, is the most important characteristic to be president of the United States -- not whether he is eligible or whether he can even do the job! We need smarter voters!

  • theodorej

    IF he goes to AZ. that sheriff has the authority to arrest him.... I believe sheriff Joe has the balls to do that...