Why Couldn’t Healthcare.gov Validate Obama’s Identity?

Obamapeeved
NEW YORK – The White House appears to have dropped a bombshell when it explained to the press why White House staff in Washington enrolled President Obama in Obamacare instead of Obama himself.

Officials said it was because HealthCare.gov could not verify Obama’s identity.

Here is what Ed Henry, Fox News White House correspondent, reported on air:

“Somebody who’s not waiting in line to enroll is the president of the United States. We learned today from the White House. Initially, they said he signed up for what they called a bronze plan, paying about four hundred dollars a month in premiums. But, then they came back to us and said – ‘Well, wait. He didn’t actually enroll. They said his staff did it and that’s because of his unique circumstance obviously, as commander-in-chief, that his personal information is not in various government databases, so Healthcare.gov could not actually verify his identity, oddly enough. So, he had to do it in person this weekend, so he was signing up for the D.C. exchange, but his staff did it.”

A CBS report in Washington, likewise, explained White House staff had to go to an “in-person” Obamacare site to sign up Obama for coverage.

The Fox News report,  
noted by the Gateway Pundit, set off a round of speculation on the Internet.

What information was so sensitive for Obama that it had to be excluded from government databases?

Clearly, the information was not his Social Security Number or his birth records, because the White House has claimed to have made public both.

[Continue Reading at WND...]


Comments

  1. This just gets creepier and creepier. It’s the twilight zone presidency.If it weren’t so sick, it’d be comical:
    - We have to pass it to find out what’s in it.
    -The anarchists are trying to take away poor people’s health insurance.
    - The Presidents personal information cannot be included in the ACA (or NSA) database.
    - Obama’s sign up requires “in-person” visit. Therefore, his staff goes and signs up for him. Which SSN did they use?
    - SSN belongs to someone who lives in Connecticut.

    But Nancy likes it– she’s going to run on it. How will she run on it if it’s repealed? I guess she can be repealed also.

  2. Everything surrounding this “mystery man” really does get creepier and creepier with each new day…and noone in Washingtion ever seems to care. They just cover-up, lie or it becomes yet another mystery that can’t be proven or ever solved. Who in the hEiL have you all voted in as our president??? If we all survive this horrid administration, I wonder if and when the truth will come out? So…you say that he signed up for the measley BRONZE healthcare plan, but had to apply in person…but he didn’t go in person…he sends someone else with all his personal info to sign up for him. Yeah….right. They treat us like idiots.

    1. No one does. His whole life is under “protection” as the ruse continues. I don’t understand why we can’t get him exposed for the fraud he is.

    2. You cant expose the truth with this biased liberal media. Top it off at a time when we we realing in agony from the attacks of 911, hunting for Osama, these Bush hating, liberal democrats revolted, lied, cheated, fraudulent voting etc, coupled with the “anything but Hillary” crowd, and all the desprate latinos, welfare recipients, countless other scoundrels, and “blacks” who now have the oppurtunity to turn whitey upside down. All voted for change in a guy named “Barrack Hussein Obama”
      Thats why we are standing on our heads and the rest of the world is laughing at us.
      include the gays, lesbos etc. The mentaly ill are manipulating our destruction and the idiot evil elites are capitulateing to this insanity. Pray for another Reagan. Maybe like Cruz or someone who still has a soul and loves what we knew America is supposed to be.

    3. Except we were not “realing in agony from the attacks of
      911″ in 2008, eight years later when Obama was elected!

    4. Even more disturbing how forgetfull people can be if not personally touched by a tragedy. While the guy has a muslim name that sounds like the terrorist leader of Al Qaeda on top of Americas hit list. OSAMA VS OBAMA, People who care about this country and see where its going NEVER Forget things like Benghazi, Fast and furious, Pearl Harbor, the Holocaust, and “911″ .
      9 out of 10 times the social democrat progressive liberal machine does little to remember, instead they cover up and use the soros propaganda guide

    1. I heard that the name the number corresponded to was Harrison J Bounel He’s been dead about 60 years.

    2. I guess you mean both have presented facts that you can’t dispute, so instead you claim they’ve been proven to be innacurate and biased. Got it.

    3. you baggers are seriously delusional.. snopes has admitted when they are wrong in the past. don’t you think the FBI under a republican president vetted the man
      who would have access to the nuclear codes? you
      people are laughable.

    1. Are you kidding? Did you hear about the plane crash in Hawaii two weeks back? Private plane crash landed in the water, all survived except the for person. That person happened to be the registrar who certified the Obama birth certificate and released it. Arpaio’s cold case posse had been set to address some members of Congress at the first part of year, with a blow it out of the part witness. Guess that will be delayed, as she was probably the one. Thug style politics, Chicago style. Hit men, assassins (CIA, NSA) Government surveillance, DHS building domestic army. Reporters getting killed in car accidents (when working NSA info release story with Snowden info). We are already there. The sheeple have not opened their eyes, but the rest already see it. We are in trouble, and it will take a revolt to save this country. Otherwise, good morning comrades!

  3. Oh this is such BS! There is no reason for the president to sign up for this. He has Boutique Medical Coverage. He has an effing private doctor that makes house calls. You really think he’s gonna put his info on there? When he has never even released his medical records! You REALLY think he’s gonna be sitting in some clinic waiting room? How stupid does he think we are?!

    1. he is doing it for the mere fact of saying he did sign up.. no he wont use it because its more of a political move nothing else

    2. I understand Rubio & Boehner both signed up, too. Of course it’s for political reasons. There are millions of voters who think, as do I, that Congress & the President should have to abide by the same laws as we peons.

    3. the grassley amendment requires all members of congress
      to get their health insurance on the ACA exchanges. it
      is mandatory!

    4. I agree with everything you say, except the last question,”How stupid does he think we are?” The answer is very stupid….he was elected twice!!!

  4. Fact or Fiction?

    4 Simple Questions

    1.. Back in 1961 people of color were called ‘Negroes.’ So how can the Obama ‘birth certificate’ state he is “African-American” when the term wasn’t even used at that time ?

    2.. The birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama’s birth as August 4, 1961 & Lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, Right ? At the time of Obama’s birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama’s father was born in “Kenya , East Africa “. This wouldn’t seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama’s birth, and 27 years after his father’s birth. How could Obama’s father have been born in a country that did not yet Exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the “British East Africa Protectorate”. (check it below) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya)

    3.. On the Birth Certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is “Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital”. This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called “KauiKeolani Children’s Hospital” and “Kapi’olani Maternity Home”, respectively. The name did not change to Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978? (CHECK IT BELOW)

    http://http/http/www.kapiolani.org/women-and-children/about-us/default.aspx> (http://www.kapiolani.org/women-and-children/about-us/default.aspx)

    Why hasn’t this been discussed in the major media ?

    4.. Perhaps a clue comes from Obama’s book on his father. He states how proud he is of his father fighting in WW II. I’m not a math genius, so I may need some help from you. Barack Obama’s “birth certificate” says his father was 25 years old in 1961 when Obama was born. That should have put his father’s date of birth approximately 1936-if my math holds (Honest! I did that without a calculator!!!) Now we need a non-revised history book-one that hasn’t been altered to satisfy the author’s goals-to verify that WW II was basically between 1939 and 1945. Just how many 3 year olds fight in Wars? Even in the latest stages of WW II his father wouldn’t have been more than 9 years old. Does that mean that Mr. Obama is a liar, or simply chooses to alter the facts to satisfy his imagination or political purposes (still Obama, our president qualifies as a “liar”)?

    RICHARD R. SILVERLIEB
    Attorney at Law

    Livingston , NJ 07039

    1. You know why the media is not discussing it, they are in the tank for Obama. You watch them scrutinize Cruz if he runs for President and for that matter any conservative. It is sad what the media has become.

    2. They can scrutinize all they want on Cruz, Obama has set the precedents and that will allow Cruz to bypass just as Obama as done.

    3. Cruz’s citizenship has already been scrutinized by the government department that handles that sort of thing. He passed. His mother was/is and American citizen, his father was in the process of being approved as a citizen and he has renounced his dual citizenship with America and Canada. He can run legally with nothing to hide.

    4. Where is parents are from or their citizenship is irrelevant. All that matters is where Cruz was born. If in the US he is eligible to be president. Personally I like Ben Carson. The IRS all ready put him through the ringer after he called Obummer out and they got no where. He was squeaky clean. lol
      .

    5. Where the parents are from is very relevant. Cruz was born in Canada. There’s no disputing that. So the only way he can be a “natural born” citizen is if one of his parents is an American. His mother was. So he held dual citizenship. He renounced his Canadian citizenship and is just an American citizen now. He was never a Cuban citizen, even though his father was Cuban, because Cuba doesn’t have the same citizenship requirements. Cruz meets all requirements for presidency, which unfortunately, Obama also does.

    6. it is required that both parents be legal american residents born is the US and the child born is born in the US to be elgible for presidency. not just 1 parent..

    7. No, you’re very wrong. Only one parent need be a US citizen for the offspring to be a “natural born” citizen. Look it up. While you’re at it, look up the requirements for presidency. I’d give you the links but I’m not going to do your work for you. If you can PROVE otherwise, do so. Until then, believe me.

    8. The understood definition at the time the requirement was established was that BOTH parents were required to be citizens of the country they were considered to be “Natural Born Citizens” of. This was made a requirement to be President to help guaranty the President would not be influenced by a parent that held an allegiance to a foreign country, which is the case with Obama.

      The Supreme Court addressed this definition only once in 1874 in Minor v. Happersett:

      “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that

      “No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President, and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

      “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

    9. my opinion is that ovomit classifies he is a african american being that he puts african first then he must be african and not American. just saying, i can’t stand it when people say african American, first off they have probably never been to Africa and second of all they are American ( ovomit is not an American) black, white, red, irish, Japanese, Italians and others if they are Americans are that color does not exclude you. they segregate themselves. American and proud of it a heinz 57 if you please a little of this and a little of that. just my thoughts

    10. Americans love to call themselves anything BUT Americans. They say Italian American, Japanese American, Chinese American, African American. Why not just say American. My mother was not English, neither was my father. My mother was from Belgium and my father was from Scotland. I was born in England, therefore I am English.

    11. I have refrained from responding to this thread because it seems it’s not true if you don’t want it to be. Here are a few facts.

      Chester A. Arthur, the 21st president was born of an American mother and an Irish father. His father did not get his US citizenship until after his son became president.

      Thomas Jefferson’s mother was born in England.

      Andrew Jackson had a foreign parent.

      James Buchanan father was also Irish.

      Woodrow Wilson’s mother was born in England.

      Herbert Hoovers mother ws born in Canada.

      Ted Cruz was born of an American mother and Cuban father. Will he be eligible to run for president? Unless the law is changed, the answer is yes.

    12. NONE of it matters where a parent was born, only whether they are a U.S. citizen when the child was born to be considered a “Natural Born Citizen.” As to those that were born before the U.S. was a nation, if they were a resident when the U.S. was created, they are considered “Natural Born Citizens”

      Chester A Arthur only became President when Garfield was assassinated. As VP there is no restriction as to being “Natural Born” and the rules of succession spell out who becomes President upon death. They do not require “Natural Born.”

    13. You’re correct in regards to those born before the US was a nation. Actually, a person can be a natural born citizen, even if neither of his parents are citizens. They would have to be born in the US and not to parents of diplomats and a few other restrictions. He or she would be eligible to run for the office of President or VP. The requirements for VP are the SAME as they are for president. See Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution. If a person is to be considered a natural born citizen and they’re not born in the US, they only have to have one parent who is a citizen at the time of their birth. Not both of them. There is a lot of confusion on the subject, thus our conversation. I’m not trying to argue with you. I’m just trying to clarify to the best of my ability. There has been a lot of discussion regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen and it isn’t defined in the Constitution. It was commonly understood what it meant at the time the Constitution was written. It was considered to be the same as the definition used in English law. Times have changed, words change meaning, and definitions change. (BTW, the meaning of passages in the Bible suffer the same problem.) There should be a definition to clarify the phrase. The Supreme Court has never specifically addressed the requirements for President but they have defined natural born in other cases. However, only for those specific cases. There are precedents in the law but you need to be a legal scholar to find and understand them all. I’m not so I have to trust those who are. I’d like to see an official declaration of the definition soon. Otherwise, we’ll be going through the same conversation again, with another candidate in the future. It appears you have been researching the subject and I commend you for that. It’s a complicated issue and it’s hard to research and understand it. It’s particularly hard when some internet sites have an agenda to accomplish and distort their take on the subject.

    14. Perhaps you did not read or understand the passage I quoted from the Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happersett.

      The Supreme Court stated that it did not have to go deeper in its decision because the woman’s parents (plural) were both citizens when she was born, thus she was by definition a Natural Born Citizen.

      There is NO other Supreme Court case that addresses the definition of “Natural Born Citizen”

      Unfortunately, I did not save the quote, nor do I remember which Founding Father stated that the reason they required that a President be a “Natural Born Citizen” was to help guaranty that a parent who had allegiance to another country would not have a negative influence on the upbringing of the President, as is the case with Obama.

      Maybe you did not see my reference to a recent Supreme Court ruling that found that the Supreme Court had no authority to rule on Obama’s eligibility to be President as it is the responsibility of the Political Party to certify his eligibility. This means that ANYONE that is declared eligible by his party, can run for and be elected President, regardless of his parents’ citizenship or in fact HIS citizenship. ANYONE in the world that is declared eligible by his party, could become president (not that many would vote for Putin or Amadinejad if the Democratic Party declared them eligible too).

    15. Once again, you’ve demonstrated that you don’t know what you’re talking about. The Twelfth Amendment, adopted in 1804, states that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” And under the “rules of succesion” (3 USC § 19 – Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act) succession to the Presidency is limited “to such officers as are eligible to the office of President under the Constitution.”
      It’s really not that hard to get this stuff right. Why don’t you even try?

    16. Thanks for correcting me on succession.
      It is strange that you understand that but do not understand the simple definition of “Natural-Born Citizen” as explained by Minor v Happersett as I posted in your other response:

      the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” that they state. IT
      WAS NEVER DOUBTED THAT ALL CHILDREN
      1) born in a country (like the U.S.)
      2) of parents (plural)
      3) who were its (that country’s ) citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.

      (Now here comes the really tricky part that you are having a very hard time understanding)

      These (the children satisfying 1,2, and 3 above) were natives or (now pay close attention) NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS. as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

      Now there are several other types of citizens that do not fit the definition of “Natural-Born Citizen.” Such as a child born outside the U.S. to a citizen parent, would be a citizen but not a Natural-Born Citizen. Like wise born in the U.S. of only ONE citizen parent (Hello? Obama!!!) is NOT a Natural-Born Citizen by definition, but is a citizen.

      Why did the Founding Fathers want this special distinct of “Natural-Born Citizen” as opposed to just any kind of citizen? One Founder wrote that it was to help guaranty that the President would not be negatively influenced by a parent whose allegiance was to another country, like Obama.

    17. Well, I see there is at least a glimmer of hope for you. You’re welcome.
      It’s not at all strange to me, though, that you continue to misconstrue Minor. It doesn’t say what you want it to, and it doesn’t do what you want it to. In fact, it REFUTES your argument. Every court presented with your argument has agreed with me, and disagreed with you– and most of them cite to Minor in so doing.
      And honestly, must you insist on spamming your own comments? You keep copying the same thing, over and over. It gets tedious, Stephen. I know there’s no originality in your argument, but you could try to exercise a little originality in its presentation.
      And identify that Founder, and supply that comment. Otherwise, you’re just another gossip.
      You’ve said
      “These (the children satisfying 1,2, and 3 above) were natives or (now pay close attention) NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS. as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
      Are you proposing that President Obama, born in the United States to a US citizen mother, is an alien or foreigner? Obviously not, because you concede that he is a citizen.
      You continue,
      “Now there are several other types of citizens that do not fit the definition of “Natural-Born Citizen.” Such as a naturalized citizen is not a “Natural-Born Citizen.” Such as a child born outside the U.S. to a citizen parent, would be a citizen but not a Natural-Born Citizen.”
      According to the US Supreme Court, “a child born outside the U.S. to a citizen parent” is in the strictest Constitutional sense (not, however, in the statutory sense) a naturalized citizen. Yet there is a considerable consensus that such a child would be, upon satisfying the other qualifications, eligible for the Presidency. Senator McCain provides an example of such a case; and I recommend you carefully consider any objection to that statement.
      A child born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, as President Obama WITHOUT RATIONAL DOUBT was, is in no sense of the term a naturalized citizen, and is not an alien or foreigner. There is not some inferior category of citizen for such a person. President Obama IS a natural born citizen of the United States.

    18. You are so tedious. Where do I say ANYTHING about Obama’s eligibility???? Why are you lying by saying I am suggesting he is a foreigner? If you do not understand that the court was referring to Natural Born as all the proof in Minor v Happersett as to citizenship in this case, AND they actually provided the definition of Natural Born, proving, therefore, that they did not have to define any other type of citizenship You are either disingenuous or stupid. Which is it?

    19. All right, down the line:
      “Where do I say ANYTHING about Obama’s eligibility????”
      Where you say
      “Now there are several other types of citizens that do not fit the
      definition of “Natural-Born Citizen.” Such as a naturalized citizen is
      not a “Natural-Born Citizen.” Such as a child born outside the U.S. to a
      citizen parent, would be a citizen but not a Natural-Born Citizen.
      Like wise born in the U.S. of only ONE citizen parent (Hello? Obama!!!)
      is NOT a Natural-Born Citizen by definition, but is a citizen.”
      That’s where. Duh. Are you gainsaying your own words?
      “Why are you lying by saying I am suggesting he is a foreigner?”
      I didn’t say you were. In fact, I said that you were “Obviously not, because you concede that he is a citizen.”
      I’m just pointing out that your argument is logically inconsistent– because you simply don’t understand what the heck Chief Justice Waite is talking about. Chief Justice Waite referred to citizenship by birth and by naturalization, and to “doubts” about citizenship which the case at hand did not require to be settled. I’ve explained what those doubts were, and how they remained imperfectly settled until long after Minor was decided– even long after the Nineteenth Amendment resolved the controversy in Minor.
      Setting aside the irrelevant status of non-citizen US nationality, a person who is by no understanding of the term a naturalized citizen is either a natural born citizen or an alien– and a person whose citizenship at birth is affirmed by the Fourteenth Amendment is by no understanding of the term a naturalized citizen. That statement is perfectly consistent with what Chief Justice Waite said in Minor. It’s consistent with what Chief Justice Marshall said in Osborne v. Bank of the United States; it’s consistent with what Justice Gray said in US v. Wong Kim Ark; and it’s consistent with what Justice Van Devanter said in Luria v. United States. Oh, by the way– you keep saying
      “The Supreme Court addressed this definition only once in 1874 in Minor v. Happersett.”
      Where did you come up with that one? For one notorious example, Justice Daniel quoted Vattel in his infamous concurrence in Scott v. Sandford, to practically the same end that you’re pursuing. I’ll cite here at length– I’m sure you’ll find it “tedious,” but it’s the kind of adult dose you’d have to be able to swallow to see exactly what you’re wallowing in:
      “By this same writer it is also said: ‘The citizens are
      the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain
      duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in
      its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born
      in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot
      perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those
      children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to
      all their rights.’ Again: ‘I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
      The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are
      permitted to settle and stay in the country.’ (Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19,
      p. 101.)
      “From the views here expressed, and they seem to be unexceptionable, it must follow, that with the slave, with one devoid of rights or capacities, civil or political,
      there could be no pact; that one thus situated could be no party to, or
      actor in, the association of those possessing free will, power,
      discretion. He could form no part of the design, no constituent
      ingredient or portion of a society based upon common, that is, upon equal interests and powers. He could not at the same time be the sovereign and the slave.
      “But it has been insisted, in argument, that the emancipation of a slave,
      effected either by the direct act and assent of the master, or by
      causes operating in contravention of his will, produces a change in the status
      or capacities of the slave, such as will transform him from a mere
      subject of property, into a being possessing a social, civil, and
      political equality with a citizen. In other words, will make him a
      citizen of the State within which he was, previously to his
      emancipation, a slave.
      “It is difficult to conceive by what magic the mere surcease or renunciation of an interest in a subject of property,
      by an individual possessing that interest, can alter the essential
      character of that property with respect to persons or communities
      unconnected with such renunciation. Can it be pretended that an
      individual in any State, by his single act, though voluntarily or
      designedly performed, yet without the co-operation or warrant of the
      Government, perhaps in opposition to its policy or its guaranties, can
      create a citizen of that State? Much more emphatically may it be asked,
      how such a result could be accomplished by means wholly extraneous, and
      entirely foreign to the Government of the State? The argument thus urged
      must lead to these extraordinary conclusions. It is regarded at once as
      wholly untenable, and as unsustained by the direct authority or by the
      analogies of history.”
      Did you get that? Your exclusive definition of “natural born citizen” has NEVER BEEN USED for anything but to deny citizenship to persons on the basis of race. Take race out of it, and you have what Justice Curtis said in his dissent in that same case– which is one of the most highly regarded dissents in the history of the Supreme Court:
      “The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the
      language, ‘a natural-born citizen.’ It thus assumes that citizenship may
      be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution
      was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood
      in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which
      referred citizenship to the place of birth.”
      Pretty simple, isn’t it? No mention of citizen parents. I know which side of Dred Scott I want to be on.
      I’ll reiterate, no court faced with the issue has agreed with your wacky misapprehension of Minor; and has in fact cited to the case itself in refuting it. One need look no further than Chief Justice Waite’s own words to see that you’re mistaken.

    20. I got about half way through and saw ABSOLUTLY NOTHING to deny that NATURAL BORN CITIZEN is ANY THING other than what was established in Minor v. Happersett. If there is something in there that you would specifically like to point out, do so rather than present a Quotation of dribble that the majority of has nothing to do with the definition.

    21. Well, I figured that would be too much of an adult dose.
      Of course you’re not going to see any such thing. The ghost of Chief Justice Waite could show up in your bedchamber, with the chains of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific rattling behind him, and TELL you what he meant, and you still wouldn’t see it. Maybe if you were visited by the ghosts of natural born citizen past, present and yet to come you’d see the light.

    22. Just as I thought. You are unable to refute the truth that Natural Born Citizens are

      1) born in a country (like the U.S.)
      2) of parents (plural)
      3) who were its (that country’s ) citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.

      Pure and simple.

    23. No, you’re just unwilling to face facts. And what’s this “like the U.S.” business? What other country has such an exact concept, for such a purpose, with exactly your stated requirement?

    24. In the 1700′s ALL people of ALL nations under stood the meaning of Natural Born Citizens as is illustrated quite obviously by the statement in the case. They did not limit their acknowledgment of the definition to just the U.S. They were generic, showing that any nation knew this was the definition at the time the Constitution was written.

      I put “like the U.S.” so even you would understand that when they stated “in a country” it did not refer to only other countries. It applied to the U.S. also. What? Did you actually think it did not apply to the other nations in the world at the time? Do you think the justices were stupid or lying about what the accepted known definition of “Natural Born Citizen” was in the 1700′s?

      Maybe you think you are smarter and now know better than those Supreme Court Justices as to what that definition was back then? Progressives today do say only they are smart enough to know best about everything. They need to be the ones in control in the all powerful central government so they can tell us peons what we are free to do.

    25. Stephen, the term “natural born citizen” comes directly from the “natural born subject” of English common law. It wasn’t a term applicable to any other country. By the way, the term “natural born citizen” didn’t even appear in English translation of Vattel’s “The Law of Nations,” which is where your “exclusive” definition comes from, until after the Constitution was adopted.
      I don’t think I’m smarter than those Supreme Court Justices. I don’t even presume to be smarter than you, in spite of all present evidence to the contrary. I’m just actually paying attention to what those Justices, and all other genuine authorities (unlike your poker-playing wackjob Leo Donofrio– have you looked him up yet?) have actually said on the matter. You’re just seriously underinformed, and you the more you say, the more you demonstrate that deficiency.
      And where have I expressed any kind of political ideology, progressive or otherwise?

    26. Well now. Returning to this comment, since you’ve added to it after I replied to it (and you suggest that I’m being disingenuous– how ironic. I’ll have to see what else you’ve been up to)– I’m not inventing any arguments. It’s YOUR argument that’s a novelty, invented by Leo Donofrio, a guy from New Jersey who sued New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Wells, challenging the eligibility of President Obama, Senator McCain and Roger Calero. And it’s YOUR argument that distorts, deceives, and lies about the truth. Your hero Donofrio failed in his challenge, by the way, just as the other principal proponent of your exclusive definition, Mario Apuzzo has, time and again. Because nobody but crackpots believe in it. It
      gets laughed out of court.I’m just presenting the truth, as EVERYBODY knew it until birthers dreamed up this two-citizen parent nonsense.

    27. Apparently you think the Supreme Court Justices who stated the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” in Minor v. Happersett were stupid or lying.

      The cases you refer to were NOT thrown out based on the definition of Natural Born Citizen but for other jurisdictional and procedural reasons like: the ruling in one of them that it was not the responsibility of the Supreme Court to certify the eligibility of a candidate for President. It was the responsibility of the candidate’s political party to certify him eligible.

      You say that just because the definition of Natural Born Citizen was included in the case that got thrown out that that is why the case was thrown out. Either you are lying when you say that or you are just ignorant of the reason that the cases were not allowed to continue. Which is it?

      Show me the reason given in the case that it was the definition of Natural Born Citizen that got the case deep-sixed. You cannot because they stated other reasons.

      As far as I can tell everything you have stated is either an outright lie, deliberate deception, or simply misunderstanding and ignorance of the rulings you talk about.

      I have asked you to show me what in any of the stuff you have posted refutes the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” stated clearly in Minor v. Happersett. You have refused because you cannot. That is the true definition of a Natural Born Citizen:
      1) born in a country (like the U.S.)
      2) of parents (plural)
      3) who were its (that country’s ) citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.

    28. No, I don’t think those Justices were “stupid or lying.” I don’t even presume that you do either of those things. You just don’t know what you’re talking about, that’s all.
      Now, you go on to say,
      “You say that just because the definition of Natural Born Citizen was included in the case that got thrown out that that is why the case was thrown out. Either you are lying when you say that or you are just ignorant of the reason that the cases were not allowed to continue.
      Which is it?”
      Neither. I didn’t say anything about why cases were thrown out. I referred to what judges have said in ruling on those cases. You can start actually paying attention any time now, Stephen.
      From Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, 2008:
      “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes,
      regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
      From Purpura v. Obama, 2012:
      ““No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
      From Allen v. Obama, 2012:
      “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. …Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”
      (Oh my!)
      In Farrar v. Obama, 2012:
      “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
      Paige v. Obama, 2012:
      “While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations
      was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–”The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues.”
      The plaintiffs in each of those cases, which are just a few of numerous examples, relied on the same argument you’re presenting. And each court rejected that argument.
      You say,
      “the ruling in one of them that it was not the responsibility of the Supreme Court to certify the eligibility of a candidate for President. It was the responsibility of the candidate’s political party to certify him eligible.”
      Which case was that? You’ve also referred to a “Supreme Court ruling” to that effect. In what case did the Supreme Court make such a ruling?
      It really doesn’t matter what I show you– and even though I’ve shown PLENTY, I wouldn’t have to go any further than Minor itself to impeach your argument to a reasonable person, that’s how weak it is– you’re simply not thinking rationally on the subject.
      I presume you have some labels you’d like to apply here.

    29. I’d ask you to prove it but I see you’re incapable of that so I’ll prove I’m correct.

      Chester A. Arthur, the 21st president was born of an American mother and an Irish father. His father did not get his US citizenship until after his son became president.

      Thomas Jefferson’s mother was born in England.

      Andrew Jackson had a foreign parent.

      James Buchanan father was also Irish.

      Woodrow Wilson’s mother was born in England.

      Herbert Hoovers mother ws born in Canada.

      Ted Cruz was born of an American mother and Cuban father. Will he be eligible to run for president? Unless the law is changed, the answer is yes.

    30. incorrect, only one parent, and if it is the mother she must be five years past the age of majority, and the child must be born in the US or on a US holding, such as an embassy or military base or consulate…

    31. You are incorrect about the age of majority. The mother has had to live in the US 10 years before giving birth to a child and 5 of those years have to be after the age of 14, hence the mother has to be at least 19 years of age. I know that as fact because my son has dual citizenship. I’m an American married to a Canadian and living in Canada where all of my kids have been born.

    32. That only applies to citizenship NOT the specific type of citizensip the founders referred to and understood as “Natural Born Citizen”

    33. My husband has dual citizenship as he was born in Canada of American parents. His father was also born in Canada but both his parents were Americans because they lived in Utah and the closest hospital was in Lethbridge AB but after he was born both parents came back to the US and lived here. He is also a dual citizen.

    34. “natural born” requires a twofold birth right. first being born of
      American Parentage, and second being native born, that is either in the
      United States or on or in a US Holding, such as an embassy or Military
      base. This is why Obama is challenged, His mother was not old enough to
      pass citizenship since she was not five years past age of majority, AND
      the challenge of Obama’s place of birth. Had Obama’s father been a US
      Citizen, it would have negated the challenge based on parentage. leaving
      the challenge of location of birth. However this is something that is
      neglected by all Challengers, this is not an either or, it is a both
      points requirement as we base this on paternal not maternal birth right
      first, with maternal birth right being secondary. Thus his location of
      birth is irrelevant. His mother was not yet old enough to pass the right
      of citizenship on to him. Even the So called Anchor babies born in
      the US Do NOT qualify for citizenship as the act that they are being
      given citizen ship under specifically states the TYPES of VISA’s the
      parents of children born in the US must have for the children to gain
      citizenship. Since Illegals do not have any valid visas of any kind
      their children that are born here do not qualify for citizenship. This
      is all very precise and is written as letter of law in the immigration
      act. This is correct

    35. Barack Obama was born in the US and is therefore, an American citizen. His mother was American and Hawaii is in the US. Why do you constantly negate the president’s right to be a US citizen and the president of the US? Also, I get fed up with your constant rudeness by calling the president names. You Tea Party yokels should be ashamed of yourselves since you are not behaving like adults.

    36. That information is not even close to the actual facts, Obama was not born in the US, and you know it, merely another uninformed opinion of the left.

    37. Edony Lamont, Obama was not born in the US. Kenya is not in the US. I am not ashamed to call him the POS he is.

    38. “SO GOES LIBERTY”

      —~~~***~**~~~——

      EDONY >> GEE I DID NOT KNOW YOU WAS ALIVE BESIDE HIM AT HIS BIRTH, YOU BELIEVE THE COMMANDER IN THIEF ROBBING AMERICA BLIND But know I trust everything about him He so transparent Like a Black rock oops Racist like a Mulatto stone Do YOU REALLY KNOW I don’t but the fact all is hid from our eyes makes it loom a darkness on Trust, and America. May the Obama Force be with you, because your liberty is on the line
      I do not trust HIM Executive Order that because he said He won’t
      BY: JohnnyV @hartwick NY

    39. Except for the two birth certificates that he has shown, which not a single expert in the field has called fakes, and the three legal verifications from the State of Hawaii that he was born there, and the several official statements by Hawaiian officials responsible for such matters stating that he was born there and they have his original BC on file. So, except for all of the verified evidence that proves he was born here, there is no proof that he was born here, is that what you mean?

    40. There s a clerk who worked at the records office who acclaimed Obama has no original birth record there … and now that guy is gone from that office.

    41. No, that didn’t happen. You’re referring to Tim Adams, who was a temporary elections clerk. as such, he had no access to birth records. His claim is that he was told that Obama had no birth certificate, but he has nothing with which to support that claim.

    42. Neither parent need be born in the U.S. but BOTH parents need to be U.S. Citizens at the time of his birth to be a “natural born citizen.” BUT a Supreme Court Decision stated that it is the responsibility of the political party to certify that he is eligible to run for President. SO anyone that is certified as eligible to run by his party is eligible to run for President, regardless of where he was born and whether or not his parents were citizens at his birth. Very sick if you ask me.

    43. “natural born” requires a twofold birth right. first being born of
      American Parentage, and second being native born, that is either in the
      United States or on or in a US Holding, such as an embassy or Military
      base. This is why Obama is challenged, His mother was not old enough to
      pass citizenship since she was not five years past age of majority, AND
      the challenge of Obama’s place of birth. Had Obama’s father been a US
      Citizen, it would have negated the challenge based on parentage. leaving
      the challenge of location of birth. However this is something that is
      neglected by all Challengers, this is not an either or, it is a both
      points requirement as we base this on paternal not maternal birth right
      first, with maternal birth right being secondary. Thus his location of
      birth is irrelevant. His mother was not yet old enough to pass the right
      of citizenship on to him. Even the So called Anchor babies born in
      the US Do NOT qualify for citizenship as the act that they are being
      given citizen ship under specifically states the TYPES of VISA’s the
      parents of children born in the US must have for the children to gain
      citizenship. Since Illegals do not have any valid visas of any kind
      their children that are born here do not qualify for citizenship. This
      is all very precise and is written as letter of law in the immigration
      act….this one got it right..

    44. Sorry, but there has never been a requirement that both, or even one, of your parents be US citizens at the time of your birth in order for you to be a natural born US citizen. As long as you are born a US citizen, you are a natural born citizen. Period.

    45. All right, down the line:
      “”natural born” requires a twofold birth right. first being born of American Parentage, and second being native born, that is either in the United States or on or in a US Holding, such as an embassy or Military base.”
      That’s false. In addition, birth “on or in a US Holding, such as an embassy or Military base” is no different, for purposes of citizenship, from birth on the surrounding territory of the host country.
      “This is why Obama is challenged, His mother was not old enough to pass citizenship since she was not five years past age of majority, AND the challenge of Obama’s place of birth.”
      His mother’s age, and even his mother’s citizenship, have no relevance on the President’s status as a natural born citizen of the United States. He was born in the United States. But putting that aside, there has never been a requirement that a US citizen parent be “five years past age of majority” in order to transmit citizenship to a child born outside the US.

      “Had Obama’s father been a US Citizen, it would have negated the challenge based on parentage. leaving the challenge of location of birth.”
      Had the President’s father been a US citizen, birthers would’ve found something else to carp upon. Birtherism isn’t based on facts or truth, and no mere fact or truth would change that.

      “However this is something that is neglected by all Challengers, this is not an either or, it is a both points requirement as we base this on paternal not maternal birth right first, with maternal birth right being secondary. Thus his location of birth is irrelevant.”
      We do no such thing, and haven’t for decades.
      “His mother was not yet old enough to pass the right of citizenship on to him.”
      Citizenship acquired at birth in the United States is not transmitted through a citizen parent. Her age at the time was entirely irrelevant.
      “Even the So called Anchor babies born in the US Do NOT qualify for citizenship as the act that they are being given citizen ship under specifically states the TYPES of VISA’s the parents of children born in the US must have for the children to gain citizenship. Since Illegals do not have any valid visas of any kind their children that are born here do not qualify for citizenship. This is all very precise and is written as letter of law in the immigration act….”
      There is no such specification of “the TYPES of VISA’s the parents of children born in the US must have for the children to gain citizenship” in the Immigration and Nationality Act, or anywhere else in US law.

      All this has appeared in another person’s comment on this same thread– I don’t know if one of you is copying the other, or you’re both copying somebody else’s mistakes; whoever originated this mess doesn’t have a clue of what they’re talking about.

    46. Dual citizenship, as Obama had, disqualifies one as a “Natural Born Citizen” as Minor V. Happersett points out BOTH parents must be U.S. citizens. Thus dual citizenship is not possible for a Natural Born Citizen.

    47. That’s downright silly, Stephen. Whether or not a person is a citizen of another country will depend on nothing but the operation of that other country’s laws. A person born in the United States, to two US citizen parents, can still be a citizen of another country if that country’s laws allow it. You would have the United States allow that other country’s laws dictate who could be President of the United States– in the name of protecting us from foreign influence. How goofy is that?

    48. At the time of Obama’s birth his father was a citizen of England. Because his father was a citizen of England, Obama is a citizen of England. Obama’s mother was a citizen of the U.S. so Obama is a citizen of the U.S. Thus Obama does not have 2 parents that were both citizens when he was born means he is not a Natural Born Citizen. I do not know of any country that refuses citizenship to a child if only one parent is a citizen of that country. Do you??? Thus since there are 2 parents in every birth, many people are considered citizens of 2 countries thus dual citizenship. Simple. Whether one says only one parent is a citizen or he has dual citizenship, that does not fit the definition of Natural Born Citizen as Minor v. Happersett pointed out. They clearly stated the definition as”
      1) born in a country (like the U.S.)
      2) of parents (plural)
      3) who were its (that country’s ) citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.

    49. Well now. You “do not know of any country that refuses citizenship to a child if only one parent is a citizen of that country.” Stephen, you are certainly at your most credible when you’re talking about what you don’t know, as opposed to not knowing what you’re talking about, which is usually the case. The United States regularly denies citizenship to a child of only one US citizen parent, and has always done so. Not to such a child born in the US, though. And you can keep spamming that “definition” til the electrons stop spinning, but that doesn’t mean it provides an exclusive definition of “natural born citizen.”

    50. nooooo Obama does NOT meet the requirements. HE and his “handlers” swindled the USA …. HOOK, LINE AND SINKER

    51. I agree. I am praying every day that Dr. Carson will run. I am afraid the nation and the freedoms I took for granted for 50 years are being slowly taken away from us. Dr.. Carson understands this, and I am telling as many people as I can about him.

    52. I like Ben Carson as well. But I like Cruz too. In a dilemma right now. We will see how things pan out with the debates. The establishment Republicans better get behind these guys or they will be voted out!!

    53. I kinda doubt they will get behind them. It’s looking like the Tea Party may have to stand on its own two feet. I’m no longer buying this “we will split the ticket and the Dems will win” line. There are a lot of us Independent Patriots out here who could pull off the big win and put the U.S. Constitution back where it belongs. We the People.

    54. There are not enough Independents to out vote the Tea Party much less either main house but if you folks would get to the polls and actually vote we would have a bunch of different looking Republicans after the primaries. Get smart not obstinate.

    55. Gallup’s most recent poll shows 40% identifying themselves as Independents (the only “party” showing growth in numbers). What I think this means is a large percentage of folks no longer like either party. That would be why the approval rating for Congress is ridiculously low. I always vote and I vote in Republican primaries but do not like the Republican Establishment. So if 40% swing to the Tea Party endorsed candidates it would be a landslide and the Grand Old Party would be history.

    56. Been a Republican all my life and even knew two presidents, Nixon and Reagan. Both great presidents. Now I have to change to an Independent for the same reason as others. I am in no way a Democrat. I’m to rich, I’m to old, I’m to Educated, I’m an american, I’m a combat veteran, and I’m STRAIGHT!

    57. My friends with me in Viet Nam did not die for what this nation has become under Obama and the radical left government. Now they are looking at ways to affect the military pay when 38% are on some type of assistance. Not until every member of congress (little c) and the president (little p) are equally or more affected in the same way.

    58. The real Tea Party has always stood on it’s own two feet. The GOPs didn’t stand with us, many didn’t even admit The Tea Party existed. They were waiting to see if it was popular to be identified with us. Now most of the GOP don’t like us because we don’t talk out of both sides of our mouth like they do, and they think we should leave the career Republicans sitting comfortably even though they do not protect the US Constitution as sworn in to do. The GOP or DEM still don’t get it. The real Tea Party is not about labels of R or D. We don’t identify with either one! It’s about The US Constitution. If they want to label us….just call us “We The People, the silent Majority”. Rove and others can spend all their money to come against us. But they will find…we are the majority and can’t be bought by their money!

    59. Mathematically impossible. PLEASE DO NOT BLOW IT FOR US LIKE ROSS PEROT DID! ……. OR IS YOUR NOSE GROWING BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT A REAL TEA PARTIER?

    60. My nose is just fine, thank you. I will not vote for another McCain, thank you. If the Establishment puts up Christie or some other nut job then I think it is the business of the Tea Party to show their strength, speak for us, the majority, and endorse a great candidate. NO ONE would beat Dr. Ben Carson. Not Hillary for sure. Additionally, math is my strong suit – accountant. We have the numbers but we have to get the vote out. Something only the Dems seem to know how to do I might add. We need to beat them at their own game.

    61. Sadly, that is the response I got just before Obama was re-elected……. Job 1 – beat the Dems! THEN work to resolve differences. PLEASE!

    62. Romney didn’t use anyway near what he could have used against Obama. If he had, he would have won. We cannot let the GOP do that again. They cannot pick the candidate. We have to do it. They are entrenched and that is what they want. They have to go.

    63. I have no problem with the Tea Party or it’s beliefs, but they are NOT the majority of anything resembling an election swing. As an accountant, you should be pretty well versed on demographics, also. The Democrats got where they are by being smart and having patience in swaying public opinion – Black, Hispanic, unions, etc., etc. etc. The GOP and everyone else that is NOT Dem got where they are by being over-confident, impatient, and apathethic,…… and playing catch-up. I can think of 4 or 5 candidates I would rather have than ANY Dem…… But it only takes one to turn the tide, but the winner CANNOT BE ANOTHER DEM! The Tea Party has made a lot of progress and will continue to do so, but they are not in a position to sway a national election, but they will be, if they don’t piss everyone off because of stubborness and short-sightedness.

    64. You realize of course that we are up against truly bad people, sinister people. If we were not, Obama would never have gotten where he is. Don’t think we should put the cart b/t/h……we have to win big in November, all over the map. Reid has got to go and then everything changes. Boehner needs to step aside but would he ever do it? He hasn’t got what it takes, I guess. In his heart I really think he is a Patriot and putting someone else in as Speaker would be huge and totally put the Dems off their game.

    65. I am 67 and have NEVER seen the scope of bad people that are now in power. We only have a short time to turn this around, if we are fortunate enough to get the chance. That is why THE DEMS MUST BE DEFEATED NOW! After that is done, additional weeding out of non Cnservatives can happen without much fanfare, but the Dems must be removed from power in order for that work to begin. Dems can control the entire country just by controling the media, Obamacare and the EPA – and it’s currently a helluvea lot worse than that. That is why we must wake up and realize that at least until 2016, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It isn’t about who is the best, it’s currently about who can survive the primaries and defeat the Dems in a general election. All else is secondary. If it is not the country is in for a long reign of Dems.

    66. David I agree 100%. There can not be another dem for a long time. We need to weed out the others once we get our country back.

    67. There is a right way and a wrong way to do that. Get our candidates involved in the primary and WIN, then stand behind whoever wins as one unified party not one at civil war with itself.

    68. XIrish Rose, I stand for my constitution and have been called a Tea Partier. Call me whatever I don’t care. The fact of the matter is we need to do whatever it takes we need to stop the dems from finishing us off. It could be your pet in there I’d vote for it. It’s time we all stop splitting the ticket and think of the bigger picture. Ross Perot, Ron Paul both of those millionaires helped do us in. Ron Paul could of stepped out of course he and others thought he had a chance and look what that got us 4 more years of destruction. Stop thinking the underdog is going to win and save the day, in other words..get real.

    69. I agree with you. I have been an independent for about ten years. I live in Mass. and I have always found scare tactics like this offensive. For example when Ross Perot ran, all the GOP establishment were spewing out this kind of talk about Perot is sucking voters away from the GOP- I honestly don’t remember who the other candidates were; Bush must have been one.

      My point is: if a political party believes their cause is so important, they need to put forward a candidate who is worthy of my vote.

      But most of the GOP leadership firmly believes that their members are a bunch of ignorant rubes– and independents are even less capable of making intelligent decisions about who to vote for. Therefore election after election they come up with rationalizations to explain why we should sacrifice our principles so that they can stay in office.

      I have add enough!!!

      I hope that you’re right: their arrogance has caused a ground swell of us “rubes” to finally be sick and tired enough to purge them from our government.

      I hope (and pray) this is the case.

    70. I’m afraid Christy is going to be nominated. but this is three years hence, anything can happen.

    71. Regardless of who we vote for or get elected it has or will never make any difference.Both parties serve the same corporate masters.History proves this to be true.The only way things will improve is when the people show they have had enough of their lies and deception

    72. That is right. All alien technology is shared with government contractors or locked up in a safe with ONE key (simply PUT). A search of Government/scientist patents born of skunk-works projects should be informative. Obama stated that there is no intelligent life in space. Since every word is a lie I had to laugh. Especially when some of our most classified scientists are working WITH small Grays HERE!!!!

    73. Incorrect Carie, “natural born” requires a twofold birth right. first being born of American Parentage, and second being native born, that is either in the United States or on or in a US Holding, such as an embassy or Military base. This is why Obama is challenged, His mother was not old enough to pass citizenship since she was not five years past age of majority, AND the challenge of Obama’s place of birth. Had Obama’s father been a US Citizen, it would have negated the challenge based on parentage. leaving the challenge of location of birth. However this is something that is neglected by all Challengers, this is not an either or, it is a both points requirement as we base this on paternal not maternal birth right first, with maternal birth right being secondary. Thus his location of birth is irrelevant. His mother was not yet old enough to pass the right of citizenship on to him. Even the So called Anchor babies born in the US Do NOT qualify for citizenship as the act that they are being given citizen ship under specifically states the TYPES of VISA’s the parents of children born in the US must have for the children to gain citizenship. Since Illegals do not have any valid visas of any kind their children that are born here do not qualify for citizenship. This is all very precise and is written as letter of law in the immigration act.

    74. Minor doesn’t provide a persuasive argument against President Obama’s eligibility, as every court presented with such an argument has concluded. In the first place, Presidential eligibility wasn’t being adjudicated in Minor. In the second, Chief Justice Waite specifically declined to state an exclusive definition of “natural born citizen” for ANY purpose.
      But let’s look at what Waite actually DID choose to state affirmatively, beginning with what you’ve cited yourself:

      “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that
      “No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President, and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”

      President Obama is by no rational understanding of the term a naturalized citizen.

      “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

      There was no requirement of common law that both parents, or that either parent, be citizens in order for a person to be born a citizen. But what were those “doubts” to which Waite referred? It turns out that they are specifically identifiable.
      Directly preceding the passage you began with, we find,

      “Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen—a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.”

      So who were those “certain classes of persons” who would not have been considered “part of the people”? They were invariably persons not considered free and white. A generation before Minor, the Supreme Court had settled the “doubt” about persons of African descent, infamously to the negative, in Scott v. Sandford; a decision overturned by the will of the people in the 14th Amendment. Chief Justice Waite’s phrase, “part of the people,” comes directly from his predecessor Chief Justice Taney’s opinion in that case:

      “In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.”
      and
      “But it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration; for if the language, as understood in that day, would embrace them, the conduct of the distinguished men who framed the Declaration of Independence would have been utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted; and instead of the sympathy of mankind, to which they so confidently appealed, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke and reprobation.”
      and
      “We need not refer, on this point, particularly to the laws of the present slaveholding States. Their statute books are full of provisions in relation to this class, in the same spirit with the Maryland law which we have before quoted. They have continued to treat them as an inferior class, and to subject them to strict police regulations, drawing a broad line of distinction between the citizen and the slave races, and legislating in relation to them upon the same principle which prevailed at the time of the Declaration of Independence. As relates to these States, it is too plain for argument, that they have never been regarded as a part of the people or citizens of the State, nor supposed to possess any political rights which the dominant race might not withhold or grant at their pleasure. And as long ago as 1822, the Court of Appeals of Kentucky decided that free negroes and mulattoes were not citizens within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States; and the correctness of this decision is recognized, and the same doctrine affirmed, in 1 Meigs’s Tenn. Reports, 331.”

      We also find the phrase in Justice Curtis’s admirable, if not perfectly exemplary dissent:

      “That Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States, through the action, in each State, or those persons who were qualified by its laws to act thereon, in behalf of themselves and all other citizens of that State. In some of the States, as we have seen, colored persons were among those qualified by law to act on this subject. These colored persons were not only included in the body of ‘the people of the United States,’ by whom the Constitution was ordained and established, but in at least five of the States they had the power to act, and doubtless did act, by their suffrages, upon the question of its adoption. It would be strange, if we were to find in that instrument anything which deprived of their citizenship any part of the people of the United States who were among those by whom it was established.”

      Justice Gray provides further illumination in US v. Wong Kim Ark, which settled the “doubt” about persons of Asian descent, born in the United States:

      “The argument is that although the constitution prior to that amendment nowhere attempted to define the words ‘citizens of the United States’ and ‘natural-born citizen,’ as used therein, yet that it must be interpreted in the light of the English common-law rule which made the place of birth the criterion of nationality; that that rule ‘was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established’; and ‘that, before the enactment of the civil rights act of 1866 and the adoption of the constitutional amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.’”

      The “doubt” about the citizenship of Native Americans persisted even longer, until passage of the Snyder Act in 1924. And the doubt about whether Asians not considered white could be naturalized as “part of the people” lingered halfway through the twentieth century.
      So when we positively identytify the “doubts” to which Chief Justice Waite refers, Minor becomes worse than of no avail to your position– it attaches a reek of infamy to it. You might want to reconsider using it.

    75. I do hope you are not a lawyer.

      First your statement “President Obama is by no rational understanding of the term a naturalized citizen.” So What? Stupid statement. I know of no one that has ever said he was. What does that have to do with the price of fish?

      Here is the statement you TOTALLY ignore:

      “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.”

      THAT IS the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” that they state. IT WAS NEVER DOUBTED THAT ALL CHILDREN

      1) born in a country (like the U.S.)

      2) of parents (plural)

      3) who were its (that country’s ) citizens

      became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.

      (Now here comes the really tricky part that you are having a very hard time understanding)

      These (the children satisfying 1,2, and 3 above) were natives or (now pay close attention) NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS. as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

      Now the other aspect that is very difficult for you to comprehend is the rest of the quote:

      “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

      “As to this class there have been doubts”
      refers directly to
      “children born within the jurisdiction (within the U.S.) without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”
      These are the anchor babies. In 1874 when this decision was being written, there had not been any reference to, or a case, to determine if anchor babies were citizens, thus there were “doubts” about anchor babies being citizens at that time.

      (Now another tricky part that you are having difficulty understanding)
      “but never to the first.”
      This refers directly to the requirements (1,2 and 3 above) that there were NEVER ANY DOUBT that a Natural-Born Citizen was in fact a citizen.

      Now there are several other types of citizens that do not fit the definition of “Natural-Born Citizen.” Such as a child born outside the U.S. to a citizen parent, would be a citizen but not a Natural-Born Citizen. Like wise born of only ONE citizen parent (Hello? Obama!!!)

      I never said ANYTHING about Obama’s eligibility. (Can you actually comprehend the written word? Aparently not). As my post above that you responded to states It is about identifying the term “Natural Born Citizen.”

      You quoted other doubts not referred to by the quote I supplied, that have nothing to do with it. Although if you are a lawyer and lose on the truth, you do a great job of trying to confuse the jury with the facts.

      AS TO OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY
      There has been NO Supreme Court that ruled on weather or not he was eligible. They did say it was not their job. It was the job of his political party to certify a candidate eligible. According to that Supreme Court Decision, If the Democrats wanted to certify Putin as eligible, then Putin is eligible like Obama is eligible, because the Democratic Party declared him eligible. That is pretty sick if you ask me.

    76. Stephen, I don’t have the slightest concern that you might be a lawyer.
      That “stupid” statement of mine apparently sailed right over your head. Chief Justice Waite plainly says
      “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’ and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
      Chief Justice Waite, just like EVERYBODY ELSE until your hero Leo Donofrio came along, understood that persons who require NO FORM OF NATURALIZATION, whether in the statutory or Constitutional sense, are natural born citizens. And if you’ll play nice, I’ll explain those two senses to you.
      But for the issue in hand, let’s turn to Chief Justice Marshall, in Osborne v. Bank of the United States (1824):
      “A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an act of Congress, but the act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the courts of the United States precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue. He is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen except so far as the Constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.”
      How, pray tell, does the Constitution distinguish between the native citizen and the naturalized citizen?
      Now let’s turn to Justice Van Devanter in Luria v. United States (1913):
      “Under the Constitution of the United States, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.”
      So do you see the significance of my “stupid” statement?
      I’ve explained to you what those “doubts” to which Chief Justice Waite referred consisted of; you need look no further than Waite’s own words for that. Once again:
      “Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.”
      The concept of “anchor babies” is a relative novelty, which DIDN’T EVEN EXIST at a time when the concept of, and procedures for, legal presence in the United States were quite different from what they presently are. Those “certain classes of persons” were persons not considered free AND white. And I have provided (among others) references with which Waite was quite familiar to demonstrate that.
      Now, returning to Minor, you’ve asserted that he states an EXCLUSIVE definition of “natural born citizen.” What, then, do you make of this sentence?
      “Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided ‘that any alien, being a free white person,’ might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens.”
      That already provides an addition to your “exclusive” definition, doesn’t it? So what are we to make of its exclusivity?
      I’m not ignoring anything Chief Justice Waite said in his opinion. I’m just not twisting it into something he wouldn’t recognize, like you are.
      I’m not ignoring anything you’ve said, either, which is why I find it amusing– nay, downright entertaining– when you IMMEDIATELY follow the paragraph
      “Now there are several other types of citizens that do not fit the definition of “Natural-Born Citizen.” Such as a child born outside the U.S. to a citizen parent, would be a citizen but not a Natural-Born Citizen. Like wise born of only ONE citizen parent (Hello? Obama!!!)”
      with
      “I never said ANYTHING about Obama’s eligibility.”
      I can indeed comprehend the written word, Stephen.
      Now, you’ve claimed,
      “According to that Supreme Court Decision, If the Democrats wanted to certify Putin as eligible, then Putin is eligible like Obama is eligible, because the Democratic Party declared him eligible.”
      Go ahead and identify “that Supreme Court Decision.”

    77. Why do you lie and deceive introduce information that has nothing to do with proving what the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” is ?

      The statement in 1913 in no way defines “Natural Born Citizen” For you to suggest it is pure deception. It is either a misspeak equating native born (which is NOT mentioned as a requirement to be President) to Natural Born, or it is a case of the Supreme Court Justice attempting to write laws, which is the job of Congress, instead of interpreting laws.

      It is a lie that I ever said or even intimated that I was a lawyer.
      You quote me as saying “According to that Supreme Court Decision,” I never said that. It is also a lie.

      In 1874 Minor V Happersett the ONLY spelling out of “Natural Born Citizen” is clearly defined as I stated :

      “The definition of “Natural Born Citizen” that they state. IT WAS NEVER DOUBTED THAT ALL CHILDREN
      1) born in a country (like the U.S.)
      2) of parents (plural)
      3) who were its (that country’s ) citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.

      (Now here comes the really tricky part that you are having a very hard time understanding)

      These (the children satisfying 1,2, and 3 above) were natives or (now pay close attention) NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS. as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.’

      Apparently you do not understand that, as they stated, they did not have to go into determining or spelling out other types of citizenships in this case because she fit the special definition required of Presidents, that of “Natural Born Citizen.” So they need not mention or discuss born out of country of only one parent citizen, born out of country to 2 parent citizens, or born in the U.S. of parents that were not citizens, or born in the U.S. of only one parent who is a citizen as Obama clearly was… not a Natural Born Citizen.

    78. Stephen, are you implying that you know better than Chief Justice Marshall and Justice Van Devanter– or than any of the judges all over the country who have disagreed with your goofy mangling of Minor? All any of them have done is go by what EVERYBODY has always known, until birthers started that “two citizen parent” business. Look up “Leo Donofrio” and you’ll see who started that mess. Leo is not exactly a legal scholar, to put it mildly.
      Now this mystifies me. You say,
      “It is a lie that I ever said or even intimated that I was a lawyer.”
      Who said otherwise? I have not the remotest glimmer of doubt that you’re not a lawyer. You then say
      “You quote me as saying “According to that Supreme Court Decision,” I never said that. It is also a lie.”
      You said, in the comment to which I was directly replying,
      “According to that Supreme Court Decision, If the Democrats wanted to certify Putin as eligible, then Putin is eligible like Obama is eligible, because the Democratic Party declared him eligible.”
      It’s still there, right up the page, right now. If you want to lie and say you didn’t say it, you really ought to edit it out. Every time you’ve said it, because you’ve spammed it all over the place here. But you really just ought not to lie.
      I’ve pointed out elsewhere that you’re quite mistaken when you say
      “In 1874 Minor V Happersett the ONLY spelling out of “Natural Born Citizen” is clearly defined as I stated”.
      I’ve also already addressed the rest of that mess you just spammed onto that comment, too. It’s a bit childish to keep saying the same thing over and over, isn’t it?
      Now, considering how you’ve chosen to finish that comment:
      “born in the U.S. of only one parent who is a citizen as Obama clearly was… not a Natural Born Citizen”
      are you still going to insist that you didn’t “say ANYTHING about Obama’s eligibility”?

    79. Are you saying that they defined the meaning? They did not. You are the Liberal Progressive Socialist Statist Nut Job that continues to present NOTHING tha ACTUALLY passes as DEFINING “Natural Born Citizen” All you can do is present unrelated statements that in no way establish the definition as was done in Minor v, Happersett.

      That definition is VERY simple and it is you that deny it.

      The definition of “Natural Born Citizen” that they state.

      IT WAS NEVER DOUBTED THAT ALL CHILDREN
      1) born in a country (like the U.S.)
      2) of parents (plural)
      3) who were its (that country’s ) citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.

      3 simple conditions simply stated I am not the one “mangling” that definition.

    80. No, I’m not saying they expressly “defined” the meaning. And neither did Chief Justice Waite– he specifically declined to do so, not even for the purpose of the case; much less for the entirely unrelated purpose of Presidential eligibility.
      What they all did was express the most basic common-law– and common sense– meaning of the term: one who acquires US citizenship by birth in the United States; a citizen who became a citizen by birth, without any form of naturalization, is a natural born citizen.

    81. YOU ARE WRONG! For the purposes of the case his reason for the decision was ABSOLUTELY dependent on his stated FACT that Minor absolutely fit the definition of a “Natural Born Citizen” and thus the court did not have to rely on addressing any other type of citizenship which might have required defining a new type of citizen. The definition was stated. He declined to define any other type of citizen because she fit the definition of a Natural Born Citizen. They said the Constitution did not define it. SO they stated the reason for their decision was that she fit the definition of Natural Born Citizen that ALL understood when the Constitution was written. And WHY do you think the founders did not have to define the definition? BECAUSE EVERYONE UNDERSTOOD WHAT THAT DEFINITION WAS. DUH. AND THEY STATED THAT DEFINITION IN Minor v. Happersett (presumable so everyone – but you – would understand it) How can you deny this simple fact? Are you disingenuous or stupid?

    82. Stephen, that doesn’t even make sense. For the purpose of the case, Virginia Minor could just as well have been a naturalized citizen. All that was necessary was that it be established that she was a citizen; and if you’d actually READ THE CASE (what a novel concept!), you’d know that Chief Justice Waite had already established that before going into the discussion which included the reference to “natural born citizens”

    83. do you even have a clue how thorough the vetting process
      is for a president-elect by the FBI? in the case of obama
      a republican FBI! he had to be cleared to have access to the nuclear codes for christ’s sake!

    84. (O)bama was NEVER vetted. Obviously you do not pay attention. Nor has he ever held the nuclear football. The military wont allow him too because they know who and what he is. Why do you think he has purged over 200 high ranking officers. Do you live under a rock or is your head just shoved up your rear?

    85. obama OWNS the “nuclear football”, pinhead. generals come and go in the military for many reasons. e commandant of the Marine Corps on Monday took the extraordinary step of firing two generals for not adequately protecting a giant base in southern Afghanistan that Taliban fighters stormed last year, resulting in the deaths of two Marines and the destruction of half a dozen U.S. fighter jets.

      It is the first time since the Vietnam War that a general, let alone two, has been sacked for negligence after a successful enemy attack. But the assault also was unprecedented:

      Latest from National Security

      Relocation of Marine base on Okinawa wins approval

      Ernesto Londoño and Chico Harlan8:34 AM ET

      Officials in Washington hailed the deal to move the controversial base as a major diplomatic breakthrough.

      Expert found 9/11 suspect mentally incompetent in 2009

      Adam Goldman DEC 26

      Psychologist’s conclusion could presage a finding by board ordered last week to evaluate the defendant.

      Kidnapped American asks U.S. to help gain his release

      Ernesto Londoño DEC 25

      Warren Weinstein, 72, of Rockville says he feels “totally abandoned and forgotten” in Pakistan captivity.

      Full coverage: NSA Secrets

      Read all of the stories in The Washington Post’s ongoing coverage of the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs.

      Fifteen insurgents entered a NATO airfield and destroyed almost an entire squadron of Marine AV-8B Harrier jets, the largest single loss of allied materiel in the almost 12-year Afghan war.

      The commandant, Gen. James F. Amos, said the two generals did not deploy enough troops to guard the base and take other measures to prepare for a ground attack by the Taliban. The two, Maj. Gen. Charles M. Gurganus, the top Marine commander in southern Afghanistan at the time, and Maj. Gen. Gregg A. Sturdevant, the senior Marine aviation officer in the area, “failed to exercise the level of judgment expected of commanders of their rank.
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/two-marine-generals-fired-for-security-lapses-in-afghanistan/2013/09/30/b2ccb8a6-29fe-11e3-b139-029811dbb57f_story.html
      gen ham was rumored to have been fired over benghazi but in fact he remained at his post at AFRICOM until he retired in april 2013 as was planned. here’s a link to a phony story circulating among you tin-foil beanie people where generals were fired for refusing to set off a nuclear device closer to SC. http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/charleston.asp. go crawl back under a rock and ruminate on the fact

      that obama will be your president for THREE MORE
      YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    86. obama OWNS the “nuclear football”, pinhead. generals come and go in the military for many reasons. e commandant of the Marine Corps on Monday took the extraordinary step of firing two generals for not adequately protecting a giant base in southern Afghanistan that Taliban fighters stormed last year, resulting in the deaths of two Marines and the destruction of half a dozen U.S. fighter jets.

      It is the first time since the Vietnam War that a general, let alone two, has been sacked for negligence after a successful enemy attack. But the assault also was unprecedented:

      Fifteen insurgents entered a NATO airfield and destroyed almost an entire squadron of Marine AV-8B Harrier jets, the largest single loss of allied materiel in the almost 12-year Afghan war.

      The commandant, Gen. James F. Amos, said the two generals did not deploy enough troops to guard the base and take other measures to prepare for a ground attack by the Taliban. The two, Maj. Gen. Charles M. Gurganus, the top Marine commander in southern Afghanistan at the time, and Maj. Gen. Gregg A. Sturdevant, the senior Marine aviation officer in the area, “failed to exercise the level of judgment expected of commanders of their rank.
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/
      gen ham was rumored to have been fired over benghazi but in fact he remained at his post at AFRICOM until he retired in april 2013 as was planned. here’s a link to a phony story circulating among you tin-foil beanie people where generals were fired for refusing to set off a nuclear device closer to SC.http://www.snopes.com/politics…. go crawl back under a rock and ruminate on the fact

      that obama will be your president for THREE MORE
      YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Edit

      Reply

      Share ›

      Corkie Smith rmg21943

      • 12 hours ago

      and what kind of POWER would it take to get SO MANY OFFICIAL OFFICES to close their eyes and pretend not to see?????????? If that had been you or I…. w

    87. and what kind of POWER would it take to get SO MANY OFFICIAL OFFICES to close their eyes and pretend not to see?????????? If that had been you or I…. we’d have been ousted in a red texas minute… THAT is just SSSSCARY

    88. Since when do you really believe that those in power actually follow the law? How many times has oblabla just rewritten what the constitution says we must do and follow? How many states are giving illegals drivers licenses now and on and on and on? Just because a law say we are to do one thing, that doesnt mean it will be followed. How about how they are trying to CHANGE the immigration act? Our laws and constitution mean nothing to this dictator we have in charge!

    89. But they are given citizenship either wrongly or by design. At this point, in the words of Benedict Arnold, “at this point, what difference does it make” they are classified as citizens. The number of anchor babies in Texas hospitals is beyond belief and even surpasses the population of the attending town or hamlet.

    90. That “twofold birth right” doesn’t exist in US law, and for purposes of citizenship, birth “on or in a US Holding, such as an embassy or Military base” is indistinguishable from birth on the surrounding territory of the host country.
      There has never been a requirement that a US citizen parent be “five years past age of majority” in order to transmit citizenship, and no such requirement of any kind applies to birth in the United States.
      Your claim that “we base this on paternal not maternal birth right first, with maternal birth right being secondary” has been obsolete for nearly eighty years; and once again has nothing at all to do with persons born in the United States.
      It is utterly false that “Even the So called Anchor babies born in the US Do NOT qualify for citizenship as the act that they are being given citizen ship under specifically states the TYPES of VISA’s the parents of children born in the US must have for the children to gain citizenship.” No such specification exists in US law.

    91. Natural-Born Citizen does exist as a requirement to be President. The definition of a Natural-Born Citizen was referred to in the 1874 Supreme Court case of Minor v Happersett. It pointed out that the definition required 3 basic elements.

      1) He had to be born in U.S. Territory
      2) BOTH parents
      3) had to be U.S. citizens upon his birth.

      Why did the Founding Fathers want this special distinct of “Natural-Born Citizen” as opposed to just any kind of citizen? One Founder wrote that it was to help guaranty that the President would not be negatively influenced by a parent whose allegiance was to another country, like Obama.

      AS TO OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY
      There has been NO Supreme Court that ruled on whether or not he was eligible. They did say it was not their job. It was the job of his political party to certify a candidate eligible. According to that Supreme Court ruling, If the Democrats wanted to certify Putin as eligible, then Putin is eligible like Obama is eligible, because the Democratic Party declared him eligible. That is pretty sick if you ask me.

    92. Stephen, Presidential eligibility wasn’t being adjudicated in Minor, and Chief Justice Waite expressly declined to state an exclusive definition of the term even for its purpose in the case, which was limited to affirming Virginia Minor’s citizenship. Now, I challenge you to identify this other Supreme Court ruling to which you refer. I believe you will find yourself unable to do so.
      I also suggest you consult your Constitution– well, I don’t know what Constitution you live by, but MINE is the Constitution of the United States– and read Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment. If you can’t figure that one out, I’ll explain it to you.
      And until you can come up with that Founder, and that actual quotation, I suggest you drop that bit of gossip, which is exactly what you have there, from your argument.
      Now I can supply you with a little bit of insight into how mortified the Founders were about making someone with a foreign parent eligible for the Presidency. From Volume 2 of “History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United States” by George Bancroft (1889):
      “One question on the qualifications of the president was among the last to be decided. On the 22nd of August the committee of detail, fixing the requisite age of the president at thirty-five, on their own motion and for the first time required only that the president should be a citizen of the United States, and should have been an inhabitant of them for twenty-one years. On the fourth of September the committee of states who were charged with all unfinished business limited the years of residence to fourteen. It was then objected that no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for that place; but as men of other lands had spilled their blood in the cause of the United States, and had assisted at every stage of the formation of their institutions, on the 7th of September it was unanimously settled that foreign-born residents of fourteen years who should be citizens at the time of the formation of the constitution are eligible to the office of president.”
      They were willing, even EAGER, to make persons who not only had TWO foreign parents, but who might never have so much as set foot in America until middle age, eligible for the Presidency. How strong do you think their objections to a native-born son of an American mother and an absent alien father would be?
      So come up with your actual quote, or don’t bother me with what you think somebody you can’t even identify might have said sometime.
      And the same goes for “that Supreme Court ruling” to which you refer.

    93. If you are suggesting I said I was talking about Presidential eligibility, that is a lie. Your entire post of garbage is ONLY about those being in the U.S. at the time of its creation. NONE of them had parents who were citizens at the time of their birth. Additionally, Those that came to the U.S. did so for the freedom from tyranny the colonies offered compared to what was available in Europe. These people would not be likely to hold allegiance to a foreign nation. To suggest their intention was to allow any other than a natural born citizen to be President in the future, if not an outright lie, is twisting the facts to deceive people, something all liberal progressive socialist statist nut jobs love to do regularly.

    94. Stephen, what is the sole use in the Constitution, or ANYWHERE in current US law, of the term “natural born citizen”? If we’re not talking about Presidential eligibility, what, exactly, are we talking about?
      That “garbage” is from one of the most highly regarded histories of the Constitutional Convention. Chief Justice Fuller cited the very same passage in his dissent in Wong Kim Ark.
      Who said anything suggesting “their intention was to allow any other than a natural born citizen to be President in the future”? I certainly didn’t. I let the Founders speak for themselves there. The problem here is that you just don’t know what “natural born citizen” means. Oh, by the way– the Founders considered those among their number who had been born in the colonies which became the United States to be natural born citizens of the United States.
      I can understand your frustration, which leads you to pile on such labels as if they were patches for the holes in your arguments. But they don’t even come close, Stephen.

    95. You continue to deny the simple definition stated in Minor v. Happersett.

      the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” that they state. IT
      WAS NEVER DOUBTED THAT ALL CHILDREN
      1) born in a country (like the U.S.)
      2) of parents (plural)
      3) who were its (that country’s ) citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.

      Three simple conditions and all your deceptions of statements that do not define “Natural Born” will not change the truth of the definition.

      The Supreme Court ruled they did not have the authority to certify the eligibility of a candidate to be President. That is the responsibility of his party. According to that ruling, if the Democrats wanted to certify Amadinejad as eligible they could just as they did Obama.

    96. Stephen, are you still not “talking about Presidential eligibility”?
      And are you still unable to identify this “ruling” to which you keep referring?

    97. Presidential eligibility has nothing to do with defining “Natural Born Citizen” The definition of which was plainly described in Minor v. Happersett. That definition was not and did not need to be defined in the Constitution because everyone in the world in the 1700′s KNEW what that definition was. And they stated that definition clearly in Minor v. Happersett.

      Those that are responsible for certifying the eligibility of the President have a clear explanation of what that definition is, thanks to Minor v. Happersett.

      That others use that definition incorrectly or ignore that definition when using the term “Natural Born Citizen” DOES NOT CHANGE WHAT THE DEFINITION IS AND WAS INTENDED TO BE WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN.

    98. Presidential eligibility has nothing to do with defining “Natural Born
      Citizen”? Stephen, that’s just plain silly. The term isn’t used for
      any other purpose in US law.
      And the term wasn’t exclusively defined in Minor in the first place.
      As for what “everyone in the world (!) in the 1700′s KNEW,” I’d refer you to the Georgia Charter of 1732:
      “Also we do for ourselves and successors declare by these presents that all and every the persons which shall happen to be born within the said province
      and every of their children and posterity shall have and enjoy all
      liberties franchises and immunities of free denizens and natural born
      subjects.”
      and to Zephaniah Swift, “A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books”, 1795:
      “The children
      of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects,
      and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
      Preceding
      onward, and giving further historical background– Justice Thompson,
      writing in Inglis v. Sailors Snug Harbor in 1830, said
      “It is universally admitted both in the English
      courts and in those of our own country that all persons born within the
      colonies of North America whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain
      were natural born British subjects, and it must necessarily follow that that character was
      changed by the separation of the colonies from the parent state and the
      acknowledgement of their independence.”
      In US v. Rhodes (1866), Justice Swayne, presiding over the Circuit Court, said
      “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born
      subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States
      are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the
      rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as
      well as of England.”
      Justice Swayne, by the way, was on the Court for which Chief Justice Waite was speaking in Minor.
      From Chancellor Kent’s Commentaries, first published in 1826:
      “And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the
      king, and under the king’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and
      not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these
      United States in all cases in which there is no express constitutional
      or statute declaration to the contrary.”
      Where did any of them say anything about a requirement of two citizen parents?
      YOU’RE the one using the definition incorrectly; because it wasn’t intended to be an exclusive definition. And if, as you say,
      “Presidential eligibility has nothing to do with defining “Natural Born Citizen,”
      there’s no need to bother with any definition in the first place.
      “Those
      that are responsible for certifying the eligibility of the President”–
      and who, exactly, would “Those” be, Stephen?– haven’t been swayed by
      your crackpot theory, and you haven’t presented anything but your wacky
      misinterpretation of Minor to support it.

    99. Now you are REALLY losing it. So Tell me, how Presidential eligibility defines “Natural Born Citizen?”
      The definition of “Natural Born Citizen” existed, around the world, including in the “Colonies” before there was even an idea of U.S. President. That definition does not change except as attempted by you revisionist progressives.

      You KNOW that I have stated several times in responses to you, who “those ” are as ruled on by the courts. The courts that you refuse to show, how decisions or rulings in those cases, had anything to do with “Natural Born Citizen” You cannot because they Never ruled against the Minor v. Happersett definition of “Natural Born Citizen.”

      Your outright lies and distortion of the truth does NOT change the truth. I repeat the truth because the truth cannot be changed no matter how hard you try. You keep trying to dodge the truth, the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” by introducing nonsensical boring quotes. According to your latest stupid tome, the definition of Natural born would include anyone born in the U.S. which NO ONE has ever argued ANYWHERE except now you.
      Still you refuse to prove that the definition of Natural Born Citizen as presented in Minor v. Happersett is WRONG. You can’t. You only attempt to show it means this part only, or that part only. Totally inconsistent. No one else has ever proven the Minor v. Happersett wrong either.
      What a deceptive liberal progressive socialist statist nut job you are.

    100. Oh my goodness.
      I never so much as implied that “Presidential eligibility defines “Natural Born Citizen.”” Natural born citizenship is a Constitutionally-imposed qualification for the office. The term “natural born citizen” has no use in US law other than for Presidential eligibility. You simply don’t know what the term means.
      It’s also not a definition that “existed, around the world” at any time. YOUR definition comes from the 18th-century work of a Swiss philosopher, sort of– writing in French, he of course didn’t use the term “natural born citizen,” which he knew to be an English legal term (and I mean not only English language, but English law). Vattel acknowledged that the laws of England were not in perfect harmony with his PHILOSOPHY, saying,
      “It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are
      citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their
      regulations must be followed. By the law of nature alone, children follow
      the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212);
      the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of
      itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I
      say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular
      reasons, ordain otherwise.”
      And it is the actual common law, as inherited from England, that matters here, not what somebody’s philosophy treatise says. Vattel simply didn’t presume to define the term for the English. It’s downright absurd to think that he did– and your argument depends on precisely that absurdity.
      Nobody’s trying to “revise” the definition of “natural born citizen” but you birthers– and make no mistake, those who try to pass off this “two citizen parent” nonsense are just another kind of birther.
      You say,
      “You KNOW that I have stated several times in responses to you, who “those ” are as ruled on by the courts.”
      Well, I suppose you mean the political parties. That would be the wrong answer, Stephen. Ultimately, Congress meets in joint session, generally two weeks before the inauguration, to certify the votes of the electoral college. And at that point, Congress has the responsibility to determine if the President-elect is Constitutionally qualified for the office. If he isn’t, it’s their power and responsibility to say so. If they don’t certify the electoral votes, the President-elect doesn’t take office. And not one member of Congress agreed with your goofy birther definition of natural born citizen (which nobody had ever tried to apply to Presidential eligibility before 2008), either in 2009 or 2013. You never did look up the Twentieth Amendment, did you?
      But you’ve referred, time and again, to a Supreme Court ruling on that issue. I’ll ask again, can you identify that ruling? See, when I say the court ruled on something, I’m willing to put up. If I can’t, I don’t bring it up. All you’ve done is repeat your primary (and only) argument again and again. It’s as weak, and false, the hundredth time as it was the first.
      I’ve already provided numerous citations from eligibility challenges specifically addressing the meaning of “natural born citizen,” but I’ll throw this one in again, just for grins:
      Judge Richard Gordon, Arizona Superior Court, Pima County, writing in Allen v. Obama, 2012:
      “Most importantly, Arizona courts are
      bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United
      States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45,
      54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that
      President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and
      thus qualified to hold the office of President. …Contrary to Plaintiff’s
      assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold
      otherwise”
      See, what happened there, is somebody tried your little crackpot theory in an actual courtroom– and got schooled on it, by an actual judge. What do you say to that, champ?
      What you call “nonsensical boring quotes” all come from actual court cases and recognized scholarship. It’s funny how little kids go “Lalala I can’t hear you!” when they want to ignore something; but we’re not kids here, Stephen. When you get ready to debate like an adult, you’ll start paying attention to the boring parts. That’s what grownups have to do sometimes.
      Now you say,
      “According to your latest stupid tome, the definition of Natural born
      would include anyone born in the U.S. which NO ONE has ever argued
      ANYWHERE except now you.”
      That hasn’t been my argument, although I perhaps need to emphasize the distinction, which is for the purposes of our discussion irrelevant. All persons born in the United States AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof are natural born citizens. That would be all persons but children born to foreign diplomats and invading armies. I’ve provided example after example where that qualified assertion has been made by a court in passing, and where it has been upheld by a court’s ruling.
      Your exact position, according to one court, (Judge Jeff Masin of the New Jersey Office of Administrative Law, in Purpura and Moran v. Obama, 2012) “has no merit in law.”
      I realize this all must be new to you, Stephen, but it’s old hat to a lot of people. Your argument already failed, right out of the gate. You just don’t know any better.
      And when have I expressed any political ideology at all?

    101. I see, you pull out 2 recent obscure lower court ruling made by Obama crony Judges to help block legitimate cases from reaching the Supreme Court. At least the several previous did not attempt to go their, they denied the cases on other technicalities.
      The Supreme Court has yet to rule on “Natural Born Citizen” defined in Minor v. Happersett, but the NC Case may yet get a chance to do just that.

    102. Well that’s certainly out of the blue. I would never have dreamed that you would automatically presume two judges you’d never heard of were “Obama corny Judges,” and that they kept “legitimate cases” from reaching the Supreme Court. I don’t know much about Judge Masin’s biography, but Judge Gordon is a Republican appointed to the Superior Court by Governor Jan Brewer, in 2009. Ever hear of her? She’s widely known for being a crony of President Obama’s.
      Don’t try to pretend you know anything at all about the details of any of the eligibility challenges. I’m sure the thought of doing something so boring as actually reading a case chills you to the bone. Of course they’re obscure to you– this whole business is obscure to you. You don’t begin to know the first thing about it. All you’re capable of is parroting nonsense about Minor. And that’s a pity, because I don’t think it’s a lack of intelligence that incapacitates you.
      You haven’t with any substance addressed a single point I’ve made in response to your sole, miserable failure of an argument. You don’t even understand how not only does Minor fail to support your argument, it undermines it.
      But to what “NC case” are you referring? I await your answer with bated breath.

    103. I agree, Ben Carson is the man for our times. I’ve heard him speak in person and I love him. ( btw, he is much taller than he appears on TV and better looking !!) He would honor our country as the real first black President. Obama is not legally president. He is not an American and his identity is fraudulent as templarreborn says. Cruz is great but he is too young for now. He would, however, make a great VP or better yet the new Harry Reid.

    104. Unfortunately people are very fickle about good looks…in fact it has over ruled intelligence, success, and proven identity several times.

    105. HA! Certainly not, but, we need to GET him elected and the facts in his background are way beyond impressive but the man also looks like a statesman, not a politician.

    106. I agree. We need our Tea Party Congressmen to stay in Congress. They know the ropes, now, and should have plenty of new fellow TEA Party Congressmen joining them for Obama’s lame duck last two years. Dr. Ben Carson is a dream candidate and the opposite of Obama. As blacks-Americans get to know him, they are going to LOVE him, and finally have one of their own to be mighty proud of as our country’s leader.

    107. nope…. we need EVERYBODY GONE…… START WITH NEW ……. if the republican’s had done their jobs in the first place we would NOT be where we are today….. EVERYBODY GOES…. Out with the African Bath Water…

    108. Our system is really in trouble because of people with your mind set.What you are saying about ben carson is the same thing i was hearing about O’bama while he was on the trail conning the people.Politicans regardless of party affiliation or color are all natural born liars.Who do you think pick these people? It dam sure isn’t the average voter.Who ever replaces the current resident at the white house will do what his or her handler tells them to do.Don’t suffer from the illusion that our elected officals work for the voter.

    109. Oh my! Have a little Faith. Dr. Carson is most definitely not a politician – no way. And I assure you, he does not have a “handler” in the sense you say it. He is exactly the man for our time. Do you know anything about him? Please research. You can start with the National Prayer Breakfast this year where he was the keynote speaker with Obama present and squirming. The man is a pure Gift to us.

    110. I know he was, but

      Carie Nydza made the comment ”

      All that matters is where Cruz was born. If in the US he is eligible to be president.” I was just pointing out that he was not born in the US. And you know the libs are going to whine and cry about it even though monkey boy wasn’t born in the US either..

    111. A Supreme Court decision stated that eligibility for the Presidency is certified by the political party he is running under. SO anyone that is certified by their party is eligible to run for President no matter where he is born or whether or not his parents are citizens. Pretty sick if you ask me.

    112. So the democratic party is the one that we hold responsible for allowing the illegal to hold the office. The democratic party has changed. It is no longer what it used to be. I still want to know why they denounced God 3 times at their last convention. Have they forgot in God we trust.

    113. Kathy G related to the Garrett Press
      they wanted to take GOD out// outrage/// put it back how it went..
      One of the people shown as wanting God out was Iranian Couple because they where/are Muslim Hence no GOD only Allah. One of the Obama Money Supporter is French Iranian DO YOU KNOW who.. He most likely seeing him now. Do you know why? Lastly his and his wife slips my Memory but simple to locate research it HINT EBAY
      plus

      OH BAD BAD DEMO RATS
      LBJ used the N word but Paula Dean was masqueraded and Massacred by even the O lady (Voted him in Got what was deserved maybe)
      and TRUMAN used the N word but it fired by a phrase a Radio D-J Imus
      Hey both of these people are dem’s
      In School in history Does that still exist I remember hearing in the Sixties that the Democrats used the blight, word not used as much, The Demo’s used the Blight of city for power. Do you feel used yet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      I say history exist because I remember finding a You Tube where Michelle, You know mighty Michelle , the one with the thesis talking down a Fair America, not being fair. Gee aren’t the Robinson’s in professional sports, doing well I thought.. Well she said to a group of Black Lady’s because they where, and under a tent and Michelle saying something like Obama changing history,( anyone else see this Utube when he ran in 2007 time line, which I believe I first seen on Glenn Beck, From that, I found it, but can’t now: Can we say White Washed, or is that politically incorrect Should it be Black-washed; I never seen a Black-Washed barn >>> so is it still around) Common Core out to change history, Gee both are here alive and well
      So what is this with Changing History, and Obama using the word Reparation… Which is him upsetting history. Put riots where riots had stopped, or slowed down. Give back Mexico it’s land/…Sice the city and town at Colleges started more protest, more flag issues, at schools. Gee I understand the Gain of Mexico for reparation, where does that put the blacks They had NO Land, They had a ship belly as Dutch ships sailed them from Afica where they where doing WELL as is it’s not hot in HELL…Yes it set slight fire to Native Americans, who did lose more than any but They as did Blacks made out by America being America, but BY the Way Legal Immigrants with jobs gave them jobs.. Gee most all People here are Immigrants from the start, but legal being legal not illegal which seems to be what the Obama’s are all about. Who are they Legally??? Place answer here
      The big thing today is ID theft, which Obama did not seem to care about with his loose HealthCare Race baited ObamaCare and if it worked IT would have been in HUGE letters OBAMA CARE but the leftist left lives under RACE gee enter in The start of this note Democrats left Race two meanings to the N word reparation maybe from God too, because this Take God out of Christmas has blossomed like a Bloom’in Onion, and Identity theif which enter in the BIG push which Obama was first in To lower America credit, yet Roosevelt time was the lowest, but I guess the Big Three weren’t around yet.
      Yet below Edony wrote??? ‘Who’s God’ >> pick one WRONG There is Only ONE GOD Three in One
      but it a free place here America and the internet expands that border
      Now the fight begins that has never ended from TIMES BEGIN When???

      also mmmmm

      Oh enter in Stimulus packages, Keynesian economics and Social
      Security all from the depression GEE you’d think it was Obama
      related. Get IT stimulus plans, Keynes looks like Kenya and
      OH What’s his # Obama and a SSN issue I just see this as odd
      in likeness is all OH oh Keynes a last name of an economic
      theory by A Brit John Maynard Keynes.. Did I say Obama hates Great
      Britain, Sir Winston Churchill especially his bust…….. I just
      found it of close interest

      BY: JohnnyV @hartwick NY

    114. The Democratic Party has been taken over by the Communists. They want government to run everything and make income and possessions equal for everyone, whether they work or not, and whether they deliver pizzas or perform knee replacements. Obamacare will reduce the pay for that last one.

    115. Know your facts. Cruz can run if his mother was an American Citizen. He DOES NOT have to have been born in the US. Citizenship of his Mother makes him an American Citizen.

    116. Senator Cruz was nearly old enough to be President when his father finally completed that “process of being approved as a citizen.” That must be some process.

    117. Vlad Putin just recently called our media “useful idiots” in the Marxian sense. He couldn’t be more right.

    118. too bad we can’t get the liberals to watch FOX……. LOL LOL ….they are sooooo brain washed they can’t even look for the truth…. it’s sooooooo weird.

    119. The media isn’t discussing it because it isn’t true. Why don’t you actually take a few minutes to look up those claims. Follow the links provided as evidence, and you’ll see you were lied to and made a fool of again. If there was ANY reality to any of those claims, don’t you think the teabaggers would have used it to get Obama out of office? But some ambulance chaser in Joysy makes up a bunch of lies, and you assume its true. Where are all the republicans? Where is Fox news? Heard any good conspiracy theories lately?

    120. I just asked the same thing before reading your comments. you have more info. though , thanks. and, didn’t anyone bring that up while editing the book? that is another mystery.

    121. The “birth certificate” produced by Obama has already been shown to be a manufactured PDF. If you check it out you will find that it was generated in the same fashion as most Adobe Acrobat documents. It has backgrounds, layers, individual entities, etc. This is exactly how a graphic artist would set this up. A scanned document PDF would not contain this type of structure. It would be a static image without these individually editable entities. I think someone dropped the ball. http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/07/08/forensic-findings-on-obamas-birth-certificate-a-100-percent-forgery-no-doubt-about-it/

    122. Yeah the whole republican leadership dropped the ball on us all. If this obam enama is an interloper, and not qualified, then why are we pissen an moaning about all the unconstitutional things he does. Why are we argueing over illegals invading and no enforcement. Why benghazi, why irs spying on conservative groups, why is he not put down like a rabid crimibal? Because he may just be a sock puppet for the real criminal conspiracy.

    123. In a court challenge the Supreme Court stated it is the responsibility of the political party to certify his eligibility to be President. As long as his party certified he is eligible, it does not matter where he was born or whether or not his parents are citizens. As long as a party certifies he is eligible, he can run for and be elected President. Putin could run if he were certified as eligible whether anyone would vote for him is another story. BUT he could run and if elected he would be President, like Obama.

    124. There you said it, Jeff, with your last sentence ” because he may be just a sock puppet for the real criminal conspiracy” is exactly the same suspicion I have had!

    125. As someone that works with Adobe products on a daily basis, I can tell you that what you have stated is simply not true. You are stating that a scanned document would essentially be a bitmap… The Portable Document Format (PDF) is a completely different format compared to bitmaps. It allows for documents to be more easily portable (hence the name). It is very common for the software that creates the PDF to create layers. This article also completely debunks this myth: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp

    126. I read a story that one child was born to the Obamas in 1961 in British East Africa Protectorate…. this according to the British National Archives…

    127. Everything about Obummer is a lie and fraud…He needs to be impeached and prosecuted and put in prison!!!

    128. Why? What has he done? Just because he is a black man you cannot stand that fact. You are the most racist of people to call the president names and want him to leave.

    129. Birth cert states his mother is Caucasian. Classification
      for Caucasian did not exist until 1967 in 1961 all were white.

    130. I think you are speaking about a totally falsified document, no doubt. But, to be helpful, I wanted to point out that it doesn’t say African-American anywhere on the forged long form birth certificate the WH released. It has “African” for this father’s race. Is that what you are referring to, that should say “Negro?”

    131. I myself agree with # 1 and # 2, I did not know about # 3 and # 4 and I am not a lawyer, I went to a music college. also on the White House released birth certificate, there is not a raise stamp. Even on re-issued birth certificates there is a raised stamp. There is on mine. I also took a photo cope and scanned my own birth certificate so I can see if I can see the raised stamp on it and you could.

    132. No where on the bc that was issued could I find a listing for Obama’s race. In 1921 the protectorate became Kenya and became a British Crown Colony. So no problem there. If you do a little research you will find that the hospital has been called Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological since 1958. Don’t believe everything you read/see/hear.

    133. Number 1 has already been addressed. It doesn’t appear on the BC. Number 2 is very simple. Kenya was the name of the city in East Africa, not the country. If you look at the mothers birthplace, you’ll notice it says Wichita, Kansas, not the USA..
      Number 3 has been addressed. It was the name of the hospital, regardless of what you’ve read elsewhere.
      Number 4 is a little more confusing. Could you please cite the passage in the book where he makes that claim? I don’t believe he made that claim in the book, although it’s possible. Obama was basically raised by his grandparents and he considered his grandfather to be his father. His grandfather did serve in WWII. He did make a claim in a speech at one time that his father served in WWII. He may have misspoke or was referring to his grandfather. Neither case has anything to do with his eligibility to be president according to US law. All of the claims made above are false or mistakes. Regardless of where he was born, even if he was born in Timbuktu, his mother was an American which gives Obama legal status as a “natural born” citizen, which is the requirement to be president. So his eligibility to be president has been factually proven. Now you may still dispute the accuracy of the birth certificate, but it wouldn’t change his eligibility status. It would just make him a liar, and we all know that he is that any way.
      Don’t think I’m sticking up for him. I’m not. I just think there is too much energy and print focused on the “birther” issue, which is totally irrelevant to him being eligible to being president. I’d rather see the energy focused on his status regarding Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the IRS, the NSA, the illegal wiretapping of reporters, the knowledge of the actual gas attack in Syria, the refusal to enforce immigration law, the unilateral illegal changing of laws through executive order, and the many other lies he’s made. Let’s put the birth certificate issue to rest. As Hillary would say, “What difference does it make?” Answer, it doesn’t make any difference.

    134. No Obama’s mother’s status as a Citizen does NOT qualify, and the location of birth does make a difference First she was not old enough to pass the rights of citizenship on to her child yet, And secondly to enjoy the birthright of location he would have had to be born IN the US or a holding thereof, If you recall They cleared McCain the rino on this as he was born outside the US But on a US MILITARY BASE… stop trying to deflect facts with fallacy, ALL facts add up with his insistence of citizenship we can try and convict him on high treason and seek the death penalty, but then he will come back and admit being an illegal, and then it would be a maximum charge of espionage and he would hope for a lesser sentence, Just watch how he will play the game. if he claims an enemy combatant the espionage charge goes to world court and the death sentence is off the table. Remember he IS a Muslim, Islam is a theocracy, a form of government, which makes it a valid national enemy in acts of war.

    135. wrong, wrong, wrong. His mother was not old enough to pass on her citizenship if he was born in Kenya. She would have had to been at least 19 years of age in order to do that. She was 18 when he was born. And his stepfather adopted him when they moved to Indonesia and Indonesia does not have dual citizenship so his mother would have had to renounced his US citizenship to be adopted by his stepdad. And his Indonesian school records show that he was an Indonesian citizen.

    136. There is no evidence of his having been adopted at any time, and a parent cannot renounce their child’s US citizenship. So you lose.

    137. Then why if there is nothing to hide. he does with his original BC and all his school records, Where there is smoke there is fire, and we already know he is a big liar. I think he is a certified FRAUD

    138. So what is the name of this dead man? After all, once someone dies, their SSN is no longer protected information, so his name should be publicly available.

    139. C.T. Harrison (Harry) Bounel. There is a law suit. Google it. The lame stream media will never report it.

    140. Sorry, but there is no evidence that Harrison (Harry) Bounel ever actually existed. His name first popped up along with Obama’s SSN AFTER the birthers started spreading the President’s SSN around the internet, so odds are it was either someone committing fraud with the number, or a database error. But there is nothing that indicates that this alleged Bounel person was the original holder of the number. For that matter, there is nothing indicating he was ever a real person. Yes, there is a lawsuit, but that is simply because Orly Taitz is a raving lunatic with no grip on reality.

    141. Honestly, I don’t know the truth. But when you hear endless lies upon lies from this fraud. There is a time to question. No matter what personal attacks come from the liberal fringe, Name calling may intimidate 3rd graders and CNN and MSNBC watchers into believing the liberal lie, but I am sick of it.

    142. Oh, the irony here is simply amazing. You start out by telling a lie about the President, that he is using a dead man’s SSN. I ask you to support your claim with a fact, and then you tell another lie. And then, to excuse your lies, you accuse the President of endless lies. Sorry, the only proven liars here are you and the rest of the birthers. I have a feeling that you do, in fact, know the truth, but, since the truth isn’t what you would like it to be, you just keep telling your lies.

    143. Well I don’t trust him or anything else that comes out of Washington these days.. I am ashamed of him that someone like him is president. He is an embarrassment to this country. But you have answered one question that has been bothering me. How many lies can democrats tell an idiot like you? As many as they want.

    144. Since you’re pretending that you know what you’re talking about (Not that I’m falling for it, mind you), please tell me what lies you think I’ve fallen for. I’ve already pointed out lies that you seem to have believed, so that doesn’t say much for you.

    145. Richard, your presentation of the facts(that nasty word that liberals hate) is spot on, I wish more people would put this out there like you have. Most people think we’re all conspiracy therorists!

    146. YOU SIR , Have made some VERY LEGITAMATE queries into what the fuck is behind door # 3 ! Excellent work , Richard !

    147. Excellent. And to answer the last question “does that mean mr. obama is a liar?” Yes it does. To the Nth degree. I am borrowing this from you and I will quote it.

    148. Before quoting Mr. Silverlieb you might want to check out if what he says is true. I have no love for Obama and also think he is a liar but I do get annoyed when people make false accusations against someone; whether I like that person or not. Now concerning point 2, I would like to firstly ask that both Mr. Silverlieb and you, Mrs. Cohen, actually read the Wikipedia article on Kenya properly before making a false statement or quoting something that contains a falsehood, and would like to point out that Kenya did exist before 1963. Kenya became known as the East Africa Protectorate as it was a state under British protection (a part of the empire). Kenya remained a protectorate until 1920, thereafter it became known as the colony of Kenya (look it up) a whole 41 years before 1961, so this is not an issue as far as the birth certificate goes as the only thing that changed in 1963 was that it became the Republic of Kenya and had some of the coastal lands and islands handed over to it.

    149. You know at this point in the game obama has lied about so much, has changed the subtle meaning of history, and his new health insurance debacle that I don’t care. Also, it still shows that the man is a liar.

    150. No, that is not what I said and please don’t put words in my mouth. I do care, but this president is a liar and a schemer and no one knows what the truth is anymore. Values, ethics and morals went down the tube when he became president. So, again don’t put words in my mouth it is not ethical.

    151. I actually don’t care about this president, where he came from, what he eats, who he sleeps with etc. I am entitled to not give a crap. I get less headaches that way. Also, regardless of all the controversy this lying, scheming postus has to go. PERIOD

    152. We need to go back to the popular vote and stop this madnes. We allow crIminals elected as our officials to do what they want instead of what we put them in to do. Apparently they aren’t thinking of my best interest but only of their own.

    153. The Mainstream Media has a lot to answer for.but that aside..Our Government starting with a Special Prosecutor need’s to go forward with an open and honest investigation to answer this question once and for all. In fact our nations business cannot be conducted as it should be. Our Nation Is a Democratic Republic and cannot be allowed to operate for on day under a narcissistic dictatorial Incompetent Amateur who greatest talent is his ability to lie!

    154. I agree with you evste and the tank that I think they should be in is “jail”! I have felt for sometime that there are a lot of “traitors” out there and if we get out of this mess I think a lot of them should be investigated for their traiterous behaviour!

    155. The reason none of those four points have been discussed in major media is that they are all lies. His BC lists his father as African, which he was. It doesn’t say “African-American” anywhere. Kenya was known as Kenya for decades before it gained independence. I have my father-in-law’s stamp album from the 1930′s that has a page for Kenya in it. The hospital had that name from at least 1958, do some real research. As to the last, it is understood by anyone with a functioning brain that he was referring to his grandfather, and he either misspoke, or simply referred to him as such because that’s how he thought of him.

    156. The British Empire established the East Africa Protectorate in 1895, known from 1920 as the Kenya Colony. The Republic of Kenya became independent in December 1963

    157. I think Obama has already told us in his own words that he is a liar. He is unquestionably a liar of the first order, a highly accomplished one at that, The only thing that is bothersome is that so many people believe those lies, even the most obvious ones

    158. His birth certificate does not say “African American.” Rather, the races of his father and mother are listed separately as “African” and “Caucasian,” respectively. You must be looking at the Fox News forgery version.

    159. My response is based on the long form found on the WH site here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

      1. Maybe I’m missing it, but I do not see “African-American” anywhere.

      2. You actually kind of answered this one on your own, but didn’t connect the dots. Kenya was still known as Kenya, but as a colony of East Africa. This is why it says “Kenya , East Africa” instead of just “Kenya”.

      3. The site you referenced doesn’t really give a detailed explanation of what happened between 1890 and when the hospital(s) merged. It also doesn’t specifically say that “Kapi’olani Maternity Home” was it’s legal name, they could simply be referencing it by a common name the company uses. Also the page clearly states the hospital(s) became “Kapi‘olani Medical Center for Women & Children” after the merger NOT “Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital” as you said. I think it’s at least plausible that it was indeed called “Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital” before the merger, and the change to “Kapi‘olani Medical Center for Women & Children” mainly signifies the addition of actual children’s hospital, and not just maternity care. Either way, I’m not sure any of this is evidence of anything either way as it’s all kind of skeptical.

      4. Obama simply made a mistake on this one. He meant his grandfather, not his father.

    160. nooooooooooooooowhaaaaa….. whadaya sayin’? don’t tell me….. they found lies on a new borns BIRTH CERTIFICATE ???? what were they thinkin’ …..??? why did the people who filled out the birth certificate of a new born baby….. tell lies……..he was only a new born baby…… I’m appalled at the inference….. tisk tisk

    161. 4 Simple Answers

      1.. Look again. The birth certificate doesn’t list his race at all. It only lists the races of his parents.

      2.. Again, try reading the article you linked to. Kenya wasn’t called “British East Africa Protectorate.” It was called any combination of “British Kenya”, “Kenya Colony”, “Protectorate of Kenya”, and “Colony of Kenya”. It seems reasonable to write “Kena, East Africa” on a birth certificate at that time.

      3.. The hospital was renamed to “Kapiʻolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital” in 1931. The name is correct for the date Obama was born. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapi%27olani_Medical_Center_for_Women_%26_Children

      4.. Obama never claimed his father fought in WW II. His *grandfather* fought in WW II… perhaps you should read more carefully.

      For the sake of your clients, I really hope you research your cases more carefully than you did these “questions.”

    162. 1. His birth certificate does not list his race. His father is listed as AFRICAN and his mother is listed as Caucasian. No mention of African-American, Negro or American. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp

      2. The “East Africa Protectorate” became the “colony
      of Kenya” in 1920
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Africa_Protectorate
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya_Colony

      The Kenya African Union was founded in 1942 under the name Kenya African Study Union
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya_African_Union

      In 1964 Kenya became a republic.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kenya

      3. In 1931, its name was changed to the Kapiʻolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapiolani_Medical_Center_for_Women_and_Children

      4. I am not sure which question you are asking. : Just how many 3 year olds fight in Wars?” (zero) Or “Does that mean that Mr. Obama is a liar, or simply chooses to alter the facts to satisfy his imagination or political purposes (still Obama, our president qualifies as a “liar”)?”

      I can only assume you are asking “how can his father have fought in a war he was too young to fight in.” To that I say; what does that have to do with the validity of a birth certificate? (But he did say it. May be he misspoke and meant his Grandfather who DID fight in WWII. Or maybe he just out and out lied (still has no bearing on the birth certificate.)

      WOW. And you are an Attorney at Law.

      A little research and check of facts shows that all your arguments are invalid. But don’t let the facts get in the way of your agenda.

      If your above research is any indication of your ability as an Attorney then your clients are in trouble.

    163. Thank you Richard for putting this out there for everyone to see. I’ve read David Limbaugh’s book, I know the truth, but all those that were deluded into voting for him need to understand what his lies really were. There’s a lot more out there that hasn’t been gathered into one whole.
      .

    164. How about the fact that the document has different fonts which wasn’t possible on a typewriter back in 61? Or that the “official stamp” has the word THE misspelled? Or that many experts have examined it and said it is a fake?
      The people in a position to do something about it are ignoring it and therefore are co-conspirators.

    165. Fact or fiction? That’s easy. Everything you said is fiction.
      The President’s race isn’t given on his birth certificate, and the term “African-American” doesn’t appear anywhere on the document. Honestly, if you can’t get such a basic fact straight, how do you expect anybody to take you seriously?
      Kenya most certainly did exist in 1961, and in the 1930′s as well, as the Kenya Colony and Protectorate. The area hadn’t been known as the “British East Africa Protectorate” since the Colony was established by the Kenya Colony Order in Council of 1921.
      You are incorrect about what the name of the hospital was in 1961; it is correctly stated on the President’s birth certificate, just as it is on available examples of other contemporary birth certificates.
      Nowhere in his books does President Obama refer to “his father fighting in WW II.”
      So does that mean that Mr. Silverlieb is a liar, or simply chooses to alter the facts to satisfy his imagination or political purposes?

  5. Sensitive information? How about the fact that he’s not a legal citizen to start with. How about his non existent school records?
    The more this dufus and his lackeys talk the more they dig their hole….

  6. please, explain to me, why his birth certificate lists his mother as Caucasian and his father as African American, yet the PC term we are now told to use didn’t begin in the 60′s. I have a biracial daughter, born in 1989, and I am listed as white and her dad as Negro. so, though the birth cert. is supposed to be real, what year did we become politically correct? Well, not me I don’t, I say Merry Christmas.

    1. Nowhere on Barack Obama’s birth certificate does the term “African-American” appear. The space for “Race of Father” is filled in with the word “African,” which at the time was a descriptor that blacks who were actually native-born Africans (like Barack Obama’s father was) were more likely to use for themselves than “negro” (the latter being synonymous with “slave” in Euro-colonial countries such as Kenya).
      Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp#HXputlkArLIU72fS.99

    2. People from Africa would not refer to their RACE as African. That is their nationality. Race would be Black, white, American Indian and something tantamount to Latino to cover all of the Spanish speaking nations. In the case of Latino being submitted as Race then Nationality might be something like Puerto Rican, Cuban or Mexican. African, like I said, would never be entered as Race just Nationality, remember not everyone from Africa is black. Many South Africans in particular are white. Even the term African American is incorrect. What if you and your family were from South Africa and you are white. You live in the US and hold a US citizenship. You are then an African American. I have a black neighbor who is insulted to be called African American. Her family is Brazilian not African. These terms are so incorrect the ignorance of our country sometimes is an embarrassment.when it comes to intellect and how they try to comedic-ally represent themselves as being smarter and thus outsmart themselves.

  7. i wounder when the people of the u.s.a will open there eyes and see right pass this bull that obam is putting look he lied agine telling the people he is going to enroll in the obamacare lol one of many lies i wound how long will the people of the u.s.a will stand for i look under this obamacare so called plan it said for for me $124.00 like omg really how in gods name can i pay for some thing like this cheap ya right i dont think so like i said i wounder how much longer will people stand for this kind of stuff there should be a way to get this kick out or kick out obama thats how i fill like me or not dont really care

  8. Just more “birther” noise… Lol. Why can’t this guy be vetted? Because he wasn’t born in America… period. A Manufactured Man paid for by the middle east. A charlatan supported by the ignorant hubris of the “Liberal Poser”.

  9. He couldn’t sign up because he has a bogus SSN. It belongs to a dead person in Connecticut.

    1. Sweetie your little troll site doesn’t disprove anything. I’ve worked on computer systems that verify SSNs and, I assure you, his indicates it was assigned to someone in Connecticut. At the time his was supposedly assigned to him, the beginning 3 digits indicated the state you lived in. And don’t give me the bogus explanation that it was assigned to him when he was a child in Indonesia. I am about the same age as Obama and, I assure you, nobody got SS cards as children then. You usually didn’t get it until your first job around 16 or so.

    2. I beg your pardon, but you don’t know what you’re talking about. From the Social Security Administration:
      “Prior to 1972, cards were issued in local Social Security offices around the country and the Area Number represented the State in which the card was issued. This did not necessarily have to be the State where the applicant lived, since a person could apply for their card in any Social Security office. Since 1972, when SSA began assigning SSNs and issuing cards centrally from Baltimore, the area number assigned has been based on the ZIP code in the mailing address provided on the application for the original Social Security card. The applicant’s mailing address does not have to be the same as their place of residence. Thus, the Area Number does not necessarily represent the State of residence of the applicant, either prior to 1972 or since…
      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.”
      President Obama’s ALLEGED Social Security Number has an area number associated with ZIP Code 06814. He applied for a Social Security Number from ZIP Code 96814. What a mystery!
      I don’t know where you get the idea that “nobody got SS cards as children then,” or that such a sweeping generalization is at all credible; but I’m older than President Obama– and I’ve had a Social Security card since before I went to grade school.

  10. And now we have a video on FB of his half sister saying that she fraudulently did the short birth certificate, but not the long one, and that his name is really Allen.Says she did it in 1985 to get him into college. We need our congress to clear this all up, this is ridiculous.

  11. This
    just keeps getting stranger all the while those in the Congress ignore
    what is obvious, that would imply they are co-conspirators and if he is a
    fraud i dont think anyone realizes the Constitutional Crisis this would
    create.

    1. I think more people need to investigate BARRY SHABIZZ, the guy who was in a car accident in Hawaii, and then COMPLETELY disapeared. He failed to report for his hearing and went missing. He has a scar on the back of his head, just like our president. Semper Fi

  12. Do we really care,the fact is he is president for good or worse for the next long srewed up 3 years,we will just have to bear with it.

    1. I care, if he is a fraud then every bill that he has signed is null and void. Every Muslim czar that he has put to work in our government is ousted. Every agency that has complied with his demands will be under scrutiny, as well as every mandate that has been put forth that is inhibiting our economy.

  13. The thing is something really big will probably occur before his term is up that even he has no clue he’s being used as a pawn.

  14. Come on people!!!! How much more do we need before someone grows
    a pair and starts the impeachment process to REMOVE this fraudulent
    president???? I mean really, the White
    House even stated; “Clearly, the information was not his Social Security Number
    or his birth records, because the White House has claimed to have made public
    both”.

    1. It’s a great idea to impeach the SOB, but unless Republicans can take back the Senate in 2014, it would be a waste of time due to the Dems control there. They’d NEVER vote to convict him.

    2. Thats why anyone voting democrate now reveals either ignorance or culpability in the treason against our republican form of government. NEVER VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT UNLESS HIS PARTY HATES HIM.

  15. I think we all, and I mean all, need to contact our congressman and demand. That they represent us as our elected government official. Tell them that they need to do their job. They can not vote on anything he (Obama or who ever he is.) brings before them to vote on. Until this matter or his legal ss# and birth certificate is proven beyond benefit of a bought, to be true. Also his documentation proving his legal name and citizenship. If they don’t then they are voting for a non-person let alone our president. If they can’t do their job, then we the people will have to get someone in office who can.

  16. Is lying on a college application to get special treatment and financial aide a felony???? If so Obama and the sleazy pseudo indian from Massachusetts should both be in prison..

  17. In other words he screwed HIMSELF over and is now caught red handed as the ILLEGAL ALIEN he really is… didnt he think this would happen sooner or later when the over reaching illegal actions he was creating would grab HIM by the balls?

  18. 2 FACTS that most people are unaware of.

    #1 Minor v. Happersett of 1874 Supreme Court Case, spoke to the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” requiring both parents be citizens.

    #2 Another Supreme Court Case stated that it is the responsibility of the political party to certify its candidate for President as being eligible. Thus as long as he is certified by the Party, it does not matter where he was born, where his parents were born or whether or not he or his parents are citizens. The Supreme Court said certification is what counts. Pretty sick if you ask me.

  19. he claimed to be a foreign student,,,that gets exposed and it shows the entire,,,ends justifies the means character of the president…

    1. Try Kenya for a start. His whole family is from Kenya. He came here as a foregn exchange student, that is why his college records are sealed, along with noting he IS a muslim. Semper Fi

  20. When the walls came tumbling down. His Kenyan birth certificate has surfaced he.needs to be removed from office now. Every law enacted by him is null and void.

    1. congress is not exempt! see “the grassley amendment”! congress MUST
      go to the ACA exchanges for their healthcare insurance. it is mandatory!

  21. LMAO…what a maroon. We knew all along that if somebody seriously looked at his identity and credentials, they would come up with a bag full of empty.

  22. Uh…why was the president signing up for the bronze plan? And why is the “bronze plan” $400 a month?

    1. a bronze plan for the president is $400 a month because of his income
      level. he is not eligible for subsidies or discounts. even if you have
      employer provided healthcare insurance you can enroll in the ACA but you are not eligible for subsidies or discounts.

  23. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Constitution did not grant women the right to vote. The Supreme Court upheld state court decisions in Missouri, which had refused to register a woman as a lawful voter because that state’s laws allowed only men to vote.

    The Minor v. Happersett ruling was based on an interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court readily accepted that Minor was a citizen of the United States, but it held that the constitutionally protected privileges of citizenship did not include the right to vote.

    The Nineteenth Amendment, which became a part of the Constitution in 1920, effectively overruled Minor v. Happersett by prohibiting discrimination in voting rights based on sex.[1] Minor v. Happersett continued to be cited in support of restrictive election laws of other types until the 1960s, when the Supreme Court started interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause to guarantee voting rights.[2]

  24. The Muslim Brotherhood has been ruled as TERRORIST by Egypt. If Obama is in with the Muslim Brotherhood, what does that make him. I’m very curious about his intentions. / The First Amendment to the United States Constitution codifies the freedom of speech as a constitutional right.
    The Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791. The Amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an
    establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
    right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

  25. WOW, Twilight Zone!! This country is moved to another planet?! Speaking of The Twilight Zone, pretty soon, another New Years Marathon, at least their stories make sense, unlike stuff that comes from this gov’t!

  26. The Muslim Brotherhood has been ruled as TERRORIST by Egypt. If Obama is linked with the Muslim Brotherhood, what does that make him? I’m very curious of all the lies & Scandals he is connected to, and what is his real intentions? / The First Amendment to the United States Constitution codifies the freedom of speech as a constitutional right.
    The Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791. The Amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an
    establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
    right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

  27. I have been reading alot about people wanting him IMPEACHED & JAILED for TREASON. What is going to become of all of his LIES & all the SCANDALS. The Benghazi Coverup has not been resolved yet. Why Not?

    1. some of the benghazi survivors have testified in closed session of the
      congress and their testimony supports the administrations explanation
      of the incident. benghazi is done! stick a fork in it! NO COVERUP DAVE.
      Sorry!

  28. I don’t see why you think a different president or different party (republican or democrat) will make a difference. The Patriot Act and NDAA were brought to us by different presidents of different parties. These are the biggest threats to our freedoms. Also, until lifelong sittng politicians are kicked out and term limits are set, corruption will continue to rule our government. Until then, who you vote for won’t change anything too important.

    1. Patriot Act was changed during Obamas time. Look it up. And the Patriot Act was written by Biden, look that up too.
      A president that motivates patriotism can make a difference, via rallying a country to be proud to be here. This player is a hater. He is making the country go to crap, not just financially, but as a patriotic nation.
      Term Limits I agree with, and they should all be limited by the Citizens voting them out till we can get someone to change the laws to make term limits a reality.

  29. I have been reading alot about people wanting him IMPEACHED & JAILED for TREASON. What is going to become of all of his LIES & all the SCANDALS. The Benghazi Coverup has not been resolved yet. Why Not?
    The Muslim Brotherhood has been ruled as TERRORIST by Egypt. If Obama is linked with the Muslim Brotherhood, what does that make him? I’m very curious of all the lies & Scandals he is connected to, and what are his real intentions? / The First Amendment to the United States Constitution codifies the freedom of speech as a constitutional right.
    The Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791. The Amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an
    establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
    right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

  30. I have been reading alot about people wanting him IMPEACHED & JAILED for TREASON. What is going to become of all of his LIES & all the SCANDALS. The Benghazi Coverup has not been resolved yet. Why Not?
    The Muslim Brotherhood has been ruled as TERRORIST by Egypt. If Obama is linked with the Muslim Brotherhood, what does that make him? I’m very curious of all the lies & Scandals he is connected to, and what are his real intentions? / The First Amendment to the United States Constitution codifies the freedom of speech as a constitutional right.
    The Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791. The Amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an
    establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
    right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

    1. apparently because someone found whatever you wrote to be offensive, abusive or just plain hateful..You can’t interrupt someone else’s right either.. Don’t know because obviously it’s not here.. Grown ups don’t post things anonymously. Maybe if people followed the law as a whole, and didn’t bring up their favorite ones only when it suits them this country would be a different place. O Wait This president has done everything to trample on the constitution and congress and has only selectively upheld only certain laws that suit DEMS/socialist party lines..

    2. First Amendment “rights” don’t apply here. You can say whatever you want on public property or own your own property, but not on someone elses property. eg. Your 1A rights stop at my front door.

  31. I have been reading alot about people wanting him IMPEACHED & JAILED for TREASON. What is going to become of all of his LIES & all the SCANDALS. The Benghazi Coverup has not been resolved yet. Why Not?
    The Muslim Brotherhood has been ruled as TERRORIST by Egypt. If Obama is linked with the Muslim Brotherhood, what does that make him? I’m very curious of all the lies & Scandals he is connected to, and what are his real intentions? / The First Amendment to the United States Constitution codifies the freedom of speech as a constitutional right.
    The Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791. The Amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an
    establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
    right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

  32. AFRAID TO LEAVE MY POST UP? HAVE YOU BEEN BOUGHT OFF? IN MY OPINION, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE. FOX IN THE HEH HOUSE WITH OBAMA IS MY OPINION. / The First Amendment to the United States Constitution codifies the freedom of speech as a constitutional right.
    The Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791. The Amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an
    establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
    right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

  33. Why Are You Afraid To Leave My Post Up? Have You Been Bought Off? It Seems That Way. In My Opinion, Your Just Another Fox In The Hen House With Obama.

  34. Obama’s real father is Frank Marshall Davis. This is why he had to have a fake birth certificate, because his mother was having an affair with a married man. Obama knows this and he comes close to stating this in his book. The media wants you to focus on anything except that Jr. was born out of wedlock. Look up Frank Marshall Davis and you will see how much jr. looks like his real daddy and his half siblings. Obama Sr. should be let off the hook for being his dad but should be recognized as being part of this big lie.

  35. Yeah right, made his b.certitificate and ss#public, I don’t think so. The man has these sealed away with all his other records, as he says, the only people who don’t tell the truth is people with something to hide. Right Obama>?

    1. he didn’t have to enroll because he gets his medical care from the US
      military as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. he is eligible to
      enroll in the ACA as long as he does not expect to get subsidies or
      discounts as can anyone who has employer-provided healthcare
      insurance.. that’s the law! the TGOP has been screaming for him to
      enroll and he did! Now they can STFU!

  36. They could not verify it because it was not true. This has been known by a lot of people for several years now, and it is a “surprise” only to those who can pretend that it is. There may be half a dozen people who will deny knowledge who have actually been in on or creating the false covers for him all along. I would start with Bill Ayers and work up, and knowing what I have read since about 2007, it was not much of a secret to start with. The Clintons knew as did John McCain………..

  37. Obama does not exist but has been “made” for this purpose. He is only a puppet for the real powers that be!!!

  38. The problem I see here is .Qualifications to be President without no authority to enforce it and no stated penalty. A democratic controlled congress was in place when he was elected . Who does one go to .ME?

  39. Read the comments below for proof that Americans are too stupid and ignorant to deserve the right to vote in any election that decides our future. Unfortunately, there is no better alternative. We are all doomed.

  40. I’m going to throw out the obvious, but because the Obama supporters are totally deaf to anyone questioning the messiah, I can’t think that many minds will change. I have seen in many venues including MSN that there are several issues related to Obama’s SSN. Such as the first three numbers relate to a geographical region of the US far from Hawaii. The SSN he uses is not linked with his name, but rather some deceased person. I would think that this would certainly hinder him from signing up.
    Is there something in his background so sensitive, heinous, or embarrassing, that it has to be hidden from public view? Unless he is in the witness protection program, I can’t think of anything that would legally hide the background of anyone qualified to be president, or any citizen for that matter.

  41. He had to forge his documents (which is a felony) to prove he is a citizen of the U.S. His social security number is stolen from a gentleman who passed years ago. It’s coming back to haunt him. He won’t be eligible for Obamacare.

  42. They could not register Obama because he is a hoax plain and simple. So the staff had to work around it.

  43. Ok first Mr Obama was born on US soil. 2nd his mother was an American. BUT he moved to Indonesia. Once anyone moves out of the country you must return every 5 years to keep your US citizenship. According to all known records Mr Obama returned for college. Unless we can see his passport to prove that he returned to the US before or on a regular basis he us not a citizen of this country

  44. Come on people. Do you really think a government as racist as the US would let someone become president who wasn’t really a citizen?! Lol… those of you quoting birth certificate info are just repeating what’s been already reported about hospitals etc.. those rumors have already been shot down years ago not new news. Do your own research people. SMH

    1. How about stop blaming & criticizing your president who’s won 2 terms in a “democracy” & do your part in helping bring people together not dividing them…

  45. What none of you understand is that Obama is here for a reason. Why do you think he gets away with all the things he has done? Prophecy is being fulfilled as I write this. He is not the anti-Christ, but he is setting it all up for his master. There is nothing we can do to stop what is happening. He will not finish out his second term because he will hand it over to the great deceiver and the tribulation will begin. For those who hath understanding, reckon the number of the beast, its number is six hundred and sixty six. See, Christians have always been persecuted to an extent, but nothing like what we are experiencing now. This is all foretold in the bible. When the trumpet sounds I hope you are prepared. God Bless!

    1. Everything that’s happening will continue to happen, unabated. We will never change these course of events, it is God’s will.

      America and the dollar are being set up for collapse. Iran will get it’s nuclear weapons, everything in the middle east will continue to deteriorate. All is happening for the same reason. so prophesy can be fulfilled. Why do you think Russia has all of a sudden shown back up on the scene, and in the middle east!? So prophesy can be fulfilled!

      Matthew 24:32-35 states, (beginning with the rebirth of Israel 1948? or 1967? and the events to come) not a generation will pass away before all these things have happened.

      Get right with God, before the opportunity has passed.

      http://www.arewelivinginthelastdays.com/article/generation/generation.htm

  46. Got to be fiction because the King himself is exempt!!! He gets free and better healthcare paid for by the working people of this country!!! Furthermore no way would his premium only 400 Dollars because I tried fam of 4 and it was 875. Obama make a a lot of more money than we do so this proves it again that this is fake!!!!

  47. Wow, and they thought we were afraid Obamacare would succeed. They really should have payed better attention to the fact the European models are so riddled with problems. But hey this is America and just because its a demonstrable failure elsewhere doesn’t mean in can’t work here. Or at least in the vast recesses between liberal ears.

  48. Either he was labled Negro, or the Birth Certificate is Fraudulant – Nothing Racist about this Fact. Just a Gutt Slamming Historical Truth

  49. Yea right. That’s why CIA can not even talk bout it. Present a birth certificate that is obviously fake is more than just a smoking gun.

  50. HERE’S HIS COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY ID SHOWING HE WAS NOT A US CITIZEN BUT A FOREIGN EXCHANGE STUDENT.

  51. Were I African-American, I would be so incredibly, indescribably sad and disappointed that the historic first Black president is such a disaster, such a divider and such a dud. Well, there maybe a chance for a re-do with either LTC Allan West or Dr Ben Carson, men of honor and integrity.