Exactly correct!

People have the civil right to make asses of themselves so long as they don't make the same of us. Obama is a citizen of the US and has been since his birth in Hawaii. No amount of gyrations will make it any other way. Obama is also a man of color, which is probably what the coded message behind the citiizenship flap is indicating. If you can't stand that a man of color is in the Oval Office, citizenship is the only "gentlemanly" way of using the "N" word.

i think that we have already met enough crazy people from PA ....just some tool wanting 10min. of fame ...this is just stupid

If the idea that both parents have to be citizens. Then what will we do with all the Mexican Women who come here on the 8 month of pregnancy have thier baby here ? Then the baby is declared a US. Citizen and recieves welfare benifits from taxes we pay into and the Mother never did before

Mr. Barchfield missed United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), This ruling negates the earlier ruling of Minor v. Happersett. I hope this guy has deep pockets and an ego that can take some crushing. Why do they spend their time on this crap. Orly Taitz should be lesson enough on the fools errand these people go on in their attempt to get rid of the Negro in The Oval Office.

Mick205 your suggestion is to depot actual children who are actually citizens. My wife is from Poland. My children are just as American as you are. (Slippery Slope). Your suggestion (in fact Barchfeld's suggestion) is that Americans cannot marry (or have children) with none Americans cause the resulting offspring have no citizenship. I believe that is called crazy.

And no Mick205, my wife was not a citizen when my children were born. If Obama's dad was in the country legally (which I presume he was on a student visa), then there is absolutely no reason that children he (or any other foreigners visiting this country) might have would not be citizens if one of their parents is a citizen. We actually give legal status to anyone born here (even if both their parents aren't). I believe you refer to them as anchor babies. Barchfeld's desire to have a president he likes is not a good legal argument.

Mr. Eib, may I make a small correction?

Wong Kim Ark does not negate Minor. The two cases address different questions. Minor is about voting rights and was overturned by the 19th Amendment to our Constitution. Wong Kim Ark affirms that birth in the US defines citizenship.

Mr. Barchfield missed United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), This ruling negates the earlier ruling of Minor v. Happersett. I hope this guy has deep pockets and an ego that can take some crushing. Why do they spend their time on this crap. Orly Taitz should be lesson enough on the fools errand these people go on in their attempt to get rid of the Negro in The Oval Office.

the fact that he didn't include Romney in this shows that it's purely prejudiced against President Obama--but that's the repub way--half truths if any at all to get what they want

I don't give a crap whether he hates Obama or not...
It's a whole different realm when it comes to being president. There absolutely SHOULD be a law requiring both parents to be citizens at the time of birth to run for president. And just to remind you that Mitt Romney's parents were BOTH citizens at the time of his birth so Barchfeld shouldn't even be attacking Mitt in the first place!

The following American presidents had parents who were NOT born in America....

Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) is the only president born of two immigrants, both Irish.

Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809), whose mother was born in England,

James Buchanan (1857-1861) and Chester Arthur (1881-1885), both of whom had Irish fathers,

Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) whose mother was born in England.

Herbert Hoover (1929-1933),mother was born respectively Canada.

Does this mean those people were never president either????

wow I can't believe the complete lack of understanding of the issue in these comments. There is a difference between "citizen" and "natural born citizen". The president and vice president are the only two offices in the land that require this special natural born citizenship status and it was done for a reason by our founding fathers. I also read here that Wong Kim Ark overrules minor v happersett...that is beyond ridiculous. Get your facts straight before you make a comment...please. Wong was declared a "CITIZEN" not a natural born citizen....read the case...not what someone told you it said.

Hey Tommy T, it is you who needs to get your facts straight.

The founding fathers could have easily stated that to be able to be president both your parents had to be citizens. But they did not.

A natural born citizen is a person who gains citizenship by birth.

In the Wong Kim Ark case he was declared a citizen because he was born in the United States and he obtained his citizenship by birth, therefore he was a natural born citizen.

I know the arguments people make about the Wong case, specifically that there are other types of citizens but I disagree, you are either born a citizen (natural born citizen) or you obtain citizenship after birth,

@Tommy Thompson: Yes, there is a difference between citizen and natural born citizen. Citizens is comprised of two types of citizen, natural born(Obama) and naturalized(Schwarzenegger). That's it, only 2 types of citizen as per SCOTUS. President Obama is eligible, Arnie is not. That's why that phrase is in the constitution, so naturalized citizens couldn't be President. Easy as pie.

Nancy....I lived durting the Bill Ayer's era, the killing of John Kennedy, his brother & Martin Luther King...An AGENDA for America has been in place since the 1930's...If you think that politics hasn't been in "play" for decades to provide something other than the Freedom & Liberty of America, then you haven't done YOUR homework. Look up George Soros, One World Order &, Foreign Trade Zones for starters. If this doesn't show you what's been going on in this world since before you were born, then you'll have to considered one of the "Convenient Idiots" who unfortunately can vote. The wonderful thing about today is that so much information is available in an instant...24/7/365! So while you're at it, look up "The Apollo Group"....THEY wrote the Health Care Bill which explains why NO ONE READ IT IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY before they rammed it down the throats of the American people. But, Nancy, as an American Citizen, which I presume you are, YOU HAVE A DUTY, OBLIGATION AND A RESPONSIBILITY AS AN AMERICAN TO DEFEND THE REPUBLIC OF THE UNITED STATES! THE "REPUBLIC" that has made the United States of America the greatest nation on the face of this earth. I also suggest that you start reading the Constitution of the United States as well as the Bill of Rights.& one more thought ..the "Ten Commandments" are NOT the "TEN Suggestions" for a meaningful & fulfilling life....wouldn't it be great if people actually lived them.. there would be NO CORRUPTION IN OUR GOVERNMENT!

Everyone here believes that they have some semblance of the TRUTH....how about this truth....OBAMA IS NOT THE FIRST "BLACK" PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.........HE IS THE FIRST "BI-RACIAL" PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.....but when you read his books, he adamantly refutes his "WHITE" heritage......imagine that!....especially since he flew to Hawaii to be by his WHITE GRANDMOTHER'S SIDE as she was dying and she "raised him" ....these are HIS words, NOT mine! Read it! If CAIN was elected, HE WOULD BE THE FIRST TRUE BLACK PRESIDENT....not OBAMA.

William...when someone yelled "FIRE", they TOLD YOU IN 2008 where the EXITS WERE, but you were convinced that those who love America hated her. You are so predictable....so "GOTTCHA"...game on! From everything I've read that you’ve written, you wouldn't recognize the "exit doors" if they were standing wide open with lights shining on them! What part of a 16 trillion dollar deficit and it's effect on AMERICA’S National Security do you not understand. Whether you’re an open SOCIALIST, as you state you are, or not! What part of an unacceptable UNEMPLOYMENT number, which has been verified by the top economist that really is 19.2%, NOT 8.3 %, after billions of taxpayer dollars (YOURS & MINE TOO!) were infused into the economy do you not get? What freedom have you lost you ask?...How about your freedom to have your own relationship with your own doctor for one...does Obamacare ring any bells? Are you from a state in our great nation that the FEDERAL Government is suing? ..if so, what happened to your STATES RIGHTS now being trampled on by this over reaching administration telling the State that you pay taxes into that they can’t enforce their laws!

cont'd..What about YOUR rights to NOT be subjected to VOTER INTIMIDATION like those poor voters in 2008 that were starred down by the billy clubs of the New Black Panthers…what happened to their rights?…YOURS might be next!
What is the ROLE of Government that you want in your life William??? Please don’t bother telling me…just think about it in a mature rational way, if you can. Unfortunately, it appears that you have way too much time on your hands to put your “Hatred” down in writing. Of all of the people on this “comment of opinion” site, you’re the most mean spirited & demonstrate such lack of respect that I have read. Obviously you didn’t understand that CDR meant “Commander”..Someone who served in the Service of our Government to preserve the right of your free speech. You should be totally ashamed of yourself,but your comments reflect a total lock of respect for not only the rights of others but for yourself as well. On the other hand, William, GAME OFF! I have far more important things in life to be doing rather than having any interaction with YOU! BTW, A decorated military commander in my great state just filed a lawsuit against Obama’s eligibility to be on our state’s ballot! TOO BAD WE’RE NOT ALL AS SMART AS YOU WILLIAM! But I think you might be like the fox that OUTSMARTED himself! LOL

William…take a Chill Pill or I guess the next thing you’ll be doing is finding out who I am so you can sue me like the guy who just had a heart attack at the ‘Heart Attack” restaurant that NO ONE made him go in to!….LOL!

You're Off the Reservation William! The TRUTH hurts doesn't it!

But Since you refered to someone as "Elderly"....I'd bet you're just a young whipper snapper still green behind the ears, aren't cha!

keep up your "rant" and I'll bet that you'll never be OLD....someone will bring your smart attitude and mouth to an END...and one I'm sure you won't like!

This is the kind of person who goes outside and gets wet to see if it's raining, regardless of haw many people have come in from the rain with wet umbrellas and shoes. He also could use a life. Get out more. Have some fun, get away from the propaganda that encourages this behavior. Most people who are researching an issue will, if they care, read the opposing point of view and the most updated circumstances surrounding the issue. Orly Taitz lost to an empty table in Georgia with the same information this guy is using. United States v Wong Kim Ark settled this back in 1896.

Mike205: Classic simple solution, send them back where they came from, the babies are from here. And like every other baby in America, we hope that given the opportunity they will grow up and earn an income and therefore pay taxes which will be used for future babies of America. Obama, is in for 4 trillion of that deficit. Wars don't pay for them selves, nor does the pentagon, congresses salaries and health benefits (for them and their families for life) Can't run a country on nothing although the Teahadists seem to think you can.

ROALD: Thank you for the correction, my intention was to show that United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) negated the position Mr. Barchfield took based on Minor. Thanks for the comment. Gave me an opportunity to clarified and taught me about the difference in the 2 rulings. Cheers.

Oh, Cathy.....Thomas Barchfeld has a life and is standing up for his belief in our US Constitutiona.

Cathy....while I may or may not agree with "Thomas Barchfeld" it is YOUR RHETORIC that attempts to SILENCE opinion & true debate in America. Shame on YOU!

Jeff..did you MISS the 2010 November Election when the Republicans took back the House & 114 State Houses all over this nation changed from Democrats to Republicans. Yes, we are SCARED and you should be too! Do you enjoy higher food & gasoline prices? 17% + unemployment? Dependency on Foreign Oil when America has plenty? do you WANT to be told who your doctor will be and what services you can have? or if you are a religioius person who is "pro-life", do you want the GOVT. to provide a service (abortion & the morning after pill) that YOU personally do not support? Do you want to send 700 Million + dollars to rebuild Mosques in foreign countries? Do you want the government to tell your child or grandchildren what they can bring to school for LUNCH? Do you want our legislators to have insider trading information so that they can make Millions of Dollars while we,the little folks our here in America, who have invested in AMERICA...stocks, bonds, etc. LOSE our money? Do you want to Bail Out ANY Business that made bad investments so that they can continue on using YOUR MONEY? Do you think that I should pay your monthly mortgage if you DEFAULT due to your poor decisions? You would be absolutely SHOCKED to learn how many "UNION FOLKS" are NOT for the continuation of this administration & certainly NOT for supporting policies that have cost them their JOBS, their homes, their health care insurance. Please look up George Soros, One World Order & Foreign Trade Zones! You'll see!

Jeff....Ask yourself just one question....WHAT IS THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT? I have immigrant friends who are SCARED to DEATH that America is going to turn into the countries that they LEFT for a better life here in America. Seek them out Jeff....they'll be happy to tell you! Why do you think people want to come here in the first place? THINK ABOUT IT! I am not a Republican or a Democrat...I an an independent CONSERVATIVE...I am willing to stand up to what I have already seen happen in my lifetime & in the country that I fought for....This is NOT the America I grew up in...TRUST ME....YOUR life, if you are a young person, WILL NOT BE LIKE MINE WAS...tHIS IS THE FIRST GENERATION OF LEGISLATORS THAT WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PASS ALONG A BETTER AMERICA FOR OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN. Look at what is happening in Europe, Greece specifically. One of our problems is that we have MORE VOTERS THAN WE HAVE TAXPAYERS...all standing in line for Government Handouts...Remember, the government makes NOTHING & EARNS NO MONEY TO PAY IT'S BILLS, all of their money comes from the TAXPAYERS...YOU & ME! & WITH THE RISING 15 Trillion dollar DEBT, WE ARE GOING TO BE TAXED FROM CRADDLE TO OUR DEATH! ...This isn't how America became the greatest nation on the face of the earth, a WORLD SUPER POWER! I urge you to become a CONSERVATIVE INDEPENDENT & restore our great nation to the principles & values of our Founding Fathers, the wise men that they were.

so your answer to preserving constitutional freedom is to take Obama's from him. that's the problem with republicans...the hypocrisy. you only believe in freedom when it benefits you or supports your belief system.

Billee, I'm sure you can only name one government mandate. Guess where the ideal came from? It was a Conservative scheme hatched to make people take (I believe they called it personal responsibility). Most Liberals preferred a government run system. Anyway, this Conservative scheme was first tested by Republican governor Mitt Romney in Massachusetts (where I hear that it seems to mostly be working well). So Obama, being appreciative of all good ideals, got the same people that helped Mitt and crafted the same plan for the whole nation. I'm sure that if Bush had implement ACA, that you'd have no problems with government mandates.

Billee...you are in fact correct! Why do you think the TEA PARTY came to life and is to this day "ALIVE & WELL"! PEOPLE have engaged in the political process not because it's "fun"...it's not! PEOPLE have engaged because it's a matter of Life & Death.....the LIfe of our Constitution & the Bill of Rights....OR IT'S DEATH! While many will go back to the "comforts or discomforts" of their every day living after the 2012 Election is over, the majority of Americans will realize that that won't be possible....AMERICANS will have to STAY ENGAGED for many years in order to undo the destructive path that our nation has been on "under the radar". The Tea Party groups instinctively know that America has strayed from the morals, values & principles of our Founding Fathers...and it is this CONSERVATIVE UPRISING that RESTORE AMERICA. For those out there like "William" who openly state that they are a SOCIALIST, please go to those Nations that are under a SOCIALIST government where you'll be free to practice SOCIALISM.......AMERICA is NOT SOCIALIST, COMMUNIST OR MARXIST....AMERICA IS A "REPUBLIC" AND HAS BEEN FOR OVER 200 YEARS! In AMERICA, you can VOTE for what you believe in and the majority of America wants a REPUBLIC....and so do those suppressed under SOCIALISM & COMMUNISM.

Hot Rod Diggity Johnson...."Conservativism" DOES require PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY...as it should. Are YOU responsible for YOUR NEIGHBOR if they kill someone?...or if they decide to have 20 children...are you responsible to financially support them? If they decide to NOT pay their mortgage, is it YOUR responsiblity to pay it for them? If they decide to SMOKE, DO DRUGS, DRINK ALCOHOL IN EXCESS, are YOU responsible for their health choices? IF ANY business makes bad financial decisions, is it YOUR FINANCIAL RESPONSIBLITY to "BAIL THEM OUT"?... Personal Responsibility should be the goal of EVERYONE WHO LIVES IN AMERICA....regardless of race, color or creed. Unfortunately, many of the government programs, originally designed to truly help people in their time of need, have turned into the programs that actually create the "let the government help me" mentallity....the "ENTITLEMENT" that is falsely understood. The PRIME example of the "unintended consequence" of the continuation of these policies is GREECE. ....this is coming to AMERICA unless we get our fiscal house in order...and the first place to start is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY! I have NO problems helping people, but I don't want to HELP THEM to take FINANCIAL OR MORAL ADVANTAGE of those who have HELPED THEM!

BILLEE: I think your comment is a might bit alarmist. If you're going to yell fire in a theater, at least have the common decency to tell us where the exits are.
It would help me, in order to heed your warning, to know specifically what the "only government Mandates" means/are, also if you could, which Constitutional Freedoms am I losing? It's very difficult to absorb the serious of your warning by your use of captalized words and exclamation marks. You have broadcast quite a profound warning, and I am not being facetious, I truely want to know.

Minor vs. Happarsett did not rule on the question of natural born citizen. It ruled only on a State's right to limit voting to men only. The comments on citizenship were just that:comments and have no legal standing as they were not part of the Court's ruling..
The reference to legal writings in the mid 1800's have no bearing on the Constitutional meaning in 1787 of natural born citizen. The United States lived under English Common Law, which among other things, defined a citizen ( or subject in Britain) as one born within the country. The parentage has no bearing on citizenship, as it did in many European (non English ) countries. Colonial Americans were very possessive of their English Common Law and in the Declaration of Independance charged the king with " abolishing the free system of English law in a neighboring province" referring to Canada and the Kings allowing French law over English law.
So in compliance with the than understood and intended meaning of natural born citizen, anyone born within the US is a natural born citizen. End of story !

If you want truth see Arkeny v. Governor, 916 NE2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). It is completely on point and clearly states that President Obama is a "natural born citizen" within the meaning of the US Constitution. Don't become Orly Taitz. Life is too short.

So good to find someone who understands. I shall add to yours.
People no one is sayinf BO is not a citizen because he is, I'll show you.
BOs mother born in US and is a citizen=BO is a US citizen
BOs father born in Africa under United Kingdon of British=BO is UK citizen
BO was born with two (2) citizenships .. he has dual citizenship
Now in order tp be president of US The US Constitution requires "natural born Citizen," not just a citizen. In order to be a "natural born Citizen both parents have to be US citizens. This is upheld by the US Supreme Court ruling in Minor V Happensett which has never been over ruled.
The US Constitution requires only to be a citizen for all the other offices but wants the highest office of president and vice-president to be by "natural born Citizens" not hard to under stand, now is it.
When Dem submitted BO in last election they did not confirm him as a confirmed candidate for the office of president and no body caught the wording so his name was placed on ballots across the US and guess what...the biggest lies ever told has occured. There is a cover up in place. Judge in GA understood about natural born citizen and had planned on not allowing BO on the ballot, someone changed his mind.
That is happening all around the States. But as more and more citizens like you and me come to understand what has happened....We The People get stronger and stronger and we will be able to right this wrong!
Hope I was able to help.

thats where the 14 year rule played in....after the Revolution, in order to run for president, your parents had to have lived in the former colonies for at least 14 years....and later that rule became moot as they died out.

silly question....weren't most of the founders the offspring of at least one non-citizen?

Don, the 14 year requirement exists because the age of majority used to be 21 21+14=35, the minimum age to be president.

My understanding: The framers of the Constitution wrote the "NATURAL BORN citizen phrase to be eligible to be President because they didn't want some rich Englishman coming, getting his citizenship, and buying his way into the Presidency.
Since Obama's mother from Kansas was an American citizen, her son was an American citizen wherever he was born. Obama might have a problem about presidential eligibility if born outside the USA rather than Hawaii.
Living in Poland, I know situations where the father is a USA citizen, so the children have their American citizenship. But (especially if there is a divorce) they may grow up more Polish than American, and I think there's good reason why they shouldn't be eligible to be President of the USA (I don't think they'd try anyway.)
Obama was born in the State of Hawaii, that makes him a "natural born citizen". And we elected him President.

To Betboo

"Now in order tp be president of US The US Constitution requires "natural born Citizen," not just a citizen. In order to be a "natural born Citizen both parents have to be US citizens. This is upheld by the US Supreme Court ruling in Minor V Happensett which has never been over ruled. "

The problem is that is not what Minor V Happersett ruled. They did not rule on what the definition of a natural born citizen is. If you read the actual decision you would see this text just below the discussion of natural born citizen.

"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. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts."

The decision makes no attempt at defining natural born citizen.

According to your logic a fellow from Germany comes to colonial America in 1773, married another German immigrant and has a son born in 1789. Therefore he and his son are qualified to be President. But when he has another son born in 1791 after the Constitution has been adopted, this younger son can not be President? .

betbooo, I feel for you trying to explain this ineligibility issue to those who refuse to understand or either it's goes right over their heads. Here's an excellent response from Apuzzo to an Obot who is doing the same thing as these people are doing who think they know what they are talking about. http://obamaballotchallenge.com/attorney-mario-appuzzos-response-to-obot

:) me too!

me 4! :)

The only thing that birth certificate proves is (1) BO is a US Citizen from his mother who was a us citizen (2) BO was born in the US and most important (3) BO father was born in Kenya Africa a UK citizen (not a US Citizen) so therefore BO was born with 2 different citizenships and therefore IS NOT a "natural born Citizen" as required by the US Constitution.

Betboo: Try United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

betboo, have you found that copy of a civics textbook that covers that yet? Have you found the smoking gun that explains how the founders valued an obscure Swiss legal theorist over the English common law they studied in law school? BTW, that obscure theorist also held views exactly opposite the revered second amendment.

Betboo, i think you should take more English comprehension classes, so you'll be able to understand what is written here, what judges say, what is the law of the land for generations, even the conservative controlled supreme court doesnt even think of this birther nonsense and so on. As a proud American citizen it's about time to start to understand the probably single language you speak, sorry for being so pompous, I had too, but I apologize if it's not the case, ( it's aloud to apologize sometimes, its not a shame). After some English classes, I promise it wont hurt, you can take some legal/constitution classes, but it seem you have a few more years of English first. Its really a great advice for you to go and learn, community collages has great education possibilities, yes this institutions supported and paid by the Obama administration and with our tax money, that we are so proud to pay, to strengthen America through our education system, and not stay behind china- all paid education, Europe free high education, high level and cheap health treatment and so on, or behind Israel which has free education and public health care and push for excellence through education and entrepreneurship with a lot of government help, as japan does, etc. Lets push for more education, science, and real bi-partnership.

They are a funny bunch.

Obama is a great president, in a very dire times, that was left from irresponsible ideologies, great financial collapse, 2 un-managed wars that cost billions, and enrich iraquies and afgans, instead of giving health treatment here to all, to vetrans, to seniors, and kids. Corporate/financial power hoses that control the political game, owns the GOP, sadly- corporation are people, so lets run MacDonald, or GE for the president. is it, it, or HE, first? or maybe she, naturalized though, right?

Betbooo,Etal: Try United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) It covers everything. Actually both parents don't have to be citizens as long as they are not in the USA illegally, which The President of the United States of America's parent were not, and one was a US Citizen. Don't like that do ya, Ducky.

And what about . . .

Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) is the only president born of two immigrants, both Irish.

Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809), whose mother was born in England,

James Buchanan (1857-1861) and Chester Arthur (1881-1885), both of whom had Irish fathers,

Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) whose mother was born in England.

Herbert Hoover (1929-1933),mother were born respectively Canada.

Let's not forget that the clause applies to vice president and allow Spiro Agnew.

Actually, under U.S. law ath the time he was born, Spiro Agnew's mother was not an American citizen either.

Charles Hughes was another VPOTUS who did not have two citizen parents. His mother was an American Indian.

BETBOOO: Still haven't bothered to check United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) give it a shot, I think you'll like it.

And what about . . .

Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) is the only president born of two immigrants, both Irish.

Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809), whose mother was born in England,

James Buchanan (1857-1861) and Chester Arthur (1881-1885), both of whom had Irish fathers,

Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) whose mother was born in England.

Herbert Hoover (1929-1933),mother were born respectively Canada.

Rubio, Jindal, McCain are not constitutionally Article II eligible. A Senate Resolution SR511 does not a constitution amend.

U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 facts:
http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
http://www.scribd.com/protectourliberty/collections/
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/

“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened.” Ronald Reagan alerting us to Norman Thomas’ and the socialist/progressives’ long-term stealth agenda to transform the USA from a constitutional republic into a top-down, central controlled, socialist form of government

Never worry about the Right being able to come up with some paranoid conspiracy.
They have 3 in house experts; BECKY/FATTY & HAMMITY to crib together some fantasy and pass it along as fact. These guys are the Xerox machines of misinformation.

but none of them were "scary black people" that's what they are REALLY saying when they question President Obama's citizenship. Anyone who continues down this path is simply a racist trying to wrap himself in the Constitution. He probably also whispers the word "African American" and says he doesn't have "anything against 'those people.'"

The birth certificate issue is code for 'I'm a racist but I don't want to admit it.'

OMG! Educated people are AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OMG! Historical fact......AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!

Rebecca, you are a bit harsh. Some of the people who make that claim merely want to make money from the 'I'm a racist but I don't want to admit it.' folks.

This is a list of Presidents whose parents NATURALIZED prior to being elected. It doesn't matter where the parents were born, it matters if they became citizens of the USA prior to giving birth.

Natural Born Citizens are citizens born in the USA to citizen parents. Unnaturalized persons born in the USA are merely citizens. Chester Arthur fell into this situation but he concealed the facts and was never contested. His Supreme Court appointment, Justice Gray then tried to cover over Arthur's problem with his Wong Kim Ark decision.

Corruption, deceipt and fraud.

I think President Arthur was the only one whose parent hadn't naturalized before his birth. Arthur's situation is identical to Obama's.

Now some folks have claimed a great conspiracy to cover up Arthurs' father's lack of US Citizenship. However, we find that in 1905 no less than Theodore Roosevelt wrote about the fact that if President Arthur had traveled to England, they could have drafted him into the Army. So there was no secret about President Arthur's dual citizenship. Thomas Jefferson was a dual US-French citizen when he served as the US President! Obama, however, is no longer a dual citizen.

However, just because a question has been long settled doesn't prevent it from being raised again in a new generation.

The early president had a grandfather clause in Article II Section 1 exempting them from the natural born Citizen clause. And for later ones, it was not that a parent was foreign born that is key it is whether they became a U.S. Citizen before their child was born in the USA. Foreign born women gained instant naturalization until c1922 upon marriage to a U.S. Citizen father. Read this article about the 44 president and their eligibility or lack of it per Article II. A key point about Obama is that his father is a pure foreign national who was never even an immigrant to the USA let alone never being a citizen. We are a nation of immigrants but Obama's father was NOT one.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/02/list-of-us-presidents-eligibility-under.html

U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 facts:
http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
http://www.scribd.com/protectourliberty/collections/
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/

“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened.” Ronald Reagan alerting us to Norman Thomas’ and the socialist/progressives’ long-term stealth agenda to transform the USA from a constitutional republic into a top-down, central controlled, socialist form of government

That's why we are on the comment thread

Let me add Spiro Agnew, whose qualifications for vice president are the same as those for president. His father was not a US citizen at the time of Spiro's birth.

There are what appear to be conflicting census records on Agnew's father (showing him not naturalized in years following him shown as a citizen. The best information I have is that he had naturalized before the Vice-President was born.

I don't think anyone has yet produced his naturalization papers to be sure.

Precedent is not necessary. In Colonial America (previously known as British America)English Common Law was the law of the land. Under English law, citizenship was determined by country of birth and not parentage, which was more common in many European countries. A"natural born citizen" was anyone born within the country, regardless of who their parents were. And the US does not recognize dual citizenship. If you are born in the US you are a US citizen unless at the age of majority you renounce your US citizenship and accept the citizenship of a non US parent. Since President Obama was born in the US State of Hawaii and did not renounce his US citizenship, he is a natural born US citizen.

Chester Arthur never defended himself because a suit was never brought against his eligibility, therefore precedent was never set.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

This doesn't even take a legal scholar. Simple reading comprehension settles the matter as you say. There are two types promulgating this nonsense about Happersett - the wilfully ignorant who blind themselves to the truth due to their bias and the demagogues who deliberately misrepresent the ruling by omitting the key detail.

I have never understood why people insist on by fighting with idiots on this one and resorting to citing Wong Kim Ark unneccessarily to try to refute a claim that is foolish on its face.

Why didn't the journalist even do this basic fact-checking, instead parroting this clown's claims *as fact* as opposed to a claim? This merely serves to perpetuate this nonsensical myth.

Clearly Happersett indicated parentage of two citizens was a SUFFICIENT condition, the decision never said it was NECESSARY.

The Repubs will certainly address and rectify, right????

Of course he has been challenged as he should be. There are multiple cases so far.

Questions about Romney, both father and son, have been raised. They just have not been raised with the same intensity as the opposition to Obama.

Prof. Charles Gordon wrote a major article in the Maryland Law Review back when George Romney was running. However, George Romney was out of the race pretty early and the subject was dropped.

Some of the same people challenging Obama are challenging Mitt Romney, but these are crank conspiracy theories at this point claiming that George Romney himself was not a citizen, and that is unlikely.

Brad M Are you so insecure that you blame everything that you don't agree with as racist? I don't believe any one on here cares if Obama is green, yellow red, blue, white, orange, black, pink, tan, or any other color you can think of. Obama is a man, and that is all he is just like any other man in the USA. He is a citizen of the USA, but he is not a NBC as required by our Constitution.

Do we even know who Newt's REAL father was?

What if his biological father was not a citizen?

The distinction Barchfeld is making is about the citizenship of the parents, not their place of birth. The distinction has no legal basis, but it's what he's saying.

betbooo did you know that it was MLK SENIOR and NOT JUNIOR was a GOP???

In "The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr.," which was published after his death from his written material and records, King called the Republican national convention that nominated Goldwater a "frenzied wedding ... of the KKK and the radical right."

"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction and extremism," King said in the book.

In a statement released through the King Center, Martin Luther King III said, "It is disingenuous to imply that my father was a Republican. He never endorsed any presidential candidate, and there is certainly no evidence that he ever even voted for a Republican. It is even more outrageous to suggest that he would support the Republican Party of today, which has spent so much time and effort trying to suppress African-American votes in Florida and many other states."

In 2008, Steve Klein, the center's communications director, told the National Journal that "there is absolutely no confirmation that (King) was a Republican. ... Klein noted Coretta Scott King's recall of a 1960 phone call from Kennedy when her husband was in jail. In her book, My Life With Martin Luther King, Jr., she wrote that she took the call but was later unsure what to say about it. "My husband had a policy of not endorsing presidential candidates," her book says. "And at this point, I did not want to get him or myself identified with either party."

To the ELITE - How many are on your RESISTANCE LIST so far? I hope the ELITE CHANGE AGENTS FAIL! However if the elite do not fail, they will show no MERCY and make public EXAMPLE of you! GOD SHED HIS GRACE ON ME!!! CORINTHIANS 12:9 But he said to me, " My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weakness, so that Christ's power may rest on me.
Think of me what you will - I would rather be wrong than right in this nightmare and beg on my knees for forgiveness to all my brothers and sisters for my wrong thinking than to live trough another attempt at a One World Order. A mental ward of today would be a walk in the park by comparison. Please think before you VOTE!

Think about it. John Jay wrote to Washington during the Constitutional Convention suggesting that only a natural born citizen should be commander in chief. That suggestion is widely believed to be why we have the phrase in the Constitution.

Does anyone think John Jay meant that Washington himself shouldn't be Commander in Chief? If a natural born citizen must have citizen parents, and Washington's father was a British subject all his life, how could Jay have intended the phrase to involve parents without excluding Washington -- which is absurd?

However, Washington WAS born in the United States. That makes him a natural born citizen.

George Washington was born in Colonial (British ) America.

Jones, actually, it's Healy (with no second "e").
Mr. Barchfeld said that he switched parties in 2011.
As for his Republican of choice right now, he said that he supports Rick Santorum.
As for Romney, see the fourth and third paragraph from the bottom.

Mr. Healy, thank you for pointing out my oversights.

Thank you for reading and engaging, Jones.

Excellent point, does Barchfeld intend to unravel all current citizens who've been wrongly considered US citizens since 1875?

Nah, Allan. Only if you are proven to be 50% or better of the recognized indian nations (cherokee, navajo, cree, souix, ,...). With grandparents or better, you fall under the same rules as anyone else.

Besides, the 14th amendment states that all people born in the US are US citizens ... period. This fooforaw is about "natural" citizens needing to have citizens as parents. Born or naturalized, all are citizens for this purpose.

Just not for idiots like Barchfield.

Andrew jackson, for one. BOTH of his parents were born in Ireland.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5:

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

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution

No person except a natural born Citizen

No person except a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution

Thomas Jefferson exempted himself from the rule. See how easy that is?

Chazz, your attempts at manipulation will fail.

Charles Tisdale is an African American residing in Virginia who has challenged President Obama and Romney, Santorum and Ron Paul's candidacy based on the NBC issue depicted in this news article above.

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca4/12-1124/

You won't read about that case in the press. I wonder why. It's because Tisdale is an African American.

Santorum's candidacy is subject to challenge because he hasn't released details on his father's naturalization. If it occurred after Santorum was born, then he is not eligible to be President.

The idiots logic you refer to ensnared the framers of the constitution themselves since none of them were NBCs. To address this, they grandfathered themselves in in Article 2 Secton 1 Clause 5. Read it some time.

It happened to George Romney. It happened to John McCain. It happened to Mitt Romney. It happened to a Rockefeller. Barry Goldwater, Lowell Wicker, Charles Evans Hughes.

None of these guys weren't white.

Let me explain IJWT's reasoning in simple forms for you to
1)Some is racist, some is ideological, and some is just plain scam artists getting gullible people to send them money to "keep up the fight"
2)ALL,. that's it, every one, court proceedings have gone President Obama's way. People bringing this up are 0-99 and counting. They have lost every proceeding, Appeal, and have been rebuffed by SCOTUS every time
3)IJTW doesn't know what he's talking about. Citizenship involve 2 types of citizens in this country, you're either born a citizen or obtain your citizenship through naturalization. Naturalized citizens are not eligible for the Presidency or Vice-Presidency. If you are born a citizen, you are.
4)No, some are pursuing just to make money off people. Some, for pure hatred. To each their own.
5)The courts say different, and there is no proof the courts have not ruled following the laws, the constitution, and court precedence.
6)CRC is unbiased...you have not proven they aren't

Continued...

7) Judge Law fined Ms. Taitz $20,000 that is a fact. Also, in his finding he stated about the evidence she presented, "Unlike Alice in Wonderland, saying something is true, doesn't make it so". This was also upheld on appeal and the Supreme Court refused to hear it. So it is a FACT.
8) President Obama was born on American soil and is as natural born citizen, as per Wong Kim Ark:

In Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said:

"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."

Referring to our history and heritage.

So, basically... now let me get this straight... IJWT gives a list of true statements that he attributes to the "manipulators," and he wants to tell you the Truth, presumably the opposite of these 8 true statements?

OK.... That makes no sense whatsoever.

@Thomas Lee Brown: he claims they're manipulations, as if they are not true. And, he misrepresents what these facts are. I just clarify there's more to it than his simple mind can handle.

Truthy: Your stuck in a rut, Jim's point was not an attempt to manipulate at all. He diligently found the facts (Which you judge are not) that you obviously are not interested in. And you just offhandedly dismiss Jim's findings as manipulative, I am just guessing, you don't like them. Again, I am only guessing; they blow a gigantic hole in what you think is real. Now admitting being wrong may be a difficult thing for some folks. I am one of them. But, I make you a promise, if you can refute Jim's list of facts. I will eat crow and admit I am wrong to the whole entire comment thread, Try, unless you are afraid. And by the way, your 8 points well researched, NOT? Just tired old BECKY-FATTY & HAMMMITY talking points, Google great devise to find info, visit and get some new material.

You should change your name to: I wouldn't recognize the truth if it hit me in the face
Or IWRTTIIHMEITF for short. I have never before seen so many people throw the word Constitution around with no idea what is says. And yes Virginia, there is racism in America. Orly Taitz is Nuts. She can't get passed 1st base without being tagged out by the Constitution. No court is going to declare any thing other than Orly Taitz is a nuisance. Keep on dreaming. The President of the United States of America, the leader of the most powerful country in the world will be re-elected. Sorry, Ducky.

You seem to be living in some strange alternate universe where 2 and 2 equal whatever you want it to equal , and facts are outlawed. President Obama will be our president until 2016 so get used to it.

Sorry IJWT, there is just no controversy here fot the Supreme Court to step in. They've already had their say, via Kim Wong Ark, and Obama is a natural born citizen. They've also stated time and time again that there's only 2 types of citizens in this country. Either you're born a citizen, like President Obama, and eligible...or you become a citizen through naturalization, like Shrwartzennager, and are ineligible. It's just that simple. There is no super-secret 3rd type of citizen with a secret handshake and special designation. So, if you're waiting on the SCOTUS, you'll be long gone and buried.

Of course, the problem is that Obama supporters know he is ineligible, they just seem to have more allegiance to him then they do our Constitution. What these people are supporting is very dangerous. If Obama is allowed on the ballot, it's setting precedent that gives way for any leader of an enemy nation to impregnate a woman and have the child born on US soil then declare them an NBC. The framers did not want a CIC to have foreign allegiances/loyalties. I think it's very safe to say that we are seeing first hand the fruit of not heeding their wisdom. We, for the first time, have a man in the oval office that has no allegiance to the United States and is clearly and intentionally crippling this nation.

@Elegy: You are incorrect on so many points, I'm not sure where to start. First off, everyone knew about the President's background, so it's not like he some how snuck in the backdoor. Second, how would the world leader manipulate the child all through his life? And, if the world leader was known, then the child would not be born a citizen because foreign diplomats are excepted. And, being as you have to clue to what allegiance is as per SCOTUS, that becomes a non-issue for the President.

And flying saucers are real because people say they have seen them. And there is a tooth fairy, because parents put money under their children pillows. And there is an Easter Bunny because there are so many replicas of him made of Chocolate at Easter time. That has to be one of the silly ripostes I've read. They have been attempting to over turn Roe v Wade but it still the law of the land. As is the 14th Amendment and United States v Wong Kim Ark. And the ruling still stands today: BORN IN THE UNITED STATES = NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. i know it's just the Constitution and the Law, Their just a nuisance. Who needs facts, those nasty manipulative things. 1+1=2. Incredibly manipulative. Could it be that 2 might be black?

The problem is that his father was a Kenyan national(a British subject). It really is no coincidence that every single President, other than the 1st ten who were " a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution", was born on US soil to 2 US citizens. It is no coincidence that Obama nor anybody near him that has commented on this issue has ever once referred to him as a "Natural Born Citizen". It's no coincidence that the certifications of nomination that the DNC sent out to the individual states left out that he is "Constitutionally eligible" like the RNC certifications and every other DNC certification stated in previous years. Obama even co-sponsored Sen Res 511 stating that McCain is a NBC because he was birthed to "citizen parents". This guy knows he is ineligible and I'm sure he is getting a kick out of people defending him. If Obama is allowed onto the ballots, our Constitution is effectively dead, Article II was the last portion of the document that had not been circumvented until 2008.

Some who share Mr. Barchfield's views argue that the US Supreme Court wrongly decided US v. Wong, and if that were undone, they might go back to the infamous Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott. THAT decision said that no former slave nor their descendents could be a citizen and that Congress had no authority to make them citizens.

The argument in Dred Scott was that parentage matters: the slaves were not part of the founding society, so neither were their children, whether born slave or free. Further the Congress had no power to naturalize them because naturalization only applied to persons born outside the Country.

The 14th Amendment overruled Dred Scott and made everyone born in the country a citizen; however, the anti-Obama crowd want to create a special class of citizen that is immune to the 14th Amendment a class who is born a citizen, but not a natural born citizen. The problem with that gambit is that the Courts have rejected it over and over. If you're born a citizen in the United States, you're unquestionably a natural born citizen, and so it has always been and ever will be.

Bravo Kevin: Everyone on this Thread should read Kevin's comment. It is about as informed a list of facts to settle just about everyone's need, but unfortunately not those who wish and dream that what they believe will be true someday. Sorry, Duckies not gonna happen. Thanks Kevin.

William, thanks for the kind remark. However, folks who hold views like Mr. Barchfeld wear Kevlar armor. Nothing gets through to them. Trust me --I have vast experience.

If children are born on US soil, as of right now they are citizens. But, citizen and natural born citizen are 2 completely different things. The lawsuit is not based on Obama being a citizen, it is based on the fact that he is not a natural born citizen which is a citizenship status that only 2 people in the nation have to adhere to, the President and Vice President. Natural born citizen is a child born on US soil to 2 citizen parents, a citizen is simply a child born on US soil.

Any child born in the US no matter the citizenship of their parents, vacationer from another country, illegal alien, is a natural-born US citizen according to the US Constitution.

ML Thanks for the post here. Obama was born with US & UK citizenship and at age 3 UK was no longer over Kenya and Obama's UK citizenship changed to Kenyan. You are correct that at age 23 he lost his Kenyan citizenship. That left him as only a citizen of US and still not a natural born citizen. No BOOhoo, just betbooo.

betbooo
7:47 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012

betbooo
7:47 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
ML Thanks for the post here. Obama was born with US & UK citizenship and at age 3 UK was no longer over Kenya and Obama's UK citizenship changed to Kenyan. You are correct that at age 23 he lost his Kenyan citizenship.

``````````````````
Thank you, yes, I am correct about that, good to see you admit it after that other stuff you posted before.

The UK thing is irrelevant, he was born on US soil, therefore his is a NBC. Orly Taitz presented all of this fiction in court and continues to lose to the Constitution and past Supreme Court rulings. She is possessed with being right no matter how wrong she is. Give it a rest. You should be careful about taking any info from BetBooo. The man is certifiable he is an Orly Taitz clone without enough money to go to court and get his ass handed to him, just as his mentor Ms. Taitz has innumerable times.

Could not reply above so will do it here. The point I was making above was to let you know I already knew what you were telling me and I was glad you also had that knowledge. But what difference do you think this knowledge has on anything? Obama was born with dual citizenship and at age 23 he no longer had duel citizenship, so what?

What other "stuff" are you talking of?

ML try reading your Constitution for those answers try Amendment XIV. Believe it or not our Constitution is just that, ours.

I don't think the United States is bound by the opinions of a 150 year-old college newspaper.

Allegiance, as defined by SCOTUS means that if you are born in the country, you have that allegiance. The only ones not under the allegiance are foreign diplomats and invading armies...which makes sense since those are the only ones who do not follow the country's law when they are within their borders.

From Wong Kim Ark

II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called 'ligealty,' 'obedience,' 'faith,' or 'power'-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king's allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,-as expressed in the maxim, 'Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,'-and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.

As you can see, President Obama falls within the definition of allegiance to the US when he was born.

I'm pretty positive that Obama supporters realize that he is not eligible, but it seems most of them have more of an allegiance to him than they do the Constitution. There is not one shred of documentation that supports the view that a natural born citizen simply means being born on U.S. soil. We are watching the U.S. Constitution being totally discarded right before our eyes, whether it be with Obama's ineligibility or NDAA. I'm stunned that people have no problem returning to the same type of tyrannical gov't that the founding fathers fought to leave.

That is correct. But Minor also stated that there are only 2 kinds of citizens in this country, either born a citizen or gain citizenship via naturalization. Wong Kim Ark cleared up the part about being born to non-citizen parents and even the dissenting opinion recognized that Wong Kim Ark could become President even though it was illegal at the time for Chinese citizens to become naturalized at that time.

The Minor court did not rule on natural born citizenship. It ruled only on whether a State could limit voting to men. Under English common law which was the law of Colonial American and subsequently the United States, a person born in the country was a "natural born citizen", unlike many non English countries which assigned citizenship by the father's citizenship.

Silverfox,

If ignorance is truly bliss, you must be one happy camper.

Not only did Minor rule on natural-born citizen, by specifically identifying Article II and then stating "These are the natives or natural-born citizens", the Court then went further and stated that it had to determine her citizenship for jurisdictional purposes.

You continue to demonstrate your ignorance by stating "Under English common law which was the law of Colonial American and subsequently the United States". The common law of England was never by any method, acceptable to our form of government, adopted as the law of the United States.

The extent to which the common law of England may be used to interpret our Constitution ends at the year 1606. See Chisolm v Georgia (1793). As such, your reliance on Calvin's Case (birth within the dominions) is rejected.

I'll now do you the courtesy of directing you to an article about Justice Gray and his opinion in WKA that was published by a legal scholar without a dog in this fight.
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_22_2/tsc_22_2_buchanan.shtml

Hey Lord, maybe you should re-read the judgement, they discuss natural born citizen but they clearly do not define it "For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts"

@Lord Acton, you do realize that his whole argument in the Buchanan article would still leave President Obama a natural born citizen eligible to hold office even if the congress agreed to make the changes he's arguing for, don't you?

@Jim (below) -The discussion format here needs to be improved so as to permit replies to responses.

"@Lord Acton, you do realize that his whole argument in the Buchanan article would still leave President Obama a natural born citizen eligible to hold office even if the congress agreed to make the changes he's arguing for, don't you?"

I disagree! Obama's father was not permanently domiciled in the U.S. He was a student, whose visa specifically prohibited him from changing domicile. Obama was born with allegiance to Kenya/Great Brittain. It is the fact of that foreign allegiance that makes him ineligible.

I'm with you there LA, the format could be improved. However, in the Buchanan article he's stating that to be a citizen at birth, you should have at least one citizen parent. President Obama's mother was a citizen at his birth making his point mute for this argument. And, you have absolutely no idea what allegiance means to SCOTUS. If you are born in this country, you are subject to the laws and protections therefor allegiance. .
WKA
II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called 'ligealty,' 'obedience,' 'faith,' or 'power'-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king's allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,-as expressed in the maxim, 'Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,'-and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.

Lord Acton, I filed one of the ballot challenges here in Alabama. Even though it was dismissed like a hot potato, the final decision is really up to the Sec of State, Beth Chapman. I've listened to Obama's attorney Barry Ragsdale in the three cases in Alabama in a two hour interview on the radio. The man is clueless about this eligibility issue and admits he gets his information from...."Fogbow". I also read very carefully attorney Jablonski's motions in Georgia....this man is also clueless. What I can see happening is that when this does reach a Supreme Court, even if it's the Georgia Supreme Court, the merits will ACTUALLY be examined. Jablonski had no answer whatsoever in Georgia, that's why he didn't show up. I see people here on this "Patch" still keep quoting Wong Ark and are still showing a complete lack of understanding of "citizen" versus "natural born citizen". They have been reading Fogbow so much that it's embedded in their brains. You and I and others on here would prefer to actually read the cases and the law and not rely on what someone (Fogbow) tells them it should say.

So sorry you can not carry on a normal conversation with out name calling. Oh, by the way I agree with you about Orly Taitz and I have never paid any attention to her at all. Her issues are not anything like mine that is for sure. If you can have a normal conversation I will join in.

see below

Monarch? Wow. He was duly elected by the people, accepted by congress, and will run for re-election where the people may or may not vote him out. You really have no clue what a monarchy is, do you?

WHO IS Orly's brother?

Mary, it doesn't matter where the heck the parents are born, only that they be citizens at the time of the birth of the child. It's really very simple. The term Natural Born Citizen has always been defined as a child born on US soil to 2 US citizens, doesn't matter where the parents were born only that they become citizens before the child was born. Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal are not eligible either.

By the way, I cannot imagine why you guys cling to judging people by the color of their skin. Wanting the man sitting in the most powerful position in the world to actually be eligible for the office is our only concern. Do you realize that Obama is playing you guys for fools? For crying out loud, the man co-sponsored Sen Res 511 stating that McCain was an NBC because he was birthed of "citizen parents". If Obama is allowed on the ballot, our Constitution is dead.

No kidding, that is why Article II provides a grandfather clause. Our first 10 Presidents were " a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, ". Every single President from Polk(11th Pres) to G.W.Bush were born on US soil to 2 US citizens. It really isn't a coincidence, the guy has knowingly disregarded the Constitutional requirements for President. The American people should be outraged, instead the people that actually care about the biggest attack on the Constitution in this nations history(besides NDAA) are insulted and ridiculed. It's pretty sickening that there are people have no regard for the document that millions of men/women have died supporting and defending.

McCain,born in Colon,Panama is ALSO NOT an NBC. Colon ,Panama as well as Panama City,Panama were specifically EXCLUDED from the Panama Canal Zone Treaty and were NOT US Soil.
Previously Chester Arthur violated the NBC provision. HE was NOT an NBC.
I was not alive at that time,so I could not Object. However,I AM alive NOW and I do OBJECT! Obama IS disqualified.

BTW,Obama now stands accused of TREASON,another encumbrance to his being POTUS:
See 18USC,Part 1,Chapter 115,Sec.2381

Pennsylvania is where the constitution was penned. It behooves the State to protect it.

Elegy (3:16 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012) I agree with you and it isn't only the Art II, Sec 1, Clause 5 but also lack of knowledge of Amendment XIV. Do they not teach this in schools any more? Hopefully they will learn something here or at least go out and get a copy of the Constitution to read. Think you can get one free at
FreedomWorks.org

Well IJWT, you really should read the constitution. That answers all of your concerns. Oh, and btw, did you realize the Schwartenegger can't run for President, and he has a boatload of money? Your argument is ill-conceived, ill-informed, and totally out of the realm of the truth.

ML thats the point. We have a President who is not a US Constitutional approved President. We dont want him to be on the ballot for this election unless it can be proven that he IS a "natural born Citizen" as requried by the Constitution. As I see it he cant prove it, even he admits he was born with duel citizenship, UK & US which means he can not be a NBC but can only be a citizen.

@betboo He IS constitutionally eligible...as every court has shown. And just because a minority doesn't want him on the ballot, well that gives you a choice of not voting for him. If you're born a citizen, you're eligible. If you acquire your citizenship through naturalization, you aren't. It's just that simple. There is no super-secret 3rd type of citizenship as you keep trying to create because of your hatred.

I should have added for clarification that the child in item #3 above can become a citizen, but never hold office of Pres or VP.

Obama born in USA to a mother who was a citizen and a father who was not therefore Obama is a "citizen" not a NBC. To be a NBC BOTH parents. mother & father have to be US citizen (father was not US citizen)

I should also add that if two non-US citizens come to the US to seek citizenship AND get it, then move back to their country of origin and then have a baby, that baby is considered an NBC. That child, if he meets the other eligibility requirements for becoming president, such as the age and residency tests, can run for President!

The Congressional Research Service has stated that the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion indicates that the term means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth," including any child born "in" the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.[1]

In the early years of US there were no NBC yet, therefore the framers of the Constitution wrote a grandfather clause into ART II so the President at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution did not have to be NBC just a citizen. Our first 10 Presidents were citizens of the US as the constitution provided for. The 11th President, Polk was the first NBC President and every President since Polk to G. W. Bush were born on US property to 2 US citizens. Some of their parents were not born on US property but they did become US citizens before their son (who would become President) was born. McCain was born on a US Navy Base which is property owned by the USA and both his parents were US citizens.

Kelly,

Why the efforts to be dishonest? Is it your intent to confuse?

Thomas Jefferson was presented with "honorary" French citizenship. He did not swear allegiance to France, nor was he under any obligation of allegiance to France by having that honor bestowed upon him.

I find it strange someone using the name "Squeeky Fromm"...member of the Manson family? I feel for you Lord Acton, you've nailed it time and time again and still it goes right over their heads. I'm getting tired of them quoting Wong Kim Ark: The Wong Kim Ark case does not directly apply to Barack Obama's presidential eligibility, for three reasons:

The Supreme Court did not rule that Wong was a natural born citizen. It merely ruled that he was a citizen. Even if Barack Obama's circumstances at birth were identical to those of Wong Kim Ark, the Court's ruling would, at most, only confer citizenship to the President. It would not confer natural born citizenship, which is what the President needs in order to be eligible to hold office.
The Court ruled that Wong was a citizen because, at the time of his birth, his parents had "permanent domicile and residence" in the United States and was "carrying on business" in the United States. President Obama's father did not meet these conditions. He was not a permanent resident. He was visiting the U.S. temporarily, to obtain an American education.

@Tommy, so sorry to burst your bubble, again. SCOTUS has ruled time and time again that there are ONLY 2 kinds of citizens in this country. Either you are born a citizen, or you acquire citizenship through Naturalization. Obama was born a citizen. Arnold Schwartzenegger is a naturalized citizen. President Obama is eligible, Arnie isn't. It really is VERY simple...you just can't stand it.

@Jim, let's see now...there's "born a citizen" as was first written in the constitution then they changed it to "natural born citizen" and then there's of course "naturalized citizen"....I count three types of citizens. Now I don't want to confuse you too much but do you understand the difference between "Constitutional natural born" and "Statutory natural born"? The department of Foreign Affairs warns people not to get confused about the two. 1. natural born citizen-born on US soil to two citizen parents. 2. born a citizen- born on US soil but not to two US citizen parents (as in WONG KIM ARK!!!) 3. Naturalized citizen- foreigners who go through the naturalization process

@Tommy: Show me where they say that. Because I'll bet you've taken that totally out of context for your own use. However, Minor, whom you folks like to point at so much at this time, is VERY clear on Presidential eligibility.

"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 [Footnote 6] 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, [Footnote 7]"

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."

Can you show me something that clearly states different in regards to Presidential eligibility? No? Didn't think so.

Cindy O,

Do you consider the readers to be fools? You must, or you would not direct them to a state department web page that does nothing to support your claim. And even the private blog/website you provided does nothing more than assert a claim that lacks any foundation or support.

All you have managed to point out is that the nation to which a naturalized citizen previously came from may not recognize the renunciation of allegiance, and, as such, if that person travels back to that state, the U.S. cannot provide them protection.

This is not a relaxation of the oath's requirement. It is merely a recognition that the laws of the United States are not binding upon a foriegn nation. In general, the ability to renounce the foreign allegiance and become a U.S. citizen is provided for by treaty between the U.S. and that foreign nation.

There is no such thing as "Today, the State Dept, is less strict with this rule". That would be because this isn't a "rule". It's a law! The oath is provided by statute. There is no provision in that law that imparts discretionary power upon the State Dept.

@Lord Acton

"It's the citizenship status of the parent"

Thanks for conferming that only one parent need be a citizen.... ;-)

LA, "It's really pretty simple:"

So it's a word game now. presumptive vs. conclusive
Yes that is simple....simple minded of Mr. Barchfeld to think that his attempt (a presumptive opinion that he believes President Obama isn’t eligible for the PA ballot) will have any more success than the multitude of lawsuits by Orly Taitz, and other (cough, cough) lawyers who have challenged the Commander in Chief in court (multiple states), now in ballot hearings (so far GA and IA) and have been denied every time (conclusive outcome); the President is, was, and will be eligible for office when he repeats his oath of office next year. I know I’m being presumptive about that last, but then I’m working with reality rather than fantasy.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/10/how-obamas-enablers-mislead-public-on.html

Any attempt to read SF's article should be followed by this one.

The above case you quoted was about whether or not someone can unilaterally declare themselves a citizen. The court was stating the obvious in that the person in question was born in another country whose parents were both subjects to the state,

If you read Vatt he does mention that other jurisdictions, England for example had different case law regarding citizenship.

Are you seriously asking this Obot crowd to read AND understand. Novel thought but you can only educate the ignorant. Stupidity is hopeless and the girls of Obama land do fall in this later category.
Have fun trying though.

Chucky: Hate to break it to you; United State v Wong Kim Ark (1898) Supreme court ruled neither parent needs to be a citizen. BORN IN THE USA = NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. There is no conspiracy, courts have throw the Orly Taitz charges out of Court, she lost again in Georgia. The reason it gets no traction is because the courts know the law. If you have such concrete proof, why haven't you taken it to court.. Supreme Court has rejected hearing it. A GOP Court no less, why would they not take it? You have to do your research. And don't stop when you think you found it because it supports your opinion. The Supreme Court will never take this case. NEVER!!!! They already ruled on it in 1898. It's the law of the land. Sorry, Ducky

Mr. Eib: Saying something over and over does not make it so. Please provide the direct quote in the "holding" of the U.S. Supreme Court case of Wong Kim Ark (1898), not dicta or arguments ... but in the holding. You cannot. The holding made WKA a "Citizen", not a "natural born Citizen" of the United States. You saying otherwise shows you are ill advised as to the facts or that you are deliberately deceiving people. Read this essay by a scholarly attorney on the matter:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/neither-14th-amendment-nor-wong-kim-ark.html

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
http://www.scribd.com/protectourliberty/collections/
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/

Charles: Reagan's socialist agenda remark, was just political speak, branding Liberals as bad people. He was starting the 30 year march to Plutocracy. Hear me out please. Bush ran it off the rails, Reagan was a pragmatist, his tax cuts didn't work, a recession was setting in, he rolled back the cuts and stopped the trouble.That's why i voted for him. Bush Jr., forewarned that un-paid for tax cuts could cause a problem, unlike Reagan, the Plutocrats on Wall Steer and big Corporations and the Banks owned JR. He had things going his way, the wealthy were ecstatic. He didn't stop, deregulated the banks, ended Glass-Steagle , and started a war. Reagan's plan for America was crushed, although I did not vote for Reagan for a 2nd term, because he was becoming a pawn of the Right and Big Business. Tax cuts, deregulation, Kill the Beast Strategy, cut the safety nets and borrow heavy from foreign countries, these were not Reagan's ideas, he was an FDR democrat and was attempting to bridge the gap between Left and Right. That's why so many democrats voted for him. Just Say No, a massive waste of money, was not his idea. That's why Nancy was angry during his 2nd term, she didn't like the people and their agenda pushing him around. His failing health did not help.

Re: POTUS being a socialist, that began at FOX. One of sources of news. I was shocked, why? Because I am a socialist and have been my whole life. And from that day forward I heard it constantly.POTUS is so far from socialism, I have to laugh. POTUS is Center Right. And the center has moved to the right, he is farther right and not near what I call the left. He has adopted so much from the GOP hand book it makes me sick! Affordable Healthcare Act.GOP. Insurance mandate. GOP. Cap & Trade GOP. I laugh when he compromises, he is selling the GOP there own bill, and they make him compromise. He has proposed a lot of prior GOP policy. He is playing with them, or thinking they will recognize their own ideas. I don't know. No socialist would put the social contract on the table but he has done just that to help cut he deficit. That drives socialists crazy. Funny part is when I hear Boehner and Cantor beating the guy up over their own ideas, It's Nutz. You need to be concerning yourself with the Plutocrats, they got bailed out but not the mortgage holders, Auto industry bailed out, Banks, Wall Street the headquarters of the uber-rich Plutocrats who have been benefiting from the recession, and now GOPers want to lower their taxes even more. They do not make anything tangible, nothing. They're not job makers. They're money makers. There really is a 1% and 99% divide in this country. This is what you should be worried about, not socialism, take it from me I know. I'd Love it.

Quick. But Dead wrong. Sorry Thruthy you only get 3 stricks. And you have been out on this NBC thing for a long time. Give me something irrefutable. I BEG YOU PLEASE. Your making it too easy. I feel bad having to correct you over and over. I probably am coming off rude. But, I am at my wits end, I and others on this thread have tried our darnedest to show you the facts. Why not look them up your self. The Supreme Court rulings are public records. If you hate The President of the United States of America, the most powerful job on Earth, why not come out and say it. Would save you and everyone else a lot of time. My guess you really don't know why you hate him. And, please spare me the talking points of BECKY-FATTY & HAMMITY, . Thank you I await you reply.

I don't hate President Obama. I think he's done a pretty good job on the foreign policy front. I was happy for our country when we elected him. I was happy for African Americans and was happy we had turned a page.

I wasn't aware of this NBC issue for quite some time after the election. When I found out about it, I felt cheated by the press since they are supposed to locate relevant facts and bring them before the public for consideration. Instead, they presented a birth certificate conspiracy and used it to cover up the NBC issue.

As for how I feel about President Obama now. Well, he was a constitutional scholar at Univ of Chicago with a specialization in election law. I'm afraid someone of that background owes more to the constitution than this eligibility challenge has revealed.

Many are afraid that all of his actions as President will be rendered null and void if it is concluded he was ineligible since we have precedent for such occurrences in our legislature. That's not what I want. I fear the chaos that could come from that. It would be terribly troubling for our country.

I would be happy if President Obama is taken off of the ballot and another Democratic nominee is brought forward. Hillary Clinton perhaps. Or anyone who is actually eligible.

Chuck: America can not be a socialist country, It is a Republic, with a Democracy-Capitalist Heritage. We like to make money here, we buy and sell things here. Wherever you got this notion,or who ever has been telling you this bunk about socialism. It a load of Crap. I told you before in a former comment, I am a life long socialist, I have been professing it for years, ain't no way the USA will ever buy into Socialism. So, you have got to take it easy and stop worrying about us. We've been pounding on the door for years. This is a died in the wool Capitalist country and always will be, unless Socialism becomes profitable and the GOP picks up on it, you need not worry. Alinsky was not a commie or socialist, he hated us.

Abe Lincoln's parents were neither US citizens. Thomas was born in 1778, ten years before Virginia joined the union. Nancy was born 1784, four years prior to West Virginia's becoming a US state. In effect, the founder of Republican party was not qualified to be a president by your definition.

In order to clear up George Miller's misunderstanding of our constitution
1) The founding father specified that ONLY natural born citizens could be president so that Naturalized citizens could not, otherwise they would have used the word citizens only. There are only 2 types of citizens in this country, born or naturalized. So simple a child could understand.
2)Correct
3)Correct, born a citizen. As explained in great detail in WKA by SCOTUS.
4)Chester Arthurs father was well known not to be a citizen. This is made-up crap
5)There is a difference, citizen coverts both people born citizens and those that gain citizenship through naturalization...and he is correct, that eliminates naturalized citizens like Arnold Schwartenegger from becoming President.
6)There are only 2 types of citizens, born or naturalized. So if you are born a citizen, you are eligible.

George: You must be coming late to this thread. This has been going on for days, seems like years. But, to help catch you up on where we are. First off your wrong.
The Supreme court ruled in 1898 United States v Wong Kim Ark. Born in the USA, USA citizen (Natural Born) and on top of that they ruled neither parent needs to be a citizen. Hawaii is the USA ergo: The President of the United States of America is a Natural Born Citizen. Have you ever asked yourself why the Right leaning current Supreme Court has refused to hear this citizen argument? They already knows POTUS, by law, is an NBC. The constitution (14th Amendment) and US v Wong Kim Ark says POTUS, by law, is an NBC. So save your self some time Every angle of this argument has been made, the public record of SCOTUS rulings show and prove POTUS is, by law, a citizen of the USA. That is unless you have something brand new.

Toyota's parents are japanese not to mention that the engines were imported from Japan.

I swear, girl, you are too clever for your own good. I enjoy your wit immensely. The PAC could have a publication, The Daily POOP. And a find-raising gun-range outing, their annual "POOP shoot."

I'll stop now before I spill my coffee.

This one issue is what Obama needs to seal his re-election victory, if only one, just one credible republican leader will own the claim. Didn't you get it that it took years before Obama released his long form BC? It only netted the Donald!

Rosemary, why must you keep bringing up debunked facts. All have been disproven many times over. Hawaii says he was born there, as per the 10th amendment all other states have to accept. And the Judge who saw all the so-called "evidence" you claim to have thought it was BS...so bad that the defense didn't even bother to show up and they still lost. Now that's some BAD evidence!!! hehehe

The forged birth certificates, long & short form, may be a distraction, but they still ARE clear cut forgeries!! What does it say about our Congress and major media when a usurper can put forged documents onto government property servers and give the whole USA and every institution of our government the middle finger. See these reports for expert analysis reports and proof the PDF file put on the White House server is a cut and pasted forgery, not a scan of a paper document. Which came first the chicken of the egg. Which came first the PDF file which is alleged to be a scan of a paper document or the paper copies passed out to the reporters made from same PDF file, not from whatever it is that HI gave to Obama.
http://www.scribd.com/my_document_collections/3166684

U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 facts:
http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
http://www.scribd.com/protectourliberty/collections/
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/

“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened.” Ronald Reagan alerting us to Norman Thomas’ and the socialist/progressives’ long-term stealth agenda to transform the USA from a constitutional republic into a top-down, central controlled, socialist form of government

Rosemary: Take it easy, your going to blow a gasket. All i see as proof of every thing you are saying is this is all opinion based on rumor and paranoid conspiracy nonsense.
I for one would love someone to prove all of what you say is true. I dream of waking up and hear on the news Obama not Natural Born Citizen. Out he goes. And that race war the Right has been talking about will be coming to your front door. Hope you have a gun and lots of ammo. I have researched as much as I can about the citizen thing and I have come up with nothing other than stuff that is not backed up by proof other than it's all a conspiracy. With the millions of people who do not like this guy and a Right wing leaning Supreme Court that will not hear the case, i am really disappointed. I hope you are right, and i am looking forward to the Race Riots.
I am serious about the Riots, I'd love that to happen, then maybe we can get some closure on the whole black-white thing. I'm sure the latinos and Asians would join in.

Rosemary: I doubt I could get you to look at a clock to prove what the time is. You are in love with the words "Poof" and "Fact" and all you offer are statements based on you desperate belief in them. Let me try this: Why have all the cases filled in court lost. And I can't accept a conspiracy theory, because you will not be able to back that up with anything other than your ill informed belief. I know I am wasting my time here, but I'll give it a shot, everything you have listed has been debunked so many times you could spend a month fact checking it on the internet. Yes, I know conspiracy. All planted by the Obama admin, devils. Let's try the clock thing. it's 5:07 here. if your are in a different time zone, you will be ahead of the time here in the Eastern time zone. It's not a conspiracy, it's a fact, no mater what time it is in another zone, it is still now after 5:00PM here. My point is re: Obama. Your living in another time zone. You are the one who doesn't care, trying to destroy America from the inside, armed with junk info you got from FOX, Fatty, Beck, & Hammity. FOX IS AT WAR WITH AMERICA, and you are but a mere foot soldier in their losing Army. Good luck, SMD

Really Carl? WOW! Hey, Illinois found him eligible, what are we getting. Same with Virginia, what are they getting? You know what's really funny, so far the only threats I've heard judges getting were from people who didn't want Obama. And one of those even claimed President Obama was an illegal alien...from another planet!!!

Carl: You sure are a snarky type of guy, love those little digs, If you put some substance into your comments , things like, let me think, FACTS. You could make an impression. Repeating; BECKY-FATTY & HAMMITY talking points, doesn't work. It just doesn't hold up to a real intelligent comment If you really do think your that smart, why do you post such dumb Parrot talk. Paranoid Conspiracy Freak, answer for everything even if you have to make it up. The Obot girls waste their time trying to inform you, but that's not what you're here for, you came to flat your gums with paranoid BS. Leave the Obot girls alone or you may find yourself embarrassed by their intellect. Familiar with that word, Ducky?
You obviously have absolutely no interest in anything but what comes out of your programmed brain. The Obot girls have been bombing you with facts. And the best you can do as a riposte is insult them. Now i recognize that tactic, Bill O'Really and Hammity, if we were on a phone you could do a FATTY and hang up on them. Man, you better change that dim bulb before you're totally in the dark. If they wanted Utopia they would join your club, suck down some beers, watch FOX, listen to FATTY & BECKY. Not a care in the world, got it all figured out. You know who you like and who to blame.

Very funny and clever. I like your comments. Quite Cheeky,Ducky

Lord Actanidiot: Sorry. the Supreme Court won't ever take up this case. Why? Because it has been established in prior SCOTUS precedence and the lower courts have followed that precedence in rendering judgement. In fact, you will see Ankey cited in every other ballot case being brought up across the country....simply because it is sound legal argument. You will also find that there was no magic "genie" to put back in the bottle because President Obama's history was well known and well documented BEFORE he even ran for President. Your misunderstanding of what our country is borders on insanity...I can tell you, if there was ANYTHING to this, FOX, Beck, Limbaugh, etc would have been trampling out expert after expert to argue against the President's eligibility. Sorry, but they couldn't find any to agree with you. So, what you're left with is scam artists trying to profit off of your hatred and bias (WND, Orly,, et al) in order to keep it alive. If you want to be a rube, it's up to you...but you have no case and that has been proven time and time again.

Billy,

"Also, why won't the current Right leaning Supreme Court take up the case?"

You would do well to answer your own question with relevant law before jumping to conclusions based on nonsense. What would give SCOTUS jurisdiction to hear any of the past cases? Are you under the impression that SCOTUS can hear any case they want to hear? Do you think a lack of standing all of the sudden becomes standing when it comes before the Supreme Court?

"The Supreme Court of the U.S.A. ruled in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark in 1898, that a person born on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen".

This further demonstrates your confusion. The Wong Kim Ark Court never "held" that Wong Kim Ark was a natural-born citizen. Had they, you would be able to quote the opinion of the Court which would demonstrate that belief. You can't!

You're obviously a child trying to participate in the adult world. You're not going to understand it, and, therefore, you are left with no choice but to ridicule that which you don't understand. This is further demonstrated by your inability to distinguish a citizen from a natural-born citizen.

"Taitz wastes the courts time". --You won't get me to disagree with you there. However, you need Taitz. She is what permits you to ridicule any efforts that challenge Obama's eligibility. Without her, you would be forced to look solely at the merits of arguments that are based on historical records and prior judicial holdings.

@Lord Actanidiot: OK, from WKA

In Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said: '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.' Id. 576. And to this extent no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges.

There it is in black and white...well understood at the time of the signing of the constitution. And, if I must teach you, even though I know you will not learn, there was a very good reason they used the term "natural-born citizen" instead of just "citizen"...they didn't want naturalized citizens to be eligible. Period. End of story. And further, in Minor, the SCOTUS restates that there are only 2 kinds of citizens in this country, born or naturalized. President Obama is eligible, Arnold Schwartzenegger is not. No secret 3rd type of citizen exists. Period. But, you won't learn, because you're incapable or really don't care about the constitution.

And Billy,

You should notice that no court has rejected the holding of the Minor Court. The latter courts (Indiana and Georgia) merely added to the class recognized to be natural-born citizens. Unfortunately, those courts did not have the courage to recognize the effect of those additions. They went from only having a Commander in Chief with undivided allegiance, to granting access regardless of alternate allegiances. These additions were not made after taking the time to examine the potential ill effects. Your childlike arguments do nothing more than solidify your belief that you did nothing wrong by voting for Obama. You would like nothing more than to see the courts give judicial sanction to practical nullification of the national security measures afforded by the qualification restriction of Article II. After all, you're a proud member of the "whatever makes us feel good" tribe.

@Lord Actanidiot: That is correct, they did not go against Minor. They recognize that minor was not defining what a natural-born citizen was. They also recognized that Minor stated that there was only 2 kinds of citizens in this country, born or naturalized. And they did not add anything, they reiterated what the dissent said about WKA in that case, that the ruling would have the effect of making WKA eligible to run for the presidency. Even back then, they recognized that born in the country made you eligible for the Presidency. It will never be over-ruled and the SCOTUS will never take it up. Because, it's settled law in this country.

Jim,

"They recognize that minor was not defining what a natural-born citizen was."

What part of "[t]hese are the native, or natural-born citizens" don't you get?

It's easy for people to come along and claim that the Court wasn't defining the term, but it seems those same people don't have the ability to use the words the Court used to support their position. The Court left open the possibility that those born here of parents who were not citizens, to be considered as citizens, However, the Court did not say that they would be added to the class of citizens identified as natural-born citizens.

Here's exactly what the Court said; "Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents."

Some authorities go further and include as citizens. Hmmm??? How people come to see that as "Some authorities go further and include as natural-born citizens" is byond me. I suppose this comes about by thinking that you can't be born here and not be a natural-born citizen. However, those same people never provide anything that would prevent natural-born citizens and 14th Amendment citizens from coexisting. Both would be citizens by birth. The difference being (and it's an important one) that one of those classes might owe foreign allegiance at birth, and the other would not.

Jim,

Quoting Curtis without understanding?

"principle of public law"

Do you know what "public law" is?

"Public law," in one sense, is a designation given to international law as distinguished
from the laws of a particular nation or state. In another sense, a law or statute
that applies to the people generally of the nation or state adopting or enacting it, is denominated a public law, as contradistinguished from a private law, affecting only
an individual or a small number of persons." (Black's Dictionary of Law)

You see, without having sufficient knowledge of the law, it is easy to become confused when reading Supreme Court opinions. As there was no municipal law regarding the citizenship of those born in the U.S., the Court had to recognize what the public law was. (Public law is international law, which was originally called the law of nations.)

Now tell me; Didn't the Treatise on the Law of Nations in which our Framers were familiar include place of birth? I seem to recall that it said "natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens". It sure looks to me like the public law "referred citizenship to the place of birth".

@Jim

"they didn't want naturalized citizens to be eligible. Period. End of story."

Why would that be? Surely you're not going to suggest that we didn't trust our naturalized citizens! Surely you wouldn't think that after 14 years residence those naturalized citizens would not be familiar with our customs!

Naturalized citizens are eligible to hold the highest security clearances. http://www.clearancejobs.com/security_clearance_faq.pdf

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to why the we wouldn't want the Commander in Chief of the military to be a naturalized citizen.

Lord Actanidiot: Thanks for for ther proving me correct! It's always nice when you poor folks see the light. In the VERY NEXT SENTENCE they state:
"For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts."
Those doubts were solved in WKA by the VERY SAME COURT!
Further Minor states: "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 [Footnote 6] 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, [Footnote 7]"

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."

If you are born a citizen, you can become president, if naturalized you cannot. Thanks for proving Obama is eligible...again!

Lord Actanidiot says "Now tell me; Didn't the Treatise on the Law of Nations in which our Framers were familiar include place of birth? I seem to recall that it said "natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens". It sure looks to me like the public law "referred citizenship to the place of birth"."

Let me get this straight, you are saying that the natural-born citizen phrase was adopted from this treatise by Vattel? The one where the original version written in French does NOT say "natural-born citizen"? The one where the English translation which came out years AFTER the constitution was ratified contains that phrase? You do realize this really makes you look stupid, right? Again, keep on typing, people like you further prove that the President is eligible...and will help get him re-elected.

Me too Squeeky...and it's just amazing how well our forefathers put together the constitution and the checks and balances. Once you understand how these folks are falling for the scam being put forth by WND and Orly and all those right-wing sites for profit from the rubes...you realize why this is kept alive. Wouldn't surprise me at all if some of the anti-Obama posters work for them. Selling their snake-oil as long as they possibly can to separate the rubes from their money.

Squeeky,

If Wong Kim Ark convinced you, then you can quote the portion of the Court's holding in that case that accomplished it. Please make sure to only quote the Court's holding.

@Lord Actonidiot: Please show me in law or court precedence where there are more that 2 types of citizens in this country, born or naturalized. You need to prove your case, not the other way around.

Congratulations Squeeky,

You just proved that you think we are still living under the rule of the English monarch! Nothing you quoted even mentions the phrase "natural-born citizen". Yet, you chose to conflate two dramatically different terms.

I gave you the opportunity and you failed miserably.

@KenyanBornObama: Thanks for posting those...they are more proof Obama is eligible. It's so nice when you finally see the light!!!

Well Squeeky, It's pretty obvious you don't know the difference between the holding of the Court and that which is examined by the Court.

Your inability to distinguish between the two leaves little doubt as to the reasons you hold your belief.

Thanks Wild Bill! I've got those 2 cases in my hip pocket, but it's much more fun when you can use their own words against them. Nothing is more satisfying than keeping them talking and talking and frustrating them so much that they end up proving the President's eligibility themselves. Which is very easy, since all Supreme Court precedence, laws, and the constitution is on the President's side and they aren't the most intelligent people I've run into. It's good for many laughs and giggles.

Foolishness is trying the exact same thing again and again and expecting a different result. Arkeny v. Governor, 916 NE2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). It is completely on point and clearly states specifically that President Obama is a "natural born citizen" within the meaning of the US Constitution.

@Tommy...well, since you've continually lost in a real court of law over and over, you might consider that it is you and the birthers who have misquoted case after case and it's YOU who don't have the facts or law correct. I mean really, your case is so BAD that you can't even beat an empty chair! That's BAD!!! hehehe

Tom-Tom: Ya bin listnin' but ya ain't bin hearin'. There is a difference: like the child who is told it is raining out side, put on your rain coat, but doesn't and, like in your case, the child gets all wet. That's Listening. Whereas the child who puts on the raincoat. That's hearing. Dry as a bone. Try it some time. Take your fingers out of your ears and try a taste of hearing. May, and I mean May, do ya a mite bit of good, Ducky. Bi' now.

You can't fix stupid. That is correct. But you can always pretend to be dumb. Case in point: the Wong Kim Ark ruling should have been controlled by the laws in place at the time namely the Burlingame-Seward Treaty of 1868 between the USA and China. Wong Kim Ark and all Chinese Nationals' citizenship & residency was governed by this treaty.
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/treaty1868.htm

Article 5 of the treaty is crystal clear. However, crystal clear wasn't good enough for Justice Gray. He needed a long winded diatribe to smooth over his attempts to change US law and thereby gain the legitimacy for Chester Arthur's Presidency. Thanks to Leo Donofrio, we know Chester Arthur concealed his non-natural-born status and burned all of his papers at the end of his life. He wasn't a fan of transparency.

IJWT: So, you're using a statement from a treaty preventing slave trade to prove what?

@IJWT says "In the end, we have to live with what the Supreme Court says on the matter. Even if they come to a conclusion opposite mine, I will be satisfied that the Rule of Law was followed."

Well that's great IJWT! Since the SCOTUS has already spoken on this matter, then you must be satisfied. That's why you're losing in every court this is brought up, by SCOTUS precedence. So glad you're finally seeing the light! BTW, ordinary citizens have been bringing lawsuits, challenges, etc for over 3 years now...and lost every single one. So it's probably because President Obama is eligible.

I don't speak for anyone but myself. My personal opinion is President Obama was probably born in Hawaii and became a citizen at birth. I believe NBC was well known by the framers as someone born in the country to citizen parents unless you were alive at the adoption of the constitution. The rule was designed to reduce foreign influence on the commander in chief. Although not defined, Minor v. Happersett makes it unambiguous that NBC's are exactly that. Since Minor was referenced by two subsequent Supreme Court cases, the precedent was set. I accept all of Leo Donofrio's reasoning on the matter since he's done the most research and produced the most illuminating views.

I think anyone who brings a challenge to President Obama's or Mitt Romney's or Santorum's eligibility is reasonable in the absence of new information. My conclusion on this point draws from Congress' own confusion about the NBC issue. It was not clear to them. They held hearings and discussed and debated it. They tried to change the rule 24 times.

http://bariumtitanate.blogspot.com/2012/02/why-natural-born-citizen-controversy.html

Ultimately, I think the issue has damaged our democracy. Congress failed to clarify the matter leading to these court challenges. The media used the birther conspiracy to cover up the NBC issue. In the end, Democrats are damaged the most since two election cycles have been impacted.

Squeeky, you've been following this issue for much longer than me. Can you point to a single media news article or television story on the topic of NBC that doesn't mention the birth certificate conspiracy?

I don't know the answer but I doubt such a work exists. I hope I'm wrong. Am I?

Hi Squeeky! I've been having fun with this for a long time, They are so entertaining, especially when they prove themselves that President Obama is eligible. President Obama had what millions of Americans have had happen to them, he lost his original BC. So, he sent off to Hawaii for another and they sent him the COLB. Which, is the legal BC for Hawaii. Hawaii then put out 2 statements that he was born there. WND even had an expert look at the COLB and he declared it was valid. Then, they saw the bigots and rubes out there really hated President Obama and there was $$$ to be made! Hence, we are here...again. You won't believe some of the things these folks were demanding of the President...by far the most ridiculous was:
http://jezebel.com/5344988/birthers-want-to-see-obamas-penis
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/now-birthers-are-demanding-know-was
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/04/arizona-gop-birther-obama-circumcision

I mean they had an 18-year-old 9 month pregnant woman with no means of support flying from Hawaii to Kenya in 1961 when it wasn't even legal for women that pregnant to fly to have a baby in an inferior hospital away from her family. They had a picture of the President's naked mother and claimed it was taken in July and she's not pregnant, when there's a Christmas tree in the picture! They are just so desperate, they make up things and hope no one will notice. But, they are good for a bunch of laughs and giggles!

Thanks. I've never been attracted to the birth certificate conspiracy because it involves physical evidence from so many years ago...it just never seemed like something anyone could prove one way or the other. I can't fault people who don't believe in the Hawaiian birth too much since President Obama seems to have made a game out of it with the coffee mugs and tshirts. (yes, I found that amusing)

I've thought about the one vs two citizen parent requirement. It didn't seem fair to me on a fundamental level. But that's when the foreign allegiance issue was brought to my attention. Do I think President Obama has a foreign allegiance we should be concerned about? No, probably not. His father was never really in his life as far as I can tell. Although a case could be made that he has a penchant for European socialism but that's not my issue. But the intent seems sound especially when it was written...back when borders/countries were slightly more fluid than they are today.

I don't trust the lower court rulings on the NBC issue. I think we're going to need a Supreme Court ruling with some teeth in it to be satisfied.

The main reason I am attracted to this NBC issue is because it demonstrates our country's collective ability to ignore and/or violate our most basic rules. At a minimum, Congress correctly recognized there was an ambiguity problem. But they didn't resolve it. These court cases are the result of that.

Well IJWT I'm going to have to tell you the honest truth then. This will never make it to the Supreme Court. It is well established through WKA that if you are born a citizen, you're eligible. It is also well-established through the 10th amendment that President Obama was born in Hawaii and every other state and court, including SCOTUS, must accept that fact as per the Constitution. You will find no judge, appeals court, or SCOTUS that will go against that. Get used to seeing a lot of rulings for the President that use Ankey, because it is solid and won't be overturned.

Now he's just trying to do what he was groomed to do and reek havoc on the US and the constitution.
You people that profess this man to be a natural born citizen just can't admit that you elected an undocumented, unconstitutional usurper

Rosemary, you do realize that the original AP story distributed world wide did not contain that headline. Someone at one newspaper, the Kenyon based Sunday Standard added the headline and changed the AP story, probably to get more readers.

Actually, if you do a little research on Donofrio's blog, you'll find out he's been lying to you and creating facts to fit his conclusions. Of course it makes more sense if you do it that way, don't let the truth get in the way of your conclusions. Judges are bound by the truth, not made up fiction. If you would just do a little research independent of Donofrio at the Library of Congress online, you would see his conclusions and statements about President Arthur are completely off-base and would render his conclusions useless.

IJWT: It IS a sure thing. As you've seen by the many posts citing SCOTUS precedence, citizenship laws, and the Constitution. What we've seen from you and others is blogs, misquoted cases, and just a general "this is what I think". There's a huge difference there. But, yes, it will keep going. And, you know why? Because there's money to be made there. Simple as that. The folks keeping this going, WND, Orly, Donofrio, etc. have found if they just keep playing on people's fears and hatred, they'll send money. Now you see they've started a PAC for this, and I have no doubt that they will get donations. And you know what is even better for them? They don't even have to tell you what they're spending the money on. So, if you want to be a rube and send these folks money, be my guest. The case against President Obama is going no where.

IJWT says: "When Congress makes unambiguous laws, no one goes to court."
WRONG! Congress makes unambiguous laws all the time that go to court, sometimes because they go against the constitution.

IJWT: "The Rule of Law affords persons who believe they are wronged the right to file a grievance with the court."
And this has been going to court for over 3 years,and the President has won every one!
IJWT: "Again, this was mishandled by Congress."
No, congress handled it just fine. It's you folks trying to make up laws who have handled it badly.
IJWT: "It would be enough for me that a single military person feels the constitution is being disrespected on the NBC issue for me to take the case very seriously."
And what about all those military personnel who didn't like Bush for one reason or another? You would tear up the military with that attitude...you're one sick individual.
IJWT: "Equating plain citizenship with natural born citizenship attacks the foreign allegiance protection intended by the Framers."
You have not shown the framers have meant anything different than what has been explained to you over and over again. It's what the framers intended to be followed, not your terrible interpretations.
IJWT: "It is a worthy debate. Let's allow the Rule of Law to settle the matter and seize every opportunity to unify the citizenry rather than polarize the citizenry. Good idea?"
And, the rule of law has settled it, over and over again. You won't accept it!

Any issue that has been passed out to all Justices not once but twice is by it's definition NOT a frivolous lawsuit.

The entire Supreme Court has looked at the issue twice. They don't do that for frivolous cases. Sorry. Yes, this means the Orly Taitz of the world can appeal their fines with good grounds.

IJWT: Why is it you must continue to prove your idiocracy. The WHOLE statement says:"Naturalized citizens of the United States stand upon an
equal footing, in terms of their rights and privileges, with native born
citizens. See, e.g., Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165 (1964).
The only exception to this principle is the limitation of eligibility
for the office of President of the United States to ‘‘natural born’’
citizens in Article II of the Constitution."

And everything you've asked us to read further proves our points. Notice that this same person understands that "native-born" citizens may become President. Again, you prove us right and you wrong.

Actually Jim, the statement implies there are 3 types of citizenship: naturalized, native born and natural born. This conclusion is further supported by INS:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-current-ins-officially-recognizes-a-delineation-between-natural-born-and-native-born/

Quote from Leo Donofrio:

And again, Interpretation 324.2(b) provides:

“The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status if naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen, as determined by her status prior to loss.” (Emphasis added.)

http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48438.html

Three times in this official INS Interpretation – currently published by the Obama Administration – native-born and natural-born are given separate consideration. And in the third example – from Interpretation 324.2(b) – the INS clearly states that each delineation, “naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen“, is a separate status.

Congressman Serrano interrupted a budget hearing because he wanted a real answer about his NBC status. He was born in Puerto Rico and he has consulted with scholars about his eligibility. Unsure for certain, he has asked the Supreme Court Justices two years in a row about the issue.

I'll take Serrano's concern seriously. Everyone who reads our exchange and watches the Videos will draw their own conclusions as well.

Congressman Serrano is a long time DC fixture. I will take his conclusion about his own ambiguous status seriously and I won't begrudge anyone for asking valid questions as he has done.....on the record.

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju67306.000/hju67306_0.HTM

Oh my, what's this? More congressional debate/discussion.

"Equally of concern is the new appetite for, and silent acceptance of, dual citizenship. It would be naive at best to believe that neither has any bearing on what used to be unconditional loyalty and commitment to America."

Spot on!

As I've said, the lower courts are confused like bloggers such as yourself and Congress.

1) Wong Kim Ark was not running for President
2) Congress can pass laws having to do with naturalization. They cannot interpret what is a Natural Born Citizen because only the Supreme Court has that right.
3) McGuffage was referring to "state statute" not the Constitution

Plain citizens are not Natural Born Citizens. NBC's are the offspring born in the USA to parents who are USA Citizens. (minor v happersett) President Obama was born Kenyan in Hawaii. He had one USA parent. One Kenyan Parent. The intent of the NBC clause was to guard against foreign influence.

Wong Kim Ark was ruled on a variety of prose written by Justice Gray who should have simply relied upon the in place Treaty with China which was in effect at the time. Regardless, Wong Kim Ark only ruled on citizenship not natural born citizenship.

@ijwt: 1)Wong Kim Ark could have run for President, as pointed out by the dissenting opinion.
2)Congress can and has passed laws on citizenship, and SCOTUS in multiple opinions has stated if you're born a citizen, you are a natural-born citizen
3)You have absolutely no idea about the separation of powers in the constitution, do you?
4)He also says the objections have NO basis in fact or law and if brought to a court of law, they would be basically laughed out.

You misquote Minor v Happersett again, they say they are not there to decide on natural-born status. However, they do say:
"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 [Footnote 6] 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, [Footnote 7]"

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."

Only 2 types of citizen. Period. If you're born a citizen, you're eligible, if you're naturalized, your not. You do realize IJWT every time you link or type, you further PROVE the President is eligible. That's why you don't have a case and it will never make it to the Supreme Court.

Then you should try reading up, start with Wong Kim Ark because it explains in great detail where our citizenship comes from and how it is derived. Of course, you won't. People who don't believe in the constitution or this great country always refuse to learn.

Nice article Squeeky. I especially enjoyed the comments where one of the lawyers in the Georgia case is caught misquoting Jefferson and basically is shown how bad of a lawyer he is by others. He really has no idea what he's doing...the perfect companion for Orly. I will say though, if you really look into this you'll find that this is all about the money in the end. If you do a search at the Washington Independent for Orly or Birthers, you'll see how they were always trying to get people to click on their links...which were pure BS. Then, when I realized that they were getting paid by the visit by advertisers, we put a stop to it by warning people off. WND at first said that Obama's BC was real, then when they realized they could make money off of it, put up some BS and called it a fake and all of a sudden went from calling Orly a crackpot to saying she had it right. Then they try selling all these "Where's the BC" t-shirts, mugs, etc. If you read the complaint from Charles Lincoln(I think) against Orly, you find out she's using the donations she receives for expensive lunches, hair, travel, etc. If the poor rubes who hate Obama so much would realize that they are basically being robbed by the same people that they thought were on their side, they might find some other people to turn they hate to.

Like the old saying, figures lie and liars figure. Unemployment is not down and the toll it has taken on the older, formerly employed has been breath-taking. The federal government's figures on unemployment are lies. People that drop out of the workforce because they cannot find jobs are not even counted. The Obama adminstration job creation results are abysmal and anyone like Eib who wants this craziness to continue are either left-wing socialists or simply partisan bloggers who think any Republican is evil. If these so-called great results that Eib details were done under a Republican administration, Eib would be calling for impeachment. I remember when the media and people like Eib were crying about how 5 percent unemployment was so terrible under a Republican administration. The waste of stimulus money was staggering. We lost BILLIONS on Chrsyler's bailout and are due to lose BILLIONS more on GM (Government Motors). Obama puts Geithner in charge of the economy when it was Geithner who looked the other way and helped create the bank failures. Obama lied about cutting the federal deficit in half and O's latest budget actually increases the deficit. What a joke we have for a president. I guess I will hear that I believe that because I am racially prejudiced.

William...yep! I couldnt resist it...The news, although you think is alway wrong from FOX unless you think it's something you can use for Obama, FAILED TO TELL YOU HOW LOW the housing market was...I'm a realtor! The phony numbers of sales as stated out of the Department of Housing was recently revised....3 MILLION MORE IN SALES THAN THERE ACTUALLY WAS......they would do anything to paint an untrue but "rosey" picture...Can you accept this from someone in the industry William or do you have to read it in the History Books right after the line that Obummer was the worst president even over Jimmy Carter!