It wouldn't, but this is very clearly not the case. If you would read all of reading I supplied to you, you surely wouldn't be asking me the questions that you are.

They are printed in black and white.

Operation Hawaii Five-OBAMa
 

Link
Operation Hawaii Five-OBAMa

Host: Obama Release Your Records

Type: Causes - Protest

Network: Global

Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Time: 12:00pm - 8:00pm

Location: Home or wherever there is a phone and internet from 12 pm est - 8 pm est...

Description

This event is due to the actions of the Hawaii Department of Health in regards to Obama's vital recordS.

The Hawaii DOH is openly circumventing UIPA Laws that would allow parts or even all of Obama's vital recordS to be released, due to Hawaii public statements on his vital recordS. The pressure is mounting in Hawaii and officials are being moved around like musical chairs.

Hawaii DOH officials, to this day, still refuse to verify any of the 3 different COLB's posted online by Obama's campaign.

It's time to CALL and EMAIL the DOH/GOVT officials in Hawaii and demand they uphold the UIPA Laws and release Obama's vital recordS.

On February 17th, 12pmest-8pmest, we are asking all to bombard the Hawaii Officials listed below.

Demand they uphold the UIPA Laws and release Obama's vital recordS.

Hawaii Department of Health
Administration Directory
1250 Punchbowl St.
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Phone (808) 586-4400
Fax (808) 586-4444

DOH Communications Director,
Chiyome Fukino
Phone (808) 586-4400
Fax (808) 586-4444
E-mail: janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov

Deputy Director,
Susan Jackson
Phone (808) 586-4412
E-mail: sharon.abe@doh.hawaii.gov

Governor's Office
Governor Linda Lingle
Phone: 808 586-0034
Fax: 808 586-0006
web contact form: https://cs.ehawaii.gov/gov-ors/ctg-ci.html

Lieutenant Governor,
JAMES R."DUKE" AIONA, JR.
Phone: (808) 586-0255
Fax: (808) 586-0231
e-mail: ltgov@hawaii.gov

Department of the Attorney General
Hawaii AG, Mark Bennett
Telephone: (808) 586-1500
Fax: (808) 586-1239
web contact form; http://hawaii.gov/ag/main/contact_de...eral_responses

In the mean time, burn up these web contact forms.

Governor Linda Lingle; https://cs.ehawaii.gov/gov-ors/ctg-ci.html

Hawaii AG, Mark Bennett; http://hawaii.gov/ag/main/contact_de...eral_responses
__________________________________________________ ________

Don't forget about the White House Phone/Cyber Blitz on February 19th.

Operation Release III; http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=323296514201

__________________________________________________ ________

Some background on the Hawaii DOH.

Hawaii Department of Health refuses OIP’s request THAT THEY DISCLOSE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS BY DEC. 21st. The Post & Email can go public with the fact that the Department is in open violation of Hawaii Law regarding the request made by its editor, Mr. John Charlton, on Sept. 27, 2009, and which on Dec. 8, 2009, the Office of Information Practices warned them of the violation and demanded they respond to the request by Dec. 21st.

http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/12/...oips-request-2

http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/12/...-vital-records

http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/...olicies-on-nbc

http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portl...i-on-the-ropes

http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portl...be-made-public

More recent reports posted at the ORYR Fan Page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Obarac...s/207517629659

That's the problem with conspiracy theories, they never get answered, because there is always someone, somewhere hiding in the shadows, and keeping the "truth" concealed. I saw this with the lefties and their infatuation with the JFK assassination conspiracy and the 9/11 "truthers". Sadly, the right has jumped on this one, just as they did with Clinton and the Arkansas "mafia" and the Vince Foster conspiracy. It got so bad with all his anti-Clinton stuff that I actually had to stop listening to George Putnam, because they were still harping on it a year after Clinton left the Oval Office.

I know that is total B.S!

If I can get a hold of the old SOS database, I can prove you 100% wrong! :p

conspiracy theories?

Let me ask you one simple question, and I hope you do not find it too hard.

Why exactly is everyone of his background records (aka... birth certificate, college records, etc.) sealed?

Yes, conspiracy theories. That is why I won't get sucked into theis rabbitt hole with you. If you and the rest of your ilk want to destroy this movement then keep on with this wacko conspiracy stuff. You can join she who will not be named on the endless trail of conspiracy theories.

Look....Can I interject here, not as a moderator or anything, but just a bystander?
this birth certificate controversy is not a big thing for me, not because I think it's a false front or a big scam either one, but rather because I have too much to do already. I don't see that much harm in people following a lead, as long as it is kept within the boundaries of good time management and proper disclosure. Having spent innumerable hours researching public records, I have come to the conclusion that people see what they want regardless of what the record says. Even judges and jurors. You can place damning hard evidence before whomever you want, and if they have a bent to see it a certain way, that's what will be seen. This plays the same for both sides of the Obama legitimacy controversy. What I'm saying here is both of you are probably right in some fashion, so don't let it create a rift between you. We all know that many in our government at that level are liars, else we wouldn't be here telling them we are onto their BS about illegals. We also know that Chelena will parrot anything that turns peoples' ears and eyes in her direction, and facts are as she wants to twist or create them, so there is no oracle on this issue to turn to yet. However there is one person who could have ended the majority of suspicion a long time ago, and his reluctance to do so may be more related to division than fraud. In any case, obama gets no quarter from me because he supports the fraud of illegal aliens and open borders, so why the hell should it matter if someone pressures him on the record? My theory is that we are not wrong to hammer him over the illegal alien issue, just as they are not wrong to hammer him on his qualifications. We're all at least hammering Obama, so we are somewhat united

I've been following this long before Chelene every said anything. I asked PochoPatriot one easy question, and he goes off on the conspiracy bs. And RIMO on the other forum was one of the main instigators bringing politics into the forum, not me.

I will continue to post every article I find, so that people can make judgment by themselves.

SOS is no stranger to controversial subjects. Passionate exchanges are to be expected, but I was hoping to remind that we can disagree on one thing and unite on the other, so try not to damage your relationships by making one subject a do or die issue.

One thing I have learned from dealing with conspiracy theorists, like you, is that no amount of evidence is sufficient to "prove" anything related to his//her pet conspiracy. I have seen the evidence and I am convinced that the man is a natural born American citizen. Anyone who believes differently is a conspiracy theory nut that needs to leave this one alone.

Thank you for echoing my point, AG. I see "birthers" as a distraction to what should be the real focus of our anger, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. Every step down stupid rabbit holes like Obama's citizenship, the Federal Reserve conspiracy theories, 9/11 "truth", and the like further destroy our credibility with the general public.

When I was on the leadership committee on the old board, she who will not be named asked my if that org should go after Muslims. After thinking about it for a few days, I advised her against it because it would damage our credibility with the general public.

Now I realize that many of you may have low opinions of the general public, but it is they that will move the country in the right way when they are educated. We are the ten percent that really care. The ten percent that get involved. The ten percent that live, breathe and bleed this movement. We were able to stop amnesty back in 2006. The reason is that we were focused like a laser beam on ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, and we educated the public about it. The reason why socialized health care has been beaten back is back the people, is because people focused in on it and educated the public.

We have to get back to that focus and lead! If the birthers, the anti-Federal Reservists, and other conspiracy theorists don't like it, then too bad. Thank you for your help, but we have a country and culture to save. Stopping the illegal invasion of this country and any future amnesties are the only hills I am willing to die on at this time. I know this is harsh, but damn it, we need to get back on track!

Maybe I was wrong, and there is an Oracle on this matter:p

I personally don't care if people discuss this issue, as that shouldn't destroy our credibility. Taking it up as an official pursuit would destroy our credibility, and you're right, it did when Chelena made it so back in the old days. We're not here to dash anyones hopes of uncovering nefarious plots or exposing facts. We just need to keep things like this in perspective as to how they affect us in the present. Right now there's alot of speculation, but the chances of it altering our course are still pretty remote, so it shouldn't dominate or be at the forefront our activities

Okay, here goes another easy question. Please post the evidence you have seen, so that I too can be convinced. It is the liberal mentality to attack a person who asks a question, that doesn't blend in with their beliefs. I have yet to call you a name, and I can look back through this thread and count many times you have called me names.

I asked you why all of his records are sealed (as nobody has seen them, so I would like to know where you got your proof). As all the evidence I have investigated over a two-year period, suggest we have an illegal alien as president, but you say you have proof, please post it. I find it ironic that you are supposed to be fighting illegal immigration, but you are willing to overlook your own party. I'm convinced that Bush and Cheney had to know there was a problem here, but refused to get involved.

All I want to know, is the truth!

I'm asking you questions about what you wrote. Specifically, you stated:

Originally Posted by Cruisingfool
You sir are flat out wrong! Obummers mother was under the age of 18 at the time of birth of this turd! She was married to a british citizen when she popped out this turd, you might want to check out the Law!


After you posted this, however, you told me that his mother's age at the time of birth is irrelevant as is his father's British citizenship. So now you really have me scratching my head. Why did you mention these things in the first place?

Lets pretend that the "Unites Sates Justice Foundation" finds that Obama was born a citizen, would you accept their word?

Conspiracy theorists will not accept any evidence that contradicts their preconceptions. That is why I won't live or die on this hill. If you chose to, that is your choice, but I won't join you.

As I have said, the evidence I have seen is more than enough to convince me. Enough said.

Find it whatever you like. My fight is illegal immigration, not the delusions of Joseph Farah and World Nut Daily.

And this is what makes you a conspiracy nut in my book. Why would the opposition party NOT trumpet this through conservative talk radio? Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Elder, et al. all think you guys are wacked.

No, you want your presuppositions and prejudices fed, and nothing regardless of how devastating it is to them will change them.

Your problem, is that you want everyone to agree with you, and they don't you dismiss them as stupid, or "sheeple", or whatever pejorative of the daily you conspiracy theorists have at your disposal.

My time with this topic is done.

Good grief, if obummer was born in Kenya, which all evidence states, this was his home country of his father, a british citizen. She was under the age of 18, which under Law (which you should know) would not make him a US Citizen, but a dual citizen of different countries. Which under Law (that you should know) would make him not qualified to be president of the USA.

You forgot to answer my easy questions, the typical liberal spin job. Make all the posts saying you have proof, but resort to name calling, because you have no proof.

Enjoy the future, as you are going to need all the help you can get! :D

Yes I would, because nobody, including PachoPatriot, RIMO, or SZ has no proof other wise.

A Further Inquiry into Obama's Origins
 

Link
February 14, 2010
A Further Inquiry into Obama's Origins
By Jack Cashill

Last week I contributed an article to American Thinker on Obama's origins that evoked a good deal of informed response. In it, I argued that the failure of the mainstream media to document the first year of Barack Obama's life has rendered the media accounts of the year before his birth suspect.

Here is what we know about Obama's first year. On August 19, 1961, fifteen days after Obama's presumed birth, his mother, "Stanley Ann Dunham," enrolled for classes at the University of Washington at Seattle.

The apolitical Washington State historical blog HistoryLink confirms Ann's arrival in August 1961, identifies her Capitol Hill apartment in Seattle, names the courses she took, and documents an extended stay by Ann and little Obama into the summer of 1962.

Incredibly, not one of the mainstream media accounts I consulted -- including four book-length biographies, several long-form magazine and newspaper bios, Obama's official campaign biography, and Obama's 1995 memoir Dreams From My Father -- places Ann and Obama anywhere other than in Hawaii during that first year.

Given this collective failure and the Obama camp's squirrelly response to questions about his birth certificate, another look at the circumstances leading up to that birth is warranted. To restore logic and order to this investigation, I turn to a structure we know as Occam's Razor: "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate.'' This translates roughly as "Multiple variables are not to be posited without necessity." Let me start with the timeline and cast of characters.

Late summer, 1960

Stanley and Madelyn Dunham and 17-year-old daughter Stanley Ann (henceforth "Ann") leave the Seattle area for Hawaii. Ann does not want to go.

Fall, 1960

Ann enrolls at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, where 23-year-old Barack Obama, Sr. is a student.

Spring semester, 1961

Ann fails to enroll at the University of Hawaii.

February 2, 1961

Barack Sr. and Ann marry in Maui.

August 4, 1961

Barack Obama is reportedly born in Honolulu's Kapiloani Hospital for Women and Children.

August 19, 1961

Ann Dunham enrolls at the University of Washington in Seattle.

Summer 1962

Ann and baby Obama return to Hawaii.

Fall 1962

Barack Sr. leaves for Harvard.

Spring 1963

Ann re-enrolls at the University of Hawaii.

January 1964

Ann files to divorce Barack Sr.

What follows are four possible scenarios to explain the circumstances of Obama's birth. Each involves a different set of biological parents.

Ann Dunham and unknown Seattle male

In the original article, I floated the possibility that the progressive and adventurous 17-year-old Dunham was impregnated by a black man while the family was still living in the Seattle area. If so, this pregnancy could have prompted the family to uproot to Hawaii where no one knew them and where mixed-race babies were more accepted.

Although this theory would make sense of the family's abrupt move to Hawaii and Ann's seemingly sudden departure to Seattle after Obama's birth, it introduces too many variables that I was unable to substantiate.

Barack Sr. and Ann Dunham

In football jargon, this scenario would be the ruling on the field. It stands until conclusive evidence can be found to overturn it. The most formal evidence for it is a divorce document issued in 1964, to wit, "[t]hat one child has been born to said Libellant and Libellee as issue of said marriage, to wit: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, a son, born August 4, 1961." The libellant in question is Stanley Ann D. Obama. The libellee is Barack Hussein Obama, Sr.

This document aligns with names and dates on the more questionable "certification of live birth" that the Obama campaign posted online, as well as with the newspaper postings soon after the August 4 birth.

This scenario conforms to the story line that the young Obama heard growing up from his mother and grandparents, namely that the brilliant, charismatic Barack Sr. had swept the quiet Ann off her feet, impregnated her, married her, and left reluctantly for Harvard after a year of nurturing baby Obama in Hawaii.

Propping up this narrative is chatty Hawaii Democratic congressman Neil Abercrombie, who knew Barack Sr. at the University of Hawaii. "Little Barry, that's what we called him," Abercrombie told the Chicago Tribune about baby Obama while "recalling his days with Obama Sr. and his future wife, Ann Dunham, at the University of Hawaii."

There could not have been many such "days." The most compelling evidence against this scenario is Ann's documented enrollment at the University of Washington immediately after Obama's reported birth and Barack Sr.'s departure for Harvard immediately upon Ann's return to Hawaii.

In addition, all details about the marriage remain elusive. Obama himself writes in Dreams, "In fact, how and when the marriage occurred remains a bit murky, a bill of particulars that I've never quite had the courage to explore."

A couple marries in a different county like Maui to keep the notification out of the local news. No one attended the wedding -- not Abercrombie, not Ann's parents. In fact, no one in Barack Sr.'s clique seemed to know there was a relationship, let alone a wedding.

Neil Abercrombie's brother Hal never saw Ann and Barack Sr. together. Another clique member, Pake Zane, who had distinct memories of the outsized Barack Sr., could not recall Ann at all. If the young couple were making their home on Kalanianole Hwy. as the newspaper announcements claim, some friend should have at least remembered.

When Abercrombie and Zane visited their pal in Nairobi in 1968, Barack Sr. shocked them by not inquiring at all about his wife and then-six-year-old child (although he would visit the Dunhams four years later). In July 2008, speaking at a university roundtable, Michelle Obama said of Barack's mother that she was "very young and very single when she had him." This may not have been a slip of the tongue.

At least a few respondents to the last article cited the likeness of Obama to his half-brother, Mark Ndesandjo, also mothered by a white woman, as proof of Barack Sr.'s biological paternity. Beyond color, I do not see any particular resemblance (photo here). The adult Obama does not look like Barack Sr., and as Abercrombie concedes, he does not sound at all like him either.

Stanley Dunham and unknown black woman

The evidence for this scenario is all circumstantial. "You know," Stanley's brother Ralph has said of Obama, "he looks exactly like Stanley. He looks exactly like my brother, only he's dark." Admittedly, grandsons can look like their grandfathers, but Ralph is right. The similarity between the two is striking.

The photo below, likely taken upon Barack Sr.'s departure for Harvard in 1962, shows not only Stanley's stunning resemblance to Obama, but also his inexplicable fondness for a black man who allegedly knocked up his daughter and is now abandoning her and his grandson. This photo is not an anomaly. As Obama recounts in Dreams, "Gramps" has only good things to say about his prodigal son-in-law.

http://www.americanthinker.com/Obama...%20article.JPG
One other critical bit of evidence for this theory is a poem Obama wrote as a 19-year-old called "Pop." The poem begins:

Sitting in his seat, a seat broad and broken


In, sprinkled with ashes,


Pop switches channels, takes another


Shot of Seagrams, neat, and asks


What to do with me, a green young man


As I reported last week, most reviewers think this poem is about Stanley Dunham, and with some cause. "I can still picture Gramps leaning back in his old stuffed chair after dinner," writes Obama in Dreams, "sipping whiskey and cleaning his teeth with the cellophane from his cigarette pack."

If "Pop" refers to Gramps, then Obama seems to be confronting him with the recognition that Gramps is actually his father. Obama calls the poem "Pop," after all, not "Gramps."

"Under my seat, I pull out the
 Mirror I've been saving," writes Obama. Yes, the two look alike and they smell alike. Pop has big ears, and he even has "the same amber
 stain on his shorts that I've got on mine." The poem ends with bittersweet reconciliation when Pop stands and asks for a hug. Writes Obama:

I see my face, framed within

Pop's black-framed glasses

And know he's laughing too.


Gramps did wear black-frame glasses, and as to the "amber stain" reference, more on that later.

The mother in this scenario would have to have been black. Obama tells us in Dreams that Gramps frequented otherwise-all-black bars and hung out with the card-carrying communist Frank Marshall Davis, an African-American with Kansas and Chicago roots. In communist circles, the sharing of sex partners was not uncommon.

If a black woman, perhaps a friend of Davis's, gave birth to a child of Dunham's, Barack Sr. would have obliged the Dunhams by marrying Ann and claiming paternity in return for all the potential benefits of having an American wife and baby.

We also know that Stanley Dunham so desperately wanted a boy that he named his only child "Stanley Ann." Raising the young Obama would fulfill that desire. It would also explain the special relationship between him and Obama and the subsequent coolness of Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, or "Toot," to the whole charade. It might also explain Ann's distance from her presumed son, whom she would desert for long periods to advance her career.

This theory makes sense of the secret marriage in Maui, Stanley's enduring fondness for Barack Sr., the powerful resemblance between Stanley Dunham and Obama, and the Dunhams' apparent willingness to subsidize mother and baby in Seattle.

What remains unclear is what Ann would get out of the deal. True, she never wanted to leave Seattle in the first place, and Obama would have been (in this scenario) her little brother, but the burdens she would have assumed do not seem balanced by the benefits gained. This scenario also introduces one major unsubstantiated variable: the unknown black mother.

Ann Dunham and Frank Marshall Davis

Several of the respondents to last week's article, including a literary analyst I have previously referred to as Mr. West, argued for a relationship between Ann Dunham and Frank Marshall Davis. Although there is no particular physical resemblance between Obama and Davis other than color -- the undeniable resemblance is to Stanley Dunham -- there are some other connections worth pursuing.

An outspoken progressive, 17-year-old Ann arrived in Hawaii in 1960 angry and rebellious. She did not want to be there. An affair with the married, 54-year-old Davis would have suited her politics and sated her need for revenge. In 1946, Davis, then 40, married a 21-year-old white socialite. Young white women obviously did not scare him off -- not by a long shot.

This is all speculative and would be wildly so were it not for the poem "Pop." The whiskey-drinking, the smoking, the dispensing of sage advice, and the black-frame glasses fit Davis as well as they do Stanley Dunham. "I was intrigued by old Frank," Obama writes in Dreams, "with his books and whiskey breath and the hint of hard-earned knowledge behind the hooded eyes." One sequence in "Pop" actually fits Davis better.

Makes me smell his smell, coming

From me; he switches channels, recites an old poem

He wrote before his mother died,


Writes Obama in Dreams, "[Davis] would read us his poetry whenever we stopped by his house, sharing whiskey with Gramps out of an emptied jelly jar." It was Davis who instructed Obama in the ways of blackness. "I'm just telling you to keep your eyes open," Davis told him on one occasion. "Stay awake." Davis is an important figure in Obama's life. Obama alludes to him on nine separate occasions in Dreams. If "Pop" were Davis, then Obama may use the honorarium to suggest no more than an African-American godfather. Then again, "Pop" may have been a literal designation.

As something of a side note, what caught Mr. West's eye were the similarities in poetic style between Davis and the Obama of "Pop." What struck both of us is that "Pop" is much more sophisticated than "Underground," a silly poem about fig-eating apes that also appears under Obama's name in the spring 1981 edition of Occidental College's literary magazine, Feast. Whether "Pop" refers to Gramps or Davis, it would not surprise me if Davis provided substantial help with the poem, a pattern that would repeat itself with Bill Ayers in the writing of Dreams.

One other issue that needs to be addressed, and a sensitive one, is that of sex. As reported in the U.K.'s Telegraph (and elsewhere), in 1968 Davis published under the pseudonym Bob Greene an only slightly fudged autobiographical manuscript titled Sex Rebel: Black. In the book, Davis concedes that "under certain circumstances I am bisexual" and that he was also "a voyeur and an exhibitionist." If Davis is "Pop," then this could explain the "amber stain" on the shorts of both mentor and initiate. How else to explain those stains?

One chapter of Sex Rebel deals with the seduction by Davis and his wife of a 13-year-old girl called "Anne," who was introduced to him by a trusting relative. "I'm not one to go in for Lolitas. Usually I'd rather not bed a babe under 20," he writes, "But there are exceptions."

An amateur photographer, Davis had once started a photography club in Chicago. It has not been verified that he shot the nude photos floating around the internet of a woman who looks stunningly like Ann Dunham, nor has "Anne's" identity been confirmed. Still, there would have been nothing out of character for either Ann or Davis to have collaborated on this project.

Were the married Davis the father, and had Dunham introduced his daughter to Davis, it may explain what Obama has described as "the complicated, unspoken transaction between the two men." In this scenario, both would have had a vested interest in finding someone else to take the paternity rap. By keeping the marriage secret, they would have allowed Barack Sr. to continue living the life of a single man.

Barack Sr. had a lot to offer, starting with his pigmentation. Besides, as a Kenyan, he would have given the boy more than a name. He would give him a distinctive identity as an "African" -- his race listed on the certification of birth -- a more respected ethnicity in the America of the 1960s than "Negro." Indeed, Obama has built his career around his exotic identity. Were he named after Frank Marshall Davis or any other American, he may never have been elected president.

This scenario would help explain why Barack Sr. blithely blew off his new family when he headed for Harvard a year after Obama's birth, rejecting a reported opportunity to take both wife and child to New York. More importantly, it would explain why Ann went to Seattle so promptly after the birth and with so little fuss. This would have been her baby, and she was proud of him. In addition, her departure would have allowed Barack Sr. to live life as he pleased in Hawaii. If Abercrombie saw "little Barry," it was almost assuredly after Ann returned.

This theory might also iron out some chronology wrinkles. An August 4 birth would suggest an early November conception. Obama biographer Christopher Andersen, however, reports that Ann told the Dunhams of her pregnancy in "late October." Presuming a missed period as first alarm, this would put conception in early September -- before Ann would have met Barack Sr. This earlier conception date better explains both why Ann did not enroll for a second semester and how she was able to leave by mid-August for Seattle. If all this is true, however, it presumes active date-manipulation by Team Obama -- a big "if."

Then, finally, there is the Chicago connection. Davis first arrived in Chicago in 1927 and ultimately left for Hawaii in 1948. Upon moving to Chicago nearly sixty years after Davis first arrived, Obama "imagined Frank in a baggy suit and wide lapels, standing in front of the old Regal Theatre, waiting to see Duke or Ella emerge from a gig." In a very real way, Chicago may have been his homeland, not Kenya, and he would have known it.

The Davis-as-father scenario may not be conclusive enough to override the ruling on the field, but it would explain the Obama camp's fear of documentation, and it deserves, at the very least, further review in the booth.

on "A Further Inquiry into Obama's Origins"

Yep, I'm a liberal! And you even place me in great company.

Better than being a lonely jackass.;)

C'mon you guys .... chill.

Oh, I'm not attacking him, its the other way around. I have posted (and will continue to do so) the proof I have. I have asked him 3 easy questions, and he has yet to even answer one of them, but yet he goes on a personal attack, which is expected from a liberal.

I proudly served my Country, and I took an Oath, to Support And Defend the US Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

If this isn't an attack on the US Constitution, I have no idea what is!

OK, got it. I was under the impression from previous posts that his birth in Hawaii was not being questioned or was considered irrelevant; but as I look back now, I see that was someone else's post. Forgive me, I'm having a hard time keeping the stories straight.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Pocho, you've been dealt the death blow. Liberal, around these parts, is the term reserved solely for those shown the most contempt. It's worse than neocon, fake patriot or even instigator. In fact, traitor isn't even in the same ballpark

I specifically recall being on the "wrong side" of an argument on another site, and when the accusations really got ugly, the charge leveled at me (completely unrelated to the conversation we were having) was liberal. Specifically, I was accused of having A) voted for Barack Obama, and B) supporting reparations for African-Americans.

Dude, I'll light a candle for you and inform your next of kin ;^)

I fully believe you two have all the evidence to back your claims, so anyday you want to let the cat out of the bag..... Go for it! ;)

Point of Clarity: Aside from saying I can't keep all the stories straight, I haven't made any claims.

From what I can gather from this thread -

A. Star is convinced Obama never attended Columbia.

B. You insist that Obama was born outside the United States but if our president had been born in the U.S., he'd be a citizen eligible to occupy the White House.

C. Twoller says whether or not he was born in Hawaii is irrelevant, because his father wasn't a U.S. citizen and, therefore, his offspring can't hold the presidency.

At this point, I'm going to drink a glass of milk, take two aspirin and hope my head isn't still spinning in the morning.

May the force be with all three of you.

Courts sometimes thwart justice
 

http://news-political.com/wp-content...of-justice.jpg
Sunday, 14th February 2010
An interesting situation has developed over the last year or so regarding challenging the qualifications and eligibility of people to hold the offices they hold.

In one, Hillary Clinton’s appointment as Secretary of State has been challenged on the basis that when she was a U.S. Senator, immediately prior to being appointed by President Obama as Secretary of State, the Senate increased the salary of that position three times. The U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 6, clause 2, provides: “No senator or representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been [increased] during such time.”

That language prohibits Mrs. Clinton from holding the office of Secretary of State, despite a “legislative fix” to roll back the compensation increase before she actually took office, according to a challenge by Judicial Watch, which disputed the appointment in the name of a State Department employee.

The details of the complaint are less important than the reason for it being dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Court concluded the State Department employee lacked legal standing to bring suit.

Another similar case involves President Barack Obama, whose citizenship, and thus his eligibility to be President of the United States, has been called into question by some citizens. A number of suits have been filed, and most have been dismissed, some of them because, again, those filing the suits lack legal standing to sue a candidate or office holder.

Here is a definition of legal standing:

The legally protectible stake or interest that an individual has in a dispute that entitles him to bring the controversy before the court to obtain judicial relief.

Standing, sometimes referred to as standing to sue, is the name of the federal law doctrine that focuses on whether a prospective plaintiff can show that some personal legal interest has been invaded by the defendant. It is not enough that a person is merely interested as a member of the general public in the resolution of the dispute. The person must have a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.

If a senator or representative is prohibited by constitutional provision from holding an office for which the body he/she served in has voted a pay increase, exactly who has standing to challenge that individual’s eligibility? If the employees of the State Department – who are sworn to uphold the Constitution and are thus prohibited from acting on orders from a Secretary that is ineligible for the office – don’t have standing to challenge their boss’s eligibility, who does have standing?

The people who question Mr. Obama’s citizenship are held in contempt by his supporters, and others who believe that Mr. Obama is a citizen as required by the Constitution. But taking the personalities and party affiliations out of the question, the fundamental issue is an important one.

Suppose for the sake of discussion that someone who isn’t a naturalized citizen manages to get through the campaign and is nominated at his/her party, wins the election and is sworn in as President, and at no time along the way was he/she required to prove citizenship. This seems an absurdly unlikely possibility, but the fact is that a candidate’s citizenship is assumed, rather than ascertained. In such a case, how do the American people remove a President from office who isn’t a citizen if no U.S. citizen has standing in the courts to bring the action?

Put another way, what is the point of having laws and established procedures on the books if no one has the standing necessary to apply them by bringing a court action?

In a country where virtually anyone can file a suit against virtually anyone else for any reason (or no reason), citizens are prohibited from filing suit against an elected leader unless they have “standing,” which seems to be so tightly defined as to eliminate nearly everyone who might believe there’s a reason to sue a leader.

If a citizen had irrefutable proof that an elected or appointed official was for some reason ineligible to hold that office, the citizen would be unable to file suit to remove the ineligible official unless he/she met the very thin definition of standing; the citizen would have to show that his/her personal legal interest had been invaded by the illegal President or Secretary in order to remove him/her from office.

And if no one has standing to sue for dismissal, or if those with standing do not sue, the ineligible official would continue to hold office. That is fundamentally wrong in this country, which prides itself on freedom and the rule of law.

For judges to view standing so narrowly in cases of eligibility to hold office is judicial tyranny. It should not be difficult to hold officials accountable to the requirements of the offices they hold or seek.

Atleast you didn't call anybody any names, but rather then post the evidence you have, you do the usual spin as expected.

PachoPatroit says he has seen enough, he is convinced that obummer is a US Born Citizen. He hasn't posted any of the evidence he says he has, but does the usual spin job, and starts name calling.

Then RIMO rattles off with her one line rants (always in bold), but hasn't posted any evidence to the contrary ( which is fully expected).

Don't let it bother you.

Wasn't the doubts of global warming once linked into folks who were called conspiracy nuts also? We all know how that is finally panning out.

"Obama's Constitutional Eligibility Question" - New Policy - "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
 

Link
Monday, February 15, 2010
"Obama's Constitutional Eligibility Question" - New Policy - "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" - Washington Times National Weekly - Monday 15 Feb 2010 - pg 5

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_nR98wXbvC_...tear+sheet.jpg

Another New AD - "Obama's Constitutional Eligibility Question" - New Policy - it's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" - Washington Times National Weekly - Monday 08 Feb 2015 Issue - pg 5:

Obama refuses to address the legal question about his Constitutional Eligibility to be sitting in the Oval Office. He has never conclusively proven to any controlling legal authority that he is a "natural born Citizen" of the USA to "constitutional standards" as is constitutionally required to be eligible for the office of President and Commander-in-Chief of the military.

http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2010...ayed-in-court/

Many people do not know there is a difference between a "Citizen" and a "natural born Citizen." Being a "Citizen" of any type, whether an Article II natural born Citizen, 14th Amendment born Citizen, 14th Amendment naturalized Citizen, or statutory born Citizen under a Congressional Act,, means you are a member of the society and entitled to all its rights and privileges. But under our Constitution to serve in the singular most powerful office in our government, that is to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military under our Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, of our Constitution you need to be a "natural born Citizen." Being a "natural born Citizen" cannot be conveyed by any laws of man and can only be conveyed by the facts of nature at the time of your birth and circumstances of your birth, i.e., being born in the country to two citizens of the country. (Legal Treatise "The Law of Nations - Principles of Natural Law"" Section 212 by E. Vattel 1758, SCOTUS Decision Venus 1814, SCOTUS Decision Minor v Happersett 1874). This new advertorial is designed to help educate the public pictorially about the fact that Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the USA and thus is ineligible under our Constitution to the office he sits in. Obama is a Usurper who was allowed to be put there by millions in foreign money, a corruptly led Congress, and an enabling main stream media. This is a constitutional crisis and a national security concern that must be addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court or our Republic, Constitution, and Liberties are in great danger.

Obama is hiding the truth from the People with an enabling media and is refusing to answer questions on his Article II constitutional eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief of the military. In fact he said last week people should not even question him about it. With him his constitutional eligibility and exact citizenship status policy is, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ... and hope it goes away. Well it is not going away. This is a constitutionally based legal eligibility question. Obama's election fraud and cover up will be revealed. The truth and the Constitution will win the day in the end and We the People will constitutionally remove the Usurper from his illegally obtained office.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ ... help the cause: http://www.protectourliberty.org/

Creepingfool,

In the hopes that we can have clarity before consensus, let's be clear on what constitutes a "natural born citizen" in the eyes of current Constitutional law. It is irrelevant to me what you and other "birthers" think the law should be.

So what are the Constitutional requirements for holding the office of the President? Article 2, Section 1 of the United States Constitution says the following:

Let's deal with them on a point be point basis:

1. Natural born Citizen.
According to any history book you read, I presume that you read things other than World Nut Daily, Hawaii became a state on on Aug. 21, 1959. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961. Nearly two years after Hawaii became a state. So I don't see why this is an issue. Please illuminate me, in your own words, why this is a problem. As an aside, there was a group that attempted to do what you "birthers" are doing to Sen. Barry Goldwater. He was born in Arizona when it was still a territory, and not a State. It was also done to John McCain and Dick Cheney.

Further "natural born Citizen" is not really defined. In fact, this term was left to the States to define until the 14th Amendment.

2. A Citizen of the United States.
Please note that the Constitution uses the conjunction "or" indicating that the President can be either a "natural born Citizen" or a "Citizen of the United States." So it seems to me that legal citizens can become President. Then again I am just a layman in regards to Constituional law, and would be open to an opinion form our resident attorney-at-law.

3. Must be 35 years old or older.
President Obama was born in 1961. He was elected in 2008. Simple math demonstrates that he is eligible on that front.

4. Fourteen years a resident of the United States.
This is were there is some ambiguity in the Constitution. Are the 14 years cumulative or consecutive. It's not really clear, but either way, President Obama meets this requirement.

On all four of these elements, I see no reason why President Obama is disqualified, but then again maybe I'm just to liberal to see the issues, right?

Now, regarding the U.S. law about birth parents. I don't see how it affects anything, since current U.S. states that any person born in the United States IS a citizen, period. Again, whether you or I think that "birth right citizenship" is good for this country or not is irrelevant. Current U.S. law says this is the way it is, and that is that.

Further, the citing of this law is silly. Why would a sitting U.S. Senator running for the Presidency, gathering millions of dollars do that if he, and his advisers knew that he might be ineligible due to some obscure law? Besides, if this was an issue, and, as your claimed, Bush and Cheney were in on it, it does not explain why talk radio did not jump all over this issue. But that's what makes conspiracy theories so fun. The more people that don't respond in the manner you want you can label as ignorant, stupid, or liberal. This is why I tend to stay away from conspiracy theories, because too many people in the know can and will talk.

Now on to the alleged forgery of President Obama's birth certificate. I see no reason to dismiss this as a forgery. Perhaps you can tell me why I should. Again use your own words, and nothing from World Nut Daily. Further, why would a major Presidential candidate risk his candidacy over a forged birth certificate. Further, the certificate is consistent with others issued in that era in Hawaii. Lastly, those who have touched and examined the certificate, have attested to its authenticity. Why would anyone lose professional credibility over a fraudulent birth certificate?

Then you have the birth announcements found in the major newspapers from Honolulu, which list a birth of a boy to "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama." I guess you are going to tell me that these newspapers in some sort of premonition about this particular baby made it all up?

The Kenyan birth certificate forgery. Yes, this is a forgery, for a number of reasons, which I will list.

1. The document is dated Feb. 17, 1964 and bears a marking identifying it as from "The Republic of Kenya." Just one small problem. This name was not officially adopted until Dec. 12, 1964. In February of 1964 Kenya was known as The Dominion of Kenya. So what do you do with those extra 10 months? Are you going to tell me that somehow, someone in Kenya knew that the country was going to change its official name, and placed it on an official document some ten months before the fact?

2. Barack Obama's father's age is incorrect. He would have been 24 or 25, not the listed age of 26.

3. Barak Obama's birth place is listed as Mombasa, Kenya. Just one problem, Mombasa was not part of Kenya until Dec. 12, 1963. Prior to this date, Mombasa was part of a country called Zanzibar.

4. Mombasa was hundreds of miles away from Obama, Sr's. home town. Nairobi would have been much closer, not to mention in the actual country of Kenya.

5. This forgery was exposed as being a copy of an Australian. The forgery contains many of the same numerical markings as the original.

6. The Taitz document is also a forgery for the following reasons:
Citing Mombasa as the city of birth. The distance (over 1,000 miles) of Mombasa (eastern Kenya on the Indian Ocean) to Obama's home (southwestern Kenya) versus Nairobi's.

It based on these reasons that I dismiss the claims of "birthers" and place them JFK conspiracy nuts, 9/11 "truthers", Federal Reserve nuts, and other conspiracy nuts. Now if you want to convince me, you have to come at me with some hard facts. The burden of proof is on the "birthers". You are making the positive assertion. President Obama has no reason to respond to your nutty claims. The fact that he has, and the "birthers" dismiss it is not surprising. That is conspiracy theory 101: Deny the facts presented by those you oppose.

Now whether you agree with me or not is of no concern to me. I believe that hardcore "birthers" in this movement are detrimental to our credibility. Sadly, we have to deal with you. I would hope that we deal with you be keeping you far from the public as possible.

Edited to add: I call you a "conspiracy nut" not because I wish to dismiss your arguments, but because you have truly earned that moniker based on your posts here and on other boards.

I see you are back to your typical liberal mentality, name calling. And I see RIMO the one line ranter showed up as well. :p

I am going to pick apart everything you just posted, but of course I will do one at a time, and there is also a limit of 15,000 words on this forum per post, so I will have to break it up.

Link

Tuesday, September 8, 2009
The Natural Born Citizen Clause of Our U.S. Constitution Requires that Both of the Child’s Parents Be U.S. Citizens At the Time of Birth

When interpreting the Constitution, we must decide whether we will look to the document as an original and static one whose meaning has already been established at a given time by the People and its Framers or one that is living and which can be changed over any given time by a court of law. See the address of Justice Antonin Scalia to the 2008 Annual National Lawyers Convention on November 22, 2008, at the Mayflower Hotel, in Washington, D.C. http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/...pub_detail.asp. (advocates originalism rather than living constitutionalism). I submit that Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause has a fixed and knowable meaning which was established at the time of its drafting and should therefore be interpreted through the eyes of the original Framers that drafted and ratified the clause so as to determine what they intended the clause to mean (original intent theory). I also submit that we should interpret the “natural born Citizen” clause in a way that reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have declared the ordinary meaning of the text to be (original meaning theory). This is not living constitutionalism but rather originalism or textualism as applied to interpreting the Constitution. It is this latter approach that I will utilize in this article.

E. Vattel stated in 1758, as translated into English in 1797: "The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country." E. Vattel, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, Sec. 212 Citizens and natives. In Footnote 1 at the end of Sec. 212, Vattel stated that “as a general rule” the child inherits his father’s citizenship, or his mother’s but only if she is not married.

The first thing that we have to understand about what Vattel wrote is that he made a distinction between a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen.” A citizen is simply a member of the civil society who is bound to the society by certain duties and subject to its authority. “Citizens” also participate equally in all the advantages the society has to offer. On the other hand, a “natural born Citizen” means much more than just “citizen.” Vattel required that for a child to be a “natural born citizen,” or what he called in French in his 1758 first edition of The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, les naturels, ou indigenes (the “natives or indigines”-The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 (1814)), the child must be born in the country to both parents who are also citizens of the same country.

In the original French, Vattel wrote: "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens,” meaning the "natives or indigines" are those born in the country of citizen parents. Both the Framers and later English translators of Vattel's treatise replaced the words"natural born Citizen" for the words "natives or indigenes." From Madison's notes, we see that there were some delegates who were concerned about foreigners. For example, from Max Farrand's transcripts of Madison's notes (August 9 and August 13, 1787), there is the following concerning the House of Representatives eligibility requirements: "Mr. Gerry wished that in future the eligibility might be confined to Natives." The word "native" occurs multiple times in the notes for these two days. (The phrase "natural born citizen" was not used here by the delegates.). The word "native" was a synonym for the phrase "natural born citizen." The delegates had already used the term “natural born citizen” when proposing the requirements for President, Vice President, and either House of Congress and later used the word “natives” when referring to eligibility requirements for the House of Representative. There is further evidence of this in at least three works: Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England" (see Book the First: The Rights of Persons; Chapter the Tenth: Of People, Whether Aliens, Denizens or Natives.), translations of Quintilian's "Institutio Oratoria", and the 1797 English edition of Vattel's "The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law."

In the beginning of his definition, Vattel required that the children be born of “parents” who are citizens. The use of the word “parents” refers to both mother and father. If he required only one parent such as the father, he would have said “of fathers who are citizens” and not “of parents who are citizens.” He did later refer to “fathers,” but only because wives automatically acquired the citizenship of their husbands the same way children did. This rule was carried into our own naturalization laws, wherein citizenship can be derived from a close relation. Historically, a number of U.S. laws have provided for the automatic naturalization of children or wives (not husbands) of naturalized U.S. citizens. In some periods of our history, these laws provided that married women derived citizenship from their husband and had no control over their status. Under the Act of 10 February 1855, a woman automatically became an American upon marrying a U.S. citizen or following the naturalization of her foreign husband. Kelly v. Owen, 74 U.S. 7 Wall. 496 (1868). The 1922 Married Women's Act (or the Cable Act) finally severed the link between naturalization and marital status for most women. Hence, if Vattel meant to focus only on “fathers,” he would have used “fathers” throughout his definition and never mentioned “parents” when he first defined “natural born Citizen,” for there would not have been any need to use the word “parents” when “fathers” would have sufficed. Hence, Vattel would have focused on the citizenship of the father since that citizenship would determine that of both the mother and child. It is also noteworthy that Vattel had no problem allowing the child to inherit the citizenship of the mother when the mother was not married to the child’s father. Given that Vattel in effect really focused on the citizenship of both the child’s father and mother in defining a “natural born Citizen,” Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” does not violate the equal protection guarantee embedded in the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998); Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53, 121 S.Ct. 2053; 150 L.Ed.2d 115 (2001).

There is other evidence in his treatise that shows that Vattel meant to refer to both the child’s mother and father in his definition of a “natural born citizen.” When defining what a country is in Section 122, he stated the “term signifies the state, or even more particularly the town or place, where our parents had their fixed residence at the moment of our birth…. A man ought to preserve gratitude and affection for the state to which he is indebted for his education, and of which his parents were members when they gave him birth….” In commenting on the citizenship status of children born at sea at Section 216, he stated that a child born abroad a foreign vessel that is docked in a port belonging to their own nation is reputed born in the country, provided “she [the mother] and her husband have not quitted their native country to settle elsewhere.” In commenting upon vagrants in Section 219he stated: “Vagrants are people who have no settlement. Consequently those born of vagrant parents have no country, since a man’s country is the place where, at the time of his birth, his parents had their settlement (Section 122), or it is the state of which his father was then a member…” Given that Vattel in effect really focused on the citizenship of both the child’s father and mother in defining a “natural born Citizen,” Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” does not violate the equal protection guarantee embedded in the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998); Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53, 121 S.Ct. 2053; 150 L.Ed.2d 115 (2001).

The Framers were very familiar with William Blackstone. We can also see in the writings of Blackstone that the allegiance of both parents to the King was needed to avoid dual allegiance in the child. Blackstone wrote:

"When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king's dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty's English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king's embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England's allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband's consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain (emphais in the original)."

William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357--58, 361-62 (1765). We can see that even the English Parliament gave importance to a child having both parents be “in the allegiance of the king,” which under English common law meant the parents would have been “natural born subjects.” By having both parents be “natural born subjects,” the child would not have been born with any other conflicting allegiance other than the one that attached from the foreign soil. Parliament was willing to live with any allegiance attaching to the child from the foreign soil but not with any that may attach by descent from one of the parents, the latter one being by nature a much more stronger one. It was only later in time that the rule was made less restrictive and allowed for just the father to be a “natural born subject.”

There is historical evidence that the Founders borrowed from the Dutch much more heavily than from the British when making the new nation. During the revolutionary period Dutch law provided for citizenship by jus sanguinis. There is considerable evidence that the Framers were also influenced by the citizenship law of Holland. “The American colonists had become familiar with the rights of citizenship possessed in other countries, both from the fact that some of them resided in Holland for a time, before they came to America, and from the further fact that the New York colony was essentially Dutch in its original settlement and government.” John S. Wise, A Treatise on American Citizenship (1906). In Holland, “[c]itizenship could be acquired in several ways. Probably the most common was birth. Some towns accepted everyone as citizen who was baptized in a local church. But more commonly it was required that one’s parents were citizens too. . . .” R. Po-chia Hsia & Henk F. K. van Nierop, Calvinism and Religious Toleration in the Dutch Golden Age 161(2002). “One’s parents” would necessarily included one’s mother and father. This Dutch law is consistent with Vattel’s definition of what is a “natural born citizen.”

Apart from the heavy Dutch influence upon the Founders, when the Framers drafted the Constitution, they relied heavily upon Vattel to guide them. Citizenship was a topic that affected U.S. relations with other nations. Given that citizenship affects "the behavior of nation states with each other" (Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), the Founders would have looked to the law of nations to define it for the purposes of the new nation. The law of nations definition on citizenship also gave uniformity to the subject area, which the Framers wanted to achieve for citizenship laws as they did for naturalization laws. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 36 (Wheat) (1824). They would therefore have referred to and accepted Vattel's law of nations definition to give meaning to what an Article II “natural born Citizen” was.

The meaning of a “natural born Citizen” as expressed by Vattel, including that both parents of the child must be citizens at the time of the child’s birth in order to make the child a “natural born Citizen,” was carried forward in American history following the Founding. The standard provided by Vattel has not changed in our jurisprudence and is still valid today as it was during the Founding. Also, the Fourteenth Amendment has not changed the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” Legislative activity by the early Congresses provides insight into the question of whether Vattel required one or two parents to be citizens. There are Congressional acts that were passed after the Constitution was adopted that give us insight into what the Framers of the Constitution meant by “natural born Citizen.” The 1790 Congress, many of whose members had been members of the Constitutional Convention, passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat.103,104) which provided that “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.” This phrasing followed the literal terms of British statutes, beginning in 1350, under which persons born abroad, whose parents were both British subjects, would enjoy the same rights of inheritance as those born in England; beginning with laws in 1709 and 1731, these statutes expressly provided that such persons were natural-born subjects of the crown.” The Naturalization Act of 1790 declared these children to be "natural born Citizens," but only retrospectively. See Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927). It is interesting to note that George Washington was president of the Constitutional Convention and President of the United States when this bill became law and if he had disagreed with the two U.S. citizen-parent requirement, he could have vetoed this bill. One would then at first think that this legislation strongly suggests that the Framers of the Constitution understood this phrase to refer to citizenship acquired from both of the child’s parents at birth, regardless of whether or not that birth had taken place in the United States. This statute shows what role the parents played in the minds of the early founders.

While only retrospectively, the First Congress was willing to declare a child born out of the United States to two United States parents a “natural born Citizen.” This was not consistent with what Vattel wrote in The Law of Nations of Principles of Natural Law, at Sec. 215. Children of citizens, born in a foreign country, where he declared these children just “citizens” and not “natural born citizens”: "It is asked, whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (Sec. 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot of itself furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say 'of itself,' for civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. . . .” (emphasis supplied). Clearly, Vattel addressed the question of whether these children are “citizens,” not “natural born citizen.” He does not address the question of whether they are “natural born citizens” because according to his own definition, a child had to be born “in the country” in order to be a “natural born citizen.” Being born abroad and therefore not “in the country,” such a child could not be a “natural born citizen.”

In this connection and as an aside which applies to the question of whether Senator McCain is an Article II “natural born Citizen,” it should be noted that according to Vattel, being physically born out of the country did not necessarily mean that one was not born “in the country.” Vattel explained that if a child was born “in the armies of the state,” that child was “reputed born in the country; for a citizen, who is absent with his family on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.” Vattel, Sec. 217. Since this child would have been born in the foreign “armies of the state,” he would normally not be granted citizenship in the country in which he was physically born. Additionally, the country on whose soil the child might be born might adhere to a jus sanguinis system of conferring citizenship (meaning that born on its soil alone would not confer citizenship and therefore allegiance and loyalty on the child). Being born under those conditions, this child would therefore be born with sole allegiance to the country of his parents and would qualify as a “natural born citizen” of that country.

While the 1790 act naturalized all "persons" and so included women, it also declared that "the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...." This prevented the automatic grant of citizenship to children born abroad whose mother, but not father, had resided in the United States. Citizenship was inherited exclusively through the father. As we have seen above, Congress did not remove the inequity until 1934. This focus on the father as the source of citizenship (but not meaning that the status of the mother was not considered) is consistent with what Vattel wrote in Section 212 of The Law of Nations. This is further evidence that the Framers relied upon Vattel in defining citizenship for the new Republic.

In 1795 the Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 which removed the words “natural born” from the term “natural born citizen” and thereby just left “citizens” as the status to be given to children born out of the United States. The fact that the 1790 Act as written was short lived and was only retrospective shows that Congress just wanted to make certain persons born abroad during the early years of the Republic “natural born Citizen” so that they could be eligible to be President. This sort of special allowance was comparable to the grandfather clause of Article II which allowed a “citizen” to be President provided that he was such at the time of the adoption of the Constitution which the Framers in 1790 knew occurred in 1789. It seems that the Third Congress passed this amendment to the 1790 Act to clarify for those living at that time who was and who was not a “natural born Citizen” per the Framers intent at that time, since the 1790 Act had introduced confusion into that subject regarding the use of those special words as found in Article II. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 714 (1898) (Fuller, C.J., dissenting) (statute “passed out of abundant caution to obviate misunderstandings” about the citizenship status of foreign-born children of Americans). It is again important to note that George Washington was also President in 1795, making him aware of this change by the Third Congress. If he disagreed with the clarification and change in the wording in the new 1795 Act, he would have vetoed it. The 1790 and 1795 Acts are contemporaneous evidence of who the Framers meant to include as “natural born Citizens.” Pryor, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L.J. 881 (1988).

Subsequent Supreme Court cases have stated that in interpreting the Constitution, we must look to the common law that the Framers accepted at the time of the Founding. There is strong historical evidence that the Framers in constituting the new Constitutional Republic rejected the English common law and accepted the new federal common law which emanated from the law of nations. On this subject, see my article included at this blog entitled, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law as U.S. Federal Common Law Not English Common Law Define What an Article II Natural Born Citizen Is. Indeed, as we will see below, our Supreme Court adopted that definition when defining a “natural born Citizen” and thereby incorporated it into U.S. federal common law.

The definition and two-parent requirement has been reiterated by the Supreme Court and other courts in the cases of The Venus, 12U.S. 253(1814), Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242 (1830), Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) , Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F. Cas. 582 (C.C.W.D. Ark 1879), United States v. Ward, 42 F. 320 (1890); Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), and Ludlam, Excutrix, & c., v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863). It has also been confirmed by renowned legislators, including Senator Trumbull, the author of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and Representative John A. Bingham, the architect of the 14th Amendment to our Constitution.

In the case of The Venus 12 U.S. 253, 289 (1814), Justice John Marshall said: "Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says 'The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.'”