new poll: will obama birth certificate or eligibility be part of the campaign ?

[washamericom]

Why don't YOU watch the video, are you AFRAID of the FACTS? The only thing wrong with the video is that the Media and most Americans are ignoring the truth, which I provide in my video and there is no debunking it because it is all sourced by the Library of Congress and the Authors of the 14th amendment themselves, where they explain EXACTLY what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means...and it ain't JUST BEING BORN HERE!

C'mon, someone debate me on the facts in my video!

the supreme court will debate this. can a puerto rico born citizen of foreign descent (parent or parents) be president? are puerto ricans american citizens. guam ?? keep in mind, they cannot vote for president.

they have no vote in congress.

 

[usda select]

Why don't YOU watch the video, are you AFRAID of the FACTS? The only thing wrong with the video is that the Media and most Americans are ignoring the truth, which I provide in my video and there is no debunking it because it is all sourced by the Library of Congress and the Authors of the 14th amendment themselves, where they explain EXACTLY what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means...and it ain't JUST BEING BORN HERE!

C'mon, someone debate me on the facts in my video!

Why is it you have to rely on a video?

Just type out your proof the old fashioned way...and let us consider it. Are you afraid of the keyboard?

 

[washamericom]

Why is it you have to rely on a video?

Just type out your proof the old fashioned way...and let us consider it. Are you afraid of the keyboard?

maybe there is no "racist" key on his keyboard. are you afraid of videos lucy ? old fashioned way.... lol

 

[liblady]

If you have the facts that PROVE Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen, then you are not a conspiracy theorist. The facts don't lie.

THE FACTS:
The American People WAKE UP after the Library of Congress proves Obama NOT to be a US Citizen:
The American People WAKE UP after the Library of Congress proves Obama NOT to be a US Citizen. - YouTube

great, another birther. i'll bet you don't last long. at least you found the right sub-forum.

 

[soccerboy22]

If you have the facts that PROVE Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen, then you are not a conspiracy theorist. The facts don't lie.

THE FACTS:
The American People WAKE UP after the Library of Congress proves Obama NOT to be a US Citizen:
The American People WAKE UP after the Library of Congress proves Obama NOT to be a US Citizen. - YouTube

Yeah don't let the FACT that the State of Hawaii has said they have the birth certificate get in your way.

 

[usda select]

great, another birther. i'll bet you don't last long. at least you found the right sub-forum.

Its almost as if he's been here before...I'm sure creation of sock puppes is something birthers would nevr consider

 

[washamericom]

State of Hawaii Says Obama “Birth Certificate” Not Valid

May 15, 2009 nancy goldfarb


Factcheck.org, the “unbiased” truth seeker that has published Obama’s Certification of Live Birth that they say proves Obama was born in America, in “truth” is operated by the totally biased Annenberg Foundation that gave Obama and Bill Ayres $110 million to spend on improving education. But Obama and Ayres actually spent the $110 million teaching Chicago kids to vote for his sponsor Mayor Daley. The Annenberg Foundation did a follow up study that proved Obama and Ayres did not improve educational test scores by any amount.

Want proof of Annenberg’s bias and dishonesty? Annenberg’s factcheck.org says that Ayres and Obama did not do know each other then!! Even though the Annenberg Foundation knows that Bill Ayres founded the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (or “CAC”) and hired Obama to be its President for five years, all documented by the Corporate Minutes of the CAC that U. of Illinios Prof. William Ayres donated to the archives section of the University of Illinois Library at its Chicago campus. Ie., this is not web chatter, it is documented in the University of Illinois Library Archives!! Commenters are calling me a liar. Go to Chicago and read it yourself! Annenberg certainly knows the name of the President of a group to which it gave $110 million, and that name is Barack Obama! So Annenberg has proved, with its own contradictory published statements, that Annenberg and its website factcheck.org tell lies to benefit Obama, and that its own website factcheck.org publishes lies.

Back to the Obama/Factcheck.org “Certificate of Live Birth.”

Hawaii’s official birth certificate is the “Certificate of Live Birth” which is different from the “Certification of Live Birth”. Changing the “e” to “ion” is all the difference in the world. Obama and factcheck.org only publish the “ion” version, which is merely a computer printout, and not a birth certificate. How else are they different? Read and weep.

Annenberg’s factcheck.org continues to publish, even today, Obama “Certification of Live Birth,” and Annenberg claims falsely that this proves Obama was born in the USA.

Annenberg’s corrupt factcheck,org published thousands of words about this but never once says that their document id the “ion” version, not the genuine “e” version. The most tragically comic statements on the corrupt factcheck.org is they quote people who “have seen” the “e” version.

Golly, Molly, if people “have seen” it, why won’t Obama produce it?

Only one answer: it doesn’t exist. You would think by now, after he has been President so long, the FBI could have cooked up a good forgery for him? Don’t worry, eventually some liberal progressive totalitarian creep will forge one, but the fact that they went so long without producing it proves that no valid birth certificatE ever existed or they would have produced it.

Here is what the State of Hawaii’s official government websites publish about the matter:

QUOTE: “The Certification of Live Birth is a legal document, but it is TOTALLY INADEQUATE when it comes to proving an individual was born in Hawaii.

The State of Hawaii DOES NOT EVEN ACCEPT the Certification of Live Birth as valid proof that an individual was born in Hawaii.

The Hawaii Department of Homelands, which administers programs to encourage property ownership for native Hawaiians states the following on its website.

“In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found ONLY on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth(a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.“ [Emphasis Mine].

The bottom line is that the Certification of Live Birth can be erroneous. It has been reported that it was not uncommon for foreigners residing in Hawaii to bring their infant children to the Clerk of the Court, swear they were born in Hawaii and have actual Certificates of Live Birth issued to their children.

It has even been reported that foreigners residing in Hawaii, in some cases, produced birth certificates from foreign countries and the State of Hawaii still issued Hawaiian Certificates of Live Birth to the infants in question.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

State of Hawaii Says Obama “Birth Certificate” Not Valid

May 15, 2009 nancy goldfarb


Factcheck.org, the “unbiased” truth seeker that has published Obama’s Certification of Live Birth that they say proves Obama was born in America, in “truth” is operated by the totally biased Annenberg Foundation that gave Obama and Bill Ayres $110 million to spend on improving education. But Obama and Ayres actually spent the $110 million teaching Chicago kids to vote for his sponsor Mayor Daley. The Annenberg Foundation did a follow up study that proved Obama and Ayres did not improve educational test scores by any amount.

Want proof of Annenberg’s bias and dishonesty? Annenberg’s factcheck.org says that Ayres and Obama did not do know each other then!! Even though the Annenberg Foundation knows that Bill Ayres founded the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (or “CAC”) and hired Obama to be its President for five years, all documented by the Corporate Minutes of the CAC that U. of Illinios Prof. William Ayres donated to the archives section of the University of Illinois Library at its Chicago campus. Ie., this is not web chatter, it is documented in the University of Illinois Library Archives!! Commenters are calling me a liar. Go to Chicago and read it yourself! Annenberg certainly knows the name of the President of a group to which it gave $110 million, and that name is Barack Obama! So Annenberg has proved, with its own contradictory published statements, that Annenberg and its website factcheck.org tell lies to benefit Obama, and that its own website factcheck.org publishes lies.

Back to the Obama/Factcheck.org “Certificate of Live Birth.”

Hawaii’s official birth certificate is the “Certificate of Live Birth” which is different from the “Certification of Live Birth”. Changing the “e” to “ion” is all the difference in the world. Obama and factcheck.org only publish the “ion” version, which is merely a computer printout, and not a birth certificate. How else are they different? Read and weep.

Annenberg’s factcheck.org continues to publish, even today, Obama “Certification of Live Birth,” and Annenberg claims falsely that this proves Obama was born in the USA.

Annenberg’s corrupt factcheck,org published thousands of words about this but never once says that their document id the “ion” version, not the genuine “e” version. The most tragically comic statements on the corrupt factcheck.org is they quote people who “have seen” the “e” version.

Golly, Molly, if people “have seen” it, why won’t Obama produce it?

Only one answer: it doesn’t exist. You would think by now, after he has been President so long, the FBI could have cooked up a good forgery for him? Don’t worry, eventually some liberal progressive totalitarian creep will forge one, but the fact that they went so long without producing it proves that no valid birth certificatE ever existed or they would have produced it.

Here is what the State of Hawaii’s official government websites publish about the matter:

QUOTE: “The Certification of Live Birth is a legal document, but it is TOTALLY INADEQUATE when it comes to proving an individual was born in Hawaii.

The State of Hawaii DOES NOT EVEN ACCEPT the Certification of Live Birth as valid proof that an individual was born in Hawaii.

The Hawaii Department of Homelands, which administers programs to encourage property ownership for native Hawaiians states the following on its website.

“In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found ONLY on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth(a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.“ [Emphasis Mine].

The bottom line is that the Certification of Live Birth can be erroneous. It has been reported that it was not uncommon for foreigners residing in Hawaii to bring their infant children to the Clerk of the Court, swear they were born in Hawaii and have actual Certificates of Live Birth issued to their children.

It has even been reported that foreigners residing in Hawaii, in some cases, produced birth certificates from foreign countries and the State of Hawaii still issued Hawaiian Certificates of Live Birth to the infants in question.

This is old news but unfortunately for me, this is all I'm getting from you freaks ... soooo ...

Now compare that bolded paragraph to what the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands actually states...

Primary Documents

Birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth and Certifications of Live Birth) and Certificates of Hawaiian Birth are the primary documents used to determine native Hawaiian qualification.

The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.

If the DOH does not have a birth certificate on file for any of your parents or grandparents, you must obtain a "no-record certification." A "no-record certification” tells Department of Hawaiian Home Lands staff that the DOH searched its files and cannot find the records requested. At a minimum, the DHHL asks that applicants produce certified copies of birth certificates, certificates of Hawaiian birth, or no-record certifications for the following people:

Applying for Hawaiian Home Lands — Department of Hawaiian Home Lands​

... so claiming the "State of Hawaii Says Obama “Birth Certificate” Not Valid" is a flat-out lie, when in fact, the stateof Hawaii no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. Unless you're the president of the United States making a special request.

 

[washamericom]

when in fact, the state of Hawaii no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth.

i thought the first one was a colb

i also thought that any citizen, as it turned out, cold file foia and get their long form. i think i have a video of anderson cooper's guy saying it takes about a month and the state doesn't like you to do it. no "special permission" or waiver was ever needed, even though the whitehouse told us for three years that it was, actually i think they implied it wasn't legally available under any circumstances.

then they said they could because of special permission. then they did finally get it.

i'm hearing that whole story again about the original.

why all the smoke and mirrors ??

 

[usda select]

This is old news but unfortunately for me, this is all I'm getting from you freaks ... soooo ...

Now compare that bolded paragraph to what the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands actually states...

Primary Documents

Birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth and Certifications of Live Birth) and Certificates of Hawaiian Birth are the primary documents used to determine native Hawaiian qualification.

The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.

If the DOH does not have a birth certificate on file for any of your parents or grandparents, you must obtain a "no-record certification." A "no-record certification” tells Department of Hawaiian Home Lands staff that the DOH searched its files and cannot find the records requested. At a minimum, the DHHL asks that applicants produce certified copies of birth certificates, certificates of Hawaiian birth, or no-record certifications for the following people:

Applying for Hawaiian Home Lands — Department of Hawaiian Home Lands​

... so claiming the "State of Hawaii Says Obama “Birth Certificate” Not Valid" is a flat-out lie, when in fact, the stateof Hawaii no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. Unless you're the president of the United States making a special request.

\\

I imagine if there is a definition of desperate, citing a blog as your "proof" is it. Birthers=garbage.

 

[washamericom]

\\

I imagine if there is a definition of desperate, citing a blog as your "proof" is it. Birthers=garbage.

that is such a racist/garbagist comment... typical fun loving nancy. i'd have to say your the 4th best poster in forum history, with the possible exception of lincoln johnson and roosevelt.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

If you have the facts that PROVE Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen, then you are not a conspiracy theorist. The facts don't lie.

THE FACTS:
The American People WAKE UP after the Library of Congress proves Obama NOT to be a US Citizen:
The American People WAKE UP after the Library of Congress proves Obama NOT to be a US Citizen. - YouTube

To start with, it's hard to take a video with CG characters like this one seriously...





... but I endured, even though the CG voice was almost as unbearable; leading me to wonder why the creator of this video is too embarrassed to have their actual voice associated with it ...

... but I endured ...

So getting past that bit of ridiculousness, which few mere mortals would even waste their time with, let's look at what the video actually states ...

in chronological order of the video ...

One:

"The left/progressives have totally perverted the 14th Amerndment with their Birthright Citizenship lie."

It's a shame that this video so quickly delves into cheap partisan shots. Especially cheap partisan shots which are as nonsensical as this one. How on Earth is it the "left/progressives" who perverted the 14th Amendment when it was the right who first elected Chester Arthur as VP, whose father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth? The first ones to do this were rightwing and this video blames the left. :roll:

:naughty

Two:

"We do not need the courts to figure out what "Natural Born Citizen" means, nor do we need an investigation because the truth is already available"

Call it the "truth" and "facts" ... declare victory ... insist that the actual authoritive voice on determining Constitutionality is not needed ... take your ball and go home. :roll:

That is absurd on its face. Opinions from individual Congressmen do not define what is and what is not Constitutional, decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court do. Now while the Congress can certainly insert such language into bills and if such language passes the legislative process and becomes law, it is Constitutional deemed otherwise by the U.S. Supreme Court; no such language as voiced by the opinion of the Honorable John Bingham was actually included in any bills passed.

Three:

There was S.61 of 1866, which an amendment added read, "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That [all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States without distinction of color; and,]"

-- which you'll note, declares such individuals as "citizens," not "natural born citizen"

Four:

The incredible speech by Senator Edgar Cowan goes on to great length to question who is and who is not a U.S. citizen; such as children of immigrants from other nations and children of gypsies; and he expresses his desire for a definition of "U.S. citizen" ... again, not "natural born citizen." He proceeds to discuss the issue of anchor babies, but again, not for the purposes of defining "natural born citizen."

Five:

"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States." ~ Senator Jacob Howard

The bold part in black was highlighted in the video, but take note of the part I highlighted in red. Notice that it includes "every other class of persons" except for foreign dignitaries who bare children while here in the U.S.

Six:
Minor v Happersett

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

Four points are made with this decision...

1) The Constitution does not define the meaning of "natural born citizen."

2) U.S. law does not define the meaning of "natural born citizen."

3) Some authorities define "natural born citizen" as children born in the U.S. without regard to the citizenship of their parents.

4) Minor v Happersett did not need to define the term "natural born citizen" as it wasn't necessary to do so in order to decide the case. So the term remains undefined and the question, despite this video's declaration that the U.S. Supreme Court need not weigh in on it, remains unanswered.

Seven:

Republica v De Longchamps

While this decision references Vattel's "Laws of Nations," it references it over a case of assault and not the definition of "natural born citizen." And just because it makes other references to "Laws of Nations" doesn't translate into all of "Laws of Nations" is defined in U.S. law.

Eight:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

"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. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages."

This is the closest the video comes to making a valid point. However, while it states the obvious that a "native" or natural born is one born of parents of their country, it doesn't go far enough to declare that those born with a parent not a citizen are not also considered natural born citizen. That is exactly the point of the piece above from Minor v Happersett ...

... it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

Nine:

Despite the opinions of those in the video of who is or is not a citizen at birth, the 14th Amendment defines who is...

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

... and while they're entitled to their opinion, and because of the prestigious position they held granted them the public forum in which to voice those opinions, their opinions never made it into the law. Between Arthur and Obama, the U.S. Supreme Court has now had two opportunities to correct this if it were wrong and on both occasions, let the definition stand as a natural born citizen does not depend on the citizenship of the parents.

Ten:

The video undermines its own credibility by ending with this (this time, sans Palin wink) ...





I'll never understand why the right thinks wrapping themselves up in the American flag makes them more patriotic?

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

when in fact, the state of Hawaii no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth.

i thought the first one was a colb

If was ... Certification of Live Birth. If you read what I posted, that's all the state of Hawaii issues anymore when natural born Hawaiians request a copy of their birth records. Who knows what Obama had to do to get them to send him a copy of his Certificate of Live Birth but I suppose being POTUS helps pulling a few strings.

i also thought that any citizen, as it turned out, cold file foia and get their long form. i think i have a video of anderson cooper's guy saying it takes about a month and the state doesn't like you to do it. no "special permission" or waiver was ever needed, even though the whitehouse told us for three years that it was, actually i think they implied it wasn't legally available under any circumstances.

then they said they could because of special permission. then they did finally get it.

i'm hearing that whole story again about the original.

why all the smoke and mirrors ??

There were no smoke and mirrors. He was asked for proof he was born in the U.S. while he was running for president and he posted it online for everyone to see. That was really all he needed to do. He certainly was under no obligation to post a second copy of his BC because the nuttiest crowd in America refused to accept it. I thought it was a mistake to post the second one since I knew there would still be the nuttiest of the nuttiest who still refuse to accept his birth certificate.

And as I often do, I end my post with highlighting the fact that you have yet to offer your first piece of tangible evidence that his BC's are fake.

 

[usda select]

To start with, it's hard to take a video with CG characters like this one seriously...


View attachment 67120260


... but I endured, even though the CG voice was almost as unbearable; leading me to wonder why the creator of this video is too embarrassed to have their actual voice associated with it ...

... but I endured ...

So getting past that bit of ridiculousness, which few mere mortals would even waste their time with, let's look at what the video actually states ...

in chronological order of the video ...

One:

"The left/progressives have totally perverted the 14th Amerndment with their Birthright Citizenship lie."

It's a shame that this video so quickly delves into cheap partisan shots. Especially cheap partisan shots which are as nonsensical as this one. How on Earth is it the "left/progressives" who perverted the 14th Amendment when it was the right who first elected Chester Arthur as VP, whose father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth? The first ones to do this were rightwing and this video blames the left. :roll:

:naughty

Two:

"We do not need the courts to figure out what "Natural Born Citizen" means, nor do we need an investigation because the truth is already available"

Call it the "truth" and "facts" ... declare victory ... insist that the actual authoritive voice on determining Constitutionality is not needed ... take your ball and go home. :roll:

That is absurd on its face. Opinions from individual Congressmen do not define what is and what is not Constitutional, decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court do. Now while the Congress can certainly insert such language into bills and if such language passes the legislative process and becomes law, it is Constitutional deemed otherwise by the U.S. Supreme Court; no such language as voiced by the opinion of the Honorable John Bingham was actually included in any bills passed.

Three:

There was S.61 of 1866, which an amendment added read, "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That [all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States without distinction of color; and,]"

-- which you'll note, declares such individuals as "citizens," not "natural born citizen"

Four:

The incredible speech by Senator Edgar Cowan goes on to great length to question who is and who is not a U.S. citizen; such as children of immigrants from other nations and children of gypsies; and he expresses his desire for a definition of "U.S. citizen" ... again, not "natural born citizen." He proceeds to discuss the issue of anchor babies, but again, not for the purposes of defining "natural born citizen."

Five:

"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States." ~ Senator Jacob Howard

The bold part in black was highlighted in the video, but take note of the part I highlighted in red. Notice that it includes "every other class of persons" except for foreign dignitaries who bare children while here in the U.S.

Six:
Minor v Happersett

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

Four points are made with this decision...

1) The Constitution does not define the meaning of "natural born citizen."

2) U.S. law does not define the meaning of "natural born citizen."

3) Some authorities define "natural born citizen" as children born in the U.S. without regard to the citizenship of their parents.

4) Minor v Happersett did not need to define the term "natural born citizen" as it wasn't necessary to do so in order to decide the case. So the term remains undefined and the question, despite this video's declaration that the U.S. Supreme Court need not weigh in on it, remains unanswered.

Seven:

Republica v De Longchamps

While this decision references Vattel's "Laws of Nations," it references it over a case of assault and not the definition of "natural born citizen." And just because it makes other references to "Laws of Nations" doesn't translate into all of "Laws of Nations" is defined in U.S. law.

Eight:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

"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. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages."

This is the closest the video comes to making a valid point. However, while it states the obvious that a "native" or natural born is one born of parents of their country, it doesn't go far enough to declare that those born with a parent not a citizen are not also considered natural born citizen. That is exactly the point of the piece above from Minor v Happersett ...

... it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

Nine:

Despite the opinions of those in the video of who is or is not a citizen at birth, the 14th Amendment defines who is...

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

... and while they're entitled to their opinion, and because of the prestigious position they held granted them the public forum in which to voice those opinions, their opinions never made it into the law. Between Arthur and Obama, the U.S. Supreme Court has now had two opportunities to correct this if it were wrong and on both occasions, let the definition stand as a natural born citizen does not depend on the citizenship of the parents.

Ten:

The video undermines its own credibility by ending with this (this time, sans Palin wink) ...


View attachment 67120259


I'll never understand why the right thinks wrapping themselves up in the American flag makes them more patriotic?

Easy to see that it's not worth anyone's time. Thanks for taking the hit.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Easy to see that it's not worth anyone's time. Thanks for taking the hit.

Yeah, but pickin's is slim with these Birthers. As you've seen, they have nothing. At least KenyanBornObama threw something on the table to play with.

 

[washamericom]

Who knows what Obama had to do to get them to send him a copy of his Certificate of Live Birth but I suppose being POTUS helps pulling a few strings.

this is what i'm really most interested in. reminds me of nixon.

the fact is, anyone can get their own long form, so why the three year song and dance? this is what makes people think the story is contrived.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Who knows what Obama had to do to get them to send him a copy of his Certificate of Live Birth but I suppose being POTUS helps pulling a few strings.

this is what i'm really most interested in. reminds me of nixon.

the fact is, anyone can get their own long form, so why the three year song and dance? this is what makes people think the story is contrived.

What "song and dance?" He released his COLB back in 2008.

 

[usda select]

Yeah, but pickin's is slim with these Birthers. As you've seen, they have nothing. At least KenyanBornObama threw something on the table to play with.

And of course you'll note that the conversations have moved from the insistance that he was born elsewhere to include more mainstream supposed corruption charges which are also baseless. In 9/11 truther speak we used to call it "mainstreaming". The problem with mainstreaming is that at some point you have to put your cards on the table. If that video was a card...God help them. They have never looked more racist. When the person doing the v/o doesnt want to have an association to the project and even they are ashamed, its a sighn that they need to hang it up.

Merry Chrismas.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

If you have the facts that PROVE Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen, then you are not a conspiracy theorist. The facts don't lie.

THE FACTS:
The American People WAKE UP after the Library of Congress proves Obama NOT to be a US Citizen:
The American People WAKE UP after the Library of Congress proves Obama NOT to be a US Citizen. - YouTube

To start with, it's hard to take a video with CG characters like this one seriously...


View attachment 67120260


... but I endured, even though the CG voice was almost as unbearable; leading me to wonder why the creator of this video is too embarrassed to have their actual voice associated with it ...

... but I endured ...

So getting past that bit of ridiculousness, which few mere mortals would even waste their time with, let's look at what the video actually states ...

in chronological order of the video ...

One:

"The left/progressives have totally perverted the 14th Amerndment with their Birthright Citizenship lie."

It's a shame that this video so quickly delves into cheap partisan shots. Especially cheap partisan shots which are as nonsensical as this one. How on Earth is it the "left/progressives" who perverted the 14th Amendment when it was the right who first elected Chester Arthur as VP, whose father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth? The first ones to do this were rightwing and this video blames the left. :roll:

:naughty

Two:

"We do not need the courts to figure out what "Natural Born Citizen" means, nor do we need an investigation because the truth is already available"

Call it the "truth" and "facts" ... declare victory ... insist that the actual authoritive voice on determining Constitutionality is not needed ... take your ball and go home. :roll:

That is absurd on its face. Opinions from individual Congressmen do not define what is and what is not Constitutional, decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court do. Now while the Congress can certainly insert such language into bills and if such language passes the legislative process and becomes law, it is Constitutional deemed otherwise by the U.S. Supreme Court; no such language as voiced by the opinion of the Honorable John Bingham was actually included in any bills passed.

Three:

There was S.61 of 1866, which an amendment added read, "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That [all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States without distinction of color; and,]"

-- which you'll note, declares such individuals as "citizens," not "natural born citizen"

Four:

The incredible speech by Senator Edgar Cowan goes on to great length to question who is and who is not a U.S. citizen; such as children of immigrants from other nations and children of gypsies; and he expresses his desire for a definition of "U.S. citizen" ... again, not "natural born citizen." He proceeds to discuss the issue of anchor babies, but again, not for the purposes of defining "natural born citizen."

Five:

"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States." ~ Senator Jacob Howard

The bold part in black was highlighted in the video, but take note of the part I highlighted in red. Notice that it includes "every other class of persons" except for foreign dignitaries who bare children while here in the U.S.

Six:
Minor v Happersett

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

Four points are made with this decision...

1) The Constitution does not define the meaning of "natural born citizen."

2) U.S. law does not define the meaning of "natural born citizen."

3) Some authorities define "natural born citizen" as children born in the U.S. without regard to the citizenship of their parents.

4) Minor v Happersett did not need to define the term "natural born citizen" as it wasn't necessary to do so in order to decide the case. So the term remains undefined and the question, despite this video's declaration that the U.S. Supreme Court need not weigh in on it, remains unanswered.

Seven:

Republica v De Longchamps

While this decision references Vattel's "Laws of Nations," it references it over a case of assault and not the definition of "natural born citizen." And just because it makes other references to "Laws of Nations" doesn't translate into all of "Laws of Nations" is defined in U.S. law.

Eight:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

"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. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages."

This is the closest the video comes to making a valid point. However, while it states the obvious that a "native" or natural born is one born of parents of their country, it doesn't go far enough to declare that those born with a parent not a citizen are not also considered natural born citizen. That is exactly the point of the piece above from Minor v Happersett ...

... it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

Nine:

Despite the opinions of those in the video of who is or is not a citizen at birth, the 14th Amendment defines who is...

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

... and while they're entitled to their opinion, and because of the prestigious position they held granted them the public forum in which to voice those opinions, their opinions never made it into the law. Between Arthur and Obama, the U.S. Supreme Court has now had two opportunities to correct this if it were wrong and on both occasions, let the definition stand as a natural born citizen does not depend on the citizenship of the parents.

Ten:

The video undermines its own credibility by ending with this (this time, sans Palin wink) ...


View attachment 67120259


I'll never understand why the right thinks wrapping themselves up in the American flag makes them more patriotic?

KenyanBornObama: <silence>

 

[johnny_rebson]

There is now an interesting twist to this.

Since Romney has claimed his family came from Mexico (they left the US and went to Mexico generations ago so they could continue to practice polygamy) there are now websites stating that Romney should show documentation (birth certificates) showing that he is eligible to be president.

 

[MadLib]

There is now an interesting twist to this.

Since Romney has claimed his family came from Mexico (they left the US and went to Mexico generations ago so they could continue to practice polygamy) there are now websites stating that Romney should show documentation (birth certificates) showing that he is eligible to be president.

No mainstream websites.

 

[Wiggen]

The answer to the question raised in the poll is 'God, I hope so'. I hope it is the focal point of the Republican campaign. It's such a winning issue for them, I pray that they devote massive resources to the question of where the President was born.

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

The answer to the question raised in the poll is 'God, I hope so'. I hope it is the focal point of the Republican campaign. It's such a winning issue for them, I pray that they devote massive resources to the question of where the President was born.

I agree. I pray that they devote massive resources to the question of where the President was born so that the whole world can laugh at how foolish the Republicans are and see Obama win.