Jan 25
Hawaii Department of Health Obama FAQ
Posted on Monday, January 25, 2010 in Birth Certificate
This web page has been up since last summer, but somehow I failed to publish a link to it. I suppose in response to the flood of inquiries about Barack Obama’s birth certificate, the Hawaii Department of Health has decided to put up a web page just to address questions about the Department of Health regulations.
Dr.C, what do you think will the birthers say about the HDH Obama FAQ? LOL!
1. “Ahah! you would not have provided this link if you were not hiding something!”
2. “Ahah! you must have cleaned up Obama’s record that’s why you now provide the link!”
3. “You can provide all the links that you want, but according to Lucas Smith, Obama was born in Kenya”
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
2
It doesn’t matter. The Constitution requires that both parents be citizens, to be president.
I can’t find anything myself, but Orly Taitz, Leo Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo all say that’s the case. And they are the greatest constitutional lawyers in US history.
Orly Taitz for Attorney General!
(Did I pour on the sarcasm thickly enough?)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
14 
2
HA HA HA HA HA…You almost got me there! ha ha ha ha. Thanks goodness I have to read your post twice! ha ha ha ha
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
1
you got it right 2 parents
Hot debate. What do you think?
1 
13
“you got it right 2 parents”
Re-read my post verrrry carefully. And have more coffee.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
1
Misha, just add a dash of Tabasco to the sarcasm and it’s great on scrambled eggs!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
This is even funnier…From our buddy Mario’s website…
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
“I believe that the RNC and DNC at the highest levels in 2008 were both complicit in shutting down all discussion of Obama’s eligibility issue in the Congress, Main Stream Media, Print Press, and in the leading conservative Talk Show radio stations. I believe that the RNC and the DNC were complicit in subverting Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of our Constitution as to the eligibility requirements for the Office of the President, i.e., the person eligible for that office must be a “natural born Citizen”, i.e., one born in the country to parents who are both citizens of the country such that the child born has singular and sole allegiance at birth to the USA and no citizenship at birth with any other country via his parents or due to the place or location of birth. A natural born Citizen needs no law or resolution of Congress to give or clarify citizenship status. Natural born Citizenship status can only be obtained by the facts of nature at the child’s birth. This is natural law. This is what the founders and framers of our Constitution required for the singular and most powerful office of the President and Commander in Chief of the military. John Jay and George Washington put that requirement into the Constitution for exactly the reason that the person serving in that office would have no foreign influences on him/her at birth due to the facts and circumstances of his/her citizenship at birth. Only “natural born Citizenship” in the USA per natural law guarantees no other allegiance or citizenship claims by an another country at birth. If you are born on the U.S. soil of parents who are both citizens, no other country can claim you as a Citizen of their country and you are only governed by the laws of the USA at your birth. This is natural law as written by Vattel in 1758 in his legal book, “The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law”. The 1775 edition of this legal book was used as a reference by Benjamin Franklin and other founders to set up our new nation in 1776 in the writing of the Declaration of Independence and also in drafting the new form of federal government in 1789 and the writing of our Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation.
Obama was born British. How can a person born a British Subject ever be considered to be a “natural born Citizen” of the USA, to constitutional standards? He cannot. Our founders must be rolling over in their graves witnessing what transpired in the 2008 election cycle.”
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
2
Oh the ignorance… Well, it seems Mario is close to admitting defeat. Now the whole country was against him.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
0
“Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so!”….Judge Land to Orly Taitz
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
0
The time has come, the walrus said
To speak of many things
Of shoes, of ships, of sealing wax
Of cabbages and kings
And why the sea is boiling hot
And whether pigs have wings.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Does Dr. Fukuno have a law degree and if not how can you believe her interpitation of constitutional law.
Hot debate. What do you think?
1 
12
“how can you believe her interpitation of constitutional law.”
She’s not interpreting anything. The Ark decision made anyone born on US soil a natural born citizen, as opposed to a naturalized citizen.
Obama was born in Honolulu, ergo he is NBC. Got it?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12 
1
Dr. Fukino’s comment about Obama being a natural born citizen may be taken as her opinion (correct). Her statement about Obama’s vital records (birth certificate) saying he was born in Hawaii may be taken as authoritative.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
0
with the possibility of being born elseware and to have the birth registered in hawaii this would still be opinion (trust but verify). And as to the opinion of being a natural born citizen shows that to much ambiguity exists. Otherwise she would have not had to offer an opinion. She would have had to only state that he has a birth certificate on file which is still no proof only a statement of conjecture
Hot debate. What do you think?
1 
10
“Trust but verify” sounds good, except that Obama eligibility denialists trust nothing and reject all verifying evidence.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Not at all…She said “Born in Hawaii”…She did not say born somewhere else and registered in HI, a statute that did not exist in 1961 and would not allow the birthplace to say Honolulu. So your “possibily” becomes not possible in the real world of facts. Her statement is authoritative because she is the only person allowed by law to make that statement. And she said it with absolute clarity. Born In Hawaii….
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
0
Is Dr. Fukino a mathematician? If not, how can you believe her when she says that 2 + 2 = 4?
Is she a rocket scientist? If not, how can you believe her when she says that the earth orbits the sun?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
0
“…the earth orbits the sun…”
Die, heretic, die!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
0
mathematics is an absolute science, with the same set of factors we should all come to the same conclusion.As to a natural born citizen it is not a mathematic problem it is a legal problem only remedied by careful thought and debate and to have all the facts decided by people way more competant than any of us.I wish it was as simple as 2+2=4.
Hot debate. What do you think?
1 
10
While law isn’t quite math, both use logic applied to rules to come up with conclusions.
However, in the case of the natural born status of folks like Omama, a dozen courts have already decided.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
It is…Born in the US you are a natural born citizen. It is really that simple. You are the one making it more complex by inventing other classes of citizens, pretending that the phrase “born in Hawaii” could mean something else, and trying to ignore a mountain of real evidence to believe in conjecture and individuals with agendas and criminal records. For 63 million Americans, it is that simple, for 1% of kooks, it isn’t. That is too bad for them…
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
1
The definition of natural born citizen and whether Obama is one isn’t a legal “problem.” The two-parent theory is less accepted by the legal community than Creationism is accepted by scientists, probably even less accepted than the Flat Earth theory.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
It is consistent with history, legal and legislative precedent.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Charles Kerchner: “I believe that the RNC and DNC at the highest levels in 2008 were both complicit in shutting down all discussion of Obama’s eligibility issue in the Congress, Main Stream Media, Print Press, and in the leading conservative Talk Show radio stations.”
OK, let me get this straight. The Republican National Committee conspired with the Democrats to get Obama elected, and Rush Limbaugh went along. The man has an obvious disconnect with reality.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
14 
2
Charles explained all this in a recent interview. I think he hits the nail right on the head. It believed that MSM blackout was started by the Bush Administration and is currently being perpetuated by the Obama administration. People have to remember that after Obama was elected by the people, there was transition period between the Bush and Obama Administration. It is believed, the Bush Administration knew Obama was inelgibilble but he been elected by the people. They feared that if they removed him for being ineligible there would be riots in the street. So the Bush Administration allowed Obama to serve despite ineligiblity because they thought it was in best interests of national security. The Bush Administration further contacted all the big MSM talking heads and told them that under no cirumstances are they the fuel the Birther Movement because there would riots in the street. The MSM media talking heads were threatened if they decided to go against this top directive. In my opinion this the only reasonable and rational explanation for continued Cone of Silence that is being orchestrated by the MSM.
Hot debate. What do you think?
0 
16
“Allowed Obama to serve”??? And just why would the Bush Administration have the authority to “allow” anything? You live in a funny little fantasy world, John. Starting on November 5, 2008, Bush and his administration began to slip away from their responsibilities. By late December, the Bushes were gone. The moving vans had already removed the majority of their possessions when they for Texas for Christmas. Bush went to Texas and did not return to Washington until after the New Year started. Bush gave up the last two months of his Presidency to Obama and the transition team.
“Allowed”, “directives”, “orchestrated” my ass, John. Before 2008 was over, Bush had quit and gone home, relieved to dump his mess on Obama.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
0
John, do you actually believe that garbarge? No wonder why the birther movement is filled with cranks and GOP politicans have been able to exploit them as much as they have. To take the large leap in logic to believe that the GOP and the Democrats, and Bush and Obama would agree on anything is astounding. But these are the same people that believe that a pregnant woman with no money would take a 3 day and 15,000 mile flight to visit Kenya to have a baby without any sort of proof so to them anything is possible.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
0
So, John, why are YOU threatening national security?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
0
it was to be a monumental election of obama but if it was dicovered that he was not elligble (riots in the street) was the fear
Like or Dislike:
0 
9
Whatever…Obviously the birthers think everyone is as stupid and myopic as they are…If he was ineligible, people would have been fine with it. You are crazy to think that there would be “rioting”. But you would have needed proof, which you did not have then and do not have now because the President was born in HI.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
“It is believed, the Bush Administration knew Obama was inelgibilble but he been elected by the people”
Ummm what about before the election? Did the Bush Administration suddenly realize the day after the election he wasn’t eligible? Hint: if President Obama wasn’t eligible after the election, the same people would have realized he was not eligible before the election.
And exactly how would any of this rational explain why John McCain wouldn’t have raised any objection? He could be ranting about this on the Senate floor if he wanted to? Or Hilary Clinton before the primary?
“In my opinion this the only reasonable and rational explanation for continued Cone of Silence that is being orchestrated by the MSM.”
Your ratinoal explanation is a vast conspiracy involving both political parties(one of whom is doing everything it can to thwart President Obama’s goals, and also the Republicans), every congressperson, every media source, the Supreme Court- oh and the voters too, since we all were complicit in voting him into office.
Or perhaps the more rational explanation of why the media is not reporting this issue is the same reason they are not reporting on controversy about Flat Earth, or how we never landed on the Moon.
Either there is a vast conspiracy that controls all politicians and media sources, but oddly enough allows loud mouthed individuals to run around screaming the truth, or nobody else but those individuals believes in the conspiracy.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
0
Jeff- No, the conspiracy even includes the birthers. Notice how they always mangle grammar, spelling and syntax and say things so obviously wrong it takes no more than a quick Google to disprove them. Of course, they are really brilliant, highly educated scholars, every last one, but they are required to pretend to be stupid ignoramuses so that the world will underestimate them.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
It is believed that we are visited by aliens… Come on John, there is no foundation for your beliefs, other than a dislike of Obama and his policies. Why not stand up like a man and admit to this?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
what does “it is believed” even mean? Its like saying “mistakes were made”- who the hell made them? Who believes this John?- if its your opinion, say “I believe”
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
Charles is obviously delusional. I think Mario is afraid of him so that is why he continues to back Kerchner’s losing play. Mario has become so invested in the birther movement that he cannot get himself out. Even when faced with the obvious inaccuracies in his filings, he continues to go down the path of ignorance and losing. Anyone reading Kerchner’s rants can tell that he has some serious issues with reality. What is even more scary is that there are people like John that actually believe him…
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
0
Black Lion: “Mario has become so invested in the birther movement that he cannot get himself out.”
IMHO, Mario will get out exactly 1.5 seconds after his client’s first check bounces or he stops being paid.
Not that I would blame him, mind you.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Mario said somewhere he’s taken this on for free.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
I don’t believe that for a minute. Look at his past character, practice, zero interest in the issues beforehand…
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Meretricious Mario wrote:
“How can a person born a British Subject ever be considered to be a “natural born Citizen” of the USA… Our founders must be rolling over in their graves…”
Remind me already, where did these darned founders came from?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
They were of mostly European descent…Which was why English was the language spoken here and English common law was used to base our legal system on….Of course the birthers neglect that piece of history…
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Apuzzo: “Obama was born British. How can a person born a British Subject ever be considered to be a “natural born Citizen” of the USA, to constitutional standards? He cannot. Our founders must be rolling over in their graves witnessing what transpired in the 2008 election cycle.”
And yet, between the 2004 Dem National Convention, when Obama prominently mentioned his Kenyan father (after which Obama began to be touted as a future candidate), until well into the 2008 election campaign, not a single commentator of whatever legal expertise so much as hinted that his Kenyan ancestry posed any legal impediment to becoming president! Not even Donofrio, Apuzzo, or Taitz!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Obama was born British by statute and born a US citizen by Common Law practice. Furthermore, somehow Apuzzo believes that the Founders would let other nations decide who would be natural born US citizens. Of course, since it is municipal law and not international law which guides jus soli citizenship, Mario is going to have a hard time explaining why the Founders would have granted other Countries a right that most countries retain to themselves.
From a logical and legal perspective there is just no foundation for an argument here Mario…
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
0
Apuzzo: “Obama was born British. How can a person born a British Subject ever be considered to be a “natural born Citizen” of the USA, to constitutional standards?
Every signer of the Declaration of Independence was a British subject, as were the writers of the Constitution, its ratifiers and the first few Presidents. I do not think they would roll over in their graves if a former British subject born in the United States became president. You know?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Dr. Conspiracy,
I see that you and your people here are still peddling that cockamany idea that the Founders, who had just fought a successful war against the British, used feudal British common law that talks about subjects being born in the obedience, dominions, and perpetual primal natural allegiance of the King to decide who would be eligible to be President and military leader of the new Constitutional Republic.
Oh, and by the way, the Founders proved their loyalty to the new nation by fighting in the revolution. What has Obama done?
Hot debate. What do you think?
1 
9
Mario: I have a dilemma.
A man is shot and killed in the center of the Four Corners monument.
When the police arrive, they find the victim in a fetal position, in the exact center of the marker. The victim’s shoes and socks have been removed, and placed in each quadrant of the monument.
Which state would try the murderer: AZ, CO, NM or UT?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Misha,
Why don’t you ask your jackass questions of someone else who may be lucky enough to be part of your avant-garde milieu.
Hot debate. What do you think?
2 
13
“the Founders proved their loyalty to the new nation by fighting in the revolution. What has Obama done?”
Obama is good, but he cannot time travel. (bada-bing)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
“by fighting in the revolution. What has Obama done?”
He has challenged Gordon Brown to an arm wrestle. (bada-bing)
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
You’re still peddling your nonsense that the Founders were morons.
They had to have used British common law terms to mean something else (are you still saying it’s from Dutch law?) without telling anyone!
If only the founders had written something down – instead you’re left to rely on code (“It says Law of Nations, that MUST mean Vattel!”). Oh, and the ever popular – Reading the Founders’ minds!
Mario, your Constitutional analysis is embarrassingly bad. You should leave it to trained experts.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
0
Mr. Apuzzo:
You are still peddling that cockamamie idea that the Founders, following the Revolutionary War, became suddenly repulsed by their British heritage and became instant Alglophobes. In fact Americans claimed the British Common Law as their birthright and one of the reasons that the Revolutionary war was fought was the denial by England of parts of the British common law to America.
I suppose those ignorant of the American Revolution might be fooled by your plausible sounding talk, but it is contrary to fact. While Americans did certainly take issue with ideas such as perpetual allegiance, they did not jettison the legal framework underlying all of the colonies/states after the war. This is evidenced by colonial enactments before and after the revolution affirming the principle of citizenship by place of birth.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Yes, the founder generation hated the British so much they all continued their English-based colonial governments and adopted the English common law.
“The common law of England, so far as it was applicable to our circumstances, was brought over by our ancestors, upon their emigration to this country. The Revolution did not involve in it any abolition of the common law. It has been adopted or declared in force by the constitutions of some of the states, and by statute in others; and where not explicitly adopted, it is yet considered as the law of the land, subject to modifications and express legislative repeal. The common law of England, applicable to our situation and government, is the law of this country, except where altered or rejected by statute, or varied by local usages, under the sanction of judicial decisions.” James Kent, William Hardcastle Browne, Commentaries on American Law, pg. 212 (1894).
“The constitution of New York, of 1777, declared that such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, as, together with the acts of the colonial legislature, formed the law of the colony on the 19th of April, 1775, should continue to be the law of .the state, subject, &c. So the common law and statute law of England were referred to in Missouri by the statute of 14th January, 1816, as part of the known and existing law of the territory, so far as the same was consistent with the law of the territory, and which, in a modified degree, was the Spanish law. The common and statute law of England, prior to the fourth year of James I., and of a general nature, were adopted by the convention of Virginia, in 1776, and in 1795 and 1805, by the government of Ohio ; and such is the substance of the statute law of Arkansas. 2 Ark. 206. But the Ohio statute was repealed in 1806. In the Revised Statutes of Illinois, published in 1829, it was declared that the common law of England, and the English statutes of a general nature made in aid of it, prior to the fourth year of James I., with the exception of those concerning usury, were to be rules of decision until repealed. In 1818, the common law was adopted by statute in the State of Indiana, and in 1835, in Missouri, under the same limitations ; and it is understood that the common law and the statute law of England, down to the year 1776, and applicable to their constitution and circumstances, are the law in the states of Mississippi and Georgia. In the latter state the same was declared to be in force by the statute of February 25, 1784. So the common law of England and the statute law of England, prior to 1760, were adopted by statute in Vermont, so far as they were not repugnant to the constitution or statute law of the state. James Kent, John Melville Gould, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Commentaries on Americican Law Vol 1 pg. 643-44 (1901).
The founding generation saw the rights of the common law as their birthright that their ancestors brought over from England which is why founders such as Patrick Henry and George Mason wanted the English common law adopted in the Consitition itself.
“The universal principle (and the practice has conformed to it) has been, that the common law is our birthright and inheritance, and that our ancestors brought hither with them upon their emigration all of it, which was applicable to their situation. The whole structure of our present jurisprudence stands upon the original foundations of the common law.” Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, pg. 65 (1833)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Wong Kim Ark was not delared a Natural Born Citizen. Wong Kim Ark was only declared a US Citizen although the court did state that Wong Kim was entitled to rights to that of a Natural Born citizen. A person who is a Natural Born citizen is based on Natural Law and no law or statue is required or needed to determine that he or she is a citizen because by natural law (Naturally or by a law of nature) a person born to citizens, members, or native of a community or country is by definition a citizen of that country. Laws likes the 14th Amendment basically provided a way for persons to recieve US citizen by birth by merely being born in the country. It could be considered a form of instantaneous naturalization. Persons who are NBCs don’t require the 14th Amendment or any other rule or statute to be declared as citizens.
Hot debate. What do you think?
3 
19
John: I read on the internet that barnyard animals become skittish when you are near. Why is that? Are the rumors true?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
2
As someone who has spent a lifetime studying the “laws of nature” I must ask you for the experimental evidence behind your statements. In fact, in most human and primate societies, the young frequently leave the band they were born into and attach to a different band. It’s nature’s way of reassorting the gene pool and preventing inbreeding.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
0
@Scientist Your above post:
So what you just explained to John is what is wrong with his brain. He is probably a product of inbreeding. Which is likely why he can’t grasp common logic and he speaks in circles.
I understand you. But that is because my parents weren’t related.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Note to John: Just because you say the same untrue thing over and over, doesn’t make it true. WTF, “instantaneous naturalization” not natural born? You’re off your nut if you have to reach that far to try to disqualify Obama. You are a ridiculous and silly person.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
0
Now John is attemting to show that he understands the law. And unfortunately for him he shows is absolute ignorance of the law or understanding of how it works…
First of all Justice Gray in the WKA ruling stated the following…
“It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”
“The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
“All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”
Now unless English has changed that much since 1898 the part where Justice Gray says that “all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens”, means that anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen. The Wong ruling was very specific. It is just you have to stop listening to Mario and Leo to get your legal comprehension. So you can continue with your so called natural law nonsense all you want. But here in the real world we rely on written laws. And the Wong ruling has established as law anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen with 2 exceptions.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13 
0
Add Dr. John C. Eastman, a PhD and Professor of Law to your list of conspiracy nutjobs, because this legal memorandum he penned in 2006 clearly shows the error in Wong Kim Ark:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Legalissues/lm18.cfm
“It is today routinely believed that under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, mere birth on U.S. soil is sufficient to obtain U.S. citizenship. However strong this commonly believed interpretation might appear, it is incompatible not only with the text of the Citizenship Clause (particularly as informed by the debate surrounding its adoption), but also with the political theory of the American Founding.”
“…Despite the clear holding of Elk and the persuasive dicta from Slaughter-House that mere birth on U.S. soil is not sufficient to meet the constitutional prerequisites for birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court held otherwise in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, with expansive language even more broad than the holding of the case itself. It is that erroneous interpretation of the Citizenship Clause, adopted 30 years after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, that has colored basic questions of citizenship ever since.”
“…Justice Gray appears not to have appreciated the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the territory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sovereign’s laws, and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.
More troubling than his rejection of the persuasive dicta from Slaughter-House, though, was the fact that Justice Gray also repudiated the actual holding in Elk, which he himself had authored… Justice Gray simply failed to appreciate what he seemed to have understood in Elk, namely, that there is a difference between territorial jurisdiction, on the one hand, and the more complete, allegiance-obliging jurisdiction that the Fourteenth Amendment codified, on the other.
Justice Gray’s failure even to address, much less appreciate, the distinction was taken to task by Justice Fuller, joined by Justice Harlan, in dissent. Drawing on an impressive array of legal scholars, from Vattel to Blackstone, Justice Fuller correctly noted that there was a distinction between the two sorts of allegiance—“the one, natural and perpetual; the other, local and temporary.” The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment referred only to the former, he contended. He noted that the absolute birthright citizenship urged by Justice Gray was really a lingering vestige of a feudalism that the Americans had rejected, implicitly at the time of the Revolution and explicitly with the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment.
… Indeed, Congress has by its own actions with respect to Native Americans—both before and after this Court’s decision in Wong Kim Ark—rejected the claim that the Citizenship Clause itself confers citizenship merely by accident of birth. None of these citizenship acts would have been necessary—indeed, all would have been redundant—under the expansive view of the Citizenship Clause propounded by Justice Gray…”
Hot debate. What do you think?
1 
10
Silly Sally-I hope you read the entire poece, not just the part you like. Prof Eastman is arguing that Congress should pass a law denying citizenship to the child of 2 illegal aliens. Even if I bought his argument (I don’t) and such a law were found constitutional (unlikely) you must understand that it would not deny citizenship to the US-born child of a US citizen, which Obama is. Furthermore, even in the event that such a law were passed and found constitutional it could not be applied retroactively. Barack Obama’s citizenship is established by the law at the time of his birth, which is crystal clear that he was and always will be a citizen at birth.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
0
Basically Eastman has a beef with how Gray ruled. Tough. The SCOTUS decided the way they decided. They heard the so called birther arguments from George Collins and specifically ruled against that argument. They preferred to rely on English Common law. But Eastman never addresses the issue of a baby being born to one US citizen so you can’t be sure of is opionion in that case. I would imagine his thoughts would be a bit different.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
0
Yes, James Ho has done some excellent work showing Eastman’s lack of foundation and poor scholarship. Eastman is arguing the losing side’s position, of course, that’s too bad.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
In fact Justice Gray explains in quite some detail why he is not impressed by the dicta in the Slaughterhouse case and why Elk, is not at odds with his ruling.
At least, once one understands the special position Indians not paying taxes have historically played.
During the 14th Amendment, the argument was raised that the definition “subject to jurisdiction” would make Indians citizens. This was strongly denied by observing that historically Indians not paying taxes are ‘foreign countries’ and thus birth in a foreign country does not make one a US citizen, even though born on US soil, since one is, historically speaking, not under full jurisdiction of the US. The same applies to invading military and children born to foreign dignitaries like Consuls etc.
The concept of allegiance, while interesting, is not really that relevant to the 14th Amendment, but it may help to understand that the term allegiance is similar to the concept of under jurisdiction thereof.
A child, born on US soil, is under full jurisdiction and allegiance of the the United States, even though his parents may claim him as a citizen of their native country. Such however does not make these children not subject to jurisdiction or not owing allegiance to the United States, unless their parents, at the time of their birth, were protected by consulary status (diplomatic immunity) or were invading military or belonged to Indians not paying taxes. In all these cases, well understood in law and common law, the children would not be under the jurisdiction of the United States.
The mere possibility that when returning to the native country of the parents, this country could claim the child as a citizen has no relevance as to whether or not the child was born also under jurisdiction of and under allegiance of the United States of America. The allegiance these Children owe to the US is direct, immediate and complete while residing under US jurisdiction.
Under well established principles, a child when reaching the age of majority can decide with birth right citizenship to pursue. The fact that a child remains located in and loyal to the country of his native birth further supports the only logical conclusion that such a child is a natural born citizen of the United States by Common Law. That under foreign statutes, he may also be a citizen of other countries is of no relevance here.
Eastman indeed, is attempting to undermine the whole concept of birthright citizenship, disallowing well established principles which make any child born on US soil, with minor exceptions, a natural born US citizen.
Even if Eastmen were to believe that a mere law could undo Constitutional principles, this has no relevance to the present topic.
The Slaughterhouse dicta needs to be read in its proper context which suggests at best that at the time the Court realized that the issue of the status of children born to alien parents was not fully resolved.
Thus much of the same Court outlined this in Minor v Happersett and when the Supreme Court finally visited the status of children born to aliens in Wong Kim Ark, it finally settled the issue in favor of Common Law principles.
In fact Justice Miller, in the Slaughterhouse Cases observed
Born or naturalized…
The same Justice Miller had also observed
As Justice Gray observed in Wong Kim Ark
As to Elk
Certainly President Johnson in his failed attempt to veto the 1866 Civil Rights act understood the meaning of allegiance and ’subject to foreign power’ to include children born to aliens such as Gypsies or Chinese.
The facts speak for themselves.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
This might be more convincing if, in fact, your primary Vattel didn’t totally contradict you and state that “Natural Law” (whatever that is) only required one parent for the child to be a native (NBC). Tough luck.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Now you are misrepresenting Wong Kim Ark. In fact the 14th amendment proponents clearly claimed that it merely repeated that which the Constitution already provided for.
Birth on Soil has always been the natural way.
That you want to reinterpret the facts is interesting but they are not supported in any fact, legal or legislative precedent.
Not bad though…
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Remember the sage words of SC Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer:
If you give a cat a fish, he will have a meal.
If you teach a cat to fish, he will empty your aquarium.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
One of the problems with Natural Born citizen is that it has never been litigated…in its proper context of Article II Section I of the US Constitution. Further while it can shown that in passing Natural Born citizen has been defined only to mean to born in this country, no SCOTUS decision has ever specifically defined what Natural Born citizen means under Article II Section I. Further, there has never any counter argument put forth to the court on this point. Finally, the meaning of Natural Born Citizen is not unnamious. Many court cases have distenting opinions which has shown that Natural Born citizen does mean born on US Soil to Parents who are US Citizens. If this argument ever does go before SCOTUS, it very possible to recieve a unnamious decision or an overwhemly majority that Natural Born Citizen means born on US Soil to Parents who are US Citizens. Birthers have built a magnificient case against Barack Obama’s Natural Born citizenship and Obots simply have no counter arguments to show that Obama is Natural Born citizen who was or is free from Foreign Influence and therefore eligible to serve as POTUS. Being free from Foreign Influence was pretty irrevelent in the Wong Kim Ark case, but is the heart of the Obama case.
Hot debate. What do you think?
1 
14
You mean this SCOTUS?? The one standing there at the inauguration? How much are you willing to wager???
http://filer.case.edu/ned2/Thomas_sleeping.jpg
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
0
John, again shows siginificant ignorance of the law. A ruling in front of the SCOTUS does not have to be unanimous. For instance in Wong, the court ruled in favor of Wong 6-2. So there were only 2 out of 8 justices that agreed with the ridiculous theory that a NBC needed 2 citizen parents. And in the past 100 years, Wong has been positively cited over 1000 times and has been used many times as the ruling to reference regarding citizenship. Now you delusionally think that somehow in 2010 if a case did go in front of the SCOTUS, that they would rule any different. Scalia and Roberts have already spoken highly of the Wong ruling. As a matter of fact could you give me one justice that you feel would overturn Wong? Maybe in the birther world of fantasy, but in the real world it’s not going to happen. Birthers have built cases not based on any laws. That is why they have gone 0 for 66. The birthers are just too obtuse to understand that this issue is dead. President Obama is the lawful President and a NBC is someone that is born in the US regardless of the citizenship status of the parents or abroad to 2 parents that were citizens…
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
0
Tell that to our future presidents, little Pablo, little Kim or little Isaac.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
“Tell that to our future presidents, little Pablo, little Kim or little Isaac.”
Which is exactly what is going to happen. I can’t wait for this crowd to face voting for
Kenneth The PageJindal.Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
John you said …”Natural Born citizen is that it has never been litigated”?
Come on John, where have you been? There are so many precedential court decisions about what natural born citizenship means.
Let’s make it easy for you shall we? But promise that you’ll read it with a keen comprehension!
Ankeny v Indiana (court of appeals decision) This is a of November 12, 2009
“Barack Hussien Obama is a NATURAL BORN CITZEN of the United States of America”
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
0
Let’s look at a few devastating examples
First some warm-ups
Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998) 96 F.3d 1467, affirmed.
US v Marguet Pillado 560 F.3d 1078
Podea v Marshall, 83 F.Supp. 216 (1949)
Vassilios v Kennedy 95 F.Supp. 630 (1961)
Tomasicchio v Acheson, 98 F.Supp. 166 (1951)
Civil Rights Act 1866, Mr Raymond
Mission Failed….
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
0
Am I missing something? President Obama was confirmed as President over a year ago, and I haven’t seen the strong influence the Kenyan government has had over him. Or maybe I have missed him ceding over territory back to Great Britain?
I really love the rational of this argument-the President must be free of foreign influence- yet a year later there is absolutely no evidence that he has favored any of the various countries that Birthers claim he might be a citizen of.
This is of course irrelevant to the actual eligibility issue- as are their arguments- but I think it shows what common sense will tell people: Just because a baby is born with dual citizenship(or eligibility for dual citizenship), does not mean that he or she will have any allegiance to other countries.
In my business we are expected to use “reasonable care” in complying with government regulations. Reasonable care is usually defined to us as what a “reasonable” person would expect under those circumstances.
“Reasonable” people do not have any concerns about President Obama’s eligibility, and we all used ‘reasonable care’ when we voted him into office.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
0
“One of the problems with Natural Born citizen is that it has never been litigated…in its proper context of Article II Section I of the US Constitution. Further while it can shown that in passing Natural Born citizen has been defined only to mean to born in this country, no SCOTUS decision has ever specifically defined what Natural Born citizen means under Article II Section I.”
If this is a real concern, wouldn’t this have applied to all of our previous Presidents? If there is no common understanding of what NBC means, then how could voters have known whether President Bush or President Clinton were eligible?
The answer is, the voters do understand what NBC means. And they voted with that knowledge. There is a small minority of people who want to overthrow that election by any means possible. I think that is wrong.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
0
is there a distinction in the constitution for the qualifications of citizenship for congressmen and president and if there is can you explain what the framers meant by being a citizen and a natural born citizen
Like or Dislike:
2 
4
chufho: is there a distinction in the constitution for the qualifications of citizenship for congressmen and president and if there is can you explain what the framers meant by being a citizen and a natural born citizen
Yes, of course. The Constitution makes two references to types of citizen, the naturalized citizen (the Congress has the power to legislate a uniform system of naturalization) and the natural born citizen (in the qualifications to be president). The general term “citizen” encompasses these two. For example, see the Justice Gray writing for the US Supreme court decision in Elk v. Wilkins:
and the US Supreme Court, in Schneider v Rusk:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
0
Who are you kidding here Doc, Chufho must surely be aware of these facts and is just playing dumb or is trolling.
I feel generous today and will accept a trolling conclusion…
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
chufho-I don’t know if you are pretending not to know, but there is no mystery. Naturalized citizens are those who were not citizens at birth, but became citizens at some point later on. They can and do serve in Congress-Sen Martinez is one, having been born a Cuban citizen in Cuba.
Natural born citizens are simply those who are citizens at birth, either by birth in the US or to US citizens abroad. And that’s how the voters understand things and why they (excepy for you and 10 or so of your pals) had no problem voting for either Obama or McCain for President, but wouldn’t vote for Schwazenegger unless the Constitition were amended.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
So the fact that obama was born a british subject on US soil would then make him a naturalized citizen if we apply the logic the Dr. has spoken about.
Like or Dislike:
0 
7
Absolutely not, because he was ALSO born a US citizen. Why is it so hard to understand that something can have more than one chracteristic? An apple is red and an apple is a fruit.
Let me give you a concrete example and see if that penetrates your unusually thick cranium:
A Canadian-born man and a Mexican-born woman living in the US get married and have a child. Regardless of whether they naturalized as US citizens that child would have 3 citizenships, US-due to birthplace, Canadian from his father and Mexican from his mother.
Now we can add in a couple of wrinkles, just for fun:
The child moves to France and becomes a citizen there. Now he would have 4 citizenships.
Here’s a further wrinkle. The Caribbean island of Domenica will sell you a citizenship, with no requirement that you ever live there or give up other citizenships. It costs around $100,000. So, if this person can afford the fee, he could add that one too. He would legally have 5 citizenships with 5 passports.
Now let’s pretend he is miraculously brilliant. He is a natural born US citizen so he becomes President of the US. He also becomes President of Mexico and Prime Minister of Canada. Then, because he has a few spare moments, he becomes President of France. After serving brilliantly in all 4 jobs, he decides he has earned a nice retirement, so he moves to Domenica and becomes Prime Minister. Do you get it now???
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
0
I actually met the Prime Minister of Dominica quite a few years ago when she was visiting the US.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4 
0
In the early republic, it was understood that only someone born on foreign soil could be naturalized and the term couldn’t apply to the native born. For example:
“But what is naturalization? It is the removal of the disabilities of alienage… Congress has power ” to establish an uniform rule of naturalization….An alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject…The power is applicable only to those of foreign birth. Alienage is an indispensable element in the process. To make one of domestic birth a citizen, is not naturalization, and cannot be brought within the exercise of that power. There is an universal agreement of opinion upon this subject.” George Washington Paschal, The Constitution of the United States defined and carefully annotated, note 274, (1968)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Missing the point again. Citizenship under the US Constitution which is based on English Common Law, is based on birth on US soil which makes one a natural born citizen, regardless of the status of the parents
Statutory Law of England made Obama also a British Subject at birth, such unfortunate dual nationalities are unavoidable but have no effect on a US citizen’s status.
Since Obama clearly elected to pursue his US birthright, the fact that he may have also held other citizenships has no relevance to US law.
Hope this clarifies.
Naturalization can happen at birth or at a later time, in both cases through statutory acts. Obama’s status however is not guided by statutory law but rather the Constitution which outlines the Common Law principle.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Do you think that citizen and natural born citizen are mutually exclusive terms?
It is clear that when the Constitution says “citizen” as a requirement for Congress, it is talking about a class of people that must include the natural born. I mean, surely you aren’t contending that “citizen” is meant to exclude the natural born from serving in Congress, right?
It is also clear that the class of people must include naturalized citizens, since it talks about a time requirement in addition to an age requirement. A Senator must be 30 years old, and a “citizen” for 9 years. If he was born a citizen, he would have been a citizen for 30 years, minimum.
So, it’s clear that citizen is a term that includes natural born citizens and naturalized citizens.
Congress is later given the power to naturalize citizens, so this is consistent with that power.
At no point in the Constitution is there any suggestion of a third category of citizen – someone born here who is not a natural born citizen!
The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Constitution this way – there are two ways to become a citizen, and two only – birth and naturalization.
I can count the number of legal scholars who agree with the 2 parent theory on zero fingers. I can count the number of legal scholars who agree with the idea that the children of illegal aliens aren’t natural born citizens on one or two hands.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
then how many ways can a person be naturalized. I contend that a child born of an alien on US soil is naturalized and not natural born as outlined in the constitution
Like or Dislike:
0 
9
Unfortunately for you there are only two ways to become a citizen
Being Naturalized – born of foreign citizenship, moving to the US and taking up the pledge and oath to become a citizen of the US
Natural Born – born on US soil as defined by the Constitution and SEVERAL supreme court cases.
The citizenship of parents do NOT in any form, weigh on the citizenship status of their child.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Not according to US Constitution and the Courts
But let that not concern you too much.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
0
If by alien, you mean a being from outer space, then you may be correct, since the 14th Amendment says “person” (sorry, Misha, your cat is not a citizen, even if it is an American Shorthair). If you mean a human you are wrong.
If you think I am mocking you, you are correct. After 62 court losses and 1 year into Obama’s Presidency you need to stop wasting the few neurons you still have on this “issue” and try to use your limited brainpower on something more useful. Seriously.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
“I contend that a child born of an alien on US soil is naturalized and not natural born as outlined in the constitution”
The voters also disagreed with you.
I believe that there are specific laws which have to be followed to apply to be naturalized- I think they need to apply and renounce all foreign citizenships.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
0
And I can contend that the moon is made of green cheese – that doesn’t stop it being a big fricking rock.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
“I contend that a child born of an alien on US soil is naturalized and not natural born as outlined in the constitution”
Bully for you. I contend that my cat is capable of voting. I contend that my car has a soul, like a person.
I contend that you cannot comprehend the Ark decision, because you are psycho.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
The birthers want to argue the original intent of the founders. As a guide it might help to see what they said. There may be some sense in the explanation for the citizen requirements for Senators found in the The Federalist Papers.
“… and which, participating immediately in the transactions with foreign nations, ought to be exercised by none who are are not thoroughly weaned from the prepossessions and habits incident to foreign birth and education. The term of nine years appears to be a prudent mediocrity between a total exclusion of adopted citizens, whose merits and talents may claim a share in the public confidence, and an indiscriminate and hasty admission of them, which might create a channel for foreign influence on the national councils.” (The Federalist No. 62)[1]
“…foreign birth and education”
There is no mention of parents citizenship, only the individual. It sounds like they are stating: “born and fully raised” in a foreign country. I would assume “education” would be mean raised or brought up, since a strict adhearance to “foreign education” would disqualify anybody who studied abroad.
The birthers seem to be stuck in the, title, nobiliity, citizenship and station stem from your father. That is rather un-American.
Since they think truth only comes from the internet, I am going to properly cite my source which came from a book on my desk (though have some pity, my Turabian/CMS is a little rusty).
[1]Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, The Federalist, a Commentary on the Constitution of the United States, ed. Robert Scigliano (New York: Random House, Inc., 2000), 35.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4 
0
An online copy is available at: http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed62.htm
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4 
0
You are much nicer to the “must provide a link crowd” than I. I am probably just getting snide (and not, obviously, not enough coffee yet this morning).
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
In the end, I think that with this issue a nice answer and a sarcastic answer have the same probability of success: zero. Nevertheless, if Sven, Joseph and their tribe are just getting their jollies by stirring people up, a soft short answer does not feed that troll agenda. In the end, no one takes insults seriously and I started this blog to be taken seriously.
Long-time readers know that I get riled up like everyone else, but I think it’s counter productive and I’m trying to be more thoughtful, more civil and less of an advocate in my comments. Things like “how do you figure that” or “explain the reasoning there” put the burden on those who hold views to understand why they say what they say better.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4 
0
John:
1. Not everything has to be litigated. Some things never will be litigated.
2. All but one of the current justices has signed onto an opinion upholding WKA.
3. I’ll debate you or any other birther in any fair forum.
4. It’s “dissenting,” not “distenting.” You can get a browser add-on which will check your spelling. Unfortunately, there isn’t anything yet to check your logic.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
0
John, are you on dope?
Barack Obama is President of the United States.
You, on the other hand, are a low life.
In Fantasyland, “a magnificent case against Barack Obama’s Natural Born citizenship” exists.
But in the real world, we laugh our asses off, at all you nutcases who need to get a life.
John, I mean you no harm, even though you’re deluded and mentally disturbed. But I do think you have a serious problem with reality.
Good luck with your inevitable rehab program.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
1
with no leg to stand on, always resort to name calling
Like or Dislike:
0 
4
With regard to “Dr” Eastman, anyone who holds to the disgustingly racist elements of The Slaughterhouse Cases has serious issues.
AND…..expect the stake to be finally plunged firmly into the heart of this as part of the upcoming McDonald v Chicago case before the Supreme Court.
Whilst the case is one regarding the incorporation of the Second Amendment it is being asked under both the due process and P+I elements of the 14th Amendment.
Actual constitutional scholars who are following this are generally of the opinion that Slaughterhouse and it’s ilks will be firmly kicked into touch.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
From the DoH’s FAQs:
The index data regarding President Obama is:
Birth Index
Obama II, Barack Hussein
Male
To request index data, provide a first and last name of the individual, and the type of event. There is no cost for the first two requests; all subsequent requests require a prepayment of $7.50 per individual and event requested along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope….mailed to:
State Department of Health
Office of Health Status Monitoring
Issuance/Vital Statistics Section
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, HI 96801
NO COST for the first two requests for index data!
Has anybody requested this index data?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Bob, the birthers don’t want the answers…They want to be ignorant so that they can perpetuate their ridiculous conspiracy theories…
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
If I donated a dollar to wikipedia, would the good doctor be kind enough to request the index data, and post what he receives?
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
No. I already blew $5 on a Letter in Lieu of a Certified copy that I never got.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Bob, if you request the index data, you will received a piece of paper with the following information:
Why would anyone waste the cost of postage to send away for the very information that they have posted on the web site?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Because birfers have this weird obsession with paper versions, see….
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
It is kind of interesting that the so called birther and overall hero of the right, Palin, is now on Team McCain again…
http://www.rumproast.com/index.php/site/comments/sarah_palin_now_on_saudi_payroll_campaigns_for_rino_mccain/
If I recall McCain is considered to be a RINO so is she abandoning her tebagging base to move more to the center in order to have a chance at winning? Because it seems kind of contradictory to appear at teabag events and then support McCain….
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Birthers lost the election, they lost all court cases, they have absolutely no chance of removing Obama (their goal). Their legal theories are over the top (ridiculous) and going nowhere.
So what are they trying to accopmplish by rehashing garbage, other than proving they are losers! Their efforts are useless, strange people they be.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
Hate for Obama does strange things to a birther, they believe the most ridiculous crap without a shred of evidence, they accept garbage from un-named sources because they hate Obama. They quote the most ridiculous comments and believe them without flinching. They never show proof, who needs proof, not a birther. Really strange how reason just seems to go over their heads. Sure, Obama’s mother took a difficult trip back to a third world country to have a baby then had to invent paper that he was born in USA on her return. (though no flights at the time account for it) Birthers appear to occupy the Twilight Zone. They need to return to the mental illness ward.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
I keep wanting to write a “Unified Theory of why Barry Soetero Ossama Obama is not Eligible to be President” but I can’t remember all of the theories well enough.
Let me make one attempt:
Ann Durham was pregnant by Frank Marshall, and her parents had her marry a Kenyan student- Barrack Obama Sr. in order to prevent anyone from knowing that she had gotten pregnant out of wedlock.
Then shortly before her due date, her husband whisked her off to Kenya where Barry was born in a hut in Obama’s ancestral with Afri-Grannie watching.
U.S. Grannie then filed forged paperwork with Hawaiin officials to cover up that Barry was born in Africa, and arranged to have the newspaper announcements made.
Barry and Mom flew back to Hawaii, and Barry was raised as an American. Later Mom met Soetero and married him- he was then recalled to Indonesia and later had his wife and young Barry come join him. While in Indonesia, 6 year old Barry stood up in front of the U.S. Consul and firmly renounced his U.S. Citizenship, which of course was immediately accepted and processed. Soetero then adopted Barry and they all lived together as a typical Indonesian family until they didn’t.
Barry returned to Hawaii with his Indonesian citizenship intact and perhaps went to school there- but there are no records of him actually attending any schools- so who knows?
At some point Obama Sr. flies back to Africa and disputes the adoption in Courts, and all the records are sealed.
When Barry turns eighteen he forgets to declare his U.S. citizenship and becomes Stateless/British/Kenyan citizen. He attends college receiving scholarships reserved for Indonesian/Kenyan nationals.
While in College he travels to Pakistan to attend a radical Madrassah on his Indonesian passport, because Indonesians could travel anywhere in those days.
While he is in Pakistan he is inducted into a Muslim worldwide conspiriacy to destroy the United States and the puppet masters decide he is the perfect one to be elected President of the United States in 20 years.
He returns to the U.S., a secret Muslim/Communist/Indonesian sleeper agent and starts planning his Presidential aspirations.
Knowing the political climate, he graduates from Harvard Law and doesn’t follow the money making route of big law firms but decides that community activism would be the ideal road to the Presidency.
okay…I can’t go on- but thats a start.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
What’s the difference between an incontinent dog with food agression, and a birther?
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
I nominate Misha to rewrite it all into a coherant mass of incoherant theories.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4 
0
“a coherant mass of incoherant theories.”
Is that like organized confusion?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
sfjeff, bravely:
i think you forgot when young barry osama returns alone to the u.s. as an indonesia refugee as well as the whole “mom slept with everyone in cuba and their pets” adventure …
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Or you forgot the part about Young Barry being declared a Indonesian refugee and that is how he was able to return to the US…Or how his mother showed her hatred of the US by marrying foreign men of color…And how he strongarms Columbia University to give him a degree even though he never went to class…And while in Pakistan met with the Taliban…
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4 
0
I want to hear the part about Obama and the Pirates!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
“I want to hear the part about Obama and the Pirates!”
I was wondering who would ask about that story.
Obama Sr. as everyone knows was a radical muslim. One of his sons(Obama’s half brother) made the short walk to Somali to join the pirates- this is part of the reason why Barry was groomed to be President- so that once he was elected the radical Muslims could start their campaign of pirate terror with the knowledge that a President Obama would not allow any harm to Somali Pirates.
And where do you think all that money is going anyway? Barry hasn’t provided any proof that he isn’t receiving money from Somali Pirates.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Yeah, and where’s the proof that Obama Sr. wasn’t a communist agent, sent by Patrice Lumumba. And how do I know the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth? Obama never denied it.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
And logic is something birthers often tend to avoid. Point in case John and Sven…
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
nothing has yet been verified is why questions still remain . the distinction in the constitution about requirements has yet to be visited
Hot debate. What do you think?
1 
9
A tad irritated, are we?
OK, here’s another one: did Joseph Farah rape and murder a barnyard animal in 1990? I’m not saying he did, I’m just asking a question that should be answered.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Could you confirm here for the record that you’re working pro bono on this case?
(Personally, I do not object at all to you taking your clients to the cleaners and charging as much as you can get away with.)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
“part of your avant-garde milieu”
Well, I am a photographer.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
“Why don’t you ask your jackass questions”
Mario: how do you determine which questions are legitimate,and which are jackass questions?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
No freebies from Mario
I understand… These are trying times
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
“Could you confirm here for the record that you’re working pro bono on this case?”
Speak slowly into the microphone. Thank you.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
I meant the above comment for chufho, the original “contender”, not NbC who responded.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
“(sorry, Misha, your cat is not a citizen, even if it is an American Shorthair).”
Excuuuse me.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4 
0
It’s easy – questions by Mario always fall into the latter category.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
false. Obama has been verified by Congress and the STAte of Hawaii of being born in the US.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4 
0
LMAO! Misha your scenario made no mention of an offender in custody. No offender, no murder trial.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0