This Regime has never been constrained by truth. We don’t know who those are who press to follow a path proved to have no facts when Obama himself has told us he is a 14th Amendment citizen, naturalized because citizens are either natural or naturalized, not a natural born Citizen. His cadre has an enormous advantage in their control of the the mainstream media. Explaining the historical and legal truth isn’t easy, but you Patlin are showing discipline by keeping it simple. We don’t know how many of those who keep redirecting the eligibility discussion to birth certificates are trolls.
A birth certificate, even one from Hawaii, does not change the nationality of Obama’s father, and retrospectively making Obama Sr. a U.S. citizen is the only way Barry is eligible. We need to keep explaining this fact until it is understood by all who do care about our Constitution. The rest will always place party politics a race above individual freedom, and above the Constitution.
However there are real world court decisions on the other side of the issue that must be contended with.
“Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”
Indiana Court of Appeals, Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels November 12, 2009.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
Quoted in the 1898 US Supreme Court’s US v Wong Kim Ark decision, “Justice Joseph Story once declared in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99 (1830), that “Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.” Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 660, 18 S. Ct. at 461 (quoting Inglis, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) at 164 (Story, J., concurring)). The Court also cited Justice Curtis’s dissent in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856):
