LoL. You can hardly call it baseless as I point out to why below. And are you still making the argument that because they didn't have jet commercial aircraft in 1961 that could be flown into Kenya, therefore, Obama could not have been born in Kenya? LoL. That's a silly and baseless argument.
No he did not. You simply cannot produce a single example of anyone making an eligibility argumetn based on the supposed two citizen parent requirement.
Actually, I did produce a single example from July 2008. This guy said it,
"So Obama isn't eligible for President as he isn't a natural born US Citizen according to the wells site. Even if he was born in Hawaii the site claims that he isn't eligible."
So ms. Un-Curios, how can Obama be born in Hawaii and not be eligible for president? One can only conclude that the jus sanguinis argument was being presented besides the jus soli argument in July of 2008. It only takes a single instance to blow the Loren's argument apart.
As the argument at the time had to be that two parents required and/or inherited citizenship through his British/Kenyan father that disqualified Obama to be a natural born citizen. The argument in the graphic clearly disregards the mother by saying Obama was ineligible even if he was born in Hawaii.
Nope. Freedom of Speech Wins was not making the two-citizen parent argument, no matter how often you say otherwise.
He wasn't but he said it came up on Wells website.
BTW, this whole line of argument is just stupid and silly since it is an after-Birther goose chase. Obama can't even prove that he was born in Hawaii let alone argue on the merits of natural born citizenship in all the court cases presented.