Instead all we get is:
...he's a Canadian, ..or he's a Brit, ...or he's a Kenyan, ...or he's an Indonesian, ...or he renounced the citizenship he did not have, ..or he was never a citizen at all, ...or he's a naturalized citizen who was not naturalized......, and on and on it goes. Pick a story and stick with it, thank you.
The same should be directed at Pres'ent Obama. His story has changed several times of the years. He's been reported as being born in three different countries (and three different continents). He's been reported as being born in two different hospitals in Honolulu. It's been reported that his mother remarried and moved him to Indonesia in three different years: 1965, 1966 and 1967. Obama claimed his father came to America as part of the Kennedy Airlift. This was a lie. Obama claimed his folks got together because of the civil rights march in Selma in 1965 (his folks were divorced before that). This guy has some stories, but few of them stick.
Sure you have. There's no way you lived the life you described without that document in hand.
Why tie up the Department of Justice, and waste U.S. attorney time to hide common documents that many Americans routinely release for many reasons?
An honest man would have been **HONORED** to promptly prove with all of the best evidence that he is a natural born citizen.
A guilt man lawyers up, uses U.S. attorneys, and digs in tight to prevent the release.
There are hundreds of threads on FR with detailed reserach about 0bama’s eligibilty or rather lack of it.
You should do some searches and read up. Really. Then you’d know a lot more than you do now. The dude is not eligible, is hiding all his past documentation, and at the very least, is not a natural born citizen due to having an alien father. He may very well have been born in Kenya - there is a lot of evidence that points to that - in which case he may not be a US citizen at all.
He was adopted by his mother’s second husband who was Indonesian and lived there for several years and very likely became an Indonesian citizen. He traveled to Indonsia and Pakistan around 1981; and did not use a US passport. That has been found via FOI iirc. So what nationality did he claim to be in 1981, to use another country’s passport?
This isn’t some joke. It’s serious, and he’s done everything he can, with a lot of help, to hide his entire past. Meanwhile, he’s destroying the country. The sooner the truth about his eligibity or rather lack of it is made public, the sooner he can be dragged out and the damage he’s done can start to be undone.
...he's a Canadian, ..or he's a Brit, ...or he's a Kenyan, ...or he's an Indonesian, ...or he renounced the citizenship he did not have, ..or he was never a citizen at all, ...or he's a naturalized citizen who was not naturalized......, and on and on it goes. Pick a story and stick with it, thank you.
When I first heard about the question of his citizenship, I thought that he might not have been born in the United States. I still don't know - but since I have researched the question further, I have decided to hang my hat on the question of his allegiance [or lack thereof].
The Founding Fathers had been British subjects - and were, thus, brought up under British Law. They were well aware of Calvin's Case [1608], the seminal English case where subjectship [citizenship] was defined. It said, in part:
... 3. There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. 1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king. 2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion. And 3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom, that was born under the ligeance of a king of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the king of the other.
Actual obedience meant permanent allegiance [or permanent ligeance], and not just temporary obedience due by aliens to the sovreign while they resided in the country.
The British Nationality Act of 1730 [which governed British citizenship at the time of the American Revolution] further stated:
" ... That the Children of all natural-born Subjects, born out of the Ligeance of her said late Majesty, her Heirs and Successors, should be deemed, adjudged and taken to be natural-born ... May it please your most Excellent Majesty that it may be declared and enacted, and be it declared and enacted by the Children of natural-born Subjects born out of the Allegiance of the Crown, declared to be natural-born ... That all Children born out of the Ligeance of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, or which shall hereafter be born out of such Ligeance, whose Fathers were or shall be natural-born Subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the Time of the Birth of such Children respectively, shall and may, by virtue of the said recited Clause in the said Act of the seventh Year of the Reign of her said late Majesty, and of this present Act, be adjudged and taken to be, and all such Children are hereby declared to be natural-born Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever ..."
Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England stated:
" ... The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such ...
Notice that he qualifies their status be writing "generally speaking". He does not state it to specifically exclude the children of aliens who are claimed as natural born subjects of their fathers' country, but he implies it by also stating that no subject can owe two [2] allegiances.
Furthermore, Dicey, in his "A Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws" wrote:
(1) "British subject" means any person who owes permanent allegiance [See Note 1] to the Crown.
(2) "Natural-born British subject" means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.
(3) "Naturalized British subject" means any British subject who is not a natural-born British subject.
Note 1: "Permanent" allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien who, because he is within the British dominions, owes " temporary " allegiance to the Crown.
Furthermore, there is John Jay's letter to George Washington in 1787, stating:
"... Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen ..."
Given this, in tota, there is only one reasonable definition that the Founding Fathers intended and that is:
A natural born citizen is born within the dominion of the United States AND of two US citizen parents. Obama DOES NOT qualify ...
You couldn’t get a U.S. passport without a legitimate, embossed copy of your birth certificate. You couldn’t get a Social Security number without it. Not sure about the Army but I would strongly imagine that you need your legitimate embossed birth certificate in order to enroll in the Army. I think you must have had it for these occasions at least.