Don't look, birthers: Obama's passport

Politico ^ | August 17, 2010 | Josh Gerstein

[Las Vegas Ron]

GreatGrey
Since Aug 19, 2010

Get the fly swatter out.

[jamese777]

b.t.w. What difference did the framers intend between a NBC for POTUS and a “citizen” for Reps and Senators? What was the difference between a “natural born” citizen...and a “citizen” in 1787?

---

Let’s hold a seance and see if we can ask any of them directly.
Here’s what one Framer and the primary author of the Constitution had to say in 1779:
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”— James Madison, May 22, 1789
The Founders Constitution: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html

[jamese777]

You kneepad sycophants of Barry the Bastard boy will float any lie for your little boy-god: “If any of the fantasy above were true, the Supreme Court of the United States would have taken on any of the eight Obama eligibility appeals that have reached Justices’ conferences seeking Writs of Certiorari.”
Justice Clarence Thomas stated clearly that the SCOTUS is avoiding the issue ... for fools like you, jamese, that means no case, regardless of merit will be heard so long as the SCOTUS has decided to avoid the issue. I’m so sick of you lying, twisting scum at FR ... the stench is almost, ALMOST, too much. Your ilk are succeeding at one thing at least, you are diminishing the readership at FR and the power of conservative debate at FR. Tell your greasy boss, Axelrod, he is almost as brilliant as Karl Rove, in a demonic sort of way.

---

Just to be clear. Since day one, I have been calling for a Grand Jury investigation of Barack Obama’s birth and eligibility to be president. Grand juries have subpoena power to force the release of documents for examination by experts and Grand Juries can compel witnesses to testify under oath.

My main criticism of the birther movement is the failed strategy in what is now up to 72 failed lawsuits which have attempted to resolve this issue via civil suits. The issue needs to be resolved in the criminal justice system. If Obama is indicted, that’s fine with me. If Obama is cleared, that’s fine with me. I would just like resolution and resolution will not come via lawsuits.

Actually Justice Thomas said that the Supreme Court was avoiding the issue of whether a person born in Puerto Rico could qualify as a natural born citizen and run for president. The video of the actual conversation is available on youtube. You can watch the video for yourself and clearly see that Justice Thomas was referring to Representative Serrano becoming president, not Barack Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7qEH-tKoXA

If my posts are so upsetting to you, I urge you to avoid reading any of them at all costs. I do not want to be responsible for a cardiac event or a cerebral hemmorage.

You have a lovely day now and please, do yourself a favor and don’t read ANYTHING else that I write. I’ll find a way to muddle through posting my opposing views without you. You take good care.

[rxsid]

They are only citizens today because of a gross bastardization of the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

[rxsid]

b.t.w. What difference did the framers intend between a NBC for POTUS and a “citizen” for Reps and Senators? What was the difference between a “natural born” citizen...and a “citizen” in 1787?

Let’s hold a seance and see if we can ask any of them directly.

Here’s what one Framer and the primary author of the Constitution had to say in 1779: “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”— James Madison, May 22, 1789 The Founders Constitution: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How can a USURPER command our armed forces?
How can a USURPER make appointments to the Supreme Court?
How can a USURPER sign any treaties with foreign governments?
How can a USURPER sign anything into law, let alone the health care monstrosity?

HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

Factcheck.org goes on to say this about Obama Sr., Jr. and the British Nationality Act of 1948:

In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html

 

Even the modern day State Department rules discusses the problems associated with dual citizenship:

7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:

(e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.

...

the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that dual nationality is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both." See Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952).

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86563.pdf

So, back to the question: "HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?"
It can't. Of course not. Yet, right there, on his campaign web site F.T.S., it's stated that a foreign government "governed" Barry from birth and the reason it did, was that Barry inherited that foreign citizenship by way of his foreign national father (no matter where he was born), a fact backed up by Factcheck.org. Assuming, of course, that Sr. was his legal father at birth.
How, then, could he possibly be a "Natural Born Citizen" of the U.S.?
Barry Soetoro, the divided citizen at birth!

Barack Obama a/k/a Barry Soetoro *	NOT Obama / Soetoro
* This assumes HI birth. A citizen of 2 countries at birth.

http://www.jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com

Furthermore:  Hawaii's Territorial Law, Chapter 57 - "VITAL STATISTICS, I", shown beginning pg 23 of 29, (the law in effect in 1961) allowed the parents (or grandparents or other relative) of baby's born anywhere in the world to be eligible to apply for a Hawaiian birth certificate. A mailed-in form (without mention of a hospital, doctor, or midwife) signed by one of his grandparents (who forged the parent signature(s)) would have been enough to set up a birth record and a birth certificate at the Dept of Health. The Dept of Health would (presumably) then have automatically sent the names of the parents, their address as given on the mailed-in form , the gender of the child, and the date of birth to the Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin. The address given for the parents in the newspaper announcements is actually, however, the August 1961 home address of Obama’s maternal grandparents Stanley and Madelyn Dunham [6085 Kalanianaole Highway], and not the 1961 home address of Barack Obama, Sr. [625 11th Ave].)

Bottom line: Even IF (big IF) he was born in HI, he inherited his father's foreign citizenship as well, making him a US citizen by US law and a subject to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England by inheritance, birthright and England's law. He could not be considered a Natural Born Citizen as known by and as intended by the framers.
 
==============================================================================
 
What follows, is a bit of information with regards to the Constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen" (specifically) and NOT about the entire makeup, functions, origins and influences that made/make up our form of government, a Constitutional Republic. Clearly, the framers relied upon many different sources to create our new form of government.

Who, or "what" constituted a natural born citizen was well known to the framers. Jay would not have made such a suggestion to the others (Washington & the rest of those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention) unless there was a clear understanding of what that term meant. The definition comes from a source that not only were the framers familiar with, but the founders (many who were both) as well. And yes, even though most could not speak French, most read French (except, notably, Washington who would defer to Jefferson when such interpretation was needed).

 

NBC in the Constitutional drafts:

June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States." Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).

July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): "Permit me to hint, whether it would 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 Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.] http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:

September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: "I thank you for the hints contained in your letter"
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483

September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay's letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison's notes of the Convention
The proposal passed unanimously without debate.

 

Original French version of Vattel's Law of Nations:

Emer de Vattel, Le droit des gens, ou Principes de la loi naturelle, vol. 1 (of 2) [1758]

From Chapter XIX, 212 (page 248 of 592):
Title in French: "Des citoyens et naturels"
To English: "Citizens and natural"

French text (about citizens): "Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile : lies a cette societe par certains devoirs et soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages."
-------------------
To English: "The citizens are the members of the civil society: linked to this society by certain duties and subject to its authority, they participate with equality has its advantages."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
French text (about "natural" born citizens): "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens"
-------------------
To English, gives this: "the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens"

A detailed, historical, etymology of the term "Natural Born Citizen" can be found here: http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/index.htm

Prior to the Constitution

"This 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel is of special importance to scholars of constitutional history and law, for it was read by many of the Founders of the United States of America, and informed their understanding of the principles of law which became established in the Constitution of 1787. Chitty's notes and the appended commentaries by Edward D. Ingraham, used in lectures at William and Mary College, provide a valuable perspective on Vattel's exposition from the viewpoint of American jurists who had adapted those principles to the American legal experience."

Vattel's Law of Nations, built upon "natural law - which has it's roots in ancient Greece, was influenced by Leibniz.
Even Blackstone affirmed the basis of natural law:
"This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original” (1979, 41). In this passage, Blackstone articulates the two claims that constitute the theoretical core of conceptual naturalism: 1) there can be no legally valid standards that conflict with the natural law; and 2) all valid laws derive what force and authority they have from the natural law."

Thomas Jefferson (for one example) had the 1758 version as well as a 1775 version in his own library:
Thomas Jefferson's Library: A Catalog with the Entries in His Own Order (under a section he titled "Ethics. Law of Nature and Nations."

In AUTOBIOGRAPHY by Thomas Jefferson, he states: "On the 1st of June 1779. I was appointed Governor of the Commonwealth and retired from the legislature. Being elected also one of the Visitors of Wm. & Mary college, a self-electing body, I effected, during my residence in Williamsburg that year, a change in the organization of that institution by abolishing the Grammar school, and the two professorships of Divinity & Oriental languages, and substituting a professorship of Law & Police, one of Anatomy Medicine and Chemistry, and one of Modern languages; and the charter confining us to six professorships, we added the law of Nature & Nations..." This was 8 years prior the the writing of the Constitution! [See the "Law of Nature & Nations" section of his personal library to get an idea of what he included in this curriculum in America's 1st law school].

Note: Vattel, is one of only 10 "footnotes" in Jefferson's Biography, from Yale.

Prior to Jay's famous letter to those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention, we see (one of many exchanges between the founders) a letter from Madison ("father" of the Constitution) to Jay:

"James Madison, as a member of the Continental Congress in 1780, drafted the instructions sent to John Jay, for negotiating a treaty with Spain, which quotes at length from The Law of Nations. Jay complained that this letter, which was probably read by the Spanish government, was not in code, and "Vattel's Law of Nations, which I found quoted in a letter from Congress, is prohibited here.[29]"
From: Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. How the Natural Law concept of G.W. Leibniz Inspired America's Founding Fathers.

The concepts of "natural law" and the phrase "Laws of Nature" (of which Law of Nations is built upon) are found within the Declaration of Independence itself:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Those (& others) are clearly NOT derived from English law, but rather from natural law concepts (which can be found in Vattel's Law of Nations).

The Constitution

The concepts of "natural law" continued in the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union

...

Article 1. section 8, clause 10:

"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations"

Again, those phrases are not from English common law, but rather from natural law and even mention Vattel's book by name, "Law of Nations."

After the Constitution is penned

Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789.
David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period.

Ramsay REAFFIRMS the definition a Natural Born Citizen (born in country, to citizen parents (plural)) in 1789 A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789)

The Naturalization Act of 1790, which states (in relevant part) "that the children of citizens [plural] of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens"

Of course, the Act of 1790 was repealed by the Act of 1795 (which did NOT attempt to define or extend the definition for NBC). What the 1st Congress had tried to do in 1790 was to EXTEND the known definition (of born in country to citizen parentS) to those born outside of sovereign territory, to citizen parentS. Of course, they can't do that. Congress (by itself) doesn't have the Constitutional authority to define (or EXTEND) the Constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen." Only a SCOTUS decision on the intent of the framers, or an amendment to the Constitution can do that.

The same definition was referenced in the dicta of many early SCOTUS cases as well...some examples:

"THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss

The New Englander, Volume 3 (1845) states: "The expression ‘citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states."
Note: the "New Englander" was NOT a student law review. The first student law review appeared 30 years later, in 1875/76 at the Albany Law School..

Vattel's definition for "natural born citizen" was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War.
John Bingham, "father" of the 14th Amendment, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, REAFFIRMED the definition known to the framers by saying this:

commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"

SCOTUS, in an 1887 case cites Vattel a number of times and reitterates that his work was translated into English in 1760:
"Vattel in his Law of Nations, which was first printed at Neuchatel in 1758, and was translated into English and published in England in 1760" U S v. ARJONA, 120 U.S. 479 (1887)

It's interesting to note that (non binding) Senate Resolution 511, which attempted to proclaim that Sen. John McCain was a "Natural Born Citizen" because he was born to citizen parentS, even they referenced the (repealed) Naturalization Act of 1790: "Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen'".
Obama, himself, was a signatory of that resolution knowing full well (no doubt) the requirement has always been about 2 citizen parents.

The point is, with the exception of the repealed Act of 1790 which tried to EXTEND the definition, the meaning of the term "Natural Born Citizen" (of the U.S.) has ALWAYS been about being born within the sovereign territory or jurisdiction of the U.S. to 2 citizen parents (& therefore parents who do NOT owe allegiance to another, foreign, country).

[jamese777]

Go to the Supreme Court web site and search the dockets for “Obama - Kagan”....

Why am I not surprised?????????
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-6790.htm

Well, someone finally figured out why Obama nominated Elana Kagan for the Supreme Court.... Pull up the Supreme Courts website, go to the docket and search for Obama.

She was the Solicitor General for all the suits against him filed with the Supreme Court to show proof of natural born citizenship. He owes her big time. All of the requests were denied of course. They were never heard. It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn’t it?

The American people mean nothing any longer. It’s all about payback time for those that compromised themselves to elect someone that really has no true right to even be there. We should be getting so sick of all of this nonsense. The USA has finally become the laughing stock of the world.

---

The Solicitor General (which was Elena Kagan’s position) argues cases for the government before the US Supreme Court. Since none of the eight Obama eligibility appeals was accepted by the Justices of the Supreme Court for a hearing before the full Court, Elena Kagan had nothing to argue.

The Supreme Court operates under a tradition known as “The Rule of Four.” When an appeal is submitted to the Supreme Court, four justices must agree that this appeal has serious constitutional merit and that it should be accepted for a hearing by the Court.

The Solicitor General has NOTHING to do with which cases are submitted to the Supreme Court and the Solicitor General has ZERO impact on which cases are accepted or rejected by the Supreme Court.

[MHGinTN]

Don’t call me again from your 708 area code number. You’re a liar and an agent for what is systematically murdering the Republic.

[GreatGrey]

Yep Lucy, I’m a newbie.

Doesn’t mean what I have posted thus far is incorrect does it?

[Spaulding]

“Does Arnold Schwarzenegger have a US passport? Is he eligible to be president?”

As you probably know, Arnold isn't eligible both because 1) he wasn't born on our soil, and 2) his parents were not U.S. citizens.

Not everyone knows that Orrin Hatch sponsored an amendment to Article II Section 1 in 2003 trying to pave the path for Arnold. It didn't get very far. There have been 26 attempts to modify the requirement that the president be a natural born citizen. Arnold, of course, required that the amendment allow naturalized citizens to be purported natural born and, even with a Republican Senate, there wasn't much support. Kissinger, Brezinski... there is a long list of naturalized citizens whom some think would make good presidents. If enough people agree, we can pass an amendemnt.

Alger Hiss and Bill Ayers are natural born citizens. But the framer's intent is well founded. The exceptions aren't the reason for the rule. Obama exemplifies what our framers were concerned with, a leader whose parents did not have allegiance to the principles which protect our lliberty, and who was thus unlikely himself to hold the allegiances. Most naturalized citizens, those who made a conscious effort to become naturalized, not 'anchor bablies' whose allegiance may remain with their nation of citizenship, understand and value our Constitution more profoundly than native born citizens. So a natural born citizen's parents may be naturalized. But Schwarzenegger's parents were not naturalized, nor was Obama's father.

Like Schwarzenegger, John McCain needed an amendment to be eligible. Clair McCaskill and Pat Leahy latched on to McCain's problem by sponsoring two bills in 2008 which appeared to support McCain's eligibility problem, not having been born “on the soil”. One co-sponsor was Obama. It was SB 2678 in February of 2008. Since the bill was a bit too obvious - it painted a sign on McCain's ineligibility “... ensure that children born to United States citizens while serving overseas in the military are eligible to become President.” So they turned it into a “resolution, SenRes 511 ” - “let's all agree that we think this is the way it should be” - which also carries no legal authority. Sen.Res 511 stressed McCain's military service, rather like John Kerry's purple hearts, except that McCain really did get shot down, along with crashing on a training flight, taking out power lines in Spain, and ditching on a carrier approach. This was the political quid-pro-quo which allowed Obama to run for president without being asked the eligibility question as McCain was repeatedly in his prior campaigns. Had he ever won you can be sure the issue would be raised. There were a dozen legal analysis by professors and commissioned by party operatives ready for the battle. “If all of you keep quiet about Obama’s problem, we, won't challenge McCain (this time).”

[danamco]

“I’m saying that Birther lawsuits area all a joke.

They say something different all the way over from Kenya???

MONDAY,AUGU ST16,2010// THEWASHINGT ONTIMES

A debate on the adoption of a new Kenyan Constitution took place in the House of the National Assembly of Kenya on Thursday, March 25, 2010. The Offi cial Report of that House, dated Thursday, March 25, 2010, copy available at http://www.scribd. com/doc/30293518, and recorded in the Kenyan government’s depository, Hansard- the offi cial source of printed transcripts of parliamentary debates-provides the details of that debate. One of the speakers (see pages 29-31) during that debate was The Minister for Lands, Mr. James Orengo. Ironically, and very applicable to us in the USA at this time, he expressed to the Parliament in open debate that “[i]f we do not live by the values and principles contained in this Constitution, all that is contained in this Constitution will be of no signifi cance....” He continued saying that Kenyans must follow the rule of law and especially the Constitution, stating that the “unmaking of Kenya began by disregard and non-compliance of the law. We ended up in a dictatorship that we had to fi ght for so many years....” He further explained that under the new proposed Constitution, the “Executive authority of the President ... is derived from the people....”

He then continued to tell the Parliament that Kenya must overcome its problem of elements of its population excluding people from participating in Kenyan life because of their ethnicity or tribal affi liations. He asked that all Kenyans unite, regardless of ethnic or tribal affi liations, stating: “The

other thing that we are addressing through devolution is exclusion. What has made us suffer as a nation is exclusion. Once people feel excluded, even when you want to employ a policeman or constable or you want to build a dispensary, it must come from the centre. In the colonial days, these things were being done on the ground and they could give bursaries and build roads. I commend devolution. Those who fear devolution are living in the past. They are being guided by their ethnic consideration and objectives. They are living in the past. If America was living in a situation where they feared ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation, how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America? It is because they did away with exclusion. What has killed us here is exclusion; that once Mr. Orengo is President, I know of no other place than Ugenya. That is why we were fi ghting against these many Presidencies in the past. I hope that Kenya will come of age. This country must come of age. People want freedom and nations want liberation, but countries want independence.”

[TheCipher]

Thanks for the screenshot. I stand corrected. Shows what a higher quality vid can show. However, there are still a few puzzling things about the video. The first is why the date of issuance is blurred out on the photo page. Plus, they never show the cover of passport from which they show the photo page. It shows him opening the folder, and they instantly cut to the close up of the passport photo. They then cut to a scene where he is opening a passport ( with the biometric symbol on it ), but never show the photopage from that passport. Why not just take one continuous shot of taking the passport out of the folder, opening it to the photopage and then flipping through to the stamp page. Why three separate edited shots ? What is significant about this is the shot of the photopage may be from an older passport ( hence the issue date being blurred )If we could see the cover of the passport, it would confirm it. The newer passports ( starting in 2006 )have a biometric symbol on the cover. If this photopage was taken from his old Senate passport, it would not have the biometric symbol ( that was issued prior to 2006 ).

[edge919]

Yeah, I do have a court statement that supports my view. Minor v. Happersett, which was also quoted by Wong Kim Ark says natural born citizen is defined OUTSIDE of the constitution and they proceeded to use the Vattel definition of natural born citizen in that persons must be born in the country of parents who are citizens. It’s very straightforward.

“...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 ...”

[edge919]

You can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink.

But evidently Obama can lead his blind faith believers to a urinal and make them drink. This is about the only thing that explains their gullible, desperate clinging to the irrational belief that Obama has proven his nativity myth of being born in Hawaii.

Evidence of anything other than Honolulu birth: Zero.

Nonsense. I listed several pieces of evidence you simply ignored. You need to learn to count.

[danamco]

because only Congress can remove the President from office.”

There might be a little crux you have NOT researched. That is that Congress in itself have tooooo much dirty laundry in this case and they don't have the guts or rather the authority to do any removal of an usurper, because they did NOT vet and investigate his NBC status thoroughly, hmmm!

A snippit from attorney Apuzzo's website

Thursday, July 22, 2010 The Third Circuit Court of Appeals Finds Attorney Apuzzo Not Liable for Obama's/Congress’ Damages and Costs Incurred by Them in Defending the Kerchner Appeal On July 2, 2010, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision affirming the New Jersey Federal District Court’s dismissal of the Kerchner et al v. Obama/Congress et al case for lack of Article III standing. The Court ordered that I show cause in 14 days why the Court should not find me liable for just damages and costs suffered by the defendants, not in having to defend against the merits of plaintiffs’ underlying claims that Putative President Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen,” that he has yet to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii, that Congress failed to exercise its constitutional duty to properly vet and investigate Obama’s “natural born Citizen” status, and that former Vice President and President of the Senate, Dick Cheney, and current Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, were complicit in that Congressional failure, but rather in having to defendant against what the court considers to be a frivolous appeal of the District Court’s dismissal of their claims on the ground of Article III standing. On Monday, July 19, 2010, I filed my response. This afternoon, on July 22, 2010, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision on whether it should impose the damages and costs upon me. The Court has decided not to impose any damages and costs upon me and has discharged its order to show cause. This means that the matter of damages and costs is closed.

[WOSG]

I listed several pieces of evidence you simply ignored.

You made claims without evidence.

When you cant even listen to an interview correctly, when you cant even admit that a newspaper birth announcement is evidence, it’s hopeless to discuss. your opinion is immune to real evidence on this.

“But evidently Obama can lead his blind faith believers to a urinal and make them drink.”

Kool-Aids worn off. Now is the hangover. Remember in November... OPERATION RESTORE AMERICAN FREEDOM - NOVEMBER, 2010 - DO YOUR PART!

[little jeremiah]

What about the fact that his photo is the same as the official portrait? Don’t passports photos need to have certain specs? I know mine did. The lights they use make your eyes look strange. White background, I think, too - someone mentioned.

Or is the pres allowed different standards regarding photos.

[edge919]

When you cant even listen to an interview correctly, when you cant even admit that a newspaper birth announcement is evidence, it’s hopeless to discuss. your opinion is immune to real evidence on this.

What interview are you whining about?? The newspaper birth announcement is evidence of a male child and a birth date, but the listed address is not one that matches where the father was known to live. There's no place of birth listed, so it proves nothing about a place of birth. If you can't wrap your head around that, then the hopelessness is because of you.

And are you seriously needing links to Michelle's admission that Kenya is her husband's home country or that newspaper articles said Obama is Kenyan-born or that Kenyan politicians have said Obama was born in Kenya?? These have all been posted at FR multiples times. Faithers usually have several standard excuses for all these pieces of evidence, not that any of the excuses hold water.

[jamese777]

Don’t call me again from your 708 area code number. You’re a liar and an agent for what is systematically murdering the Republic.

---

What in the world are you raving about? I live 2,000 miles from the 708 area code and there is no way on earth that I would call you about anything, ever.

No wonder the Tea Party candidate for the US Senate in Colorado, Ken Buck called “birthers” “DUMBASSES.”
No wonder Ann Coulter called you guys “cranks.”
No wonder Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck ignore you.
No wonder Senator Lindsey Graham called you all “crazy.”
No wonder Karl Rove wrote about you lunatics in the Wall Street Journal: “If tea party groups are to maximize their influence on policy, they must now begin the difficult task of disassociating themselves from cranks and conspiracy nuts,” he said. “This includes 9/11 deniers, ‘birthers’ who insist Barack Obama was not born in the U.S., and militia supporters espousing something vaguely close to armed rebellion.”

Take your medication, have some milk and a cookie and go to bed. I’m certain that tomorrow will be a better day.

[TheCipher]

What about the fact that his photo is the same as the official portrait? Don’t passports photos need to have certain specs?

Which makes things even more strange. If you look at the previous post of his photopage with the feathers of the eagle on it, it shows that the photo page is on the inside cover of the passport ( as all passports are ) and the next page is the page with the eagle on it and We The People written in script across the top.

Now if you look at the screen shots of the diplomatic passport as he flips through it, something odd comes up. It looks like the layout of the passport changed in 2008 ( or maybe diplomatic passports are laid out differently ).

It looks like the page next to the cover ( or a few down ) is the page that has the statement from the Secretary of State on it in 3 languages

If you look at the top of the page behind that page, you see the script of We The People

Now going back to the closeup pic of his passport, the We The People page is the page following the photo page. I don't think they have more than one We The People page written in script. So the mystery is :

How does the closeup pic of the passport have the We The People page as the second page, but the passport they are flipping through does not ? The only rational answer is that they are two separate passports.

[thecodont]

Posted for your reading pleasure:

From The Standad (Kenya):

-----------

Letters

http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/letters/InsidePage.php?id=2000015446&cid=17&

Peaceful polls the best gift for Obama

Published on 05/08/2010

As we went to the polls yesterday, the rest of the world was marking US President Barack Obama’s 49th birthday.

That the two events occurred concurrently is of great significance to Kenya, a country that lays claim to the charismatic world leader and which has long struggled to write a home-grown constitution.

The world’s attention is on us, and following what transpired after the disputed presidential election of 2007, we must now prove that we have matured democratically and can have a peaceful election.

As our son celebrates his birthday, our gift to him should be a peaceful and transparent referendum. Let us watch out for one another and accept what the majority decides.

{James Mwangi, Kigumo}

-----------

Emphasis added.