Who IS This Guy?

It was renamed Kenya in 1920 Here's a link to info

http://kenyapolitical.blogspot.com/2008/02/british-east-africa-protectorate.html

You beat me to it.

Also, Hawaii is and was much different than the mainland. I suspect the term African was very commonly used there since the term negro was mostly seen as a racist term. Don't forget the Hawaiian ancestry.

1. How does the official name of a hospital that wasn't formed until 1978, appear on a birth certificate in 1961?

In 1931 Kapiʻolani Maternity Home was renamed Kapiʻolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital the name remained until 1971 when it was renamed Kapiʻolani Hospital.

2. How does a COUNTRY that doesn't exist until 1963, find ITS way onto that same 1961 birth certificate.

The Colony of Kenya has existed since 1920 when it was a part of what was known as the British East Africa protectorate. If you look at the birth certificate, it does not say "Kenya" it says "Kenya, East Africa". This is how it and many other countries of the British East Africa Protectorate were known until they achieved independence and changed their names.

Negro vs African? See link

http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2011/04/question-how-did-official-documents...

Sorry Mike, your source wasn't very through.

Do you really think AKA Obama would have won the election if all the things he is hiding were made known?

Do you really think AKA Obama will be able to finish his first term if all the things he is hiding are made known?

Do you think Obama spent a fortune keeping his history secret because there wasn't something to hide?

If Obama said, "I have nothing to hide, but I am hiding it"; would you believe him?

If you are not suspicious of a man who hides his history I have a bridge in the desert I want to sell you.

If you are unwilling to call for an investigation of a man who attempts to sell you a bridge in the desert I have some beach front property in Florida at the intersection of I-75 and Florida # 29 that I want you to buy.

If you place a down payment on a contract for the bridge in the desert and the beach front property in the swamp I would conclude that you voted for Obama.

Obama will be exposed --Don't get caught on the wrong side of this issue

SEE: http://obamaballotchallenge.com/ AND http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

Sorry Sam Check our links.

It just freaking amazes me how some people will post stuff without ever looking any further than the nose on their face. Not referring to you Mike. I mean, I'm no rocket scientist, but even I was able to refute this pile of dung.

We know Marco Rubio of Florida, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, and Barack Obama putative President are not natural born citizens. There are questions that have not been addressed with actual evidence about Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum not being natural born citizens. So, four Republican leaders are facing questions about natural born citizenship and one Democrat. That might explain why the Republican leadership has been so reluctant to challenge Barack Obama's presidency.

SPAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Definition of SPAM: Anything Roy doesn't agree with.

For your review and comments

Some of us have been working on the eligibility issue since before the 2008 election. Below is a collection of research that I consider the best available.

Complete factual biography scrupulously researched:

The Obama Timeline

http://www.colony14.net/id41.html

by Don Fredrick

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Obama "I have nothing to hide but I'm hiding it."

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/04/aka-obama-fans-all-together-now-say-om...

by Sam Sewell

* * * * * * * * * * *

An attorney reviews the evidence relevant to Obama's eligibility to serve:

Why Can't Obama Give a Simple and Truthful Answer to the Birth Certificate Question?

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/05/why-cant-obama-give-simple-and-truthful.html

by Mario Apuzzo

* * * * * * * * * * *

An objective view of both sides of the eligibility issue

Obama Presidential Eligibility -- An Introductory Primer"

http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

by Stephen Tonchen

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Buckshot61,

It is my understanding that a "natural born citizen" is one born on American soil, regardless of the parents citizenship. Isn't that the argument against "Anchor babies"? The fact that even if one or both of the parents are not American citizens, as long as the child is born in the states, they are considered "natural born."

Numerous presidents and government officials have had frivilous lawsuits filed against them. Historically these officials have failed to appear or even file responses. That doesn't mean they think they are above the law. For them to appear in each and every frivolous lawsuit filed, would theoretically take them away from the business of running this country (insert snide comment here).

Speaking of frivolous lawsuits, here's the decision in the Georgia suit you referenced.

http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-phoenix/georgia-judge-rules-obama-eligible-for-...

I'm sorry Buckshot, but since when does a state court have jurisdiction on U.S. Constitutional matters. This matter has been adjudicated in the federal court system to no end. To appear is to give legitimacy to the proceedings. This also comes from the state that has figured out that it's attempt to get a dog into the immigration fight has cost them roughly 12 BILLION dollars it can't afford.

You have your opinion and I have mine. Fair enough?

I do wonder though how much it would have cost you and me (the taxpayers) to transport the President and his security detail to a hearing on a question that the judge ruled had been decided. Also I notice there was no default judgement rendered as is usually the case if anyone fails to answer a civil summons.

All other elected offices require ordinary citizenship. Only two elected offices have the constitutional requirement of "Natural Born Citizen". What is this special kind of citizenship? Having two parents who are both citizens can qualify a candidate as a "Natural Born Citizen".

Consider this conversation at McCain's eligibility inquiry by the U.S. Senate: "My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen," Chertoff replied. "That is mine, too," said Leahy. What's interesting here is that Sen. Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary, confirms that a "natural born" citizen is the child of American citizen parents. Parents -- that's two. That's BOTH parents.

Just a Reminder - Before he was nominated AKA Obama Signed Resolution Describing Him As Ineligible

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/12/just-reminder-before-he-was-nominated....

http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

When it comes to differentiating between qualification for Senators/Congresscritters and the President/Vice, and other hoodlums, the following is good to keep in mind:

"It was the fear of foreign influence invading the Office of Commander in Chief of the military that prompted John Jay, our first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, to write to George Washington the following letter dated July 25, 1787: "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 (underlying "born" in the original). Jay's recommendation did make it into the Constitution. Article II, Sec. 1, cl. 5 of the Constitution provides in pertinent part: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President. . ." In this clause and in Articles I, III, and IV, the Founding Fathers distinguished between "Citizen" and "natural born Citizen." Per the Founders, while Senators and Representatives can be just "citizens," the President must be a "natural born Citizen." Through this clause, the Founders sought to guarantee that the ideals for which they fought would be faithfully preserved for future generations of Americans. The Founders wanted to assure that the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, a non-collegial and unique and powerful civil and military position, was free of all foreign influence and that its holder has sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the U.S. The "natural born Citizen" clause was the best way for them to assure this.

That the "natural born Citizen" clause is based on undivided allegiance and loyalty can be seen from how the Founders distinguished between "citizen" and "natural born Citizen." This distinction is based on the law of nations which became part of our national common law." by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Had these precepts been followed in 2008, as per the Constitution, we would not be in the miserable conditions that devour our freedoms, finances and individuality we are experiencing today.

Nice try, no cigar in my book. Natural born vs naturalized. There is a distinct difference. By your very definition Barry Goldwater was not a natural born citizen. He was born in the territory of Az.

One last item. The 14th amendment to the Constitution. The Supreme Court has issued it's ruling and as such it is the law of the land until such time time as that court reverses itself or the the amendment itself is repealed. This ruling goes back many years.

This was a civil case Mike. Not a criminal case. Two entirely different things!!!! There never were any criminal charges to answer. I sue you, you don't show up, you lose, no one goes to jail. In this case, he got sued, didn't show up, the judge adjudicated based on case law, the other side lost. There is law that says you must answer a civil summons. You might end up being cited for contempt of court. Then it becomes a criminal matter.

Buckshot, I see what you are saying, and I also read the article completely. The plaintiff's in this action asked the judge to adjudicate this issue based on their arguments and proof rather than entering a default judgement. If you haven't read the judges ruling and statements, you may wish to. Keep in mind where this occurred.

To everyone, had YOU been one of the plaintiffs and the defendant failed to appear, would you take your default judgement out to the world so you could say, See, I told you so, or would you throw the dice in hopes that the judge was a dufus who had no knowledge of existing case law??

The judge was none to kind to the plaintiffs either.

Dr. Herbert Titus - Obama is not a "natural born Citizen" -

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2012/01/dr-herbert-titus-obama-is-not-natural....

Who has the most creditably Dr. Titus or Roy?

Attorney, Dr. Herbert Titus interview with theAmericanView.com: Obama is not a "natural born Citizen" of the United States; Herbert W. Titus is of counsel to the law firm of William J. Olson, P.C. Prior to his association with this firm, Mr. Titus taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding Dean of the College of Law and Government in Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.

Mr. Titus holds the J.D. degree (*** laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is an active member of the bar of Virginia and an inactive member of the bar of Oregon. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.

Who has the most credibility, Mr. Titus or the U.S. Supreme Court?

Best bumper sticker I have seen yet---

O=One

B=Big

A=Bad word for butt that will get you deleted

M=Mistake

A=America

Saw it in Boise on Saturday and it took up 1/2 of a bumper on a Ram! Could not say it better! God help us if he makes another term regardless of where and when he was born. There will not be enough prayer...

To each and everyone who is unhappy about how the 14th amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court, here is the link as to how change or repeal said amendment. Have at it!

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/constamend.htm

HE IS AND AMERICAN......BORN ON AMERICAN SOIL WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT????????I WOULD THINK BY THIS TIME THE NEED TO MAKE THIS MAN A FORGIENOR WOULD CEASE AND DESISTE........THE NEED OF SOME TO CONTINUE AND IDEAOLOGY THAT EXCLUDES SOME FROM CERTAIN HEIRACHY'S HAS PROVEN FRUITLESS.......THE MERE FACT THAT THIS CONTINUES SHOWS A DESPERATION TO MAINTAIN A SENSE OF SUPERIORITY......TO LATE.....OUR KIDS KNOW THAT IT CAN HAPPEN......THERE ASPERATIONS CANNOT BE DETERED.....IT'S TO LATE.!!!!!!!!!..YOU NEED TO STOP.....YOU CANNOT TURN THE CLOCK BACK....YOU CANT EVEN SLOW IT DOWN.......IT'S TO LATE

My father was born in Idaho in 1913, but had no birth certificate until the need arose (which appears to be the creation of Social Security). Every bit of information on that document was the legal basis for his BIRTH rights, and yet there is absolutely nothing to verify it SHORT of HIS father's signature and his Mother's memory.

His death certificate was signed by a doctor in Mountain Home in 1965. I was 15.

Many years later, Doc told me that my father WILLED himself to death, regardless of the "official" declaration he signed.

I had concluded that already, because my father TOLD me that less than 6 hours before he passed.

Nearly 50 years later, it appears that much of the informaton on MOST official government documents relating to my family is "off by a year or two" or a middle initial is deifferent from the word of mouth history that exists. Names and birthplaces, cited from memory and/or written down in family Bibles were either lost or left behind in moves from Indianna to Idaho.

While my AMERICAN heritage goes back to 1837-39, there are only three generatons before me.

Do the math. Not that it matters......

Roy: If you had read and understood my offering, I said nothing about a "naturalized citizen". Further, I said nothing about being born in a US territory. I attempted to delve into the fact that a "Natural Born Citizen" must have two (meaning both for you hard heads) US Citizen parents. The parents can be either Natural Born Citizens or Naturalized Citizens, but they must have been citizens at the time the person in question (0bama) was born. And don't throw up the 14th at me either. There is nothing in there that changes the basic qualifications for POTUS/VPOTUS. If the court had wanted to change those qualifications, it would have said so. You cannot "assume" a court decision says something that they did not say. That falls into the ***-u-me court of public opinion.

STOP WASTING YOUR TIME .....MY FRIEND THEY WILL BELIEVE WHAT THEY WANT ...... IT SUITS THERE SENSE OF PURPOSE.....HE COULDNT POSSIBLY ?????? I JUST HAVE TO LAUGH....

Here read this..

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

The evil designs of Men. Enough Said.

Ms Marylin: I read the Snopes bit, but must fall back on my previous posting, "There is nothing in the 14 Amendment that changes the basic qualifications for POTUS/VPOTUS. If the court had wanted to change those qualifications, it would have said so. You cannot "assume" a court decision says something that they did not say. That falls into the ***-u-me court of public opinion." Besides, Snopes is not a reliable source of information on any subject, and particularly one that attempts to "brainwash" people into believing something that isn't there. (See my comment in quotation marks above.) Furthermore, if you believe Snopes has the authority to change case law and the U.S. Constitution, you must be from somewhere other than Planet Earth.

Snopes...garbage in...garbage out. Subjective garbage.

WOW! 10,000 hits in two days!

My little blog doesn't usually get that much attention.

51 Bullet-Pointed Facts That Dispute Barack Obama's Identity & Eligibility to be President!

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2011/07/51-bullet-pointed-facts-that-dispute.h...

By the way, my grandfather filed for a Social Security number at the same time he filed for my Dad's birth certificate. And he got a small pension that helped sustain him until he died at the ripe old age of 97. It bought him a little hard candy, a little tobacco for his pipe and a glass of fortified red wine after dinner each night (per his doctor's orders).

all things he worked hard for pioneering this land.

On the other hand, my father's Social Security medical retirement benefit would not come close to supporting his family of four, though he paid more than the maximum on a couple of occassions.

My mother passed just days before the government would have been able to claim HER little $15,000 to pay for her nursing home care after a massive stroke.

Social Security has not worked for WE THE PEOPLE since DC politicos did the math.....

I TOO HAVE SEEN SOME BAD DEALS ON SSI,BUT THOSE THINGS CAN BE FIXED BUT THE POLETICS WILL NOT LET IT HAPPEN.....I would not be willing to scrape it for what is called retirement accounts in the private sector we just saw what that will get you....and empty 401k and no recourse.

I know we are living longer I like you wh67 have a lot of people in my family who are in there late 80's and 90's most are ok but some have taken the family to the wall...you need to talk to and accountant and a lawyer,the laws are written for us all.DO IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well Sam, we best repeal all the laws that Chester A Arthur signed while he was President, since he wasn't a "natural born" citizen.

There certainly is enough evidence out there to raise questions. The significance of the eligibility issue is what happens if we are right. If Obama was never eligible to serve as President, everything he did is void. Two Supreme Court Justices, gone. A host of Federal Judges, gone. Every bill he signed, gone. Obamacare, gone.

What are the chances of this happening? Who knows? The bigger question is, given the potential reward of undoing everything Obama has done, why any conservative dismisses the eligibility issues, as "birtherism" is simply beyond belief. Why Obot PSYOPS agents dismiss the eligibility issue is obvious. Maybe there is a clue in that statement that will help tell misguided conservatives from Obot PSYOPS agents.

Well, Roy, I see you are back in the discussion mode. Do you intend to respond to my post (posted at Sun, Feb 5, 2012, at 12:47 PM) concerning the 14th Amendment, or are you just thinking I will go away?

Idaho Al

You didn't like my snopes link

How about this one

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama_citizen.htm

OK, MsMarylin, I scanned over your link and found many falsehoods as well as many questionable statements. With so many outside links, would you be so kind as to point out which section or statement you prefer I comment on?

With all those links, I could spend the rest of the week just clicking back and forth.

Idaho Al

Don't click on any of the links. Read the article in the center of the page and scroll down while reading until you get to the bottom of the page

After reading it please tell me which statements you find questionable........

Thanks

I wonder if anyone could possibly discount what we have seen happen for the past 3 years and still say that there hasn't been some shenanigans going on?

Snopes and other sources are just a resource, what you actually see in the character of a person and how they have presented themselves in every situation should be clues enough.

This would go for anyone running for office regardless of party. you have to take into account that most of the decision making is done behind closed doors by people who do not have our best interests at heart---ever. Only their own.

When we allow them to think for us and accept the status-quo, we have lost something very important.

What is wrong is that a handful of men or women have been deciding our fate as we meekly wait in the corral waiting for slaughter.

When Mike asks the question who is this man? I ask, what happened to the years, that are never discussed from Obama's growing up years to who actually financed his college education? I ask the question as to who actually vetted him?

I ask now, are we filled with hope? I remember when he was elected, they interviewed a woman who was filled with enthusiasm about how Obama was going to pay her mortgage and car payments.

It reminded me of The end of the Civil War when a certain group of people thought that winning the war would mean that their lives would be better. Instead the entire country was in complete disarray. Lincoln was assassinated and the carpet-baggers placed themselves in charge of reconstruction. If there is money to be made, you will find that the greedy vermin of our society will be first in line to disguise their "scheme's as something legitimate.

The times may change, but the nature of man does not. You have the men who are filled with integrity and the men who are filled with greed.

So it all comes down to the simple fact that the entire process of being in politics is a scripted story from beginning to end. The question for all of us to ponder is what relevant facts have been edited out and will never see the light of day? We cannot and should not trust what we see and hear on TV, the internet or any other source. Like all debates, the debater can present the facts as you, the view wants to hear them.

We will not change your mind if you are determined to deny that the sky is falling or that the creek is steadily rising.

But when you come back to Whom you should really consult for the truth, it might surprise you to know, He isn't available on the internet, Snopes or any major news network.

OK, MsMarylin, I've read the section you pointed out. Strictly speaking "Eligibility for POTUS"; anytime anyone throws in the 14th Amendment as a portion of their argument (Roy, are you reading?) they should automatically be labeled either mis- or un-informed. The 14th Amendment did not in any way change the eligibility for POTUS/VPOTUS.

Until we know more about 0bama's background, we may never know if he is even a U.S. citizen. He possibly may be a "14th Amendment citizen", but surely not a Natural Born Citizen. If 0bama's father is indeed Mr. Barack 0bama, the Kenyan student, that is all we need to know regarding 0bama's ineligibility for POTUS.

The statement, "Short of a Supreme Court decision or legislative statute settling the matter..." is superfluous, as we already have Minor v Happersett which is a Supreme Court decision that clearly establishes the definition of Natural Born Citizen.

I'll give you that Al, But you have to give me Chester Arthur, and go back and undo everything he did. I also checked out Blacks Law Dictionary, the "Gold Standard" even to the Supreme Court. According to the edition that was in print in the early 1800's Natural Born meant born on U.S. soil. Not a word about two U.S. citizens as parents is mentioned.

I sometimes wonder if some of you are just seriously ticked off that a Black Liberal was elected President in spite of all the crap that was thrown out there. He's a Muslim, He was born in Africa, Everybody and his brother is part of a conspiracy hatched over 50 years ago to overthrow the government. Mike, I know you just flat don't like his politics, and that's OK. The rest of this is just pure unadulterated steer manure.

I don't support the man, I don't support anyone presently running.

If you want to take a man down, do it with the TRUTH!, not half truths and flat out lies!!!!

No answer on the other President Al?

You citation of Minor is soooo weak. That decision dealt with suffrage. Yes it mentioned natural born citizen, but it was not a case as to whether Minor was a natural born citizen.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZS.html

Black's Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines 'Natural Born Citizen' as "A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black%27s_Law_Dictionary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black%27s_Law_Dictionary

Roy: You probably haven't noticed, but I have. There are several postings that have been removed. By whom, I do not know. Do these blogs have a moderator? - obviously, as someone has deleted at least five postings.

To what other President were you referring in your post on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 5:50 AM?

As to your comment that Minor is so weak ostensibly because it related to suffrage; you must keep in mind that words mean things. Regardless of the case brought to the Supremes on a certain subject, everything in their findings are binding. So here is what the Supremes said about Natural Born Citizens:

"Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these states when the Constitution of the United States was adopted became ipso facto a citizen -- a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was consequently one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [Footnote 6] that

"No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President, [Footnote 7]"

and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that 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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their

Page 88 U. S. 168

parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."

Now, has this case been overruled by subsequent Supreme Court decisions, or by an act of Congress?

Question to you, Roy: The Constitution lays out the qualifications for Senators, Congressmen, the President and the Vice President. Other than age and residence requirements for Senate/Congress, the qualifications for President/Vice require the additional requirement of "Natural Born Citizen". Why do you suppose that is. In other words, a person who is a Naturalized Citizen is fully qualified for seating as a Senator/Congressman, but not for the President/Vice. Why the distinction? It should be quite evident for any thinking American.

Black's Law Dictionary has no jurisdiction over the qualifications for President or any legislative body. The Constitution and the Supreme Court's decisions are the law of the land.

I rest my case!

Additionally, I find your comment, ..."some of you are just seriously ticked off that a Black Liberal was elected President..." patently offensive. In one of the postings that was deleted, I responded to that absurd remark. There, I stated that my preferred Presidential nominee would have been Herman Cain, but for the never to be heard from again flock of floozies that came forth with unsubstantiated allegations. Further, I related my 30+ years of service to our country, in which I accumulated several very close friends who happen to be black Americans, should indicate that I have no prejudice against anyone. To insinuate such a broad statement is below contempt. I know you said, ..."some of you...", but your response was to me, and I find that very offensive.

Roy: You might also consider the following in your determinaton of whether or not Minor is binding as a definition of Natural Born Citizen?

With regard to this being binding precedent, the important point here is that Virginia Minor's citizenship had to be established by the Court before it could move on to the voting issue. Establishing her citizenship was part of the holding. Had Mrs. Minor not been determined by the Supreme Court to be a US citizen, the Court would not have reached the issue of whether US citizens are granted a right to vote. The Court would have exercised the same judicial restraint it exercised in avoiding the 14th Amendment issue. On this point, the Court stated:

"Thus, by the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States is made to extend to controversies between citizens of different states. Under this, it has been uniformly held that the citizenship necessary to give the courts of the United States jurisdiction of a cause must be affirmatively shown on the record. Its existence as a fact may be put in issue and tried. If found not to exist, the case must be dismissed."

HOLDING EQUALS PRECEDENT

The direct holding of the Supreme Court in Minor set a binding precedent. Those pretending that the Supreme Court's direct construction and definition (in Minor) of the natural-born citizen clause is dicta are mistaken. They need to review the first two points of the syllabus, which state:

"1. The word "citizen " is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.

2. In that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United states, as much so before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as since."

Check the words "if born of citizen parents" again. They are stated at the very top of the syllabus and more than once in the Opinion of the Court. This is a direct holding of the case. It is clearly precedent. For it not to be precedent, the Court could not have held that Mrs. Minor was a US citizen. But since that determination was part of the holding, the grounds by which they made that determination are precedent, not dicta.

The recognition of US Supreme Court precedent excluding Obama from POTUS eligibility is a theoretical game changer. This places a permanent asterisk* upon his administration's authority. It may lead to multiple challenges against official actions of his administration.

If he wishes to be a true statesman to this nation, President Obama ought to directly petition the US Supreme Court for a declaratory judgment as to his eligibility rather than let the asterisk fester.

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

Chester A Arthur was born to an American citizen and a British subject. By your reasoning, everything he signed is null and void. Simple enough. The post is still here. Brenda is the moderator of this blog. If you had a post deleted, it could have been because you might have used a term deemed unacceptable to her or the rules.

The Supreme Court as well as other courts have relied on Blacks since the early days of the Republic.

Roy: OK, you were asking about "the other President" - Arthur. Chester Arthur's father was in the same category as 0bama's father. (Although he did Naturalize about the time Arthur was 14 years old.) Therefore, Arthur was not a Natural Born Citizen. One overlooked mistake of this magnitude should not be considered to "set a precedent". Arthur burned all his personal papers just prior to his death, thereby disallowing anyone to prove what had long been rumored.

Is that what you wanted to hear?

I have never, in all my postings, hinted that all of Arthur's laws, etc., should be considered null and void, nor should everything he touched be undone. Those are your assumptions; I never stated them, and do not fall into that group.

What is your point in stating that Black's Law has been relied upon since the early days of the Republic? It matters not what reference any courts might have relied upon to render their decisions, it's the decision itself that becomes law.

It seems you are painting yourself into the proverbial corner - Are you feeling claustrophobic yet?

Not at all, but if your going to advocate the undoing of everything Obama has signed, the fairness dictates that the same be done in the case of Arthur.

Did you even read the links I posted???

One last question. Just what if the Supreme Court hears this case and rules in favor of Obama? And in addition to that, what if the MAJORITY of the citizens cast their ballot for Obama? Revolt? Imposing the will of the few on the many???

Vote Early and Vote Often Majority?

Just had to say that. Sorry

Bonnie, are you really suggesting almost 8% (9.5 million) voted twice??

By the way, my question to Al is open to everyone.

Roy, Roy, Roy - PLEASE! BACK OFF! Do not put your words into my postings. Point out to me and everyone else where I ever advocated undoing anything 0bama has done.

No, I did not read any of the links you posted. I do not live by some one else's links. If you have something to say, just say it.

What if?, What if?, What if? If you want to live in Never, Never, La La Land, we should all want to play What if. My Chrystal Ball is in the repair shop, so I can't play your silly little games. Seems like you need to do a little more growing-up. This is not a game we are playing.

Sorry, I mistook you for Sam.

Roy: In a previous posting, you stated, "You citation of Minor is soooo weak. That decision dealt with suffrage. Yes it mentioned natural born citizen, but it was not a case as to whether Minor was a natural born citizen."

Subsequently, I wrote (on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 1:23 PM) that citizenship had to be determined before the court could decide if Ms Minor was to be allowed to vote. In that posting is where the court provided their definition of Natural Born Citizen.

In one of your earlier postings, you stated, "It just freaking amazes me how some people will post stuff without ever looking any further than the nose on their face."

It seems you have fallen into your previous admonitions that I conclude encompasses all who post on this blog.

Did you read my post (a little beyond the nose on your face), or did you chose to ignore the court's binding decision? In either event, I invite you to return to my post, read it thoroughly, then offer a comment.

Thanks.

Al, yes I read your post and researched Leo Donofrio, Esq.

It seems one small minor little point has been excluded.

Now, just for your information, the 1790 Naturalization Act which allowed that "natural born status to be given to a child born of 2 American citizens abroad, was repealed in a later 1795 Naturalization Act. The 56 Founding Fathers changed their minds.

http://vrajavala.hubpages.com/hub/Supreme-Court-Justices-Consider-Obama-Eligibil...

Your source also challenged Mr. McCain. He was also on the losing end in the Ga. case.

Did you by chance check out my links? Research the authority I cited? I showed you that respect.

Buckshot, I have apologized to Al for mistaking him for Sam. I will admit I lose some of my rational thinking when getting involved with those involved in the "birther movement". Al cited a source that is highly involved in the birther movement as did Sam.

I will excuse myself from any further discussion on the subject due to my tendency to respond emotionally as opposed to rationally.

Have a nice day Buckshot.

I think that the real point of this entire conversation is that we are questioning the methods in which the information was finally and reluctantly given to the public.

there is still more information concerning his college records that has not been given either.

There are too many associations with some questionable characters also that cannot be adequately explained.

That being said, I could say that for every single politician out there. But this is the President.

If he is able to pull a fast one on our Country he must be the smartest President we have ever had.

Keep looking, look under every rock, maybe you might hit Gold. Don't ever give up, even if you have to pass this on to your children and Grand Children.. Keep it going into the next century!

Which of coarse means when he is re-elected this will go on for the next 4 years and on and on and on.

No MsM:

It doesn't mean that he is the smartest President.

40 years from now, if we still have a country. It will be like every other president's time in office. the true facts will come out long after we as a nation can do anything about it.

Look at what continues to come out about Kennedy, LBJ and FDR and other presidents.

Obama must stand on his record, no more excuses or blame. And if the public demands more information concerning his personal records, campaign finances or any other fact that thas been hidden under a rock, we are entitled to do so.

Just as we are entitled to speak out about our concerns as we see our freedoms swept away.

Don't forget Thomas Jefferson, he made news a few years ago!

Speak out! Speak out! it is your right and your right to look under every rock....Check out all the Republican Rhetoric on the internet and don't forget fox news, you never know they might have something on him today.....

Don't forget to send out those emails. If you forget I will remind you....

Likewise MsM

I search many sources and make up my own mind.

I also use my common sense on all of the issues regardless of party or news source.

Most of us can understand plain English regardless of what the mainstream media thinks or anyone else on the information highway.

OK, Roy, I gave you a go on checking your link. It really adds nothing to your argument; rather it more readily cements my side.

I see you are withdrawing from further input. Guess that means you have nothing of substance to refute my stance.

I must say, it has been fun. Thanks for the comic relief.

Thanks CJW, hope you had a good day.

Buckshot, it's not the church, it's the hospitals that the church runs which employs both Catholics and non-Catholics. If the church is so adamant, then let them only employ Catholics. The Catholic church opposes birth control by all means except the rhythm method. That also means no vasectomies. Where is the line drawn when it comes to employers imposing their religious views on it's employees?

I forgot to say good evening.

Fair enough. Then holding with the separation of church and state, how can you justify giving them MY tax dollars?????

Going off topic, my heart is doing flip-flops.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/house-passes-line-item-veto-budget-...

CJW: I can't see where my comment was nasty, insulting, devisive or a dig.

Comic Relief: The inclusion of a humorous content in an otherwise serious work, often to relieve tension.

Try as I might, I just couldn't convince Roy that his feeble attempts to construct case law to mirror his opinions just wasn't holding water. The best way I could describe his sending me on wild goose chases was "humorous". At least, I have a sense of humour.

Well maybe we SHOULD!

I know one thing. Someone in DC finally got some stones. Line item veto. I really do love it. Can you say bye-bye pork barrel???

CJW: By the looks of Roy's photo, I'm sure he is man enough to fend for himself. Why do you think you have an obligation to defend him against my comments? He has butted out of this "Birther" (as he refers to it) conversation, so it should be over. I'm certainly not going to add anything more to the Natural Born Citizen conversation.

Al, Ok what part of "I will excuse myself from any further discussion on the subject due to my tendency to respond emotionally as opposed to rationally." be construed as butting out???? Are you implying I butted in?????????

Ask anyone here, I can be very emotional and irrational. I can also be extremely NASTY!

I excused myself to hopefully bring some civility back to Mike's blog.

Roy: I'm not implying anything. There are a number of things I could have said, but no doubt you would put a negative value on anything coming from me. Why is that? Are you attempting to claim Cock of the Roost? Let me guess, You were an only child, and a spoiled one at that.

You claim to hopefully bring some civility back to this blog, yet you continue your sniveling little remarks in an attempt to rile me into getting (in your words) NASTY!

I've had my fill of you. I will not be responding to anything further that you have to say.

Al, I am the oldest of 3 siblings who I raised. My mother was a poor single parent, so I was in no way spoiled. You can choose to not to respond to anything I have to say, but by God, I will call you on every opportunity I have!

No doubt there is a conflict of interest, but the Chief Justice has supported their decision not to recuse.

What Zook posted was not factual. It was circulated via emails

The first link shows all the false story's and if you scroll way down you will find the Supreme Court one.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/Obama-Kagan-Connection.htmhttp:

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/k/Kagan-Payback.htm

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/kagan.asp

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/internet/a/snopes_exposed.htm

Some have been around since he was a candidate, going back as far as 2006

And just who nominated Mr. Chief Justice John Roberts??? Sure wasn't President Obama. And who controlled the Senate? Wasn't the Dem's. Nice to see one of the most Conservative Chief Justices in modern history is now deemed corrupt.

Zook you didn't read my links. Snopes is not owned or backed by George Soro's.

You need to stop believing those garbage emails you receive.

http://www.snopes.com/info/aboutus.asp

The only thing I do is try to correct the lies about Obama that seem to be the main topic of your blogs.. If someone that you didn't know, was spreading lies about you, I would be on here in a minute defending you or anyone else. I don't like lies and I have always taught my kids not to lie... The truth will prevail!!

If you can prove that my links are false then please go ahead and show me where I am wrong??

Comparing links how do we know which one is speaking the truth?

Roy your busted now! you said a bad word lol!

Buckshot61

I never said Zook lied, go back and read what I wrote. Type in your browser U.S. Supreme Court and then do a search for docket # 9-724 and see what you get. I just did that and it didn't bring anything up but other cases. Make sure its the official Supreme Court Web site

buckshot61

Excuse me I was wrong I did say zook lied.....

he goes off on rants without checking the hear say he hears or reads in emails

The way I see it, your both wrong, and your both right. Buckshot61 is correct in that, these cases DID exist.

Where I think the disconnect came from was the assumption that these cases had something to do with Obama's citizenship or eligibility to be president. This was probably inferred from Bazookamans "Hey....back ON target as per the original content of this blog" statement.

Neither case had anything to do with the "Birther" issue. They were both Civil Rights cases that were filed against the government. President Obama et al (and others) were not being sued personally, the suit was filed against them in their official capacity as representatives of the government.

Since Kagan was Solicitor General at the time these cases made it to the Supreme Court, she was named as the attorney for the respondents; ALL of them, not just President Obama. Which is exactly what her job entails. The Office of the Solicitor General represents the federal government before the Supreme Court, arguing on behalf of the government in virtually every case in which the United States is a party.

I believe that when MsMarilyn saw Bazookamans stated cases, and did her initial research it was under the assumption that these cases had something to do with the "Birther" issue. This may have led her to post the links that CORRECTLY stated that these cases had nothing to do with that issue. The snopes link specifically deals with the premise that the cases stated were about Obamas eligibility to be president, not that Kagan hadn't been named as attorney.

In each of these cases Kagan was doing her job as Solicitor General and representing the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT against a lawsuit brought before the Supreme Court, she was not personally representing President Obama, Eric Holder, former President Bush, former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey or Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley. All of whom were named in these suits.

Nice try at logic Amuzeme, but I'm not expecting it to get you or I anywhere. The hate is too strong to get through.

Have a nice day.

Roy

E-mails that have been circulated??? By whom? Evidence please.

What I missed on saying last night is what Amuzeme said the cases mentioned had nothing to do with Obama's birth . I was a bit tired and on the cranky side last night, have something pressing on my mind that is going to need attention soon.

Most Catholics use contraception and have been since I think the 70's. Women were wanting to use it and the church didn't say no but didn't say yes, so they started using birth control.

Not all the employee's who work in catholic hospitals are catholics it would be a benefit for all women employee's not to have to pay for Birth Control pills and sometimes those pills are used for other medical issues.

Not so Buckshot61 Tell me about why it's ok that everyone has to have insurance on their vehicles if they drive on a road anywhere?

Tell me why we have to pay taxes?

Tell me why we were made to pay into Social Security?

Tell me why you pro lifer's are pushing for abortion to be illegal again? Don't women have a right to their own body's the same as a man?

BASED ON WHAT SAID HERE THEN JUSTICE THOMASE SHOULD RECUSE HIMSELF ALSO.......I THINK IF HE DOES SO WILL KAGAN....BUT I DONT THINK HE WILL.............poletics at the supreme court just what we need........

GOT TO AGREE WITH ROY AMUZEME...THANKS FOR TRYING

No lamont, only the justices they hate need to recuse. I thought you knew that.

SORRY MISTYPED....... I AGREE WITH ROY AND AMUZEME

FORGOT THE AND .....TAKE CARE

Thank you Zook

#4 made me laugh hahahaha

Buckshot61

I didn't realize you were the writer of this blog?

What are you the blog protector?

"Once again you attempt to deflect the real issue and go off on tangents. I've told you once already, I'm NOT going to allow that to happen"

I would say your a little off target

Shouldn't the separation of church and state swing both ways? Many become irate and start screaming about the first amendment whenever there is even a hint of government involvement in church matters. Yet these same people will readily stand up and cheer their church leaders for taking a stand for, or against a local, state or federal candidate.

You have leaders of these "Mega-Churches" and even small churches actively endorsing and campaigning for the candidate of their choice, often from the pulpit and nothing is said about it.

Shouldn't these TAX EXEMPT entities be held to the same standards of separation of church and state that the government is held to? If you want the government OUT of your religions business, under the premise of separation of church and state, isn't it only fair to expect your religious leaders to stay out of the governments business?

OBAMA ZOMBIES.....DOESNT GET ANY BETTER THAN THAT ISNT HATE A BEATIFULL THING..????????????????

Whoo-Hoo! Buckshot. Right down the pike. Couldn't have written it better myself. Guess you can include me in your "Hate Group".

Bazookaman,

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Church leaders are people and are certainly entitled to their political opinions. But at what point do these individuals STOP acting as private citizens and START acting as agents of their particular religion?

Should religious organizations be forming Political Action Committees (PACS)? Should they have lobbiests? What should be done with the ones who DO cross the line; The Reverend Wrights, The Jerry Falwells, The David Mannings of the country? Should the Catholic church instruct its priests to read/distribute letters AT MASS to their parishoners on a political issue? Should the church, AS AN ENTITY, be involved in politics?

Personally I have no issue with any church or church leader being involved in issues that affect their communities, just don't do it from the pulpit. To me that also violates the separation of church and state.

YOU MUST FEEL SOMETHING I DIDNT CALL ANY NAMES...........I DONT HAVE TO PUT YOU IN ANYWHERE EITHER ONE OF YOU .....YOU HAVE PUT YOURSELF THERE..........TO BAD THE GARBAGE YOU TALK IS NOT AIMED AT YOUR ........MEMBERS...... AND TO THINK WE WEAR UNIFORMS TO DEFEND PEOPLE LIKE YOU......I WILL BE WAITING, DO YOU WANT MY ADDRESS????????????OR MAYBE MAIN STREET WILL DO............ DESPISE YOU SHOULD BE SO LUCKY.I SHOWED YOU SOMETHING ON THE BLOG......HOPE I DID ..... RIGHT NOW YOU ARE SHOWING WHAT AND .....IS...ALONE AND UNAFRAID.....REMEMBER

THAT ABOUT ME.......ANYTHING ELSE?????????

DID YOU DESPISE.......BUSH,REAGAN ,NIXON, OR JUST DEMOCRATS.....AND THE OTHERS COULD DO NO WRONG......OF COURSE THEY WENT TO REPUBLICAN HEAVEN.........DESPISE YOURSELF....FOR THE INABILITY TO SEE ANYTHING BUT WHAT REINFORCESES THE PARTY LINE...... DISPICABLE, and you think you are the consumate AMERICAN......only your opinion counts......right. I WAS WONDERING MITCH CALLED YOU UP LATELTY????????

Someone please disable Lemont's "Caps Lock" button and teach the guy how to speak in a civil tone.

OPINION MISSY YOU NEED TO DIRECT SOME OF THAT TO BUCKSHOT BUT I KNOW YOU WONT ,BECAUSE HE SAYS WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR........WASNT AIMED AT YOU ZOOK......THIS HAS TURNED INTO A RIGHT WING PROBAGANDA MACHINE......THATS WHAT YOU WANTED THATS IS WHAT YOU GOT SO TALK TO EACH OTHER ........I HAVE NO REASON TO CONVERSE,SO WHEN I SAY SOMETHING IT'S BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT I WANT TO SAY........DONT LIKE IT OH WELL.

Why Buckshot---he does not abuse Caps Lock? Why must you ALWAYS scream at people? Do you know how hard it is to read what you write when it is in all caps (or mostly all caps) and how hostile you come across? As CJW says, it is not what you say but what you do not say. Congrats on your first post that did not play the race card! I knew you could do it.

THEN opinion missy that only says you havnt read quite a few of them. I guess you take the caps as yelling, I dont, for me there just emphasis. I try not to yell at anyone who is not part of a team I am coaching and this doesnt qualify.

If a post does not have a racial overtone I will not respond that way.IT is that simple.I am at a point here were I come of hostile because all I see is hostility to those who are not right wing.Do you see that ????? oR is this hostility thing a one way street that should be accepted by those of us who feel more moderate.I dont like being called out of my name.....communist ,socialist,stupid,moron,dumb,blind,etc daily SO if you dont see that or it's ok yes !!! I am hostile to those who do that.WHEN THEY CEASE AND DESIST I WILL DO LIKEWISE. The attempts at demaning people individualy gets old.........HAVE A GREAT DAY !!!!!!!!!

THEN opinion missy that only says you havnt read quite a few of them. I guess you take the caps as yelling, I dont, for me there just emphasis. I try not to yell at anyone who is not part of a team I am coaching and this doesnt qualify.

If a post does not have a racial overtone I will not respond that way.IT is that simple.I am at a point here were I come of hostile because all I see is hostility to those who are not right wing.Do you see that ????? oR is this hostility thing a one way street that should be accepted by those of us who feel more moderate.I dont like being called out of my name.....communist ,socialist,stupid,moron,dumb,blind,etc daily SO if you dont see that or it's ok yes !!! I am hostile to those who do that.WHEN THEY CEASE AND DESIST I WILL DO LIKEWISE. The attempts at demeaning people individualy and groups gets old.........HAVE A GREAT DAY !!!!!!!!!

Actually the large caps don't bother me :) With my eyes they help me to see the letters better.

NOW WE ARE GOING TO BLAME ME.....THE PERSON YOU HAVE BEEN ATTACKING. I bring it on myself.....RIGHT....were have I heard this before.....yes yes yes yes I should play your way.....YASSAH BOSS.....YOU SHOULD WAIT FOR THAT IN YOUR DREAMS/ again I dont need your tuterledge or any other advice.....you told me .......right.....THE ONLY people I get garbage from is THE RIGHT WING.. HOW SHOULD I INTERPRET THAT ??????? BETTER STILL I KNOW HOW I INTERPRET IT......Must be something about MTN HOME I DONT GET THAT AWAY FROM HERE SO WHAT IS THAT SAYING?????????????MATTER OF FACT AWAY FROM HERE IT'S A PLEASURE TO TALK TO THE RIGHT....THEY SEEM TO THINK MORE.