With respect to Obama the successful organizer and attorney, my heart goes out to him for his situation, which he probably didn’t know about until at least the late 1980’s. But with respect to Obama the presidential candidate, all I can think is that he’s giving all the citizens the finger in a spectacular fashion, and yes, so is McCain. And it makes me wonder what is going on to make seemingly normal people act in such a bizarre way, seemingly as if they think this is actually some kind of “good medicine” for the country. All I can think is, this way lies a whole new class of danger.

Correction, I assumed you agreed with me that foreign-born persons cannot be natural born citizens. I see now that you didn’t actually say that. If you have any doubt that I am correct about this, read my prior comments in which I address the matter, er, quite thoroughly.

The only things I would say are…

First, the stamp probably indicates that the certification of birth, which is nothing more than a reflection of the computer database, was generated recently upon a request by Obama, a representative of his, or someone else with the legal right to request it. That says nothing about the “original” records, which would never be given out. I don’t believe that Hawai’i intended to pass this off as anything original. It was probably just generated the same day its requestor walked into the archives to request it, and the stamp is helpful because it indicates when that particular copy was requested.

If a copy of the long form were issued, it would probably have a very similar kind of date stamp on it, which would not invalidate the copy. In fact, it would be cause for suspicion if the copy did NOT have a date stamp that was date AFTER the date of birth.

Second, I wonder if you noticed my earlier arguments which stated exactly what you’re saying, namely, that only people born in the U.S. can be “natural born” citizens. The reason why all these McCain & Obama folks are attacking me is because they all know that the law, as written, excludes McCain because McCain was born in Panama. And no one in the globalist elite that runs the Republican AND Democratic parties wants this dirty little secret to be known. I have seen a lot of dirty pool in my time, but did I ever imagine BOTH major parties would conspire to force-feed us a choice of two foreign-born candidates, who may have BOTH been born as dual citizens? No, I did not.

We are living in a totally different United States from the one I was born in. The two are so different, I don’t think anyone traveling through time would believe they were seeing the same legal entity.

If you examine that birth certificate closely that Obama presented, you can cleary see nov 9, 2007 printed on the back in a reverse mode.. If that was an orginal that surly wouldn’t be printed on it..

Myself I think Obama was born in Kenya and a few days later was brought back to the US by his mother to register him in the US..

What needs to be looked at closely is Obamas mothers travel path during the time when Obama was born.. Go back through passport and visa records to see when her passport was stamped if it has a Kenya stamp on it before the date, and a US stamp after the date you know that he was born in Kenya and not the US.. It’s her travels that need to be looked into…The proof is in her path..

I’m sure them records are buried somewhere in the jfk libary, or LBj’s…

There are exactly two possible meanings of the word “naturalize”, and the two meanings are mutually exclusive, meaning that they cannot both be true at the same time; only one can be the true, intended meaning. The two possible meanings are as follows: (1) “to make something non-natural to be LIKE natural or AS IF natural”; and (2) “to make something non-natural INTO something natural”.

If you accept this stipulation, then two conclusions follow from it:

(A) The only kind of person who can be naturalized is one who is currently not natural.

(B) If every citizen of the U.S. must be EITHER “natural born” OR “naturalized”, but CANNOT BE BOTH, then being “naturalized” a citizen means you become a citizen but NOT a “natural born” citizen. Otherwise, any U.S. citizen would meet the citizenship requirement to be president, which would render the words “natural born” devoid of purpose, and I think we can all agree the framers did actually mean to effect some change by its inclusion!

(C) The question of whether or not a non-citizen becomes a “natural citizen” after being naturalized depends on which meaning of “naturalize” is intended by the framers. If it is meaning #1, then you are a citizen but not a “natural” one. If it is meaning #2, then you are a “natural citizen”, but in this case the term “natural citizen” is redundant, as there is, by definition, no kind of citizen who is not “natural”. (In this case, you might as well just say “citizen” because all citizens are, by definition, natural. Again, this only applies if meaning #2 is the intended meaning of “naturalize”.) BUT IN EITHER CASE, THE NEWLY MINTED CITIZEN IS NOT A “NATURAL BORN” CITIZEN. “Natural” he MAY be, depending on the meaning of “naturalize”, but not “natural born”.

So, if you agree with everything I’ve just stated (or even if you agree with just A or just B), then you must accept as unavoidable the conclusion that Congress, in holding the power to determine uniform rules of naturalization, has the power to cause someone to become naturalized or to prevent someone being naturalized who would otherwise be naturalized, but THAT GRANT OF POWER DOES NOT CARRY WITH IT THE POWER TO DETERMINE WHO IS NATURAL BORN. The question of the meaning of “natural born” is completely different from the questions “Who is natural?” and “Who can be natural-IZED?” Congress has the power to determine those last two questions, but interpreting the former question (“What is the meaning of natural born?”) is wholly outside their powers, unless the Consistution should be amended.

Now, I could go on to further argue my understanding of the meaning of “natural born”, but to tell you the truth, I fear overloading readers with too much information at one time. I’ve already, in a prior post, made a fairly cogent argument for the framers’ belief that the term’s meaning was self-evident to them, and I’ve stated what I believe that meaning is, and I’ve asked for any evidence, ANY WHATSOEVER, that the alternative interpretation that’s being advanced by both McCain supporters and by Jim C, who apparently supports Obama, existed BEFORE Congress decided to muscle in on the matter. Jim C said that my argument “may be sound” but follows from, in his words, the “false” premise that Congress cannot define “natural born citizen”. I submit that I have just completely demolished the notion that Congress CAN define the term. Thus, I will wait to see if Jim or anyone else is willing to admit that my argument that the framers considered the term’s meaning to be self-evident IS sound, and is the only reasonable and the only rational conclusion.

So now Congress interprets the Constitution?

You’ve been drinking the same kool-aid as Matt.

The term was not defined and no power TO define it was granted. Given the gravity of the issue, the only rational conclusion is that the meaning was self-evident to the framers. Thus, we should be looking for what is simple and has a long historical precedent.

Can you cite a precedent that precedes the enactment of a congressional statute for “natural born citizens” including anyone born outside the United States?

If not, then I submit that there is no constitutional basis for defining the term that way. I’m sure you mean well in making the argument you made, but it is an indisputable fact that Congress lacks the power to define “natural born citizen” without amending the Constitution. All the wishful thinking in the world cannot change that fact, and to advocate otherwise when you understand what the Constitution says is to subvert the Constitution and the rule of law.

Sorry to be difficult, but this is a very clear issue. It’s not complicated, and it’s not a gray area in constitutional law.

– RF

You obviously have not understood what I have written. Military bases are not automatically U.S. soil, by definition or by any other means. I quoted you the specific treaty in which the U.S. acknowledged that the entire PCZ was PANAMANIAN soil. Did you respond? No, of course not. You apparently prefer to ignore rather than respond, and continue to shout your falsehood, as if the volume of your voice somehow makes it more true. Maybe you should shout louder, because it’s not working.

I said that both McCain and Obama are CFR and both are admitted globalists. Did you respond? Don’t make me laugh. Of course you didn’t respond. What does that make you? A jerk? A hypocrite?

Anti-American?

Does it make you a traitor? Only if the globalists are an enemy of the U.S.

After I said neither McCain nor Obama could be president if they were not born on U.S. soil, what was your response? You said my argument suggests that Schwarzenegger could also run. My argument suggests THE EXACT OPPOSITE.

It is the Republicans and Democrats who want to enable Schwarzenegger and other foreign-raised persons to run, and that is clearly why both are promoting candidates with clear eligibility problems. I wouldn’t expect someone like you, who habitually ignores 80-90 percent of what is told to you, to understand such a conspiracy, even while it is right in front of your face. I bet if the Republicans nominated Schwarzenegger, you’d cheer for him just as loud. If so, you would be tearing up the U.S. constitution.

As for your statement about Obama’s mom, I addressed that ad nauseum in my second post. Did you respond? All you did was re-re-regurgitate the same shallow talking points. I and the American people do not need to be told the same thing over and over again. Once is sufficient.

I am *not* going to play your game by re-regurgitating EVERYTHING I just explained, a second time. If you care about the truth, you can scroll back and read it. If you only care about whipping up mindless fervor for your chosen candidate, then this is an intellectually bankrupt and pointless discussion.

At least with most of the third-party candidates, these questions have not been raised. I’d bet if you investigate them, you’ll find they have no problems. What a surprise — the candidates NOT controlled by the two major parties ARE complying with the law. What a surprise — they’re not winning. This is because people like you are sleepwalking through the bipartisan, national-socialist coup that is being put on us. The only cure for what ails us is to be independent, and preferably non-partisan.

Trust me, the view of what’s going on is much better from out here!

WAKE UP BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE. Send both fascist parties a message by voting for the independent of your choice. Boycott all Republicans and Democrats wherever there is an independent running. I have never voted Libertarian for any office, but I plan to start this year. I will vote Nader for prez. Of course he has problems, but at least he is eligible, so far as we know. Barr would be a better choice than McCain. The only reason I will not vote for him is because he is a former federal prosecutor and it is exceedly strange for such a person to be attracted to the Libertarians. As far as I know, he has not undergone a public reassessment of his former life.

Has anyone looked into the possibility of McCain being a dual citizen of the U.S. and Panama? Of course not. Can’t ruin the Republicans’ chances of defeating Obama.

Anyone who thinks this way is a lying, anti-American, hypocritical scoundrel, and what’s worse, they’re throwing in the toilet their only chance for peacefully resolving the fascist coup that is in progress — by organizing left, right, and center patriots together into one group. The first step in doing so is to advocate publicly the election of any third-party or other independent. If you cannot do this, you are simply part of the same problem that Obama is part of. If you cannot do this, you are aiding and abetting the same conspiracy that Obama may be.

Wake up now.