Related Post

Spread the word

Digg this post

Bookmark to delicious

Stumble the post

Add to your technorati favourite

Subscribes to this post

4 users responded to this post

Mark Richards said in November 22nd, 2008 at 10:08 pm    

Whether Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya or even Romania is completely irrelevant. The term “natural born citizen” is never defined in the Constitution, however Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution confers on Congress the power “to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization…”

Congress did just that in the Naturalization act of 1790 wherein they state: “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.”

The origin of the “natural born citizen” clause was simply meant to prevent a foreigner that might have an allegiance to another government from being the Commander in Chief of the American Army.

In short- the Constitution states “natural born citizen” but leaves it up to Congress to define what that means. Congress defined that to mean anyone born on US soil or born to a US Citizen overseas. i.e. Both McCain and Obama are eligible to be President.

The Commentator said in November 23rd, 2008 at 1:41 am    

Sorry Mark but check again what happened in 1795 it was modified. 1790 The Naturalization Act of 1790 first establishes process for becoming a naturalized United States citizen. Even though America has been and remains today a nation of immigrants, its citizens have viewed immigrants with a certain apprehension. As such, the process of immigration itself has been a problem for the country’s leadership.

During the 1790’s many in the U.S. were concerned that the growth in the number of political refugees, particularly those men and women driven out by the revolution in France, might prove inimical to American liberty.

Alarmed by the influx of so many immigrants, Congress on January 29, 1795 modified the Act of 1790, raising the period of residence from two years to five years before a person could be naturalized.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/naturalization/naturalization_page1.html

mtngoat61 said in November 23rd, 2008 at 3:45 am    

Sorry too Mark. You are very clever in the way you are trying to confuse the issue by omitting subsequent events and dropping off a letter from the quote of the 1790 act by changing the words you used in the 1790 act that you quoted in the start of your comment to something else when you made your conclusion at the end of your comments. You can fool some of the people some of the time, etc. ….. In addition to the 1790 act being amended by the 1795 act, you conveniently left the “s” off the word “citizen” in your final remark above. To paraphrase, the 1790 act does not say children of a “citizen” of the United States born beyond the sea. It says children of “citizens” of the United States born beyond the sea. Thus it implies that both parents of the child born beyond the sea must be citizens of the United States, not just one parent. In the McCain case that is true. Both his parents were U.S. citizens. In the Obama case that is not true. Only his mother was a U.S. citizen. The father of Obama was a British subject and not a U.S. citizen. And regardless, as the Commentator pointed out above, the 1795 act amended the 1790 act removing the term “natural born” citizen and just saying citizen. That was done to prevent any confusion with the term used in the Constitution, in that naturalized citizens cannot become President of the United States since they are not “natural born citizens”. So the term “natural born” citizen was not used in the 1795 act. That is what my research of the 1790 act and subsequent 1795 acts revealed.

Such obfuscating techniques and subtle changes in wording is what Obama’s people have been doing all along to fool people, i.e., showing a “Certification of Live Birth” instead of a “Certificate of Live Birth”. We want to see his long form original Certificate of Live Birth, not his short form Certification of Live Birth. More on that in the websites below. The latter form, the long form original “Certificate”, would have a lot more information on it such as the signature of the mother, attending doctor, witnesses, if any. And the name of the hospital, etc., with which we could then independently trace and verify the facts presented to be sure it is all genuine. A few letters here and there make a difference. Certification vs. Certificate. Big difference in legal terms in Hawaii and to the courts and to our Constitution. We want to see what else is said or not said on the Certificate. Changing a few letters in words will not make this go away. Just like your dropping the “s” off the word “citizens” in your final conclusion in you comment tries to make your conclusion look true, but it is not. Nice try. ;-)

See:
http://www.obamacitizenshipfacts.org/
http://www.obamabirthcertificatefacts.org/
http://americamustknow.com

snurdge said in December 8th, 2008 at 7:59 pm    

Ah Mark…how hard it is to let go the reins of dominant culture ay? Steal one election and cry about the other. Sorry old chum.

1 Pingback & Trackback On This Post
Website Directory - XIII said in November 23rd, 2008 at 6:08 pm    
Leave Your Comments Below