The Birther Truth

[jason]

Originally Posted by flourbug

Talk about hiding his past. I've been following the NJ case of Purpura et al vs Obama, which has made it to the NJ Appellate Court. (This is the case where Obama's attorney said no one has to prove they are eligible, Mickey Mouse could be on the ballot and be elected).

Obama argues that since he personally did not put his name on the ballot in NJ (the Dem party did) he is not responsible for proving his eligibility and in fact never has to prove his eligibility.

fb, just because he's hiding his past, doesn't mean he has anything to hide in his past. It's obvious to me now that Obama simply likes to fund the legal system, and there's no better way to do that then being directly involved.

He likes to look eccentric. It keeps people on their toes. He is a god damn saint. Where can I buy his books?

[flourbug]

His books? I have them on my ipad. Help yourself.

Just be careful. You may turn into a racist.

[Sonny]

fB even though Jane333 did include a reference that attests to the significance and exclusivity for all presidential candidates to be "natural born citizen", I think she ignored answering your question, ""what other factor is needed - to be a natural born citizen?"".

Originally Posted by flourbug

To quote jane333's link at snopes, "the difference between "citizen" and "natural born citizen" is an important one" when it comes to Presidential candidates. Many journalists do not seem to understand that the two terms are not interchangeable, and will present a strong argument that the candidate is a citizen - and therefor eligible.

You are a man of logic. Ignoring your feeling about the law, lets take this step by step.
Given: "natural born citizen" is something more than "citizen"
Given: anyone born on US soil is a citizen
Problem: what ELSE is necessary - what other factor is needed - to be a natural born citizen?

~

[flourbug]

Sonny, to be fair the question was directed at gsgs, but if jane333 has the answer I would enjoy reading it.

[Sonny]

Originally Posted by flourbug

Sonny, to be fair the question was directed at gsgs, but if jane333 has the answer I would enjoy reading it.

Oh, I'm Sorry I misread that then.. But yes indeed I'd really would like to hear jane333's answer to that question too.. Thanks fB

~

[jane333]

flourbug,

When you say, "But 80 different aliases? At LEAST 27 Social Security Numbers? ALL of them on the books BEFORE Obama ran for national office? Nahhh.... that's a bit much", I agree completely. It sounds farfetched. I'd imagine that's because it's not true.

You said, "... a great deal of his educational, employment, and private life has been kept from the public, ..." And yet I easily found reams of information about Obama's early life, where he lived, who he worked for, what schools he attended. And posted those links.

Obama is not the first president to have the negative aspects of his life minimized. That is the M.O. for all political figures, Democrat, Republican, Independent, black, white and purple.

It's odd that you cite both the 'huge body of work' including the Federalist papers (85 essays) AND insist that what the framers intended "is obvious". What is obvious to you is neither obvious nor simple to so many others.

I'm not sure what makes you think that Obama's records were NOT signed and sealed in the same manner of those which you saw during your campaigning work. If you can stand behind a stamp of approval that arrives during one of those campaigns, then surely the rest of us might be able to stand behind the vetting process which occurred in 2008...carried out by the same people in the same "appropriate governmental" agencies...using the same procedures....bound by the same requirements.

The debate over whether Obama is eligible to run for president is not about me "saying so". We began with your assertion that he was not born in Hawaii, is not a natural born citizen, or both. You've shown NEITHER. No one has. If the best minds in the nation can't find a reason to legally deny him his right to run and serve, then surely we won't between the two of us.

[Pablo Escobar]

Jane, don't you see how absurd you are sounding?

You: Prove he can't run because he is ineligible.
Us: We cannot prove it, because he is using millions of dollars and the legal system to hide access to the proof.

Us: Prove he is eligible to run for president.
You: He doesn't have to, because he doesn't want to. And you can't make him.
Us: But the constitution demands that he must be eligible!
You: The constitution doesn't say to whom it must prove it. So therefore, he can ignore that little clause. Ha Ha. And why should you care anyway? A majority of voters doesn't care what the constitution stands for anymore, you shouldn't either.

[jane333]

flourbug,

I came across this at the Wikipedia site. It gives the Federalist papers their due, and shows that caution has long been expressed about relying on their use in contemporary case law.

An excerpt:

"..The amount of deference that should be given to the Federalist Papers in constitutional interpretation has always been somewhat controversial. As early as 1819, Chief Justice John Marshall noted in the famous case McCulloch v. Maryland, that "the opinions expressed by the authors of that work have been justly supposed to be entitled to great respect in expounding the Constitution. No tribute can be paid to them which exceeds their merit; but in applying their opinions to the cases which may arise in the progress of our government, a right to judge of their correctness must be retained."[29]

It's times like these that I miss the old-fashioned publication of amateur 'exposes' and uncorroborated opinions in what we easily once recognized as yellow journalism. Back then we laughed at the silliness which earned some 'publisher' 75 cents a pop from readers desperate for their gossip fix, once a week.

The same fabrications now make their way into the ether for free, to be lapped up by millions.

[sandyd]

PE: I tend to also think you might not realize how it sounds.

Prove he can run? wtf....he did and WON. Guess what...there are no laws about proving anything that someone in Hawaii didn't already sign off on...did they lie? Were they lied to and thus they signed off not knowing it's all a lie?
What if it's not a lie?

I gather the issue of natural born has been a bone to chew on for decades...I never knew it was an issue back in my childhood cuz the issue came up and the person did not win....

There may be 80 different names similar to his and some might even be him...my legal name is not Sandy but it's a name I have used on many a check....so it's an alias of mine

I know it's also possible other people set it up to look like it's all his...the worst part is...not knowing.

Did HE do it? Did he condone others doing it with his name? Did he have nothing to do with it and it's closer to identity misused by others...not exactly stealing it.....

And guess what? I doubt we will ever know....unless he gets a brain disease that makes him yap his mouth to tell all....and even then, would anyone totally believe it?

As president now....he doesn't have to. Were I him, I'd ignore all of it...already winning is the end point for him.

I am waiting to see if any state can stop him from being on the ballot or make him shed more light with more documents....but I'm not holding my breath.

[flourbug]

sandyd, Obama has never proven he was eligible.

Because ballots are controlled by the States, there is no Federal law requiring a candidate to prove he is eligible for the office of President or Vice President. Each State has different laws concerning eligibility, but in every case that job falls to the Secretary of State.

Now here is where it gets sticky. Some States leave it totally up to the discretion of the SoS to decide what constitutes "proof". A sworn statement by the candidate or the party may be enough. But they do have the authority to request, and be provided, any evidence they deem necessary. Some States REQUIRE their SoS to place on the ballot, the chosen candidate of the political party. In that case, the party sends the SoS a letter stating the name of their duly chosen candidate and, according to the laws of each State, may also need to say the candidate meets the eligibility requirements. Nancy Pelosi signed such a statement as head of the Democrat party.

The question is, WHO saw Obama's "proof" of eligibility and exactly what constituted proof? Was it Nancy Pelosi? If so, WHAT did she see?

Did she obtain his COLB, or his long form birth certificate, did she confirm the adoption by Lolo Soetoro was invalidated, did she ask for records of Obama renouncing his British citizenship, or confirming his US citizenship, did she order US passports to show he traveled as a US citizen as an adult rather than a citizen of the UK or Indonesia or Kenya, did she consult with Constitutional scholars about the issue of a dual citizen and whether or not Obama would be considered "natural born" in the US even though he was born a citizen of the United Kingdom through his father? There is no evidence she, or the Democrat party, did any of the above (records showing who requested what documents, and when, are public). It was only AFTER Obama got on the Primary ballot that people began to question how he got there.

Obama's attorneys have steadfastly claimed he does not HAVE to show proof. They make the absurd claim that it is not up to the candidate to prove he is eligible, that no proof is required to get on the ballot in any state, and they claim that no citizen of the United States has standing to challenge his eligibility.

So far, the courts have agreed.

This is a terrible loophole in our legal system - but even worse, can you imagine the moral turpitude of the politicians who are willing to take advantage of it to gain power.

There's a fairly new website that was created for the express purpose of changing the laws in each state that allowed Obama to become President without proving he was eligible. http://obamaballotchallenge.com/

I don't care who the candidate is - but any candidate that refuses to show me they fully qualify for the position they seek, is going to find me refusing to give them my vote.

[flourbug]

jane333, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree, and leave it at that.

[sandyd]

Obama's attorneys have steadfastly claimed he does not HAVE to show proof. They make the absurd claim that it is not up to the candidate to prove he is eligible, that no proof is required to get on the ballot in any state, and they claim that no citizen of the United States has standing to challenge his eligibility.

So far, the courts have agreed.

That makes my point for me....courts agreed.

IF this could have been an issue BEFORE, maybe, just maybe it would have changed things but as long as he was allowed on the ballot and won..

it's over.

He won.

I did find it amazing that the whole birth thing was not new with Obama...it tripped up Romney's daddy.

Which means our courts have allowed this big weird hole for decades...

one has to wonder 'why'?

[flourbug]

I did find it amazing that the whole birth thing was not new with Obama...it tripped up Romney's daddy.

Oh, no. It is not new at all. Throughout history ineligible candidates have petitioned to be on the ballot, and have been refused or removed when they were shown to be ineligible. Eldridge Cleaver ran in the 1968 election but was removed from the ballots in Hawaii and NY because he was too young - if he won he would have been 33 and not 35 as is required when it came time to be sworn in. Several Congressmen have been sworn in, and then found to be ineligible, and removed from office.

What is different is, candidates are no longer being removed from the ballot even when they are obviously ineligible, and the courts want to stay out of it.

Which means our courts have allowed this big weird hole for decades...

Not for decades. As I said, candidates HAVE been removed in the past. But no longer. That hole is there and growing larger by the day.

one has to wonder 'why'?

Do you remember 2008? I wondered HOW someone like Obama could be considered for President. It had nothing to do with the man, and everything to do with him simply skipping over the normal process that leads to political success.

Potential candidates don't drive up to Party Headquarters and get greeted like they are the Messiah. They come hat in hand and seek a crumb from a municipal or county chairman. If the chair thinks they have potential, they are tested. Will they work their ass off for the Party? Will they support other candidates? Are they a team player? They get SMALL appointments. Local committees. They are put up for minor elective offices. Do they perform or do they let everyone down? Most wash out. There is little glory and a lot of work in local politics. But if they do the job well, they'll get more... and bigger... and more important appointments. They are introduced to the State Chairman. They run for state office. It is a pyramid, sandyd, with a very wide base and a very very narrow peak. After about a decade or so climbing this pyramid with the help of dozens if not hundreds of supporters who are willing to make calls, deliver signs, drive voters to the polls, raise funds, babysit, etc... they are no longer a candidate, they are more like family.

By the time they are considered a Presidential candidate, their party knows everything about them and they know everyone in their party. Obama just high jumped past all that. Barely in the Illinois State Senate, he is put up for Senator from Illinois. Barely in that job, he is put up for President.

He did not, could not, run on his record. He ran on "Hope and Change". How ambiguous!

I don't know why he was not properly vetted.

Occam's razor tells me he lied. Just that simple. He told people who are not very bright to begin with ('you have to pass the bill to see what's in it' Pelosi) that he was eligible and since these things are usually vetted well before a candidate gets up to the Presidential level, they failed to do due diligence. Once he was on the ballot and millions of people were treating him like the Second Coming, they didn't dare back off.

The conspiracy nut in me sees something far more sinister. No ONE person flies over the hundreds waiting in line to be President, especially if one of them is a Clinton, to snag the party nomination. It took a lot of very powerful people to put wings on Obama. Whether that power came via Soro's money, the Socialist agenda, or Chicago thuggery, or a combination of all of that - and who knows, maybe more - it is not good. In that case it would be a deliberate act to undermine the Constitution so they can declare precident was set and the people in power no longer HAVE to follow the rule of law. In other words, Obama was put into office by a machine that wants to tear down our Government.

What makes me believe it is the latter scenario is Obama's current argument - that is, he is under NO obligation to prove his eligibility.

Now why would a politician take that stand? Really. A politician works themselves to exhaustion to GET votes. There are hardcore supporters, but he still needs those Independent votes to win - and Independents will look at this situation logically. If he is REFUSING to prove his eligibility, there's a very high probability that he cannot prove it at all.

[sandyd]

In other words, Obama was put into office by a machine

that is, IMO, true of them all. Why he jumped ahead....the machine has a reason and you note, Hillary backed off! Hint: it's not even who is elected who is in real power....the man behind the curtain was visible in 08.

Do 'they' want to change our system of gov? or modify it into the 21st century? Considering the norm is for things to change, I would expect 'they' do want to guide/push/be in charge of any changes. Were I a true 1% or higher up, I would too....as I imagine Kings of old did.

What makes me believe it is the latter scenario is Obama's current argument - that is, he is under NO obligation to prove his eligibility.

Now why would a politician take that stand?

Simple...he ain't an ordinary polly, fb. He jumped in front, he was sold to us all and he is doing what he is told to. If 'they' want him to lose now....or just want him to say what he did and let the chips fall where they may....I do not think he is the mastermind behind it.

Somewhere I read the reason Romney's daddy didn't get on the ballot was he was born in Mexico...but to two US Citizens which should mean based on what I've read, he was natural born...right? At some point during those years, it was suggested that anyone born with a parent who was a US Citizen, was a natural born US citizen...no matter where they were born. It wasn't a binding legal decision, just discussed.

The total meaning of natural born is not perfectly defined legally and courts don't want to....
If they took it to be, one parent is a US Citizen = child is = Obama is.

I kinda suspect that is why nothing is being done in the courts....that is the standard they want to use. Maybe just cuz the world is such a small place now (lots of travel and people breeding around the world) or maybe there is someone being groomed that will need that to already have been tried and successful. A good chess player would be thinking that far ahead.

To me, this is like 'who killed JKF?'....even now...no one knows how much of a conspiracy it really was or if a lone guy did it all...

And I'll state I do not think Obama is lying about things. I would bet he is like many of us...we believed our grandparents and parents and those around us.
He is only saying what he has been told is truth. Those white folks who helped raise him may not have been blood related but he was told they were....the daddy on his BC may not be the real sperm donor but he was told that was the bio daddy.

I can imagine one day DNA testing will be required for holding office...cuz humans lie so much to each other. And themselves. But wait...should that be legal???

[flourbug]

Originally Posted by sandyd

Hillary backed off!

She was cheated out of her party's nomination. WHAT would have made a VERY powerful Clinton back off?

Man behind the curtain? For sure. Man with very big guns and not an ounce of morality to prevent him from using them.

Do 'they' want to change our system of gov? or modify it into the 21st century?

lol. Silly girl. Of course it is about modification.

It is about power through control. They want to replace our system of individuality with a system that places community first. In practical terms, that means everyone is a worker bee and our employer is the government. The govt will educate us in what they want us to know. They will provide jobs for us. They will provide us with health care. If you are not able to work and this is not a temporary situation, then you are worth nothing to them. They give you the illusion of choice, but there is no choice.

We are at a crossroads now. There are still too many of us that know, and value, individual freedom to just let them have their way. But they are strong and very very persistent.

Considering the norm is for things to change, I would expect 'they' do want to guide/push/be in charge of any changes. Were I a true 1% or higher up, I would too....as I imagine Kings of old did.

You know what they say about absolute power.

I do not think he is the mastermind behind it.

That's obvious. He's not a great thinker. In fact it is becoming painfully clear that he got where he is because the fabricated international/socialist/marxist persona he created for himself opened doors.

Somewhere I read the reason Romney's daddy didn't get on the ballot was he was born in Mexico...but to two US Citizens which should mean based on what I've read, he was natural born...right? At some point during those years, it was suggested that anyone born with a parent who was a US Citizen, was a natural born US citizen...no matter where they were born. It wasn't a binding legal decision, just discussed.

Watch politicians. When they cannot change something, they redefine the word. When I went to school the one and only definition of NBC = two citizen parents + born on US soil. My son is being taught that anyone born in the US can grow up and become President.

It is a fact that under current law, anyone born on US soil OR born to even one US citizen parent, was born a citizen of the United States. The fallacy is, if you are born a citizen, you are a natural born citizen.

That is NOT what the Founders had in mind. It is NOT what the Constitution says. It is not what the Supreme Court has ruled.

The total meaning of natural born is not perfectly defined legally and courts don't want to....

The courts don't want to because NBC was defined in the Supreme Court case Minor v Happersat. (There has never been a case before the Supreme Court asking them to specifically define NBC. But in M v H the court was asked to decide if women had the right to vote because they are citizens. Virginia Minor was born in the US to citizen parents, and argued that being a citizen gave her the right to vote. In their ruling the SCOTUS said there was never any doubt that someone born in the US to citizen parents was a natural born citizen - but in the matter before the court it was enough for that court to state the person is a citizen. They went on to say that the Constitution does not give citizens the right to vote. The 19th Amendment was passed, prohibiting any citizen from being denied the right to vote based on sex, and effectively overturning M v H.) That statement by the SCOTUS is enough. It is all that is needed.

One of the problems facing birthers is the lower courts. Not just the fact that they will not legitimately hear the arguments and evidence, but there is a very very long history of courts deliberately misinterpreting in order to grant citizenship to anyone who wants it. (Imagine a court ruling that the Constitution says everyone is entitled to Life, Liberty, and a Kitten.) Not only do attorneys have to prove the Founder's intent, they also have to show the court ruling in Blah vs Blah was in error.

When this (IF this) ever gets up to the Supreme Court, then all hell is going to break loose. The Supreme Court will find the Constitution does not give everyone Life, Liberty and a Kitten. That was the Declaration of Independence, and it wasn't a kitten, it was Pursuit of Happiness. And, since the Declaration is not law, no one has been entitled to the kittens that have been given out so freely by the courts.

In other words, if the SCOTUS corrects the errors of the lower courts when it comes to NBC, it may well be the end of birthright citizenship.

I kinda suspect that is why nothing is being done in the courts....that is the standard they want to use

I agree.

Maybe just cuz the world is such a small place now (lots of travel and people breeding around the world) or maybe there is someone being groomed that will need that to already have been tried and successful. A good chess player would be thinking that far ahead.

I can go with the small place and plans for a global government idea.

And I'll state I do not think Obama is lying about things. I would bet he is like many of us...we believed our grandparents and parents and those around us.

No. He is a pathological liar. He is a figment of his own imagination.

I know the type all too well. You know, sociopaths can play the notes perfectly but they cannot make music, because that requires deep and subtle emotion which they do not possess. Sociopaths can be so damn smooth when they lie... but then they follow a pattern (I think of it like the five stages of grief) to cover up and deny their lies, and that gives them away every time.

I can imagine one day DNA testing will be required for holding office...cuz humans lie so much to each other. And themselves. But wait...should that be legal???

We don't need DNA testing. We need honest people in our government.

Obama can lie about his citizenship status, but it is taking an army of people willing to commit fraud in order to cover up that lie.

[Ross]

She was cheated out of her party's nomination. WHAT would have made a VERY powerful Clinton back off?

Man behind the curtain? For sure. Man with very big guns and not an ounce of morality to prevent him from using them.

Would you expand on that theory a little please . Blackmail ? Some other
form of pressure ??

My memory must be failing , I thought she quit because she was losing the contest .

[flourbug]

You Tube

[flourbug]

I believe this is the documentary referenced in the above video.

You Tube

You Tube

You Tube

You Tube

[flourbug]

I put up the documentary too... even though I have already seen it and probably posted it here somewhere.

People forget what Obama did to get where he is. Look up Jack Ryan too.

...and the execution style murder of two gay men in Obama's church, and the mother of one claiming he was murdered to protect the President - http://patdollard.com/2011/11/mother...ver-speaks-up/

[sandyd]

http://news.yahoo.com/romneys-birth-...231534685.html
In a paper in November aimed at clarifying presidential eligibility, the Congressional Research Service declared that the practical, legal meaning of "natural born citizen" would "most likely include" not only anyone born on U.S. soil but anyone born overseas of at least one parent who was a U.S. citizen.

That was probably when thoughts changed although Romney's daddy did not run...his effort to, brought that thought about.

The meaning of the term may have changed same as I've heard rumors how the term virgin changed over the centuries....and now, the meaning is different.

I do question this: is it Obama's money or the Dem's money or money from our gov that is used to 'hide' or fight these allegations about O?

If I were a string puller on a puppet, it'd be my money used and even if nothing serious was being hidden, I'd know it's a way to keep people looking at the wrong hand during the magic tricks.

[leistb]

Originally Posted by Dreamweaver

Why are Obama's college transcripts more secret than details of Bin Laden raid? I suspect there is a relationship between this and the birther issue.

Mark Levin: Obama's College Transcripts Should Not Be Off The Table

[sandyd]

fb, I saw somewhere what the USA says about traveling overseas and having your baby there....and it sounds like they use a one parent US citizen as basis for US Citizen for baby.

If it works for travel, why would one parent with baby born in USA not be acceptable?

I keep seeing different 'possible' things: if he was not born in the USA...

If his dad (as we hear he was) was a Brit, baby was a Brit and US Citizen at birth...

Seems to me if he was born in the USA and one parent was a US Citizen...not likely any court is gonna say he ain't qualified.

[gsgs]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural...citizen_clause

[flourbug]

gsgs, isn't there a lot of conflicting information in the wikipedia article? These court cases are a lot like going to a doctor. The doctor will listen to your symptoms and name a disease. Usually the doctor will be right, but if it is a rare disease or one he has never seen, there's a good chance he could get it wrong. In the US the lower courts are like inexperienced doctors when it comes to obscure legal problems. (And what could be more obscure than a thing that only affects two people in the entire country, every four years?) That's why we have the Supreme Court. Fortunately for us, our Supreme Court is full of experts, including hundreds of research assistants, who will put the right name to the disease. The Supreme Court has the final word. If they define a term, then that is the definition of the term that must be used - and in Minor v Happersat, they defined natural born citizen. It would be nice for the SCOTUS to have a case that specifically addressed natural born citizen, but until then, M v H will suffice.

sandyd, citizen, born citizen, native citizen, naturalized, natural born... are they all the same? 300+ years ago, people talked funny. Long, run on sentences full of flowery language, that changed thoughts midstream and then went back again. It is difficult to read, and even more difficult to fully understand. But we must understand in order to interpret laws. One of the issues muddying the waters is the fact that until about 75 years ago, when people had babies in the US, the parents were immigrants or the descendants of immigrants who had left everything behind in the old country to start a new life in the USA. They came here intending to stay. They rushed to embrace their new home and learn its traditions and language, and they were proud of the day they were sworn in as citizens. They wanted their children to be Americans. When legislators and lawyers talked about "born citizens" in the 18- and 1900's, they envisioned natural born children who were invested with the love and welfare of our country, not pregnant moms hopping over the border to have anchor babies that will give their entire extended family unlimited access to our welfare system.

I can tell you what helped me understand this issue. Think of it this way. Governments around the world all make laws determining who is and who is not a citizen. Jason was born in Egypt to a mother who is a natural born citizen of Singapore and a father who is a natural born citizen of the US. Egypt does not confer citizenship to children born in the country. You have to have citizen parents to be born a citizen of Egypt. Singapore does not confer citizenship through the mother to children born outside of the country. For his mother to pass down her citizenship he would have had to be born in Singapore. The US does confer citizenship to the children of citizens, born anywhere in the world. So Jason was a US citizen at birth. Is he a natural born citizen? Of what country? Jason is not even a citizen of the country in which he was born. His mother could not pass her citizenship to him. His father did - but does that make Jason a natural born US citizen? Understand Jason was raised outside the US, in the Middle East and Southeast Asia. He vacationed in the US but did not become a permanent resident until his family moved back when he was in high school. Natural born?

The laws of the US have changed over the centuries. Until the 14th Amendment, there was no birthright citizenship in the US. Citizenship was a state issue. If you were born in a state that gave birthright citizenship all other states recognized it, but if you were born in a state that did not confer citizenship at birth then you were not a citizen of that state or any other. This was particularly bad for the newly freed slaves. If you were born a slave - even if your parents and grandparents were born in the US - you were not a citizen of any state. This lack of citizenship was used to deny them rights. The 14th Amendment changed that, giving everyone born in the US birthright citizenship. Being born overseas only confers citizenship if the laws of the parent's countries allow it. The US does, but again, that has changed over the years. When a law gives you citizenship, you are naturalized. Some laws give a baby citizenship at birth, but they are still naturalized.

There is, and always has been, one universal sure path to citizenship. There is NO COUNTRY that denies citizenship to babies born to citizen parents on native soil. These babies are natural born citizens. By the laws of NATURE, they are indisputably citizens, owing allegiance to no other country - and most importantly no other country can claim them as citizens.

Going back a bit... and getting more specific... Obama. The treaties we make with other countries become our laws. By treaty, Obama's father passed his citizenship to his son. No matter who the mom was, no matter what country he was born in, Obama was born a citizen of the United Kingdom. Obama's mother was not old enough to confer her citizenship onto her son. If he was born outside the US, Obama would not be a US citizen. Like Jason, he would have the citizenship of his father. If Obama was born in the US, then the fact he was born in the country would give him birthright citizenship. He would be a born citizen. He would be a native citizen.

But Obama is not a natural born citizen, because he was born the citizen of another country under the laws of the US.

[gsgs]

> gsgs, isn't there a lot of conflicting information in the wikipedia article?
> ... The Supreme Court has the final word. If they define a term, then that is the definition
> of the term that must be used ...
> ... But Obama is not a natural born citizen,

so, you know it in advance what the Supreme Court would decide ??



since many months Rubio is considered the most likely
vice-president candidate at intrade (between 20% and 30%
probability). And that despite him saying repeatedly he would
reject if asked.

most experts seem to think he is eligible.