GOPUSA and the Natural Born Citizen 101 hypocrisy exposed.

[[[[[[

May 2, 2012 Update:  last updated 10:44 pm Pacific

The issue at argument is the 5 year residency clause.  Which is required when a child is born abroad.  The preponderance of the evidence suggest that of Barack Obama, and automatically excludes Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal, because they did not have United States parents at the time of birth building up even 2 years of residency as United States citizens for their children to be eligible under the Brett Baier argument posted past the second half of this post below.

Following the pattern of the Immigration Act of 1940, the age after which 5 years of residency inside the United States must occur was changed from 16 years old to 14 years old by the Immigration and Nationality Act, ch. 477, Title III, ch. 1, § 301(a)(7), 66 Stat.

235-236 (1952).   This was to amend the Nationality Act of 1940, ch. 876, §§ 201(g), 205, 54 Stat. 1138-1139.   


 
Sec. 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
 (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten  years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:
 
In 1986, the language was amended 
 
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1986 AMENDMENT Section 23(d) of Pub. L. 99-653, as added by Pub. L. 100-525, Sec. 8(r), Oct. 24, 1988, 102 Stat. 2619, provided that: "The amendment made by section 12 [amending this section] shall apply to persons born on or after November 14, 1986."


 1986 - Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 99-653 substituted "five years, at least two" for "ten years, at least five".


For those born on or after November 14, 1986 8 USC 1401 (g) now reads 

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:

Barack Obama falls into this clause of Section 1401...and the facts that he is incapable in  the recent Georgia action of Farrar v. Obama, as well as Hollister v. Soetoro (Soetoro being Barack Obama's legal adopted name), demonstrates under 333 US 640 Bute v. Illinois (1948) @ 653 per 533 US 53 Nguyen v. INS (2001) @ 54, 62 that Obama is incapable of proving even a United States Citizenship of any kind at birth.

When he spoke in my presence in July 1981 to Bill Ayers, at a distance of only six or seven feet from me, Barack Obama said he didn't know where he was born.  Obama said then that he had what he believed was a US Citizenship through living in Hawaii, but that his Mom who was allegedly in Indonesia probably had it, but up to that point he had never actually seen it (or words to this effect).    Bill Ayers responded with a "We'll fix that." 

 At the time, Obama had flown in allegedly at age 19 turning 20 (allegedly if he was born when he says he was) on a British Passport on a British Airways Flight arriving at O'Hare at something to the effect of 9:36 or 9:38 am.  I sometimes feel inclined to recall the words as being 8:36 or 8:38 am, for the flight arrival time, but the data will be in the O'Hare Airport INS registry.  If it become edited out or simply goes missing, we will know they actually know me and bother to read this almost "under the radar" blog.  But it is what it is.

Obama at that interview with Bill Ayers --  in the Pizza restaurant owned by friends of the Ayers family, going back to something like 1946 (I think Ayers may have cited either that year or said the mid to late 1940s, I can't recall the exact words, but it was to this effect) -- Obama  said that he had "flown straight, non-stop from London just for this very important interview" (or words to this effect)  with Bill Ayers who was representing "the Central Committee" (Ayers said)  after what Barack had described with words  or words to the effect of a 5 day layover in Britain with relatives after visiting Pakistan.  I do not remember if Obama at the time said his Mom was there in Pakistan or if 3 weeks were involved.  I do not wish to add words into what happened, because I just am not sure of the recollection as to the Pakistan  duration.  I had done prior research to this publishing here in 2012 of my recollection of this, to show Obama was likely in Pakistan on a Christmas layover from Occidental, and if he was there for 3 weeks mostly or all in July 1981 prior to his meet in a Wilmette Illinois Pizza restaurant, I would have to say based on the claims of the Pakistani Times and other research I have done, this would be a second 3 week layover Obama spent in Pakistan in less than 8 months, because the Pakistani Times focuses on Partridge season as the time of his visit, which is during our winter.  

http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2010/02/obama-and-pakistani-connection.html

So could Obama have been in Pakistan in July 1981 only once, and my research based on the Pakistani Times that Obama was in Pakistan only in July 1981, not both January and July of 1981 be wrong?  Possibly.  But when the seeking of truth is a one way street from we the grass-roots and natural born citizens of America, and the media and others who claim to be upholders of truth really mean those in their profession a generation or generations ago, sometimes it takes a bit longer to know absolutely all the facts in the absence of the conversation over the media induced soliloquy based on their asininity / jack-ass stubborn  idiocy.   Or should I say their open conspiracy to betray the United States Constitution for pop-personality idolatry, leftist utopian delusions of ideology,  and social pretentious veneer.  That's what it boils down to.

Getting back to mid or late July of 1981, and Obama and Ayers....I do remember for a fact that these two Communists Obama and Ayers, who sat down next to MY BOOTH (I was there 15 minutes before Ayers and some 28 minutes before Obama), their "interview"  ruined my first taste of Chicago style Pizza so much, that to this day I still detest its flavor because of the other things both Ayers and Obama advocated, such as "overthrowing the US Government from within" for Communism, and Obama specifically saying "I'm a Marxist-Leninist" while seeking to be a candidate that the Central Committee would groom...as one of 5 or 6 (Ayers said) for the hope of a future control of the Presidency in the hands and/or guidance of the Central Committee (or words to this effect).   

At one point the projection of  assuming the United States Presidency "25 to 30 years from now" (or words to this effect) was used, at another point in the conversation, "20 to 25 years in the future" (or words to this effect)  was again used by Ayers as if to sell his position as the Interviewer, it seems to me.   Obama spent a minimum of 7 days living with Bill Ayers at the time following that interview, based on words they exchanged in front of me on Chicago Avenue over in Evanston Illinois a couple to a few days later (stating to the effect to Obama  "you'll be staying with me 5  days" ).  But since Barack was around (as I recall) something like  7 or maybe as many as 10 days, I presume it was actually "you'll be staying with me 5 MORE days" or "5 days more", or something to this effect.  That is the best I can recall at this time.

 I am also of a mind to believe that Thomas Ayers (whom I also later would exchange words with, and who was angry at Bill for even bothering with me so as to do what he did to lead to the meet that included a small business owner victim of a Certain Community Organized riot in South Chicago that especially included a certain computer store...apparently not just one, but more than one owned by that same person) that Thomas Ayers (in my opinion) was himself the leader of the Central Committee that Bill Ayers claimed to Obama to represent, of what we today might re-brand as radical progressives (at least during August 1981 when we exchanged heated words) it seems to me. But more details here is perhaps for another day. We'll see.  
 

  So getting back to the Birth Certificate.  As of mid to late July 1981,  if Barack had never seen his birth certificate as of mid to late July 1981, I fully expect that his Fulbright scholarship for the foreign undergraduate students coming to Occidental was on the basis of his Indonesian Passport, or at the very least his British Passport, because Barack Obama told Bill Ayers in my presence in July 1981 that he had flown in on a British passport.   Doing so (i.e., using a British Passport) past the age of 18, makes him an alien in my opinion, and having legally denied United States Citizenship to a Federal Officer.  So where is and was Barack's Birth Certificate? 

On January 19, 2011
http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2011/01/obama-has-no-birth-certificate-on-file.html
and on January 25, 2011
http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2011/01/obama-confession-and-more-on-non-extant.html

it was almost conclusive in the journalistic sense, that the only thing on file in Hawaii as regards Obama is a data entry of : "Obama II, Barack Hussein, Male...." instead of any United States Birth Certificate or Certification of Live Birth.

When Ann Dunham married Barack Obama Sr., she acquired BRITISH Citizenship by marriage.  

 http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2011/11/barack-husssein-obama-jr-british.html

Barack Jr. thus acquired a British Natural Born Citizenship through the father, and the subsequent citizenship acquired by his dual citizen mother by her marriage to Obama Sr.

 

“This provision establishing the child’s nationality as that of the mother regardless of the legitimation or establishment of paternity is new. It insures that

the child shall have a nationality at birth.” S. Rep. 1137, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. 39 (1952).

 Further,

"...the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.”
The New Englander and Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845), p. 414
http://books.google.com/books?id=gGNJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA414&dq=Vattel+%2B%22natural+born+citizen%22&as_brr=4&cd=5#v=onepage&q=Vattel%20%20%22natural%20born%20citizen%22&f=false

In Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 US 657 (1927) @ 660-661, you will note that Wong Kim Ark (WKA, 169 US 647 (1898) exceeded what was recognized in the cited Annals of Congress, re: February 3-4 of 1790 (WKA and Weedin quoting Mr. Burke @ 1160).

In the debate of the Naturalization Bill of 1790, Congress

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=573

from pp. 1147 – 1164

was persuaded by several particulars: that like the later WKA gloss-over mention @ 169 US 647 @ 666 (IV.),

in that Congress in 1790 stated that:

1) Citizenship in the USA should be unique like the ancient Romans (cf. Mr. Hartley pp. 1147-1148, Mr. Jackson 1153); 2) That the influence of naturalization did NOT necessarily follow the Common Law of Britain and Europe and the application of in pari materia (where statute construes the law passed) past 1701 A.D. in regard to naturalization (cf. Mr. Page @ 1148, 1153).

3) Under the argument put forth by Mr. Tucker and agreed to by Mr. Madison,  it appears and very well  may be that a proper interpretation of the NBC clause 14 year residency requirement meant simply that only those Natural Born Citizens (born of two US parents on US soil and a sole US Citizen his entire life with no dual or multi-nationalities) who has lived as a citizen of a single state the immediate 14 years prior to running for the US Presidency, , as with that of a US Senator and US Representative is supposed to be a citizen of their state the immediate number of years in order to run their (in Constitutional Originalism), is or was intended to be (by the Founders) as those qualified in their running for office (Mr. Tucker @ 1154-1155 discussing the that "He thought the citizens...every person who was eligible under their State laws and constitutions" and applied this to the Constitution in such a way as though to infer a State residency of a native lifelong permanent and sole resident of the United States on a national scale).

In fact, paternal (including the two parent citizenship rule of both father and mother citizens) was known and accepted as required in defining citizenship, WKA citing @ 668 the 1343 A.D.  Statute in the Rolls of Parliament , followed by the 1350 A.D. clarification @ 668 of WKA , followed by the 1483 A.D.  TWO PARENT DEFINITION OF CITIZENSHIP that by COMMON LAW, “that he who is born beyond the sea, and his father and mother are English, their issue inherit by the common law…”

The two parent statute therefore both preceded by centuries as well as followed Coke’s decision by decades in 1677, 1708, 1731 -- as was cited by WKA @ 671, appears to follow the application of fathers and mothers of children whose fathers were presumed natural-born English subjects.

Congress and the Founding Fathers of the period appear to have adopted not only John Locke’s second treatise chapter “Of Paternal Power”, but to have ignored British Statutes on the naturalization subject at least past 1731 A.D., while accepting works like Vattel’s Law of Nations.

The Court in WKA concluded by majority that WKA was a citizen of the United States under the criteria of the 14th Amendment because –

1) Wong Kim Ark was born in the United States.

Wong Kim Ark never renounced US Allegiance, nor did his parents do so for him.

 Barack was likely born outside the United States in Kenya according to Kenya's own Media in 2004.

 Kenya - The Standard - Online Edition - 2004-06-27 issue - Kenyan-born Obama

While 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)(7) (1970) established that for  married parents, the citizen mother or father only thereafter needed to establish that she or he met the residency requirement in order to transmit citizenship, 8 U.S.C. §1401(a)(7) (1970), that clause was repealed in 1972.  However, liberals seem to make this 2 year allowance perpetual as well as eternal.  But being born abroad, Ann Dunham must be 19 years old to give baby Barack a US Citizenship.

  

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
OFFICIAL REPORT
Thursday, 25th March, 2010
The House met at 2.30 p.m.
p. 31 …2nd paragraph (Mr. Orengo, Minister of Lands of the nation of Kenya, speaking):
“…how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America? It is because they did away with exclusion.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29758466/RDRAFT25

More than just the Media of Kenya in 2004, and more than the Officials of the Kenyan Government (some of whom are literal Obama's cousins, etc.), but his own living eyewitness grandmother says he was born in Kenya.

 Step-Grandmother Sarah Obama Says US President Obama Passed Through Her Hands - Sunday Nation newspaper in ...

I already covered this in 

 http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2011/04/obama-fec-audited-in-2011-little-bit.html

Furthermore, Form FS-277, signed and sworn to by Obama’s mother before the required US Consulate, http://www.scribd.com/doc/35161730/Stanley-Ann-Dunham-Obama-Soetoro-Passport-Application-File-Strunk-v-Dept-of-State-FOIA-Release-FINAL-7-29-10

that Barack lost US residency, that Barack swore allegiance and was naturalized (indefinitely) to the nation of Indonesia as of August 13, 1968. Hence, even by WKA standards @ 652-654 and 704-705, as well as Minor v. Happersett,

http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html

...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. ...It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. “

 Barack lost any claim to even modestly adhere to Wong Kim Ark in 1963 or 1967 when he left (depending on which version he tells) to assume Indonesian citizenship, and most certainly in 1968.

2) Wong Kim Ark maintained that there be a REQUIRED  permanent US State domicile every year of his life as his primary residence from birth to age 21.   While a US Citizenship was acquired for Wong Kim Ark in 1898 to live in the United States,  it did not in any way allow him to run for President of the United States.   Barack Obama Fails in a permanent US Residency and lone nationality from birth to 21.  In fact, Marco Rubio also had a Cubam primary nationality and Bobby Jindal the primary nationality of India at birth.  

And Obama's long form birth Certificate and Selective Service Card have been debunked by US Law Enforcement investigating any claim of Obama US birth legitimacy.   

http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2012/03/sheriff-joe-arpaios-maricopa-county.html

http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2012/04/sheriff-arpaio-holds-2-hour-press.html

Not to mention his Social Security Number identity theft and Passport theft from the US Department of State by John Brennan's Security Company in circa March 2008.   

 http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2010/10/greta-van-susteren-and-others-in-media.html

http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2011/09/obama-2010-tax-filing-uses-identity.html

. "The burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States,or the prohibition of power to the States,is upon those making the claim."
Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640 @653 (1948)

That means it is upon Obama and/or his lawyers to produce Court admissible documents establishing his birth identity with location and witnesses to the birth (cf. Nguyen v. INS 533 US 53 (2001) @ 54,62), - -

Nguyen v. INS 533 US 53 (2001) @ 54,62 http://supreme.justia.com/us/533/53/
@ 54 : “The mother's relation is verifiable from the birth itself and is documented by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses to the birth.”
@62:” In the case of the mother, the relation is verifiable from the birth itself. The mother's status is documented in most instances by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses who attest to her having given birth.”

Unless and until Obama can produce in a Court of Law PROOF he is USA born, something his lawyers ALWAYS REFUSE THE ABILITY TO DO, the preponderance of the evidence, including a preliminary US Law enforcement investigation, Ann Dunham is required to be viewed as having reached the age of 19 and giving birth to Obama in Kenya.  When?  Most likely in January 1961, according to Barack himself.  

 Jerome Corsi at World Net Daily has revealed a missing link and Obama confession that he himself was born in January of 1961.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=255297

 Corsi refers to Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller of ABC News, Major Garrett of Foxnews -- both reporting on April 17, 2009 -- and that of Howard LaFranchi, Staff writer of the Christian Science Monitor reporting 2 days after the fact on April 19, 2009, that:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2009/0419/chummy-obama-chavez-mark-spirit-of-cooperation-at-summit

"…Obama responded disarmingly to an hour-long opening speech by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, in which the former leftist revolutionary reviewed US action against Cuba including the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. “I’m grateful President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old,” he told chuckling leaders."

Just so the Liberal and Communist-Socialist scoffers understand the precise day from what they would deem a "reliable source, On January 26, 2011, the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum

http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/The-Bay-of-Pigs.aspx

states:

"On April 17, 1961, 1400 Cuban exiles launched what became a botched invasion at the Bay of Pigs on the south coast of Cuba."

3 months prior to this is January 1961.  So Obama let slip that he was born in January of  1961? 

Even if the benefit of a doubt were given the other way, 3 months forward gives us a July of 1961 birthdate confession for Obama.  The reporters of ABC and Fox News tried to excuse the gaffe, but this gaffe is more than just a little off.  Even ABC acknowledges the official Obama birthdate was actually 4 months away, not 3. 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/president-ob-20.html

Oddly enough, the very news organization that Obama accused was his enemy, Foxnews, did more to try to brush the birthdate issue aside in its wording

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/18/obama-endures-ortega-diatribe/

than did ABC News.

It seems that the entire Major Media is playing a game upon America, of pretending they are fair minded, when they obviously have a self-appointed and non-elected agenda that is driven by Leftist politics, fear of FCC shut-downs or of willing conspiracies and cover-ups.

So where was Obama?  I have already previously documented that twice the Kenyan Parliament said he was born in Kenya, and the Eastern Standard of Nairobi headlined that "Kenyan-born Senator Barack Obama" was elected to US Senator in June 2004.  The original "birthers" are those of the Government and Media of Kenya, both years before and after he announced in February of 2007 that he would run.  And it was not until a Democrat was able to circumvent the now (and might as well be labeled as the) American Pravda Mainstream Media, that I incredulously began to look at this issue to dismiss it, and found that I legally could not.  Instead, I found that the "watchdog media" was not only asleep at the switch, but based on a racist agenda, to install a black man, any black man in the White House, as if a Civil Rights jesture and a good deed, the Media refused to vet the man.

 To this day, like the sinner that refuses the sting of conscience in acknowledging his sins against G-D and his fellow man, so too does the Media and others wish the issue to go away, lest they feel shamed...as if that were the sin, rather than their misdeeds and conspiratorial agreement to sweep it away and cover it up, and denigrate and misrepresent the Constitutionalist challenge made by those labeled as "Birthers".  They are incapable of matching wits on the law, the History of the Constitutional wording, the facts...so they do what they can do, they call us names and misrepresent the data.  Is that all they've got?  Apparently so. 

As I have previously posted, the idea of Natural Born Citizenship, if you wish to argue from the non-religious view, goes back as far as Ancient Greece:

Aristotle, The Athenian Constitution, 2.26, (translated by Frederick G. Kenyon)

“…it was resolved, on the motion of Pericles, that no one should admitted to the franchise who was not of citizen birth by both parents. “

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/athenian_const.2.2.html

Last summer, we read (and some saw the video) where Obama said,

“Being an American is not a matter of blood or birth, it’s a matter of faith,” Obama declared...

http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2010/07/obama-confesses-his-citizenship-is.html

I guess if you were born in Kenya, and the first eyewitness you had to be in the US was when you were 1 year old in February of 1962, and you had NO Birth Certificate on file from a US Hospital with witnesses to the birth...you would say the same thing, too. 

Barack Obama's Jr.'s first baby-sitter only remembers baby Barry as present in the USA in Washington State from February 1962 onward.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106258

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=107889

No one can place Obama in the United States any earlier than 1962. If Obama was born in August 4 of 1961...why is it that no one can account for him at all in 1961 in Hawaii or anywhere in the USA in 1961? Why? Unless he was foreign born and allowed to remain outside the US for his first several months perhaps?

It is quite obvious, even from Obama's biography, that what he apparently describes as his aloof white grandparents did not take care of him in his infancy or toddler days. He infers that until he reached age 11, he was essentially Ann's problem. Even Michelle Obama has commented that Barack was raised only by "his single mom".  This callous statement tells us that baby Barack was NOT WELCOME in Hawaii with Stanley and Madelyn Dunham until perhaps after he had reached an age to feed and clothe himself, second or third grade on.

But since Barack was not in Washington State with his Mom in all of 1961's August to December months...where was he? There is no dispute as to Ann Dunham-Obama. The documentation shows that we are to accept that she was enrolled. But where was the baby? 

WND reported:

"...Dunham took two classes: Anthropology 100, beginning on Aug. 19, 1961 and ending on Dec. 11, 1961; and Political Science 201, beginning on Aug. 19, 1961 and ending on Dec. 12, 1961.   ...In the winter term 1962, Dunham took two additional courses: History 478, beginning on Dec. 27, 1961, and ending on March 30, 1962; and Philosophy 120, beginning on Dec. 27, 1961, and ending on March 20, 1962. All four of these classes are listed in the transcript as University of Washington extension courses."

There are no other living witnesses besides Barack's step-grandmother, who says she saw him birthed in Kenya.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=107524

 Hawaii elections official Tim Adams has sworn an affadavit under penalty of perjury on January 20, 2011 (last Thursday as of the time of this posting).

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=254401

"During the course of my employment, I became aware that many requests were being made to the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division, the Hawaii Office of Elections, and the Hawaii Department of Health from around the country to obtain a copy of then-Senator Barack Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate."

"Senior officers in the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division told me on multiple occasions that no Hawaii long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Senator Obama in the Hawaii Department of Health,, and there was no record that any such document had ever been on file in the Hawaii Department of Health or any other branch or department of the Hawaii government."

WND also recorded the affirmation to this in a phone interview where Adams recalled:
"My supervisor came and told me, 'Of course, there's no birth certificate. What? You stupid....'"

Just as Governor Abercrombie's first Director of Health in Hawaii told Abercrombie, and was forced to resign in 3 weeks, stating to the effect that   "There NO birth Certificate on File for Barack Obama."  Just a few words someone typed into an index list in the 1980s that seems to attribute his birth as an alien registration more than anything else.  

 

End of May 2, 2012 update]]]]]

Both GOPUSA Staff and Brett Baier fail the most basic of reading comprehension and competency as journalists if they cannot add and subtract that 14+5 = 19 and not 18, or that those who are not yet United States Citizens or visiting on student visas are NOT United States Citizens.  It is so mind-blowing, that I am posting their posts to expose their fraud and shameful conduct of irrationality.


 http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2012/05/01/natural-born-citizen-requirements/#comments

Natural Born Citizen 101: Who can be president?

By GOPUSA Staff May 1, 2012 12:30 pm

        

Text Size: A A A

E-mails constantly fly here, there, and everywhere regarding who can and can't be president or vice president. Can Barack Obama be president? How about Florida Sen. Marco Rubio for vice president? Can he serve? Here are some answers to those questions which have churned up comments on blogs across the Internet.

Thanks goes out to Fox News' Bret Baier for providing a least some bit of clarity to an issue which drives some people absolutely into a stupor.

The Constitution requires that the president be a "natural born citizen," but does not define the term. That job is left to federal law, in 8 U.S. Code, Section 1401. All the law requires is that the mother be an American citizen who has lived in the U.S. for five years or more, at least two of those years after the age of 14. If the mother fits those criteria, the child is a U.S. citizen at birth, regardless of the father's nationality.
The brouhaha over President Obama's birth certificate -- has revealed a widespread ignorance of some of the basics of American citizenship. The Constitution, of course, requires that a president be a "natural born citizen," but the Founding Fathers did not define the term, and it appears few people know what it means.

Brett lists several examples of who would be considered a natural born American. In short, people like Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal can breathe a sigh of relief. They are good to go.

Rate this post:

My immediate response reading this was and still is....Holy Sh*t, are you guys on drugs or just plain stupid?

 http://thedailybret.com/

• Bret explains "natural born citizen" requirements for president and vice president

  Posted by Bret Baier | May 01, 2012
  •  Print
  •  Email
  •  Share
  • 
    
  I posted this quickly as a response to all of the emails I was receiving about Senator Marco Rubio and whether he is a "Natural Born Citizen (the same emails comment about Gov. Bobby Jindal). I noted in the blog- there is a lot of dispute about the legal term and what the Founding Fathers truly meant. What I did not put in the blog -was that a large part of this was originally reported by Byron York of the Washington Examiner. I asked him to send me his reporting a few weeks ago - and I should have cited that in the blog this morning... I apologize to Byron for leaving that out. Bottom line... this is obviously getting a lot of attention.. so, we think we should do a full piece on the show about it.. and maybe have a panel of constitutional scholars... and legal experts to discuss this. There is obviously a lot of confusion.. uncertainty and misinformation out there about this topic. And as I wrote in the blog.. there is vigorous legal debate about the term... so we need to talk about it... and we'll continue to report all sides.

  Here's the deal...
  Many legal analysts and scholars agree with this take-- and until the Supreme Court weighs in.. this is how the law is interpreted:
  The Constitution requires that the president be a "natural born citizen," but does not define the term. That job is left to federal law, in 8 U.S. Code, Section 1401. All the law requires is that the mother be an American citizen who has lived in the U.S. for five years or more, at least two of those years after the age of 14. If the mother fits those criteria, the child is a U.S. citizen at birth, regardless of the father's nationality.
  The brouhaha over President Obama's birth certificate -- has revealed a widespread ignorance of some of the basics of American citizenship. The Constitution, of course, requires that a president be a "natural born citizen," but the Founding Fathers did not define the term, and it appears few people know what it means.
  The law lists several categories of people who are considered American citizens at birth. There are the people born inside the United States; no question there. There are the people who are born outside the United States to parents who are both citizens, provided one of them has lived in the U.S. for any period of time. There are the people who are born outside the United States to one parent who is a U.S. citizen and the other who is a U.S. national (that is, from an outlying possession of the U.S.), provided the citizen parent has lived in the United States or its possessions for at least one year prior to the birth of the child. And then there are the people who are born outside the United States to one parent who is a U.S. citizen and the other who is an alien, provided the citizen parent lived in the United States or its possessions for at least five years, two of them after the age of 14.
  They're all natural born U.S. citizens. That also includes people who are born in Puerto Rico and people who were born in states before they became states. Born in Hawaii in 1950, a decade before statehood? You're a natural born U.S. citizen.
  That is how legal experts interpret the "natural born" requirement.. and how you get that status is actually pretty open. Until the Supreme Court weighs in on this issue (and there are no plans that we know of that that will happen)... -- to your emails... Senator Marco Rubio and Governor Bobby Jindal are both eligible to run and become Vice President or President.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report/blog/2012/05/01/bret-explains-natural-born-citizen-requirements-president-and-vice-president#ixzz1tfVwLmXO

 My comment to GOPUSA (as yet to pass the censors as I write this) is thus, and it also relates to Brett Baier.  Actually, they are very blessed to not have interviewed me on live television and sprung their answer on me. 

GOPUSA,
    You know, the egregious errors by the very extreme obviousness of the error in reasoning both GOPUSA and Baier have committed is inflammatory! Are you guys on something when you have to explain how that Obama qualifies by YOUR VERSION when he does NOT?  I mean, really.
1) Ann Dunham Obama was 18 years old at the time of Barack's alleged birth so Barack FAILS your legal parameters of 5 years after the age of 14 test.  This makes BARACK BY YOUR OWN TEST AS ILLEGAL!!!
 

2) The mothers (as well as fathers)  of both Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal at the time of their children's birth on US Soil were that they were NOT citizens of the United States at the time of their children's births.  MARCO AND BOBBY FAIL BY YOUR OWN TEST AS ILLEGAL!!!

Many of us have done the research...YOU HAVE NOT.

 For example,
http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2011/02/obligatory-literal-definition-of.html
http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2011/05/in-regard-to-natural-born-citizen-issue.html
 
You will also wish to check the almost 9 pp. long header at the top of each of my blogposts that definitively shut you and Brett DOWN on this issue as illiterates to this subject.  Please read up and fairly weigh the matter and publish a retraction of supporting Brett Baier's agnosticism on this issue.  Thank you.

Thus was my reply.  Of course, being so clearly exposed, GOPUSA refused to pass that reply through the censors who FUBARed any adherence to even the law they claimed was their do all and end all to the debate. They are all unable to add and subtract, or be conscious that non-U.S. Citizens are not U.S. Citizens under legal definition?  Damn, that must be one hell of a joint laced with some really wild hallucinogens.   Good grief!


For the record:  We must apply the Constitution EQUALLY to all Political Parties, without prejudice for or against.

Bobby Jindal FAILS the  Baier / GOPUSA "legal" test.


 http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2010/10/not-us-natural-born-citizen-jindal-not.html

Piyush Amrit "Bobby" Jindal is the current Governor of Louisiana, and was born on US soil as an anchor baby on June 10, 1971, to foreign nationals, the mother having arrived in the US 6 months earlier on a student visa.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/world/americas/22iht-22louisiana.7991675.html?_r=1

"Piyush Jindal was born on June 10, 1971, in Baton Rouge to Hindu parents who had come to the United States six months before ..."

Like Barack Obama...Bobby Jindal is NOT a Constitutionally Qualified Individual to run for or hold the US Presidency. 

Notice that BOTH PARENTS had only come to the US 6 months before "Bobby's" birth.   Had they BOTH been naturalized US Citizens before his birth, only then, with a birth on US soil would Piyush Amrit "Bobby" Jindal  qualify to seek any nomination to run as a candidate to the US Presidency.  It has 100% to do with Constitutional Law, and nothing else.

 For the record: We must apply the Constitution EQUALLY to all Political Parties, without prejudice for or against.

Barack Obama FAILS the  Baier / GOPUSA "legal"  test. 


 http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/long-form.jpg
Ann Dunham is listed as age 18 on the forged document, and ANY baby she has in 1961 prior to her 19th birthday FAILS the Brett Baeir and GOPUSA below 70 I.Q. can't add 4+14=18 and does not equal 19 test.











For the record:   We must apply the Constitution EQUALLY to all Political Parties, without prejudice for or against.

Marco Rubio FAILS the  Baier / GOPUSA "legal"  test. 
 http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=R000595
 http://www.art2superpac.com/vpprospects.html
Marco Rubio was born in Cedars of Lebanon Hospital in Miami, Florida on May 28, 1971 on United States soil to foreigners who were 4 years away from becoming United States Citizens by Naturalization. 

 http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/ineligible-rubio-top-gop-choice-for-vp/
Though Rubio was born in Miami, Fla., in 1971, his parents were not U.S. citizens at the time, and they did not become American citizens until Nov. 5, 1975, four years after Marco was born.


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

[[[[[UPDATE May 3, 2012    ART2SUPERPAC posting:
http://www.art2superpac.com/herbtitus.html
as also reported at WND at
http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/law-prof-fox-anchor-wrong-on-eligibility/?cat_orig=politics
       Constitutional Attorney Herb Titus posts his response to Brett Baier.   As cited above, the issue at hand is Brett Baier's erroneous  re-defining  (instead of reporting) of what a United States Natural Born Citizen is. 

Herb Titus, Esq. Corrects Bret Baier of Fox News on Natural Born Citizen Definition, 5-1-2012

You may Herb Titus from this video snippet regarding what constitutes the legal definition of a UNITED STATES Natural Born Citizen in his professional expertise. 



END OF UPDATE  ]]]]]]