The distinction being made between US Citizen and natural born US Citizen is that a natural born citizen is born of parents that are both US Citizens and the US has sole jurisdiction at birth. This requires being born on US soil. Whereas a US Citizen at birth, does not require that the both parents be US Citizens. One can be born of parents that are both citizens of another country, simply by being born in the US. And one can be born in another country to one parent that is a US Citizen. The Constitution does not require that an individual be raised in the US. The time requirement is residence of 14 years in the US prior to running for the office of the president.

The framers of our Constitution were safeguarding against any president having competing loyalties. That is not to say that Mr. Obama and Senator McCain are not 100% loyal. However, what about future candidates?

If the natural born citizen eligibility requirement is ignored and historical and/or legal precedent is set. By opening that door for Mr. Obama or Senator McCain we have no safeguard that whoever comes behind them, in the future, will not have competing loyalties to a foreign nation. The individuals, that brought the issue of the natural born US Citizen eligibility requirement, are not conspiracy theorists they are concerned Americans. What ever our political affiliation may be, as Americans we should all be very concerned about this matter.

Again, you can read pages 7-11 and this actually shows how to fill out the form, pay $10.00 and get a certified copy of the original birth certificate, which again the State of Hawaii has announced they are holding.

Here you go, pages 7-11:
http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/Loaa%20Ka%20Aina%20Hoopulapula.pdf

Once again, “Certificate” good as it has the name of the hospital, doctors and witnesses all facts that can be verified. “Certification” bad as it is not proof that Obama was born in Hawaii and it does not contain any verifiable facts.

I think the issue of his Birth Certificate is bogus and designed to confuse people. It is weird that Obama is refusing to make it available but if he is ever ordered to do so, I am sure he will do so. Currently he is under no legal obligation to provide any documents to anybody. His Birth in Hawaii or Kenya will not change the facts – that he is not “Natural Born”.

This expose will finally get the attention it deserved months ago.

http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/evelyn-pringles-operation-board-games-and-curtain-time-for-obama/

btw, Evelyn Pringle is a democrat.

journalists who deserve credit for uncovering the evidence :
Chicago Sun-Times reporters: Tim Novak, Dave McKinney, Fran Spielman, Chris Fusco, Natasha Korecki, Steve Warmbir and Lynn Sweet.

Chicago Tribune reporters: Jeff Coen, Bob Secter, John Chase, Virginia Groark, Rick Pearson, David Jackson, John McCormick, Mickey Ciokajlo, Rudolph Bush and Dan Mihalopoulos.

you can e-mail Evelyn Pringle here epringle05@yahoo.com she is a columnist for Independant Media TV and an investigative journalist focused on government corruption.

and his paternal grandmother states that she was present at his birth in Kenya, then how is the Certification of Live Birth sufficient enough in proving he is a natural born citizen.

Also, why is it ok that nobody has “standing” to bring this to the attention of the courts?

It’s outrageous.

https://www.ehawaii.gov/doh/vitrec/exe/vitrec.cgi/

Note the information provided by the state: “Certified copies of these records may be issued to authorized individuals and used for such diverse purposes as school entry, passports, Social Security participation, driver’s licenses, employment, sports participation, survivor’s benefits, proof of property rights, and other needs. “

I was quoted accurately and in context, and if you will kindly show me a link that says the Hawaiian COLB, despite having the signature, seal, and registration as necessitated by the State Department, is insufficient evidence to obtain a Passport and/or driver’s license, I shall be glad to accept your worldview. However, up until now you are merely repeating the same tautologies again, and repeating the information from the site that I have myself already quoted. The operative sentence that the State Department includes is “Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.” The abstract versions that do not carry signatures, seals, and do not show the time of registration, would be ineligible to be used for Passport purposes. However, the Hawaiian COLB contains all these elements, and is therefore sufficent for passport purposes. I will humbly retract my statement if you are able to provide me any evidence that shows otherwise.

Your other link to the DHHL site is, as I mentioned in my previous reply to you, irrelevant. As I mentioned before, which you seem to have ignored, the DHHL site is expressly for the purpose of validating Hawaiian ancestry. It is not a Government of the State of Hawaii site, rather it is a site that is interested in promoting native title issues (native meaning Hawaiian ancestry).

Regarding Obama’s sister being able to produce an almost identical COLB, I presume this is speculation on your part, and that you have not actually sighted her COLB. I would be keen to learn more about this, however. Specifically, I would be keen to know what her COLB states at the “city of birth”, “county of birth” and “island of birth” spaces. If you have any information on this (and no speculation please) I would be delighted to hear. If all you have is speculation, perhaps you should say that instead of asserting it as an actual fact.

Finally, regarding your request for me to cite any Hawaiian State official that says Obama was born in Hawaii, I can only ask you why you would ask for me to do this? You will kindly note that nowhere in any of my posts did I ever suggest that Hawaiian state officials verified where he was born. They have, in fact, verified his original birth certificate is on file, and you can read about this at this link here http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html?rss=hon&psp=news.
In it you will note that they say they have BHO’s original birth certificate on file. They did not state that he was born in Hawaii. If you are insinuating that they are parsing their statements and merely suggesting that they are keeping the original Kenyan birth certificate, then you are implying that Hawaiian State officials are colluding with a number of people in perpetuating fraud. I have no dog in that hunt, but I find it strange that you believe Hawaiian officials could verify the originality of a Kenyan birth certificate.

didn’t you say this?:

“I am not sure why you think dual citizenship would preclude someone born in American from being a natural born citizen, but if you have any information on this I would be keen to see it.”

uh, yes you did! Hence, I answered, citing the mother of all sources; our Constitution. I don’t wish to discuss legalities? Instead of discussing legalities and arguing a point, you’ve resorted to attacking WND. That’s what happens when you have no argument. I do think you’re right about it being time for you to go.

buh bye now.

The State of Hawaii in my opinion has over stepped their bounds by making partial comments on the documents they are holding. I think Mr. Martin was correct in his argument that the State has effectively waived the privacy right by making these disclosures that have now been misstated by almost every article covering this topic.

http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html
*A certified birth certificate has a registrar’s raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar’s signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar’s office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.

To make this easier for Obama here is a site that shows the exact form that he needs to fill out to obtain a Certificate of Live Birth. Please read from pages to 7-11 and it will also show why the DHHL does not accept the short form Certification of Live Birth. Basically it does not prove where you were born as it excludes tidbits of verifiable information such as the name of the hospital, the names of the doctors.

http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/Loaa%20Ka%20Aina%20Hoopulapula.pdf

I did mis-type a point in my earlier post, Obama’s half-sister was born in Indonesia. Her parents registered her in Hawaii and she can produce an almost identical Certification of Live Birth. It does not prove she was born in Hawaii, nor does the short form Certification of Live Birth prove where Obama was born.

Again, the cite above clearly shows that Obama could obtain a certified copy of his Certificate of Live Birth, it shows the form, how to fill it out. All Obama has to do is fill it out, sign it and send in the $10.00 and produce a copy. This should have been done well before the election to avoid the prospect that we have before us of an potentially ineligible President elect.

In regards to your comments on the cases, yes the cases have mostly been dismissed on the legal technical ground of lack of standing. In other words, citizens do not have the right to ask candidates this question because they have not been damaged. Fortunately Alan Keyes and the Independent Party have filed suit in California Superior Court Case No. 80000096. I recommend going to the court website and reading the Writ. Mr. Keyes is represented by a very fine attorney Gary Kreep and the suit names Obama, Biden, Debra Bowen the California Secretary of State and the 55 Democratic electors. Ms. Bowen will have to provide what evidence she has that Obama meets the natural born test of the Constitution. California, like many States has election laws that make it a crime for an elector to vote for an ineligible candidate. As Mr. Keyes was on the ballot with Obama this suit cannot be dismissed on lack of standing.

There are now 30 or more law suits filed around the country, five or so have reached the SC. Several of these suits have served discovery to the State of Hawaii seeking the Holy Grail/Obama’s birth certificate. Let’s see how well the strained reasoning of the Martin court will hold up that there is insufficient public interest in Obama’s birth certificate to warrant overriding the Hawaiian citizens interest in privacy. I am certain there have been hundreds, if not thousands of requests in the past 50 years for the birth certificate of a President elect that will cause horrible damage to the privacy interests of the Hawaiian citizen. I think there is a legal term for pant load maybe you can help me out with that.

Challenges will be raised at the electoral college regarding this issue. Many States have similar laws that make it a crime to vote for an ineligible candidate. So the DNC is going to have to address this issue. A challenge can also be made by a Senator and a House Member if they sign a letter to the President of the Senate for a hearing on the qualifications before the electoral count is confirmed on Jan. 06. The date got moved by two days for some reason I have not yet figured out.

If Obama is proven to be ineligible anticipate Hillary/Biden, just like Hillary has had in mind from the start.

Tom, I will leave you with what John Adams wrote to his wife Abigail the second night he was in the White House,”, “Before I end my letter, I pray Heaven to bestow the best of Blessings on this House and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise Men ever rule under this roof.”

Until Obama shows the evidence that he meets the Constitutional standard he certainly does not meet John’s. Obama and the DNC have created this crisis by submitting inadequate evidence to prove Obama meets the “natural born” standard.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/blog/Read.aspx?guid=0715ec19-b29a-4251-bda8-ca0530f98478

The consistency with which you continue to refer to WND for commentary on the Obama leads me to believe you are not interested in the facts of the discussion, and are merely interested in pushing the fringe party-line that Obama is not eligible to be President, a line that not even Obama’s fiercest political opponents (including Hillary and John McCain) saw fit to push.

I must admit thought, I am astonished and impressed at how quickly you jettisoned the “Obama was born in Kenya” argument, and about-faced into the “Obama is ineligible because he is a dual-citizen” argument. In any event, a dual citizen at birth does not lose “natural born citizen” status simply because Donofrio declares it so. It would be a sad day for our country indeed if litigants were able to define the law on behalf of the courts.

My head spins from deciding which case you support, but slowly clarity is coming to me and I am beginning to see that you merely wish Obama to be somehow invalidated, regardless of the alleged grounds. I am done with this thread by virtue of the fact that you do not wish to discuss legalities and realities, but merely wish to push your anti-Obama bias.

Prudence, your name is equivalent to the unwed mother of three I met who was named Chastity.

and regarding dual citizenship:

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States:

“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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Obama admits he was a British Citizen at birth and therefore, just like the Framers, he was not a “natural born citizen” of the United States

The Framers distinguised between”natural born Citizens” and all other “Citizens”. And that’s why it’s important to note the 14th Amendment only confers the title of “Citizen”, not “natural born Citizen”. The Framers were Citizens, but they weren’t natural born Citizens. They put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves by law.

The Framers were not natural born citizens because, “at birth” they were all British citizens. That’s why they included a grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1. The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn’t want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. They recognized that they were NOT “Natural Born Citizens”, because “at birth” they were subject to the British Crown as was Barack Obama.

The Framers were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers. The Framers declared themselves not eligible to be President as “Natural Born Citizens” so they wrote the grandfather clause in for a limited exception.

Nobody alive today can claim eligibility to be President under the grandfather clause since nobody alive today was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted.

Note, Article 2, Section 1 of our Constitution does not allow for dual citizenship, in fact, the Framers of our Constitution went out of their way to make sure that no person serving as President of these United States would have to suffer conflicting loyalties to more than one country. It has already been suggested that Barack has demonstrated divided loyalties because of his association with Raila Odinga in Kenya.

Why this is important; according to Fact Check, Obama was both a British Citizen and U.S. citizen, thereby making him ineligible to be POTUS. Quoting directly from the site:

When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children:

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.
In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.

Here’s the bottom line, regardless what the vault copy of Obama’s birth certificate reads, when he was born he was both a British Citizen and U.S. citizen.

He does not meet the requirement of having been born a natural born citizen of this country and it was always in plain sight.

Both cases touch on assertions that remain even if Obama steps in the wayback machine and videotapes his own birth in Hawaii. For example, the Berg case alleges that, in addition to being born in Kenya, Obama abandoned his citizenship in Indonesia and accepted Indonesian citizenship. This data point exists independently of the birthplace, and would need to be refuted in court. And so therefore it is much easier and less time-consuming and less costly to get frivolous lawsuits dismissed than it is to debate them in the courts.

Since part of the litigants argument is that Obama’s documents are falsified, there is every logical reason to believe that any document Obama provides will be claimed by the opposition to be falsified. It does not benefit Obama to acknowledge these cases unless and until they have standing in court.