Ted Cruz Natural Born ?

[Vigilante]

Amazing, the commie left refuses to answer a simple question.... Let me remind you what the Moooocher said....

Speaking of simple questions....where in the video does Michelle say that her husband was born in Kenya? Give us the time stamp.

Your video is only 32 seconds long, so it should be remarkably simple for you to do.

You still FAIL at answering the question.... BUT being you're not happy with a 32 sec. clip, how's a 3 min. clip?.... I'll show it to you IF you answer my question! Now go ahead, and ask me what question, and show everyone how SMART you are!

Okay. Where in the 3 minute clip does Ms. Obama say that Obama was born in Kenya? Just give us the time stamp.

You didn't answer my question!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Michelle's comments are taken out of context.

Vigilant is an old line communist.

Where r my Keys is a member of the social con sovereign citizen shit organizations, and his definition of "natural born" is not that of the law or in the courts.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Oh, I get that you don't see your fantastically elaborate, wildly complicated international conspiracy spanning 50 years, at least 2 administrations, 2 different newspapers in Hawaii from the 1960s, both the Democrats and the Republicans, the Governor of Hawaii, the Registrar of Records of Hawaii, the Director of the Department of Health of Hawaii, and the President of the United States himself as a conspiracy

ROFLMNAO!

So what's your point here... "People do not conspire?"

And you're taking this stand to defend a person who conspired to setup the entire Firearms manufacturing and distribution business, setting up specific federal policy to sell firearms across the US border terrorists, mass-murderin' drug cartels so that their fellow conspirators in the media could 'report' that the US Firearms business is 'illegally selling weapons over the border to terrorists and mass-murdering drug cartels'? The same conspirator who TOLD THE ENTIRE COUNTRY ... REPEATEDLY: "If you like your plan, you can KEEP your plan!"

Benghazi ... He ADVERTISED a video across the Middle East a WEEK BEFORE the 9-11 Anniversary, then claimed that THAT VIDEO caused a 'riot' where EVERY WITNESS in site, stated IN REAL TIME COMMUNICATION AS THE ATTACK OCCURRED that IT WAS NOT A RIOT, BUT A WELL PLANNED ATTAK BY A CAPABLE FORCE... .

You're huh... LOL! You're claiming that THAT douchebag doesn't CONSPIRE?

ROFLMNAO! ​

Folks, you cannot make this crap up.

 

[Toro]

birfers are 0-93 in courts, politics, etc., and think they are right

Lol

 

[Faun]

Oh, I get that you don't see your fantastically elaborate, wildly complicated international conspiracy spanning 50 years, at least 2 administrations, 2 different newspapers in Hawaii from the 1960s, both the Democrats and the Republicans, the Governor of Hawaii, the Registrar of Records of Hawaii, the Director of the Department of Health of Hawaii, and the President of the United States himself as a conspiracy

ROFLMNAO!

So what's your point here... "People do not conspire?"

And you're taking this stand to defend a person who conspired to setup the entire Firearms manufacturing and distribution business, setting up specific federal policy to sell firearms across the US border terrorists, mass-murderin' drug cartels so that their fellow conspirators in the media could 'report' that the US Firearms business is 'illegally selling weapons over the border to terrorists and mass-murdering drug cartels'? The same conspirator who TOLD THE ENTIRE COUNTRY ... REPEATEDLY: "If you like your plan, you can KEEP your plan!"

Benghazi ... He ADVERTISED a video across the Middle East a WEEK BEFORE the 9-11 Anniversary, then claimed that THAT VIDEO caused a 'riot' where EVERY WITNESS in site, stated IN REAL TIME COMMUNICATION AS THE ATTACK OCCURRED that IT WAS NOT A RIOT, BUT A WELL PLANNED ATTAK BY A CAPABLE FORCE... .

You're huh... LOL! You're claiming that THAT douchebag doesn't CONSPIRE?

ROFLMNAO! ​

Folks, you cannot make this crap up.

Now you want to talk about Benghazi? Sure.

Which of the 7 GOP-led investigations completed so far have found Obama to have done anything wrong?

At least one of which clarified that the meme over the anti-Islamic video you speak of came from our intelligence community. Obama's administration was merely repeating what the CIA was informing him of.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, I get that you don't see your fantastically elaborate, wildly complicated international conspiracy spanning 50 years, at least 2 administrations, 2 different newspapers in Hawaii from the 1960s, both the Democrats and the Republicans, the Governor of Hawaii, the Registrar of Records of Hawaii, the Director of the Department of Health of Hawaii, and the President of the United States himself as a conspiracy

So what's your point here... "People do not conspire?"

So now it is a conspiracy.

Well that was easy.

My point is you can't back any of your bullshit up. While Obama's 2008 COLB alone is prima facie evidence of his birth in Hawaii in any court of law. Resolving all legal disputes.

You ignore it. So what?

 

[Skylar]

birfers are 0-93 in courts, politics, etc., and think they are right

Lol

There's something to be said for the 'Birthers are ******* idiots' theory of birtherism.

People often overthink the hysterics of birthers. Attributing it to irrational hatred. Or emotional unbalance. Or political opportunism. Or fundamental trust issues. Or racism.

But really, its much simpler: they're ******* idiots. The Birther conspiracy is one of the dumbest conspiracies that the right wing has ever devised.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

One can ONLY "BE" a Natural born citizen, where TWO CITIZENS conceive and bear a child, the natural result of which: IS A NEW CITIZEN. If one parent is a foreign national... there is NO MEANS for the child to be a Natural Born Citizen. PERIOD!

Says who?

Says the phrase: Natural Born Citizen.

Note what it does not say: Born in the United States.

Now IF the Framers intended that the standard for President was to require that one be BORN in the USA... they would have said: "...BORN IN THE US".

But that is NOT what they said, is it?

They said "...Natural Born Citizen..." because they required that for a person to qualify for the Presidency, that their citizenship must be the natural result of their BIRTH! And there is ONLY ONE WAY THAT HAPPENS... and that way is that BOTH PARENTS ARE CITIZENS.

Here: Allow be to again help you demonstrate my point:

What other way could a person NATURALLY be considered a citizen of the United States, except where the individual is born to TWO PARENTS, who are citizens of the relevant nation?

(The Reader should know that she will now either ignore the above challenge, which she does 61% of the time, OR she will repeat the long since discredited drivel that being BORN IN THE US naturally provides that one is a citizen OF the US. Sadly, for her position, such is not the case: EXCEPT where both parents are citizens...

In point of fact, if a child is born in the USA, by LAW the child CAN become a citizen of the US. But such is not always the case. If a child is born to foreign nationals, who happen to be here in the US at the time of the birth, the parents MAY or may not claim US citizenship for the child, which again is a function of US law... but the child would also, quite NATURALLY: BE A CITIZEN OF THE NATION COMMON TO IT'S BIRTH PARENTS! ... thus a DUAL CITIZEN. Who would NATURALLY have split loyalties... and that makes sense, doesn't it? )

Edit:
FTR: 15 minutes and she's yet to respond... proving once again, that I SAY IT HERE AND IT COMES OUT THERE! BE AMAaaaaaZED!

Where can one find that definition?

In the dictionary... allow me to demonstrate:

Natural: occurring as a matter of course and without debate; inevitable

Born: brought into existence

Citizen: person who belongs to a country and has the rights and protection of that country

So, Natural Born Citizen means:

A person who belongs to a country, without debate, as a matter of course through their being brought into existence.

 

[Skylar]

One can ONLY "BE" a Natural born citizen, where TWO CITIZENS conceive and bear a child, the natural result of which: IS A NEW CITIZEN. If one parent is a foreign national... there is NO MEANS for the child to be a Natural Born Citizen. PERIOD!

Says who?

Says the phrase: Natural Born Citizen.

Says you. You're the one offering us your definition based on whatever you imagine. And your imagination isn't a legal standard.

Its the same problem you run into on virtually every topic you attempt to discuss. You keep assuming that whatever you believe must be irrefutable fact. But there's no such mandate. Most often because you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

The USSC does;

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.

Wong Kim Ark v. US

As clear as a bell, place of birth establishes natural born status. Even if both parents are foreigners.

You ignore it. No objective person ever would.

They said "...Natural Born Citizen..." because they required that for a person to qualify for the Presidency, that their citizenship must be the natural result of their BIRTH! And there is ONLY ONE WAY THAT HAPPENS... and that way is that BOTH PARENTS ARE CITIZENS.

So you assume. And who are you quoting on your claim that a natural born citizen is only a person whose 'both parents are citizens'? The constitution doesn't say this. The courts never have. The founders certinaly didn't say that. And there's no mention of parents in the term 'natural born'.

So who are you quoting? Just yourself.

Do you have any argument to offer us that isn't just you citing yourself? If no, then you're done. As you're nobody.[

Then, a mulatto, born of a white American mother, but NOT YET 5 years after her 14th birthday, to a communist black man from Kenya, In Kenya, wouldn't be allowed to be president by the Constitution restraints

Says who? Again, simply typing a claim isn't actually evidence. Its an opinion. Surely you can tell the difference.

... And since said mulatto's wife has stated the mulatto's HOME COUNTRY IS KENYA, we have reasonable cause to believe all other material presented to affirm his American birth to be suspect! Money, and POWER can BUY the said mulatto almost perfect copies of birth certificates, but those little mistakes, such as the college pamphlet, the REFUSAL to show college records to discover if he was given special treatment as an AFFIRMATIVE ACTION case from a foreign country, and thus a PAID FOR scholarship, and the multiple SS #'s are STILL an open question.....sort of like the Benghazi papers requested from the State Dept. over 2 years ago, that still haven't shown up....oh, it's a tangled web these communist/socialist/progressive mother fuckers weave!

But there's nothing reasonable about any of those assumptions. There's a reason why the birther's record in court is 0 wins and 93 losses. Because they're argument is wildly irrational and ******* idiotic. In addition to be pristinely fact free.

While Obama's 2008 COLB alone resolves any legal issues as to his place of birth, confirming it was Hawaii. You're still stuck on the COLB.

 

[Skylar]

One can ONLY "BE" a Natural born citizen, where TWO CITIZENS conceive and bear a child, the natural result of which: IS A NEW CITIZEN. If one parent is a foreign national... there is NO MEANS for the child to be a Natural Born Citizen. PERIOD!

Says who?

Says the phrase: Natural Born Citizen.

Note what it does not say: Born in the United States.

Now IF the Framers intended that the standard for President was to require that one be BORN in the USA... they would have said: "...BORN IN THE US".

But that is NOT what they said, is it?

They said "...Natural Born Citizen..." because they required that for a person to qualify for the Presidency, that their citizenship must be the natural result of their BIRTH! And there is ONLY ONE WAY THAT HAPPENS... and that way is that BOTH PARENTS ARE CITIZENS.

Here: Allow be to again help you demonstrate my point:

What other way could a person NATURALLY be considered a citizen of the United States, except where the individual is born to TWO PARENTS, who are citizens of the relevant nation?

(The Reader should know that she will now either ignore the above challenge, which she does 61% of the time, OR she will repeat the long since discredited drivel that being BORN IN THE US naturally provides that one is a citizen OF the US. Sadly, for her position, such is not the case: EXCEPT where both parents are citizens...

In point of fact, if a child is born in the USA, by LAW the child CAN become a citizen of the US. But such is not always the case. If a child is born to foreign nationals, who happen to be here in the US at the time of the birth, the parents MAY or may not claim US citizenship for the child, which again is a function of US law... but the child would also, quite NATURALLY: BE A CITIZEN OF THE NATION COMMON TO IT'S BIRTH PARENTS! ... thus a DUAL CITIZEN. Who would NATURALLY have split loyalties... and that makes sense, doesn't it? )

Edit:
FTR: 15 minutes and she's yet to respond... proving once again, that I SAY IT HERE AND IT COMES OUT THERE! BE AMAaaaaaZED!

Where can one find that definition?

In the dictionary... allow me to demonstrate:

Natural: occurring as a matter of course and without debate; inevitable

Born: brought into existence

Citizen: person who belongs to a country and has the rights and protection of that country

So, Natural Born Citizen means:

A person who belongs to a country, without debate, as a matter of course through their being brought into existence.

The dictionary doesn't define natural born. English common law does.

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.

Wong Kim Ark v US (1898)

There you go. Clear as a bell: place of birth establish natural born status. You say you know better. And you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

As a person born in the US was a citizen per US law. And a natural born one per English Common Law, the only legal tradition in which the founders could plausibly drawn their definitions.

A person who belongs to a country, without debate, as a matter of course through their being brought into existence.

And who says that the natural born citizenship of a person born in the US would have been debated by the founders?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

[
Now you want to talk about Benghazi? Sure.

The mouthy Brit was implying that people do not conspire... so towards offering a belittling refutation, I said this:

And you're taking this stand to defend a person who conspired to setup the entire Firearms manufacturing and distribution business, setting up specific federal policy to sell firearms across the US border terrorists, mass-murderin' drug cartels so that their fellow conspirators in the media could 'report' that the US Firearms business is 'illegally selling weapons over the border to terrorists and mass-murdering drug cartels'? The same conspirator who TOLD THE ENTIRE COUNTRY ... REPEATEDLY: "If you like your plan, you can KEEP your plan!"

Benghazi ... He ADVERTISED a video across the Middle East a WEEK BEFORE the 9-11 Anniversary, then claimed that THAT VIDEO caused a 'riot' where EVERY WITNESS in site, stated IN REAL TIME COMMUNICATION AS THE ATTACK OCCURRED that IT WAS NOT A RIOT, BUT A WELL PLANNED ATTAK BY A CAPABLE FORCE... .

You're huh... LOL! You're claiming that THAT douchebag doesn't CONSPIRE?

ROFLMNAO! ​

Folks, you cannot make this crap up.

 

[Vigilante]

Michelle's comments are taken out of context.

Vigilant is an old line communist.

Where r my Keys is a member of the social con sovereign citizen shit organizations, and his definition of "natural born" is not that of the law or in the courts.

Actually NO they aren't as you have at least 10 seconds of speech before you makes her FATAL mistake. Manchurian Republican, why not just grow a set of balls and come out as the liberal pond scum, we all know your are.... You continue to make an ass of yourself with foolish allegations!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Says who? Again, simply typing a claim isn't actually evidence. Its an opinion. Surely you can tell the difference

 

[Unkotare]

One can ONLY "BE" a Natural born citizen, where TWO CITIZENS conceive and bear a child, the natural result of which: IS A NEW CITIZEN. If one parent is a foreign national... there is NO MEANS for the child to be a Natural Born Citizen. PERIOD!

Says who?

Says the phrase: Natural Born Citizen.

Says you. You're the one offering us your definition based on whatever you imagine. And your imagination isn't a legal standard.

Its the same problem you run into on virtually every topic you attempt to discuss. You keep assuming that whatever you believe must be irrefutable fact. But there's no such mandate. Most often because you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

The USSC does;

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.

Wong Kim Ark v. US

As clear as a bell, place of birth establishes natural born status. Even if both parents are foreigners.

You ignore it. No objective person ever would.

They said "...Natural Born Citizen..." because they required that for a person to qualify for the Presidency, that their citizenship must be the natural result of their BIRTH! And there is ONLY ONE WAY THAT HAPPENS... and that way is that BOTH PARENTS ARE CITIZENS.

So you assume. And who are you quoting on your claim that a natural born citizen is only a person whose 'both parents are citizens'? The constitution doesn't say this. The courts never have. The founders certinaly didn't say that. And there's no mention of parents in the term 'natural born'.

So who are you quoting? Just yourself.

Do you have any argument to offer us that isn't just you citing yourself? If no, then you're done. As you're nobody.[

Then, a mulatto, born of a white American mother, but NOT YET 5 years after her 14th birthday, to a communist black man from Kenya, In Kenya, wouldn't be allowed to be president by the Constitution restraints... And since said mulatto's wife has stated the mulatto's HOME COUNTRY IS KENYA, we have reasonable cause to believe all other material presented to affirm his American birth to be suspect! Money, and POWER can BUY the said mulatto almost perfect copies of birth certificates, but those little mistakes, such as the college pamphlet, the REFUSAL to show college records to discover if he was given special treatment as an AFFIRMATIVE ACTION case from a foreign country, and thus a PAID FOR scholarship, and the multiple SS #'s are STILL an open question.....sort of like the Benghazi papers requested from the State Dept. over 2 years ago, that still haven't shown up....oh, it's a tangled web these communist/socialist/progressive mother fuckers weave!

Now all we need is a GOOD, CONSERVATIVE president, to UNDO all the secrecy, and get down to the truth, with, perhaps, a decent amount of JAIL TIME thrown in as a stimulus to talk....as we aren't allowed to WATERBOARD anymore! Ah....nirvana!!!

Is there a reason you felt the need to repeat the word "mulatto" so many times?

 

[Toro]

Pubes is such a moron.

 

[Skylar]

Amazing, the commie left refuses to answer a simple question.... Let me remind you what the Moooocher said....

Speaking of simple questions....where in the video does Michelle say that her husband was born in Kenya? Give us the time stamp.

Your video is only 32 seconds long, so it should be remarkably simple for you to do.

You still FAIL at answering the question.... BUT being you're not happy with a 32 sec. clip, how's a 3 min. clip?.... I'll show it to you IF you answer my question! Now go ahead, and ask me what question, and show everyone how SMART you are!

Okay. Where in the 3 minute clip does Ms. Obama say that Obama was born in Kenya? Just give us the time stamp.

You didn't answer my question!

So......you have no time stamp for Ms. Obama saying that her husband was born in Kenya in your 3 minute video?

Have you watched the video? Or did she simply never say that her husband was born in Kenya?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Is there a reason you felt the need to repeat the word "mulatto" so many times?

I felt that he was referring to the brown clown, and wanted to do so in such a way that he conveyed the light caramel hue reflected by home-slices pigmentation.

I hope that helps, despite, sadly... being certain that it will not.

 

[Vigilante]

One can ONLY "BE" a Natural born citizen, where TWO CITIZENS conceive and bear a child, the natural result of which: IS A NEW CITIZEN. If one parent is a foreign national... there is NO MEANS for the child to be a Natural Born Citizen. PERIOD!

Says who?

Says the phrase: Natural Born Citizen.

Says you. You're the one offering us your definition based on whatever you imagine. And your imagination isn't a legal standard.

Its the same problem you run into on virtually every topic you attempt to discuss. You keep assuming that whatever you believe must be irrefutable fact. But there's no such mandate. Most often because you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

The USSC does;

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.

Wong Kim Ark v. US

As clear as a bell, place of birth establishes natural born status. Even if both parents are foreigners.

You ignore it. No objective person ever would.

They said "...Natural Born Citizen..." because they required that for a person to qualify for the Presidency, that their citizenship must be the natural result of their BIRTH! And there is ONLY ONE WAY THAT HAPPENS... and that way is that BOTH PARENTS ARE CITIZENS.

So you assume. And who are you quoting on your claim that a natural born citizen is only a person whose 'both parents are citizens'? The constitution doesn't say this. The courts never have. The founders certinaly didn't say that. And there's no mention of parents in the term 'natural born'.

So who are you quoting? Just yourself.

Do you have any argument to offer us that isn't just you citing yourself? If no, then you're done. As you're nobody.[

Then, a mulatto, born of a white American mother, but NOT YET 5 years after her 14th birthday, to a communist black man from Kenya, In Kenya, wouldn't be allowed to be president by the Constitution restraints

Says who? Again, simply typing a claim isn't actually evidence. Its an opinion. Surely you can tell the difference.

... And since said mulatto's wife has stated the mulatto's HOME COUNTRY IS KENYA, we have reasonable cause to believe all other material presented to affirm his American birth to be suspect! Money, and POWER can BUY the said mulatto almost perfect copies of birth certificates, but those little mistakes, such as the college pamphlet, the REFUSAL to show college records to discover if he was given special treatment as an AFFIRMATIVE ACTION case from a foreign country, and thus a PAID FOR scholarship, and the multiple SS #'s are STILL an open question.....sort of like the Benghazi papers requested from the State Dept. over 2 years ago, that still haven't shown up....oh, it's a tangled web these communist/socialist/progressive mother fuckers weave!

But there's nothing reasonable about any of those assumptions. There's a reason why the birther's record in court is 0 wins and 93 losses. Because they're argument is wildly irrational and ******* idiotic. In addition to be pristinely fact free.

While Obama's 2008 COLB alone resolves any legal issues as to his place of birth, confirming it was Hawaii. You're still stuck on the COLB.

Says who? You and some bullshit politicians? Please child, answer the question, What is YOUR HOME COUNTRY?????.

Next time I ask, I'll have to remind you what the question is that the Mooocher answered!

 

[Vigilante]

One can ONLY "BE" a Natural born citizen, where TWO CITIZENS conceive and bear a child, the natural result of which: IS A NEW CITIZEN. If one parent is a foreign national... there is NO MEANS for the child to be a Natural Born Citizen. PERIOD!

Says who?

Says the phrase: Natural Born Citizen.

Says you. You're the one offering us your definition based on whatever you imagine. And your imagination isn't a legal standard.

Its the same problem you run into on virtually every topic you attempt to discuss. You keep assuming that whatever you believe must be irrefutable fact. But there's no such mandate. Most often because you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

The USSC does;

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.

Wong Kim Ark v. US

As clear as a bell, place of birth establishes natural born status. Even if both parents are foreigners.

You ignore it. No objective person ever would.

They said "...Natural Born Citizen..." because they required that for a person to qualify for the Presidency, that their citizenship must be the natural result of their BIRTH! And there is ONLY ONE WAY THAT HAPPENS... and that way is that BOTH PARENTS ARE CITIZENS.

So you assume. And who are you quoting on your claim that a natural born citizen is only a person whose 'both parents are citizens'? The constitution doesn't say this. The courts never have. The founders certinaly didn't say that. And there's no mention of parents in the term 'natural born'.

So who are you quoting? Just yourself.

Do you have any argument to offer us that isn't just you citing yourself? If no, then you're done. As you're nobody.[

Then, a mulatto, born of a white American mother, but NOT YET 5 years after her 14th birthday, to a communist black man from Kenya, In Kenya, wouldn't be allowed to be president by the Constitution restraints... And since said mulatto's wife has stated the mulatto's HOME COUNTRY IS KENYA, we have reasonable cause to believe all other material presented to affirm his American birth to be suspect! Money, and POWER can BUY the said mulatto almost perfect copies of birth certificates, but those little mistakes, such as the college pamphlet, the REFUSAL to show college records to discover if he was given special treatment as an AFFIRMATIVE ACTION case from a foreign country, and thus a PAID FOR scholarship, and the multiple SS #'s are STILL an open question.....sort of like the Benghazi papers requested from the State Dept. over 2 years ago, that still haven't shown up....oh, it's a tangled web these communist/socialist/progressive mother fuckers weave!

Now all we need is a GOOD, CONSERVATIVE president, to UNDO all the secrecy, and get down to the truth, with, perhaps, a decent amount of JAIL TIME thrown in as a stimulus to talk....as we aren't allowed to WATERBOARD anymore! Ah....nirvana!!!

Is there a reason you felt the need to repeat the word "mulatto" so many times?

So the stupid understand who we are dealing with!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Amazing, the commie left refuses to answer a simple question.... Let me remind you what the Moooocher said....

Speaking of simple questions....where in the video does Michelle say that her husband was born in Kenya? Give us the time stamp.

Your video is only 32 seconds long, so it should be remarkably simple for you to do.

You still FAIL at answering the question.... BUT being you're not happy with a 32 sec. clip, how's a 3 min. clip?.... I'll show it to you IF you answer my question! Now go ahead, and ask me what question, and show everyone how SMART you are!

Okay. Where in the 3 minute clip does Ms. Obama say that Obama was born in Kenya? Just give us the time stamp.

You didn't answer my question!

So......you have no time stamp for Ms. Obama saying that her husband was born in Kenya in your 3 minute video?

Have you watched the video? Or did she simply never say that her husband was born in Kenya?

The wife of the brown clown said that Kenya was the clown's "home country".

Let's see what the dictionary sez about what she meant by that:

Home: a place where something flourishes, is most typically found, or from which it originates

Country: a nation

So, we now know that a "Home Country", is: "A nation which represents the place from where obama originated".

Do ya see how that works? (It's becoming clear that she's British... the signs of the limited intellectual means common to the Leftist variety of such, are indisputable.)