In 1787, the United States Constitution was formulated, and stated: "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." Constitution of the United States of America, Article 2, section 1, Clause 5 In the Madison Debates, on September 7, 1787, it was then that it was entered that "the President should be a natural- born Citizen," of which he bore no allegiance or citizenship to any other nation than that of the United States of America. “In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning, for it is evident from the whole instrument that no word was unnecessarily used or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the Constitution have proved the correctness of this proposition and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood. No word in the instrument, therefore, can be rejected as superfluous or unmeaning, and this principle of construction applies …” Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Peters) 540 @ 570-71 (1840) In this Article 2.1.5 clause of the US Constitution, the person eligible to be President was to be either a US Citizen at the time of the ratification of the US Constitution or a natural born citizen - one who was reared from his US Birth within the United States into a US citizen by his US Citizen Father (and presumably US Citizen mother by virtue of marriage and union with the US Citizen Father) -- and his 14 year residency requirements in the clause was officially recognized as required to be that starting at the age of 21 years old. Since at the age of 35 he was required to dwell WITHIN the United States for 14 years since his 21st birthday, this a a Constitutional Obligatory presumption that has been extremely often entirely missed in discussing this clause, and deals with the concept of affirmation of sole legience to the United States alone. While the prospective Presidential hopeful and actual office holder was given a mandatory residency requirement of living WITHIN the United States the entire 14 years he was alive IF he aspired to the Presidency at age 35, he only needed a combined total residency within the United States of 14 years if he was older. For example, if he aspired to the Presidency at age 45, he could have wandered outside the nation another 10 years as a merchant, but was still needing a mandatory residency/dwelling WITHIN the United States...not just being based there, but actually dwelling within the US...for at least 14 years since his 21st birthday. You will see this residency aspect return in the discussion of the parameters of the Constitution later on. So please keep it in mind.

15 years prior to 1787, the United States was at that time "British America". It was composed of 13 colonies which were transmuted into the designation and nomenclature of "States" on July 4, 1776. Therefore, if a person were a natural born citizen of one of the 13 Colonies that became a State of the United States, by accepting and declaring legience to State and Country after the War as a Citizen of the United States, the Natural Born Citizenship for only that time in our nation's history, was transmuted or carried over into the Confederacy and then the Republic of the United States of America. Again, the TRANSMUTATION of natural-born citizenship to the United States was relegated to those who were born in any one of the 13 United American Colonies before July 4, 1776, as well as those born before the ratification of the US Constitution in 1789. It applies only to those in that period of history that were citizens by jus soli and jus sanguinis before the Revolution, who also made the transitional allegiance to the New Government that would be the United States AFTER the war was over. The US Congress specified in its use of Plenary Powers who they meant to call a "natural born citizen". In the United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103), they specified it was to be "a free white person" who was repeatedly a "he", who was "of the age of twenty one years", and specified that it was the father that passed the ability to be called a natural born citizen onto the child by jus sanguinis (by blood) rather than the simplistic jus soli (by the soil) only requirement found in English Common Law. But still adapting some of the English Legal ruling of Lord Coke in 1609, the United States adopted the concept of "Nemo potest exuere Patriam" : "No one has the power / ability / authority to leave / reject / disown himself from the Father's Land." [Expanded and reiterated translation, mine.] From those times until the 26th Amendment, effective June 30, 1971, Constitutionally speaking on the academic plane, for a citizen of the United States able to pass on a natural born citizenship status, he had to be 21 years old. If he was not at least 21, technically (under Constitutionally set parameters) his child was to be disqualified from being able to run for President or be VicePresident. As of June 30, 1971, the age of 18 became the Constitutional age when 18 year old acquired the right to vote. The amendment process is not retroactive, so that someone born on June 29, 1971, needed a 21 year old parent...that is, if we follow strict Constitutionalism. For exceptions to this, we have to look to codified laws in the US Code to say differently, and any codification not measuring up to the Constitution is subject to a legal challenge in the US Supreme Court by any party having legal standing to sue. To this day, the majority of the nations of the world recognize their own "natural born citizens" as those who are descended directly from their own national citizen fathers, regardless where in the world the child is born. This legal concept goes back many centuries, and pre-dates not only 1609 and the founding of America in 1620, but even pre-dates even the official discovery of America in 1492 under the leadership of Christopher Columbus.

Five years after the Naturalization Act of 1790, Congress repealed the ACT of 1790, because it failed to specify its intent clear enough. The Act of January 29, 1795 sought to "complete" the intent of what lay in the term "natural born citizen" as it was used in what we now call the US Constitution's Article 2.1.5 clause. That "natural born citizens of the United States" were: 1) only born to a US Citizen Father at the time of their birth who had only one nationality and legience at the time of the child's birth; 2) that the clear and obvious intent of the language of the statute was that the child also never have a dual nationality or any other legience than that of the United States for their entire existence from birth to the grave. In Section 1, any citizen that naturalized to the United States and who was to have any natural born son was required to "forever [be free of] all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever." This was so important it was repeated that he be someone who "absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever". He was also to be "a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same." In Section 2, any citizen that naturalized to the United States and who was to have any natural born son was required to "support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever". In other words,the father "of a US Natural Born Citizen defined son" was never to be a foreign national, as Obama's father was. Obama's father was an alien national Citizen of Kenya, under the Colonial Commonwealth Protectorate of Great Britain. He was NEVER a US Citizen, nor even had any expressed desire to be (not that such would have wouldn't have). And never in the child's life was that child to be a de facto or de jure citizen of a foreign nation as Obama was in Indonesia so adopted and legally made a citizen minor under guardianship in that foreign society out of Jakarta, and attending Menteng 1. Just one year after the above-cited Act of 1795, in Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 3 Dall. 199 (1796) we find how that we are supposed to read the US Constitution, in its literal context. @240 "When we collect the intention from the words only, as they lie in the writing before us, it is a literal interpretation, and indeed if the words and the construction of a writing are clear and precise, we can scarce call it interpretation to collect the intention of the writer from thence.

The principal rule to be observed in literal interpretation is to follow that sense, in respect both of the words and the construction which is agreeable to common use." @245 "…This principle is recognized by the Constitution...." In Article 6 of the US Constitution, we are told that:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance therof...shall be made the supreme Law of the Land...."
In Marbury v.Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) @ 179-180, both elected officials and judges are to maintain and adhere to the US Constitution as the supreme law that guides and governs their actions, and states: " is apparent that the framers of the Constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the Legislature. Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it?" The Act of April 14, 1802 (2 Stat.155) stated that:

"children of persons who now are, or have been, citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens thereof . . . ."
From 1802 to 1855, through certain vagaries in the Law, there were those who wondered what the definitive law of Natural Born Citizenship in this time period was. This was cleared up in the Act of February 10, 1855 (10 Stat. 604). This in turn was clarified again as Revised Statute 1993 which stated: "All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose FATHERS were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States." In other words: 1) Children born to a US Citizen father outside the US = US Citizen 2) Children born to a US Citizen Father inside the limits of the US = US Natural Born Citizen 3) The presumption of the US Citizen Father is that he is age 21 or older at the time of the child's birth. Of further interest, is that in regards to Natural Born Citizen Born on the seas or within the realm, we can look to Samuel Adam's who wrote in ”The Rights of the Colonists" November 20, 1772
The statute of the 13th of Geo. 2, C. 7,

naturalizes even foreigners after seven years' residence. The words of the Massachusetts charter are these: "And further, our will and pleasure is, and we do hereby for us, our heirs, and successors, grant, establish, and ordain, that all and every of the subjects of us, our heirs, and successors, which shall go to, and inhabit within our said Province or Territory, and every of their children, which shall happen to be born there or on the seas in going thither or returning from thence, shall have and enjoy all liberties and immunities of free and natural subjects within any of the dominions [422]of us, our heirs, and successors, to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever as if they and every one of them were born within this our realm of England."

We now therefore see, that the defining of "beyond the seas" according to the Massachusetts Charter, an AMERICAN body-politic, that being "born beyond the seas" regards territories of the realm, and being born in the act of a direct transport from the realm to another point of the realm. Again, this is NOT parliamentary statute, but an AMERICAN statute in British America respecting colonialists in Massachusetts, and by extension, the other 12 colonies of the 13 colonies as well (post July 3, 1776). By example, in British America prior to July 04, 1776, a child born to two Massachusetts citizen parents on the way to London during the Colonial rule of British America is affected. And again, in regards to the United States from July 04, 1776 onward, say on a boat from Boston to New York City or Charleston, the Massachusetts Charter is clear in its intent. If the boat went to a non-US territory or state, the application of law as stated by Samuel Adams does NOT appear to apply in later US Constitutional Originalism, and we can apply this in our understanding to the Acts of Naturalization in 1790, 1795, etc. In 1802 and until 1855, while it was still a requirement that a child have a US Citizen Father, and under the specific language of the statute, the employing of the plural "persons" in the natural and literal sense of a child's birth, is inclusive of the necessity of a US citizen Mother as well as that of the Father at the time of birth in order that the child born outside the jurisdiction of the United States also be considered a US citizen as well, and not be stateless. The naturalization of the father automatically naturalized the mother as well at the moment the oath of naturalization was officially taken in a legal proceeding. With the codification of the Revised Statute 1993, the necessity of a US Citizen mother was either removed or left obscure, and the US Citizen Father once again became all that was required for a child born outside the limits of

the United States to become a US Citizen for the next 13 years. But that was rectified by an Amendment to the US Constitution. On July 28, 1868, with the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the natural born citizen requirement of a US Citizen became clarified and founded upon the inclusion of that birth which was in a State of the United States, and that the 14th Amendment minimum was that the person also be a citizen in the State where they reside, and be subject to the laws of both the national jurisdiction of the United States and that of the local State wherein they reside. The action implies a continuous present tense formulation in its legal phrase: a lifetime US residency and citizenship, not subject to withdrawal by the participant citizen without risk to a withdrawal of 14th Amendment Citizen standing. In other words, in the strict literal sense, the 14th Amendment disowns those who cease to be citizens of any jurisdiction of the United States. The dis-ownership of the United States by its former citizens who choose to go overseas and not maintain a home state address and State Citizenship, but do not swear legience to another, thereby rendering them Stateless, is prevented in language elsewhere and outside the US Constitution in the codifications of the US Code. But as it regards Natural Born Citizenship, and the requirements of that Status in order to legally and Constitutionally be a President or Vice-President of the United States, the academic argument over the intent of the 14th Amendment and the ability to rescind a citizenship of a nonresident citizen who chooses to neither live in the United States nor be subject to its laws, is a discussion for another day. Prior to the 14th Amendment we know that "Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law…” stated United States v. Rhodes (1866).
(Notice that Barack II was born with a British Citizenship via his father, hence a British allegiance, and unqualified to be called a United States "natural born citizen" under the US Constitution etc.).

And even after the 14th Amendment, we read in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94 (1884) @ 101-102 where the Court said,

"The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER, should be citizens of the
United States and of the state in which they reside."

With the 14th Amendment, in order to be a US Natural Born Citizen under Originalism: 1) Children must be born to a US Citizen Father

2) Be born in the United States. 3) Reside perpetually in the United States to age 21. 4) Never at any time owe any allegiance to any alien power.
If one aspired to be President at age 35, the perpetual residency requirement is to age 35. If they aspire to be President of the United States at age 45, they need a perpetual residency to age 21, a combined de facto and de jure dwelling within the United States for at least 14 years since the age of 21. In effect, those who join the US Military and serve outside the United States under the age of 21 were not perceived in the intent of the 14th Amendment, but with the 1971 26th Amendment, the age requirement reduces to age 18 perpetual residency, and still a formula of perpetual residency to age 35 if they run at age 35, as the intent of the clause was a perpetual residency for 35 years in the United States if one were to run at age 35, even with a drop in the age of when a person becomes a voting citizen is Amended into the US Constitution without redressing Article 2.1.5. Further, as of June 22, 1874, six years after the 14th Amendment was passed:

"The United States have not recognized a double allegiance. By our law a citizen is bound to be 'true and faithful' alone to our government."
US House of Representatives Report No.784, June 22, 1874 As it regards the Constitution and the obligatory intent of the Natural Born Citizen clause, there evolved one more requirement, that of a US Citizen Mother (as well as that of a US Citizen Father) at the time of birth. With the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution on August 26, 1920, stating, "the right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex." increased the obligatory Constitutional Requirements on those aspiring to be President of the United States, as defined by the parameters set forth by the United States Constitution.

With the 1920 ratified 19th Amendment, in order to be qualify as a "natural born citizen" in order to be President, a person within the defining parameters of the US Constitution (Article 2.1.5, the 14th and 19th Amendments) needs to: 1) Be born to a 21 year old or older US Citizen Father 2) Be born to a 21 year old or older US Citizen Mother 3) Be born on United States soil within a US State

4) Maintain a permanent sole legience to the United States absent of any dual or multi-citizen nationalities and /or allegiances. 5) Maintain a lifetime residency to a State or States within the United States to age 35; or to age 21 plus a minimum total of 14 additional years physical presence residency within the States if older than 35.
Again, in 1971, with the 26th Amendment, the age of the citizen parent, in the Constitutional requirement, was dropped to 18. Thus, a child born to a 17 year old on US soil to those who would otherwise be identified as US Citizen Minors, would not be eligible to one day run for President under the obligatory Constitutional Requirements found in the natural and literal sense of that document. In 1961: 1) Barack Hussein Obama II was born to an alien national father of foreign citizenship and himself having foreign allegiances from birth to maturity AFTER age 21, to the age of 23!!! 2) He was born to a minor mother age 18, not yet legal under either codified lesser standards, nor the Constitutionally required age of voting (age 21). 3) There is no hospital or location birth record with witnesses to the birth for Barack (per 333 US 640 (1948) @ 653 that he prove his alleged US birth with witnesses to the birth per 533 US 53 2001) @ 54,62) to prove any US birth origin to even confirm a birth citizenship was acquired by him. 4) Barack Hussein Obama II was adopted in Indonesia and maintained a Indonesian legience and residency for at least 4 years. His mother had multiple allegiances by marriages (Britain-Kenya, Indonesia), and her son did not retain a sole US legience with sole US residency. The residency and allegiances or co-allegiances of the parents and step-father of Barack were in Indonesia and Kenya for most of his life as a minor, including when he turned 18.

Barack Hussein Obama is NOT a United States Natural Born Citizen,
and there are legitimate doubts as to whether he was even born a US citizen in the first place. He operates as an alleged US Citizen with a stolen Connecticut Social Security card, from a state he has never resided in. He has been made known by his close friend and fellow Communist-Socialist, Governor Abercrombie of Hawaii, to have NO BIRTH CERTIFICATE on file, just a data entry. No hospital in Hawaii is able to claim Barack was born there, but Obama's Kenyan step-grandmother and the nation of Kenya in both official Government transcripts and Nairobi Media since 2004, long before Obama aspired publicly for the US Presidency, announced Barack (whether as the new US Senator or as POTUS) as "Kenyan-born."

Barack was knowingly ineligible to run for President without a US Citizen Father, but ran anyway.

"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now. "
It must also be remembered that the framers of the Constitution were not mere visionaries, toying with speculations or theories, but practical men, dealing with the facts of political life as they understood them, putting into form the government they were creating and prescribing, in language clear and intelligible... Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, in @ 22 U. S. 188, well declared: "As men whose intentions require no concealment generally employ the words which most directly and aptly express the ideas they intend to convey, the enlightened patriots who

framed our Constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said."
...As said by Mr. Justice Matthews in Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 124 U. S. 478: "The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history." And by MR. JUSTICE GRAY in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 169 U. S. 654 "In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. 88 U. S. 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 624-625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent, Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States,@ 91 U. S. 270, 91 U. S. 274." South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 @ 448 - 450 (1905) The Constitution was seen from the Founders as a Supreme document that was to be enforced BECAUSE sacred oaths were taken to protect, preserve and defend its language and original intent. GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 22 U. S. 1 (1824) @ 188-189 states: " ...the enlightened patriots who framed our Constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said. If, from the imperfection of human language, there should be serious doubts respecting the extent of any given power, it is a well settled rule that the objects for which it was

given, especially when those objects are expressed in the instrument itself, should have great influence in the construction." In the Madison Debates, on September 7, 1787, it was then that it was entered that "the President should be a natural- born Citizen," of which he bore no allegiance or citizenship to any other nation than that of the United States of America. That was the intent. In 1833, in Justice Joseph Story's “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” § 1473, we find this concurring jurisprudential insight from an intelligent and articulate US Supreme Court justice, who wrote: “It is indispensible too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States… to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. …But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source.”

Prior to the 14th Amendment, and at least for the first decade after, it is clear that the intent of the "natural born citizen" clause in legal circles clearly meant "sole legience at birth to the United States of America"...a distinction Barack Obama, never had at birth. But let us now quote a legal journal just 12 years after Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution and see that they concurred that sole legience to the US at birth is essential only for a United States Natural Born Citizen, which Barack is NOT.

"The expression „citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, 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) %22natural+born+citizen%22&as_brr=4&cd=5#v=onepage&q=Vattel%20%20% 22natural%20born%20citizen%22&f=false The US Constitution, in Article 2, officially ratified on March 4, 1789 -- in part, reads, and IN OUR DAY REQUIRES:

"No person except a natural born Citizen…shall be eligible to the office of President; .."

Why is it that Congress and those in the Media cannot fathom such a simple declaration? Or is it that they do, and by committing treason and the aiding and abetting of treason, they find themselves as "accepted" by those they wish to be accepted by, and damn the Constitution, because under Progressivism, the Law is whatever consensus is, not what's on the books? Is that it now? PRO-OBAMA SITE CONCURS THAT OBAMA DID NOT HAVE SOLE USA CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH NOR AT AGE 21: HENCE , INADVERTENTLY CONFIRMS OBAMA IS A USURPER

“…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.”
{Emphasis mine] Thus, even the pro-Obama Annenburg funded anti-Republican and oft Propaganda web-site, “”, after being corrected by postings (since removed) by New Jersey lawyer Leo Donofrio, and later by NJ lawyer Mario Apuzzo, admits to Barack not being a 100% US only birth citizen of 2 US Citizen parents, and confess that Barack's citizenship status was also passed through his father until his 23rd birthday. Any duality of citizenship at birth, is an AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFICATION to run for or to be a holder of the Presidency of the United States of America. Further, as we have seen, the

expectancy of being a sole legience US Citizen is also demanded at age 21 by Article 2.1.5 and the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution as well as at birth. So no matter what osmotic definition we examine the literal intent of the US Constitution to be, by NOT being a sole US Citizen at age 21 and age 22, as well as NOT so at birth, Obama has illegally obtained the US Presidency.
And in "Factcheck's" own words, so allegedly correct that its author Joe Miller was hired as a High Public Relations Official in the Obama Administration: {Pulled up on and block-copied exactly on 02/04/2010} "Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1984. Corrected (Sep. 3, 2009): Our original article incorrectly stated that then-Sen. Obama lost his Kenyan citizenship on Aug. 4, 1982. The correct date is Aug. 4, 1984. The Kenyan Constitution required Obama to choose whether to keep either his U.S. or Kenyan citizenship upon his 21st

birthday, which was in 1982. But we initially missed that the Constitution provided him a twoyear window for making that choice. So Obama did not lose his Kenyan citizenship until his 23rd birthday in 1984. We have updated the item to reflect this. - Joe Miller Sources Rocky Mountain News Staff. "Things You Might Not Know About Barack Obama." 6 August 2007. The Rocky Mountain News. 24 August 2008. Temple, John. "8-word Gaffe Ripples Across Web." 15 August 2007. The Rocky Mountain News. 24 August 2008. The British Nationality Act, 1948. "

Again, by being a Multi-National at ages 21 and 22, having citizenship status with at least both Great Britain and Kenya (not to mention a possible still extant claim of citizen status with Indonesia by way of adoption) Obama cannot escape that he is absolutely and unequivocally disqualified from serving in the Office of the US Presidency under the intent of Article 2.1.5 and the 14th Amendment's section 1 of the United States Constitution.
In the Sep/Oct 1884 issue of the American Law Review, just 16 years after the passing of the 14th Amendment, Democratic lawyer George D. Collins (of the Wong Kim Ark fame) stated that in order to be “natural born” of a particular citizenship, such as the United States, “that his father be at the time of the birth of such a person a citizen thereof”". Again, as an authority on explaining a Natural Born Citizenship distinction, Collins is that same co-prosecutor for the United States who won the landmark case of US v. Wong Kim Ark 169 US 649 in 1898, George D. Collins, as stated before in the American Law Review in 1884 wrote that:

"Birth, therefore, does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and it is essential in order that a person be A NATIVE or NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof..." Obama's Father was a Kenyan at the time of Barack's birth, and a British Commonwealth / Colonial. He was NEVER a US Citizen.
This whole issue is about a matter of Law, of easily discernible knowledge, of right and wrong. It is Legal Purism that is meant to protect America. Skin Color has nothing to do with Barack Obama being a Usurper of the US Presidency, it is a legal distinction and disqualification of having a foreign national father, having foreign national citizenships at birth because of his

foreign father, and the possibility by his own testimony of his being 3 months old in April of 1961 (out of his own mouth) that he was not only NOT born in the United States, but as the

Eastern Standard Media reported in 2004, and the Kenyan Government officially transcripted, that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, just as the original "birthers" -- black Africans of Kenya's Media and Government -said so.

It's time to wake up America.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful