It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

100% PROOF! Obama "RESOLVES" That He Is Not Eligible To Be President! (Condemning Info!)

page: 12
75
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   
This video proves nothing about Obama's eligibility to run for president, so allow me to do so.

I see a pattern if I may say so. It was claimed that he was not eligible to be president because he was not born in the US, so he showed his short form... This was not good enough... The conspiracy continued, demanding that he show his long form. He did... Still not good enough... Claims of it being faked and forged came from all over the Birther community.

So, once again, after every little claim they made, get's proven wrong, and after every shred of evidence has been shown proving he is eligible to be president, you keep going.... Maybe his ineligibility lies in the citizenship of his father.

Here is the thing though. This statute says that both parents must be US citizens... It says nothing about them being natural born citizens. Just US citizens...

So two people born in a foreign country, can move to the US, become citizens, have a child and that child is eligible to be president one day.

Obama's Dad was born in Kenya and as far as I can tell... Never held an American Citizenship...

Pretty damning stuff.... Except for one thing...

This video implies that it was asked whether or not John McCain was born on US soil and it implies that it asks if both of his parents were US citizens...

That is a huge implication this video creator is making and it is speculation.

Please show me where it is asked?

Here is the actual document referred to in the video

The closest thing I can see is this quote:


Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it


This says that both of McCain's parents were American citizens... It does not say that they both HAVE to be, as implied in the video...It merely says that his parents were both American Citizens....

All this shows is that it was resolved that John McCain was eligible to be president... This is not a standardfor everyone, this was simply the process they went through to determine HIS eligibility and his alone.

Now, taking that into consideration, I wish to show you what qualifications are required to be for some one to be a "natural born citizen" and therefore qualified to be president.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I invite you to read a portion of the 14th amendment with me.


1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


So,citizenship is defined as " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

I admit, that is not very detailed...

So we must delve a little deeper. I now invite you to read section1401, title 8 of the US code.

Imparticular, this:

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;


So according to US law, one qualifies as a natural born citizen if they were born in the US and one of his parents is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of it's outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.

It has already been proven that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. So that makes him a US citizen. His mom was born and raised in the United States, spending far more than just one Continuous year inside of our borders...

Therefore, according to US law, Obama is a natural born citizen and eligible to be the president. Regardless of his dad's citizenship... Obama was born in the US and so was his mom, who did spend at least one continuous year, on US soil....

Now, I will admit, this was a nice try on the part of the video's creator, but the only thing, once again, that has been resolved, is that Obama is a natural born American citizen and eligible to be president.

So this is the pattern I see. A birther stands up and says he is not qualified, here is why. Then some one comes along, proving them wrong, and proving that Obama is in fact a natural born citizen. So said birther comes up with another idea... Oh, he only showed his short form... He must be hiding something... I want his long form...So that is shown, proving you wrong once again.... But you scream that it must be fake... And you are proven wrong again... So you move on...Well, what about his dad? He was born in Kenya!

Well, ladies and gentlemen, now you can see, that as long as one of his parents were born in the US, have lived in the US continuously for a period of one year and their child is born on US soil, they are eligible to run for US president, as they are legal, natural born citizens.

I admit, I look forward to hearing what the birthers come up with next... Or perhaps this is the time in which they realize they were wrong, apologize and move on? Let's watch and find out.

Good day, Ladies and Gentlemen

Peace and love.

edit on 30-4-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by civilchallenger
 

Thank you for your lengthy post.

Your hypotheticals — a law concerning “gay behavior” or ‘murder’ — are not really adequate comparisons, because you failed to account that in such statutes, or elsewhere in the law, there would be a definition of what constituted “gay behavior” or ‘murder.’

Where in the Constitution or US law is natural born citizen defined? It’s not. Hence the need of the interpretation by the Supreme Court.

The Court in Minor v. Happersett said, “[t]he Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” Noting this observation in Minor, the Court in Wong Kim Ark stated “[t]he Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion ... 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.

I see you didn’t answer my question, which was an important one for our discussion. I will try to get an answer from you again. Do you not accept the premise that how the Supreme Court interprets the law, and decides a case, has influence over what the law, at that point, is?

Thanks.



edit on 30-4-2011 by aptness because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Source: www.worldandi.com...

"During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan -- the author of the citizenship clause -- described the clause as excluding not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Howard also stated the word jurisdiction meant the United States possessed a “full and complete jurisdiction” over the person described in the amendment. Such meaning precluded citizenship to any person who was beholden, in even the slightest respect, to any sovereignty other than a U.S. state or the federal government.

Thus, the status of natural born citizen is conditional upon being born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States -- a condition not required under the common law. This national rule prevents us from interpreting natural-born citizen under common law rules because it eliminates the possibility of a child being born with more than one allegiance. "

If you look at the Wong Kim Ark case, they based the ruling on common law. Same goes for U.S. v Rhodes , again decision based on common law. Which the 14th Amendment was clearly written to avoid.

Also:
"E. de Vattel’s Law of Nations (1758). "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children.”
edit on 30-4-2011 by Twainfan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by aptness
Do you not accept the premise that how the Supreme Court interprets the law, and decides a case, has influence over what the law, at that point, is?

The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the law. Laws can be interpreted wrong. If the Supreme Court interprets a law wrong I'm not going to support their decision in any way, shape, or form. I do realize that decisions of the Supreme Court have influence of behavior. And if they are encouraging bad behavior, it stands to reason that punishments for these people when the Supreme Court comes to its senses should be lightened to compensate for their foolishness.

Its an unfortunate fact of life that things that people understand to be legal actually are not legal and vice versa. Why... because laws can be written in vague ways which of course is a bad thing but a fact of life.

The right way to interpret "natural birth" may be someone who is born from parents of the same country, and if that is the case then the Surpreme Court must rule that Obama is to resign his presidency, unless a constitutional amendment passes to say otherwise. And would I blame Obama if he misinterpreted the law? No, but I would expect him to follow it as the Supreme Court updates their decisions.

And if the US founding fathers, at the time the constitution was written, wrote and voted on the constitution while believing "natural birth" meant such a thing, that in fact would be the right ruling to make.

If a supreme court judge wishes to come up with a new definition for the phrase and enforce that one, then you have a case of judicial activism, and you have a case of someone violating the basic principles of justice. Why? Because if laws were changed to mean any random thing over time as WILL happen over time as language evolves, you are saying its within the government's authority to make laws that mean any random thing on a dartboard. No way, I don't want that system and such a system is a basic rights violation.

So, I consider that this principle I'm talking about is only my opinion in the way that human rights such as freedom of speech are an opinion if you can call it that.

A few thousand years from now English words may mean totally and entirely different things. Therefore, its a rights violation to vote in a law that is allowed to change to mean anything its English change into meaning over time. So, it must only mean what it meant at the time it was written or you have a basic violation of justice built in from the get-go... like for example "natural born" now sometimes means that you were not born through a c-section. Lets not restrict people born through c-section from becoming president, and if a judge figures that would be a decent modern interpretation, he'd be right to think that is the modern interpretation. But he'd be wrong to actually change the meaning of the law and start enforcing the modern meaning rather than the original meaning. Instead, lets stick to the principle that laws mean what they say while they were written.

There is a right way and a wrong way to interpret the law and to say its opinion is to say justice should be executed based on opinions. No, justice needs to be executed based on facts to as much a degree as possible. Its hard for me to see why we need to put people's lives on the line based on opinion when we can do so instead based on facts that don't change... such as the actual meaning of the law as it was first written. The common meaning of a word in a given year is not something that changes. People's opinion on what a word should mean can change. What a word means at any given moment changes just slightly from moment to moment, and dramatically over time.

Justice is not supposed to be something that ebbs and flows with linguistics and opinions... its supposed to be consistent over time to the degree possible... changing the law only when better ideas come along (as opposed to just pop culture coming along).
edit on 30-4-2011 by civilchallenger because: clarity

edit on 30-4-2011 by civilchallenger because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Twainfan
If you look at the Wong Kim Ark case, they based the ruling on common law.
Yes, they did. That’s what I’ve been arguing! I’m unsure why you think this helps your case.

In Wong Kim Ark the Court noted the principle applied to aliens and citizens alike.

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "legality," "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. ...

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction, of the English Sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. ...

The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

Moreover, the quote your citing of Sen. Howard during the debates of the 14th Amendment, he is actually talking about the exceptions the common law principle contemplates. These were the persons not covered by the common law principle, the Court tells us, in Wong Kim Ark

[T]he 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.

You are reading Sen. Howards statement — “foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers” — to apply to two sets of persons, (1) foreigners and (2) aliens who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers, when it’s actually one, “foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

The Senator was simply talking about what already was the law of the land. In fact, in the statement immediately preceding the one you cited, Sen. Howard states “[t]his amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.” [14th Amendment debates, The Congressional Globe May 30 1866]



edit on 30-4-2011 by aptness because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Hendrix92TheUniverse
 


You are the one who needs to do his homework. The Constitution does not require that both parents be American citizens in order for a child born in the US to be a citizen. All that is required is that the child be born in the US. What's the matter? Did you forget all the crap about "anchor babies" and how immigrant mothers were coming to the US to have their kids so the kids would have US citizenship? President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961. There is nothing else necessary beyond that fact that makes him legally eligable to be president. That his mother was also a US citizen was gravy.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


So,citizenship is defined as " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."


Right, the 14th amendment defines (or redefines) the term "citizen". You can also notice that while it uses the term "naturalized" in an apparent reference to "natural-born" it does not define that particular term.



So we must delve a little deeper. I now invite you to read section1401, title 8 of the US code.

Imparticular, this:

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;


So according to US law, one qualifies as a natural born citizen if they were born in the US and one of then is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of it's outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.

Do you believe that the federal code has the power to define or re-define a word found in the constitution? If so, you're right. If not, then you're wrong. Since hypothetically a federal code with a 51% vote could be put in place that says a "president" means "one with supreme authority to do whatever he wants without consequence" and other such things, I'd like to think you are wrong.

Which brings us back to square one: what did the founding fathers believe "natural born" was when they wrote it and voted on it? The one and only suggestion I've seen from that era which actually defines the term seems to define "natural born" as someone with both parents having the countries citizenship status.

Here is my take on this whole issue (I suppose nobody may actually care but here it is) before I call it a day:
This stuff is more than anything a waste of time. Its not like Obama hasn't ignored five or six other constitutional provisions, so its kind of like debating whether Charles Manson killed 31 people, or just 30. But because of the constitutional involvement, I'm interested enough to talk about it.

I think its important to follow the constitution, but the presidential requirements are a bad idea as people can figure it out for them self who would and would not be a good president. Let the people decide.

I mildly suspect Obama was born in Hawaii, given the newspaper article declaring his birth was there. That could have been a ruse of course just to give Obama a citizenship that could benefit him but I suspect it was not.

Any chance of proving anything was destroyed when Obama didn't show all his cards immediately upon the first request for the long-form certificate. The time he had to create forgeries means we'll likely never have much of any idea on this issue. It can't really be proven in the positive that he was born in Hawaii short of assigning a multimillion dollar study run by several independent labs... which makes it a complete waste of money even to find out the answers.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Once this movement gets turned into a joke, like it already has, no one will take what the Birthers say with seriousness.

Obama Shifts from Consoler to Comic


Obama began with a wry reference to the birther movement, saying to those gathered: "My fellow Americans."

As the C-SPAN camera showed the back of Donald Trump's head, Obama noted the controversy over his birth certificate and said: "Tonight for the first time I am releasing my official birth video."

Then a video of a scene from "The Lion King" played briefly before it was cut off. "Oh well," Obama said.

Regardless about how much you people push, the movement is now considered to be a joke. Obama has made a fool out of this opposition. I am telling you this as an undeclared voter who only believes in 'the party of me'. Let this one go folks. Its time to find another way to prevent him from winning next year. Don't focus on this one issue, or Obama will absolutely win in 2012.

edit on 30-4-2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Really people!! Has obama made this country any worse than it already was....nope! He has actually done a few things to try to make it better for all. Everyone seems to think that being the president grants you a magic wand that you can do anything you want. It just dont work like that. And for all of those hes a war monger people, lets get the facts straight! Afghanistan and Iraq he inherited from our last commander and chief. For the last 60 years every president in office has had there war, conflict or military missions. It just makes me angry that people will come up with any reason to bring a person down, and yet you claim to be "Americans"! what a croc! You can wave the stars and stripes but cant stand by the commander and chief. Im not saying you have to agree with every policy he makes but for gods sake take a step back and think about the situation that hes in. If you think you can do better then by all means run for office.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Twainfan
reply to post by aptness
 


Did you miss this part:

"In Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998) the court said “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” Therefore, it is important to discover the operational meaning behind “subject to the jurisdiction” as employed under the Fourteenth Amendment rather then assuming its meaning from other usages of the word jurisdiction alone. Both Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Howard provides the answer, with Trumbull declaring:

The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

That was a 1998 Supreme Court ruling. Their words, not mine. Look it up. They cite the words of the men of wrote the 14th Amendment.

By your reasoning, Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad or any other nut case could come over here and get any woman that is a US citizen pregnant and their child could then be President? That is precisely the kind of thing the Founders and Framers were against and why they used the term "natural born citizen" and they meant it to be a child of 2 US Citizen parents.


No...
1 - You're going to sit there and cite an environmental protection case (that makes no mention or reference to citizenship) and suggest it has any relevance? (BTW - jurisdiction in this case was legal jurisdiction - local vs federal)
2 - THEN you're going to throw in opinions by two politicians (not the SCOTUS), on a completely unrelated matter and tie them to the case cited?
3 - You summarize by saying this was a 1998 case - "go look it up" suggesting this was all one connected argument - no.

edit on 30-4-2011 by userid1 because: civility



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by civilchallenger

To the best of my knowledge, the word "natural born" citizen was used in 1776 to mean "parents who were both citizens of the same country of their infants birth".


So Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, Chester Arthur, Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover were illegal Presidents also?

Let's not forget Mitt Romney who's parents are related to felons and his father was born in Mexico.
edit on 30-4-2011 by LosLobos because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
PS... the constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787. Not 1776 like some don't know. Natural born mean born as the date of the adoption of the constitution.



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.


Plenty of Presidents were not born here at the time of adoption.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Wow! Didn't realize both parents must be US citizens.

I have a feeling this card will be played by TPTB when the time is right.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by NuclearPaul
Wow! Didn't realize both parents must be US citizens.

I have a feeling this card will be played by TPTB when the time is right.


Like October 2008, perhaps?
That kind of seems like the time they might want to bring up such a fundamental constitutional issue. I find it rather amazing that not one Republican in Washington thought to mention it, let alone McCain or Clinton but thank goodness some peopel on a conspiracy forum remembered a basic fundamental constitutional truth.
edit on 4/30/11 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER FOR PRESIDENT 2012!

laws, schmaws... this is the United Corporate States of Bilderberg - we don't need no stinking Constitution telling who can be President!



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   


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.




Am I reading this properly...You can run for a presidency ...if your a natural born citizen..or if you become of citizen of the united states. Because it states...Natural born citizen OR A citizen of the United States. Meaning you do not have to be natural born. So you have to have been at least a resident of USA for at least fourteen years before you can apply for presidency.
edit on 30-4-2011 by kerazeesicko because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-4-2011 by kerazeesicko because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So,citizenship is defined as " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

I admit, that is not very detailed...

So we must delve a little deeper. I now invite you to read section1401, title 8 of the US code.

Imparticular, this:

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;


So according to US law, one qualifies as a natural born citizen if they were born in the US and one of his parents is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of it's outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.

It has already been proven that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. So that makes him a US citizen. His mom was born and raised in the United States, spending far more than just one Continuous year inside of our borders...

Therefore, according to US law, Obama is a natural born citizen and eligible to be the president. Regardless of his dad's citizenship... Obama was born in the US and so was his mom, who did spend at least one continuous year, on US soil....



Peace and love.

edit on 30-4-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)




Ooooops you forgot a very incriminating piece of information, wonder if that was on accident or on purpose. Was Obama's father considered a national?

a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

You conveniently left off that part in your above quote.
edit on 30-4-2011 by taccj9903 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by kerazeesicko



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.




Am I reading this properly...You can run for a presidency ...if your a natural born citizen..or if you become of citizen of the united states. Because it states...Natural born citizen OR A citizen of the United States. Meaning you do not have to be natural born. So you have to have been at least a resident of USA for at least fourteen years before you can apply for presidency.


This has been answered repeatedly in the thread.

Read the thread/



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   
a Brief Refresh

White House releases Obama's long-form Birth Certificate; Press Conference



Trump: Obama Birth Certificate Needs Truth Test



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by taccj9903
Was Obama's father considered a national?


What does that mean.

And what exactly does it have to do with Obama being born a natural citizen in Hawaii?



new topics

top topics



 
75
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join