Hawaiian Court Certified Document Fraud Expert Who Has Just Affirmed Obama's Birth Certificate Is Forged Is A Democrat (biased, Ohio)

[wrecking ball]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Your interpretation, yes.

they are direct freakin' quotes from dictionaries! with links!

there was absolutely zero input, addition or opinion given on my part.

wow. truly un-freaking-believable.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

Asked and answered.

'May feel at times' is vastly different from 'is one.' Though, your confusion explains why you've been duped.

Obama is a natural born US citizen and fully eligible for the position he has now held for 4 1/2 years,

The DNC claims his status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.
Fight the Smears: The Truth About Barack

Here are some others born in the U.S. to foreign citizen/subject fathers. Note that they were NOT U.S. citizens:

Secretary of State Frederick Frelinghuysen determined Ludwig Hausding, though born in the U.S., was not born a U.S. citizen because he was subject to a foreign power at birth having been born to a Saxon subject alien father.

Similarly, Secretary of State Thomas Bayard determined Richard Greisser, though born in Ohio, was not born a U.S. citizen because Greisser's father, too, was an alien, a German subject at the time of Greisser's birth. Bayard specifically stated that Greisser was at birth 'subject to a foreign power,' therefore not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Digest of the International Law of the United States

In direct contrast, Miss Elg, who was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907 to parents who had naturalized in 1906 was declared "a natural born citizen of the United States," in a lower court ruling which SCOTUS then affirmed.
PERKINS, Secretary of Labor, et al. v. ELG. ELG v. PERKINS, Secretary of Labor, et al. | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

'May feel at times' is vastly different from 'is one.' Though, your confusion explains why you've been duped.

The DNC claims his status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.
Fight the Smears: The Truth About Barack

Here are some others born in the U.S. to foreign citizen/subject fathers. Note that they were NOT U.S. citizens:

Secretary of State Frederick Frelinghuysen determined Ludwig Hausding, though born in the U.S., was not born a U.S. citizen because he was subject to a foreign power at birth having been born to a Saxon subject alien father.

Similarly, Secretary of State Thomas Bayard determined Richard Greisser, though born in Ohio, was not born a U.S. citizen because Greisser's father, too, was an alien, a German subject at the time of Greisser's birth. Bayard specifically stated that Greisser was at birth 'subject to a foreign power,' therefore not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Digest of the International Law of the United States

In direct contrast, Miss Elg, who was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907 to parents who had naturalized in 1906 was declared "a natural born citizen of the United States," in a lower court ruling which SCOTUS then affirmed.
PERKINS, Secretary of Labor, et al. v. ELG. ELG v. PERKINS, Secretary of Labor, et al. | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute

And yet YOU are the person who posted the statement from the State Department that their rulings don't govern the determination of who is and who isn't a natural born citizen.

You can't have it both ways, you know.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

'May feel at times' is vastly different from 'is one.' Though, your confusion explains why you've been duped.

Blah, blah, blah, blah....

You have now essentially completely, run away from the thread.

[Nonarchist]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

'May feel at times' is vastly different from 'is one.' Though, your confusion explains why you've been duped.

The DNC claims his status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.
Fight the Smears: The Truth About Barack

Here are some others born in the U.S. to foreign citizen/subject fathers. Note that they were NOT U.S. citizens:

Secretary of State Frederick Frelinghuysen determined Ludwig Hausding, though born in the U.S., was not born a U.S. citizen because he was subject to a foreign power at birth having been born to a Saxon subject alien father.

Similarly, Secretary of State Thomas Bayard determined Richard Greisser, though born in Ohio, was not born a U.S. citizen because Greisser's father, too, was an alien, a German subject at the time of Greisser's birth. Bayard specifically stated that Greisser was at birth 'subject to a foreign power,' therefore not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Digest of the International Law of the United States

In direct contrast, Miss Elg, who was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907 to parents who had naturalized in 1906 was declared "a natural born citizen of the United States," in a lower court ruling which SCOTUS then affirmed.
PERKINS, Secretary of Labor, et al. v. ELG. ELG v. PERKINS, Secretary of Labor, et al. | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute

Very clear!

[Nonarchist]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

And yet YOU are the person who posted the statement from the State Department that their rulings don't govern the determination of who is and who isn't a natural born citizen.

You can't have it both ways, you know.

Learn what "contrast" is.

[ChrisFromChicago]

wow.

People are still trying to revive that dead horse huh"?


Its bones now people, really, move on

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

And yet YOU are the person who posted the statement from the State Department that their rulings don't govern the determination of who is and who isn't a natural born citizen.

No, I didn't.

What the State Dept says is this:

"In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes."
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

No, I didn't.

What the State Dept says is this:

"In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes."
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

Yep, the State Department doesn't make determinations of who is a natural-born citizen for Constitutional purposes. (Hint: the only Constitutional purpose is Presidential eligibility.) The State Department is expressly stating that their statutory rulings are irrelevant to actually determining who is a natural-born citizen. Because they are neither in the judiciary branch nor in the legislative branch of our government.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by Nonarchist

Very clear!

Indeed, it is.

Yet some are still struggling with the facts out of some kind of bizarre misguided devotion. The cognitive dissonance is absolutely stunning to behold.