Donald Trump on the View: Obama Needs to Show His Birth Certificate

[qh4dotcom]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCKDTwu_g2M

[Dr.3D]

Obama isn't going to do anything to prove his birth was in the U.S... so it's a moot subject.

[qh4dotcom]

Obama isn't going to do anything to prove his birth was in the U.S... so it's a moot subject.

He might be forced to if he wants to get re-elected...this is likely going to be a big issue next year according to his pal Governor Abercrombie

[guitarlifter]

Does Obama even have a legitimate chance of getting reelected?

[crazyfacedjenkins]

This guys sounds more like a kook every single day. Isn't this the same quack that told us Ron was unelectable? Maybe all the bankruptcies and comb-overs are driving him bat shit crazy.

[osan]

Does Obama even have a legitimate chance of getting reelected?

Yes. He has the press behind him. He could be caught eating the neighbor's newborn children and the press would be singing his praises.

Don't underestimate the power of the MSM.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

I hope to god Obama is forced to show his BC. When he finally does, the loony mental patients will have to eat dirt.

[specsaregood]

This guys sounds more like a kook every single day. Isn't this the same quack that told us Ron was unelectable? Maybe all the bankruptcies and comb-overs are driving him bat shit crazy.

He is a democrat operative sent in to raise havok and embarrass republicans with ludicris antics with the media acting as his accomplice.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

He is a democrat operative sent in to raise havok and embarrass republicans with ludicris antics with the media acting as his accomplice.

Exactly! It also calls into question the character of person who calls themselves a Ron Paul fan but sides with an outspoken enemy of Ron and the liberty movement.

[erowe1]

He needs to show it or else what?

[crazyfacedjenkins]

For someone to even embrace such a clearly flawed aspect of the constitution is rather disturbing. It discriminates against people purely based on where they were born, how can someone have control over that? It's also quite despicable because we live in a society created by immigrants. To call into question their loyalty is an insult and reveals quite a weak character.

[Dr.3D]

For someone to even embrace such a clearly flawed aspect of the constitution is rather disturbing. It discriminates against people purely based on where they were born, how can someone have control over that? It's also quite despicable because we live in a society created by immigrants. To call into question their loyalty is an insult and reveals quite a weak character.

Actually quite often, a person will show allegiance to the country he was born in. It would be nice to know exactly where a president places his priorities.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

Actually quite often, a person will show allegiance to the country he was born in.

Actually, because people who go through the process of migrating and naturalization put more work into becoming citizens than the people who were simply born into it, you couldn't be more incorrect. If it's a non issue for every other office, what difference would it make for president?



It would be nice to know exactly where a president places his priorities.

And that has nothing to do with where they were born. If Bush wasn't proof enough, there's no hope.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

For someone to even embrace such a clearly flawed aspect of the constitution is rather disturbing. It discriminates against people purely based on where they were born, how can someone have control over that? It's also quite despicable because we live in a society created by immigrants. To call into question their loyalty is an insult and reveals quite a weak character.

It does not discriminate on where people are born. It discriminates against against children of non citizen parents. It discriminates against so called "illegal aliens", who may or may not be born in the united States of America, barring those individuals for the office of president.

[Churchill2004]

Actually quite often, a person will show allegiance to the country he was born in. It would be nice to know exactly where a president places his priorities.

Yeah, that's why it's such a good thing we dodged the bullet with that damn dirty Panamanian, John McCain. I'm sure he has secret pro-Noriega sympathies.


There was a much stronger case to be made for Bush being an illegitimate President than anything I've ever seen put forward about Obama. (not that I think Bush was illegitimate, either)

[ChaosControl]

He already showed it...
This birther crap is ridiculous.

[Clossinfoss]

Trump's demand for Obama's birth certificate was worth it, if only to see the reactions of the ladies on the View. I couldn't stop laughing.

[alexander]

Dear Mr. Trump where ever you may be in this new world,agent Obama has already admitted that he was not born in the United States .Certainly at the time of his admitting this he did not know what it takes to be President of the U.S.A.
(he was runing for senator I belive when he said this.) Now you know why he cannot show a birth certificate. What really should be asked is why the state of Haw HAW refuses to show Barry LoLo Sortiero's birth certificate.

Their is no such certificate

[qh4dotcom]

Trump's demand for Obama's birth certificate was worth it, if only to see the reactions of the ladies on the View. I couldn't stop laughing.

Ha Ha Ha

[qh4dotcom]

Dear Mr. Trump where ever you may be in this new world,agent Obama has already admitted that he was not born in the United States .Certainly at the time of his admitting this he did not know what it takes to be President of the U.S.A.
(he was runing for senator I belive when he said this.) Now you know why he cannot show a birth certificate. What really should be asked is why the state of Haw HAW refuses to show Barry LoLo Sortiero's birth certificate.

Their is no such certificate

Nice 1st forum post :)

[crazyfacedjenkins]

Lots of "new" members tend to post in these harebrained threads.

[dannno]

He already showed it...


No he didn't..

[dannno]

Lots of "new" members tend to post in these harebrained threads.

What if I said I agreed with you that it is a flawed aspect of the Constitution, and I don't care where he was born, yet I still want to see his BC? What if I said the reason WHY is because he could be getting blackmailed over it, as it is a very serious issue that he could be tried and found guilty of very serious crimes? Keeping us bogged down in unnecessary wars, breaking all his campaign promises, all because he is being blackmailed.. haven't you thought of that? Don't you realize this is the reason WHY candidates are vetted by the media? He's never been vetted over this, the media refuses to make a serious issue of it and instead lie and tell everybody that he has shown his BC already.

[qh4dotcom]

A comment on the DT Facebook page
http://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump


Mr Trump you today earned my devotion and my vote and time decated to your run for president !! I was waiting for a real man with balls to force the issue of Obamas Records his birth his school his collage records thank you after 4 years of lsitening to this liar say he's American Finally someone who is a man with the balls and brains to see what the rest of us do!!! Thank you Please run Sir for president~~

[Dr.3D]

Yeah, that's why it's such a good thing we dodged the bullet with that damn dirty Panamanian, John McCain. I'm sure he has secret pro-Noriega sympathies.


There was a much stronger case to be made for Bush being an illegitimate President than anything I've ever seen put forward about Obama. (not that I think Bush was illegitimate, either)

No, I believe McCain was born of two U.S. citizens on a military base. He would qualify as natural born. It doesn't matter where you are born, as long as both your mother and father are citizens, you would be natural born.

[qh4dotcom]

Funny how none of the liberal idiots on The View claimed Obama has released his birth certificate (the COLB).

[Feeding the Abscess]

US Law:


... a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1409.html

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

US Law:



http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1409.html

I recommend the search function for threads that have delved heavily into the history of scotus rulings such as this one:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?242407-Links-to-cogent-LEGAL-analysis-of-new-AZ-mmigration-law&highlight=supreme+court+immigration+naturalization

[qh4dotcom]

US Law:



http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1409.html

I don't see the words "Natural born citizen" anywhere in that law...the requirement for POTUS

[Feeding the Abscess]

That law is a more detailed definition of a natural born citizen.

[jkr]

Barry "um, i dont know about that.
um.

...have u seen my peace prize?"

[qh4dotcom]

:)

[jkr]

its a strawman... that is why they luv 2 ride the paper segment of the question- on BOTH sid3s when the REAL question is "hooshier daddy?"

...and why do you seem to be at war with
Christians
freedom
health
the "poor"
the "rich"
the actual poor
the individual as a whole
in THIS country, you know the one you are from

?



WELL?!!?!?

[qh4dotcom]

That law is a more detailed definition of a natural born citizen.

So why isn't team Obama mentioning this law? All I hear from them is the COLB and newspaper birth announcements.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

So why isn't team Obama mentioning this law? All I hear from them is the COLB and newspaper birth announcements.

Because it makes the people who push the issue look like racist kooks and delegitimizes all their other arguments. The provision discriminates foreign born citizens, it judges people based on where they were born. When you start judging people based on where they were born you really are getting into some muddy territory. It doesn't take a huge leap to get from there to Jim Crow laws.

[Bruno]

When you start judging people based on where they were born you really are getting into some muddy territory. It doesn't take a huge leap to get from there to Jim Crow laws.

:rolleyes:

[dannno]

Because it makes the people who push the issue look like racist kooks and delegitimizes all their other arguments. The provision discriminates foreign born citizens, it judges people based on where they were born. When you start judging people based on where they were born you really are getting into some muddy territory. It doesn't take a huge leap to get from there to Jim Crow laws.

But you can still be blackmailed for it, no?

[Don Lapre]

He already showed it...
This birther crap is ridiculous.

Link?

[qh4dotcom]

He already showed it...
This birther crap is ridiculous.

So if he already showed it, what's the name of the doctor who delivered him?

[jmdrake]

For someone to even embrace such a clearly flawed aspect of the constitution is rather disturbing. It discriminates against people purely based on where they were born, how can someone have control over that? It's also quite despicable because we live in a society created by immigrants. To call into question their loyalty is an insult and reveals quite a weak character.

Fine. Propose a constitutional amendment and try to get that provision changed. But simply ignoring parts of the constitution that we think are "bad" or "outdated" is what got us in the mess that we're in.

[jmdrake]

Because it makes the people who push the issue look like racist kooks and delegitimizes all their other arguments. The provision discriminates foreign born citizens, it judges people based on where they were born. When you start judging people based on where they were born you really are getting into some muddy territory. It doesn't take a huge leap to get from there to Jim Crow laws.

Let's see. So you'd expand "birthright citizenship" to "You can automatically be an American if you really really like the idea"? Somebody stops over at a U.S. airport on their way to Canada an they're automatically a citizen? I know what I'm saying sounds crazy, but that's just taking your argument to its logical conclusion.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

But you can still be blackmailed for it, no?

I think that falls into the category of paid off and corrupted.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

Fine. Propose a constitutional amendment and try to get that provision changed. But simply ignoring parts of the constitution that we think are "bad" or "outdated" is what got us in the mess that we're in.

What about all this nullification talk??? Isn't that the same thing??

[dannno]

I think that falls into the category of paid off and corrupted.

No, it falls into the category of blackmail. You can choose not to take payoffs, but it's really hard to choose the route of being prosecuted and potentially executed for treason or whatever.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

Let's see. So you'd expand "birthright citizenship" to "You can automatically be an American if you really really like the idea"? Somebody stops over at a U.S. airport on their way to Canada an they're automatically a citizen? I know what I'm saying sounds crazy, but that's just taking your argument to its logical conclusion.

Seemed to work just fine during the early 20th century when millions of illegals came over and helped propel this place to the world empire you take for granted today.

[acptulsa]

What about all this nullification talk??? Isn't that the same thing??

Oh, no. All of this nullification talk is there to remind us that the Supreme Court's no better than we are, and if a jury thinks a law in unconstitutional they can refuse to convict anyone of violating it.

[Krugerrand]

No, it falls into the category of blackmail. You can choose not to take payoffs, but it's really hard to choose the route of being prosecuted and potentially executed for treason or whatever.

The blackmail angle is a legit concern. Let's face it .. Lord Barry hasn't been consistent with his messages. What better person to deliver the "watch your step Puppet Barry" than Trump? He's sufficiently eccentric that he can pull it off without losing street credibility. He surely would be on the same page as the puppet masters.

(but, if one were to argue Obama were not a citizen, would that not undermine any treason charge?)

[jmdrake]

Seemed to work just fine during the early 20th century when millions of illegals came over and helped propel this place to the world empire you take for granted today.

You missed the scenario I painted (as I thought you would) so let me spell it out again. The person I'm talking about doesn't end up staying in America! If someone happens to be born here while his parents stay over he's automatically a citizen. But his parents are not. Our law treats them differently. If we treat them the same then we either have tourists who choose not to stay being granted citizenship, or we deny citizenship to birthright babies.

[jmdrake]

What about all this nullification talk??? Isn't that the same thing??

No. Nullification, based on the 10th amendment, is when the states nullify unconstitutional federal statutes or edicts. You're talking about nullifying the constitution itself. The 10th amendment grants no such authority.

[dannno]

(but, if one were to argue Obama were not a citizen, would that not undermine any treason charge?)

Ya I thought about that, I'm not sure.. If one assumes he is a citizen, but not a natural born citizen, then I suppose he can be tried for treason. If he's not a citizen at all, then, well, I guess not.. but I'm sure they could get him on something similar to that.

[jmdrake]

Ya I thought about that, I'm not sure.. If one assumes he is a citizen, but not a natural born citizen, then I suppose he can be tried for treason. If he's not a citizen at all, then, well, I guess not.. but I'm sure they could get him on something similar to that.

Here's a more important reason why it matters. If Obama's not a natural born citizen then he's not really president and he's not really commander in chief and the soldiers under his command aren't. When Bush was president a soldier tried to get out of going to Iraq based on it being an illegal war and lost. (He did get a less than honorable discharge (http://www.tyrannyofoil.org/article.php?id=653) so I guess that was a half victory). Under the Obama presidency a soldier has attempted to avoid going to Afghanistan based on Obama not being president, and the government mooted the case (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=104009)!

[Krugerrand]

Here's a more important reason why it matters. If Obama's not a natural born citizen then he's not really president and he's not really commander in chief and the soldiers under his command aren't. When Bush was president a soldier tried to get out of going to Iraq based on it being an illegal war and lost. (He did get a less than honorable discharge (http://www.tyrannyofoil.org/article.php?id=653) so I guess that was a half victory). Under the Obama presidency a soldier has attempted to avoid going to Afghanistan based on Obama not being president, and the government mooted the case (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=104009)!

I'd enjoy if somebody that knew more than me would start a thread on the chances a soldier would have for refusing orders for Libya based on the war not be authorized by Congress.

[qh4dotcom]

New interview....Trump keeps talking about Obama's birth certificate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S0WL_2XgVA

[USAF_Saylor]

While I agree that Obama should show his long-form birth certificate, to make it obvious to the nay-sayers, but in reality it is a moot point. Why? Because regardless of what his birth certificate says, Obama would still NOT be constitutionally eligible for office based on his own statements. Allow me to explain:
The Constitution was constructed under the principles of Natural Law and Liberty. Under Nature Law one was a “natural-born citizen” of the father’s bloodline – it has NOTHING to do with the location of the birth itself (as most erroneously assume). A child is a “natural-born citizen” of whichever nation his father is a citizen of. This truth is flatly stated in the Law of Nations, a body of thought that the Framers agreed with so much that they specifically named it in the Constitution (ref. U.S.C. Section VIII – “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;”). The idea is that a President should not have dual citizenship nor split alliances, for obvious reasons, so the provision (under Art. II.,Sec. I, Clause V) for all Presidents is that they must be natural-born citizens.

With this background, let’s look to certain facts regarding Obama. President Obama himself has publically stated that he is the son of Barack Hussein Obama Sr. who was at no time in his life a citizen of the United States, but rather a citizen of Kenya which was a territory of the British Crown at the time of Obama Sr.’s birth. As such, even if Pres. Obama was born in Hawii he would still NOT be a natural-born citizen of the United States.

[qh4dotcom]

While I agree that Obama should show his long-form birth certificate, to make it obvious to the nay-sayers, but in reality it is a moot point. Why? Because regardless of what his birth certificate says, Obama would still NOT be constitutionally eligible for office based on his own statements. Allow me to explain:
The Constitution was constructed under the principles of Natural Law and Liberty. Under Nature Law one was a “natural-born citizen” of the father’s bloodline – it has NOTHING to do with the location of the birth itself (as most erroneously assume). A child is a “natural-born citizen” of whichever nation his father is a citizen of. This truth is flatly stated in the Law of Nations, a body of thought that the Framers agreed with so much that they specifically named it in the Constitution (ref. U.S.C. Section VIII – “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;”). The idea is that a President should not have dual citizenship nor split alliances, for obvious reasons, so the provision (under Art. II.,Sec. I, Clause V) for all Presidents is that they must be natural-born citizens.

With this background, let’s look to certain facts regarding Obama. President Obama himself has publically stated that he is the son of Barack Hussein Obama Sr. who was at no time in his life a citizen of the United States, but rather a citizen of Kenya which was a territory of the British Crown at the time of Obama Sr.’s birth. As such, even if Pres. Obama was born in Hawii he would still NOT be a natural-born citizen of the United States.

Nice 1st post

[R3volutionJedi]

I'm glad Trump is speaking up.

[Pillowpants]

This was put to rest more than three years ago, sorry to break it to you birthers... http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

I really like Ron Paul but it seems the neocons have seen the error in their politics and now support Ron Paul but haven't developed critical thinking skills.

[USAF_Saylor]

This was put to rest more than three years ago, sorry to break it to you birthers... http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

I really like Ron Paul but it seems the neocons have seen the error in their politics and now support Ron Paul but haven't developed critical thinking skills.
If you would care to read my post (about 3 up from here) you'll find that the birth certificate issue is moot anyway for even if the BC is valid Obama still would not meet the Constitutional standard for being a natural-born citizen; which is why I posted the information in the first place. As such, until you can answer my above post I will happily wear the banner of Birther. How is that for critical thinking skills? :)
Also, I read the article you linked to but it was suspiciously quiet on why Obama has spent so much $$ for lawyers to hide the long-form BC. If it is legit then why go through the expense and effort?

[USAF_Saylor]

Nice 1st post

Thank you, just trying to do my part. :) And I like to come in with a bang.

[economics102]

You know what? Trump is right on this issue. IMHO it's outrageous that Obama hasn't provided his birth certificate to the public.

Not because I think Obama's not a US-born citizen, though the refusal to release the certificate certainly makes one a little suspicious that there's SOMETHING on there he doesn't want released. But even if there's absolutely nothing out of the ordinary with it, it's more about the arrogance at this point.

Obama ran for and was elected to the highest office of this country. One of the official job requirements for eligibility of that office is to be a natural born citizen of this country. If there's any interest by the public to see the document affirming that, it should be made available if possible.

Robert Gibbs recently made some comment along the lines of "we're not going to dignify [the birthers] by furnishing the certificate." What incredible arrogance. They owe everyone that certificate because it's a fucking iob requirement of the office. If I was on a job interview and it was going amazingly well and it was clear I was going to be hired and the employer asked for the contact info to confirm my resume with my past employers as a formality, and I refused, offended, I shouldn't be surprised when I don't get the job.

There's a saying, "trust but verify." When we're talking about the highest office in the country, it's absolutely ridiculous for someone to take offense to the people requesting to confirm for themselves documents that are part of the eligibility requirements.

I used to think the issue with Obama's birth certificate was that for whatever reason they couldn't find the original long-form certificate and the birther movement was just crying conspiracy based on Obama's legitimate inability to produce an original document. And so I didn't take them seriously and even felt a little bad for Obama, that he couldn't confirm his probably-legitimate birth record. Now since learning that the Hawaii government HAS the document and Obama simply isn't instructing them to release it, now I feel like Obama is being a giant douchebag about it and now it makes ME suspicious of what's on that certificate.

If I had to speculate I think most likely the certificate is completely normal and at this point Obama is withholding it because it's to the Democrats advantage to have a bunch of "crazy tea partiers" up in arms ranting like lunatics about Obama being born in Kenya.

[qh4dotcom]

Now since learning that the Hawaii government HAS the document and Obama simply isn't instructing them to release it, now I feel like Obama is being a giant douchebag about it and now it makes ME suspicious of what's on that certificate.

If I had to speculate I think most likely the certificate is completely normal and at this point Obama is withholding it because it's to the Democrats advantage to have a bunch of "crazy tea partiers" up in arms ranting like lunatics about Obama being born in Kenya.

I don't know if you heard about the governor of Hawaii's quest and failure to find the birth certificate...it's more likely that the state of Hawaii DOESN'T have it...listen to this and please give me your take
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvrb7YqdvxE

[dean.engelhardt]

Dear Mr. Trump,

Want to see his Birth Certificate? Here is how in 3 easy steps.

1) Type in Google.com
2) In search panel, type Obama Birth Certificate.
3) Click "images" on the upper right hand corner

I suppose back in the days when Trump went to the finest schools, they didn't teach these things.

[qh4dotcom]

Dear Mr. Trump,

Want to see his Birth Certificate? Here is how in 3 easy steps.

1) Type in Google.com
2) In search panel, type Obama Birth Certificate.
3) Click "images" on the upper right hand corner

I suppose back in the days when Trump went to the finest schools, they didn't teach these things.

He wants to see the original document typewritten in 1961, not the thing laser-printed in 2007

[dean.engelhardt]

He wants to see the original document typewritten in 1961, not the thing laser-printed in 2007

You realize your request is ridiculous? This is not the Stanley cup. The logistics of millions of people touching a 50 year document is impossible. But if you were afforded the opportunity, would you be satisfied? How many birthers are willing to accept proof? There is no end to this.

[Dr.3D]

He wants to see the original document typewritten in 1961, not the thing laser-printed in 2007

I'm sure he understands the difference between the two. One can be made up and was made up in 2007, the other is a copy of the original document issued by the hospital.

[qh4dotcom]

You realize your request is ridiculous? This is not the Stanley cup. The logistics of millions of people touching a 50 year document is impossible. But if you were afforded the opportunity, would you be satisfied? How many birthers are willing to accept proof? There is no end to this.

I have said before that if I see the original document from 1961 I am willing to stop talking about this issue. There will be others continuing to say he's not a natural born citizen because his father is Kenyan...not me.

[Pillowpants]

Money isn't hiding his long form birth certificate, state of Hawaii law is. Long form birth certificates are not available in Hawaii. As far as the theory that he has spent whichever amount of money to hide his past, I haven't seen any evidence of it, I would look at any evidence I was given though. About the "natural born citizen" idea, it is never strictly defined in the constitution and I don't like the idea of going to a secondary source to define it. To me natural born citizen is someone who was born in the USA, even if it is the child of an alien mother.

[SimpleName]

I can't believe he said this. I was actually shocked when I saw it on the news. Why would he say something controversial like that? Guess he is enough of a celebrity *cough*charlie sheen*cough* that it doesn't matter. More celebrities should take this route. Tom Hanks would apparently still be loved, even if he insisted the United States govt should be overthrown.

[qh4dotcom]

I can't believe he said this. I was actually shocked when I saw it on the news. Why would he say something controversial like that?

He's got a big ego and he has seen plenty of fraud in Wall Street...he knows fraud when he sees it.

[USAF_Saylor]

Technically, you assertion is not correct regarding the Constitution defining what a 'natural-born citizen' is. Not to rehash the debate but here is something I put together a few months ago:
The Constitution was constructed under the principles of Natural Law. Under Nature Law one was a “natural-born citizen” following the father’s bloodline – it has NOTHING to do with the location of the birth itself (as most erroneously assume). A child is a “natural-born citizen” of whichever nation his father is a citizen of at the time of birth. This truth is flatly stated in the Law of Nations, a body of thought that the Framers included in the Constitution (ref. U.S.C. Section VIII – “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;”). The idea is that a President should not have dual citizenship nor split alliances, for obvious reasons, so the provision (under Art. II.,Sec. I, Clause V) for all Presidents is that they must be natural-born citizens.

Art. 1, Sec. 2, Clause 5: “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; ...”

Law Of Nations, §212: “…in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

a. The term “natural-born citizen” originated with the British Royal Family in an effort to secure the royal bloodline when members of the royal family were born while traveling abroad.
b. It was based upon “natural law” or “nature’s law” (not man-made law) – following the bloodline of the father, the king or prince, regardless of birth place of the offspring.
c. The term later became British Common Law and later, international law by way of international treaty often referred to as The Law of Nations, defining what constitutes a “nation” and the “citizens” of a nation, wherein all nations recognized the legal citizenship and citizenship rights of sovereign nations on this basis.
To be a natural born citizen of the United States, one must be the blood offspring of a father who was at the time of birth, a legal U.S. citizen. The Law of Nations, written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758, defines natural-born citizen. Every member of the U.S. Supreme Court knows this definition and it’s not complicated:
1) natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
2) those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
3) The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens
4) in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

With this background, let’s look to certain facts regarding Obama. President Obama himself has publically stated that he is the son of Barack Hussein Obama Sr. who was at no time in his life a citizen of the United States, but rather a citizen of Kenya which was a territory of the British Crown at the time of Obama Sr.’s birth. As such, even if Pres. Obama was born in Hawii he would still NOT be a natural-born citizen of the United States, and hence not constitutionally fit to be POTUS.