A Kenyan American, a Cuban American & a Canadian American Walk Into a Bar

Proudly American Flag
A Kenyan American, a Cuban American & a Canadian American Walk Into a Bar
Alan Korwin
Alan Korwin

Arizona –  -(Ammoland.com)- A Kenyan American, a Cuban American and a Canadian American all tried out for the presidency of the United States.

The Kenyan American said, “I’m eligible because the Founding Fathers believed a person with an African dad would make a fine president, would have no divided loyalty, and wouldn’t even have to prove he was born here in the U.S. until well after he got into office.”

He said they put that logic right into the Constitution in Article II.

The Cuban American said, “I’m eligible because both my parents come from a brutal communist dictatorship that aimed nuclear bombs at the United States, but because they escaped in time to have me born in Florida, the Founding Fathers believed I would have no split allegiances of any kind, and I would be a perfect candidate for the presidency and the nuclear launch codes.”

He dropped out of the race when too few people voted for him in the primaries. Cuban law claims him as a citizen, as they do for everyone with even one Cuban parent, but Americans like to ignore that, because it would make things difficult with such a hostile enemy.

The Canadian American, who is also a Cuban American thanks to his Cuban refugee dad, giving him triple citizenship, said, “I’m a Harvard law grad, and I can tell you for certain the Founders would believe I’m eligible because I renounced my Canadian citizenship last year. I can also tell you it is a ‘settled matter of law’ that being born in a foreign country like I was doesn’t matter, because I have at least one American parent, my mom, and that’s how the Founders planned to protect the presidency, right there in Article II. Paternity didn’t matter to them, despite what the British thought.”

The British thought nationality came from your father, not your mother. Other countries thought it was land based, or both.

But then John Jay spoke up. He became our first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Back in 1787 he said we have to prevent any chance that the commander in chief and the presidency “be given to, nor devolve on” foreigners, in a letter to George Washington, and Washington had written back to agree. [I have those letters posted here.] That’s why the Committee of Eleven, the group appointed by the Constitutional Convention to do a lot of the editing of the Constitution while it was being drafted, wrote Article II to require only a “natural born Citizen” could hold the office of president and commander in chief of our military forces. They changed Alexander Hamilton’s weaker draft.

So modern-day skeptics asked, “How did those old dead white guys even know what a ‘natural born Citizen’ was, or that it was the correct phrase?  They might have used a term like that, in that critical spot, and just guessed at its meaning! They didn’t even define it in the document itself!”

To which a frustrated uninvited ombudsman blurted out, “Only brain-dead idiots or followers of network “news” could believe such poppycock! They didn’t go defining ANY of the terms in the Constitution. They knew EXACTLY what their words meant. Those white men were inspired geniuses. The definition of that exact term was written down at that time for Pete’s sake.”

In a reference book Ben Franklin brought to the Convention, Law of Nations, that phrase is precisely described, and it means just what you would expect if the Framers were trying to guarantee a 100% American president free from foreign entanglements, like Jay and Washington discussed in writing.

Law of Nations says, in Section 212: “Natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” That’s it. A three-part requirement. Two citizen parents at the time of birth (jus sanguinis in Latin, “of the blood”), on U.S. soil (jus soli in Latin, “of the land”).

No Kenyan Americans. No Cuban Canadian Americans who renounce foreign citizenship the year before they run for office. Sorry folks, some people are not eligible. That was the Founding Fathers’ plan. How foreign is too foreign? Any.

Ben Franklin wrote a long letter back to Charles Dumas in 1775, who provided their copies of Law of Nations by Emer de Vattel (Ben had gotten three), to thank him and tell him, “…the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting…” He also mentioned, among many other items, they were working hard to make saltpeter, desperately needed to manufacture gunpowder. The letter is in the National Archives.

The Convention used “natural born Citizen” in only one place and to this day has only one use in our entire body of law — as a restriction on who can be president and commander in chief. Every other official requirement in law uses the plain word “citizen,” a condition that can be achieved in numerous ways, including after birth, and appears constantly in law. Natural born citizenship can only occur at the moment of birth.

A Kenyan American, a Cuban American and a Canadian Cuban American were sitting in a bar, having read this short essay and asked themselves, “So, what do we do now?”

The Canadian Cuban American said, “I’m eligible for the U.S. Supreme Court, and since I’m a Harvard law grad, even though that’s not a requirement, I think I’ll go for that.” The Cuban American said, “I’m a U.S. Senator, and even though I rarely vote there and too few people voted for me, I’ll try to stay there.” And the Kenyan American said, “I may have a problem, I’m going to seek legal advice from an undisclosed location.” And everyone lived ever after, for a while…

About GunLaws.com:
Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Bloomfield Press, founded in 1988, is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Our website, gunlaws.com, features a free national directory to gun laws and relevant contacts in all states and federally, along with our unique line of related books and DVDs. “After Your Shoot” for media review is available on request, call 800-707-4020. Our authors are available for interview, call to schedule. Call for cogent positions on gun issues, informed analysis on proposed laws, talk radio that lights up the switchboard, fact sheets and position papers. As we always say, “It doesn’t make sense to own a gun and not know the rules.” Visit:www.gunlaws.com

215 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Marshall
John Marshall
5 years ago

Hate to nit-pick, Alan, because I know you usually research the facts in your writings quite well. However, John Jay was not the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. That honor belongs to John Marshall, who happens to be on my family tree.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  John Marshall

John Marshall was the first justice to begin the practice of judicial review, but John Jay was the first chief justice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States#List_of_Chief_Justices

BTW, John Jay was an expert in THE COMMON LAW, and if he had intended the meaning of Natural Born Citizen to have been anything other than what it was in the common law, he would have said so—but he never did.

Ray Miller
Ray Miller
5 years ago

Hey Smrstrauss, Find a new hoarse to ride I am Not the birther. I have made no comment about that in years. I have as much distain for ALL of the RINO’s as I do for Doggie-doo. Get your facts and people straight you idiot. In the mean time “GFYS”

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  Ray Miller

Ray Miller, who claimed that John McCain and Mitt Romney and Karl Rove and the Republican Party would lie to hide the fact that Obama’s birth certificate is forged (which it isn’t), now claims that he is not a birther. Well, if so, we agree that Obama really was born in Hawaii. Moreover, since he really was born in Hawaii, and since the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have said repeatedly that ALL the facts on Obama’s published birth certificates are exactly the same as on what they sent him, there, duh, ISN’T ANY MOTIVE TO FORGE his birth… Read more »

Ray Miller
Ray Miller
5 years ago
Reply to  smrstrauss

Again “GFYS” idiot.

SMRSTRAUSS
SMRSTRAUSS
5 years ago
Reply to  Ray Miller

RATIONAL people will see the facts above.

kochglennf@gmail.com
5 years ago

At last this proves it, John McCain is an idiot.

Ray Miller
Ray Miller
5 years ago

I don’t know why, but I am being tied to a Obambam lover, and I assure you all that I AM NOT one of them. No one could have more disgust with him or our Government than me.

Blaine Nay
Blaine Nay
5 years ago
Blaine Nay
Blaine Nay
5 years ago

The presidential elections of 2008 and 2012 have definitively shown that we, the people, don’t care about the Constitution and its demand for a “natural born citizen”. We elected a man whose past is sealed — except for a couple of works of fiction he calls autobiographies. His only publicly-known birth certificate is a forgery. The Constitution, especially the requirement for all government officials to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same” is of no concern to a majority of US… Read more »

Phantom Phlyer
Phantom Phlyer
5 years ago
Reply to  Blaine Nay

Agree – we have dumbed down the electorate or even worse as I said above our government and government schools now either do not teach fundamental Constitutional principles or adulterate them with the new ‘liberal line’ that is is a living changing document. Try that argument on a Brit in regard to the Magna Carta see what happens. Not only have the voters sold out to entitlements over the Constitution but legislators, JUDGES, and executive branch routinely breach faith. The last steadfast defender of the Constitution in office got shot down by the Russians on the way to Korea. Anyone… Read more »

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  Blaine Nay

Re: ” His only publicly-known birth certificate is a forgery.” Answer: There is nothing wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, but birthers do keep claiming that it is forged (Now, I wonder what their motive could be? Answer: The same motive, of course, that led birther sites to post THREE forged “Kenyan birth certificates” and a forged video in which Obama seems to say “I was born in Kenya” (but you cannot see his mouth move when he seems to say it, and the original of the video is available, and it does not mention Kenya or Obama’s place of birth… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
5 years ago
Reply to  smrstrauss

Mr. Strauss,
You seem to be extremely desperate for everyone to believe that Barry’s forged birth certificate is real. The more that you write, however, the less credible that it sounds, particularly with some of the technical responses that have been made by other commentors.

smrstrauss1
smrstrauss1
5 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

IF it had been forged, John McCain or Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan or Karl Rove would have said so, but not one of them ever did. Moreover, we know that birthers—even those who claim to have technical background—-are not adverse to lying about Obama’s place of birth. That is why they ran three forged “Kenyan birth certificates” on their sites and a forged video. So, you can believe what you want, but RATIONAL people know that there is nothing wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, and that birthers are just lying about it over and over. (BTW,… Read more »

Ray Miller
Ray Miller
5 years ago
Reply to  smrstrauss1

Are you kidding ? John McCain, at a political rally said that he thought Obambam would make a great President. This was on a televised speech. McCain, Romney, Ryan, and Karl Rove are what is wrong with our country. they are all useless as you know what on an iron pot. I turn them off anymore when ever they are on TV, or Radio. To say that they disgust me is putting it mildly. John McCain and the RNC put a gag on Sara Palin. They just wanted the name to help their worthless candidate, Little Jon “Pot Head” McCain… Read more »

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  smrstrauss1

Poor Ray Miller thinks that because HE does not like John McCain and Romney and Paul Ryan and Karl Rove all of them would LIE to protect Obama. Well, RATIONAL people know that if there were a shred of a particle of evidence that Obama’s birth certificate were forged, they and all the rest of the Republican and Conservative leaders would be demanding an investigation, but NONE of them did. Conversely, RATIONAL people know that birthers, who lied about what Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said and posted forged “Kenyan birth certificates” and a forged video and a forged “Columbia University Student… Read more »

Phantom Phlyer
Phantom Phlyer
5 years ago

A very nice piece of research. Those of you who want to devolve this into this cult of personalities are missing the point. The point is that we are continually told we cannot know what these phrases and those in the amendments (Bill of Rights) mean and, in particular what the 2A is about. Fact of the matter is that is all disinformation to the average idiot to undermine the Constitution. There is plenty of expository information in the Federalist Papers and other writings contemporary to the authorship of the Constitution that lay out what the intent of these phrases… Read more »

Jes Beard
Jes Beard
5 years ago

You need to read the 14th Amendment. It effectively amends the qualifications for president in addition to the other things it amended. The original qualifications language is what you are focused on — “natural born citizen.” And while there is plenty of room for debate over what that language meant at the time of ratification and what does or doesn’t constitute a “natural born citizen,” the 14th Amendment states as follows: “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… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
5 years ago
Reply to  Jes Beard

The 14th Amendment did not change the original NBC qualification requirement. Look at the words “… “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens…” This clause does not say are natural born citizens.
I am sorry, but I just can not agree with your conclusion.

DrRJP
DrRJP
5 years ago
Reply to  Jes Beard

The 14th Amendment was solely enacted to permit freed Black slaves, and their children, to be recognized as US citizens no matter what State they were born in, or declared a free Man. Freed slaves declared to be US citizens in one state were subsequently arrested as runaway slaves in neighboring states when they crossed state lines.

IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO GRANT CITIZENSHIP TO “ANCHOR BABIES.”

In the case of Minor v. Happersett, the 14th Amendment was deemed irrelevant as both of Minor’s parents were US citizens at the time of her birth.

smrstauss
smrstauss
5 years ago
Reply to  DrRJP

Re: “T WAS NEVER INTENDED TO GRANT CITIZENSHIP TO “ANCHOR BABIES.”

But in fact it does. (Don’t like it? Well all you can do is try to get a Constitutional Amendment that revises the 14th Amendment.)

Rattlerjake
Rattlerjake
5 years ago
Reply to  smrstauss

Actually it doesn’t! It states, “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.” Children born to illegal aliens are NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the US (they pay no taxes, they are not entitled to our services, etc.), they are subject to the jurisdiction of the country that their parents are citizens of, that is why they are DEPORTED! Only a mindless troll would think otherwise, oh, I forgot, you are a libturd, so you ARE a mindless troll!… Read more »

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  Rattlerjake

Re: “” Children born to illegal aliens are NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the US…” Answer: Of course they are. They have to obey US laws, state and federal, and that is what “subject to the jurisdiction” means. The only people in the USA who do not have to obey US laws are the two exceptions cited by the Heritage Foundation, members of the families of foreign diplomats and children of members of invading enemy armies. BTW, a little THINKING always helps. Ask yourself whether a US-born child of an illegal alien can be drafted at the age of… Read more »

drron
drron
5 years ago

I was born a Texan. I am a god loving American of Cherokee descent, not a Cherokee- American. The “GIRL” looks good but I am married to a fat unattractive American women of Mexican descent, we share mutual love, that gives it to me whether I want it or not. Think with the HEAD on your shoulders not the one in your PANTS.

TEX
TEX
5 years ago
Reply to  drron

, I’m so happy that you are a Texan,American of Cherokee decent and not a Cherokee-American ! It’s wonderful that you are so happy with your wife that’s American of Mexican decent too ! God bless you !

TEX
TEX
5 years ago

I want to discuss the babe in the picture ! Yep,I would do her in a heartbeat !

TEX
TEX
5 years ago

Not enough talk about the babe in the picture !! Yep,I would for sure !

gee bud
gee bud
5 years ago
Reply to  TEX

She’s an aussie Anja Konstantinova , Me too I don’t care if she’s a foreigner. We’ll take everyone of those refugees like her. 🙂

gee bud
gee bud
5 years ago
Reply to  TEX

The Babe is Anja Konstantinova an Aussie. I bet you wouldn’t mind her as a refugee

TEX
TEX
5 years ago
Reply to  gee bud

She is Hot ! And I sure wouldn’t mind her as a refugee.

2War Abn Vet
2War Abn Vet
5 years ago

From as far back as any probe has sought to look, everything about Obama has been stonewalled, covered-up, obfuscated, and outright lied about. The Obama Protection Gang will continue to do everything in their power to keep any-and-all facts from coming to light in any future investigation.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  2War Abn Vet

From as far back as any probe has sought to look, birthers have lied and forged documents about Obama’s place of birth. They lied and said that Obamas’ Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya—when she really said that he was born IN HAWAII in three interviews. (In fact, they cut off the tape of one of them just before she was asked where he was born and replied: “In Hawaii, where his father was studying at the time.” Now, what do you suppose the motive was for doing that??) And they forged and posted three “Kenyan birth… Read more »

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  2War Abn Vet

In fact, from as far back as any probe has sought to look, birthers have lied and forged documents about Obama’s place of birth. They lied and said that Obamas’ Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya—when she really said that he was born IN HAWAII in three interviews. (In fact, they cut off the tape of one of them just before she was asked where he was born and replied: “In Hawaii, where his father was studying at the time.” Now, what do you suppose the motive was for doing that??) And they forged and posted three… Read more »

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  smrstrauss

Here is Obama’s short form birth certificate: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/… Here is Obama’s long form birth certificate: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sit… Here are the confirmations of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii, repeated confirmations (and by the way, the one to the secretary of state of Arizona, a conservative Republican, was ACCEPTED by the secretary of state of Arizona, who then put Obama on the ballot): http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/heres-the-… Here is the confirmation by the former governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican (and a strong supporter of Sarah Palin’s), that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital (which, BTW, did exist at… Read more »

TEX
TEX
5 years ago
Reply to  smrstrauss

A really great place for Hussein Obamas presidential library would be his hometown of Kenya ! It sure don’t belong anywhere in the US !

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  TEX

YOU are entitled to your OPINION as to where Obama’s library should be. BUT–Obama was born in Hawaii, and not in Kenya.

Janek
Janek
5 years ago

God save the country in 2016!

Dr-RJP
Dr-RJP
5 years ago

The Folunding Fathers never would have imagined that LBGT & selective gender identity would require a Constitutional Amendment since there is no place for it in the civil and moral society required for a Representative Government to work, as stated by Benjamin Franklin. Nor would they have imagined that the Mainstream Media effectively changed the definition of Article II, Section 1 to require that the POTUS only be born on US soil, and allow a British citizen at birth, and a non-US citizen at birth, with not a smidgen of concrete, valid evidence of ever being born on US soil,… Read more »

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  Dr-RJP

Re: Identity fraud. Answer. Absurd. Obama really was born in Hawaii, and that has been shown OVERWHELMINGLY. Obama has shown the current legal short form and long form birth certificates of Hawaii, and the officials of both parties in Hawaii have confirmed them and all the facts on them. Mitt Romney, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz have all shown only current short form birth certificates (not the original or the long form), and no official in their states or provinces has confirmed that they sent them or the facts on them. Birthers LIE. They lied about what the grandmother said,… Read more »

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago

Obama was not born in Kenya. He was born in Hawaii, and his records are not sealed (That is a standard birther LIE), and neither Obama’s Kenyan grandmother nor any other relative ever said that he was born in Kenya. (Birther sites just lied and said that she did. In fact, she said that Obama was born in HAWAII in three interviews.) And Obama’s birth in Hawaii is also show by his Hawaii birth certificate and the confirmation of the facts on it by the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii, and by the public Index Data file and by… Read more »

Naturalist
Naturalist
5 years ago

Maoscumunist was not born in Hawaii. He Was Born In Kenya. the maoscumunist had all of his records sealed and the certificate of live birth that was presented had been photoshopped many times. The maoscumunist’s grandmother in Kenya said that he was born in Kenya as have several others. A couple people, went to Kenya to dig up the truth were detained and kicked out of the country because they were questioning people who know the truth about the maoscumunist and were close to finding out the real story.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  Naturalist

Obama was born in Hawaii, not in Kenya. And the “records sealed” and the story about people going to Kenya to search and being thrown out are simply birther lies (Now, I wonder what the motive for those lies might be). And the story that Obama’s grandmother said that he was born in Kenya is another standard birther lie. In fact, she said that he was born in HAWAII in three interviews, of which birther sites showed only part of one, carefully cutting off the tape recordings on their sites just before she was asked where Obama was born and… Read more »

Trey
Trey
5 years ago

Wow.. so sorry you had to show how uneducated and self destructive your are mr. korwin. Please make sure to show people at the range this so they can say far far away.

Naturalist
Naturalist
5 years ago

The maoscumunist was not born in Hawaii. He Was Born In Kenya. the maoscumunist had all of his records sealed and the certificate of live birth that was presented had been photoshopped many times. The maoscumunist’s grandmother in Kenya said that he was born in Kenya as have several others. A couple people, went to Kenya to dig up the truth were detained and kicked out of the country because they were questioning people who know the truth about the maoscumunist and were close to finding out the real story.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  Naturalist

Re: “He Was Born in Kenya.” The “born in Kenya” story is the height of the loony side of the birther movement. It is based on alleged birth certificates, like that of Lucas D. Smith, and falsifications––such as the claim that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya—-when she actually said right on the same tape that he was born IN HAWAII, and she said in another interview that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter FROM HAWAII. Lucas D. Smith claimed that he went to Kenya and… Read more »

Naturalist
Naturalist
5 years ago
Reply to  smrstrauss

I really do not care what you have to say about his place of birth, his records, or being or not being a birther issue. Send your reply to Sheriff Joe. He has all the Info on birth of the maobamunist. Unfortunately regardless of where he was born, the maoscumunist is UNQUALIFIED to be in the position that he was elected to and proves it everyday..

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  Naturalist

Re: “Sheriff Joe.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/292780/conspiracy-again-editors

BTW,, he has been promising “earth-shattering evidence” for three or four YEARS now.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
5 years ago
Reply to  smrstrauss

I don’t think that “birthed” is a correct term. I think “truther” is more accurate. I don’t think that we will find out the truth until an honest truth seeking professional investigation is conducted. That won’t happen if Hillary is elected, and still might not happen if a Republican is elected

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  Naturalist

Replying to: “He Was Born in Kenya.” The “born in Kenya” story is the height of the loony side of the birther movement. It is based on alleged birth certificates, like that of Lucas D. Smith, and falsifications––such as the claim that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya—-when she actually said right on the same tape that he was born IN HAWAII, and she said in another interview that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter FROM HAWAII. Lucas D. Smith claimed that he went to Kenya… Read more »

Dave
Dave
5 years ago
Reply to  smrstrauss

Obama himiself said he was born in Kenya. Granted, not much of what he says is actually true.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  Dave

Obama NEVER said that he was born in Kenya. (There is, however, a FORGED video in which he seems to say it. But that was forged by birthers (Now, I wonder why they would do that?? It is a dumb forgery, BTW, because you cannot see his mouth move when he seems to say it—and the original of the video is available, and it does not mention Kenya or Obama’s place of birth at all). So, once again, he did not say it, and, more importantly, it is not true. He really was born in Hawaii. And the evidence is… Read more »

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  Dave

NO. Obama did NOT say that. There is, however, a FORGED video in which birthers claim that he said it, but it is a dumb video because you cannot see his mouth move when he seems to say it (and the original of the video is available, and it does not mention Kenya or Obama’s place of birth at all). And not only did birthers forge that video, they forged THREE “Kenyan birth certificates” in which they claim to prove that Obama was born in Kenya (Now, I wonder why they did that?). And, of course they are easy to… Read more »

TEX
TEX
5 years ago
Reply to  Dave

Husseins mother had said he was born in Kenya. Never heard him admit to it !

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  TEX

YOUR being poorly informed does not change the world. It just shows that you are poorly informed. In this case, you THINK that Obama’s mother said that he was born in Kenya. But she DIDN’T. And, perhaps, you THINK that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya—but she didn’t either. In fact, Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was BORN IN HAWAII in three interviews, of which birther sites showed their readers only part of one of them, carefully cutting off the tape recordings on their sites just before she was asked where he was born and… Read more »

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  TEX

No. She did NOT. BTW your being poorly informed does not change the word. It only shows that you are poorly informed. Obama’s mother did not say that he was born in Kenya. Neither did his Kenyan grandmother. (In fact, she said that Obama was born IN HAWAII. And, she said that he was born in Hawaii in three interviews, of which birthers showed their readers only part of ONE of them, carefully cutting off the tape recordings on their sites just before she was asked where he was born and replied that it was IN HAWAII. And they did… Read more »

smrstrauss1
smrstrauss1
5 years ago
Reply to  TEX

No. She did NOT. BTW your being poorly informed does not change the word. It only shows that you are poorly informed. Obama’s mother did not say that he was born in Kenya. Neither did his Kenyan grandmother. (In fact, she said that Obama was born IN HAWAII. And, she said that he was born in Hawaii in three interviews, of which birthers showed their readers only part of ONE of them, carefully cutting off the tape recordings on their sites just before she was asked where he was born and replied that it was IN HAWAII. And they did… Read more »

Dr-RJP
Dr-RJP
5 years ago
Reply to  smrstrauss

His records ARE sealed. Try getting any records from Punahou High School. Then get back to me if you do.

You won’t because you’re full of sand.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  Dr-RJP

NO, that’s not “sealed.” That’s just the normal state and federal privacy laws, the same laws that apply to your own high school records and to those of Mitt Romney and George Bush and Ted Cruz and Donald Trump—-whose records you cannot get either. (You have heard of privacy laws, haven’t you??)

smrstrauss1
smrstrauss1
5 years ago
Reply to  Naturalist

Obama was not born in Kenya. He was born in HAWAII, and his records are not sealed (That is a standard birther LIE), and neither Obama’s Kenyan grandmother nor any other relative ever said that he was born in Kenya. (Birther sites just lied and said that she did. In fact, she said that Obama was born in HAWAII in three interviews.) And Obama’s birth in Hawaii is also show by his Hawaii birth certificate and the confirmation of the facts on it by the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii, and by the public Index Data file and by… Read more »

Naturalist
Naturalist
5 years ago
Reply to  smrstrauss1

I did not make up the story of couple of people who went to Kenya to dig up information. I believe one of them was John Lott.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  Naturalist

You CLAIM that you did not make it up, but all you say is “I believe that one of them was John Lott.” Well, show some confirmation that John Lott took that trip and that he investigated Obama’s place of birth and that he was thrown out. Otherwise it remains A FANTASY. Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate (short form and long form) and the confirmation of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii and the Index Data and the 1961 birth notices stored on two microfilm rolls in two different libraries are not fantasies. Neither is the fact that birthers forged… Read more »

Naturalist
Naturalist
5 years ago
Reply to  smrstrauss

Liberals progressive demoncrap commies spread lies everyday. I do not have to lie, and it was not a FANTASY. I do know that I saw a couple of articles several years ago on the detaining of two american reporters asking the maoscumunist’s relatives questions about the POS in the oval mosque. Ireally don’t vcare what you think. You are entitled to you own opinion, and I am entitled to mine.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  smrstrauss

Notice that Naturalist has simply repeated the claim without providing a lick of evidence. Naturalist claims that there were “a couple of articles” but cannot provide links to them, and Naturalist try’s to make rational people believe that what Naturalist CLAIMS to remember is proof that Obama was born in Kenya despite his HAWAII birth certificate, confirmed by the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii and by the Index Data and by the birth notices in the 1961 Hawaii newspapers (in a section that only the DOH could put notices in and when the DOH only sent notices for births… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
5 years ago
Reply to  smrstrauss

I think that Nat. has an interesting point: Why can liberals say anything that they want, but not provide any proof, but conservatives have to provide proof? That technique is really saying that the conservative has no credibility, but the liberal is completely credible no matter what they say (or write.)

Then, when the conservative does provide proof, the liberal accuses them of some politically incorrectness in order to destroy the conservative’s credibility. I don’t know if the liberals are following the Clinton example or maybe there is a book some where that instructs liberals how to get their way.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  Naturalist

Replying to: “Why can liberals say anything that they want, but not provide any proof…”

Answer: Glad you mentioned proof.

Links to a great deal of proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii appears in the posting beginning: “From as far back as any probe has sought to look, birthers have lied and forged documents about Obama’s place of birth” below.

Dr-RJP
Dr-RJP
5 years ago
Reply to  smrstrauss1

His “birth certificate” you may be looking at is a forgery I created. (‘I created Obama’s certification of birth’ http://po.st/VFPpYH via @worldnetdaily & “Forged creation matches Obama’s birth certificate” http://po.st/bb6ubs via @worldnetdaily) His so-called “long-form birth certificate” was debunked by everyone & his mother. I, however, looked deeper (*Expert: ‘Forger’ of Obama birth record left red herring http://po.st/kmukMj via @worldnetdaily) https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5B24DFDF4854A026 Your claim is flat-out false & I’ll bet you any amount of money that I can prove it’s false. Hawaii REFUSED to validate his birth certificate. Hawaii is complicit in Obama’s identity fraud: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4854DF6AF38C417D Alias Barack Obama: The greatest… Read more »

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  Dr-RJP

The claim that Obama’s birth certificate comes from the SAME motive that led birther sites to LIE and say that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya, when she actually said that he was BORN IN HAWAII. And, he really was born in Hawaii as his birth certificate and the confirmations of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii and the Index Data file and the 1961 birth notices sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii all show. Layers are NORMAL when a complex document is scanned and put into PDF and then that PDF… Read more »

gee bud
gee bud
5 years ago

The girl in the pic is Anja Konstantinova an Australian. Shows the ignorance of some of the authors of these purposly divisive articles . I also doubt Ammoland has the required permissions to use Photo as it is copywrited .

gee bud
gee bud
5 years ago
Reply to  gee bud

Ammoland should stick to guns and ammo articles there propagada BS really makes them look incredibly stupid and amateurish

Naturalist
Naturalist
5 years ago

T-Rump the Lying, Liberal, Demoncrap, Narcissist, Anti-Gun, Charlatan says he cannot be bought. That is because he is busy buying everybody.

CoosaTotahK9
CoosaTotahK9
5 years ago

What a conglomerate of personal ideas and ideologies, both in the article and in the comments, being injected into the original thoughts and reasonings of the Founding Fathers. Our Founding Fathers knew they could not make a direct law concerning the abstract mental ideology of a person as a candidate for the office of President, so, they tried to do the next best thing. They tried to limit the population from which that candidate could come, thereby limiting the “learned from and passed down from parents and social environment” ideology and mental state. In doing so this would, hopefully, develop… Read more »

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  CoosaTotahK9

Re: “as a foreign student….” Answer: Obama was never a foreign student. Birthers made that all up. (Now, I wonder why—what do you suppose the motive was??) BTW, Obama is a Natural Born US citizen and hence eligible to be president, which is of course why the Chief Justice of the United States swore him in after each election, and it is also why Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and Karl Rove and the Republican Party did not object. (Neither did Ann Coulter or Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or Gingrich or Santorum or Ron Paul or Rand Paul or… Read more »

CountryBoy
CountryBoy
5 years ago

So, if you can PROVE that Obama’s Presidency was ILLEGAL, then that would make everything he did in the last 8 years INVALID…..

So, PROVE IT…… and w can undo the MISTAKE of the las 8 years….

Rick
Rick
5 years ago

All candidates except Trump is a career politician.
Poly = Many
Titian = Face (That where the word beautician comes from)
Go Figure it out.
Doubt the elite will let him live. Remember Reagan, they tried to take him out too.

Silent Revolution

PeterV
PeterV
5 years ago

Of course the 14th Amendment changed the meaning of the word “Citizen” in Article II: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States …” So the prior interpretation based on the pre-revolutionary Law of Nations no longer applies.

But the words “natural born” still apply.

PA
PA
5 years ago

Naturalization act of 1790 gives some more insight into the definition of “natural born citizen”. “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.” Approved March 26, 1790.

larry
larry
5 years ago

Congress has the power to decide the matter and did in the 1700’s in case any of you legal genius’s care to check it out.

JACK
JACK
5 years ago

I prefer to see “ON U.S. SOIL” as being ON U.S. SOIL ……. Close just doesn’t get it for me.

Darren
Darren
5 years ago
Reply to  JACK

People, the point of my comment is that the book Alan cites, The Law of Nations, is actually much stronger on the idea that one is a citizen of one’s parents country than where one happens to be born. The relevant sentence is “By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him…” By that standard Larry, Curly, & Moe….I mean Obama,… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
5 years ago
Reply to  Darren

Fathers not parents. Had the fathers been American, they you would have been correct.

Darren
Darren
5 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

Let’s update to the 21st century. Back then fathers, today parents. Don’t be so literal minded.

smrstrauss1
smrstrauss1
5 years ago
Reply to  Darren

And besides, there is no evidence that the writers of the US Constitution followed Vattel and considerable evidence that they followed THE COMMON LAW, which was based on jus soli.

Rattlerjake
Rattlerjake
5 years ago
Reply to  Darren

Well another moron has spoken! The Constitution is not a “living document”, it’s meaning is EXACTLY as it was in the 1700’s. It doesn’t change with the changing of current language. The ONLY way that the definitions/meanings of anything contained in the Constitution can be changed is by constitutional amendment, which has NOT BEEN DONE for fathers, parents, Natural Born Citizen, etc.! Of course if you were actually intelligent this wouldn’t need to be explained to you!

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  Darren

To: ” Rattlerjake.”

The meaning of the Natural Born Citizen clause is exactly the same today as when it was written, and as the writings of Tucker and Rawle (who KNEW the writers of the US Constitution) shows, the meaning comes from the common law and includes EVERY child born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats and members of an invading enemy army. The term comes from the common law and not from Vattel.

Rattlerjake
Rattlerjake
5 years ago
Reply to  Darren

Again, snrsstrauss1, you are lying out your ass! “in 1775, Benjamin Franklin commented on the immense importance of de Vattel’s The Law of Nations, then ordered three copies of the latest editions to be added to the Library Company of Philadelphia. On December 9 of 1775, Franklin wrote to de Vattel’s editor, C.G.F. Dumas, “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I… Read more »

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  Darren

Re: “Franklin commented on importance of Vattel’s Law of Nations.” Yes, he said they read the book. But, guess what, they read a lot of OTHER books too. In particular, they read a great deal of Blackstone, who said that everh child born on the soil was Natural Born. More importantly, Vattel is not mentioned even ONCE in the Federalist Papers, while the common law is mentioned about fifteen times and Blackstone five times. Oh, and BTW, Vattel recommended several things that we did not adopt—like a class of nobility and a state religion. In short, if the writers of… Read more »

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  Darren

Re David Ramsay:

Yes that is what Ramsay did CLAIM. But his claim went to a vote in the US Congress, and he lost—in fact, he lost 36-1.

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/04/the-eligibility-debate-in-congress/

Darren
Darren
5 years ago

If you’re going to cite the Law of Nations don’t cherry pick. It also reads: “§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country. “It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature… Read more »

Douglas Sharp
Douglas Sharp
5 years ago
Reply to  Darren

Bingo. Besides by allowing the Kenyan, democrats have also set legal precident allowing the others to be legitimate as well. Bozos, yes but at least Ted Cruz will defend the Constitution. He gets it.

DrSique
DrSique
5 years ago
Reply to  Douglas Sharp

Can’t blame the “Obama precident” completely on the democrats. The spineless republcan led Congress has done exactly nothing to rectify the situation. A pox on both of their houses.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  Douglas Sharp

Re: “Kenyan.”

Obama was born IN HAWAII—-and that has been proven overwhelmingly.

Trees
Trees
5 years ago
Reply to  smrstrauss

That is a big crock. The place/hospital listed on his birth certificate didn’t even exist when he was born.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  Trees

THAT is a big crock. The story that “the hospital did not exist” or that it had a different name was MADE UP BY BIRTHERS. The simple fact is that it DID exist and it had exactly the same name as on Obama’s birth certificate. Don’t believe me? Well there is a simple way to check. CALL the hospital and ASK. Here’s the telephone number: :(808) 983-6000 Call that number (During office hours in Hawaii time, of course), ask for the Public Relations Department and ASK. BTW, the birth certificates of the Nordyke Twins on the WND (which is a… Read more »

Brian Sexton
Brian Sexton
5 years ago
Reply to  Darren

Wrong. Cause their fathers were not U S citizens at the time of their birth. That is according the Law of Nations. That children follow their father. Well then. All three of them were born while their father was not a United States citizen.

Gabedini
Gabedini
5 years ago
Reply to  Brian Sexton

That’s assuming you define the citizenship on their fathers, which was appropriate for the time because children, like wives, were the property of their husbands. Today, as you would see in divorce court, children belong to their mother, she was American, Ted is American.

gabedini
gabedini
5 years ago
Reply to  Darren

thank you for clarifying this. So many people love to cherry-pick this because for some reason they really hate Ted Cruz. Whether or not you like Ted Cruz, it is still wrong to cherry-pick facts when you know you’re in fact, misconstruing the truth,

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
5 years ago
Reply to  Darren

If Section 215 states “…children follow the condition of their fathers and enter into all their rights…etc, etc.); and Soeroro’s (aka Obama) father was Kenyan how would this section qualify him for POTUS? If Cruz’s father was Canadian at the time of Cruz’s birth, how would that help Cruz’s claim that he is qualified?
I think by that standard, the clowns are not NBCs.

Rattlerjake
Rattlerjake
5 years ago
Reply to  Darren

Wrong! As usual, you are confusing two terms, citizen and Natural Born Citizen!

“It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens?” It did NOT ask whether they were Natural Born Citizens. The term citizen is the same as NATIONAL. When you look in the Naturalization Act and other documents they often refer to US nationals, which are those citizens born to citizen parents or parent, in country or outside the country, BUT THEY DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE NATURAL BORN CITIZENS!

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  Rattlerjake

You MAY be right about Cruz, who was born on foreign soil, but Obama was born on US soil, in Hawaii, and that has been shown overwhelmingly.

And, as the Heritage Foundation book and the Wong Kim Ark ruling and some twenty or so appeals courts (want to see quotations from their rulings?) all have said or ruled EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats and of members of an invading enemy army.

Rattlerjake
Rattlerjake
5 years ago
Reply to  smrstrauss

Yes I want you to produce where it says, ” EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats and of members of an invading enemy army.” Don’t provide opinion, provide the link to an actual legal document!

As far as your constant claims that the Heritage Foundation supports your claim, who cares, Anything from them is nothing but opinion.
And of course you are again making misstatements about the Wong Kim Ark ruling. That case had NOTHING to do with natural born citizens, it referred to “native-born” citizens.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
5 years ago
Reply to  Rattlerjake

My hat is off to you Rattler! I just did not have the stamina to put up with this… what was it he was described as? Oh, yeah, a “relentless, prevaricating shill…” He throws in so much distortion, misdirection, and deception that I could stand it no longer. None of his appellate cases are controlling, none mind you. And I doubt if he Shepardized them for opposing cases (a common trick)!
It occurs to me that without you to debate, he would have no social life at all. Bite him again, Rattler, bite him, again!

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  Rattlerjake

The WKA ruling was about citizenship, but courts have ruled that when a discussion of something is part of the LOGIC of the case it is part of the ruling, and without question the discussion of Natural Born Citizen status was part of the logic of the case—-which is why about ten or so courts have all cited that ruling. (Don’t like it? Tough. That is the law, and BTW, the current US Supreme Court refused to take an appeal of one of those rulings, leaving that ruling and all the others STANDING.) “All persons born in the allegiance of… Read more »

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  Rattlerjake

Re “not controlling.” Actually, they ARE controlling, and the “you gotta have two citizen parents” side lost in every single one of them. That means that in ALL of those area where those appeals courts ruled, THAT is the law unless and until overturned by a higher court, and birthers have either chosen not to appeal the rulings or in fact did appeal at least one of the to the US Supreme Court, which turned down the appeal. Oh, and BTW, Obama was sworn in the the chief justice of the USA and John McCain and Sarah Palin and Mitt… Read more »

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  Rattlerjake

Re: “And of course you are again making misstatements about the Wong Kim Ark ruling. That case had NOTHING to do with natural born citizens, it referred to “native-born” citizens.” Answer: Here is what it actually said: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law. And it is the rule of this country as well as of England…We find on warrant for the opinion that this great principle of… Read more »

Joe
Joe
5 years ago

When I read the headline I thought this might be the start of a good joke. But now I realize the joke is on the USA, it is just circling the toilet, and no one cares. Lets just argue about how evil each candidate is, and then we end up with killary and 4 more years of obungle related policies.

Chuck M
Chuck M
5 years ago

I just clicked the story for the babe. I don’t know what
shes selling, but she’s got my vote.

Kenneth S
Kenneth S
5 years ago
Reply to  Chuck M

Another one here,

Adam
Adam
5 years ago

Ummm with all due respect, Article II actually says: “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.” Notice the comma before and after: “, or a Citizen of the United States,” A comma essentially lets the author of a sentence add an extra thought/noun/verb/etc. into that… Read more »

Bud
Bud
5 years ago
Reply to  Adam

I love it. In as much as few have any understanding of sentence structure your logic is wonderful. Commas change everything. When writing papers at the graduate level my professor’s complaint was that I used too few of them. It seems they had a lot more to do with clarity than I realized.

Adam
Adam
5 years ago
Reply to  Bud

I don’t know how it happened…but my first comment to Raymond Miller below was supposed to be here. I replied to both the same evening, but for some reason it took my comment for you can combined it with his.

Either that, or I am ignorant in this field too 🙂

Take care and God bless!

Raymond Miller
5 years ago
Reply to  Adam

Well put and though I was/am horrible at sentence structure, the one thing that sunk in was the coma. I was taught that you test the sentence by skipping the part in commas. If the sentence made sense without that part then it was correct, and it was like an after thought or further explanation. So reading this with that in mind I can more easily understand why Ted Cruz is eligible to be President. If he weren’t there would be more than a few saying it. And personally citizen or not he means what he says and says what… Read more »

Adam
Adam
5 years ago
Reply to  Raymond Miller

ME TOO! And thank you for the kind reply…all too often a statement on internet boards turns into a degenerated argument between frustrated illiterates. The reason I never have done it before. Three things I care about in life are God, Family, and our US Constitution, so when I read this I was hoping someone pointed this out but not by the time I initially posted this. However, I cannot take any credit there. After BO (yes, I call him that because he stinks 🙂 was electected, a few friends and I started researching it. Up until that point in… Read more »

Adam
Adam
5 years ago
Reply to  Raymond Miller

Thank you sir for pointing that out too, you’re exactly right. Testing it in that way, as long as it still makes sense, means the commas are correct – typically. It doesn’t mean the sentence is true or not during the test, just that it still reads correctly.

Excellent point!

davidfarrar
davidfarrar
5 years ago
Reply to  Adam

No Person except a natural born Citizen at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President. No Person except a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President. What this states is that only natural born Citizens “after” the Adoption of this Constitution are eligible to the Office of President as there were no natural born US citizens meeting the other requirements at the the Adoption of this Constitution. Whereas the meaning and limitation of “Citizen of the… Read more »

Adam
Adam
5 years ago
Reply to  davidfarrar

I am sorry sir, that is just not correct. The Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620. Our Constitution was not ratified until 1788. 1778 – 1620 = 158 years of Natural Born Citizens. There were many Natural Born Citizens at the time all this was happening. George Washington was born in Pope’s Creek, Virginia on Feb 22, 1732. John Adams was born in Braintree, Massachusetts. I could go on, but why?

Rattlerjake
Rattlerjake
5 years ago
Reply to  Adam

Hey dumbass! You can’t be a natural born citizen of a nation that DOES NOT EXIST! Although there were plenty of people born on this continent, they were citizens of ENGLAND, or numerous other countries that had legal jurisdiction over them. The United States of America did not exist until the ratification of the Constitution, that is why the addition of …”or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” was added. There would not be a true eligible Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America for at least 36 years!

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  Rattlerjake

Hundreds of former colonies have become independent in the last century or two, and they ALL deal with citizenship the same way: that the people who were born in the place before it was independent become at the moment of it becoming independent Natural Born Citizens of the new country. So why was the Grandfather Clause added? Birther will not like it, but the reason was not to make George Washington eligible—he was a Natural Born US citizen at birth, as the practice of all the former colonies have shown (see the paragraph above). So, who was it for? Answer:… Read more »

Adam
Adam
5 years ago
Reply to  Rattlerjake

“Hey dumbass”? Really? Earlier I wrote: “all too often a statement on internet boards turns into a degenerated argument between frustrated illiterates.” Thank you for proving my point.

Degenerating a conversation to name calling does not prove your point, nor does it help your side of any argument; unless of course your manual was written by Saul Alinsky.

Dave
Dave
5 years ago
Reply to  davidfarrar

I think it is EQUALLY important (though not listed) that the POTUS should have been brought up in this country so that his/’her value system are American – instead of (case in point – Indonesian). Where Obama was born is one thing. Where his heart is, and where his values were formed is another!!

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  Dave

Sure, but your side lost the last two elections. The majority—and it was a clear majority of both the popular and the Electoral College vote—–sided with Obama over both John McCain and Mitt Romney. (BTW, the US Constitution only requires 14 years of residence. If you feel that it insufficient, then you have the right to propose a Constitutional Amendment [but it isn’t likely to pass].)

Rattlerjake
Rattlerjake
5 years ago
Reply to  smrstrauss

Here’s where you show your ignorance again. The right didn’t lose anything. Ovomit was not elected, by either the popular vote or the electoral vote, he was put in office through compromise of the voting system, and anyone who believes otherwise has a brain the size of a BB!
The coming election will be manipulated even worse. The left cannot afford to allow Trump to get in office or the North American Union will never be completed.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  smrstrauss

Re: Obama not being elected.

Sure, sure, and do you also believe in the Tooth Fairy?

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
5 years ago
Reply to  Adam

You know of course that English punctuation, spelling, and even the some of the letters of the alphabet were different then. Then fs is now ss. Notice how young persons call a period a dot, as in dot com (.com)? Notice how I used a comma after the word spelling? That is how I was taught, but now that comma is considered superfluous. Or, perhaps, someone just made a comma fault. I think that the fact of being born on American soil and at least fourteen years a resident as a guarantee of loyalty is the controlling context, not the… Read more »

Hateful Hermit
Hateful Hermit
5 years ago

It’s hilarious that you think that we should vote for a president because of where they were born instead of what their principles are… Natural born means born an America, which all of those candidates were. I prefer the person that will support and defend the constitution to the one I’m pretty sure has never even read it. I know it’s hard to argue for Trump based on his actual policies, history, and actions, especially when compared to Cruz, but at least try instead of trying to force the others out of the running based on geography…

Clark Kent
Clark Kent
5 years ago
Reply to  Hateful Hermit

The founding fathers disagree. Take it up with them.

JCB
JCB
5 years ago
Reply to  Clark Kent

Here is the actual wording of the qualifications for President in Article II: “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” Often overlooked in the discussion, either unintentionally or intentionally, is the clause following the natural born citizen clause, ” or a Citizen of the United… Read more »

DaveW
DaveW
5 years ago
Reply to  JCB

So, under your interpretation, Adolf Hitler could have been elected POTUS. considering the very large numbers of German Americans, Italian Americans, and Japanese Americans living in the USA at the time, who strongly supported Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo, it might have happened. Look into the history of the German Bundt. There are laws covering citizenship. Many of those are covered by treaties with other nations. One example is covered by the Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) under which a child born to an American military member serving in a foreign nation is considered to have been born in the USA.… Read more »

TucsonJoe
TucsonJoe
5 years ago
Reply to  JCB

The framers of the Constitution needed a starting point for citizenship, so the clause, “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” was included for just that purpose, and that purpose alone. Otherwise, our country would have had to wait 35 years for someone born after ratification of the Constitution to have a President! That point was also covered in the communications between Washington, Franklin and CJ John Jay.

freewill
freewill
5 years ago
Reply to  TucsonJoe

the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock approximately 1600 AD, 187 years before the Constitution, our founders somehow knew that a person born and raised in another country, might not be loyal to the freedoms they fought for…it might be worth your while to search the birthplace of ALL the presidents

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
5 years ago
Reply to  JCB

Dear JCB,
I must congratulate you on a most tortured logic. Just because the founders made an exception for themselves, does not mean that they intended an exception for anyone that came later.
The exception indicates that they knew that there rule would exclude some of the founders who had not been born on American soil, and that they intended to exclude anyone that came later who was not born on American soil. Occam’s razor cuts to the heart of the matter, once again.

Ricochet
Ricochet
5 years ago
Reply to  JCB

I don’t believe a qualified candidate at that time could have been born on foreign soil, but only in the colonies. Even so, they could have had parents who were Tories. Every U.S. President has been born on “U.S. soil”, although in the case of early presidents, it was known as the American colonies rather than the United States at the time they were born. Once the U.S.A. had survived long enough to provide subsequent generations of Americans who were born after the Constitution was adopted, then could the term natural born citizen properly include children of Americans who were… Read more »

Rattlerjake
Rattlerjake
5 years ago
Reply to  Ricochet

WAKE UP!!!!! There were no Presidents before the Constitution was ratified, because there was NO United States. So your firrst three sentences show that YOU don’t even understand what went on. The war was fought, the colonies won, the founding fathers got together and wrote the Constitution, the current colonies ratified it, at that point the United States was born and the first President was elected! Also at that point, those that remained in the “NEW” United States AUTOMATICALLY became US citizens, any children born to those citizens (both parent citizens) in those states, became Natural Born Citizens. The founders… Read more »

SMRSTRAUSS
SMRSTRAUSS
5 years ago
Reply to  Ricochet

Re: “Lack of transparency during an electiion campaign certainly doesn’t add up to being very transparent once in office.” Are you referring to the fact that Donald Trump has refused to show his long form birth certificate and his tax returns? McCain, BTW, was born on a US military base—which flies the US flag and operates under US law. Yes, he was born on the military base, the naval base, and not in Colon Hospital (which notion comes from a FORGED birth certificate created by one of McCain’s enemies). Re: “They would have forced Obama to put up or shut… Read more »

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  Ricochet

Re: “There were no Presidents before the Constitution was ratified, because there was NO United States.” The United States began on July 4, 1776 and the US Constitution was ratified in the year 1790, so you have your dating wrong. But I take your point that before the US became independent, there wasn’t a US, there were a set of colonies—13 of them. So, one of the birther myths is that George Washington, who was born long before 1776 could not have been a Natural Born US citizen because, duh, when he was born there wasn’t a USA. We know… Read more »

Dan
Dan
5 years ago
Reply to  Clark Kent

Ironic that the one promoting Cruz as a defender of the constitution tosses the constitution aside because it is inconvenient. Why did Cruz sell out the 2nd amendment in his Heller brief?

TEX
TEX
5 years ago
Reply to  Hateful Hermit

You actually think being born in Kenya African like Hussein Obama was is considered American born ? Really ? Next you will say that badly counterfeited Hawaiian birth certificate makes Hussein Obama an American born citizen !

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  TEX

Obama was born IN HAWAII, not in Kenya. Obama showed BOTH his short form and his long form birth certificate from Hawaii. BOTH of them. And the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that they sent them both to him and that ALL the facts on the copies that were published are EXACTLY the same as on what they sent him. And Obama’s birth in Hawaii has also been confirmed by (1) the public Index Data file; (2) the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 and stored on two… Read more »

Snowdin
Snowdin
5 years ago
Reply to  smrstrauss

Unfortunately liberal Anti-gun trolls like you who voted twice for the POS in the oval office and your lying left biased media are the reason why this country is going to hell in a hand basket so quickly. I have looked at your references and all of them come from liberal lying left biased media sources. If that is the best you can do than you are one sorry case who believes anything that the liberal lying left puts in your face. Just another one of the sheeple.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  Snowdin

RATIONAL people will see the facts above.

Rattlerjake
Rattlerjake
5 years ago
Reply to  smrstrauss

There are NO FACTS in what you have stated. Ovomit provided a fraudulent document for both certificates, that is fact, proven by a MOUNTAIN of experts, yet because the “government ” has refused to act on it, just as they refuse to hold Hitlery accountable for her numerous crimes, you believe it. You are just another POS that has led to the destruction of this nation!

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  Rattlerjake

Re: “Mountain of experts.” Answer: Those are BIRTHER experts including the nut Doug Vogt, who claims to have found “the original Altar of Abraham” (but never showed it, now I wonder why not?), and the zealot Paul Irey, who has claimed that Obama did not attend Columbia College, despite Columbia University having said that in fact he did attend and in fact graduated (Now, I wonder how fair and impartial Paul Irey could be??). BTW, birther sites have not shown you these real experts. Dr. Neil Krawetz, an imaging software analysis author and experienced examiner of questioned images, said:“The PDF… Read more »

DrRJP
DrRJP
5 years ago
Reply to  smrstrauss

And I proved, every which way (including Sunday) that both documents are forged fakes. Obama has NEVER provided a scintilla of objectively validated, concrete evidence of where he was actually born (I know where it was, however). Obama has had a large cadre of people (both in government and in the private sector, like the far-left web sites, Factcheck, Politifact, & Snopes) lying through their teeth about him. The rest simply bought into the repetitive lies spread by the MSM and took his fairy tale collection of memoirs, “Dreams From My Father,” (written by Bill Ayers) as the Gospel truth.… Read more »

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  DrRJP

Re: “And I proved, every which way (including Sunday)…” Answer: Sure you did. Sure. Sure (and do you also believe in the Tooth Fairy?) BTW, birther sites have not shown you these real experts. Dr. Neil Krawetz, an imaging software analysis author and experienced examiner of questioned images, said:“The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious.” Nathan Goulding with The National Review: “We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are… Read more »

TEX
TEX
5 years ago
Reply to  DrRJP

The African Muslim is out of our White House on 1-20-17 ! Don’t give the parasite that extra day !

TEX
TEX
5 years ago
Reply to  DrRJP

I’m sure as the very second Trump or Cruz is sworn in as president Hussein Obama will be arrested and taken into federal custody ! That will make a wonderful history lesson to any future tyrants also ! At the very least deport the African born Muslim back to Kenya, Africa ! The amount of federal felony counts that could be filed against Hussein Obama would boggle the mind.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  DrRJP

Re: “Hussein Obama will be arrested and taken into federal custody…” On what grounds? IF there had been a shred of evidence that Obama had committed any crime (or even a misdemeanor), the Republicans in Congress would have held impeachment hearings on it long ago. BTW, Obama really was born in Hawaii—-and that has been proven overwhelmingly—-and he really is a Natural Born US Citizen. (Which is why the chief justice of the USA swore him in, and John McCain and Sarah Palin and MItt Romney and Paul Ryan and Karl Rove and the Republican Party did not object. Neither… Read more »

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  TEX

Obama was born IN HAWAII, not in Kenya.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
5 years ago
Reply to  smrstrauss

I don’t think Barry Soetoro (aka Barak Obama) will be arrested and charged for steeling from a six million dollar grant that he administered while he was a “community organizer” and he has been living openly and notoriously. We have not, however, forgotten that the “sloppy accounting” showed that only two million of the six million dollars was spent on what the grant was for. We are not saying that Barry stole all four million dollars because Bill Ayers was helping soon to be Senator Soetoro (aka Obama) with the grant, but that is just one example of what President… Read more »

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

STOP making things up. NONE of that is true. RATIONAL people know that if there were a hint of evidence that any of that took place, the Republican presidential candidates would have been all over it. Birthers do not mind lying, however. BTW, neither Obama nor MIchelle were disbarred either.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  TEX

The fact is that Obama really was born in Hawaii, not in Kenya. Obama really was born in Hawaii, as shown by his HAWAII birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials of both parties in Hawaii and the Index Data file and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers in 1961 (and only the DOH could send birth notices to that section of the newspapers and it only did so for births in Hawaii). Oh, and birther sites LIED when they said that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya. She really said that he… Read more »

David Farrar
David Farrar
5 years ago
Reply to  smrstrauss

Some Stanley Ann Dunham passport file documents are finally released after over a year and a half of Mr. Christopher Earl Strunk requesting and then suing to get the information released in the Strunk vs Dept of State FOIA case. This information should have been been released long ago per his initial FOIA request filed back in Oct 2008. But as with everything with Mr. Obama and his early life, the cover up is maintained as long as possible and then when the files are released things that should be there are missing. It required a federal lawsuit to even… Read more »

SSGRick
SSGRick
5 years ago
Reply to  smrstrauss

And in 1961 18 year olds were NOT LEGALLY of age and therefore could NOT confer citizenship. SHE WAS NOT A LEGAL ADULT! Tell me how did she give birth in August in HI while enrolled at a Washington State College attending classes? Back in ’61 women didn’t drop a kid on the 4th of a month and travel some 2000 plus miles three to four weeks later. The entire o-blame-o fiasco is the BIGGEST LIE ever perpetrated on ANY PEOPLE ANYWHERE! As to your claims about the Kenyan government…what a load of c rap,, his so-called father was deeply… Read more »

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  SSGRick

Classes at the U of Washington began in late September and she gave birth in early August.

smrstrauss1
smrstrauss1
5 years ago
Reply to  SSGRick

Classes at the U. of Washington (which is what she attended, not Wash. State) began in late September and she gave birth in early August. So she took her nearly two month old infant with her from Hawaii to Seattle Washington What is unusual about that? Re: “Back in ’61 women didn’t drop a kid on the 4th of a month and travel some 2000 plus miles three to four weeks later.” Back in 1961 women without passports (and there is NO indication that Obama’s mother had one and very few 18-year-olds did have them) did not travel abroad AT… Read more »

smrstrauss1
smrstrauss1
5 years ago
Reply to  SSGRick

The stuff about the mother having to be 18-years-old applies only to births outside the USA. For births inside the USA—and Obama was born in Hawaii—it does not apply at all. And, BTW, classes at the U. of Washington (NOT Wash. State) began in late September and she gave birth in early August—nearly eight weeks before.

smrstrauss1
smrstrauss1
5 years ago
Reply to  SSGRick

Re: “Not legally of age”. Answer: There is nothing in US law that says that the child of an 18-year-old born in the USA is not a Natural Born Citizen, and Obama was born in HAWAII. Re: “Washington State.” Answer: Actually, it was the University of Washington in Seattle, and classes there begin in late September and Obama was born in early August—meaning that he was an infant of five weeks or more when carried on a plane from Honolulu to Seattle. (And there is nothing wrong with that. It is, of course, a great DEAL safer for everyone concerned… Read more »

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  SSGRick

Replying to: “Not legally of age”. Answer: There is nothing in US law that says that the child of an 18-year-old born in the USA is not a Natural Born Citizen, and Obama was born in HAWAII. Re: “Washington State.” Answer: Actually, it was the University of Washington at Seattle, and classes there begin in late September, and Obama was born in early August—meaning that he was an infant of five weeks or more when carried on a plane from Honolulu to Seattle. (And there is nothing wrong with that. It is, of course, a great DEAL safer for everyone… Read more »

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  SSGRick

Re: “Not legally of age”. Answer: There is nothing in US law that says that the child of an 18-year-old born in the USA is not a Natural Born Citizen, and Obama was born in HAWAII. Re: “Washington State.” Answer: Actually, it was the University of Washington in Seattle, and classes there begin in late September, and Obama was born in early August—meaning that he was an infant of five weeks or more when carried on a plane from Honolulu to Seattle. (And there is nothing wrong with that. It is, of course, a great DEAL safer for everyone concerned… Read more »

freewill
freewill
5 years ago
Reply to  smrstrauss

his certificate is fake, they were not politically correct in 1961, his dad is listed African..that is not a race..in 1961 they used the word, Negro, his Mother was listed as Caucasian, that word wasnt used..it was White….he was born Barry not Barrack..he changed his name when he became a Muslim..there is no mention of his certificate being altered..if he was legal..then he would authorize the Bureau of Vital Statistics to release that original certificate

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  freewill

Re: African. The answer is very very very very simple. So simple that even YOU can understand it. It is that in HAWAII you are allowed to put down ANY word or combination of words to describe your race. Nobody stands over you and tells you what to put down, and there is no checklist of races. And that was true in 1961 also. You could put down Negro or black or brown or “colored” or Caucasian or white or even Italian or Swedish or American (which certainly is not a race, but there are some “American” listings in Hawaii.… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
5 years ago
Reply to  freewill

Dear Mr. Strauss,
Insults and hearsay are no way to convince readers of the rightness of your argument. Even if you were correct, readers don’t get past the insult. I called that number, and it just rang and rang.
Oh, and (most politely) how do you know that is the way things were in 1961 Hawaii?
Oh, and also, could you address the allegation that Barry uses the SSAN of a deceased man from Connecticut, please?

2War Abn Vet
2War Abn Vet
5 years ago
Reply to  freewill

smrstrauss: “African” is not a race! For example, John Kerry’s wife is African, but her race is Caucasian.

freewill
freewill
5 years ago
Reply to  freewill

@smrstrauss, Recording Race…basic race categories are..Black, White, Asian American Indian or Alaskan Native, or Native Hawaian or other pacific islander

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  freewill

Re: ” I called that number, and it just rang and rang.”

You have to call during office hours HAWAII TIME, of course.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  freewill

Re: “African” is not a race! ” Answer: Of course not. But then neither is Italian or for that matter American. And both of those appear as the race of parents on Hawaiian birth certificates as for example so does Samoan and Samoan/American and American/Samoan and Korean-Hawaiian-Chinese-White. Get it? You could and still can use ANY word or combination of words—-and if you don’t believe me, call that number and ASK. And you were and still are allowed to use those words too. Get it? You are and were then too allowed to use ANY word or combination of words… Read more »

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  freewill

Re: “Oh, and also, could you address the allegation that Barry uses the SSAN of a deceased man from Connecticut, please?” Answer” No problem at all. You are simply out of date on that story, both the “he used Ludwig’s SS number” (Ludwig was the CT man) and the “he used Harrison J. Bounel’s SS number” have now been disproved. You simply did not hear about it. Ludwig’s SS number has now been published, and the number was—-wait for it—NOT the same as Obama’s. And the “Harrison J. Bounel” story has been disproved a different way. Birthers demanded that the… Read more »

Rattlerjake
Rattlerjake
5 years ago
Reply to  smrstrauss

The fact remains that NONE of the “crap” you insist on stating about “birthers”, the birth certificate, SSNs, or Ovomit’s claim to be born in Hawaii, mean jack-shit! It’s nothing but a distraction from the true reason for his ineligibility. His father was a British subject, NOT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, which means that Ovomit never met the requirement for being a Natural Born Citizen. He is no more eligible than Rubio or Cruz!

smrstrauss1
smrstrauss1
5 years ago
Reply to  Rattlerjake

The fact remains that every child, repeat EVERY child, born on US soil (except for the children of foreign diplomats and of members of an invading enemy army) is a Natural Born US citizen, and the citizenship of a father or of BOTH the father and the mother has no effect on that whatever. And Obama was born in Hawaii, and the facts that show that are OVERWHELMING. Obama is exactly as eligible as Rubio and probably more than Cruz because Cruz was NOT born on US soil, while Obama WAS born on US soil. “Under the longstanding English common-law… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
5 years ago
Reply to  Rattlerjake

Rattler is correct, and said it well. Strauss just keeps repeating the same old wrong stuff. Every child born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. are citizens, not natural born citizens.
And I did have a nice ride. It is just like being part of the wind.

Rattlerjake
Rattlerjake
5 years ago
Reply to  Rattlerjake

smrstrauss1 – It is obvious that you either have no clue about what the Constitution says and how/where the founders got their terminology, or you just insist on regurgitating the same old lies of the left, likely both. First of all, our forefathers used NOTHING from English common law, they insisted on separating this new nation from England, to include English law and common law. It is documented fact, contained in correspondence of several of the founders that their reference for writing the Constitution was “The Law of Nations”, by Vattel. Vattel spelled it out very plainly, A natural born… Read more »

smrstrauss1
smrstrauss1
5 years ago
Reply to  Rattlerjake

Re: “First of all, our forefathers used NOTHING from English common law…” Answer: Total and complete BALONEY. The common law is mentioned about 15 times in the Federalist Papers and Blackstone five time, and—guess what—Vattel is not even mentioned once. Not even one time. Moreover, John Jay (You have heard of him, haven’t you??) wrote the common law into the first Constitution of the state of New York, making THE COMMON LAW the law of New York State unless and until changed by the legislature of the state. In short, the WKA ruling is right: “All persons born in the… Read more »

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  Rattlerjake

Re: Vattel. Vattel was a Swiss monarchist who recommended that every country should have a state religion and a class of nobles (neither of which we adopted), and who himself NEVER said even once in his book that any official of government should even be a citizen much less a citizen with citizen parents, and not one single member of the Constitutional Convention or any significant leader at the time such as John Jay (who was an expert in the common law, BTW) or John Adams or Thomas Jefferson (all of whom had studied the common law, BTW) EVER said… Read more »

Ray Miller
Ray Miller
5 years ago
Reply to  Rattlerjake

Hey Rattlerjake,
This guy you are going back and forth with is a complete moron, and he only has one hoarse to ride and nothing else to do with his life but annoy the rest of us. He is a Troll, and you will never get anywhere with him. As with most idiots he has a one track mind and goes right off the edge of a cliff. For your own sanity ignore him and hope he crawls back in his hole.

Rattlerjake
Rattlerjake
5 years ago
Reply to  Rattlerjake

Ray Miller, What is blatantly obvious is he picks out small specifics and goes off on a tangent using information that doesn’t apply. He consistently and conveniently “changes” the words to look like he is right, but is adding to his lies. He will concentrate on a term like “English common law” when the term used by our fore fathers was “common law” as was found in ALL of Europe, not just England and is actually natural law. He conveniently chooses RINOs like McCain and Boehner to further his claims that the right was satisfied with Ovomit’s background, etc. There… Read more »

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  Rattlerjake

Notice that Ray Miller does not respond to the FACTS shown above.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  Rattlerjake

Re: “He conveniently chooses RINOs like McCain and Boehner….

Actually, I said that Obama was sworn in by the Chief Justice of the USA and (1) McCain did not protest; (2) neither did Sarah Palin. (3) neither did Mitt Romney; (4) neither did Paul Ryan; (5) neither did Karl Rove; (6) neither did Ann Coulter; (7) neither did Glenn Beck; (8) neither did Gingrich; (9) neither did Santorum; (10) neither did Ron Paul; (11) neither did Rand Paul; (12) neither did Michele Bachmann.

(It is doubtful that they are all RINOs.)

Rattlerjake
Rattlerjake
5 years ago
Reply to  Rattlerjake

smrsstrauss1 – I don’t know where you get your information, other than just create it out of thin air like Hitlery Klingon does, but most of those you mention DID protest Ovomit being elected or even running. Palin and McCain both protested his candidacy, as well as Ron Paul and Ann Coulter being very out spoken about him being ineligible. You’ve continued to prove yourself a blatant liar. As well you insist on correcting SSGRick that she didn’t go to Wash. State when he NEVER said that, he said, “enrolled at a Washington State College”, he didn’t specify which college!… Read more »

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  Rattlerjake

Re: ” Palin and McCain both protested his candidacy, as well as Ron Paul and Ann Coulter…” It is YOU who are making things up. NONE of those people protested Obama’s being sworn in. Not one of them. Neither did Gingrich or Santorum or Huckabee or Michele Bachman or Romney or Paul Ryan. Neither did the Heritage Foundation or the National Review or Krauthammer. Re “A Washington State College.” Answer: Sorry, I missed the A. Okay, she was enrolled at one of the colleges and universities in the state of Washington, in this case the specific one being the University… Read more »

DaveW
DaveW
5 years ago
Reply to  smrstrauss

If Obama was born in Hawaii as you claim, that would make him citizen of the Kingdom of Hawaii, ruled by Queen Liliʻuokalani, since the legitimate government of Hawaii was overthrown by Americans in 1883. A provisional government composed of members of the American Committee of Safety replaced the legitimate government. American lawyer Sanford B. Dole became President of the Republic when the Provisional Government of Hawaii ended on July 4, 1894. President McKinley was persuaded by U.S. expansionists to annex the Territory of Hawaii. The Newlands Resolution was used to annex the Republic to the U.S. in 1898. In… Read more »

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  DaveW

Dream on. Hawaii is a US state, and has been one since 1959.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
5 years ago
Reply to  DaveW

Hey Dave,
You mean we could get rid of pres. Soetoro (aka Obama) and all his exec. orders, and Oblabla Care, and all that other stuff, just by giving Hawaii back to the Hawaiins? Hmmm, yep, I’m OK with that!

Dr-RJP
Dr-RJP
5 years ago
Reply to  TEX

Obama’s conspiracy to change the meaning of Natural-Born Citizen https://youtu.be/BvOIMegWI98?list=PL4854DF6AF38C417D via @YouTube

Rattlerjake
Rattlerjake
5 years ago
Reply to  smrstrauss1

No wonder you are so screwed up, your reference is wickedpedia! Wickedpedia couldn’t get it right if it was happening right in front of them.
The only difference between Wickedpedia and Hitlery Klingon or Ovomit is ……. well …………nothing!

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  smrstrauss1

RATIONAL people know that Wikipedia is a far more reliable source than the musings of birthers, who, after all, have shown their willingness to LIE in hopes of hurting Obama. And, not only Wikipedia said it, but the chief justice of the USA swore in Obama after each election, and the US Congress confirmed his election unanimously twice, and not a single elector in the US Electoral College changed her or his state’s popular vote to vote against Obama (and not every state has a law binding electors to vote the way that the popular vote went), and Obama’s being… Read more »

DaveW
DaveW
5 years ago
Reply to  smrstrauss1

Wikipedia? A so-called encyclopedia which is open to manipulation by it’s readers? Obama supporters or Obama detractors can both edit Wikipedia in any way they wish to support their positions. Wikipedia is full of errors of historical fact. If you cite it you better have citations from other sources.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  smrstrauss1

Re: “If you cite it you better have citations from other sources.” No problem. “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT). “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however,… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
5 years ago
Reply to  Dr-RJP

Hey Ray Miller,
I have come to the same conclusion, and I am going to follow your advice. He thinks that repeating the big lie will get people to believe it, and having the last word makes him right. I have a couple of dirty horse stalls that are more factual and interesting than what he writes.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

Notice that Wild Bill does not respond to the facts shown above. Those FACTS are the reason that Obama was sworn in as president by the Chief Justice of the United States, and they are why John McCain and Mitt Romney and the Republican Party did not object.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
5 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

Oh no, Mr Strauss, I responded to your information in the same manner as I responded to my dirty horse stalls. I threw that horse sh*t out.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
5 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

Notice that if we don’t respond to him, Mr. Strauss has no one to converse with? Ok,now, I am going to play with my new matching pair of single action pistols that I bought at the gun show, last weekend.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss
5 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

RATIONAL people will find the facts above.

Daniel Ellenwood
Daniel Ellenwood
5 years ago
Reply to  Hateful Hermit

Natural Born means..BORN HERE IN AMERICA! Thats why our founding Fathers did not say Citizen, That should not be hard to understand..Once we cross the line and allow the constitution to be changed and defiled, It will become easier to do the second time when they try to take our Guns!!

robert
robert
5 years ago
Reply to  Hateful Hermit

How could you possibly have read the whole above article and without being under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, write the comment you wrote? ” Natural born means born an [America]” sic. That’s the same kind (lack) of thought as saying ” that’s the right way because that’s not the wrong way”.

Greg K Cooper
Greg K Cooper
5 years ago

Cruz is owned by the same puppeteers as ALL of them, except Trump. If he did become the nominee, the first time he shook the bible in the air the election would be over.

Cruz4President
Cruz4President
5 years ago

I appreciate your “Trump is our last option” argument but I have studied the Constitution and there is only one guy in the race that has ever defended the Constitution. He had it memorized at 13. He grew up with the Bible and the Constitution. He is our best hope at restoring the Republic.

RD
RD
5 years ago
Reply to  Cruz4President

boy, aren’t YOU an idiot!!!!

Dave
Dave
5 years ago
Reply to  RD

Nice comeback there RD. You must be a genius or sumpin. Go back to your liberal cave and wait for Bernie to call you.

Bill in IL
Bill in IL
5 years ago
Reply to  Dave

Nice, can you even read? He is a creepy Cruz supporter, he is not feeling the Bern.

Buffalolips
Buffalolips
5 years ago
Reply to  Cruz4President

The facts are simple. Cruz is a Canadian citizen with triple citizenship based on his mother’s citizenship, a woman who by the way lived with her Cuban husband in Canada and they both voted as Canadian citizens in Canada, a country which at the time didn’t allow dual citizenship. As for Rubio, he is literally an anchor baby in the plainest sense. Romney isn’t a natural born United States citizen either if it means anything to anybody. So the question is, would you vote to elect as President of the United States a Pakistani who was born in Pakistan to… Read more »

MrApple
MrApple
5 years ago
Reply to  Buffalolips

Anchor baby? He must do a really good job at keeping his MS-13 tattoos covered up.

2War Abn Vet
2War Abn Vet
5 years ago
Reply to  Cruz4President

Trump is Obama 2016… Like Obama, he is largely a media creation. Like Obama, he is an arrogant, self-aggrandizing, bully, with a tenuous relationship to the truth. Like Obama, he acts like a sulky obnoxious petulant adolescent. Like Obama, he considers the Constitution (when he considers it at all) an inpediment. Like Obama, he cares only about himself, not those he seeks to govern. Like Obama, he has nothing in common with Conservatives. Like Obama, he makes extravagant promises he knows he cannot fulfill. Like Obama, he is not even remotely what his “fans” think he is. Like Obama, he… Read more »

SuperG
SuperG
5 years ago
Reply to  2War Abn Vet

But unlike Obama, he isn’t a career politician. He’s smarter than Obama too, in that he’s hardly spent any money on campaign advertisements, whereas as Obama spent millions. I’ll take Trump over a career politician any day, as those are the people who got us to where we are now. A corrupt Congress that votes themselves above the laws that we have to obey, oil corporations sending Americans to die so they can get a favorable leases, and high taxes to support it all. I’ve had enough.

Dr-RJP
Dr-RJP
5 years ago
Reply to  SuperG

Amen. The truth could not be more plainly stated nor the parallels more clearly delineated between the Messiah of 2008 and the Messiah of 2016. “Change we can believe in” was as empty a platitude as is “Make America Great Again” is today.

Memo to #Trump supporters:

America has ALWAYS been great, from 1776 to 2016. What we must do is rid our country of those who seek to tear it down – and have done so in a short period of time, to boot.

BIll in IL
BIll in IL
5 years ago
Reply to  Dr-RJP

You are delusional. A country that runs around the world killing people, starting wars, toppling governments, generally sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong, accrues over 200 trillion in debt, treats its vets like garbage, dumps on senior citizens, erects a surveillance state the likes of which the world has never seen, ignores its founding document and cannot find money for infrastructure but plenty of money for murder is the exact opposite of great.

Carl
Carl
5 years ago
Reply to  SuperG

Is Trump the best America has to offer? Is there anything about The Big Three ( Government, Business & Media) that is adhering to the Founding Principles? Is there anything related to being a Career Politician Holy or Clean? I was in HS when LBJ was a partner to abolish Prayer in School and the Country has been in a downward free fall ever since. One of my favorite Firebrands of the American revolution is still quoted for his ” Give me liberty or give me death” When the full context is stated it has more meaning to me. “An… Read more »

Carl
Carl
5 years ago
Reply to  Carl

How Do I get off the Notify me list? My inbox is full of crackpots.

gee bud
gee bud
5 years ago
Reply to  Cruz4President

Feel The Bern!

Matt Haylett
Matt Haylett
5 years ago
Reply to  gee bud

Get tested

DaveW
DaveW
5 years ago
Reply to  gee bud

For nearly 250 years this nation has resisted the socialistic values espoused by Sanders which vests all powers, one way or another, with the government rather than the people. Millions have died defending the principles of the Constitution. Millions have immigrated in order to enjoy those principles. Sanders is an avowed socialist. Socialism is not what built a nation people from around the world have flocked to be a part of. And it’s not just Sanders. The entire progressive left seeks to rule our lives in an Orwellian society.

smrstrauss1
smrstrauss1
5 years ago
Reply to  DaveW

Perhaps you will find a few uninformed people who cannot see the difference between socialists, who are backers of democracy, and Communists, who believe in dictatorship.

Socialists are the folks who brought us the 40-hour workweek and a laws against children working and unemployment insurance and pure food and drug laws. But, if you do not like that, by all means vote against it.

Just remember, the more nutty that Trump and Cruz get, the more attractive Socialists look.

Dr-RJP
Dr-RJP
5 years ago
Reply to  Cruz4President

Excerpted from, “How the Second Amendment ‘Proves’ Ted Cruz’s Eligibility” http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/11/ted-cruz-eligible-second-amendment/ ————— A correct originalist reading of the Natural Born Clause and instead compels the conclusion that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen under Article II of the Constitution, and therefore eligible. The Natural Born Clause is part of the original text of the Constitution, officially adopted in 1789. That part of the Constitution reads, “No person except a natural born Citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of President…have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” As Breitbart… Read more »

Rattlerjake
Rattlerjake
5 years ago
Reply to  Dr-RJP

You’re an idiot. Neither an act, law, bill, nor statute have have any bearing, whatsoever, on the contents of the Constitution. The ONLY document that can change the original meaning of a word, phrase, or term in the Constitution is a Constitutional amendment. Laws, acts, bills, and statues are very often changed due to errors, differences in locations, and court decisions, none of which can affect the Constitution. Additionally, this is proven the case in regards to the Naturalization Act of 1790, which was repealed and replaced by the Naturalization Act of 1795 and the Term “Natural Born Citizen” was… Read more »

TEX
TEX
5 years ago
Reply to  Cruz4President

You got that right !