In accordance to U.S. Code, Title 8, Section 1401

http://law.onecle.com/uscode/8/1401.html

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
…
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
…

Since the term “citizens of the United States at birth” undoubtedly equals to the old fashioned term “natural born citizen”, both Obama (a) and McCain (c) qualify for that criteria.

@ MoniQue: like it or not, Chiyome Fukino, The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health made a clear statement that she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

According to that policy she isn’t be allowed to verfiy a foreign BC. Obama wouldn’t have been granted for US citizenship by jus soli (right of birthplace) without being born of the American soil.

Donofrio speculation that Obama’s isn’t a “natural born citizen” since dual citizenship at his birth makes him untrustworthy is absurd; according to that same speculation, “Framers” would be considered even less trustworthy – all of them were citizens of UK at birth. “Natural born citizen” means “citizens of the United States at birth” as defined by U.S. Code, Title 8, Section 1401.

Citizen Cane: Check out the latest at TD Blog containing Judah Benjamin’s thesis; interesting but not necessarily hopeful from a constitutionalist standpoint.
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/

MORE INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE!!!

Here’s 2 responses back from South Carolina and Connecticut for request for records:

1) South Carolina: RESPONSE FROM SECRETARY OF STATE SOUTH CAROLINA: PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO PAGE 2 IN WHICH THE CHAIR OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF SOUTH CAROLINA [CAROL FOWLER] UNEQUIVOCALLY STATES THE CANDIDATES ALL QUALIFY FOR THE OFFICE IN WHICH THEY ARE RUNNING.

2) Connecticut: RESPONSE FROM SECRETARY OF STATE OF Connecticut, IN WHICH SHE USES THE HAWAIIAN OFFICIALS PRESS CONFERENCE AS HER VETTING PROCESS OF OBAMA????!!! BIG PROBLEMS WITH THIS FOR HER. He was supposed to be vetted BEFORE he ran for office AND her statement about Hawaiian officials saying Obama was born in Hawaii and that they hold his original birth certificate is based on a PRESS CONFERENCE where Hawaii officials never said they verified he was born in Hawaii and they refused to answer if the original birth certificate they held was a Kenyan one or a Hawaiian one. AND THE PRESS CONFERENCE WAS IN NOVEMBER PER HER OWN ADMISSION – 3 MONTHS AFTER HE WAS DECLARED THE NOMINEE !!!

1. SEC OF STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA RESPONSE, 3 PAGES
2. SEC OF STATE OF Connecticut RESPONSE, 1 PAGE

CLICK BELOW TO SEE 2 DOCS:
http://moniquemonicat.wordpress.com/secretary-of-state-responses-in-regards-to-request-for-obama-records/

p.s. “xxx” = my code for a 3-word blog name

Obama is a natural-born citizen of the United States, for the simple reason that he was born on American soil (the opposite wasn’t proved so far). The age and citizenship status of Obama’s parents at the time have no bearing on Obama’s own citizenship.

Any confusion on this point might only be a result of misunderstanding the legal concepts of jus sanguinis (right of blood) and jus soli (right of birthplace). Here is how the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service explains the difference:

“The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizenship at birth to almost all individuals born in the United States or in U.S. jurisdictions, according to the principle of jus soli. Certain individuals born in the United States, such as children of foreign heads of state or children of foreign diplomats, do not obtain U.S. citizenship under jus soli.”

A wishfull thinking has nothing to do with a hard reality, sorry.

If Google is indeed limiting a freedom of speech to anyone – regardless if I agree with that person or not – I’m firmly oppose to that. About Atlas Shrugs: I just tried to google for – Obama’s online birth certificate a “forgery” – and Atlas Shrugs was the first hit??? Try it for yourself.

Now, about Berg and Donfrio: you need to have a rock firm credibility if you want to seriously confront the president-elect’s credibility. Andy Martin has a similar problem (Anti-Semitism); but that again google or yahoo after his opinion about Berg – under “The strange behavior of Philadelphia lawyer Philip J. Berg«

Haven’t you asked yourself why the hell haven’t Republican legal experts exposed that issue when that would made sense?

What if both COLB and “Natural Born Citizen” issues are just baits to distract public from a real issue?

Hint: “follow the money”

I’m not sure why, but of late WP has been putting selected comments on hold for me to approve . . . don’t know why, but they have. That having been said, let me tell you why I approved your remarks.

I will not censor you because you hold an opinion that is opposed to mine, unlike a WP site I recently visited. That’s hideous in a democracy. Heard the latest . . . Google sandboxing Atlas Shrugs! The owner is a pal of Obama’s. Guess we’ve got ourselves a new Minister of Propaganda.

I asked Jonathan Turley to comment on Obama’s problems with Article II Section 1 since he had written a post on McCain’s problems eligibility problems as a “natural born citizen” . . . after all how can one comment on one candidate and completely omit the other? How indeed, if one is being intellectually honest? The answer is obvious, isn’t it?

Notice, I didn’t ask him to agree or disagree . . . just comment! That was 5 days ago, and I’m still waiting.

Now as to your comments. Rather than trying to bring down the credibility of the messengers (yes, I know Berg and the 9/11 issues and yes, Donofrio is a poker player) focus on the credibility of the comments and the issues they have brought to light!

You are amusing and seem to be a decent fellow . . . stay focused, please. My guess is that you are better than some of the trivia you leave here.

Former Pennsylvania deputy Attorney General Philip Berg represents a group of families of the victims of the 9/11, 2001 attacks in the US – people who “did not accept the ‘hush money’” and denounced, instead, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the White House for their accountability in the terrorist actions.

(snip)

There’s a mob in the White House!” Philip Berg repeated from the platform at the Axis for Peace International Conference organized by the Voltaire Network on November 17-18, 2005 in Brussels. “Bush should be jailed for slaughter and high treason” – he concluded.
_____________

http://www.voltairenet.org/article131472.html