He was wise in statesmanship and firm and effective in administration. Honesty in national finance, purity and effectiveness in the civil service, the promotion of commerce, the re-creation of the American navy, reconciliation between North and South and honorable friendship with foreign nations received his active support. Good causes found in a fiend and bad measures met in him an unyielding opponent.

–Elihi Root, June 13, 1899
As cited by historian Thomas C. Reeves in his biography of Arthur, Gentleman Boss.

If you so readily accept the slander of one good man, no wonder you accept the slander against a another. Yet you give credibility to two so-called document experts that won’t even give their right names. Sandra Lines rightly tell us that one cannot verify a document image, but we also have the word of a US Senator, two high Hawaiian officials, and an independent fact-checking organization to examined the document.

See also: The Assassination of Chester A. Arthur and The Strange Case of Chester Alan Arthur.

Donofrio is a lawyer. Lawyers make their cases by painting alternate views of reality in which they are right. Unfortunately, Donofrio has followers lacking the requisite skills in critical thinking to see how they are being hoodwinked. There is nothing patriotic about falsifying American history and misrepresenting US law.

As for Berg, his suit is a joke. He cites that Canadian Birth Certificate as evidence, the one signed by Dudley Doright [a cartoon character from the 1960's] with certificate number of BR-549 [a joke telephone number from another TV series]. For more on Berg, see: It seems you don’t need to know much about the law to be Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania
and Where’s Your Evidence?.

Have you noticed how many of the so-called sworn statements in these lawsuits are by anonymous individuals sworn under fake names (which is a lie right off the bat)?

And as for Hawaiian law, you must have let a person without integrity tell you what Hawaiian law is, because it is not what you said. A careful explanation (which you can verify for your very own self) of why the foreign registration in Hawaii theory is impossible is here.

I considered it a ‘fringe’ to believe that Obama was not born in Hawaii before. I must retract that, and say now that it is most likely that he was born outside the US. Multiple document experts have stated that the certification documents submitted have ‘irregularities’ and cannot be affirmed as unaltered authentic. Should we be shocked about this possibility, probably not….look at the whole forged document against George Bush by the Dems in the last election. Also, there is no logical reason why he didn’t simply get an original long form copy of his birth certificate and produce it. The Hawaii dept. of Health representitive has stated that he has an original birth certificate in Hawaii, which means absolutely nothing about place of birth by hawaii state laws.

The original long form birth certificate will surface, to many lawsuits and challenges. Furthermore, I think it likely that the port of entry documents have already been found on his immigration. Should that documents say ‘Birth: KENYA’ then Obama is spending the rest of his life in Kansas, and likely with many DNC and campaign followers. Why a life in Kansas…..so many federal crimes and one popular federal prison in Leavenworth.

Berg and Donofrio and a few others determined democrats are starting to look more like true American Patriots, and less like ‘tin foil hat’ people.

I expect those who offer comments here to think for themselves, not cut and paste stuff from other web sites. And at least if they are going to borrow others’ material, it be properly attributed, titled, and linked.

The material pasted is really not about “natural born citizenship” but “citizenship” in general. In fact, the title of the original article is “The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans”. Given that bit of exposure, one can see how really fringe the argument is. I don’t think we should undergo a revolution in the definition of citizenship just to keep Obama out of the White House. [The original article was written in 2005, obviously not with Barack Obama specifically in mind.]

I’m not at all happy with how the material from Rep. Bingham is presented. Is out of order both chronologically and contextually. The 14th Amendment came after the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and has no language like “owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty”. Bingham’s comment should have come first with its context and then the disclosure that his language did not survive in the Amendment he is said to be the father of. Don’t you think that’s an important point?

We have generally understood that members of the Indian tribes (at one time) and foreign ambassador’s children are not under our full jurisdiction, and citizenship is treated differently on those cases. But the language of United States vs Wong Kim Ark pretty strongly says that those born here (with certain exceptions) are fully under our jurisdiction.

So I find your borrowed argument both contextually mangled and overall not persuasive.

Kevin,
This is the discussion from the floor of congress prior to the adoption of the 14th amendment. The references are below. I don’t see any hint of doubt about what “Natural Born” meant as regards to POTUS from the people who discussed, voted for, and authored the amendment.

What exactly did “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean to the framers
of the Fourteenth Amendment?
We are fortunate to have on record the highest authority to tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:
[T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ’subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Trumbull continues, “Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn’t make treaties with them…It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.[1]
Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull’s construction:
Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.[2]
Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the constitution:
[Now], all this amendment [citizenship clause] provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power–for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us–shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.[3]
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…[4]
Footnotes
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html#anchor39
Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866)
[1]. Id. at 2893
[2]. Id. at 2895
[3]. Id. at 2893
[4]. Id. at 1291

That puts the meaning of the term ‘Natural Born” to bed as it refers to the intent and word, by the fatehr of the 14th amendment himself. Parents (not single) not owing alliegance to any foriegn sovereignty….

Sooner or laters, someone with ‘standing’ is going to get this to the SCOTUS. This isn’t going away, it has to be addressed and the SCOTUS has to ‘define it’.

Moreover, rather than bringing this action promptly – i.e. as soon as the Secretary failed to carry out this alleged duty, in September – or file an objection or suit within the time frames set by [New Jersey law], Appellant [Leo C. Donofrio] has waited until the eve of the general election to raise his meritless challenge.

Even if Obama had released a copy of his original hospital birth record, neither the Berg nor the Donofrio suits would have gone away, as each makes claims beyond beyond questions of where Obama was born and beyond any question of documentation.

And “Hail Mary”..lmao. not even close.

No post-election surprise has been sprung on the American people.

The flurry of lawsuits is are a “hail mary” end zone pass by the losing team with seconds to go in the game.

So a BOOK, WRITTEN by Mr. Obama is now creditable enough documentation to use as qualification for POTUS? Or is it because it is 14yrs old that passes the Legal Limit?

Wong says: “…no thought of impeaching the established rule that all persons born under British dominion are natural-born subjects.” Wong then goes on to talk about the fact that persons born in the territory of the United States are fully, directly and completely under the dominion and the jurisdiction of the United States.