Interesting radio broadcast.

I liked this version better:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8lvc-azCXY&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3_jh2dO78U&feature=channel_page

And it was in front of me all the time.

First I disagree that the “Constitution clearly states in English what is natural born”. In fact the Constitution offers no explanation of the term (and that’s why the controversy).

The 14th Amendment defines “citizens”: 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. This creates two classes of citizens, those born in the United States and those naturalized or put another way, those citizens by virtue of being born in the United States and those who are citizens by statute. Arguments are being presented against the natural born status of both groups, yours against those born outside the United States and others against the persons born in the United States of foreign parents. Some say soil, some say blood, and some say both.

Contrary to some things I have written before, it looks to me upon further reflection that the two classes of citizen defined in the 14th Amendment do not align with “natural born” and “not natural born”.

US Code Title 8, § 1401 defines “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth“.

• Anyone born inside the United States
• Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
• Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
• Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
• Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
• A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

§ 1402 declares anyone born in Puerto Rico since 1941 as “citizens of the United States at birth.”

The US Supreme court said in United States v Wong Kim Ark:

In my judgment, the children of our citizens born abroad were always natural-born citizens from the standpoint of this government.

Those arguing against citizenship for children of citizens have said that Wong was decided wrongly. I think such a view is an uphill battle, against common understanding, against Supreme Court precedent and against common law.

See my article, Burden of Proof, for further thoughts on who should show what to whom.

Proper Birth Certificate Documentation to ensure he meets the requirement of our countries Constitution is important to me. I call it Blue Green, you call it Green Blue, it doesn’t make it MY MISTAKE to want his original document verified by who I consider creditable personnel. You Accept a secondary document that is susceptible to being altered whether intentionally or by mistake, I do not. And frankly, I won’t be surprised the information on that COLB online now matches the similar line items on the original, with the possible exception of his fathers race, which is irrelevant(I just find it odd, not wrong just odd).

I’m just a very strong proponent on seeing actual documentation for a lot of things, not just the POTUS, but yes especially the POTUS. I would challenge anyone going for a position requiring TOP SECRET Clearance to see the original just to name one. So if you still believe I am MISTAKEN, that I can’t see my own MISTAKE, and I won’t realize later I was MISTAKEN, well…..your Mistaken. And you need to Relabel your Crayola crown, that is BlueGreen.

Going back to that fathers race matter. I suspect that could be someone saying it in todays politically corrrect way, instead of using the exact word Negroe, they typed African. It might have been typed African in 1961, but those were really different times. Again, it is a NON-Issue, but one that can lead a person to believe that a HUMAN error can be made. If you see the original, that negats ANY human error. AND, verify the original IS original.

But of course, the next document controversy has already erupted about Obama’s Selective Service registration. The real document photocopy was obtained directly from the government under FOIA (no Obama web site this time) and the claim is that the government stalled and eventually forged one (ineptly) to make Obama appear to have registered for the draft exactly as required. It’s a piece of work (hey I haven’t used that phrase all week). This is an interesting role reversal with some Obama supporters saying that the SSS form shown has been photoshopped by opponents to make it suspicious. I could care less; the selective service is saying Obama is correctly registered and I don’t believe in this big cover-up.