Birther Outbreak in New Hampshire

Reader Comments
Back to blog

MORE:
Supreme Court Case Minor V. Happerset:
"At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162
And last but not least:
Representative John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the 14th 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"
MIDDLE COLUMN 3RD PARAGRAPH:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332

KenyanBornObama of MD 12:38PM November 24, 2011

"Would someone please explain to the writer of this commentary that he or she is ignorant of the facts upon which this complaint was made to the New Hampshire Elections board and furthermore is ignorant of the "natural born" citizen requirements of the United States Constitution for the POTUS and is therefore not qualified to be making any comments on the issue. "
The only one who is ignorant here are the birthers. the NH Election Board ruled exactly how they should. They do not make the determination of eligibility. that wholly rests on the Secretary of State and the person's National Party.
Get your facts straight.
BTW, Joe Arpaio's investigation is as dead as birther's issues. No sherriff from AZ has any jurisdiction over Hawaii.

Hawaii Born of CA 12:38PM November 24, 2011

Wake up and smell the FACTS! You should do at least a LITTLE research, before you go making a FOOL of yourself!
PROOF:
Representative John Bingham (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., pg 1639 (1862):
“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.”
http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/059/0600/06811639.gif
In 1866 while introducing the bill H.R. 127 (14th Amendment) Jacob M. Howard (Author of the Citizenship clause) states:
"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States."
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11
The LAW they were talking about was the Civil RIghts Act of 1866 which states:
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;"
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/reconstruction/section4/section4_civrightsact1.html
Everyone seems to forget the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", which is why the Law/Amendment went astray. If you look at the congressional records of when they were debating the 14th Amendment, you will find the truth and you will see that the 14th Amendment has been 100% perverted!
What exactly did "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Luckily we have Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:
"The 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."
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14

KenyanBornObama of MD 12:36PM November 24, 2011

and birthers show their ignorance once again.
1) Hawaii has repeatedly affirmed Obama was born there, on 4 separate occasions. You can trot out all the "experts" you want about their fake analysis of an image on the internet, but their opinions matter not when the OFFICIAL holder of records say they are all full of it.
If the Hawaii Department of Health had any problems with what Obama released on April 27, 2011, they wouldn't have endorsed it on their own website
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
the first link is to the White House web site.
Remember, this is the ENTITY that determines the officiality of documents they PRODUCE.
2) One cannot be charged with TREASON unless he/she is a citizen. Birthers' arguments say that Obama commits treason, wholly contradicts their claims
3) There is not one legal scholar, court judge or real constitutional lawyers that agree with the BS 2 citizen parent theory. The NBC issue was settled with US v Wong Kim Ark. Minor v Happersett that birther's like to use erroneously was a VOTING rights case, not a citizenship case, since Minor's citizenship wasn't at issue (both sides agree that she was a citizen). The court even stated that they weren't going to ADDRESS that issue.
Birther can only lie, threaten, try to silence, and misrepresent, since that is the only way to make their delusions seem real.
Luckily many of us, do not believe in their lies

Hawaii Born of HI 12:34PM November 24, 2011

Would someone please explain to the writer of this commentary that he or she is ignorant of the facts upon which this complaint was made to the New Hampshire Elections board and furthermore is ignorant of the "natural born" citizen requirements of the United States Constitution for the POTUS and is therefore not qualified to be making any comments on the issue. He or she should crawl back into his or her hole and wake up when the results of Sheriff Joe Arpaio's investigation are revealed.

Jeff Lichter of AZ 12:34PM November 24, 2011

See below link: A two minute Power Point Presentation for the evidence and proof that Putative President Barack Hussein Obama Using an SSN Not Legally Issued to Him. Feel free to pass this on, post it anywhere, and share it with as many people as you can to increase public awareness of the fraud-in-chief unconstitutionally and illegally "OCCUPYING" the Oval Office.
Click on the following link and watch this simple Power Point Presentation for the evidence and proof that Putative President
Barack Hussein Obama has been and still is committing SSN Fraud and Identity Theft:
http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/obamassnfraud/proofputativepresidentobamacommittingssnfraud.pps
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com
“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America
will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened.” Norman Thomas

cfkerchner of PA 12:32PM November 24, 2011

Fred C:
RE: Arkeny....
It was a state court case ... poorly argued in wrongly decided. For example the judge in his statements and decision called Emer de Vattel some unknown Swiss philosopher. It absolutely is not binding in any other state. Only federal court cases are binding in other states. Contact Atty Mario Apuzzo. He has written about the Indiana state court case.
Charles Kerchner
(who KNOWS something about such matters)
Minor vs Happersett is a Supreme Court case. It is the binding precedent. In any case, Arkeny seems to have sufficient errors of law and fact to be fair game for a competent challenge.

George Miller of CA 12:32PM November 24, 2011

NH Rep Present at NH Ballot Law Commission Hearing Responds to NH AG’s Request for Investigation of them Instead of Obama | @ The Post & Email: http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/11/22/representative-present-at-nh-ballot-law-commission-hearing-responds-to-request-for-investigation/
UPDATE 23 Nov 2011: Newly Released Video From Obama’s NH Ballot Access Hearing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv505Am-9b4
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com

cfkerchner of PA 12:29PM November 24, 2011

Robert Schlesinger should get the facts straight and stop looking like an idiot, but then he is a liberal so it ma not help.

Jeff of AZ 12:28PM November 24, 2011

Fred C.:
Obama/ soetoro is using a dead man's ss#, born in the 1800's.
Numbers are not transferable, unless of course you are in a Witness Protection program, or your identity working for the Feds has been compromised.
The possibility is that Soetoro's mom, Stanley Dunham soetoro, who was a CIA staffer in Indonesia, working as an interpreter (Russian) was given fake #s for her & her family.
Be sure you are on Obama's defense team: you will be an asset, diverting attention away from the facts contained in the Governing Document, the U.S. CONSTITUTION!!
And be sure to release all of his sealed personal records. NO AUTHENTIC RECORDS? Hmm???

Beth of NH 12:21PM November 24, 2011