Who’s being hateful? Nobody here. For sure we stand opposed to a President who’s trying to take our nation down the road of big-government socialism.

Obama has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting to keep it private and requested that Hawaii even go so far as to seal his birth records. Why? He could end the whole thing with a very simple action that reveals no more about him than a Presidential campaign vetting.

Woodrow Wilson’s mother was also foreign born but why is there no mention of this case? Mainly because the authors of this ridiculous argument don’t want anybody to really debate it logically.

Let’s break it down (logically). Wilson’s mother became a citizen through her marriage to her HUSBAND. Why wasn’t Obama Sr. able to become a citizen immediately through his marriage to his WIFE? Because there are still repressive laws that are anti-equality. Basically MEN have more power than WOMEN. All things being equal, President Wilson and President Obama were born in exact situations regarding BOTH parents not being citizens with the father and mother being switched.

People who argue against Obama’s Presidency have every right to as their constitutional rights of freedom of speech is guaranteed but they really need to look deep inside themselves and ask? “Why am I being so hateful in this great nation of the United States?”

BTW, this is coming from logical arbitrator with no political affiliation or agendas as I am not associated with any parties.

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;

That’s it right there. (Emphasis added.)

The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn’t want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.

The Framers declared themselves not eligible to be President as “natural born Citizens”, so they wrote the grandfather clause in for the limited exception of allowing themselves to be eligible to the Presidency in the early formative years of our infant nation.

But nobody alive today can claim eligibility to be President under the grandfather clause since nobody alive today was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted.
The Framers distinguished between “natural born Citizens” and all other “Citizens”. And that’s why it’s important to note the 14th Amendment only confers the title of “Citizen”, not “natural born Citizen”. The Framers were Citizens, but they weren’t natural born Citizens. They put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves in the Constitution and they are the ones who wrote the Document.

Since the the Framers didn’t consider themselves to have been “natural born Citizens” due to their having been subject to British jurisdiction at their birth, then Senator Obama, having also been subject to British jurisdiction at the time of his birth, also cannot be considered a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.

It can’t be this simple…

A) if being natural born means BOTH parents also have to be born here, then there would have been no question (whether Obama was born here or not) that he is NOT allowed and it wouldn’t be an issue. Everyone knows his father wasn’t born here. There has to be more to it. So that is done.

B) IF he was born here and even if he had citizenship in Indonesia, he HAS been back here for more then 14 yrs and I am sure he is a citizen yet again of the great USA..The law doesn’t say that he couldn’t have been a NBC, leave and become a citizen there and then return and become a citizen here again, he was born here and has been here for at least 14 yrs. So that is done.

that leaves the question as to WHERE he was born. THAT is the only question I believe as an issue. And even that is questionable since no one has proof he wasn’t born here.

And why doesn’t a mothers citizenship extend to her baby because of age? What does her age have to do with it??

Not that I don’t want to see proof, since it is a question. I believe proof should be shown once and for all. But really, the father thing is it really an issue? The age of the mother is THAT really an issue?

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/president-chester-arthur-et-al-why-they-aren%E2%80%99t-precedent-for-obama%E2%80%99s-eligibility/

To better understand the pending actions before the Supreme Court, watch the video below…

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6771521759788800576&hl=en