furthermore, how do you assimilate this (non) logic:

“HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’S STATUS BE “GOVERNED” BY GREAT BRITAIN (From Birth)?”

As evidenced by his reply to you in which he claims you ["(attempted) to ridicule me"] he explained why the brick wall has less density ["Doesn’t work on me though"] than his ability to assimilate logic.

At the risk of appearing vain by invoking my own rule:

HINZ RULE!

The digital scanned jpeg found in cyber-space is proof of nothing. Next time someone requires a copy of your B.C. (either short or long form)….go to your scanner, place your b.c. in there…scan it, save it to your hard drive on your computer…upload to scan to your favorite site (say google, or photobucket, etc). Then, go back to the person/organization requiring your B.C. and tell them they can find it at such and such URL on the “internet.” And when they say they can not accept that, tell them to trust you.

1. The cyber-space jpeg is proof of nothing.
and
2. “HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’S STATUS BE “GOVERNED” BY GREAT BRITAIN (From Birth)?”

Where you are WRONG is carrying on this line of attack when it has been PROVEN it DOES NOT WORK! Like the “truthers” you might get 25 percent of Americans to agree with your premise but like the “truthers” you will be mocked and derided and ignored by the other 75 percent of Americans.

This tact will have gained you nothing and the excess energy spent on it will take away the time you and the others could have taken to beat The One and make his last 2 years a pathetic existence!

Again, though, the bottom line question is this:

“HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’S STATUS BE “GOVERNED” BY GREAT BRITAIN (From Birth)?”

and

2. Barack a/k/a Barry’s father was a foreign national. Furthermore, Barry was born with foreign citizenship (British subject to be exact). That is no conspiracy theory, both of those issues were stated as fact on his campaign web sites.

How is it, that someone who was Governed by a foreign country at birth, could be considered a NBC of the U.S.?

Also, this is about NBC, and not “simply” citizen.

He would NOT have received U.S. citizenship based, only, on his mother’s citizenship status. Per U.S. law at the time of his birth (December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986).
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock:
“For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.”

“http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html”

Obama’s mother didn’t give birth to him at 19 (14 + 5). Therefore, Obama could not obtain U.S. citizenship based only by virtue his mother’s citizenship.

Note that the law only pertains to ‘Citizenship’, and not ‘Natural Born’ Citizen. There is a difference. Governor Schwarzenegger from Ca. is a citizen, yet he could not be POTUS because he isn’t a Natural Born citizen. He’s a Naturalized citizen.

There is nothing in our 250+ years of history that state someone with that background would be considered a NBC. Nothing. There is, however, plenty in both writtings and court opinions that state NBC = born in country to two (2) citizen parents. A few examples:

“THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen);
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel);
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel):
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)”

“http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss”

Bottom line take home question of the century. This is a legal question, that is…this is a Constitutional question:

“HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’S STATUS BE “GOVERNED” BY GREAT BRITAIN (From Birth)?”

That hurt.
(sniffle)

Fix your comprehension of priorities in the realm of politics and I probably won’t have a problem with your name. And, FWIW, you are occasionally capable of rational thought on other subjects unlike Britcom or 4palin.

None of you folks have as yet managed to outline any sort of likely consequences for what you see as BO’s offense. And like the other ‘bots around here, you pay no attention to the real problems that the Party and country face.

It would be a real mistake for you to consider your continued participation here as essential for the survival of the site.

However, that’s still not a good enough reason to ignore the law.

Reasons 1&2 are good points.

Bear in mind, the BC issue only addresses whether he’s a citizen. It is already known that he’s not a natural born citizen, as he had British citizenship at birth through his father. The general principle is, if it takes positive law to make you a citizen, then you’re not natural born. US law provides that if you’re born within the borders of the US, you’re a citizen at birth. This is different from being a natural born citizen. Positive law cannot provide for natural born citizenship, because positive law cannot make natural law. Naturally, Obama would inherit his citizenship, as well as his name, from his father.

Good luck getting the general public to understand that, though.

You are certifiable.

I am a Christian and I understand the Bible and I understand that Judgement of ones soul is the business of God, not some conspiracy theorist punk who lack common sense and respect for private property owners.

I will be praying for your sanity.

Jesus loves you.