Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Obama Is Using Conn SS Number But Never Had A Mailing Address In Conn



Barack Obama: A Fraud You Can Believe In

Obama using Connecticut Social Security Number But No Record Can Be Found That Obama Ever Had A Mailing Address In Connecticut.

Jerome R. Corsi

(Three experts insist White House answer new questions about documentation.)

Two private investigators working independently are asking why President Obama is using a Social Security number set aside for applicants in Connecticut while there is no record he ever had a mailing address in the state.

In addition, the records indicate the number was issued between 1977 and 1979, yet Obama's earliest employment reportedly was in 1975 at a Baskin-Robbins ice-cream shop in Oahu, Hawaii.

Copies of affidavits have been filed separately in a presidential eligibility lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia by Ohio licensed private investigator Susan Daniels and Colorado private investigator John N. Sampson.

The investigators believe Obama needs to explain why he is using a Social Security number reserved for Connecticut applicants that was issued at a date later than he is known to have held employment.

The Social Security website confirms the first three numbers in his ID are reserved for applicants with Connecticut addresses, 040-049.

"Since 1973, Social Security numbers have been issued by our central office," the Social Security website explains. "The first three (3) digits of a person's social security number are determined by the ZIP code of the mailing address shown on the application for a social security number."

The question is being raised amid speculation about the president's history fueled by an extraordinary lack of public documentation.

(The extraordinary lack of public documentation is fueling my effort to expose obama as a FRAUD. The fact obama supported John Mccain in his senate resolution S 511 that defined the term natural born citizen as it applied to Mccain proves obama is a FRAUD. The senate resolution S 511 applied to Mccain but it also was a statement by obama defining not just Mccain but himself and others also. To just explain the resolution as pertaining to just Mccain is incorrect because it also defined ther term "natural born citizen" for Mccain and of course any one else who was or would be a candidate for US president.) Story Reports

Along with his original birth certificate, Obama also has not released educational records, scholarly articles, passport documents, medical records, papers from his service in the Illinois state Senate, Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and adoption papers.

(The "naturals" or people who support obama claim obama is legitimate. If obama was legitimate his educational records, scholarly articles, passport documents, medical records, papers from his service in the Illinois state senate, Illinois State Bar Association Records, any baptism records or adoption papers would be made public. The fact is not one of these records has been made public. I believe it is because if any of these hidden records were made ppublic it would expose obama as the FRAUD he is. Obama is a total NO RECORD. The records and the "birth certificate" issue are a side show to the main attraction that obama has defined the natural born citizen term in S 511. Obama has documented the fact he is a FRAUD in S 511.) Story Reports

Robert Siciliano, president and CEO of IDTheftSecurity.com and a nationally recognized expert on identity theft, agrees the Social Security number should be questioned.

"I know Social Security numbers have been issued to people in states where they don't live, but there's usually a good reason the person applied for a Social Security number in a different state," Siciliano said.

Siciliano was asked whether he thought the question was one the White House should answer.

"Yes," he replied. "In the case of President Obama, I really don't know what the good reason would be that he has a Social Security number issued in Connecticut when we know he was a resident of Hawaii."

(This is just more evidence to question obama as legitimate. In addition to asking "where's the birth certificate", the question should also be asked "why the additional ss number" when there is NO RECORD of employment at the time the SS number was issued.) Story Reports

The Social Security number in question links to Obama in the online records maintained by the Selective Service System. Inserting the Social Security number, his birth date and his last name produces a valid Selective Service number.

To verify the number was issued by the Social Security Administration for applicants in Connecticut, Daniels used a Social Security number verification database. She found that the numbers immediately before and immediately after Obama's were issued to Connecticut applicants between the years 1977 and 1979.

"There is obviously a case of fraud going on here," Daniels maintained. "In 15 years of having a private investigator's license in Ohio, I've never seen the Social Security Administration make a mistake of issuing a Connecticut Social Security number to a person who lived in Hawaii. There is no family connection that would appear to explain the anomaly."

Does the Social Security Administration ever re-issue Social Security numbers?

"Never," Daniels said. "It's against the law for a person to have a re-issued or second Social Security number issued."

Daniels said she is "staking my reputation on a conclusion that Obama's use of this Social Security number is fraudulent."

There is no indication in the limited background documentation released by the Obama 2008 presidential campaign or by the White House to establish that Obama ever lived in Connecticut.

(Its interesting the NO RECORD obama had a ss record created out of thin air. The dnc certified obama as legitimate. It seems obama and the dnc have stolen a dead persons ss number in Connecticut. Not only does the dnc stuff the ballot box with dead persons voting, it has stuffed the persidential election ballot box with a dead person's ss identity also.) Story Reports

Nor is there any suggestion in Obama's autobiography, "Dreams from My Father," that he ever had a Connecticut address.

Also, nothing can be found in the public record that indicates Obama visited Connecticut during his high-school years.

Sampson's affidavit specifies that as a result of his formal training as an immigration officer and his 27-year career in professional law enforcement, "it is my knowledge and belief that Social Security numbers can only be applied for in the state in which the applicant habitually resides and has their official residence."

Daniels said she believes Obama had a different Social Security number when he worked as a teenager in Hawaii prior to 1977.

"I doubt this is President Obama's originally issued Social Security number,". "Obama has a work history in Hawaii before he left the islands to attend college at Occidental College in California, so he must have originally been issued a Social Security number in Hawaii."

(So why was obama issued a ss number again when there is NO RECORD of obama ever living in Conn or working in Conn. It is because obama is a TOTAL FRAUD, an empty suit, the man that never was or an avitar created by the media and the dnc to deceive the American public.) Story Reports

The published record available about Obama indicates his first job as a teenager in Hawaii was at a Baskin-Robbins in the Makiki neighborhood on Oahu. USA Today reported the ice-cream shop still was in operation one year after Obama's inauguration.

Politifact.com, a website typically supportive of Obama, claims he worked at the Baskin-Robbins in 1975 or 1976, prior to the issuance of the number in question.

"It is a crime to use more than one Social Security number, and Barack Obama had to have a previous Social Security number to have worked at Baskin-Robbins," she insisted. "Under current law, a person is not permitted to use more than one Social Security number in a lifetime."

Another anomaly in the law enforcement databases searched by Daniels and Sampson is that the date 1890 shows up in the field indicating the birth of the number holder, along with Obama's birth date of 08/04/1961. A third date listed is 04/08/1961, which appears to be a transposition of Obama's birth date in an international format, with the day before the month.

Daniels disclosed that the name of the database she searched and produced a computer screen copy of the page that listed 1890 as a date associated with the 042 Social Security number.

Daniels said she can't be sure if the 1890 figure has any significance. But she said it appears the number Obama is using was previously issued by the Social Security Administration.

After an extensive check of the proprietary databases she uses as a licensed private investigator, Daniels determined that the first occurrence of Obama's association with the number was in 1986 in Chicago.

Daniels assumes, but cannot prove, that Obama took on a previously issued Social Security number that had gone dormant due to the death of the original holder.

(This is what the dnc does to acquire votes also. The dnc registers dead people to vote so it makes perfect sense the dnc would use a dead person's ss number to register obama in Connecticut. This is EXACTLY what ILLEGAL ALIENS do to steal identities of US citizens. OBAMA has STOLEN the identiy of a legitimate US citizen because he is a FRAUD! Amazing!) Story Reports

Daniels has been a licensed private investigator in Ohio since 1995. Sampson formed his private investigations firm, CSI Consulting and Investigations, in 2008. He previously worked as a deportations law enforcement officer with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

.........................................................................................
Text of S. Res. 511 [110th]: A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen

April 10, 2008

Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen' of the United States;

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen', as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country's President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen';

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

("Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens" The quote indicates American Citizens, plural. Obama cosponsored this resolution and agreed that a natural born citizen is a citizen that "was born to American citizens". This is something the "naturals" try to minimize or explain away the quote as obama just saying Mccain is a natural born citizen. It is of course more than just a statement about Mccain because the US Constitution pertains to obama and anyone else who is running for president.

To say the US Constituion just applies to Mccain in S 511 is what the "naturals" want you to believe. Senate resolution S 511 declares anyone who is not born to American Citizen(s) is not a natural born citizen. Obama was NOT born to American citizen(s). Only one parent was a US citizen, his mother. Obama has declared in S 511 that he is a FRAUD! The naturals know this and try to avoid the quote in S 511, "Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens" If Mccain is a natural born citizen because of this, what is obama?....A FRAUD!) Story Reports

.........................................................................................
Barack Obama: A Fraud You Can Believe In

President Barack Obama: A Fraud You Can Believe In

Herb Denenberg

There was abundant evidence Mr. Obama was a fraud, not a savior, in everything he’s done in life — from his early education to his days in the Illinois legislature then to his U.S. Senate days and finally as a successful candidate for president. If anyone would look at his record and associates they’d see he’s advocated infanticide in the Illinois State Senate, he’s never displayed a glimmer of bipartisanship and he came out of the slime and sewer that is Chicago machine politics. And his associates would prevent him from getting security clearance if he was applying for a government job, rather than being elected to one.

The golden tongue orator can’t move his golden tongue without the aid of a script and a teleprompter.

There have been many false Messiahs in history, but isn’t this going a little too far? We’ve got to set a higher standard, even for false Messiahs.

Documents by: Herb Denenberg

DNC Committed FRAUD When Obama Was CERTIFIED AS A Legitimate Candidate For President

8 comments:

TellerIP said...

senate resolution S 511 applies only to McCain. In fact, it has his name on it. And senate resolution S 511 only adds McCain's criteria of birth (born on a US base to two US parents) to the existing criterion of Natural Born Status, which is birth in the USA regardless of the number of parents who are citizens.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

Story Reports said...

Article II Section 1.

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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

"natural born citizen"

"or a citizen of the United States, , at the time of the adoption of this Constitution"

What is the difference between a "natural born citizen" and a "citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution" ?

You say there is no difference. I say if this were true there would have been no need nor would it have made any sense to differentiate between the term "natural born citizen" and "citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution".

You say a natural born citizen is a citizen of the US. I agree.

You also say any "citizen" is a "natural born citizen".

I say any "citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution" was eligible to be president also. Obama is not eligible because he was not a "citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution". If he had been he would have been eligible to be president.

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution

The key word is "or". Its one or the other meaning "at the time of the adoption of this Constitution" there were at least two kinds or US citizens. Natural born citizens and citizens.

There is a difference. The difference is a natural born citizen has parents who were US citizens at birth. Beginning with the adoption of the Constitution there were natural born citizens born to two parents who were US citizens the day the US Constitution was ratified.

"neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years"

35 years later this "natural born citizen" was eligible to be president.

This is why the phrase, "or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution".

No one was a US citizen until the US Constitution was ratified. When it was ratified the clock began ticking for the first "natural born" citizen to run for president.

Its all about what you consider to be a "natural born citizen".

You consider any US citizen to be a natural born citizen.

Obama considers Mccain a "natural born citizen" because his parents(s) are both US citizens and were US citizens at the time of Mccain's birth according to S 511.

Obama has 1 parent who is a US citizen and 1 parent who is not.

How can obama consider Mccain a "natural born citizen" because he has both parents as US citizens at birth and he did not?

Obama has admitted he is a FRAUD.

Just admit it and don't coverup for obama any more.

TellerIP said...

This is the text of S 511 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-sr511/text). As you can see, it has McCain's name on it and it says that "Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country's President;"

One thing it does not say is that in order to be president you have to have been born on a military base overseas or even born to two US parents. McCain was born on a military base to two US parents, but you can be born off of a military base and be Natural Born and you can be born to one US parent or even NO US parents and still be Natural Born.

How? Because there are two criteria of Natural Born Citizenship. First is simply birth in the US jurisdiction. Second is birth outside of the USA to two US parents.

“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

Obama falls into the first of these categories. McCain into the second.

ALL US citizens who were born in the USA are Natural Born Citizens.

That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

And that is why there are federal legal cases that rule that the US-born children of foreigners are Natural Born Citizens simply because of their place of birth. Such as:

Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.

Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.

Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.

This OVERWHELMING consensus of legal and constitutional experts that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats stems from the original meaning of Natural Born, which came from the common law, and meant "born in the country with the exception of the children of foreign diplomats."

It does not come from Vattel, the Swiss philosopher, who recommended several things that were not adopted in the US Constitution, such as a state religion. And Vattel himself never recommended that a leader of a country should even be a citizen, much less a two-parent-citizen citizen.

Story Reports said...

consensus: majority of opinion

Does a so called consensus overrule the US Constitution?

So your saying its a consensus that qualifies obama to be president?

Letters to constituents overrule the US Constituion?

S 511 is not law but only a senate resolution but it is a statment by obama defining his defition of the term "natural born citizen".

So you are saying a senate judiciary committe overrules the US Constituion?

The US Supreme Court has not ruled on what a natural born citizen is.

The actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790 states,
"...children of citizens (plural = both parents) of the United States...shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States..." (FIRST CONGRESS Session II Ch.4 1790, Approved March 26, 1790, pp. 103-104. Document margin note: "Their children residing here, deemed citizens." Document margin note: "Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, & c. Exceptions.")

In the official copies of the THIRD U.S. Congress (1795) margin notes state "Former act repealed. 1790. ch. 3." referencing the FIRST U.S. Congress (1790).

The actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 states, "...children of citizens [plural = both parents] of the United States...shall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States..." (THIRD CONGRESS Session II. Ch.21. 1795, Approved January 29, 1795, pp. 414-415. Document margin note: "How children shall obtain citizenship through their parents" Document margin note: "Former Act repealed 1790 ch.3.")

The actual text of the Constitution from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789, and subsequent official printings, of the Constitution of the United States of American: Article II Section 1 Clause 5 states,
"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…"

TellerIP said...

You said: "The actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790 states,"

That law simply added children born outside the United States to two parents to the existing definition of Natural Born, which was "born in the country with the exception of the children of foreign diplomats.

So you could be either born in the country or born outside of the country to two US parents.

I saw this comment recently: "Natural born” had an extensive history dating back to 1350. In the 437 years since then [meaning till the time of the writing of the Constitution in 1787], it had always meant the same thing, born within the country, regardless of parental citizenship (and born abroad to citizens).

It was used in Colonial charters. It was used in the Constitutions of the new states, which predated the U.S. Constitution.

So, yes, Natural Born does mean the same today as it did in 1787, and the same as it did in 1350.

You guys are the ones who would have us believe that the Founders were so mind-bogglingly stupid as to use a 437 year-old term with a clearly established meaning to mean the exact opposite based on a single use by a Swiss philosopher. Oh, and they forgot to write it down, or mention it to anyone!"

I agree, the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law, not Vattel. If it had come from Vattel, they would have told us. If they had meant "two citizen parents," and not just 'born in the country," they would have told us. The meaning of Natural Born Citizen came from the common law, and it meant "born in the country with the exception of the children of foreign diplomats."

You also said: "The US Supreme Court has not ruled on what a natural born citizen is."

No, but it ruled on what Natural Born is, in the Wong Kim Ark case, which ruled six to two (one not voting) that EVERY child born in the country is Natural Born.

The letters I cited are merely a way of showing that your opinion of the meaning of Natural Born is held by about one out of 1,000 lawyers and constitutional experts. So the chance of getting five votes on the Supreme Court is about one in a thousand. In fact, I don't think there are even four votes to call the case. Probably not even two votes.

Story Reports said...

Our Founding Fathers could not have been any more specific about the requirements for the office of president, “NO PERSON except a NATURAL-BORN Citizen.” It isn’t their fault that too many Americans don’t care about or can’t comprehend this term or the purpose behind it today.

Vattel could not have been any more clear about the definition of “natural-born citizen,” “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

US Vs Wong Kim Ark (1898) - was a case of “native born citizenship” - when both parents were immigrants from China, naturalized US citizens who gave birth to a son on US soil before returning to China. The son was held up upon returning from a trip to China, but was granted re-entry as a “native-born” citizen, having been born on US soil to two immigrant parents. Once again, immigration and no relationship whatsoever to natural born citizenship.

TellerIP said...

You said: “NO PERSON except a NATURAL-BORN Citizen.”

That is what the Constitution says. That is precisely what it says. But Natural Born Citizen does NOT mean “two US parents.” It simply means born in the USA or born of US parents outside of the USA. The effect of the Natural Born Citizen clause is to bar foreigners from being president (because they must be citizens, of course) and it also bars naturalized citizens from being president, but it does NOT bar the US-born children of foreigners from being president. If the writers of the Constitution had wanted to do that, they would have said so.

You said: “It isn’t their fault that too many Americans don’t care about or can’t comprehend this term or the purpose behind it today.”

Actually, it is YOU who can’t comprehend the simple meaning of Natural Born, which was in the common law since about 1300 and has always meant “born in the country with the exception of the children of foreign diplomats.” (The addition of birth abroad to two US parents being considered also Natural Born, was later and by statute.)

What could be clearer than the following definition?

“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

Re: Vattel could not have been any more clear about the definition of “natural-born citizen.”

Yes, that is what Vattel thought. He also recommended several things that our Constitution did not adopt, such as a state religion.

So, there is no evidence that the writers of the Constitution used Vattel’s definition of Natural Born. And, there is plenty of evidence that they used the common law. They were 60-70% lawyers after all. John Jay, who was the first American leader to use the term Natural Born Citizen was a lawyer and a future chief justice. There is no evidence that he read Vattel, but he read Blackstone a lot, and Blackstone always said that “Natural Born” meant “born in the country with the exception of the children of foreign diplomats.”

Vattel is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. The common meaning of Natural Born was “born in the country.” The writers of the Constitution would not have used an unusual new meaning of the phrase without having stated their meaning.

TellerIP said...

You said: “US Vs Wong Kim Ark (1898) - was a case of “native born citizenship” - when both parents were immigrants from China, naturalized US citizens who gave birth to a son on US soil before returning to China. “

You obviously did not read the case. Neither of Wong’s parents were naturalized. The case says clearly that they both were subjects of “the Emperor of China” (before 1911 China had an Emperor). Here is the complete ruling (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html)

You said: “The son was held up upon returning from a trip to China, but was granted re-entry as a “native-born” citizen, having been born on US soil to two immigrant parents. Once again, immigration and no relationship whatsoever to natural born citizenship.”

The phrase used was Natural Born. Wong, like all other children born in the United States (except the children of foreign diplomats) was ruled to be Natural Born.

Here is a quotation:

“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

As you can see EVERY child born in England or in the colonies or in the early states or in the USA after the Constitution except for the children of foreign diplomats or the children of an alien enemy in hostile occupation is Natural Born.

What does that mean? It means obviously that when a Natural Born child is also a citizen she or he is a Natural Born Citizen.

That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)