Posted on 07/10/2009 9:54:16 AM PDT by nysuperdoodle
With the release of a letter written by Obama that "clarifies" where he was born... comes more confusion than ever. Now we have THREE different reported places of birth from sources within the Obama family. I wonder why there's so much confusion about this?
(Excerpt) Read more at evilconservativeonline.com ...
Who said anything about the validity of the constitution? However, that’s exactly the kind of response that BHO is looking for. It’s proof that the rope-a-dope strategy is working.
“If there was nothing to hide, Obama would have released the long form and been done with it rather than spend all the money that has been spent to hide and obfuscate.”
I disagree—he’d do exactly what he’s doing now. It makes his opponents look like foaming conspiracy nuts.
McCain is a natural born citizen since his American parents had him when his father was deployed overseas with the military for the good ole’ USA. That’s old news and has already been taken care of. His father and grandfather were Admirals in the Navy and McCain was a POW. McCain is a true American hero.
I would agree McCain is descended from true American heroes and his endurance as a P.O.W. makes hima patriot, also. But his natural born status cannot technically be defined by a Senate non-binding resolution. That technicality was an ace in the hole the DNC was no doubt more than ready to exploit since they even worded the Senate resoultion incorrectly ... or didn't you notice that little tidbit in the wrting?
Not so.
McCain was born to two natural born U.S. citizens. That makes him a citizen at birth regardless of where he was born.
The Kenyan’s problem starts with his father being a British citizen (Kenya was under British rule, when Obama Senior was born) AND his mother being 18 years old which was not old enough to confer citizenship on her new born child.
The operative statute in play is The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C. 1401. Sec. 301 (g). which says in regards to foreign births to a U.S. mother and foreign father that to confer citizenship to her child the parent must have spent 10 years in the U.S., five of which were over age 14.
Obama/Soetoro’s mother was 18 years old when she gave birth, a few months short of the 19-year-old minimum age to pass on citizenship if giving birth in a foreign country to a child sired by a foreigner.
If he was born anywhere outside the U.S. he is a usurper and not constitutionally eligible to be POTUS
Thanks, LucyT
PING.
On Page 2 of the November 2004 Rainbow Edition newsletter (Queen’s Medical Center):
http://www.hawaii.edu/labschool/re040523.pdf
And on Page 8 of the Spring 2009 Inspire Magazine (Kapi‘olani Medical Center).
http://www.kapiolanigift.org/press_room/Publications/Inspire%20Magazine%20Spring%202009.pdf: 
Depending of what Natural Born Citizen really means maybe, maybe not. I lean towards not. No real legal definition of Natural Born Citizen has existed since 1795.
At to whether he's qualified to be president, I am certain of the answer. Not just no, but HELL NO!
Further, your approach is deeply flawed: with a SCOTUS ruling regarding the meaning of natural born citizen, we would have an answer to whether dual citizenship at birth disqualifies one from being a natural born citizen. BArry Soetoro had a British subject for father--according to his pronouncement, which I am not willing to accept since he is a proven perjurer/liar--regardless of where he was born.
I'm elated that you have taken time to read the 1952 law regarding citizenship, but that in no way addresses the issue of 'natural born citizen' except in the very special case of the affirmative action bastard being born in Kenya or Canada ... being born on foreign soil, as you have argued, does not disqualify McCain, so applying that same reasoning to Soetoro hangs everything on his mother's citizenship and ability to pass same to him, which is of course a very tenuous way to enforce the Constitution. But then perhaps that is your point?
An Unholy Trinity, as it were...
McCain is eligible because of his parents, not his place of birth.
If a Panamanian woman gave birth on that US military base, the kid would not be a US citizen. However, if she dropped the kid in Honolulu, he would be a citizen. He could even grow up to be president — and probably an improvement over the incumbent.
“Citizen, yes, natural born citizen? Well, for that final conclusion a SCOTUS ruling would be required. But I understand why some want to conflate citizen and natural born citizen.”
Correct me if I’m wrong but there are only two types of citizenship—natural born and naturalized- both clearly defined and not needing a SCOTUS ruling.
Since Obama’s father was a foreigner and Obama’s mother was too young to confer citizenship on him per the 1952 statute, his birthplace is solely determinate as to his citizenship.
If there was nothing for him to hide and he was actually born in Hawaii, I believe he would have released his long form certificate more than a year ago instead of the image of a fake. Because of 12 months of “guilty behavior” on his part including incurring hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal fees to keep all of his records hidden, I conclude, absent naturalization records, the man is not a U.S. citizen AT ALL.
Because we're not liberals?
I'm not advocating it either, but as long as the legal approaches have a hope of working, no one is apt to try an 'extralegal' solution.
I've seen something on FR recently to the effect of 'if you make peaceful dissent impossible, you make violent dissent inevitable'. IMHO, we're getting way too close to that threshold.
Yeah, and M. Jackson paid 22 million to one certain kid because he was innocent.
Uh. No. And no.
Gentlemen? We have someone needing a bit of edumacation.
Again.
*sigh*
“Yeah, and M. Jackson paid 22 million to one certain kid because he was innocent.”
Can you please shed some light on what this has to do with the subject of this thread in general and to my post to which you replied in particular?
We have a few trying to float that notion, that there are only two types of citizenship. I don’t agree with that assessment, but it is irrelevant since SCOTUS has not ruled specifically on natrual born citizen in relation to the Constitutional eligibilty for presidency.
There are at least three forms of citizen which have been aired in SCOTUS rulings not related to the presdiency, including native born without ascribing that status to natural born (the Ark case). You might want to reaqd up on Beckwith’s excellent exposition on this issue (the Obama file)
Nice try, obamanoid. Without a ruling on the definition of natural born citizen from SCOTUS, the person you allude to would be in limbo. I can understand why you obamanoids want anchor babies to be eligible for the presidency, but that ain’t gonna fly without a SCOTUS ruling.
Photoshopped, Yes. Maya's COLB, definitely not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.