Posted on 07/29/2009 9:46:00 AM PDT by fiscon1
I never really worried about the so called controversy of th birth of President Obama because I am no fan of conspiracy theories. In order to believe that President Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, you not only have to believe that a conspiracy is being created involving an entire state's bureaucratic apparatus, but you also have to believe that President Obama has been lying, or lied to, since he was a child. After all, he's maintained he was born in Hawaii since he was a kid. Either he was claiming this lie long before he wanted to be president, or his entire family lied to him about his place of birth.
(Excerpt) Read more at theeprovocateur.blogspot.com ...
So there is no possibility of any official or underling having seen a non-native original BC on file and keeping their mouth shut about it. There is no possibility that anyone in the records office was curious and looked at it before a year ago. Or if it was sealed up back then, nobody in the office mentioned it to anyone outside the office.
So nobody sneaked a peek before July08 when it became an issue? Nobody?
The point is what I just posted, but technically she was old enough to give him citizenship no matter where he was born. Anchor baby law didn’t take effect until 1986.
“Actually, that is not so far-fetched. People do that all the time for the silliest of reasons. “
Yeah, my children still don’t know about my *first* very short and childless marraige.
Sorry, I couldn’t let this ignorance stand. You made me register.
The mother doesn’t give citizenship to a child, the US constitution does. Specifically the 14th amendment. Why do you think Mexican mothers will jump the border to give her on our side? Instant citizenship for the newborn.
And that little detail would have never come up before the intrepid birthers figured it all out a year ago?
Hmmm. I was under the impression that if one is born on US soil, even if the parents are foreign, they are a US citizen?
Isn’t that what the whole “anchor baby” issue is about?
My personal belief is that he probably was born in Hawaii, but there might be another reason for him not to release the original records. For example, maybe it will open up a case to challenge his natural born status on other legal grounds, as some claim.
In any case, I agree with you that it’s not so far-fetched that a family would lie to a child. The press is wrong. Sometimes families lie to children to protect them. I remember when parents sometimes didn’t tell their adopted children they were adopted. And how many single or divorced parents have told not-so-true stories to their children about the other parent? If the Jerry Springer show is any indication, apparently some mothers themselves don’t even know the origins of their children.
I’m not saying Obama was lied to. I believe his mother would’ve told him if he was born in Kenya. But, parents and grandparents sometimes do hide information from children or tell them an “untrue” story for many different reasons.
How do you think that “being born in Hawaii” is separate from “he is a natural born citizen”?
Obama is a natural born citizen if he was born within the boundaries of Hawaii. Only if he was born someone else is there any question at all.
Glad you registered, but you are incorrect.
The anchor baby law wasn’t in effect until 1986.
Please note THE LAW THAT WAS IN EFFECT WHEN OBAMA WAS BORN.
4. December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986
If at the time of your birth both your parents were U.S. citizens and at least one had a prior residence in the United States, you automatically acquired U.S. citizenship with no conditions for retaining it.
If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16. There are no conditions placed on retaining this type of citizenship. If your one U.S. citizen parent is your father and you were born outside of marriage, the same rules apply if your father legally legitimated you before your 21st birthday and you were unmarried at the time. If legitimization occurred after November 14, 1986, your father must have established paternity prior to your 18th birthday, either by acknowledgment or by court order, and must have stated in writing that he would support you financially until your 18th birthday.
Stanley Ann Dunham was not old enough to pass on citizenship to Barack because she had a baby with a non-US citizen and was under the age “five years” over the age of 16.
I do believe Obama is lying and so are many people who are trying to cover this up. Every record that can be tied to a birth certificate is not available. Also, he was a student in Indonesia during a time there was no dual citizenship. Therefore, if he were born in Hawaii, he would have still had to have renounced his citizenship.
The only thing the American people have to look at are a COLB which is a fraud and Obama’s grandmother’s word; and you wonder why everyone is suspicious.
Re-read what you just wrote. If you assume your third statement to be correct, then Obama could only be a citizen if he was born in Hawaii, in which case your first statement is incorrect.
If Obama was born in Hawaii, Obama is a natural-born citizen, by precedent of the Supreme Court. And if you want to ignore that precedent because you don't believe in anchor babies, you stated his mother was a citizen, and there is no doubt that the child of a citizen, born within the boundaries of this nation, is a natural born citizen.
So in fact, his place of birth IS the critical issue.
Why do you people bother to post an insult on an eligibilty thread, then pretend to give a damn what the Constitution says? Is playing gotcha on unresolved techincal definitions really worth pretending you give a damn?
Only one parent has to be a citizen in order for a child to be a citizen. Nobody argues that a child born within the nation’s boundaries to a mother who is a citizen would NOT be natural-born.
Further, Supreme Court precedent says that any child born in this country is a “natural-born citizen”, even if neither parent is a citizen, and even if both parents are here illegally. We can argue whether that is correct or not, but that is how the judiciary interprets the question now.
You know what, I think you are right on the born in the US law. I’m not sure how the immigration laws clash with the 14th amendment.
I guess it all boils down to Obama’s birth certificate.
Why would someone spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to prevent showing a birth certificate to a judge? I’m just stupified on that.
Natural-born citizenship is a function of birth. Other questions can be asked as to whether Obama could have ever officially and legally given up his citizenship, and if so, if he could get it back; but assuming he got it back, he’d still be “natural-born” if he was born in this country.
If he was born in the country, it makes no difference that his father wasn’t a citizen.
Those questioning his eligibility do not have a responsibility to disprove his status.
The use of the word “birther” is nothing more than an attempt to discredit those who are simply asking that the Constitutional Requirement that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen be affirmed.
If he proves his eligibility, the issue is resolved. As long as he does not, the issue remains unresolved unless someone is an Obama Sycophant with no interest in the Rule of Law.
Wasn't it somebody named Hillary Clinton who said that if you disagree with the Administration you are Patriotic?
It is also interesting that the same Media who left no stone unturned to dig up President Bush's College Transcripts and GPA have not found ANY information on Obama’s College records.
We don’t know yet ... unless you do and are baiting folks with your straw thingies.
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.