I sure hope that this is not just a load of internet BS.
Where’s the “Aw jeez, not this ... again!” picture when we need it...
Right before the DNC convention? Just as he goes on vacation? I smell the wrinkled, scaly hands of Hillary! Clinton.
He’s a Marxist with terorrist friends too but the Left won the revolution against HCUA. Jane Fonda was permitted to engage in treason publicly. Billy Ayers was petmitted to bomb the Pentagon and later say how he’d wished he’d done more. John Kerry was permitted to run for the White House despite being a member of an organization that plotted to assassinated elected Congressmen to end support for the war in Vietnam...
This country went off the deep end 40 years ago.
The author must be not aware that being born in the US would qualify B[redacted]O to be a “natural born US citizen”. The issue is whether or not he was born on US soil. He has not given proof that he was.
Bump
This is kookery. The law in question only applied to those born outside the US. There’s no direct evidence that Obama was born outside the US that I’ve seen.
Did the author bother to check the law?
§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
How Current is This?
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
She is referring to laws where the person is not born in the US
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401——000-.html
.
Uh, no. That would be "in violation of the Constitution".
The section of the law he quotes *only* applies if Obama was born outside the United States, which he fails to note. Obama’s place of birth is, of course, a matter of some current debate.
With his misreading of the statute, I’m interested in whether he got the part about the new law not being retroactive right. But it’s an interesting question.
From the last paragraph of the article...
“The above information may be presented from the floor at the Democratic National Convention, and my be the impetus of resurrecting Hillary Clinton’s Democratic Presidential campaign.”
§ 1405. Persons born in Hawaii
A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.
O'Bama was born in Hawaii after April 30, 1990 and therefore meets the law for being a citizen. No need to have a parent reside a certain number of years, no restrictions on dual citizenship,....he just needed to take that first breath in Hawaii after 1990.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001405----000-.html
Ping!
You know, if this is possibly really true then Denver will be a mess! I could see the Clinton’s not caring at this point whether they tore the party to pieces since they feel they have been dissed by it. I don’t think Hilliary if she steals the nomination could piece enough of it back together before November to win but she sure could make it an interesting fall! If you live in a city I’d be stocking up on groceries and amo soon.
I believe that this only applies to persons born outside the US.
Steme Miller’s understanding of this issue is way behind that of most of those who have been following it. In fact, the law he quotes only applies if Obama was born outside of the US, as has been stated many times here on FR. According to the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, anyone born in the US is a natural born US citizen.