To: dascallie
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.
9 posted on
08/09/2008 9:04:09 AM PDT by
Alter Kaker
(Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
To: Alter Kaker
Theres no direct evidence that Obama was born outside the US that Ive seen.The birth certificate on his website (and Daily Kos) has been clearly demonstrated to be a forgery based on his sister Maya's real birth certificate. The big question is: why?
18 posted on
08/09/2008 9:08:42 AM PDT by
xjcsa
(Has anyone seen my cornballer?)
To: Alter Kaker
But the point is Obama must have evidence that he was born on US soil. There is no presumption of birth in the US. The burden of proof is on the citizen to produce a birth certificate.
To: Alter Kaker
This article brings up the question of whether Obama's Mama Stanley was old enough to qualify to confer citizenship on her child. She does not appear to have been, by the explicit criteria in the stated law. His place of birth is irrelevant.
From the author:
Presidential office requires the person elected to be a natural-born United States citizen if the child was not born to two US citizen parents.
US Law very clearly stipulates: If only one parent was a US 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.
Barack Obamas father was not a US citizen, and Obamas mother was only 18 when he was born, which means although she had been a US citizen for 10 years, his mother fails the test for being so for at least 5 years prior to Barack Obamas birth.
In order for her child to have been a natural-born US citizen, his mother would have had to be 21 at the time of his birth.
In essence, Mrs. Obama was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic US citizenship. His mother would have needed to have been 16+5 = 21 years old at the time of Barack Obamas birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen. Barack Obama instead should have been naturalized, but even then, that would still disqualify him from holding the office of President under current law. At best, Barack Obama is only a naturalized US citizen. This is an issue that must be clarified before the election.
34 posted on
08/09/2008 9:22:24 AM PDT by
silverleaf
(Fasten your seat belts- it's going to be a BUMPY ride.)
To: Alter Kaker
The law applies when only one parent is a US citizen. Place of birth is not the issue here. Conference of citizenship by a mother who had not resided in the US for 5 years beyond age 16 - is the issue.
Fascinating!
37 posted on
08/09/2008 9:24:24 AM PDT by
silverleaf
(Fasten your seat belts- it's going to be a BUMPY ride.)
To: Alter Kaker
The law in question only applied to those born outside the US.True. This Steve Miller doesn't understand the relevant law.
There's not direct evidence that Obama was born outside the US that I've seen.
Agreed. But there are whispers that he may have been born in Kenya, or may have been born in Canada. Although there is no direct evidence of this yet produced, there is also, to the best of my knowledge, no direct evedence that he was born in Hawaii (or anywhere else in the US for that matter). The "fact" that he was born in Hawaii has yet to be proven by a legitimate Hawaiian birth certificate. Attempts to produce such a Hawaiian birth certificate by Obama supporters have resulted in forgeries. One logically wonders why a person allegedly born in Hawaii in 1961 cannot produce a bona fide birth certificate to document that fact. I know that I can produce a birth certificate to document that I was born in the US, and I'm confident that most any American-born individual can do likewise. Why not Obama?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson