Skip to comments.Newspapers' birth announcements: So what ?
Posted on 01/06/2010 5:41:28 PM PST by RobinMasters
Contrary to the claims of critics of citizens who demand Barack Obama produce evidence of his presidential eligibility, newspaper birth announcements in Hawaiian newspapers in 1961 did not necessarily indicate a baby was born in the state.
As WND reported, Glenn Beck ridiculed the so-called birther movement on his nationally syndicated radio show Monday, pointing to identical birth announcements published in the Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin as evidence Obama was born in Hawaii and, therefore, is a natural-born citizen as required by the Constitution.
Beck, and two colleagues, mocked "birthers" for purportedly believing a wild conspiracy in which Obama's parents, knowing he would someday be president, "preemptively" collaborated with two separate newspapers to publish phony announcements stating he was born in Hawaii.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Actually I am on the right side of this as JimRob has said there is something very wrong with Obamas eligibility.
And now I have to be polite and ping the boss because I posted about him. lol
It was true in the United States prior to 1922. It was a determining factor at Marie Elg's birth in 1907, determining natural-born citizenship in Perkins v. Elg.
To what partial truth are you referring, as far as derivative citizenship being the law, at the time the Constitution was ratified, all the way through to 1922?
I’m sure when she goes off duty, Jim will follow up on it ... ahem, maybe.
I don’t think the boss could answer all the pings that he must get but I still try to be polite. :-)
This is regardless of his mothers age, marital status, the citizenship of his father, any other citizenships he might be eligible for, the opinions of a French legal scholar from before the United States existed, or Jerome Corsis (who is often wrong about most everything) interpretations of law.
...you are correct.
I’m going to bed. It’s cold here, and I’m tired.
You have no idea whether I, as you so rudely put it, “still have not grasped the entirety of the issue.”
You are a relative newcomer to FR. I’ve been here much longer, have followed this issue closely, and I can guarantee you I know at least as much about this whole subject as you do.
Settle down, show some respect, and go insult/pick a fight with someone else who is willing to deal with your insults. You may be a very nice person, but tonight you just sound annoying and arrogant.
The 14th amendment has nothing to do with the NATURAL BORN citizenship.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, which included former slaves recently freed.
Hasn't a darn thing to do with natural born citizenship.
Also "Ahnold" is a citizen but can't be President because he's not an NBC. Same boat Obamas in. But they have a blind spot.
My first husband went through a similar process. He was born and raised in Aruba. Both of his parents were American citizens. His parents had to register him with the embassy and their was important paperwork that needed to be filed to secure his American citizenship. His birth certificate is from Aruba. As a young adult had quite a bit of paperwork to do to renounce his Dutch citizenship both here in the states and with Aruba. The Dutch Army even tried to draft him.
Except Obama's not in a boat. He's currently residing in the White House.
And Ahnold is in a Governors mansion. Your point?
First of all, you have no proof BHO was born abroad.
You have NO PROOF his mother left the country before he was born. Since she was a minor up to shortly before his birth, she would have required the permission of her own parents to leave the USA.
There’s nothing in that statute that says anything about the age of the mother at the time of the birth of the child so your comment that “she was too young” to confer her own citizenship onto her child are ridiculous.
Birthers make thinking conservatives look stupid!
My point? Natural born Obama is eligible for the presidency unlike naturalized Arnold who's not. Needless to say, they're not in the same boat.
For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
Birthers make thinking conservatives look stupid!
Who looks stupid? Afterbirthers that can't read.
“To what partial truth are you referring, as far as derivative citizenship being the law, at the time the Constitution was ratified, all the way through to 1922?”
Not sure what you mean, but 1922 is a long time ago. Obama is not that old, I don’t think...lol
It doesn’t matter where they were born, the natural born citizen clause in our constitution has been rendered meaningless by obama and the entire federal government that is willfully protecting a man who has admitted that he was a dual citizen at birth.
Furthermore, never underestimate the stupidity of the average voter. All one would have to do is assume a false identity and run for the democrat nomination, just like obama did, precedent has been set.
And you have no proof she ever left the country since she was a minor at the time (or barely 18) when Obama was born.
I rest my case!
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.