Posted on 08/09/2008 8:59:03 AM PDT by dascallie
Barack Obama is not legally a US natural-born citizen
Obama running in violation of US election law
By Steve Miller Saturday, August 9, 2008
"Barack Obama is not legally a US natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth; a law that was in effect between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, when the law was changed.
"...Therefore, Senator Obama may very well be disqualified as the Democratic candidate in the upcoming Presidential campaign.
Read entire article at http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4375
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
There are people that believe that....
Some are even muslims.
My own COB at the bottom where the embossed seal is says (typed just like this) "THIS IS TO CERTIFY That this is a certified copy of a certificate filed with the Bureau of Vital Statistics under Title 39, Idaho Code.
Then the State Registrar of Vital Statistics signed it and put date issued. Which was only a few years back when I sent for it.
I think the difference between "filed" and "accepted" has to do with the "delayed filings" Those who didn't have BC issued because they didn't do it way back then or a state was only a Territory at the time of birth. In the case of the sample they are using for a real Hawaiian BC (forget her name) she was born in 1930 before Hawaii was a state so her information was "accepted"
My Certified BC is on the same green basquet weave type of paper as all the Hawaiian ones, only mine doesn't have a boarder. They took the index card that my mother and the physician filled out and copied it to this type of stock paper. Most of mine is in my mothers handwriting, except for my name which was typed in later. (I was born at home and I guess she didn't know what to name me at that time) It also has the doctors signature. The information wasn't marked received until 14 days after I was born.
So I don't put to much into the fact that Obama's fake BC says "Filed" versus "Accepted"
No. It applies to everyone. What the part you highlighted says is that military service or service abroad in government service be included in satisfying the physical presence requirement. As anyone who reads the whole paragraph can see.
You might want to go there and check it out.
I think not. I'm capable of reading and understanding congressional legislation.
I am sure Hawaii had a lot of this. There are other reasons why information in the filing is incomplete. It could have had missing information for the father, or a witness signature without a date. Any number of things could have been missing to cause it to be filed by not accepted.
I know that and you know that, but the person who wrote the article at the beginning of this thead doesn't seem to know that.
THE OTHER PARAGRAPHS ONLY APPLY IF HE WAS BORN OUTSIDE THE U.S. and some are making that supposition. It is their perogative to do so, since so far there is no real proof he was born in the U.S. That COLB that was provided doesn't do it for a lot of people.
P.S. I have no idea if he was or wasn't born in the U.S. so am not making a big stand one way or the other.
You have that backwards.
It is "Filed" when all the information was given and "Filed" at the time of your birth when ALL BC started being "Filed". "Accepted" is when you were NOT registered at the time of birth because you were born before they started doing that or it was only a Territory. So then a relative has to fill out a document saying they swear under oath that all the information they give is correct to the best of their knowledge. It is then "ACCEPTED"
Obama's was supposedly "Filed" which would be the correct statement like mine was.
That is only a problem if she was OUTSIDE the US when Obama was born. If Obama was born in the US, then he is a citizen.
California law requires that a candidate for Attorney General have been actively practicing law in the state within a certain period of time prior to running. I think it may be five years. Anyhow, Brown had exceeded that limit, and a challenge to his candidacy was mounted by state Republicans; however, a judge postponed hearing the case until a date some time after the election, so the Republicans backed down and it was forgotten.
Intersesting that the MSM is not mentioning Hawaii as his native state in connection with their reportage on this vacation. Wonder why.
Please see my post # 68.
The sooner he can produce a real Hawaii birth certificate, the sooner this controversy will become moot. However, since he and/or his buddies haven't produced one yet, the possibility that he is not a native born citizen - and therefore constitutionally ineligible to serve as president - remains very real.
I appreciate your attempt at humor, but this issue of Obama’s possible constutional ineligibility to serve as president is the farthest thing from sh.. to those Americans who appreciate the Constitution and its central importance to our nation.
Please see my post # 68.
Well, McCain, for one, though he may not have "had to," has displayed a bona fide copy of his birth certificate over the Internet, indicating that he was born to two American parents on American soil. Therefore, no question he meets the constitutional requirements.
No. There is no conflict between the 14th Amendment and Article II in this discussion. If Obama was indeed born in the US, that would be the end of the argument; he'd be a "natural-born citizen" and would be constitutionally qualified. Problem is that his place of birth has not been documented by a bona fide birth certificate or officially certified copy of such true birth certificate.
No. There is no conflict between the 14th Amendment and Article II in this discussion. If Obama was indeed born in the US, that would be the end of the argument; he'd be a "natural-born citizen" and would be constitutionally qualified. Problem is that his place of birth has not been documented by a bona fide birth certificate or officially certified copy of such true birth certificate.
you're right. Thanks for the correction. It's still a little strange that he would bring up Constitutional qualifications.
True, but there is no one of relevance right now who can or is willing to force this issue.
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.