Anyone sentient person who attended grade school in the 1950s and early 1960s knows this is not true. In those days we spent a substantial amount of time on the founding of the US and Government. Not just one grade, but several during the elementary through Jr High School experience.
The meaning of natural born citizen was very clear. If Obama's father was in fact Barrak Sr. as Barry claims, then Barry is definitely NOT a natural born citizen. Does not matter if he was popped out in in Honolulu, Hawaii or Rabbit Hash, Kentucky.
Sadly the media has been able to obfuscate this matter to in order to confuse average Joe Six Pack focused on the Superbowl and Dancing with the Stars...to the point that anyone speaking to truth is ridiculed; even by so-called conservatives.
Do a little research...it isnt that hard to figure it out.
If Obama's father was in fact Barrak Sr. as Barry claims, then Barry is definitely NOT a natural born citizen.
...
Do a little research...it isnt that hard to figure it out.
Apparently, it is really hard to figure out, because according to reliable sources, Obama has been president for four year and will be president again for another four years. So either:
1. He's eligible.
2. There is a massive global conspiracy involving pretty much anybody with any actual authority to cover up what is -- according to the birthers -- really obvious.
Occam's razor suggests #1, but I suppose Occam was in on the conspiracy too, huh?
Should an important constitutional issue be decided on the basis of what a candidate says somebody else told him, particularly when it concerns an event (conception) to which he could not have been a witness? If his status as a natural born citizen is dependent upon the identity of his father, shouldn't a court require proof of paternity before deciding the NBC issue?
What should happen in a case where paternity is unknown or impossible to prove?