All your "eloquent" words are futile until such time as you can answer one
simple question.
Why is bambi still hiding his real Vault Birth Certificate?
It makes no sense to do so, unless one is hiding something. This
controversy will end 1 second after bambi releases his vault BC. There is
no need to spend millions of taxpayer money for this. There is no need for
all your "eloquent" speculations and explanations. Just do it and be done
with it. Why continue the hiding?
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <a...@lomaxdesign.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>; <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 1:17 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Blather in the mass media makes scientists think we are
crazy
At 01:28 PM 8/8/2012, Ron Wormus wrote:
As far as I know a child born to a US citizen is automatically also a
citizen regardless of location of birth. I have grand daughters born in
Switzerland who have dual citizenship.
As with anything, it depends on what you mean by "citizen." Further, it is
not clear that the Constitutional Rule is subject to modification by
statute, but it's also obvious that the definition of "U.S." has shifted
because of later events. The rules for *being recognized* as a U.S.
citizen by virtue of birth are a bit complicated, but they are only
designed to rule out situations where it's not clear what would be
equitable.
I.e., a single citizen parent, with a non-citizen other parent, can create
a marginal situation, and the rules are designed to require a showing that
the single parent was not only a U.S. citizen, but had a real relationship
with the U.S., by living here a certain minimum time, after 14 years of
age. The number of years required changed. Presently, it is five years of
residence in the U.S. by the citizen-parent before the birth, two of which
must be after 14. Obama's mother would have satisfied that, she was 18.
However, the law at the time of Obama's birth required 10 years total and
five years after 14. Given that Obama's mother was 18 at his birth, if
Obama was born outside the U.S., then he'd not have had "citizenship by
right of birth" at that time. I'm sure this makes the birthers all hot and
bothered.
I don't know about the retroactive applicability of the new law. The
Wikipedia article implies that it was not retroactive, which is a tad
weird. But sometimes laws are weird.
It's claimed that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, but in Kenya. This creates
a problem. I've bought foreign-born children into the U.S. You can't just
saunter through customs with the kid. You have to show documents. In
particular, you generally have to show a passport. To get a passport, you
generally need a birth certificate. So if the birth certificate was
forged, it would have to have been forged way back then, when this was a
poor mother, not socially connected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birther
The Indonesian connection is completely irrelevant. Obama could have had
some right to be an Indonesian citizen, but I very much doubt that his
U.S. passport was surrendered or that any act took place that would revoke
U.S. citizenship.
It's been raised that "anyone can get a birth certificate." Sure. I've
done it, quite a few times. I delivered four of my first five children, at
home. I filed the papers. They are generally to be filed by the one who
"attends" the birth. The law generally requires that it be filed within so
many days of the birth. I also worked with the Arizona Publich Health
Department, because we were generally assisting parents to give birth at
home, and their critical interest was that the births be registered, so we
agreed to encourage the parents to register the births (and to inform the
Health Department of births). For legal reasons, at that time, our trope
was that the father, generally, actually delivered the baby. Sometimes so,
sometimes not. You do what you have to do. Later, we were licensed and
registration became a binding legal requirement.
The point is that it's filed timely, generally. If that fails, it can be
registered late, but it must still be signed by the persons affirming the
facts. The long form Obama birth certificate was signed by a physician,
presumably the attending physician, I can't read the signature, but this
could easily be determined who it was. The certification shows filing on
August 8, 1961, 4 days after the certified birth, August 4. That's normal.
The information on the certificate about parents was certified by the
mother's signature on August 7. This is all totally normal.
There is other evidence of the birth at that time. See the Wikipedia
article. The denial of that certificate is totally nuts, wishful thinking
or smoke-screen.
By the way, birth announcements in newspapers are also often based on
information provided, usually from the parents, but grandparents could do
it. What information like that shows is that the claim of Hawaiian birth
existed immediately. Not later. In this case, though, it appears that the
listings of births came from the Health Department.
This is what happens when people believe that "something is wrong" and
then go searching for it. They find "facts" to question or assert,
creating a new story that satisfies their itch.
As to the alleged goal of the grandparents to make Obama a citizen, sure.
However, consider their position at the time. This would have required
felonies, forging birth certificates is a serious crime. Most people
couldn't pull it off. This theory requires that the pregnant mother travel
to Kenya. And then come back with the baby, and a birth certificate would
be needed for a passport to come back in. You also cannot generally leave
a foreign country with a baby unless you have papers. Most countries look
dimly on taking babies out without permission! Look, I'd not want to try
this trick! Extremely risky. Just to avoid handling the situation legally?
An undisputed citizen-mother would not have had difficulty getting
permission to bring her foreign-born child in, it just might not have been
as a citizen-by-right.
It's preposterous. Now I see why "birther" is a popular synonym for
"stupid nut case."
To *suspect* something, okay. That's just normal skepticism. But to
*believe* this as if it were obviously true, now *that's* crazy.
