At 10:38 AM 8/9/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
Bambi's mother was a US citizen, although by the laws during that
time, she was too young to confer US citizenship to bambi. But even
if she could, that would only make Bambi a mere US citizen; not a
Natural Born US Citizen.
This is made up. The bulk of interpretation of "natural born US
citizen" is citizenship by right of birth, as distinct from later
actions. That is, if the person can, merely by showing the
circumstances of birth, establish citizenship, they are "natural
born." The provision, as interpreted, distinguishes between natural
birth citizenship and naturalized or adopted citizenship.
My two youngest daughters are U.S. citizens, but not by right of
birth, it was through later adoption and legal admission into the
U.S. That's not by "right of birth."
It is correct that if Obama had been born elsewhere, to his mother
married to a British citizen, as he was at the time, he'd not have
been a "natural born citizen" by the laws regarding citizenship at
that time. He was born about three months too early, his mother was
only 18, and had not lived in the U.S. for five years after age 14.
Three months later, she had. This, however, is a complexity not
contemplated in the Constitution and I would not consider the matter
determined until it was litigated.
It could be argued, indeed, that the Constitutional provision refers
only to a very narrow definition of "natural born," though this,
itself, leads to some severe interpretive problems. I doubt a court
would adopt that. So far, it hasn't, and natural born citizen has
clearly meant anyone born in the U.S., citizenship by right of birth
location, but also those whose parents are citizens, both parents,
and it is only when it is only one parent that the rules get complicated.
It's all moot. Obama was born in Hawaii, as a legal fact. Overturning
that legal fact would be extremely difficult, and, so far, it looks
like attempts to do it have been based on forged documents and pure
innuendo and speculation.
I got an email, for example, that claimed the hospital on the long
form birth certificate didn't exist at the time of the birth. That
demonstrates just how wrong one can be by doing a little internet
searching and jumping to conclusions. Aha! Look at this! It says right here:
Name of the Hospital Obama was supposedly born at should have been
Kauikeolani Children's Hospital until 1978. Then they merged with
the Kapi'olani Maternity Home in 1978 and became Kapi'olani Medical
Center for Women & Children.
Of course, none of those are the name of the hospital on the birth
certificate. It says "Kapiolani Maternal and Gynecological Hospital."
In fact reading the alleged fact, I don't know which institution
Obama was born in. Could have been the Children's Hospital or the
Maternity Home. And either one could use the name "Kapiolani Maternal
and Gynecological Hospital" for the maternity unit. Someone jumped to
conclusions.
The obvious way to test this: look for other birth certificates from
the same period with the same name.
It's been done.
http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/yes-there-was-a-kapiolani-maternity-gynecological-hospital-in-1961/
I really want to point to the strong belief behind these posts. It's
like the pseudoskepticism that has afflicted cold fusion. No matter
what evidence is shown, there is always an objection. The goal posts
move. It's obvious that the belief is fixed.
It's the same with other issues. Once one buys that the Bible is not
only the True Word of God, but also that one is correctly
interpreting it (that's ego and attachment), everything that appears
to be different -- such as evolution -- *must* be false. So one
searches for reasons why it's false, so as to appear rational.
As to real faith, it doesn't look like that. One would have no
certainty, with real faith, that others are wrong. One would be
unmoved by disagreement, one would have no problem considering what
others mean, and faith is a condition of the heart, not a set of texts.
Many people are unaware of this salient requirement. To them a US
citizen is qualified automatically to be POTUS. That is not what
the Constitution says: In order for one to be qualifed, one needs
to be a Natural Born US Citizen.
Strav man argument. People who seriously write about this know the
requirment. Right or wrong, it is a requirement. My youngest two
daughters are not eligible to be President. But the rule might be
changed by then....
Natural Born US Citizenship has a specific technical definition
under our laws. You just can't make up your own rules and declare
bambi to be Natural Born US citizen based on your opinion.
The basis is that he's a natural born U.S. citizen by any standing
intepretation. There were attempts to define this as excluding
children born in the U.S. of non-citizen parents, or one parent not a
citizen. They failed.
Bambi, however, isn't qualified to be present. Bambi is a deer, and
has no birth certificate.
The Shadow Government Kabbal
Kabal or Cabal. Spell it correcly.
is counting on the fact that Americans are either dumb or apathetic.
yeah. Both.
They just don't know or they just don't care. Well, they just
underestimated Americans, cause 70% are demanding that bambi comes
clean and present his real Vault Birth Certificate.
Now, Dave was not exactly correct. Substantially, if one has an
American citizen mother, one is a natural born citizen (by right of
birth), but there are exceptions. They have changed over the years.
According to the law at the time of Obama's birth, his mother would
have had to have resided in the U.S. for five years at some point
after turning 14. Since she was three months shy of 19 at the time of
the birth, Obama would not have been qualified as natural born under
that law. The law was changed, it's now two years. Easily qualified.
It's not clear that legislation that establishes citizenship rights
can alter the meaning of the Constitutional provision. But a contrary
opinion leads to even worse problems.
Which law applies? I don't know and don't care, because Obama was
born in Hawaii, that is legally certain at this point.
Prove the documents are forgeries, with evidence that would stand up
in court, or shut up. You just make yourself look like an idiot.
If the documents are forgeries, apparently they are very old
forgeries, accompanied by birth announcements in newspapers. Come on,
Jojo, how long will you keep up this charade?
Until the Day of Judgment?
----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Blather in the mass media makes scientists think
we are crazy
<< I thought that since his mother was an American citizen then he
automatically was. Is this not the way it pans out? Does the
location of birth
outside of the USA make one a non citizen?
Dave >>
</HTML>
