Baloney. This is your opinion proffered as law.
Nothing more than a bunch of BS. A Natural Born US citizen is one with both
US citizen parents and born on US soil. Period. Stop the lies.
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 3:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Blather in the mass media makes scientists think we are
crazy
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: <lorenhe...@aol.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
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>
