Bruno
Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2008
- Messages
- 19,518
Such kooky shit. The guys mom was a US citizen, end of story. Doesn't matter where he was born.
Kooky shit like no one on his entire block cited as his birthplace can remember them living there, including his nextdoor neighbors who lived there at the time?
Kooky shit like the newspaper announcements were published 9 days after his birth, and received their information from the state when someone filed for a Certificate of Live Birth, not from a hospital report, basically being no proof at all that he was born in Hawaii?
I don't think that's kooky, it raises questions.
Thank, danno. I was out doing yard work. It's 57 out!
Kooky shit like no one on his entire block cited as his birthplace can remember them living there, including his nextdoor neighbors who lived there at the time?
Kooky shit like the newspaper announcements were published 9 days after his birth, and received their information from the state when someone filed for a Certificate of Live Birth, not from a hospital report, basically being no proof at all that he was born in Hawaii?
I don't think that's kooky, it raises questions.
No, because if Obama was a duel citizen and concealed it, he would not be electable.
Mind showing where in the Constitution dual citizenship prohibits a citizen from office?
I'm talking about voter behavior. I doubt voters would knowingly elect a dual citizen as president of the United States, especially someone who tried to conceal that fact from the public and was caught doing it.
Yes, sources please.
Showing how neighbors would not be able to forget about someone 50 years later.
Your "9 day" example and how this wouldn't be standard procedure for said newspapers.
And lastly how the fact that his mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth which means Obama could have been born on Mars and still be a US citizen somehow doesn't matter
Thank you for clarifying.
I doubt dual citizenship would be that much of a concern, but opinions differ.
It would be a huge issue. A huge chunk of the population won;t vote for a dual citizen. Most people want 100% loyalty to the United States, as did our Founding Fathers.
It's in the link that danno provided, that was the source.
If a couple that lived in that house in Hawaii for 50 years didn't know that in 1961 an African young man was living with his unwed girlfriend and had brought home a child together one day, I'd be shocked, not think that was completely natural. And no one that they could find on that block remembered them. As a foreign exchange student from Africa, the first in the university's history, he would be known to be living there if he did.
The point about the date of the newspapers is that everyone points to it as proof. I'm not claiming they are faked copies, but when you simply have to apply for a birth certificate in order to get your name in the paper, and nine days later your name appears with the date you said your child was born, it doesn't stand that that is conclusive evidence he was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4th. The article discusses documenting with both newspapers how they received information at the time, which was directly from the state.
And I am not arguing how a court might describe a natual born citizen, there are numerous opinions on that, including that his mother was only 17 and unwed at the time and how that might affect it. Show the birth certificate and let's take it from there.
That's now what it was about, but what a horrible way to judge loyalty. I'd think the guy who actually earns their citizenship would be more loyal than some brat who ungratefully got it through birth.
That's not logical. People who were born in the US are more likely to have their family and closest relatives in the US.
What does family have to do with it? Maybe you have no relatives or friends who were foreigners and became citizens, but when it comes to my grandparents they were more loyal to America than most bratty assholes who are spoiled enough to be born into it. Despite having family in Europe.