Replies

The birth certificate is a smoke screen - it doesn’t matter. Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen. That admitted fact means Obama is not a “natural born citizen” according to the time-honored definition (someone born in the United States whose parents are both citizens of the United States).

That's arguing the law instead of the facts. Two problems:

It's gotten no traction whatsoever in the courts.
It's an inconvenient position to have held in the event a dynamic young conservative candidate with a similar 'problem' should appear (e.g., parents were grad students recently arrived from India).

The NBC requirement was added to prevent influential foreign-born usurpers from carpet-bagging their way into the White House. E.g., the likes of Maximilian I of Mexico. Born and raised in the US is and ought to be perfectly fine.

You said — The birth certificate is a smoke screen - it doesn’t matter. Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen. That admitted fact means Obama is not a “natural born citizen” according to the time-honored definition (someone born in the United States whose parents are both citizens of the United States).

—

Okay, if I were to go down this track for discussion, I see some problems here, in a “real world sense”...

Let’s say that the real issue is, exactly as you say, that Obama’s father is a Kenyan. I assume that this fact is not in dispute and is common knowledge. At least it seems that way to me.

And let’s say that this means that Obama cannot be a natural born citizen, because of that.

NOW... here is the *problem*...

It’s dealing with facts that are not in dispute as to who his father is, thus, it’s extremely simple to get a candidate like that dismissed from an election on the basis of known and undisputed facts.

The problem is that since it has not happened in a real court, in real life — then there is something wrong with the logic, or it would have happened — that is — if it is so easy to understand and comprehend.

I would say that the fact that this has not gone *anywhere* in any court and not been successful in accomplishing anything — is all the evidence that one needs to show that it’s not valid — at least not with the courts, it’s not... LOL...

However, I do agree it seems to be “valid” in the minds of many who frequent the threads dealing with this issue. The problem is that they don’t count (as far as getting something “judicially done”) and the only ones that count (in that regard) are the courts and the judges who hear cases like this.