Replies

There it sits, staring everybody right in the face ... no tilting at windmills, no nutty lawyer-dentists, no e-bay scam artists necessary.

All these wild theories and drawn-out “investigations.” I’m beginning to wonder just who the “trolls” on this issue really are. Perhaps it’s the ones, always the same ones, who run down every blind alley screaming “troll” at anyone who points that out?

The Constitution is what makes the distinction, therefore the Constitution is all that matters. There is a very persuasive case to be made, under original intent, that Barack Obama does not meet the standard of natural-born citizen required by the Constitution due to his nonresident alien father.

I guess that just doesn’t generate enough blog hits or something. So FR gets inundated by online aliases, daily dribblng out some new something-or-other being “investigated” that drags on for as long as people pay it any attention. Oooh, Leo’s in hiding and afraid for his life, oooh Miss Piggie’s down at the county courthouse again, ooh a JPEG of a birth record isn’t “authentic.” Phffft.

Sorry for the rant. This all just seems so contrived.

I agree that Obama obviously doesn't fulfill the intent of the founders, but "the law is an ass" and the founders did not envision Obama and his parents. But even in the age of the founders, the child of an unmarried mother could not claim the right to the nationality of the father simply on the claim of the mother as to the identity of the father. If Obama's father was a bigamist, Obama's parents weren't legally married. That means Obama would have had only one legal parent who was 100% US citizen (unless proved otherwise) thus Obama II would in that case be subject to only one sovereignty, US sovereignty and born on US soil.

If a US mother gets a sperm donation from a foreign donor or if a US family adopts a foreign baby, is the child barred from being US president? The founders didn't contemplate these things.

Obama hung his statement that he was “governed” by the 1948 BNA at birth out there like a slow softball pitch. He was actually screaming “I am obviously not a natural born citizen, but I dare you to challenge me because I will call you a racist!”

But the guy lies all the time, taught constitutional law and is surrounded by the best Democrat lawyers money can buy. I am not going to believe anything he says without proof, especially something that lawyers call an unforced “stipulation against interest”.

Obama didn't have to have his campaign put out that he was a 1948 BNA British subject (with protective distance from having himself make the claim).

Why would he do it when it obviously would appear to hurt him?

After observing the man these past two years I am virtually certain he knows he has an ace up his sleeve that will save him from being declared a dual citizen.

So far that ace seems to be that the entire US Congress and the political and media elites just don't care about or haven't bothered to look into the BNA issue. It is complicated and Wong is easy to twist into a conflation of the definition of citizen and natural born citizen.

But maybe the real ace is that Obama knows fully well that his father was a bigamist because BO II has been close to Kezia for 25 years and may know that she was legally married to his father in Kenya in 1957 and might even have documentation from Kezia to prove it. Obama would know that under the 1948 BNA, his father couldn't pass dual citizenship to him as a bigamist if the marriage to SADO was performed in a country where bigamy was illegal.

What better way to distract opponents from investigating a suspicious HI home birth or evidence of a Kenyan birth than to waive the red flag of the 1948 in front of the opposition and incite them to charge!

While inviting a 1948 BNA challenge Obama is fighting tooth and nail to prevent revelation of SOMETHING in his original HI vital records. Where do you think Obama thinks he is vulnerable?

Hopefully Judge Carter will allow discovery tomorrow that will reveal the image the HI vital birth record.