It’s very disturbing, though, that because of papers like The Hutch News refusing to correct their published statements when called on it, even the candidates don’t know that Obama’s BC has been amended and therefore has no legal merit until a special procedure is taken to determine the value of the document - a procedure that can’t be done except when the BC is actually presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body.
IOW, Obama has no legal birth age, birthplace, or parents. None of that has ever been legally determined. There is not a soul on earth who can LEGALLY say how old he is, where he is born, or who his parents were unless there is a DIFFERENT document which says those things and has legal veracity.
IOW, unless he has a BC from someplace besides Hawaii, he has NO legal documentation.
There is NO WAY he “qualified” by Jan 20, 2009, as required by the 20th Amendment.
The fact that none of the newspapers will print that fact is disturbing.
Barack is one slick catfish! He refuses to release the one piece of evidence that tells us who his birth parents are and what hospital he was born in!
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Bump for later read
Oops! Obama mama passport 'destroyed'
It only adds to the mystery.
Cowards!
Curiosity and doubt used to be ingrained, in every “journalist” -—
Now, the political correctness in the newsroom has castrated any real “investigative journalism” -—
Unless the target is a conservative, of course!
She follows "I guess since it is an issue.." with "I think it's a non-issue."
When I was teaching government, that was one of the roles of the political party, was to make sure the candidates presented are acceptable and eligible. I assume during the vetting process he would have assured the party of that.
So if Obama assured the Democrats that he was eligible, that would settle the issue for the entire country, right?
I know that is a concern, and I certainly understand that is a concern.
And you probably appreciate that it is a concern, and you also believe that it is a concern, and you think that it is a concern, and...
But on the other hand, I always felt too, that if his mother is a Kansan then he would be (a citizen) by original birth.
You are wrong about that, but that's not unusual when you rely on your feelings instead of searching out facts.
Very unimpressive, not that the rest of those candidates sound much better.
The mainstream press conistently misrepresents the question. The question is whether he is a natural born citizen. Whether he is a US citizen is a totally different matter. He can be a citizen of the US without being a natural born citizen. A natural born citizen means that BOTH of his parents were citizens of the US at the time of his birth. According to his autobiography (his own words) they were not. Therefore he is not eligible to be POTUS.
I wish that the media would write accurately when discussing this.
Well, I see these candidates as falling for the ‘is he a citizen’ canard, rather than the real question, ‘is he a natural born citizen.’ So long as the question is about citizenship vs. natural born citizenship, the Constitutional requirement to serve as POTUS, the obfuscation serves Obama.
He could be a citizen, he could be a native born citizen, and still the question would remain: is he a natural born citizen?
How about this response:
There is little or no likelihood that any legislative or judicial body is going to overturn the last election so the prime focus of our campaign should be directed at his socialist agenda.
Nevertheless, a large number of people do have legitimate Constitutional concerns regarding an almost invisible man related to “official” birth records, citizenship, college data, transcripts, thesis, dissertations, et al that for unexplained reasons have not been made available and in fact legal blockades are in place to prevent access.
Media and democrats trying to demonize these concerns as racist or conspiracy theorists have done a poor and biased job of thoroughly researching the available concerns in the extreme depth necessary to prove or discount these concerns. Your demand for answers on this subject is autocratic and misguided, typical of today’s arrogant and biased media. If your newspaper is so shallow and unpricipled as to discount the concerns of a number of our citizens, then I don’t want or need your endorsement.
They still don't get it. The problem is "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN".
Well done, Birther morons and thanks for handing the country back to her enemies.
Yep -- and not a thinking Constitutionalist in the bunch.
Why is it so hard to answer honestly by saying that they have seen no evidence that he is a natural born citizen.
OK, wiseguys...please tell us what evidence you have to demonstrate that eligibility is a “ridiculous issue” and what incontrovertible proof you can present to show 0’s natural born citizenship.
By his own admission he is NOT a natural born citizen - (both parents US Citizens at the time of his birth).
It means that every Republican candidate from now till November will have to field birth certificate questions. And it means they're going to have to come up with vague answers that alienate the least number of voters.
Sad that candidates cannot even take a stand on the fundamental issue of following the rules, or the “rule of law.”
The battle is already over if (since) we are willing to let those oppposed to constitutional government constantly redefine the battleground, and fight over the “issues” in the context they determine.
Losers, all.