But nobody has yet proven that Stanley Ann Dunham was not in Hawaii at the time of her son’s birth.
All we have is the boasting of people in Kenya whose veracity is doubtful.
It is highly unlikely that an pregnant American teenager would travel to Kenya to give birth.
If Obama was born in Hawaii then he is a natural born citizen by right granted by the 14th amendment.
This is regardless of his mother’s age, marital status, the citizenship of his father, any other citizenships he might be eligible for, the opinions of a French legal scholar from before the United States existed, or Jerome Corsi’s (who is often wrong about most everything) interpretations of law.
We are stuck with him until Noon on 20 January 2013. He’s not going anywhere until then.
Nope. To be a natural born citizen of any country you need two parents that are citizens of that country. Obamas father was Kenyan and a British subject.
Obama may be a citizen but he is not NBC. The only time natural born citizen is mentioned for elective office is the qualifications for Pres and V Pres.
For ANY other office one only needs to be a citizen ala Ahnold.
You’ve made an important point: we don’t know much of anything about Obama’s background or his family. Almost everything we’ve been told is his story — and we know how honest and straightforward The One is, don’t we? Open and transparent, eh?
Other than some evidence that Stanley Ann and the child were in Washington state in the late summer/fall of 1961, there are no known witnesses or evidence as to her whereabouts from the fall of 1960 until she returned to Hawaii with a child in 1962.
No evidence of a pregnancy, or a birth. No reason, other than his word, that Obama was born in August, 1961. No evidence that the parents were legally married or that Obama Sr. is the boy’s biological father.
Nothing.
Throw out everything you’ve been told or read. List only those facts that can be backed up with evidence.
There’s not much there. What is there, the stray document or picture, often contradicts the story he’s told us or raises more questions. Lots of inconsistencies.
It’s a tantalizing and frustrating puzzle, and I, as a patriotic American, resent it. This guy has gone to great lengths to hide his past from us, and that is wrong.
Wrong — and likely to backfire one of these days. There are too many people looking, and too many loose ends, and someone, somewhere, who knows.
This is regardless of his mother’s age, marital status, the citizenship of his father, any other citizenships he might be eligible for, the opinions of a French legal scholar from before the United States existed, or Jerome Corsi’s (who is often wrong about most everything) interpretations of law.
It appears...
...you are correct.
The 14th amendment has nothing to do with the NATURAL BORN citizenship.
14th amendment:
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
I don't see the words "natural born citizen" in there anywhere. I see "born" and "citizen", but not even "born citizen", let alone "natural born citizen".
14th amendment:
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
I don't see the words "natural born citizen" in there anywhere. I see "born" and "citizen", but not even "born citizen", let alone "natural born citizen".