President Obama will have to deal with birthers

Las Vegas 1 January 2011 (sic). President Obama has(sic) had a dream run to the White House and hopes to remain there for another term. His chances of re election are diminished by his failure to convince Americans that he is entitled to the office he holds.

There are many Americans who are concerned that Barack Obama is not who and what he says he is. Veterans like Robert Laity are frustrated that media outlets have not pressured President Obama into releasing a real authenticated copy of his birth certificate. There appears little doubt that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii but many people believe that he is not entitled to hold his office as he is ineligible due to the status of his parents. The President's birth certificate would clear up that issue.

Robert Laity is a vocal American who is complaining to have Barack Obama charged with electoral fraud. The issue seems to be that the election authorities do not require a candidate to prove that he or she is entitled to seek an office. It is up to someone to prove that a candidate is not entitled to stand.

In re 148: Thanks. Makes some excellent points.

Specifically, that if Obama were even a Native Born citizen, this could not be removed from him during his minority, even if he were adopted into another country and assumed its citizenship, which if he were able to prove he is a Native Born Citizen, would be undoubtedly BHO, Jr.'s case.

If Hawaii is like other states, when a child is adopted, the original birth certificate may be sealed, and a new one issued, using the stepfather's surname. That's why he could quite legally claim to be "Barry Soetoro," although there is a question as to what the surname actually was. Again, all that is missing here is the original Birth Certificate, the original new Birth Certificate, hospital records, etc. . Probably stay missing, too.

Then again, a Hawaiian Birth certificate of that era is far less reliable as a document than a Honolulu Dog License, or Oahu vehicle registration. Hawaii was (perhaps still is?) rather notorious for issuing after-the fact BC's to children born in Asia, merely on the say-so of relatives claiming to have witnessed a "home birth." (OK, then, if you say so Mrs. Wong.)

Team Obama has done an excellent job of leading us all into the impenetrable "Born-In-Hawaii-Swamp." (The World's Largest Wetland) They have the only map. While we are left floundering about in the muck, the issue of "Natural Born Citizenship" is off somewhere in the clouds.

I hope we are seeing the beginning of a Grass Roots Movement to hold state election officials accountable for "vetting" candidates. In the meantime, hats off to Team Obama. Through adroit direction of the MSM, they have made the 900 pound gorilla in the room almost (ALMOST) completely disappear, and just as important, if anyone does so much as mention the large smelly beast, they are thrown out!

David were there actually "Family Courts" back in the late 50's early 60's. I don't recall that there was.

Some jurisdictions yes (well you say 50's, I don't go back that far--as I recall the separate court rules started appearing in the 60's but it was an evolving process); other jurisdictions, the Court of Record "sitting as a family court"; still other variations.

Further, the Local Rules about what you needed to do in various kinds of family proceedings were sometimes separate and sometimes part of the Local Rules for the record court.

And one of the common things that did happen regularly was that the court of record didn't always do what the local rules called for in various settings. That was one reason given for the idea that we ought to have at least one judge who did divorce and adoption because that way we can make it happen in a fashion that gets stuff in the record on a reasonable basis.

This is not my area of practice but I am the lawyer for the real client so when an executive officer of my construction company client want's to do an adoption, I show up with the partner or associate who did the work; and before I show up, I real the papers and the rules so I have some idea what I am talking about.

The difference is simply natural born vs. native born. A person can be either and not the other. Natural born is of two citizen parents, native born is on US soil. Funny how the OBOTS throw these around like they are interchangeable....they are not!

The confusion is the result of the fact that in the past the terms were used interchangeably. It is only with serious scrutiny that you can distinguish a difference in the meaning between "natural born" and "native born" in the 18th and 19th centuries. The terms WERE used interchangeably, because the overlap between the two was nearly 100% in those days. As I am fond of pointing out, the Chief Justice of the Supreme court in 1874 said:

"...all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. "

Nowadays, because we have so much illegal immigration and travel, we do note a great distinction between the two terms, but I do not believe that was the practice a hundred years ago. It was simply easier to say "native" than it was to say "natural born citizen", so laziness contributed to the somewhat inaccurate use of the former. Besides, in 99.999% of the cases, the term "native" works just fine. The distinction between it and "natural born citizen" only matters when the issue of the Presidency is being discussed.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.