Keep your calendar clear for the evening of Tuesday, June 5th. Details to follow.
Is Obama Unqualified For The Presidency?
By Greg L | 11 June 2008 | National Politics | 84 Comments
World Net Daily is reporting that there are questions surrounding Barack Obama’s place of birth which may create a constitutional problem under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States if Obama was not born in the United States. The question I have is if Barack Obama was not born in the United States, and has never been naturalized as a U.S. Citizen, is Barack Obama an illegal alien who has fraudulently claimed U.S. Citizenship?
That’s a felony, folks.
It’s pretty simple to clear this kind of question up. I just have to wonder why Obama hasn’t done so.
Bloggers are raising questions about Illinois Sen. Barack Obama’s qualifications to be U.S. president, because of the secrecy over his birth certificate and the requirement presidents be “natural-born” U.S. citizens.
Jim Geraghty, reporting on the Campaign Spot, a National Review blog, cited the “unlikely” but still circulating rumor that Obama was born not within the United States, but elsewhere, possibly Kenya.
Geraghty defined the concerns most clearly, stating: “If Obama were born outside the United States, one could argue that he would not meet the legal definition of natural-born citizen … because U.S. law at the time of his birth required his natural-born parent (his mother) to have resided in the United States for ‘10 years, at least [f]ive of which had to be after the age of 16.’”
He then points out Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother, was 18 when Obama was born “so she wouldn’t have met the requirement of five years after the age of 16.”
Geraghty continues: ” (Interestingly, apparently there isn’t much paperwork on Obama’s parents’ marriage. ‘Obama: From Promise to Power,’ page. 27: ‘Obama later confessed that he never searched for the government documents on the marriage, although Madelyn (Obama’s maternal grandmother) insisted they were legally married.’ Also note that Obama’s father apparently was not legally divorced from his first wife back in Kenya at the time, a point of contention that ultimately led to their separation.)”
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.
84 Comments
Views: 1815
Loading ...
This is the same nonsense that the loony left brought up about McCain and his birth in the Panama Canal Zone.
And I hardly would quote World Net Daily as a credible source for anything.
Of course, Mr. Obama’s campaign will voluntarily produce all of the original, legitimate documentaion to clear up any misunderstandings.
Oops. “Documentation”. Mea Culpa!
Oh dear God, who cares where either of them were born.
Johnson said on 11 Jun 2008 at 3:02 pm:
Of course, Mr. Obama’s campaign will voluntarily produce all of the original, legitimate documentaion to clear up any misunderstandings.
Sure they will! (tic)
If that’s what the law says, then it seems to me to be an uncommonly stupid law, since it would potentially create a cohort of non-citizens born of U.S.-citizen parents on foreign soil aged 21-23.
I agree: this sounds a lot like the moonbatosphere’s questions about McCain’s citizenship.
BTW, to answer your title question, “YES!”
“That’s a felony, folks!”
Wowsie - red meat! Who’s going to let out the dogs?
Of Course he’s not qualified, But I think its more of his positions rather than the fact he’s a illegal, He wants to dismantle missile defense.
Lets just Nuke ourselves and save North Korea the trouble.
Anonymous said on 11 Jun 2008 at 2:55 pm:
“This is the same nonsense that the loony left brought up about McCain and his birth in the Panama Canal Zone.”
Not at all the same, Anonymous…McCain was born in the US military system to parents who were American citizens. It amazed me that it actually got any traction. Unable to provide documentation of any kind for his birth, Obama is presented with quite a different problem, given the possibility that such documentation might actually make him an illegal alien. Wouldn’t that be ironic.
Anonymous21 said on 11 Jun 2008 at 3:06 pm:
Oh dear God, who cares where either of them were born.
=============================
Jane, you ignorant slut!!
It’s a little thing known as the ‘CONSTITUTION”.
Just read that Jim Geraghty lived as an expatriate in Turkey in 2005. You don’t suppose he is a Muslim, do you?
You know, one of those closet Muslims like Obama.
Well I’m not sure, about Geraghty, Krutis, but you’re definitely correct in your last assertion…
freedom - in case you didn’t get it. It was sarcasm!
So many unproven accusations are being bandied around, I might as well through in mine.
Krutis said on 11 Jun 2008 at 4:02 pm:
“Just read that Jim Geraghty lived as an expatriate in Turkey in 2005. You don’t suppose he is a Muslim, do you?
You know, one of those closet Muslims like Obama.”
One never knows, but what does that have to do with the question at hand? Let’s stick to the discussion and quit throwing out red herrings.
I think that, as part of the vetting process, anyone running for president should have to prove their eligibility. If we don’t like the Constitution, then we should change it. Whether one cares about the requirements or not is beside the point. I’m sure Mr. Obama can clear this issue up rather quickly; he should do so immediately and put this issue to bed.
Seeing as the requirement of being a US citizen is a Constitutionally established requirement, I think this should be taken very seriously and be further examined. If it can be established that Obama is without a doubt a US citizen, then we all move on. The question was raised about John McCain, but was quickly put down since, as AWCheney noted, McCain more than met the qualifications. This is not at all a hard question or one that should be difficult to answer; why can’t Barack Obama give a solid answer?
AWCheney said on 11 Jun 2008 at 3:56 pm:
Unable to provide documentation of any kind for his birth, Obama is presented with quite a different problem, given the possibility that such documentation might actually make him an illegal alien. Wouldn’t that be ironic.
Maybe that’s why he’s for amnesty for all illegals.
It actually goes beyond just being a US citizen, CR UVa…the requirement in question is that one must be BORN a US citizen. This would qualify an anchor baby before Obama, IF the allegations are correct.
Born a US citizen on US soil is the requirement, I think.
“throw”, of course!
Regardless of all this, would it really surprise anybody that, should Obama be elected President, he would fight very hard to CHANGE the Constitution of the United States to allow for naturalized citizens to run for President in the future? He would, no doubt, join with folks such as Arnold Schwarzenegger (who has made it no secret that he supports such an idea) to attempt to make that change.
As a naturalized citizen myself who has been HIGHLY active politically for a very long time, I can say without reservation that I am adamantly opposed to that happening! The Founding Fathers were a very wise group of gentlemen who recognized that the highest office in the land MUST be held by someone who has no ties whatsoever to a foreign nation, and possibly split allegiances to our nation and the country of their birth. They had an excellent example of what that could bring with the many Tories they had to deal with during the Revolutionary War but, beyond that, it made no sense for the Commander In Chief of the military, who is charged with the responsibility to keep this nation safe from foreign intervention and invasion, to be someone who may feel ANY slight loyalty to another nation. It’s obviously been hard enough to find someone like that who is natively born in the past eight or nine years as it is.
If there were any validity to this, don’t you think Hillary Clinton would have used it. She was willing to do anything for the nomination, this does not seem like much and there is no doubt she has a good research operation. Putting stuff like this on this site devalues the credibility of the site, which generally has been very high.
The usual crap from the extreme right wing neo-cons, like McLame being born in the P-Zone would disqualify him…
Manassas City Voter, the Democrats have shown far more restraint in “eating their young” than the Republicans have in recent years. Even if they had an inkling that it were true, they wouldn’t have used it unless they had it before Obama entered the race and used it PRIVATELY to keep him out.
Maybe his birth certificate is in some of Hillary’s records at the Rose law firm.
FYI:
Article II of the Constitution:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Definition of a Citizen, from the U.S. Code:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
source : http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401—-000-.html
The actual wording:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The issue of “natural born Citizen” has never been tested. every President evr elected clearly qualified as a natural born citizen. Some candidates have had minor questions such as Barry Goldwater being born in the territory of Arizona before it became a state.
Here’s what I’ve read and heard (along with a healthy dose of conjecture) -
McCain is on very solid ground since he was born on a US military installation which is considered US soil legally. He also has parents who were clearly citizens.
No idea about the facts in the Obama case so I won’t comment on him specifically. Rather, I’ll comment hypothetically.
If it became clear that a candiate was not a US citizen or was a naturalized citizen they could not be inagurated as President. Even the self-appointed legislatiors on the present US Supreme Court couldn’t ignore that issue. If a non-citizen or naturalized citizen were to be elected President a lawsuit would be brought to invalidate the election. The Supreme Court would invalidate the election. A giant can of worms would then be opened.
Bush could not remain in power because he would have exceeded his term limit.
The illegally elected President’s VP might not be eligable because he/she never actaully was President.
The sitting VP might not be eligable because he/she is not replacing the sitting president.
I believe it would result in a vote by the House of Representatives.
Who do you think they would elect?
Harry, both of McCain’s parents were US citizens at his birth which qualifies him under the Constitution. Only Obama’s mother was a citizen at the time of his (and not 5 years beyond age 16, she supposedly had Obama at 18) which raises legal questions. He should clear this up once and for all if everything is legal. Obama would have to clear this issue up to get a security clearance.
There is little doubt that “…or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” pertains to people born as English citizens in the Colonies at the time of the Revoultion. It was meant to exempt, for example, George Washington. It does not apply to anybody currently alive. This is why Gov. Terminator is ineligable to run. He is not a “natural born citizen” no did he bcome a citizen when the original Constitution was ratified.
This is a kind of silly discussion, isn’t it?
An Independent - You must be new here>
Silly discussion? Yeah, it’s only regarding whether we adhere to the United States Constitution or merely pay it lip service.
It’s only silly if you think the Constitution is just a nice guide, a “living document”, something that is fun to talk about, but essentially meaningless.
One need not have been born on United States soil to be a “natural born citizen.” That’s a question that has not been settled. One could be a natural born citizen jus solis (by right of soil) or jus sanguinis (by right of blood).
The McCain questions were silly because both his parents were undoubtedly American citizens, and he was a natural born citizen jus sanguinis. The questions of the sovereignty of the land where he was born was a digression. The Obama questions are modestly less silly because one of his parents was undoubtedly not an American citizen.
Like the McCain questions, the Obama questions have an answer. Obama has traveled abroad, which means he has been issued a passport. He has an American passport, because someone illegally reviewed his passport file at the Department of State. He is therefore a citizen. Citizenship for at least nine years is also a qualificationof the United States Senate. The only question is, how did he acquire that citizenship? By jus solis, having been born in the United States? By jus sanguinis, through his mother? Or by naturalization? Only if the last is true is Obama constitutionally ineligible.
(Eligibility and qualification are two different issues, as James Young points out.)
es_la_ley’s listing of the Constitutional requirements for citizenship are interesting….Particularly Section (c) which says that a person’s parents must both be U.S. citizens if the individual was born outside of the United States. Hey, wasn’t Obama’s dad a Kenyan? Just food for thought…
Also, to Manassas City Voter, who wonders why Hillary didn’t use this citizenship thing in the campaign against Obama…Perhaps this is one of the many surprises that the Clintons will unleash at the convention? Have you ever thought of that? Ha! Hillary Clinton is not finished yet. Just kidding. Though she may yet have a few surprises up her skirt.
And lastly, Anonymous….How could you possibly bash World Net Daily as a credible source? Shame. Shame. And, just what sources would you cite as credible…The Washington Post? The New York Times? The Washington Times? Newsweek? World Net Daily is at least as credible as any other news source. I mean you get great news, and an occasional story about aliens in Arizona, or the Antichrist. You can’t beat it.
“Silly discussion? Yeah, it’s only regarding whether we adhere to the United States Constitution or merely pay it lip service.
“It’s only silly if you think the Constitution is just a nice guide, a ‘living document’, something that is fun to talk about, but essentially meaningless.”
Greg, gee wizz. You have no idea about my respect for the Constitution and yes it is a “living document”. That is the beauty and the importance of it. If it were not living, it would not have significance. It is why there are only limited amendments! And why our government overthrows are nonviolent every 4 to 8 years. Try reading Constitutional scholars before you attack out of the darkness.
The discussion is silly because NO ONE KNOWS what the real story is but everyone is commenting on it. It is rumor, innuendo and conjecture. And by the way, I don’t particularly like Obama as presidential material nor did I like the wicked witch of NY.
Also, by the way, I have a great deal of respect for the Constitution and believe it should be applied. And when I hear of an investigation into this, I will pay greater attention.
But I don’t take your word or the word of “World Net Daily” (of which I have never heard of in my 58 years). It sounds like Mr. “Liberal” Jacobsen who needs to bombard us in his column of where his source material comes from.
Somehow, you think that you have some lock on intelligence or politics or religion–please stop looking at your own press and start thinking. It might help especially with people like me who are very conservative, believe that our nation is built on laws, and wants them enforced.
Back off please! Maybe you would get more by listening to others instead of replaying you mantra through you own earphones.
of course, you in the last line should say “your” before I get attacked for grammar too.
I don’t think merely being born here qualifies one to be president.
Obama was born in Hawaii, a US state at the time of birth.
He mother was most certainly a US citizen, tracing her heritage to before the Revolutionary War.
Nuff Said.
The official biography says Obama was born in Hawaii. According to the story that this thread was based on the story that Obama was born elsewhere is based on unsubstantiated rumor.
The question of where Obama was born would be resolved trivially if he would simply release his birth certificate.
I had to present my birth certificate for several purposes. It’s not really a privacy issue.
I have to show my kid’s birth certificates so they can play soccer — surely we can ask a presidential candidate to show HIS birth certificate?
Charles…you are 100% correct, sir!!
Obama’s mother was an American citizen and her father was a WWII veteran. Obama could have been born in Antarctica. He would still be a natural born US citizen.
I think the use of a black non-look-alike for Obama threads is questionable. I believe questioning the citizenship of a United States veteran’s grandson is disrespectful. Mr. Stanley Dunham, Obama’s maternal grandfather, served in Patton’s army during WWII.
Questioning the citizenship of Obama is sort of a last gasp.
I seriously doubt that, if this “issue” had any viability, Hitlary wouldn’t have used it.
Nevertheless, “Dolph,” you need to have a sense of humor. I never watched the show, but if you don’t recognize Urkel, you are truly uninformed on pop culture. As for “questioning the citizenship of a United States veteran’s grandson is disrespectful,” “disrespectful” of whom. The veteran? I’m sure that there are plenty of grandson’s of American veterans who are NOT American citizens. Service by a forebear does not qualify one for the highest office in the land. “Disrespecful” of Obama? Respect is earned, and I know of nothing that Obama has accomplished which has earned my respect.
Quite the contrary.
Let’s pretend I have a sense of humor, James, and you tell me why you feel using Urkel as an non-look-alike Obama is appropriate. Inform me on this pop culture stuff. Maybe I can be cool like you.
As for disrespect, I think it is self-explanatory. Of course I do not think that service by a forebearer, or by the person themself qualifies anyone for the presidency. I never said it did. My statements were about citizenship, not support of any political candidate.
What’s with the Urkel pic? Is this because a black man has failed to recognize his proper place and is running for President? That’s inherently comical? All blacks look alike?
Dolph said on 11 Jun 2008 at 11:02 pm:
“Obama’s mother was an American citizen and her father was a WWII veteran. Obama could have been born in Antarctica. He would still be a natural born US citizen.
I think the use of a black non-look-alike for Obama threads is questionable. I believe questioning the citizenship of a United States veteran’s grandson is disrespectful. Mr. Stanley Dunham, Obama’s maternal grandfather, served in Patton’s army during WWII.
Questioning the citizenship of Obama is sort of a last gasp.”
The last gasp of liberals is to dismiss this as a silly accusation. Please read the story again and note that ” U.S. law at the time of his birth required his natural-born parent (his mother) to have resided in the United States for ‘10 years, at least [f]ive of which had to be after the age of 16.’” Dolph’s knowledge of the legal requirements is not correct. The veteran issue has nothing to do with it - another red herring being thrown out for the purposes of distraction.
One piece of paper from Mr. Obama makes this problem go away. He has been very decisive of late in ending controversies. Why won’t he do so with this one?
Can we see the birth certificate, please? That would end what some of you who don’t understand the Constitution call silliness. The fact that Obama’s grandfather was a veteran is immaterial. Show us the birth certificate.
The Obama campaign has built what might best be described as a Web-based rumor clearinghouse, located at fightthesmears.com, in which it hopes all the shady stories about Obama’s faith, his family and his rumored connections with controversial figures can go to die.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshome/
When you hear another rumor, go check it out (or report it). This particular rumor is very “old news.”
Greg, this type of reporting puts you in the company of some folks you probably don’t want to be associated with. How about returning to local news.
Uh, “Dolph,” I’m not going to “try to tell [you] why [I] feel using Urkel as an non-look-alike Obama is appropriate,” because I never said I did. I merely recognized Greg’s use of it for what it was: an attempt — perhaps lame; perhaps failed — at humor. I’m certainly not going to try to justify it. Neither am I going to get my panties in a wad over it.
Adam Smith said on 12 Jun 2008 at 8:54 am:
The Obama campaign has built what might best be described as a Web-based rumor clearinghouse, located at fightthesmears.com, in which it hopes all the shady stories about Obama’s faith, his family and his rumored connections with controversial figures can go to die.
I would hardly call this a clearing house. I visited the site, and there is nothing on it about the citizenship question. The questions that are addressed don’t have much substance to them. Saying something is a lie doesn’t really disprove it. Like the entire Obama campaign, there is no substance to it.
1. Who is to say that Hillary’s camp isn’t behind this? She still has her delegates and if she can get him constitutionally disqualified before he is nominated, she can still get the nomination.
2. As far as McCain goes, not only is he a citizen due to his parents’ citizenship status, but also because at the time of his birth, the Panama Canal Zone was a U.S. Territory, which would also have made him a natural born citizen since the Zone was U.S. soil.
Well said, JFK. If they truly want to debunk this rumor or others that pop up, they’ll have to do better than “Take our word for it.”
Oh, that FightTheSmears website is LAME.
What they can’t do is debunk things that Obama has been documented as having said or done.
When did Obama stop smoking marijuna?
When did Obama stop snorting cocaine?
(He admitted to doing both in his autobiography.)
Perhaps Obama can defuse all these nasty questions by doing an Urkel impersonation himself and say, “Did I do that???” in a geeky voice and then start doing a snorting laugh.
Who is actually responsible for vetting a Presidential Candidate? Not the main stream media I hope - or the people making this the issue.
If this is the main Obama issue, he has nothing to worry about.
This is a link to an image of Obama’s Hawaiin birth certificate:
http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg
Pat.Herve said on 12 Jun 2008 at 1:58 pm:
Who is actually responsible for vetting a Presidential Candidate? Not the main stream media I hope - or the people making this the issue.
If this is the main Obama issue, he has nothing to worry about.
Who then?
No one said this was the main issue; why is it so hard to answer? Why won’t Obama answer the question or provide the proof?
The true smear campaign here is the smear Obama supporters are making on folks who are asking a basic question. Krustis, Dolph, pat.herve and others - don’t you care about this? Why wouldn’t you care?
Krustis never responded to my request to name five specific programs that Obama will put in place (don’t use the word “change). I am an undecided voter and would welcome the information. Can any one provide this information?
no, I don’t care about it because his mother was an American citizen. That’s all we need to know. Why on earth get so hung up on some issue that really doesn’t even exist. His mother was a citizen, Hawaii is a state (as of August 21, 1959).
jfk, you assume I am an Obama supporter? Not so. Neither am I smearing anyone. Actually you ask a good question about 5 specific programs. I would rather spend my time on those than some weak effort to disqualify Obama.
What jfk said on 12 Jun 2008 at 12:09 pm: “I would hardly call this a clearing house. I visited the site, and there is nothing on it about the citizenship question.”
That’s because the citizenship question is only a question on this site. It’s “very old news” that was put to rest a long time ago… not worth answering. Do you really believe that the Republican Party would have missed this (a chance to declair Obama ineligable to be President)? I don’t think so.
I’m guessing we will see a lot of “news” to excite folks who just don’t keep up.
jfk - what I am saying is this -
Is it the job of the media to vet the qualifications of a candidate? No, it is not the job of the Media - but who is responsible for it?
Is McCain eligible, I think yes, but what I think does not matter - who Vet’s the credentials (citizenship status) of a candidate?
Obama has answered the question - why should he have to publicaly display his birth certificate? We are so worried about Identity theft and all, why should his bc be plastered on a web site.
Adam Smith said on 12 Jun 2008 at 3:57 pm:
” That’s because the citizenship question is only a question on this site. It’s “very old news” that was put to rest a long time ago… not worth answering. ”
This is eerily reminiscent of the Bill Clinton Monika mess. All the liberals said, move on, this is old news. Please supply me with the link to the story indicating this issue was put to rest a long time ago. I’m a pretty avid reader of the news, and I never even heard of this issue before this blog topic was posted.
jfk said on 12 Jun 2008 at 6:04 pm:
Neither had I.
What jfk and manassascityresident said.
Isn’t the fact that you haven’t read about this anywhere else before this blog was posted a bit of a clue?
Methinks you doth protest too much….
If Obama is secretly a Muslim and the Koran tells Muslims to lie to the infidels maybe he knows he’s not a U.S. citizen and is just pretending to be one so he can advance Islams cause leading to the implementation of sharia law in our country.
Even sahdman’s suggestion (above) would probably be an improvement over Bush and Cheney.
Put down the pipe and get a real name.
Anonymous said on 12 Jun 2008 at 2:25 pm:
This is a link to an image of Obama’s Hawaiin birth certificate:
http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg
=============================
Obama’s mother’s name was/is ‘Stanley?’
What TDB said on 13 Jun 2008 at 9:04 am - “Stanley”
That’s correct. Her father wanted a boy. You ought to read up on Obama’s mom… a smart and interesting woman. Got her Ph.D and did a lot to make the world a better place.
You may be correct Adam…Obama’s Mom may have done a lot to make for a better world. One thing for sure though, she made one very bad mistake.
Like spreading her legs for a married man, bearing him a child, then leaving when he refused to get a divorce? Sounds like a genius to me! Didn’t I see this on a Jerry Springer show recently?
freedom 9:26
She had a lot to say about what her ovum and an African sperm would produce, didn’t she?
Life comes down to choices, like whether to lie with a married man, or whether to eat that third chalupa. So heck yes, she had a lot to say.
I’m just trying to keep it real, home girl.
So, Che’, tell me how YOU chose YOUR parents?
It’s a secret. If I told you, I’d have to kill ‘ya. I don’t think either of us want that. And I KNOW Taco Bell doesn’t want that!
I’m not an expert on this issue, but I’m following the story. I think I have the answer. A “natural born citizen” would be one whose parents were US citizens at the time of birth. The word “natural” comes from the same base as native and nation. A natural born citizen requires no extra laws from Congress regulating citizenship status. When a child has only one US citizen parent then Congress has been given the power to pass laws regulating how to get and retain citizenship for that child. Obama’s father was not a US citizen. So Obama is not a “natural born” citizen, he is just a citizen.
ALL in HUMOR , as dry as it may come off…. but Che’ provoked me
What is the difference between a killer an a natural born one?
( believe it or not, I have never seen that movie)
Red Dawn, if you mean an ILLEGAL ALIEN killer and a natural born one, the answer is easy…the illegal alien should never have been here in the first place to kill. That’s a no brainer.
AWCheney,
That’s my AWWW-shake, rattle and roll….
Yes, in a round about way I was asking the difference ( but took a moment of NOT thinking further:) )
Now that you have answered and put it that way.
I see that we would be very limited to who can become president in the years to come.
I would have say I see this as a concern due to the divorce rate, sperm donors, same sex marriage/partnership, adoption OUT of the country, adoption WITHIN our country?
NO, I can tell you right now, I am NOT a supporter for Obama, it would be too easy to vote for change, I want to know what REAL CHANGE he is promoting, I vote Bob Wills because at least I know he says what he means right/wrong, he is truthful
NOW that is CHANGE that I would vote for.
Also, I have to say,YOU being the immigrant and I was BORN here have NO excuse for my typo’s ,blunder of the English language, LAW, look to you for a lesson….funny, if not true and FOR that ALONE, I listen to YOU
CHEERS
Then, Red Dawn, you might also consider that I, as a naturalized citizen and immigrant, am categorically opposed to the concept of foreign-born (as opposed to naturally born) citizens being allowed to run for the highest office of this land. It would be irrational, and the greatest threat to the sovereignty of this country since George W. Bush.
OBAMA – Search Engine
Results: Your search yielded 0 results.
Did you mean: Osama
Related searches:
Rev. Jeremiah Wright – see “racism”
Father Michael Pfleger – see “sexism”
Tony Rezko – see “corruption”
Bill Ayers – see “domestic terrorism”
Marxism, Socialism – see “anti-capitalism”
On the job training – see “President”
Contrary to AWCheney, I think the proposition of allowing naturalized citizens to serve as President is a debatable one, and one on which I have not developed a position.
I could not, however, support amending the Constitution to allow it unless it was not to become effective until years — decades, really, probably four decades — after adoption. If I could be persuaded on the merits of such a change, it certainly should not be made to satisfy the ambitions of any current political figure, such as the Governors of California and Michigan (both foreign-born, naturalized American citizens). If it is a good idea, it’s a change that can only be made with minimal reference to current political fashions or figures.
A change of the Constitution to become effective four decades after adoption? Interesting idea to saddle our children and grandchildren with a radical change that only future generations would have to live with…just in case it’s a bad one. We’ll probably be either in our twilight years or already dead and gone, so why not. Sounds typical of a certain kind of thinking.
I cited my reasons for imposing such a requirement (to insure that the change was not made “to satisfy the ambitions of any current political figure,” thus insuring that it doesn’t reflect current — and perhaps fleeting — passions, NOT “in case it’s a bad one”), yet you cite no countervailing arguments. You simply assert that it is “a radical change that only future generations would have to live with.” And why is it “bad”? You don’t tell us, except to make some vague and unsustained assertion — coupled with an insult of our President — that it would be “the greatest threat to the sovereignty of this country since George W. Bush.”
Aside from the fact that any constitutional amendment is arguably “a radical change,” and virtually every change is one with which “future generations would have to live,” I am not persuaded that this one is at all “radical.” What about the child whose parents emigrate to the United States when he/she is three months old?
That having been said, I haven’t decided one way or the other. I haven’t heard an argument which persuades me that such a change should be made, but American history for the last 100 years (and in perhaps the next six months) demonstrates beyond question that even a bad idea frequently cannot be defeated by mere reflexive, knee-jerk opposition unsustained by ideas or argument. The continued decline of the government schools has resulted in a woeful reduction in the justified reverence in which the Framers were once held, and while I might believe in the principle of “that the Framers so decreed” is sufficient reason to remain skeptical of any proposed constitutional change, I have no illusions that my thinking is either in the majority, or even very popular, among those whose civic education is limited to the miseducation of the government schools.
[Ed note: comment edited.]