• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Can't provide proof...

Sheldon

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
556
Location
Battle Creek, ,
Humm very interesting... From http://visiontoamerica.org/10440/ob...ntation-of-natural-born-citizenship-to-judge/

Obama Can’t Provide Documentation of Natural Born Citizenship to Judge

The case before Florida Judge Terry Lewis claims that Barack Obama does not meet the constitutional requirements for President of the United States. The lawsuit, believe it or not, was filed by a registered Democrat. Just last week I wrote about Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Cold Case Posse Investigator Mike Zullo filing affidavits in the case.

At that time, Obama’s attorneys had asked Judge Lewis to dismiss the case because Barack Obama met the legal definition of a natural born citizen. Lewis didn’t buy their argument and demanded they provide documented evidence to back up their claim. He pointed to the fact that the claimant’s attorney had provided a Supreme court decision that had defined natural born citizen to mean that both parents were US citizens.

In the latest round before Judge Lewis, Obama’s attorneys evidently could not produce the requested documentation to support their claim that Obama is a natural born citizen. Out of what seemed to be an act of desperation on their part, they tried to divert addressing the central claim in the case by telling Lewis that Obama is not the Democratic nominee and therefore the case is irrelevant.

According to WND, Judge Lewis challenged Obama’s attorneys by indicating that there was only one name on the Democratic ballot for president and therefore the delegates were bound to that candidate. He also asked them about a letter submitted by the Democratic Party to the Florida Secretary of State that only listed one name.


and it gets deeper...from http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/now-we-learn-obama-raised-in-singapore/

Now we learn Obama raised in Singapore?

MIAMI BEACH, Fla. – On the heels of the discovery of a 1991 publicity brochure stating Barack Obama was born in Kenya comes the unearthing of a 1990 Vanity Fair article stating Obama grew up in Singapore, not in Indonesia.

In both instances, the question immediately arises: Who was the source of the information that contradicts Obama’s accepted narrative?

In the case of the “born in Kenya” brochure, it’s almost certain that Obama was the source, because it was the policy of literary agent Acton & Dystel to ask its authors to write their own bios. The agency insists, however, “born in Kenya” was merely a “fact-checking error.” Nevertheless, the agency cannot explain why the “error” was repeated numerous times over the course of 16 years and never corrected by Obama.

WND found that in April 2007, two months after Obama had launched his presidential bid, Dystel was still touting the then-Democratic senator from Illinois as “born in Kenya.”

Was Obama the source of the “raised in Singapore” statement in the Vanity Fair profile, or was it an error by the writer and editors?

At the time of the 1990 article, Obama was the newly elected first black president of the Harvard Law Review.

The key sentence in the piece reads: Barack Obama “saw poverty while growing up in Singapore with his mother, an anthropologist, and his half-brothers and –sisters in Kenya still live hand to mouth at times.”

In 2006, after Obama was elected U.S. senator, Vanity Fair republished the article and added an editor’s note.

The note offers no explanation of why the original article stated Obama was raised in Singapore.

It declares, next to the Singapore reference, “We should have said Indonesia.”
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
You're just another whack job birther!!!

Obama is the greatest president ever. The Demoncraps said so it must be true.

I have seen a few videos where he admits to not being a natural born citizen. Now according to my grandpa, "why should that even be an issue?"
I told him because that is what the constitution says. I also tried to explain about the divided interests etc but to no avail.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
He pointed to the fact that the claimant’s attorney had provided a Supreme court decision that had defined natural born citizen to mean that both parents were US citizens.

Interesting, so the dispute isn't that President Obama wasn't born in the United Stated, the dispute is that President Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen, so therefore President Obama wouldn't be considered a Natural Born Citizen.

Every couple of months a thread like this pops-up, it's kinda of funny. First it was that President Obama was born in another Country, and now it is President Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen, therefore President Obama is not a Natural U.S. citizen. *YAWN*

Obama 2012.

The key sentence in the piece reads: Barack Obama “saw poverty while growing up in Singapore [Indonesia] with his mother, an anthropologist, and his half-brothers and –sisters in Kenya still live hand to mouth at times.”

Yea, it gets deeper! So President Obama spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, who gives a rats a$$?--other than Birthers of course. Two articles about nothing. Conspiracy theories run deep on the Paranoid Right.
 
Last edited:

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Just feel like playing along today. Here goes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause

The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated
The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by [1]being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, [1a]even those born to alien parents; by [2]being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by [3]being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” [4]required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.

So there are four (4) possibilities and only one (1) absolute exclusion. Seems the OP wants to focus on only one of the four possibilities, thus leaving the other three unanswered.

Sloppy, if you ask me.

stay safe.
 
Top