I would proudly call myself a "Birther," yet,
I believe Obama is, or was, a U.S. citizen. But he provides no credible proof of this.
I believe he was probably born in Hawaii. But no one has provided proof of this.
I don't believe he was born in Kenya. But there is no proof of that, either.
I have sworn, as has Obama, “to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” So, this drives my inquiry
But the likelihood that this man is a "natural born citizen," as required by the Constitution, is very, very unlikely. He does not appear to meet the legal tests of "jus soli" AND "jus sanguinis” in a unified way.
The term jus sanguinis describes a person born of parents who are citizens and jus soli describes a person born in the country. There was no "Unity of Citizenship" at the time of his birth to make him a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. This is a specific category of citizenship UNDER OUR FUNDEMENTAL LAW. One must be natural born to be President. Dual citizens cannot be natural born. Such has been a requirement of the U.S. Constitution since the beginning of the Republic.
Inasmuch as Barrack’s father was a British subject at the time of his birth, he cannot be a "natural born citizen." Further, his mother was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship (at least 5 years over the age of 14). Gone jus sanguinis! Hence, not a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, maybe only a U.S. citizen, which is NOT ENOUGH TO BE PRESIDENT.
In addition to that, he was later adopted and renamed by a foreigner, Lolo Soetoro, when he was a child, and undoubtedly lost his U.S.citizenship then, which he may have gotten under the principle of "jus soli."
He was at one point a citizen of Indonesia, a country that required proof-certain of his Indonesian citizenship. Otherwise "Barry Soetoro" could not have attended school there. This adoption probably stripped away his American citizenship entirely, requiring it to be restored through a legal process, if it ever was. Also, there should have been a legal name change, of which no one can produce a record. These loose ends could be problematic. The consequense could be nullification of every order, proclaimation and law promulgated during Obama’s term as “President.”
An ugly fact here is that Barrack Obama has spent well over a million dollars, much of it taxpayer money, to obstruct access to the truth about his birth, background and eligibility. We do not even have credible evidence of his hospital birth in Honolulu. Why is that? People in Hawaii understandably would like to celebrate the details of his birth, but credible details are “hazy.”
Why are so many documents, which go to the issue of his citizenship, hidden or lost? Why can we not know his true identity? Why would he ever allow his election campaign operatives publish such an amateurish forgery of his "birth certificate" on the internet? Why will he not quickly assure us that he is truly a natural born citizen?
Regardless of all these legal twists and turns, Obama will not provide a skeptical America with a genuine record of his birth or legal and academic past, documents that, if exposed, would cause him enormous embarrassment and legal difficulties. The exposure of these documents, which will inevitably come out, may also cause a Constitutional crisis, and a market nightmare for the country, if the timing is off. A bad thing for a man claiming to love transparency.
I believe Obama is, or was, a U.S. citizen. But he provides no credible proof of this.
I believe he was probably born in Hawaii. But no one has provided proof of this.
I don't believe he was born in Kenya. But there is no proof of that, either.
I have sworn, as has Obama, “to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” So, this drives my inquiry
But the likelihood that this man is a "natural born citizen," as required by the Constitution, is very, very unlikely. He does not appear to meet the legal tests of "jus soli" AND "jus sanguinis” in a unified way.
The term jus sanguinis describes a person born of parents who are citizens and jus soli describes a person born in the country. There was no "Unity of Citizenship" at the time of his birth to make him a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. This is a specific category of citizenship UNDER OUR FUNDEMENTAL LAW. One must be natural born to be President. Dual citizens cannot be natural born. Such has been a requirement of the U.S. Constitution since the beginning of the Republic.
Inasmuch as Barrack’s father was a British subject at the time of his birth, he cannot be a "natural born citizen." Further, his mother was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship (at least 5 years over the age of 14). Gone jus sanguinis! Hence, not a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, maybe only a U.S. citizen, which is NOT ENOUGH TO BE PRESIDENT.
In addition to that, he was later adopted and renamed by a foreigner, Lolo Soetoro, when he was a child, and undoubtedly lost his U.S.citizenship then, which he may have gotten under the principle of "jus soli."
He was at one point a citizen of Indonesia, a country that required proof-certain of his Indonesian citizenship. Otherwise "Barry Soetoro" could not have attended school there. This adoption probably stripped away his American citizenship entirely, requiring it to be restored through a legal process, if it ever was. Also, there should have been a legal name change, of which no one can produce a record. These loose ends could be problematic. The consequense could be nullification of every order, proclaimation and law promulgated during Obama’s term as “President.”
An ugly fact here is that Barrack Obama has spent well over a million dollars, much of it taxpayer money, to obstruct access to the truth about his birth, background and eligibility. We do not even have credible evidence of his hospital birth in Honolulu. Why is that? People in Hawaii understandably would like to celebrate the details of his birth, but credible details are “hazy.”
Why are so many documents, which go to the issue of his citizenship, hidden or lost? Why can we not know his true identity? Why would he ever allow his election campaign operatives publish such an amateurish forgery of his "birth certificate" on the internet? Why will he not quickly assure us that he is truly a natural born citizen?
Regardless of all these legal twists and turns, Obama will not provide a skeptical America with a genuine record of his birth or legal and academic past, documents that, if exposed, would cause him enormous embarrassment and legal difficulties. The exposure of these documents, which will inevitably come out, may also cause a Constitutional crisis, and a market nightmare for the country, if the timing is off. A bad thing for a man claiming to love transparency.
Our Founding Fathers placed this requirement for (only) the President to be a natural born citizen to protect our country from foreign influence. There are some out here who feel a strong foreign influence in the words and actions of this "radical president." Some days it seems like Barack Obama shows a lot more devotion to foreign ideas, such as Marxian Socialism, Islam and world government, than to our Founders' American ideals of individual liberty, private property and limited government. That is why the examination of Obama's most untransparent past is so compelling.
