Why Obama wants to hide birth certificate

Really? Proved it to who?

But not in this case, so why would you bother to throw that out there?

Obama offers no excuse for not providing an actual birth certificate.

Wanting assurance that the person holding the office meets the constitutional requirements is "ridiculous, spurious whining"?

I did not say that "the country is questioning his qualifictions". I said that he could unite the country - those who question and those who do not question.

Perhaps you are too reflexive in responding. Maybe you could slow down a little and read with more care.

 

I read perfectly well. You just don't like the answers. Do you think that if tomorrow, a longer birth certificate certified by HI appeared anything would change? It wouldn't unite the country...the nutty fringe would make up the next reason to say he isn't qualified.

Bottom line, his mom was an American. Guess what that makes him?

 

BTW, since we have no national election, but rather state elections, it is up to each state to define their qualification validation procedures for a candidate to appear on the ballot. Do you think 50+ secretaries of state would let an unqualified candidate appear on the ballot? One or two, maybe. But 50? It is not easy to get on the Presidential ballot. Ask any number of would be 3rd party candidates who have tried.

 

This is FactCheck's own assertion (which opinion is neither qualified by court decision nor attorney attesting to it), mother too young to pass citizenship and father a Kenyan-Bristish subject.

Note, Obama was born Aug 4 and the birth was filed Aug 8. Four days is enough time to transport a baby from one continent to another by air...... and who wouldn't do this to concur some kind of American citizenship on their child if they already had the pass ports and the money to fly (and especially some contacts....such as extended family, who might assist them)? I think if this issue doesn't get settled soon..... and paperless excuses or not..... the certifications or certificates need to include more essential information regarding wittness to birth to help authenticate 'natural born' or this issue will not go away without changing or throwing out the constitution. Even the WND link poses the problem:

The real crux of the matter is:

Why settle this now?

It sets precedent of unsettled qualifications if left unanswered:
It can be a tool to manipulate the man in office if he knows his eligibility and occupancy could be torn legally from him by disqualification:
It alienates those who have doubts and want confidence in the law of the land..... and does nothing to inspire the confidence of his supporters to follow the law:
If left unsettled, it will remain an open question which is better known by the public when he runs for re-election..... which is his stated desire to do (unless he's successful in silencing the public voice).

 

I thought he did produce one.

He also had the state officials certify the validity of the document.

Rev, the third one about two non-citizen parents, you know you can scratch that one. No one has ever disputed his mothers citizenship to include her father who fought in WWII. To do that we'd have to question the citizenship of every American who spent time in another country and that is not our practice.

 

Apparently not.

I did not say that "the country is questioning his qualifictions". I said that "he could unite the country" - those who question and those who do not question.

There is a vast difference between the two.

If you were less reflexive and more thoughtful in your posting you would do better.

 

It is contended that she was too young at the time of "the one's" birth for her to pass citizenship if "the one" was born outside of the U.S.

 

Note: she was born in Kansas. Now the last time I looked Kansas was part of the US, thus she was a natural born citizen and the last time I looked it up natural born citizens do not have to take a citizenship test.

 

That's a nice bit of trivia but it does not address the issue of the citizenship of "the one" if she was underage and giving birth to "the one" outside of the U.S.

 

No,
It has something to do with a minor conferring citizenship on another minor. She did not meet the requirements of age at Obama's birth to confer citizenship upon her child.... and his father, of adult age, did.

 

How in the world can a natural born citizen not confer citizenship on their child regardless of age. At what age does that magic begin? Does minor mean under 21? 18? ... ????

Wow, you mean all the people running around America whose mother was a teenager are not citizens after all. I bet one of my nieces will be totally surprised to learn she is not a citizen ... guess all her votes will have to be negated from all the elections she has particiated in. Guess she will have to turn in her passport.

Frankly that is one of the strangest ideas I have ever seen. Can you show me any legal backing for that idea? I really do not believe you or anyone can.

 

Read the following definitions from the US Code. I see nothing about age of the mother.

 

It has to do with the law of citizenship at that time.
If he's born in Hawaii, then his citizenship is by location at time of birth. But if he's born elsewhere... the minor parent, in this instance cannot confer her citizenship upon a baby she births outside the US.

But so many have tried to explain that to you before...... in just about every thread that's opened upon this subject.

NOW
Do you want to keep asking the same dern question another 46 times....... or find out for yourself?

 

as we all know, it did not have a seal, making it not legitimate.

 

This makes no rational sense. If someone is making demonstrably false accusations, wouldn't it stand to reason that the accusations be refuted?

If someone make accusations against you, let's say accusing you of having an affair with a woman in Montana Monday-Thursday of each week, and there were people in your congregation who were willing to believe anything negative about you, wouldn't you bring out evidence to demonstrate you spend almost all your time in Florida (and have witnesses) and point out that there's no evidence to indicate you travel to Montana on a regular basis?

I haven't read a thing in this thread that hasn't been reasonably answered by Hawaiian officials or from other authorities.

I'm no fan of Obama, but everyone just needs to move on and deal with real issues.

 

The seal was placed on the back, as with all Hawaiian certificates. If there was a seal on the front, it would be an indication of forgery. Therefore the absence of a seal on the front lend credence to the fact that it is legitimate.

 

We have already had discussions on here about the ties between Obama and Factcheck.org. Fastcheck has an agenda.