He has withheld nothing from the people who need to see them. He has just not necessarily produced the documents for every Tom, Dick and Harry who thinks they should see them.black elk speaks wrote:that would be your opinion. There are MANY that disagree. withholding information that actually qualifies you for the position of the highest office in America raises eyebrows.PLAYER57832 wrote:These claims just don't have any real validity.nesterdude wrote:This is absolutely amusing
What a bunch of hypocrites.
These friggin liberals have been crying murder for 8 years, but when the same type of stuff that they championed = Justice, Truth, [insert any abstract noun], that hey criticized for being abused...well when it's thier guy...
What a bunch of strokers.
Big differance!
Do give sources please... because if this were true, which I doubt a lot, the question of Obama's citizenship would not be in question.[/quote]PLAYER57832 wrote: Among other issues, if you are born in the U.S. you are a natural born citizen, regardless of your parents. The issue of parentage comes up if you are born in some areas under U.S. jurisdiction, but not actually within the U.S. This gets technical, but is not relevant to Obama. Also, if a child is born outside the U.S., but has a parent who is a U.S. Citizen, they are generally considered natural citizens, but not natural born citizens.
From the U.S. state department website:
(a) Birth in the United States . (1) Statutory development . Prior to 1866, absent any statutory or constitutional provision, it was generally held, under the common-law principle of jus soli (the law of the place), that a person born in the United States acquired citizenship at birth; this principle was incorporated in the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, and, two years later, found expression in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides that all persons born in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.
It was too long to copy the entire thing, but parental citizenship ONLY matters if a child is not born within the U.S.
The first time I heard of the distinction was actually when a friend of mine, who happened to have been born in Japan while her parents were stationed there by the U.S. armed services. Because she was not born on the base, she was a "natural U.S. citizen", but not a "natural born U.S. citizen". Ironically, she could not be president, but the child of parents who came her illegally would qualify, if that child were born in a U.S. hospital.
I have had multiple births at home. All of which are attended by a qualified mid wife who served as the witness to the birth to the state which provided the birth certificates for them. It is still a document and is used, just as a death certificate is used, to certify a person's entry to and passing from this world in accordance with our laws. To not have a birth certificate is to have no official record of your birth, therefore, no official record of your natural citizenship.[/quote][/quote]PLAYER57832 wrote: Similarly, although a birth certificate is the easiest and most common way to affirm U.S. birth, it is not the only one. Many home births of that time did not get them.
Please note, I said "MANY births" ... not all births. As a point of fact, states vary on this and issuance of birth certificates for home births has been greatly simplified in recent years.
Many blacks in Mississippi cannot product birth certificates, for example. Fine that your children have them, but all I said is that the proceedure and types of verifications offered vary. They do. Remember, this was not the 1990's!
