After all the CRAP, Did Obama Just Admit He is From Kenya???

And that would be a baseless disagreement. Congress has always defined who is a natural born citizen, a citizen at birth. There is no distinction.

 

I'm sorry that you don't like the fact you made an unsupportable claim, and got called on it. I gave you her direct statement in the link I provided. She admitted her mistake, and refuted you claim. I couldn't care less if you like that or not. I will continue pointing it out though, whenever you whine.

 

I didn't you did. What link where she said Obama never saw the brochure, never read it and never had a copy as you claimed.

This is her statement, where does she state what you claimed

"“You’re undoubtedly aware of the brouhaha stirred up by Breitbart about the erroneous statement in a client list Acton & Dystel published in 1991 (for circulation within the publishing industry only) that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me — an agency assistant at the time,” Goderich wrote. “There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.”"

 

Common sense, historical understanding, and Supreme Court precedent considers it so; as so evidenced in my link in post #429. Everything else is just fabrication and nonsense.

Sorry, but the "natural born citizen" clause does not make an exception for a child born to a foreign parent, and why should it, any more than it should make an exception for someone 34 years old?

 

Name the POST # where she is QUOTED, with source besides YOU.

 

I'm sorry that you don't like the fact you made an unsupportable claim, and got called on it. I gave you her direct statement in the link I provided. She admitted her mistake, and refuted you claim. I couldn't care less if you like that or not. I will continue pointing it out though, whenever you whine.

 

actually, as I pointed out to you earlier, none of those things support your position. In fact, they directly refute your position.

yes it does, as the court pointed out in US v Wong Kim Ark

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/promotional-booklet/

 

Well, we know you have no definition; but historical evidence and Supreme Court precedent do define it. Even the US Code defines it, by omission; because it was the one definition that needed no Congressional statute; being self-evident that anyone born on US soil to citizen parents was a "natural born citizen".

 

That doesn't even ADDRESS, much less support your claim, which was:

".....she said Obama never saw the brochure, never read it and never had a copy as you claimed..."

 

none of this is true, at all. The supreme court did not define natural born citizen, until US v Wong Kim Ark.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649

 

of course it does, lol.

 

Quote saying he never read it, if you don't this time then we will know you were blowing smoke again.

 

Cite the part that said he never read it.

 

You are correct. I misspoke. She didn’t say he never read it, she said he never told her he was born in Kenya. Which still refuted your claim.

 

I said I don't believe her after the fact claim that she creating those biographies entirely on her own and whether he or the other authors or their agents would proof it and sign off on the copy and gave the reasons why and then there is the separate issue of did he get a copy for his historical record and future promotion. So where did she get his biographical information? The book clearly said he was born in Hawaii and that his father was an exchange student here and that he left to go back to Kenya two years after Obama's birth.

As I said the entire scenario is incredulous on it's face.

 

Yet there isn't a statute that say if you weren't born in the country that you are not considered to be a natural born citizen. There isn't a precedent for that.

 

If you have a sister or a daughter who was born in the US and she had a baby in the US at age 14 or age 20, her child is a natural born US citizen no matter who the father is.

 

Well, there also isn't a statute that says Australian aborigines are not considered to be a natural born citizen of the US. Yet, that doesn't make them one, does it?

I gave you a link to the plain truth of it all, but your partisanship prevents you from accepting the truth.

 

No, the child would not be a "natural born citizen" unless both her parents were US citizens. Why do you keep using the US Code, when the US Code does not define "natural born citizen"; just citizenship by statute.

"Natural born citizen" = "Born on US soil to citizen parents"; as known by historical intent, historical commentary, and Supreme Court precedent.

 

What partisanship? I'm merely stating there isn't a statute that say if one of your parents are US citizen, and you happen to be born overseas, that you aren't considered a "natural born citizen." You have yet to show a statute that dispute this fact. Take Ted Cruz for instance. Though he was born in Canada, his mother is a US citizen, and therefore he is considered to be a "natural born citizen" and qualify to be President of the US should he be elected. You can't dispute that fact.

Funny you are the only brought up partisan issues....

 

Wrong. Nowhere does it say that. At all. You are mis-interpreting the statute to your liking. Again, there have NEVER been a case in front of the SCOTUS where by a person is declared a "non natural born citizen" simply because one of his/her parents weren't a US citizen.

 

The statute defines natural born citizens.. as anyone born in the US.. Read the statutes. That's upheld by the Supreme Court. Both parents don't have to be US citizens.. nor does one have to be a US citizen.. US law has jurisdiction on US soil.

Don't make the mistake other nincompoops have made claiming "jurisdiction" means allegiance.. It does not.. anyone who can read law KNOWS that.

 

Please, don't confuse "citizen at birth" with "natural born citizen". They are two different things. For example, just because a "natural born citizen" is indeed a "citizen at birth", it does not mean that any "citizen at birth" (as defined by US code) is also a "natural born citizen"; unless they are also born on US soil to citizen parents.

Many conflate these two terms incorrectly.

 

Please show me where in the US Code it specifically uses the term "natural born citizen".