These are just some things I’ve been considering. I’m not claiming to know anything about anything, really. Please no flames!
Recently, I’ve been reading articles saying that one of the president’s lawyers admitted that his birth certificate document had been faked to appease his naysayers in this nation. I was intrigued, especially after I noticed that none of the ‘big’ news companies had run any stories about it, even Fox, who would surely have been on that like white on rice, if it had been made public. (No offense to Fox, by the way. I’m much more in line with their ideologies than with MSNBC and the like.) I just decided to look up what the laws about citizenship were. I found the following information on the website of a law group which specializes in immigration law.
“The rules changed again for people born between December 23, 1952, and November 13, 1986. When one parent was a U.S. citizen and the other a foreign national, the U.S. citizen parent must have resided in the U.S. for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child, with five of the years after the age of 14. Children born out of wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother were U.S. citizens if the mother was a resident in the U.S. for a period of one year prior to the birth of the child. Children born out of wedlock to a U.S. citizen father acquired U.S. citizenship only if legitimated before turning 21.”
If Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, this is all a moot point. However, if Barack Obama was born elsewhere, his mother did not meet the ‘five years after the age of 14’ rule.
And additionally, if he actually did cause a forgery to be made of his birth certificate—whether or not he is a natural born citizen—he has broken the law and should be prosecuted.
Another thought: I wouldn’t put it past him to purposefully provide fodder on this debate as to whether or not he is a natural born citizen--by not providing reasonable proof in a decent time frame, as honest people would do--because he wanted to fuel the war between the two opposing political sides.