Conspiracy Theory ~vs~ Consideration of Reason

When is it something a Conspiracy Theory? And conversely; when is it a Consideration of Reason; in which outcomes and/or circumstances leading to real events are speculated in order to arrive at a reasonable scenario, in the temporary lieu of facts, until the entire consideration is proved as a fact itself? We all know that authorities solve more crimes by the (sheer,at times) use of speculation; in order to arrive to the solution of a case, aka investigative process. It is not only the suspension of disbelief what enables an investigator to pinpoint reasons to suspect or to rule out known facts: It is the adoption of an open mind and the readiness to accept ANY possible outcome what facilitates their judiciousness. In doing so, honest people cannot indulge in the mocking of propositions that are within the actual realm of possibility: They must learn to detach themselves from the issues at hand, and to see over their own preferences, as to better provide the best impartial assessment.

Yet all individuals pursuing clarity, transparency and closure on the issues that have been raised upon the very record of facts involving Mr. Obama’s eligibility, or possible (and likely, as of now) lack thereof, in their rightful quest for truth, have been accused of pursuing “Conspiracy Theories”; merely for raising pertinent questions:Is Mr. Obama an American citizen? Quite probably, yes.Is he a natural born citizen? There is absolutely no proof of that, other than the word of Hawaiian officials, including its governor. NOTE that these assertions were NOT made under oath, and that ANYONE can face the camera and utter into a microphone the most insincere lies: Bill Clinton looked to us in the eye and said “I did not have sex with that woman (in reference to Ms. Monica Lewinsky). Was he born in Hawaii? We don’t know for sure. A birth certification states he was, yet suspiciously enough, Mr. Obama is legally preventing the disclosure of proof to further support it.

More pertinent even are these still unanswered matters:Has Mr. Obama ever had another citizenship? British/Kenyan citizenship, at birth, via his father. It is suspected he has or had Indonesian citizenship, via his adoptive father; Lolo Soetoro.Is his allegiance to our country undivided? We do not know.Did he renounce to any other citizenship he might have had? We do not know. Was he vetted properly by the Illinois Democratic Party? Apparently, not at all.Has congress declared him a natural born citizen, as they did with McCain regarding his birth to two American citizens in the Panama Canal zone? Not yet, but they are working on it; EVEN AS THEY DO NOT HAVE ALL FACTS AT HAND REGARDING OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY.Does the 14th Amendment provide Mr. Obama with statutory natural born citizenship? NOT for Constitutional purposes, such as eligibility to the Presidency of the United States. Please be advised on the following facts:

‘The State Department asserts that “the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.” This position seems to be at odds with …the fact that Congress in 1790 felt it could confer natural born citizenship on those born abroad to American parents. Ultimately, it will take a Supreme Court decision to settle the matter once an American citizen born abroad runs for and wins the presidency.’ (Wikipedia) The requirements for said eligibility can be seen here:http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdfOut of which it is pertinent to point out that:
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural- born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency; b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen shall be eligible for the Office of President;”c. The Constitution does not define “natural born”. The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization ”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “…the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”d. This statute is NO LONGER operative, however, and its formula is NOT included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute DOES NOT necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSES.

All past presidents complied with, or were protected (as J. Buchanan’s father, who moved to America in 1783, and benefited from Peace treaties and ratification of our Constitution by England in 1788) by the “Grandfather Clause” of; the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.W. Wilson and H. Hoover had mothers who benefited from the Congressional Act of February 1855, which stated, “(A)ny woman who might lawfully be naturalized under existing laws, married, or shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen.” [Act of February 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604, section 2], in vigour until 1922. Chester Arthur; however, is a very sad chapter in our history indeed: He lied his way to the Oval Office, in an era in which facts were far easier to mould into lies. Deceivers CANNOT be precedents to follow.
Has the Supreme Court ever ruled, or at least clarified, upon who is and is not a natural born citizen? Only clarified by obiter dictum, (a non-binding, non-dispositive legal commentary) as in Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. : " The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.”This test was affirmed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898).

Article II of the Constitution provides that “[n]o person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .” From the Minor decision, we learn who the Framers placed in the second category as being eligible to be President. These were the “original citizens,” those who were members of and who gave their allegiance to the revolutionary cause that produced the new nation. The Framers grandfathered these individuals to be eligible to be President. There cannot be any doubt that even children who were born on U.S. soil fell into this category simply because they were the first generation of citizens.

With the passing of time, no one would be able to benefit from the grandfather clause and then would have to be “natural born Citizens” to be eligible to be President. We learn that “all children born in the country of parents who were its citizens… ” make up the “natural born Citizen” category. The Court says that there have never been any doubts as to the status of these children. As to children born in the U.S. to parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time of their birth, there have been doubts. In other words, “natural born Citizen” under this formulation requires two generations of U.S. citizens, one generation in the parents and the other in the child himself/herself who also must be born on U.S. soil. It is important to understand that we are focusing on what is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II which specifies the requirements to be President and not on what a “Citizen” is under the 14th Amendment or under some Congressional Act which does not relate to the Article II of our Constitution regarding natural born Citizenship.

Obama, while having his mother’s U.S. citizenship generation, is missing that of his father’s, for his father was a British subject/citizen at the time of his birth. He therefore cannot be a “natural born Citizen,” even if the presumptive president was born in Hawaii. Which he; by the way, is not ready, willing nor able to prove in court and under oath; with anything other than a prima facie piece of evidence and two newspapers clippings from Hawaiian newspapers of the era, which announce his birth, yet all of these combined are not probative of where the birth took place. It is up to you; the people of the United States, to ascertain if all of this is a Conspiracy Theory, or a Consideration of reason and of purely legal questions. Once you ponder all of these facts; it is important to voice your opinions, without which the Supreme Court will likely do nothing to stop this travesty.

Thanks to Homar Marchebout for this detailed, fact based explanation about Obama’s ability to even be president based on the American Constitution.
http://fortheconstitution.com/index.php/blog/show/“PRESIDENT%3F”-CHESTER-ARTHUR-et-al—WHY-THEY-AREN’T-PRECEDENT-FOR-OBAMA’S-ELIGIBILITY.html

Why are people so willing to overlook this? It doesn't matter which party you align yourself with. This is about truth and abiding by the rules set forth in our Constitution which sets us apart form other countries because we have a set of rules that we rely on to maintain organization and fairness. Just delete Obama's name from the above and read it again. We just want the truth and if he has nothing to hide why is he fighting so hard to hide the truth? It is very perplexing!

B