Jon Stewart's argument for Obama's citizenship.

The show on March 8th, Jon was talking to the computer. He made the point that Obama's parents were lawfully married in Hawaii, Feb 2 1961 and Barrack was born Aug 4 1961. His mom was 3 months pregnant with him when she was married. So he was in America as a fetus. Possibly conceived in America. I'm still only mostly sure Obama is a citizen. But this argument doesn't seem right. Does it still apply to a foreign national, who may or may not have been conceived here, definitely existed as a fetus here, but may or may not have been born here? Like say, for example, someone who's parents are Mexican citizens, and not American, who existed as a fetus in these borders, but maybe was born in Mexico? If our hypothetical fetus is asked to prove his identity later in life, does proof of his being here as a fetus grant him citizenship?

Like I said I'm not convinced either way, but I didn't vote for him and he's still president so what I think doesn't matter. Just curious if Jon's argument would really hold water, or is he not really making a point at all, but the crowd laughs and cheers and the robot gets caught in a causality loop, so Jon's the hero and he must be right. Right?

Oops I also meant to add Jon said the birther conspiracy issue was settled in 2008 when Hawaii produced a certificate of live birth. Was it settled? Are we done talking about that now?

"We are all citizens of the world." BHO
"Show us your papers. please." TSA

reply to post by ZeroReady

does proof of his being here as a fetus grant him citizenship?

No, it's where you are born that counts..
Not where you were conceived..
It's called a Natural "Born" Citizen....

reply to post by backinblack


That's what I thought too. But it's like Jon concedes to "OK maybe he wasn't born here but..."
I wonder where he really stands on the issue

Where can I get a certificate of conception?

Wait, I don't even want my birth certificate.

I think you guys missed the "joke" in Jon Stewarts argument.

The set up is that it's the stereotypical anti-abortion "right winger" who is challenging Obama's citizenship.

The punchline is that if you believe the fetus makes the human, then you can't possibly believe Obama is anything but a U.S. citizen.

Get it?

reply to post by harrytuttle


Yeah I did catch my misunderstanding after I posted. As usual. I get it

reply to post by harrytuttle

Got it. Point well made. If the fetus has rights (anti abortion line) then where he/she was conceived is significant. But proving where one was conceived is not certain unless you never travel (not like doing a dna test to see who the father was) but a birth is a recordable event. BTW, we celebrate birth days not conception days for a reason.

reply to post by backinblack

So a future test tube baby (grown in a tank) in the future can not be POTUS b/c he or she was not "natural" born,,,even if "delivered" (assuming that the egg is not implanted into a female) in the US. What about "clones?"

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


In Aldous Huxley's Brave New World this problem is over come with one world government. Community Identity Stability