It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jon Stewart's argument for Obama's citizenship.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:45 AM
link   
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?
edit on 15-3-2011 by ZeroReady because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:51 AM
link   
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?



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:54 AM
link   
"We are all citizens of the world." BHO
"Show us your papers. please." TSA



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:55 AM
link   
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....



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:57 AM
link   
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



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:59 AM
link   
Where can I get a certificate of conception?

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



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:59 AM
link   
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?



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by harrytuttle
 


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



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:04 AM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   
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?"



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


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




top topics



 
0

log in

join