Is Obama a Natural Born Citizen?

After further research, as currently interpreted, Barack Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States. The Supreme Court refused to take up the issue meaning that they let the current interpretation stand. Had they found error in the current interpretation, the Supreme Court would have taken the case.


Both sides have arguments that support their case for what is a "natural born" citizen, but under current convention, a natural born citizen is a person born in the United States or a territory thereof. Regardless there are more ways to show that Obama is a natural born citizen.

Quote:

The United States has always had two principles that determine if a person is born a citizen of the United States. … the United States recognizes the U.S. citizenship of individuals according to two fundamental principles: jus soli (right of birthplace) and jus sanguinis (right of blood). From the office of Citizenship and Immigration Services

T

Quote:

he term jus sanguinis describes a person born of parents who are citizens and jus soli describes a person born in the country. Persons who are born only under the principle of jus sanguinis are called a “consanguineously born citizens,” and their claim of citizenship is based on inheritance. . On the other hand persons who claims their citizenship based solely on the principle of jus soli are called “native born citizens” and these persons’ claims are based on the geographical location of their birth. Both principles are equal in making one a born citizen. Being a born citizen extends to them one particular immunity not given to naturalized citizens, in that born citizens are immune from involuntarily renouncing their citizenship. A naturalized citizen can have his citizenship revoked for several reasons, but under current law, born citizens must walk into a US Embassy abroad and in front of the Consul renounce their citizenship.

I take the above quotes from The Birthers website which disagrees with me to make a point. First, Obama is defined as a native born citizen by the Birthers, meaning that he cannot have his US citizenship revoked, or lose it by involuntary means, he MUST renounce his citizenship in front of an Consul in an US embassy to lose his citizenship, he can't lose it by any other means.

Secondly, Barack Obama does qualify under the definition of natural born the Birthers uses. Barack's mother was an US citizen, that gives Barack US citizenship by jus sanguinis (blood). All it takes is one parent to be an US citizen to automatically give you US citizenship regardless of where you are born. Marriage does matter as well as residency periods, however it seems that Obama's mother did qualify.

Quote:

Section 309 of the INA [8 USC § 1409] grants US citizenship at birth to an "illegitimate" child if his/her American mother had previously spent at least one continuous full year in the US.

So if Obama was born on US soil in Hawaii, then he would have a claim to citizenship on both principles of jus soli (right of birthplace) and jus sanguinis (right of blood). That would clearly make him a natural born citizen by even the standards of the Birthers and all dissenters. Furthermore, whatever he or his parents did in scamming/getting an Indonesian passport or whatever, Barrack cannot lose his US citizenship without renouncing it in front of a consul inside an US embassy. Doesn't matter how much he lies about his citizenship to gain college funding, he has to renounce it formally.

I hope I've shown logically that Obama does qualify as long as he was born on US soil, and there's no proof that he wasn't. If that's your only hope, I would abandon that hope immediately. The FBI is supposed to vet any candidate for presidency, maybe it's too much for me to assume, but I assume they checked the long form birth certificate and would have said something if the certificate shows anything other than US soil for Obama's birthplace. We can be almost certain that Obama was born on US soil. Why? Because people have seen it and the form WILL BE released sooner or later. I don't think the people would be this sanguine if they knew that in 20 years or so, the country would find out that they deceived the nation and violated the Constitution. So why doesn't Obama release the long form? Because this makes opponents look stupid and why take away the rope if your enemies are hanging themselves? He's going to give you guys all the rope you want.

Obamacare

---

Health care is a very difficult issue because Americans expect that everything will be used to treat their illness without regard for costs. It makes sense, everyone values their own life a great deal and want all possible treatments and methods to be used to help cure their illness or extend their life. But that costs a lot of money.

Take this example. A person has cancer that is at a stage where 80% of people die within a year. Further treatment will cost $50,000 a month, is it worth it to continue treatment? In the US, there is no one who can say no. The insurance company might try, but laws prohibit denial of coverage because "it's not worth it". And of course the person who has cancer is going to say of course it's worth it, any amount of money is worth trying to save my life.

In Europe, the government decides, which would also happen here if Obamacare passes. Someone has to decide if spending X money is worth an X percent chance of extending a person's life. Otherwise, we get huge costs because we try to do everything possible to extend a person's life regardless of the cost. That's why health care is so expensive in this country, that and the fact that we do have the best care in the world. Recent studies have finally provided evidence for what I've suspected all along.

http://papers.nber.org/papers/w15213#fromrss

Quote:

Life expectancy in the United States fares poorly in international comparisons, primarily because of high mortality rates above age 50. Its low ranking is often blamed on a poor performance by the health care system rather than on behavioral or social factors. This paper presents evidence on the relative performance of the US health care system using death avoidance as the sole criterion. We find that, by standards of OECD countries, the US does well in terms of screening for cancer, survival rates from cancer, survival rates after heart attacks and strokes, and medication of individuals with high levels of blood pressure or cholesterol. We consider in greater depth mortality from prostate cancer and breast cancer, diseases for which effective methods of identification and treatment have been developed and where behavioral factors do not play a dominant role. We show that the US has had significantly faster declines in mortality from these two diseases than comparison countries. We conclude that the low longevity ranking of the United States is not likely to be a result of a poorly functioning health care system.

Insurance can't get around the fact that SOMEONE HAS TO PAY! Just because you have insurance and only pay $10000 for $100,000 of health care services doesn't mean the $90,000 disappears! Someone else will have to cover that shortfall. So insurance cannot possibly work if everyone is receiving $100,000 of services for premiums and copays that add up to $10,000. It means that those who don't get sick and have insurance will see premiums that seem very high to them. Again, someone has to make up the difference, someone has to pay. This is what makes health care so difficult to "fix".


And of course there are government regulations and such that prevent health insurers from offering coverage across States, which could reduce risk for the insurers and rates for everyone else. The larger the pool, the easier it is to predict outcomes. Also why do Americans require that doctors treat them or be the primary person to see them? Most illnesses and sicknesses are common ones that we know about and know how to treat. A nurse can be just as effective, let's say stitching up a cut or treating an infection. Doctors could then be reserved for only the most difficult cases, this is what they do in the UK. You don't get to see a doctor unless the nurse doesn't know what is wrong with you and can't fix you up. That saves money, but would Americans be satisfied with that kind of health care? Maybe, read on below.

Quote:

WSJ -- Retail health clinics are adding treatments for chronic diseases such as asthma to their repertoire, hoping to find steadier revenue, but putting the clinics into greater competition with doctors' groups and hospitals. Walgreen Co.'s Take Care retail clinic recently started a pilot program in Tampa and Orlando offering injected and infused drugs for asthma and osteoporosis to Medicare patients. At some MinuteClinics run by CVS Caremark Corp., nurse practitioners now counsel teenagers about acne, recommend over-the-counter products and sometimes prescribe antibiotics. Walgreen, the second-largest pharmacy chain by stores, plans to start a pilot program for managing diabetes in coming months. CVS's MinuteClinic is piloting a rapid test for conjunctivitis, or pinkeye, at its Atlanta clinics and working with the Cleveland Clinic to provide care to asthma patients. MP: So how are the MDs responding to the increased competition from retail clinics? First of all, they don't like the competition: Such moves (expansion of services at retail clinics) are raising the ire of physicians' groups that see the in-store clinics as inappropriate venues for treating complex illnesses. In May, the Massachusetts Medical Society urged its members to press insurance companies on co-payments to eliminate any financial incentive to use retail clinics. But second of all, they are responding to the competition from retail clinics by acting more competitively themselves: The clinics are helping alter the practice of medicine. Doctors are expanding office hours to evenings and weekends. Hospitals are opening more urgent-care centers to treat relatively minor health problems.

California Roll Factory Review

Four or five stars? I decided on five because what California Roll Factory does, it does very well and occupies a much needed, but often neglect\ed segment of the sushi restaurant world--the value segment.

If you are looking for the tastiest, best fish and exotic seafoods handpicked by the sushi chef in the morning, you've come to the wrong place. As mentioned, this is the place for rolls, and you'll find plenty of these in unique and esoteric combinations. Can't find the combination you want or have a great idea for a roll that you're sure will take the culinary world by storm while in a drunken yet contemplative state? Just tell the sushi chef what ingenious madness you've come up with and he'll make it. You even get to name it and have it put on the menu if it proves popular enough. That's how most of the hundreds and I mean hundreds of available rolls end up on the menu.

I've yet to see another sushi restaurant has the same concept, let customers invent rolls, put it up on the walls and whatever sticks, sticks.

However that alone won't get five stars in my book. The reason California Roll Factory gets five stars is not only due to the unique concept, but because it offers a lot of sushi at a good price, In other words, it's a good value and that deserves merit and stars--five to be exact.

California Roll Factory doesn't skimp on the fish, I am continuously surprised at how much fish ends up in the rolls, when you order something with tuna and salmon in a roll, they don't cut out half of the fish to make it the same quantity as you would get if you ordered a simple tuna roll. No, they just make the roll bigger, and so when you have multiple ingredients, the rolls get huge, so large that it would take considerable skill to fit a piece in your mouth. Yes of course sushi is meant to be bite sized, but CRF doesn't pretend to be a traditional Japanese sushi restaurant and so doesn't care about the usual rules of sushi. I'm sure some of the combinations would horrify a traditional sushi chef, no this isn't your top level elitist sushi place where you can get kicked out for requesting watsabe on the side (such dictator-style sushi places are the fad in New York now, since the sushi chef already puts watsabe in the sushi, of course he'll kick you out if you ask for more since that'll destroy the perfect sushi he's created for you).

It's not a top quality, expensive sushi place and doesn't pretend to be. Instead, it is a California-Japanese fusion sushi restaurant offering loads of average quality sushi (but in unique and creative ways) for a cheap price. Not all sushi places need to be the ones that fly in fish from Hawaii every morning and offer only the very best fish. There definitely should be a category of restaurant that offers good value and good fun. California Roll Factory fits that segment and dominates like Wal-Mart does the cheap retail market. Not all of us can afford top quality sushi, nor do we want to spend that much money all the time. Sometimes, especially when you're drunk, you just want A LOT of good but not great sushi at a price that you won't regret the next morning when you get sober. For those who find themselves in that situation, California Roll Factory is the place, five stars for sure.

Review for Yelp