Born in the USA????

[Varmit]

If that SOB was in fact born in hawaii then he should put an end to this and show is freakin birth certificate.  But no, he doesn't do that because he has something to hide.  he wouldn't have spend as much money has he has on this if he had a legit standing.

[Varmit]

Logical and rational linear thinkers believe the issue can be resolved by
Obama answering one simple question:


What passport did he use when he was shuttling between
New York, Jakarta, and Karachi?

So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981,
without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with
the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?

And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York, Jakarta, and
Karachi, what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and
Immigration?

The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions,
they must have answers.  It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a
rather short and simple one.

Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A : Yes, by his own admission.

Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities.
1) He traveled with a U.S. Passport,
2) He traveled with a British passport, or
3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.

Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No. It is not possible.
Pakistan was on the U..S. State Department's "no travel" list in 1981.

Conclusion:
When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a
British passport or an Indonesian passport.

If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof
that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims.
And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to
prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British
or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.

[Anmar]

[Varmit]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104599

I thought the above link was interesting, check it out.

Also, they should have changed the name of that youtube video to "Chris Matthews doesn't support or believe in the Constitution"

[Anmar]

Billy, i read the article.  Never trust an article that says something along the lines of "officials at the state department said"  and then doesn't name the officials or at least says the officials refused to be identified.  For all we know, they could be quoting the janitor.  Here are some key phrases from the article that need further attention.

The lawsuits include contentions Obama was born in Kenya, wasn't a "natural born" citizen because of his father's Kenyan citizenship, was a dual citizen and that his mother wasn't old enough to transmit citizenship at birth.

As i've mentioned repeatedly, the supreme court has said in previous cases that a person need only have an American parent, regardless of where they are born, to be a citizen.  This is how the law has been interpreted before Obama was even a senator.  Under this interpretation, even if all these claims are true, he is still a natural born citizen.  The whole mother's age thing was concoted as a defense against this argument, but a mother is a mother, no matter how old she is.

In fact, Hawaiian Health Director Chiyome Fukino previously made a public statement about the controversy:

"I, and Dr. Alvin Onaka have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures," Fukino's statement said.
But the statement didn't reveal what the document contains, nor has any clarification ever been released.

This is the point that Chris Mathews was making in his interview.  You have the short form birtch certificate, you have people in the Hawaiian government saying that there is a long form certificate on file, yet the author of the article still tries to raise controversy.  Have you ever asked yourself why?

According to Jerry Fuller and Mike Persons of the passport services division of the U.S. State Department, a document such as the online COLB could be acceptable to prove U.S. citizenship for the purposes of getting a passport if it contains a certain number of components, such as time and date of birth, location and name.

Here they actually name officials, and those officials say that the form that we have all seen is valid and proves his citizenship.  The only ones who contradict this are the unknown and unnamed "officials"

Robert Klein Engler, who writes at Chronwatch-America.com, said he called the State Department to ask about obtaining a U.S. passport with only a "Certification of Live Birth."

"I was told flat out, 'No!'" he told WND.

Now the author is using heresay as a source.  Poor poor journalism.  In fact, this is how i and my brothers got our passports.

The document contrasts with an actual Hawaii birth certificate from 1963 (the same era as Obama's birth), which while redacted includes detailed information documenting a birth, including the name of the birth hospital and the attending physician.

This section where they show the two forms is intenionally misleading.  Look under the two pictures and read the heading.  You will notice that the labels are different.  One is a short form and the other is a long form.  Of course they are going to look different, they are different forms.  That doesn't mean that one is valid and the other isn't, as the article suggests.  Downright irresponsible.

Ron Polarik, who holds a Ph.D. in instructional media specializing in computer technology such as printers, scanners and digital imaging, has posted a YouTube explanation of the problems he sees.

This one is easy.  For every expert saying one thing, you can find 200 experts saying something else.  check out  http://hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/235-Bad-Science-How-Not-To-Do-Image-Analysis-Part-II.html

And lastly, how does chris mathews hate the constitution?  As i recall, he was one of the few journalists that had the balls to stand up against Bush's war in Iraq, because there was no actual declaration of war by congress.

[kshillbillys]

This is just proving that there have been 12 times that CONGRESS APPROVED GOING TO WAR, JUST DIDN'T FORMALLY DECLARE WAR....Imho, Chris Mathews is a homo that gets a thrill up his leg from the annointed one...and his show sucks too.


In twelve instances, the United States has engaged in extended military engagements that were explicitly authorized by Congress, short of a formal declaration of war.

War or conflict Opponent(s) Initial authorization Votes President Conclusion
Senate House
Quasi-War France Act Further to Protect the Commerce of the United States
July 9, 1798   J. Adams Convention of 1800 (Treaty of Mortefontaine)
First Barbary War Barbary States 1801   Jefferson 
Second Barbary War Barbary States 1815[citation needed]   Madison 
Raid of slave traffic Africa 1820[citation needed]     
Redress for attack on U.S. Navy vessel Paraguay 1859[citation needed]   Buchanan 
Intervention during the Russian Civil War Bolshevist Russia 1918[citation needed]   Wilson 
Lebanon crisis of 1958 Rebels 1958[citation needed]   Eisenhower 
Vietnam War National Liberation Front, later Democratic Republic of Vietnam Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, August 7, 1964 88-2 416-0 Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon American Force withdrew.
Multinational Force in Lebanon Shia and Druze miltias; Syria S.J.R. 159
September 29, 1983 54-46 253-156 Reagan Force withdrew in 1984
Persian Gulf War, also known as Operation Desert Storm Iraq H.R.J. Res. 77
January 12, 1991 52-47 250-183 George H. W. Bush The United Nations Security Council drew up terms for the cease-fire, April 3, 1991
2001 war in Afghanistan, also known as Operation Enduring Freedom Taliban government of Afghanistan and al-Qaeda S.J. Res. 23
September 14, 2001 98-0 420-1 George W. Bush, Barack Obama Ongoing
Iraq War, also known as Operation Iraqi Freedom Iraq H.J. Res. 114,
October 16, 2002 77-23 296-133 Ongoing

[Anmar]

I guess you misunderstood the question.  This is about Obama being born in the USA.  You posted an article claiming that the argument Chris Mathews used wasn't true, when in fact the article backs up Mathews' opinion.  You also claim that Mathews hates the constitution.  I ask

And lastly, how does chris mathews hate the constitution?  As i recall, he was one of the few journalists that had the balls to stand up against Bush's war in Iraq, because there was no actual declaration of war by congress.

Now the best thing you can come up with is that he's a "homo"  Please, gimme a break.  Didn't you complain about personal attacks in a different thread?  I'm sure you can do better, lets give it another try.  What makes you think that he hates the constitution?