is it a Certificate of Live Birth? One of my daughters just looked at the photocopy that the State of Kansas issued us in 1949. Across the top of it, it says "Certificate of Live Birth". Does this mean that she is not a citizen of the United States of America? Does this mean that there is something wrong about where she was born because it is not a "Birth Certificate" or because it is a photocopy and not the original. Do you have the original certificate of your birth?
Any of you that are listening to the wild statements that Donald Trump or anyone else is making and so many people are believeing, can either shut up or sit down. I have heard enough about a certain lack of a birth certificate where the person involved has been proven in many ways and especially to whomever certifies the qualifications for the run for the presidency, to be a true natural born citizen of the United States of America.
Does anyone still have any argument on this subject?
I have a certificate of live birth, and it does contain my doctors signature AND ADDRESS as well as his practice title of MD. It also has the name of the hospital and city it is in. It is a complete document with enough information in it that could be used to accurately verify that i was born in that hospital on said date and said time.
The issue is that his birth certificate does not contain verifiable information. IT solely relies on government registrars testimony that the one he presented is on file. that does not mean he was born in the US.
Next is that Obama has spent millions to prevent anyone from finding his certificate of live birth and NO ONE would do that unless they didn't have one that supported his claim of natural citizenship. Last of all I am of the same age as he is, and he should have a certificate of live birth in the record. IF he doesn't it means he wasn't born there. Obviously there has been enough money spent to cover up his true record of birth.
Quote from: srkruzich on April 26, 2011, 08:32:53 AM
I have a certificate of live birth, and it does contain my doctors signature AND ADDRESS as well as his practice title of MD. It also has the name of the hospital and city it is in. It is a complete document with enough information in it that could be used to accurately verify that i was born in that hospital on said date and said time.
Ditto. Cert of live birth from Kansas, includes hospital info & Dr. signature. There differing laws/procedures in different states. While many minimize the issue of Obama's origin, consider the constitutional crisis created if he's not eligible to hold the office.... 4 totally lost years and trillions in fraudulent spending and regulation, among other things.
Quote from: Patriot on April 26, 2011, 09:32:37 AM
Ditto. Cert of live birth from Kansas, includes hospital info & Dr. signature. There differing laws/procedures in different states. While many minimize the issue of Obama's origin, consider the constitutional crisis created if he's not eligible to hold the office.... 4 totally lost years and trillions in fraudulent spending and regulation, among other things.
I would say biggest risk is national security. To have a individual who is tied to another country of origin in charge of our nations highest held secrets and the powers to act on them is a dangerous and foolish thing to do.
Anderson Cooper did yet another report on his 360 program about this last night. You can probably watch it on their site if interested. He also interviewed Trump about it again. Think there may be more on it tonight. Hawaii does seem to have its own way of handling these matters and I don't have the interest to try and explain what the report said here. So anyway, watch it if interested.
I am not interested in anything that Donald Trump says. I am not interested in the reported millions that have been spent by unnamed persons to cover up a falshood that does not exist. I am willing to take the word of the persons that are in charge of verifying the qualifications of a presidential candidate. Do you really think that something like this could be pulled off in spite of the Republican Party or do you think they are in on it, too?
I think you all have got a dead rat by the tail and don't want or know how to let go. Where is anyone's proof that what you are saying is true?
When one asks for proof on whether "birthers" have any proof themselves on whether their claims are true or not, wouldn't that be the pot calling the kettle black (or Obama)? Where's your proof that he was actually born here, other than his saying it? It is fact that he has spent millions keeping this a secret. This was brought out long before Donald Trump and his combover EVER got into it. You can go around with your head in the sand, still believing in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, or actually think, "Hey this SOB lied." And if he is not a US Citizen, who has spent trillions of dollars of US Citizens' tax money, waging war on other countries, being a NON US CITIZEN and unable to be President, would that mean that he should be tried for High Treason against the US Government, punishable by death?----Mr. KSHillbilly
The Donald, and others that have come to be labled as 'birthers' really need to find a different path of attack on the sitting President. I'm not a fan of the man, but there has not been a fifty year conspiracy to cover up where he was born.
That dog just don't hunt!
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/04/23/2820329/some-obama-birth-records-made.html
Guess what! I just "googled" barack obama birth certificate" and guess what I got. A just released from the White House copy of the long form of a birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama II. Sorry I don't know how to do links or I would set one up for you. So, all you naysayers who are insisting that our president is not a natural born citizen of the U.S., go do the same thing I did. It is simple enough even for you.
Quote from: Wilma on April 27, 2011, 08:51:23 AM
Guess what! I just "googled" barack obama birth certificate" and guess what I got. A just released from the White House copy of the long form of a birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama II. Sorry I don't know how to do links or I would set one up for you. So, all you naysayers who are insisting that our president is not a natural born citizen of the U.S., go do the same thing I did. It is simple enough even for you.
Since I believe the Constitution matters, look at this comment I found on one of the sites that are producing stories about the new revelations. Pay notice to the constitutional issues raised. Do you believe the Constitution matters? Is the rule of law important or are we going with what feels good so we can avoid the pain of real debate?
Thank you, Mr President for releasing your long form birth certificate proving you are Native born to this country. Unfortunately it is also Primae facia evidence that your father was BHO Sr., not a US citizen as required by the Constitution. You were a dual citizen at the time of your birth. Your father was Kenyan/UK and you were born in Hawaii, so you had dual UK/US citizenship at birth. The Constitution requires the President be Natural born meaning a singular allegiance to the US at birth, distinguished from Native born, meaning born in the country. A Dual citizen by definition has a dual allegiance, which is expressly forbidden by the Constitution in the unique requirement for the Office of the President. Are we supposed to start ignoring the Constitution now? I didn't get the memo, which parts do we ignore, or is it all of it?Link: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/barack-obama/birth-obama-certer-movement-098513 (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/barack-obama/birth-obama-certer-movement-098513)
Where in the Constitution does it say that a person of "dual allegiance" due to one of his parents being a citizen of another country cannot serve as president of the United States?
My World Book Encyclopedia says simply that no 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, neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
Now I am going to go see if I can find the difference between native born and natural born.
Quote from: Wilma on April 27, 2011, 10:03:31 AM
Where in the Constitution does it say that a person of "dual allegiance" due to one of his parents being a citizen of another country cannot serve as president of the United States?
My World Book Encyclopedia says simply that no 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, neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
Now I am going to go see if I can find the difference between native born and natural born.
Native born is one born on american soil to two american parents. Natural born, aka Jus_soli means born on American soil. THe requirement is to prevent any possible connection to any foreign government allegience.
Where did you find that definition?
A good article on the subject... Please not that 'natives' in this article should not be confused with the term 'native-born.'
4 Supreme Court Cases define "natural born citizen"
IRREFUTABLE AUTHORITY HAS SPOKEN
by John Charlton
CONCLUSION
Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term "natural born citizen" to any other category than "those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof".
Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfil his constitutional duties accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully, because unconstitutionally.
Emphasis on the plural parents added.
Full article: http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/ (http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/)
I did what you said Wilma and sure nuff there it was.
http://gu.com/p/2zydg think this should link to the story and picture
Thank you, Pam. In spite of this we still have naysayers who want him to not be eligible to be president. I am beginning to think that there is something else stuck in their gullet and maybe they should admit it.
Wilma, perhaps your assumption (that naysayers don't want him to be president) is faulty. Perhaps the 'naysayers just want a president (any president) to be lawfully holding such a powerful position. Wouldn't you check for a driver's license before you rented out your car to a stranger? As individuals, we should expect our elected officials to be fully and legally qualified to hold office, no?
What else are you thinking might be stuck in their gullet?
Quote from: Wilma on April 27, 2011, 11:32:17 AM
Thank you, Pam. In spite of this we still have naysayers who want him to not be eligible to be president. I am beginning to think that there is something else stuck in their gullet and maybe they should admit it.
Wilma,
I sure would hate to think what these naysayers would have needed 2000 years ago to prove that Jesus was the son of God. Being born of a human and the Holy Spirit, I guess he would have been considered to have had dual-citizenship also.
Maybe the Holy Spirit, or at the very least the ghost of Ronald Reagan, can visit them and let them know it's okay to let this one go!
Quote from: flintauqua on April 27, 2011, 12:24:10 PM
I sure would hate to think what these naysayers would have needed 2000 years ago to prove that Jesus was the son of God. Being born of a human and the Holy Spirit, I guess he would have been considered to have had dual-citizenship also.
Maybe the Holy Spirit, or at the very least the ghost of Ronald Reagan, can visit them and let them know it's okay to let this one go!
Yet another transparent and poor emulation of Alinsky's tactics of isolate and demonize. If you can't stay on topic and argue the current facts at hand then how about not wasting bandwidth to try to substitute irrelevant matters just to muddy the discussion.
What, exactly, does the 'citizenship' status of Christ in the ancient Roman Empire have to do with the US Constitution as it relates to the qualifications to hold the office of president? As far as I know, Jesus, the Holy Spirit nor Reagan's ghost are even running for the office, and the matter at hand doesn't really have a spiritual component in that context.
Wow, the lengths to which progressive government worshipers will go to dismiss and avoid a valid debate of law and inconvenient facts really is amazing. Now, about that pesky constitutional rule of law thing.....
Dude....face it....He's American......you wouldnt like him if he was from the oldest family in America :P
Gonna have to live with him tho.......just like the rest of us. Just like every other president who has sucked.
Pam, I like your attitude. It is done. Live with it. Do better next time. But make sure it is better.
The distinction between "natural born" and "native born" is not universally accepted by Constitutional scholars as a crucial one, however. Short of Supreme Court decision or legislative statute settling the matter, it remains but one way of interpreting a long standing legal ambiquity concerning the eligibility clause. There are other interpretations, most notably that found in an analysis of Republican presidential candidate John McCain's standing as a natural-born citizen conducted by former U.S. Solicitator General Theodore Olson and Constitutional law professor Lawrence Tule in 2008. In this view--"based on the original meaning of the Constitution, the Framer's intentions, and subsequent legal precedent." they wrote--either the fact of birth on U.S. soil OR the fact of birth to a U.S. citizen is sufficient to confer natural born status.
I don't remember where I found this and since my computer is refusing to do certain things for me, I had to hand copy it, so may be not all the words are right.
Also, somewhere in my reading, it was pointed out that only a candidate's mother's citizenship could be ascertained as the candidate's father wasn't necessarily the one named on the birth certificate.
My congratulations to your President, Barack Hussein Obama II, born to that white trash mother of his and his african daddy. It makes me wonder why you didn't show your birth certificate two years ago to shut everyone up. Why would you wait until someone with the money and power of Donald Trump and his investigators to finally be forced to put it out? Finally a little bit of truth coming from your big mouth. Now... don't stop. Mr. Trump's investigators are still at work. We want to know why you went under the name Barry Soetoro when you attended school in Indonesia and what passport you used in 1981 to travel to Pakistan when US Citizens were banned from traveling to Pakistan at that time. Still sounds like some dual citizenship questions are legitimate. Unlike John McCain who was born to an American dad and mother on a US Naval base in Panama, meaning American soil, who showed his birth certificate right up front. We didn't have to wait 2 years. Just my thoughts. I'm not using any big words. I guess it's just because I'm so damned ignorant that I don't question the almighty chosen one in the White House.---MR. KSHillbilly
Can somebody please give me a reliable source that Americans were really banned from traveling to Pakistan in 1981. I know about a ban to Libya, but I thought the business about Pakistan was proven to be false. I sure don't remember it. So much rumor flies around it's sometimes hard to know what's correct.There was one about Mitt Romney being born in Mexico too, also false.
Sorry, I originally put this on the wrong thread.
http://factcheck.org/2009/06/more-birther-nonsense-obamas-1981-pakistan-trip/
I've been slammed before for using this source, and I'll get slammed again because it dares to refute many claims that some forum members believe to be gospel.
Makes one wonder why all those running in the last Preidential election wasn't smart enough to prove this man didn't qualify to run for office. Guess we got the smartest one if office. :P
Quote from: Patriot on April 27, 2011, 01:05:59 PM
Yet another transparent and poor emulation of Alinsky's tactics of isolate and demonize. If you can't stay on topic and argue the current facts at hand then how about not wasting bandwidth to try to substitute irrelevant matters just to muddy the discussion.
What, exactly, does the 'citizenship' status of Christ in the ancient Roman Empire have to do with the US Constitution as it relates to the qualifications to hold the office of president? As far as I know, Jesus, the Holy Spirit nor Reagan's ghost are even running for the office, and the matter at hand doesn't really have a spiritual component in that context.
Wow, the lengths to which progressive government worshipers will go to dismiss and avoid a valid debate of law and inconvenient facts really is amazing. Now, about that pesky constitutional rule of law thing.....
Translation: "valid points and analogies aren't allowed here, especially if i don't have a good argument to refute them"
Quote from: Anmar on April 28, 2011, 11:02:58 AM
Translation: "valid points and analogies aren't allowed here, especially if i don't have a good argument to refute them"
Yet another voice from the caverns of... Anmar, how exactly, is the 1st century citizenship of Jesus relevant to a discussion of the constitutional citizenship requirements for a US president in the 21st century? Should we also examine the requirements to be the leader of the Mayan empire? I'm sure that would be helpful as well.
Can't cut and paste from snopes, so you'll just have to read the whole thing; I'm not typing a condensed version:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/occidental.asp
Quote from: Patriot on April 28, 2011, 08:55:36 PM
Yet another voice from the caverns of... Anmar, how exactly, is the 1st century citizenship of Jesus relevant to a discussion of the constitutional citizenship requirements for a US president in the 21st century? Should we also examine the requirements to be the leader of the Mayan empire? I'm sure that would be helpful as well.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony
edit: let me add that anyone who takes this whole thing seriously is wasting their time. Trump brought it back up as a publicity stunt. The far right is the most gullible portion of our population, and this whole sham is just evidence of how easily many of you are manipulated, and how readily some of you will manipulate facts to attract support.
Even Sarah Palin said that its not really an issue, and there are more important things to do with our time and energy.
Theoretically, if I were to call someone "the Antichrist" (for demonization, oops demonstration purposes, lets use . . . oh I don't know . . . a cyber-citizen known only as Patriot), wouldn't I be expected to back that assertion up with facts.
Wouldn't Patriot be presumed to not be the Antichrist, until proven in a court of law of actually being the Antichrist.
Wouldn't the burden of proof be on me to prove his guilt of being the Antichrist, instead of he having to prove he's innocent of the charge and that he is just like you and I and everyone else (you know, just an ordinary human with a body, a face, a heart, a brain, etc)
And if I couldn't prove to a jury or, on appeal, to a panel of judges, that he was the Antichrist, then he would indeed be innocent of the charge, and I would probably owe him a great sum of money when he won his lawrsuit for defamation of character.
Isn't that how our judicial system works? I think it is . . . maybe I'm wrong . . . maybe I'm in some other country and not the United States of America.
Tell me again, how many times have the birthers won in a court of law?
How many times have they basically been laughed out of court?
How many more times will it take before they quit asserting that the current President of the United States of America does not meet the qualifications of the office he holds?
Quote from: flintauqua on April 29, 2011, 12:37:07 AM
Theoretically, if I were to call someone "the Antichrist" (for demonization, oops demonstration purposes, lets use . . . oh I don't know . . . a cyber-citizen known only as Patriot), wouldn't I be expected to back that assertion up with facts.
Thanks for making my point in re your Alinsky tactics, chuck. My comments related to issues of the importance of examining qualifications to hold office. Actually you will note that I haven't addressed Obama's individual qualifications. This is really fascinating to watch. By the way, do I think that Obama is qualified? Let us know when you figure out what you 'feel' in that regard.
Anmar, so many statements of 'fact', so little balance. Your last statements exclude the possibility that extreme leftists (PETA, Code Pink, Al Gore, et al) may be deluded as well. Perhaps being manipulated by sham isn't a condition uniquely reserved to the right. Again, my thoughts on Obama, in particular haven't been at the core of my argument... only considerations of the implications of any sitting president being unqualified. Until people have a clear understanding of the constitutional qualifications and understand the ramifications of not being qualified (in a nation of laws, not men), then minutia regarding Obamas birth certificate remain secondary. Do tell us more about how you 'feel'.
Quote from: Patriot on April 29, 2011, 07:56:10 AM
Anmar, so many statements of 'fact', so little balance. Your last statements exclude the possibility that extreme leftists (PETA, Code Pink, Al Gore, et al) may be deluded as well. Perhaps being manipulated by sham isn't a condition uniquely reserved to the right. Again, my thoughts on Obama, in particular haven't been at the core of my argument... only considerations of the implications of any sitting president being unqualified. Until people have a clear understanding of the constitutional qualifications and understand the ramifications of not being qualified (in a nation of laws, not men), then minutia regarding Obamas birth certificate remain secondary. Do tell us more about how you 'feel'.
hypocrite, i this thread is about a birth certificate and the crazy right, why talk about the left? you want to talk about the left, start a new thread. Your argument is invalid, end of story.
You think the far right isnt easily manipulated? didn't the far right vote for Bush time after time? I admit, I voted for Bob bradly in the primary but when Bush ran in the general election the first time out, i voted for him. Even worked for his campaign, but i learned my lesson. Are you man enough to admit that you voted for him twice? and then admit that you got fooled twice by the same guy 4 years apart?
Finally, you want me to balance my posts? where the hell is your balance? Oh right, you probably watch fox news, so you think you are being balanced.
Quote from: Anmar on April 29, 2011, 11:35:06 AM
hypocrite, i this thread is about a birth certificate and the crazy right, why talk about the left? you want to talk about the left, start a new thread. Your argument is invalid, end of story.
You think the far right isnt easily manipulated? didn't the far right vote for Bush time after time? I admit, I voted for Bob bradly in the primary but when Bush ran in the general election the first time out, i voted for him. Even worked for his campaign, but i learned my lesson. Are you man enough to admit that you voted for him twice? and then admit that you got fooled twice by the same guy 4 years apart?
Finally, you want me to balance my posts? where the hell is your balance? Oh right, you probably watch fox news, so you think you are being balanced.
My, my, aren't we testy? Thanks for the label. I'll add it to 'antichrist' and a few others that have been recently assigned. Seems pointed name calling is still a valid tactic for left leaners (or right posers). Based on the above quoted post, I'll refer you to your own recent analysis: "valid points and analogies aren't allowed here, especially if i don't have a good argument to refute them"
Thanks for saving me the keyboard ink necessary to uncover the inconsistency that is so you. Have a great day.
Quote from: Patriot on April 29, 2011, 04:12:28 PM
My, my, aren't we testy? Thanks for the label. I'll add it to 'antichrist' and a few others that have been recently assigned. Seems pointed name calling is still a valid tactic for left leaners (or right posers). Based on the above quoted post, I'll refer you to your own recent analysis: "valid points and analogies aren't allowed here, especially if i don't have a good argument to refute them"
Thanks for saving me the keyboard ink necessary to uncover the inconsistency that is so you. Have a great day.
once again you've managed to avoid and ignore every fact, and valid argument that might poke a hole in your personal belief.