Replies

There’s no proof that would convince you; of that I’m certain.
But Barack Obama doesn’t have to prove that he’s eligible. Under the provisions of the 12th Amendment, he twice received a majority of the votes of the Electors and whoever does that “SHALL BE THE PRESIDENT.”

The courts have ruled him to be eligible and multiple courts have ruled him to be a natural born citizen.
In five years, not one second of congressional hearing time has been devoted to this issue, however the House of Representatives did pass House Resolution 593 of the 111th Congress in 2009 which named Hawaii as Obama’s birthplace. The resolution passed 378-0.

For example:
Rhodes v MacDonald, US District Court Judge Clay D. Land: “A spurious claim questioning the president’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”—US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, September 16, 2009.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19809978/RHODES-v-MacDONALD-13-ORDER-denying-3-Motion-for-TRO-granting-8-Motion-to-Dismiss-Ordered-by-Judge-Clay-D-Land-on-09162009-CGC-Entered-0
and:
Purpura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “Natural Born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo

Additionally, every state’s Chief Elections Official cleared him for their state’s ballot, twice; Congress unanimously certified his Electoral votes, twice; and Congress has sent him literally hundreds of bills to sign into law as President and the Senate has confirmed scores of his nominees. Those congressional acts, at the very least, qualify him under the “de facto officer” doctrine. The Supreme Court of the United States has refused to review his eligibility on twenty-five occasions thus allowing lower court rulings to stand as rendered.

In five years, not one second of congressional hearing time has been devoted to this issue, however the House of Representatives did pass House Resolution 593 of the 111th Congress in 2009 which named Hawaii as Obama’s birthplace. The resolution passed 378-0.

Man. Stay around here, get an education. I wasn't aware of that Resolution.

Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961;

378 to 0.

Well, I guess that shows you how much credence birthers have in Congress.

What are we up to on the court cases now? Is it 0 for 200, or 0 for 300? I find it hard to keep count.

"Any day now."

There’s no proof that would convince you; of that I’m certain.

After all his twisting and gyrations trying to avoid releasing any proof for the last 4 years? Yeah, you are probably right. Had he simply came out with it in the summer of 2008, it would likely now be a non-issue, but he behaved like someone who had something to hide, and so now the presumption of trustworthiness is gone. I wouldn't say "no proof", but I would say that it would have to be very convincing.

But Barack Obama doesn’t have to prove that he’s eligible.

He doesn't have to prove he's eligible NOW. He DID (past tense) have to prove he was eligible, but because all 50 states (and DC) have INCOMPETENT election officials, they let him onto the ballot because they didn't do their jobs.

"You don't need to see his Identification."

Why do you keep misstating my point? My point is, and has always been that 50 state election officials DID NOT DO THEIR JOB COMPETENTLY. They simply accepted the word of this stupid hag that he is qualified.

You can go on talking about how this court, or that body did this or that, but it continues to dodge my point. My point is simple. We have yet to see any proof that the man is qualified to hold the office which he is currently holding.

After the fact pronouncements by sundry officials do not constitute PROOF. Your argument keeps boiling down to "He got away with it, so there!" Please address my point, and stop gleefully posting all the examples of ex post facto people saying he doesn't have to prove his credentials.