Posted on 08/10/2010 5:20:59 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Over twenty-five percent of Americans, say that President Obama's 49th birthday is not this week. A poll called “where were you really born that day?” summoned this up into question.
The persistent theory boosted heavily by conservative activists that Obama was not born in Hawaii, but that he was born outside of the country of the U.S. The CNN/Opinion research Corp. survey said 27 percent of responsive people doubt that Obama's father is telling the truth or that his birth certificate is real. 42% have no doubts, 29% said he probably was born in Hawaii, but couldn't give a sure answer. Democrats backed Obama more than Republicans. 14 percent of Republicans said he was NOT born in the United States. This issue began over Obama in the 2008 presidential campaign and has become a topic of interest with Rush Limbaugh and the so called 'Birther' movement. Hawaii has already released a “certified” copy of Obama's birth certificate. The 1961 archives of two local newspapers in Hawaii also show his birth announcements! Snopes.com has also checked into it.
Related Sources:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Thanks for proving me right. You’re showing that the electors DON’T ratify eligibility. Objections filed in Congress are in relation to the counting of electoral votes and that “no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title.” This means Congress might theoretically ratify the eligility of electors but not the president-elect. This process doesn’t specifically address objections to presidential eligibility or qualifications.
And...All of these people can point to the moon and insist it is made of green cheese. I suppose you would believe them.
Thanks for proving me right. You’re showing that the electors DON’T ratify eligibility. Objections filed in Congress are in relation to the counting of electoral votes and that “no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title.” This means Congress might theoretically ratify the eligility of electors but not the president-elect. This process doesn’t specifically address objections to presidential eligibility or qualifications.
Objections at the Joint Session of Congress can be lodged for any reason that any member of Congress wishes. Here’s a link to the video of Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs-Jones lodging an objection to the certification of George W. Bush’s electors from Ohio due to alledged voting irregularities. Senator Barbara Boxer was her Senate objector. The electoral college vote was suspended while both Houses retired to their chambers, considered the objections, rejected them, and returned to the certification process.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdA1skqD0TY
And what in the world is “eligility”? (sic). See? Even Edge’s can post typos every once in a while! ;-)
No I’m not. The Constitution clearly states: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” It says nothing about usurpers.
You are ignoring the requirement that in order to be President, one must be a natural born citizen, over 35 and a resident of the US for 14 years.
Since the courts have been delegated the power to try “all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority”, it would seem to fall to them to determine if someone meets the requirements, or the meaning of the Natural Born Citizen” term. So far they have declined to do so, despite the many attempts to get them to do their job.
Let me know when you find a court that agrees with your position. Its fun to talk about, but not much else.
Well, there are lots of people out there who believe in alien abduction. I don’t believe them and I don’t believe those who assert that Barack Obama is not the President and demand that I accept their belief based solely on their great Constitutional scholarship. They might be right, but it doesn’t matter. Why would Obama have gone to all the trouble to destroy and conceal all of this evidence if some internet sleuth could just proclaim that he’s no longer President.
Well...There are more credible witnesses to alien abuduction than there are as witnesses to Obama’s birth! ( just kidding)
Anyway...**YOU** have just as much proof that Obama is a natural born citizen as those who have doubts or don't believe that he is.
Why?
Because Obama has refused to release the **best** evidence that would prove or disprove his natural born status.
In that regard “The Believers” are equal to the “Birthers”!
Cue: “I’am a Believer” by the Monkees!
I thought love was only true in fairy tales
Meant for someone else but not for me.
Love was out to get me
That's the way it seemed.
That George W. Bush haunted all my dreams.
Then I saw Obama’s face, now I'm a believer
Not a trace of doubt in my mind.
I'm in love, I'm a believer!
I couldn't leave Obama if I tried.
You are absolutely correct, I don’t have any more proof than the next man - we all are equal on that score, zero proof.
All I have is an opinion and I’m more than happy to change it in the face of more evidence. For now, I’ll just stick with the born in Hawaii scenario. Within that broad scenario, I believe that he went to great lengths to conceal certain facts that would have prevented him from becoming President for one reason or another. But, since his efforts were successful, at least for now, he is the President. Bummer.
Well? Now were are getting in to the rhelm of rhetoric and “how many angels dance on the head of a pin?”
If he isn't a natural born citizen, he is not president. He is a usurper, a criminal fraud, and ( if a citizen) a traitor. We just don't know. Obama is withholding the evidence.
The facts though are very simple, and that is why nearly 6 out of 10 Americans either do not believe he was born here or have questions about some aspect of his eligibility.
Fact: It is a simple matter to prove that one is a natural born citizen.
Fact: Obama has gone to considerable effort and spent tax dollars and his own to prevent the release of the common documents that would prove ( or disprove) his natural born status.
Fact: A natural born president would be **HONORED** to promptly prove ( with the **best** evidence) to any soldier or other citizen that he was indeed natural born and eligible to be president and Commander in Chief.
Conclusion: That Obama has treated military officers and other citizens in the manner that he has, strongly indicates that he is a usurper.
If what you are saying is so true, then why did the leftists in congress hold hearings questioning McCains Citizenship and then ended them kind of abruptly saying that although McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, he had two American Parents one of them of course stationed in Panama. They concluded that McCain was a Natural Born Citizen. Rightly or wrongly, that was the conculsion that the leftists came too.
My opinion is that he is a natural born citizen and is the President. Opinion only. Now, it may be that he forfeited his natural born status if and when he used his Indonesian passport to gain entry into either Occidental or Columbia. That’s my favorite bit of speculation for the moment.
Congress could do that too. But they'd be wrong. Impeachment is for President, Vice-Presidents, etc. Not ineligible usurpers. They aren't President..etc.
One assumes the case would go to the Supreme Court, but once the Supreme Court ruled (hypothetically) that he was ineligible, who is going to obey the orders of an ineligible usurper, beyond his own appointees? Federal Marshals, the military, even the Secret Service are bound to obey the orders of the President, not a usurper.
Centurion316 said eletors did determine eligibility and you replied to me showing they don't by saying who you think has that responsibility instead. It helps if you follow the conversation you are replying to.
If a president-elect’s electors are invalidated in enough states, that person might not have enough electoral votes to win the 270 needed to be declared duly elected.
Right. That's why I said objections are filed in relation to the COUNTING of electoral votes.
That is why the strategy in the Ankeny v The Governor of Indiana lawsuit was aimed at invalidating Indiana’s Obama electors who were won through Obama’s popular votes in that state on the grounds that Obama was an ineligible candidate because he did not have two American citizen parents.
That strategy was based on suing the Governor of Indiana as being the chief elections official in that state to invalidate the nonexistent verification of Obama's credentials, so you're not disagreeing with me.
Objections at the Joint Session of Congress can be lodged for any reason that any member of Congress wishes.
Your example is an objection to the COUNTING of the electoral vote in Ohio. That's exactly what I said objections are related to. Thanks for proving me right on that too.
And what in the world is “eligility”? (sic). See? Even Edge’s can post typos every once in a while! ;-)
I make typos all the time, but not excuses, where a typo makes an excuse look more goofy than it already is.
I’m not going to find a court that agrees with my position that electors DON’T ratify eligibility?? Please show me such a court that says they do.
The notion that qualification as a natural born citizen requires that both parents be citizens is very much a minority opinion. Very few jurists, legal scholars, or politicians believe this to be true. If this belief were widely held, a challenge to Obama would have certainly been made before he was sworn in as President.
My opinion is this: Obama was born in Hawaii, as he has said and as the Governor of Hawaii has confirmed. The reason that he has spent over $2 million to destroy or conceal records of his early life, including his birth certificate is that he was later adopted by his Indonesian step-father and became an Indonesian citizen. When he was past the age of 18, he either obtained or renewed his Indonesian passport in order to use that document to gain entrance as a foreign student to either Occidental or Columbia, or both. By taking this action, he unknowingly renounced his original citizenship and even though he has certainly has his citizenship reinstated, he no longer can claim to be a natural born citizen, but rather he is a naturalized citizen.
However, even if my theory were proven to be 100% true, Obama would still be the legitimate President of the United States. His election was certified by the Vice President and by the Congress and he was sworn in by the Chief Justice of the United States. The only ways that he can be removed from office involuntarily before the end of his term is through the impeachment process or incapacitating illness.
The Birther Brigades will disagree with my opinion and they are quite welcome to hold their own. But, they are not entitled to insist that their opinion is correct and they are not entitled to demand that I accept their view. They will toss any number of silly insults my way for disagreeing with them.
I think that there is a high probability that what you say is correct. I also think it is terrible the way everyone insults each other over these Birther threads.
I used to think exactly what you have stated above but recently, after listening to Tim Adams, after reading what the Kenyan parliament said, but there is a high probability that there is no proper birth certificate on file at all.
But we will never know, will we?
How in the world did we ever get ourselves into such a situation, where a scan that was posted online is enough to become president of the United States?
With thousands of politicians in the country, and 535 Congress men and women, why can’t one stand up and say “Barack Obama , show us your birth certificate — show us a piece of paper that we can hold in our hands”.
It is my understanding, That even the piece of paper someone at factcheck was holding in their hands and photographed, has not been made available to anyone else. Again, amazing.
Absolutely completely totally and incredibly amazing.
There is more physical evidence that he was born in Kenya then the adoption in Indonesia.
True, but you have to weigh all of the evidence and come to a conclusion. I just haven’t seen anything that leads me to believe that a massively pregnant teenager would, in 1961, travel all the way to Kenya to deliver a child when it seems likely that the only real role of the father in all of this was the impregnation event. I could be wrong, of course.
The testimony of his family and representations of the Kenyan Parliament do have be taken with a grain of salt.
Yes, what you say is reasonable and true. But, there are so many strange permutations in this case. Why in the world would anyone continue to hide the birth certificate if it only reveals what has already been seen online? Why is it almost illegal to even bring up the matter in casual conversation or at a White House press conference? Why does anyone mentioning the matter on a blog or website get huge denial of services attacks?
In the beginning I thought that the unwed mother had gone to Canada by car to have the baby in hospitals there. I too find it difficult to believe that a pregnant 18-year-old would get on an airplane to Kenya. But stranger things have happened, and continue to happen in this case. To discuss it further would require a small book. Many people on FR have contributed many amazing small parts to this incredible puzzle. And it will always be a puzzle and continue to be a puzzle until the guy produces this single sheet of paper that the Constitution demands that he produce,
and that is a paper copy of his original long form birth certificate.
I think that more than 25% of what we now know was known in 2008.
It’s just that the American people don’t care. They don’t pay attention, they don’t read political blogs, they probably don’t even read the news, and a huge percentage of them are like the O.J. Simpson jury — those people bragged that not a single one of them took a daily newspaper to read in 1994.
It’s pretty easy to control the people when all they do is watch evening television.
It is highly likely that Nathan Deal will be the next Georgian governor. This is not good news for Obama or the after-birthers who support him.
Nathan Deal says he’ll ask for Barack Obama’s birth certificate
Breaking news: Handel calls Deal, concedes GOP nomination for governor
I hope to God that a single politician will indeed stand up and say to the Fool, “where is your birth certificate? Show us your birth certificate!”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.