The Birther Conspiracy Thread (2 Viewers)

[Sam Quentin]

1) There is something on the birth certificate that he'd rather not disclose publicly (perhaps a reference to being muslim, maybe the age of his morther, who knows)

This is what I believe this has been all about from the start - even going back to the Hillary campaign. I also think that both sides who are active in this issue are over-reacting, because I think just about anything it could be would be a big yawner to most of the mushy middle voters.

 

[bigbottom]

For example, what would happen if Obama did as Bronco is asking and released the "original" birth certificate (if there is such a thing)? World Net Daily would feature an "expert" who would claim it was a forgery. Then the people who were signatories would be investigated; rumors would be spread that they died under mysterious circumstances- etc.

When you make this number of assumptions is sounds like a conspiracy theory.

Just in this thread, we have the Texas State Rep suggesting that the Certificate of Live Birth issued from the State of Hawaii could be a forgery and Bronco Billy suggesting that Hawaii state officials and the Republican Governor of Hawaii are liars. It's not that much of a stretch to conclude that the authenticity of the birth certificate woould be questioned if produced.

 

[Jewell]

There is no suppression of documents. Then candidate Obama asked the state of Hawaii to disclose the records they had pertaining to his birth and they did. The "birther" conspiracy continues because of their insistance that a "long form" birth certificate with very specific information needs to be presented. No such original, paper document exists. Not because it never existed, but because the state of Hawaii transferred the information from all stored birth certificates dating back to 1908 to electronic records about ten years ago, AND THEN DESTROYED THE ORIGINALS.

(I've posted this link before in the thread, yet it was apparently ignored)

When the official from Hawaii says that she's "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" she is referring to the electronic record, which, under Hawaii policies and procedures, is now considered the original.

Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo has said the department "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate .... [What Obama released] is the same certified copy everyone receives when they request a birth certificate."

What the Obama campaign produced, and what Hawaii gave him, is an official government record of his birth, and it is accepted by the State Department for the issuance of a passport for ALL persons born in Hawaii.

But the birther conspiracy will live on forever, thanks to the birthers delusions of conspiracy regarding a document that cannot be produced because it doesn't exist.

And that's what makes this case so interesting for some and frustrating for others -- for every allegation there's a counter allegation.I believe what the below woman has to say about the official birth certificate still being on file and that certificate confirms that Obama was born in Hawaii. Given the debate thus far I can see where others would feel more secure having a government official of more standing examine the document to put the matter to rest. That's all.

Hawaii officials confirm Obama’s original birth certificate still exists (July 28, 2009; Honolulu Advertiser)

Hawai'i's Health Department confirmed yesterday that it has President Obama's original Aug. 4, 1961, birth certificate in storage, but the announcement is unlikely to satisfy conspiracy theorists who insist Obama was born in Kenya.

"We don't destroy vital records," Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo said. "That's our whole job, to maintain and retain vital records."

The Health Department's director reiterated yesterday that she has seen Obama's birth records.

"I, Dr. Chiyome ####ino, director of the Hawai'i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai'i and is a natural-born American citizen," ####ino said in a statement. "I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008, over eight months ago."

Those that actually believe the original birth certificate was destroyed must be under a "delusion of conspiracy" or something.

 

[Bronco Billy]

and Bronco Billy suggesting that Hawaii state officials and the Republican Governor of Hawaii are liars. It's not that much of a stretch to conclude that the authenticity of the birth certificate woould be questioned if produced.

Wow. So you do believe all government officials? You don't think there's any motivation for prevarication on their part, or that they would not participate in the prevarication? I thought much more highly of you than that and I'm also very surprised.

 

[bigbottom]

I lean towards agreeing with 1), but based upon the evidence I feel a stronger case can be made that there actually is no documentation of his actual birth due to the circumstances under which he appears to have been born

So the Governor of Hawaii and Hawaii state officials are lying? And what is your theory on how he obtained a U.S. Passport with no documentation of his birth?

He traveled under his mother's passport when he was young. That's also well documented. As such, he had record of a passport with the Federal government and therefore could renew under his own name.

I'm unaware of this process. Can you explain how this works. A child without a passport can travel without a passport so long as he's traveling with an adult who has a passport, and then use that as the sole basis for obtaining a U.S. Passport later in life without having to provide a birth certificate. I'm not doubting you, it's just that I hadn't heard about this process. Seems like a big loophole. I could take an undocumented child and have him travel with me on my passport. Would he then be able to get his own U.S. Passport which operates as proof of U.S. Citizenhip?

And I want to be certain that you are making your argument based upon the unfliching truthfulness of politicians. That is your case, correct?

I am relying on a number of data points to reach my conclusion, one of which are the statements by Hawaii State officials and the Governor.

 

[Bogeys]

For example, what would happen if Obama did as Bronco is asking and released the "original" birth certificate (if there is such a thing)? World Net Daily would feature an "expert" who would claim it was a forgery. Then the people who were signatories would be investigated; rumors would be spread that they died under mysterious circumstances- etc.

When you make this number of assumptions is sounds like a conspiracy theory.

Just in this thread, we have the Texas State Rep suggesting that the Certificate of Live Birth issued from the State of Hawaii could be a forgery and Bronco Billy suggesting that Hawaii state officials and the Republican Governor of Hawaii are liars. It's not that much of a stretch to conclude that the authenticity of the birth certificate woould be questioned if produced.

Ummm...they are politicians, doesn't the liars part kind of go without saying?

 

[MasterofOrion]

way to be a uniter and not a dividerextending the olive branchhope and changeit's a silly issue, but it's a lso a microcosm of why he's so unpopular.

I agree, it is a small issue that could easily be put to bed. The operative word is small. Why not let the opposition spend there time on something this benign? Maybe the conspiracy is CNN spending time on a minor issue that will not harm Obama rather than issues that would.

 

[bigbottom]

and Bronco Billy suggesting that Hawaii state officials and the Republican Governor of Hawaii are liars. It's not that much of a stretch to conclude that the authenticity of the birth certificate woould be questioned if produced.

Wow. So you do believe all government officials? You don't think there's any motivation for prevarication on their part, or that they would not participate in the prevarication? I thought much more highly of you than that and I'm also very surprised.

I do not default to the position that if a government official makes a statement, it is a lie. If there is countervailing evidence indicating that the statement is a lie, or even a demonstrated motive (as opposed to a vague, speculative one), I will adjust my conclusions accordingly.And no need for the backhanded compliment. I'm happy to disappoint you. I don't like the pressure of being highly thought of.

 

[bigbottom]

Well for one, as Cooper points out, the form that has been made publicly available is all that is required to secure a passport. There is no additional document that would be required that has not been released.

I didn't see Cooper's post, but if that was his statement he would be wrong. The US government doesn't accept the certificate of live birth document that is being shown as acceptable for acquiring a passport. In fact, that document is one that can be easily obtained by anyone, including people not born in this country. It is just documentation from Hawaii acknowedging the existance of a person, no more.But again, that shades the issue. The President presides over all people in this country. That is reason enough to accomodate a simple and reasonable request from a group of them asking for a document that should be very simple for him to provide (and would certanily be much more cost effective than sending DoJ representatives into court to head off suits requesting that document).

He's already provided the long form birth certificate to the federal government prior to his election,

I was not aware of this. Is there a link? Last I knew on this issue was that there was no federal government authority to show the long form certicate to. It would be useful to know what government office is accountableThanksThanks

BroncoBilly stated multiple times in the thread that you have to show a birth certificate in order to get a U.S. Passport. Obama has a U.S. Passport. Therefore, applying his logic, Obama would have had to present a birth certificate to the federal government in order to get a U.S. Passport.In response to that point, BroncoBilly now suggests that by traveling abroad with his mother as a child, Obama was able to obtain a U.S. Passport without presenting a birth certificate. I have no idea whether or not that is correct.

 

[Orange Crush]

There is no suppression of documents. Then candidate Obama asked the state of Hawaii to disclose the records they had pertaining to his birth and they did. The "birther" conspiracy continues because of their insistance that a "long form" birth certificate with very specific information needs to be presented. No such original, paper document exists. Not because it never existed, but because the state of Hawaii transferred the information from all stored birth certificates dating back to 1908 to electronic records about ten years ago, AND THEN DESTROYED THE ORIGINALS.

(I've posted this link before in the thread, yet it was apparently ignored)

When the official from Hawaii says that she's "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" she is referring to the electronic record, which, under Hawaii policies and procedures, is now considered the original.

Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo has said the department "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate .... [What Obama released] is the same certified copy everyone receives when they request a birth certificate."

What the Obama campaign produced, and what Hawaii gave him, is an official government record of his birth, and it is accepted by the State Department for the issuance of a passport for ALL persons born in Hawaii.

But the birther conspiracy will live on forever, thanks to the birthers delusions of conspiracy regarding a document that cannot be produced because it doesn't exist.

And that's what makes this case so interesting for some and frustrating for others -- for every allegation there's a counter allegation.I believe what the below woman has to say about the official birth certificate still being on file and that certificate confirms that Obama was born in Hawaii. Given the debate thus far I can see where others would feel more secure having a government official of more standing examine the document to put the matter to rest. That's all.

Hawaii officials confirm Obama’s original birth certificate still exists (July 28, 2009; Honolulu Advertiser)

Hawai'i's Health Department confirmed yesterday that it has President Obama's original Aug. 4, 1961, birth certificate in storage, but the announcement is unlikely to satisfy conspiracy theorists who insist Obama was born in Kenya.

"We don't destroy vital records," Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo said. "That's our whole job, to maintain and retain vital records."

The Health Department's director reiterated yesterday that she has seen Obama's birth records.

"I, Dr. Chiyome ####ino, director of the Hawai'i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai'i and is a natural-born American citizen," ####ino said in a statement. "I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008, over eight months ago."

Those that actually believe the original birth certificate was destroyed must be under a "delusion of conspiracy" or something.

Interesting. I wasn't aware of that article, which actually links to and partially rebuts the same story I had linked to.What do you think about the other information presented in that article you linked to? If the issue of where Obama was born is no longer in doubt, but instead it's just a fishing expedition regarding potentially embarrassing information, then the conspiracy loses a lot of its luster. If Obama was born in Hawaii, then case closed, he's eligible to be POTUS.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Are all members of Congress this stupid?

To be fair to Congress, this guy is not a member. He is from the Texas state House of Representatives. That being said, there are a few federal congressmen who have repeated this stuff, though not to the extent of this guy.

Thx Tim, didn't look closely enough at his title. Makes more sense.

 

[Sam Quentin]

Exactly. Sam Quentin tried this same BS on page one of the thread. The old "I'm going to passionately make every argument Birthers make, but since everyone knows Birthers are insane, I'm going to deny being a Birther."

ahhh recognition

 

[Jewell]

If Obama was born in Hawaii, then case closed, he's eligible to be POTUS.

Not necessarily. That's where the newest case that the Supreme Court just denied certioari differs from previous birther arguments. The new case, Kerchner, isn't solely dependent on the issue of whether Obama was born in Hawaii. The issue is whether Obama is a "natural born citizen" as defined in the Constituition. Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.This site gets into the differences between born, natural born, and naturalized citizenry.

 

[Sam Quentin]

There is no suppression of documents. Then candidate Obama asked the state of Hawaii to disclose the records they had pertaining to his birth and they did. The "birther" conspiracy continues because of their insistance that a "long form" birth certificate with very specific information needs to be presented. No such original, paper document exists. Not because it never existed, but because the state of Hawaii transferred the information from all stored birth certificates dating back to 1908 to electronic records about ten years ago, AND THEN DESTROYED THE ORIGINALS.

(I've posted this link before in the thread, yet it was apparently ignored)

When the official from Hawaii says that she's "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" she is referring to the electronic record, which, under Hawaii policies and procedures, is now considered the original.

Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo has said the department "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate .... [What Obama released] is the same certified copy everyone receives when they request a birth certificate."

What the Obama campaign produced, and what Hawaii gave him, is an official government record of his birth, and it is accepted by the State Department for the issuance of a passport for ALL persons born in Hawaii.

But the birther conspiracy will live on forever, thanks to the birthers delusions of conspiracy regarding a document that cannot be produced because it doesn't exist.

And that's what makes this case so interesting for some and frustrating for others -- for every allegation there's a counter allegation.I believe what the below woman has to say about the official birth certificate still being on file and that certificate confirms that Obama was born in Hawaii. Given the debate thus far I can see where others would feel more secure having a government official of more standing examine the document to put the matter to rest. That's all.

Hawaii officials confirm Obama’s original birth certificate still exists (July 28, 2009; Honolulu Advertiser)

Hawai'i's Health Department confirmed yesterday that it has President Obama's original Aug. 4, 1961, birth certificate in storage, but the announcement is unlikely to satisfy conspiracy theorists who insist Obama was born in Kenya.

"We don't destroy vital records," Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo said. "That's our whole job, to maintain and retain vital records."

The Health Department's director reiterated yesterday that she has seen Obama's birth records.

"I, Dr. Chiyome ####ino, director of the Hawai'i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai'i and is a natural-born American citizen," ####ino said in a statement. "I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008, over eight months ago."

Those that actually believe the original birth certificate was destroyed must be under a "delusion of conspiracy" or something.

CNN had reported that the original BC was destroyed.

That CNN report was later debunked IIRC

 

[timschochet]

If Obama was born in Hawaii, then case closed, he's eligible to be POTUS.

Not necessarily. That's where the newest case that the Supreme Court just denied certioari differs from previous birther arguments. The new case, Kerchner, isn't solely dependent on the issue of whether Obama was born in Hawaii. The issue is whether Obama is a "natural born citizen" as defined in the Constituition. Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.This site gets into the differences between born, natural born, and naturalized citizenry.

Would you personally like to see this sort of lawsuit succeed, Jewell? Would you enjoy seeing Barack Obama removed from office, on the basis that his parents were not both American citizens at the time of his birth?

 

[Bronco Billy]

If Obama was born in Hawaii, then case closed, he's eligible to be POTUS.

Not necessarily. That's where the newest case that the Supreme Court just denied certioari differs from previous birther arguments. The new case, Kerchner, isn't solely dependent on the issue of whether Obama was born in Hawaii. The issue is whether Obama is a "natural born citizen" as defined in the Constituition. Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.This site gets into the differences between born, natural born, and naturalized citizenry.

I've seen this also, which is the reason for my position as to not knowing whether he is a natural born citizen.Personally, I do see some logic regarding divided loyalty, but have a difficult time applying it to Obama when he never really had his birth father in his life.

 

[Bronco Billy]

Would you personally like to see this sort of lawsuit succeed, Jewell? Would you enjoy seeing Barack Obama removed from office, on the basis that his parents were not both American citizens at the time of his birth?

I don't think anyone in Congress is prepared to implement a Constitutional Convention and remove Obama, regardless.It would be nice to see the vetting process tightened up.

 

[the moops]

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Would you personally like to see this sort of lawsuit succeed, Jewell? Would you enjoy seeing Barack Obama removed from office, on the basis that his parents were not both American citizens at the time of his birth?

I don't think anyone in Congress is prepared to implement a Constitutional Convention and remove Obama, regardless.It would be nice to see the vetting process tightened up.

 

[pantagrapher]

Would you personally like to see this sort of lawsuit succeed, Jewell? Would you enjoy seeing Barack Obama removed from office, on the basis that his parents were not both American citizens at the time of his birth?

I don't think anyone in Congress is prepared to implement a Constitutional Convention and remove Obama, regardless.It would be nice to see the vetting process tightened up.

So you think it's OK that exotic black Muslims from Ken-Ya are able to be president?

 

[Orange Crush]

If Obama was born in Hawaii, then case closed, he's eligible to be POTUS.

Not necessarily. That's where the newest case that the Supreme Court just denied certioari differs from previous birther arguments. The new case, Kerchner, isn't solely dependent on the issue of whether Obama was born in Hawaii. The issue is whether Obama is a "natural born citizen" as defined in the Constituition. Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.This site gets into the differences between born, natural born, and naturalized citizenry.

That site appears to be making distinctions that have no such recognition within the law of the United States. The lawyer who wrote that piece of creative history should be disbarred, for he has ignored every case that countermands his arguments and twisted the language of several of them to appear that they are actually arguing in favor of his hypothesis. I hope Kerchner is hit with a fine for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

There are only two types of citizens under the Constitution - natural born citizens, meaning those persons who are born within the jurisdiction fo the United States of America, and citizens - referring to both natural born and those not naturally born. Those not naturally born must mean those born not within the jurisdiction of the U.S. who, through some later procedure, become citizens of the U.S.

There are no further distinctions, and Obama is not disqualified from office because one of his parents wasn't born in the U.S. To argue otherwise would also be to argue that James Buchanan, Chester Arthur, Woodrow Wilson, and Herbert Hoover were also ineligible to be president, as all of them had parents who were immigrants.

 

[Sam Quentin]

Would you personally like to see this sort of lawsuit succeed, Jewell? Would you enjoy seeing Barack Obama removed from office, on the basis that his parents were not both American citizens at the time of his birth?

I don't think anyone in Congress is prepared to implement a Constitutional Convention and remove Obama, regardless.It would be nice to see the vetting process tightened up.

please explain why tightening up the vetting process would be a bad thing or why it's funny?

 

[Sam Quentin]

I lean towards agreeing with 1), but based upon the evidence I feel a stronger case can be made that there actually is no documentation of his actual birth due to the circumstances under which he appears to have been born

So the Governor of Hawaii and Hawaii state officials are lying? And what is your theory on how he obtained a U.S. Passport with no documentation of his birth?

He traveled under his mother's passport when he was young. That's also well documented. As such, he had record of a passport with the Federal government and therefore could renew under his own name.

I'm unaware of this process. Can you explain how this works. A child without a passport can travel without a passport so long as he's traveling with an adult who has a passport, and then use that as the sole basis for obtaining a U.S. Passport later in life without having to provide a birth certificate. I'm not doubting you, it's just that I hadn't heard about this process. Seems like a big loophole. I could take an undocumented child and have him travel with me on my passport. Would he then be able to get his own U.S. Passport which operates as proof of U.S. Citizenhip?

And I want to be certain that you are making your argument based upon the unfliching truthfulness of politicians. That is your case, correct?

I am relying on a number of data points to reach my conclusion, one of which are the statements by Hawaii State officials and the Governor.

I have the same questions, plus if, for example, i was born in say, oh I don't know, say...Kenya, and now residing in the US, could I still get a US passport? If so, then the passport argument is a non-starter.Just asking for clarificationThanks

 

[Bronco Billy]

Would you personally like to see this sort of lawsuit succeed, Jewell? Would you enjoy seeing Barack Obama removed from office, on the basis that his parents were not both American citizens at the time of his birth?

I don't think anyone in Congress is prepared to implement a Constitutional Convention and remove Obama, regardless.It would be nice to see the vetting process tightened up.

please explain why tightening up the vetting process would be a bad thing or why it's funny?

I missed that too.I guess it's too onerous to ask that once someone announces their candidacy that they provide proof of compliance with the requirements in the Constitution before they are allowed to proceed?

 

[CBusAlex]

I'm sensing a parallel between the people who start sentances with "Now, I believe Obama was born in Hawaii, but..." and those who start them with "Now, I'm not racist, but...". I wonder if it's the same rationalization technique being used.

 

[pantagrapher]

Would you personally like to see this sort of lawsuit succeed, Jewell? Would you enjoy seeing Barack Obama removed from office, on the basis that his parents were not both American citizens at the time of his birth?

I don't think anyone in Congress is prepared to implement a Constitutional Convention and remove Obama, regardless.It would be nice to see the vetting process tightened up.

please explain why tightening up the vetting process would be a bad thing or why it's funny?

It implies unqualified people are accidentally being sworn in as president of the United States.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Good god.

 

[Sam Quentin]

Would you personally like to see this sort of lawsuit succeed, Jewell? Would you enjoy seeing Barack Obama removed from office, on the basis that his parents were not both American citizens at the time of his birth?

I don't think anyone in Congress is prepared to implement a Constitutional Convention and remove Obama, regardless.It would be nice to see the vetting process tightened up.

please explain why tightening up the vetting process would be a bad thing or why it's funny?

It implies unqualified people are accidentally being sworn in as president of the United States.

really?so in order to avoid implying that unqualified people are accidentally being sworn in as president of the United States, we should avoid any kind of vetting whatsover?

Is that your position?

So, by not vetting, we can be sure that unqualified people are not accidentally being sworn in as president of the United States.

 

[the moops]

I'm sensing a parallel between the people who start sentances with "Now, I believe Obama was born in Hawaii, but..." and those who start them with "Now, I'm not racist, but...". I wonder if it's the same rationalization technique being used.

"Some of my best friends are gay, but...."

 

[timschochet]

I'm sensing a parallel between the people who start sentances with "Now, I believe Obama was born in Hawaii, but..." and those who start them with "Now, I'm not racist, but...". I wonder if it's the same rationalization technique being used.

"Some of my best friends are gay, but...."

I KNEW you had gay friends.

 

[Jewell]

I'm sensing a parallel between the people who start sentances with "Now, I believe Obama was born in Hawaii, but..." and those who start them with "Now, I'm not racist, but...". I wonder if it's the same rationalization technique being used

It's sadly become a necessity. People have become so afraid to hear an opposing view that they reflexively call it racist without even listening to the argument (see The Tea Party). As a result, those who simply want to have their arguments heard on the merits now have to show their bona fides as a non-bigot before even getting into their argument. It's sad that it's come to that, but it's become a necessary step if you want to have an adult conversation with some people. I'm aware that last sentence seems nonsensical, but, then again, naturally assuming those with opposing views are bigots or "crazies" also seems nonsensical.

 

[timschochet]

I'm sure somebody has already thought of this, but is there a way, using the internet, to create some hoax regarding this issue that will get spread and believed by these people? Suppose we produced an certified, notarized letter from the hospital OB/GYN, for instance, made on his deathbed in 1975, in which he reveals that a mysterious black baby, three months old, appeared in 1961 at the hospital and he was bribed or threatened to declare a live birth? Something like that...

 

[Slapdash]

 

[pantagrapher]

so in order to avoid implying that unqualified people are accidentally being sworn in as president of the United States, we should avoid any kind of vetting whatsover?Is that your position?

My position, and the position of sane people everywhere, is that U.S. presidents are being thoroughly vetted.

 

[Bronco Billy]

It implies unqualified people are accidentally being sworn in as president of the United States.

So if a taxi company asks to see a MVR prior to hire that it implies the person is guilty of having a criminal driving record?If a company asks to see proof of a transcript before hiring an engineer that it implies the person never went to college?This is pretty standard employment criteria in many areas. I'm not sure why we wouldn't expect this when the person is being considered for the position of President. The holes in hte current system are pretty obvious.

 

[bigbottom]

Would you personally like to see this sort of lawsuit succeed, Jewell? Would you enjoy seeing Barack Obama removed from office, on the basis that his parents were not both American citizens at the time of his birth?

I don't think anyone in Congress is prepared to implement a Constitutional Convention and remove Obama, regardless.It would be nice to see the vetting process tightened up.

please explain why tightening up the vetting process would be a bad thing or why it's funny?

I missed that too.I guess it's too onerous to ask that once someone announces their candidacy that they provide proof of compliance with the requirements in the Constitution before they are allowed to proceed?

Honestly, I have no problem with this. Of course, I think that sufficient proof has already been provided with respect to President Obama, but I have no problem building that into the process if it isn't already.

 

[bigbottom]

It implies unqualified people are accidentally being sworn in as president of the United States.

So if a taxi company asks to see a MVR prior to hire that it implies the person is guilty of having a criminal driving record?If a company asks to see proof of a transcript before hiring an engineer that it implies the person never went to college?This is pretty standard employment criteria in many areas. I'm not sure why we wouldn't expect this when the person is being considered for the position of President. The holes in hte current system are pretty obvious.

Are you aware of any instances of a person obtaining the office of president without meeting the necessary eligibility requirements?

 

[pantagrapher]

It implies unqualified people are accidentally being sworn in as president of the United States.

So if a taxi company asks to see a MVR prior to hire that it implies the person is guilty of having a criminal driving record?If a company asks to see proof of a transcript before hiring an engineer that it implies the person never went to college?This is pretty standard employment criteria in many areas. I'm not sure why we wouldn't expect this when the person is being considered for the position of President. The holes in hte current system are pretty obvious.

You are definitely not a Birther.

 

[Clayton Gray]

Shirley, this thread can't be serious.

:ripleslieneilsen:

 

[Gatorman]

Good god.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Bronco Billy is going to need a much bigger boat to hold all his fish.

 

[Sam Quentin]

I'm sure somebody has already thought of this, but is there a way, using the internet, to create some hoax regarding this issue that will get spread and believed by these people? Suppose we produced an certified, notarized letter from the hospital OB/GYN, for instance, made on his deathbed in 1975, in which he reveals that a mysterious black baby, three months old, appeared in 1961 at the hospital and he was bribed or threatened to declare a live birth? Something like that...

go back a few pages on this threadsome blogger forged an original BC that was an obvious forgery.

 

[Novice2]

Is CNN stiring the pot again?

 

[Sam Quentin]

Is CNN stiring the pot again?

apparentlythis thread had been dormant since 2009

 

[Sam Quentin]

so in order to avoid implying that unqualified people are accidentally being sworn in as president of the United States, we should avoid any kind of vetting whatsover?Is that your position?

My position, and the position of sane people everywhere, is that U.S. presidents are being thoroughly vetted.

by whom?

 

[CBusAlex]

I'm sensing a parallel between the people who start sentances with "Now, I believe Obama was born in Hawaii, but..." and those who start them with "Now, I'm not racist, but...". I wonder if it's the same rationalization technique being used

It's sadly become a necessity. People have become so afraid to hear an opposing view that they reflexively call it racist without even listening to the argument (see The Tea Party). As a result, those who simply want to have their arguments heard on the merits now have to show their bona fides as a non-bigot before even getting into their argument. It's sad that it's come to that, but it's become a necessary step if you want to have an adult conversation with some people. I'm aware that last sentence seems nonsensical, but, then again, naturally assuming those with opposing views are bigots or "crazies" also seems nonsensical.

A million to this.When John Rocker says "I'm not racist, but...", it's all because of the PC crowd that won't even listen to reasonable arguments like "asian women shouldn't be allowed to drive" unless they are declared to be non-racist aforehand.Seriously. I can't give this post enough love.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

I'm not sure why people doubt the document that Obama produced as his valid birth certificate and record. There isn't some magical standard document issued by all states that is the one and only birth certificate.

Each state handles their records their own way and things change over time. Recently my parents were trying to get passports and the document which they had in their safe which they thought was a birth certificate their entire lives was, in fact, just a document stating that a filing was made with the state. This was an invalid document for passport purposes because it lacked a seal and didn't say much. And was hand written. So we made a request with the state department of records and they give you some kind of form that is similar to the Obama document. They don't give you the original or a copy of whatever the "birth certificate" actually is. It's just a record.

 

[Jewell]

Is CNN stiring the pot again?

Nah, CNN is just reporting. The issue is back in the news because the Supreme Court just declined to hear another case regarding Obama's eligibility.

 

[Bronco Billy]

Are you aware of any instances of a person obtaining the office of president without meeting the necessary eligibility requirements?

You mean beside the current officeholder (whom I again admit to believing he was in fact born in Hawaii)?There is no required demonstration of compliance with the Constitutional requirements until the winner of the election is presented to Congress. By that time, it's way too late.It shouldn't be too much to ask that a candidate demonstrate unquestionable compliance with the Constitution requirements upon announcing his candidacy. Not that some other person/group go find his credentials, but that the candidate not be allowed to move further in the election process until Constitutional compliance is demonstrated by the candidate themselves. That has not been the case with either (or any to my knowedge) party in my memory.My gawd, imagine the effect on the country if that weren't the case until after the election were completed.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

The issue is back in the news because the Supreme Court just declined to hear another case regarding Obama's eligibility.

Of course they did. The Illuminati wouldn't have it any other way.