The Birther Conspiracy Thread (1 Viewer)

[Joe Summer]

Question for the "Birthers" around here. Who is behind Obama becoming president? Is he like a Manchurian Candidate? How could someone scrub clean their entire history and not leave a single trace of evidence that supports your claim other than "show us the birth certificate?"Or did he retroactively erase his past once he decided he wanted to be president? If so, HOW did he do this without leaving any evidence? How come they can't find any evidence to substantiate these claims out of the millions of dollars spent by Republicans and Tea Partiers?

I don't think your average birthers are claiming that there's a Manchurian-level conspiracy. They just think that Obama's parents lied about his place of birth (for no other reason than the fact that it's good to be a U.S. citizen), and then Obama used that citizenship to his advantage several times over the years.

 

[Tiny Dancer]

They just think that Obama's parents lied about his place of birth (for no other reason than the fact that it's good to be a U.S. citizen), and then Obama used that citizenship to his advantage several times over the years.

His mother was a U.S. citizen, so he would have been a U.S. citizen even if he had been born in another country.

 

[the moops]

They just think that Obama's parents lied about his place of birth (for no other reason than the fact that it's good to be a U.S. citizen), and then Obama used that citizenship to his advantage several times over the years.

His mother was a U.S. citizen, so he would have been a U.S. citizen even if he had been born in another country.

 

[Sinn Fein]

They just think that Obama's parents lied about his place of birth (for no other reason than the fact that it's good to be a U.S. citizen), and then Obama used that citizenship to his advantage several times over the years.

His mother was a U.S. citizen, so he would have been a U.S. citizen even if he had been born in another country.

DNA test?

 

[Leroy Hoard]

They just think that Obama's parents lied about his place of birth (for no other reason than the fact that it's good to be a U.S. citizen), and then Obama used that citizenship to his advantage several times over the years.

His mother was a U.S. citizen, so he would have been a U.S. citizen even if he had been born in another country.

Come on, you're taking all the fun out of it.

 

[matuski]

Question for the "Birthers" around here. Who is behind Obama becoming president? Is he like a Manchurian Candidate? How could someone scrub clean their entire history and not leave a single trace of evidence that supports your claim other than "show us the birth certificate?"

Or did he retroactively erase his past once he decided he wanted to be president? If so, HOW did he do this without leaving any evidence? How come they can't find any evidence to substantiate these claims out of the millions of dollars spent by Republicans and Tea Partiers?

I don't think your average birthers are claiming that there's a Manchurian-level conspiracy. They just think that Obama's parents lied about his place of birth (for no other reason than the fact that it's good to be a U.S. citizen), and then Obama used that citizenship to his advantage several times over the years.

I take this to mean you are an "average" birther?

 

[Bamboo Bill]

Question for the "Birthers" around here. Who is behind Obama becoming president? Is he like a Manchurian Candidate? How could someone scrub clean their entire history and not leave a single trace of evidence that supports your claim other than "show us the birth certificate?"Or did he retroactively erase his past once he decided he wanted to be president? If so, HOW did he do this without leaving any evidence? How come they can't find any evidence to substantiate these claims out of the millions of dollars spent by Republicans and Tea Partiers?

I don't think your average birthers are claiming that there's a Manchurian-level conspiracy. They just think that Obama's parents lied about his place of birth (for no other reason than the fact that it's good to be a U.S. citizen), and then Obama used that citizenship to his advantage several times over the years.

Where do "they" think he was born?

 

[Sarnoff]

They just think that Obama's parents lied about his place of birth (for no other reason than the fact that it's good to be a U.S. citizen), and then Obama used that citizenship to his advantage several times over the years.

His mother was a U.S. citizen, so he would have been a U.S. citizen even if he had been born in another country.

This is not correct according to the US laws in effect at the time of his birth. It would have been true if his mother was older. Because she was under the threshold, Obama does not have a jus sanguinis claim to citizenship.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

more proof

 

[Statorama]

Still waiting on the proof that Soros wasn't behind this.

 

[Jayrod]

more proof

I knew it!

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Where's John Stossel? Seems like this is the kind of thing that would give him a giant boner.

 

[Joe Summer]

They just think that Obama's parents lied about his place of birth (for no other reason than the fact that it's good to be a U.S. citizen), and then Obama used that citizenship to his advantage several times over the years.

His mother was a U.S. citizen, so he would have been a U.S. citizen even if he had been born in another country.

Wasn't there a law on the books at the time (1961) that would have made Obama ineligible if one parent was a non-citizen?edit: see Sarnoff's post. Yet more incentive for Obama's mom to lie about his place of birth.

 

[John Stossel]

Where's John Stossel? Seems like this is the kind of thing that would give him a giant boner.

I'm right here chief.

 

[Tiny Dancer]

They just think that Obama's parents lied about his place of birth (for no other reason than the fact that it's good to be a U.S. citizen), and then Obama used that citizenship to his advantage several times over the years.

His mother was a U.S. citizen, so he would have been a U.S. citizen even if he had been born in another country.

This is not correct according to the US laws in effect at the time of his birth. It would have been true if his mother was older. Because she was under the threshold, Obama does not have a jus sanguinis claim to citizenship.

Now that you say this I remember having read something about this but I guess maybe Obama's memory-erase squad got to me. A little internet research shows that you're right.

 

[Jutz]

Where's John Stossel? Seems like this is the kind of thing that would give him a giant boner.

I'm right here chief.

so... do you got one? is it giant?

 

[Gordo]

I actually think The Donald could end up doing very well as a presidential candidate, at least in the Republican primaries. He's self-confident and generally likable, he's intelligent compared to some other prominent potential candidates, and his goofier views are shared by a large segment of the population, so they may help him as much as they hurt him.

Hoping for a Trump/Bachmann ticket. That would be a fun campaign to watch.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Trump going haywire at 3:43 in this video

Seriously? Seriously???? Wow. Trump. Wow. Where is he getting his information, just on-line?

Charlie Sheen really raised the standard for everyone.

The Charlie Sheen thread was locked, so I'll stick this here.Letter from Warner Brothers's lawyer to Charlie Sheen's lawyer. It's fairly entertaining, as these things go.

Why was that thread locked??

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Soooooooo is Trump just going to declare bankruptcy for the country to make it great again?

 

[mad sweeney]

MEREDITH VIEIRA:

Do you think given all the issues that this country is facing that this is something that resonates with the public? That they care about this?

DONALD TRUMP:

The Constitution of the United States…great document. And you agree with it?

MEREDITH VIEIRA:

Yeah, sure.

DONALD TRUMP:

It says you have to be born in this country. Essential. Have to be born in this country, okay? If he wasn’t born in this country, he has conned the whole world.

MEREDITH VIEIRA:

But you’re saying it’s a con. That’s what you’re saying.

DONALD TRUMP:

I’m not saying anything. I’m saying--

MEREDITH VIEIRA:

Sure you are.

DONALD TRUMP:

I am saying I want to see the birth certificate. It’s very simple. I want to see the birth certificate. How come his own family doesn’t know which hospital he was born in? How come-- forget about birth certificates. Let’s say there’s no birth certificate. How come in the hospital itself, okay? This is one of the…in the hospital itself, there’s no records of his birth. In other words, it doesn’t say how much they paid, where is the doctor, here’s your room bill. You know, all the

MEREDITH VIEIRA:

You’ve been privy to all of this to know this?

DONALD TRUMP:

Well, I have people that actually have been studying it and they cannot believe what they’re talking.

MEREDITH VIEIRA:

You have people now out there searching-- I mean, in Hawaii?

DONALD TRUMP:

Absolutely. And they cannot believe what they’re finding. And I’m serious--

Read more: http://thepage.time.com/2011/04/06/trump%e2%80%99s-hawaii-investigation/#ixzz1IrjWuXu4

Why didn't she ask him to point out in the Constitution where it says you have to born in this country? Because we already had one President that wasn't.

 

[timschochet]

From today's Washington Post:

Donald Trump (Birther-N.Y.) is at it again. In double-barrelled interviews on NBC's "Today Show" and MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Trump continued his disgusting and dangerous dabbling in the disproved conspiracy theory that President Obama was not born in the United States. This might be good for the ratings of his television show. This might even be good for his business. But it is terrible for the nation and public discourse that someone who claims to be so smart is so willing to perpetuate a lie.

Alex Koppelman snipped this strand of the conspiracy in Dec. 2008 and again in July 2009. And he'll most likely have to do it again now that Trump has embraced the fallacy with both hands. This all stemmed from a interview of Sarah Obama, the second wife of the president's grandfather, by Ron McRae, a street preacher, through a translator over the phone. As Koppelman reported in 2009, "Sarah Obama is not the president's biological grandmother, but he calls her 'Granny Sarah.'"

In a clear lost-in-translation moment (and over an international phone line), which you can listen to in full here, Mrs. Obama said she was there for her grandson's birth. When McRae asks where in Mombassa the president was born, the translator, Vitalis Akech Ogombe, repeatedly corrected him.

MCRAE: When I come in December. I would like to come by the place, the hospital, where he was born. Could you tell me where he was born? Was he born in Mombasa?

OGOMBE: No, Obama was not born in Mombasa. He was born in America.

MCRAE: Whereabouts was he born? I thought he was born in Kenya.

OGOMBE: No, he was born in America, not in Mombasa.

MCRAE: Do you know where he was born? I thought he was born in Kenya. I was going to go by and see where he was born.

OGOMBE: Hawaii. Hawaii. Sir, she says he was born in Hawaii. In the state of Hawaii, where his father was also learning, there. The state of Hawaii.

That Trump is peddling the "grandmother" lie shows that he relies on the grapevine rather than even a cursory and critical Google search. And I've already banged the gong on the birth certificate nonsense. But I'll keep doing it until Trump stops which won't happen anytime soon. He is now tied for second (with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee) among Republican primary voters, according to the latest Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll. And Trump comes in second to former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney in the latest survey of New Hampshire Republican primary voters from Public Policy Polling. But Trump trumps Romney with Tea Partyers and birthers. The number of Republican primary voters in PPP poll who firmly don't believe Obama was born in the United States is 42 percent. Trump erroneously said that the Certification of Live Birth that Obama released in 2008 was not the same as a birth certificate. That may be the case in New York. But not in Hawaii. When the St. Petersburg Times's Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact.com site received a copy of the certification, it e-mailed a copy of it to the Hawaii Department of Health. Here was the response.

"It's a valid Hawaii state birth certificate," spokesman Janice Okubo told us.

Relying on the grapevine again, Trump also erroneously declared to Meredith Vieira, "A certificate of live birth is not even signed by anybody. I saw his. I read it very carefully. It doesn't have a serial number, doesn't have a signature. There's not even a signature." The Donald is wrong on all counts. In the copy that was sent to FactCheck.org, the serial number 151 1961 - 010641 is there for all to see. It is indeed signed by the state registrar, Alvin T. Onaka, who, FactCheck.org reported, "uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates." To top it all off, the document is embossed with the Hawaii state seal.

"There's no amount of evidence or data that will change somebody's mind," Michael Shermer, the publisher of Skeptic magazine, told Slate's Koppelman back in 2008 in explaining why conspiracy theories never die. "The more data you present a person, the more they doubt it." Trump is now Exhibit A.

 

[Orange Crush]

Birther Jack Cashill flubs his "new evidence" presentation:

The Original Picture of Obama in New York with his Grandparents:

http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e2014e875550e2970d-pi

The World Net Daily's Jack Cahill decries the picture above as a fake, and claims this is the actual original photo:

http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e2014e87555133970d

Unfortunately for Jack, someone has noticed that Obama's knee is still in this supposed "original" photo.

From Alex Pareene at Salon:

What was Barack Obama's knee doing in New York, while the rest of him was in Pakistan, and Indonesia? Dealing drugs? Why are mainstream journalists afraid to ask tough questions about the president's detachable knee? The people have a right to know!

P.S. In his new book, Cashill presents his theory (one of many) that Barack Obama's father was actually Jimi Hendrix. I kid you not. ETA: I don't know. The pics show up in the post editor.

 

[timschochet]

Birther Jack Cashill flubs his "new evidence" presentation:

The Original Picture of Obama in New York with his Grandparents:

http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e2014e875550e2970d-pi

The World Net Daily's Jack Cahill decries the picture above as a fake, and claims this is the actual original photo:

http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e2014e87555133970d

Unfortunately for Jack, someone has noticed that Obama's knee is still in this supposed "original" photo.

From Alex Pareene at Salon:

What was Barack Obama's knee doing in New York, while the rest of him was in Pakistan, and Indonesia? Dealing drugs? Why are mainstream journalists afraid to ask tough questions about the president's detachable knee? The people have a right to know!

P.S. In his new book, Cashill presents his theory (one of many) that Barack Obama's father was actually Jimi Hendrix. I kid you not. ETA: I don't know. The pics show up in the post editor.

Scuse me while I kiss the sky.

 

[Joe Summer]

Unfortunately for Jack, someone has noticed that Obama's knee is still in this supposed "original" photo.

Both pictures look fake to me.

 

[pantagrapher]

Unfortunately for Jack, someone has noticed that Obama's knee is still in this supposed "original" photo.

Both pictures look fake to me.

And I'm pretty sure cameras hadn't even been invented yet.

 

[Sam Quentin]

From today's Washington Post:

Trump erroneously said that the Certification of Live Birth that Obama released in 2008 was not the same as a birth certificate.

This is not entirely true

That may be the case in New York. But not in Hawaii. When the St. Petersburg Times's Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact.com site received a copy of the certification, it e-mailed a copy of it to the Hawaii Department of Health. Here was the response.

"It's a valid Hawaii state birth certificate," spokesman Janice Okubo told us.

So why would a Pullitzer prize winning writer validate a document by e-mailing it?It seems pretty stupid. Also this same Janice Okubo later amended her statement

"I don't know that it's possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents."

Relying on the grapevine again, Trump also erroneously declared to Meredith Vieira, "A certificate of live birth is not even signed by anybody. I saw his. I read it very carefully. It doesn't have a serial number, doesn't have a signature. There's not even a signature." The Donald is wrong on all counts.

In the copy that was sent to FactCheck.org, the serial number — 151 1961 - 010641 — is there for all to see. It is indeed signed by the state registrar, Alvin T. Onaka, who, FactCheck.org reported, "uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates." To top it all off, the document is embossed with the Hawaii state seal.

Technically the version of the cert that first appeared on Obama's website that he pointed everybody to as his proof was as described by Trump.

"There's no amount of evidence or data that will change somebody's mind," Michael Shermer, the publisher of Skeptic magazine, told Slate's Koppelman back in 2008 in explaining why conspiracy theories never die. "The more data you present a person, the more they doubt it." Trump is now Exhibit A.

When you keeep having to defend your case with half-truths and story changes (the original was destroyed, it's not destroyed etc.) and you go out of your way to not allow anybody but your frineds to validate the document, people will have question it.

 

[mad sweeney]

From today's Washington Post:

Trump erroneously said that the Certification of Live Birth that Obama released in 2008 was not the same as a birth certificate.

This is not entirely true

That may be the case in New York. But not in Hawaii. When the St. Petersburg Times's Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact.com site received a copy of the certification, it e-mailed a copy of it to the Hawaii Department of Health. Here was the response.

"It's a valid Hawaii state birth certificate," spokesman Janice Okubo told us.

So why would a Pullitzer prize winning writer validate a document by e-mailing it?It seems pretty stupid. Also this same Janice Okubo later amended her statement

"I don't know that it's possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents."

Relying on the grapevine again, Trump also erroneously declared to Meredith Vieira, "A certificate of live birth is not even signed by anybody. I saw his. I read it very carefully. It doesn't have a serial number, doesn't have a signature. There's not even a signature." The Donald is wrong on all counts.

In the copy that was sent to FactCheck.org, the serial number — 151 1961 - 010641 — is there for all to see. It is indeed signed by the state registrar, Alvin T. Onaka, who, FactCheck.org reported, "uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates." To top it all off, the document is embossed with the Hawaii state seal.

Technically the version of the cert that first appeared on Obama's website that he pointed everybody to as his proof was as described by Trump.

"There's no amount of evidence or data that will change somebody's mind," Michael Shermer, the publisher of Skeptic magazine, told Slate's Koppelman back in 2008 in explaining why conspiracy theories never die. "The more data you present a person, the more they doubt it." Trump is now Exhibit A.

When you keeep having to defend your case with half-truths and story changes (the original was destroyed, it's not destroyed etc.) and you go out of your way to not allow anybody but your frineds and appropriate Federal authorities to validate the document, people will have no reason question it.

 

[Sam Quentin]

From today's Washington Post:

Trump erroneously said that the Certification of Live Birth that Obama released in 2008 was not the same as a birth certificate.

This is not entirely true

That may be the case in New York. But not in Hawaii. When the St. Petersburg Times's Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact.com site received a copy of the certification, it e-mailed a copy of it to the Hawaii Department of Health. Here was the response.

"It's a valid Hawaii state birth certificate," spokesman Janice Okubo told us.

So why would a Pullitzer prize winning writer validate a document by e-mailing it?It seems pretty stupid. Also this same Janice Okubo later amended her statement

"I don't know that it's possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents."

Relying on the grapevine again, Trump also erroneously declared to Meredith Vieira, "A certificate of live birth is not even signed by anybody. I saw his. I read it very carefully. It doesn't have a serial number, doesn't have a signature. There's not even a signature." The Donald is wrong on all counts.

In the copy that was sent to FactCheck.org, the serial number — 151 1961 - 010641 — is there for all to see. It is indeed signed by the state registrar, Alvin T. Onaka, who, FactCheck.org reported, "uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates." To top it all off, the document is embossed with the Hawaii state seal.

Technically the version of the cert that first appeared on Obama's website that he pointed everybody to as his proof was as described by Trump.

"There's no amount of evidence or data that will change somebody's mind," Michael Shermer, the publisher of Skeptic magazine, told Slate's Koppelman back in 2008 in explaining why conspiracy theories never die. "The more data you present a person, the more they doubt it." Trump is now Exhibit A.

When you keeep having to defend your case with half-truths and story changes (the original was destroyed, it's not destroyed etc.) and you go out of your way to not allow anybody but your friends and appropriate Federal authorities to validate the document, people will have no reason question it.

So which appropriate federal authorities have ever examined the short form cert?

 

[mad sweeney]

From today's Washington Post:

Trump erroneously said that the Certification of Live Birth that Obama released in 2008 was not the same as a birth certificate.

This is not entirely true

That may be the case in New York. But not in Hawaii. When the St. Petersburg Times's Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact.com site received a copy of the certification, it e-mailed a copy of it to the Hawaii Department of Health. Here was the response.

"It's a valid Hawaii state birth certificate," spokesman Janice Okubo told us.

So why would a Pullitzer prize winning writer validate a document by e-mailing it?It seems pretty stupid. Also this same Janice Okubo later amended her statement

"I don't know that it's possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents."

Relying on the grapevine again, Trump also erroneously declared to Meredith Vieira, "A certificate of live birth is not even signed by anybody. I saw his. I read it very carefully. It doesn't have a serial number, doesn't have a signature. There's not even a signature." The Donald is wrong on all counts.

In the copy that was sent to FactCheck.org, the serial number — 151 1961 - 010641 — is there for all to see. It is indeed signed by the state registrar, Alvin T. Onaka, who, FactCheck.org reported, "uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates." To top it all off, the document is embossed with the Hawaii state seal.

Technically the version of the cert that first appeared on Obama's website that he pointed everybody to as his proof was as described by Trump.

"There's no amount of evidence or data that will change somebody's mind," Michael Shermer, the publisher of Skeptic magazine, told Slate's Koppelman back in 2008 in explaining why conspiracy theories never die. "The more data you present a person, the more they doubt it." Trump is now Exhibit A.

When you keeep having to defend your case with half-truths and story changes (the original was destroyed, it's not destroyed etc.) and you go out of your way to not allow anybody but your friends and appropriate Federal authorities to validate the document, people will have no reason question it.

So which appropriate federal authorities have ever examined the short form cert?

I'm actually not sure, some have posted that info before, but I am absolutely positive that he was vetted through an established system designed to vet the President. You don't actually think that They swear in a Prez without thoroughly checking him out do you? That's the funniest thing about all you crackpot Birthers (redundant I know and not meant as an insult, but you are all crackpots), that you somehow think that They would let someone be sworn in based on an email photo or some other "inadequate" piece of information.

 

[jon_mx]

I'm actually not sure, some have posted that info before, but I am absolutely positive that he was vetted through an established system designed to vet the President. You don't actually think that They swear in a Prez without thoroughly checking him out do you? That's the funniest thing about all you crackpot Birthers (redundant I know and not meant as an insult, but you are all crackpots), that you somehow think that They would let someone be sworn in based on an email photo or some other "inadequate" piece of information.

What organization has the authority to overrule an election? No body has that authority. There is no organization which checks out the president. Appointed positions, yes. Elected positions, no.

 

[mad sweeney]

I'm actually not sure, some have posted that info before, but I am absolutely positive that he was vetted through an established system designed to vet the President. You don't actually think that They swear in a Prez without thoroughly checking him out do you? That's the funniest thing about all you crackpot Birthers (redundant I know and not meant as an insult, but you are all crackpots), that you somehow think that They would let someone be sworn in based on an email photo or some other "inadequate" piece of information.

What organization has the authority to overrule an election? No body has that authority. There is no organization which checks out the president. Appointed positions, yes. Elected positions, no.

 

[jon_mx]

What would be the possible end game of running a background check on the President? Release the information to the public so they can judge? Nope. Deny the President access to secret info? Get real. Disqualify someone for office? Nope. No government office holds such authority over the office of the Presidency. People assume there is, but they are wrong.

 

[mad sweeney]

What would be the possible end game of running a background check on the President? Release the information to the public so they can judge? Nope. Deny the President access to secret info? Get real. Disqualify someone for office? Nope. No government office holds such authority over the office of the Presidency. People assume there is, but they are wrong.

Yeah, you're right. No one ever checks that the Prez is actually qualified until after the swearing in. Good lord jon, you're completely oblivious to any and all facts that go against your narrow, myopic, Fox-approved views.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

What would be the possible end game of running a background check on the President?

CIA & Secret Service already do that for all political officials.

 

[Sarnoff]

I'm actually not sure, some have posted that info before, but I am absolutely positive that he was vetted through an established system designed to vet the President. You don't actually think that They swear in a Prez without thoroughly checking him out do you? That's the funniest thing about all you crackpot Birthers (redundant I know and not meant as an insult, but you are all crackpots), that you somehow think that They would let someone be sworn in based on an email photo or some other "inadequate" piece of information.

What organization has the authority to overrule an election? No body has that authority. There is no organization which checks out the president. Appointed positions, yes. Elected positions, no.

Jon,The power to verify the eligibility of the President-elect resides in Congress. They can throw out any electors' votes when they do the reading of the Electoral College if they decide that the vote is unqualified.

 

[CrossEyed]

Why doesn't he just end all of the speculation and release his birth certificate?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Why doesn't he just end all of the speculation and release his birth certificate?

Simple: Because its better to have the Anti-Obama people wasting their time on this.

 

[jon_mx]

Exactly. The election process is what establishes an elected official has access to information. There iis no authority for the FBI or CIA to do such function. Now the secret service can look into stuff for the sole purpose of defending the President, but that has nothing to do with vetting.

 

[mad sweeney]

Exactly. The election process is what establishes an elected official has access to information. There iis no authority for the FBI or CIA to do such function. Now the secret service can look into stuff for the sole purpose of defending the President, but that has nothing to do with vetting.

Do a little google search and you'll find out how wrong you are. If, that is, your willful obstinance will allow you to see it.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Exactly. The election process is what establishes an elected official has access to information. There iis no authority for the FBI or CIA to do such function. Now the secret service can look into stuff for the sole purpose of defending the President, but that has nothing to do with vetting.

Do a little google search and you'll find out how wrong you are. If, that is, your willful obstinance will allow you to see it.

jon_mx & wrong ... like peanut butter & jelly.

 

[CrossEyed]

Why doesn't he just end all of the speculation and release his birth certificate?

Simple: Because its better to have the Anti-Obama people wasting their time on this.

I'm sorry, I thought Obama was the guy that ran on the idea of transparency. Silly me.

 

[jon_mx]

I am absolutely correct. There is no vetting process outside of the election process for elected officials. It would be contrery to the laws of our land.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Why doesn't he just end all of the speculation and release his birth certificate?

Like he did three years ago?

 

[Sarnoff]

Exactly. The election process is what establishes an elected official has access to information. There iis no authority for the FBI or CIA to do such function. Now the secret service can look into stuff for the sole purpose of defending the President, but that has nothing to do with vetting.

Do a little google search and you'll find out how wrong you are. If, that is, your willful obstinance will allow you to see it.

No gov't department runs a background check on the President. He's not required to be vetted in any way before assuming the Presidency. It's not a qualification for the office. And it's not required for him to receive classified information.http://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/sf312.html

By tradition and practice, United States officials who hold positions prescribed by the Constitution of the United States are deemed to meet the standards of trustworthiness for eligibility for access to classified information. Therefore, the President, the Vice President, Members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices, and other federal judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate need not execute the SF 312 as a condition of access to classified information.

 

[CrossEyed]

Why doesn't he just end all of the speculation and release his birth certificate?

Like he did three years ago?

Did he? Or was it a certification of live birth? I honestly don't know, but I wouldn't think there would be any controversy if he had released his birth certificate.

 

[Bamboo Bill]

Why doesn't he just end all of the speculation and release his birth certificate?

He shouldn't have to. You don't play down to the lowest common denominator.

 

[jon_mx]

Exactly. The election process is what establishes an elected official has access to information. There iis no authority for the FBI or CIA to do such function. Now the secret service can look into stuff for the sole purpose of defending the President, but that has nothing to do with vetting.

Do a little google search and you'll find out how wrong you are. If, that is, your willful obstinance will allow you to see it.

No gov't department runs a background check on the President. He's not required to be vetted in any way before assuming the Presidency. It's not a qualification for the office. And it's not required for him to receive classified information.

By tradition and practice, United States officials who hold positions prescribed by the Constitution of the United States are deemed to meet the standards of trustworthiness for eligibility for access to classified information. Therefore, the President, the Vice President, Members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices, and other federal judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate need not execute the SF 312 as a condition of access to classified information.

 

[Bamboo Bill]

Come on Jon...bring your A game tonight!

 

[Orange Crush]

I'm actually not sure, some have posted that info before, but I am absolutely positive that he was vetted through an established system designed to vet the President. You don't actually think that They swear in a Prez without thoroughly checking him out do you? That's the funniest thing about all you crackpot Birthers (redundant I know and not meant as an insult, but you are all crackpots), that you somehow think that They would let someone be sworn in based on an email photo or some other "inadequate" piece of information.

What organization has the authority to overrule an election? No body has that authority. There is no organization which checks out the president. Appointed positions, yes. Elected positions, no.

Jon,The power to verify the eligibility of the President-elect resides in Congress. They can throw out any electors' votes when they do the reading of the Electoral College if they decide that the vote is unqualified.

And the process is presided over by the outgoing Vice President, in this case **** Cheney. For all the birthers yelling about Obama not meeting the Constitutional requirements of office, go blame Cheney. Speaking of which, Al Gore had to preside over the certification of the Electoral College results when he lost to Bush. That included overruling outraged liberal Congressmen's motions trying to claim Bush stole the election.

 

[jon_mx]

Come on Jon...bring your A game tonight!

Sorry....All I have is a cell phone tonight. Severely limits my game.