PDA

View Full Version : Birth Certificate Analysis



AUTaxMan
03-01-2012, 10:06 PM
I've always ignored the birther movement, mainly because I think there are many substantive reasons why Obama has demonstrated that he isn't fit to be our President, so I never saw the need to try to get rid of him on a technicality. Nevertheless, I find this analysis interesting.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/sheriff-joes-posse-probable-cause-obama-certificate-a-fraud/

habsheaven
03-02-2012, 07:06 AM
Here we go again!!! This is getting so PATHETIC. What an embarrassment this is to the country.

shrewsbury
03-02-2012, 08:34 AM
a little too late now. what if he does not have a bc?

AUTaxMan
03-02-2012, 09:14 AM
a little too late now. what if he does not have a bc?

Can't be on the ballot. Again, I don't really care. I just thought it was interesting.

shrewsbury
03-02-2012, 09:19 AM
but, he is already president, i think he will get passed that, even if he doesn't have a bc

AUTaxMan
03-02-2012, 09:25 AM
he is running for re-election this year

mrveggieman
03-02-2012, 09:37 AM
Any idiot gov't official who rehashes this garbage after it has been proved without a shadow of a doubt that President Obama was indeed born in the United States should be immediately removed from office and should be banned for life from having anything whatsoever from doing with the gov't.

AUTaxMan
03-02-2012, 09:56 AM
Any idiot gov't official who rehashes this garbage after it has been proved without a shadow of a doubt that President Obama was indeed born in the United States should be immediately removed from office and should be banned for life from having anything whatsoever from doing with the gov't.

It looks like the "proof" was probably a fabrication.

mrveggieman
03-02-2012, 09:57 AM
It looks like the "proof" was probably a fabrication.


So again no matter what "proof" is provided you birthers will never accept it. So there is no further need to debate this topic.

Star_Cards
03-02-2012, 10:28 AM
I clicked the link to start to read this and then decided why bother. Do people honestly think that the process to file to run for the office of the president of the united states is that lacking that people could be able to forge their way in? Maybe I am naive about the system and the people who run this, but I'd think there would be a rather extensive process and checking on a person when they apply to run for the president of the united states.

pghin08
03-02-2012, 10:35 AM
I think President Obama's birth certificate is a fake too. It was probably faked by the same guy who shot JFK from the grassy knoll, trained Sirhan Sirhan to kill Robert Kennedy, framed James Earl Ray, and then planted explosives in the World Trade Center on 9-11.

ensbergcollector
03-02-2012, 10:43 AM
I think President Obama's birth certificate is a fake too. It was probably faked by the same guy who shot JFK from the grassy knoll, trained Sirhan Sirhan to kill Robert Kennedy, framed James Earl Ray, and then planted explosives in the World Trade Center on 9-11.

i'm with you on most of those but there is no way oswald killed kennedy. i'm not a conspiracy theorist by nature, but as a hunter it isn't hard to tell that kennedy wasn't shot from where oswald was.

AUTaxMan
03-02-2012, 10:56 AM
So again no matter what "proof" is provided you birthers will never accept it. So there is no further need to debate this topic.

I am not a birther, but the birthers will be satisfied if the physical birth certificate is produced and verified. At that point, they will have nothing to hang their hats on.

AUTaxMan
03-02-2012, 10:58 AM
i'm with you on most of those but there is no way oswald killed kennedy. i'm not a conspiracy theorist by nature, but as a hunter it isn't hard to tell that kennedy wasn't shot from where oswald was.

I watched a program on the Kennedy assassination recently, and they demonstrated how Oswald could have done it. By the way, the Breitbart murder conspiracies are starting to churn up.

ensbergcollector
03-02-2012, 11:04 AM
I watched a program on the Kennedy assassination recently, and they demonstrated how Oswald could have done it. By the way, the Breitbart murder conspiracies are starting to churn up.

i just remember watching the video, even at like 10 years old, and looking at the physics of how his body responds to the bullet and knowing it had to come from the front. obviously, i could be wrong, but all my hunting and firearms experience says a shot from behind and up would not had responded that way.

AUTaxMan
03-02-2012, 11:06 AM
i just remember watching the video, even at like 10 years old, and looking at the physics of how his body responds to the bullet and knowing it had to come from the front. obviously, i could be wrong, but all my hunting and firearms experience says a shot from behind and up would not had responded that way.

I understand that. I didn't realize until recently, though, that there are an number of films of the assassination other than the Zapruter film, which is the one that most of the conspiracy theorists use to support their case.

pghin08
03-02-2012, 11:23 AM
i'm with you on most of those but there is no way oswald killed kennedy. i'm not a conspiracy theorist by nature, but as a hunter it isn't hard to tell that kennedy wasn't shot from where oswald was.

Haha, actually, I agree with you on JFK. There are some pretty great documentaries out there about the assassination (and a lot of crappy ones too). I became a bit obsessed with the JFK assassination in high school/college, and that obsession never stopped. I started out being convinced that it was Oswald, and Oswald alone. The more I read and researched, however, the more I believed that it was a mob hit. I still do.

pghin08
03-02-2012, 11:24 AM
I understand that. I didn't realize until recently, though, that there are an number of films of the assassination other than the Zapruter film, which is the one that most of the conspiracy theorists use to support their case.

There are a handful, yeah. The Zapruder one is probably the best, it's at the closest range. Though I forget the name of the woman who filmed it from the other side of the street. She had a good angle too.

ensbergcollector
03-02-2012, 11:25 AM
Haha, actually, I agree with you on JFK. There are some pretty great documentaries out there about the assassination (and a lot of crappy ones too). I became a bit obsessed with the JFK assassination in high school/college, and that obsession never stopped. I started out being convinced that it was Oswald, and Oswald alone. The more I read and researched, however, the more I believed that it was a mob hit. I still do.

i have believed a few possibilities but i agree, mob is most likely.

AUTaxMan
03-02-2012, 11:26 AM
i have believed a few possibilities but i agree, mob is most likely.

I agree if it was anyone other than Oswald, it was a mob hit.

mrveggieman
03-02-2012, 11:32 AM
I agree if it was anyone other than Oswald, it was a mob hit.


I saw one doccumentary a few years ago that suggested that the first Bush had something to do with it. It was kind of far fetched but interesting watching just the same.

ensbergcollector
03-02-2012, 11:47 AM
I saw one doccumentary a few years ago that suggested that the first Bush had something to do with it. It was kind of far fetched but interesting watching just the same.

oh i have no doubt you enjoyed watching it. really, bush had something to do with it? come on man

mrveggieman
03-02-2012, 11:54 AM
oh i have no doubt you enjoyed watching it. really, bush had something to do with it? come on man


People can make doccumentaries on anything. At my old job a couple of years ago we had no web access except for google and I started watching political doccumentaries. That is what actually got me into politics. I saw all types of 9-11, religious, political and other doccumentaries. I can't remember the name of the doccumentary or anything but if you don't believe me google it. :thumb:

*censored*
03-02-2012, 04:24 PM
Well, Georgie the first did work in the CIA at the time JFK was bumped off.

I doubt he was involved, though nothing would surprise me.

tutall
03-03-2012, 01:35 PM
I clicked the link to start to read this and then decided why bother. Do people honestly think that the process to file to run for the office of the president of the united states is that lacking that people could be able to forge their way in? Maybe I am naive about the system and the people who run this, but I'd think there would be a rather extensive process and checking on a person when they apply to run for the president of the united states.

as a famous college football announcer would say... Not so fast my friend... Have you kept up with the Dick Lugar thing at all in the great state of Indiana... He has no residence here (Lives in Virginia), owns no property in Indiana (is a part corporate owner of a family farm which is roughly 30 acres of land I believe) and has an illegal drivers license (lists an address to a property he sold to someone outside the family 27 years ago) and has been our respresentative since... Anytime anything like this is brought up it is immediately shot down as non-sense and usualy not investigated. I do not believe Obama was not born here as I think there are too many people who would have hard evidence of the contrary if that was the case but to assume our process is perfect is wrong

:spy:

duane1969
03-04-2012, 02:27 PM
Well, Georgie the first did work in the CIA at the time JFK was bumped off.

I doubt he was involved, though nothing would surprise me.

Huh? You are taling about George H.W. Bush, right?


as a famous college football announcer would say... Not so fast my friend... Have you kept up with the Dick Lugar thing at all in the great state of Indiana... He has no residence here (Lives in Virginia), owns no property in Indiana (is a part corporate owner of a family farm which is roughly 30 acres of land I believe) and has an illegal drivers license (lists an address to a property he sold to someone outside the family 27 years ago) and has been our respresentative since... Anytime anything like this is brought up it is immediately shot down as non-sense and usualy not investigated. I do not believe Obama was not born here as I think there are too many people who would have hard evidence of the contrary if that was the case but to assume our process is perfect is wrong

:spy:

That is not relevant. Anything brought up that is negative about Obama is either deption, fabrication or outright lies.

Now if this were being brought up about a GOP president the same people that dismiss the questions about Obama would be thirsting for conservative blood and rioting in the streets demanding a Senate investigative committee.

tutall
03-04-2012, 04:26 PM
That is not relevant. Anything brought up that is negative about Obama is either deption, fabrication or outright lies.

Now if this were being brought up about a GOP president the same people that dismiss the questions about Obama would be thirsting for conservative blood and rioting in the streets demanding a Senate investigative committee.

It isnt relavent to this situation... Just arguing the point that all elected officials are vetted before they are allowed to win an election is simply not always the case... Again, I believe the birth certificate is fine but to just assume it is ok is not the best way to look at it

Jazzer540
03-04-2012, 04:32 PM
Yeah.. our country is pretty F-d up. You would think they would check on all that BEFORE he started to run. Oh, wait they did... and yet no conclusive evidence, but yet they still went ahead with it. With almost any job now, they do background checks and you need all the paper work BEFORE you start your job. This is one of, if not the highest positions in our government-and yet we let that slide. But working at Mcdonald's you need proof of who you are to get a job there???? Nice!!!

boba
03-04-2012, 04:36 PM
Yeah.. our country is pretty F-d up. You would think they would check on all that BEFORE he started to run. Oh, wait they did... and yet no conclusive evidence, but yet they still went ahead with it. With almost any job now, they do background checks and you need all the paper work BEFORE you start your job. This is one of, if not the highest positions in our government-and yet we let that slide. But working at Mcdonald's you need proof of who you are to get a job there???? Nice!!!


You also need more experience then being a community organizer to work at Mcdonald's :pound:

pspstatus
03-04-2012, 11:29 PM
I'm not 100% sure about this but the way I understand the law is that if a US citizen gives birth overseas that that child is considered to be a natural born citizen of the US.

Also about President Kennedy. I believe he was killed in a conspiracy involving LBJ, J Edgar Hoover, and oil executives.

AUTaxMan
03-05-2012, 06:31 AM
I'm not 100% sure about this but the way I understand the law is that if a US citizen gives birth overseas that that child is considered to be a natural born citizen of the US.

That's true.

duane1969
03-05-2012, 09:38 AM
It isnt relavent to this situation... Just arguing the point that all elected officials are vetted before they are allowed to win an election is simply not always the case... Again, I believe the birth certificate is fine but to just assume it is ok is not the best way to look at it

I was being facetious

pspstatus
03-05-2012, 09:57 PM
That's true.

What's these peoples argument? Even if he was born in Kenya or wherever it doesn't really matter. It seems like a moot point to me.

AUTaxMan
03-05-2012, 11:03 PM
What's these peoples argument? Even if he was born in Kenya or wherever it doesn't really matter. It seems like a moot point to me.

it's a stupid issue and a moot point. i just thought the analysis interesting because it looks like the document on the WH website is a fabrication.

mrveggieman
03-06-2012, 08:00 AM
it's a stupid issue and a moot point. i just thought the analysis interesting because it looks like the document on the WH website is a fabrication.


And how would you know this? What are the know signs of a forged birth certificate?

AUTaxMan
03-06-2012, 08:19 AM
And how would you know this? What are the know signs of a forged birth certificate?

If you had actually watched the videos posted in the article (the entire point of this thread), you would understand.

mrveggieman
03-06-2012, 09:03 AM
If you had actually watched the videos posted in the article (the entire point of this thread), you would understand.


I will take a look. I can't look at it from the job and my cell phone co has slowed the bandwith on my phone so I can't look at videos again for another 1-2 weeks.

pghin08
03-06-2012, 09:19 AM
it's a stupid issue and a moot point. i just thought the analysis interesting because it looks like the document on the WH website is a fabrication.

I read the article and watched the videos (except the presser), and I'm sorry, I'm just not buying it. It makes no sense. Why would the White House fabricate his birth certificate anyways? They don't have to. For as much as birthers harp on the merits of the Constitution, it would do them well to read it.

Article II, Section I of the Constitution states:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

There's no doubting that he matches the last two qualifications. But those alone, to most people, do not qualify you to be President. That's a fair enough assessment. So, we go back to whether or not he is a citizen of the United States.

You have to go to Title 8 of the United States Code to truly determine this. However, it's very clear. United States Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, Section 1401-G reads as follows:

"A person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years"

Again, let's go through it. Obama's father, Barack Sr., though he was a U of Hawaii student, was an alien. Nobody is saying that Barack's dad was a US citizen at that time. However, he ended up marrying Stanley Ann Dunham, Barack Jr.'s mother, prior to Barack Jr.'s birth.

So now we look at Stanley Ann Dunham, the President's mother. Born in Wichita, Kansas in 1942. When she was young, her and her family moved around a lot, but all within the U.S. After graduating from high school in 1960, she and her family moved to Hawaii (which had become the 50th state the year prior).

How does she measure up to HER qualifications then? She was in the United States for her entire childhood, and the whole time up to Barack's birth. Therefore, Stanley Ann Dunham qualifies under Title 8 of the United States Code to have her son, Barack Hussein Obama, obtain legal US citizenship upon his birth. It doesn't matter AT ALL where Obama was born, only that he was born to Stanley Ann Dunham.


I sincerely hope this dismisses any birther argument at all. So all this being said, why would the White House fabricate a document which they don't really have to fabricate?

Star_Cards
03-06-2012, 09:26 AM
I read the article and watched the videos (except the presser), and I'm sorry, I'm just not buying it. It makes no sense. Why would the White House fabricate his birth certificate anyways? They don't have to. For as much as birthers harp on the merits of the Constitution, it would do them well to read it.

Article II, Section I of the Constitution states:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

There's no doubting that he matches the last two qualifications. But those alone, to most people, do not qualify you to be President. That's a fair enough assessment. So, we go back to whether or not he is a citizen of the United States.

You have to go to Title 8 of the United States Code to truly determine this. However, it's very clear. United States Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, Section 1401-G reads as follows:

"A person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years"

Again, let's go through it. Obama's father, Barack Sr., though he was a U of Hawaii student, was an alien. Nobody is saying that Barack's dad was a US citizen at that time. However, he ended up marrying Stanley Ann Dunham, Barack Jr.'s mother, prior to Barack Jr.'s birth.

So now we look at Stanley Ann Dunham, the President's mother. Born in Wichita, Kansas in 1942. When she was young, her and her family moved around a lot, but all within the U.S. After graduating from high school in 1960, she and her family moved to Hawaii (which had become the 50th state the year prior).

How does she measure up to HER qualifications then? She was in the United States for her entire childhood, and the whole time up to Barack's birth. Therefore, Stanley Ann Dunham qualifies under Title 8 of the United States Code to have her son, Barack Hussein Obama, obtain legal US citizenship upon his birth. It doesn't matter AT ALL where Obama was born, only that he was born to Stanley Ann Dunham.


I sincerely hope this dismisses any birther argument at all. So all this being said, why would the White House fabricate a document which they don't really have to fabricate?

I always thought the issue was moot. Definitely seems as such after reading the laws. Even if the certificate is fake it doesn't seem to matter. Although, I think the only reason this whole argument got any sort of traction the second time was because Trump was looking to promote the apprentice, which was coming to it's finale at the time.

pghin08
03-07-2012, 10:44 AM
I always thought the issue was moot. Definitely seems as such after reading the laws. Even if the certificate is fake it doesn't seem to matter. Although, I think the only reason this whole argument got any sort of traction the second time was because Trump was looking to promote the apprentice, which was coming to it's finale at the time.

That's the biggest point. They wouldn't go through the hassle of instituting a cover-up of something that didn't need to be covered up.

tsjct
03-07-2012, 11:18 AM
He was born where? Oh that's right we have NO IDEA. He is the Chosen One so we can not ask that.

*censored*
03-07-2012, 11:23 AM
If it really was fake, don't you think Bill and Hillary would have rooted it out in the 2008 primaries? They know where the bodies are buried and if they can't get it, it doesn't exist.

ensbergcollector
03-07-2012, 11:27 AM
If it really was fake, don't you think Bill and Hillary would have rooted it out in the 2008 primaries? They know where the bodies are buried and if they can't get it, it doesn't exist.

i don't buy into the birther idea, but hillary got appointed to the highest position she was ever going to achieve by leaving the race. She had to know she wasn't going to win the presidential election. She dropped out in exchange for quite possibly the most powerful position possible.

pghin08
03-07-2012, 11:28 AM
He was born where? Oh that's right we have NO IDEA. He is the Chosen One so we can not ask that.

I already went over this. The birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii. If you think it was a fake, it still doesn't matter. See my post on the last page.

tsjct
03-07-2012, 11:30 AM
I already went over this. The birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii. If you think it was a fake, it still doesn't matter. See my post on the last page.

No proof!!

pghin08
03-07-2012, 11:35 AM
No proof!!

Yes there is! I proved that it DOESN'T MATTER where Obama was born, just as long as he was born to Stanley Ann Dunham. Obama was a US citizen by birth, therefore is eligible to be President. Period.

tsjct
03-07-2012, 11:45 AM
Yes there is! I proved that it DOESN'T MATTER where Obama was born, just as long as he was born to Stanley Ann Dunham. Obama was a US citizen by birth, therefore is eligible to be President. Period.

It does not matter to YOU but it does matter to me. If this was a Republican president YOU and the Liberal media would cover this 24HRS a day 365 days a year. Since he is a Liberal just like the main stream media it gets NO attention. :rolleyes:

pghin08
03-07-2012, 11:53 AM
It does not matter to YOU but it does matter to me. If this was a Republican president YOU and the Liberal media would cover this 24HRS a day 365 days a year. Since he is a Liberal just like the main stream media it gets NO attention. :rolleyes:

First off, the notion that the birther movement received no press is totally absurd. And would I care if a Republican candidate wasn't born in the US? Not at all! Technically, Presidents like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc. weren't born in the US. I would care if they weren't a US citizen, of course, but Obama is. If Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum were born in Timbuktu, I wouldn't care, so long as they were citizens.

tsjct
03-07-2012, 12:00 PM
First off, the notion that the birther movement received no press is totally absurd. And would I care if a Republican candidate wasn't born in the US? Not at all! Technically, Presidents like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc. weren't born in the US. I would care if they weren't a US citizen, of course, but Obama is. If Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum were born in Timbuktu, I wouldn't care, so long as they were citizens.

Just amazing we know so VERY VERY Little about the IDIOT.

pghin08
03-07-2012, 12:05 PM
Just amazing we know so VERY VERY Little about the IDIOT.

But that's kind of classic birther denial. Some 25 year old schmuck on the internet (me) was able to disprove the entire birther argument, which only shows how flimsy it is. But when approached with the information, it's just deflected to, "Well, I still don't know who Obama is."

tsjct
03-07-2012, 12:07 PM
But that's kind of classic birther denial. Some 25 year old schmuck on the internet (me) was able to disprove the entire birther argument, which only shows how flimsy it is. But when approached with the information, it's just deflected to, "Well, I still don't know who Obama is."

You did not Disprove the Birther movement. Get me a copy of his ORIGINAL Birth Certificate and then take credit. WITH A SEAL STAMP from the STATE of HI.

pghin08
03-07-2012, 12:12 PM
You did not Disprove the Birther movement. Get me a copy of his ORIGINAL Birth Certificate and then take credit. WITH A SEAL STAMP from the STATE of HI.

I proved that it doesn't matter where he was born!!! Even if he was born in Kenya, he was still a US citizen.

AUTaxMan
03-07-2012, 01:17 PM
That's the biggest point. They wouldn't go through the hassle of instituting a cover-up of something that didn't need to be covered up.

And therein lies the genius... ;)

Star_Cards
03-07-2012, 01:28 PM
You did not Disprove the Birther movement. Get me a copy of his ORIGINAL Birth Certificate and then take credit. WITH A SEAL STAMP from the STATE of HI.

if you read what regulations he posted regarding who is considered a U.S. citizen and if they are correct, which I believe them to be, then it doesn't matter where he was born.

Star_Cards
03-07-2012, 01:31 PM
It does not matter to YOU but it does matter to me. If this was a Republican president YOU and the Liberal media would cover this 24HRS a day 365 days a year. Since he is a Liberal just like the main stream media it gets NO attention. :rolleyes:

I don't believe that to be true. This issue has had some main stream attention, back when it was first being discussed. Maybe it doesn't get much play now because it's pretty irrelevant.

I'd personally have the same stance on it no matter what party the person was on.

pghin08
03-07-2012, 03:52 PM
And therein lies the genius... ;)

Lol. I have to admit, I've been spiteful of the birther movement because all it takes is a little bit of research to find that Obama is eligible to be President. Yet people spend an enormous amount of time and resources trying to unearth something that doesn't matter anyways. Like Donald Trump. What happened to his "investigators"? What a joke.

*censored*
03-07-2012, 05:28 PM
Was his father a US citizen? Because come to think of it, the Constitution specifically states that only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both citizens of the U.S.) may be president.

I still think the birther movement is full of crap for the most part (as most will ignore massive sins of the GOP to push their point), but still, I'm not one to pass up on something that criticizes the government.

pspstatus
03-07-2012, 11:15 PM
Was his father a US citizen? Because come to think of it, the Constitution specifically states that only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both citizens of the U.S.) may be president.

I still think the birther movement is full of crap for the most part (as most will ignore massive sins of the GOP to push their point), but still, I'm not one to pass up on something that criticizes the government.


Wow, is that really true? I thought you had to just be a natural born citizen with one parent. That just seems silly.

INTIMADATOR2007
03-07-2012, 11:53 PM
Was his father a US citizen? Because come to think of it, the Constitution specifically states that only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both citizens of the U.S.) may be president.

I still think the birther movement is full of crap for the most part (as most will ignore massive sins of the GOP to push their point), but still, I'm not one to pass up on something that criticizes the government.

This is why the birther movement will not go away . It's not were he or his mother was born ,the question is where was his father born ?

mrveggieman
03-08-2012, 08:02 AM
This is why the birther movement will not go away . It's not were he or his mother was born ,the question is where was his father born ?


Who in the hell cares where his father was born? President Obama has proven without a shadow of a doubt that he was born in the united states and the federal gov't has accepted it therefore he is our legally elected president. If the tea party or the birther movement dosen't like it then that's their problem.

pghin08
03-08-2012, 09:02 AM
This is why the birther movement will not go away . It's not were he or his mother was born ,the question is where was his father born ?

The Congressional Research Service has already defined a natural-born citizen as several things, one of which is a child born outside the US with one parent who is a US citizen and meets the residency requirements, which Stanley Ann Dunham did.

And to talk about the "liberal media" and their "protection" of Barack Obama, how many of you knew that while Obama's eligibility for President was being questioned, that John McCain's was as well? McCain was born in Panama (he never released his birth certificate, but nobody cares about that, right?). However, according to the present interpretation of the Constitution, McCain is seen as a natural-born citizen. So is Obama.

mrveggieman
03-08-2012, 09:06 AM
The Congressional Research Service has already defined a natural-born citizen as several things, one of which is a child born outside the US with one parent who is a US citizen and meets the residency requirements, which Stanley Ann Dunham did.

And to talk about the "liberal media" and their "protection" of Barack Obama, how many of you knew that while Obama's eligibility for President was being questioned, that John McCain's was as well? McCain was born in Panama (he never released his birth certificate, but nobody cares about that, right?). However, according to the present interpretation of the Constitution, McCain is seen as a natural-born citizen. So is Obama.


So with that being said will the birther movement please shut the hell up!!

ensbergcollector
03-08-2012, 10:15 AM
So with that being said will the birther movement please shut the hell up!!

because if mccain had won the election, no one would be asking for proof right?

Rockman
03-08-2012, 10:18 AM
because if mccain had won the election, no one would be asking for proof right?

Not so early into his campaign and then still 3 years after his election.

pghin08
03-08-2012, 10:22 AM
because if mccain had won the election, no one would be asking for proof right?

But the overarching point that people seem to be avoiding is that it doesn't matter. So what if McCain was born in Panama? He was born to U.S. citizen parents. Same with Obama. Even if he was born in Kenya, France, Papua New Guinea or the moon, his mother was a U.S. citizen who met the residency requirements per the United States code to be considered a natural-born citizen.

And to your point, people were crying afoul of Obama's birth certificate well before he was elected. McCain had the same issues with his birth certificate, but it didn't get nearly the amount of coverage that Obama's did. I agree that had McCain been elected rather than Obama, this may have been an issue at some point, but I don't think to the extent that Obama's had to deal with this.

Star_Cards
03-08-2012, 11:48 AM
I've never heard anything about McCain not being bore in the United States. Seems like the same exact circumstances as what people are claiming happened with Obama by suggesting he was born in Kenya. Seems like by the rules it doesn't matter for either as they had a natural born citizen as a parent.

mrveggieman
03-08-2012, 11:52 AM
because if mccain had won the election, no one would be asking for proof right?


No because we understand the constitution unlike the birthers.

boba
03-08-2012, 12:09 PM
No because pghin08 understands the constitution unlike the birthers.


Fixed that for you.

pghin08
03-08-2012, 12:13 PM
I've never heard anything about McCain not being bore in the United States. Seems like the same exact circumstances as what people are claiming happened with Obama by suggesting he was born in Kenya. Seems like by the rules it doesn't matter for either as they had a natural born citizen as a parent.

McCain wasn't born in the US. He was born in the Panama Canal Zone.

pspstatus
03-09-2012, 12:23 AM
This is why the birther movement will not go away . It's not were he or his mother was born ,the question is where was his father born ?


I've never heard anyone supporting the birther thing use his father not being an American citizen as part of their argument.

INTIMADATOR2007
03-09-2012, 12:36 AM
I've never heard anyone supporting the birther thing use his father not being an American citizen as part of their argument.

When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children.

In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.

The constitutional question presented is whether a person born with citizenship in and allegiance to a foreign nation can be considered a “natural born citizen” of the United States as required by Article II, Section 1.

mrveggieman
03-09-2012, 08:17 AM
When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children.

In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.

The constitutional question presented is whether a person born with citizenship in and allegiance to a foreign nation can be considered a “natural born citizen” of the United States as required by Article II, Section 1.

Give it up will you? The man is our leagally elected president no matter how much sleep you lose over him every night.

*censored*
03-09-2012, 09:47 AM
The Panama Canal Zone was actually US property, or at least an "Unorganized US Territory" when McCain was born there. I believe Puerto Rico falls under the same status. And as far as I know, Puerto Ricans are eligible to run for president.

And after looking into it more, I stand corrected, it is just one parent who has to be a citizen for a person to be President-eligible. So Obama, born in the US or not, would indeed be eligible based on his mother.

pghin08
03-09-2012, 10:35 AM
The Panama Canal Zone was actually US property, or at least an "Unorganized US Territory" when McCain was born there. I believe Puerto Rico falls under the same status. And as far as I know, Puerto Ricans are eligible to run for president.

And after looking into it more, I stand corrected, it is just one parent who has to be a citizen for a person to be President-eligible. So Obama, born in the US or not, would indeed be eligible based on his mother.

Precisely.

pspstatus
03-09-2012, 02:20 PM
The Panama Canal Zone was actually US property, or at least an "Unorganized US Territory" when McCain was born there. I believe Puerto Rico falls under the same status. And as far as I know, Puerto Ricans are eligible to run for president.

And after looking into it more, I stand corrected, it is just one parent who has to be a citizen for a person to be President-eligible. So Obama, born in the US or not, would indeed be eligible based on his mother.


Right after doing a little more research I found some interesting things. The Constitution does not define who is or is not a natural born citizen. It only states that a natural born citizen can be President. There are a few ways to be a natural born citizen. One of which is to be born on foreign soil to an American parent. Therefore no matter where he was born he is a natural born citizen and eligible to be President.

mrveggieman
03-09-2012, 02:22 PM
Right after doing a little more research I found some interesting things. The Constitution does not define who is or is not a natural born citizen. It only states that a natural born citizen can be President. There are a few ways to be a natural born citizen. One of which is to be born on foreign soil to an American parent. Therefore no matter where he was born he is a natural born citizen and eligible to be President.


CHURCH!! :love0030:

pspstatus
03-09-2012, 02:33 PM
When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children.

In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.

The constitutional question presented is whether a person born with citizenship in and allegiance to a foreign nation can be considered a “natural born citizen” of the United States as required by Article II, Section 1.


As far as I understand it that doesn't matter especially if he was born in Hawaii. But again I've never once heard any birther supporters use that as the basis of their argument. Furthermore as far as I can tell in the definition of a natural born citizen there is no distinction relating to the citizenship of the non American parent. And I don't think that the British Nationality Act would supercede the American laws of being a natural born citizen.

mrveggieman
03-09-2012, 02:36 PM
as far as i understand it that doesn't matter especially if he was born in hawaii. But again i've never once heard any birther supporters use that as the basis of their argument. Furthermore as far as i can tell in the definition of a natural born citizen there is no distinction relating to the citizenship of the non american parent. And i don't think that the british nationality act would supercede the american laws of being a natural born citizen.

preach!!

*censored*
03-10-2012, 03:52 PM
There is nothing that says a President cannot have dual citizenship, as far as I can tell.

bud7562
03-10-2012, 04:01 PM
but, he is already president, i think he will get passed that, even if he doesn't have a bcits was a big payoff for his birth certificate from big lawyers, and to be payoff to stay in for next 4 years to mess this country up some more????