RE: New "Birther" Controversy

RE: New "Birther" Controversy (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Hillwilliam -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/11/2012 9:10:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: My answer was insufficient? No, it's good to see confirmation from multiple sources. Okay, let me be more direct because while I guess I did type it kind of rhetorically, I'm curious as to what your answer might be: quote: ORIGINAL: Daddysatyr I'm not sure that "forfeit" is even the right word. I believe the eligibility clause pre-cludes (emphasis intentional; not a typo) their consideration. That would rest well if my contention about Rubio is correct but... Why would we put ourselves in that position? God forbid *any* president dies while in office, do we want a smooth transition or questions, accusations, and choices made out of fear or ignorance of direction? Peace and comfort, Michael I think that forfeit is the right word when it comes to place in succession for POTUS. Personally, I'd like to see the natural born citizen (as defined by present law) thing go all the way down to the house and senate.

mnottertail -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/11/2012 9:20:39 PM)
used to be way back when that vp was a seperate election, notwithstanding party, and I guess it sort of still is, but after like the 2nd or 3rd president is same as president wants by electoral vote (always been separate electoral votes) but at some point they figured it out and he must at his or her assuming office of vp, be qualified by constitution to be the president. twelfth amendment. Since by that time the except those at the signing or existand clause had sort of petered out.

DaddySatyr -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/12/2012 2:43:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam I think that forfeit is the right word when it comes to place in succession for POTUS. Personally, I'd like to see the natural born citizen (as defined by present law) thing go all the way down to the house and senate. This was one of the points I made, in the OP. We don't have a definition. Those two words, in fact, are ill-defined. They've been "interpretted", through the years by different courts but, we have no definition of "natural born". Was Sen McCain natural born? If you count American military installations as US soil, yes (I think that's where he was born in Panama). I don't think (personally) a child, born to an American mother that's chosen to "back-pack around Europe" is a "natural born" American. Since we don't have a definition, we're going to have these kinds of disagreements. What happens when we start getting serious about protecting our borders and we start sending mothers and their dependent children back to the mother's country of origin, after the mother illegally came here to make sure her child was born here? When we decide we're going to stop rewarding bad (criminal) behavior, what becomes of those children, natural born but raised elsewhere. To take it back a step; This is almost analogous to President Obama's situation (if you listen to the Birthers). I've heard some of the libs, here say: "Even if he was born in Kenya, his mother's a US citizen" Let's look at that: A US citizen who, for whatever reason, for that particular time, chose not to be an American citizen. Not quite renunciation but ... Let's go even a step further. While I strongly doubt this could happen, I don't think it's impossible... We've seen a couple of natural born males decide they want to go to Yemin and join the Al Quiaeda. What if the mother of a small boy were to do that? Bring her son with her to Syria, raise him in the ways of fundemental Islam and then, when he's twelve, she decides to become a Martyr in downtown Jerusalem. The boy continues his schooling at the finest Madrass in Syria and comes back "home" (He's natural born) to attend University. He studies hard, gets into Law school, gets elected to Congress, spends a few years there and then, runs for POTUS. He's natural born, schooled at Harvard law, Princeton, Abu-Grahaib Madrass, and homeschooled by mom and uncle Achmed, for a while. I would raise quite the stink about that guy sitting in the oval office. I have no legal, constitutional definition to back me up. A black-letter interpretation says I'm wrong but a spirit-of-the-law interpretation tells me I have a point. Peace and comfort, Michael

Real0ne -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/12/2012 8:30:33 AM)
you need more information than that. natural born requires mother and father to be citizens of some state prior to birth. you can go back to wong, white v elk, tex v white, people v hall, rules of naturalization 1790, 1795 <-mostly repealed,... then still standing 1802 forward. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIf0GwaAyI8 in the case of the potus its all about determining where the allegiance lies and that goes back to english law where its very clearly defined. Its also stated in the constitution he is a citizen but not a natural born citizen Can we expect someone with mixed or allegiance to another nation to protect our constitution as the charter requires? I think not.

Moonhead -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/12/2012 8:42:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr We've seen a couple of natural born males decide they want to go to Yemin and join the Al Quiaeda. What if the mother of a small boy were to do that? Bring her son with her to Syria, raise him in the ways of fundemental Islam and then, when he's twelve, she decides to become a Martyr in downtown Jerusalem. You'll find that (for some strange reason) natural born males are a lot more likely to head off to jidadist training camps than natural born females. No idea why that should be. Possibly something to do with those uppity women's libbers not having won the battle of the sexes in the middle east like they have in America?

DaddySatyr -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/12/2012 9:45:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne he is a citizen but not a natural born citizen Can we expect someone with mixed or allegiance to another nation to protect our constitution as the charter requires? I think not. I snipped it like I did on purpose. You're one of the ones I'm interested in hearing from. If you consider that the VP's main obligation is to wake up, every day and ask: "How's the Presdident doing?" (Thank you, President Truman), would you support Marco Rubio running for the VP slot? Peace and comfort, Michael

CharmCityCpl -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/12/2012 10:52:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne he is a citizen but not a natural born citizen Can we expect someone with mixed or allegiance to another nation to protect our constitution as the charter requires? I think not. I snipped it like I did on purpose. You're one of the ones I'm interested in hearing from. If you consider that the VP's main obligation is to wake up, every day and ask: "How's the Presdident doing?" (Thank you, President Truman), would you support Marco Rubio running for the VP slot? Peace and comfort, Michael I LIKE Marco Rubio, but as I thought it was abject hypocracy for the Democrats to blast Dan Quayle in '88 for being "a draft dodger who used family pull to get in the National Guard to avoid the draft" and then backed Bill Clinton in '92 who did the same, then backed out of the National Guard commitment because he was picked up as a Rhodes Scholar and got a deferment without it; I can't support Rubio as a VP nominee. He has some of the same issues that have been questioned about Obama. That being said, can anyone HERE offer any resonable explaination why: A) Race on Obamas birth certificate is listed as African American, a phrase that wasn't in use at all for another 6-8 years, and in 1961 the appropriate official terminology would have been "Negro"? B)Father's Citizenship on the same document was listed as "Kenya" when in 1961, it was the "Bristish Protectorate of East Africa"? In 1961 there WAS no 'Kenya', nor would there be for another three years! C)In another document that was accidentally released without his social security number being redacted, we were treated to the fact that his SSN was one which would have been issued to someone born in Connecticut. I can't support Marco Rubio, but until I get a better response to these questions than a derisive snort and being arrogantly referred to as a "birther", I can't help but consider the current occupant of the Oval Office a usurper, and an identity thief (that SSN should have been issued to SOMEBODY!)

DaddySatyr -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/12/2012 11:02:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CharmCityCpl quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne he is a citizen but not a natural born citizen Can we expect someone with mixed or allegiance to another nation to protect our constitution as the charter requires? I think not. I snipped it like I did on purpose. You're one of the ones I'm interested in hearing from. If you consider that the VP's main obligation is to wake up, every day and ask: "How's the Presdident doing?" (Thank you, President Truman), would you support Marco Rubio running for the VP slot? Peace and comfort, Michael I LIKE Marco Rubio, but as I thought it was abject hypocracy for the Democrats to blast Dan Quayle in '88 for being "a draft dodger who used family pull to get in the National Guard to avoid the draft" and then backed Bill Clinton in '92 who did the same, then backed out of the National Guard commitment because he was picked up as a Rhodes Scholar and got a deferment without it; I can't support Rubio as a VP nominee. He has some of the same issues that have been questioned about Obama. That being said, can anyone HERE offer any resonable explaination why: A) Race on Obamas birth certificate is listed as African American, a phrase that wasn't in use at all for another 6-8 years, and in 1961 the appropriate official terminology would have been "Negro"? B)Father's Citizenship on the same document was listed as "Kenya" when in 1961, it was the "Bristish Protectorate of East Africa"? In 1961 there WAS no 'Kenya', nor would there be for another three years! C)In another document that was accidentally released without his social security number being redacted, we were treated to the fact that his SSN was one which would have been issued to someone born in Connecticut. I can't support Marco Rubio, but until I get a better response to these questions than a derisive snort and being arrogantly referred to as a "birther", I can't help but consider the current occupant of the Oval Office a usurper, and an identity thief (that SSN should have been issued to SOMEBODY!) I will offer this little tidbit. I was born in Newark and moved to NYC, shortly thereafter. When I was born, it was before the impending totalitarian socialists passed a law that you couldn't take a child out of the hospital without a social security card. As a result, I was born in 1964 and didn't get a SS card until 1979 (almost 15 years old) and it was not from the place of my birth (we had moved). However, the two terms you mention have been on my mind, quite a bit since 2007/2008. I guess "evidence" only counts if it bears the right pedigree but, I want to stress that my objection to someone not native-born has nothing to do with their politics. It has to do with a desire to protect my homeland and my form of government from people who *may* have an agenda other than to "... preserve, protect, and defend the constitution ..." Peace and comfort, Michael

Hillwilliam -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/12/2012 11:07:27 AM)
FR also to Michael. I was born and raised in TN but somehow, I have an SSN that was issued in Missouri. Go figure. [8\|]

CharmCityCpl -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/12/2012 11:46:12 AM)
Congratulations! You've both addressed ONE of THREE issues! Two thirds of my points are still hanging out there. May I remind you that two thirds is enough of a percentage to amend the Constitution, but not enough to even raise the question of impeachment!

DaddySatyr -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/12/2012 11:55:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CharmCityCpl Congratulations! You've both addressed ONE of THREE issues! Two thirds of my points are still hanging out there. May I remind you that two thirds is enough of a percentage to amend the Constitution, but not enough to even raise the question of impeachment! I don't know if you read far enough back. I stand with you. I still question the president's credentials. It's why, if I wish to be consistent (and I do), I need to know about more about Sen. Rubio before I sign off on him as a V.P. candidate. Peace and comfort, Michael

mnottertail -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/12/2012 11:58:00 AM)
And 2/3 a cup of flour is used in some recipes. And that is equally as germaine. Impeachments require a simple majority. Lately there was a chicken mcnugget that looked like George Washington. Well, these 'smoking gun' birth certificates now, what is their provenance? What is their credible and citable forensic issue, or are they something someone cooked up on the net or photoshopped or whatever? What did Boehner and Bachmann et al, say about this when they got the expert opinions testimony on their value as true and correct artifacts? Fugazi. That anwers the other 2/3rds.

Hillwilliam -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/12/2012 12:14:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CharmCityCpl Congratulations! You've both addressed ONE of THREE issues! Two thirds of my points are still hanging out there. May I remind you that two thirds is enough of a percentage to amend the Constitution, but not enough to even raise the question of impeachment! I just looked at a PDF of the birth certificate and nowhere on it does it say "African American". for his dad's race, it says "African". The term "African American (which I think it a stupid and racist designation) didn't become common until the 80's. There's 2. ETA a link http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf Orly Taitz (aka queen of the birthers) presented what she claims is Obama's REAL birth certificate to a GA court and it says "Republic of Kenya" Will you also say that is a forgery?

Lucylastic -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/12/2012 12:14:44 PM)
A) Race on Obamas birth certificate is listed as African American, No it isnt, His fathers race is listed as AFRICAN B)Father's Citizenship on the same document was listed as "Kenya" when in 1961, it was the "Bristish Protectorate of East Africa"? In 1961 there WAS no 'Kenya', nor would there be for another three years! Kenya was known as the Kenya Colony from 1920 BEFORE that it was the BRITISH Protectorate. His Fathers citizenship is NOT SHOWN.ONLY HIS BIRTHPLACE WAS. Now if you have proof of your statements, please feel free to show me.. PS heres my long form pic from the gov site... http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate now... IF your assertions were true... why is it only NOW coming to the fore? surely if those three things had any merit, some smart person would have pointed it out before this year.... Arpaio spent six months searching for evidence....and still only came up with "probable cause to believe that it MAY be a forgery PS, welcome to the boards

Lucylastic -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/12/2012 12:18:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: CharmCityCpl Congratulations! You've both addressed ONE of THREE issues! Two thirds of my points are still hanging out there. May I remind you that two thirds is enough of a percentage to amend the Constitution, but not enough to even raise the question of impeachment! I just looked at a PDF of the birth certificate and nowhere on it does it say "African American". for his dad's race, it says "African". the term "African american (which I think it a stupid and racist designation) didn't become common until the 80's. There's 2. ETA a link http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf Orly Taitz (aka queen of the birthers) presented what she claims is Obama's REAL birth certificate to a GA court and it says "Republic of Kenya" Will you also say that is a forgery? His Father would NEVER be stated as an african american either.. He wasnt american.

Hillwilliam -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/12/2012 12:27:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic His Father would NEVER be stated as an african american either.. He wasnt american. Personally, I hate that term. I remember when it was first coming into use and S Africa was coming out from under apartheid, Jesse Jackson referred to Nelson Mandella as an "African American". [8\|] Yeah, I know it's a minor hijack.

BitaTruble -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/12/2012 12:34:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CharmCityCpl That being said, can anyone HERE offer any resonable explaination why: A) Race on Obamas birth certificate is listed as African American, a phrase that wasn't in use at all for another 6-8 years, and in 1961 the appropriate official terminology would have been "Negro"? Birth certificates started to be ammended in the 1990's to strike that language. I have a similar issue regarding my own birth certificate. In the top half of my long form (from Texas) my name is spelled one way but the bottom half had a typo and my named is spelled another way. (was a PITA to get it corrected to get my passport.) There is no mention on my current BC that it was ammended in any way ever. There is a note in the computer scanning record that it was ammended when I finally was able to get it fixed when I got my passport, but on the BC itself is nothing. There are numerous typos on my BC in addition to my name, my mothers maiden name is incorrect, my fathers place of residence is incorrect, the number 'live birth' is incorrect, the city name has a double strike and other things. I have other issues with it as well. I was born at home (my Grandparents ranch attended by a mid-wife to my mother and various other aunts and cousins but not doctor and no men at all but my BC is signed by a doctor who swore he attended my birth), not a hospital but my BC states I was born at Rising Star Hospital.. (there was no Rising Star Hospital.. didn't exist - the closest hospital was in Brownwood but I wasn't born there). On top of that, the clerks office where my BC was kept had a fire in the mid 60's and my BC suffered severe water damage which, in conjuction with numerous typos also makes it quite difficult to read. When they sent our counties BC's down to be scanned into the computer, yet another error was made in the scanning process and I had to have a special agent go over my case with me to try to fix everything that was wrong with my BC. If you pull a copy of my BC from the scanning records now, there is ZERO on there that will ever tell you there was a problem with it (except you can plainly see the extensive water damage it suffered.) quote: B)Father's Citizenship on the same document was listed as "Kenya" when in 1961, it was the "Bristish Protectorate of East Africa"? In 1961 there WAS no 'Kenya', nor would there be for another three years! Same reason - auto-correction to keep up with times. When a BC is ammended by an individual (for example, my own daughters middle name was not spelled correctly on her birth cert (this was in 1978 in CA) and "I" had it corrected so there is a separate page attached to her BC that shows it was ammended for spelling. When the gov ammends it does not show as ammended. quote: C)In another document that was accidentally released without his social security number being redacted, we were treated to the fact that his SSN was one which would have been issued to someone born in Connecticut. I was born in Texas.. my SN was issued from CA. SSN's are not tied to birth place. The first three numbers of your SSN are tied to the state in which it was issued. My SSN as well as my birth cert were screwed up (the BC because of the typos) because my parents were divorced before I got a SSN and BOTH my parents applied for SSN for me and I was issued TWO numbers. Shit happens and then it has to be fixed. quote: I can't support Marco Rubio, but until I get a better response to these questions than a derisive snort and being arrogantly referred to as a "birther", I can't help but consider the current occupant of the Oval Office a usurper, and an identity thief (that SSN should have been issued to SOMEBODY!) I don't know if Obama's BC had or has any of the issues that I have had to deal with, but it wouldn't surprise me. Typewriters didn't have 'auto-correct' in 1960 so white out was often used for correction and left to stand 'as is' without words like 'ammended' on them. I hope the above information can help you with your vetting process.

SternSkipper -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/12/2012 12:39:05 PM)
quote: Congratulations! You've both addressed ONE of THREE issues! Two thirds of my points are still hanging out there. May I remind you that two thirds is enough of a percentage to amend the Constitution, but not enough to even raise the question of impeachment! WHAT ON EARTH does your being satisfied on a couple of issues out here on an internet forum have to do with the percentages of congress required to bring about an amendment or impeachment? <Whew>

Hippiekinkster -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/12/2012 12:51:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CharmCityCpl That being said, can anyone HERE offer any resonable explaination why: A) Race on Obamas birth certificate is listed as African American, a phrase that wasn't in use at all for another 6-8 years, and in 1961 the appropriate official terminology would have been "Negro"? B)Father's Citizenship on the same document was listed as "Kenya" when in 1961, it was the "Bristish Protectorate of East Africa"? In 1961 there WAS no 'Kenya', nor would there be for another three years! C)In another document that was accidentally released without his social security number being redacted, we were treated to the fact that his SSN was one which would have been issued to someone born in Connecticut. I can't support Marco Rubio, but until I get a better response to these questions than a derisive snort and being arrogantly referred to as a "birther", I can't help but consider the current occupant of the Oval Office a usurper, and an identity thief (that SSN should have been issued to SOMEBODY!) Got another one here, I see. Channeling sanity. A: The President's race is not on his BC. His father is identified as "African". B: His father's citizenship is not identified. His birthplace is "Kenya, East Africa". C: PROVE IT. You're not "being arrogantly referred to as a "birther"" whoever has labelled you a "birther" is exercising extreme restraint. Ah, fuck, you guys beat me to it. [8D]

BitaTruble -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/12/2012 12:52:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CharmCityCpl May I remind you that two thirds is enough of a percentage to amend the Constitution, but not enough to even raise the question of impeachment! Your information is inaccurate. Congress can only propose an amendment, not change the Constitution. If 2/3 of both Houses agree to a proposal then the ratification process starts.. that's the beginning not the end otherwise ERA would be law and it's not. A question of impeachment can be raised by any single member or even a non-member of Congress. To actually impeach and start the process takes a simply majority to get it to trial stage.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

7.714844E-02