Merged Obama Birth Certificate Released

[Alferd_Packer]

The intent of the rule is pretty clear. It's to stop people born overseas from being president. That happens to be the letter of the rule as well.

Wrong.

The intent of the rule was to prevent those who were not citizens at birth from becoming president. There is no prohibition against people born overseas, as long as they are citizens at birth.

A critical but important difference.

 

[Dancing David]

Where did I say any such thing?

I already said that Obama's American birth was comprehensively proven long before the election. What I was arguing with was the suggestion that this proof wasn't necessary or important.

Okay, I misunderstood.

But what proof would be needed?

 

[westprog]

Okay, I misunderstood.

But what proof would be needed?

His birth certificate - which was provided, long before the election.

Whether or not Obama was eligible to be president is a non-issue. He is. However, that doesn't mean that it isn't important to establish that a candidate is eligible.

It may well be that I misstated the grounds for eligibility - I'm not an expert on the matter. That's of no import to my point, however, which is that whatever the grounds for eligibility, however foolish they may seem, they must be adhered to.

 

[westprog]

Wrong.

The intent of the rule was to prevent those who were not citizens at birth from becoming president. There is no prohibition against people born overseas, as long as they are citizens at birth.

A critical but important difference.

An important correction as to the facts, which I may well have misstated - but it doesn't affect my point, which is that whatever the requirements of the law, they must be adhered to.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It may well be that I misstated the grounds for eligibility - I'm not an expert on the matter. That's of no import to my point, however, which is that whatever the grounds for eligibility, however foolish they may seem, they must be adhered to.

Isn't that point about as necessary to make as those who want to make sure Wisconsin never adopts sharia law?

The FEC seems well able to make sure federal eligibility requirements are adhered to without the help of the Birther movement or unconstitutional state Birther laws. (I realize the term "unconstitutional state Birther laws" is redundant.)

 

[leftysergeant]

Like this one, maybe?

For extra fun, compare the name of the person who wrote the review with the name of the author of the book.

I notice that the blithering twit makes the assumptiuon that, because British law would automaticly make Obama a British subject because his father was a British subject. Somebody please tell that stupid bimbo that we fought a war to establish that British family law has nothing to do with the citizenship of any person born on our soil.

 

[westprog]

Isn't that point about as necessary to make as those who want to make sure Wisconsin never adopts sharia law?

The FEC seems well able to make sure federal eligibility requirements are adhered to without the help of the Birther movement or unconstitutional state Birther laws. (I realize the term "unconstitutional state Birther laws" is redundant.)

I mentioned it because Travis suggested that the Birthers were being vindictive in insisting that the president be legally elected. That's not what's wrong with the Birthers - it's that they feel that someone with an African father must have done something illegal somehow. They refuse to accept the evidence that he clearly was legally elected. Clearly the eligibility of a candidate for federal office is best decided at federal level. The local laws are a nonsense. However, continuing to elect the president on the system devised for a horse and cart society is a bit odd in itself.

 

[A'isha]

Oh, that reminds me.

Found Miki Booth's receipt for the March 15, 2011 certified long form yet?

EDIT: As soon as possible, can you post it in this thread. You know, where you said she had shown it? Thanks!

He's not the one that provided the receipt. I suspect you know that and are lying.

"He"? He who? Who are you talking about? I'm talking about Miki Booth. You do know who Miki Booth is, right?

Miyuki Booth, nee Snyder. Failed candidate for congress, pathetic liar, and contributor of birther nonsense to the crackpot seditionist cesspool that is The Post and Email. She's the one who provided the certified long form dated March 15, 2011 that you showed in post 322 of this very thread.

Back on April 10th, Miki Booth claimed that that certificate was obtained by "a friend of mine" (who presumably either sent her the certificate, or sent her the picture of the certificate).

You said in post 325 that "she" had receipts. Six posts later, you said:

Wrong. She showed the receipt for that document. You are just making stuff, as usual, such as insisting Obama could not obtain and release his long-form birth certificate.

So...this is the fourth time I'm asking you, randman. Where did she show the receipt for that March 15, 2011 document that her "friend" sent her?

EDIT: Oh, look. Miki Booth just can't stop lying.

 

[Dancing David]

His birth certificate - which was provided, long before the election.

Whether or not Obama was eligible to be president is a non-issue. He is. However, that doesn't mean that it isn't important to establish that a candidate is eligible.

It may well be that I misstated the grounds for eligibility - I'm not an expert on the matter. That's of no import to my point, however, which is that whatever the grounds for eligibility, however foolish they may seem, they must be adhered to.

Which is great, I just wanted clarification because of thread flow.

I think the issue taht many of us have, and this is not the point you made, is that Obama did meet the legal requirements. Which is what you said.

I wasn't sure because of thread flow, I did not think you were saying that Obama should meet the demonds of a vocal bunch of kooks labelled 'the american people' by some in this thread. But I wanted to check.

 

[Travis]

I mentioned it because Travis suggested that the Birthers were being vindictive in insisting that the president be legally elected. That's not what's wrong with the Birthers - it's that they feel that someone with an African father must have done something illegal somehow. They refuse to accept the evidence that he clearly was legally elected. Clearly the eligibility of a candidate for federal office is best decided at federal level. The local laws are a nonsense. However, continuing to elect the president on the system devised for a horse and cart society is a bit odd in itself.

No, what I was insisting was that the framers of the Constitution never envisioned this type of scenario. The intent of that rule was to prevent some rich British Nobel from Immigrating to the USA, using his wealth to obtain the Presidency and then merge the USA back with Britain.

That was their fear. That was what they wanted to prevent. What they were not trying to prevent was someone who might have been out of the country for only a few weeks as an infant from ever being President. Though strictly adhering to the letter of the law would make that so even if it is ridiculous and stupid.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

That was their fear. That was what they wanted to prevent. What they were not trying to prevent was someone who might have been out of the country for only a few weeks as an infant from ever being President. Though strictly adhering to the letter of the law would make that so even if it is ridiculous and stupid.

Actually, they set it up so that the location if the candidate as a monor is completely irrelevent.

Age of majority: 21 years
Residency requirment: 14 years
total: 35 years
minimum age: 36 years.

 

[Tricky]

You know, there could be a president who was not born a US citizen. Althought the requirements for vice-president are the same as they are for president, the third in line is Speaker of the House, and a US Representative need only have been a citizen for seven years.

So this whole "must be a US citizen" is pretty much a smoke screen. Heck, I know a lot of conservatives that were bemoaning that particular rule back when they wanted Henry Kissinger to be able to run for President. Their current outrage is so dishonest. I'm betting that four years ago, the vast majority of Birthers had no idea what the qualifications for president were. I'm betting that if you polled them now, a sizable percentage couldn't tell you what the age requirement is.

ETA: By the way, what did Trump's "fact finding mission" turn up? At one point he said he had found some "interesting" things. I'll be he meant that he was interested to discover that he'd been wrong all along.

 

[headscratcher4]

Indeed, back when he was a popular governor, there were more than a few GOPers in California who were talking about why the Contitutional requirement of U.S. birth should be done away with so that Arnooold colt rhun. Of course, when his polling numbers crashed, that talk vent kahpoot.

 

[westprog]

Which is great, I just wanted clarification because of thread flow.

I think the issue taht many of us have, and this is not the point you made, is that Obama did meet the legal requirements. Which is what you said.

I wasn't sure because of thread flow, I did not think you were saying that Obama should meet the demonds of a vocal bunch of kooks labelled 'the american people' by some in this thread. But I wanted to check.

No problem - everybody on the thread is arguing for something different, and it's often difficult to figure out what everyone is arguing for.

 

[westprog]

No, what I was insisting was that the framers of the Constitution never envisioned this type of scenario. The intent of that rule was to prevent some rich British Nobel from Immigrating to the USA, using his wealth to obtain the Presidency and then merge the USA back with Britain.

That was their fear. That was what they wanted to prevent. What they were not trying to prevent was someone who might have been out of the country for only a few weeks as an infant from ever being President. Though strictly adhering to the letter of the law would make that so even if it is ridiculous and stupid.

So why stick to what was set up by a group of fallible human beings a couple of hundred years ago? Why not just change the rules?

Trying to guess what their intentions might have been and to extrapolate from that how the law should be reinterpreted is a very odd way to go about things. Especially since I'm fairly confident that a substantial number of those Southern slave-owners might well have found the prospect of a half-African president even more worrisome than a British loyalist.

 

[BenBurch]

Indeed, back when he was a popular governor, there were more than a few GOPers in California who were talking about why the Contitutional requirement of U.S. birth should be done away with so that Arnooold colt rhun. Of course, when his polling numbers crashed, that talk vent kahpoot.

He would have made a better President than any of the current pack of GOP hopefuls.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

<snip> However, if Obama really had been born in Kenya, and faked evidence, then it would be a very serious matter indeed, and should disqualify him from being president forthwith.
<snip>

Of course your hypothetical assumes that HE knew about it and that HE concealed it.

It also assumes no one from the state he presented a forged birth certificate from would come forward to say they have no record of his birth and that the FEC is incapable of checking up on these things. I find it improbable to the point of nearly impossible that someone not legally eligible would be elected POTUS.

 

[Upchurch]

I've lost track of this thread. Is anyone still arguing that there is something bogus about this or the first birth certificate?

 

[CORed]

... and christian?

And, do you have any foreign or muslim sounding names?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And, do you have any foreign or muslim sounding names?

As opposed to American-sounding names like Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse?

Our country is, and always has been, a pluralistic society. It's not unusual for natural born citizens to have "foreign sounding" names (for any arbitrary definition of "foreign sounding").


And what exactly is a "muslim sounding" name? A Muslim is someone who professes to be a member of the Islam faith, and it is not an ethnicity. Even so, natural born citizens who are Muslims or who convert to Islam isn't unusual either. Indeed, the Constitution specifically forbids any religious test for public office. If the idea is to give greater scrutiny or additional requirements for a candidate of a certain religion, such a practice would be un-Constitutional and un-American.