Who said that? I said "Dems are embracing it behind the scenes." The more birther movement stuff the better for Obama.

(01-26-2011 10:16 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I thought that it was decided that Presidential eligibilty was not a state issue?

Better legal eagles than I will quickly weigh in on this, and my guess is that these types of legislation will go nowhere.

But who goes on the ballot *is* a state issue... Sure you can do a write in mode if BO is not on the ballot but different states have different requirements for who is on the Ballots.

AZ is not attempting to define a candidate as eligible they are merely asking for proof before they go on the state Ballot..

(01-26-2011 10:59 AM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  That's a conversation you had with NIUHuskie84 about Rahm, but I'll answer it anyways, considering he's the ex-senator of my state, and the president of my country, it's clearly an issue for me.

$#!+ there's two of you w/ nearly identical monikers? No wonder I get confused. Ok, sorry about the confusion.

And Rebel, I believe you should, and I believe he's proven his citizenship so it's a non-issue for me.
[/quote]

That's what's sad. The Gov of Hawaii wouldn't be looking up the data if there had been proof. The fact that Obama continues to hide his records shows he's proven nothing about his citizenship, but rather it proves that he holds laws in disdain.
He's proven nothing, yet people go based on feelings.

DrTorch, understood on the confusion, they are very similar, that's why I didn't make a big deal of it.

(01-26-2011 11:13 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-26-2011 10:16 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I thought that it was decided that Presidential eligibilty was not a state issue?

Better legal eagles than I will quickly weigh in on this, and my guess is that these types of legislation will go nowhere.

But who goes on the ballot *is* a state issue... Sure you can do a write in mode if BO is not on the ballot but different states have different requirements for who is on the Ballots.

AZ is not attempting to define a candidate as eligible they are merely asking for proof before they go on the state Ballot..

Ahhh, I see. Each state gets to make their own rules about who gets on the ballot in their elections.

The person responsible for vetting and certifying BO as eligible for president was Nancy Pelosi. Now that is one batsh!t B!tch. Just last night she said BO created more private sector jobs in 2 years than Bush did in 8. She said BO was a moderate. She wouldn't know the truth if it sat in her lap and called her mama. But you Dims still want her as your leader. How silly and insane is that. We want you guys to continue to throw down with that dame.

I still don't understand those who continue to say "I chose to believe, therefore... proof."

(01-26-2011 12:59 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I still don't understand those who continue to say "I chose to believe, therefore... proof."

And some people simply think the rules don't apply to them.

Their proof, a birth announcement in the local newspaper which could have been placed by the Grandparents or Parents. Proof? NO NO NO, Not!!! A certification of birth is not proof either because the parents or grandparents just had to fill out a application and was issued regardless of where anyone was born. Adults coulg get a C of B. And the pea brains won't even consider the legal questions concerning the fact that his father was a British subject, which by itself may mean he is not a natural born citizen. They love to confuse the issue by equating citizen as the same as natural born citizen. Only an idiot would continue to make that argument but it is still a common statement. These jackwagons don't want to know the truth. Their ignorance is bliss.

(01-26-2011 02:55 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Their proof, a birth announcement in the local newspaper which could have been placed by the Grandparents or Parents. Proof? NO NO NO, Not!!! A certification of birth is not proof either because the parents or grandparents just had to fill out a application and was issued regardless of where anyone was born. Adults coulg get a C of B. And the pea brains won't even consider the legal questions concerning the fact that his father was a British subject, which by itself may mean he is not a natural born citizen. They love to confuse the issue by equating citizen as the same as natural born citizen. Only an idiot would continue to make that argument but it is still a common statement. These jackwagons don't want to know the truth. Their ignorance is bliss.

If the whole un-abridged birth certificate is made public, will you accept the document? If the courts rule that he is a natural born citizen, will you accept it?

Or will that unfortunately just be more proof of the conspiracy?

(01-26-2011 03:00 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(01-26-2011 02:55 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Their proof, a birth announcement in the local newspaper which could have been placed by the Grandparents or Parents. Proof? NO NO NO, Not!!! A certification of birth is not proof either because the parents or grandparents just had to fill out a application and was issued regardless of where anyone was born. Adults coulg get a C of B. And the pea brains won't even consider the legal questions concerning the fact that his father was a British subject, which by itself may mean he is not a natural born citizen. They love to confuse the issue by equating citizen as the same as natural born citizen. Only an idiot would continue to make that argument but it is still a common statement. These jackwagons don't want to know the truth. Their ignorance is bliss.

If the whole un-abridged birth certificate is made public, will you accept the document? If the courts rule that he is a natural born citizen, will you accept it?

Unfortunately, that will just be more proof of the conspiracy, right?

Even in the past few days I've read tenuous theories about Obama's birth, who his father is, etc. Some use absence as evidence, some take twisted interpretations of Obama's book as "proof."

So there are crazy ideas out there.

But the fact remains that Obama has not been forthcoming w/ clear evidence of his birth in the US, or any other records (like college transcripts). It indicates he has a clear disdain for law, and is pushing his (socialist) agenda regardless. And none of this is in contrast to his political philosophy, so why should that be considered a fringe theory?

If the long-form birth certificate suddenly appears, it would solve this. But yeah, I admit I'll be skeptical if it's the real thing, or one that Dan Rather printed up the night before.

(01-26-2011 03:06 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-26-2011 03:00 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(01-26-2011 02:55 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Their proof, a birth announcement in the local newspaper which could have been placed by the Grandparents or Parents. Proof? NO NO NO, Not!!! A certification of birth is not proof either because the parents or grandparents just had to fill out a application and was issued regardless of where anyone was born. Adults coulg get a C of B. And the pea brains won't even consider the legal questions concerning the fact that his father was a British subject, which by itself may mean he is not a natural born citizen. They love to confuse the issue by equating citizen as the same as natural born citizen. Only an idiot would continue to make that argument but it is still a common statement. These jackwagons don't want to know the truth. Their ignorance is bliss.

If the whole un-abridged birth certificate is made public, will you accept the document? If the courts rule that he is a natural born citizen, will you accept it?

Unfortunately, that will just be more proof of the conspiracy, right?

Even in the past few days I've read tenuous theories about Obama's birth, who his father is, etc. Some use absence as evidence, some take twisted interpretations of Obama's book as "proof."

So there are crazy ideas out there.

But the fact remains that Obama has not been forthcoming w/ clear evidence of his birth in the US, or any other records (like college transcripts). It indicates he has a clear disdain for law, and is pushing his (socialist) agenda regardless. And none of this is in contrast to his political philosophy, so why should that be considered a fringe theory?

If the long-form birth certificate suddenly appears, it would solve this. But yeah, I admit I'll be skeptical if it's the real thing, or one that Dan Rather printed up the night before.

Yes I will accept it. I have always said that I want the truth. Where ever that leads us. I have accepted the total failure of our federal gov't. The union will be strengthened in the end in the distant future. But the questions keep piling up. They need answers, this is not the Kennedy assignations. This is not a conspiracy theory.

Why has BO paid lawyers around 2 million dollars to keep his information secret? Where is his American passport? Why does he have a SS# issued from Conn. where he never resided?

And Why does RAHM manage to get a state SC stay in 24 hours concerning his eligibility to be mayor, and the American people are still waiting for the SCOTUS to even acknowledge the questions about BO constitutional eligibility? Especially now since his 2 appointees would have to recuse themselves.

It's tyranny if we are not a country of laws enforced equally and blindly.

(01-26-2011 03:00 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  If the whole un-abridged birth certificate is made public, will you accept the document? If the courts rule that he is a natural born citizen, will you accept it?

Or will that unfortunately just be more proof of the conspiracy?

Depends on the court. If it's this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...th_Circuit


Hell to the naw.

(01-26-2011 03:00 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(01-26-2011 02:55 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Their proof, a birth announcement in the local newspaper which could have been placed by the Grandparents or Parents. Proof? NO NO NO, Not!!! A certification of birth is not proof either because the parents or grandparents just had to fill out a application and was issued regardless of where anyone was born. Adults coulg get a C of B. And the pea brains won't even consider the legal questions concerning the fact that his father was a British subject, which by itself may mean he is not a natural born citizen. They love to confuse the issue by equating citizen as the same as natural born citizen. Only an idiot would continue to make that argument but it is still a common statement. These jackwagons don't want to know the truth. Their ignorance is bliss.

If the whole un-abridged birth certificate is made public, will you accept the document? If the courts rule that he is a natural born citizen, will you accept it?

Or will that unfortunately just be more proof of the conspiracy?

Courts woul dhave to ignore precident about what is and is not a natural born citizen (Slaughterhouse Cases, United States v. Wong Kim Ark)

As far as I am concerned three things have to happen to end this:

1) Long form has to be produced and vetted
2) Court has to for all time say what is and is not a natual born citizen
3) Court has to deal with Obama holding an Indonesian passort while in grade school... Does Indonesia allow dual citizenship? doe a child renouncing his citzenshp for another nation count?

If the birth certificate is released and or the court rules that a person born to one citizen is natural born no matter where they are born. And if its revelaed that a child can not renounce citizenship (or a parent can not do it on their behalf) then the issue is dead..

This all should have been done years ago..

(01-26-2011 08:57 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-26-2011 08:49 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  The smartest political move that Obama has made in office is not releasing his birth certificate. By not releasing it, he has let the Birthers get air time on an issue that the vast majority of the American people either don't care about or think is crazy.

Why? Obama has gained nothing from the experience. How is this "smart"?

He gained a diversion, albeit a small one, from what most Americans consider real issues he isnt dealing with.

10 states now developing eligibility-proof demands

107 Electoral College votes controlled by Arizona, Texas, Connecticut, other

Posted: January 26, 2011 7:50 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh 2011 WorldNetDaily

Read More: 10 states now developing eligibility-proof demands

Arizona may have the most advanced plan, but 10 of the United States – controlling 107 Electoral College votes – now are considering some type of legislation that would plug the hole in federal election procedures that in 2008 allowed Barack Obama to be nominated, elected and inaugurated without providing proof of his qualifications under the demands of the U.S. Constitution.

Quote:In Georgia, for example, HB37 by Rep. Bobby Franklin not only demands original birth-certificate documentation, it provides a procedure for and declares that citizens have "standing" to challenge the documentation.

Franklin told WND the least that leaders of the United States, on a state or federal level, can do is to follow the requirements of the law of the land.

His plan, he said, is needed because he saw "requirements in the Constitution that you don't have a code provision to ensure that it happens."

"If we as an entity of civil government don't follow the laws, then what makes us think that our citizens are going to obey anything we enact?" he said. "We need to lead by example."

Read more: 10 states now developing eligibility proof-demands