Calling all Birthers

[packsaddle]

Vol, the SSN proves nothing. Lots of people who immigrated to the US and are thus not allowed as a presidential candidate have SSN's. Non-citizens can get social security numbers. It proves nothing.

Have you READ the legislation? I mean really...a certificate of circumcision? Come ONNN!

 

BS-87, I am asking, as I mentioned in the OP, if there ARE any forum members who ARE 'birthers'?

If debate is of interest that is good too. I have no expectation that debating someone who is a 'birther' is going to be any more successful than debating someone who is a young-earth creationist. I'm just curious to see if anyone is willing to make the claim.

 

What I WOULD find even more interesting is if someone who IS, say, sympathetic to the 'birther' idea would state 1) that they could be persuaded by evidence, and 2) what kind of evidence it would take to persuade them.

[sherminator505]

IS it a legitimate debate?! If so, explain away the birth notice!

[BS-87]

I'm not a "birther" because I CAN be persuaded by facts.

 

As Trump has been saying though, if our POTUS was not born in Honolulu, this is the most devious and earthshaking scam, fraud, and cover-up of our time.

 

Would I put it past either of our evil parties, not really.

 

Do I think they'd waste their time, not really.

 

 

Unfortunately, people who argue eligibility like myself are lumped into the same group as those who deny facts. I'm not arguing facts, I'm arguing interpretations.

[vol_scouter]

So John, if the requirement to determine eligibility in Arizona was placed into hands of many, Governor Brewer would sign it? Seems like a better approach than a single possibly partisan person.

 

I have had to produce a copy of a long form birth certificate before and in order to be president, I see many good reasons to require the same and none not to do so. Once again, I believe that Obama was born in Hawaii.

 

From what I have read, in order to attend his school in Indonesia, Obama's mother changed his name to Barry Soetoro and had to renounce his citizenship since Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship. If this is true, then where is the record here in the US that he regained his citizenship? Seems to me that such matters should have been clear and totally in the open for him to run for president. It also brings up the scenario that should it be alright to give up one's USA citizenship and regain it at another time and still be president? The constitution does not address this to my knowledge. It seems to me that such issues have demonstrated a need to have a more thorough and open system to show the background of presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Should not the speaker of the house also need to meet the same requirements in case something happened to both? This is not meant as an attack on Obama but rather a comment on how the system is not well defined (good example - what does natural born mean?) and too fraught with possible loose ends. So going forward, as a nation we should learn from this and setup a better system.

[packsaddle]

According to what I read of her quote, she DIDN'T want to place that decision in the hands of a "single possibly partisan person." So that, among other things, was the reason she vetoed it.

 

I guess I don't have a long form certificate. When I checked, neither does any member of my family. None of us ever received anything other than the 'short form'. Oh well....

Interestingly, NOT A SINGLE PERSON born in Arizona after 1997 has one either. They did away with the long forms and keep all their records in digital format only.

 

Edit: Yikes! Other states went 'paperless' as well. We dodged a bullet! We could have ended up with NO candidates for office. H'mmmm...wait a minute....thinking....hey, we NEED that law!!(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[The Blancmange]

You're all wrong!

 

He's not Kenyan, not Muslim, not even Hawiian.

 

He's the reincarnation of the Mayan god Quatzequatel

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-7-2011/barack-obamayan

 

[vol_scouter]

In my home state, they have kept the long forms at least for my children (all grown). One of them had to produce a lng form. The electronic style forms, e.g. Obama's, are unfortunately easier to 'fake' than paper. That is the curse of the electronic age - for the convenience we give up some security.

 

I still believe that for president, vice-president, and speaker of the house should have many records inspected and made public so that such issues are unlikely to come up in the future. The definition of natural born needs to be spelled out clearly. My reading as to the interpretation agrees with BS-87 and is opposite that of CalicoPenn. I do not have the time or energy to do primary source reading to determine this definitively for myself. It is an important idea that should be clarified in clear and concise language in an Amendment.

[JoeBob]

acksaddle,

 

I guess you're gonna have to define what a 'Birther' is.

You'll notice, if you read my response closely, that I think that there is some information on the birth certificate being hidden. That line of argument has to assume that the birth certificate exists, does it not?

Do I want Obama to be a non-citizen? Heck no! Imagine what kind of a mess that would make out of every law he's signed, and every soldier who has died under his watch. The nattering nabobs would bore us for years!

 

Thanks for the link to the photos.

1- Every photo shown is a close up of some document from some file. They are never shown together, so we don't know

a) If it's a birth certificate.

b) Whose birth certificate it is.

c) If all the photos are even from the same document.

2- Why is there not one single picture of the entire form so that a person can read all that is on the form?.

 

You bypassed Brent's question earlier: Why does the governor who promised he'd publish the document, not give us that one picture that would put it all to rest?

 

I guess I should thank you for strengthening my conspiracy theory.

 

Thanks!

 

 

[JoeBob]

Okay; I looked closer.

 

The form that Fact Check

(Anneberg Foundation? Fact checking Democrats? Hah!)

is so proud of was printed in 2007.

(Good thing since Arial font wasn't published until '82 and Obama was born in '67.)

 

What is on the orginal form that could possibly be so bad?

[evmori]

Is a working knowledge of hyperbole possible?

 

I'm not a "birther" because I CAN be persuaded by facts.

 

Good for you! One would hope actual verifiable facts would set one straight.

 

Personally, I this topic makes me giggle!

[perdidochas]

Beavah,

 

The Constitution made provisions for those born before the Constitution was ratified. G Washington, etc., were allowed to be president per the Constitution.

"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."

 

 

 

I'm not a birther by far. I think it's a ridiculous idea (and honestly, the Clinton political machine would have dug up any information on this). There is no doubt that Obama's mother was an American citizen. I doubt very much that Obama renounced his citizenship as an adult, and it seems to e sketchy legal grounds to imply that if his parent's renounced his citizenship. That said, I think it's an extremely cynical political ploy on Obama's side to keep allowing the birthers to seem like moonbats, when he could stop this in about 5 minutes. I'm tired of hearing about the issue, and wish Obama would simply release the documents.

 

[packsaddle]

JoeBob, mine was printed 27 years after I was born. Guess I'm suspect. I checked. If I apply for a copy of the 'long form', guess what I'm going to get? A printed form using the data from a computer file, stamped 'printed in 2011'. My mother may have been correct after all.

I used to say (before DNA technology spoiled everything) that paternity is always in doubt. I suppose I could now switch to birthplace. We never really know for sure, do we?

 

[Kahuna]

I'm not a "birther," although I'm not altogether sure he was born in Hawaii. The birth announcements only prove that his grandparents wanted to get his name out there. However, something is wrong with Obama's history and the problem is one of his own making.

 

First (and speaking as a former Hawaii resident), a Certificate of Live Birth is very easy to get in Hawaii. It doesn't prove that you are born there. Why doesn't he simply produce the original and end the issue?

 

Next, this is not the only bit of Obama history that is missing or not available. He never released any of his college records. Why not? Could it be because he was there under a different name? He was known as Barry Soetero for some years and lived in Indonesia under that name where he claimed Indonesian citizenship. The Constitution doesn't address the issue of native or natural born citizens who take other citizenship - Indonesia doesn't recognize dual citizenship.

 

There are a number of other issues (such as why nobody who went to school with him remembers him), but I hope you see my point. Something here is hidden and we don't know what it is. He could simply end it by producing all this stuff, but he won't.

 

 

[scoutingagain]

Suggest some folks check the date on the news story that broke the Barry S. story.

 

April 1, 2009.

 

SA

 

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/occidental.asp

 

 

 

[packsaddle]

I guess I can blame myself. Maybe I should have specified 'avowed' birthers in the subject line. But I didn't. And just like those other people who might be reluctant to 'avow', we'll never know for sure how many 'closet' birthers there are, will we?

 

However, unlike those others of the 'unavowed', what's the problem with taking that bold stand with regard to the President's nationality? Either you accept the 'short form' certificate or you don't. If you accept it then I guess like some of the rest of us, we take it on faith that the document is sufficient, time to move on.

If someone questions whether the 'short form' is sufficient, I wonder why they don't just go ahead and take that bold stance? What is wrong with stating out loud...that which you honestly think?

 

I get called all sorts of names and I'm OK with that. Right here in these forums I've been associated with Che Guevara, communists, outright called homosexual and asked to resign, I've been...ok...those were accurate...but you get the point. I'm not bleeding. I'm still about to enjoy a wonderful lunch with friends. It's no big deal to get labeled with some name. Is there some desire NOT to be associated with certain persons who DO claim to be 'birthers'?

What happened to 'Brave' in the Scout Law?

I recognize that 'decisive' is not in the Scout Law. Perhaps we're still trying to decide?

 

At any rate, I thought Jan Brewer's veto was interesting and wanted to read the competing thoughts on the subject. Thanks.