Trump sends investigators to Hawaii to look into Obama !!

reply to post by anon72


I support this effort, but I wish he'd stop saying "You can't be president if you aren't born in this country".

If both of your parents are US citizens, and you are born outside of the United States...you can be president. This was the very reason McCain was asked to show his BC, and he did...promptly. He was properly vetted and approved to run for POTUS.

The legislature in a rare fit of common sense decided that the Founding Fathers wouldn't disqualify someone merely for being born even one foot outside US soil, if both of his parents are US citizens. McCain's status, like all children born on foreign military bases is "US citizen born abroad".

The problem is if one of your parents is not a US citizen. Obama's father was a British Subject, making Obama a British Subject at birth, and unqualified to be president. (can't have the british ruling america again)

reply to post by Sinnthia


Sinnthia, you make some very good arguments, and you are perfectly justified in narrowing the argument about Obama down to the very specific, relavent points, and you are correct that I have not addressed those directly enough. The fact is, I am not a rabid birther, and I am exhausted of the argument. I have made better arguments, with more specific quotes, links, and docs in other threads, but I do not feel like rehashing it again. This is an argument that neither side can win definitively.

Today, I might be off my game a little, I was posting each time I walked through the family room, while a party is going on around the pool, deck, and kitchen. I have also had quite a few beers, and quite a lot of bikini distraction.

I do commend your argument style.

One thing you have changed my mind about today is this: If the short form is an official document, and it officially certifies that he was born in Hawaii, then we have to accept it. If we don't accept it, then it means we don't trust the state of Hawaii. You have convinced me that we should accept the short form, but with this caveat, if we have to accept it for POTUS, then every Federal and State agency also has to accept it. We cannot have different sets of rules for different folks.

BUT, the fact that this argument is still raging in the press and political circles, means that we have an obvious gap in our procedure. I believe we need a specific set of published guidelines, which documents are acceptable, who is responsible for receiving those documents, and the time frame that it must be completed in. If a short form is acceptable, then fine.


I am a little tipsy and sunburnt right now, but I will research the REAL ID act tomorrow. Perhaps the guidelines in that act will satisfy everyone if they are adopted by all agencies?

TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT LOL

reply to post by getreadyalready

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Sinnthia
Today, I might be off my game a little, I was posting each time I walked through the family room, while a party is going on around the pool, deck, and kitchen. I have also had quite a few beers, and quite a lot of bikini distraction. I do commend your argument style.

Translation: I’m buzzed, partying and a significant amount of blood is lacking from my brain as it is satisfying a another vital body part. I’m not sure who has a party and posts in an ongoing forum? I’m mean posting on ATS is kinda like riding a jet ski. It’s actually quite fun but you just wouldn’t want your friends to catch you doing it.

Anywho that is the most interesting back pedal I have ever seen. Nice one. You should consider yourself lucky tough, as I posted in Which ATS member(s) would you most like to have dinner with?

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Sinnthia. Brains, wit and ability to logically eviscerate an opponent with a dull butter knife.

Just be glad they haven’t started serving the dinner rolls yet.


But seriously nice way to acquiesce with a iota of dignity in tact.

I thought he was elected to be the scapegoat from the start. That's why I voted him. We're blaming everything on him aren't we?

reply to post by Sinnthia


-----------
Okay, sinnthia, then why don't you explain it to me? This is what you wrote:

"..Seeing as how so many of our early presidents fathers were born in a different country, your claim that they clearly meant to exclude people such as themselves from holding that office is specious at best..."

I took specious to mean insincere, deceptive. I am aware it can also mean apparent. I made no such claim that they "meant to exclude people such as themselves"--in fact, I am saying the opposite!

Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by Habit4ming

 

How am I to read this: "No person except a natural born citizen, OR a citizen of the United States............." What does the "or" mean?

The phrase that starts with OR is where our forefathers grandfathered themselves...since they knew they were not "natural born citizens"...

The Birth certificates locked to only Obama?
How do police and so forth access these records then when chasing criminals?

If indeed there is nothing to hide, why hide it?

Obama has publically been challenged now, by an influential person and someone who is running for president.
If he still refuses to prove his Birth then I say he's a fraud.

People argue he doesn't have to show anything, this is true.

But the rules clearly state he must be born in the USA, MUST being the main word here.
His birth certificate is required document needed to fulfil this demand.
Question have been raised, people are now asking on air, if he serves the people they deserve an answer.
.. if he has nothing to hide, why is he hiding it when the people want an answer.

I really have no opinion on if he is, or if he isnt I dont know either way.
But if he isnt, he shouldnt be there, if he is, then i think everyone should shut up and focus on something else.

But the longer he refuses to answer the question the more doubts I have about him.

reply to post by anon72

I don't really care what they find, Obama never represented me and has confirmed time and again he doesn't believe in our Constitution, Bill of Rights or grasp the first thing about American Culture or what Liberty is all about.

Originally posted by Byteman
The legislature in a rare fit of common sense decided that the Founding Fathers wouldn't disqualify someone merely for being born even one foot outside US soil, if both of his parents are US citizens.

But birthers have determined that the Founding Fathers would disqualify someone merely for having one parent who isn't a US citizen, even though it has been done several times before and even though Obama was born ON US soil... Is that what you're trying to pass off here?

That someone born OUTSIDE the US, as McCain was, IS qualified, but someone born INSIDE the US is NOT qualified, because one of his parents wasn't a US citizen...Is that really what you're suggesting?

Four presidents had parents who were born in another country. Do you think if the Founding Fathers had meant to exclude presidents based on their parents citizenship, they would have allowed these presidencies?

James Buchanan (1857-1861) father was born in Ireland and a citizen of Ireland at the time of James' birth..
Chester Arthur (1881-1885) fathers.was Irish.
Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) mother was born in England.
Herbert Hoover (1929-1933) mother was born Canada.

James Buchanan is the one president who shares circumstances with Obama. His father was a citizen of a foreign country when James was born. His father did not become a US citizen, because he did not become a citizen of Pennsylvania.

If the framers intended to exclude Obama, why didn't they exclude Buchanan?

Source

The problem is if one of your parents is not a US citizen. Obama's father was a British Subject, making Obama a British Subject at birth, and unqualified to be president.

Where do you get the information that a person with dual citizenship at birth is unqualified to be president? Please post.

This assumes Obama was born in Hawaii, but by virtue of his FATHER'S citizenship, was a British citizen and that somehow strips the FACT that he was born ON US SOIL. There is no such law or statute. In fact, the opposite is true. Even if he WAS a British citizen, there is no way that could strip his "natural-born" status, assuming he was born in Hawaii.

Being born inside the United States makes one a natural-born citizen. Children of illegal immigrants, born here, are natural-born citizens. So, any extenuating circumstances (like the citizenship of your father) CANNOT strip the "natural-born citizenship" status.

Speaking as an independent, all this does is further fracture the republican party and benefit the democrats. So ask yourself, who's side is he really on.

reply to post by ezwip


Yes. EVERYTHING... Except slavery.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
The Birth certificates locked to only Obama?

What does that mean?

How do police and so forth access these records then when chasing criminals?

They don't.

But the rules clearly state he must be born in the USA, MUST being the main word here.
His birth certificate is required document needed to fulfil this demand.

And he has shown his birth certificate. It says he was born in Hawaii. Why isn't that proof to you?

But the longer he refuses to answer the question the more doubts I have about him.

He answered the question. Many times. If he answers it and people keep asking, what is he supposed to do?

Originally posted by randomname
obama should retaliate and send an irs agent to look into his tax records.

he should also send agents to look into his business dealings and corporate tax filings.

that should shut up trump.

So the President is a "mafia Don" who can send in publicly funded law enfrorcement "kneebreakers" to harass all who oppose him? What planet are you from? The president Is not a "king" or potentate"and clearly not above the law.
why should he be able to wield the power of the u.sfederal govt to attack citizens for his benefit ?

It just bedazzles me that so many people are wasting time on this issue! It appears to me that his birthplace is not the issue at all, and you know what I am talking about. People hate him for absolutely no reason but one, and his birthplace has got nothing whatever to do with it. Really, there is basically no freedom or equality in the US, and anybody who thinks there is had got their head in the sand. Besides which, if an immigrant to the US can't be President, why don't you guys give the country back to the people it really belongs to - the Native Americans that you stole it from?

look for a soul or brain for himself or just looking for a new wig.

reply to post by anon72


Why is he so sure that Obama wasn't born in this country? I sense a bit of racism. Also on a side note did I read that he spent 2 million dollars on this? That 2 million dollars could have been used to help feed people or help the unfortunate in other parts of the world.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I think the Trump will release the results either way.

I hope you're right.

Personally, I think he might be a genious, and I wasn't a big fan of his before he started this presidential talk, but he is quickly winning me over!

Oh, no!

If he does become president, I hope he handles the economy better than he has handled his own finances.

Originally posted by IHEARTBACON

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I think the Trump will release the results either way.

I hope you're right.

Personally, I think he might be a genious, and I wasn't a big fan of his before he started this presidential talk, but he is quickly winning me over!

Oh, no!

If he does become president, I hope he handles the economy better than he has handled his own finances.

edit on 11-4-2011 by IHEARTBACON because: This is my first post, but I thought I would put my two cents in on the whole Trump topic. I read his book "The Art of the Deal" years ago and I remember him talking about filing for bankruptcy. He never personally filed for bankruptcy one of his many businesses did. It was for purely business reasons not because he mismanaged his personal finances. By filing bankruptcy he made alot of money and was able to restructure the business to run better and become more profitable. The book is actually really well written and in my opinion Trump is a very smart business man. I am not sure what I think about his possibilty as a candidate but can't be any worse then what we have now. ANyway I would reocommend the book to anyone, especially if you are business minded or are self employed. Good stuff!

reply to post by IHEARTBACON


This is my first post, but I thought I would put my two cents in on the whole Trump topic. I read his book "The Art of the Deal" years ago and I remember him talking about filing for bankruptcy. He never personally filed for bankruptcy one of his many businesses did. It was for purely business reasons not because he mismanaged his personal finances. By filing bankruptcy he made alot of money and was able to restructure the business to run better and become more profitable. The book is actually really well written and in my opinion Trump is a very smart business man. I am not sure what I think about his possibilty as a candidate but can't be any worse then what we have now. ANyway I would reocommend the book to anyone, especially if you are business minded or are self employed. Good stuff!