Subpoena Filed in D.C. Court for Hawaii Director of Health to Produce the ORIGINAL typewritten BC!

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

Originally posted by Sparky63

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by Sparky63

 

Natural born only means that the person was born on legal US soil and to try and say that both parents must be born stateside would disqualify the 6 others who came before him with at least 1 foreign born parent and if it didn't apply to them it clearly does not apply to Obama, wait I forgot, He's black and that is all they see.

I don't think anyone is claiming that both parents must be born stateside. Where did that come from?
Parents or parent must be US citizens though if I am not mistaken...It doesn't matter where they were born...For example, I don't think anyone is denying that Arnold Schwarzenegger's kids are natural born citizens and could run for president one day, even though Arnold was not born on US soil.

The kids are eligible but Arnie is not as he was born in Austria.

Exactly....So this issue is not whether both parents were born stateside as you said in your post. At least I have never heard anyone claim it to be so.

reply to post by Antiquated1


I know what vetted means. "Properly vetted" I guess, depends on ones point of view. What are the standards for a candidate to be properly vetted? If I am wrong I would like to be educated.

This may be the subject of a different thread. Feel free to U2 me if you like. I can always learn something new.

Originally posted by Antiquated1

Originally posted by Sparky63
I don't think anyone is claiming that both parents must be born stateside. Where did that come from?

Yes they are. Lots of people are. It has been stated all over ATS. Here is a recent example from just today.

Originally posted by MiloNickels
- how he can consider himself to be naturally born when his own cosigned resolution says that the subjects PARENTS (plural) must be american citizens.

Oddly, he is referring to the same McCain debacle you are so it would really help you guys out to get on the same page.

edit on 25-5-2011 by Antiquated1 because: (no reason given)

You may be confused...A person can be an American citizen although not born stateside. My mother is an American citizen and she was not born on this continent. Foreigners become US citizens every day. I could run for President even though my mother was not born "Stateside" She was a US citizen when I was born, and I was born in the US, therefore I am a Natural Born Citizen.

Whether she was born stateside or not means nothing.




I fail to see the purpose of this since John McCains parents were both US Citizens anyway. The vetting or lack of vetting of John McCain is not the issue of this thread. If I am not mistaken this is about Obama's BC and the "Subpoena"
that was supposedly issued.

Originally posted by Sparky63
What are the standards for a candidate to be properly vetted? If I am wrong I would like to be educated.

None. It has never been requested of any President or candidate to present a birth certificate. No President has ever publicly disclosed his birth certificate before an election, except Barack Obama.

You may be confused...A person can be an American citizen although not born stateside. ... I fail to see the purpose of this since John McCains parents were both US Citizens anyway.

Antiquated1 was talking about the Vattelists, a niche of birthers that endorse a natural born citizen definition that was never the law in the United States — they claim a natural born citizen is someone born in the United States and to two citizen parents.

I just read the pdf.
Did she just deny the request?
I don't any court order signed by a judge.
Just the lawyer asking for it.

Originally posted by Sparky63
You may be confused...A person can be an American citizen although not born stateside. My mother is an American citizen and she was not born on this continent. Foreigners become US citizens every day. I could run for President even though my mother was not born "Stateside" She was a US citizen when I was born, and I was born in the US, therefore I am a Natural Born Citizen.

No, I am not confused about anything but thank you.

Whether she was born stateside or not means nothing.

edit on 5/25/2011 by Sparky63 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/25/2011 by Sparky63 because: (no reason given)

You are rebutting a birther argument, not mine.

I fail to see the purpose of this since John McCains parents were both US Citizens anyway. The vetting or lack of vetting of John McCain is not the issue of this thread. If I am not mistaken this is about Obama's BC and the "Subpoena"
that was supposedly issued.

edit on 5/25/2011 by Sparky63 because: (no reason given)

Because what I quoted was specifically about Obama signing the resolution about McCain. Where did you get lost?

Originally posted by Sparky63
reply to post by Antiquated1

 

I know what vetted means. "Properly vetted" I guess, depends on ones point of view. What are the standards for a candidate to be properly vetted? If I am wrong I would like to be educated.

This may be the subject of a different thread. Feel free to U2 me if you like. I can always learn something new.

There are none, thus the questions that do arise.
Back to your original point.

Originally posted by Sparky63
Exactly....So this issue is not whether both parents were born stateside as you said in your post. At least I have never heard anyone claim it to be so.

I have. Immaculated1 has. A more useless argument to make I have yet to see than this.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
The implication is that both parents must be American citizens. What part of that do you not understand? What part of Barry's father not being American citizen, EVER, do you not understand. McCain was born in Panama while it was under US Jurisdiction. Kenya was never under US jurisdiction, but under British jurisdiction.

There is another birther making that argument you claim to have never heard. Now I gave you two examples and you dismissed the first. Why? Just admit, some people are in fact making that argument. It seems like a silly thing to argue about.

Originally posted by soleprobe
So they got about a month to ramp up WWIII
or some other major event.

You mean thawing out Osama Bin Laden and dumping him the ocean without any photos wasn't good enough to quell the Birther issue???

The gig is up for Obama and his forgery friends. It is as simple as that. I don't think even WWIII is going to change that. Considering that Obama doesn't even know what year it is (2008 or 2011) as per his signing the guest registry in England makes you have to wonder if the guy is TOTALLY out of touch with reality. He is pretty much a prop at this point for a few communist handlers. My question is what is planned when it is finally admitted that Obama was a forged president! ??!! Will they create another nationwide riot incident by upsetting blacks and radical liberals who might feel disenfranchised by Obama being held as a criminal? Would that be a prelude to WWIII, and a real bad one geared toward the US to take advantage of the chaos????

Originally posted by stalphos
The first page of that PDF document says that the subpoena request was denied in it's entirety.

State law prohibits the department from disclosing any vital statistics records or information contained in such records unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record or otherwise allowed by statute or administrative rule. See HRS §338-18. Direct and tangible interest is determined by HRS §338-18 (b).

For these reasons, your request received on May 9, 2011 is being denied in its entirety.

Ummmm did anyone read this?! FAIL! So true american care to give us a new topic on the B.C.?

Originally posted by Thunder heart woman
reply to post by EagleTalonZ

 

I too am offended by Barack and Michelle continuing to look the other way while so many Americans suffer as they go on their extravagant vacations and Michelle dresses in designer clothing. What happened to the frugal Barack and Michelle back in the 2008 campaign, where he wore worn out shoes and she ordered dresses from J Crew? They presented themselves as being understanding and for the people, but they lied. It must be nice to get to have all of these fun little trips, living the good life while the people who suffered in the gulf oil spill continue to suffer, while people lose their jobs, homes, and dignity. While so many people barely make it pay check to paycheck making choices between food or medicine. Yes i find them both willfully looking the other way while Michelle antoinette wears her high fashions. It is a slap in the face.

Just wait though, during his next campaign, they'll be out in their common clothing asking everyone to buy into their lies. They will make promises all over again and pretend that they care. Please tell me how they can ne over in another country living it up while over 100 americans died in Joplin? They truly make me sick.

edit on 25-5-2011 by Thunder heart woman because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-5-2011 by Thunder heart woman because: Additional thoughts

Wow Obama knew that a tornado was going to hit Joplin? Do people gain the power of seeing into the future when they become president? I forgot the president is supposed to never leave the white house. And if you check Obama has kept quite a few of his promises.

If the judge isn't already on Barry's payroll he will be and this will not see the light of day.....Crooks are Crooks...Money talks these days and Bullcrap walks...Washington District Of Criminals has been a cesspool for many years now and it will stay that way till the end now. Theres not enough time left to change it. it and he both will fall but it will be Nature that takes them both down..Barry, it's not nice to f**k with Mother Nature.....she's got your number and I don't mean your 15+ social security numbers either....

Originally posted by Antiquated1 Just admit, some people are in fact making that argument. It seems like a silly thing to argue about.

edit on 25-5-2011 by Antiquated1 because: (no reason given)

I have not heard that argument nor have i made it myself...and yes, I would agree that it is silly.

Originally posted by Antiquated1

Originally posted by Sparky63
reply to post by Antiquated1

 

I know what vetted means. "Properly vetted" I guess, depends on ones point of view. What are the standards for a candidate to be properly vetted? If I am wrong I would like to be educated.

This may be the subject of a different thread. Feel free to U2 me if you like. I can always learn something new.

There are none, thus the questions that do arise.
Back to your original point.

So if there are no standards, why make an issue of whether McCain was vetted, or "properly vetted"? Seems a waste of time. Maybe Congress should be encouraged to set some standards in the future so issues like this can be avoided.

Originally posted by Antiquated1

Double post

edit on 5/25/2011 by Sparky63 because: Double post

Originally posted by Antiquated1
There is another birther making that argument you claim to have never heard. Now I gave you two examples and you dismissed the first. Why?

I didn't dismiss the first example. You referred to it in your post here: www.abovetopsecret.com... but you did not provide a link in your post. You merely provided a brief quote.

It is a moot point anyway because I never stated that to be a "natural born" citizen, one had to have twp parents who were citizens born stateside.....So I fail to see why this is an issue.

If there are birthers who believe this, debate the point with them. I think I am in your camp on this one.

Originally posted by Sparky63
So if there are no standards, why make an issue of whether McCain was vetted, or "properly vetted"? Seems a waste of time.

Maybe this timeline will be helpful to you.

In February 2008 the New York Times published a piece that raised questions about McCain’s natural born citizenship status. Sen. Claire McCaskill then introduced a bill called Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act, with the purpose of “clarify[ing] the law and ensure that children born to United States citizens while serving overseas in the military are eligible to become President.”

It didn’t go anywhere, and there were some doubts about its constitutionality I believe, so Sen. McCaskill later introduced Senate Resolution 511, the non-binding resolution expressing the Senate’s understanding that John McCain was eligible.

There were no hearings, no one asked for or inspected McCain’s birth certificate or other documentation.

There was one question in April 2008 by Sen. Patrick Leahy, during an unrelated Judiciary Committee hearing, asking the Secretary of Homeland Security if he believed McCain was a natural born citizen. Secretary Michael Chertoff answered “[m]y assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.”

That was it.

Do you consider that vetting by any measure? The Senate simply declared that they considered him a natural born citizen.

Maybe Congress should be encouraged to set some standards in the future so issues like this can be avoided.

This makes sense if one accepts there is “an issue.” There is none.

Barack Obama publicly disclosed his birth certificate months before the 2008 election. And he won. Congress certified his election without a single objection — something that hadn’t happened since the 1996 election.

There are people who doubt his birth certificate. That’s their problem. The President isn’t required to convince everyone to their personal satisfaction.

In 2012 those that doubt Barack Obama’s eligibility are free to vote for someone else.

Originally posted by Antiquated1
There is another birther making that argument you claim to have never heard.

If there are some birthers making this claim, take it up with them. I am no birther. Do I believe that Obama has told us the whole truth? No way.
Am I convinced that Obama was born on foreign soil? Not completely.

At this point I feel the truth could go either way. All I want is the truth.

reply to post by aptness


Here is the resolution in it's entirety:

RESOLUTION

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen' of the United States;

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen', as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country's President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen';

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

www.gpo.gov...

There is a little more to it than you noted in your post.
Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Leahy reported it.

Is this vetting? You will have to decided for yourself. I consider him vetted based on this. But I don't expect everyone to agree with me..that hardly ever happens.

Thanks for the info.

reply to post by Sparky63


I have taken it up with them and so have people far more versed in American law and precedents set yadda yadda yadda. You on the other hand, said you did not think anyone was even making that argument. You dismissed Immaculate as if they were posting lunacy. I was just pointing out that people are indeed making that argument and that was why it comes up.

Originally posted by Sparky63
Is this vetting? You will have to decided for yourself. I consider him vetted based on this. But I don't expect everyone to agree with me..that hardly ever happens.

If you consider that non-binding resolution vetting — and that’s fine if you do — why don’t you consider what Obama went through vetting, though?

I mean, the proposition that you are asking us to accept here is that Congress thought about McCain’s eligibility, to the point of passing a resolution, but didn’t even thought about Obama’s at all.

Not only that but Obama, unlike McCain, presented his birth certificate. So if anyone in Congress had a problem with it they could have raised it. But no one did.

And then, after winning the election, anyone in Congress could have objected and demanded Obama to prove his eligibility. But no one did.

One would have to accept that Congress, as per your opinion, vetted McCain but failed, not once, not twice, but three times during the process to even think about Obama’s eligibility.

Why isn’t the obvious conclusion of these events that Congress, by your standard, vetted Obama?