Judge: Obama eligible to be Georgia candidate

reply to post by LaElvis


Where are you getting that from Resolution 511? It is defining natural-born citizen in terms of being born abroad. Obama was born on US soil giving him birthright citizenship which the Supreme Court has stated is equivalent to being a natural born citizen.

Originally posted by Plan2exist18
He took so long to present the BC

so how many other Presidents showed their birth certificates....

and first tried to pass of a COLB (Certificate of Live Birth) that was less than impressive

Wrong, that was issued by the state of Hawaii, so it was impressive.

The BC finally released showed evidence of Kerning technology

because it was scanned.... how else do you think they put it on the web?

something that hadn't been around the time the BC would've been printed.

wrong, it was printed last year by the state of Hawaii...

Why do birthers keep posting such crap?

Originally posted by Ganush
Obama wouldn't win Georgia anyway

Indeed. So it really wouldn't matter if he was on the ballot or not...

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by Plan2exist18
He took so long to present the BC

so how many other Presidents showed their birth certificates....

All of them. Its a requirement. It just never gets blasted over all the web and news media because none of the predecessors were ever in question.


I agree, Obama got through all the hoops to prove that he was a citizen - I'm beyond that. I'm saying that any sane thinking person was led to question it originally by a sense of unaccountability, not by racism.

reply to post by Snoopy1978

How come birthers didn't raise this big of astink about McCain being born in Panama?

Perhaps because McCain opponents that might be considered likely perpetrators are more concerned with good governance that cheap political point scoring and maintaining the level of FUD in the electorate for 8 years.

Perhaps because the Koch Brothers weren't interested in financing an astroturfing war against McCain.

Perhaps because McCain, knowing that his birth circumstances occupied a gray area in Constitutional law, did the statesmanlike thing and discussed the issue with his various opponents, both Democrat and Republican, to determine their thinking on the matter (unofficially and probably through intermediaries I expect).

Perhaps because those opponents, including Democrats Clinton and Obama sponsored non binding resolutions in the House and Senate that announced that if McCain were to win the electoral college vote, that his eligibility would not be challenged on that technicality.

Perhaps because every right thinking American understands that the Founding Fathers had no concept of the 20th Century notion of a standing army let alone one stationed overseas. And every one of those right thinking Americans deems it ludicrous to 'punish' John McCain because his parents were patriotically serving their country at an overseas posting.

Please dont say race has nothing to do with this as your credibility drops to automatic hypocrisy.

That you would have to make that admonition says more about you than anybody who is reading this. I really don't see how folks could be accused of racism because they didn't challenge McCain. Is that weird or what?

On the other hand, no matter what the reason people were originally attracted to 'birtherism', the arguments have been thoroughly and completely discredited and most people, what-ever their original motivation, have put aside their childish ways. There needs to be an explanation for those who are left 'in the movement'.

Some are possibly clinically insane. In the last several decades, we have stopped locking up borderline 'crazies' and most are living productive lives in the community. That doesn't mean they don't have issues, and the internet provides them with an outlet. We all have to deal with that, and not check our brain at the door to the computer room.

And there are certainly racists that cling to the birther ideas as somehow legitimizing their hatred. You have read their vile rants on ATS and possibly other birther echo chambers where they are allowed to post their filth unchecked. They exist.

Neither the insane nor the racist, will be swayed by any logic, by any court case, by any documents, by anything. As the non-insane and the non-racist oriented birthers dwindle, the birther population naturally takes on an insane, racist flavor. That is just the effect of the population statistics.

There are also some people who simply have so much personal ego investment in birtherism that they just can't them it go. These folks probably share some traits with the the insane and the racists, but it isn't necessarily so.

And none of that has anything to do with John McCain. There is an unresolved technicality in McCain's situation, and he is the only person in history, so far, to be faced with that particular gray area. 'We the people' made a political decision to put it in the 'too hard basket'. The question is unresolved, and 'We the people' decided to leave it at that, and give McCain the benefit of the doubt. My opinion is that that was the correct decision to make.

Originally posted by Plan2exist18

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by Plan2exist18
He took so long to present the BC

so how many other Presidents showed their birth certificates....

All of them. Its a requirement. It just never gets blasted over all the web and news media because none of the predecessors were ever in question.

I kinda have to call BS on that.
Can you show us where to find those BCs?

reply to post by tkwasny

Both parents were US citizens at the time of his birth

Yes

AND he was born in American territory (military base)

No.

Overseas military bases are not American territory.

Originally posted by ClydeFrog42
Excuse me? did i say I was a "birther" in fact, I believe I said, no more then two pages back, that its about time this birther thing die...

Do you know what you said not just oh the post I replied to back? So was that one not really what you think and I am supposed to backtrack for the truth?

but, thats not my point, at all. I dont intend to "prove you wrong"

I never suggested it was. Let me remind you what you wrote.

Originally posted by ClydeFrog42
We get it, you think birthers are morons, and anyone who even considers the issue interesting an idiot. You want a prize? Give it a rest...

I was simply suggesting that in order for intelligent people in the real world to stop seeing them this way, they are going to have to do a certain something. Unless you are up to the task, why would you bother to bitch about it going down that way?

The man is president. Anyone still dwelling on this issue is wasting valuable time. That is beside the point, a non issue.

I agree.

The point is that the OP started this thread for the sole reason of slandering people who identify with the birther crowd. It was apparent in his opening post, and its even more apparent now, as he rolls his eyes and pours pages of writing for the sake of a "your stupid and I'm not" argument.

So you took away from your very important time, worrying about actual important issues to come in here and waste time spouting off against the OP over a topic you believe should not be discussed and I am the one who missed something by responding to exactly what you said?
Interesting.

The birth certificate thing is certainly a lost cause, but people who see it as an issue are more then entitled to their opinion. No amount of personal attacks is going to change that...

But they are not entitled to their own set of facts. Unfortunately this is about reality which relies on facts. I cannot opine you a non citizen.

If you disagree, fine. But, thats no excuse to talk down to anyone with an alternate opinion.

There is a difference between having a difference of opinion and...

asking questions over and over and over again no matter how many times they were answered.
arguing about the law from ignorance of the law.
demanding things that are, are not.
repeating LIES.
making up new LIES.
Posting false information after having seen it proven false.
etc.

See the pattern there?

Have a different opinion. If your opinion is that the birthers have something, maybe check what it is they have. They have lies and slander and ignorance. That is it. That is not a difference of opinion.

You want to convince people? how bout you drop the self-agrandized tone.

edit on 4-2-2012 by ClydeFrog42 because: (no reason given)

That is the main birther problem right there. They think that I, or Democrats, or Obama supporters, or Obama himself need to prove something to them.
Apparently they think he is not president yet and is waiting for their ok.
I need not convince you of anything. Obama will remain in office regardless.

Originally posted by Plan2exist18
I think saying the driving force behind anyone questioning Obamas eligibility is 100% racism is pretty ignorant to believe.

First, its a question of accountability. He took so long to present the BC,

He was probably waiting for all the non racist birthers to demand the same from every white president that served before him.

and first tried to pass of a COLB (Certificate of Live Birth) that was less than impressive.

But according to Hawaii and the courts now, it is actually a birth certificate whether you were impressed by it or not. So what would drive you to shun reality like that for just this one guy?

The BC finally released showed evidence of Kerning technology (google it), something that hadn't been around the time the BC would've been printed.

Unless you look into typewriters that were available at the time.

If i told you I had a jar of cookies, and you said you wanted to see it and I said no. Then finally just showed you a picture of it. Would you believe I actually have it? Would you make that judgement based off my race?

That is not what happened. Obama did not brag he had a birth certificate. Birthers suddenly demanded the first black president ever must show one. Bad analogy.

ALSO, lets not forget the questions surrounding John McCain's eligibility. Maybe you forgot, but plenty of news outlets broke the story that McCain could not be eligible for POTUS due to his birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal!

Are they racist? No. Why? Because John McCain is white of course!

heres that article: www.nytimes.com...

right, that was a huge to do. Just look at all the McCain birther threads that popped up. Oh, right that was resolved by congress just saying he was eligible and everyone shut up. Congress also declared Obama was born in Hawaii but suddenly congress was not trustworthy again.

Nothing seems racist about any of that.

reply to post by rnaa


The way I see it many, if not most, birthers do not fall into those categories. I simply think they don't like the guy and want any reason to see him out of office early. They claim it's because they're patriotic Americans but in the end they're no different than those people who claimed that there were grounds for Bush's impeachment pretty much every time he sneezed. I'd say that at this point the birther movement is composed mainly of sore losers and people that feel betrayed by the man they put their faith and hope in.

reply to post by spoor


The birth certificate WAS in question because it wasn't readily produced.

I don't know which of these is the case, so please clarify...

You either didn't read my post, or didn't understand the part where I said I VOTED FOR OBAMA.
So I'll say it again...I VOTED FOR OBAMA. This would PRECLUDE me from being labeled
as racist in this instance. Or would at least have you understand that race wasn't an issue
to me.

I won't be replying...I have no respect for you

Originally posted by rival
reply to post by spoor

 

The birth certificate WAS in question because it wasn't readily produced.

Why was it demanded at all?

Oh and who was it in question with, exactly?

reply to post by Plan2exist18

All of them.

Wrong.

Obama is the first and only.

Birth Certificates didn't even exist until the early 1900's. Harry Truman didn't have one until after he was already in office. Dwight Eisenhower didn't get one until shortly before the election, the facts on it were sworn to by his younger brother (how the heck could he possibly know anything about it?). Ronald Reagan didn't have a birth certificate until 1942 or so.

None of those were ever published or released to the public in any way, until after their deaths.

Jimmy Carter was even the first one that was born in a hospital.

reply to post by rival

The birth certificate WAS in question because it wasn't readily produced.

Define 'wasn't readily produced'. If you mean inviting every legitimate reporter who wanted to visit campaign headquarters and personally inspecting the document, and voluntarily publishing scanned images of it on the internet so everyone in the world can see it, and being the first candidate in history to do so, and all without anybody asking for it to happen as "wasn't readily produced" then I guess you are right.

Everyone who was legally required to see it saw it whenever it was needed. In exactly the same way as you make your birth certificate readily available to anyone who is legally required to see it.

No one asked for Obama's birth certificate to be made available to the public before he published it in 2008. The campaign published it, entirely voluntarily and on its own, to debunk the stupid charge that his middle name was really 'Muhammed' not 'Hussein'.

That was the thin edge of the wedge that gave birtherism its impetus. Everything about 'birtherism' followed from that point.

reply to post by TopherWayne


Really? Why does it have to be about race when the race is non-white? But, when people made a big deal about Bush and his drinking problem no one came forward and called racism. In fact EVERY previous President has been attacked but, NEVER did I hear anyone cry racism. Why now?

I disagree with his politics and it has nothing to do with his ethnicity. We are all humans. I judge a man by his character alone. I do not agree with his behavior. I have questions about him just like I did every other President in my life. I consider it personally insulting when a blanket comment...

He has nearly completed a full term as POTUS & my fellow ignorant Americans still can't stomach the fact that we have a half black President.

is made without consideration that some people actually think for themselves and are not driven by prejudice based on skin tone.

reply to post by Xcalibur254

The way I see it many, if not most, birthers do not fall into those categories. I simply think they don't like the guy and want any reason to see him out of office early. They claim it's because they're patriotic Americans but in the end they're no different than those people who claimed that there were grounds for Bush's impeachment pretty much every time he sneezed. I'd say that at this point the birther movement is composed mainly of sore losers and people that feel betrayed by the man they put their faith and hope in.

I don't disagree that many otherwise 'honest' Obama opponents may have been interested in birtherism to see if any of the charges had legs. Most would have noticed right away that it was all BS, after all most people are not stupid. More would have been convinced by the arguments and the court cases. That pretty much leaves the three categories I listed.

There is, of course, another category of people that espouse birther ideas, but don't really believe it. they are just expert at pulling peoples strings in order to get them to push the Pay Pal button. I don't consider them birthers, I consider them charletons and con-artists. These are people who spring up on the fringe of any 'alternative' movement, not just birtherism, set up a web page or get a gig on TV, and start preaching to people that if they press that pay pal button or buy gold from their shady buddies that their 'alternative' message/agenda/proposal/frog-marching/whatever will become the main stream.

Do I need to name names or can you and your pocketbook already relate to what I am saying?

And there is, I strongly expect, another subcategory of charletons, those that finance and organize astroturfing campaigns to keep dead fantasies like birtherism going just for the sake of keeping the fear, uncertainty, and doubt bubbling.

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by rival

 

The birth certificate WAS in question because it wasn't readily produced.

Define 'wasn't readily produced'. If you mean inviting every legitimate reporter who wanted to visit campaign headquarters and personally inspecting the document, and voluntarily publishing scanned images of it on the internet so everyone in the world can see it, and being the first candidate in history to do so, and all without anybody asking for it to happen as "wasn't readily produced" then I guess you are right.

Everyone who was legally required to see it saw it whenever it was needed. In exactly the same way as you make your birth certificate readily available to anyone who is legally required to see it.

No one asked for Obama's birth certificate to be made available to the public before he published it in 2008. The campaign published it, entirely voluntarily and on its own, to debunk the stupid charge that his middle name was really 'Muhammed' not 'Hussein'.

That was the thin edge of the wedge that gave birtherism its impetus. Everything about 'birtherism' followed from that point.

edit on 4/2/2012 by rnaa because: (no reason given)

April 27, 2011, 9:28 am
Obama Releases Long-Form Birth Certificate
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR
President Obama said he had decided to release his full birth certificate because the country did not have
“time for this kind of silliness.”

President Obama on Wednesday posted online a copy of his long-form birth certificate from the State of Hawaii, hoping to finally end a long-simmering conspiracy theory among some conservatives who have asserted that he was not born in the United States and was not a legitimate president.

The birth certificate, which is posted on the White House Web site, shows that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu and is signed by state officials and his mother.

“The president believed the distraction over his birth certificate wasn’t good for the country,” Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, wrote on the Web site Wednesday morning. Mr. Pfeiffer said on the site that Mr. Obama had authorized officials in Hawaii, who had routinely made available a shorter version of the birth certificate, to release the longer, more complete document.

Mr. Obama said Wednesday that he had decided to release the document in an effort to end the “silliness” about his birth, which threatened to distract the country from serious issues.

“Over the last two and a half years, I have watched with bemusement,” he said in brief remarks at the White House. “I’ve been puzzled by the degree to which this thing just kept on going.”
______________________________



While I realize the short-form certificate WAS presented voluntarily...it wasn't well received. The fact that it
was challenged immediately in popular media led to confusion and gossip. News stories in the MSM
picked up on this and encouraged the confusion.

As for Obama,Two and a half years is quite period of time to be "bemused" and not act upon this
distraction by publishing the long form. So, I stand by the 'timely' statement, but only in reference
to the long form certificate and Obama's failure to utilize the document and quash the confusion.

To obtain my daughter's Native American documentation a long form state-certified BC was required.
To obtain a haz-mat CDL for myself I also I needed the same document.
It is strange that I could successfully run for POTUS without this requirement.

reply to post by Still


Perhaps the tone of that first sentence escaped you? I was being sarcastic? I don't care in the slightest, other than from a historical point of view, that he's black, green, or other... My issues with him are strictly from a policy stand point.

Originally posted by Still

Originally posted by rival
reply to post by spoor

 

The birth certificate WAS in question because it wasn't readily produced.

Why was it demanded at all?

Oh and who was it in question with, exactly?

edit on 4-2-2012 by Still because: (no reason given)

Maybe because he was black?

Well I guess that is plausible. It would explain the lack of any answer to that question after asking several times several different ways.

Gosh I hate to play the race card but, it is a valid card sometimes.

Maybe the answer is just more complicated than I would assume and it is going to take a while to properly formulated it.

Hold your breath on that one.

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by Still

 

Perhaps the tone of that first sentence escaped you? I was being sarcastic?

Apparently so.

I don't care in the slightest, other than from a historical point of view, that he's black, green, or other... My issues with him are strictly from a policy stand point.

That is all good and fine but unfortunately unless you can vouch for the fact that everyone that has stated he is half black in defense of the idea he is immune to racism for not actually being black was being sarcastic, well craftedly or not, then my point stands. Sorry if your sarcasm precludes you from actually being the one to ask.