Photo - Obama's Kenyan Birth Certificate (political fraud)

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by micpsi

 

I mean, those who concluded that the Kenyan certificate was hoaxed from the Australian one based merely upon their similar appearance have ignored the possibility that, being members of the Commonwealth, both countries used similar-looking templates for printing birth certificates.

That point has been raised on other forums.

And rightfully smacked down. Why are people so desperate to cling to this that they are willing to toss all credibility out the window just to hope and wish the scary dark guy with the scary name will not be president anymore.

It is fake. It was a hoax or a fraud or something else but certainly not a real document and certainly not what it portended to be. It is over. I understand the the right are a bunch of sore losers who only want things they way they want things, democracy be damned. I understand that after 8 years of watching our constitution and economy be trampled and ruined, you all want to blame the new guy for it since he works for the other team. I got it. You all made your myopic, partisan, anti-demococratic attitude clear.

Unfortunately, Obama is still president. He is still a natural born citizen. Cling to issues like this for another 100 pages and the rest of us will be out here trying to keep our contry from completely falling apart. You all enjoy this red herring to keep you indoors, on the web, and out the real world. Whoever wanted you all to look like ignorant rednecks, won.

Originally posted by micpsi
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

Wrong in law. A natural-born American needs to have TWO American parents. His mother was 18 when she gave birth.

Please stop repeating this nonsense and back it up. You are not the first person to try this little bit of disinfo, and I doubt you will be the last. If you really believe what you say though, you can be the first to actually prove it. If I were you, I would see why my friends failed to do so before so adamantly declaring this true. It is not. You are wrong.

Oh, and if I may respectfully ask a question of SO ...

As you said, this "document" was all over the internet and originated from Taitz's site ...

Surely one of the many eager birthers was bound to post it on ATS with much haste ...

Why not, as in any other case, let that develop naturally?

What was so different about this particular document?

Not asking in an accusatory way mind you, I am just surprised that you would choose to subject yourselves to the unnecessary accusations and drama that you must have been sure would ensue, when the damn thing was going to get posted anyway.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


That was the quote I was thinking of. Thanks for digging it up BH!

I'd say the original paper document is likely locked up in a vault far away from their records department by now, and I couldn't blame them if it is. There are crazies on both sides of this issue and it would be better to have the original kept safe than chance someone from either side stealing it.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Jenna
There's a post around here somewhere in one of the threads that quotes an article I think where it was clarified that the original documents were not destroyed and are still kept in Hawaii.

In an e-mail, the Times reported, Klein wrote that CNN researchers determined that Obama's 1961 birth certificate no longer exists because Hawaiian officials had discarded paper documents in 2001 — a claim denied Monday by Hawaiian health officials.

In 2001, Hawaii's paper documents were reproduced in electronic format, but "any paper data prior to that still exists," Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo said.

Okubo would not say where Obama's original birth certificate is but said, "We have backups for all of our backups."

USA Today

Obama's original BC is probably in a safe somewhere away from the health department. They may have a back up on file, but they aren't taking any chances on anyone stealing the original.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by oneclickaway
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

Okubo explained that the Health Department went paperless in 2001.

"At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting," she said.

Information about births is transferred electronically from hospitals to the department.

Regardless of what is happening since 2001 when they went paperless...in 1961 they were not paperless. They have stated that they did not throw away any of the original paper birth certificates. It would probably be illegal to do so. Why would senator Will Espero be planning to legislate to make all long forms available to the public (let alone to the person of birth) if long forms did not exist? If, of course that is true, as WND do such sloppy reporting.

www.wnd.com...

You must have forgotten to read the rest of the article...

Asked for more information about the short-form versus long-form birth documents, Okubo said the Health Department "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate."

Yes they went paperless meaning they GOT RID OF ALL THE PAPER! They are not maintaining pre 2001 papers either.

Apparently some people believed this disinformation (or misinformation?) started by CNN researchers? So apparently the paper records were not destroyed! And maybe they moved Obama's somewhere else so they could say they don't have it? That all seems a bit unclear based on somewhat inconsistent statements made by HI DOH.

I know birthers are curious to see what's on the long form, but what I don't understand is why non-birthers aren't just as curious to see what Obama's hiding even if it's got nothing to do with his citizenship. Curious minds would like to know what the big mystery is all about.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I know birthers are curious to see what's on the long form, but what I don't understand is why non-birthers aren't just as curious to see what Obama's hiding even if it's got nothing to do with his citizenship. Curious minds would like to know what the big mystery is all about.

Because it is not our right to demand that the president turn over every piece of personal information Glen Beck or Lou Dobbs or some Russian doctor/lawyer/taekwondo master decides they want to see. There are certain safeguards in place to keep our government from being siezed by foreign interests. Some of us do not understand why this is so important when it was not at all important to look into G.W.'s military records. What was he hiding? Oh right, coc aine use, dereliction of duty, etc. How about McCain? Several people lost lives due to his failure to obey SOP on more than one occasion but we did not demand to see any of those records. Somehow, seeing Obama's long form birth certificate will tell you something you need to know? His birth weight? The constellation crossing behind the moon at the time? tide levels? what?

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
So, other than what you/we might "think/believe," where is the evidence of intent?

The evidence of intent is in the action of perpetrating a hoax in order to propagate a smear.

We live in the digital age, where some kid from a backwater tralier lot pulling a goofy stunt that lands them headfirst in a bucket of cow turds can become the number one hit on youtube and be seen by 100 million people worldwide - literally overnight - because it goes viral.

It doesn't matter if its real. It doesn't matter if the person pushing the message is a little kooky. What matters is that the idea behind the obvious hoax gets spread.

To quote Lenin (of all people)
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.

Maybe its just the conspiracy theorist in me S-Dog....maybe.....

Originally posted by neformore
The evidence of intent is in the action of perpetrating a hoax in order to propagate a smear.

The difference between a hoax and political fraud is the intention of perpetrating a falsehood in order to gain in some fashion.

As of now, despite the implicit gains one may assume for whichever political party, there is only evidence that this was done to mess with the 'birthers'.

Which, at this time, makes a hoax label more appropriate.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I know birthers are curious to see what's on the long form, but what I don't understand is why non-birthers aren't just as curious to see what Obama's hiding even if it's got nothing to do with his citizenship. Curious minds would like to know what the big mystery is all about.

Sure, I'm curious. But what makes anyone think they have a right to satisfy their curiosity at the expense of someone else's privacy is far beyond me. To me, my privacy is a high priority. If I were to totally disregard someone else's privacy, while holding my own so dear, that would make me a complete and disgusting hypocrite.

I believe Obama was born in Hawaii because I have no compelling reason to believe otherwise. He has shown his presidential eligibility to my satisfaction. And until someone, somewhere shows reason for me to believe otherwise, I will respect his privacy. The rest of the information on that document is his private property. I'm curious about his children, too, but I have no right to demand that he share information about them with us.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I know birthers are curious to see what's on the long form, but what I don't understand is why non-birthers aren't just as curious to see what Obama's hiding even if it's got nothing to do with his citizenship. Curious minds would like to know what the big mystery is all about.

Sure, I'm curious. But what makes anyone think they have a right to satisfy their curiosity at the expense of someone else's privacy is far beyond me. To me, my privacy is a high priority. If I were to totally disregard someone else's privacy, while holding my own so dear, that would make me a complete and disgusting hypocrite.

I believe Obama was born in Hawaii because I have no compelling reason to believe otherwise. He has shown his presidential eligibility to my satisfaction. And until someone, somewhere shows reason for me to believe otherwise, I will respect his privacy. The rest of the information on that document is his private property. I'm curious about his children, too, but I have no right to demand that he share information about them with us.

I believe he was probably born in Hawaii too, and he's probably hiding something else other than his place of birth. But if I worked in the military and was ordered to go kill people based on the orders of the commander in chief, I would want to be pretty darn sure he was born in Hawaii and not just think so, maybe that's why some in the military have raised lawsuits.

But I agree, personally I have no "RIGHT" to see any more than I already have according to the courts, because I have no standing. I'm just curious to know what he's hiding, I admit it. Whether the military people suing have any more rights than I do or standing to see more evidence, I guess is for the courts to decide.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Suddenly people in the military get to be so choosey? If you do not want to be ordered off to war by the president, stay out of the military. If you do not like the person running for president, do not vote for them. If you cannot handle it when your guy loses, move to another country.

Anyone in the military that is using this as cover is a coward, liar or both. If they were so worried about the orders they follow being legit, they would have spent the last many years doing something to stop their brothers and sisters from dying in the now known illegal war in Iraq. Were we at war already when these people joined or not? Who was comander in chief then? This is all BS and you know it.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
But if I worked in the military and was ordered to go kill people based on the orders of the commander in chief, I would want to be pretty darn sure he was born in Hawaii ...

I am "pretty darn sure". If you're not "pretty darn sure" yourself, I suggest not joining the military. But if you did, you still wouldn't have a right to the president's private information. A person joining the military does so with the full knowledge that he reports to the Commander in Chief, whomever is filling that position.

I'm just curious to know what he's hiding, I admit it.

It's quite possible that he's not hiding anything at all. Have you fully considered that? Just because I don't reveal my real name, my address and my place of birth to you on this forum doesn't mean that I'm "hiding" something. It's private information for me to share only with those I choose. Keeping something private does not equate to "hiding" something.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
But if I worked in the military and was ordered to go kill people based on the orders of the commander in chief.......

Regardless of Obama's status as POTUS. There exists AT LEAST THREE additional tiers under "Comander In Chief" who are AUTHORIZED to deploy troops. ( See below, article while Bush was Prez just to be "Old School".)

The Chain of Command

Though President Bush relies on a closegroup of advisers, the final decision to attack lies with him alone. Here is how the order is carried to the battlefield.

Joint Chiefs of Staff
The military's highest ranking officers, the Joint Chiefs advise the National Security Council on strategy, passing on concerns or requests from the ranks. Proposals go through non-military advisers to ensure civilian control of the armed forces.

National Security Council
Advisers from military and civilian sectors then brief the president.

1. Commander in Chief
Armed with the information, the president makes the cutive decision

2. Secretary Of Defense
Informed of the decision, the defense secretary instructs Central Command.

3 U.S. Central Command
The head of Central Command, which covers all U.S. forces in the region, refines the war strategy with commanders from four branches of service.

4 In the Field
Further down the chain, combat decisions are left to the commanders of various troop and armor units

Source

Oh and the silly little fact that Obama didn't "declare" war. Bush did.


[edit on 8-8-2009 by kinda kurious]

Why does President Obama refuse to clear this whole issue up by producing his real birth certificate signed by his delivering physician on the day he was born in Hawaii marking the time of birth and identifying the hospital where he was born? Some chick in Hawaii said she saw it, and she would not lie. Show us the bona fide document Mr. President. This would be over in an instant and we could get on with important issues.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Mikey, you might be right. But it still has no effect on his natural-born American citizenship. I'd like to see the documents that are behind your claims

I didn’t say it would affect his American Citizenship, I was just clearing up the details of British Subjects (BOC) and British Citizens from former colonies of the United Kingdom as everyone on here seems to be getting it wrong.

As for proof or documents, that’s easy, go to almost any British Embassy website and it’s there, go to Wikipedia and it’s there, go the to the British Nationality Act and it’s there.

Here are some parts from Wiki to give you a start:

"British Overseas citizens (BOC)
BOCs are those former CUKCs who did not qualify for either British citizenship or British Dependent Territories citizenship. Most of these derived their status as CUKCs from former colonies, such as Malaysia and Kenya"

“All categories of British nationality can be renounced by a declaration made to the Home Secretary. A person ceases to be a British national on the date that the declaration of renunciation is registered by the Home Secretary.”

“British Overseas citizens (BOC) do not lose BOC upon acquisition of another citizenship. However any entitlement to registration as a British citizen on the grounds of having no other nationality will no longer exist after acquiring another citizenship.”

Also the person who said that British Citizenship/Nationality is automatically lost when you reach 18, can you provide a source? I’ve never heard of that with any British Nationality, not to mention I myself was never born in Britain, or registered as a British citizen but last year when I was 23 I sent off my British passport application and had it within 10 days... why? Because one of my parents was a British Citizen, So I was automaticly a citizen a birth and always will be, I didn’t lose it at 18!

So while Obama can easily renounce his British Nationality, he cannot automatically lose it.

Starting point on British Nationality Law

Pretty simple.

Mikey


[edit on 8/8/2009 by Mikey84]

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by micpsi
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

Wrong in law. A natural-born American needs to have TWO American parents. His mother was 18 when she gave birth.

Please stop repeating this nonsense and back it up. You are not the first person to try this little bit of disinfo, and I doubt you will be the last. If you really believe what you say though, you can be the first to actually prove it. If I were you, I would see why my friends failed to do so before so adamantly declaring this true. It is not. You are wrong.

Hardly nonsense! Actually that is FACT! BOTH parents MUST be US Citizens to be a NATURAL born US Citizen.

You want proof? Here is your PROOF!

THE CONSTITUTION DOES INDEED DEFINE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AS BORN OF 2 US CITIZEN PARENTS AND ‘IN COUNTRY’, further it defines allegiance by patrilineage!!!

The Constitution and de Vattel’s Law of Nations has the answer to any questions regarding citizenship abroad and any laws crossing national boundaries:


EXCERPT 1. U.S. Constitution, Article II, §1:
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;

EXCERPT 2: de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, § 212:
The natives, or NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.

Finally, the main item in the Constitution that ties both together:

EXCERPT 3: U.S. Constitution, Article I, §8:
The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations


Yes, Law of Nations is CAPITALIZED, meaning our framers were citing a proper name. There was only one Law of Nations in 1787 officially declared. And yes, Congress has the power to create and enforce ANY LAW mentioned in the Law of Nations written by Emmerich de Vattel! It was sitting right under our noses the entire time.


www.constitution.org...



US Citizen is defined by the 14th amendment.


Natural Born Citizen is defined by The Law Of Nations, which is cited in the Constitution as its very basis.

Not only does the Law of Nations state that a natural born citizen is born in country of two citizen parents, it ALSO says that the patrilineage determines allegiance, meaning Barack’s father who was British/Kenyan determined Obama’s citizenship.

“In God We Trust” (and ONLY God!)




Constitution for the United States of America

Article. I.

Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;


Law of Nations

CHAP. XIX.
OF OUR NATIVE COUNTRY, AND SEVERAL THINGS THAT RELATE TO IT.
§ 211. What is our country.
THE whole of the countries possessed by a nation and subject to its laws, forms, as we have already said, its territory, and is the common country of all the individuals of the nation. We have been obliged to anticipate the definition of the term, native country (§ 122), because our subject led us to treat of the love of our country — a virtue so excellent and so necessary in a state. Supposing, then, this definition already known, it remains that we should explain several things that have a relation to this subject, and answer the questions that naturally arise from it.

§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents (parentS as Plural meaning TWO Citizen ParentS) who are citizens. (citizenS as in Plural again, meaning TWO citizen parents) As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

§ 213. Inhabitants.
The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.

§ 214. Naturalization.(58)
A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, — for example, that of holding public offices — and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalization. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.

§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.

§ 216. Children born at sea.
As to children born at sea, if they are born in those parts of it that are possessed by their nation, they are born in the country: if it is on the open sea, there is no reason to make a distinction between them and those who are born in the country; for, naturally, it is our extraction, not the place of our birth, that gives us rights: and if the children are born in a vessel belonging to the nation, they may be reputed born in its territories; for, it is natural to consider the vessels of a nation as parts of its territory, especially when they sail upon a free sea, since the state retains its jurisdiction over those vessels. And as, according to the commonly received custom, this jurisdiction is preserved over the vessels, even in parts of the sea subject to a foreign dominion, all the children born in the vessels of a nation are considered as born in its territory. For the same reason, those born in a foreign vessel are reputed born in a foreign country, unless their birth took place in a port belonging to their own nation; for, the port is more particularly a part of the territory; and the mother, though at that moment on board a foreign vessel, is not on that account out of the country. I suppose that she and her husband have not quitted their native country to settle elsewhere.

§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.

§ 218. Settlement.
Settlement is a fixed residence in any place, with an intention of always staying there. A man does not, then, establish his settlement in any place, unless he makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. However, this declaration is no reason why, if he afterwards changes his mind, he may not transfer his settlement elsewhere. In this sense, a person who stops at a place upon business, even though he stay a long time, has only a simple habitation there, but has no settlement. Thus, the envoy of a foreign prince has not his settlement at the court where he resides.

The natural, or original settlement, is that which we acquire by birth, in the place where our father has his; and we are considered as retaining it, till we have abandoned it, in order to choose another. The acquired settlement (adscititium) is that where we settle by our own choice.

§ 219. Vagrants.
Vagrants are people who have no settlement. Consequently, those born of vagrant parents have no country, since a man's country is the place where, at the time of his birth, his parents had their settlement (§ 122), or it is the state of which his father was then a member, which comes to the same point; for, to settle for ever in a nation, is to become a member of it, at least as a perpetual inhabitant, if not with all the privileges of a citizen. We may, however, consider the country of a vagrant to be that of his child, while that vagrant is considered as not having absolutely renounced his natural or original settlement.



Constitution for the United States of America

Article. II.

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.

====================================================

This means only one of two things: Obama can only be a citizen at best, IF he was in fact born in the US....OR.....Obama is nothing but a VAGRANT!!!!

But regardless of where Obama was born, even if in the Whitehouse in front of Congress, he is NOT in any way shape or form a NATURAL Born Citizen as defined in the Constitution and is not eligible to be POTUS. In fact, this without question makes him guilty of TREASON!

Originally posted by linux2216
Why does President Obama refuse to clear this whole issue up by producing his real birth certificate signed by his delivering physician on the day he was born in Hawaii marking the time of birth and identifying the hospital where he was born? Some chick in Hawaii said she saw it, and she would not lie. Show us the bona fide document Mr. President. This would be over in an instant and we could get on with important issues.

The only thing this would clear up is where he was born. Regardless of where he was born there is still the issue of being a Natural Born Citizen, which regardless of where he was born he is not! See above post for proof.

reply to post by FollowTheConstitution


Gosh, I really hope you do not hurt yourself. Stretching like that can be terror on certain unused muscles. The constitution does not say anywhere in it that a person can only be defined by having two such parents. Not only does it not say it but thank you for backing that up. You pointed out quite well that it does not say that in the constitution. In fact, if it did, we would were not eligable. I am having trouble remembering the one that was an actual native American born of two 'natural born American citizens' according to your attempt at a criteria.

e.g. if my parents were natural born citizens then according to you, their parents must have also had to be natural born citizens which could only apply if their parents were also natural born citizens, and so on. Nice try though.

...or how about in 2012 we meet to discuss this again. While Obama is still president of the United States, you can tell me how right you are/were. Maybe then you can tell me how you plan to never pay taxes again.

[edit on 9-8-2009 by evil incarnate]

two questions

1 how many know of Senate Resolution 511
and

2.[quot] why would five Democratic senators including the one running for president bother drafting a resolution declaring their Republican opponent eligible for office while carefully crafting it to be accepting of someone born outside of the U.S. and perhaps NOT a natural born citizen to also be eligible to hold the office of president if elected? Hmmmmmm?


Back in April of ‘08 highly partisan Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, a staunch and fervent supporter of Barack Obama, inexplicably introduced Senate Resolution 511 a resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen. She was joined by five other Democratic senators including Barack Obama in an effort to push this thing through the senate. The original text of this resolution read:

110th CONGRESS

2d Session
S. RES. 511
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
April 10, 2008
Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

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.
At first blush one may think “big deal” but read it again and see what these five Democrats were really trying to accomplish.

a)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

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


It seems clear to me what they were attempting to accomplish especially with statement “b” and that was to declare Obama eligible for the office of president even if he wasn’t born here or qualified as a “natural born” citizen.

There was no need to issue this resolution for McCain as he was already known to have been born at the Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone, Panama which was under U.S. control at the time of his birth. His father was naval officer John S. McCain, Jr. McCain was cleared to run for president in 2000 based on this information so there was no reason for McCaskill and her pals to introduce the resolution except as cover for Obama in the event he was indeed elected as president.

www.just-a-regular-guy.com...

im not going to pretent to understand this but ive seen it around alot .

just google
Senate Resolution 511

By the way im glad SO didnt post this cert himself as we wouldnt of got the debate we got. It would of got off topic to much. Also i take my hat off to FF. She wasn’t 100% sure if it was fake or no. yet she was willing to put her head on the chopping block, knowing full well that she would cop some crap.
How many of us would have the balls to do that?

If I ever got my little hands on some document unknowingly if it was fake or not and I wanted to send to some one I could trust FF WOULD BE FIRST ON MY LIST

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
But if I worked in the military and was ordered to go kill people based on the orders of the commander in chief, I would want to be pretty darn sure he was born in Hawaii ...

I am "pretty darn sure".

If you're not "pretty darn sure" yourself, I suggest not joining the military. But if you did, you still wouldn't have a right to the president's private information. A person joining the military does so with the full knowledge that he reports to the Commander in Chief, whomever is filling that position.

I'm just curious to know what he's hiding, I admit it.

It's quite possible that he's not hiding anything at all. Have you fully considered that? Just because I don't reveal my real name, my address and my place of birth to you on this forum doesn't mean that I'm "hiding" something. It's private information for me to share only with those I choose. Keeping something private does not equate to "hiding" something.

You are not a public offical. You are a private citizen. BIG difference! A public official becomes an open book which includes minor details such as showing PROOF of who you say you are!

What is amazing is how any person was so willing to vote for someone they knew absolutely nothing about and refused to proof he is who he says he is!

Baby, when you apply for the highest ranking job in the country you are required to provide PROOF of being eligible to hold that position. Your matter of privacy is no longer an issue. And like you yourself just said, if he has a problem with that then he shouldn't have signed on to take the job in the first place!