Obama's Birth certificate: Hawaii Governor Abercrombie's Birther mission

reply to post by getreadyalready


I don't need "I'm sorry's" buddy. The bottom line here is, regardless of his policies, or his performance as president, which are separate issues, the fear and hysteria that drives this irrational attack on his identity is BASED IN RACISM. I'm not talking about his election, or anything he's done in office at all, this has nothing to do with that. I'm addressing just this issue, and, on this issue, in my humble opinion, racism is driving it. you can say it's the combination of his race, his name, where he grew up, I suppose, but, at it's core, it's racism and some xenophobia mixed in that makes people insist, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that he is lying about his background, and, thus, is ineligible for office. I'm not even going to vote for this man again, that's how "not a fan" I am of President Obama, but, for #s' sake. he is who he says he is. that's all I'm trying to say, really, and point out that, as someone who has been subject to this kind of treatment, experience teaches me that racism is the likely culprit.

reply to post by dragonseeker


We are all entitled to our opinions, and each of our own experiences colors our outlook on the world, that is why I chose to add, "i'm sorry" for your experiences. I have not had those experiences, so I do not know how it would change my perspective.

However, I still say that the facts are against the idea of racism. Surely, if racism were the driving force behind all of this, he could never have been elected in the first place? How does one get a 70% approval rating his first few months in office if he is hated for his race? How does it fall into the 30% range a year later, when his race hasn't changed?

The only thing that changed from campaign and election time to current time is his politics. His race remained the same. If he was elected, and beloved for his first few months, and his race did not change, then his race cannot be the driving force.

reply to post by getreadyalready


It's not an "either/or" situation. people can be of two minds on a thing. Also, buyer's remorse comes to mind. 8 years of bush broke people down to a place where they were open to a black president. I'll tell you this: If GWB had been a good president, barack obama would still be in the illinois state senate. It took 9/11, 2 wars, katrina, and the absolutely worst president in the #ing galaxy before people would even consider it.

Originally posted by LazerTron
reply to post by Honor93

 

Can you please link me to the thread where you called for the public to see George W Bush's birth certificate? Or maybe Clinton's...or maybe any other president. You seem very committed to the concept that presidents should show the people their birth certificate...so I'm sure you can provide a link to where you have demanded this from other presidents.

i would be happy to had i been online during either of those times, however, i was not ... besides, that was Then, this is Now ... could you move forward with the rest of the world, please?
Actually, i am committed to the Constitutional eligibility of this POTUS, at this point in time ... tomorrow, that may change, after all, by then, today is yesterday.

why would i have any need or desire to prove anything to You or anyone else, i didn't make the claim and i CAN prove it, in 30seconds or less ... should i be REQUIRED. why should Obama or any other future POTUS be any different?
As for not seeing past POTUS' bc, what does it matter? They are not leading this country, today and apparently, neither should be the one who is sooooo, let's fix it so we can move past this horrid circle-jerk.

reply to post by dragonseeker


That is somewhat true, but I would have voted for Colin Powell in Bush's place either time. I also would probably have voted for Richardson, Romney, or even Giulianni if the Republicans had put them up against Obama. Obama wasn't my first choice, he was just the best of the possible choices on election day. Race never factored into the equation. Bush certainly did make the country more ready for change, but if race was an issue, then surely Hillary would have gotten the nod? Unless sexism just outweighs racism these days. Personally, I think the majority of voters look at the individual, not the stereotype. It doesn't make us immune from a good joke every now and then, but when we actually cast a vote, some intelligence filters in.

I think McCain/Palin was a concession by the Republicans, because the economy was bound to crash, the wars were unpopular, and no president was going to be successful, by putting up a weak opponent and letting the Democrats win the presidency, the Republicans got to shift blame, win the mid-terms, and gear up for a landslide in 2012. I still think Obama has made bad decisions and played right into their hands, but I think he was doomed to failure regardless of his actions.

One thing is for sure facts and rational arguments wont change the situation in the slightest - Obama is inelligable 100% guaranteed - otherwise he would have provided proof at the start of his campaign - all the arguments from Obama trolls are stonewalling plain and simple.

He is clearly there because of a deal between the two NWO factions that run the USA - and they have instructed the media to keep this a 'hands off issue' - until such time as either party decides to cancell the deal.


You could have prevented Obama from ever becoming elected, by simple direct action - ie bypassing the media entirely, with a viral bumper sticker campaign, individuals only had to go to thier local printers and have a few thousand stickers printed up - they could even have made money doing it - once you had 30% of vehicles on the road with these on, the media would no longer be able to pretend that it was a non-issue!

As it is you have a billboard campaign and 60% of the population believing he is inelligable - and the media can still ignore the issue all day long, the courts can throw out every challenge, without ever hearing the case on its merits.

reply to post by JohhnyBGood


How do you expect to retain ANY credibility when you say things like "60% of americans think he is ineligible."

That is absurd, and irresponsible at best. I will no longer be reading a single sentence of ANY of your posts.

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by JohhnyBGood

 

How do you expect to retain ANY credibility when you say things like "60% of americans think he is ineligible."

That is absurd, and irresponsible at best. I will no longer be reading a single sentence of ANY of your posts.

Absurd and irresponsible - huh!
This has been posted half a dozen times in this thread already!

CNN poll on Obama: 6 of 10 doubt U.S. birth story Posted: Aug 05, 2010

Poll numbers for those questioning eligibility status continue to rise A new poll by CNN, whose editorial commentary largely supports President Obama and his policies, delivered some bad news on his apparent birthday today: 6 of 10 people are uncertain the president was even born in the United States. The poll was taken July 16-21 of 1,018 adults, including 335 Democrats and 285 Republicans. It has a margin of error of 3 percentage points. The question was: "Do you think Barack Obama was definitely born in the United States, probably born in the United States, probably born in another country, or definitely born in another country?" Definitely in the United States got the vote from 42 percent of the respondents, and probably in the United States another 29 percent. But that leaves almost 6 of 10 Americans uncertain about the president's birth – and therefore his eligibility under the U.S. Constitution even to be president.
www.kltv.com...

reply to post by JohhnyBGood


Maybe since it was posted a half dozen times, you should have read it better.



Did you even read what you posted? Or, do we have a case of comprehension skills? Why don't you re-read that and then tell me if you stick with "60% of Americans think he is ineligible"... wow.. I shouldn't even have responded to your post.. I am wasting my time, if you seriously just backed up that claim with that quoted poll. wow

Again - Irresponsible

Let me clear it up for you.

"Definitely in the United States got the vote from 42 percent of the respondents, and probably in the United States another 29 percent. "

You wrote "60% of the population believing he is ineligible." really? This is what you took from this article? Really?


Let me help you with your #'s
How about 29% think he is ineligible.

reply to post by Resurrectio

But that leaves almost 6 of 10 Americans uncertain about the president's birth – and therefore his eligibility under the U.S. Constitution even to be president.

Do you not understand simple english!?

reply to post by JohhnyBGood


lol.. So you really don't get it? Nothing to see here.. I will be moving on. Have a great day Johnny...

6 of 10 UNCERTAIN

60% think he is ineligible


wow

Originally posted by Honor93

Responding to Original post by Southern Guardian

hahahahahahaha, i asked for the Constitutional Article, Section or requirement indicating a process to verify a nominees eligibility and you quote the ballot voting process??

And I referenced you the december 15th confirmation of the president by congress and the electoral college where it clearly mentions "certify". There is nothing specific in the constitution requiring the president to present a long form birth certificate. Only congress and the electoral college is left to confirming the president.

I'm not sure what your motive is here? You claim that the president has not proven that he was eligible, yet the constitution makes no mention of what he must do other than for congress to confirm him.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Constitutionally, since the beginning, eligibility is left up to the honesty of the applicant.

There is no direct guideline set by the constitution to verify the presidents eligibility. Since congress is the only body that can impeach the president, they are by default the deciders over his eligibility. As for "honesty" being required by candidates, I rather surprised you'd assume the government simply "missed out" researching Obama and other candidates. Maybe this assumption of yours suits your argument, but it is highly unrealistic. Either you give the government too little credit in this forum or too much.

sure, and you'll find it well in advance of the election instructions ... Article 2, Section 1 ... www.constitution.org

"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 is just a statement that the president must be a natural born citizen. It makes no mention as to whether he must present a long form birth certificate. Regarding being a natural born citizen, the constitution itself never defined what it was. We can only look towards supreme court rulings, the most significant of them, Wong Kim Ark. Go have a ready yourself.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
As for my arguments, i have only one, prove Obama IS Constitutionally qualified,

And once again you have failed to show us where in the constitution is he obligated to further prove he is qualified? As far as I can see it, the elections finished more than two years ago, he presented his short form birth certificate, was verified by the state of Hawaii, was confirmed by congress on december 15th. Where is he required to go the extra mile? No other president has, so why should he for you again? Because you don't like him? no?

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by JohhnyBGood

 

lol.. So you really don't get it? Nothing to see here.. I will be moving on. Have a great day Johnny...

6 of 10 UNCERTAIN

60% think he is ineligible


wow

That is certainly what the article writer drew from the poll - ok say doubt instead of think if you want to, call it 30% instead of 60% if you really want to be obtuse.


But the whole undeniable point .......IS THAT THIS IS NOT A 'FRINGE ISSUE' !

When 60% of americans doubt their presidents elligibility and the entire MSM conspire to pretend that it is a laughable fringe issue...............doesn't that tell you something!?

So, when 99% of the public thought that the earth was flat...maybe we should have gone along with their opinion that had absolutely no evidence to back it up???

Originally posted by wcitizen

John McCain's natural born status was in question, there was a Congressional hearing to ascertain if he could run for President.

Which hospital in Panama was McCain born in?

This wasn't done for Obama, why not?

Know what is funny about Panama and Hawaii? Only one is a US state.

How many other Presidents have spent 1 million dollars trying to keep all their past records secret?

How many have done that now? How much would it cost me to hire a lawyer to sit in a chair while you request records you have no legal access to? Get all my private records. I promise you will be denied access to my private papers and I will not have to spend a dime. The constitution does that for me. You love the constituion don't you?

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by wcitizen

How many have done that now? How much would it cost me to hire a lawyer to sit in a chair while you request records you have no legal access to? Get all my private records. I promise you will be denied access to my private papers and I will not have to spend a dime. The constitution does that for me. You love the constituion don't you?

I dont know if that's so true anymore with all of this patriot act nonsense and domestic terrorism legislation,
maybe certain 'special' people can keep their info locked away but the common person doesnt stand a chance in hell, if they want to know anything about you, they'll know it whether you want it hushed up and private or not.

That's where it get bad and weird in my opinion,
when a select in the know group runs rough shod over common folk.
If theyre running for office and stepping into the public limelight, they need to take the microscope and the heat that comes with it,
or not force it on others they serve.

Just my 2cents

reply to post by Sinnthia


If you apply for certain jobs, you will be required to produce a valid birth certificate. The constitution doesn't protect you from that. Obama should be required to present a valid birth certificate in order to qualify for the job as POTUS. It seems no-one checked. It needs to be checked because his job as POTUS is conditional on his birth. It was, after all, Obama himself who allowed himself to be described as 'Kenyan' when he was a Senator. It needs to be clarified unequivocally one way or the other.

reply to post by wcitizen


HE DID. Is the whole world crazy????????? HE DID. His identity was verified before he ever took office as president, or do you think the illinois state senate just hires people off the street?? GAH!!!!

reply to post by Resurrectio

I think the reason this came up now is someone is trying to distract us from something much more important.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

And I referenced you the december 15th confirmation of the president by congress and the electoral college where it clearly mentions "certify".

looked for any such link and didn't see one ... please post it again. 12/15/?, as in pre-election nomination certification or post-election congressional confirmation? --- post election doesn't count in this discussion.

There is nothing specific in the constitution requiring the president to present a long form birth certificate.

true, but the Real ID program which is a Congressional action does. If i have to present it upon request, so does Obama.

Only congress and the electoral college is left to confirming the president.

this occurs AFTER the election and they also have the power to question his claim, even after the election, as they are now. source - Congressional memo -- www.scribd.com...

I'm not sure what your motive is here?

i may have one, i may have none. i may have several, what Does it matter?

You claim that the president has not proven that he was eligible,

true, at least Not proven it to this voting American

yet the constitution makes no mention of what he must do other than for congress to confirm him.

again, wrong step in the process ... confirmation occurs after the election. Upon Obamas nomination would have been a much better time for 'proof' to be requested and provided, however, it wasn't and we are here, now.
lack of follow-through then does not negate responsible action now. The Constitutional stipulation stands, regardless if it was addressed then or now, it is absolutely relevant.

There is no direct guideline set by the constitution to verify the presidents eligibility

agreed but the 'natural born' stipulation still stands and with Real ID in effect, there is no better or other method employed or currently being applied in any US territory.

Since congress is the only body that can impeach the president, they are by default the deciders over his eligibility.

wrong by assumption ... the Speaker of the House of Representatives (Pelosi/Boehner elect) is the ONLY Congressperson who can initiate Articles of Impeachment, no other Congressional person and no member of the Senate. (hence, Congress)
Isn't it amazing that the most likely person (Pelosi) responsible for the 'altering' of the document in question, is the same person who, as SoH, refused to address this issue from the very first, decorated, military person, who 'questioned' Obamas eligibility?

Forget the 'fringe' element ... where was her respect for our military? where was her respect for America? where was her loyalty? Certainly not in the best interests of Americans or American soldiers. (let's not forget they Volunteer - giving them every right to inquire)

As for "honesty" being required by candidates, I rather surprised you'd assume the government simply "missed out" researching Obama and other candidates. Maybe this assumption of yours suits your argument, but it is highly unrealistic. Either you give the government too little credit in this forum or too much.

Honesty is required by all (seldom delivered but required all the same) and an integral part of integrity. You cannot have one without the other. I made no assumption of any kind. The govt blocked, distracted and discouraged any such activity ... i was there, remember? They had everyone focus on McCain and his military birth or did you miss that? Your opinion of my opinion is what exactly?? it's an opinion ... try not to think to highly of it

For the record, i give this Admin, little to no credit for integrity, transparency, honesty or ability to achieve ... i give them great credit for their success at usurpation, distraction, destruction, misrepresentation, ability to deceive and constant, incessant crisis management ... if it weren't for this group, many would have survived.

"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 is just a statement that the president must be a natural born citizen.

No, that is an excerpt from Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution ... it is far from a 'statement'. It is a stipulation, requirement or an absolute. (whichever word you choose) Meeting that stipulation is up to We the People as the document declares.

It makes no mention as to whether he must present a long form birth certificate.

yea, how nice it was to do business on a hand shake ... once upon a time, honesty and integrity were valued in our society. That was then, this is now. Sad to think that even back then, such confirmations were perceived possible or the phrase "natural born" would have been omitted.

Regarding being a natural born citizen, the constitution itself never defined what it was. We can only look towards supreme court rulings, the most significant of them, Wong Kim Ark. Go have a ready yourself.

Actually, the Founding documents (the Federalist papers) clarify the concept quite clearly. You can have your 'rulings', they've changed with each seating, just as the Constitution is amended as needed. We are not arguing cases here, we are requesting Proof of an outstanding claim ... that Obama is a natural born citizen of America with loyalties to No other country, government, establishment or entity. As the Constitution requires.

And once again you have failed to show us where in the constitution is he obligated to further prove he is qualified? As far as I can see it, the elections finished more than two years ago, he presented his short form birth certificate, was verified by the state of Hawaii, was confirmed by congress on december 15th. Where is he required to go the extra mile? No other president has, so why should he for you again? Because you don't like him? no?

I cannot fail at something i have not attempted.
I stated We the People have the right to demand proof, [no Constitutional entry needed], or seek remedy.
He, Obama, presented nothing ... the campaign did and it proves nothing more than a birth was Registered in Hawai'i, and that's only if the presented document is authentic. (even that is still questioned in many circles)
An 'official of the State of Hawai'i' verified the birth record is valid (birth was registered) ... NO ONE has confirmed or proven or even hinted that Obama was born on any Hawaiian island or any American territory. That is a problem for every American, for every soldier abroad and for every 'target of opportunity' along the way. Surely, you want the truth to prevail?