Trump sends investigators to Hawaii to look into Obama !!

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Now we getting someplace, I am glad we can rule out the birth certificate as a private document. It is a public document that is used publicly, ie. to qualify for a passport, drivers license, little league, Olympic participation, etc., and disclosed publicly with the permission of an individual.

Although you paint a diversionary mosaic regarding Barky's first Executive Order, although what you say is generally true, it evades the hidden meaning; namely, using "executive privilege" all of Barky's records have been sealed.

I'm still waiting for your take on the legal name of Barky. There is no debate Barky was adopted in Indonesia and was registered as an Indonesian citizen. His legal name became Barry Soetoro. What court changed his legal name to Obama?

Please address this before we go into his social security number coming from the State of Connecticut.

Originally posted by beijingyank
His legal name became Barry Soetoro. What court changed his legal name to Obama?

What court changed his name from Obama? Date? Court case? court?

Man, what an excellent thread this turned out to be.

Many sides of the argument presented well.

But, as I see it-at the end of the day...

Obama is hiding something.... and it is our duty as USA citizens to get to the bottom of it.

If I puttled Obama ober at a traffic stop.... (not being the POTUS of course-but an everyday person) He would be detained until he could prove his story (ies) or his background was ckeared.

No matter what side you're on, I think it is agreeable that Obama is acting "odd" for this topic matter and content.

Originally posted by Habit4ming
Your comment just proves to me that you have not done one iota of research on this topic and it also appears that you've never read the Constitution, either.
The framers had to grandfather themselves!! Geesh!!

I am fairly certain I know more about this birther issue than any birther on ATS. Please feel free to put that to a test. As far as the constitution, your rebuttal actually seems to miss the point of my response but do go on.

Article 2, section 1 of the Constitution states, "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 who shall not attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United Satates."

Yup, I got all that. That has nothing to do with my comment or what I replied to. Both were about the PARENTS of the presidents, not the presidents.

The addition of a grandfather clause in this paragraph says a lot as to the meaning of natural born. The first thing it says is that being born in the US is not enough to be natural born, otherwise the grandfather clause would not be necessary. The writers and delegates, having been born in the US, wanted to be eligible for the presidency, but most were the children of British subjects. Knowing that that eliminated them from being natural born and, thus, from eligibility, they included the grandfather clause which expired when the last person alive at the time of the ratification of the Constitution died. So, being a native born citizen is not the same as being natural born. If it were the framers would not have included the clause.
www.freerepublic.com...

I guess maybe if you read my post and the post it responded to, understood what I wrote, and thought for a moment it could have saved you a great deal of time. I am not sure what you are replying to with any of this but if you are going to attempt to call out my knowledge or research into something, you better start challenging it.

reply to post by Habit4ming


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

Originally posted by beijingyank
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

Now we getting someplace, I am glad we can rule out the birth certificate as a private document. It is a public document that is used publicly, ie. to qualify for a passport, drivers license, little league, Olympic participation, etc., and disclosed publicly with the permission of an individual.

Your sentence seems to completely eat itself.
Let me show you what I see.

...and disclosed publicly with the permission of an individual.

I am rather confused because that would mean that it is not even remotely a public document if you need the persons permission to release it. You need my permission to release any of my private documents. That is why they are private documents.

Although you paint a diversionary mosaic regarding Barky's first Executive Order, although what you say is generally true, it evades the hidden meaning; namely, using "executive privilege" all of Barky's records have been sealed.

So basically true is trumped but your assumption of what words might mean? How about you show us where anything in that order sealed any of his past records, especially ones that are kept private until intentionally released?

I'm still waiting for your take on the legal name of Barky. There is no debate Barky was adopted in Indonesia and was registered as an Indonesian citizen. His legal name became Barry Soetoro. What court changed his legal name to Obama?

I think some of us are still waiting to see what court changed his name to barry soetoro. Did my Aunt patricia break the law when she went by patty for the last 70 years or do you get that Barry- Barack connection? My brother Matt should probably be in jail because his IDs all say Matthew? So you kind of need to show where his name was changed the first time before asking when it was changed back.

Originally posted by beijingyank
using "executive privilege" all of Barky's records have been sealed.

What records? This statement is not true.

Let me repeat: These Executive Orders are referring to Presidential records that are generated BY the president's office, during the presidency. Not state records (like birth certificates), not school records, not ANY records prior to the presidency. These are NATIONAL archive records. Every president since Reagan has had this protection. George Bush had even more, but Obama took it away.

Originally posted by beijingyank
There is no debate Barky was adopted in Indonesia and was registered as an Indonesian citizen. His legal name became Barry Soetoro. What court changed his legal name to Obama?

There is absolutely a debate as to whether Obama was legally adopted and his name changed. I have never seen adoption papers, Obama has never mention being adopted by Soetoro, nor have I seen any name-change document, nor any Indonesian citizenship records.

I used a name that wasn't legally mine for 30 years. I recently had my name legally changed so it would match the name I am using. As far as I know, Barrack Hussein Obama Jr. is and always has been his name. What Soetoro wrote on Obama's school registration is irrelevant.

Every time you mutilate the president's name, you become less respectable in my eyes. I realize this probably doesn't matter to you, but I just thought I'd let you know. I like to have mature discussions with other ATS members. Mature being the key word.

.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by getreadyalready
As I mentioned in another thread, I would be completely satisfied if someone from Human Resources in the State Department stepped up and said, "President Obama has been properly verified and documented per our policies the same as any other Federal Employee with his clearances would have been. We cannot comment beyond that."

I have searched but cannot find where they stated that for all previous Presidents. could you show us those links where that statement was made about all previous Presidents.

I linked earlier where this argument had been used in several presidential campaigns, and each time a legal rendering on the eligibility had been found. Includint McCain this past election. Obama is the first president to have this issue come up, and not have it addressed directly. This would be the first time the State Department would need to make such a statement.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I linked earlier where this argument had been used in several presidential campaigns, and each time a legal rendering on the eligibility had been found. Includint McCain this past election.

That is a blatant lie.

McCain was never legally rendered eligible in a court of law, he was declared eligible in a senate resolution. There is a HUGE difference. Can you tell me why the same was not done for Obama?

Originally posted by Sinnthia
That is a blatant lie.

McCain was never legally rendered eligible in a court of law, he was declared eligible in a senate resolution. There is a HUGE difference. Can you tell me why the same was not done for Obama?

I don't think getready is "lying". He may not have all the facts, but let's look into it a bit before bringing out the "L" word.

McCain was declared a natural born citizen and Obama was declared born in Hawaii, both by senate resolution. I think you're right that this is not considered a legal process, but getready isn't lying.

And it's a good question. Why didn't they declare Obama a natural-born citizen as they did McCain? Could be because of some kind of prejudice against Obama or because there's a question about his citizenship in Congress.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And it's a good question. Why didn't they declare Obama a natural-born citizen as they did McCain? Could be because of some kind of prejudice against Obama or because there's a question about his citizenship in Congress.

Fair enough but I know that whenever I state something that is incorrect as a known fact, I am accused of lying if that "fact" turns out to not be true. I guess I am paying that forward.

As far as why they did not do the same for Obama that they did for McCain, it just seems to me that the only reason was because with McCain it was actually an issue where with Obama it was only an issue with a few nuts that luckily had no seats in the senate yet.

Originally posted by Sinnthia
Fair enough but I know that whenever I state something that is incorrect as a known fact, I am accused of lying if that "fact" turns out to not be true. I guess I am paying that forward.

I hear you. And I have many times pointed out "birther lies" when people are just repeating what they've heard, so they're not really lying. I'm absolutely guilty of the same thing. So, I really overstepped my bounds in correcting you. Sorry. But getready isn't the type to lie.

As far as why they did not do the same for Obama that they did for McCain, it just seems to me that the only reason was because with McCain it was actually an issue where with Obama it was only an issue with a few nuts that luckily had no seats in the senate yet.

That makes sense to me, but I still wish they had used the same wording. After all, they said he was Hawaiian-born just to appease the birthers. Why not take it a step further? It was a unanimous vote, so no Senators thought he was foreign born. It's probably just government being government.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Thanks BH!

reply to post by Sinnthia


Sinn, there is no basis for a legal rendering in a court of law, it is the Congress's rsponsibility, so their resolution is the same as a "legal rendering." I stated it that way to save space, not to misrepresent anything. If you had read my earlier posts, you would see that any type of firm opinion would satisfy me, but we just haven't gotten anyone to step up and give that definitive statement yet.


Truth be told, I believe he probably was born in Hawaii, but this has illuminated a large hole in our process, and we need to fix it.

I am not in favor of impeaching Obama, but I am adament about fixing this glaring technicality in our system before the next election, and unfortunately Obama is going to be the guinea pig for fixing the hole.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I hear you. And I have many times pointed out "birther lies" when people are just repeating what they've heard, so they're not really lying. I'm absolutely guilty of the same thing. So, I really overstepped my bounds in correcting you. Sorry.

But getready isn't the type to lie.

It did not seem the list bit bound overstepping to me. If you have more intimtate knowledge of the character and feel my wording was too much, that is more than fair. I may not be as familiar in which case a more subjective view fits in just fine. Besides politely trying to reign me in now and then is what the people in the coats call a necessity so I believe them.

That makes sense to me, but I still wish they had used the same wording. After all, they said he was Hawaiian-born just to appease the birthers. Why not take it a step further? It was a unanimous vote, so no Senators thought he was foreign born. It's probably just government being government.

The reason the wording never bothered me is because each resolution was a reaction to a completely different problem. With McCain, BEFORE the election, it came to light that if he were to win, he could not serve.

So the Senate, understanding it was now well know McCain would not be eligible for the office he was holding for said "Crap, we need to fix that!!!" and they did.

After the election, someone in the senate realized how many people were trying to claim our elected president was not born in Hawaii so they said "Crap, we need to fix that!!!" and they did.

That is just my take on it though and what I claim to be documented fact.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Sinn, there is no basis for a legal rendering in a court of law, it is the Congress's rsponsibility, so their resolution is the same as a "legal rendering." I stated it that way to save space, not to misrepresent anything. If you had read my earlier posts, you would see that any type of firm opinion would satisfy me, but we just haven't gotten anyone to step up and give that definitive statement yet.

Sorry but I read exactly what you wrote.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I linked earlier where this argument had been used in several presidential campaigns, and each time a legal rendering on the eligibility had been found. Includint McCain this past election.

The sentate passed a nonbinding resolution declaring him eligible. How that is a legal "rendering" is a little beyond me I guess. I guess I am thrown off by your claim that no one has come forward to give anything official. Aside from publishing the BC online and Fukino's statement, it sounds like you are still pulling the birther line of "Yeah, thats what I asked for and all but it still isnt enough for me." Maybe I am missing something.

Truth be told, I believe he probably was born in Hawaii, but this has illuminated a large hole in our process, and we need to fix it.

Truth be told, I think the fact that people are demanding to see his birth certificate, not because they cannot see it but because they do not know what one is is the huge hole in our process that needs to be fixed. There are no legitimate holes here being highlighted. What might they be? That people born in Hawaii need to explain what a BC is better next time?

I am not in favor of impeaching Obama, but I am adament about fixing this glaring technicality in our system before the next election, and unfortunately Obama is going to be the guinea pig for fixing the hole.

I am curious what that glaring technicality is.

reply to post by Sinnthia


The glaring hole is that this wasn't handled before the election. The hole is that we don't require any particular process before being placed on a ballot. The hole is that Obama provided what he had, and it still wasn't enough, so there is not a process in place to tell a candidate what to expect. The hole is that a very rigid procedure exists for Secret Service, FBI, Special Forces, and Intelligence personnel, but the people who make the laws and command those people have no rigid procedure to vet them. And, it goes beyond the president, because members of Congress are not checked out either. A person could be serving on a sensitive committee in Congress with very little or no background check whatsoever.

That is the hole that this has eliminated. Our democratic process is not sufficient to vet these candidates, and we need to create a process of obtaiing Security Clearance for our elected officials. It should be a cursory check before being placed on a ballot, and it should have clear guidelines of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. Then upon winning an election, it should be expanded with interviews and checks just like they do for FBI and Secret Service. It should be completed before they are allowed to take the oath.

ETA: I have had more "official" checks for my job than Obama has had for his. Now, I'm sure his opponents put more effort into his background than anybody did mine, but from official channels, my job had more requirements than his. That is a "glaring hole."

Originally posted by Sinnthia
I guess I am thrown off by your claim that no one has come forward to give anything official. Aside from publishing the BC online and Fukino's statement, it sounds like you are still pulling the birther line of "Yeah, thats what I asked for and all but it still isnt enough for me." Maybe I am missing something.

I agree with this.

1. There has been an official birth certificate posted online stating that Obama was BORN IN HAWAII. An official record.
2. Various official statements have been made verifying the existence of original birth records being maintained by Hawaii's Dept. of Health.
3. There was an official Senate resolution stating that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Many say that they want to see the hospital on the Original BC because he may have been born at home. So... what if he was? What if there is no hospital listed on the original BC? It STILL says he was born in Hawaii. That comes from the Original. So, the Original will state that he was born in Honolulu, even if it doesn't state a hospital.

I am curious what that glaring technicality is.

In my opinion, there are 2.

1. "Natural-born citizen" is not defined.
2. No process exists (that we know of) to officially determine the Constitutional eligibility of candidates for various offices.

IMO, the government should define NBC, just so we all know what it means. And they should also have a system to check eligibility of candidates running for office (federal and state).

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Sinnthia

 

The glaring hole is that this wasn't handled before the election.

What was not handled before the election? Should they have passed a resolution declaring no one can make any crazy claim they want after the election? What was not handled, exactly?

The hole is that we don't require any particular process before being placed on a ballot. The hole is that Obama provided what he had, and it still wasn't enough, so there is not a process in place to tell a candidate what to expect.

What are you talking about? There is a process in place and Obama provided what was required. Unless you are claiming his BC is a forgery, it proves he was born in Hawaii. Those are your only two choices. He was vetted and it was decided he was eligible. Just because some people refuse to accept that does not creat a hole nor negate the real fact that he provided what was needed.

The hole is that a very rigid procedure exists for Secret Service, FBI, Special Forces, and Intelligence personnel, but the people who make the laws and command those people have no rigid procedure to vet them. And, it goes beyond the president, because members of Congress are not checked out either. A person could be serving on a sensitive committee in Congress with very little or no background check whatsoever.

Perhaps you should start a comission to root out all the commies in congress as well. That was fun the last time.

That is the hole that this has eliminated. Our democratic process is not sufficient to vet these candidates, and we need to create a process of obtaiing Security Clearance for our elected officials. It should be a cursory check before being placed on a ballot, and it should have clear guidelines of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. Then upon winning an election, it should be expanded with interviews and checks just like they do for FBI and Secret Service. It should be completed before they are allowed to take the oath.

Uh huh. None of that has to do with the presidents eligibility thought. Yes, my congressman may be loyal to a foreign nation and that sucks. That however does nothing to your argument that there is a hole in the process of proving the president is eligible to run. There are no requirements for secret loyalties. There are requirements in place and he met them. If you do not like those requirements, your problem is with the constitution and every president ever elected under those same requirements. The only thing different about Obama is what people say about him and its not even knew. Chester Arthurs's presidency was never nullified now was it?

ETA: I have had more "official" checks for my job than Obama has had for his. Now, I'm sure his opponents put more effort into his background than anybody did mine, but from official channels, my job had more requirements than his. That is a "glaring hole."

edit on 10-4-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)

Too bad your job is not president of the united states because then you could make that argument but unfortunataly, your job requires what your job requires and Obama's requires what his requires.

I can agree that maybe the current standards are maybe not enough but not because anything is any different. They were not enough for Bush or Clinton then either. I am still missing what Obama did to highlight your problem with the constitution but your argument would fare better were you to explain your problem is with how our presidents meet requirements and not lingering around the birther bathroom, inhaling the 2nd hand smoke and then telling everyone how proud you are to not be a smoker. Its in your clothes.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Many say that they want to see the hospital on the Original BC because he may have been born at home. So... what if he was? What if there is no hospital listed on the original BC? It STILL says he was born in Hawaii. That comes from the Original. So, the Original will state that he was born in Honolulu, even if it doesn't state a hospital.

BH, I agree with your post entirely, and if Obama supplied the most official document that exists, and if birthers question that document, then they are questioning the validity of every birth certificate in Hawaii. It isn't really fair to Obama. There probably is not a long-form in existence, because he was probably born at home, and so he has done everything possible on his part.

Unfortunately, I know that the short-form certificate is not valid for many sensitive positions within government, so Obama is not being held to any higher standard than any other applicant for a high security position would be.

So, while I agree with you, I just want to point out that the Federal Government is guilty of the same thing as the birthers. When one applies to serve for the FBI, they will not accept that short-form certificate without substantial corroboration.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
In my opinion, there are 2.

1. "Natural-born citizen" is not defined.
2. No process exists (that we know of) to officially determine the Constitutional eligibility of candidates for various offices.

IMO, the government should define NBC, just so we all know what it means. And they should also have a system to check eligibility of candidates running for office (federal and state).

I would agree 100% if my question were a general, what is the glaring hole in our election process but I was specifically asking what hole Obama highlighted. NBC has never been defined and Chester did a really good job highlighting that long before Obama came along so other than birthers claiming something is up beause they refuse to admit what a BC actually is, I am not sure I can agree that Obama did anything to highlight this hole.
As for your second one, again I would agree if. Unfortunately I find it harder to see what Obama did with this birther issue to highlight the fact that my congrsssman is not properly vetted. Get my drift?