Hawaii again declares Obama birth certificate real

[Life_Long_Dem!]

Print Back to story

Hawaii again declares Obama birth certificate real
By JAYMES SONG, Associated Press Writer Jaymes Song, Associated Press Writer Tue Jul 28, 1:54 am ET
HONOLULU – State officials in Hawaii on Monday said they have once again checked and confirmed that President Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen, and therefore meets a key constitutional requirement for being president.

They hoped to stem a recent surge in the number of inquiries about Obama's birthplace.

"I ... have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen," Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said in a brief statement. "I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago."

So-called "birthers" — who claim Obama is ineligible to be president because, they argue, he was actually born outside the United States — have grown more vocal recently on blogs and television news shows.

Fukino issued a similar press release Oct. 31, but was prompted to speak out again because of the renewed attention on Obama's beginnings. Hawaii's Health Department has been flooded in recent weeks with questions from individuals and several national TV news networks asking for proof that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii.

"They just keep asking over and over and over again," Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo said.

The Constitution states that a person must be a "natural-born citizen" to be eligible for the presidency. Birthers contend that Obama's birth certificate is a fake, and many say he was actually born in Kenya, his father's homeland. They've challenged his citizenship in court.

One widely circulated YouTube clip of a town hall meeting showed a Republican congressman getting booed for saying Obama is a citizen. Talk show host Rush Limbaugh and CNN's Lou Dobbs have also raised the issue, and 10 Republican members of Congress co-sponsored a bill that would require future presidential candidates to provide a copy of their original birth certificate.

However, it appears Congress has moved on and has accepted Obama's island birthplace. The U.S. House on Monday unanimously approved a resolution recognizing and celebrating the 50th anniversary of Hawaii becoming the 50th state. A clause was included that reads: "Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961."

State law bars the release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest.

However, Obama's birth certificate along with birth notices from the two Honolulu newspapers were brought forward even before he took office. But that's done nothing to shake the belief by many Obama critics that the president was born abroad.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090728/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_birth_certificate/print

[Hog Trash]

I'm so excited over this revelation....We can finally put an end to this fiasco. :yay:

So when are they going to release the document to the public for examination and verification? :happy:

State law bars the release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest.

Surely the American people have a "tangible interest"? :confused:

[Life_Long_Dem!]

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs once again dismissed conspiracy theories about the president's citizenship ...

... in his daily briefing Monday, noting that proof of President Obama's birthplace had been posted online and Obama's citizenship had been demonstrated "ad nauseam."

But Gibbs, sounding alternately bemused and exasperated, told White House reporters that conspiracy theories about the president's birthplace would never go away.

"I hate to indulge, in such an august setting as the White House briefing room...the made-up, fictional nonsense whether the president was born in this country," Gibbs said. "If I had some DNA, it wouldn't assuage those who believe he wasn't born here."

Attempting to put the issue to rest, once more, Gibbs assured reporters: "The president was born in Honolulu, in the 50th state of the greatest country on the face of the earth...There are 10,000 more important issues for people in this country to discuss, than whether or not the president is a citizen when it's been proven ad nauseam."

Asked to speculate on why conspiracy theorists continue to fixate on the issue, Gibbs joked: "Because for $15 you can get an Internet address and say whatever you want."
http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0709/gibbs_takes_on_birthers_b405db7d-0337-4520-ad1a-0b46fae4fcaa.html

[Smurf-Herder]

That Birth Record doesn't name the delivering physician.

I still think he's a Cylon. :lmao2:

[ROdger Right]

By releasing the same information over, or by repeating the same story supposed to win over some who disagree with Obamas birthing place?

By these peoples' actions they must believe in if you say something enough, it becomes true.

[Hog Trash]

That Birth Record doesn't name the delivering physician.

I still think he's a Cylon. :lmao2:Not again!?...They have re-posted the same tired ole Certificate Of Live Birth instead of the real Birth Certificate.

Liberals have got to be the most gullible suckers on the planet...You couldn't fool my dog this many times with the same trick!

[Hog Trash]

By releasing the same information over, or by repeating the same story supposed to win over some who disagree with Obamas birthing place?

By these peoples' actions they must believe in if you say something enough, it becomes true.Apparently it does work on people who desperately want to believe it.

[doctordog]

That Birth Record doesn't name the delivering physician.

I still think he's a Cylon. :lmao2:

I thought he was a sooner!:thumbsup:

[Moby]

Let's do what World Net Daily did as an experiment.

Send an email to your favorite state run health agency requesting another person's birth certificate and see if you get it.

If you do, then you might be right.

If you don't then you might get a job as a World Net Daily blogger :thumbsup:

[Hog Trash]

Let's do what World Net Daily did as an experiment.

Send an email to your favorite state run health agency requesting another person's birth certificate and see if you get it.

If you do, then you might be right.

If you don't then you might get a job as a World Net Daily blogger :thumbsup:A state is not permitted to release a Birth Certificate without the consent of the person whose name is on it, the persons gaurdian if a minor, their next of kin if dead or with power of attorney.

Obama could authorize it's release to an independent party for verification if he would with no danger of public exposure....This is the one and only thing keeping the suspicion alive.

The one and only reason I have any suspicions what so ever is because of Obama's reluctance....He makes it appear he has something to hide...Only a fool wouldn't question his motives.

[Betty Blowtorch]

So when are they going to release the document
to the public for examination and verification? :happy:
A year ago. (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html)

http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/7066/obamabirthcertificate5r.jpg

OR IF YOU WANT A SUPER-SIZED CLOSE-UP VIEW...

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/4502/obamabirthcertificate5.jpg

[StevenC]

:banghead: What a load of crap this is. Thanks to all the BC fringe for giving such power to the BC. I’ve said it a million times that the BC does not matter at all. If Obama were born on the White House steps with a million man march as witnesses, Obama would still not be eligible to be President.

“I … have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen…”:disbelief:

Wow! Fukino has transmogrified the Constitution. She, and she alone is the sole arbiter of who is and who isn’t a natural-born citizen. Incredible. Where did she get her law degree?:dunno:

Now Hawaii is going even further than anticipated. Not only is Hawaii saying Obama was born in Hawaii, [which is neither here nor there] but Hawaii is also now defining natural-born citizen for the rest of United States.

Yes Fukino mandates from her little cubicle at the DoH in Hawaii that she has overruled the US Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett and she has seen the light of legal truth and all doubts mentioned by SCOTUS in Minor can now be discarded. The great legal oracle of Hawaii has spoken.

SCOTUS clearly states in Minor, six years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, that the definition of “natural-born citizen” is not found in the Constitution:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

That passage establishes two important legal facts which cannot be overturned by any Birth Certificate.:
1. it establishes as precedent that the definition of natural-born citizen is not contained in the body of the Constitution and that we must look elsewhere for the definition
2. it establishes doubt that persons born in the US to foreign parents can be President

This is the most on point decision in our legal history as a nation regarding the definition of the Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 requirement that the President be a natural-born citizen. As such, it not only deserves respect – it demands it.

Yet, apparently Yahoo news and every other main stream news source in the country would have you believe that Hawaii Department of Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino is a better Constitutional scholar and source of law than our own Supreme Court precedent.

[Hog Trash]

What hospital was he born in???

Who was the delivery doctor???

Those things are on my Birth Certificate.

Aren't they on yours Betty???

[MintJulep]

And doesn't the doctor sign the birth certificate?

[doctordog]

What hospital was he born in???

Who was the delivery doctor???

Those things are on my Birth Certificate.

Aren't they on yours Betty???

that is not a birth ciertificate he posted. It is a certification of live birth. It says it right at the top. It is what I had to get in order to get a passport many years ago. I later found my original certificate Your birth certificate has your footprint on it and the doctor does sign it.

The above takes little more than a copy of your driver's license and a signed check.

[StevenC]

This is a "long form" from 1963 granted it is found at WND but thats just the way it goes. If they where using these in '63' why would one from '61' be any different. I also had one from another site that was from '78' same as '63' but that site was shut down today :(
519
:woohoo: main site shutdown but not completely scrubbed but jpeg to much to attach so http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaCOLB.htm

[Hog Trash]

And doesn't the doctor sign the birth certificate?It appears no one wanted their name on the document other than the mother, the father and the baby.

The notory's name is supposed to be on the seal but it's not visible in the photo.

It wouldn't be of any use anyway since this is a new document recently notorized.

Absolutely nothing that can be verified or any witnesses who could be questioned.

I heard there was some confusion about which hospital he was born at...Did they ever figure that out.

You would think the proud delivery doctor or his family would step forward to receive their 15 minutes of fame.

"My father delivered the first black president of the United States of America". :D

Or it's very possible the doctor is still alive and well enough to make the announcement himself.

[Hog Trash]

that is not a birth ciertificate he posted. It is a certification of live birth. It says it right at the top. It is what I had to get in order to get a passport many years ago. I later found my original certificate Your birth certificate has your footprint on it and the doctor does sign it.

The above takes little more than a copy of your driver's license and a signed check.I know this Wayers but these loyal raptured Obama worshipers either don't or don't want to.

[mwillman]

This whole topic is nothing more the conspiracy nut fodder.

Its a waste of time becuase no serious person is going to buy into this
2%er argument.

[ME2]

Once again....blah, blah, blah! It is quite obvious that you are a lifelong democrat. You have had blinders on your entire life, probably the offspring of two very liberal people that vacation in the Soviet Union before the wall came down.

I don't really care if Obama was born in Hawaii or not, his values, his policies and his focus in of a Socialist Agenda, that in itself is UN-AMERICAN!

The United States wasn't founded on Socialism! We were founded as a Democratic Country, for the People. What We as a Nation have been turned into over the years is a No Fault Society, where everyone thinks they are "owed" something for whatever reason. Obama got elected because you actually believe his rhetoric about caring about you and yours! Wake Up! Obama cares about Obama, and moving his socialist agenda forward.

Tripling the National Deficit in 6 mos, spending more money than Bush did fighting two wars and rebuilding a crippled military and intelligence community (Thanks to you buddy Bill Clinton)

Hope and Change is what Germany wanted long ago, Hope and Change is what Cuba wanted, starting to see a trend here..............

[ME2]

Hell I was born in 1964, mine don't look that good. My Mom kept it in a file folder the whole time until I joined the Military.

[mwillman]

Yes I am a democrat but that doesn't mean what I said wasn't true.

This is not a serious topic and it will never go anywhere but have your fun.

[Hog Trash]

Once again....blah, blah, blah! It is quite obvious that you are a lifelong democrat. You have had blinders on your entire life, probably the offspring of two very liberal people that vacation in the Soviet Union before the wall came down.

I don't really care if Obama was born in Hawaii or not, his values, his policies and his focus in of a Socialist Agenda, that in itself is UN-AMERICAN!

The United States wasn't founded on Socialism! We were founded as a Democratic Country, for the People. What We as a Nation have been turned into over the years is a No Fault Society, where everyone thinks they are "owed" something for whatever reason. Obama got elected because you actually believe his rhetoric about caring about you and yours! Wake Up! Obama cares about Obama, and moving his socialist agenda forward.

Tripling the National Deficit in 6 mos, spending more money than Bush did fighting two wars and rebuilding a crippled military and intelligence community (Thanks to you buddy Bill Clinton)

Hope and Change is what Germany wanted long ago, Hope and Change is what Cuba wanted, starting to see a trend here..............Welcome Me2....You realize these liberals aren't the brightest stars in the heavens?

Anyway you reminded me of a thread I started back just before the election.

It pissed a liberal administrater off{Bill} so bad he banned me for 10 days...His reason was I "muddied the waters". :lmao2: No shit!

This is the thread...Click it;
http://www.dcjunkies.com/showthread.php?t=6652

*

[opinionator]

Welcome Me2....You realize these liberals aren't the brightest stars in the heavens?

Anyway you reminded me of a thread I started back just before the election.

It pissed a liberal administrater off{Bill} so bad he banned me for 10 days...His reason was I "muddied the waters". :lmao2: No shit!

This is the thread...Click it;
http://www.dcjunkies.com/showthread.php?t=6652

*


Damned water-muddier...


How can Hawaii declare the birth certificate real if they can't produce it?


Look, I don't care for this theory, I think that leaving Obama in office will do more for my party than any other thing possibly could (see carter), but there is obviously something here.

It is too bad that we can't show these lying vermin for who they are without having to go through the contortions of another election.


.

[Smurf-Herder]

My theory is, he's refusing to release the actual birth certificate just to keep the demands for it's release going; to discredit his critics. By lumping them all together and making them all look foolish.

[Independent Harry]

Once again....blah, blah, blah! It is quite obvious that you are a lifelong democrat. You have had blinders on your entire life, probably the offspring of two very liberal people that vacation in the Soviet Union before the wall came down.

I don't really care if Obama was born in Hawaii or not, his values, his policies and his focus in of a Socialist Agenda, that in itself is UN-AMERICAN!

The United States wasn't founded on Socialism! We were founded as a Democratic Country, for the People. What We as a Nation have been turned into over the years is a No Fault Society, where everyone thinks they are "owed" something for whatever reason. Obama got elected because you actually believe his rhetoric about caring about you and yours! Wake Up! Obama cares about Obama, and moving his socialist agenda forward.

Tripling the National Deficit in 6 mos, spending more money than Bush did fighting two wars and rebuilding a crippled military and intelligence community (Thanks to you buddy Bill Clinton)

Hope and Change is what Germany wanted long ago, Hope and Change is what Cuba wanted, starting to see a trend here..............

he hasn't trippled the national deficit and we were not founded on democratic principles. We were founded as a republic...which I love hearing people like you speak like you know what the fuck you are talking about. Because obviously, you don't...

[doctordog]

This whole topic is nothing more the conspiracy nut fodder.

Its a waste of time becuase no serious person is going to buy into this
2%er argument.

We all know you are not serious person as you have proved over and over.:hi:

[Hog Trash]

My theory is, he's refusing to release the actual birth certificate just to keep the demands for it's release going; to discredit his critics. By lumping them all together and making them all look foolish.That was Bernard Goldbergs theory on the O'reilly Factor tonight!

Makes alot of since to me but whether it's true or not remains to be seen.

[StevenC]

I personally believe Obama was born in Hawaii and can prove it any time he sees fit. I have always believed that the BC issue was a smokescreen to control awareness of the fact that Obama was a British/Kenyan citizen at the time of his birth through his father who was never a US citizen.

This fact alone, as the Supreme Court made reference to in the Minor case, raises doubts as to whether a native born US citizen with a dual foreign nationality at the time of his birth can be President. The BC birther conspiracy theory has clearly and effectively shielded from view the true issue – which is a legal question, not a conspiracy theory.

[Smurf-Herder]

That was Bernard Goldbergs theory on the O'reilly Factor tonight!

Makes alot of since to me but whether it's true or not remains to be seen.

Seems likely to me. Just another issue to fall back on, in their bag of tricks. It makes a great distraction from the real issues.

Between the previous administration, the conservative talk show hosts, the race card, etc., they have a whole series of things that can take attention away from things that make them look bad.

[StevenC]

One of these days the Obama administration might serve up for your consumption the most perfect long form birth certificate you could ever imagine. Hawaii officials will vouch for its under oath if need be. And numerous experts will substantiate its veracity.

Then the POTUS eligibility movement is going to look like a vast nutjob right wing conspiracy.

And the ineligible one will be so much stronger and more powerful for it.

The BC thing is a side dish, not the main course. Any discussion of the BC issue should be subordinate to the dual nationality issue.

The false BC theory is, without a doubt, a conspiracy theory of epic proportions. Nobody can deny that it’s a textbook conspiracy theory. Regardless of whether he has a genuine long form BC saying he was born in Hawaii, the concept that the COLB is a forgery would certainly concern a vast conspiracy to defraud the American people. Conspiracies do exist, but they have a very bad reputation and the media can spin them as kookery with ease.

The dual nationality issue is NOT a conspiracy theory. It’s a genuine legal question. Obama admits he was a dual citizen at birth.

The following has since been scrubbed from fight the smears web site.

‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “

Eligibility advocates have simply questioned whether that makes him ineligible to be President under Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the US Constitution.

BC = Conspiracy theory

DUAL NATIONALITY ADMISSION = legal question

Now doesn’t it make sense that they would rather focus ridicule on the conspiracy theory by allowing broad discussion of it rather than face a genuine legal question to which the great body of law and precedent stands to threaten their power grip?

[Smurf-Herder]

I think the birth certificate will pop up in the early fall of 2012 - to give a lift to poll numbers before the election.

I don't know about this dual citizenship thing. It seems to me, if he was born here he's 100% American, even if he does have a dual citizenship by way of his mother.

[mwillman]

We all know you are not serious person as you have proved over and over.:hi:

So I guess from your response you consider this nonsense serious.

Well lets just come back to this in a couple years and we will see which one of us is correct.

You can fool the foolish but I know what this is all about and it has nothing to do with birth certificates.

[doctordog]

So I guess from your response you consider this nonsense serious.

Well lets just come back to this in a couple years and we will see which one of us is correct.

You can fool the foolish but I know what this is all about and it has nothing to do with birth certificates.

How about three years, unless we get lucky and see impeachment proceedings first.:thumbsup:

[StevenC]

I think the birth certificate will pop up in the early fall of 2012 - to give a lift to poll numbers before the election.

I don't know about this dual citizenship thing. It seems to me, if he was born here he's 100% American, even if he does have a dual citizenship by way of his mother.

The duel citizenship comes from Stanley as well as Barack Sr.
Stanley Anne Dunham - American; Barack H. Obama Sr. - Kenyan (living here on student visa at time of Jrs' birth) Kenya being a British Protectorate at the time.
Therefore B.H.Obama Jr. British/American
American citizen - yes Natural Born Citizen - no
This is where attention needs to be focused.
NBC is where SCOTUS has not made a clear ruling as to what the framers of the Constitution intended, though they have come close and they seem to understand their intention. I know even a layman such as myself in my research have figured that out.

"I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting."
—Benjamin Franklin, letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_97-01/971_vattel.html

All this also brings up another question that has been on my mind. How legal was Stanley and Srs. marriage? Being Sr. was still married to a young woman in Kenya, whom he returned to after leaving America.:dunno:

[Betty Blowtorch]

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/7636/birtherracists.jpg

[MintJulep]

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/7636/birtherracists.jpg

http://afrocityblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/racecard1.jpg

[StevenC]

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/7636/birtherracists.jpg

Typical "When all else fails ignore facts, throw self on floor, kick and scream till mommy gives you the kool-aid." :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

[StevenC]

H. Res 593 states: Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii.....
If they’re going to make that assertion so boldly and codify it in a Congressional Resolution then the American people, especially Hawaiian citizens, deserve to know exactly where in Hawaii Obama was born. Right?
This will be a source of State pride and also revenue for the municipality which can claim the exact spot where Obama was born.
H. Res 593 is intended to celebrate Hawaii’s entering the union. It makes great pomp out of its factual assertion that the 44th President of the US was born in Hawaii. So let’s not stop there. If the Congressional record will state Obama was born in Hawaii, it should also tell us where exactly in Hawaii he was born.
Honolulu is a city. But his birthplace is a spot, a certain address. That’s what we need. Because otherwise we can’t memorialize the spot.

After all, have we not memorialized:

Sinking Spring Farm [a log cabin in Kentucky]

Niles, Ohio - McKinley Birthplace Home and Research Center

The Theodore Roosevelt Birthplace National Historic Site - a recreated brownstone

So does not Obama deserve at least as much as the first black President and first born in Hawaii?

Just a thought.:D

[Betty Blowtorch]

http://afrocityblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/racecard1.jpg
As a matter of fact, yes.
Thank you for asking.

[Betty Blowtorch]

http://afrocityblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/racecard1.jpg
















If the hood fits...





















wear it.















http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/5339/kkkresize.jpg

[mwillman]

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/7636/birtherracists.jpg


thats a great one, and you know it is just so true.

Wayer and others have proven their racism on this forum many times over.
They have left so many smoking guns to prove it that they are thinking of changing the name of their right wing cabal to Guns and God the last crusade.

[Quack10]

[QUOTE=ME2]Once again....blah, blah, blah! It is quite obvious that you are a lifelong democrat. You have had blinders on your entire life, probably the offspring of two very liberal people that vacation in the Soviet Union before the wall came down. Come on. You seem smarter than that. Everybody knows the hot vacation spot was Cuba!

I don't really care if Obama was born in Hawaii or not, his values, his policies and his focus in of a Socialist Agenda, that in itself is UN-AMERICAN! Not really. He was elected President, and if he feels a certain direction needs to taken, than so be it. Just like when GWB felt it was necessary to ignore reports of looming terror attacks on the WTC . Just like when GWB felt that it was unnecessary to do ANYTHING about New Orleans after Katrina. What is my point. My point is that the President can do what he pleases. Congress' job is to make sure he does it well. So lets make sure Congress rides Pres. Obamas' tail and makes him work for us.

The United States wasn't founded on Socialism! We were founded as a Democratic Country, for the People. No, we were founded as a republic. And because of that, we decided Democracy would be our style of Government. In a Republic, the elected officials, IE President, can choose to put into place some idea that you may think are "socialist in nature". I have lived in countries that have complete socialized medicine, infrastructure, etc. The standard of living is so much better. We can d that here, We are the greates country in the world. We can do anything. I just wish people would understand that Socialism is just a word. A pretty harmless one at that. A public option for health care, I think, will save this country. Especially small business.

What We as a Nation have been turned into over the years is a No Fault Society, where everyone thinks they are "owed" something for whatever reason. You are right here. I agree. But I think it's the middle class, what is left of it, that are the culprits here. It's an I deserve this and that society. But, not when it comes to the public safety net. Sure there are abusers of the system, just like in EVERY job or profession. But nobody wants to be on food stamps, nobody wants the government to pay for their lifr. And if they do, it's time to part ways with them. Obama got elected because you actually believe his rhetoric about caring about you and yours! Wake Up! Obama cares about Obama, and moving his socialist agenda forward. Here is where you jump off the deep end. There is no evidence to support this. Maybe fox news or rush Oxycontin will give you some wild stories, but look at his record. He has worked his ass off. Comparatively, he should have taken 5 vacations by now compared to his predecessor. I think you need to turn off fox, limbaugh, beck, hannity and the rest of the Hitler youth and see what is really going on.
By the way. The reason the right is attacking, lying and crying over the health care, is because it will save this country. Small biz will be able to pay higher wages, people will spend money. The economy will be back on its feet. Nobody will ever vote for another republican again, and they know it!!! All because someone had the guts to stand up to the lying and do whats right.

Good luck Mr. President.

Tripling the National Deficit in 6 mos, spending more money than Bush did fighting two wars and rebuilding a crippled military and intelligence community (Thanks to you buddy Bill Clinton) THIS IS NOT OBAMA'S Recession. Bush chose to attack someone who didn't attack us. Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction. Bush lied about Iraq purchasing materials in Africa, the outed a CIA agent because he had to save face. If you want to saddle all of this crap to our new President, go ahead. Watch him masterfully fix it. As far as that hog wash about the intelligence, they gave all of what they had over to condi. She filed it under...well, I wont go there. Maybe President Clinton could have concentrated more on Bin Laden if he didn't have to be busy being impeached for so stupid fib about a blow job.

We can fix this country with or without partisanship. Your call

Peace:thumbsup:

[MintJulep]

If the hood fits...





















wear it.















http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/5339/kkkresize.jpgSniff...........sniff

http://thesaloon.net/racecard.jpg

[MintJulep]

[ Bush chose to attack someone who didn't attack us. Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction. Bush lied about Iraq purchasing materials in Africa, the outed a CIA agent because he had to save face. Please substantiate that "Bush lied" about all of the above.

[xav8terx]

Please substantiate that "Bush lied" about all of the above.


Wake the fuck up will you? How many motherfuckin times does this shit have to be shown to you before you actually open your ignorant eyes...how many people have to tell you Minty?

[Hog Trash]

If the hood fits...

wear it.

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/5339/kkkresize.jpgI'm going to ask you for your honest opinion Betty and even though I'm already aware of the truth, It is important that you know that I know.

Do you believe the left would have pursued any and all avenues that remotely presented an opportunity to get rid of the hated Dubya?

If you answered the question honestly do you now see why your accusation of racism is not only false but rediculous as well?

Brace yourself Betty...I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you but I'm much smarter than you even though our egos are running neck and neck.

[kres24GT]

I don't get the obsession with the birth certificate, it's a pretty stupid thing. However how does it equate to racism?

[Hog Trash]

I don't get the obsession with the birth certificate, it's a pretty stupid thing. However how does it equate to racism?It is the liberal belief that anyone who doesn't like or support Barack Hussein Obama is a racist.

Imagine the reaction if the right had claimed that anyone who didn't like or support Bush was a "white hating racist".

[mwillman]

No, I dont think that nor do I think most liberals think that everyone that doesnt support Obama is a racist but that doesnt mean that some of the people that don't support President Obama aren't racist.

You for instance have proven on many occasions that you are a racist.

You desires to be able to use racial slurs, your desire to defend white people all the time, your need to use terms like the white race when there is only one race just prove that your thoughts are filled with racism.

[Betty Blowtorch]

I'm going to ask you for your honest opinion Betty
and even though I'm already aware of the truth,
It is important that you know that I know.

Do you believe the left would have pursued any and all
avenues that remotely presented an opportunity to get
rid of the hated Dubya?
Any and all avenues? What are you talking about?

Impeachment is the avenue for removing a president.
And yes, we wanted Bush impeached. He committed
impeachable offenses. But the gutless Democrats in
Congress (like Pelosi) refused to impeach because
they knew they didn't have a two-thirds majority
in the Senate to convict.



If you answered the question honestly do you now see
why your accusation of racism is not only false but
rediculous as well?
The fact that the left wanted Bush removed from
office doesn't remotely prove that racism is not an
underlying motive behind the right's fanatical desire
to get rid of Obama by hook or crook.

Obama has been in office for only six months, and
he hasn't committed any impeachable offenses,
but you wingnuts are so desperate to get rid of him,
you keep pushing this stupid birth certificate crap.

You don't seem to realize that you only succeed
in making fools of yourselves by pushing this shit
long after it has become a dead issue.

That's what is "rediculous."



Brace yourself Betty...I'm sorry to be the one to break
this to you but I'm much smarter than you even though
our egos are running neck and neck.
Yes, Hog, you're so smart that you completely
misinterpreted and misunderstood what went
down here. So I'll spell it out for you because
I know you're a little slow:

On another website, I came across a cartoon
that pokes fun at these idiotic "birthers" who
continue to pursue this Obama birth certificate
controversy even though it's a dead issue and
only makes the birthers (like you) look like the
delusional morons they are.

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/7636/birtherracists.jpg

Lady Liberty responded with a cartoon of her own,
which asked "Are You Ready to Play the Race Card?"

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/359/racecard1.jpg

I thought to myself: "Oh goodie. Lady Liberty
wants to have a little war of cartoons."

So I responded to her question "Are You Ready
to Play the Race Card" by saying "As a matter
of fact, yes. Thank you for asking."

To which I added: "If the hood fits... wear it"
followed by a lovely recruitment poster for the
Ku Klux Klan.

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/5339/kkkresize.jpg

Apparently Lady Liberty responded to this post
with another cartoon or picture, but unfortunately
her pic has repeatedly failed to load onto the page,
and I only see the dreaded "red X" instead of a pic.

I don't know if it's my computer's fault that I can't
see the picture, or if Lady Liberty needs to fix it.
At any rate, I can't continue this war of cartoons
if I can't see Lady Liberty's latest cartoon.

The difference between you and me is: it took me
five years of Bush's disastrous presidency before
I became a Bush hater. You, on the other hand,
became a fanatical Obama hater even before he
was elected and took office.

As far as you being more intelligent than me,
all I can say is: "Drink another beer (or two
or three or five or ten) and then you'll be a
real Einstein.

[Binky]

H. Res 593 states: Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii.....
If they’re going to make that assertion so boldly and codify it in a Congressional Resolution then the American people, especially Hawaiian citizens, deserve to know exactly where in Hawaii Obama was born. Right?
This will be a source of State pride and also revenue for the municipality which can claim the exact spot where Obama was born.
H. Res 593 is intended to celebrate Hawaii’s entering the union. It makes great pomp out of its factual assertion that the 44th President of the US was born in Hawaii. So let’s not stop there. If the Congressional record will state Obama was born in Hawaii, it should also tell us where exactly in Hawaii he was born.
Honolulu is a city. But his birthplace is a spot, a certain address. That’s what we need. Because otherwise we can’t memorialize the spot.

After all, have we not memorialized:

Sinking Spring Farm [a log cabin in Kentucky]

Niles, Ohio - McKinley Birthplace Home and Research Center

The Theodore Roosevelt Birthplace National Historic Site - a recreated brownstone

So does not Obama deserve at least as much as the first black President and first born in Hawaii?

Just a thought.:D



If for no other reason than that, I'd have to say, "yeppers."

[Betty Blowtorch]

Sniff...........sniff

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/4931/racecardjesse.jpg
YAYYYYY!!!

Lady Liberty fixed her picture (or else my computer
is working better now.)

I love your picture, Lady, and it's so true, isn't it?
Black people have had so many advantages in this
country for so many years.

They get preferential treatment when it comes to
job hunting, looking for a place to live, and especially
in the criminal justice system, where they've always
had it so much better than white folks.

http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/9412/lynchedblackwomanbig.jpg

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/8203/lynchingbiggest.jpg

[ROdger Right]

Civil war still cost this country 2% of the population. So fuck all that noise, im tired of listening to nigger noise.

As if white people didnt get hung.

[Betty Blowtorch]

So fuck all that noise, im tired of listening to nigger noise.
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of rap music myself.

[ROdger Right]

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of rap music myself.

lol wise guy eh:lmao2:

[doctordog]

No, I dont think that nor do I think most liberals think that everyone that doesnt support Obama is a racist but that doesnt mean that some of the people that don't support President Obama aren't racist.

You for instance have proven on many occasions that you are a racist.

You desires to be able to use racial slurs, your desire to defend white people all the time, your need to use terms like the white race when there is only one race just prove that your thoughts are filled with racism.

Any cheese to go with your whine?

526

[Hog Trash]

Yes, Hog, you're so smart that you completely
misinterpreted and misunderstood what went
down here. So I'll spell it out for you because
I know you're a little slow:

Actually it's the other way around but hey, no big deal....I still think you're peachy keen. :D

[opinionator]

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/7636/birtherracists.jpg


Well, of COURSE any criticism whatsoever of obama is racism!! How could it be anything else?




.

[StevenC]

Ignore the facts.


Let's turn the thread into:

a pissing contest :yay:

a name calling match :huh:

a let's see who can find the most

disgusting cartoon/pic thread :censored:

Do anything but stop the facts "I can't take them anymore!!"



Aren't we the evolved bunch. :readpaper:

[MintJulep]

YAYYYYY!!!

Lady Liberty fixed her picture (or else my computer
is working better now.)

I love your picture, Lady, and it's so true, isn't it?
Black people have had so many advantages in this
country for so many years.

They get preferential treatment when it comes to
job hunting, looking for a place to live, and especially
in the criminal justice system, where they've always
had it so much better than white folks.sniff, sniff.

http://teapottantrums.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c1aee53ef010534c02e49970c-800wi

Thanks for playing.

[Betty Blowtorch]

sniff, sniff.

Thanks for playing.
You're very welcome.

But what's with all the "sniff sniff?" Think you might
want to cut back a little on the cocaine use?

Or at least share with the rest of us.

http://img376.imageshack.us/img376/9407/cocaineaddictionk.jpg

[Betty Blowtorch]

Ignore the facts.

Let's turn the thread into:

a pissing contest :yay:

a name calling match :huh:

a let's see who can find the most

disgusting cartoon/pic thread :censored:

Do anything but stop the facts "I can't take them anymore!!"

Aren't we the evolved bunch.
I realize the cartoons and pics are silly, but this is a silly thread.

This whole birther movement is a joke and should be treated
as such. You wingnuts have to accept the truth: you've got a
colored boy named Obama in the White House until at least 2013
unless he's assassinated by a wingnut who's good with a rifle.

The cartoons and pics may seem silly, but I like the fact that
they can provoke a reaction and say a lot without using a lot
of words.

http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/8271/birthersaintstupid.jpg

[Zebulon0351]

Please substantiate that "Bush lied" about all of the above.

substantiate that he didn't

[MintJulep]

substantiate that he didn'tI didn't make the claim. The onus is on whoever makes it to prove it. There is not a shred of evidence that "Bush lied" only opinion and speculation. If there were, it would be produced.

[StevenC]

I realize the cartoons and pics are silly, but this is a silly thread.

This whole birther movement is a joke and should be treated
as such. You wingnuts have to accept the truth: you've got a
colored boy named Obama in the White House until at least 2013
unless he's assassinated by a wingnut who's good with a rifle.

The cartoons and pics may seem silly, but I like the fact that
they can provoke a reaction and say a lot without using a lot
of words.

Your cartoons and pics are as insignificant as Obamas BC as I said in post 12 of this thread. They only serve to show your total lack of knowledge on Constitutional Law, your refusal to even look at the facts, and your willingness to remain in your obamedia induced fog.

If as you, and others of like mind, say he is perfectly legal to be POTUS then what we have is the opportunity for Kim Jong Ill, Ahmadinejad, or any other foreigner to enter the US on a student visa make a kid with an American teenage girl [maybe even your daughter] then return to his wife and country. Then that child grows up, turns 35 and becomes POTUS and..... well you get the pic., but honestly I doubt that you do.

All it would take for this to be settled is for the SCOTUS to hand down a decision [and this is what scares Obamabots the most] that defines 'natural born citizen' as the framers of the Constitution saw it, which is that you had to be born to parents* that were citizens at the time of your birth. And you can believe they have come very, very close. Close enough in fact that people with any knowledge of the Constitution, and what the framers intended, know that it is pretty much a slam dunk as to how their desision would read.
*note plural not singular usage.

Oh, my reaction to your lack of ability to refute the facts = :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

PS nice racist referral to a black man. Really it shows soooo much respect. If you came to my town and called a black man "colored boy" you'd be found face down in the gutter, and rightfully so.

[bairdi]

Bill sums it up best.

xBhP_dO1YcE

[bairdi]

Your cartoons and pics are as insignificant as Obamas BC as I said in post 12 of this thread. They only serve to show your total lack of knowledge on Constitutional Law, your refusal to even look at the facts, and your willingness to remain in your obamedia induced fog.

If as you, and others of like mind, say he is perfectly legal to be POTUS then what we have is the opportunity for Kim Jong Ill, Ahmadinejad, or any other foreigner to enter the US on a student visa make a kid with an American teenage girl [maybe even your daughter] then return to his wife and country. Then that child grows up, turns 35 and becomes POTUS and..... well you get the pic., but honestly I doubt that you do.

All it would take for this to be settled is for the SCOTUS to hand down a decision [and this is what scares Obamabots the most] that defines 'natural born citizen' as the framers of the Constitution saw it, which is that you had to be born to parents* that were citizens at the time of your birth. And you can believe they have come very, very close. Close enough in fact that
*note plural not singular usage.

Oh, my reaction to your lack of ability to refute the facts = :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

PS nice racist referral to a black man. Really it shows soooo much respect. If you came to my town and called a black man "colored boy" you'd be found face down in the gutter, and rightfully so.
By your logic then, SCOTUS has "total lack of knowledge on Constitutional Law" since they refused the case. If your speculations as to "people with any knowledge of the Constitution, and what the framers intended, know that it is pretty much a slam dunk as to how their desision would read" were even remotely true, then SCOTUS would have heard and ruled on the case. "No soup for you."

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth.

The court did not comment on its order Monday rejecting the call by Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J., to intervene in the presidential election. Donofrio says that since Obama had dual nationality at birth — his mother was American and his Kenyan father at the time was a British subject — he cannot possibly be a “natural born citizen,” one of the requirements the Constitution lists for eligibility to be president.

Donofrio also contends that two other candidates, Republican John McCain and Socialist Workers candidate Roger Calero, also are not natural-born citizens and thus ineligible to be president.

http://wthrockmorton.com/2008/12/08/donofrio-vs-wells-supreme-court-will-not-review-case/

[Hog Trash]

YAYYYYY!!!

Lady Liberty fixed her picture (or else my computer
is working better now.)

I love your picture, Lady, and it's so true, isn't it?
Black people have had so many advantages in this
country for so many years.

They get preferential treatment when it comes to
job hunting, looking for a place to live, and especially
in the criminal justice system, where they've always
had it so much better than white folks.
Other people work hard for a good education, developing a good work ethic to make advancement in the competitive job market, and establishing themselves in their communities as honest citizens, respectful of other peoples rights and property.

While many of the black race are rewarded for bad, irresponsible and criminal behavior which is ignored, overlooked, dismissed and for the most part blamed on whitey much the same as you are now doing...Wake up Betty and get a glimpse of reality.

[Betty Blowtorch]

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/172/bumpe.gif

[Betty Blowtorch]

Other people work hard for a good education, developing
a good work ethic to make advancement in the competitive
job market, and establishing themselves in their communities
as honest citizens, respectful of other peoples rights and
property.
OTHER people work hard? But not black people?



While many of the black race are rewarded for bad,
irresponsible and criminal behavior which is ignored,
overlooked, dismissed...
You know what you're "ignoring, overlooking and dismissing," Hog?
The fact that a lot more poor white people are collecting welfare
and food stamps than black people.

Welfare: A White Secret (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,974473,00.html)

But that doesn't bother you (or even enter you mind) because...

(well, you know why, Hog, deep down inside you know why.)

[Betty Blowtorch]

Your cartoons and pics are as insignificant as Obamas BC as I said
in post 12 of this thread. They only serve to show your total lack of
knowledge on Constitutional Law, your refusal to even look at the
facts, and your willingness to remain in your obamedia induced fog.

All it would take for this to be settled is for the SCOTUS to hand
down a decision that defines 'natural born citizen' as the framers
of the Constitution saw it, which is that you had to be born to
parents that were citizens at the time of your birth. And you can
believe they have come very, very close. Close enough in fact that
people with any knowledge of the Constitution, and what the framers
intended, know that it is pretty much a slam dunk as to how their
desision would read.
Here's a reality check for our resident constitutional scholar:

In 2000, the right-wing Supreme Court intervened to stop
the Florida recount in order to hand the Presidency to the
Republican candidate who lost the nationwide popular vote
by half a million votes.

Do you think this same right-wing court would ignore the
opportunity to remove Obama from office if the justices
thought they had valid legal cause to do so? They've had
plenty of opportunities -- lots of lawsuits have been filed --
but the court has turned them all down.

Whether you like it or not, the law of the land is that
any person born on American soil is a natural-born citizen
regardless of the citizenship status of the parents.

If you're such a brilliant constitutional scholar, why don't
you file a lawsuit with the Supreme Court? If you win and
Obama is removed from office, you'll be world famous and
a hero to wingnuts everywhere.

So why don't you stop wasting time debating this issue
with us lowly liberals and get cracking on your lawsuit?



PS nice racist referral to a black man. Really it shows soooo
much respect. If you came to my town and called a black man
"colored boy" you'd be found face down in the gutter, and
rightfully so.
You're such a brilliant constitutional scholar and yet sarcasm
apparently flies right over your... brilliant legal mind.

[Smurf-Herder]

Betty, I agree with you on the natural-born citizen point. But Steven has a point also on the term "colored boy". It wouldn't go over well with blacks.

[Betty Blowtorch]

Steven has a point on the term "colored boy".
It wouldn't go over well with blacks.
Apparently you wingnuts have a real problem
understanding how sarcasm works.

Since I am obviously defending Obama and black people
against the insults and criticisms hurled by you wingnuts,
I doubt that blacks would have much of a problem with
what I say. I think they would "get it." Apparently you
don't.

If you're honest with yourself, I'm sure you'll agree that
black people undoubtedly have a lot more of a problem
with the shit that Chief, Hog and the other wingnuts on
this board fling at Obama every frigging day.

It's ironic that an anti-Obama right-winger is telling a
liberal what would or wouldn't go over well with blacks.


http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/4720/monkeysflingpoo.jpg

[Smurf-Herder]

Apparently you wingnuts have a real problem
understanding how sarcasm works.

Since I am obviously defending Obama and black people
against the insults and criticisms hurled by you wingnuts,
I doubt that blacks would have much of a problem with
what I say. I think they would "get it." Apparently you
don't.



Sorry, I missed the sarcasm intent. I have been scanning over a lot of threads without fully taking everything in; having been offline most of last night.

[Betty Blowtorch]

Sorry, I missed the sarcasm intent. I have been scanning
over a lot of threads without fully taking everything in;
having been offline most of last night.
Smurf, if you truly want to bring an end to racist
and homophobic remarks on this board, you need
to be focusing primarily on right-wingers. As you
well know, one wingnut in particular has a penchant
for constantly using homophobic slurs, even after
repeated warnings. But he's not the only wingnut
who does it.

If a liberal uses a homophobic slur against a wingnut,
you can be pretty sure that if you investigate the
matter, you'll find that the wingnut started it, and
the liberal simply retaliated in kind because he was
fed up with the crude, insulting slurs.

Liberals are often guilty of personal attacks and
profanity (just like wingnuts) but if you really want
to stop racism and homophobia, you know you've
got to go after the wingnuts.

Traditionally, liberals have fought side-by-side with
blacks, gays and women in the civil rights movement,
women's lib movement and gay liberation, while racist
and homophobic conservatives have fought against
them like angry pitbulls.

That's just the way it is. The way it's always been.

You can rest assured that if I use a racist term like
"colored boy" or "nigger," I'm using the language of
racists against them, to rub their noses in the fact
(the horrible, horrible fact) that they're stuck with
a black man in the White House until at least 2013.



This whole birther movement is a joke and should be treated
as such. You wingnuts have to accept the truth: you've got a
colored boy named Obama in the White House until at least 2013
unless he's assassinated by a wingnut who's good with a rifle.

[ME2]

[QUOTE=ME2]Once again....blah, blah, blah! It is quite obvious that you are a lifelong democrat. You have had blinders on your entire life, probably the offspring of two very liberal people that vacation in the Soviet Union before the wall came down. Come on. You seem smarter than that. Everybody knows the hot vacation spot was Cuba!

I don't really care if Obama was born in Hawaii or not, his values, his policies and his focus in of a Socialist Agenda, that in itself is UN-AMERICAN! Not really. He was elected President, and if he feels a certain direction needs to taken, than so be it. Just like when GWB felt it was necessary to ignore reports of looming terror attacks on the WTC . Just like when GWB felt that it was unnecessary to do ANYTHING about New Orleans after Katrina. What is my point. My point is that the President can do what he pleases. Congress' job is to make sure he does it well. So lets make sure Congress rides Pres. Obamas' tail and makes him work for us.

The United States wasn't founded on Socialism! We were founded as a Democratic Country, for the People. No, we were founded as a republic. And because of that, we decided Democracy would be our style of Government. In a Republic, the elected officials, IE President, can choose to put into place some idea that you may think are "socialist in nature". I have lived in countries that have complete socialized medicine, infrastructure, etc. The standard of living is so much better. We can d that here, We are the greates country in the world. We can do anything. I just wish people would understand that Socialism is just a word. A pretty harmless one at that. A public option for health care, I think, will save this country. Especially small business.

What We as a Nation have been turned into over the years is a No Fault Society, where everyone thinks they are "owed" something for whatever reason. You are right here. I agree. But I think it's the middle class, what is left of it, that are the culprits here. It's an I deserve this and that society. But, not when it comes to the public safety net. Sure there are abusers of the system, just like in EVERY job or profession. But nobody wants to be on food stamps, nobody wants the government to pay for their lifr. And if they do, it's time to part ways with them. Obama got elected because you actually believe his rhetoric about caring about you and yours! Wake Up! Obama cares about Obama, and moving his socialist agenda forward. Here is where you jump off the deep end. There is no evidence to support this. Maybe fox news or rush Oxycontin will give you some wild stories, but look at his record. He has worked his ass off. Comparatively, he should have taken 5 vacations by now compared to his predecessor. I think you need to turn off fox, limbaugh, beck, hannity and the rest of the Hitler youth and see what is really going on.
By the way. The reason the right is attacking, lying and crying over the health care, is because it will save this country. Small biz will be able to pay higher wages, people will spend money. The economy will be back on its feet. Nobody will ever vote for another republican again, and they know it!!! All because someone had the guts to stand up to the lying and do whats right.

Good luck Mr. President.

Tripling the National Deficit in 6 mos, spending more money than Bush did fighting two wars and rebuilding a crippled military and intelligence community (Thanks to you buddy Bill Clinton) THIS IS NOT OBAMA'S Recession. Bush chose to attack someone who didn't attack us. Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction. Bush lied about Iraq purchasing materials in Africa, the outed a CIA agent because he had to save face. If you want to saddle all of this crap to our new President, go ahead. Watch him masterfully fix it. As far as that hog wash about the intelligence, they gave all of what they had over to condi. She filed it under...well, I wont go there. Maybe President Clinton could have concentrated more on Bin Laden if he didn't have to be busy being impeached for so stupid fib about a blow job.

We can fix this country with or without partisanship. Your call

Peace:thumbsup:


Wow, that red text is just so magnificent. It really makes your point clearer. Actually one of the hot spots was Afghanistan, where all the liberal fags in California could go get their Heroin Cheap.

BTW check the Associated Press article about several hundreds of metric tons of yellow cake being removed from Iraq. Also as I said in one of my other posts, when, or if info is ever released some of you Non-believers will wake up.

Talk about ignoring shit, the 9:11 attacks were planned on a Liberals watch. Almost every major terrorist attack against the US was made on a liberals watch.

[Betty Blowtorch]

Actually one of the hot spots was Afghanistan,
where all the liberal fags in California could
go get their Heroin Cheap.
Well, thank you for proving the point I just made
in my previous post.

[ME2]

Apparently you wingnuts have a real problem
understanding how sarcasm works.

Since I am obviously defending Obama and black people
against the insults and criticisms hurled by you wingnuts,
I doubt that blacks would have much of a problem with
what I say. I think they would "get it." Apparently you
don't.

If you're honest with yourself, I'm sure you'll agree that
black people undoubtedly have a lot more of a problem
with the shit that Chief, Hog and the other wingnuts on
this board fling at Obama every frigging day.

It's ironic that an anti-Obama right-winger is telling a
liberal what would or wouldn't go over well with blacks.


http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/4720/monkeysflingpoo.jpg

Watch who you are calling Black, Whitey!

[Smurf-Herder]

[QUOTE=Quack10]


Actually one of the hot spots was Afghanistan, where all the liberal fags in California could go get their Heroin Cheap.



ME2, sexual orientation slurs are against the rules.

Check out the rules in the top stcky thread if you haven't already.

[Betty Blowtorch]

Watch who you are calling Black, Whitey!
Well, you're two for two: a homophobic slur
in your previous post ("liberal fags") and a
racist remark ("whitey") in this one.

Would you like to go for the trifecta by
using a misogynist slur against women?

And by the way, "black" is perfectly
acceptable. But I wouldn't expect
a racist to know that.

[ME2]

Smurf, if you truly want to bring an end to racist
and homophobic remarks on this board, you need
to be focusing primarily on right-wingers. As you
well know, one wingnut in particular has a penchant
for constantly using homophobic slurs, even after
repeated warnings. But he's not the only wingnut
who does it.

If I liberal uses a homophobic slur against a wingnut,
you can be pretty sure that if you investigate the
matter, you'll find that the wingnut started it, and
the liberal simply retaliated in kind because he was
fed up with the crude, insulting slurs.

Liberals are often guilty of personal attacks and
profanity (just like wingnuts) but if you really want
to stop racism and homophobia, you know you've
got to go after the wingnuts.

Traditionally, liberals have fought side-by-side with
blacks, gays and women in the civil rights movement,
women's lib movement and gay liberation, while racist
and homophobic conservatives have fought against
them like angry pitbulls.

That's just the way it is. The way it's always been.

You can rest assured that if I use a racist term like
"colored boy" or "nigger," I'm using the language of
racists against them, to rub their noses in the fact
(the horrible, horrible fact) that they're stuck with
a black man in the White House until at least 2013.

Why do you Liberal White People feel that you have to defend Me? Is it because you feel I cannot defend myself?
If everyone took responsibility for themselves and stood up for what they believed in, we would all be better off as a Country.

[Smurf-Herder]

Just read the rules everybody and follow them.

[Betty Blowtorch]

Why do you Liberal White People feel that
you have to defend Me?
Defend you? I don't even know you. And based on
a quick scan of your 12 idiotic posts, I doubt that
I'll be defending much of anything you have to say.

Anyway, it's been fun. I have to run to the bank
now. I'll check back with you later.

In the meantime, see if you can possibly come up
with anything intelligent to say.

[doctordog]

Defend you? I don't even know you. And based on
a quick scan of your 12 idiotic posts, I doubt that
I'll be defending much of anything you have to say.

Anyway, it's been fun. I have to run to the bank
now. I'll check back with you later.

In the meantime, see if you can possibly come up
with anything intelligent to say.

What a damn idiot, take your on advice when you return.

[StevenC]

Here's a reality check for our resident constitutional scholar:

Whether you like it or not, the law of the land is that
any person born on American soil is a natural-born citizen
regardless of the citizenship status of the parents.

"any person born on American soil is a natural born citizen" show me in any US Law of your choosing where this is stated, but then again let me save you weeks of research.

There isn’t a single statute in all of US law which extends “natural-born citizenship” to anybody.

No current US law even uses the words “natural-born citizen”.

Try again please.

Oh yes, thanks for the "Scholar" compliment. :D

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth.

:thumbsup: Agreed, as have several other cases but that is not to say that the issue is going away anytime soon even WSJ has jumped on the propaganda wagon. So the issue is being kept in the oven by more then just the "wingnuts".

The original propaganda lie http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320190095246658.html stated by Taranto at the WSJ was this:

“Someone born overseas and after 1986, but otherwise in identical circumstances to Obama, would be a natural-born citizen thanks to a law signed by President Reagan.”

No such law exists. No such law was signed by Ronald Reagan. It’s a lie.

If it weren’t a lie, the WSJ would answer by printing statutory code references and text which support its reporting. But that’s not what happened because no such statute exists. The WSJ made it up out of thin air.

The US code Taranto makes reference to is TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401 (g):

The statute does not use the words “natural born citizen”.

[T-Cat]

Who cares if it says "natural born" citizen?

US CODE > TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

[StevenC]

Who cares if it says "natural born" citizen?

US CODE > TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

:disbelief: 'who cares' that's the bottom line problem in this country today.

Exactly 'National/Citizen' not 'Natural Born Citizen'

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/article-2/06-qualifications.html

The words “natural born citizen” do not appear in the statute discussed by Mr. Taranto. In fact, the words “natural born citizen” do not exist in any US statute. Those words only appear in the Constitution - Article 2 Section 1 – and only as a requirement to be President.

Statutory citizenship does not give rise to natural born citizen status – which is not a right but a requirement to be President. All citizens have the same rights, but not all “citizens” can be President. Not even all “natural born citizens” can be President. The Constitution put the requirements for President in the Document to exclude persons from eligibility, not include them.

[T-Cat]

:disbelief: 'who cares' that's the bottom line problem in this country today.

Exactly 'National/Citizen' not 'Natural Born Citizen'

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/article-2/06-qualifications.html

The words “natural born citizen” do not appear in the statute discussed by Mr. Taranto. In fact, the words “natural born citizen” do not exist in any US statute. Those words only appear in the Constitution - Article 2 Section 1 – and only as a requirement to be President.

Statutory citizenship does not give rise to natural born citizen status – which is not a right but a requirement to be President. All citizens have the same rights, but not all “citizens” can be President. Not even all “natural born citizens” can be President. The Constitution put the requirements for President in the Document to exclude persons from eligibility, not include them.So what exactly is your problem? The constitution, to my knowledge, doesn't actually define what a "natural born" citizen is. The 14th amendment states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

So tell us exactly what the difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen is in regards to someone who was born in the US.

[StevenC]

Sorry lost wifi for a minute, but hope this helps some.

So what exactly is your problem? The constitution, to my knowledge, doesn't actually define what a "natural born" citizen is. The 14th amendment states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

So tell us exactly what the difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen is in regards to someone who was born in the US.

'Problem' I have no problem. Okay don't get your undies in a bunch. I'll try to explain as I understand it, though I doubt if you have done no research you still may not fully understand.
Now as you say and are correct in saying such. The Constitution did not and the SCOTUS has yet to define 'natural born citizen'.
The 14th Amendment defines “natural born citizen”. It doesn’t and SCOTUS confirms this in MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) 88 U.S. 162 (Wall.) Which was decided six years after the 14th Amendment was adopted.

The more I read Vattel, specifically the passage which defines “natural-born citizen”, the more convinced I become that the framers understood Vattel much better than we have on this issue. I now am firmly convinced that the framers relied on Vattel’s* definition when they included the natural born citizen clause in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.

As to what Vattel meant and what the framers intended “natural born citizen” to mean in the Constitution. It’s obvious that the framers drew a distinction between the meaning of “citizen” and the meaning of “natural born citizen”. A “citizen” can be Senator or Representative, but in order to be President one must be a "natural born citizen".

It’s the difference between a fact and a legal status.

Whether you are a natural born citizen is a fact of nature which can’t be waived or renounced, but your actual legal citizenship can be renounced. The difference is subtle, but so very important. “Natural born citizen” is not a different form of “citizenship”. It is a manner of acquiring citizenship. And while natural born citizens may end their legal tie to the country by renouncing citizenship, they will always have been naturally born into that nation as a citizen.

Let’s take a look at Vattel’s famous text: http://constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm

§ 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 who are citizens.

Two different sentences. Two different civil groups are being discussed.

Examine the subject heading given by Vattel, “Natives and Citizens”. Two separate groups of the civil society are addressed in the heading. And here is the start of the greatest proof that the framers relied on Vattel as to the natural born citizen clause.

In the passage above, the first sentence defines who the “citizens” of a civil society are. Vattel states; “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.”

In the very next sentence he describes a different set of people wherein he states, “The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

There are natives and citizens, just as the header says. All citizens are members of the civil society, but not all citizens are natives or natural born citizens. A native can’t renounce his “nativeness”. He’s a native forever. He might renounce the citizenship he gained through being a native, but he can’t renounce the FACT of his birth as a native.

Vattel equates natives with natural-born citizens. They are the same. According to Vattel, in order to be a native, one must be born of the soil and the blood of two citizen parents.

*"I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting."
—Benjamin Franklin, letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775

Now all this also says that Mccain without SR 511 would not be a 'natural born citizen'. http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html (resolutions differ from bills in that they are non-binding)

[T-Cat]

Sorry lost wifi for a minute, but hope this helps some.



'Problem' I have no problem. Okay don't get your undies in a bunch.LOL, it appears that it is you who has their undies in a bunch, Mr. I have to make some of my paragraphs red.

I'll try to explain as I understand it, though I doubt if you have done no research you still may not fully understand.
Now as you say and are correct in saying such. The Constitution did not and the SCOTUS has yet to define 'natural born citizen'.
The 14th Amendment defines “natural born citizen”. It doesn’t and SCOTUS confirms this in MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) 88 U.S. 162 (Wall.) Which was decided six years after the 14th Amendment was adopted.

The more I read Vattel, specifically the passage which defines “natural-born citizen”, the more convinced I become that the framers understood Vattel much better than we have on this issue. I now am firmly convinced that the framers relied on Vattel’s* definition when they included the natural born citizen clause in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.The framers could have very easily included the definition of a natural born citizen in the constitution but did not do so. They could have specifically required that a natural born citizen was born in the US and to parents that were also citizens. They did not.

As to what Vattel meant and what the framers intended “natural born citizen” to mean in the Constitution. It’s obvious that the framers drew a distinction between the meaning of “citizen” and the meaning of “natural born citizen”. A “citizen” can be Senator or Representative, but in order to be President one must be a "natural born citizen".Yes of course, but a natural born citizen can simply refer to a citizen who was also born in the US as opposed to one born elsewhere who then moved to the US and obtained citizenship. The framers were obviously interested in preventing foreign born British subjects from becoming citizens and then president. But they had to add an exception to allow themselves to become president:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution"

Because many of the framers were not born in the US because they were born before the US existed. So they were not natural born citizens which doesn't have to have anything to do with the citizen status of their parents.

It’s the difference between a fact and a legal status.

Whether you are a natural born citizen is a fact of nature which can’t be waived or renounced, but your actual legal citizenship can be renounced. The difference is subtle, but so very important. “Natural born citizen” is not a different form of “citizenship”. It is a manner of acquiring citizenship. And while natural born citizens may end their legal tie to the country by renouncing citizenship, they will always have been naturally born into that nation as a citizen.

Let’s take a look at Vattel’s famous text: http://constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm

§ 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 who are citizens.

Two different sentences. Two different civil groups are being discussed.

Examine the subject heading given by Vattel, “Natives and Citizens”. Two separate groups of the civil society are addressed in the heading. And here is the start of the greatest proof that the framers relied on Vattel as to the natural born citizen clause.

In the passage above, the first sentence defines who the “citizens” of a civil society are. Vattel states; “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.”

In the very next sentence he describes a different set of people wherein he states, “The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

There are natives and citizens, just as the header says. All citizens are members of the civil society, but not all citizens are natives or natural born citizens. A native can’t renounce his “nativeness”. He’s a native forever. He might renounce the citizenship he gained through being a native, but he can’t renounce the FACT of his birth as a native.

Vattel equates natives with natural-born citizens. They are the same. According to Vattel, in order to be a native, one must be born of the soil and the blood of two citizen parents.That doesn't appear to be exactly true. You didn't copy the remaing part of one of the paragraphs you quoted. Here is the whole thing:

§ 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 who are citizens. 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.It appears Vattel was far more concerned with the citizenship of the father rather than both parents being citizens. That is rather predicatably sexist considering the time period, but certainly today we would legally accept either parent. It's also rather odd since back then the mother was certainly known but the father might not be. Regardless, we have no legal reason to accept Vattel's description of a natural born citizen which the framers did not specify.

Don't forget United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) in which the court ruled regarding natural born citizenship. Vattel is sited in the dissent, but the majority ruled using a different reasoning:

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.Therefore you can hardly declare the intentions of the framers when writing the constitution was to follow Vattel.

*"I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting."
—Benjamin Franklin, letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775

Now all this also says that Mccain without SR 511 would not be a 'natural born citizen'. http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html (resolutions differ from bills in that they are non-binding)If SR 511 is non-binding, then how does it make McCain legally a natural born citizen since you claim he wouldn't be without it?

[Betty Blowtorch]

"any person born on American soil is a natural born citizen"
show me in any US Law of your choosing where this is stated,
but then again let me save you weeks of research.

There isn’t a single statute in all of US law which extends “natural-born citizenship” to anybody.

No current US law even uses the words “natural-born citizen”.

Try again please.

Oh yes, thanks for the "Scholar" compliment. :D

:thumbsup: Agreed, as have several other cases but that is not to say that the issue is going away anytime soon even WSJ has jumped on the propaganda wagon. So the issue is being kept in the oven by more then just the "wingnuts".

The original propaganda lie http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320190095246658.html stated by Taranto at the WSJ was this:

“Someone born overseas and after 1986, but otherwise in identical circumstances to Obama, would be a natural-born citizen thanks to a law signed by President Reagan.”

No such law exists. No such law was signed by Ronald Reagan. It’s a lie.

If it weren’t a lie, the WSJ would answer by printing statutory code references and text which support its reporting. But that’s not what happened because no such statute exists. The WSJ made it up out of thin air.

The US code Taranto makes reference to is TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401 (g):

The statute does not use the words “natural born citizen”.

'who cares' that's the bottom line problem in this country today.

Exactly 'National/Citizen' not 'Natural Born Citizen'

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

http://supreme.justia.com/constituti...fications.html

The words “natural born citizen” do not appear in the statute
discussed by Mr. Taranto. In fact, the words “natural born citizen”
do not exist in any US statute. Those words only appear in the
Constitution - Article 2 Section 1 – and only as a requirement
to be President.

Statutory citizenship does not give rise to natural born citizen
status – which is not a right but a requirement to be President.
All citizens have the same rights, but not all “citizens” can be
President. Not even all “natural born citizens” can be President.
The Constitution put the requirements for President in the
Document to exclude persons from eligibility, not include them.

'Problem' I have no problem. Okay don't get your undies in a bunch. I'll try to explain as I understand it, though I doubt if you have done no research you still may not fully understand.
Now as you say and are correct in saying such. The Constitution did not and the SCOTUS has yet to define 'natural born citizen'.
The 14th Amendment defines “natural born citizen”. It doesn’t and SCOTUS confirms this in MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) 88 U.S. 162 (Wall.) Which was decided six years after the 14th Amendment was adopted.

The more I read Vattel, specifically the passage which defines “natural-born citizen”, the more convinced I become that the framers understood Vattel much better than we have on this issue. I now am firmly convinced that the framers relied on Vattel’s* definition when they included the natural born citizen clause in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.

As to what Vattel meant and what the framers intended “natural born citizen” to mean in the Constitution. It’s obvious that the framers drew a distinction between the meaning of “citizen” and the meaning of “natural born citizen”. A “citizen” can be Senator or Representative, but in order to be President one must be a "natural born citizen".

It’s the difference between a fact and a legal status.

Whether you are a natural born citizen is a fact of nature which can’t be waived or renounced, but your actual legal citizenship can be renounced. The difference is subtle, but so very important. “Natural born citizen” is not a different form of “citizenship”. It is a manner of acquiring citizenship. And while natural born citizens may end their legal tie to the country by renouncing citizenship, they will always have been naturally born into that nation as a citizen.

Let’s take a look at Vattel’s famous text: http://constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm

§ 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 who are citizens.

Two different sentences. Two different civil groups are being discussed.

Examine the subject heading given by Vattel, “Natives and Citizens”. Two separate groups of the civil society are addressed in the heading. And here is the start of the greatest proof that the framers relied on Vattel as to the natural born citizen clause.

In the passage above, the first sentence defines who the “citizens” of a civil society are. Vattel states; “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.”

In the very next sentence he describes a different set of people wherein he states, “The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

There are natives and citizens, just as the header says. All citizens are members of the civil society, but not all citizens are natives or natural born citizens. A native can’t renounce his “nativeness”. He’s a native forever. He might renounce the citizenship he gained through being a native, but he can’t renounce the FACT of his birth as a native.

Vattel equates natives with natural-born citizens. They are the same. According to Vattel, in order to be a native, one must be born of the soil and the blood of two citizen parents.

*"I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting."
—Benjamin Franklin, letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775

Now all this also says that Mccain without SR 511 would not be a 'natural born citizen'. http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html (resolutions differ from bills in that they are non-binding)
Okay Steve, you need to ask the attendant to up the dosage
on your medication. They've got you in some kind of restraints
so you can't hurt any of the other patients on the ward, right?

If you filed a lawsuit challenging Obama's eligibility to be President
based on that "natural born" crap, it would be thrown out by a judge.

To be eligible for the Presidency, a person must be a "natural-born"
citizen as opposed to a "naturalized" citizen born in another country.

Born in Honolulu, Obama is obviously a natural-born citizen and
eligible to be President.

The 14th Amendment makes Vattel's opinion about the citizenship
status of the parents irrelevant.

[Hog Trash]

Betty, I agree with you on the natural-born citizen point. But Steven has a point also on the term "colored boy". It wouldn't go over well with blacks.Ha Ha Ha!...LOL!...The practitioners of political correctness never fail to amaze me. :lmao2:

Thank you Smurf...If laughter is the cure for what ails you, I am the healthiest man in the world.

[StevenC]

If you filed a lawsuit challenging Obama's eligibility to be President
based on that "natural born" crap, it would be thrown out by a judge.

Yep, because the judge would have no jurisdiction. Your statement just shows how much you don't know about who now, since he's in office, does have jurisdiction.

To be eligible for the Presidency, a person must be a "natural-born"
citizen as opposed to a "naturalized" citizen born in another country.

Yep right again, don't understand your point in this statement, maybe you will explain why you felt it necessary.

Born in Honolulu, Obama is obviously a natural-born citizen and
eligible to be President.

To you I'm sure, to me not so much.
From fightthesmears.com [his web site even said on the page paid for by Obama] though it has since been scrubbed. “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children."


The 14th Amendment makes Vattel's opinion about the citizenship
status of the parents irrelevant.

Since the Supreme Court has stated in Minor v. Happersett six years after the 14th was ratified "that the definition of natural-born citizen is not found in the Constitution", then 14th Amendment citizenship does not establish that any of us are natural-born citizens eligible to be President. The Supreme Court makes it clear that we have to look beyond the Document for such a determination. Not just for Obama, but for any of us seeking to be President. Maybe the 14th Amendment is not part of your Constitution

The Cheif Justice in his opinon wrote:
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, * it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words 'all children' are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as 'all persons,' and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162

* Now that sounds familiar does it not? Just worded ever so slightly different.
"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."
http://constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm
Also note plural usage (parents) (citizens)

Okay Steve, you need to ask the attendant to up the dosage
on your medication. They've got you in some kind of restraints
so you can't hurt any of the other patients on the ward, right?

:lmao2: :lmao2: goes to show you'll make statements about things even when you have no idea about that which you speak. Betty Blow (?)

[StevenC]

The framers could have very easily included the definition of a natural born citizen in the constitution but did not do so. They could have specifically required that a natural born citizen was born in the US and to parents that were also citizens. They did not.
Yep right you are.:thumbsup:

Yes of course, but a natural born citizen can simply refer to a citizen who was also born in the US as opposed to one born elsewhere who then moved to the US and obtained citizenship. The framers were obviously interested in preventing foreign born British subjects from becoming citizens and then president. But they had to add an exception to allow themselves to become president.
Obviously wanted to prevent anyone with a foreign influence or allegiance from becoming CinC.
The presidential natural born citizenship requirement originated with John Jay, who recommended it in a letter to George Washington. The letter said:
"Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen." (John Jay letter to George Washington, 25 July 1787)

Because many of the framers were not born in the US because they were born before the US existed. So they were not natural born citizens which doesn't have to have anything to do with the citizen status of their parents.
And? Your point is...?:dunno:

It appears Vattel was far more concerned with the citizenship of the father rather than both parents being citizens. That is rather predictably sexist considering the time period, but certainly today we would legally accept either parent. It's also rather odd since back then the mother was certainly known but the father might not be. Regardless, we have no legal reason to accept Vattel's description of a natural born citizen which the framers did not specify.
When Vattel wrote this in 1758, he wasn’t arguing for its inclusion in a future US Constitution as a qualification for being President. But the framers did read his work. And when it came to choosing the President, they wanted a “natural-born citizen”, not just a citizen. That is clear in the Constitution. Vattel doesn’t say that “natives or natural-born citizens” have any special legal rights over “citizens”. He simply described a phenomenon of nature, that the citizenship of those who are born on the soil to citizen parents (plural) is a “natural-born citizen”.

Don't forget United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) in which the court ruled regarding natural born citizenship. Vattel is sited in the dissent, but the majority ruled using a different reasoning:confused:
Oh no they did not. In Minor v. Happersett, the Supreme Court expressed “doubts” regarding the citizenship of U.S.-born children whose parents were not U.S. citizens. In US v Ark http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649 the Supreme Court examined these “doubts”, but did not render any decision or ruling pertaining to natural born citizenship. The Court ruled that Mr. Ark was a citizen; it did not rule that he was a natural born citizen. To date, the Supreme Court has never answered the question as to whether natural born citizenship extends to children of non-citizen parents.

Originally Posted by SCOTUS
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.
Therefore you can hardly declare the intentions of the framers when writing the constitution was to follow Vattel.

“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” —George Mason

Once again:

"I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting."
—Benjamin Franklin, letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775

[favn]

I think American people love very much stick their nose into other people's affairs, especially into public ones. Aren't you ashame? Leave him alone!

[T-Cat]

Obviously wanted to prevent anyone with a foreign influence or allegiance from becoming CinC.
The presidential natural born citizenship requirement originated with John Jay, who recommended it in a letter to George Washington. The letter said:
"Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen." (John Jay letter to George Washington, 25 July 1787)A citizen born in the United States would not be a foreigner. Once again the term natural born citizen is not defined beyond the need for a citizen to have been born in the US. If the framers were so concerned about foreign influence they could have been more specific, but they were not.

When Vattel wrote this in 1758, he wasn’t arguing for its inclusion in a future US Constitution as a qualification for being President. But the framers did read his work. And when it came to choosing the President, they wanted a “natural-born citizen”, not just a citizen. That is clear in the Constitution. Vattel doesn’t say that “natives or natural-born citizens” have any special legal rights over “citizens”. He simply described a phenomenon of nature, that the citizenship of those who are born on the soil to citizen parents (plural) is a “natural-born citizen”.The framer(s) might have read his work, but then they also choose not to define what a natural born citizen was. The framers drew on many sources when drawing up the constitution, Vattel deserves no special status when it comes to what the framers intended.

Oh no they did not. In Minor v. Happersett, the Supreme Court expressed “doubts” regarding the citizenship of U.S.-born children whose parents were not U.S. citizens.And those doubts were eliminated by US vs. Wong Kim Ark.

In US v Ark http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=169&invol=649 the Supreme Court examined these “doubts”, but did not render any decision or ruling pertaining to natural born citizenship. The Court ruled that Mr. Ark was a citizen; it did not rule that he was a natural born citizen. To date, the Supreme Court has never answered the question as to whether natural born citizenship extends to children of non-citizen parents.The Supreme Court declined to review the Donofrio case which claimed that Obama was not a natural born citizen because he had British citizenship conveyed to him via his father. They then declined to take Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, which was based on very similar grounds.

So the SCOTUS has certainly conveyed that the definition of natural born citizen does not require both parents to have been citizens. They have twice rejected ruling on a definition of natural born citizen as requiring both parents to be citizens. Of course there are various other lawsuits filed based on the same premise but if you want to make a bet on how they turn out I’ll gladly take the side of them being rejected as well.

“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” —George MasonWhat George Mason is quoted saying has no legal validity in regards to a ruling by the SCOTUS. A ruling which used the definition of a natural born citizen in English law as part of their reasoning for deciding the case. Meanwhile the dissenting opinion (which was rejected) referenced Vattel. SCOTUS referencing a section of English law relevant to the definition of natural born citizen carries as much weight if not more than one of the framers having read Vattel.

Once again:

"I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting."
—Benjamin Franklin, letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775What Benjamin Franklin writes in a letter is not the law. So you have one framer thanking someone for giving them a book. This hardly makes a legal argument. And merely commenting on Vattel doesn’t mean they agreed with everything Vattel said. There is a pile of stuff in Vattel that is not included in the constitution. The fact that they did not include his specific definition of a natural born citizen says enough.

You never replied to the McCain part of my post. You stated:

Now all this also says that Mccain without SR 511 would not be a 'natural born citizen'But you yourself state that SR 511 was a non-binding resolution. So how does it legally make McCain a natural born citizen?

[Bill Cosby]

I think American people love very much stick their nose into other people's affairs, especially into public ones. Aren't you ashame? Leave him alone!

Welcome aboard.............:thumbsup:

I think the ppl, like all ppl are snoopy. I wish it could denied but it can't........ I think this stems @ least in a large part form political prodding & manipulating.....

[Bill Cosby]

Crazy Mike & StevenC. Awesome stuff I think we all learned a few things today...lol

[StevenC]

Originally Posted by Crazy Mike
So the SCOTUS has certainly conveyed that the definition of natural born citizen does not require both parents to have been citizens.Wrong.
In Minor v. Happersett (1874), the Supreme Court said that, if you were born in the United States and both of your parents were U.S. citizens at the time of your birth, you are, without doubt, a natural born citizen.
In the same case, the Supreme Court also said that, if you were born in the United States and one of your parents was not a U.S. citizen when you were born, your natural born citizenship is in doubt.
So far, the Supreme Court has not resolved this doubt because, until now, there has never been any need to do so.

And those doubts were eliminated by US vs. Wong Kim Ark.
Wrong again why do you insist on reversing the SCOTUS.

In Wong Kim Ark, the court thoroughly discussed “natural born citizen”. And in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett. The following passage is a quote from Minor as quoted by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark:

‘At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”

Look at that, you have Justice Gray citing the court in Minor who are themselves citing the “Laws of Nations” definition (they didn’t directly cite that treatise but the definition used is taken therefrom) of natural born citizen = person born in US to “citizen parents” = nbc.

To summarize, we know for sure that persons born in the U.S., of parents who are U.S. citizens, are definitely, without doubt, natural born citizens. So far, the Supreme Court has not decided whether natural born citizenship also includes U.S.-born children of non-citizen parents.


A ruling which used the definition of a natural born citizen in English law as part of their reasoning for deciding the case.
What ruling? What law? References?

You never replied to the McCain part of my post. But you yourself state that SR 511 was a non-binding resolution. So how does it legally make McCain a natural born citizen?
He is only in Congresses opinion a 'nbc' not by any law. It's only a statement from Congress not a law.
McCain’s birth certificate proves he was born in Colon Hospital, city of Colon, Panama. Colon is a big city in Panama and Colon Hospital was not part of any military installation.


Obama admits he was a dual national at birth, a subject of the British monarchy. The framers had just fought a war to escape the British monarchy. No way in hell they would allow somebody who was a British subject to be President.
So tell me how can anyone not see he is ineligible by what the framers of the Constitution intended?

[T-Cat]

Wrong.
In Minor v. Happersett (1874), the Supreme Court said that, if you were born in the United States and both of your parents were U.S. citizens at the time of your birth, you are, without doubt, a natural born citizen.
In the same case, the Supreme Court also said that, if you were born in the United States and one of your parents was not a U.S. citizen when you were born, your natural born citizenship is in doubt.
So far, the Supreme Court has not resolved this doubt because, until now, there has never been any need to do so.and
To summarize, we know for sure that persons born in the U.S., of parents who are U.S. citizens, are definitely, without doubt, natural born citizens. So far, the Supreme Court has not decided whether natural born citizenship also includes U.S.-born children of non-citizen parents. How did you manage to miss the two recent cases?

The Supreme Court declined to review Donofrio v Wells which claimed that Obama was not a natural born citizen because he had British citizenship conveyed to him via his father. They then declined to take Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, which was based on very similar grounds. How can you possibly think that the Supreme Court has not conveyed an opinion on whether or not natural-born citizens also includes U.S. born children of a non-citizen parent? They refused to review both of those challenges thus leaving Obama's natural-born citizenship valid.

Why didn't you comment on either of those cases which I cited?

What ruling? What law? References?You are ignoring much of what Justice Gray stated in delivering the opinion of the SCOTUS:

… In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said: 'There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several states each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes.' 'There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.' 124 U.S. 478 , 8 Sup. Ct. 569.
II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called 'ligealty,' 'obedience,' 'faith,' or 'power'-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king's allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,-as expressed in the maxim, 'Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,'-and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king. So Gray cited English common law and the fact that children born in England of “alien parents” were natural-born subjects. The dissenting opinion which referenced Vatter, was rejected.

He is only in Congresses opinion a 'nbc' not by any law. It's only a statement from Congress not a law.
McCain’s birth certificate proves he was born in Colon Hospital, city of Colon, Panama. Colon is a big city in Panama and Colon Hospital was not part of any military installation.I realize that. But you previously stated that according to your position on natural-born citizens:
Now all this also says that Mccain without SR 511 would not be a 'natural born citizen'.Why would you imply that McCain was a natural born citizen with SR 511 if it is non-binding? You now state that McCain is not a natural born citizen.

Obama admits he was a dual national at birth, a subject of the British monarchy. The framers had just fought a war to escape the British monarchy. No way in hell they would allow somebody who was a British subject to be President.
So tell me how can anyone not see he is ineligible by what the framers of the Constitution intended?The UK and the United States are now allies and had been so for many decades when Obama was born. The framers might realize that the war to escape the British monarchy had been over for almost two centuries and that Obama was hardly the subject of British monarchy, rather he the recipient of British citizenship via decaying colonialism, and that it was now irrelevant in terms of influence.

When you ask “how can anyone not see he is ineligible” you must extent that “anyone” to the SCOTUS which has twice refused to take cases which challenged Obama’s natural-born citizenship because of this very matter.

That anyone (SCOTUS) does not agree with you.