TexasCHLforum.com

BrianSW99 wrote:

baldeagle wrote: Frankly, I don't understand how the issue got started to begin with. His mother was an American. I would think that would make him an American regardless of where he was born.

The issue is not whether he's an American citizen. I don't think most people doubt that. The question is about whether he's Natural Born on American soil, which is what the requirement is for being president.

That's not how I read the Constitution. To me Natural Born means born to American citizens, whereever they may reside.

loadedliberal wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

loadedliberal wrote:Come on folks I said if the birth certificate/ eligibly issues is an issue for you its because you're an idiot or racist. I stand by that. I said earlier there are many good and valid reason to criticize this President and this is not one of the. if you want to call him out on his economic policy or foreign policy I would be inclined to agree. I did not suggest any criticism of the president is race related, just on this particular issue I think it plays a large role. Name one President in the past 100 years who has had to deal with something like this for 2 1/2 years after it was legally settled.

You're misrepresenting the issue. It has never been legally settled (meaning in a court of law.) It may have been settled in your mind, but it obviously hasn't been settled in others'.

That is not true, ask Orly Taitz she fled numerous lawsuits in the matter and all were dismissed due to lack of evidence and she was even bared from filing further lawsuits in the matter.

(edited to include proper spelling of name)

Since I had never heard of her, I had to google Orly Taitz. I'll admit, I haven't done extensive research, but I didn't see anything that indicated that the matter of the birth certificate had been "legally settled" as you claim. Either your standard of proof is exceedingly low or you simply wish this issue would go away and are willing to accept any hint of proof at all.

The fact that courts dismiss lawsuits (which happens all the time) is proof of nothing other than that the court simply didn't want to deal with the case. There can be many reasons for that; lack of standing, wrong venue, political motivations of the judge, pressure from the court's superiors, improperly filed claims, improperly stated grounds for the lawsuit, the court agreed with the demurrers, etc., etc.

Since I don't really care about this issue I'm not going to spend a ton of time researching it, but I haven't found a single case where a court adjudged Obama's birth certificate to be valid. Since I'm unfamiliar with this type of issue, I don't even know if birth certificates can be challenged in court, much less whether or not a court has ever ruled on the validity of a birth certificate.

Frankly, I don't understand how the issue got started to begin with. His mother was an American. I would think that would make him an American regardless of where he was born. After all, it would seem passingly silly to claim that a person born in Paris, France to American parents working for a US corporation with French offices was not an American citizen. The issue of someone born to parents with two different nationalities is a bit less clear, and I am unfamiliar with the legalities of it, so I could be wrong. But i believe that if one parent has American citizenship, then the children of that marriage do as well.

The thing you don't seem to understand is that this really isn't an issue with where Obama was born. The issue has never really been about whether he was an American (otherwise his American mother would settle the issue for most). The issue has been a political jabbing stick to pick away at his Presidency and gain an advantage that might translate into votes. Frankly, no matter how irritating anyone might find an issue that dogs one of their political favorites, the issue will never go away, no matter how much solid proof is adduced, unless the ones who promote the issue decide there is no longer any advantage to be gained by pushing it. That advantage is measured by polls, and recent polls showed almost 50% of the public at least having questions about Obama's citizenship. That is the real reason that Obama released his birth certificate - votes. And that is the reason that releasing the birth certificate had little impact on the people pushing the issue. It remains to be seen, through polling, whether the release resolved the issue of half the population questioning his citizenship. If the numbers now drop precipitously, then Obama will ignore further cries for the release of documents.

loadedliberal wrote:Come on folks I said if the birth certificate/ eligibly issues is an issue for you its because you're an idiot or racist. I stand by that. I said earlier there are many good and valid reason to criticize this President and this is not one of the. if you want to call him out on his economic policy or foreign policy I would be inclined to agree. I did not suggest any criticism of the president is race related, just on this particular issue I think it plays a large role. Name one President in the past 100 years who has had to deal with something like this for 2 1/2 years after it was legally settled.

Is this guy a racist? How about this guy? How about this guy? (And please don't insult us with your response.)

loadedliberal wrote:Come on folks I said if the birth certificate/ eligibly issues is an issue for you its because you're an idiot or racist. I stand by that. I said earlier there are many good and valid reason to criticize this President and this is not one of the. if you want to call him out on his economic policy or foreign policy I would be inclined to agree. I did not suggest any criticism of the president is race related, just on this particular issue I think it plays a large role. Name one President in the past 100 years who has had to deal with something like this for 2 1/2 years after it was legally settled.

You're misrepresenting the issue. It has never been legally settled (meaning in a court of law.) It may have been settled in your mind, but it obviously hasn't been settled in others'. And to attribute that to racism is the worst kind of racism. You really should be ashamed of yourself for repeatedly making that statement and insisting it's one of the only two possibilities.

Some simple examples will suffice to disprove your allegation.

Some people believe (I believe rightly) that Obama is a marxist. Some of those that believe this are desperate to find any issue they can use to discredit him. It wouldn't matter if his skin was green. They would still push the birth certificate issue, because they honestly believe that's a way to defeat him politically. Remember there were people on the left who did the exact same thing to George Bush regarding the 9/11 conspiracy issue. Yet you would never accuse those people of racism simply because Bush is white, yet that's the worst form of racism there is - to assume simply based on the color of man's skin what the motives of his opponents might be.

Some people push the birth certificate issue because they hate Democrats and will believe anything bad said about them. Obama is a Democrat, so he qualifies for their hatred list. It has absolutely nothing to do with the color of his skin.

You claim the proof was provided (you claim "legally settled") two and a half years ago. Bush supporters claimed the exact same thing about the National Guard records. Yet that didn't stop his opponents from trying to use the issue against him. They too insisted that he had lied, that he hadn't released the official documents, that he was covering up something dark and sinister. That you can't see the parallels in those two clearly political issues says a great deal about your inability to look at issues dispassionately and with an open mind.

If you recall the coverage of the 2008 election, the media speculated openly about whether white voters could find it within themselves to vote for a black man. They actually were shocked when white independents and some conservatives voted for Obama. I found that speculation rather amusing. George Bush had more black people in important positions of authority than Bill Clinton did. Yet the media simply believe that conservatives cannot find it within themselves to treat black people as humans. Personally I would vote for Herman Cain in a heartbeat. Not because he's black (because I don't care about that) but because he "gets it".

Your distorted view of racism is a product of hanging out in places like Huffington Post where that sort of thing is believed and spouted as fact without the slightest bit of supporting evidence.

loadedliberal wrote:Come on folks I said if the birth certificate/ eligibly issues is an issue for you its because you're an idiot or racist. I stand by that. I said earlier there are many good and valid reason to criticize this President and this is not one of the. if you want to call him out on his economic policy or foreign policy I would be inclined to agree. I did not suggest any criticism of the president is race related, just on this particular issue I think it plays a large role. Name one President in the past 100 years who has had to deal with something like this for 2 1/2 years after it was legally settled.

Grover Cleveland.

Next question.

Hoi Polloi wrote:Trying to make him out to be an exception because he's black is the only attempt to pull race into the issue I've seen. I'd much rather an acknowledgment that this is what all public political figures are now facing and a denouncement of the current cut-throat methods on all sides because we really do have more important things to spend our time, money, and energy on than vilifying the character of those who are throwing their hat in the ring to help govern our country, on either side of the aisle.

I think I'm in love.

loadedliberal wrote:THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE SHOULD NOT AND HAS NOT BEEN AND ISSUE FOR ANY OTHER PRESIDENT I DO NOT REMEMBER PEOPLE DEMANDING GEORGE BUSH RELESE HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE I DID NOT "PLAY THE RACE CARD" I SIMPLY STATED THAT IF THIS IS YOUR MAIN ISSUE WITH THE PRESIDENT IS HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE ITS EITHER RACE OR IDIOCY TAKE YOUR PICK.

Now you're parsing words. Sen. McCain's birth certificate was an issue in the last election. Why do you suppose that was? Racism? Idiocy? Furthermore, I haven't seen anyone say that Obama's birth certificate is their "main" issue with him, but even if it was, how does that even imply, much less impute racism? Apparently you think it's either racism or idiocy to demand that the Constitution be followed?

It's obvious this issue is irritating to you. I'm not sure why. It's fascinating and quite humorous to me. I believe Obama milks it for all it's worth because it distracts from a serious discussion of his policies, which are a disaster for America and because it allows him to portray his opponents as....wait for it....racists or idiots. Strange coincidence, huh?

This has strayed a long way from the subject, so I'm going to start a new thread entitled, "Should companies pay taxes?"

loadedliberal wrote:{Sigh} Really folks this think, I really thought the people here were above conspiracy theories like this. HE WAS BORN HERE END OF STORY. There are plenty of valid reasons to not like Obama, this is not one of them and it discredits anyone who still thinks he was not born here,

Obama fueled this conspiracy by refusing to release his birth certificate long ago and resisting, to the tune of millions of dollars, attempts to get it released.

Personally I could care less where he was born. He's a Marxist, and he never should have been the Democratic nominee, much less the President of the United States. But a reasonable person must admit that his constant expensive efforts to hide his past are at least odd, if not downright curious.

I personally think he does it because he enjoys prodding the real nuts on both sides of the aisle. He's figured out that all he has to do is lie with his mellifluous voice and charming manner and half the boobs in this country will swoon and think of him as a wonderful guy. The other half will bang their heads against the wall and complain about the braindead half. Meanwhile he rapes the Treasury, destroys the currency, spits on the Constitution and turns the nation into his idea of a socialist paradise where freedom will be a distant memory shared in dark whispers when one is sure no one is listening that would turn them in.

As the once great nation, America, swirls down the drain of failed states, to be replaced by something that every immigrant instantly recognizes as the very thing they sought to escape from, the only solace I can take is that I don't have much longer to live so I won't suffer nearly as much as my children and grandchildren will.

AndyC wrote:The man's a born liar anyway:
Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (Obama's father) Born: April 4, 1936

Lolo Soetoro (Obama's step father) Born: January 2,1935

We need to find out who his real father is....

This is interesting or at least curious. This is a real birth certificate from the same time period. It's hard to see the detail, but the date of birth is 8/5/1961. Obama's birthdate is 8/4/1961. The Department of Health ID number on Obama's birth certificate is 151 61 10641. The ID number on the other one, from a birth a day earlier, is 151 61 10637. Both have the date 8/7/1961 as the date the parent signed, but the doctor signed Obama's birth certificate on 8/8/1961. The other one, with a lower number, was signed by the doctor on 8/11/1961. And the Registrar accepted Obama's on 8/8/1961 but the other was accepted by the Registrar on 8/11/1961.

Not sure if any of this means anything at all, but it is curious.

EDITED TO ADD: Some are making a big deal out of the "fact" that there was no "Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital", but they're wrong as the linked document clearly shows.