Full stop. You lack credibility.
What I don’t understand is why all these people are so anxious to see Joe Biden be President?
A parent or a stepparent cannot renounce the citizenship of a child. So it doesn’t matter what Sotero told some Indonesian school. Obama didn’t need to formally claim citizenship because he was born a US citizen and remained a US citizen, regardless of where he lived or who his mother married.
Please reference the cases where Obama paid legal fees to defend his citizenship, that you estimate here to be a million dollars. That is the info I wanted to get when I started this thread almost a year ago.
So tell me, Don123, if a white guy ran for President who was born in, say, Panama, would you have a problem with that, too?
Please be prepared to explain any differences in your response from that of a black guy born in Hawaii.
Yes it would make a difference to me as I am a constitutionalist, the USA constitution is engraved in stone, and is not a living document.
If there is a valid question as to a person’s US birth citizenship I would error in favor of disallowing that person to run for presidency until ALL the facts are put on the table in plain sight of the voting public. It may be clamed a person is not born in the USA, by any one, but I would give way to the physical evidence that is undisputed. The standard would be “beyond a reasonable doubt” and NOT by the preponderance of the evidence. A high public office demands a high standard of qualifying evidence.
This has NOT been done in Obama’s case, but rather public mania over a black man, for the only reason is his color---- and I should be shamed over being a racist? ha ha ha
Don
You have to realize that their puppet masters are a syndicate of late night talk show hosts.
The reason this has not been done in Obama’s case is because there was never any valid question as to his birth citizenship. There was, however, a valid question as to McCain’s birth citizenship. When people make a big fuss about Obama but not about McCain, there’s some reason for that. And when people won’t tell us a sane or logical reason, we have to draw our own conclusions for what their reasons are, and the simplest explanation is racism. If you don’t want it to be blamed on racism, then give us some other reason why people doubt the citizenship of a guy unambiguously born in Hawaii, but don’t doubt the citizenship of a guy unambiguously born in Panama.
Your understanding is incorrect on all counts. It is not true that you have to be an Indonesian citizen to go to school there. When Obama was registered at a public school in Idonesia, the school registered him under the name of his stepfather, as was the custom in the country. His name was never actually Soetero, though. He was never adopted by his stepfather, never a citizen of Indonesia and never a Muslim. Even his stepfather had stopped practicing Islam at the time. Even if anything of those things had been true (and not one of them is), it still would not have affected his status as a natural born American Citizen.
He also wrote both of his own books himself. Your insinuation that he might have had a ghostwriter is utterly without any basis.
Obama was never adopted, and this is not true in any case.
You pretty much don’t know what you’re talking about. At all. On any level.
Engraved in stone? Really? Even though the Founding Fathers often didn’t agree on what it meant? :rolleyes:
On the one side we have the evidence of Obama’s birth certificate, attested to by the (Republican) Governor of Hawaii. On the other side, what evidence is there apart from wild allegations? If you want better evidence than that, you might have trouble getting anyone allowed to run for any public office in the United States.
Okay, let me say I don’t dispute Obama’s U.S. birth (the newspaper birth announcement was what made it pretty plain to me that no one could/would fake something that far in advance).
But someone please give me the factual answer to the following (because frankly I’ve been too lazy to immerse myself in this whole cluster freak):
-
That green “certification” that was linked at the very beginning of the OP – it isn’t the claim that that was prepared in 1960, is it? It looks way too modern (security paper, looks computer-printed, has the word “laser” at the bottom). So, would people who believe Obama say “that green thing is a modern day abstract of archivally-verified, accurate information?”
-
If so – okay. There is an original somewhere in the vaults, complete with jittery Remington typewriter typeface and some sloppy doctor’s/bureaucrat’s signature. Has Hawaii produced that, if not, why not (privacy concerns would be one valid reason). But shouldn’t they just to end this?
-
My mother has a copy of my jittery blurry old original birth certificate in the family safe. Doesn’t Ma Obama, and again, why hasn’t she/he just xeroxed that and posted it?
Again, I have no conspiracy theory, I know he’s from Hawaii, I just don’t know why (CT craziness aside) someone doesn’t just come up with something, which surely exists somewhere, that looks original as opposed to computer-derived (bc CT people can go to town on hacking the computer database).
If I’m wrong on no. 1 (that this is a present-day computer print out and not a piece of paper that existed in 1960), never mind.
-
The green thing isn’t an original. It’s effectively a certified copy. A modern abstract, as you put it.
-
Because the State of Hawaii doesn’t release vault copies of birth certificates. If the COLB isn’t enough, the Secretary of Health personally reviews the original and certifies the questioned birth. In this case, Governor Linda Lingle (R) also personally vouched for its authenticity.
-
Ma Obama died in 1995.
Oh, then we can end this right now. There has been no valid question of Obama’s citizenship, the wishes of various conservatives notwithstanding.
Meanwhile, I would love to hear more about this ‘not a living document’ stuff, maybe in another thread. You want to roll back all the amendments, or what?
“Living document” gets trundled out to justify stuff that no one’s gone to the trouble of getting an amendment for. It was used to justify a “penumbral” (non-existent for the English speaking) right to privacy that exists nowhere in the original or the amendments.
Don responds:
I think you are referring to McCain that was born in Panama by USA parents on a USA military base. McCain’s father was on active military duty being assigned to that country. Military law does allow the wife to join the husband on active duty in many cases, as he said he a was a military brat and moved to where the military sent his father, and his mother joined him ---- all being 100% legal and up front about it. Accordingly there is no dispute to McCain’s born US citizenship.
As I understand it, McCain put his birth records on public file, full disclosure, and he met the standard of eligibility for presidency. I also believe the USA Military Panama base his father was sent to was some what of a colony of the USA at the time (that president Carter gave away). I’m sure with some digging there is a military law, chapter and verse, that grants citizenship to children born to USA parents while on active military duty in a foreign country.
Palin also put her birth records on public file as being born in Alaska to USA parents. YES Alaska is a USA state, in case you did not know it. Hilary also put her records up for public inspection along with Biden. The only person who has failed is Obama, and his internet cheap copy of a live birth, and his million dollar legal fees with massive legal maneuvering to keep documents hidden, does not cut the mustard.
But again this is a moot point. By prayers to an ALL MIGHTY GOD, (lead by Rev. Wright no doubt) Obama is a born citizen of the USA— and who can argue with a god?
Don
Yeah, fuck those activist judges and their “living document”. Repeal Marbury v. Madison!
Don’t get me started . . . .
ETA that Marbury was not justified at the time or really afterward on the “living document” rationale, which is of much more recent vintage.
ETA again that when someone invokes “living document” they are tacitly admitting that policy X wasn’t originally provided for or intended in the Constitution but that it had sprung into existence as conditions changed. Again, not how Marbury was decided/justified. The decision takes the position that judicial review was always there.
From the web site of the US Customs and Immigration Service (USCIS):
Home | USCIS (follow the link to ‘Citizenship’)
That is the entirelty of qualification for citizenship for someone born in the United States. Obama was born in Hawaii; there is no valid question of this fact. According to the simple rule above, Obama is a citizen. There is no proviso (that I could find) that a citizen has to affirm or re-affirm citizenship prior to age 18, except for naturalized citizens. Obama is a citizen by birth, not through naturalization. Therefore, Obama did not have to re-affirm citizenship, regardless where he may have lived later, or whether he had dual citizenship. Go to the site and read it for yourself if you don’t believe me.
If there is a lot of people here are in trouble.
Again, not having immersed myself in it, are the birthers disputing anything other than their factual claim that he was not born in Hawaii? Are there any who claim his father’s citizenship status is the basis for his not being a citizen (but how could they really think that when most of us on the right are well aware of/decry the fact that if you plop out a little ese on the near bank of the Rio Grande, the dude’s for better or worse a citizen?)?