Go Back   CurlTalk > Life > Politics

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-05-2008, 02:27 PM   #61
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ~TillyWave~ View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~TillyWave~ View Post
OK, well, for those that say he wasn't born in the US, where was he born? Any info/speculation on that? Why would a young girl leave the COUNTRY to have her baby and then come back? I know that later she moved to Indonesia for research/school purposes, but at age 19 in college near her parents, where did Ann Dunham go to have her baby?
I have no idea where he was or wasn't born but there is speculation that he was born in Mombasa, Kenya. Supposedly his paternal grandmother said she was there with other relatives when Barack was born in Kenya. That to me is not proof of him being born in Kenya, we would have to see a Kenyan birth certificate. But good luck getting access with Odinga in power. What's strikes me as weird is that Sarah is not his actual paternal grandmother, just another one of his grandfather's wives. I think she's Hussein's third wife and no one seems to know where the real granny is, and Obama doesn't talk about her. All the speculation could be put to rest but it just keeps snowballing. And people think this is okay. How sad.

And CurlyCurlies
The scenario you bring up of being born on US soil but having parents born elsewhere would exclude him from being a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. The founding fathers even acknowledged that they were not natural born citizens since many were British subjects so they grandfather-claused themselves out.

Watching the video I can't help but roll my eyes. I'm not surprised with CNN though. First this is not to rewrite the election, these charges were there before he had secured his nomination. The language the journalist uses of "lawsuits trying to overturn the results" is loaded. God forbid anyone cares about the Constitution. If he was disqualified Biden would be President until a President qualifies. The Democrats would most likely still be in charge. And their legal analyst is a selective hack. Let's not talk about the various changes in law especially from 1950 onwards.
Well, there is speculation that Obama is Muslim, that his sidekicks are members of Al-Qaida, that he's a traitor and a terrorist too. So I guess we can just add this to the list of specualtion. And I guess he should be addressing all of these points and defending baseless accusations.
No he should address the requirements for the job. I answered your question, no need to be sarcastic.
CottonCandyCurls is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2008, 03:10 PM   #62
 
RedCatWaves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 31,609
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls View Post
Red Cat Waves
Who has gotten increasingly hysterical with each post. If the constitutional requirement does not matter for president, please explain when and where it does count? Should I disregard the 16th Amendment that says I have to pay income taxes. Will someone get to reinterpret the 1st on whether we should have free speech? We have rules and regulations not for kicks but to be followed. They are the laws of the land. So yes if he was found to not meet the requirements, all those who could care less and would want him anyway are in my opinion shredding the constitution because you are basically saying it's not worth the paper it was printed on.

Again I don't hate the guy. It's not about him or any of the other posters putting up misinformation, including yourself. It's about following the law. period. full stop. His defense of citzenship is what exactly? A picture on his website? Avoiding the courts? Hiring multiple law firms at the tune of 1 million? I'd sure like to visit the planet you are living on because it's not where the rest of the world lives. I never said the number of cases were proof of him not being a natural born citizen, just that more and more will continue to be filed until the matter is settled. Instead of addressing what I have actually answered you would like to attack me. Instead of schooling yourself on the US codes of immigration and naturalization you and others like to talk on tangents about what you "know" or what someone else said, or how you feel. Sorry if that is just not enough for me.

Again for the 4th or 5th time. If there is nothing there, you have absolutely nothing to be worried about. And anyone who has a faux concern about wasting taxpayer dollars needs to give it a rest. Very little will be spent to settle this issue. At the same time the Democrats are already proposing another "stimulus package" of 500 BILLION dollars even though the last one was an abysmal failure as many with common sense predicted. I think the question of a suitable commander in chief is of some value, don't you?


You complain about Obama's supposed $1 million spent in defense of his citizenship, then you go on to say people shouldn't worry about taxpayer money being wasted on "investigating" this ridiculous claim, because we're about to blow another $500 billion on top of the Trillion that has already been wasted. Seems like you're mixing all sorts of things into this...really crazy argument.

Obama is a natural-born citizen. He was born on Hawaii. He campaigned for president for 2 years and was investigated by the best-of-the-best of Clinton's sleuths. That was his vetting. There's nothing there.

You might want to look up...those black helicopters you see overhead... just might be circling for you.
RedCatWaves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2008, 03:13 PM   #63
 
Nappy_curly_crown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,147
Send a message via Yahoo to Nappy_curly_crown
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls View Post
Again, it's nice that everyone on here has opinions but I'm afraid you are wrong. For one, part of the reason why Donofrio is suing is that there is no vetting process for any of the candidates to be on the ballots. If you read the first page of the case you'd see that his case is against the Secretary of State of NJ. Can any of you explain why a foreign national from Nicaragua was on a presidential ballot? No you cannot. Who vetted that person?

We do not know what exactly Obama has been briefed on. There is no precedent of someone with these kinds of questionable issues of "natural born citizenship" ever being elected. As I've said before if McCain won this would still be an issue and I would have no problem with lawsuits from people upholding the constitutional requirements. The NYT can bring it up in Feb but mum is the word about the numerous issues regarding the Democratic candidate, how convenient.

You clearly have not been following this matter at all. The Supreme Court has not thrown out those 15. The number is about 17 by now. Those are filed first in the states. The only reason Donofrio's hit the Supremes first is that NJ has looser rules on who has legal standing. If you read my original post I said three were on the docket. Berg who filed his case from PA did not have it thrown out the judge claimed he didn't have standing and couldn't prove injury or harm. But the mere fact that Obama and the DNC did not respond was a legal admission of guilt. Thus his case has proceeded to the Supreme Court because he is disputing the judge's decision that he did not have standing and wants Obama to resolve the issues and admission of guilt.

Also you would have to debate the merits of the different cases who bring up different angles and points of contention. Let's not paint them all with broadbrush strokes, please. I have not vouched for any in particular but these issues need to cleared up. As for Donofrio's case you need to understand the three classifcations of citizenship. To be president he needs to be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. That is constitutionally unique. Obama and McCain, according to Donofrio's case would not meet that requirement. What the Supremes officially decide to weigh in on that is one thing but it's commonly understood by most of us that your parents need to be US citizens and you need to be born on within US jurisdiction. You can think it's quackery but I honestly could care less about what you think. It's the Supreme Court Justices and the Constitution who will matter in this decision.
nice try....but try again.

1. Donofrio's case againt the secretary of NJ was thrown out BEFORE the election when it was submitted to Justice Souter on Nov. 3, and he denyed the application on Nov. 6. He then resubmitted the application to Justice Thomas, who has brought it before the court.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm

His original lawsuit was to have B.O.'s name removed from the ballot, based on the fact that he was born to a Kenyan father. Since obviously, that didn't happen, his new application argue's that B.O. is not constitutionally eligible to hold the office based on the fact that he was born to a Kenyan father, even though he was born on US soil. Here is the text of his original application as well as links to he current application.

http://www.blogtext.org/naturalbornc...mage18698.html

His agruement goes farther to state that since the 14th amendment (which to secure the rights of former slaves) does not include the statement "natural born citizen", that it was not the intent of the constitution to grant natural born citizenship status automaticly to every person born on US soil.

Section 1 of 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Now, the above section of the 14th amendment was written to provide citizenship to former slaves born in the US and also as a reversal of the Dred Scott case, which established that slaves were NOT citizens. There is a long case history by the Supreme court that has effectively decided that children born on US soil ARE infact citizens more importantly they are natural born citizens by birth right, even if thier parents are not. In Obama's case, he was born to a natural born citizen (his American mother), which should make the issue of his father's citizenship a moot point.

Cases that have been brought before the supreme court on this issue include: Elk v Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), U.S v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898 ) [as you can see, these cases were brought not to long after this amendment was ratified. In the case of Elk v Wilkins, the Supreme court ruled that children born to Native Americans were not US citizens, while in Wong Kim Ark, children born to Chinese citizens were citizens]

Additionally, the following cases which all reference the 14th amendment which this current application is using as the basis of his arguement, have basicly established that children born on US soil, regardless of the parental citizenship status, are in fact, NATURAL BORN CITIZENS with all the rights and privildges provided under the consitution. These cases include: INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985) and Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).

2. I said that all MAJOR candidates are vetted...those that actually stand a chance of being elected. Anyone can RUN for president. The vetting process won't stop them from running...however, if by some act of fate that person should win, that president won't be able to obtain the high level security information because they will be deemed a security risk.

3. Yes, almost all of those cases that are headed to the Supreme court have been thrown out of lower Federal courts because they have no merit. Obviously you don't understand how cases make it to the Supreme court. Cases must be presented to a lower court. The lower court can either hear that case or dismiss it, based on a precieved lack of merit. The person making the application can then appeal the lower courts decision until it reaches the Supreme Court. In order for the case to have even made it to the Supreme court, it would have had to have been either heard and ruled on, or dismissed by lower courts. Every single lower court has dismissed these cases because they lack merit. Currently, the Supreme court has not decided to hear ANY of these cases. I'd wager that based on previous case law, they will not hear this or all the other cases either.

As you can see, I'm quite well versed on this issue and have done my research. Rather than attacking me because we have very differnt veiw points in this arguement, present your facts and case law history as I have mine.
__________________
Wanna talk products? Come Join us here!
http://www.facebook.com/PlatinumPJ

Extremely thick, kinky curls/coils that have a mind of thier own!!!!
_____________________________
I like my men and my hair....KINKY!!!!
_____________________________
Wanna save $10 off your next purchase at vitacost.com? Use my referal code (click the link)!



Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Calorie Counter

Last edited by Nappy_curly_crown; 12-05-2008 at 03:15 PM.
Nappy_curly_crown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2008, 03:20 PM   #64
 
A_la_Nap-tural's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 409
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls View Post
And CurlyCurlies
The scenario you bring up of being born on US soil but having parents born elsewhere would exclude him from being a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. The founding fathers even acknowledged that they were not natural born citizens since many were British subjects so they grandfather-claused themselves out.
Um.... I disagree.

Being a natural born citizen simply means being a citizen at birth, rather than having to apply for citizenship later. The founding fathers were born in the UK, so they were correct by not considering themselves as natural born citizens of the U.S. But again, REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU SPIN IT, Obama meets the qualifications. He either:

1: Was born to an American mother off U.S. soil which would still qualify him as a citizen at birth, or
2: He was in fact born on U.S. soil and there is no question as to his citizenship.

And her argument is right, whenever a pregnant Mexican mother comes across the border and drops her load on U.S. soil, whether she is legal or illegal, they can't separate the two and send her back b/c her child is... you guessed it, a natural born citizen of the U.S. You can check out the U.S. Code here. It fills in all the gaps that our founding fathers left in our constitution. And I think there are a lot of gaps, which is why we have the Supreme Court.
__________________
www.thenaturalknowitall.com

www.mixology101.ning.com
I'm luvin' my natural self FIRST!

"And if you don't want to be down with me, you don't want to pick from my appletree."-Erykah Badu





A_la_Nap-tural is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2008, 03:46 PM   #65
 
MichelleBFT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,734
Default

CottonCandyCurls: Have you read any of the links (or looked up for yourself) the US Code that we've all been citing as proof that his US born mother (who was a resident for at least five years) is proof enough of Obama's citizenship? Because you haven't responded to any of those posts.
__________________
"And politically correct is the worst term, not just because it’s dismissive, but because it narrows down the whole social justice spectrum to this idea that it’s about being polite instead of about dismantling the oppressive social structure of power.
Fun Fact: When you actively avoid being “PC,” you’re not being forward-thinking or unique. You’re buying into systems of oppression that have existed since before you were even born, and you’re keeping those systems in place."
Stolen.
MichelleBFT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2008, 04:48 PM   #66
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,547
Default

Remember all of those raids on plants that employed lots of illegal immigrants? One of the arguments againsts deporting some of them was that they would be separated from their children, who having been born here were U.S. citizens. I saw Michael Chertoff talking about that. He said that arrangements could be made for the children who despite both parents being illegal, were in fact U.S. citizens. So Chertoff is lying?
Myradella3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2008, 05:20 PM   #67
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 344
Default

[quote=Nappy_curly_crown;811377]
nice try....but try again.

1. Donofrio's case againt the secretary of NJ was thrown out BEFORE the election when it was submitted to Justice Souter on Nov. 3, and he denyed the application on Nov. 6. He then resubmitted the application to Justice Thomas, who has brought it before the court.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm

His original lawsuit was to have B.O.'s name removed from the ballot, based on the fact that he was born to a Kenyan father. Since obviously, that didn't happen, his new application argue's that B.O. is not constitutionally eligible to hold the office based on the fact that he was born to a Kenyan father, even though he was born on US soil. Here is the text of his original application as well as links to he current application.

Okay I don't know if you are getting cases confused as to which ones I'm talking about. It was Berg's case which was one of the firsts and he filed it during the primaries. Donofrio's emergency stay application to halt the election was thrown out. I am well aware. Souter was not going to halt the election to address the case even if Donofrio wanted to have the issue settled before anyone voted. That is not a sign that the case is without merit, just that an emergency stay would not be gratned. He then resubmitted to Thomas as you said. Did I ever say any of the above was not true. I'm not understanding your nice try comment.

The concern of his lawsuit is that the Secretary of State of NJ and for that matter no one checks for the eligibility of candidates put on the ballot. That includes a presidential candidate that is Nicaraguan who has no US citizenship and was born to foreign nationals. The lawsuit is not concerned with his birthplace or birth certificate but that having a father that is a British subject (Kenya was still under colonial rule there) is not sufficient to meet natural born citizen requirements. It seems as if you did not read the whole case as you make no mention of common law.

http://www.blogtext.org/naturalbornc...mage18698.html

His agruement goes farther to state that since the 14th amendment (which to secure the rights of former slaves) does not include the statement "natural born citizen", that it was not the intent of the constitution to grant natural born citizenship status automaticly to every person born on US soil.

and how is this incorrect? glad you posted the 14th amendment

Section 1 of 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Since you would like to quote the Constitution.
Let's quote Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution, you know the actual part of the constitution that created the executive branch of government. It states that:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

So unless Obama is magically as old Ben Franklin being a US Citizen would not be enough as Donofrio claims.

Now, the above section of the 14th amendment was written to provide citizenship to former slaves born in the US and also as a reversal of the Dred Scott case, which established that slaves were NOT citizens. There is a long case history by the Supreme court that has effectively decided that children born on US soil ARE infact citizens more importantly they are natural born citizens by birth right, even if thier parents are not. In Obama's case, he was born to a natural born citizen (his American mother), which should make the issue of his father's citizenship a moot point.

Cases that have been brought before the supreme court on this issue include: Elk v Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), U.S v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898 ) [as you can see, these cases were brought not to long after this amendment was ratified. In the case of Elk v Wilkins, the Supreme court ruled that children born to Native Americans were not US citizens, while in Wong Kim Ark, children born to Chinese citizens were citizens]

US vs. Wong Kim Ark does not in any sense of the word redefine NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. What made Wong's case controversial was the unconstitutionl Chinese Exclusion Acts that had been passed in years prior. The case defined him as a United States citizen and a citizen alone, but not a natural born one.

Perkins vs. Elg
(1933) it's a case that actually builds off Wong Kim Ark's case law definition of nationality. There is Ms. Elg who was born in Brooklyn to Swedish nationals, one of whom became a naturalized citizen. The ruling was that she was a citizen. And there is Mr. Steinkauler who was born in St. Louis to parents who were United States citizens, one of whom was naturalized. The ruling he was a native-born citizen. Which is also unique. Can all of us here start recognizing the differences and stop conflating all the various classifications of citizenship. They do exist.

I might as well address A La Naptural.
A natural born citizen:
born on soil within US jurisdiction
born to two parents who are United States citizens

If any of the above were not an issue why would McCain have some of the top constitutional scholars and lawyers prepare a legal briefing stating that he is natural born citizen. Why would he need that to go through the Congress, hmm I wonder.

Additionally, the following cases which all reference the 14th amendment which this current application is using as the basis of his arguement, have basicly established that children born on US soil, regardless of the parental citizenship status, are in fact, NATURAL BORN CITIZENS with all the rights and privildges provided under the consitution. These cases include: INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985) and Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).

All of those cases are similar to Wong's in that these people are citizens, but they are not that natural born. Both were being denied their constitutional rights but they are not eligible to be President.

2. I said that all MAJOR candidates are vetted...those that actually stand a chance of being elected. Anyone can RUN for president. The vetting process won't stop them from running...however, if by some act of fate that person should win, that president won't be able to obtain the high level security information because they will be deemed a security risk.

Oh so we have an agency or group that selectively vets candidates. There is no such group or person that checks the eligibility of candidates on the ballot. If such a person or group exists I'd like to know because they have been asleep at the wheel. If people with green cards can get on the ballot, people under 35 can get on the ballot. We just haven't had to worry about it because no one with such problems has been elected in recent memory.
CottonCandyCurls is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2008, 05:20 PM   #68
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 344
Default Continuation of Dialogue with Nappy Crown

3. Yes, almost all of those cases that are headed to the Supreme court have been thrown out of lower Federal courts because they have no merit. Obviously you don't understand how cases make it to the Supreme court. Cases must be presented to a lower court. The lower court can either hear that case or dismiss it, based on a precieved lack of merit. The person making the application can then appeal the lower courts decision until it reaches the Supreme Court. In order for the case to have even made it to the Supreme court, it would have had to have been either heard and ruled on, or dismissed by lower courts. Every single lower court has dismissed these cases because they lack merit. Currently, the Supreme court has not decided to hear ANY of these cases. I'd wager that based on previous case law, they will not hear this or all the other cases either.

When did I say that the cases don't start in the lower courts. They have not all been thrown out for being without merit. I'm sure some of the people filing might be on the left side of loony, but the biggest hurdle for any of them has been a question of standing. Anyway the Supreme Court has decided to conference on Donofrio. Berg's will likely be up in 10 days. You may be confident that they will not hear these cases, but your understanding of case law is shaky at best.

As you can see, I'm quite well versed on this issue and have done my research. Rather than attacking me because we have very differnt veiw points in this arguement, present your facts and case law history as I have mine.[/quote]

I'm unconvinced that you are well-versed on the issue. And there is a lot more research to be done that should be left to the professional that neither of us are. I have never claimed to be a legal scholar but I have to correct some of the most basic and obvious things being posted. I also don't see where or when I attacked you but if I did I apologize. My intent is not to attack anyone but to present information on what is happening to the forum. Whether people think the case is with or without merit is something the courts will decide
CottonCandyCurls is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2008, 05:22 PM   #69
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedCatWaves View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls View Post
Red Cat Waves
Who has gotten increasingly hysterical with each post. If the constitutional requirement does not matter for president, please explain when and where it does count? Should I disregard the 16th Amendment that says I have to pay income taxes. Will someone get to reinterpret the 1st on whether we should have free speech? We have rules and regulations not for kicks but to be followed. They are the laws of the land. So yes if he was found to not meet the requirements, all those who could care less and would want him anyway are in my opinion shredding the constitution because you are basically saying it's not worth the paper it was printed on.

Again I don't hate the guy. It's not about him or any of the other posters putting up misinformation, including yourself. It's about following the law. period. full stop. His defense of citzenship is what exactly? A picture on his website? Avoiding the courts? Hiring multiple law firms at the tune of 1 million? I'd sure like to visit the planet you are living on because it's not where the rest of the world lives. I never said the number of cases were proof of him not being a natural born citizen, just that more and more will continue to be filed until the matter is settled. Instead of addressing what I have actually answered you would like to attack me. Instead of schooling yourself on the US codes of immigration and naturalization you and others like to talk on tangents about what you "know" or what someone else said, or how you feel. Sorry if that is just not enough for me.

Again for the 4th or 5th time. If there is nothing there, you have absolutely nothing to be worried about. And anyone who has a faux concern about wasting taxpayer dollars needs to give it a rest. Very little will be spent to settle this issue. At the same time the Democrats are already proposing another "stimulus package" of 500 BILLION dollars even though the last one was an abysmal failure as many with common sense predicted. I think the question of a suitable commander in chief is of some value, don't you?


You complain about Obama's supposed $1 million spent in defense of his citizenship, then you go on to say people shouldn't worry about taxpayer money being wasted on "investigating" this ridiculous claim, because we're about to blow another $500 billion on top of the Trillion that has already been wasted. Seems like you're mixing all sorts of things into this...really crazy argument.

Obama is a natural-born citizen. He was born on Hawaii. He campaigned for president for 2 years and was investigated by the best-of-the-best of Clinton's sleuths. That was his vetting. There's nothing there.

You might want to look up...those black helicopters you see overhead... just might be circling for you.
To Red Cat Waves
Will the moral equivalencies from you ever stop. He has spent $1 million to avoid showing a long form birth certificate. I find it puzzling and weird. He has to be a natural born citizen to be president. But that is not worthy of attention from you because constitutional requirements are irrelevant and anything done to avoid them is a-okay.

If taxpayer money is spent to avoid a constitutional crisis regarding a commander in chief, I think that is a worthy expense. So the taxpayer should never spend any money to uphold the constitution or hold their elected leaders accountable? I'm the one making the crazy argument. I don't think so.

And a "stimulus" package that is doomed to fail that will put the country into further debt, increase inflation and devalue the dollar is not worthy of any kind of complaint. Especially when it is to the tune of half a trilliion dollars. Wow I guess I'm such an evil person for giving a damn about the economy and the decision makers in Washington.

I'm glad that you are not in a position of power to execute your warped logic. I'm asking that the constitution is followed and that he is determined to be a natural born citizen before being sworn into office to avoid a constitutional crisis.

You somehow think just stating he is a natural born citizen makes it so. Sorry it doesn't. Campaigning and not having political rivals dig out your dirt is also not sufficient proof of natural born citizenship. If you define that as vetting I can't help but feel sorry for you. And mocking me doesn't change the issue at hand. It only makes you look mean, hysterical and pathetic. But keep it coming at this point it's entertaining.
CottonCandyCurls is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2008, 05:37 PM   #70
 
Boomygrrl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,910
Default

Does anyone honestly think he could've made it this far if he wasn't a natural born citizen? He was born from a mother, who was a US citizen, and he was born in Hawaii, which the last time I checked is a state of the United States. He has submitted his birth certificate. What's with all the scrutiny? I can't believe there are people that hate the idea of Obama being president so much that they would resort to this level. Oh, actually, I can believe it.
He has submitted his birth certificate, so now the burden of proof is on the nay-sayers. I guess they can investigate it if they want, but I see it as a waste of time and tax payer money. What would possess a person to even want to investigate it?
If I told you I was born in Montana, why would you doubt it? Just because I live in Texas now? It is believable that I was born in Montana (because I was), as it is believable he was born in Hawaii. I just don't understand where this is coming from. What led to the suspicion in the first place? Really, I'm curious.
I know the difference between believing me and believing Obama is that my reality probably has no bearings on you. I understand he is the president-elect. But really...I'm just curious where is the skepticism of his natural born status really coming from?
His father is Kenyan, not him.
It just seems odd to me.
__________________
That's right, I said it! I wear scrunchies!!

I am a sulfate washing, cone slabbing, curly lovin' s.o.b. The CG police haven't caught me yet.


3a/3b
Boomygrrl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2008, 05:54 PM   #71
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichelleBFT View Post
CottonCandyCurls: Have you read any of the links (or looked up for yourself) the US Code that we've all been citing as proof that his US born mother (who was a resident for at least five years) is proof enough of Obama's citizenship? Because you haven't responded to any of those posts.
Sorry if I missed that MichelleBFT. For Obama to have his mother's citizenship conferred to him properly she would have had to have him at 19. Here's a snippet of the code as it stood in 1960

8 U.S.C. § 1401(g):
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of Title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of Title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;
If Obama was born after 1986 he would be fine regarding his mother's citizenship as they changed it the bolded to "totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years." But 1986 amendment was not a retroactive change. In fact in 1988 they made an additional amendment: "(d) The amendment made by section 12 shall apply to persons born on or after November 14, 1986."

There is also the precedent set by the case, United States v. Flores-Villar, 497 F. Supp. 2d 1160, 1162-64 (S.D. Cal. 2007). It affirmed that the "10 years with 5 years after age 14 rule" still applies to anyone born before the 86 and 94 amendments.

Anyway according to Donofrio's case even if Obama's mother could somehow qualify, that would not be enough because his father is a British subject. Hope that helps. Again I'm not a lawyer or legal scholar. But I would hope that the matter is settled by the appropriate authorities.

Here is the current USC code, it's not particularly fun to read: http://law.onecle.com/uscode/8/1401.html
CottonCandyCurls is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2008, 06:01 PM   #72
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,547
Default

And tell me again how McCain, Palin, Clinton, et al missed this since it's been on the web for at least a year?
Myradella3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2008, 06:12 PM   #73
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boomygrrl View Post
Does anyone honestly think he could've made it this far if he wasn't a natural born citizen? He was born from a mother, who was a US citizen, and he was born in Hawaii, which the last time I checked is a state of the United States. He has submitted his birth certificate. What's with all the scrutiny? I can't believe there are people that hate the idea of Obama being president so much that they would resort to this level. Oh, actually, I can believe it.
He has submitted his birth certificate, so now the burden of proof is on the nay-sayers. I guess they can investigate it if they want, but I see it as a waste of time and tax payer money. What would possess a person to even want to investigate it?
If I told you I was born in Montana, why would you doubt it? Just because I live in Texas now? It is believable that I was born in Montana (because I was), as it is believable he was born in Hawaii. I just don't understand where this is coming from. What led to the suspicion in the first place? Really, I'm curious.
I know the difference between believing me and believing Obama is that my reality probably has no bearings on you. I understand he is the president-elect. But really...I'm just curious where is the skepticism of his natural born status really coming from?
His father is Kenyan, not him.
It just seems odd to me.
I think he could make it this far, because

1) No one has reason to believe someone with questionable citizenship would run much less be viable. The system is obviously built on a certain level of trust, otherwise

2) We would have an agency or department or position that would determine the eligibility of those placed on the ballot.

While his mother was a US citizen the laws at the time don't assume her citizenship conferred to her son. He has submitted a certification of live birth whose authenticity is in dispute. And while he may have been born in Hawaii, that does not resolve the constitutional requirement of natural born citizenship.

I gave the example of Whitehouse Inc on the first page of this thread. I thought it was a pretty decent analogy. But what caused this suspicion in the first place was Obama. Members of the media had asked to see his birth certificate, as they had made allegations that John McCain was ineligible. He refused but members of the MSM shrugged their shoulders. Then theories started developing in alternative media, after those speculations swept like wildfire a COLB, certification of live birth was produced. It was first put up on DailyKos, then Fight the Smears, then more pictures were put on FactCheck.org, an Annenberg Foundation group.

Since a COLB is different from a birth certificate, and the authenticity of COLB that no one was allowed to see except for the Chicago Annenberg group, people started demanding to see the vaulted original. Which had been put under seal because of press and citizen inquiries.

After being sued, some of those lawsuits included the DNC, instead of whipping out the original and putting it to rest, he hired several law firms to dismiss the case. He chose to avoid the issue altogether, no press conferences, no showing of the original, no lifting the seal declaration so even the media could see the original. After racking up about $1 million in lawyer fees, when showing the original costs nothing and a copy costs $10. People are mighty suspicious. If there is nothing to hide there, why won't he show it? And why has the DNC joined him in stonewalling any access to his original birth certificate.

As I have said I think this is the third time, he won the electoral vote and the popular vote. I have no problem with him being president. But if he does not qualify, he cannot be president. That's not sour grapes, it's called following the rules. And I'm tired of everyone claiming otherwise. Because if Obama can be President without having to follow the Constitution, who does have to follow it? That is why they call this "natural born citizen" issue a constitutional crisis.

I can understand if this comes as a suprise if you follow only a handful of the major news media. But this has been a long and low lying story that has all but been ignored. The press is only really covering it now because it's in the Supreme Court i.e. unavoidable. And I've read various articles that conflate citizenship, cases, case law and use biased and loaded language. This applies to the right and left wing media. Hope that clarifies a few things Boomygrrl.
CottonCandyCurls is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2008, 06:16 PM   #74
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Myradella3 View Post
And tell me again how McCain, Palin, Clinton, et al missed this since it's been on the web for at least a year?
I cannot speak for any of them on why they did or didn't do things. The behavior of all of the above has been puzzling at times. All I know is Hindsight is 20/20. Read about Watergate and ask the same question of Nixon's political rivals in his party and the opposition party.
CottonCandyCurls is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2008, 06:46 PM   #75
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,547
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myradella3 View Post
And tell me again how McCain, Palin, Clinton, et al missed this since it's been on the web for at least a year?
I cannot speak for any of them on why they did or didn't do things. The behavior of all of the above has been puzzling at times. All I know is Hindsight is 20/20. Read about Watergate and ask the same question of Nixon's political rivals in his party and the opposition party.
Okay, it's been around for a year. Why are you just now bringing it up?

Suppose Obama let Joe Biden and Clarence Thomas see a vault copy. Would that satisfy you?

Finally, what proof have you that George Bush is a natural born citizen and is it too late for you to file to see the real one?
Myradella3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2008, 07:16 PM   #76
 
RedCatWaves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 31,609
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls View Post
I can understand if this comes as a suprise if you follow only a handful of the major news media. But this has been a long and low lying story that has all but been ignored. The press is only really covering it now because it's in the Supreme Court i.e. unavoidable. And I've read various articles that conflate citizenship, cases, case law and use biased and loaded language. This applies to the right and left wing media. Hope that clarifies a few things Boomygrrl.

It was ignored, because there is nothing to it. The "alternative" media (as you call it, I call them hate media...semantics I guess) got a tiny blip of coverage because Clarence Thomas agreed to review one case. None of these cases are "in" the Supreme Court. They have been submitted, but not accepted, yet. I really doubt the SC will hear any of these cases.
RedCatWaves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2008, 09:13 PM   #77
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Myradella3 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myradella3 View Post
And tell me again how McCain, Palin, Clinton, et al missed this since it's been on the web for at least a year?
I cannot speak for any of them on why they did or didn't do things. The behavior of all of the above has been puzzling at times. All I know is Hindsight is 20/20. Read about Watergate and ask the same question of Nixon's political rivals in his party and the opposition party.
Okay, it's been around for a year. Why are you just now bringing it up?

Suppose Obama let Joe Biden and Clarence Thomas see a vault copy. Would that satisfy you?

Finally, what proof have you that George Bush is a natural born citizen and is it too late for you to file to see the real one?
Because now I'm no longer part of the "silent majority." I have had doubts about Obama since February. I've had doubts about his citizenship status since late March. I haven't been a member on this forum for that long, but I've seen how you react to some of the more minor things I and others post on here. The official "theory" put into the journalistic ether questioning the issues of his birth and citizenship status was put out on June 10th by Jim Geraghty at the National Review. It had already been questioned in several other places before then but that was the first time a "traditional media" columnist put it out there. Two days later a COLB appears on Daily Kos, and one day after that FightTheSmears is born with a different COLB image that is smaller and slightly different. Either way both looked suspect. And when did presidential candidates put official records on blogs? Silly me, there's nothing strange there.

FactCheck put up more images on June 16th after people had been analyzing the previous COLBs and finding serious inconsistencies in sourcing and appearance. Look at the close-ups on factcheck.org, they look mighty suspicious. I'm a heavy photoshop user and the pixelation on such big images files is extremely suspect. And as westcoastcurls pointed out, it was the Chicago Annenberg group that got access. No conflict of interest there, sigh. I've followed the issue for awhile now, and other people, some concerned citizens, others private investigators and some lawyers have fleshed out more of the details. And now it's finally up to the Supreme Court.

Again I don't see why posters are making it about me. But if Obama let Clarence Thomas and the other Supremes see the original it should be seen by a forensic expert, seeing that the images his campaign has posted are highly suspect. Even then that does not eliminate all the other contentions to the constitutional requirement of "natural born citizen." Some of you are acting like I made up these laws. Sorry I didn't. If you want to blame someone, blame the founding fathers who created the system and laws we still live with.

There has never been any doubt that Dubya is a natural born citizen. And to even bring that up is not only a silly distraction but beyond laughable. Dubya did not have most everything about his life sealed. He was not born to a mother at a time where her citizenship does not transfer automatically. His father was a not a visiting student from a third-world country under British law. Dubya has a hospital, doctors and nurses who all vouch for his birth date and place. He has never hid or stonewalled anyone from seeing his birth records. So try again Myradella. The comparison is lame and foolish.

By the way the citizenship requirements for the US Senate and various state Senates are different from the President. I don't think anyone has brought that up, but I can dispel that one right now. You can look it up yourselves.

To Red Cat Waves
Who still has not resolved some of her issues. It was ignored for various reasons but not because there was nothing to it. The alternative media, as I stated above, were journalists, private investigators, retired CIA and FBI, concerned citizens, and lawyers. If you want to define those people as hate, go ahead with your hysterics. It's getting more coverage because the MSM is trying to cover their proverbial butts after ignoring the issue and all the points at hand for so long. There have been a number of admissions by many members of the press that the bias of the media this electoral cycle was extreme and out of control. There have also been a number of media studies analyzing the print and broadcast media and have found the same trends. I've said it before and I'll say it again. The MSM has devolved. As a whole they are lazy, biased and often incompetent. Remember that the story of illegal alien Aunt Zeituni was not found by our own presscorp but by the British. Was that story particularly hard to find. Jeremiah Wright was a legitimate story regardless of how you thought it was handled. Even I stumbled on their church website way back when and found certain red flags. But the media sat on the story knowing full well the implications the videos could have on the campaign. ABC only proceeded with the story because of it's wide circulation by "hate media" otherwise known as YouTube.

I think it's in the interest of the Court and Country to review the merits of the case. And yes I'm well aware that you doubt it will be heard. But as I've said before I could really care less. Now, I can only wonder what moral equivalency or angry screed you will come up with next.

(and a second note to Nappy Curly Crown on why Souter might have rejected Donofrio)
My SO just pointed out to me that it's possible that it was bumped to Justice Clarence Thomas since Justice Souter was already served with handling Berg's Case. Justice Souter is appointed to the Third Circuit. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has appellate jurisdiction for the District of New Jersey and all the Districts of Pennsylvania. There might be some case-load rule that Justice Souter could not be served with both. And by the way Berg's will proceed 10 days after the Dec. 1 deadline for Obama to produce a BC was not met.

Last edited by CottonCandyCurls; 12-05-2008 at 09:26 PM.
CottonCandyCurls is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2008, 08:02 AM   #78
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,547
Default

It's not lame to ask why this one American citizen is having his citizenship questioned. I've never been asked to prove my citizenship for one job I've had and I've worked in three states for the various levels of government. My word was good enough as was Dubya's and Clinton's and Roosevelt's and Kennedy's when they ran for and were elected president. Was the proof about Bush in the form of his official birth certificate seen by you or whoever you trust (since Hawaiian officials have said it exists and you don't trust them)? Why Obama? What's different about him?
Myradella3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2008, 08:44 AM   #79
 
Trenell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,295
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Myradella3 View Post
. Was the proof about Bush in the form of his official birth certificate seen by you or whoever you trust (since Hawaiian officials have said it exists and you don't trust them)? Why Obama? What's different about him?
hmmmm. Let.Me.Think.

My theory the extreme right are mad as hell to lose a democrat plus he's, you know...
__________________


Blog
Trenell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2008, 09:28 AM   #80
 
journotraveler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,891
Default

i'm not a constitutional scholar and i'm not going to get into a flurry of posting legal cases & insult trading.

but from what i've read on several legal sites:

the age of obama's mother at the time of his birth is only significant if he were born outside of the country. between 12/24/52 and 11/13/86, the law stated that if you were born outside this country and only one of your parents was a US citizen, then that parent had to have resided in the states for a certain period of time after a certain age. (some accounts say five years after 14, other say five years after 16.)

donofrio's lawsuit does not dispute that obama was born in hawaii. his claim rests on the fact that obama's father was a kenyan national; he is claiming that because of that, obama had divided loyalties/dual citizenship.

as for his birth certificate, obama has provided it. the state of hawaii has verified that he was born in hawaii. even worldnetdaily, which is waging a campaign against obama now, in august acknowledged that his birth certificate was "authentic."

Quote:
A separate WND investigation into Obama's birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren't originally there.
yesterday, the supreme court did not grant certeriori to donofrio's case. so we'll have to wait and see what next week brings.
__________________
3B corkscrews with scatterings of 3A & 3C.
journotraveler is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Trending Topics[-]hide

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2011 NaturallyCurly.com