Supreme court gives Obama till 1st Dec to produce his birth certificate

[SUBMAN1]

And I thought this was over! I am not sure what to think of this one, but what happens if the Supreme Court over-turns his presidency over this? This would be one for the history books as well.

Anyway, Justice Souter has asked for it by the 1st of Dec. Lets see what turns up. What happens if Obama rejects his request? This could get ugly.

-S

[DeepIron]

Hmmm... and your read this... where? I haven't seen it in any of the media I frequent today...

[Blacklight]

...and if this is true... I bet this would be a standard procedure for the turnover to the new president anyway.

[stabiz]

Civil war.

[subchaser12]

Subman is like one of those Japanese units found on an isolated island years after the war who still thinks the war is going on. :know:

[Thomen]

And I thought this was over! I am not sure what to think of this one, but what happens if the Supreme Court over-turns his presidency over this? This would be one for the history books as well.

Anyway, Justice Souter has asked for it by the 1st of Dec. Lets see what turns up. What happens if Obama rejects his request? This could get ugly.

-S

The filling says that the defendant has to respond by Dec. 1. IMO, does not mean he has to show his birth certificate.

[Raptor1]

Subman is like one of those Japanese units found on an isolated island years after the war who still thinks the war is going on. :know:

The war's over?

Since when?

[MothBalls]

What happens if Obama rejects his request?

I think they'll call and ask you to be President.

Yep. President Subman1. The man with all the answers.

[SUBMAN1]

Before you guys all out attack, why not try using your brains for once. I know its hard, but you have access to google like everyone else. I do not need to hold your little hands.

Try googling it so you all don't look like idiots - which you clearly do at this point.

-S

[Digital_Trucker]

Until I see a signed order, I'm going to assume that this is the same thing that happened when someone looked at a filing (unsigned and written by the lawyer, not the judge) and assumed it had been ordered.

Edit: According to this (http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm) from the Supreme Court, the application by Berg for the case to be heard was denied. Oops, never mind, that was the case to halt the election.:oops:

[Sailor Steve]

Before you guys all out attack, why not try using your brains for once. I know its hard, but you have access to google like everyone else. I do not need to hold your little hands.

Try googling it so you all don't look like idiots - which you clearly do at this point.

-S
It's considered proper etiquette to post a reference when making a statement of fact, and you usually do.

Besides, the last time you challenged someone on not posting a reference, and they gave you exactly the same answer, your reply was "See? You have no proof!"

Goose and gander?

[castorp345]

Try googling it so you all don't look like idiots - which you clearly do at this point.
right.

:88)

it's interesting that this bit of 'news' is all over the conservative blog-o-sphere, while reuters, ap, et al aren't even carrying this o-so-damning tidbit...

but i guess that's just the idiocy of the obviously lefty news organizations at work...

[edit: yeah! i always wanted to be stinking drunk in trinidad! so much better than the usual being stinking drunk at home...]

[SUBMAN1]

Try googling it so you all don't look like idiots - which you clearly do at this point.
right.

:88)

it's interesting that this bit of 'news' is all over the conservative blog-o-sphere, while reuters, ap, et al aren't even carrying this o-so-damning tidbit...

but i guess that's just the idiocy of the obviously lefty news organizations at work...Oh!!! So you found something then? Imagine that! At least one of you doesn't look like the three stooges.

And yes, I don't expect any major lefty news place to carry that story.

-S

[Thomen]

Try googling it so you all don't look like idiots - which you clearly do at this point.
right.

:88)

it's interesting that this bit of 'news' is all over the conservative blog-o-sphere, while reuters, ap, et al aren't even carrying this o-so-damning tidbit...

but i guess that's just the idiocy of the obviously lefty news organizations at work...Oh!!! So you found something then? Imagine that! At least one of you doesn't look like the three stooges.

And yes, I don't expect any major lefty news place to carry that story.

-S

As said before, the head lines and your thread title are 'slightly' confusing. He has to respond by Dec. 1.. that doesn't mean he has to produce the documents in question by that time.

[castorp345]

I don't expect any major lefty news place to carry that story.

that's correct...
and why i always turn to those major new organizations
texashillblog.wordpress.com
www.illinihq.com
conservablogs.com
mcnorman.wordpress.com
etc
for my news...

[longam]

Its hard to believe a blog these days.

[castorp345]

Its hard to believe a blog these days.
well, you sure as hell can't trust that obama-loving pinko commie Main Stream Media, now can you...
really, the only thing you can trust these days is yer bible, and that tells me that obama is going to hell along with all them blue states, so...

:88)

[Schöneboom]

I happen to work in a law firm, so I have a slightly better understanding of the civil suit process, not to mention better access to documents filed in U.S. courts. The case number, if you want to look it up, is 08-570, Berg v. Obama, et al.

The docket, which I just looked up, shows that Berg filed his Petition for Writ of Certiorari very recently, Oct. 30. I don't have an e-filed copy of the petition in front of me, but I can safely bet that the Dec. 1st date doesn't apply to Obama's production of documents, as no Court Order approving Berg's petition has yet been filed. Without that approval, there will be no further proceedings. The only Order on record at this time is Justice Souter's on Nov. 3rd, denying Berg's Application for an Injunction (to stop the election).

I strongly suspect Berg's assertions are specious, if for no other reason that the Republican Party (esp. the McCain campaign) did not show the slightest interest in pursuing this case. Do you not think that Karl Rove would have jumped on this long ago if it had any merit, or even if it didn't?

Or perhaps it's all a conspiracy by both parties, not to mention the State of Hawaii, to bring about the collapse of the Republic... uh, yeah... :roll:

[Fincuan]

Schöneboom, quit ruining this Obama bashing-thread with facts! :lol:

[Thomen]

The docket, which I just looked up, shows that Berg filed his Petition for Writ of Certiorari very recently, Oct. 30. I don't have an e-filed copy of the petition in front of me, but I can safely bet that the Dec. 1st date doesn't apply to Obama's production of documents, as no Court Order approving Berg's petition has yet been filed. Without that approval, there will be no further proceedings. The only Order on record at this time is Justice Souter's on Nov. 3rd, denying Berg's Application for an Injunction (to stop the election).



That's pretty much what my wife (she is a Paralegal) said, too.

[castorp345]

I happen to work in a law firm, so I have a slightly better understanding of the civil suit process, not to mention better access to documents filed in U.S. courts. The case number, if you want to look it up, is 08-570, Berg v. Obama, et al.

The docket, which I just looked up, shows that Berg filed his Petition for Writ of Certiorari very recently, Oct. 30. I don't have an e-filed copy of the petition in front of me, but I can safely bet that the Dec. 1st date doesn't apply to Obama's production of documents, as no Court Order approving Berg's petition has yet been filed. Without that approval, there will be no further proceedings. The only Order on record at this time is Justice Souter's on Nov. 3rd, denying Berg's Application for an Injunction (to stop the election).

I strongly suspect Berg's assertions are specious, if for no other reason that the Republican Party (esp. the McCain campaign) did not show the slightest interest in pursuing this case. Do you not think that Karl Rove would have jumped on this long ago if it had any merit, or even if it didn't?

Or perhaps it's all a conspiracy by both parties, not to mention the State of Hawaii, to bring about the collapse of the Republic... uh, yeah... :roll:


the 'idiots' speak!
:rotfl:

[MothBalls]

Before you guys all out attack, why not try using your brains for once. I know its hard, but you have access to google like everyone else. I do not need to hold your little hands.

Try googling it so you all don't look like idiots - which you clearly do at this point.

-S


I found a link to the article here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial).

[castorp345]

I found a link to the article here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial).

LOL!!
:rotfl:
:arrgh!:

[Monica Lewinsky]

So you found something then? Imagine that! At least one of you doesn't look like the three stooges.

I HATE with a passion the dirt bag/scum bag , too. But you go too far over the edge for my tastes to make a point.

We are stuck with THAT JERK, lets get rid of him in less than 4 years would be more productive IMO.

I did NOT like the other choice either. But we are stuck with the Ali Bombma dirt bag trash.

Live with it and let's get rid of the dirt bag that Opra worships and send her on the same boat OUTBOUND, soon.

[Biggles]

Before you guys all out attack, why not try using your brains for once. I know its hard, but you have access to google like everyone else. I do not need to hold your little hands.

Try googling it so you all don't look like idiots - which you clearly do at this point.

-S

To quote you: Hypocracy at it's best.

[Christopher Snow]

The suit is the "Berg vs. Obama" lawsuit, which was originally filed in Federal court and dismissed there due to what was ruled to the be the plaintiff's "lack of standing.*"

[*not unexpected, even by Berg's closest supporters--asking for dismissal on these grounds is standard legal procedure in many types of US civil cases.]

There is a curious legal loophole in US law which basically says the plaintiff (Berg) cannot actually be "damaged" by Obama's potential election at least until Obama is actually elected (and so despite the fact that Berg filed suit well ahead of the election (back in August,) he was ruled to have no "standing" to bring the suit by the Federal judge shortly before November 4.

Now that Obama HAS been elected, Berg's appeal to the US Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari asking the Justices to force him to produce a certified "vault" copy of his Birth Certificate**--the original vault copy would have been held since his birth by the state of Hawaii (assuming he WAS born there of course)--may be viewed in a different light.

[** as well as several other related documents]


Or...the court may still decide he has no standing...because he has not actually been damaged UNTIL Obama takes office...

...or...they court may simply decide not to hear the matter at all.

Berg has also asked for a copy of Obama's sworn "oath of Allegience" which he would have taken upon his return to the US after (quite possibly) becoming an Indonesian citizen, instead of a US citizen round about age 5. His theory here is that Obama became an Indonesian citizen when his mother married an Indonesian man and went to school there (there is some strong circumstantial evidence to back this up), and therefore, unless Obama DID take an oath of allegience to the US again upon turning 18, he is STILL an Indonesian citizen even today (and therefore cannot, legally, even be a US Senator or practice law in the US).

Even if Obama did take such an oath of allegience (and could prove it), under this second legal theory he cannot be POTUS, because he would then be a "naturalized" (and no longer natural born) US citizen at best. EVEN if he actually WAS born in Hawaii in the first place.

I believe there are several other lawsuits filed by other parties, operating on more or less the same legal theories.

I also read somewhere that one of Obama's opponents (a losing VP candidate from one of the minority, fringe parties) might actually have filed a similar suit himself after losing on November 4, and thus he probably WOULD be considered to have standing (even if Berg and other members of the "general electorate" were held not to have it), so there is possibly some other remaining potential there to force disclosure of whatever proof of citizenship he DOES have.

The line(s) of attack could easily be put to rest if Obama simply WOULD be forthcoming and produce the relevant documents (in the same way John McCain was when his own right to be POTUS was questioned), but Obama has gone out of his way NOT to do so, at least thusfar.

And so a lot of people naturally DO wonder just what it is he's trying to hide....

-------

www.obamacrimes.com (http://www.obamacrimes.com) (Berg's site)
www.americasright.com (http://www.americasright.com) (an opinion blog by a law student who is paying particularly close attention to developments.


CS

[Neptunus Rex]

Mr. Berg is well with in his rights to request the vault copy of the birth certificate, which the Governor of Hawaii has locked.

The Constitution's requirements are quite clear regarding the Presidents qualifications. Notice that it states "President" and not "President Elect" or candidate for President.

But who determines that the candidate is qualified per the requirements?

The Senate - NO

The House - NO

The Executive Branch - For obvious reasons NO.

The Judicial - No

Look to the enumerations clause for the answer.

The States - NO, not in their respective constitutions either.

The People - YES. And the vote is NOT how that occurs.

So far, the only person that may have vetted Mr. Obama's qualifiactions would be Howard Dean, Chairman of the DNC. :down:

Mr. Berg has pointed out many inconsistancies with the markings on the "copy" that the court can not just dismiss his claim.

And no, I am not a member of the "Grassy Knoll Society".

We shall see what we shall see.

[Christopher Snow]

Quite right, Neptunus.

BTW, the governor of Hawaii (a Republican) apparently ordered his Vault Birth Certificate sealed as a matter of course, in order that it not be tampered with or altered, possibly in anticipation that it might be ordered "produced" at some point and it's authenticity be questioned.

I gather Governor Lindle is not a big fan of his.

-------

You point up too one of the very big problems that has been revealed through the various suits: Despite the fact that this very basic requirement of the C-I-C is outlined in the original US Constitution, it has been shown pretty convincingly now that there IS no agency or branch of government charged with seeing that this requirement is met (at least there has yet been no decision to that effect yet in any of the cases).

In the case of many of the Attorney's General of the various states, they have generally all taken that the position that the Democratic Party has "certified" the candidate to them as eligible...which, many feel, may have put the "fox-in-charge-of-guarding-the henhouse" to a very large degree.

I believe the Federal Election Commission took the position (in their original response to Berg's Federal suit) that such vetting was "outside their jurisdiction."


CS

[Monica Lewinsky]

I just found some new EVIDENCE
Very telling indeed.

Yea, I am a Reynolds Wrap person myself. Wrap your head in tin foil.

It will keep those negative posts away.

[Christopher Snow]

The docket, which I just looked up, shows that Berg filed his Petition for Writ of Certiorari very recently, Oct. 30. I don't have an e-filed copy of the petition in front of me, but I can safely bet that the Dec. 1st date doesn't apply to Obama's production of documents, as no Court Order approving Berg's petition has yet been filed. Without that approval, there will be no further proceedings. The only Order on record at this time is Justice Souter's on Nov. 3rd, denying Berg's Application for an Injunction (to stop the election).


That's pretty much what my wife (she is a Paralegal) said, too.
That's my understanding too--the SCOTUS has not yet agreed to review the case.

They recieve 8000 or so such requests each year and only take on 100-200 or so I think, so one of the likelier scenarios is that they will simply decide to take a pass on it.

The fact that is IS, potentially, a core Constitutional issue, however, might well persuade them to hear the appeal--it is the SCOTUS which usually views itself as the final arbiter in Constitutional questions anyway, and I have hopes they will not let such a potentially serious matter be decided by a single Federal judge alone without careful review.

Were it later proven that Obama WASN'T eligible after all, I suspect there would be hell to pay if it were realized the SCOTUS might have prevented the abuse/fraud ahead of time...but didn't.

Similar. perhaps in weight to the decision Harry Truman faced over using the atomic bomb: What would the American people have said had their been huge numbers of casualties invading the main Japanese islands (as was projected)...and had it later been learned that they could all have been prevented by use of that weapon instead?


CS

[Molon Labe]

The Court hasn't ordered anything and it's not going to before Dec 1 since that's how long the defendants have to respond.

They're not going to grant cert. anyways. Berg lost this case in district court on standing, and it wasn't a hard call so there's no reason for the Court to review the case. And no, Obama actually being elected does not constitute actual injury (damages), Berg still has no standing. Actual injury has to be particular; it can't be something abstract that effects most or all people in the US.

The ideal plaintiff, ironically, would be someone who had donated money to President-elect Obama's campaign. Such a plaintiff would have been swindled out of his/her money and suffered a particularized injury in that amount. The next best plaintiff would be someone who had donated money to a rival campaign, because the alleged fraud perpetrated by Pres-el. Obama made his/her donations less effective, but that is by no means a guaranteed to win argument.

Realistically, you'd probably have to wait until after the inauguration when the new President starts giving orders. A federal employee subject to those orders would most certainly have standing.

Not that any of it matters because he does seem to have his papers in order (http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200881031064).

[PeriscopeDepth]

But how could we really be sure even if he does "produce" it?

Surely a "Ali Bombma dirt bag trash" like himself is connected to people who forge documents for the worldwide terrorist network. Hell, he might have even learned how to do it at Harvard Law.

PD

[SteamWake]

I Do you not think that Karl Rove would have jumped on this long ago if it had any merit, or even if it didn't?

I for one dont think so. McCain for all his negative ads and dogma believe it or not tried to avoid this sort of thing. His campaign gave explicit orders to not pursue this type of thing.

Thats why there was no mention of Obama's associations with the likes of Reverend Wright, William Heirs, etc. untill the very last few days of the campaign and those 'ads' were from people outside his 'inner circle'.

[DeepIron]

Not that any of it matters because he does seem to have his papers in order (http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200881031064).Evidently, much todo about nothing...


State officials say there's no doubt Barack Obama was born in Hawai'i. Health Department Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said today she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.

[Skybird]

Before you guys all out attack, why not try using your brains for once. I know its hard, but you have access to google like everyone else. I do not need to hold your little hands.

Try googling it so you all don't look like idiots - which you clearly do at this point.

-S


I found a link to the article here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial).

and here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

[Christopher Snow]

Not that any of it matters because he does seem to have his papers in order (http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200881031064).
If the SCOTUS does decide to review the case, and if it orders these officials to produce and verify the documents, then that would be fine.

So far though, all you have linked to is a story on the AP.

Moreover, it still would not address the production of other documents related to Obama becoming an Indonesian citizen later on (again, that's a different legal theory altogether).

Two of those I'm aware of would be: His "Oath of Allegience" (I believe he would have had a five year window to take this oath, the countdown beginning on his 18th birthday).

A copy of his "selective service registration" (required of all US males 18 years--42 years of age (? not sure about the oldest) back then.

BTW, even if the SCOTUS delines to review the case, should he then take office, and should he then decide to reinstitute the draft (as some believe he will), look for this issue to rear it's head again *unless it's already been proved he did register for ss by now* Could be he did prove it, and I just missed it.


CS

[Christopher Snow]

I think it's a winning bet for even a blind skipper that quite a few of you guys who are laughing so hard at all this are still convinced to this very day that "George W. Bush and the Evil Republicans (including that mastermind of all masterminds, "Darth Rove") secretely "conspired" to steal that first election from Al Gore.... :D

==============

[Interlude--Captain (whispers): "Fire standard spread on all rear-facing tubes. Fire now!"

(after some time passes, the crew is rewarded)

WHAM! WHAM! WHAM! WHAM!

(...followed by breaking-up noises).

Crew: "Amazing, Captain! Direct hits on all four shots, and even using OUR faulty torpedoes! How did you do it?"

Captain: "It was easy--they just walked right into it...."

:-P

--End Interlude]


CS

[Neptunus Rex]

Not that any of it matters because he does seem to have his papers in order (http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200881031064).

Two of those I'm aware of would be: His "Oath of Allegience" (I believe he would have had a five year window to take this oath, the countdown beginning on his 18th birthday).

A copy of his "selective service registration" (required of all US males 18 years--42 years of age (? not sure about the oldest) back then.



Window for registering for the selective service is on or after 18th birthday, before the 26th birthday.

I did 6 years active duty in the US Navy (on subs of course :up: ), but because I got out one month before my 26th birthday, I STILL had to register with the selective service.:roll:

[Molon Labe]

Not that any of it matters because he does seem to have his papers in order (http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200881031064).
If the SCOTUS does decide to review the case, and if it orders these officials to produce and verify the documents, than that would be fine.

So far though, all you have linked to is a story on the AP. Are you saying the story is a fabrication? Look, I'd like to have the officials produce the documents and sit for a deposition, but what are the chances of that happening? There comes a point when you have to accept the best evidence that's available and drop the issue. When state officials come out and publically state he was born in the US, you've probably reached that point.


Moreover, it still would not address the production of other documents related to Obama becoming an Indonesian citizen later on (again, that's a different legal theory altogether). And a completely meritless legal theory. The whole argument is based on the idea that if you become a naturalized citizen under statutory law, you can no longer be a "natural born citizen" under the Constitution. This is fallacious on its face because the Constitution is a higher source of law; statutes cannot change the meaning of the Constitution. So the meaning of "natural born citizen" is a matter of interpreting the Constitution alone; naturalization is completely irrelevant. So for the argument to work, the Court would have to find that someone who starts out as a natural born citizen can lose his/her citizenship by immigrating elsewhere. They could just as easily rule that status as a natural born citizen is permanent. Not only would that make more sense on the plain facial meaning of the words (they are, after all, about one's natural status), but it is the only politically viable choice. There is no way in hell the Court would choose an interpretation to undo an election when there is another reasonable interpretation available.

[Christopher Snow]

Window for registering for the selective service is on or after 18th birthday, before the 26th birthday.

I did 6 years active duty in the US Navy (on subs of course :up: ), but because I got out one month before my 26th birthday, I STILL had to register with the selective service.:roll:

Ok, thanks. I had remembered it as a much higher number back then somehow.


CS

[Biggs[CV]]

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

[Christopher Snow]

Are you saying the story is a fabrication? Look, I'd like to have the officials produce the documents and sit for a deposition, but what are the chances of that happening? There comes a point when you have to accept the best evidence that's available and drop the issue. When state officials come out and publically state he was born in the US, you've probably reached that point Had the story said: "Such and such official said in a news conference today that...," and were I able to look up said confirmation from that news conference on YouTube (and see for myself), I'd be much more likely to believe it. As I said though, all you have linked to is a short AP story claiming, basically "some official said...."

Hardly enough. Moreover...


...."Really? And said to who(m)? Over the phone? Via blackberry? Or was it simply whispered over the top of a stall wall in a restroom?

I'm not saying it's not true (and I'm not accusing you of any falsehood either), I'm simply saying I see insufficient evidence in that very short news item which compels me to simply "believe it."

If it goes to the SCOTUS, and a judge sees it (and some experts review it), then I'm quite likely to be satisfied. Given the fact that Annenberg/Fact Check.org's representation of his COLB has been shown to be a clear forgery (and not even a good one--they used Photoshop), I'm much more inclined now to remain skeptical in the meantime than I was at the beginning.

Obviously your threshold of proof is much lower at the moment (mine is quite high too, where the AP in particular is concerned--I consider them untrustworthy as a news group). MSNBC too (and I would imagine you yourself feel the same way about FoxNews), so it can work both ways. If FoxNews reported that "a Hawaii official said today that Obama's birth certificate is a clear forgery" would that satisfy YOU? Just because it "was on FoxNews?"

I think not.

------------

And a completely meritless legal theory. The whole argument is based on the idea that if you become a naturalized citizen under statutory law, you can no longer be a "natural born citizen" under the Constitution. This is fallacious on its face because the Constitution is a higher source of law; statutes cannot change the meaning of the Constitution. So the meaning of "natural born citizen" is a matter of interpreting the Constitution alone;

(me)

It's often too a matter of interpereting relevant case law, particularly any case law where the SCOTUS itself has already ruled on the matter of what constitutes "Natural Born" (and I would be surprised if it hasn't come up before now, even if not in regard the the election of an eligible POTUS).

(you)

naturalization is completely irrelevant. So for the argument to work, the Court would have to find that someone who starts out as a natural born citizen can lose his/her citizenship by immigrating elsewhere.

(me)

I think they long ago decided exactly that (but I can't provide any links at the moment).

Moreover, I think you can effectively "torpedo" yourself, if you are a US citizen, by simply walking into any US Embassy (or Clerk of the County Court, if you reside there) and saying to them "I hereby renounce my US citizenship."

They'll probably force you to prove you have US citizenship in the first place (harder to do from abroad, perhaps), but they'll certainly register your newly proffered desire to renounce said US citizenship once you've insisted they do so.

Not sure if they would then escort you to the nearest border or not. They might allow you to stay until you had successfully claimed citizenship elsewhere, in the interim.

(you)

More importantly--it shouldn't make ANY difference either way whether or not you were a "Natural Born" US Citizen or a "Naturalized US Citizen."

(me)

Are you suggesting, somehow, that the latter has a greater level of control over his citizenship (or lack therof) that the FORMER has? Are you suggesting that only the "naturalized citizen" be allowed to "renounce his citizenship", and not the "natural born" citizen too? Are you suggesting the latter has some inherent "inborn" (do be careful here) loyalty...which CANNOT be renounced, regardless of personal intent)..that the former naturalized citizen does NOT possess?"

OR, (more importantly as regards the interests of the US), that the former--the US citizen...is somehow endowed with lesser rights than is the "not-quite-sure" citizen?

[do realize THIS sword cuts both ways...so think it through carefully]

I suspect.p for example, any "Natural Born" US citizen who had become an avowed Communist (but who was still unable to renounce his US citizenship because he was also "natural born") would have a real argument with you.

Think it through and you'll realize I'm right, I'm quite sure.

But, as I say, I'm not entirely sure with regard to the total arguement after at all, so don't hold my feet to the fire if I've got it wrong.

And I allow you the same courtesy (please remind me of it, should I fail to appear to allow it).

(you)

They could just as easily rule that status as a natural born citizen is permanent. Not only would that make more sense on the plain facial meaning of the words (they are, after all, about one's natural status), but it is the only politically viable choice. There is no way in hell the Court would choose an interpretation to undo an election when there is a reasonable interpretation available.

(me)

I disagree with your arguement in many ways, but I'll keep it simple with an example, re: "ruling it's permanent" Conjure up a Natural Born Citizen (who's status is therefore "permanent" in your view) who renounces his US citizenship, becomes the worlds biggest terrorist, and eventually even the Dictator of...let's say...the good old Soviet Union...and who is somehow still also eligible to be POTUS simply because he was "born" here?

As I've said elsewhere, I believe the entire point of that clause, and the entire meaning of "Natural Born" is that said person must be understood to have loyalty ONLY to the US. To the US alone. It's a "loyalty clause" more than it is anything else.

This is why naturalized citizen's will always be ineligible to be POTUS, and why dual-citizenship citizens are similarly ineligible (no case law on this last one, but I would think it would be found so).


CS

[Christopher Snow]

']http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

Oh Lord. Look...Factcheck is "Annenberg."

Obama sat on the board of Annenberg himself (so-it's-the-fox-guarding-the-henhouse, once again).

I'll be happy once it's seen and verified in a court of law. It really shouldn't be that hard--Obama can reply to the SCOTUS himself by doing just that.


CS

[Christopher Snow]

Neptunus Rex:

With regard to that "message" you sent as an addendum to your post: Would it happen to be from "The Angry Blonde?" :D

:) Loved it, in any case, no matter who said it.


CS

[SmithN23]

I happen to work in a law firm, so I have a slightly better understanding of the civil suit process, not to mention better access to documents filed in U.S. courts. The case number, if you want to look it up, is 08-570, Berg v. Obama, et al.

The docket, which I just looked up, shows that Berg filed his Petition for Writ of Certiorari very recently, Oct. 30. I don't have an e-filed copy of the petition in front of me, but I can safely bet that the Dec. 1st date doesn't apply to Obama's production of documents, as no Court Order approving Berg's petition has yet been filed. Without that approval, there will be no further proceedings. The only Order on record at this time is Justice Souter's on Nov. 3rd, denying Berg's Application for an Injunction (to stop the election).

I strongly suspect Berg's assertions are specious, if for no other reason that the Republican Party (esp. the McCain campaign) did not show the slightest interest in pursuing this case. Do you not think that Karl Rove would have jumped on this long ago if it had any merit, or even if it didn't?

Or perhaps it's all a conspiracy by both parties, not to mention the State of Hawaii, to bring about the collapse of the Republic... uh, yeah... :roll:
No no, the conspiracy is to steal the hope diamond... :D

(for those in need of a good laugh check out this episode http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/ its the one titled About Last Night...) its a legit site so there are no worries there.

[Stealth Hunter]

Subman is like one of those Japanese units found on an isolated island years after the war who still thinks the war is going on. :know:

"YANKEE! YANKEE! GIVE UP, YANKEE!"


:rotfl:

[Sailor Steve]

[I did 6 years active duty in the US Navy (on subs of course :up: ), but because I got out one month before my 26th birthday, I STILL had to register with the selective service.:roll:
But I loved carrying that card that said "4A".

[Molon Labe]

Had the story said: "Such and such official said in a news conference today that...," and were I able to look up said confirmation from that news conference on YouTube (and see for myself), I'd be much more likely to believe it. As I said though, all you have linked to is a short AP story claiming, basically "some official said...."

Hardly enough. Moreover...


...."Really? And said to who(m)? Over the phone? Via blackberry? Or was it simply whispered over the top of a stall wall in a restroom?

I'm not saying it's not true (and I'm not accusing you of any falsehood either), I'm simply saying I see insufficient evidence in that very short news item which compels me to simply "believe it."

If it goes to the SCOTUS, and a judge sees it (and some experts review it), then I'm quite likely to be satisfied. Given the fact that Annenberg/Fact Check.org's representation of his COLB has been shown to be a clear forgery (and not even a good one--they used Photoshop), I'm much more inclined now to remain skeptical in the meantime than I was at the beginning. I think you're making good points here. But, as I've stated, you're not going to get the information you want. At least not until after inauguration day.


Obviously your threshold of proof is much lower at the moment (mine is quite high too, where the AP in particular is concerned--I consider them untrustworthy as a news group). MSNBC too (and I would imagine you yourself feel the same way about FoxNews), Why would you imagine that?


so it can work both ways. If FoxNews reported that "a Hawaii official said today that Obama's birth certificate is a clear forgery" would that satisfy YOU? Just because it "was on FoxNews?"

I think not. It would satisfy me about as much as the AP story. Neither organization is prone to making **** up. There is a difference in the stories they choose to cover and how they cover them.


And a completely meritless legal theory. The whole argument is based on the idea that if you become a naturalized citizen under statutory law, you can no longer be a "natural born citizen" under the Constitution. This is fallacious on its face because the Constitution is a higher source of law; statutes cannot change the meaning of the Constitution. So the meaning of "natural born citizen" is a matter of interpreting the Constitution alone;
(me)

It's often too a matter of interpereting relevant case law, particularly any case law where the SCOTUS itself has already ruled on the matter of what constitutes "Natural Born" (and I would be surprised if it hasn't come up before now, even if not in regard the the election of an eligible POTUS).


(you)

naturalization is completely irrelevant. So for the argument to work, the Court would have to find that someone who starts out as a natural born citizen can lose his/her citizenship by immigrating elsewhere.
(me)

I think they long ago decided exactly that (but I can't provide any links at the moment). I'm 99% sure there is no precedent on this issue. Defining the term "natural born citizen" is a question of first impression.


Moreover, I think you can effectively "torpedo" yourself, if you are a US citizen, by simply walking into any US Embassy (or Clerk of the County Court, if you reside there) and saying to them "I hereby renounce my US citizenship."

They'll probably force you to prove you have US citizenship in the first place (harder to do from abroad, perhaps), but they'll certainly register your newly proffered desire to renounce said US citizenship once you've insisted they do so.

Not sure if they would then escort you to the nearest border or not. They might allow you to stay until you had successfully claimed citizenship elsewhere, in the interim. Maybe so. But they do so under statutory law, not constitutional law. The fact remains that this is a constitutional question, and this does nothing to advance a constitutional argument.


(you)

More importantly--it shouldn't make ANY difference either way whether or not you were a "Natural Born" US Citizen or a "Naturalized US Citizen."

(me)

Are you suggesting, somehow, that the latter has a greater level of control over his citizenship (or lack therof) that the FORMER has? Are you suggesting that only the "naturalized citizen" be allowed to "renounce his citizenship", and not the "natural born" citizen too? Are you suggesting the latter has some inherent "inborn" (do be careful here) loyalty...which CANNOT be renounced, regardless of personal intent)..that the former naturalized citizen does NOT possess?"

OR, (more importantly as regards the interests of the US), that the former--the US citizen...is somehow endowed with lesser rights than is the "not-quite-sure" citizen?

[do realize THIS sword cuts both ways...so think it through carefully]
You've misquoted me. Try to use the quote feature so that you don't do this, or at least cut and paste. Since you are responding to your argument, not mine, I cannot respond intelligently. All I can say is that it DOES matter that you're a natural born citizen, and that the only issue is the meaning of that term.


I suspect.p for example, any "Natural Born" US citizen who had become an avowed Communist (but who was still unable to renounce his US citizenship because he was also "natural born") would have a real argument with you.

Think it through and you'll realize I'm right, I'm quite sure. Not at all. If the Court decides that "natural born citizen" includes anyone born here, then it means (duh) that anyone who was born here is a natural born citizen. (If A, then B. They could decide it's that simple.) He/she may renounce his citizenship and become a citizen of another state, but he/she cannot change the fact that he/she was born here, and therefore by definition is a natural born citizen. Renunciation of citizenship/naturalization is effective in changing one's legal status, but it cannot change the historical fact of one's place of birth.


(you)

They could just as easily rule that status as a natural born citizen is permanent. Not only would that make more sense on the plain facial meaning of the words (they are, after all, about one's natural status), but it is the only politically viable choice. There is no way in hell the Court would choose an interpretation to undo an election when there is a reasonable interpretation available.
(me)

I disagree with your arguement in many ways, but I'll keep it simple with an example, re: "ruling it's permanent" Conjure up a Natural Born Citizen (who's status is therefore "permanent" in your view) who renounces his US citizenship, becomes the worlds biggest terrorist, and eventually even the Dictator of...let's say...the good old Soviet Union...and who is somehow still also eligible to be POTUS simply because he was "born" here?

As I've said elsewhere, I believe the entire point of that clause, and the entire meaning of "Natural Born" is that said person must be understood to have loyalty ONLY to the US. To the US alone. It's a "loyalty clause" more than it is anything else.

This is why naturalized citizen's will always be ineligible to be POTUS, and why dual-citizenship citizens are similarly ineligible (no case law on this last one, but I would think it would be found so).


CS You're right that "natural born citizen" was put in the Constitution to help ensure loyalty. But we still have a "natural born citizen" clause, not a "loyal to the United States" clause. We hold people who are clearly loyal to the United States--such as Arnold Schwarzenegger--to be clearly ineligible, while someone who is clearly not loyal to the US--like William Ayers--is clearly eligible. Status at birth is only a proxy for loyalty, and a very imperfect one. I think you can make a fairly reasonable argument that the term should not include someone who has manifest a divided loyalty by changing citizenship. However, it is not a very strong argument because of the plain meaning of the words--"natural" and "born" don't have anything to do with what you do later in life, it's about your natural status at the moment of your birth. My point is that the Court, when presented with these two arguments, is going to choose the one that does NOT undo an election and send this country into total chaos. (And that it's not even a close call, hence why the argument has no legal merit)

[Christopher Snow]

[I did 6 years active duty in the US Navy (on subs of course :up: ), but because I got out one month before my 26th birthday, I STILL had to register with the selective service.:roll: But I loved carrying that card that said "4A".

That's almost too funny for words. :D So I won't try (I know when I'm outclassed!)

I will venture this however: Wouldn't it have been even funnier...

...had it said "4F?!" :rotfl:


CS

[Christopher Snow]

Molon Labe: I am exhausted, and so I am unable to properly reply to the entirety of your post (I did try to read it, but, I'm afraid my eyes glazed over (could be the beer... :D)).

One point I would like to respond to though, concerns my use of the "quote" feature.

Believe me--I tried as best I could last night to make proper use of it, but I stumbled while trying again and again...and again. I finally gave up on it, and resorted instead to the use of "(me) and (you)." I knew it was a poor substitute even as I typed it (manually), but it was the best I was able to do at the time.

Sounds like I bolluxed that up too, somehow, (which isn't a real surprise--if there is a way I can screw up using a PC, I will usually be able to find it).

Apologies, therefore, if I somehow managed...or even appeared to "attribute to you" a remark which was actually made by me.

Quite possible--I've done it before, to my very great embarrassment. Then and now both.

I will try to address your remaining points sometime in the near future *but if I don't, put it down to "overwork" and even "self-induced stress.*"

Neither of those ^ would be very far off the mark.


CS

[Frame57]

:doh: Truth of the matter is, Obama was never really born. He is the genetic spawn of Lucifer and was made with demonic semen and sea hag ovum. Baked on a bunsen burner to unleash nuclear hell fire on the world. I read this in "Cracked" magazine.

[Digital_Trucker]

:doh: Truth of the matter is, Obama was never really born. He is the genetic spawn of Lucifer and was made with demonic semen and sea hag ovum. Baked on a bunsen burner to unleash nuclear hell fire on the world. I read this in "Cracked" magazine.

Ah, the most authoritative news source besides "Mad" magazine. Good choice:up:

[AVGWarhawk]

:doh: Truth of the matter is, Obama was never really born. He is the genetic spawn of Lucifer and was made with demonic semen and sea hag ovum. Baked on a bunsen burner to unleash nuclear hell fire on the world. I read this in "Cracked" magazine.
Ah, the most authoritative news source besides "Mad" magazine. Good choice:up:

Obama does look a bit like Alfred E Newman.


Anyway, seems to be some validity to this new twist by the Supreme Court. Why does not Obama just produce the paper? I know factcheck.org had something looking like the cert. It is funny that the media is more interested in what dog is going with the Obama's and what Michele should have worn, yet, something like this is not looked into and donations for overseas sources are ignored , etc. :hmm: I find it all just facinating everyone does not give a crap about his past associations and drug use that would prevent me from getting a security clearance required job much less the presidentual position. :doh:

[Sea Demon]

It is funny that the media is more interested in what dog is going with the Obama's and what Michele should have worn, yet, something like this is not looked into and donations for overseas sources are ignored , etc. :hmm: I find it all just facinating everyone does not give a crap about his past associations and drug use that would prevent me from getting a security clearance required job much less the presidentual position. :doh:

The thing that worries me the most about Obama's questionable associates, is he will not only be privy to high level intel, it's the fact that Obama will know how we collect that information. It's the knowledge about 'sources and methods' that have me the most concerned. Just who the hell did he get these foreign donations from? And why isn't there more concerns regarding his past associations in regard to these things? And yes, why isn't anyone questioning why he won't just release his Certificate of Live Birth? It's a rather easy thing to do to put it all behind you. I could release my own COLB within 15 minutes if I had to. I know the answer to some of these questions though.....because there are masses of unthinking baby boom liberal Democrats that are too star struck to be concerned about the nation's national security to notice. They're more impressed by the way he speaks and what letter he has next to his name on TV (D or R) than who he has associated with, past questionable statements on issues of grave concern, and what his experience level in any executive position is. Something stinks here. Sources and methods, people. If Obama is who many people think he is...we're in big time trouble.

[Safe-Keeper]

Obvious troll is obvious.

But because there are idiots out there who actually believe this kind of thing:
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg

Snopes is your friend.

[Sea Demon]

Yes, I've seen this several times. But that's not a certificate with a raised embossed seal, Safe-Keeper. Don't know where a document like this came from, but it's missing some key information in it. Hospital, Physician signature (witness), etc. Not to mention that this was produced on an electronic website as "proof". Quite an easy way to forge a document of this quality. CBS's memogate proved that things like this can be done with a variety of "official" documents very easily. I want to see the actual certificate in the hands of people raising the question...you know the one locked up in Hawaii away from any and all scrutiny? Yeah, that one. If there is nothing to hide, then it's quite easy to prove. This is such an easy thing to clear up, it's truly a wonder why the Obama people won't do it.

[baggygreen]

I think what the real issue here is that Obama himself won't come out and say 'here you go, my birth certificate, take it look at it love it, now p!ss off'

If he were to come out and say that, then a lot of doubters would accept it. Why? Because he's then leaving himself out to dry if he is lying. At the moment, other people will take the heat, Obama comes off scott-free, yada yada. If he produces it himself, its easier to believe, because in my opinion he won't hang himself out to dry, he won't do something risky like that if it is fraudulent

ramble ramble ramble

[Sea Demon]

They did, and now maybe Obama and his staff have better things to do than nursing conspirationists.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

I've seen this page as well. And all I've got to say is......Good! Then I suppose he shouldn't have any problem providing these documents in a court of law, a press forum, or making it available to any skeptics who want to check it's authenticity for themselves. Right? That would close the matter completely and totally eliminate any doubt.

Anyway, as I said above, there are more pressing concerns about this guy than this. His questionable associates and his access to many national security concerns are much more troubling to me.

[Torps]

Before you guys all out attack, why not try using your brains for once. I know its hard, but you have access to google like everyone else. I do not need to hold your little hands.

Try googling it so you all don't look like idiots - which you clearly do at this point.

-S

HEHE I have thank you very much. I am curious if they will test the paper for its age, that will be interesing. You can fake alot of things but you cannot fake the age of a piece paper which certifies his birth and age.

[Christopher Snow]

I wouldn't expect much on the "age of the document's paper" front unless the SCOTUS directs the lower court to have the FBI crime lab test the original document itself (and as far as I know, this sort of thing has never been done--the SCOTUS has--at most--overturned only a specific ruling of the lower court (like the decision to dismiss for lack of standing, as in this case)...and has then left it to the lower court to decide how to proceed forthwith. Given Judge Surrick's first ruling on the matter, and even were he "slapped down" by the SCOTUS on it's merits, I think he has shown a clear bias favoring "non-discovery," and "non-disclosure" of the true facts if he can rule in favor of these blockages on any reasonable legal basis. And so I would not expect him to suddenly order the FBI crime lab to inspect the original Birth Certificate (for age of paper).

I would dearly LOVE to see him rule otherwise (in FAVOR of discovery) true. But I suspect that sort of discovery probably won't happen (at the earliest) until Presidential historians finally get a crack at the "declassified hitorical record" some 50 or 60 years hence.

[Sad...and almost criminal, IMO, but also true]

Judge Surrick is a Bill Clinton appointee so it shouldn't be a huge surprise--Berg will be facing an uphill fight even if the SCOTUS directs Surrick to continue forward with discovery.

Morever, and as far as I know, Berg has only requested that Obama produce a "certified copy" of his "vault" birth certificate, and not the original BC itself. So even if Berg's requests are fufilled, the original BC probably will NOT ever be tested for "age."

I have the idea that such a "certified copy" WOULD show that Obama was actually born in Kenya after all (but still registering his birth in Hawaii--apparently Hawaii allowed this in 1961).

By Kenyan law (in place at that time) a birth in Kenya would make him a citizen of the United Kingdom and ONLY the UK (his mother's nationality would not have been considered in 1960, but only the nationality of his father).

So even were Hawaii to register his birth as "Hawaiian," it still might not matter if his "nationality" was decided instead by Kenyan (UK) law.


CS

[baggygreen]

Its all hypothetical and speculative obviously, but does UK law have any bearing whatsoever on US law?? What I mean is, just because the UK would deem someone UK-ish, does that affect how the US views them?

[Christopher Snow]

On conspiracy theories in general as they relate to this conspriracy theory in particular:

There is a very simple rule of thumb which goes something like this: The fewer people required to actually pull off any "conspiracy", and the less complicated it is, the greater the likelihood that it might actually be true. That it might actually have happened.

So If It turns out that the "Obama is not a US citizen, and so cannot be President" conspiracy theory has some real merit behind it, it could have happened in the first place only because it WOULD have required only a handful of players to pull it off. Or even less.

As it turns out there actually IS "no one guarding the henhouse" with regard to properly vetting someone's qualifications to be President of the United States. There IS no US agency which is charged with properly confirming (or verifying/vetting) the credentials and eligibility of a US Presidential candidate.

The FBI doesn't have such a mandate.

The Federal Election Commission also doesn't have such a mandate.

Nor do any of the Attorneys General of any of our 50 states.

The fifty AG's generally accept the "certifications" of the various political parties (without ever questioning them very deeply, it seems).

So if the Democrats "certify" Barack Obama as having met the Constitutional qualifications, then that's generally good enough for those fitfty AG's.

And so it's on THIS very flimsy basis that his name was even placed on the ballot.

----------

And as far as the party itself? Has the Democratic party itself (which "certified" to each state the eligibility of their candidate) actually ever CHECKED? Have they actually VETTED him properly themselves?

I STRONGLY suspect the answer is "NO."

It's my feeling that DNC chairman Howard Dean, who properly SHOULD have vetted Barack Obama...but failed to do so...is currently looking for a very deep hole to hide in.

What we might well have here, folks, is simply a very big case of "OOPS!!!!"

-----------

Were I a believer in grand conspiracies*, I'd think Howard Dean DID know Barack Obama was ineligible to ever be POTUS...and yet he went along with nominating him, as though he (and his party) had properly vetted him. Assuming that (somehow) he and his underlings would manage to sweep up all the loose ends before the crime was discovered.

[* generally I am not. But I AM a believer in the idea that sometimes, very small, tight conspiracies can manage to be "got away with."]

But I don't believe that. In fact, I believe Howard Dean is a moron and probably anything but a "successfull conspirator." I DO believe he DID have the responsibility to properly vet...veryify...Obama eligibility. But I also believe Dean didn't REALIZE it.

To put it bluntly, IMO, it WAS Howard Dean's responsibility (as head of the DNC) to properly "vet" Barack Obama...and I suspect he simply "whiffed it."

And so the way I see it, I'm now left with only a simple "conspiracy of one*." A cospiracy perpetrated by Barack Obama himself (and he certainly KNOWS he is not eligible to ever be POTUS), but of one who also believes he might "just have got away with it" by "pretending" otherwise.

[* I'm sure too there are a few other's inside the loop/"in-the-know"--Bill Ayers, for example--but none of these is really instrumental to pulling the charade off. For that, it's really only Obama himself who is needed.]

And THAT...the very small number of necessary "conspirators"....makes this theory quite a bit more believable than most other conspiracy theories, in my view.


CS

[Christopher Snow]

Its all hypothetical and speculative obviously, but does UK law have any bearing whatsoever on US law?? What I mean is, just because the UK would deem someone UK-ish, does that affect how the US views them?
I would think, were he proven to have been born in Kenya after all, that both UK law and US law would come to the same conclusion: He would be a UK citizen at birth, and is, therefore ineligible (by ANY legal theory) to ever be POTUS.

Don't forget that MOST of US law is based on "English (UK) common law."

Most of our laws today (in the US) are based on the UK idea of precedent--once a law has been ruled upon, it is generally considered binding.

As far as I know, neither UK law, nor US law did, in 1961, accept even in theory the idea of "dual citizenship."

So Obama would have been (under Kenyan/UK law) at birth, a citizen of the UK (and only the UK).

And the US (regardless of what was, or was not "registered" in Hawaii), would have agreed with this.


CS

[XabbaRus]

AFAIK the UK has never had a problem with dual nationality.

My daughter who was born in Moscow, whose mother is Russian is considered a natural born UK citizen as IF she HAD been born in the UK due to my being a natural born citizen.

Now someone on this thread or another quoted a part of US immigration rules, or the constitution which meant the same.

So if Obama has a Kenyan dad, but his mother is a natural born US citizen then regardless of where he is born by virtue of his mother being a US citizen he is by default a natural born US citizen.

I don't know what your problem with Obama is but I have never witnessed a President elect be so slammed. This was never an issue when he was senator but is now.

[Skybird]

This thread is as reasonable like a thread on the question wether or not George Bush was a Martian infiltrator, who was sent to change and upheat Earth's atmosphere in favour of Martian metabolism, to prepare the upcoming invasion of Earth.

Let'S remember. Obama has been found to be a Muslim. A terrorist-friend. An ally of Iran. So now he is being found to be not American. Yawn.

Well, I always knew that Bush had something to do with preventing counter measures to global warming. Is that an evidence or not!?

[Christopher Snow]

So if Obama has a Kenyan dad, but his mother is a natural born US citizen then regardless of where he is born by virtue of his mother being a US citizen he is by default a natural born US citizen.

I don't know what your problem with Obama is but I have never witnessed a President elect be so slammed. This was never an issue when he was senator but is now.
A senator does not have to be a "natural born citzen--he or she can be naturalized. The POTUS alone cannot be anything other than a "natural born citizen."

It's all about loyalty. Loyalty to the U.S. AND TO THE U.S. ALONE. So my "problem with Obama" is that I do not believe he is loyal to the US and the US alone. And I never will believe it, either (he has thusfar shown me nothing. And anything he shows me "after the fact" will be far too late in coming).

It's that simple.

As far as his mother being a US citizen (which, by your theory "therefore automatically qualifies him as" a naturalized US citizen), that, too, is probably untrue. To qualify him even "halfway" as a partial US citizen (dual citizen), she would have had to have lived five full years in the US after age fourteen* and BEFORE his birth. Since he was born when she was only eighteen she could only have lived in the US for a maximum of only four years then after she reached age fourteen (and before he was born). I have the idea too that she spent at least one of THOSE four years in Kenya, which means she would have a maximum of only three of the needed five years within the US....

[* I've heard two versions of this "requirement"--one says fourteen and the other says sixteen. Off the top of my head, sixteen makes better sense to me, because sixteen plus five is twenty-one (a well referred to "age of full majority" back then), but since I'm not sure, I'm going with the lower number here]

His mother wasn't exactly "wedded to the US" either even after he was born--she married his Indonesian step-father Soetero, and they all moved to Indonesia when Obama was five, so she was hardly any model of loyalty herself.

It's THAT five years during which Obama was raised in a Muslim country, and was schooled there (his religion is listed in his schools records as Islam) that helps give credence to the belief many hold today that he was then, and still is now a Muslim. Certainly there can be no doubt he spent five of his formative years receiving Islamic education in Indonesia.

I believe he was STILL a Muslim too at age twenty when he traveled to Pakistan (on what was almost certainly an Indonesian passport--don't think a US passport would have got you into Pakistan back then).

It should be understood too that one cannot simply "renounce" Islam and just "pick up" another religion in it's place (Obama now claims to be a Christian)--to do so incurs a death-sentence under Sharia law (Islamic law/Koranic law). One CAN, however, "appear" to be something else, as long as one still secretly works (and prays) for the benefit of Allah.

Moreover, if he WERE an Indonesian citizen at age twenty, then he would had to have reclaimed his US citizenship himself (by taking the same "Oath of Allegience" other naturalized citizens must take) during the five year period after he reached eighteen (until age twenty-three then), and he would have to have registered for selective service. Many of us don't believe he did either of those things either, which may mean he is, in fact, an Indonesian citizen today, and not even a naturalized American (so he cannot be a US Senator either, and cannot practice law inside the US). If true, these are criminal mis-representations both, and should earn him a nice stint in jail...unless he sneaks out of the country first.

Now--if you STILL really have trouble understanding why many Americans (like me) trust nothing that comes out of his mouth, and if you still have trouble understanding why, if he does take the oath of office Jan 20, many of us will think he's flat out lying, then go look elsewhere for an explanation.


CS

[Christopher Snow]

Developments?:

It seems (losing) Vice Presidential Candidate Wiley S. Drake Sr. (VP to American Independent Presidential candidate Alan Keyes) has filed suit in Washington State asking that state to de-certify Barack Obama until and unless he produces at least a valid birth certificate (unknown if he seeks other documents too, operating on those other legal theories Phillip Berg is using).

As a VP candidate who WAS on the ballot in several states (or all), Drake presumably WILL be deemed by at least that one state court to have "sufficient standing" to bring the suit, and so we might finally find out some of the truth of this after all.

Or, I suppose, Obama could simply allow his election (in Washington) to be de-certified. He could simply "fail to reply" to the allegations...and still "win" because he has enough electoral college votes still in hand that he can afford to give a few away.

------------

Or maybe not?? I have also seen mention (of what I still have to classify as a rumor) that 24 of the actual electors (from the electoral college) might be ready to file suit against Obama Monday morning (yesterday) seeking the truth in this regard themselves. One can hope.

I am aware there was a movement to have regular citizens contact their electors in the hopes they might prod them to do this, but, other than this rumor that it might have had some effect, I'm otherwise unaware of any evidence it might have done so.

The point being: I cannot provide a link at the moment, so consider it just a rumor for the moment.

And yet, one CAN hope it will come to something too.


CS

[GoldenRivet]

looks brand new. :lol:

[Christopher Snow]

I think what the real issue here is that Obama himself won't come out and say 'here you go, my birth certificate, take it look at it love it, now p!ss off'

If he were to come out and say that, then a lot of doubters would accept it.
I think I might have been one of those "mere doubters" myself. And yes, I think I might have accepted it myself, back then, as sufficient proof.

At least back in the beginning. And had it been offered.

But it WASN'T offered, and so now I am here. Wondering. Suspicious (very) and very...VERY...angry.

Speaking now just for myself (but probably for many others too by proxy), I will say "seeing his BC alone would no longer satisfy me. I wouldn't be even remotely satisfied until I had seen a whole lot more evidence too (and ALL of it "coraberating").

----------

I've been living with this too long now, to be so easily satisfied. Every day that goes by that I DON'T hear anything forthcoming about this from the Obama camp reinforces my suspicions that there IS something important (and even revolutionary) being hidden there.

For my part, I would now want to see not only his "BC" but also ALL (every one) of the related documents Phillip J. Berg has demanded be produced.

I hope Wiley S. Drake (and the "electors" too) will ALL also demand to see ALL of these documents (they will all presumably have retained the right to amend their legal complaints, at least at this very early date in the processes, and so I can hope they will (all) insert similar demands into their own pleadings before the various courts.).

Every day that goes by WITHOUT satisfaction reinforces my belief that BHO IS hiding something important from the American people.

============================================

If you have never been victimized by someone you trusted...by someone who looked you right in the eye and who then deliberately LIED to you...then you simply may not EVER be able to understand why this grates on me so much.

But if you HAVE been similarly victimized, then you just MIGHT be able to understand.

It certainly grates on me.


CS

[Rilder]

(his religion is listed in his schools records as Islam)

If Obama at some point was a muslim, thats one point closer to a Non-christian president.

AKA, GO OBAMA, BREAK THE RELIGION BARRIERS OF THE US GOVERNMENT!

Remember, vote for Rilder in 2028, BRING HELLENIC PAGANISM (with included goat sacrificing) TO THE WHITE HOUSE!. :p

[joegrundman]

Will there be Bacchic and Dionysian wine-soaked sexual frenzies?

[Rilder]

Will there be Bacchic and Dionysian wine-soaked sexual frenzies?

Well duh, thats the point of the White house.

COME ON SUPREME COURT TAKE THOSE PANTS OFF AND GET SHAGGING!

[XabbaRus]

Give me a break. This is all sore losing.

So someone goes to live in another country with his/her spouse for a few years, that doesn't make them a model of loyalty to their home country?

So by that logic my wife isn't truly loyal to Russia as she A)Married a foreigner and B) left Russia to live in the UK.

And so what if he were Muslim. Does it really matter? Does he HAVE to declare whether he was and when he went back to Christianity.

How you can doubt someones loyalty based on what you have been spouting out is beyond me. I just think some people are having a hard time dealing with a coloured president.

[Skybird]

I just looked in my old papers. My birth cirtificate lists my mom as protestant and my father as catholic. Your conclusion on nwhat I am, then? :lol:

Also, there were photos from both my christening, and my confirmation.

Does anyone here believe anymore that I am Christian...? :rotfl: Be warned, I have a certificate to prove you wrong, saying that I have left church officially (to save those church taxes, else I wouldn't have cared at all :lol: )

[Konovalov]

Give me a break. This is all sore losing.

So someone goes to live in another country with his/her spouse for a few years, that doesn't make them a model of loyalty to their home country?

So by that logic my wife isn't truly loyal to Russia as she A)Married a foreigner and B) left Russia to live in the UK.

And so what if he were Muslim. Does it really matter? Does he HAVE to declare whether he was and when he went back to Christianity.

How you can doubt someones loyalty based on what you have been spouting out is beyond me. I just think some people are having a hard time dealing with a coloured president.

Yep at the above and what Skybird said. :yep: :yep:

What is the next stage in this long diatribe against the President-elect? Suggestion of assassination perhaps? :hmm:

The rhetoric here since the Obama election victory is just as bad if not worse than the shrill attacks on President Bush over the last 8 years. I can only conclude that those here on the far right share much in common with those from the looney left. Thankfully both side are a minority however loud their voices may be.

[Skybird]

What is the next stage in this long diatribe against the President-elect? Suggestion of assassination perhaps? :hmm:

The rhetoric here since the Obama election victory is just as bad if not worse than the shrill attacks on President Bush over the last 8 years.

You are right, let's better focus on the new most preferred Feindbild there is - Sarah Palin and her threat to just wait for a hint by God and then going after the presidency in 2012. This is how the Berlin Tagesspiegel commented it:

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/9789/2386493wahl2012tsrk0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

:rotfl:

[Zayphod]

What is the next stage in this long diatribe against the President-elect? Suggestion of assassination perhaps? :hmm:

The rhetoric here since the Obama election victory is just as bad if not worse than the shrill attacks on President Bush over the last 8 years.

You are right, let's better focus on the new most preferred Feindbild there is - Sarah Palin and her threat to just wait for a hint by God and then going after the presidency in 2012. This is how the Berlin Tagesspiegel commented it:

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/9789/2386493wahl2012tsrk0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

:rotfl:

AFRICA is a CONTINENT, not a NATION.

The fact that a McCain aide had to tell her that confirms my belief that
she has no qualifications (zero, zilch, nada, bupkis) to be anywhere NEAR
the oval office.

The Republican party has many, many more qualified people in it's ranks to
run for the office (and I'm essentially an independent, not beholden to
either party).

BTW, all this chat about "is he natural born", stuff, etc sounds very much
to me like someone grasping at straws. Just my 2¢.

[August]

AFRICA is a CONTINENT, not a NATION.

The fact that a McCain aide had to tell her that confirms my belief...

Prove she said that. AFAIK the entire story is based on what some unidentified "McCain aide" told a reporter.

So why do you automatically accept such crap as gospel but Obama is as clean as the driven snow?

[Zayphod]

AFRICA is a CONTINENT, not a NATION.

The fact that a McCain aide had to tell her that confirms my belief...

Prove she said that. AFAIK the entire story is based on what some unidentified "McCain aide" told a reporter.

So why do you automatically accept such crap as gospel but Obama is as clean as the driven snow?

There were a number of issues I had with her, that report was just icing on the cake for me.

As for Obama being as clean as the driven snow, again, I'm not a fan of either party here, as there's enough mud on both sides of the political fence for me to not be thrilled with either selection.

BTW, note that if anyone but a McCain aide was quoted as making that remark, I would have seriously doubted it as being real.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Sarah-Palin-Thought-Africa-Was-A-Country-Not-Continent-According-To-John-McCain-Campaign-Insiders/Article/200811115145092?f=rss

To clarify:

Aides to John McCain (http://indepth.news.sky.com/InDepth/topic/John_McCain) were shocked by the gaps in the Alaska Governor's knowledge at briefings after she was announced as his running mate, according to Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/) chief political correspondent Carl Cameron.
"She didn't understand, McCain aides told me, that Africa was a continent and not a country and actually asked them if South Africa wasn't just part of the country as opposed to a country in the continent," he said on The O'Reilly Factor programme.
Mrs Palin (http://indepth.news.sky.com/InDepth/topic/Sarah_Palin) was also unable to name the countries involved in the North American Free Trade Agreement, which was "a major campaign issue", Cameron said.
Infighting over her performance intensified after her interview with Katie Couric of CBS, for which she refused preparation, was widely criticised.

Of course, no matter what "proof" is supplied that she actually said it, and had to be corrected on the subject, it'll be rejected as "Liberal Propaganda", even if it's certified as "real" by 2 dozen independent organizations, just as Obama's birth certificate will be viewed as "forged" by everyone who wanted a Republican landslide for the 2008 election.

Also of note, every Democract was certain that Bush "stole" the 2000 election, remember? All he did was win the right states with the right number of Electoral Votes to get over 270. That's not a "stolen" election, per se, it's just the way the system was designed.

It's all a big conspiracy by the Enlightened Ones Who Shall Remain Hidden. Fear not, for they are in control, and there will be food on your table and all shall be taken care of.

[MothBalls]

AFRICA is a CONTINENT, not a NATION.

The fact that a McCain aide had to tell her that confirms my belief that
she has no qualifications (zero, zilch, nada, bupkis) to be anywhere NEAR
the oval office.



Any time I see "unamed source; a source close to; a good friend said" I know whatever follows is pure lies. Period. Anonymous source = manufactured BS to sell a headline.

Until the person who said this has the nuts to stand up and say it on a live camera in front of the world, then it was never said.

[Zayphod]

AFRICA is a CONTINENT, not a NATION.

The fact that a McCain aide had to tell her that confirms my belief that
she has no qualifications (zero, zilch, nada, bupkis) to be anywhere NEAR
the oval office.



Any time I see "unamed source; a source close to; a good friend said" I know whatever follows is pure lies. Period. Anonymous source = manufactured BS to sell a headline.

Until the person who said this has the nuts to stand up and say it on a live camera in front of the world, then it was never said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/palin-didnt-know-africa-i_n_141653.html

Palin Didn't Know Africa Is A Continent, Says Fox News Reporter (VIDEO) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/palin-didnt-know-africa-i_n_141653.html)

Knowing full well that the Fox News channel is essentially the cheerleading section for the Right Wing Conservatives/Republicans, if THEY say it, then it MUST be true
(as far as I'm concerned, anyway.....your milage may vary).

BTW, scroll down near the bottom of that page for the O'Reilly Factor intervew with Fox News Chief Political Correspondent Carl Cameron.

Again, I consider Fox a leasure service of the Republican Party, so for them to dig into this, I find, is unusual.

[Thomen]

AFRICA is a CONTINENT, not a NATION.

The fact that a McCain aide had to tell her that confirms my belief that
she has no qualifications (zero, zilch, nada, bupkis) to be anywhere NEAR
the oval office.


Any time I see "unamed source; a source close to; a good friend said" I know whatever follows is pure lies. Period. Anonymous source = manufactured BS to sell a headline.

Until the person who said this has the nuts to stand up and say it on a live camera in front of the world, then it was never said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/palin-didnt-know-africa-i_n_141653.html

Palin Didn't Know Africa Is A Continent, Says Fox News Reporter (VIDEO) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/palin-didnt-know-africa-i_n_141653.html)

Knowing full well that the Fox News channel is essentially the cheerleading section for the Right Wing Conservatives/Republicans, if THEY say it, then it MUST be true
(as far as I'm concerned, anyway.....your milage may vary).

BTW, scroll down near the bottom of that page for the O'Reilly Factor intervew with Fox News Chief Political Correspondent Carl Cameron.

Again, I consider Fox a leasure service of the Republican Party, so for them to dig into this, I find, is unusual.

You are aware that it was already debunked yesterday or the day before, yes?

And Huffington Post? Oh.. come on now.. that's like the print edition of Daily Kos.

[Zayphod]

You are aware that it was already debunked yesterday or the day before, yes?

And Huffington Post? Oh.. come on now.. that's like the print edition of Daily Kos.

Linky please? I posted the one's I found.

Whether it was the Huffington Post or The Conservative Times, the interview on the video there was no less than the Fox News poster boy himself, talking with his political correspondent who had spoken to McCain aides. If Fox's own political correspondent can't do his own research to confirm and verify the news, what does that tell you?

{sigh} I was never involved in the press myself, but I was told that a good reporter always askes Who, What, When, Where, How, and Why. That's just good reporting. Seems like no one on either the right or left bothers with it anymore; they'd rather just be 'fed' the information and repeat it back to the camera.

To a lot of people (and remember, there seem to be a lot of conservatives here), Fox is THE newsstation, no spin, "we'll tell you what's really going on, unlike the rest of the 'liberal' press." My mom watches it religiously. For Fox to air that interview, well, what else should one think? <sarcasm>It must be true, right?</sarcasm>

Oh, and Obama's American (just to keep the thread on-topic, if that's possible) :D

[GlobalExplorer]

In the unlikely case that Obama cannot be President, wouldn't this mean Joe Biden would be the one who takes his place? Sort of a salomonic judgement, based on my naive impression that you elect an administration not only a single individual?

2nd: what a stupid law anyways. What's the use of giving people citizens rights, only then to declare them second class citizens on the grounds of something they have no control over (i.e. the fact they were not born in the US), and entirely irrelevant too. Especially in a country like the US that consists almost 100% of people who all came from abroad not so long ago?

Maybe you should think over the use of this law, before this turns into a farce. Schwarzenegger could have run if it wasn't for it, so you could have The Terminator as president, wouldn't that be awesome?

[Zayphod]

In the unlikely case that Obama cannot be President, wouldn't this mean Joe Biden would be the one who takes his place? Sort of a salomonic judgement, based on my naive impression that you elect an administration not only a single individual?

Well, it's never come up before, but I suppose if he were declaired "inellegible", then my guess is that yes, Biden would become the defacto President-Elect. Interesting situation, no?

BTW, as I understand it from my High School civics class from waaaaaay back in the late 1960's, the reason for being a natural born citizen was because the founding fathers wanted to be certain that the person holding the office had no direct ties to any foreign country. Yes, it might have been necessary back then. I don't think it's that vital now, since, as it was pointed out a few postings up, that you can be a "naturalized" citizen and still hold every other office in government, from small town sheriff all the way up to Supreme Court Justice.

I'm also not a big fan of the Electoral College method, but I'd rather keep the thread on track.

[MothBalls]

Schwarzenegger could have run if it wasn't for it, so you could have The Terminator as president, wouldn't that be awesome?

Arnold has actually done a good job. He made some rookie mistakes in the beginning and he's admitted them. The thing is, the voters can see that he's not just a talking head. He actually does what's best for the people, not the government or special interests. He was given a situation much like Obama has to deal with now. Things couldn't have been more fubar when he took office.

In a recent interview he said he was glad the election is over. He's looking forward to getting off of the couch and sleeping in his bed again. His wife was for Obama, he endorsed McCain. (If I was married to her, and she told me to vote for Mickey Mouse, I would have.)

[Thomen]

You are aware that it was already debunked yesterday or the day before, yes?

And Huffington Post? Oh.. come on now.. that's like the print edition of Daily Kos.
Linky please? I posted the one's I found.

Whether it was the Huffington Post or The Conservative Times, the interview on the video there was no less than the Fox News poster boy himself, talking with his political correspondent who had spoken to McCain aides. If Fox's own political correspondent can't do his own research to confirm and verify the news, what does that tell you?

{sigh} I was never involved in the press myself, but I was told that a good reporter always askes Who, What, When, Where, How, and Why. That's just good reporting. Seems like no one on either the right or left bothers with it anymore; they'd rather just be 'fed' the information and repeat it back to the camera.

To a lot of people (and remember, there seem to be a lot of conservatives here), Fox is THE newsstation, no spin, "we'll tell you what's really going on, unlike the rest of the 'liberal' press." My mom watches it religiously. For Fox to air that interview, well, what else should one think? <sarcasm>It must be true, right?</sarcasm>

Oh, and Obama's American (just to keep the thread on-topic, if that's possible) :D

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/11/10/sarah-palin-leaker-outs-himself

http://famousdc.com/2008/11/10/the-famousdc-golf-clap-of-the-week-goes-to-martin-eisenstadt/

And here is Huff Post's story on the guy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/10/martin-eisenstadt-non-exi_n_142785.html

[Christopher Snow]

Give me a break. This is all sore losing.

And so what if he were Muslim. Does it really matter? Does he HAVE to declare whether he was and when he went back to Christianity.

How you can doubt someones loyalty based on what you have been spouting out is beyond me. I just think some people are having a hard time dealing with a coloured president.
I'm tired of explaining it to people who cannot connect even the simplest dots for themselves. Of COURSE you think it's just "sour grapes" and because I'm really a racist. :damn:

No. It's about trust. Or, in this case, a complete lack of trust. But you go ahead and believe I'm really just a racist if you have to--I really don't care anymore.

--------------

He says he's a Christian. I believe he is not. He has never admitted at all (as far as I know) to being a Muslim. I believe he certainly was for a good number of years, and still is now.

So I believe he's LYING and MISREPRESENTING HIMSELF, and I believe he has consistently done so straight across the board...in order to win.

If he is, or ever was a Muslim, then he should have run on that basis (but he didn't, did he?). Because he knew if he did he would lose.

Now, I'm done explaining it to you. Believe whatever you want. :nope:


CS

[baggygreen]

Be warned, I have a certificate to prove you wrong, saying that I have left church officially (to save those church taxes, else I wouldn't have cared at all :lol: ) Im sorry to go offtopic, but what?!?

First a tv and radio tax, next a church tax if you're a member?!?:o

[Skybird]

Be warned, I have a certificate to prove you wrong, saying that I have left church officially (to save those church taxes, else I wouldn't have cared at all :lol: ) Im sorry to go offtopic, but what?!?

First a tv and radio tax, next a church tax if you're a member?!?:o
How do you think they got all their wealth together, eh? Catholic church even runs it's own state, and one of the most effectice secret services worldwide! ;)

I still pay for them. If you build a school or a hospital, and the church just adds 10% of the building costs and öleaves most of the running costs to the state, it neverthelss almost belongs to them and is nevertheless called a "Protestant" or a Catholic" hospital or school, financed by public taxes.

church and money, that is a very special chapter in the glorious history of religion. Don't get me started. I could list you some books of famous German church-critics (some of them having been deep inside the church and gotten thrown out, or having turned their back on it), that would make your ears perform a tap dance. Lovely.

[August]

Perhaps the German Catholic church is run differently than the American version, because while we are asked for donations they are never demanded.

Of course I feel no need to justify my hate of a religion by telling falsehoods either...

[fatty]

I raised the question about the logic behind running without the proper citizenship-by-birth in a thread a few weeks ago. Perhaps someone can offer a different spin on things or point out something I'm still missing.

If Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States then he ran for the presidency for one of only two possible reasons.

1. He was not aware of the constitutional requirement that a president must be born in the United States. He ran for the presidency out of ignorance.

2. He was aware of the requirement and has been secretly defying it, willingly deceiving the American public.

Reason one is nonsensical. We know that Barack Obama was a lecturer/professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. I assume he would not have been able to hold this job for twelve years without having read the constitution in its entirety (it isn't very long). I will give Obama a little credit and assume he knew going into the campaign that he could not be president if he was not born in the United States.

Reason two is plausible. It could be argued that Obama's campaign, though by and large a fabrication, was perhaps intended to mobilize young voters, inspire African Americans, and win back the world's admiration of America. But I look at the potential payoffs here and they are not adding up with the costs that have been sustained.

First, there's the money. A lot of people have paid a lot of money to fund Obama's campaign. These people would probably be pretty disenchanted with American politics if Obama turned out to be a fraud. They would know that their campaign donations essentially ended up going down the tube for a smoke-and-mirrors performance. That would be self-defeating for the above possible reasons for deception.

Second, a lot of time would have been wasted. Obama was not the golden boy right out of the gate. Let us recall how very close and protracted the Democrat primary process was, and the fervour that erupted over the prospect of America's first female president. Obama could have probably accomplished his goals of inspiration and change by dropping out early on and letting Hillary Clinton take over. I bet this would have saved Americans a lot of election fatigue and maybe even helped boost the final results a bit more for the Dems, but chaining counterfactuals is unreliable.

Third, the costs to the Obama family would be devastating. Obama would never be able to work anywhere again. There would be riots, threats, and hundreds of lawsuits for all the misspent donations. Everyone that endorsed him would be shamed. How anyone would be able to trust a politician ever again would be beyond me.

So I don't think the belief that the supreme court is going to call him out just to hear him say "hahah, just kidding" holds water. He knows that it's coming. If he's been bluffing all this time then he has no rational incentive to have done so. I think such a move would be so damaging that it could be a nail in the coffin for public participation in American politics.

[Molon Labe]

Give me a break. This is all sore losing.

So someone goes to live in another country with his/her spouse for a few years, that doesn't make them a model of loyalty to their home country?

How you can doubt someones loyalty based on what you have been spouting out is beyond me. I just think some people are having a hard time dealing with a coloured president.

Xab, just because someone supports a losing legal argument doesn't make him a racist. It just makes him wrong. Seriously, why do you have to go there? That's in really poor taste.

[joegrundman]

Perhaps the German Catholic church is run differently than the American version, because while we are asked for donations they are never demanded.

Of course I feel no need to justify my hate of a religion by telling falsehoods either...

it's true in germany you have to declare your religion and you pay a tithe automatically to your affiliated religion. If you say you have no affiliated religion then you don't

[TDK1044]

Does any of this nonsense matter? Barack Obama will be the new President on 01/20/2009. That's it. Look to the future not the past.

[Konovalov]

Does any of this nonsense matter? Barack Obama will be the new President on 01/20/2009. That's it. Look to the future not the past.
Couldn't have said it better. :yep: Won't work though is my bet. :down:

[August]

it's true in germany you have to declare your religion and you pay a tithe automatically to your affiliated religion. If you say you have no affiliated religion then you don't

That is just freaky. Their government collects taxes for religions? I'm beginning to understand why Skybird hates them so much, though i'd think the problem lies with his government more than the church.

[1480]

OT, kind of. Since BHO was elected, our department has made a detail of providing security for his house since he and his family are still living here. The strange thing now is that there is another security detail at the Dirksen Federal building. I'm not a big conspiracy nut, but why do I have this rotten feeling in my gut? Blue canary....

[Konovalov]

1480, Could you elaborate a little because I have no idea what you are talking about? :)

[GlobalExplorer]

Perhaps the German Catholic church is run differently than the American version, because while we are asked for donations they are never demanded.

Of course I feel no need to justify my hate of a religion by telling falsehoods either...
it's true in germany you have to declare your religion and you pay a tithe automatically to your affiliated religion. If you say you have no affiliated religion then you don't

Yep, that's how it works. And that's why it really has advantages to stay a damn pagan (like myself), saves me hundreds of €uros every year.

[Sailor Steve]

2nd: what a stupid law anyways. What's the use of giving people citizens rights, only then to declare them second class citizens on the grounds of something they have no control over (i.e. the fact they were not born in the US), and entirely irrelevant too. Especially in a country like the US that consists almost 100% of people who all came from abroad not so long ago?

Maybe you should think over the use of this law, before this turns into a farce. Schwarzenegger could have run if it wasn't for it, so you could have The Terminator as president, wouldn't that be awesome?
No one else has addressed this, so I will. It's the same as I said concerning the Electoral College: it was written into the Constitution, so it's part of the basic law, and changing it would require a Constitutional Amendment. Two-thirds of the Congress would have to back it, then two-thirds of both houses would have to vote it into law, then it would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states. Whether you or I or anyone else thinks it's stupid, that's what it would take to change it. And that would likely take more years than Arnie has left.

[baggygreen]

1480, Could you elaborate a little because I have no idea what you are talking about? :)I second this motion!

what on earth is the dirkson federal building?

[Skybird]

2nd: what a stupid law anyways. What's the use of giving people citizens rights, only then to declare them second class citizens on the grounds of something they have no control over (i.e. the fact they were not born in the US), and entirely irrelevant too. Especially in a country like the US that consists almost 100% of people who all came from abroad not so long ago?

Maybe you should think over the use of this law, before this turns into a farce. Schwarzenegger could have run if it wasn't for it, so you could have The Terminator as president, wouldn't that be awesome?
No one else has addressed this, so I will. It's the same as I said concerning the Electoral College: it was written into the Constitution, so it's part of the basic law, and changing it would require a Constitutional Amendment. Two-thirds of the Congress would have to back it, then two-thirds of both houses would have to vote it into law, then it would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states. Whether you or I or anyone else thinks it's stupid, that's what it would take to change it. And that would likely take more years than Arnie has left.

Comoplicated, I see. What if you would invade Austria and make it an American state? You have so many states that it would not be noted if there is one more or less. And you could argue that it already was yours anyway but that you just lost it by bad luck after WWII, I mean, mishaps happen, oyu know what I mean. Would Arnie then be qualified to be a native American?

[Skybird]

2nd: what a stupid law anyways. What's the use of giving people citizens rights, only then to declare them second class citizens on the grounds of something they have no control over (i.e. the fact they were not born in the US), and entirely irrelevant too. Especially in a country like the US that consists almost 100% of people who all came from abroad not so long ago?

Maybe you should think over the use of this law, before this turns into a farce. Schwarzenegger could have run if it wasn't for it, so you could have The Terminator as president, wouldn't that be awesome?
No one else has addressed this, so I will. It's the same as I said concerning the Electoral College: it was written into the Constitution, so it's part of the basic law, and changing it would require a Constitutional Amendment. Two-thirds of the Congress would have to back it, then two-thirds of both houses would have to vote it into law, then it would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states. Whether you or I or anyone else thinks it's stupid, that's what it would take to change it. And that would likely take more years than Arnie has left.

Complicated, I see. What if you would invade Austria and make it an American state? You have so many states that it would not be noted if there is one more or less. And you could argue that it already was yours anyway but that you just lost it by bad luck after WWII, I mean, mishaps happen, oyu know what I mean. Would Arnie then be qualified to be a native American?

[VipertheSniper]

2nd: what a stupid law anyways. What's the use of giving people citizens rights, only then to declare them second class citizens on the grounds of something they have no control over (i.e. the fact they were not born in the US), and entirely irrelevant too. Especially in a country like the US that consists almost 100% of people who all came from abroad not so long ago?

Maybe you should think over the use of this law, before this turns into a farce. Schwarzenegger could have run if it wasn't for it, so you could have The Terminator as president, wouldn't that be awesome?
No one else has addressed this, so I will. It's the same as I said concerning the Electoral College: it was written into the Constitution, so it's part of the basic law, and changing it would require a Constitutional Amendment. Two-thirds of the Congress would have to back it, then two-thirds of both houses would have to vote it into law, then it would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states. Whether you or I or anyone else thinks it's stupid, that's what it would take to change it. And that would likely take more years than Arnie has left.

Complicated, I see. What if you would invade Austria and make it an American state? You have so many states that it would not be noted if there is one more or less. And you could argue that it already was yours anyway but that you just lost it by bad luck after WWII, I mean, mishaps happen, oyu know what I mean. Would Arnie then be qualified to be a native American?

You're scaring me Skybird...

[Christopher Snow]

There's nothing like a little hypocrisy to brighten a dull evening:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/13/transition.questionnaire/index.html

I wonder if they sent one of their "63-item quesitionnaires" to their own "fearless leader?"


CS

[Digital_Trucker]

There's nothing like a little hypocrisy to brighten a dull evening:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/13/transition.questionnaire/index.html

I wonder if they sent one of their "63-item quesitionnaires" to their own "fearless leader?"


CS

Yep, they sure did, he just refused to answer any of the questions:rotfl:

[FIREWALL]

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5810/250pxmadhk1zz5.jpg

[1480]

2nd: what a stupid law anyways. What's the use of giving people citizens rights, only then to declare them second class citizens on the grounds of something they have no control over (i.e. the fact they were not born in the US), and entirely irrelevant too. Especially in a country like the US that consists almost 100% of people who all came from abroad not so long ago?

Maybe you should think over the use of this law, before this turns into a farce. Schwarzenegger could have run if it wasn't for it, so you could have The Terminator as president, wouldn't that be awesome?
No one else has addressed this, so I will. It's the same as I said concerning the Electoral College: it was written into the Constitution, so it's part of the basic law, and changing it would require a Constitutional Amendment. Two-thirds of the Congress would have to back it, then two-thirds of both houses would have to vote it into law, then it would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states. Whether you or I or anyone else thinks it's stupid, that's what it would take to change it. And that would likely take more years than Arnie has left.

Complicated, I see. What if you would invade Austria and make it an American state? You have so many states that it would not be noted if there is one more or less. And you could argue that it already was yours anyway but that you just lost it by bad luck after WWII, I mean, mishaps happen, oyu know what I mean. Would Arnie then be qualified to be a native American?

Nah, it would become another Puerto Rico, a commonwealth. I'll leave it to SS if someone who is born in a commonwealth of the US can become the POTUS.

[August]

Perhaps the German Catholic church is run differently than the American version, because while we are asked for donations they are never demanded.

Of course I feel no need to justify my hate of a religion by telling falsehoods either...
it's true in germany you have to declare your religion and you pay a tithe automatically to your affiliated religion. If you say you have no affiliated religion then you don't
Yep, that's how it works. And that's why it really has advantages to stay a damn pagan (like myself), saves me hundreds of €uros every year.

So what happens if you declare your "paganness" but go to church anyways? Does the government post spy cameras at the front door to spot defaulters? Do they fine or put them in jail when they catch one?

[joegrundman]

i asked these very same questions - the answer i got was unless you subscribe to a religion and pay the dues you do not qualify for certain things such as the right to a marriage ceremony within those buildings, or burial within their plots

anyone is welcome to go into churches however, and Germany does have some magnificent churches.

and of course he's being silly - atheism or simply religious non-affiliation does not mean pagan

[August]

i asked these very same questions - the answer i got was unless you subscribe to a religion and pay the dues you do not qualify for certain things such as the right to a marriage ceremony within those buildings, or burial within their plots

anyone is welcome to go into churches however, and Germany does have some magnificent churches.

and of course he's being silly - atheism or simply religious non-affiliation does not mean pagan

Who gets these dues Joe? The church or the government or both?

[joegrundman]

The church tax is distinct from the income tax. Church tax goes to the respective church, income tax to the government. Everyone pays the income tax, but I did not have to pay church tax as i am not affiliated with any religious organisation. But even so, i'm not entirely sure if it works the same for foreigners anyway. I never looked into it much further than checking i was not obliged to pay church tax.

How the church body that receives the tithes distributes it to the individual churches and churchmen and women i don't know.

I believe it's just added to your tax return, so i don't think it's possible to cheat on your church taxes without cheating on your income tax. I guess if you feel you want to pay less than the full asked for amount you have to de-affiliate yourself.

I don't know what that means in practice, and what happens if you deaffiliate and then reaffiliate later. Could be an unfortunate deathbed surprise if presented with an arrears bill before being permitted to have a church funeral. And how it works for converts later in life, i also don't know.

[Bewolf]

The church tax is distinct from the income tax. Church tax goes to the respective church, income tax to the government. Everyone pays the income tax, but I did not have to pay church tax as i am not affiliated with any religious organisation. But even so, i'm not entirely sure if it works the same for foreigners anyway. I never looked into it much further than checking i was not obliged to pay church tax.

How the church body that receives the tithes distributes it to the individual churches and churchmen and women i don't know.

I believe it's just added to your tax return, so i don't think it's possible to cheat on your church taxes without cheating on your income tax. I guess if you feel you want to pay less than the full asked for amount you have to de-affiliate yourself.

I don't know what that means in practice, and what happens if you deaffiliate and then reaffiliate later. Could be an unfortunate deathbed surprise if presented with an arrears bill before being permitted to have a church funeral. And how it works for converts later in life, i also don't know.
Nobody is forced to pay church taxes. You can get yourself removed from the list whenever you wish. As was said already, if you want to be married or buried in churches and related graveyards you need to be registered, that's it. You basicly pay for these services with that tax. You may enter any church any time nevertheless. Getting back on the list is no problem either. This applies to germans and foreigners alike.

[Bewolf]

The church tax is distinct from the income tax. Church tax goes to the respective church, income tax to the government. Everyone pays the income tax, but I did not have to pay church tax as i am not affiliated with any religious organisation. But even so, i'm not entirely sure if it works the same for foreigners anyway. I never looked into it much further than checking i was not obliged to pay church tax.

How the church body that receives the tithes distributes it to the individual churches and churchmen and women i don't know.

I believe it's just added to your tax return, so i don't think it's possible to cheat on your church taxes without cheating on your income tax. I guess if you feel you want to pay less than the full asked for amount you have to de-affiliate yourself.

I don't know what that means in practice, and what happens if you deaffiliate and then reaffiliate later. Could be an unfortunate deathbed surprise if presented with an arrears bill before being permitted to have a church funeral. And how it works for converts later in life, i also don't know.

Nobody is forced to pay church taxes. You can get yourself removed from the list whenever you wish. As was said already, if you want to be married or buried in churches and related graveyards you need to be registered, that's it. You basicly pay for these services with that tax. You may enter any church any time and attend mass nevertheless. Getting back on the list is no problem either.

[1480]

WOW! :o A pay to play system for religion. And I beatched that it cost me a C-note to get my daughter baptized.....

[August]

This is very interesting. What do you think is the purpose of having the government collect church member dues instead of letting the church collect it themselves?

[RickC Sniper]

Do the churches pass the collection plate during service as well to collect more?

[AntEater]

The churches do pass out collection bags during service as well.

Legally, the church "tax" (it isn't a tax) is interesting.
The relations between the german state and the churches were set in a series of treaties in the 1920s.
In the Empire, the Lutheran church was the state church of Prussia and Saxony, the Catholics had the king of Bavaria and some other smaller heads who financed them.
There was freedom of religion: Citizens of these respective kingdoms were not required to share the faith of their ruler, but due to tradition the member states financed the faiths their royal houses belonged to. AFAIK the prussians with their religious tolerance financed catholics as well.
The jews had to make do with donations.
After the revolution, with all those overlords gone, the churches had to redefine their relations to the state.
The result was the current system. The churches keep a member's register and the state collects a kind of membership fee for them.
The law governing the church-state relationship are the relevant articles of the Weimar republic constitution, which are still in force.
But this special constitutional relationship only applies to three religions, the Evangelical Church of Germany (Lutheran protestants), the catholic church and the Jewish council of Germany.
All other protestant offshoots, the greek/russian orthodoxy, muslims, bhuddists and whatnot are solely donation based or in case of muslims, financed by donations from the turkish state or saudi Arabia.

But you won't be denied admission to service if you're not a "paying member". Short of marriage, you still can join in every kind of ceremony.
Baptisms are "free" as well, as the parents do not need to belong to the church and children do not pay this "tax".

[August]

Thanks for taking the time to explain that AntEater. No offense intended but the idea of the government having anything to do with church financing is absolutely flabbergasting to me. Such a thing would never, ever, fly here in the states.

[Thomen]

Back on topic..

Well, looks like some think they have a standing to petition for the release of the birth certificate..

One of the guys in this petition was apparently on the ballot.

Be warned... very long read (in court lingo, of course)..

http://americamustknow.com/Documents/Final%20writ%20Keyes%20v%20Bowen.pdf

[geetrue]

And I thought this was over! I am not sure what to think of this one, but what happens if the Supreme Court over-turns his presidency over this? This would be one for the history books as well.

Anyway, Justice Souter has asked for it by the 1st of Dec. Lets see what turns up. What happens if Obama rejects his request? This could get ugly.

-S

The filling says that the defendant has to respond by Dec. 1. IMO, does not mean he has to show his birth certificate.

Good point ... BHO president elect can put this off till another day ... like after he has asceneded to the throne.

I wonder if the court will consider that his mother was flown to Hawaii just in time to have her baby? Having lived and concieved in Kenya by a muslim father who I presumed stayed there. :hmm:

I wonder if the court will consider that the little baby did not stay in Hawaii, but instead was moved to Indonesia, a muslim friendly nation at which time another muslim father has been located to become his step daddy?

I wonder if anything will come out of all of this and like stabiz said, "Civil war" comes to mind.

The angry crowds and mobs in the streets protesting would be put prop 8 to shame. :yep:

[Sea Demon]

Hate to dig up an old thread, but this is rather an interesting item:

http://my.wrif.com/mim/?p=916

Kenyan Ambassador says Mr. Obama was born in Kenya and his birth place is becoming a sort of landmark.

[Thomen]

Hate to dig up an old thread, but this is rather an interesting item:

http://my.wrif.com/mim/?p=916

Kenyan Ambassador says Mr. Obama was born in Kenya and his birth place is becoming a sort of landmark.
Interesting :hmm:

For all who do not want to listening to the whole shabang, the part that SD mentioned starts at around 12 minutes playtime

[Konovalov]

Hate to dig up an old thread, but this is rather an interesting item:

http://my.wrif.com/mim/?p=916

Kenyan Ambassador says Mr. Obama was born in Kenya and his birth place is becoming a sort of landmark.
Then again making such a claim be it true or false will surely help bring in some tourist dollars. Of course it would be oh so helpful if the Ambassador could present some hard evidence to back up his claim. :roll: Hope is not a strategy. The level of desperation reaches new heights.

[Molon Labe]

Sorry to resurrect a dead thread, but I realize I made a mistake here and need to correct the record.

In this post (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=984273&postcount=34), I cited a story (http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200881031064) as if it had stated that Hawaii officials had confirmed the President-Elects place of birth. It did not. The statement in the story to that effect was not attributed, and since it was not, it is not only possible, but probable that the reporter made it up (although probably not maliciously--he/she, like me, probably saw what he/she wanted to see). The attributed statements say only that they have a certificate on file, that they do not release the contents without authorization, and that they will not treat this case any differently than any other.

In other words, the Hawaii official only told us we're not finding out the truth without a warrant (or without the President-Elect deciding to allow it voluntarily).

So, with regards to this point, Mr. Snow, you were right, I was wrong, and I apologize for failing at reading comprehension.

[XabbaRus]

and just to add

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7771937.stm

[Christopher Snow]

I'm still hoping the Berg suit will be deemed to have standing.

Otherwise, I fear the US constitution will be deemed to have been printed on mere "toilet paper" after all.

From where I sit, this one is an "all-or-nothing" judgement (and "Roe-v-Wade") isn't even close.


CS

[subchaser12]

Funny white guys never get their citizenship questioned.

[Frame57]

Funny white guys never get their citizenship questioned.You mean like...Jim Carey???

[PeriscopeDepth]

Funny white guys never get their citizenship questioned.
They do. My understanding is these lawsuits are brought against every Dem or Republican candidate after nomination. Obama's is only being noticed (blogged about would be more accurate probably) because of cheap shots taken at him in the past that some people still desperately want to believe.

PD

[Digital_Trucker]

Funny white guys never get their citizenship questioned.

You don't read much, do you? I guess you missed the flap over McCain's citizenship:nope:

[August]

Funny white guys never get their citizenship questioned.
You don't read much, do you? I guess you missed the flap over McCain's citizenship:nope:

Yeah and if they weren't questioning his citizenship they were questioning his patriotism, or his fidelity, or his age.

[Enigma]

Yeah and if they weren't questioning his citizenship they were questioning his patriotism, or his fidelity, or his age.

His fidelity, I could care less about. I didn't care when Clinton cheated, wouldn't care if McCain had. His age, I think he might have inflicted that upon himself when he chose someone completely inept to fill his shoes if something awful should happen to him.

As for his patriotism, anyone who second guess' McCain's patriotism is a moron. A lifetime of service to his country should be a factor in pointing out just how absurd that is....

[August]

Yeah and if they weren't questioning his citizenship they were questioning his patriotism, or his fidelity, or his age.
His fidelity, I could care less about. I didn't care when Clinton cheated, wouldn't care if McCain had. His age, I think he might have inflicted that upon himself when he chose someone completely inept to fill his shoes if something awful should happen to him.

As for his patriotism, anyone who second guess' McCain's patriotism is a moron. A lifetime of service to his country should be a factor in pointing out just how absurd that is....

Well you'd think so but the age discrimination started long before he picked a running mate, Palin just added a new twist to it.

As for Clinton i sort of agree. I don't care where he dipped his wick but he was stupid enough not only to lie under oath which is a crime that would put you or me in jail, but also to go on TV, wag his finger at the American people and be self righteous about the lie. That made a big difference, at least to me.

[Stealth Hunter]

Yeah and if they weren't questioning his citizenship they were questioning his patriotism, or his fidelity, or his age.

His fidelity, I could care less about. I didn't care when Clinton cheated, wouldn't care if McCain had. His age, I think he might have inflicted that upon himself when he chose someone completely inept to fill his shoes if something awful should happen to him.

As for his patriotism, anyone who second guess' McCain's patriotism is a moron. A lifetime of service to his country should be a factor in pointing out just how absurd that is....

People go after everything when a position of power is on the line. Still, that Obama being a communist thing was priceless.

Kids, vote for a president based off their ability to lead and their qualifications, not off their morals or personal lives, which are really none of our business.:up:

[nikimcbee]

Funny white guys never get their citizenship questioned.

You don't read much, do you? I guess you missed the flap over McCain's citizenship:nope:

Don't you mean seletive reading?:yep:

[nikimcbee]

Yeah and if they weren't questioning his citizenship they were questioning his patriotism, or his fidelity, or his age.

His fidelity, I could care less about. I didn't care when Clinton cheated, wouldn't care if McCain had. His age, I think he might have inflicted that upon himself when he chose someone completely inept to fill his shoes if something awful should happen to him.

As for his patriotism, anyone who second guess' McCain's patriotism is a moron. A lifetime of service to his country should be a factor in pointing out just how absurd that is....

People go after everything when a position of power is on the line. Still, that Obama being a communist thing was priceless.

Kids, vote for a president based off their ability to lead and their qualifications, not off their morals or personal lives, which are really none of our business.:up:


Good thing BO comes out of Chicago politics.

[Enigma]

I don't care where he dipped his wick but he was stupid enough not only to lie under oath which is a crime that would put you or me in jail, but also to go on TV, wag his finger at the American people and be self righteous about the lie. That made a big difference, at least to me.

In turn, I agree. Incredibly foolish, and illegal. I think what dulled any outrage for lots of folks, me included, was the blatant witch hunt that led to the lie. No one came out looking good on this one. We would have all been better off without any of it....

[NEON DEON]

I dont think it matters where Obama was born. McCain either. All that matters is that one parent was a U S citizen. You can be born in Moscow or born on the Space shuttle. You are still a citizen.

[August]

I dont think it matters where Obama was born. McCain either. All that matters is that one parent was a U S citizen. You can be born in Moscow or born on the Space shuttle. You are still a citizen.

No you have to be born in the states. That's the law.

[sunvalleyslim]

Damn Sailor Steve your signature says it all.........:up: :up: :up:

[subchaser12]

I dont think it matters where Obama was born. McCain either. All that matters is that one parent was a U S citizen. You can be born in Moscow or born on the Space shuttle. You are still a citizen.

No you have to be born in the states. That's the law.

If this were true McCain would be a Panamanian.

[August]

I dont think it matters where Obama was born. McCain either. All that matters is that one parent was a U S citizen. You can be born in Moscow or born on the Space shuttle. You are still a citizen.
No you have to be born in the states. That's the law.
If this were true McCain would be a Panamanian.
American military bases are considered American soil, just like embassies are Troll.

[Digital_Trucker]

I dont think it matters where Obama was born. McCain either. All that matters is that one parent was a U S citizen. You can be born in Moscow or born on the Space shuttle. You are still a citizen.
No you have to be born in the states. That's the law.
If this were true McCain would be a Panamanian.

I guess he's still not reading anything but the funny papers.:nope:

[Tchocky]

American military bases are considered American soil, just like embassies are Troll.
I never knew that. Full US soil with all accorded privileges?
Huh :)

[Zayphod]

Is this thread still active? Sheesh.

Last I saw, there is a .jpg of his birth certificate posted for all to see with raised seal and everything from the Hawaii dept of vital statistics proving his US birth.

For me, end of story. The suit is being brought to bear by some right wing guy who is absolutely determined to keep that black guy out of the whitehouse.

On another note: The Governerator has hinted he'd like to make a run for the whitehouse in 2012.

I'm sure the same "He's not a natural born" arguement will come from the same anti-Obama guy once Arnold wins the vote in 2012, right? </sarcasm>

[August]

Is this thread still active? Sheesh.

Last I saw, there is a .jpg of his birth certificate posted for all to see with raised seal and everything from the Hawaii dept of vital statistics proving his US birth.

Not that I really support the whole issue but you've been misinformed. What has been posted is not a birth certificate. I'll let someone else give the details but basically the document was created in 2008.

For me, end of story. The suit is being brought to bear by some right wing guy who is absolutely determined to keep that black guy out of the whitehouse.

Again that is incorrect. The person (a lawyer) bringing the suit is a Clinton Democrat po'd that his candidate didn't get the nomination.

On another note: The Governerator has hinted he'd like to make a run for the whitehouse in 2012.

I'm sure the same "He's not a natural born" arguement will come from the same anti-Obama guy once Arnold wins the vote in 2012, right? </sarcasm>

Probably. In Arnolds case it is a slam dunk. He was born and raised in a foreign nation. According to the United States Constitution he cannot become President. End of story.

[NEON DEON]

I dont think it matters where Obama was born. McCain either. All that matters is that one parent was a U S citizen. You can be born in Moscow or born on the Space shuttle. You are still a citizen.
No you have to be born in the states. That's the law.
If this were true McCain would be a Panamanian.
American military bases are considered American soil, just like embassies are Troll.



There is a stip but I believe this statement found on Forignborn.com to be true.

"A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent in wedlock acquires U.S. citizenship at birth, provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law."

http://www.foreignborn.com/visas_imm/start_here/4birth_abroad.htm


So which one is it?

This excerpt is from the Embassy of U S in Nassau, Bahamas.

http://nassau.usembassy.gov/birth_abroad.html

"A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. The current requirement for a U.S. parent to transmit citizenship is five years of physical presence in the U.S., two of which were after the age of fourteen."

A bit more detailed but essentially the same thing.

[August]

So which one is it?

Actually neither. You are talking about the requirements for citizenship. I am talking about the requirements to hold the office of President. Two different things.

[NEON DEON]

So which one is it?

Actually neither. You are talking about the requirements for citizenship. I am talking about the requirements to hold the office of President. Two different things.

Type of citizenship.

Since the law states that you acquire citizenship at birth that qualifies you as a natural citizen which makes you eligible to be Prez.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html) defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

Anyone born inside the United States
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

You may want to interpret it another way but when it comes down to a legal battle you are going to have to defeat the constitution.

Anyways thats me story and I am sticking to it.:D

[Kapitan_Phillips]

I think Arnold was talking about lobbying to amend the constitution to that effect, to allow him to be able to run sometime.

[Stealth Hunter]

The Governator?:)

[Kapitan_Phillips]

The Governator?:)

:yep: Maybe the Presinator one day :lol:

[Stealth Hunter]

Wouldn't he have the longest presidential name in American history? I don't think anyone is able to beat Schwarzenegger.