Is anyone curious?

[Liability]

The Executive of each state is charged with certifying candidates, elections and the eligibility/validity of same. Not a one removed him from the ballot for ineligibility to serve. On the other board, I posted examples of various state applications to appear on the ballot. In every case, the candidate swears that he or she is eligible to serve if elected, under penalty of fraud and perjury if they lie. If they didn't do their duty to ensure that a candidate was eligible to serve, then there are 50 top state officials (most are secretary of state) who violated federal and their own state laws in the primary and general elections.

Which constitutes zero evidence that even one such individual or designee did anything whatsoever to verify President Obama's place of birth.

LOL

Sure it doesn't.

Hey, if you want to toss your hat in with the birthers, be my guest.

As I have (at least peripherally) followed this from the beginning I know that NOTHING will ever satisfy these idiots. Nothing. For each question answered and numbnut story debunked, they are convinced it's further proof of a cover-up. And everyone is in on it. In fact, the more evidence against them, the more they believe it just proves they're right. That's how crazy conspiracists work

When you have nothing, you fall back on what passess for derision. Noted.

The fact remains, if there actually WAS any evidence that any State or officer of any State had done ANYTHING to verify that President Obama was born in Hawaii, other than perhaps to rely on that meaningless COLB, YOU SURELY HAVEN'T offered any such evidence.

You are content to pretend that because it kinda sorta looks like somebody in each State is arguably required to do that whole bona fides checking thingie, that it must have happened. Except, of course, as I noted earlier, there is not one shred of evidence that anybody actually DID attempt to verify any such thing.

 

[dilloduck]

great comparison, gump

 

[Dr Grump]

Why these records of our president are not available?

1. Occidental College records -- Not released
2. Columbia College records -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- 'not available'
4. Harvard College records -- Not released
5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released
6. Medical records -- Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- 'not available'
8. Law practice client list -- Not released
9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate - - Not released
10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- Not released
11. Harvard Law Review articles published -- None
12. University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None
13. Record of baptism-- Not released or 'not available'
14. Illinois State Senate records--'not available'

The COLB was released. It's what Hawaii releases upon request for a birth certificate. It had the proper signature, with a seal and everything. The director of the state department of vital records (whatever they call it there) verified it's authenticity, and that the original is on file. Other than that, NOTHING on your list is required for him to serve as POTUS.

What you're failing to point out here is, the FIRST COLB that soetoro posted online was a computer generated piece of low rent forgery. So they upped the ante and posted a new version complete with the seal and wrinkles in a paper copy, which ANYBODY could forge. None the less, let's assume it's real. It still PROVES NOTHING! No hospital name, no doctors name, no nothing. And it's COMMON KNOWLEDGE that ANYONE could be ISSUED a COLB in Hawaii in 1961, and whether you were born there or not was of NO SIGNIFICANCE. You could have been born on the moon and still been issued a COLB. So for those of you who continue to harp on the COLB being "proof," you're all just totally OUT TO LUNCH.

Give it up Pale. People in a lot higher than you say he is eligible.
That aside, say he wasn't born in the US. His mother is American. You want to deny him his birthright? Glad you believe in "Freedom" and the "American Way"..pard!!

 

[Liability]

The COLB was released. It's what Hawaii releases upon request for a birth certificate. It had the proper signature, with a seal and everything. The director of the state department of vital records (whatever they call it there) verified it's authenticity, and that the original is on file. Other than that, NOTHING on your list is required for him to serve as POTUS.

What you're failing to point out here is, the FIRST COLB that soetoro posted online was a computer generated piece of low rent forgery. So they upped the ante and posted a new version complete with the seal and wrinkles in a paper copy, which ANYBODY could forge. None the less, let's assume it's real. It still PROVES NOTHING! No hospital name, no doctors name, no nothing. And it's COMMON KNOWLEDGE that ANYONE could be ISSUED a COLB in Hawaii in 1961, and whether you were born there or not was of NO SIGNIFICANCE. You could have been born on the moon and still been issued a COLB. So for those of you who continue to harp on the COLB being "proof," you're all just totally OUT TO LUNCH.

Give it up Pale. People in a lot higher than you say he is eligible.
That aside, say he wasn't born in the US. His mother is American. You want to deny him his birthright? Glad you believe in "Freedom" and the "American Way"..pard!!

Nobody -- higher up or otherwise -- has said he DOES qualify as a Natural Born Citizen. So your first assertion is false. Prove me wrong. Point to ONE authoritative individual who has "made" that determination based on actual evidence.

IF President Obama was not born in the USA on the date of his birth, then the law as it existed AT THAT TIME would determine whether he was a citizen.* Having a US citizen mother, standing alone, may not have sufficed.

There is no denial of "freedom" or of "the American Way" in believing that the Constitutional eligibility requirements (NATURAL BORN CITIZEN) ought to be satisifed before a person elected President is properly permitted to serve AS President.

__________________________
* Except, perhaps, if a subsequent law providing for retroactive effect, if valid, said otherwise.

 

[DiveCon]

The birth thing was sorted out long ago.
Why would I give a shit if he was baptised?

Bush released ALL of his NG records yet?

yes, several years ago

 

[Dr Grump]

[


There is no denial of "freedom" or of "the American Way" in believing that the Constitutional eligibility requirements (NATURAL BORN CITIZEN) ought to be satisifed before a person elected President is properly permitted to serve AS President.

__________________________
* Except, perhaps, if a subsequent law providing for retroactive effect, if valid, said otherwise.

So how does one prove it? Surely he had to provide evidence when he got his social security number, let alone all the paperwork he would have had to fill out when he entered politics.

I see this as nothing but a cheap shot from people who are sore losers.

So if my parents are Yanks and my mother is on an flight that stops over in Nepal, I am Nepalese, not American? gedthefuckouttahere.

And if your precious constitution is going to disenfranchise somebody's birthright to satisfy right-wing loons, I suggest you put the amendment process into action ASAP and renounce that little excerpt, because it sux.,....

 

[Liability]

[


There is no denial of "freedom" or of "the American Way" in believing that the Constitutional eligibility requirements (NATURAL BORN CITIZEN) ought to be satisifed before a person elected President is properly permitted to serve AS President.

__________________________
* Except, perhaps, if a subsequent law providing for retroactive effect, if valid, said otherwise.

So how does one prove it? Surely he had to provide evidence when he got his social security number, let alone all the paperwork he would have had to fill out when he entered politics.

I see this as nothing but a cheap shot from people who are sore losers.

So if my parents are Yanks and my mother is on an flight that stops over in Nepal, I am Nepalese, not American? gedthefuckouttahere.

And if your precious constitution is going to disenfranchise somebody's birthright to satisfy right-wing loons, I suggest you put the amendment process into action ASAP and renounce that little excerpt, because it sux.,....

A series of banal and pointless questions and observations does not a rational point make, Chump.

Did YOU have to present YOUR original birth certificate to get your Social Security Card? I don't recall, off hand, if I had to. But let's say it was required back in the day. And? What follows? That he showed it and they issued him his Soc. Sec. card. Whoppity do. Does that mean that he had to have been born in the USA? Nope.

What "papers" do you imagine ('cause you sure as hell don't KNOW) he had to "show" [and to whom] in order to enter politics?

You see this as a cheap shot from sore losers. So what? You are wrong a whole lot. Why should THIS be any exception?

So if my parents are Yanks and my mother is on an flight that stops over in Nepal, I am Nepalese, not American? gedthefuckouttahere.

^ stunningly stupid. No If BOTH of your parents are U.S. citizens, then you are an American citizen AT BIRTH. At the time, however, of President Obama's birth, if only mom was a U.S. citizen and you were born abroad, then you were quite possibly NOT a U.S. citizen at birth.

And if you don't like the Natural Born Citizen provision of our Constitution, I couldn't care less. Your dislike of it is no reason for this Republic to simply ignore it. An Amendment WOULD be required to rescind it.

 

[Dr Grump]

A series of banal and pointless questions and observations does not a rational point make, Chump.

Did YOU have to present YOUR original birth certificate to get your Social Security Card? I don't recall, off hand, but let's say it was required back in the day. And? What follows? That he showed it and they issued him his Soc. Sec. card. Whoppity do. Does that mean that he had to have been born in the USA? Nope.

What "papers" do you imagine ('cause you sure as hell don't KNOW) he had to "show" and to whom in order to enter politics?

You see this as a cheap shot from sore losers. So what? You are wrong a whole lot. Why should THIS be any excpetion?

^ stunningly stupid. No If BOTH of your parents are U.S. citizens, then you are an American citizen AT BIRTH. At the time, however, of President Obama's birth, if only mom was a U.S. citizen and you were born abroad, then you were quite possibly NOT a U.S. citizen at birth.

And if you don't like the Natural Born Citizen provision of our Constitution, I couldn't care less. Your dislike of it is no reason for this Republic to simply ignore it. An Amendment WOULD be required to rescind it.

I'm not wrong about the cheap shot..

..and yes, I know about the amendment process that's why I mentioned it.

As for stunningly stupid, you might want to look into that birth thang again....I'll think you'll find it only matters if ONE of his parents is a US citizen....

Well done The Liability!

 

[Liability]

A series of banal and pointless questions and observations does not a rational point make, Chump.

Did YOU have to present YOUR original birth certificate to get your Social Security Card? I don't recall, off hand, but let's say it was required back in the day. And? What follows? That he showed it and they issued him his Soc. Sec. card. Whoppity do. Does that mean that he had to have been born in the USA? Nope.

What "papers" do you imagine ('cause you sure as hell don't KNOW) he had to "show" and to whom in order to enter politics?

You see this as a cheap shot from sore losers. So what? You are wrong a whole lot. Why should THIS be any excpetion?

^ stunningly stupid. No If BOTH of your parents are U.S. citizens, then you are an American citizen AT BIRTH. At the time, however, of President Obama's birth, if only mom was a U.S. citizen and you were born abroad, then you were quite possibly NOT a U.S. citizen at birth.

And if you don't like the Natural Born Citizen provision of our Constitution, I couldn't care less. Your dislike of it is no reason for this Republic to simply ignore it. An Amendment WOULD be required to rescind it.

I'm not wrong about the cheap shot..

..and yes, I know about the amendment process that's why I mentioned it.

As for stunningly stupid, you might want to look into that birth thang again....I'll think you'll find it only matters if ONE of his parents is a US citizen....

Well done The Liability!

You are entitled to your baseless opinions, but you ARE wrong about the "CHEAP SHOT" CRAP.

I figured you mentioned the Amendment process because you were passingly familiar with it. That's nice. I was agreeing that it WOULD TAKE an Amendment. And I contrasted that to simply IGNORING the provision which is arguably what has happened.

And, I already (long ago) checked into the birth "thang." The law has changed several times over the years. Your ignorance is showing. At the time of President Obama's birth, with only his mother being a U.S. citizen, it is not clear (if he was born over in Kenya) that he would be a U.S. citizen. It appears to have turned on whether (or not) his mom had resided in the U.S. for a specific duration of time prior to his birth and how old she was at the time.

Are you an expert on Immigration Laws and their history?

 

[Dr Grump]

You are entitled to your baseless opinions, but you ARE wrong about the "CHEAP SHOT" CRAP.

I figured you mentioned the Amendment process because you were passingly familiar with it. That's nice. I was agreeing that it WOULD TAKE an Amendment. And I contrasted that to simply IGNORING the provision which is arguably what has happened.

And, I already (long ago) checked into the birth "thang." The law has changed several times over the years. Your ignorance is showing. At the time of President Obama's birth, with only his mother being a U.S. citizen, it is not clear (if he was born over in Kenya) that he would be a U.S. citizen. It appears to have turned on whether (or not) his mom had resided in the U.S. for a specific duration of time prior to his birth and how old she was at the time.

Are you an expert on Immigration Laws and their history?

I'm not wrong about the cheap shot crap. Maybe with YOU it's not a cheap shot, but with others it is not.

What's not to understand about the amendment process? It's very easy to understand..

No, I am not an expert on YOUR immigration laws and history. Looks like nobody is going by the posts on these boards, which shows what a red herring this whole argument is...

 

[DiveCon]

A series of banal and pointless questions and observations does not a rational point make, Chump.

Did YOU have to present YOUR original birth certificate to get your Social Security Card? I don't recall, off hand, but let's say it was required back in the day. And? What follows? That he showed it and they issued him his Soc. Sec. card. Whoppity do. Does that mean that he had to have been born in the USA? Nope.

What "papers" do you imagine ('cause you sure as hell don't KNOW) he had to "show" and to whom in order to enter politics?

You see this as a cheap shot from sore losers. So what? You are wrong a whole lot. Why should THIS be any excpetion?

^ stunningly stupid. No If BOTH of your parents are U.S. citizens, then you are an American citizen AT BIRTH. At the time, however, of President Obama's birth, if only mom was a U.S. citizen and you were born abroad, then you were quite possibly NOT a U.S. citizen at birth.

And if you don't like the Natural Born Citizen provision of our Constitution, I couldn't care less. Your dislike of it is no reason for this Republic to simply ignore it. An Amendment WOULD be required to rescind it.

I'm not wrong about the cheap shot..

..and yes, I know about the amendment process that's why I mentioned it.

As for stunningly stupid, you might want to look into that birth thang again....I'll think you'll find it only matters if ONE of his parents is a US citizen....

Well done The Liability!

You are entitled to your baseless opinions, but you ARE wrong about the "CHEAP SHOT" CRAP.

I figured you mentioned the Amendment process because you were passingly familiar with it. That's nice. I was agreeing that it WOULD TAKE an Amendment. And I contrasted that to simply IGNORING the provision which is arguably what has happened.

And, I already (long ago) checked into the birth "thang." The law has changed several times over the years. Your ignorance is showing. At the time of President Obama's birth, with only his mother being a U.S. citizen, it is not clear (if he was born over in Kenya) that he would be a U.S. citizen. It appears to have turned on whether (or not) his mom had resided in the U.S. for a specific duration of time prior to his birth and how old she was at the time.

Are you an expert on Immigration Laws and their history?

Gump isnt an American citizen
so his ignorance of US law is understandable

 

[007]

The COLB was released. It's what Hawaii releases upon request for a birth certificate. It had the proper signature, with a seal and everything. The director of the state department of vital records (whatever they call it there) verified it's authenticity, and that the original is on file. Other than that, NOTHING on your list is required for him to serve as POTUS.

What you're failing to point out here is, the FIRST COLB that soetoro posted online was a computer generated piece of low rent forgery. So they upped the ante and posted a new version complete with the seal and wrinkles in a paper copy, which ANYBODY could forge. None the less, let's assume it's real. It still PROVES NOTHING! No hospital name, no doctors name, no nothing. And it's COMMON KNOWLEDGE that ANYONE could be ISSUED a COLB in Hawaii in 1961, and whether you were born there or not was of NO SIGNIFICANCE. You could have been born on the moon and still been issued a COLB. So for those of you who continue to harp on the COLB being "proof," you're all just totally OUT TO LUNCH.

Give it up Pale. People in a lot higher than you say he is eligible.
That aside, say he wasn't born in the US. His mother is American. You want to deny him his birthright? Glad you believe in "Freedom" and the "American Way"..pard!!

Sorry grump, but there's brand new law suits pending and one more congressman signed on to wondering what the hell this is all about. It's gaining more and more attention every day.

And the his mother was an American citizen thingie, out the window pard. She was too young at the time of his birth to have conferred citizenship to obama.

Next?

 

[jvn]

Despite the "birthers" demanding that they MUST SEE EVIDENCE that the Electoral College, the Congress and the Supreme Court considered this issue, the fact remains that these constitutional authorities played their appropriate roles in this matter and the President was inaugurated.

This was the regular process that takes place after every presidential election and this time around was no different than any other.

To make some kind of claim that the process was illegitimate would require some evidence that raised an issue. Actual evidence and not sour grapes.

There is none, only speculation.

No matter what those who make this specious claim believe, the fact is that whatever information was provided to the constitutional authorities, it satisfied them that the President was duly elected and qualified. That is all that matters.

You want to change the laws? Go for it! You want to change the process to make it more open to public scrutiny? Tell Congress!

This election is done and long over. The sooner you get used to that, the better off you will be...

 

[Dr Grump]

Gump isnt an American citizen
so his ignorance of US law is understandable

Oh, I understand US law in this case. It's pretty basic. I'm just saying it's stupid....

 

[kwc57]

When you have nothing, you fall back on what passess for derision. Noted.

Pot, kettle, black. I nominate this as the ironic post of the week.

 

[007]

Despite the "birthers" demanding that they MUST SEE EVIDENCE that the Electoral College, the Congress and the Supreme Court considered this issue, the fact remains that these constitutional authorities played their appropriate roles in this matter and the President was inaugurated.

This was the regular process that takes place after every presidential election and this time around was no different than any other.

To make some kind of claim that the process was illegitimate would require some evidence that raised an issue. Actual evidence and not sour grapes.

There is none, only speculation.

No matter what those who make this specious claim believe, the fact is that whatever information was provided to the constitutional authorities, it satisfied them that the President was duly elected and qualified. That is all that matters.

You want to change the laws? Go for it! You want to change the process to make it more open to public scrutiny? Tell Congress!

This election is done and long over. The sooner you get used to that, the better off you will be...

Although I agree with this to some extent, the fact of the matter is at this point that some laws may have been broken, and for that reason this matter will not go away.

Maybe for you obama ass kissers it is, but not those of us who abhor the bastard. Justice will be done, sooner or later.

 

[Liability]

When you have nothing, you fall back on what passess for derision. Noted.

Pot, kettle, black. I nominate this as the ironic post of the week.

Well, that's just dishonest of you. Tsk freakin' tsk.

I do sometimes resort to derision. Bit I resort to derision almost exclusively in response to its use directed against me or against others.

I do sometimes lapse and go for a cheap chuckle by using it first, but generally speaking, when I do so it is not a true flame; it's just a joke.

So you can keep your nomination. A dishonest nomination is just worthless. You have shown higher standards in the past. Again, tsk freakin' tsk.

 

[Liability]

You are entitled to your baseless opinions, but you ARE wrong about the "CHEAP SHOT" CRAP.

I figured you mentioned the Amendment process because you were passingly familiar with it. That's nice. I was agreeing that it WOULD TAKE an Amendment. And I contrasted that to simply IGNORING the provision which is arguably what has happened.

And, I already (long ago) checked into the birth "thang." The law has changed several times over the years. Your ignorance is showing. At the time of President Obama's birth, with only his mother being a U.S. citizen, it is not clear (if he was born over in Kenya) that he would be a U.S. citizen. It appears to have turned on whether (or not) his mom had resided in the U.S. for a specific duration of time prior to his birth and how old she was at the time.

Are you an expert on Immigration Laws and their history?

I'm not wrong about the cheap shot crap. Maybe with YOU it's not a cheap shot, but with others it is not.

LOL. I believe I know what you meant to write, so I'll respond in a semi-serious manner. I have no dobut that some highly partisan Republicans and conservatives use the Birth Certificate issue as a mere cheap shot. But even so, the question still has some serious implications. The acid test: LET'S presume, as I do, that President Obama was born in Hawaii. In that case, why the hell is he playing games? Why not just release a verified copy of his original ("so-called "long form") birth certificate?

What's not to understand about the amendment process? It's very easy to understand..

I know. As I said, I believe you do have a passing familiarity with it and I agreed with you that if you (and presumably enough other people) dislike the NAtural Born Citizen requirement, the way to change it is by Amendment. THe proper course is NOT to simply ignore it.

No, I am not an expert on YOUR immigration laws and history. Looks like nobody is going by the posts on these boards, which shows what a red herring this whole argument is...

Well, if you are not an expert on American Immigration Laws, then it may be that this is why you seem not to understand that WHERE President Obama was born, and WHEN, and whether one, both or neither of his parents were citizens at the time are all very important to answering the question of his NBC status.

 

[kwc57]

When you have nothing, you fall back on what passess for derision. Noted.

Pot, kettle, black. I nominate this as the ironic post of the week.

Well, that's just dishonest of you. Tsk freakin' tsk.

I do sometimes resort to derision. Bit I resort to derision almost exclusively in response to its use directed against me or against others.

I do sometimes lapse and go for a cheap chuckle by using it first, but generally speaking, when I do so it is not a true flame; it's just a joke.

So you can keep your nomination. A dishonest nomination is just worthless. You have shown higher standards in the past. Again, tsk freakin' tsk.

In other words........it isn't true except for when it is. Noted. Carry on.

 

[Liability]

Pot, kettle, black. I nominate this as the ironic post of the week.

Well, that's just dishonest of you. Tsk freakin' tsk.

I do sometimes resort to derision. Bit I resort to derision almost exclusively in response to its use directed against me or against others.

I do sometimes lapse and go for a cheap chuckle by using it first, but generally speaking, when I do so it is not a true flame; it's just a joke.

So you can keep your nomination. A dishonest nomination is just worthless. You have shown higher standards in the past. Again, tsk freakin' tsk.

In other words........it isn't true except for when it is. Noted. Carry on.

More dishonesty from you. Tsk freakin' tsk!

I never claimed that I never use derision.

The point is that I do not resort to it in the way YOU lied and claimed I did.

You use derision, too. So it must not be the case that you are offended by derision in and of itself. Presumably, you must only be offended by derision as a method of evading a point you cannot answer honestly.

So, my suggestion to you is, stop doing it.

No need to thank me for this sage advice. As I said, you used to demosntrate higher standards. Mabye you can reclaim it.