Hawaii’s Governor Takes On ‘Birthers’

[shintao]

Obama is the SECOND illegitimate US President. Chester Arthur’s father was born in Ireland and was an Irish citizen at his son’s birth. Chester Arthur burned almost all of his personal papers in an attempt to hide the fact that he was not eligible.

again, someone can have both parents NOT be US citizens and STILL BE NATURAL BORN CITIZENS IF THEY ARE BORN ON US SOIL

Sorry but you're wrong......again. They are just citizens but not natural born citizens. They can't be president someday. Now if the parents were illegal and then became naturalized then that baby born after they were naturalized in the US could become President someday. No, anchor baby's with illegal parents can never be qualified to meet Article 2 Section 1.

Tha is what happened to McCain, two US parents, but born out of the US.

 

[SFC Ollie]

again, someone can have both parents NOT be US citizens and STILL BE NATURAL BORN CITIZENS IF THEY ARE BORN ON US SOIL

Sorry but you're wrong......again. They are just citizens but not natural born citizens. They can't be president someday. Now if the parents were illegal and then became naturalized then that baby born after they were naturalized in the US could become President someday. No, anchor baby's with illegal parents can never be qualified to meet Article 2 Section 1.

Tha is what happened to McCain, two US parents, but born out of the US.

McCains parents were stationed with the Military. McCain should have had a "Certificate of birth abroad" issued by the Consulate or Embassy. As one of my sons has.

 

[goldcatt]

isn't the birther argument that he wasn't born on us soil? hence why they want to see his original b/c?

That was the original birfer argument. But it's far, far beyond that into the realm of the completely insane now.

The arguments I've seen on this board alone:

1. Obama was born in Kenya. In which case asking for a birth cert makes sense, right?

2. Obama cannot be a natural born citizen because his father was not a citizen, no matter where he was born. In which case the BC makes no difference.

3. Obama was born a US citizen, but voluntarily surrendered his citizenship as a child when he lived in Indonesia. So the BC doesn't matter.

4. Obama was born a US citizen, but was secretly adopted by his stepfather in Indonesia and therefore his stepfather renounced his citizenship for him. The latest and greatest birfer lawsuits use this theory, referring to Obama in all filings as "Barry Soetoro". So again, the BC makes no difference.

5. Obama was born in either California or Washington State, but his father was Malcolm X. Since his father never acknowledged him and his mother was too young to pass on her US citizenship to her child, he cannot be a natural born citizen. To that, all I can say is WTF??

6. Obama faked his age on all of his official documents and was actually born in Hawaii but before it became a state. He must have then discovered the Fountain of Youth on his way to the White House. No BC is going to make a difference to anybody who thinks THAT.

7. I never got the full story, but there was somebody insisting that as a child Obama held a Pakistani passport and therefore must have lost or surrendered his citizenship somehow along the way. Again, BC demanded but will not touch the theory.

I've seen even nuttier ones on other boards, but you get the idea. It's a cottage industry now, a con artist's paradise.

See what I mean about it not making any difference? The BC is just what they're asking for "now", but it will make no difference to the idiots who believe this stuff. So why feed the trolls?

i've never seen #5, but since MalcolmX was a US Citizens, doesnt that also fail for them?

i did hear one where he supposedly used a foreign passport to get into college, but i have no idea of the details of that one

They're birfers. All of the arguments fail. That doesn't stop them.

I hadn't heard the passport thing, but I did hear that he supposedly attended Occidental on a scholarship set aside for foreign students. Another claim I heard was that his college tuition was paid for by either Kenya, China, the Sauds or a Pakistani madrasa, depending on who you listen to.

 

[DiveCon]

That was the original birfer argument. But it's far, far beyond that into the realm of the completely insane now.

The arguments I've seen on this board alone:

1. Obama was born in Kenya. In which case asking for a birth cert makes sense, right?

2. Obama cannot be a natural born citizen because his father was not a citizen, no matter where he was born. In which case the BC makes no difference.

3. Obama was born a US citizen, but voluntarily surrendered his citizenship as a child when he lived in Indonesia. So the BC doesn't matter.

4. Obama was born a US citizen, but was secretly adopted by his stepfather in Indonesia and therefore his stepfather renounced his citizenship for him. The latest and greatest birfer lawsuits use this theory, referring to Obama in all filings as "Barry Soetoro". So again, the BC makes no difference.

5. Obama was born in either California or Washington State, but his father was Malcolm X. Since his father never acknowledged him and his mother was too young to pass on her US citizenship to her child, he cannot be a natural born citizen. To that, all I can say is WTF??

6. Obama faked his age on all of his official documents and was actually born in Hawaii but before it became a state. He must have then discovered the Fountain of Youth on his way to the White House. No BC is going to make a difference to anybody who thinks THAT.

7. I never got the full story, but there was somebody insisting that as a child Obama held a Pakistani passport and therefore must have lost or surrendered his citizenship somehow along the way. Again, BC demanded but will not touch the theory.

I've seen even nuttier ones on other boards, but you get the idea. It's a cottage industry now, a con artist's paradise.

See what I mean about it not making any difference? The BC is just what they're asking for "now", but it will make no difference to the idiots who believe this stuff. So why feed the trolls?

i've never seen #5, but since MalcolmX was a US Citizens, doesnt that also fail for them?

i did hear one where he supposedly used a foreign passport to get into college, but i have no idea of the details of that one

They're birfers. All of the arguments fail. That doesn't stop them.

I hadn't heard the passport thing, but I did hear that he supposedly attended Occidental on a scholarship set aside for foreign students. Another claim I heard was that his college tuition was paid for by either Kenya, China, the Sauds or a Pakistani madrasa, depending on who you listen to.

yeah, thats part of it
like i said, i dont remember all the little details
lol

 

[shintao]

Sorry but you're wrong......again. They are just citizens but not natural born citizens. They can't be president someday. Now if the parents were illegal and then became naturalized then that baby born after they were naturalized in the US could become President someday. No, anchor baby's with illegal parents can never be qualified to meet Article 2 Section 1.

Tha is what happened to McCain, two US parents, but born out of the US.

McCains parents were stationed with the Military. McCain should have had a "Certificate of birth abroad" issued by the Consulate or Embassy. As one of my sons has.

But alas, he was born before that was a legal means to citizenship.

 

[USArmyRetired]

again, someone can have both parents NOT be US citizens and STILL BE NATURAL BORN CITIZENS IF THEY ARE BORN ON US SOIL

Sorry but you're wrong......again. They are just citizens but not natural born citizens. They can't be president someday. Now if the parents were illegal and then became naturalized then that baby born after they were naturalized in the US could become President someday. No, anchor baby's with illegal parents can never be qualified to meet Article 2 Section 1.

no, it is YOU that is once again, WRONG
any child born on US SOIL is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
no if ands or buts
so yes, an anchor baby most certainly CAN become POTUS someday


how the **** you got so misinformed is beyond me

Bullshit. Go read Perkins Vs Elg SCOTUS decision and Minor vs Happersett



Perkins v. Elg's (1939) importance is that it actually gives examples of what a "natural born citizen" of the U.S. is; what a "citizen" of the U.S. is; and what a "native-born citizen" of the U. S. is.

In this case, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a "natural born citizen" is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.

Read this for proof
The Steady Drip: AKA Obama Ineligible if he was born on the steps of the Capital in D.C.

 

[DiveCon]

Sorry but you're wrong......again. They are just citizens but not natural born citizens. They can't be president someday. Now if the parents were illegal and then became naturalized then that baby born after they were naturalized in the US could become President someday. No, anchor baby's with illegal parents can never be qualified to meet Article 2 Section 1.

no, it is YOU that is once again, WRONG
any child born on US SOIL is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
no if ands or buts
so yes, an anchor baby most certainly CAN become POTUS someday


how the **** you got so misinformed is beyond me

Bullshit. Go read Perkins Vs Elg SCOTUS decision and Minor vs Happersett



Perkins v. Elg's (1939) importance is that it actually gives examples of what a "natural born citizen" of the U.S. is; what a "citizen" of the U.S. is; and what a "native-born citizen" of the U. S. is.

In this case, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a "natural born citizen" is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.

Read this for proof
The Steady Drip: AKA Obama Ineligible if he was born on the steps of the Capital in D.C.

a ******* BLOG?????
as PROOF are you shitting me?

 

[goldcatt]

i've never seen #5, but since MalcolmX was a US Citizens, doesnt that also fail for them?

i did hear one where he supposedly used a foreign passport to get into college, but i have no idea of the details of that one

They're birfers. All of the arguments fail. That doesn't stop them.

I hadn't heard the passport thing, but I did hear that he supposedly attended Occidental on a scholarship set aside for foreign students. Another claim I heard was that his college tuition was paid for by either Kenya, China, the Sauds or a Pakistani madrasa, depending on who you listen to.

yeah, thats part of it
like i said, i dont remember all the little details
lol

I can't keep them all straight anymore. Seems like anybody with photoshop and a spam e-mail account can put out a new birfer theory and somebody, somewhere will bite. I've seen them involving the Egyptians, the Soviets, the Pakistanis, the Sudanese, the Turks...it just gets more and more insane.

These are fringe even for birfers, but it underscores the point that the primary theories being tossed around and even litigated these days have absolutely NOTHING to do with where he was born and everything to do with demanding proof of a negative from other points in his life and/or misreading and misquoting the law on citizenship.

So why do they keep asking for the BC? Because they're told to do so, without even thinking about whether it has anything to do with their claims.

 

[goldcatt]

no, it is YOU that is once again, WRONG
any child born on US SOIL is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
no if ands or buts
so yes, an anchor baby most certainly CAN become POTUS someday


how the **** you got so misinformed is beyond me

Bullshit. Go read Perkins Vs Elg SCOTUS decision and Minor vs Happersett



Perkins v. Elg's (1939) importance is that it actually gives examples of what a "natural born citizen" of the U.S. is; what a "citizen" of the U.S. is; and what a "native-born citizen" of the U. S. is.

In this case, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a "natural born citizen" is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.

Read this for proof
The Steady Drip: AKA Obama Ineligible if he was born on the steps of the Capital in D.C.

a ******* BLOG?????
as PROOF are you shitting me?

Here's the case. It deals with a long-defunct statute concerning minor expatriated citizens and their right of election upon attaining the age of majority.

PERKINS V. ELG, 307 U. S. 325 :: Volume 307 :: 1939 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

He's posted that shit before.

 

[USArmyRetired]

no, it is YOU that is once again, WRONG
any child born on US SOIL is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
no if ands or buts
so yes, an anchor baby most certainly CAN become POTUS someday


how the **** you got so misinformed is beyond me

Bullshit. Go read Perkins Vs Elg SCOTUS decision and Minor vs Happersett



Perkins v. Elg's (1939) importance is that it actually gives examples of what a "natural born citizen" of the U.S. is; what a "citizen" of the U.S. is; and what a "native-born citizen" of the U. S. is.

In this case, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a "natural born citizen" is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.

Read this for proof
The Steady Drip: AKA Obama Ineligible if he was born on the steps of the Capital in D.C.

a ******* BLOG?????
as PROOF are you shitting me?

Read the cases, google them. Also the framers never intended dual citizens to be president. You do know that Article 2 Section 1 is for allegiance purposes dont ya? It requests a different type of citizen. That is why the constitution to this day says a president must be a natural born citizen (article 2 section 1) and a senator and representative calls for a citizen ( Article 1 Section 3), thus 2 different entities. The constitution states it clearly

For Senator the constutution says:
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory...ng/Constitutional_Qualifications_Senators.htm

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 3]

For President it says:

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

The only time a citizen was president was at the time of the adoption of the constitution as it states in Article 2 Sec 1.

 

[DiveCon]

Bullshit. Go read Perkins Vs Elg SCOTUS decision and Minor vs Happersett



Perkins v. Elg's (1939) importance is that it actually gives examples of what a "natural born citizen" of the U.S. is; what a "citizen" of the U.S. is; and what a "native-born citizen" of the U. S. is.

In this case, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a "natural born citizen" is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.

Read this for proof
The Steady Drip: AKA Obama Ineligible if he was born on the steps of the Capital in D.C.

a ******* BLOG?????
as PROOF are you shitting me?

Read the cases, google them. Also the framers never intended dual citizens to be president. You do know that Article 2 Section 1 is for allegiance purposes dont ya? It requests a different type of citizen. That is why the constitution to this day says a president must be a natural born citizen (article 2 section 1) and a senator and representative calls for a citizen ( Article 1 Section 3), thus 2 different entities. The constitution states it clearly

For Senator the constutution says:
U.S. Senate: Art & History Home > Origins & Development > Institutional Development > Constitutional Qualifications for Senator

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 3]

For President it says:

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

The only time a citizen was president was at the time of the adoption of the constitution as it states in Article 2 Sec 1.

and someone BORN ON US SOIL IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
PERIOD

 

[goldcatt]

a ******* BLOG?????
as PROOF are you shitting me?

Read the cases, google them. Also the framers never intended dual citizens to be president. You do know that Article 2 Section 1 is for allegiance purposes dont ya? It requests a different type of citizen. That is why the constitution to this day says a president must be a natural born citizen (article 2 section 1) and a senator and representative calls for a citizen ( Article 1 Section 3), thus 2 different entities. The constitution states it clearly

For Senator the constutution says:
U.S. Senate: Art & History Home > Origins & Development > Institutional Development > Constitutional Qualifications for Senator

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 3]

For President it says:

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

The only time a citizen was president was at the time of the adoption of the constitution as it states in Article 2 Sec 1.

and someone BORN ON US SOIL IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
PERIOD

And here's the total and willful ignorance at the root of birfer mythology.

Elg and several other cases and statutes use the term "natural born" and "native born" interchangeably, as they mean the same thing.

Bifers, being incurious suckers by nature, are told the exisetnce of two separate terms means there are two separate categories of "born" citizens and never bother to read up or question it. Merely reading the cherry picked decisions and statutes in toto and applying half a brain cell would prove them wrong, but they don't or won't do it. Looking up legal definitions in any mainstream non-birfer source would prove them wrong, but they don't or won't do it.

Willful ignorance bugs me.

 

[USArmyRetired]

Read the cases, google them. Also the framers never intended dual citizens to be president. You do know that Article 2 Section 1 is for allegiance purposes dont ya? It requests a different type of citizen. That is why the constitution to this day says a president must be a natural born citizen (article 2 section 1) and a senator and representative calls for a citizen ( Article 1 Section 3), thus 2 different entities. The constitution states it clearly

For Senator the constutution says:
U.S. Senate: Art & History Home > Origins & Development > Institutional Development > Constitutional Qualifications for Senator

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 3]

For President it says:

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

The only time a citizen was president was at the time of the adoption of the constitution as it states in Article 2 Sec 1.

and someone BORN ON US SOIL IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
PERIOD

And here's the total and willful ignorance at the root of birfer mythology.

Elg and several other cases and statutes use the term "natural born" and "native born" interchangeably, as they mean the same thing.

Bifers, being incurious suckers by nature, are told the exisetnce of two separate terms means there are two separate categories of "born" citizens and never bother to read up or question it. Merely reading the cherry picked decisions and statutes in toto and applying half a brain cell would prove them wrong, but they don't or won't do it. Looking up legal definitions in any mainstream non-birfer source would prove them wrong, but they don't or won't do it.

Willful ignorance bugs me.

So why does the constitution call for a citizen to be senator and a natural born citizen to be president.? Why didn't it call for both to be NBCs? There is a reason.

 

[DiveCon]

and someone BORN ON US SOIL IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
PERIOD

And here's the total and willful ignorance at the root of birfer mythology.

Elg and several other cases and statutes use the term "natural born" and "native born" interchangeably, as they mean the same thing.

Bifers, being incurious suckers by nature, are told the exisetnce of two separate terms means there are two separate categories of "born" citizens and never bother to read up or question it. Merely reading the cherry picked decisions and statutes in toto and applying half a brain cell would prove them wrong, but they don't or won't do it. Looking up legal definitions in any mainstream non-birfer source would prove them wrong, but they don't or won't do it.

Willful ignorance bugs me.

So why does the constitution call for a citizen to be senator and a natural born citizen to be president.? Why didn't it call for both to be NBCs? There is a reason.

because a naturalized citizen may be a senator
a native born is required for POTUS
you dont seem to understand the differences

 

[goldcatt]

and someone BORN ON US SOIL IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
PERIOD

And here's the total and willful ignorance at the root of birfer mythology.

Elg and several other cases and statutes use the term "natural born" and "native born" interchangeably, as they mean the same thing.

Bifers, being incurious suckers by nature, are told the exisetnce of two separate terms means there are two separate categories of "born" citizens and never bother to read up or question it. Merely reading the cherry picked decisions and statutes in toto and applying half a brain cell would prove them wrong, but they don't or won't do it. Looking up legal definitions in any mainstream non-birfer source would prove them wrong, but they don't or won't do it.

Willful ignorance bugs me.

So why does the constitution call for a citizen to be senator and a natural born citizen to be president.? Why didn't it call for both to be NBCs? There is a reason.

No shit sherlock. Because a Senator or Congressman can be a naturalized citizen OR a born citizen.

Why, you ask? Good question. A Senator or Congressman is not specifically tasked with running our foreign policy or serving as commander in chief of our military, that's why.

Those are the only two ways to become a citizen, and the only two classifications. Born, whether you use the term native born or natural born is irrelevant, or naturalized. Finito, end of story.

So Ahnold can be a Senator. He cannot be POTUS. An anchor baby can be either, as can any other citizen born in the US.

And the Elg case itself dispels the myth that either dual citizenship or having parents who are not citizens has anything to do with being a native or natural born citizen of the US. Issues of the obsolete law requiring return of expat minors aside, which does not apply here, it states clearly in citation after citation that a born citizen is a born citizen and entitled to all rights and responsibilities thereof, with no reservations, so that lame argument is debunked using your own chosen source.

Click the link posted previously, read the actual decision, look up the big words in an actual legal dictionary, think for yourself.

 

[USArmyRetired]

And here's the total and willful ignorance at the root of birfer mythology.

Elg and several other cases and statutes use the term "natural born" and "native born" interchangeably, as they mean the same thing.

Bifers, being incurious suckers by nature, are told the exisetnce of two separate terms means there are two separate categories of "born" citizens and never bother to read up or question it. Merely reading the cherry picked decisions and statutes in toto and applying half a brain cell would prove them wrong, but they don't or won't do it. Looking up legal definitions in any mainstream non-birfer source would prove them wrong, but they don't or won't do it.

Willful ignorance bugs me.

So why does the constitution call for a citizen to be senator and a natural born citizen to be president.? Why didn't it call for both to be NBCs? There is a reason.

No shit sherlock. Because a Senator or Congressman can be a naturalized citizen OR a born citizen.

No. A Citizen of the United States is a person domiciled in the United States, for whom rights, privileges and immunities are set forth in the United States Constitution. A native born Citizen of the United States is a person who was born in the United States, and has been, since birth, a Citizen of the United States. A natural born Citizen of the United States is a native born Citizen of the United States, born exclusively of Citizens of the United States. A naturalized Citizen of the United States is a Citizen of the United States who is not a natural born Citizen of the United States.

 

[USArmyRetired]

The graphic above demonstrates the distinction between Ronald Reagan, a "natural born" citizen and Barack Obama, a "native-born" citizen."

Ronald Reagan had no choice about his citizenship. By blood and by place of birth, he was a "natural born" American citizen. No law bestowed his citizenship upon him. His father was an American. His mother was an American. He was born in America. He was a "natural born" American.

Barack Obama had choices about his citizenship. His father was a Kenyan. His mother was an American. He was born in America. He was a "native born," 14th Amendment American. He was also a citizen of Kenya and a British subject -- he had a choice about being a Brit, an American, or both.

The child in the left graphic is a "natural born" citizen because he or she was born in the United States of America (jus soli) and both parents are citizens (jus sanguinis). The child meets both tests.

The child in the right graphic is a "native-born" citizen because he or she was born in the United States of America and both parents are not citizens. The child meets only one test.

 

[Avatar4321]

I still say that I am 99.99% sure that Obama was born in Hawaii.

What I do not know is what he is hiding. It is obvious he is hiding something.

My best guess is still that he is a bastard.

And I; and I bet most Americans; could care less.

Why does he have to be hiding anything? It could simply be that he is trying to egg these people on so rather than have a debate on the issues, mindless drones like rdean willl be like: "That guy doesn't believe Obama was born in America. How crazy is that?"

It's a distraction issue that's being used to associate anyone who opposes his agenda with nutjobs. He needs the nutjobs. Because without them, he actually has to debate his agenda on it's merits. And we all know how much the American people love more government in their lives.

 

[Avatar4321]

there is much to gain for obama....the issue gets put away, though you and others believe it won't. consider this....he has already put up a copy of his COLB. there is simply no reason for him not to put up a copy of the original since he has already shown a willingness to put this issue to rest by producing evidence.

as a lawyer, he know the best evidence is a copy of or the original. that is why hawaii continues to get inundated with requests....because people want to know about the original, what is contained in it. by releasing a copy or showing it on camera, there will be no further requests.

its pure speculation to conclude that nothing will satisfy people. the facts and reality are that people are daily costing tax payers money because obama refuses to release the best evidence....it would take him 10 minutes and 10 dollars. since he already released the COLB, there is no reason why he wouldn't want to release a copy of the original.

But there must be a reason. or he would have done it.

i have no idea what that reason is....many on the left and his staunch supporters believe it is just a big middle finger to the right or his enemies, some on the right believe it is because he is hiding something...

who knows, but it is stupid of him to continue the charade either way

But it profits him to keep the charade going. He distracts people from the real issues going on.

 

[Avatar4321]

i have no idea what that reason is....many on the left and his staunch supporters believe it is just a big middle finger to the right or his enemies, some on the right believe it is because he is hiding something...

who knows, but it is stupid of him to continue the charade either way

no, actually its smart of him
that way he can marginalize his opponents with it

i think that's part of it.

but i think goldcatt's right in her assessment that it doesn't matter what he does, the loons would demand more.... same as the troofers.

What more could they possibly ask for?