Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,429
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 31, 2011 13:03:29 GMT -5
The man is very mysterious indeed. Now it turns out his Selective Service card has a never issued social security number on it. Of course the media is making it a birther story and the retired Air Force Colonel who accessed the information by pretending to be Obama will be punished, but the story is that: BARACK OBAMA'S SELECTIVE SERVICE CARD HAS A FALSE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER ON IT.Will he be investigated? Is this illegal? Will he be punished? I won't hold my breath. www.gazette.com/articles/springs-115381-colorado-obama.html#ixzz1I8FEnO5bWho picked President Obama's pocket to snatch that card?
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 31, 2011 13:09:04 GMT -5
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Mar 31, 2011 13:10:30 GMT -5
Who picked President Obama's pocket to snatch that card?
Private Manning? ;D
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 31, 2011 13:17:55 GMT -5
They aren't hearing the cases because there is no evidence & the cases are a waste of the courts time. It isn't their job to hear every single lawsuit in full if they know from the start that the case has no merit. That is inaccurate. The Supreme Court said that the job of determining citizenship / eligibility is that of the states and the Parties, and not elected officials. Which might be a valid point as to why the supreme court hasn't heard a case, but doesn't explain away the fact that a dozen or so cases have also been thrown out of state & federal courts.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Mar 31, 2011 13:32:12 GMT -5
I have one for you Angel D.
"......... a dozen or so cases have also been thrown out of state & federal courts......."
It's your quote. Can you provide more information on which cases in which state courts?
Federal courts, too, if you care to.
I'll answer the other questins as I am provided the informatin I asked for. I have not read the previous posts that contained the information I was to use to form an answer. Feed me the informatin and I'll regurgitate an answer.
On Natural born and Native born, I was taught the difference when we studied the Consitution in grade school. Wasn't everybody?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 28, 2024 16:03:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2011 13:34:11 GMT -5
On Natural born and Native born, I was taught the difference when we studied the Consitution in grade school. Wasn't everybody? I wasn't. Obama's people had already infiltrated the public school system and made sure that part of the constitution was skipped.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 39,450
|
Post by chiver78 on Mar 31, 2011 13:34:37 GMT -5
I'll answer the other questins as I am provided the informatin I asked for. I have not read the previous posts that contained the information I was to use to form an answer. Feed me the informatin and I'll regurgitate an answer. On Natural born and Native born, I was taught the difference when we studied the Consitution in grade school. Wasn't everybody? see reply #12, where I quoted your reply #10. again, please answer the question clearly posed to you in reply #12. thank you.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Mar 31, 2011 13:38:08 GMT -5
Archie. It looks like you and me are the only peoople here who know where we stand. It seems everybody else has to justify their position with smoke and mirrors.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 28, 2024 16:03:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2011 13:39:22 GMT -5
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 39,450
|
Post by chiver78 on Mar 31, 2011 13:43:45 GMT -5
Archie. It looks like you and me are the only peoople here who know where we stand. I know exactly where you stand - ignoring direct questions and requests to back up your opinion. sounds about right for a conspiracy theorist.
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Mar 31, 2011 13:44:49 GMT -5
No, a lot of liberals do it, too. It's why so many of them just believe whatever idiots like Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi or Michael Moore tell them...
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Mar 31, 2011 13:44:50 GMT -5
"........ please answer the question clearly posed to you in reply #12......."
Is this it? "........... he was born in Hawaii, as been documented in official state records. what is it that you are seeing that is still in question?........?"
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 39,450
|
Post by chiver78 on Mar 31, 2011 13:49:19 GMT -5
that would be it, sir.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Mar 31, 2011 13:58:53 GMT -5
"......... that would be it, sir. .........."
Sorry to disappoint you, but when I was about 12 years old it was a common theme that almost anyone could grow up to be president. When we studied the Constitution we learned who was excluded by the the "almost anyone" part. So I have never concerned myself about where he was born.
I believe you may have asked for me to also define the Constitutional reference to natural born. I will debate it, but I will not attempt to define it. It is already defined.
When you have sought out for your own edification what the Constitution means by the wording in it, please get back to me.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 39,450
|
Post by chiver78 on Mar 31, 2011 14:02:44 GMT -5
and again, what in your study of the Constitution shows you that he is ineligible to be President? you continue to evade the question.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Mar 31, 2011 14:06:42 GMT -5
I repeat.
".......... I believe you may have asked for me to also define the Constitutional reference to natural born. I will debate it, but I will not attempt to define it. It is already defined.
When you have sought out for your own edification what the Constitution means by the wording in it, please get back to me. ........."
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Mar 31, 2011 14:15:18 GMT -5
On the subject under discussion, for me, a " and for those who don't care for the sound of the violin there is always , or even and even if not in the mood, done that to death types,
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 39,450
|
Post by chiver78 on Mar 31, 2011 14:16:42 GMT -5
as was already said, not providing evidence to back up your opinion doesn't really back up your opinion. you've been asked to explain what in your study of the same Constitution we've studied backs up your opinion that the President is ineligible for the office he holds. you continue to decline that option to explain yourself, yet still sit back and call us uneducated for not seeing what you see. good day, sir.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Mar 31, 2011 14:19:25 GMT -5
I'm saying that the funny business could have taken place in 1961. Birth announcements are placed by happy relatives, not the newly-post-partum mom. Mom could theoretically be anywhere. Having said that, if the ads specifically mention Queen's hospital in Honolulu the only 'birther'-compatible explanation is that somebody close to Mr. Obama began a purposed misinformation campaign back in 1961. At that time, birth announcements in Hawaii newspapers were placed by the Department of Health, not the relatives of the newborn. It was a matter of course. As to the idea that some conspiracy existed at the time of his birth, what purpose would that have served? OMG! We've gotta get this future president born in Hawaii? I don't think so. That's pretty far out there.
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Mar 31, 2011 14:35:03 GMT -5
In case you didn't know, the entire concept of "anchor babies" is not born out of a desire to deliver future U.S. presidents. It is abused for purposes of collecting benefits, protections and privileges that come with being a U.S. citizen. Every foreign mother who runs across the border to drop her kid in an American hospital is not hoping to give birth to a future president. She is hoping to abuse our 14th amendment to give birth to a U.S. citizen who will now automatically entitle the family to benefits they can't get in their home countries...
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Mar 31, 2011 14:41:55 GMT -5
As to the social security number matter, the first three digits of the social security number show where the card is issued, not where the holder is born, nor where said holder resides at the time of issue.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,749
|
Post by thyme4change on Mar 31, 2011 14:44:22 GMT -5
So, the reason his is not "natural born" is the status of his mother's citizenship or his father's citizenship?
You are being really vague - which doesn't really help to educate us.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 31, 2011 14:49:33 GMT -5
Starting at 4:30, the video makes an interesting case.
What say you, non-birthers? Is President a natural-born citizen of the U.S.?
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Mar 31, 2011 14:54:15 GMT -5
Personally, by virtue of his birth in Hawaii, the president is, indeed, a natural-born citizen of the United States.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 31, 2011 14:59:25 GMT -5
Angel D, Can we agree that that at the least all states should verify that candidates meet the requirement before being put on the ballot? I have no problem with that requirement. However, as far as Obama - he has shown his birth certificate, so I believe he has met this requirement. Should they want to make laws requiring that future nominees do so, then go for it.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 31, 2011 15:20:14 GMT -5
I have one for you Angel D. "......... a dozen or so cases have also been thrown out of state & federal courts......." It's your quote. Can you provide more information on which cases in which state courts? Federal courts, too, if you care to. October 2008 - Connecticut supreme court, Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, suit was dismissed. October 2008 - State circuit court of Hawaii, Martin v. Lingle, Court denied the petition. November 2008 - California superior court, Keyes v. Bowen, suit was dismissed. California Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. California supreme court declined to review the case. December 2008 - Indiana court, Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, case dismissed. Court of appeals upheld the decision. June 2009 - District of Columbia court rejected an indictment. Additional lawsuits were filed in Georgia, Washington, Pennsylvania, NY, Texas, New Jersey, & Ohio. I won't even bother listing the federal court cases.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Mar 31, 2011 15:26:43 GMT -5
Virgil, the reason the Indonesian citizenship reference holds no water is because whether his step-father declared Obama a citizen of Indonesia, or not (I lived in Indonesia for a number of years in the 70s. There's no requirement of proof of citizenship to go to school.), that wouldn't hold up in the US. The US would consider Obama a dual citizen until the age of 18, when he, himself, would have to make a decision. No Indonesian citizenship papers have ever been produced, for that matter. If he's an Indonesian citizen by virtue of his father's action, where are those papers? Also, where are the papers showing Obama relinquished his US citizenship, since he would have had to do so? This stuff is all smoke and mirrors trying to prove that which is simply poppycock. Hell, even the Indonesian school papers show his birthplace to be Honolulu!
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 31, 2011 17:42:34 GMT -5
The lawyer in the movie claims that Indonesian citizenship was required by the Indonesian government at that time in order to attend school. He also claims that Indonesia didn't allow dual citizenship at that time. Hence, Mr. Obama's father forsaking his son's US citizenship was a given--a kind of propter hoc argument.
You're saying that you went to school in Indonesia in the 1970's and weren't subject to these requirements?
Also, the "natural-born citizen" angle wasn't based on Mr. Obama's brief stint in Indonesia. The moviemakers claim that the constitution requires both parents to be American citizens and the child to be born on American soil in order for the child to be "natural-born". That is, the child should not be born to any parent who is subject to a foreign power.
I don't believe there's any dispute to the fact that Mr. Obama's father is Kenyan. Hence, you disagree with the moviemakers on the constitutional interpretation of "natural-born", correct?
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,749
|
Post by thyme4change on Mar 31, 2011 17:46:58 GMT -5
The consititution or a later ruling on the intent and meaning of the constitution?
Because if it is the consititution, we should see the wording in the document. If it is a later ruling on the constitution, we should have a case law ruling that we can read.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 31, 2011 17:47:54 GMT -5
Even if Obama was born and bred in good ole Beantown aka Boston, Massachusetts and went to Boston College and majored in Political Science with advanced degrees from Harvard, I would still NOT like him ...must be that Birth Issue I guess??
|
|