Black Presidential candidate, Alan Keyes, demands Obama's full birth certificificate.

[First]

Fern, your assumption is a poor one. I know for a fact the Secret Service does a background check on presidential candidates. I have literally asked that question, face to face, to a Secret Service agent here in downtown LA, and he responded point blank that they do checks themselves and that's it's actually pretty simple to confirm a live birth within U.S. borders. The fact that it was listed in a Hawaii paper the week he was born I'm sure did not go unnoticed by the SS.

To say there is no system in place is totally false. Try confirming it, physically, outside of Internet searches. Or just call the SS yourself. I just happened to meet an agent face to face at an INFOSEC lecture at UCLA, but I bet you can actually call their PR guys if you're curious.

 

[imported_K3N]

Originally posted by: Evan
Fern, your assumption is a poor one. I know for a fact the Secret Service does a background check on presidential candidates. I have literally asked that question, face to face, to a Secret Service agent here in downtown LA, and he responded point blank that they do checks themselves and that's it's actually pretty simple to confirm a live birth within U.S. borders. The fact that it was listed in a Hawaii paper the week he was born I'm sure did not go unnoticed by the SS.

To say there is no system in place is totally false. Try confirming it, physically, outside of Internet searches. Or just call the SS yourself. I just happened to meet an agent face to face at an INFOSEC lecture at UCLA, but I bet you can actually call their PR guys if you're curious.

They don't give a shit. The US government is corrupt, just look at the Federal Reserve who refused to state the recipients of 2 trillion dollars..

 

[First]

Originally posted by: K3N

Originally posted by: Evan
Fern, your assumption is a poor one. I know for a fact the Secret Service does a background check on presidential candidates. I have literally asked that question, face to face, to a Secret Service agent here in downtown LA, and he responded point blank that they do checks themselves and that's it's actually pretty simple to confirm a live birth within U.S. borders. The fact that it was listed in a Hawaii paper the week he was born I'm sure did not go unnoticed by the SS.

To say there is no system in place is totally false. Try confirming it, physically, outside of Internet searches. Or just call the SS yourself. I just happened to meet an agent face to face at an INFOSEC lecture at UCLA, but I bet you can actually call their PR guys if you're curious.

They don't give a shit. The US government is corrupt, just look at the Federal Reserve who refused to state the recipients of 2 trillion dollars..

No need to reply to this post, it applies only to sane working citizens, not tinfoil dropouts living in their mom's basement.

 

[L00PY]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Let's play this out to a logical conclusion. Foreign born babies can get Hawaiian birth certificates, and the notice in the paper can say whatever the person requests it to say. We know that Obama has a Hawaiian birth certificate and a notice in a paper. Neither is conclusive proof of his place of birth, agreed?

Agreed (and the idea that anyone would find a newspaper announcement to be conlusive evidence is amusing)

See bolded above

Fern

The catch is how those newspaper announcements got into the paper back then though. They weren't all submitted by the general public. Back before HIPAA has an issue, the Hawaii state department responsible would gather all the birth information from all the local hospitals. They would then make a list and send that list to the newspapers. Obama's birth announcements appeared in these lists.

As the law stands now, a certificate of a child born out of state is generated by a different department than the one responsible for birth announcements back then. In any case, that certificate requires more paperwork and verification by the DOH and even if those were included with the in-state births, it is unlikely they would have come out at the same time as all the normal in state births.

 

[Lemon law]

Be it resolved, Alan Keyes & his fellow conspiracy theory friends will never be satisfied with any standard of proof regarding the Obama birth certificate.

Their fantasies need not be my fantasies, and until they can get a real court to even listen to their claims, its nothing a rational person should even take seriously.

If we are going to waste a 26 page thread, let us next debate serious questions like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? I happen to think its 37, prove me wrong?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: L00PY

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Let's play this out to a logical conclusion. Foreign born babies can get Hawaiian birth certificates, and the notice in the paper can say whatever the person requests it to say. We know that Obama has a Hawaiian birth certificate and a notice in a paper. Neither is conclusive proof of his place of birth, agreed?

Agreed (and the idea that anyone would find a newspaper announcement to be conlusive evidence is amusing)

See bolded above

Fern

The catch is how those newspaper announcements got into the paper back then though. They weren't all submitted by the general public. Back before HIPAA has an issue, the Hawaii state department responsible would gather all the birth information from all the local hospitals. They would then make a list and send that list to the newspapers. Obama's birth announcements appeared in these lists.

As the law stands now, a certificate of a child born out of state is generated by a different department than the one responsible for birth announcements back then. In any case, that certificate requires more paperwork and verification by the DOH and even if those were included with the in-state births, it is unlikely they would have come out at the same time as all the normal in state births.

This has been told to Fern and others repeatedly. The newspaper announcement is extremely powerful evidence, as both the timing of the announcement so soon after his birth, and the fact that the announcement could only come from an official source.

They simply ignore inconvenience information.

 

[umbrella39]

Never mind the fact that the Health Bureau is the one who got the record of his birth along with all the other children born the first week of August 1961. The Advertiser prints the information given to them from this source, not from all the parents of those children born and listed on page B-6 of the August 13, 1961 paper. They can't explain that so they have to back track and claim Obama's parents flew to Hawaii after his Kenyan birth and placed an ad themselves in the local paper. Ignore indeed.

 

[imported_K3N]

Even the Mainstream News Magazine The Globe (UK), is questioning Obama's birth location
http://www.rense.com/general84/glkob.htm

Obama is very blackmailable with his birth information, 70% of his cabinet are clintonites, and Robert Gates will still be Secretary of Defense. is this the change you Obamakins were expecting?

 

[Lemon law]

K3N makes one totally absurd claim, that "Obama is very blackmailable with his birth information." Which basically implies that if Alan Keyes&pals keeps making these claims, eventually Obama will pay them to shut up?

As for the change Obama claims to offer, that can be only be judged by future changes in policy, be patient, Obama is not Pres yet, and no the sun will not suddenly rise in the West and set in the East.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Funny how all the pre-election "proofs" of Kenyan birth and of secret documents, witnesses, etc. have all failed to materialize more than two months later.

Someone (who cares more than I do ) should collect and summarize all of the crazy "evidence" asserted by the tinfoil posters in this and the other Kenya threads, just to show how many things they've claimed have disappeared, and how much their stories of the conspiracy have changed.

 

[L00PY]

Originally posted by: K3N
Even the Mainstream News Magazine The Globe (UK), is questioning Obama's birth location
http://www.rense.com/general84/glkob.htm

Mainstream? On their front page some of the headlines are "Obama Snubs Boozing Bush!", "Garth Brooks Health Crisis - after gaining 40 lbs!", "Raging Prince Beats Dog with Stick (Photo Shocker!)", and "Caylee Monster mom's BROTHER caught up in murder probe!"

In case you missed the rest of your "mainstream" news, Palin Bags a Bigfoot!

 

[cyclohexane]

what the fuck? Who's keeping this thread alive? The election is over, this issue is no longer relevant.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: cyclohexane
what the fuck? Who's keeping this thread alive? The election is over, this issue is no longer relevant.

True; but still funny: click and laugh!


Originally posted by: K3N
Even the Mainstream News Magazine The Globe (UK), is questioning Obama's birth location
http://www.rense.com/general84/glkob.htm

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: L00PY

Originally posted by: K3N
Even the Mainstream News Magazine The Globe (UK), is questioning Obama's birth location
http://www.rense.com/general84/glkob.htm

Mainstream? On their front page some of the headlines are "Obama Snubs Boozing Bush!", "Garth Brooks Health Crisis - after gaining 40 lbs!", "Raging Prince Beats Dog with Stick (Photo Shocker!)", and "Caylee Monster mom's BROTHER caught up in murder probe!"

In case you missed the rest of your "mainstream" news, Palin Bags a Bigfoot!

Ha! I never really looked at the WWN before, but that is pretty good.

Conservatives have immediately rallied to their party?s new star, citing that gun ownership and hunting are indelible parts of American culture. Indeed this point is hard to argue, as John Adams was notorious for having captured what he called a ?Skunk Ape? and killing it with his bare hands on the White House lawn in front of a paying audience.[\q]

 

[jagec]

OK, am I just crazy here, or is the ENTIRE (laughable) PREMISE of this thread pointless?

It's pretty clear that Obama was born in Hawaii, but even if he was born in Kenya:

"...And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."

His mom was a US citizen, his father was residing in the US at the time and:

Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Foreign Parent in Wedlock

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

...For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of 14 are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit USA citizenship to the child.

If you question the marriage it's even more obvious:

D. Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother

A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire USA citizenship if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child's birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the U.S. or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.

Suck it, tin-foil hatters.

 

[Jhhnn]

The Globe is mainstream...

Heh. And a whack-a-doodle-doo to you, too, K3N.

It's the Brits' version of the Inquirer...

It seems clear you're just posting links and arguments you've picked up elsewhere, without actually bothering to read them or to qualify the sources...

I'd love to have a list of the sites you visit- it'd read like the who's who of fringe-whacks...

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: jagec
OK, am I just crazy here, or is the ENTIRE (laughable) PREMISE of this thread pointless?

It's pretty clear that Obama was born in Hawaii, but even if he was born in Kenya:

"...And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."

Suck it, tin-foil hatters.

Exactly, nothing more needs to be said. Even Panamanian-born McCain could have been President had he got the votes.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: jagec
OK, am I just crazy here, or is the ENTIRE (laughable) PREMISE of this thread pointless?

It's pretty clear that Obama was born in Hawaii, but even if he was born in Kenya:

"...And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."

Crazy? maybe. But you're at least confused.

Although you didn't link the source of the above quote, I've little doubt it's from legislation.

Legislation, i.e. laws passed by Congress can NOT over-rule (or define) the Constitution.

There is no debate about what "natural born" means in the context of qualifying under the Constitution to become President. Born in a foreign country excludes you.

The issue regarding McCain is slightly different as he was born on US territory (as have been some other candidates - Goldwater comes to mind).

Had McCain been elected, his situation would have likely been litigated (or attempted to be) too. I say this because I don't think Goldwater's situation was tested as he was not elected

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: jagec
OK, am I just crazy here, or is the ENTIRE (laughable) PREMISE of this thread pointless?

It's pretty clear that Obama was born in Hawaii, but even if he was born in Kenya:

"...And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."

Crazy? maybe. But you're at least confused.

Although you didn't link the source of the above quote, I've little doubt it's from legislation.

Legislation, i.e. laws passed by Congress can NOT over-rule (or define) the Constitution.

There is no debate about what "natural born" means in the context of qualifying under the Constitution to become President. Born in a foreign country excludes you.

The issue regarding McCain is slightly different as he was born on US territory (as have been some other candidates - Goldwater comes to mind).

Had McCain been elected, his situation would have likely been litigated (or attempted to be) too. I say this because I don't think Goldwater's situation was tested as he was not elected

Fern

This is incorrect. The most common interpretation of 'natural born' is to have been a US citizen at birth, but the very most you could claim was that the exact term had not been defined and that it might be possible to exclude someone who had been born in a different country. (although I find that HIGHLY unlikely). To say that being born in a foreign country excludes you is false.

 

[L00PY]

Originally posted by: Fern
There is no debate about what "natural born" means in the context of qualifying under the Constitution to become President. Born in a foreign country excludes you.

Please point out the section of the Constitution that defines what "natural born" means.

There's actually a fair amount of debate over the definition of "natural born" citizen, what the framers intended, what the law says, and what it ought to be. It's not clear whether it's by blood, by soil, both, or just one. You can start with the 14th Amendment, but that still leave a lot unclear.

John McCain's birth is a good example of the confusion. US military bases in foreign countries are not considered US soil. If an Iraqi woman gives birth to her child on a US base in Iraq, that child would not get US citizenship. As it's defined in the Constitution, it's debatable whether US military personnel giving birth on a US base in a foreign country would have their child be considered a natural born citizen. The US State department is of the opinion that it would not as, "(a) child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth." This applies to US embassies too.

It's only through legislation that John McCain is considered a natural born citizen. His standing was unclear enough that the Senate felt it necessary to draft a non-binding resolution stating him to be one.

 

[Lemon law]

Can't we just let this thread die?

Alan Keyes&fellow conspiracy theory wack jobs can't find a legitimate court to listen to their fantasies, at least they are doing something proactive, and the wack jobs on this forum who happen to agree with Alan Keyes are doing nothing proactive.

Pardon me, I see nothing to productive in giving Alan Keyes's supporters yet another Bronx cheer and a hardy dope slap, meanwhile, go away boy and do not bother me, wake me up when Alan Keyes finds a legitimate court to hear his case and not before.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Can't we just let this thread die?

Alan Keyes&fellow conspiracy theory wack jobs can't find a legitimate court to listen to their fantasies, at least they are doing something proactive, and the wack jobs on this forum who happen to agree with Alan Keyes are doing nothing proactive.

Pardon me, I see nothing to productive in giving Alan Keyes's supporters yet another Bronx cheer and a hardy dope slap, meanwhile, go away boy and do not bother me, wake me up when Alan Keyes finds a legitimate court to hear his case and not before.

Lemon law, I think this thread should go on as it allows everyone to view the empty hopes of those wanting something so badly that they'll ignore reality to no end...

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Fern
Although you didn't link the source of the above quote, I've little doubt it's from legislation.

Legislation, i.e. laws passed by Congress can NOT over-rule (or define) the Constitution.

There is no debate about what "natural born" means in the context of qualifying under the Constitution to become President. Born in a foreign country excludes you.

Whoa, back up. "No debate"? The framers of the Constitution did NOT make very much of it explicit, which is why there IS debate. Constant debate. All that they provided is the term "natural born citizen", with no definitions. Congress defined people born overseas to US parents as "natural born citizens".

As for the source: Yes, it was an act of Congress. The 1790 Congress comprised mainly by framers of the Constitution, passed under the presidency of George Washington, who did not veto.

The Constitution was not divinely inspired. If the very people who wrote the Constitution wish to define the terms a little bit better, I'd say that they are free to do so.

 

[eplebnista]

Has this thread finally reached its end?

 

[dualsmp]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYdk26ezVio