"WHERE'S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE? The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President."

[ChristIsTheWay]

Obama did. If it wasnt an issue he wouldnt have released his Birth Certificate. Too bad he didnt so it when Hillary first bought it up. Could have saved a lot of trouble.

I don’t think Obama brought up the issue about his citizenship or eligibility to be president. At a certain point, it can become impossible to simply ignore an issue, even one as absurd as this one.

 

[seekerz]

Have people here, come off they same as who you try to associate them with?

I was just making the point that talk of aliens cannot automatically be dismissed as “not contributing something valuable”. I can’t tell you how many programs I’ve seen featuring people who earnestly recount UFO sightings or encounters with extraterrestrial phenomena.

 

[seekerz]

Obama did. If it wasnt an issue he wouldnt have released his Birth Certificate. Too bad he didnt so it when Hillary first bought it up. Could have saved a lot of trouble.

Are you saying that Obama decided that the hospital of his birth was a matter worthy of debate?! Did you read the post I was responding to before making your contribution?

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Unfortunately, you can’t communicate with people who apply this kind of logic to every post you make.

Questioning = Conspiracy Theory
Criticism = Racism
Critical Thinking = Insanity

That’s a straw man argument. Pointing out that a question about President Obama is absurd and without factual basis is not the same thing as, for example, accusing anyone of racism. However, this controversy is very popular among conspiracy theorists, though I do not accuse all posters here of that. Still, it is hard to see how Obama covered up a foreign birth all by himself, with no outside help, in order to deceive the entire American nation. If not a conspiracy theory it is certainly fuel for the fire.

 

[kimmielittle]

I was just making the point that talk of aliens cannot automatically be dismissed as “not contributing something valuable”. I can’t tell you how many programs I’ve seen featuring people who earnestly recount UFO sightings or encounters with extraterrestrial phenomena.

AND none of it has bearing on this thread - or the posters.

Could you please try to contribute something productive to THIS thread

 

[seekerz]

A poster here.

Contrary to belief…“issues” are important to the person - Or do they just apply to what you credit them?.

Contrary to whose belief? All I want to know is who created the issue that you have so be so kind as to ‘debunk’. In other words, if you run up to vouch for me as the big, bad policeman is just about to arrest me, I would be interested in knowing who exactly yelled “thief” as I was running to catch up with my toddler!

 

[kimmielittle]

Contrary to whose belief? All I want to know is who created the issue that you have so be so kind as to ‘debunk’. In other words, if you run up to vouch for me as the big, bad policeman is just about to arrest me, I would be interested in knowing who exactly yelled “thief” as I was running to catch up with my toddler!

Did you even read the thread? Or to who I posted the response to?

 

[seekerz]

AND none of it has bearing on this thread - or the posters.

Could you please try to contribute something productive to THIS thread

So catering to the doubts that those in the alien-believer camp may have about the president’s place of birth is somehow not productive? How so? Don’t they deserve to know that he was indeed born on planet earth? If the BC is a forgery, what proof do we have he didn’t come from some place beyond our world? ALL views are to be equally respected and yes, this is on topic. I’m exploring what a certain small group of people with firm convictions think about our president’s origins.

 

[seekerz]

Did you even read the thread? Or to who I posted the response to?

Yes I read the thread and I was making an analogy: if you claim to have helped someone, that someone has a right to know who or what created the threat or problem that you supposedly helped them with, no? (not to forget the why, either - why was a problem created that you had to help me with)

 

[kimmielittle]

It is my belief some are purposefully trying to hijack this thread. Or run it to 1000 posts so it goes away.

 

[seekerz]

It is my belief some are purposefully trying to hijack this thread. Or run it to 1000 posts so it goes away.

…and I will respect that belief as well.

 

[Sonic]

That’s a straw man argument.

Well it wasn’t intended as an argument for which “straw man” could be applied. It was intended as an observation about some “straw man” arguments that have been posted earlier in this topic. I should have clarified.

Pointing out that a question about President Obama is absurd and without factual basis is not the same thing as, for example, accusing anyone of racism.

That may be true, but that hasn’t stopped some people from saying people who question anything about the BC are racists. Luckily, their posts were removed by the moderators. That is what I was referring to.

However, this controversy is very popular among conspiracy theorists, though I do not accuse all posters here of that.

That may be true, but most of the people who have questioned the BC in this topic are not Birthers or Conspiracy theorists.

Please see my previous post along with the post linked in it:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7799838&postcount=367

Still, it is hard to see how Obama covered up a foreign birth all by himself, with no outside help, in order to deceive the entire American nation. If not a conspiracy theory it is certainly fuel for the fire.

Once again, see my previous post. This issue that Kimmie, myself, and others have has nothing to do with Obama’s birthplace. We don’t care where he was born.

 

[kimmielittle]

This is my personal observation on these discussions.

1. One group of people are concerned about the transparency of the current administration and the constitutional ramifications of keeping this controversy going by not showing a copy of the long form birth certificate. They are not concerned about where Obama was born. See my previous post to show that I believe I’m in group one: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7787592&postcount=135
2. One group is squarely centered on the debate about the citizenship of the president and the origin of his birth. These folks are divided into two groups: “he was born in Hawaii” and “He was not born in Hawaii”.
3. One group consists of dismissing the entire discussion because they think the entire debate is centered around what group two is discussing. The result is they are not hearing group one’s concerns, and forces the topic to drag on instead of letting it play out to a logical conclusion.

Unfortunately, it seems to be group three that is keeping the debate going more than anyone else. Every time group one presents an argument, they get accused of being in group two. The more group three closes their ears, the louder group one has to talk in order to be heard over group two.

bolding mine ]

Bump

 

[seekerz]

Well it wasn’t intended as an argument for which “straw man” could be applied. It was intended as an observation about some “straw man” arguments that have been posted earlier in this topic. I should have clarified.

That may be true, but that hasn’t stopped some people from saying people who question anything about the BC are racists. Luckily, their posts were removed by the moderators. That is what I was referring to.

That may be true, but most of the people who have questioned the BC in this topic are not Birthers or Conspiracy theorists.

Please see my previous post along with the post linked in it:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7799838&postcount=367

Once again, see my previous post. This issue that Kimmie, myself, and others have has nothing to do with Obama’s birthplace. We don’t care where he was born.

Oh, I already knew that this was not the issue for many, if not most, people who hold views on this matter…no revelation there.

 

[seekerz]

Bump

Bumping comments about ‘constitutional’ ramifications will not alter the constitution and make it demand a long form BC. Repetition does not improve upon truth - at least that has been my experience.

 

[kimmielittle]

Bumping comments about ‘constitutional’ ramifications will not alter the constitution and make it demand a long form BC. Repetition does not improve upon truth - at least that has been my experience.

Yeah…but it helps the too lazy to click a link crowd

Soooo…Do you have anything productive to contribute?

 

[seekerz]

Yeah…but it helps the too lazy to click a link crowd

Soooo…Do you have anything productive to contribute?

I do believe it is a mite uncharitable to suggest that my posts are not productive. If you keep it up I might have to report you for personal attacks. This thread is not about me, oddly enough.

 

[kimmielittle]

I do believe it is a mite uncharitable to suggest that my posts are not productive. If you keep it up I might have to report you for personal attacks. This thread is not about me, oddly enough.

I’m sorry, I was under the impression you posted this.

Originally Posted by seekerz
It’s not enough for the candidate to be born in the US you have to check out the spouse too!

And this:

Originally Posted by seekerz

I was just making the point that talk of aliens cannot automatically be dismissed as “not contributing something valuable”. I can’t tell you how many programs I’ve seen featuring people who earnestly recount UFO sightings or encounters with extraterrestrial phenomena.

And

Originally Posted by seekerz
it is my contention that every future presidential candidate needs to prove:

1. that they are the rightful owners of all birth certificates presented (birth fingerprints or footprints must be available for comparison)
2. that their mothers are/were really their mothers (this include ultrasound, DNA and amniocentesis information); candidates born before amnios were widely available will be automatically disqualified
3. that their fathers are indeed their fathers (biological evidence will need to be submitted)
4. that they were in fact born into this world: for this purpose only time-stamped videotapes of their birth will suffice (same conditions as amnios apply)
5. that their birth announcements did not coincide with any reported UFO sightings anywhere in the world…
6. that no one associated with their conception, birth or upbringing has any association with the Alaskan facility known in The Event as Inostranka, and that all persons are documented to have aged appropriately

…feel free to contribute your personal requirements, everyone

I’m so sorry…I questioned productive (name removed by moderator)ut

 

[JHow]

I’m having a little trouble squaring the circle on these two statements. On the one hand, the President should have released what would be commonly thought of as a BC in order to comply with what Seekerz has rightly pointed out are outrageous, unreasonable and unprecedented requests to prove his eligibility to serve in the WH.

I have provided no comment on whether requests were un-reasonable or un-precedented. In general, I think politicians should be prepared for, and should expect that the public will have an interest in everything they ever did or do.

I am reacting to the tendency in the news, and here, to describe the 2008 document as a birth certificate - it was not.

On the other hand, you feel that these very same people should have been able to figure out that the document that Obama released was, for all intents and purposes, a BC.

People should have been able to figure out (and the media should have helped them, understand) - not that the 2008 document was a birth certificate, but that it was proof that Hawaii had a valid record of birth on file, that the guy really was born in Hawaii.

Ours is a country of laws. If, in fact, the document was and is legal proof that the President was born in Hawaii why can’t people just accept it and move on. And, yes, I believe beyond a shadow of doubt that the so called short form was and is legal proof. I came to that conclusion in 2008 when I first looked in to the matter. And, BTW, I was hoping for a different conclusion, so again, don’t “label” me pro-Obama.

The answer to your question is that people do not trust the govt., and they do not trust Obama. What doesn’t help, and in fact makes it worse, is when people jump on the bandwagon and say “here’s a birth certificate” when it isn’t one, and people, using their own everyday experience, can see that it doesn’t look like their own birth certificate.

I’ll try to cover your other posts here…

What makes you think Senators are subjected to an FBI background search?

Don’t know if they are. Would hope that somebody would look at your background if you were going to look at classified information, but maybe not. If there is no background check, all the more reason for public debate about a person’s background, don’t ya think?

And, once again, candidates filing for office are not required to submit a Birth Certificate. And, it has been shown over and over again that the so called short form is an accepted legal document for the purposes of obtaining a drivers license and a passport.

And, once again, what was provided in 2008 was not strictly a birth certificate - “Strict rules of Golf, Goldfinger!”

But, regardless of anyone’s willingness to concede a point in a debate does not give you the right to “label” them which is just another form of name calling which is uncharitable.

In the world of labels “pro-Obama folks” is probably not the worst thing on these threads, but if it rankles, I will retract it.

I happen to agree with you that the 2008 document was perfectly fine evidence that Obama was born in HI, just like he said. But what I am reacting to on the thread is that posters like KimmieLittle have actually posted a lot of detail on the forms and the law - and the other side has posted all the best comedy, but has offered little else other than “That should have satisfied you, and your question is unreasonable!”

But here, try this test: go home tonight, dig your own birth certificate out of your sock drawer, or wherever you keep it, and see which it most resembles, the 2008 “short form” or the 2011 “long form”?

 

[seekerz]

I’m sorry, I was under the impression you posted this.

And this:

And

I’m so sorry…I questioned productive (name removed by moderator)ut

So how do you know I don’t believe in the existence of extra-terrestrial life forms? Who defines what is a productive post? I seem to remember seeing fake Kenyan birth certificates being referenced on this forum not very long ago. Somehow I felt that calling those posts unproductive would have earned me a warning from the mods.