Are you a birther?

C

Cancel8

Canceled
"CNN Poll: Quarter doubt Obama was born in U.S....

...poll indicates some Americans continue to doubt the president was born in the United States.

According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey, more than a quarter of the public have doubts about Obama's citizenship, with 11 percent saying Obama was definitely not born in the United States and another 16 percent saying the president was probably not born in the country..."


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/04/cnn-poll-quarter-doubt-president-was-born-in-u-s/


"Crash K" bait....
 
While I do not doubt Obama's country of birth, I do believe the issue itself has brought out the need for a standardized method of assuring ANY political candidate is legally qualified for the position they seek. (Actually qualified is too much to hope for these days.)

I also believe that the use of any formal government record which is not considered adequate for any other legal purposes should not be legally acceptable to qualify a person for political office. A certificate of live birth is NOT considered adequate proof of one's status for ID's, drivers licenses, passports, or any other situation which normally requires a birth certificate. The fact that Obama won't allow his original to be viewed only extends a stupid controversy that could very easily be resolved. To avoid this ridiculous nonsense in the future, a standardized process of assuring a candidate's legal qualifications that includes a legal copy of an original birth certificate should be emplaced.
 
Good Luck said:
While I do not doubt Obama's country of birth, I do believe the issue itself has brought out the need for a standardized method of assuring ANY political candidate is legally qualified for the position they seek. (Actually qualified is too much to hope for these days.)

I also believe that the use of any formal government record which is not considered adequate for any other legal purposes should not be legally acceptable to qualify a person for political office. A certificate of live birth is NOT considered adequate proof of one's status for ID's, drivers licenses, passports, or any other situation which normally requires a birth certificate. The fact that Obama won't allow his original to be viewed only extends a stupid controversy that could very easily be resolved. To avoid this ridiculous nonsense in the future, a standardized process of assuring a candidate's legal qualifications that includes a legal copy of an original birth certificate should be emplaced.
Click to expand...
Each state would need to do it separately, as each holds a separate election. Your Secretary of State is charged with ensuring the eligibility of the candidates, that 51 of them didn't do their job adequately is pretty sad and only underlines that Americans just don't know their civics well enough to understand who had this responsibility.
 
Damocles said:
Each state would need to do it separately, as each holds a separate election. Your Secretary of State is charged with ensuring the eligibility of the candidates, that 51 of them didn't do their job adequately is pretty sad and only underlines that Americans just don't know their civics well enough to understand who had this responsibility.
Click to expand...
I understand that each state holds separate elections. But that does not mean there cannot be a mandatory standardized method of assuring that all politicians who declare candidacy for federal office meet the requirements for that office. It is a gaping hole in the federal election process.

Of course, since the requirements for state office vary between states, it would be up to the states individually to assure state officials meet their requirements. But federal is a different level with Constitutionally mandated requirements. Of all the issues one can look at when voting for a federal office, concern whether the candidate is legally qualified should NEVER (again) be one of them, regardless of how unfounded the current claims may be.
 
Good Luck said:
While I do not doubt Obama's country of birth, I do believe the issue itself has brought out the need for a standardized method of assuring ANY political candidate is legally qualified for the position they seek. (Actually qualified is too much to hope for these days.)

I also believe that the use of any formal government record which is not considered adequate for any other legal purposes should not be legally acceptable to qualify a person for political office. A certificate of live birth is NOT considered adequate proof of one's status for ID's, drivers licenses, passports, or any other situation which normally requires a birth certificate. The fact that Obama won't allow his original to be viewed only extends a stupid controversy that could very easily be resolved. To avoid this ridiculous nonsense in the future, a standardized process of assuring a candidate's legal qualifications that includes a legal copy of an original birth certificate should be emplaced.
Click to expand...

actually, to obtain a passport, some states do have qualifying COLB's that can be used to ascertain your identity

also, hawaii's COLB is deemed prima facie evidence of proof in a court of law that obama was indeed born in hawaii...of course prima facie is not conclusive or the best evidence, it is however adequate evidence here, of course the birthers take issue with it because they cannot rebut the evidence as they are not allowed to see a copy of the original
 
Good Luck said:
I understand that each state holds separate elections. But that does not mean there cannot be a mandatory standardized method of assuring that all politicians who declare candidacy for federal office meet the requirements for that office. It is a gaping hole in the federal election process.

Of course, since the requirements for state office vary between states, it would be up to the states individually to assure state officials meet their requirements. But federal is a different level with Constitutionally mandated requirements. Of all the issues one can look at when voting for a federal office, concern whether the candidate is legally qualified should NEVER (again) be one of them, regardless of how unfounded the current claims may be.
Click to expand...
The reality is, if even one of the Secretaries of State had done their job adequately this would not be an issue now.

I understand your concern, and I agree with it, but this could have been dealt with under current law. I sure wouldn't mind a bit of "airing of the laundry". In order to get this done you'll need federal politicians willing to create a law with a legal authority.

There are several different places this could have been dealt with, but only one where the people involved are legally charged with checking the validity of the candidates, including whether they are "citizens" etc.
 
Yurt said:
actually, to obtain a passport, some states do have qualifying COLB's that can be used to ascertain your identity

also, hawaii's COLB is deemed prima facie evidence of proof in a court of law that obama was indeed born in hawaii...of course prima facie is not conclusive or the best evidence, it is however adequate evidence here, of course the birthers take issue with it because they cannot rebut the evidence as they are not allowed to see a copy of the original
Click to expand...
Except we are not talking about state laws here. Obama ran for federal office, so it is natural that his documents meet federal guidelines. The federal government does NOT accept COLBs in place of birth certificates.

I am not doubting Obama's place of birth. But this entire issue would not BE an issue if there were standardized procedures to show a candidate for federal office meets qualification requirements. And, as far as I am concerned, the burden of proof should meet the higher standards, not minimal standards. We're talking about the president of what is still (to date) the most powerful country in the world. You'd think there would be a bit more concern over candidate qualifications.

Meanwhile, Obama is acting the fucking idiot. He could end the issue, but refuses to for his own political reasons. I truly hope his little ploy - what ever the fuck it is - turns around and bites him in the ass.
 
Damocles said:
The reality is, if even one of the Secretaries of State had done their job adequately this would not be an issue now.

I understand your concern, and I agree with it, but this could have been dealt with under current law. I sure wouldn't mind a bit of "airing of the laundry". In order to get this done you'll need federal politicians willing to create a law with a legal authority.

There are several different places this could have been dealt with, but only one where the people involved are legally charged with checking the validity of the candidates, including whether they are "citizens" etc.
Click to expand...
Actually three states attorneys did try to do their jobs - including Montana's and Alaska's. The first one to try was from the Clinton's home state. (get it?) Like everyone else, they were unable to demand Obama's full BC. By law, only Obama can release it for public view unless there is an over riding cause. To date no court recognizes assuring Obama's qualifications as an over riding cause.:confused:

Whether or not you believe the charges that Obama is not a natural born citizen, there seems to me a big problem that the courts do not view federal-level standards of proof to be "over riding cause" for our fucking PRESIDENT!
 
Good Luck said:
While I do not doubt Obama's country of birth, I do believe the issue itself has brought out the need for a standardized method of assuring ANY political candidate is legally qualified for the position they seek. (Actually qualified is too much to hope for these days.)

I also believe that the use of any formal government record which is not considered adequate for any other legal purposes should not be legally acceptable to qualify a person for political office. A certificate of live birth is NOT considered adequate proof of one's status for ID's, drivers licenses, passports, or any other situation which normally requires a birth certificate. The fact that Obama won't allow his original to be viewed only extends a stupid controversy that could very easily be resolved. To avoid this ridiculous nonsense in the future, a standardized process of assuring a candidate's legal qualifications that includes a legal copy of an original birth certificate should be emplaced.
Click to expand...
But what about State privacy laws? Birthers are essentially demanding that the State of Hawaii disregard their own privacy laws.
 
Good Luck said:
Meanwhile, Obama is acting the fucking idiot. He could end the issue, but refuses to for his own political reasons. I truly hope his little ploy - what ever the fuck it is - turns around and bites him in the ass.
Click to expand...
That's you're presonal bias. What evidence or proof do you have that the birthers will not just raise the bar higher in demanding proof of his citizenship. He has complied with their request more then he was required to by both State and Federal law. He's doing the exact right thing. He's ignoring those nut jobs.
 
Good Luck, nothing Obama does will ever end the issue. However, he is right to give the birthers the finger, because it generates more noise and helps him politically. I don't like the man's politics, but its exactly what I'd do. Actually, I'd probably be less restrained, and openly mock them and call them names.

If you believe the matter can be ended, you are unfamilar with the JFK Assassination, the Lunar Landing, the tales of Sasquatch/Bigfoot, The 9/11 Hitjob, and a host of other conspiracy theories.
 
Threedee said:
Good Luck, nothing Obama does will ever end the issue. However, he is right to give the birthers the finger, because it generates more noise and helps him politically. I don't like the man's politics, but its exactly what I'd do. Actually, I'd probably be less restrained, and openly mock them and call them names.

If you believe the matter can be ended, you are unfamilar with the JFK Assassination, the Lunar Landing, the tales of Sasquatch/Bigfoot, The 9/11 Hitjob, and a host of other conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...
It may not END it, since there are always tin foil hat candidates running around. But it would drop the level of the controversy by at least an order of magnitude. There are those, like myself, who do not doubt his origins, but still wonder at his refusal to show a simple record that all of us have had to show at one time or another in our lifetimes. For what purpose? To thumb his nose at a few people who wouldn't vote for him anyway, even if they believed his natural born status? That's fucking stupid.

And I do not see how this "helps" him politically. Do you think that people who are not necessarily against him will tolerate him more because somee knot heads are making noise based on a ridiculous notion? Those knot heads would be making noise anyway, about something different, but still noise - that is what those types do. Liberals have their share as well as the neocons.

He is unnecessarily drawing out a legitimate question (regardless of what you think the answer may be, the question itself is legitimate.) for his own purposes. I have ZERO respect for that kind of political shenanigans. This is supposed to be the LEADER of our nation, not some two bit politician grabbing poly points.
 
Good Luck said:
Except we are not talking about state laws here. Obama ran for federal office, so it is natural that his documents meet federal guidelines. The federal government does NOT accept COLBs in place of birth certificates.

I am not doubting Obama's place of birth. But this entire issue would not BE an issue if there were standardized procedures to show a candidate for federal office meets qualification requirements. And, as far as I am concerned, the burden of proof should meet the higher standards, not minimal standards. We're talking about the president of what is still (to date) the most powerful country in the world. You'd think there would be a bit more concern over candidate qualifications.

Meanwhile, Obama is acting the fucking idiot. He could end the issue, but refuses to for his own political reasons. I truly hope his little ploy - what ever the fuck it is - turns around and bites him in the ass.
Click to expand...

The ploy is to keep people talking about it thereby keeping people from talking about what he isn't doing as in fixing the economy;or what he is doing that they may not like- Note that everytime this controversey makes headlines it comes from either Obama himself or a democrat...
 
does anyone know the qualifications to be a birther? i thought it was simply believing obama was not born in hawaii....

but according to certain posters on this board, you can believe obama was born in hawaii, believe he is eligible to be president and still be a birther
 
Ice Dancer said:
The ploy is to keep people talking about it thereby keeping people from talking about what he isn't doing as in fixing the economy;or what he is doing that they may not like- Note that everytime this controversey makes headlines it comes from either Obama himself or a democrat...
Click to expand...
If that's the plan, it's dumber than I thought. Have you noticed any less tendency to talk about other matters of Obama's presidency?

What is the #1 political topic these days, no matter what is in the headlines? What do you think we old retirees talk about as we wander around wondering what the F to do next? Economy, economy, economy.

"Ya think we will have another stimulus bill? Are they going to get the tax extensions passed or what? What the F are those (republican/democrats - depending on speaker) doing NOW to F things up? Gee, another Montana boy got hurt in Afghanistan. What the hell is Obama still doing there, anyway? Have you heard the latest stimulus project Missoula dreamed up? Dumber than usual this one is. Oh, another birther claim. Anyway, have you figured out how much more you'll be paying if they don't extend those cuts? Stupid assed (republicans/democrats/president/all - depending on speaker) need to just get it done." etc. etc. etc.

If they think this is an actual distraction, they are way over estimating the influence of the birthers.
 
Good Luck said:
Actually three states attorneys did try to do their jobs - including Montana's and Alaska's. The first one to try was from the Clinton's home state. (get it?) Like everyone else, they were unable to demand Obama's full BC. By law, only Obama can release it for public view unless there is an over riding cause. To date no court recognizes assuring Obama's qualifications as an over riding cause.:confused:

Whether or not you believe the charges that Obama is not a natural born citizen, there seems to me a big problem that the courts do not view federal-level standards of proof to be "over riding cause" for our fucking PRESIDENT!
Click to expand...
They could have denied him a place on the ballot then. Without direct knowledge, and because of the very specific requirements, they could have simply said, "If you don't prove it, you don't get on this ballot."

If they were doing their job, just one or two even, this would be moot. Instead they eventually caved.

Personally I believe he is a citizen with something that would embarrass him on his original copy. Along with all the other documents he holds back...

The problem for me isn't the belief he was born in some African nation or some other nonsense... it is more the determined effort to delete the personal history of somebody we are hiring (have hired) to be one branch of our government. If I had tried to hide even one piece of the stuff he gets "pshaws" about when I tried to get my clearance I'd have been sent haze gray and underway rather than worked at a very rewarding job in the Navy.

Nobody suggests that he put it all out there, they simply ask for something they've all had to give at one point in their life or another. I don't care if he ever gives it. Although I do find the fight interesting, and believe that eventually we'll see those documents and know what he tried so desperately to hide (and the "birthers" or "proofers" will be disappointed.)

We have a President that 42% of the nation, not some tiny group or "fringe" 42%, are not sure he was born where he said he was.

Basically we are in agreement, just not in the means to get the job done. He is running in 51 separate (actually 53 if you count the territories) elections, he should have to provide information to the satisfaction of each of the governing bodies that are running those elections. I don't like the immediate idea that we should centralize even this. While I think we should have assurances so that this will not happen in the future, I think we just need to get at least some of the states to require it to get on their ballot.
 
Damocles said:
They could have denied him a place on the ballot then. Without direct knowledge, and because of the very specific requirements, they could have simply said, "If you don't prove it, you don't get on this ballot."

If they were doing their job, just one or two even, this would be moot. Instead they eventually caved.

Personally I believe he is a citizen with something that would embarrass him on his original copy. Along with all the other documents he holds back...

The problem for me isn't the belief he was born in some African nation or some other nonsense... it is more the determined effort to delete the personal history of somebody we are hiring (have hired) to be one branch of our government. If I had tried to hide even one piece of the stuff he gets "pshaws" about when I tried to get my clearance I'd have been sent haze gray and underway rather than worked at a very rewarding job in the Navy.

Nobody suggests that he put it all out there, they simply ask for something they've all had to give at one point in their life or another. I don't care if he ever gives it. Although I do find the fight interesting, and believe that eventually we'll see those documents and know what he tried so desperately to hide (and the "birthers" or "proofers" will be disappointed.)

We have a President that 42% of the nation, not some tiny group or "fringe" 42%, are not sure he was born where he said he was.

Basically we are in agreement, just not in the means to get the job done. He is running in 51 separate (actually 53 if you count the territories) elections, he should have to provide information to the satisfaction of each of the governing bodies that are running those elections. I don't like the immediate idea that we should centralize even this. While I think we should have assurances so that this will not happen in the future, I think we just need to get at least some of the states to require it to get on their ballot.
Click to expand...
Well, it could still be left up to the states' attorneys to do the actual leg work. But, being this IS a federal office, there should be some federal level standardization of assuring qualifications. While the hard core jackasses are loudly vocal in their dismissal of allegations, there is definitely something seriously wrong with the system when military officers are refusing orders based on a mistrust that Obama is a valid president. This kind of situation has never occurred before. It should never be allowed to happen again.

But I do see your point that if even one state had told the Obama campaign office to cough up or be left off the ballot - especially in the primaries - things might be different today. Then, again, the fact that no one, obviously, felt they had the authority to take it that far, when a legitimate question is raised about a candidate, points out a gaping hole in the election system.

I also agree that this is more than just a political "wag the dog" move on the part of Obama. He has something to hide. It most likely isn't his place of birth, but definitely something. He has been the most closed president with respect to these kinds of records in my memory - perhaps in history. It is especially concerning for one who promised more transparency in government. (As if anyone except the democratic drones believed that promise)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top