April 23, 201115 yr I've always figured there was nothing wrong with his birth certificate because Hillary never made it an issue. If there was something to be found wrong, the Clinton machine would have found it. End of story for me. That is an excellent point. No way she would have given up the presidency to him had there been any funny business with his citizenship.
April 23, 201115 yr I've always figured there was nothing wrong with his birth certificate because Hillary never made it an issue. If there was something to be found wrong, the Clinton machine would have found it. End of story for me. That's what always made me doubt it. Not just Clinton but would think all of the Dem candidates would have said something.
April 23, 201115 yr Obviously it is not that big of a requirement or the proper people have seen it if he has been the POTUS for 3 years now and has stated that he will run for reelection. Call me stupid, naive or whatever but it just seems to me that the proper people had to have seen his birth certificate by now or he still wouldn't be president. Here's what kills me about the birther argument. It assumes two things: 1) That, if this were a legitimate issue to hammer him on, the Clintons and their fixers -- of whom we know to be as cutthroat ruthless as anyone in politics -- decided, for the sake of party unity, to pass on using this against Obama, and ... 2) That there has been some "since birth" conspiracy in motion to get him elected president, right down to his granny putting the announcement in the local Honolulu paper. You guys realize that the "certificate of live birth" is apparently good enough to be used to get a passport? But not for the lunatic fringe, apparently ... I don't really care for Obama; didn't vote for him. There are plenty of legitimate things to hammer him on. This one just makes people who advance it look wacky, like the hyperdramatic long-haired writer guy in History Channel programs who wears sunglasses and smokes incessantly in interviews about how the Church covered up the stuff in "Da Vinci Code."
April 23, 201115 yr Here's what kills me about the birther argument. It assumes two things: 1) That, if this were a legitimate issue to hammer him on, the Clintons and their fixers -- of whom we know to be as cutthroat ruthless as anyone in politics -- decided, for the sake of party unity, to pass on using this against Obama, and ... 2) That there has been some "since birth" conspiracy in motion to get him elected president, right down to his granny putting the announcement in the local Honolulu paper. You guys realize that the "certificate of live birth" is apparently good enough to be used to get a passport? But not for the lunatic fringe, apparently ... I don't really care for Obama; didn't vote for him. There are plenty of legitimate things to hammer him on. This one just makes people who advance it look wacky, like the hyperdramatic long-haired writer guy in History Channel programs who wears sunglasses and smokes incessantly in interviews about how the Church covered up the stuff in "Da Vinci Code." Excellent point. It's not like we're talking royal succession here.
April 23, 201115 yr Many people remain unaware a child does not even have to be born in Hawaii to receive a Certification of Live Birth, the very "evidence" the White House has cited in defending its assertion Obama was born in Hawaii. It's very perplexing as to why Obama has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to stop the release of his Certificate of Live Birth which is very different than Certification. Definitely a head scratcher............... Hawaiian newspapers do not prove birthplace, this has been studied and proven.
April 23, 201115 yr I saw a poll earlier in the week that 45% of a certain group couldn't even identify a Republican Presidential candidate. Polls can be tricky. There is supposed to be a book coming out soon that tracked down Obama's family tree and birth info. Drudge ran a link to it earlier in the week and it became Amazon's best seller and the book isn't even out yet.
April 23, 201115 yr Many people remain unaware a child does not even have to be born in Hawaii to receive a Certification of Live Birth, the very "evidence" the White House has cited in defending its assertion Obama was born in Hawaii. It's very perplexing as to why Obama has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to stop the release of his Certificate of Live Birth which is very different than Certification. Definitely a head scratcher............... Hawaiian newspapers do not prove birthplace, this has been studied and proven. Then why didn't the Clintons use it against him?
April 23, 201115 yr Many people remain unaware a child does not even have to be born in Hawaii to receive a Certification of Live Birth, the very "evidence" the White House has cited in defending its assertion Obama was born in Hawaii. It's very perplexing as to why Obama has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to stop the release of his Certificate of Live Birth which is very different than Certification. Definitely a head scratcher............... Hawaiian newspapers do not prove birthplace, this has been studied and proven. McCain has also spent hundreds of thousands refuting ridiculous and frivolous suits against his campaign (like the Panama one).
April 23, 201115 yr Then why didn't the Clintons use it against him? What if he had a hole card better than her hole card (using poker lingo)? It is one of the great mysteries. As for McCain. He would have faced 'birther' issue had he been elected. Granted he only had potential jus soli issues while Obama may have both jus soli and jus sanguinis issues. Since both have at least some questions related to Article II they likely approached the issue like a mutually assured destruction (MAD) pact. Another strange thing - it was Democrats who introduced SR 511. Designed to 'declare' McCain a natural born Citizen. Why would Democrats help John McCain? So there are some strange why did they do or not do things in this back in 2008.
April 23, 201115 yr What if he had a hole card better than her hole card (using poker lingo)? It is one of the great mysteries. As for McCain. He would have faced 'birther' issue had he been elected. Granted he only had potential jus soli issues while Obama may have both jus soli and jus sanguinis issues. Since both have at least some questions related to Article II they likely approached the issue like a mutually assured destruction (MAD) pact. Another strange thing - it was Democrats who introduced SR 511. Designed to 'declare' McCain a natural born Citizen. Why would Democrats help John McCain? So there are some strange why did they do or not do things in this back in 2008. Do the black helicopters refuel at your place?
April 23, 201115 yr Do the black helicopters refuel at your place? They used to but my neighbors kept shooting at them. Plenty of shots by the Dems were put across McCains eligibility bow. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502163_162-4042166-502163.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/world/americas/29iht-29mccain.10560072.html http://www.umichdems.com/?p=211 Had McCain won it seems like this issue still would have surfaced since SR 511 was legally worthless. It just seems there was maybe a 'gentlemen s agreement' between McCain and Obama to avoid the issue altogether in 2008.
April 23, 201115 yr Author Many people remain unaware a child does not even have to be born in Hawaii to receive a Certification of Live Birth, the very "evidence" the White House has cited in defending its assertion Obama was born in Hawaii. It's very perplexing as to why Obama has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to stop the release of his Certificate of Live Birth which is very different than Certification. Definitely a head scratcher............... Hawaiian newspapers do not prove birthplace, this has been studied and proven. This says that Hawaii officials have verified the birth in Hawaii. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
April 23, 201115 yr Many people remain unaware a child does not even have to be born in Hawaii to receive a Certification of Live Birth, the very "evidence" the White House has cited in defending its assertion Obama was born in Hawaii. It's very perplexing as to why Obama has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to stop the release of his Certificate of Live Birth which is very different than Certification. Definitely a head scratcher............... Hawaiian newspapers do not prove birthplace, this has been studied and proven. Read the link in post #49. The key thing in there related to your points being a living "witness" who recalls the day Obama was born in Hawaii. Of course there will be some angle to refute it I am sure.
April 23, 201115 yr It just seems there was maybe a 'gentlemen s agreement' between McCain and Obama to avoid the issue altogether in 2008.Or maybe, just maybe, they decided the issue was bogus, like the rest of us sensible people.
April 23, 201115 yr It seems that there are two camps here on BGP; supporters who provide their expert testimony (snopes links and such), and people like me who cannot understand why he just won't provide his long form Birth Certificate (not certification). I am not saying he wasn't born in the U.S., but his actions certainly have created doubt and it appears as though he is hiding something for whatever reason. Why won't he release the long form BCertificate?? Here's a couple of links that have looked at this situation that I found interesting. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=104678 http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/04/important_difference_between_a.html
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.