White House Says "Birthers" Aren't Rational

Quote from pspr:

Actually, his approval rating took a little bounce with liberals after the shooting but overall he has been and continues to sink in the polls with independents and conservatives because he is an idiot on the wrong course.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/143921/obama-approval-rating-new-low-recent-quarter.aspx



No one in Hawaii has identifed the hospital long form birth certificate as 'on file'. Actually the only ones who claim to have looked are the former and current Governors. They only refer to notes that are in the record, not the long form hospital birth certificate. These notes could have been entered by his grandparents trying to insure he would receive the benefits of U.S. citizenship.

I don't know what is in Hawaii's records and neither do you. Obama seems to think something recorded either will incriminate him in some way or there is no long form birth certificate on file. Otherwise, he would produce it and put to rest all of the speculation.

Texas and some other states are going to require proof that he was born in the U.S. before he can get on the ballot 1in 2012 so we shall see what happens.
More...

Hawaii officially said he was born there, and has since, well, he was born there.
Every other state is Constitutionally required to recognize that.
End of story.
 
Quote from TGregg:

Pfft. If it was important that a birth certificate be found and it was not there, it would be there and would always have been there - know what I mean? And if one wasn't enough, they'd make dozens. There'd be people ready to fall on their sword if a forgery were discovered. Anybody with a typewriter could pull off a reasonable forgery. You can bet that the resources behind POTUS would be able to crank out one without a problem. This isn't some crazed libtard with MS Word and a Kinko's nearby.

And I don't care which party it is. Neither republicans nor democrats are going to let their president be washed down the drain because some 50 year old document wasn't handy.

It's pretty funny to see wide-eyed conspiracy theorists who suppose some super complex operation run by a great many uber genuises that is still at the same exact time, flaiming stupid and lazy. While not quite as bad, it still draws comparison to the libtards that were dead sure that Bush `43 was an utter idiot who also succefully masterminded the greatest conspiracy of all time, namely 9/11.
More...

Us, um, libtards are the ones who think Bush masterminded 9/11? I thought we just thought he was too stupid to do much more than breathe when told. Which liberal, sane liberal (OK, I know you don't think any of us are sane, but still) thinks Bush was behind 9/11?
 
Quote from trefoil:

Hawaii officially said he was born there, and has since, well, he was born there.
Every other state is Constitutionally required to recognize that.
End of story.
More...

Every state has a right to determine the qualifications of the candidates within their state and require that the candidates provide proof of eligibility. The requirements are identical as to the federal offices and candidates for those offices are required to provide eligibilty proof to the states to their safisfaction. A state is never required to accept the decision/approval/law of another state on any issue. Every state is sovereign.
 
If Hawaii says he was born there, that's it, for the same reason your driver's license, your marriage license, and of course your birth certificate, is good in all 50 states. Your theory is flat-out wrong.
 
Quote from trefoil:

If Hawaii says he was born there, that's it, for the same reason your driver's license, your marriage license, and of course your birth certificate, is good in all 50 states. Your theory is flat-out wrong.
More...

There are presidential candidates and political parties that cannot be on the ballot in all fifty sates every election because they cannot or did not meet the qualifications/requirements of a particular state. This is not theory but reality. The acceptance of some licensees are normally accepted but the state has the right to refuse a license from another state. For instances, a professional license such as law, medicine, insurance, real estate, etc.... are not accepted from one state to another unless the states have an agreement. Some states have laws against same sex marriages and will not accept same sex marriage licenses. The states are sovereign.
 
Quote from chartman:

There are presidential candidates and political parties that cannot be on the ballot in all fifty sates every election because they cannot or did not meet the qualifications/requirements of a particular state. This is not theory but reality. The acceptance of some licensees are normally accepted but the state has the right to refuse a license from another state. For instances, a professional license such as law, medicine, insurance, real estate, etc.... are not accepted from one state to another unless the states have an agreement. Some states have laws against same sex marriages and will not accept same sex marriage licenses. The states are sovereign.
More...

We are here talking about a requirement that is in the Constitution, for the only Federal office that all 50 states get to vote on.
Whether a party qualifies to be on the ballot is a state matter. Whether a candidate is qualified to run for President is based on the requirements stated in the Constitution, because we are here talking about the only Federal office that is voted on by more than one state, and the only one for which the requirements are specifically and clearly stated in the Constitution.
Therefore, the question before us here, whether Obama is over 35, and a natural born citizen of the US, is a question for Federal, not state, law. The question of whether the Democratic Party can appear on a ballot is a question for state law only.
States are sovereign only on questions that pertain to their level. The Federal gov't can't tell a state gov't to put the Democratic Party, or any other party, on the ballot. It can tell a state that it has to send its electors to the Electoral College for a particular candidate if that candidate meets the Constitutional requirements and has qualified under that state's laws as that state's candidate for the Presidency.
There is no Constitutional mandate for how that candidate is chosen. By custom, the candidate is chosen by statewide popular vote. Some states, like Maine, divide it up by Congressional district. From the Constitution's POV, all this is fine, because it does not state how the state's candidate is chosen. It does very particularly state which citizens are eligible to be President, however, and it also states that each state must recognize all the other states' certifications on a person's citizenship status.
Since Obama is over 35 and no one is disputing that, the only thing left is his citizenship status. That status has been certified by Hawaii. End of story.
 
Quote from trefoil:

......the only thing left is his citizenship status. That status has been certified by Hawaii. End of story.
More...

Not so fast. The document distributed by Obama is NOT a birth certificate. It is a computer generated certification of live birth and has been issued to both U.S. citizens and NON-citizens in Hawaii. Hawaii won't even recognize this form as proof of citizenship.

What needs to be produced is a copy of the long form hospital birth certificate signed by the attending physician.

See for yourself.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=100451
 
Quote from trefoil:

Hawaii officially said he was born there, and has since, well, he was born there.
Every other state is Constitutionally required to recognize that.
End of story.
More...
Typical vauge Liberal answer.
Hawaii "officially says"?.......How do they say? Any other state would want papers. What papers they accept is up to that state.
Many states require an orginal copy of a Birth certificate to put on file for many purposes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top