Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Hawaii won't release Obama birth info

The best reason I would think of would be to make sure her son would be afforded all the benefits of U.S. vs. Kenyan citizenship. Or, it could be as simple as his mother simply not being aware of the law. After all, she was only 18. Anything we could possibly think of, is however, just conjecture. The grandparents, on the other hand, were pretty cogniscient of law, and certainly pushing the limits of what would be considered a "good American" at the time. Bending the law a bit seemed to be a normal lifestyle to them. Nobody had a crystal ball, but lack of proper documentation, for whatever reason, has certainly caused a ruckus.

Keep in mind the announcement is just that - an announcement of birth.. Just doesn't say where... And it had no import for anything else - at that time..

The fact that lefties are using that silly-azzed announcement as 'proof' that the LIC was born here is laughable.. And the fact that the LIC has done everything in his power to keep it squelched is just too suspicious for anyone in their right mind to accept..


Too many things wrong with this to just brush it off..

I know what the Constitution says as I'm sure everyone here does. So should he not have had to prove this before getting his name on any ballot.

I know I would.

Instead of wasting a lot of inconsequential blather on this why not wait for the courts to decide?

Why would the Constitution need to define it's "intent or meaning"? What are you, Bill Clinton needing a definition of "IS"?

"Natural born" is pretty damn obvious in meaning.

Never heard the 14th Amendment as the defining word on this subject. In fact I seem to recall McCain providing the Supreme Court with his documentation since he was born in the Canal Zone. If merely being a citizen was all that was needed, that would not have been necessary.

Also when George Romney ran during the 1968 presidential primary, it was questioned whether he would be eligible due to having been born in Mexico.

Then we have the 1974 Bill sponsored by Congressman Bingham of New York calling for a constitutional amendment that would make naturalized citizens eligible for the presidency so that Henry Kissinger might run for President. Now why would he do that, if it was SO established that the 14th amendment took care of that?

Then in 2003 Orin Hatch put forth the "Equal opportunity to Govern Amendment" to do the same for Arnold Schwarzenegger?

Now why would he do that? Arnold was most assuredly a "citizen".

Are you claiming to be more of a Constitutional expert than Senator Orrin Hatch?

A clear clue that "Natural born" was intended to be more restrictive than just a "citizen" is in Article 2 of the Constitution itself:



If merely being a "citizen" was all that was necessary, there would have been no need to separate "natural born" and "Citizen...at the time of the adoption of this Constitution".

Clearly, the intent was that "Natural born" be just that. The only reason the grandfather clause was added was because the founding fathers were not "Natural Born citizens", there having been no "United States" at the time each of them were born.

If one actually does a little research, one would find that the founding fathers were concerned with foreigners obtaining power in the future, and thus "natural born" was included purposefully.

The 14th Amendment, or any Amendment, cannot modify any portion of the Constitution other than what it specifically Amends. A natural born citizen, is not a naturalized citizen, no matter how much you wish it. Both are fine for citizenship, but only one meets the criteria of President or Vice President.

Do a little research.

This has been tried, and thrown out...

No amount of tin foil is going to change it.

Tin foil is cheap, and it doesn't take much to make my hat. There is a reason that the CIA posted his birth in the newspaper in Honolulu, and there are reasons that his school records...ALL of his records have been sealed. Why spend over a million bucks if all is in order?

Not the way some members here burn through it!

I just provided you plenty of contradictory evidence to your little leftist talking points argument.

Thrown out by who? The Supreme Court has declined thus far to hear it based upon the standing of those bringing forth the case, not once has it been thrown out on the merits.

What does tinfoil have to do with what the Constitution states? The argument isn't whether dumbass was born here, neither you nor I, Know for a fact whether he was or wasn't. The argument is you attempting to desecrate the Constitution with kindergarten logic.

I don't know whether or not there is anything to Obama meeting the requirement for natural born or not. I do know that nobody spends that kind of money to hide things unless they have something pretty serious to hide. Your premise that by not proving his detractors wrong he makes them look worse doesn't work for me. It would be pretty simple for him to make all of them look a lot worse now - produce the records that they wish to see. They all look like kooks and the questions go away. I think it's pretty reasonable to believe that he's hiding something fairly serious in nature.

It doesn't matter what you know or don't know. There is no requirement for you or I to have a Driver's License, yet if we want to drive, we have to have one to do so legally and be ready to present said documentation to the proper authorities upon request. Barak Obama has never presented his Birth Certificate or other proof to proper authorities, let alone the American people themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_v._Wilkins

Ankeny v. Govenor

Ftw? You're a lawyer now? It don't matter how many Injuns do whatever. Maybe Obama is totally legal, but nobody knows because he won't pony up the proof. It doesn't matter whether he was born here or whether his parents were legal if nobody can determine it. The SCOTUS won't hear the case based on standing, like you've already been told. No bigtime politician will make a big push because they are all pusssies who don't want to be the next one shot in the head in some Arizona supermarket by some crazy.

geez, you boys are getting pretty worked up now.

Time to loosen up your tinfoil hats...

IOW "I got nothing."

Or maybe if this is kept in the forefront, the bigger issues that really could be damning can remain undetected and under the radar.

There are very few issues bigger than who our President is and whether or not he is even legally so. If he is not eligible to be President, then he is not President, as others have said. If he is not President, who is and what of all the legislation that the Great Pretender signed? Almost all other issues pale in comparison to this one.

I am not saying he isn't eligible. I'm saying, like most other folks, that if he is, why all the secrecy and failure to disclose? Millions of dollars to prevent disclosure. Most folks smell a rat but some have their sinuses blocked.

Would you please enlighten us on what those "bigger issues that really could be damning" could be that should take priority over a blatant violation of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution!!!

It just shows how easily the Democratic sheeple can be duped.
And as long as the conservative Right is split by multiple goofs like Palin, it will work every time!

And this is what you have?