Uh, Oh...Obama Birth Certificate

[taylor414ce2003]

Oh yes, clearly. Obama is obviously super competent and Presidential.

I have been following that story(should be a non story!!!) I am starting to think that Obama could be the one person that is dumber than GW!!! Here we have the leader of the free world getting involved and opening his yap before he knows any of the facts! Now this nitwit has invited the cop and the teacher to the white house to work it out,get serious, this story should have been a 2second blurb on the local news at best but the media blows it up into a race war .Not that I would be polite to the police coming into my house uninvited ,I too would have had a chip on my shoulder and would mouth off to the cops in my house but I would have given the cops my ID ,end of story, but this guy refused to show an ID to the cops and the police treated him by the book as a suspect in a home invasion.Also if he is such a famous Harvard prof. than how come his neighbor didnt know him and called the cops after watching him break into the house?

 

[foxpaws]

All they have done is demand proof of his natural born status (as is their right). How is that acting as "judge and jury"? What "decisions" have they made?

Are you nuts? They can't demand that of their immediate commanding officer - let alone the Commander-In-Chief...

I can see it now - Some Private decides that he needs to see 'proof' that the base Commander is a US Citizen and has the legal right to be a General in the US Army... yeah, right... I know a few Generals and Admirals... like they would be handing over proof of citizenship to some Cherry...

If the MSM had done their what they are constitutionally given privileges to do (be the objective watchdog on the government) and actually vetted this guy before he was made nominee, this wouldn't be an issue.

That is the job of the various secretaries of state to confirm eligibility, along with the Party... not the media Shag... Nor individuals in the military...

Once again- I certainly wouldn't have been showing my birth certificate to anyone who asked for it when I held public office, just to 'prove' my eligibility - that is just stupid.

 

[shagdrum]

Are you nuts? They can't demand that of their immediate commanding officer - let alone the Commander-In-Chief...

The person who is there immediate commanding officer is not required to be a natural born citizen in order to hold the position of their immediate commanding officer.

That is the job of the various secretaries of state to confirm eligibility, along with the Party... not the media Shag... Nor individuals in the military...

It is the job of the various secretaries...and they punted.

Are you saying that, if there is something questionable in a presidential candidate's past that it isn't the place of the media, as objective watchdog on the government, to look into that?

As to it "not being the place of the military", they have LEGAL STANDING to do so. So you are, in no uncertain terms, WRONG on that one.

Once again- I certainly wouldn't have been showing my birth certificate to anyone who asked for it when I held public office, just to 'prove' my eligibility - that is just stupid.

Did the office you ran for require you to be a natural born citizen?

 

[foxpaws]

The person who is there immediate commanding officer is not required to be a natural born citizen in order to hold the position of their immediate commanding officer.

But, their commanding officer certainly is required to be a citizen, and that is what I said - that the grunt has absolutely no 'right' to ask his commanding officer for proof of his citizenship. Just as he has no 'right' to ask his commander in chief for any proof of citizenship... it isn't his job.
Quote from my post #28

Some Private decides that he needs to see 'proof' that the base Commander is a US Citizen​

Are you saying that, if there is something questionable in a presidential candidate's past that it isn't the place of the media, as objective watchdog on the government, to look into that?

And certainly lots of stories were written and broadcast about this in msm - and came up empty... Heck, lots of people know about this allegation. It isn't getting any 'legs' because it is appears to be tin foil hat fodder.

As to it "not being the place of the military", they have LEGAL STANDING to do so. So you are, in no uncertain terms, WRONG on that one.

Do you want to show me where it is stated that the military has the 'right' to demand proof of citizenship of any commanding officer, of the president, of the supreme court justices, of their representatives in congress? That it is written into law... that it is their 'right' to demand this of their superiors?

Did the office you ran for require you to be a natural born citizen?

Well, since I believe it is only the President/VP that holds that distinction, and I don't recall running for either of those offices... So nope.
I had to be a citizen along with being a resident in my city/county for a set period of time. I had to show that I met the requirements for the office I was seeking.

Natural born is just another requirement - similar to my residency requirements...

 

[MonsterMark]

As I scratch my ass, I can't help but wonder how you can't make the distinction between POTUS and a low ranking military officer.

You want to put them both on the same level playing field. Not the way it works sis.

 

[foxpaws]

Oh, and as a humorous aside... because this is tin foil crap we are talking about..

Lord Vader,

With all of the recent churn within the Imperial Navy and her armed forces, the legitimacy of the Emperor’s legality to assume control over the former Republic has been circulating within the officer’s corps. If it pleases mylord, we were wondering if it wouldn’t be too much to ask for the Emperor’s personal records and a family tree outlining his line of ascension. I understand that you’re a busy guy, what with looking for rebel Jedi and blowing up entire planets and sh!t, but the men are getting nervous. Commander O’Taint of the Imperial JAG Corps says that she’s been reading chatter on the holonet that might even suggest the Emperor is really a Sith infiltrator, destined to throw the entire government down the proverbial rancor hole. Do you think that’s true? And while we’re on the subject, that whole blowing up entire planets thing…not exactly cool, mylord. I know you and Tarkin were just following orders and all, but the Emperor’s zeal to come into office and eliminate political adversaries in such an extreme fashion has me wondering if the rumors are true. I sent a similar note of concern to Vice Chancellor B’Iden and he replied back with travel brochures to Endor and a pair of dirty panties from some blue chick he said he liked to eat lunch with. Not cool. Ok, well I gotta go, mylord. Our unit just got word that there’s some kind of disturbance out near the Skywalker moisture farm, but I’ll be writing again soon.

All my best.

Major Cook U’tube
Callsign - TK1138
Tattooine, Outer Rim Territories​

 

[foxpaws]

As I scratch my ass, I can't help but wonder how you can't make the distinction between POTUS and a low ranking military officer.

You want to put them both on the same level playing field. Not the way it works sis.

Yes tender cheeks, it is the same - we do have a level playing field - sort of comes with being an American...

 

[shagdrum]

]And certainly lots of stories were written and broadcast about this in msm - and came up empty... Heck, lots of people know about this allegation. It isn't getting any 'legs' because it is appears to be tin foil hat fodder.

And if you actually read those stories they exhibit a clear lack of understanding of the issue and usually dismiss it for specious reasons...

Do you want to show me where it is stated that the military has the 'right' to demand proof of citizenship of any commanding officer, of the president, of the supreme court justices, of their representatives in congress? That it is written into law... that it is their 'right' to demand this of their superiors?

Apparently you don't understand what LEGAL STANDING means...

 

[shagdrum]

Yes tender cheeks, it is the same - we do have a level playing field - sort of comes with being an American...

No, you are making broad and inaccurate generalizations that only serve to obfuscate. You can't reasonably equate the two in this instance.

 

[foxpaws]

And if you actually read those stories they exhibit a clear lack of understanding of the issue and usually dismiss it for specious reasons...

They dismiss it because it belongs with conspiracy theory junk...

Apparently you don't understand what LEGAL STANDING means...

Ah, yes I do - that is why I asked for the law... got it Shag?

 

[foxpaws]

No, you are making broad and inaccurate generalizations that only serve to obfuscate. You can't reasonably equate the two in this instance.

Nope, it is the same, the offices aren't equal, but since both require citizenship standards, it follows that if the private is allowed to question his CIC - he is allowed the same right regarding his immediate superior. Heck, why should he obey his drill Sargent unless he knows for a certainty that drill Sargent is a US Citizen. Just the fact he has on the uniform doesn't prove anything does it?

My Dad (who was a Master Sargent before he left the military) would have had the Cherry on latrines for 3 weeks if he had demanded my Dad to show proof of his citizenship.

 

[shagdrum]

They dismiss it because it belongs with conspiracy theory junk...

That is pretty subjective. Can you prove that? I can prove my assertions and anyone familiar with what has been posted on this forum on this subject can spot these specious arguments and misunderstandings of the issue as well in these dismissals.

Ah, yes I do - that is why I asked for the law... got it Shag?

A specific law granting legal standing? You cannot find that anywhere. It is an issue of precedent. And Bryan has already posted as much.

Nope, it is the same

So, that commanding officer is elected to his position? His claims about his qualifications are assumed to be true without any actual verification by the military? There is no demand throughout the process to acquire his position that he provide proof of his citizenship status?

That is news to me.

 

[foxpaws]

That is pretty subjective. Can you prove that? I can prove my assertions and anyone familiar with what has been posted on this forum on this subject can spot these specious arguments and misunderstandings of the issue as well in these dismissals.

Conspiracy theory is subjective - so, take a poll, how many people think that this is conspiracy theory. I believe there would be a consensus that it is. Similar to lizard people are forming a consortium to take over the world. Probably both should get about the same amount of 'traditional press'. Heck, they only have 1/2 hour on the news - if they start reporting conspiracy theories, then we would still be looking into Kennedy's assignation every night on the Evening News with Brian Williams... Or, heck, Caesar's death at the hand of Brutus -

A specific law granting legal standing? You cannot find that anywhere. It is an issue of precedent. And Bryan has already posted as much.

It is an issue of precedent? Got precedent Shag? Where has any superior officer been required to prove his citizenship status on demand from an insubordinate? Where has any elected official or appointed judge been required to show proof of citizenship on demand to any citizen that asks for it...

So, that commanding officer is elected to his position? His claims about his qualifications are assumed to be true without any actual verification by the military? There is no demand throughout the process to acquire his position that he provide proof of his citizenship status?

Nope - he is promoted to that position, and his citizenship status has been shown to, and verified by, those who needed to verify it. Just as Obama's has been shown to and verified by the Secretaries of State who had to have proof of his eligibility requirements to be placed on state ballots.

Now, you might have a problem that some of them didn't see actual proof, but then, you make that claim in court, you go through the proper channels.

Just as in the military, if you believed your commanding officer wasn't a citizen, you would go through the proper channels, which doesn't include standing in front of the Captain on the flight deck and demand to see his proof of citizenship and then refuse to be deployed because you weren't satisfied with what he showed you....

 

[shagdrum]

Conspiracy theory is subjective - so, take a poll, how many people think that this is conspiracy theory. I believe there would be a consensus that it is.

Truth is not determined by consensus. It is determined by facts, evidence and logical extrapolation from those facts and/or evidence.

It is an issue of precedent? Got precedent Shag? Where has any superior officer been required to prove his citizenship status on demand from an insubordinate? Where has any elected official or appointed judge been required to show proof of citizenship on demand to any citizen that asks for it...

Now you are changing the debate.

This isn't about your false analogy. It is about the POTUS meeting a requirement for his job and the standing of a military officer to challenge that if it hasn't been proven.

As to the precedent, again Bryan has already covered this. Stop trying to frustrate honest discussion by forcing busy work when it is not necessary.

Nope - he is promoted to that position, and his citizenship status has been shown to, and verified by, those who needed to verify it. Just as Obama's has been shown to and verified by the Secretaries of State who had to have proof of his eligibility requirements to be placed on state ballots.

Oh? All those secretaries of state from all fifty states went to Hawaii and verified his natural born status? Give me a break.

Just as in any job, those officers are required to present proof of citizen ship when they first enter the military. Obama has not been under any such requirement concerning his natural born status throughout his career.

Now, you might have a problem that some of them didn't see actual proof, but then, you make that claim in court, you go through the proper channels.

Not exactly. If Obama is not the legitimate Commander-in-chief, then the officer is under no obligation to follow his orders. The officer raising this would force Obama to provide proof if the issue ever went to trial. And Obama seems to be avoiding any trial on this.

Just as in the military, if you believed your commanding officer wasn't a citizen, you would go through the proper channels, which doesn't include standing in front of the Captain on the flight deck and demand to see his proof of citizenship and then refuse to be deployed because you weren't satisfied with what he showed you....

Your analogy is proven false and you know it. I am not going to entertain an more notions concerning it. You keep running with it and this conversation is over.

If you were truly interested in simply "exploring other people's opinions" as you have claimed numerous times is your reason for engaging in conversation on this forum, you would not be hellbent on injecting your false analogy into the conversation.

 

[foxpaws]

Your analogy is proven false and you know it. I am not going to entertain an more notions concerning it. You keep running with it and this conversation is over.

Gosh, I could have guessed you would have ended with this... You can't show me precedent, you can't show me law, you can't show me anything, and yet, I have been proven 'false'.
Yep, this conversation is over...

 

[shagdrum]

Gosh, I could have guessed you would have ended with this... You can't show me precedent, you can't show me law, you can't show me anything, and yet, I have been proven 'false'.
Yep, this conversation is over...

Now you are distorting to the point of lying.

It is pretty clear you are more concerned with demagoguery and obfuscation (propagandizing) than in "understanding other people's opinions" in this thread.

You stay classy

 

[lincolnx2]

There is a constitutional role in this for the military as well. It is clear in the oath taken that was already pointed out here...

I__________do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962)​

Now, I am not in the military, but what I have gleaned from people I know in the military is that there is a priority to those various oaths. So, above "obeying the POTUS" is "supporting and defending the Constitution". (If I am wrong the priority thing, please correct me).

If that is true, and if Obama is found to not be a natural born citizen, then the military is obligated to remove him from office if he refuses to leave (ala recent events in Honduras). Even if that priority thing is not true, the military would still be obligated to remove Obama from office if he refused to leave because he would not be the POTUS at that point.

As to the "questioning orders" thing; I cannot give you or any solider an order. Only qualified individuals (commanding officers) can do that. It is less then clear if Obama is Constitutionally qualified to be recognized in that role as Commander-in-Chief So it is a legitimate issue to bring up.

Removing the president based on what Maj. Cook will not be good for the military, sure it will remove the POTUS, but every soldier will then have grounds to question every order given to them. There is a reg that states if you are overweight, you cannot hold a leadership position, so if Green is 2 lbs overweight, does that mean his soldiers can challenge his orders?

Mr. Cook should have filed the petition to have the POTUS removed, Maj. Cook is getting ready to destroy the very structure that made our military the best.

 

[shagdrum]

Removing the president based on what Maj. Cook will not be good for the military, sure it will remove the POTUS, but every soldier will then have grounds to question every order given to them. There is a reg that states if you are overweight, you cannot hold a leadership position, so if Green is 2 lbs overweight, does that mean his soldiers can challenge his orders?

Mr. Cook should have filed the petition to have the POTUS removed, Maj. Cook is getting ready to destroy the very structure that made our military the best.

Now that is a very interesting argument.

Still, I am more concerned in the long run with the integrity of the Constitution then with the integrity of the chain of command in the military (though that is very important as well).

A quick thought; the requirement in question (natural born status) is a Constitutional requirement that is not something that can simply be overlooked while a regulation like the overweight thing, I would image, could be overlooked, or "fudged" a little. Though, not being in the military, I can only speculate on that point. Either way, it is not as "hard" of a requirement as the Constitutional requirement for Commander-in-Chief.

Again, very interesting argument.

 

[fossten]

They dismiss it because it belongs with conspiracy theory junk...

Circular reasoning if I've ever seen it.

 

[MonsterMark]

They dismiss it because it belongs with conspiracy theory junk...

I'm just waiting for the one lawsuit that has been dismissed based on the merits.

Every suit has been dismissed based on standing or lack of jurisdiction. Not one Judge has said, you know what, I've seen all the facts and I'm going dismiss based on lack of merit.

I am waiting for that day.