The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Please take the time to watch this video in its entirety and then lets have a logical discussion.

I am curious as to what everyone's opinions on this matter are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWTs1YyhFRg

My opinion is...

...Obama supporters will not watch the video.

...not releasing documents is a ploy to get the electorate's attention away from other problems.  They're cleverly getting "us" to focus on a non-issue rather than other issues such as anonymous donations that can't be tracked.

...regardless how substantial and provable the charges are, disqualifying the first ever minority candidate, no matter how valid or legal, would do tremendous harm to race relations among our less moderate citizens.

...if Obama does not meet the qualifications and gets found out and loses the Presidency over it, then it's his own fault.  He never should have ran if he does not meet the criteria.  Those who voted for him in the primaries without verification would be as much to blame as those Republicans who voted for a moderate like John McCain.

This is grasping at straws.  He seems bitter.  People will make anything up in desperation.  I heard a lot of "I think" and no facts...

He has the burden of proof.  You can't make up allegations and ask people to defend themselves as proof against his outlandish claim.

The fact that he doesn't produce a birth certificate (incase you haven't noticed, the guy has been campaigning) isn't proof that you're right.

They showed two documents he called "birth certificates" and said "one doesn't have a seal" when in fact you can see a silhouette of a seal from a scanned copy.

And all that mumbo-jumbo about him being naturalized citizen?  If you're born in the US, that's the requirement.

Seems like this guy is desperately trying to get Obama discounted to promote his anti-abortion agenda.

If this were true, it would have come up a lot sooner than a few days before the election.

Come up sooner?  It comes up frequently ever since early in the primary season.  It has been fully researched but even Fox has concluded that their is no merit to the BS. 

The issue I have with all of this is that to be a senator, one would have to have a top notch security clearance (or whatever they call it.) Wouldn't this have come up years ago. Then to run for president, there would be another round of security, etc.

I wasn't born in the states. My birth certificate is German. When I lost my social security card years ago, it was HELL for me to get  a new one. I had to have specific documentation stating that I was born to American parents.

I just don't see how this hasn't come up before. (Not meaning in the election, but before that.)

To be a senator there is really only 3 things you need

- 30 years of age
- have a residency in the state you are being elected in
- a 9 year citizenship

You don't have to be born in the united states to be a senator, just these three things i mentioned.

I know and understand this. I'm referring to the level of security that he would have to gain to be allowed in the Capital buildings. I'm sure they know rather he is a citizen or not.

This guy even contradicts himself in his video. He says Obama had to have been an Indonesian citizen to attend school, but then acknowledges that he doesn't believe Obama went through INS to come back to the US. You can't have both buddy.

Why not produce the documents to the court and dismiss this case immediately? It makes no sense that they wouldn't have done that especially if it has the potential to sway voters away from your side.

I believe that Obama was born in the US, and can legitimately run for president. I can also understand why Obama wouldn't just whip out his birth certificate. It is better for him to let this continue because it makes the accusers look ridiculous. The people who are accusing him of not being a natural citizen, and the people who are accusing him of being a Muslim are indirectly harming the McCain campaign. There are plenty of legitimate things to go after Obama on, and this isn't one of them.

As for the security clearance, I doubt he would be able to be a member of the secret service though because of his association with Ayers, and a couple others.

Ridiculous!I agree with Brian,Buddhagirl,and StLFinFan.I also saw a survey yesterday about how 23% of the people in Texas actually believe he is a muslim.

Someone tell me why its so bad to be a Muslim?

Even the right-wingers acknowledge that this is a joke, right up there with the 9/11 Truthers.

This from a popular right-wing blog:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/12/obama-is-an-american-no-really/

I really thought we’d put this conspiracy theory to rest over the summer, but it has arisen like a zombie yet again to suck the credibility out of the conservative blogosphere. I have had at least 40 e-mails begging me to watch this video featuring Phillip Berg, a PUMA suing Barack Obama and the Democratic Party to prove Obama’s citizenship — even though Obama has already produced a certification of live birth from Hawaii that would get him a passport any day of the week:

Last week, we got tons of e-mail purporting to claim that Berg had won in court and Obama had three days to produce proof of citizenship. It turned out that someone had posted an exemplar of the order, produced by the plaintiff in case the judge granted their motion.  In other words, it meant nothing, and neither does this.

Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961, making him a natural-born citizen of the United States.  Hawaii’s certification of live birth proves this, as Allahpundit and I have both noted this summer.  Fact Check also verified it, although the video does its best to undermine that by noting the connection to the Annenberg Foundation.  By the way, Berg and the video manage to mangle this, too, by claiming Obama sat on the board of the Annenberg Foundation itself and distributed their funding.  He ran the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, one of the foundation’s beneficiaries. (The St. Petersburg Times also verified the certification independently.)

Wouldn’t it be nice if we had a contemporaneous corroboration of Obama’s Hawaii birth?  As it happens, we do — provided by another PUMA who wanted to find ways to disqualify Obama.  Lori Starfelt found this in the archives of the Honolulu Advertiser in a print copy from August 1961:

http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2008-07/barack_obama_birth.jpg

Unless people want to start claiming that the conspiracy to have Barack Obama infiltrate the political system started at the moment of his birth, that’s pretty conclusive evidence that Obama was born in the US and is a natural-born citizen.

I already know some of the rebuttals that will fly through the comments, so let me address them here:

    * A court is hearing this case, so it must be serious — Any fool with a lawyer and a couple of hundred dollars can file a lawsuit.  That’s one of the reasons why tort reform is so badly needed.  Frivolous lawsuits cost consumers billions of dollars.  Conservatives used to make that argument, at least until Phillip Berg filed this lawsuit.
    * Why isn’t Obama answering the lawsuit? — Maybe because it’s ridiculous, and Berg has no standing to file it anyway.
    * Why not produce the birth certificate? — Obama has … twice now, once on his website and once to Fact Check.
    * Well, then, why didn’t he produce it sooner, smart guy? — Sooner than what?  This came up at the end of the primaries, and the Obama campaign produced it within a couple of weeks.  So far, that hasn’t done much to quell the conspiracy theories.
    * Why not produce the original birth certificate? — Most people, I’d wager, don’t have their own original birth certificate.  If you applied to get your records, in most states you’d get what Obama has - a certification of live birth spit out from a computer system.  I doubt Hawaii has the original record any longer, either.  The certification proves citizenship well enough to get a passport.

Let’s stop chasing absurd conspiracy theories that make it more difficult to win the real arguments in this election.  Stick to Obama’s absurd theories on national security, his radical political allies, and his disastrous economic policies that will make these past few weeks seem like a breeze.  He’s the wrong man for the job, but still an American.

Update: To answer another question (reasonably asked in the comments), Barack Obama’s Indonesian stepfather could not have revoked Obama’s birthright as an American citizen, no matter what he told the school Obama attended.

Screw Loose Change has dealt with Phillip Berg before.  It turns out that Berg thinks Bush and Cheney either created 9/11 or let it happen deliberately.  Conspiracy theory nuts don’t usually stop at one paranoid fantasy, and this demonstrates it.  It turns out he has quite a history of lawsuits and publicity stunts, and this was written at the beginning of 2007. (via Public Secrets)

Frimp is absolutely right (you won't hear that from me much.)

There are legitimate reasons to disagree with Obama.  He's not an evil guy, a Muslim, a socialist, a heathen, the antichrist, etc.  He's not going to destroy the country.

But he does support a more progressive tax structure than many Republicans are comfortable with.  ...and that's good.  The USA is about having disagreements on issues, and then having parties balance those things out over the years.

You can disagree with Obama and vote for McCain, but do it because of policy -- not because you're chasing some crazy conspiracy theory.

Then were stuck we Blow Job Biden. At least we would know when he's lying..........he always smiles. I definitely do not like that fucker.

hahaahha... Run, you're too funny. Read the conservative blog quoted later. Your crap-ass arguments are rebuffed... let's just start with the "produce the records"... he did. Twice. Why should the guy keep wasting time on this crap? The lawsuit is from a real conspiracy nut, with a long history of filing bogus lawsuits and promoting all kinds of weird shit.

I can't believe the conspiracy crap people are willing to believe. It truly amazes me.

On the other hand, it does nicely show who the morons around us are, so that's a bright spot.

You should read what I wrote ... not what you think I wrote.   ;)

It sure does.   ;D

Anyone believe this?

If true, and if it's already been released, then what's the point other than a planned distraction?  That would make a bit more sense if she was a Democrat.  Perhaps they're getting so many requests that it's become a burden?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79174


 

I love it when I get to quote myself. Even if Obama had not been born in Hawaii, he would still be a natural born citizen by virtue of his mother's status.

Wasn't she 19 when he was born? Can this standard be met post-birth?

Not that it's an issue, but what if she had left the country before the 5 years?

 
Agreed.

Yes, the standard can be met after the baby is born. Also, the standard is cumulative, not consecutive. Just an aside, this only applies to cases where the child was (A) not born in the U.S. and (B) one of the parents was not a U.S. citizen. Since Obama was born in the U.S, it doesn't apply.

I did. You should read it again yourself, but just in case let me quote:


He did release the documents.


You are implying that the charges are substantial and provable. True, that is an assumption, but I took your phrasing past a good handful of people in the office. 6 of 6, unaided and uninfluenced by me, felt that you were implying that. 2 of those were strong McCain backers. You can claim you meant otherwise, but I have a hard time seeing how anyone would NOT interpret your statement as I did.


OK, I'm thinking the problem might be one of education - or willingness to take 30 seconds to phrase something a bit more carefully.

Still, the willingness to continue the speculation so far beyond the initial claims just underlines that, despite what you say elsewhere, you still believe that those claims might be valid... or you just want to stir the pot / feed the other loony conspiracy nuts.

Nice cherry picking there fyo.  No need to go out of your way to be disagreeable when someone is trying to agree with you.  If you have nothing else to do tonight then by all means, feel free to continue.

Thank you.  One good thing about this farce is that we're all becoming a bit more knowledgeable on citizen laws/criteria.

It's not often knowledge of the Immigration and Nationality Act is useful.  :)

From what I understand..........it doesn't matter if you were born in orbit on the space shuttle. As long as your parents are natural citizens then so are you.

That is my understanding as well.  Not only that true than John McCain is not qualified to be president either.  He was born overseas. 

In English please?


Which sea was that?  The Gulf of Mexico?

Yup. He was born in Panama. 

OK...one last time with lots of details:

Both parents are U.S. citizens:

If both of your parents were American citizens at the time of your birth, they will transmit citizenship to you regardless of the place of your birth.

One parent U.S. citizen:

Born after November 14, 1986 (this is the current standard): For children born on or after November 14, 1986, a child born to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent would acquire U.S. citizenship if the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for at least 5 years, at least 2 of which were after attaining the age of 14 years.

Born after December 24, 1952 (applies to Obama): A child born to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent would acquire U.S. citizenship if the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United states or its outlying possessions for at least 10 years prior to the child's birth. Five of the 10 years must have occurred after the age of 14 for the parent. Obama's mother clearly met this standard.

More thoughts: The concept of "presence" is used in the most literal way. The parent doesn't need to own a home or have a job or even an address. He/she could be on the streets for 10 years. All that matters is that the parent can prove he/she was present in the U.S. for the required period of time. Also, Military and other U.S. government service overseas counts towards presence in the U.S. McCain's father and mother, for example, would have been considered to be in the U.S. for the purposes of this Act regardless of where the elder McCain was deployed overseas. Were two non-U.S. citizen service members to have a child overseas, the child would not be a U.S. citizen.

Can we put this question to bed now?

It is obvious that since Obama was born in Hawaii, none of this "residency time" stuff applies to him.

However, strictly speaking, would a person who was born outside the country to alien+citizen parents (with the citizen parent not in military service) qualify as a "natural-born citizen"?  The qualification for President is not just a citizen; you must be a natural-born citizen.

To the best of my knowledge, Congress has defined "natural born citizen." In the absence of a law stating otherwise, I would assume anyone who attained citizenship at birth (either through transmission as described above or through presence in the U.S.) would be considered a natural born citizen. Otherwise, McCain would not be eligible either because he was not born in the U.S. or a U.S. possession (canal zone doesn't count). He attained citizenship because of his parents.

Do all people in the NE consider Central America "overseas" or just you geniuses?

very funny  :)

anyway, the canal zone was not considered to be a "U.S. possession." If you're parents were Panamanian and you happened to be born in the canal zone, you would not be a U.S. citizen.

I thought we did back around reply #25 or 26. 

Yeah, we did. Now we are just discussing if the gulf of mexico is a sea. 

"More and more of our imports come from overseas."  - George W. Bush

China is overseas.  I think we've found the one person who would get his assed handed to him by President Bush on Jeopardy.

People in New England are amazing.  They've figured out ways to drive to overseas countries like Mexico and Canada!  Frickin' brilliant!

I will take world leaders for $500.  Chechnya, India and Pakistan.

Disclaimer: this tangent has nothing to do with Obama

Earlier, you said:

"Also, Military and other U.S. government service overseas counts towards presence in the U.S. McCain's father and mother, for example, would have been considered to be in the U.S. for the purposes of this Act regardless of where the elder McCain was deployed overseas."

I took that to mean that any child born to a citizen in service overseas is considered to have been "born in the United States" for purposes of determining citizenship, and would therefore be a natural-born citizen even if he were born on the steps of the Kremlin.

Furthermore, if a citizen had a child with an alien in a foreign country, but was not yet old enough to have met the "5 years residency after the age of 14" requirement, then her child would not be a citizen at birth, and would only acquire citizenship after she had fulfilled said residency requirements.

The transmission issue described in your first para applies to cases in which only one parent is a U.S. citizen, so it doesn't apply to McCain since both of his parents were U.S. citizens. To address your question, it's not that the child is considered to have been born in the U.S., but that the time outside of the U.S. would not count against the parent's presence requirement. I know, it's complicated. Basically, if you're born overseas and one of your parents is not a U.S. citizen, then the parent who is a U.S. citizen must meet the presence requirement outlined a few posts ago in order to transmit citizenship to you. For the purposes of that requirement, and overseas posting in government service would not count against the parent.

I'm not certain of the answer to your second question, but my guess is that if a U.S. citizen (say, 16 years old) has a child with an alien overseas then that child would not attain citizenship at birth. Like I said, I'm not 100% sure. I'm sure there is a precedent, though. I'd need to look up the case law.