Barack Obama

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 7:49 am

So what is the truth about the controversy over where he was born ?

It seems ol' Billy Bob Baghdad would have us believe he comes from Satans spawn.

Just a conspiracy drummed up to discredited him ?

Post by **spot** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:00 am

To believe the conspiracy involves accepting the following claims to be truths.

That Barack Obama's mother gave birth to him outside of Hawaii, on non-US soil (traditionally referred to as "Kenya"), and subsequently flew with him into Hawaii after his birth.

That her family put an inaccurate notice into two local papers announcing his birth at a local hospital and nobody at the hospital perked up and said that's not so.

That her family then registered the birth in Hawaii claiming the child was born on US soil.

If you can swallow those then Barack Obama, though a US citizen, was unqualified to run for President of the USA. Whether, having run and won, he consequently qualified to be inaugurated is a different issue.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:05 am

You mean they've upgraded from Kenya to Satan's spawn? The next logical step would indeed be America, then.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:07 am

I'm not swallowing those theories but these people are going to some lengths to discredit the man, more than any other. It says more of them than of him.

What do they say of John McCain. Is he a natural born citizen. I'm not hearing the same chorus

Post by **spot** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:13 am

Snowfire;1353114 wrote: I'm not swallowing those theories but these people are going to some lengths to discredit the man, more than any other.That's on account of him being a muslim nigger democrat. There aren't any others who've had the goldurned uppity nerve to put their name forward. I'd quite like to discuss Lincoln in this context but people have avoided my suggestions. May I do it here?

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:27 am

spot;1353117 wrote: That's on account of him being a muslim nigger democrat. There aren't any others who've had the goldurned uppity nerve to put their name forward. I'd quite like to discuss Lincoln in this context but people have avoided my suggestions. May I do it here?

I'm sure it will mesh in seamlessly

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:34 am

Barack Obama may or not be a good president. That is certainly up for debate. The spiteful and destructive way in which, from my perspective, the Religous Right and the Tea Partiers in particular have conducted themselves while in opposition is disgraceful.

Presidential and political achievments are a fair target - fire away - so why the need for conspiracy. It just makes them look like fools surely

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:13 am

There seems to be only two ways of presenting oneself to the general public these days in order to achieve two Presidential terms as far as I can tell: 1) covertly manipulate the emotions of the electorate, or 2) overtly walk a tightrope.

Democrats tend to walk the tightrope while conservatives employ the use of security fears. After elections are over the President becomes just another person confronted with very difficult issues that require the assistance of advisors.

The problem democrats face after they are elected is they are perceived as lacking patriotism. What we've been witnessing is people trying to support that with this birther conspiracy and the Marxist label. The idea is to reinforce the suggestion he or she is unpatriotic.

The post election consequences republicans are faced with campaign wise is that it's thought they lack compassion. They're accused of favoring the rich over the rest.

Post by **spot** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:17 am

Snowfire;1353120 wrote: [quote=spot]I'd quite like to discuss Lincoln in this context but people have avoided my suggestions. May I do it here?I'm sure it will mesh in seamlessly[/QUOTE]I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.

I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people.

And I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.I'd quite like to focus particularly on "which I believe will for ever forbid", which takes it away from any context of contemporary practicality.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:23 am

spot;1353137 wrote: I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.

I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people.

And I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.I'd quite like to focus particularly on "which I believe will for ever forbid".

Certainly shocking by todays standards but could we not say that he was a product of his time. We've moved a million miles since then. Still a million more to go.

Do you think those words are as relevant today as when they were first spoken ?

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:24 am

This may help the discussion out.

Machiavellian intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The whole point of the campaign is simply to confuse. Nothing else.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:25 am

spot;1353137 wrote: I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.

I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people.

And I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.I'd quite like to focus particularly on "which I believe will for ever forbid", which takes it away from any context of contemporary practicality.

Sounds old fashioned, I'm sure.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:28 am

Scrat;1353139 wrote: This may help the discussion out.

Machiavellian intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The whole point of the campaign is simply to confuse. Nothing else.

Maybe "Chimpanzee Politics" has a more acurate ring to it

Post by **spot** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:59 am

Snowfire;1353138 wrote: Certainly shocking by todays standards but could we not say that he was a product of his time. We've moved a million miles since then. Still a million more to go.

Do you think those words are as relevant today as when they were first spoken ?

Evidently not, since so few people are aware he held such opinions. He's upheld as one of the greatest Presidents, he's idolized by American schoolchildren as a result of their indoctrination, he's memorialized as an aircraft carrier, a nuclear submarine and a huge marble edifice in the nation's capital. I think he's been sugarcoated and whitewashed for public consumption. Unlike Cromwell the image isn't allowed to display the original warts.

Lincoln's objection to slavery was, as best I can tell, that no white worker was able to raise his standard of living above that of slaves where slavery was legal, that slavery undercut the price white farmers could charge for the produce of their personal physical labour.

The abolition of slavery was, in his view, to result in the expulsion - or possibly voluntary expatriation - of all America's resident blacks into colonies beyond America's borders. Haiti and Central America were considered reasonable destinations, Lincoln's views would now be commonplace within the BNP. The notion of blacks as US citizens wasn't part of Lincoln's objective, the wartime Proclamation of abolition was a means of recruiting blacks into the Union army.

Post by **spot** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 10:37 am

Snowfire;1353114 wrote: I'm not swallowing those theories but these people are going to some lengths to discredit the man, more than any other. It says more of them than of him.I think it's worth asking who benefits. It made no difference as to whether he held US citizenship or not, he did that as an automatic right given a parent with US citizenship regardless of where in the world he was born. What possible reason would her relatives have in printing an announcement in two local papers that he'd been born in a local named Hawaian hospital, were it untrue? It makes very little sense to me. The one answer which holds no water at all is "so he could run for President".

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 10:58 am

spot;1353143 wrote: Evidently not, since so few people are aware he held such opinions. He's upheld as one of the greatest Presidents, he's idolized by American schoolchildren as a result of their indoctrination, he's memorialized as an aircraft carrier, a nuclear submarine and a huge marble edifice in the nation's capital. I think he's been sugarcoated and whitewashed for public consumption. Unlike Cromwell the image isn't allowed to display the original warts.

Lincoln's objection to slavery was, as best I can tell, that no white worker was able to raise his standard of living above that of slaves where slavery was legal, that slavery undercut the price white farmers could charge for the produce of their personal physical labour.

The abolition of slavery was, in his view, to result in the expulsion - or possibly voluntary expatriation - of all America's resident blacks into colonies beyond America's borders. Haiti and Central America were considered reasonable destinations, Lincoln's views would now be commonplace within the BNP. The notion of blacks as US citizens wasn't part of Lincoln's objective, the wartime Proclamation of abolition was a means of recruiting blacks into the Union army.

I think we're all guilty, to a degree, of looking at things through rose tinted glasses at events or people of the past. In the process of finding a hero, we have a tendency to overlook what we now regard as shameful and outragious attitudes. We do it ourselves with Churchill. Churchill's name is always mentioned with as much reverance as Lincoln's, regardless of his imperialist and racist outlook on the world and we get defensive when it is mentioned.

I'm certainly not defending the racism from either of them but I'm trying to explore what place they hold in peoples lives and the relevance they have in the context of their history.

As racist as he undoubtably was, I cant help but say "thank God for Churchill", purely because of his historical significance

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 3:23 pm

Anyone here have any clue as to where / how the birther issue got started?

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 3:31 pm

BaghdadBob;1353159 wrote: Anyone here have any clue as to where / how the birther issue got started?

Are you asking as someone looking for an answer or are you about to refresh us with your wit and wisdom ? I don't know the answer so hit me with the payload

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 3:50 pm

BaghdadBob;1353159 wrote: Anyone here have any clue as to where / how the birther issue got started?

*raises hand* OH, I do, I do.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 3:50 pm

spot;1353110 wrote: To believe the conspiracy involves accepting the following claims to be truths.

That Barack Obama's mother gave birth to him outside of Hawaii, on non-US soil (traditionally referred to as "Kenya"), and subsequently flew with him into Hawaii after his birth.

That her family put an inaccurate notice into two local papers announcing his birth at a local hospital and nobody at the hospital perked up and said that's not so.

That her family then registered the birth in Hawaii claiming the child was born on US soil.

If you can swallow those then Barack Obama, though a US citizen, was unqualified to run for President of the USA. Whether, having run and won, he consequently qualified to be inaugurated is a different issue.

So then he'll be producing his long form birth certificate any day now?

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 3:54 pm

Ahso!;1353162 wrote: *raises hand* OH, I do, I do.

Do tell!

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 3:56 pm

BaghdadBob;1353164 wrote: Do tell!Let's see ----- Hillary's campaign! ta-da!

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 4:01 pm

Ahso!;1353165 wrote: Let's see ----- Hillary's campaign! ta-da!

Yep! Give that man a Popsicle!

Done in none other than by Linda Starr of the party of personal destruction.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 4:02 pm

So Billy Bob. Are you one of the people that genuinely still believe that your president is not a true home born citizen. Where is your proof ?

What about John McCain. Surely he can't stand for the presidency ?

You'll have to hurry I can't hold my breath very long

Post by **spot** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 4:06 pm

BaghdadBob;1353163 wrote: So then he'll be producing his long form birth certificate any day now?

I'd be very much surprised if he did.

Do try to answer my earlier question though, I've no idea how you'd do it and I'm interested:I think it's worth asking who benefits. It made no difference as to whether he held US citizenship or not, he did that as an automatic right given a parent with US citizenship regardless of where in the world he was born. What possible reason would her relatives have in printing an announcement in two local papers that he'd been born in a local named Hawaiian hospital, were it untrue? It makes very little sense to me. The one answer which holds no water at all is "so he could run for President".

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 4:21 pm

spot;1353169 wrote: I'd be very much surprised if he did.

Do try to answer my earlier question though, I've no idea how you'd do it and I'm interested:I think it's worth asking who benefits. It made no difference as to whether he held US citizenship or not, he did that as an automatic right given a parent with US citizenship regardless of where in the world he was born. What possible reason would her relatives have in printing an announcement in two local papers that he'd been born in a local named Hawaiian hospital, were it untrue? It makes very little sense to me. The one answer which holds no water at all is "so he could run for President".

Sorry, no can answer.

The premise is false.

Try again.

Post by **spot** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 4:30 pm

BaghdadBob;1353170 wrote: Sorry, no can answer.

The premise is false.

Try again.

It's a reasonable question. It makes no difference to the outcome, which is predetermined - the chap's in the White House and no judge is going to either throw him out or refuse to allow him to run next time either. I do think my question's interesting though, it's a pity you won't give it notice.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 4:42 pm

spot;1353171 wrote: It's a reasonable question. It makes no difference to the outcome, which is predetermined - the chap's in the White House and no judge is going to either throw him out or refuse to allow him to run next time either. I do think my question's interesting though, it's a pity you won't give it notice.

As there are exceptions to every rule, just because you're born of a natural born citizen does not afford you the rights of citizenship. That's one of the legs under the birther argument. More precisely, because of his mom's age at his birth he was not 'automatically' a US citizen. Furthermore, this right of citizenship is relatively recent and is not based on SCOTUS decisions going back over 150 years. Constitutionally, you must be a 'natural born citizen' to be prez and our courts have ruled multiple times that part of being a natural citizen is that both parents are citizens.

Sorry, I'd like to stay and play some more but business calls.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 5:04 pm

That's not what Spot has asked, Bob. You may want to read it again. His question is aimed directly at the heart of the real issue.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:43 pm

Looks like Hawaii is cashing in on the silliness. If the new bill passes, anyone can order a copy of the official birth certificate directly from the state.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/28/us/po ... .html?_r=1

Post by **spot** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:51 am

yaaarrrgg;1353188 wrote: Looks like Hawaii is cashing in on the silliness. If the new bill passes, anyone can order a copy of the official birth certificate directly from the state.I have a convenient space for a frame above my low-level cistern. A4, is it?

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 4:15 am

yaaarrrgg;1353188 wrote: Looks like Hawaii is cashing in on the silliness. If the new bill passes, anyone can order a copy of the official birth certificate directly from the state.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/28/us/po ... .html?_r=1

What is this 'silliness' you speak of?

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:42 am

BaghdadBob;1353200 wrote: What is this 'silliness' you speak of?

The campaign released a birth certificate to the public, it was certified by the election commitee, and he was elected. His birth certificate looks about the same as mine does.

The issue has already been settled for everyone who doesn't have an irrational hatred of the man.

What the issue reeks of now, is unadulterated racism. Saying he's not "natural born" or "American enough" sounds like a more abstract way of saying he's not "white born" and "white enough" to my ear.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:43 am

spot;1353196 wrote: I have a convenient space for a frame above my low-level cistern. A4, is it?

Not sure... I hadn't heard if the law passed yet or not. Hopefully it does, but I'm sure the conspiracy theorists will just expand the scope of "the conspiracy."

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 9:17 am

yaaarrrgg;1353208 wrote: The campaign released a birth certificate to the public, it was certified by the election commitee, and he was elected. His birth certificate looks about the same as mine does.

:yh_rotfl

The Certificate of Live Birth is NOT a long form Birth Certificate.

You could not use your copy of COLB to get a drivers license or a passport in this country.

Prior to becoming a state and for a few years afterward including the year the messiah was born, the State of HI would give to anyone willing to domicile there a COLB as a manner of increasing the population base for statehood.

The new donk governor of HI, Gov Abercrombie, made it a part of his campaign to find and authenticate the messiah's birth certificate. He failed! :wah: Oops!

Search the Honolulu Star for articles from last month.

Do you have any idea why obomba has spent north of $2mm (purportedly) to restrict access to his birth certificate, college records, etc.? Does that make any sense to you?

Just what did the donks use to certify his eligibility for the presidency? There are also rumors that pelosi signed a weaselly worded certification.

Why all this secrecy from the 'most transparent administration in history'? :wah:

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 9:51 am

BaghdadBob;1353218 wrote: :yh_rotfl

The Certificate of Live Birth is NOT a long form Birth Certificate.

You could not use your copy of COLB to get a drivers license or a passport in this country.

Prior to becoming a state and for a few years afterward including the year the messiah was born, the State of HI would give to anyone willing to domicile there a COLB as a manner of increasing the population base for statehood.

The new donk governor of HI, Gov Abercrombie, made it a part of his campaign to find and authenticate the messiah's birth certificate. He failed! :wah: Oops!

Search the Honolulu Star for articles from last month.

Do you have any idea why obomba has spent north of $2mm (purportedly) to restrict access to his birth certificate, college records, etc.? Does that make any sense to you?

Just what did the donks use to certify his eligibility for the presidency? There are also rumors that pelosi signed a weaselly worded certification.

Why all this secrecy from the 'most transparent administration in history'? :wah:Seriously, Baghda, now you're beginning to sound foolish. The fact is that every president hires attorneys to represent them from legal assaults. What the birther people have done is take an example of a law firm Obama has hired, found out how much he's paid them to date to fend off superfluous birther actions, and redefine that as spending money to "restrict access to his birth certificate records." Stop playing the victim of the big, bad, black Kenyan president. Why anyone would lend their credibility to such nonsense is beyond me, but lend you have.

Incidentally, simply because I have only focused on this part of your post doesn't mean I agree with any other portion of it. I have better things, other than moronic conspiracy theories about the "boy" in the White House, to think about.

Find something useful to obsess over, Bob.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 12:33 pm

yaaarrrgg;1353208 wrote: The campaign released a birth certificate to the public, it was certified by the election commitee, and he was elected. His birth certificate looks about the same as mine does.

The issue has already been settled for everyone who doesn't have an irrational hatred of the man.

What the issue reeks of now, is unadulterated racism. Saying he's not "natural born" or "American enough" sounds like a more abstract way of saying he's not "white born" and "white enough" to my ear.

Thats exactly my take on the issue - and pretty much most people's view. Its why I asked the question

Where's the chorus for John Mccain ?

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 4:42 pm

Snowfire;1353233 wrote: Thats exactly my take on the issue - and pretty much most people's view. Its why I asked the question

Where's the chorus for John Mccain ?

Yeah, he was definitely born in Panama. The political strategy seems to be: stay on the attack, and attack an opponent with one's own weakness.

For example: The candidate Bush dodged the Vietnam war? No problem, just attack the opponent Kerry over his Vietnam service. The candidate Bush allowed one of the worst terrorist attacks to happen on U.S. soil under his (vacation) watch? That's easy, attack the opponent Kerry for endangering America and planning to allow the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil. The candidate Bush lost the popular vote and had to be installed by the Supreme Court? Attack the legitimacy of the next president, who actually won the majority popular vote. The candidate McCain was not born in the U.S.? Attack the opponent Obama for not being born in the U.S.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:27 pm

Wouldn't it be some sort of justice if it were a fact that some other power had manipulated the President of the United States into office for their own ends ?

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Wed Feb 09, 2011 5:08 am

yaaarrrgg;1353270 wrote: Yeah, he was definitely born in Panama. The political strategy seems to be: stay on the attack, and attack an opponent with one's own weakness.

For example: The candidate Bush dodged the Vietnam war? No problem, just attack the opponent Kerry over his Vietnam service. The candidate Bush allowed one of the worst terrorist attacks to happen on U.S. soil under his (vacation) watch? That's easy, attack the opponent Kerry for endangering America and planning to allow the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil. The candidate Bush lost the popular vote and had to be installed by the Supreme Court? Attack the legitimacy of the next president, who actually won the majority popular vote. The candidate McCain was not born in the U.S.? Attack the opponent Obama for not being born in the U.S.

That's a very good post.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Feb 09, 2011 6:43 am

*said in my best Jimmy Durante* "He's got a million of em. Hachachachacha"

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Wed Feb 09, 2011 7:13 am

yaaarrrgg;1353270 wrote: Yeah, he was definitely born in Panama. The political strategy seems to be: stay on the attack, and attack an opponent with one's own weakness.

For example: The candidate Bush dodged the Vietnam war? No problem, just attack the opponent Kerry over his Vietnam service. Bush allowed one ofThe candidate the worst terrorist attacks to happen on U.S. soil under his (vacation) watch? That's easy, attack the opponent Kerry for endangering America and planning to allow the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil. The candidate Bush lost the popular vote and had to be installed by the Supreme Court? Attack the legitimacy of the next president, who actually won the majority popular vote. The candidate McCain was not born in the U.S.? Attack the opponent Obama for not being born in the U.S.

That's a very good post

Not really.

Here's the truth:

Yeah, he was definitely born in Panama.

McCain was born on a US military base to two US citizens. That'll pass muster by any constitutional challenge or we'll be telling our service people that if your kid is born on a base outside the US they can't become prez.

For example: The candidate Bush dodged the Vietnam war?

False.

No problem, just attack the opponent Kerry over his Vietnam service.

Kerry was attacked by guys he served with over the blantant lies Kerry was telling about his time in Nam.

Bush allowed one ofThe candidate the worst terrorist attacks to happen on U.S. soil under his (vacation) watch? That's easy, attack the opponent Kerry for endangering America and planning to allow the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

Geez. :yh_ttth

Maybe if Clinton had acted...

Erwa claims that he offered to hand bin Laden over to the United States. Key American players – President Bill Clinton, then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and Director of Counterterrorism Richard Clarke among them – have testified there were no "credible offers" to hand over bin Laden. The 9/11 Commission found "no credible evidence" that Erwa had ever made such an offer. On the other hand, Lawrence Wright, in his Pulitzer Prize-winning "The Looming Tower," flatly states that Sudan did make such an offer. Wright bases his judgment on an interview with Erwa and notes that those who most prominently deny Erwa's claims were not in fact present for the meeting.

From Factcheck.org

The candidate Bush lost the popular vote and had to be installed by the Supreme Court?

All parties knew the ground rules for the election going in.

The SCOTUS DID NOT in fact award an election to Bush.

The fact is that Dubya WON the Florida popular vote and thus the electors.

Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.

The candidate McCain was not born in the U.S.? Attack the opponent Obama for not being born in the U.S.

If you think obummer was born in the USA by two parents that were US citizens, prove it.

BTW, I tried to use known leftwing sites for references in case you have any problems with the facts.

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

~ Ronald Reagan

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Feb 09, 2011 7:29 am

Bob, that is now two posts from two different people (Spot and yaaarrrgg) which you seem to not understand in the slightest. You appear to have a very narrow perspective. The only help anyone can offer is to encourage you to revisit both posts at a later time and see if that makes any difference.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Wed Feb 09, 2011 7:40 am

Ahso!;1353308 wrote: Bob, that is now two posts from two different people (Spot and yaaarrrgg) which you seem to not understand in the slightest. You appear to have a very narrow perspective. The only help anyone can offer is to encourage you to revisit both posts at a later time and see if that makes any difference.

Y'all are the same to me.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Wed Feb 09, 2011 7:51 am

Attention all believers! Please put on your blinders!

There has been an official shift in the messiah's history:

What Boyles believes -- and I think he's right -- is that Team Obama is preparing the media for a shift in the official Obama saga. To this point, the core of the Obama origins story has been that he and parents lived together as a family in Hawaii until Obama was two.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Feb 09, 2011 8:00 am

BaghdadBob;1353309 wrote: Y'all are the same to me.And what exactly does that mean, if I may inquire?

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Wed Feb 09, 2011 8:20 am

Ahso!;1353311 wrote: And what exactly does that mean, if I may inquire?

You may inquire but I'm not going to answer. I answered directly yaaarrrgg's post with a quote. For some reason you have to find fault with it and go off topic. If your question is do I understand liberish, the answer is no.

Please try to stay on topic.

Did you see the post about the messiah's changing history? Got any comments on that since it's related to the thread topic?

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Wed Feb 09, 2011 9:42 am

Bob, nowhere in the NYTimes article, which examines the natural-born citizen issue in detail, does it say that the requirements by law are that the mother and father must be US citizens for the candidate to be "natural born". This seems to be something that was attached as an addendum once it was realised that maybe Obama was born in Hawai after all. Those words written in 1787 didn't quite cover all avenues

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Wed Feb 09, 2011 10:14 am

Snowfire;1353318 wrote: Bob, nowhere in the NYTimes article, which examines the natural-born citizen issue in detail, does it say that the requirements by law are that the mother and father must be US citizens for the candidate to be "natural born". This seems to be something that was attached as an addendum once it was realised that maybe Obama was born in Hawai after all. Those words written in 1787 didn't quite cover all avenues

I understand the confusion as it's about term 'natural born' and about the singular or plural (not that it would matter in obomba's case as by statutes in force at that time concerning his mothers age at his birth would have precluded her bestowing the moniker of NBC upon him singularly).

Here is some background on the subject. Note carefully the conclusion drawn and thank you! for the fine interrogatory.

CONCLUSION

Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfil his constitutional duties accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully, because unconstitutionally.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Wed Feb 09, 2011 10:19 am

To broaden the argument about this subject, the birthers are not a sole issue group.

Many question his legal name being Barrack Obama or Barry Soetoro, and his citizenship thru renunciation by his mom in Indonesia, or if the father named on the BC was not Frank Marshall Davis, among others questions.