My family is full of birthers. Help?

Hawaii's state health director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the most qualified person in the world to release a Hawaiian birth certificate, says it's real. Do you have more credentials than Hawaii's state health director? Or Hawaii's Governor? Or every other rational person who says it's real?

 

but we know it isn't a phony

- - - Updated - - -

but we know it isn't a phony

 

Yes, it was a real copy of a phony BC. You non-birthers are a hoot!

 

Birthers like Truthers ignore the reality to keep a hold on their own fantasy. It is sad and we should treat them like someone who is mentally ill.

 

Unfortunately, we have to put up with all of these psychiatric patients using shared computers in their institutions. We can't always cure crazy, so there will always be birthers.

 

While that makes for great political strategy, is that really the kind of person you want to be? And how exactly do you treat the mentally ill?

 

Are you relying only on Arpio's forensic examiner's report? Have you read anything from other forensic examiners?

 

What about Minor v. Happersett? There's a clear definition, by the Supreme Court. Also, are you aware of Justia-gate, and how it relates to Minor?

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/minor-v-happersett-revisited-2/

 

…the only time the US Supreme Court ever did define the class of persons who were POTUS eligible under Article 2 Section 1 was in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), wherein it was held:
from the link above:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

 

WASHINGTON—According to a poll released Tuesday, nearly 20 percent of U.S. citizens now believe Barack Obama is a cactus, the most Americans to identify the president as a water- retaining desert plant since he took office.

A growing segment of the population believes the president is pollinated by moths and hummingbirds.

The poll, conducted by the Pew Research Center, found a sharp rise in the number of Americans who say they firmly believe Obama was either born a cactus, became a cactus during his youth, or has questionable links to the Cactaceae family.

"We asked people of varying races, ages, and backgrounds the same question: 'What is President Barack Obama?'" Pew spokeswoman Jodi Miller told reporters. "And a fifth of them responded, 'A cactus.'"

According to the poll, Obama has lost favor among many voters who supported his candidacy in 2008 but have since come to doubt he is a mammal. While these Americans concede Obama may not specifically be a cactus, most believe he is a plant of some kind, with 18 percent saying the president is a ficus, 37 percent believing him to be a grain such as wheat or millet, and 12 percent convinced he is an old-growth forest in Northern California.

When asked why they agreed with the statement "President Obama is a large succulent plant composed of specialized cells designed for water retention in arid climates," many responded that they "just know," claiming the president only acts like a human being for political purposes and is truly a cactus at heart.

A number of polled Americans identified the above as a photo of President Obama.

White House officials have asserted that the nation's 44th president is a person.

"You can't go a day without hearing how Obama's a radical cactus sympathizer who wants to sap America of all its drinking water, or how he was actually born in the Kalahari Desert," said media critic Lynn Pelmont, referring to cable news outlets that suggest the president has prickly spines he uses to protect himself from thirsty animals. "For a man who prides himself on delivering a coherent message, there's an awful lot of confusion out there about whether he's a Harvard Law graduate or a leafless flowering shrub."

"He must speak frankly to the American people about his mammalian background," Pelmont added. "If not, it's only a matter of time before people start believing those fringe bloggers who claim the president of the United States is actually an old washing machine."

Some Beltway observers have accused Republicans of tacitly encouraging the cactus rumor, pointing out that if millions of voters believe Obama produces buds through spirally arranged areoles situated along his stem, the GOP has a much better chance of retaking Congress in November.

"If the president says he is a human being, I'll take him at his word," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Sunday on Meet the Press. "Though I've never heard him complain about being thirsty. Not once. That could be a coincidence, I suppose, but it's really not my place to say."

During a Wednesday morning briefing, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs once again denied that President Obama is a cactus, citing numerous physiological attributes of the nation's chief executive, including his ability to walk upright and to manipulate objects with his opposable thumbs.

"Cacti don't talk," said Gibbs, shaking his head. "They just don't."

President Barack Hussein Obama was born Aug. 4, 1961 in Honolulu, HI to parents Ann Dunham and Barack Obama, Sr. From the ages of 6 to 10 he lived with his mother and stepfather in Indonesia, where he attended Besuki Public School and St. Francis of Assisi Catholic School. In 1971, Obama returned to Hawaii, where he was raised primarily by his grandmother until he left home to attend Occidental College in Los Angeles.

"I don't care what he says or what his people say or what anybody else says," 48-year-old Kansas resident Jake Nolan told reporters. "The guy's a cactus, plain and simple. I mean, Christ, look at him."

http://www.theonion.com/articles/poll-1-in-5-americans-believe-obama-is-a-cactus,18127/

 

Whew, glad I was right..........just because a lot of people think the same thing........doesnt mean someone is wrong.

 

minor v happersett has nothing to do with natural born citizen. it specifically stated they weren't addressing that issue. it is completely irrelevant. The controlling precedent is US v Wong Kim Ark as cited in the Obama case in Ankeny v Daniels.

- - - Updated - - -

no. they specifically did not address the issue in that case.

 

I'm just going with the prevailing explanation from the tin foil crowd. If you have an alternative theory for why the current President isn't a natural born citizen I'm sure a good laugh could be had by all. Let me grab the popcorn first.

Couldn't agree more, I'd prefer to be hassled by Jehovah Witnesses than fervent fedora wearing atheists.

Doctrines? None.

During worship service? Several that I've attended, anti-intellectualism and an irrational rejection of proven theories is a theme in many southern churches of several Christian denominations (I don't have experience with churches outside of my region).

 

Oddly enough, this has as much credibility as the birther blather. And you know, he's never denied being a cactus so for all we know he is... maybe even a Kenyan Nazi Cactus. Yea... that sounds about right.

 

I honestly don't remember, but I have read enough to believe I am correct. How the words are parsed by the Hawaii officials is important also.

 

no words were parsed. they stated unequivocally that he was born in Hawaii and his birth certificate is authentic.

 

Indeed she does, but that is of no moment, since the applicable HRS provisions granted her no discretionary authority to deny a qualified applicant a certified copy of the original document.

You are more than welcome to try to square that claim with the 3/5 and fugitive slave clauses.

Not really.

The opinion goes on to say, "Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first." IOW, the author left open the possibility that children born to foreigners in the country of birth were NBC's under common law; so to call the dictum you quoted in Minor a definition of natural born citizenship is incorrect.

 

That possibility never occurs to Birthers.

 

Before we talk about Minor- why not address my post?

What all those quotes demonstrate is just what I learned- and what virtually all Americans grew up learning.

That anyone born in the United States can aspire to be President of the United States.

This has been one of the essential promises of America- and it was taught to me by my conservative Civics teacher over 30 years ago

One of the reasons that this whole two citizen parent idea has always seemed fairly odd, and has never caught on is because all of us grew up knowing who is a natural born citizen- we all learn it growing up.

What did you learn growing up? When did you start thinking that a natural born citizen needed a male citizen father? And why do you think that you understand this better than everyone else?

 

That's a lie! P-K-B Alert!

 

LOL- it is so very true. What has been the largest Birther event? I think maybe 12 people? Birtherism is considered a nutball movement by most Americans- and as the other poster so aptly put it- if everyone else believes something different than what you do- maybe you should consider the possibility that they are right and you are wrong.

 

His mother was an American citizen at the time of hid birth, that gave 0bama his birth right to US citizenship, and that's it.

 

Questioning The Blamers BC after he magically produced it directly after his 3 million dollar taxpayer funded Hawaiian vacation is a nutball movement? I think not. He may be legally American - he may not. But this is more than coincidence imo. Why not produce the college transcripts where records show him as foreign exchange student Barry Soetoro? I also have never known an American with the name Hussein as part of their name. They may be out there, just never met such a person. I do believe it merits discussion beyond your so-called nutball movement.

 

What are you talking about? Barack Obama first showed voters a copy of his legal birth certificate in 2008. The State of Hawaii confirmed it was valid in 2008 and 2009. But Birthers whined and whined about it. Voters ignored Birthers.

In 2011 Donald Trump went further Birther and claimed that there was no original BC. So President Obama ask the State of Hawaii to make an exception to their policies, and send him a photocopy of the original- which they did, and President Obama showed it to reporters and to America. And die hard Birthers still don't believe it. Even the state of Hawaii has confirmed it multiple, multiple times.

Birthers may or may not be sleeper agents put here by Iran.

Why would the President produce something that doesn't exist? Just a lie by the Birthers.

Well that is pretty much the rational of the Birthers right there. "he is named Hussein".

 

The proofs of Obamas citizenship could fit in a matchbox. And even then are copies of other documents of cloudy sources.
One would assume that when someone mocks the birthers that they would logically include the irrefutable proofs of Obamas citizenship along with the accusation!
Only to the extent that you provide such proofs of Obamas citizenship does your accusation against the birthers have validity. You want it both ways.
Just on the face of things Obama waited 2 years AFTER taking office to provide a long form BC. Even then it was in PDF format that had been modified on a computer.

Respectfully,