Birthers try to ban Obama from the ballot in 2012

**justicar5** · February 05, 2011, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by Simon Cashmere

[/SPOILER]

See, that the certificate is certified by an MD, who certifies, the person was born before them at the place and time stated. The certificate is placed on file. It is still on file. But Obama (if he has one) has never released his.
.

it's all and islamo-facist-communist-black-socialist conspiracy right?
To steal america from the god fearing race-crusaders who are the only true hauman beings descended from the Thulean Master race of Warrior-Christ, the slaughterer of untermenschen

Originally Posted by Simon Cashmere

I learnt to read before I went to kindergarten, in fact I learnt a lot more later on about what can be proved by legal documents. Do you know what prima facie means?

Did you know that you can file and register a birth in Hawaii, 'late'? Did you know that Barack Obama changed his name legally to Barry Soetoro? Did the birth certificate change that back? Did it always stay the same?

The burden of proving that a person is entitled to run for President, is not onerous. It just means producing the original birth certificate. Obama does not want to do so, and he should, as should all candidates.

All of this is really, really bizarre. If I were the politician, I'd produce the thing, unless, I thought that what I was hiding was worth the heat.

unlkess AS HAS BEEN STATED A THOUSAND TIMES: the originals have been detroyed...by Hawaii!

**Ramashan** · February 05, 2011, 11:23 AM

@ Simon Cashmere:

First of all, I've posted the research I did on this from a debate from back during the election. Read it. Regardless of the birth certificate, his mother passes muster as a citizen therefor Obama passes the Congresses definition of 'natural born citizen' and since the Constitution clearly states that Congress shall determine the definition of what a natural born citizen is, we must accept that Obama is one.

Secondly, lets go a little hypathetical here. Lets says that a read birth certificate was made but it was destroyed some how, in a fire, lost, water damage, etc. According to your logic, that person may never run for officer nor prove their citizenship period. They are ever in a state of flux.

The official print out from the state of Hawaii clearly states that it is to be seen as a legal document in the court of law. If you can not accept this, then I guess any government document that is not an original is null.

As i said in the other thread, if Hawaii some how dug up this ratty looking piece of paper that was a birth certificate, it would not be accepted. It was be cut up, tested, proven to be a fake because the make of the ink doesn't match the recorded formula its supposed to. SCOTUS, The Fed, most courts, and Hawaii all see it as legally binding.

**Matthias** · February 05, 2011, 01:24 PM

Opinion polls are like consumer studies in the manner they are conducted. A phone call survey of a group of residents is not an accurate form of representation of American political attitudes. An example of a more accurate form is the polling done before elections.

Again, CNN's job is to report news, not conduct accurate scientific research. They will do a quick survey that takes a week or two to gather and post a story on it. That's standard procedure and its the exact same for FOX and the other biased news channels.

CNN can and does do scientific polls. It's not like it's a secret art that a major news organization cannot finance.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

The link you provide doesn't say what "area" they called. I assume the area included the whole US, but the link does not say. The fact of the matter is though, those numbers correspond very well to what national polls have been showing for a while now in terms of who identifies as what, so it seems it was nationwide calling.

You did see that only 320 or so of the callers were Democrats as well? 35 more Democrats or so? The vast majority idenfitied as independant, which is pretty usual to say the least. A lot of liberals don't identify as Democrat, and I'm sure the same could be said of many conservatives and Republicans. But still, not really surprising that those who identify as Republican feel that way. I mean, a major news network, FOX, has had quite a few guests that question Obama's citizenship all the time, not to mention some show hosts. And Republican congresspeople have tried to push bills through demanding the "real" birth certificate. All this shows that such a viewpoint is rather "mainstream" at least within conservative and Republican circles. And so this poll shouldn't surprise anyone.

So why go around crusading this as an accurate representation of GOP attitudes? You can't take polls like these conducted by news agencies at face value on American politics. It's the same reason I don't take polls are face value about Europeans. I only listen to stronger sources with a larger area of research.

Well, I agree one should be critical of polls, but nothing about this poll makes me doubt its accuracy that much. No poll is perfect; this one has a margin of error of +/- 3%. But it can give an accurate overall view. That's why I wouldn't say it's a "fact", but that it's probably quite accurate and that the numbers are around there.

If 31% of Americans did not know who Cheney was, how could that number miraculously jump with the Obama/Biden campaign? It's simple, neither number was accurate.

Off the top of my head, Biden has only been VP for 2 years, so less time for people to know who their VP is.

Here's further information about the dispute over opinion polls, scroll down to the sections which discuss it.

I am well aware of all the potential pitfalls polling firms can encounter. It doesn't mean that they cannot or are not useful and accurate when done right.

If you give me a poll that has much larger test fields, in much of the states, and conducted in a written or voting poll, and conducted by a reputable polling agency that do not have a reputation of bias, I'd be more open to its findings. I'm not just attacking yours because I'm defending conservativism.

Good examples of polling groups in the US are Gallup, Harris, NORC, Pew, Rasmussen, etc. Note that the US government does not even hardly utilize information taken from polls conducted by news agencies in elections, as shown in this recent 2010 midterms and in 2008.

Rasmussen has been proven to have quite a consistent bias actually, that is, when they are wrong, they are wrong in one direction, showing Republicans more favorable overall. And even then, their polls are *fairly* accurate, though not as accurate as others. And this list shows that CNN polls are pretty darn accurate.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/searc...ster%20ratings

As for all the polls you listed, none of them have done a poll on this specifically, but Pew did do a poll asking a different question that is interesting:

http://washingtonindependent.com/540...as-citizenship

Hmm, 39% don't think it is being covered enough? Pew, the reputable poll, right? Seems like it confirms the CNN poll IMHO. Why, we have birthers on here whose complaint is that the liberal media isn't covering this "issue" enough. I don't know about you, but if you don't think this is being covered enough, you probably have doubts about Obama's birthplace.

It's not just a matter of my opinion on Americans, it's a firm rejection disreputable sources. Your own links do not have multiple sources or any information from other agencies and are unconfirmed data conducted by a minor phone survey. Calling 285 Republicans in a given area simply does not represent the broad range of differing conservative attitudes in a large country like the US. On top of this, CNN has never been a reputable polling source, the ones I listed above, and those discussed in the Wiki article, are examples of reputable sources.

I would be more open to the information listed by a larger, more fact based agency than frickin CNN. That's about as accurate as me listing a poll by Fox on Democratic attitudes. Wouldn't you jump on me for doing that?

CNN polls are not known for their bias like Fox news polls have been, and CNN actually rates pretty well, so there is a difference. It seems that the CNN poll was nationwide calling, so why you keep bringing up this "area" issue, I don't know. In this link, it is described as a "national" poll, not one state or one area:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...s-born-in-u-s/

**Admiral Piett** · February 05, 2011, 10:33 PM

Originally Posted by Matthias

CNN can and does do scientific polls. It's not like it's a secret art that a major news organization cannot finance.

It's not that they can't do it, its just that their primary role is to be a news organization and run a story based on basically running a quick survery and going with it. CNN is not known for being fair nor balanced in the US. That's what I'm trying to say. They blatantly admit a liberal bias. On top of this like I say, I don't ever take information collected by phone surveys as being accurate simply for the reason that its an inaccurate method of testing. It's very easy to phone people from a certain district and claim that it is representative of the nation.

This article and this shows some of the examples of its inherent weakness.

The link you provide doesn't say what "area" they called. I assume the area included the whole US, but the link does not say. The fact of the matter is though, those numbers correspond very well to what national polls have been showing for a while now in terms of who identifies as what, so it seems it was nationwide calling.

That's just the thing, you can't assume that they made diligent call efforts in their polling. On top of this, this is going to vary from region to region. That's why I think there should be a more concentrated effort for accurate representation. I honestly don't know a single person that has been polled by an agency.

You did see that only 320 or so of the callers were Democrats as well? 35 more Democrats or so? The vast majority idenfitied as independant, which is pretty usual to say the least. A lot of liberals don't identify as Democrat, and I'm sure the same could be said of many conservatives and Republicans. But still, not really surprising that those who identify as Republican feel that way. I mean, a major news network, FOX, has had quite a few guests that question Obama's citizenship all the time, not to mention some show hosts. And Republican congresspeople have tried to push bills through demanding the "real" birth certificate. All this shows that such a viewpoint is rather "mainstream" at least within conservative and Republican circles. And so this poll shouldn't surprise anyone.

Those numbers alone are an inaccurate test group representing the US. First off, most polling shows that Americans identify themselves as conservative. By an overwhelming margin. Second, about 31% of Americans identify themselves as Democrat and 29% as Republican. And this number varies greatly from state to state. By proxy also, the birther movement is largely different from state to state as well. Other polls done confirm this.

A quick google search of 'percentage of americans birthers' by me shows polling yeilding results wildly from 8% to 29% of Americans being birther and a similar differing result with Republicans being birther.

Well, I agree one should be critical of polls, but nothing about this poll makes me doubt its accuracy that much. No poll is perfect; this one has a margin of error of +/- 3%. But it can give an accurate overall view. That's why I wouldn't say it's a "fact", but that it's probably quite accurate and that the numbers are around there.

Well there's also the fact that the poll does differentiate between the people that are unsure and the people that claim to know for sure that he's unamerican. The birthers likely represent the latter.

Off the top of my head, Biden has only been VP for 2 years, so less time for people to know who their VP is.

That's half his term in office and this was the most televised campaign in history. Obama was very popular in the campaign and there lots of Obama/Biden stickers. I don't buy that the number is as high as the 30s, maybe the 20s would be a little more believable.

I am well aware of all the potential pitfalls polling firms can encounter. It doesn't mean that they cannot or are not useful and accurate when done right.

CNN took their numbers and ran an inaccurate story off of the numbers.

Rasmussen has been proven to have quite a consistent bias actually, that is, when they are wrong, they are wrong in one direction, showing Republicans more favorable overall. And even then, their polls are *fairly* accurate, though not as accurate as others. And this list shows that CNN polls are pretty darn accurate.

That's why I gave more than one example.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/searc...ster%20ratings

Yeah, I read the source last time, but I forgot to make a point about it.

Note that CNN is not even in the top 20 in terms of accuracy. Even Rasmussen is rated higher.

As for all the polls you listed, none of them have done a poll on this specifically, but Pew did do a poll asking a different question that is interesting:

http://washingtonindependent.com/540...as-citizenship

Hmm, 39% don't think it is being covered enough? Pew, the reputable poll, right? Seems like it confirms the CNN poll IMHO. Why, we have birthers on here whose complaint is that the liberal media isn't covering this "issue" enough. I don't know about you, but if you don't think this is being covered enough, you probably have doubts about Obama's birthplace.

However, thats inferred information. The CNN poll was actually better in this regard because it discerned the difference between those that are unsure or doubt his citizenship between those that are 100% convinced that he isn't. The birthers are, more than likely, a combination of the two, and somewhere in the middle.

But that is a good find, thanks for posting that. That is more dependable information.

CNN polls are not known for their bias like Fox news polls have been, and CNN actually rates pretty well, so there is a difference. It seems that the CNN poll was nationwide calling, so why you keep bringing up this "area" issue, I don't know. In this link, it is described as a "national" poll, not one state or one area:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...s-born-in-u-s/

As shown by your previous source, they indeed are known for fudging the facts. Although they are better than Fox and MSNBC, they do still fudge numbers from time to time.

**antaeus** · February 06, 2011, 01:36 AM

Originally Posted by Simon Cashmere

The citizens wouldn't have a clue.

The judiciary in every state huh? You took a survey of all judges in 50 states, the Federal and State Courts and they all said, we agree with you Lord Antaeus? I admire your diligence. Even if that were so (which is unlikely) it doesn't mean they are correct. That's why they get reversed on appeal, sometimes.

i like the way you hassle me for claiming to know the minds of all judges (when in fact i simply said that no judges in courts where your theory has been tested agree with you)... then in the same breath you claim to know the minds of all 300 odd million americans.

your comprehensive ability improves with your post count.. go you.

i predict you'll win this argument. because everyone else will get tired and go away.

**Simon Cashmere** · February 07, 2011, 12:07 AM

Originally Posted by justicar5

unlkess AS HAS BEEN STATED A THOUSAND TIMES: the originals have been detroyed...by Hawaii!

A thousand times huh? Really.

Well how is it that Dr Chiyome Fukin says that she has seen these original records if they were destroyed? Why can't the American people see them?

I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...a-hawaii_N.htm

Did she view them before they were destroyed? Or after? Are you sure about this destroyed thing that was stated 1000 TIMES!!!!? Or would you like to withdraw that.

**Gaidin** · February 07, 2011, 08:00 AM

Good to see he can't refute my point.

**justicar5** · February 07, 2011, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by Simon Cashmere

A thousand times huh? Really.

Well how is it that Dr Chiyome Fukin says that she has seen these original records if they were destroyed? Why can't the American people see them?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...a-hawaii_N.htm

Did she view them before they were destroyed? Or after? Are you sure about this destroyed thing that was stated 1000 TIMES!!!!? Or would you like to withdraw that.

I wiull withdraw my perfectly valid point as sooon as you cease and desist your islamophobic and racist conspiracy theories and general tin-foil hat wearing. Would you care this much if he was a white republican? I know you would not.

**Simon Cashmere** · February 07, 2011, 11:56 PM

Originally Posted by justicar5

I wiull withdraw my perfectly valid point as sooon as you cease and desist your islamophobic and racist conspiracy theories and general tin-foil hat wearing.

You can't have it both ways. Either:

(a) the records are there and the Hawaiin authorities have seen them; OR,

(b) the records were destroyed as you say, and nobody can see them.

It can't be that the records have been seen and simultaneously cannot be seen because they are destroyed.

Seems to me, that whatever records are there, everyone should see as a matter in the public interest.

Would you care this much if he was a white republican? I know you would not.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

This racism cliche whenever anyone disagrees with you is a bit tired. Not sure where the Islamophobic thing comes from, I thought Obamamessiah wasn't a muslim? I didn't say he was, are you?

**PoleCat** · February 08, 2011, 01:04 AM

Simon, at this point you're doing nothing more than tilting at windmills. The fact stands that the Election Boards of all 50 states accepted Obamas birth certificate as enough proof of Citizenship. We've also already established that his mother was a Citizen of the US at the time of his birth - therefore so was he by law. There is no Federal law that mandates that the magical "Long Form" birth certificate be shown as a requirement for eligibility to higher office.

What point are you trying to make? You keep changing the argument so it's difficult to know exactly what you want....

**Simon Cashmere** · February 08, 2011, 01:36 AM

Originally Posted by PoleCat

Simon, at this point you're doing nothing more than tilting at windmills. The fact stands that the Election Boards of all 50 states accepted Obamas birth certificate as enough proof of Citizenship. We've also already established that his mother was a Citizen of the US at the time of his birth - therefore so was he by law. There is no Federal law that mandates that the magical "Long Form" birth certificate be shown as a requirement for eligibility to higher office.

What point are you trying to make? You keep changing the argument so it's difficult to know exactly what you want....

It's not citizenship which is important, but natural born citizenship. No is saying he is not a citizen, leastways I am not.

A birth certificate can be acquired from late registration, from a foreign births registration to US citizens (in Hawaii anyway) from adoption, and from birth in the location. Only one of those things means that a person is 'natural born'. The others still give you citizenship, but you are not natural born.

If the Election Board certified that he was natural born as a result of a document which demonstrates no such thing, that is a problem that should be corrected prior to the next election. The only document which can certify where you were born, ie your location when you were born, and who witnessed the birth (ie the doctor) is the long form birth certificate.

That is the only document absent some other form of proof, that should be shown and accepted by anyone to prove that fact, for any Presidential candidate. It is not good enough to say that the constitutional requirements are 'probably' met, they must be shown to be so without question.

A former worker at City of Honolulu elections division worker has stated that it was well known there was no long form birth certificate. Interestingly, he defends Obama, saying the process of certification is the problem not the man, and talks about racism etc.

I disagree, I think. I think that if there is no process, you are affirmatively asserting what you know to be not true, ie, that you are not natural born, that itself is a problem.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

No long form birth certificate.
As for 'Snopes' they originally said Obama was born at Queens Hospital, then change that to Kapiolani and scrubbed the website.

It's all very strange.

**PoleCat** · February 08, 2011, 01:51 AM

Originally Posted by Simon Cashmere

It's not citizenship which is important, but natural born citizenship. No is saying he is not a citizen, leastways I am not....

I'm going to quote myself verbatim here so that you'll see that this very question has been asked and answered at an earlier time in the thread - a point you conveniently ignored.

Originally Posted by PoleCat

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html

You can parse words all you want Simon but the law is pretty clear - even if born outside the US he's a US citizen at birth because his mother was and met the residency requirements. You even admit he has the right of Citizenship. That alone satisfies the constitutional requirement of "...or a Citizen of the United States" clause in the Constitution. The birth certificate is still a moot point....

Now what is your definition of "Natural Born Citizen"? Are you only referring to those born within the geographical boundaries of the USA? Statute law has another interpretation as I posted above - Those born to US Citizens outside of the geographical boundaries of the US are still considered US Citizens. This means that your entire argument is still a moot point.

What are you trying to accomplish here? Do you really have any idea and can you present anything resembling a valid argument? Or will you continue to tilt at windmills...?

**Simon Cashmere** · February 08, 2011, 02:50 AM

You are still getting confused.

The phrase 'natural born citizen' is within the Constitution. I am not talking about citizenship, simpliciter - which can be aquired many ways. Let me be also clear. If you are born in the US to two illegal Mexican immigrants, you are a natural born citizen.

The constitution delineates the power of the Congress to legislate. Whatever that phrase means, ie, 'natural born citizen' stands alone, whatever the government says about it. The government can have a view about what it means, but that may or may not be right. The governments view of its constitutional power is struck down, all the time.

The Congress cannot legislate to say what a natural born citizen is, other than to do so consistently with the constitution. If they do and it is inconsistent with the term as this means in the constitution, that would be an invalid exercise of power. That is, the Congress cannot say 'Anyone we say is a natural born citizen.' I've said a few times, the Congress cannot recite themselves into power. For example, if the US Congress legislated to say 'All persons who are legally US citizens, howsoever that citizenship is acquired, are natural born citizens for the constitution', that would be impermissible. If they said a person is considered a natural born citizen if they are natural born citizens as that term is used in the US Constitution,' that would be permissible.

You cannot get around constitutional restrictions on the limits of power, by enacting legislation to extend the constittution, or to give things favourable definitioins.

Have a look at the other thread where we debated this ad nauseum. http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=324437

This sets out a lot of the Court cases and statutes.

Some take the view that natural born citizen means born within the US, that is on US soil. Some take a different view saying it means born of a US parent. I favour (and the jurisprudence seems to favour) the first view, but it has never needed to be decided by the Supreme Court as to this specific issue. What you have posted though, is not the government's view of what a natural born citizen is for the purposes of that clause of the constitution - it is part of a statute saying who are citizens from birth. I don't disagree that having a US parent gives you citizenship.

**Meneth** · February 08, 2011, 02:54 AM

AFAIK, "natural-born citizen" is never defined in the US constitution.
The most logical definition would be "born as a US citizen", a criteria that Obama fulfills due to his mother being a citizen when he was born.

**Simon Cashmere** · February 08, 2011, 03:01 AM

Originally Posted by Meneth

AFAIK, "natural-born citizen" is never defined in the US constitution.
The most logical definition would be "born as a US citizen", a criteria that Obama fulfills due to his mother being a citizen when he was born.

No it isn't, which is why it has to be interpreted by the Court.

Well, as I say, the 'obiter' in the Court cases seems to say otherwise, have a read through the other thread. I go through what the decided cases say in detail about the matter.

And I disagree, otherwise, the word 'natural' would have no work to do. There must be a distinction between 'born a US citizen' and natural born. The word 'natural' is there for a reason.

**Meneth** · February 08, 2011, 03:06 AM

Definitions of natural on the Web:

in accordance with nature; relating to or concerning nature; "a very natural development"; "our natural environment"; "natural science"; "natural resources"; "natural cliffs"; "natural phenomena"
existing in or in conformity with nature or the observable world; neither supernatural nor magical; "a perfectly natural explanation"
functioning or occurring in a normal way; lacking abnormalities or deficiencies; "it's the natural thing to happen"; "natural immunity"; "a grandparent's natural affection for a grandchild"

Using the third definition, "natural-born citizen" simply implies that citizenship is the standard consequence of the person's birth, like Obama's.
The word "natural" in no way implies anything to do with US borders.

**Simon Cashmere** · February 08, 2011, 03:54 AM

Originally Posted by Meneth

Using the third definition, "natural-born citizen" simply implies that citizenship is the standard consequence of the person's birth, like Obama's.
The word "natural" in no way implies anything to do with US borders.

If that were so, wouldn't it just say 'born', and not natural born?

In any event, what either of us thinks matters less than what the phrase has been interpreted to mean in the past. Have a look at what the other thread said about it, and see what you think.