So, are Obama birth certificate threads not conspiracy theories anymore?

Your time would be better spent working for getting whoever wins the Republican nominee elected this November. The way you want to do it would never be accepted by the majority anyway....and it would be forever said it was done on a "technicality,"....or "because he's black." That's not the way to unseat Obama. Let's unseat him at the voting booth and in a very big and decisive win for the country!

 

You would be the mod I was talking about as being a birther/sympathizer. Your post herein proves that. There is most certainly NOT "a real court case going on now." There is nothing going on now except the same frivolous attention-whore nonsense that has been going on for three years.

I was under the impression a decision had been made by the mods and that these threads were to be moved.

I'd ask that another mod weighs in on this topic.

 

Because a rather wide open question was asked.

 

And you would be wrong! You don't seem to realize the difference between siding with a particular issue and siding with freedom of speech.

I see you had no comment on the Bush awol controversy. I suppose then....if we're to believe you're consistent you must have advocated that those be moved to the conspiracy forum too? I see you weren't here then....but what would your position have been regarding those particular threads?

 

Calling the birther threads anything other than ridiculous nonsense is sympathizing. Saying there's "a court case" right now is as well.

Initially there was a story there, but once Rather and the others were fired, and the famous letter determined to be a fake, they should have gone off to CT.

Same goes for Obama. Before he released his birth certificate (in 200 there might have been something there. Since then, though, this has been nothing but nonsense.

 

I believe my time is better spent upholding the Constitution of the United States of America. You may be ok with throwing it out the window, but I believe it is high time people understood what it says and the reason it says it.

You are free to do with your time as you like, but please don't try to tell me how to spend mine. I don't believe ignorance in these matters is doing us any good and if I can help even just one person to better understand our founding Documents then I believe I am doing good, no matter what you think.

 

There is a Court case right now, and a decision is slated to be handed down this week. As a matter of fact it is now in 7 states, and is likely to be more in the coming weeks and months, like it or not.

If you don't like it, then don't read it!

 

Well, these threads flared up once before and died off on their own accord without the heavy handedness of us deciding. I'm pretty sure that will be the case again this time. You see, it's best if we let just about anything be discussed and debated as long as it's done within the rules of PF. Otherwise, it DOES become subjective on our part and that's not what we want. If it becomes overkill, we'll merge them. And if you don't want to discuss it, then simply don't go into those threads.

 

And what makes you an expert on the subject? Or you a Constitutional lawyer or a judge?

 

Are you saying you have to be a Lawyer or Judge to understand our Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers on these matters? Many Judges and Lawyers, throughout our history, have disagreed on many things and many decisions made by the SCOTUS have both majority and descending opinions written. You understand that, right?

I have simply read through many of these founding documents and decisions and have my own opinion as to what they say and mean.

I am allowed to do that as a U.S. Citizen. And I am also able to back up what I am saying with imperical evidence to support my opinions.

How about you?

 

You have your own opinion- which is at odds with the clear popular and legal consensus in the United States.

Almost 70 million of your fellow U.S. Citizens voted for Obama, knowing he was eligible, the Congress of the United States confirmed him knowing Barack Obama was eligible, and Chief Justice Roberts swore him in knowing he was eligible.

You are welcome to present your own opinion- but it is an opinion that is at odds not only with the courts but with the voters of the United States.

 

Then why do you refuse to read this very clear and historic legal opinion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaar
And yet I have shown here that the SCOTUS actually cites having "parents" that are Citizens in order to be Natural Born...

I guessed you missed those.

Wrong again. You provided, in another thread, the full article of the Perkins vs. Elg's case.

In reaching that decision, it appears that the court looked at several other cases.

Once again, you should have read the WHOLE article, including this section:

Quote:
307 U.S. 325 - FindLaw | Cases and Codes
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307
Steinkauler 15 Op Atty Gen 15
This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, in Steinkauler's Case, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15. The facts were these: one Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis. Four years later, Steinkauler returned to Germany, taking this child, and became domiciled at Weisbaden, where they continuously resided. When the son reached the age of twenty years, the German Government called upon him to report for military duty, and his father then invoked the intervention of the American Legation on the ground that his son was a native citizen of the United States. To an inquiry by our Minister, the father declined to give an assurance that the son would return to this country within a reasonable time. On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion:

"Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States; but the father, in accordance with the treaty and the laws, has renounced his American citizenship and his American allegiance and has acquired for himself and his son German citizenship and the rights which it carries and he must take the burdens as well as the advantages. The son being domiciled with the father and subject to him under the law during his minority, and receiving the German protection where he has acquired nationality and declining to give any assurance of ever returning to the United States and claiming his American nationality by residence here, I am of the opinion that he cannot rightly invoke the aid of

Page 307 U. S. 331

the Government of the United States to relieve him from military duty in Germany during his minority. But I am of opinion that, when he reaches the age of twenty-one years, he can then elect whether he will return and take the nationality of his birth with its duties and privileges, or retain the nationality acquired by the act of his father. This seems to me to be 'right reason,' and I think it is law."
If this is not clear enough for you, I'm not sure what else can be said.

 

No, I wasn't saying that. I was asking the question. But points well taken.

We'll just have to wait to see how it comes out. I'm not even proposing to know the answers.

 

For the 100000th time, there is no court case going on right now.

On the contrary, the threads were all moved. Largely because of a thread I posted in suggestion box some time ago, and a discussion the mods apparently had.

NO ONE is suggesting the issue not be discussed. All I asked was that they be placed in the proper forum.

The debates surrounding questioning the eligibility of Obama to hold the office of President are nonsense Conspiracy Theories, and they belong in that subforum.

As a frequent participant in the discussions, I don't want them closed. I want them moved.

The "rules of PF" you refer to quite specifically say that posting threads in the wrong place over and over again is a violation.

I do want to discuss it, which is why it is better to have the threads siphoned off into the proper subforum.

 

You know what's even worse than that?

People who just pop in with one-liners that have nothing to contribute to the topic at hand...

 

No, you are not able to back anything up with empirical evidence...

I have yet to see you back up any of claims at all...

In fact, I have yet to see any birther provide any proof of anything...

That is the reason why the question is being asked as to why these threads are no longer being relegated to the CT subforum...

Just because some wingnut brings another case to a court, regardless of the repeated dismissal by several courts before, does not make this a relevant subject again, nor does it introduce any factual information into the matter...

It's just a theory with no basis in fact...

As such, it should be considered a conspiracy theory, and the threads should be moved...

One can only speculate as to why they're not...

 

What is worse than that are those who compulsively start Obama rumor threads. Have you ever looked at that one with the fictional 'first hand' accounts from the White House?

 

You are starting with a false belief..

There are ONLY 2 types of citizenship...

 

exactly.well said.some people just dont get that point about the parents though and since they want to live in denial,will make up the most absurd crap to avoid admitting he is not a us citizen.

as far as being removed from the ballot? I dont know,our government is extremely corrupt.Presidents can get away with anything.I mean Clinton lied to a supreme court and got off scott free.It would be nice if this would happen but i have the feeling the judge will bow down to federal pressure from the government and nothing will become of this.

 

Is that what you're doing: "when YOU don't like it, you don't read it. . .or you don't acknowledge it?"

I provided you with a CLEAR statement (from a source you, yourself, had provided) that describe a "natural born citizen" although neither of his parents were citizens at the time of his birth, ONLY his father became a naturalized citizen for a short time, then went back to Germany and pledged allegiance to Germany, and HIS CHILDREN, who had lived in Germany as minors were clearly stated as having the right to their NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP that would allow them (IF THEY WERE ELECTED) to fulfill the Presidential office requirement of "natural born citizen."

You have totally ignore that post, although I have posted it about 4 times.

You are dishonest, and OBVIOUSLY you are ONLY reading what you think will give weight to your opinions, but NOT the factual information that will contradict your opinion.. . .and you do not have the courage to face or even comment on the information provided. . .because there is nothing to say but: "you're right, this decision clearly shows that a child born within the borders of the United States, even if his parents are not citizens, even if he is raised in a foreign country, even if he has (as a minor) dual citizenship, has the right, once he becomes an adult, to retain his NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP status, and to be eligible (if elected) to be President of the United States.

For the complete description (as you should well know by now) refer to post #548.

Actually, just to facilitate things for you, her is a "copy and paste" of the information post #548 related:

 

No, they were NOT all moved. We moved a lot; maybe most, but we allowed one large one in the Current Events.

You mean the "proper" forum as far as you are concerned? Moving them all to a "conspiracy" forum means we've pronounced them all a conspiracy. And since we have no proof of a conspiracy here, we couldn't very well do that and be fair.

You mean....you want us to pronounce them all a conspiracy. Are you saying the Huffington Post is free to discuss it on their news pages.....but here at PF we should pronounce it all a conspiracy and move them to that forum????
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/23/obama-birther-case-georgia_n_1225304.html

 

Another one just started up- and it is in no way a "Current event"

Just give me direction- I will be glad to start my own anti-Birther threads in Current events- or not- I just would like consistancy.

 

Didn't Obama murder his first wife?

 

If there had been one single credible shred of proof of the birthers claims, I could see keeping them in CE...

However, there has been nothing but easily debunked horse(*)(*)(*)(*) to date from them, and yet, they are allowed to clog up the CE subforum with this stupidity...

 

I didn't ignore it, I posted a link to the ACTUAL Ruling, and it says NOTHING about "Natural Born". It simply states they were a Citizen, which I will readily admit.

So please...