On Dec 1, 9:42*am, aarcuda69062 wrote:
In article ,



wrote:
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 03:05:46 -0600, Neil Nelson
wrote:

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Now I have two questions for you, Steve.

I'm not Steve but I'd like to answer those questions.

First, what other president has had
people from the opposing party demand to see his birth certificate?

Chester Arthur.
Chester A. Arthur was the 21st president of the United States, he took
office upon the death of James Garfield. *Arthur was Garfield's vice
president.
Section 1 of Article 2 of the constitution states; No person except a
natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of
the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of
President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall
not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen
Years a Resident within the United States."

Natural born citizen? *Chester Arthur was not a natural born citizen and
he knew it. *To be a natural born citizen he would have had to be born
of parents who were citizens of the United States, but his father who
was born in Ireland did not become naturalized until Chester was 14

years old. *Chester Arthur perpetuated his lie well enough and long
enough that it wasn't until much later that it was discovered that he
had usurped the office of the presidency. Historic accounts show that
Chester Arthur went to great lengths, even ordering all of his personal
papers to be burned (sounds familiar) and lying about the year he was
born in hopes that claiming to be one year younger would add
plausibility to whether his father had been in the U.S. long enough to
acquire citizenship.

Barack Obama's father was born in Kenya, to that there is no dispute,
there is also no dispute that at the time of Barack Jr. birth he was a
citizen of Kenya and a british subject. *Barack Sr. never sought nor did
he receive United States citizenship. *According to the constitution, it
takes both parents being citizens to convey natural born citizenship to
their offspring.

The second question is, if you doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii, WHY do
you doubt it?

Why would it matter which state he was born in? *His father was not a
U.S. citizen so he could not by any stretch of the imagination convey
natural born citizenship to his son who now occupies the White House.

The whole issue of the Hawaiian birth certificate is a rouse, a red
herring, the so called "birthers" are a ploy by those who strive to
dismantle the constitution to divert and deflect the real issue.

Again, it wouldn't matter if he was born on the lawn of the White House
with J. Edgar Hoover as witness, his father was a Kenyan national, was
NOT a U.S. citizen and could NOT convey natural born status to his son..

The largest crime since the inception of this country is being
perpetrated right under your noses, right now,and you all think that's
just dandy.

Am I a racist? *I might be, I voted for Obama.

Are you really, really sure of your facts here?

Yes. *You should be also.

that to be considered
a native born citizen of the United States you must be born to a man
and woman who are both citizens? You are sure? Really sure? Absolutely
sure?

Unfortunately you are wrong. The 14th amendment to the constitution
says, in the first paragraph that:

" 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of
the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It says that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and
subject to the jurisdiction of are CITIZENS of the United States.

IOWs, being born here merely conveys _citizenship_.

Being born here doesn't not automatically make one a _natural born
citizen_.

The phrase to which you refer gives equal status (citizen) to someone
who was born here -or- has been naturalized.

I can't understand how so many can so easily confuse the issue, it's
simple enough to understand.

Then again, I can't understand how someone who was convicted of
possession of crack cocaine could be elected to mayor of the city of
Washington D.C.

Our standards keep dropping...

Regards to you.

Exactly how would you define "natural born?"

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Dec 1, 9:42 am, aarcuda69062 wrote:
In article ,



wrote:
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 03:05:46 -0600, Neil Nelson
wrote:

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Now I have two questions for you, Steve.

I'm not Steve but I'd like to answer those questions.

First, what other president has had
people from the opposing party demand to see his birth certificate?

Chester Arthur.
Chester A. Arthur was the 21st president of the United States, he took
office upon the death of James Garfield. Arthur was Garfield's vice
president.
Section 1 of Article 2 of the constitution states; No person except a
natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of
the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of
President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who
shall
not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen
Years a Resident within the United States."

Natural born citizen? Chester Arthur was not a natural born citizen and
he knew it. To be a natural born citizen he would have had to be born
of parents who were citizens of the United States, but his father who
was born in Ireland did not become naturalized until Chester was 14

years old. Chester Arthur perpetuated his lie well enough and long
enough that it wasn't until much later that it was discovered that he
had usurped the office of the presidency. Historic accounts show that
Chester Arthur went to great lengths, even ordering all of his personal
papers to be burned (sounds familiar) and lying about the year he was
born in hopes that claiming to be one year younger would add
plausibility to whether his father had been in the U.S. long enough to
acquire citizenship.

Barack Obama's father was born in Kenya, to that there is no dispute,
there is also no dispute that at the time of Barack Jr. birth he was a
citizen of Kenya and a british subject. Barack Sr. never sought nor did
he receive United States citizenship. According to the constitution, it
takes both parents being citizens to convey natural born citizenship to
their offspring.

The second question is, if you doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii,
WHY do
you doubt it?

Why would it matter which state he was born in? His father was not a
U.S. citizen so he could not by any stretch of the imagination convey
natural born citizenship to his son who now occupies the White House.

The whole issue of the Hawaiian birth certificate is a rouse, a red
herring, the so called "birthers" are a ploy by those who strive to
dismantle the constitution to divert and deflect the real issue.

Again, it wouldn't matter if he was born on the lawn of the White House
with J. Edgar Hoover as witness, his father was a Kenyan national, was
NOT a U.S. citizen and could NOT convey natural born status to his son.

The largest crime since the inception of this country is being
perpetrated right under your noses, right now,and you all think that's
just dandy.

Am I a racist? I might be, I voted for Obama.

Are you really, really sure of your facts here?

Yes. You should be also.

that to be considered
a native born citizen of the United States you must be born to a man
and woman who are both citizens? You are sure? Really sure? Absolutely
sure?

Unfortunately you are wrong. The 14th amendment to the constitution
says, in the first paragraph that:

" 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of
the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It says that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and
subject to the jurisdiction of are CITIZENS of the United States.

IOWs, being born here merely conveys _citizenship_.

Being born here doesn't not automatically make one a _natural born
citizen_.

The phrase to which you refer gives equal status (citizen) to someone
who was born here -or- has been naturalized.

I can't understand how so many can so easily confuse the issue, it's
simple enough to understand.

Then again, I can't understand how someone who was convicted of
possession of crack cocaine could be elected to mayor of the city of
Washington D.C.

Our standards keep dropping...

Regards to you.

Exactly how would you define "natural born?"

A natural-born citizen is one who was born on US territory. There has been
some controversy about children born in foreign countries, of US-citizen
parents, but that controversy is partly settled today.

The Chester Arthur case described above is bogus history. That's not what
happened at all. And the business about one's father having to be a US
citizen is also bogus -- a misreading, unintentional or otherwise, of a 1790
law.

I have two law-review articles on the subject if you're interested. They're
too long to post here, and I can't give you a URL because they're in
subscription databases. You could find them at a law library, however:

"Presidential Eligibility: The Meaning of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause",
Christina S. Lohman, Gonzaga Law Review, 349 (2000 - 2001).

"Unnatural Born Citizens and Acting Presidents," James C. Ho, Constitutional
Commentary (Winter 2000).

--
Ed Huntress

In article ,
Steve B wrote:


And anyone with $12 worth of software can produce one.

Are you claiming that's what happened? Because the Republican
governor of Hawaii says otherwise.

--
-Ed Falk,
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 06:40:36 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote

A certification with a certifying seal is considered standard today.

Ed Huntress

And anyone with $12 worth of software can produce one.

Steve

Have a look at the Snopes page on the birth certificate. The
certificate has been examined and it does have an embossed seal. It is
a legal Hawaii State birth certificate.

As I already posted even USA Today accepts that it is a valid
document. CNN considers it a "none issue".

So, are you saying that not only the Hawaii state Director of Health,
the Governor of the state, USA Today and the rest of the major news
agencies have all been bribed?

Regards,

J.B.

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:31:29 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Neil Nelson" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


Now I have two questions for you, Steve.

I'm not Steve but I'd like to answer those questions.

First, what other president has had
people from the opposing party demand to see his birth certificate?

Chester Arthur.
Chester A. Arthur was the 21st president of the United States, he took
office upon the death of James Garfield. Arthur was Garfield's vice
president.

snip

This is a complete pack of lies and ignorance, Neil. To be a "natural born
citizen," one has to be born in the US. It has nothing to do with where your
*father* was born, fer chrissake.

Wikipedia does a pretty good job of explaining where the "birther" nonsense
comes from on Arthur. It was a bit similar to what Obama faces -- political
opponents who lied through their teeth to try to stop Arthur's presidency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester...ur#cite_note-1


Section 1 of Article 2 of the constitution states; No person except a
natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of
the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of
President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall
not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen
Years a Resident within the United States."

Natural born citizen? Chester Arthur was not a natural born citizen and
he knew it. To be a natural born citizen he would have had to be born
of parents who were citizens of the United States...

Complete baloney.

... but his father who
was born in Ireland did not become naturalized until Chester was 14
years old. Chester Arthur perpetuated his lie well enough and long
enough that it wasn't until much later that it was discovered that he
had usurped the office of the presidency. Historic accounts show that
Chester Arthur went to great lengths, even ordering all of his personal
papers to be burned (sounds familiar) and lying about the year he was
born in hopes that claiming to be one year younger would add
plausibility to whether his father had been in the U.S. long enough to
acquire citizenship.

Barack Obama's father was born in Kenya, to that there is no dispute,
there is also no dispute that at the time of Barack Jr. birth he was a
citizen of Kenya and a british subject. Barack Sr. never sought nor did
he receive United States citizenship. According to the constitution, it
takes both parents being citizens to convey natural born citizenship to
their offspring.

Complete nonsense. Show us this provision in the Constitution. (Hint: It
doesn't exist.)


The second question is, if you doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii, WHY
do
you doubt it?

Why would it matter which state he was born in? His father was not a
U.S. citizen so he could not by any stretch of the imagination convey
natural born citizenship to his son who now occupies the White House.

This is an absolute crock of nonsense.

Now I have a question for you, Neil: Where did you get this pile of crap? I
don't believe you made it up on your own. This was written by someone who
was counting on his audience to be too dumb or lazy to check any of it out.
I don't believe you did that. So, who did you get it from?

I'm always curious about where these lies get their start.

Obviously not from having read the Constitution and it's amendments,
at least not the 14th.

Regards,

J.B.

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 06:39:28 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 01:33:03 -0500, "Steve W."
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:


More lies. Don't you know how to use Snopes, Steve?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/ap.asp


Yes, and I also don't trust them as my only source.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/obama-kenya.htm
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/l/lawyersues.htm
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/obama-lies.htm
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors...ibutions-2.htm
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors...ruth-squad.htm
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors...-auschwitz.htm
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors...yer-md-not.htm


The fact is that it would be very easy to stop all of this crap. Just
release his original birth certificate NOT a copy generated AFTER people
asked for it.

I would bet that very few people here (yourself included Ed) don't have
the original document. I have the original and a state generated copy.
They are ENTIRELY different documents.


If you have "the original" then how could the state generate a copy?
What did they copy?

Regards,

J.B.

When I was a kid, I saw my birth certificate. I took it with me when I left
home for ID purposes. I had it a long time. It was about half the size of
a piece of letter paper, very fragile thin paper, but it had a stamp, and
was legal. It got away from me over the years. Then, I needed a passport
to go to Kuwait, and could not find it. So, I sent for another. A big full
sized sheet of blue paper with fancy border, looking in no way or font like
the original.

Now, I ask this. What happened to my "original" birth certificate? Why
can't they produce a copy of the one I have burned on my memory banks? It's
a conspiracy, I tell ya, a Goddam conspiracy. I bet Bush and Rush had
something to do with it, but I can't prove it. Copies of birth certificates
can be produced from templates in minutes, reading just what is inputted.

Steve

Steve, when I needed a birth certificate to enlist in the Air Force I
went down to the Town Clerk's office and asked for one - there wasn't
one. There was a record of a birth, on a hospital form, signed by the
attending physician, stating that a boy child had been born to: My
parent's names, at such and such a time, on such and such a date.
From this record the town clerk typed up a "birth certificate" and
handed it to me - $1.00 please.

This occurred in New Hampshire, in 1952.

I suspect that this rather haphazard form of record keeping has
probably changed and records are now in a computer some place and they
press a button and your birth certificate comes squirting out the top
of a printer.

My point is that there probably isn't a "birth certificate" actually
filed away in some cabinet in a dingy office somewhere in the state
capital, There is a record of the birth in some government computer
and they print a certificate when you ask for it. Just like my town
clerk did, but maybe the cost has gone up to $5.00.

Regards,

J.B.

On Dec 1, 2:59*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Dec 1, 9:42 am, aarcuda69062 wrote:



In article ,

wrote:
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 03:05:46 -0600, Neil Nelson
wrote:

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Now I have two questions for you, Steve.

I'm not Steve but I'd like to answer those questions.

First, what other president has had
people from the opposing party demand to see his birth certificate?

Chester Arthur.
Chester A. Arthur was the 21st president of the United States, he took
office upon the death of James Garfield. Arthur was Garfield's vice
president.
Section 1 of Article 2 of the constitution states; No person except a
natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of
the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of
President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who
shall
not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen
Years a Resident within the United States."

Natural born citizen? Chester Arthur was not a natural born citizen and
he knew it. To be a natural born citizen he would have had to be born
of parents who were citizens of the United States, but his father who
was born in Ireland did not become naturalized until Chester was 14

years old. Chester Arthur perpetuated his lie well enough and long
enough that it wasn't until much later that it was discovered that he
had usurped the office of the presidency. Historic accounts show that
Chester Arthur went to great lengths, even ordering all of his personal
papers to be burned (sounds familiar) and lying about the year he was
born in hopes that claiming to be one year younger would add
plausibility to whether his father had been in the U.S. long enough to
acquire citizenship.

Barack Obama's father was born in Kenya, to that there is no dispute,
there is also no dispute that at the time of Barack Jr. birth he was a
citizen of Kenya and a british subject. Barack Sr. never sought nor did
he receive United States citizenship. According to the constitution, it
takes both parents being citizens to convey natural born citizenship to
their offspring.

The second question is, if you doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii,
WHY do
you doubt it?

Why would it matter which state he was born in? His father was not a
U.S. citizen so he could not by any stretch of the imagination convey
natural born citizenship to his son who now occupies the White House..

The whole issue of the Hawaiian birth certificate is a rouse, a red
herring, the so called "birthers" are a ploy by those who strive to
dismantle the constitution to divert and deflect the real issue.

Again, it wouldn't matter if he was born on the lawn of the White House
with J. Edgar Hoover as witness, his father was a Kenyan national, was
NOT a U.S. citizen and could NOT convey natural born status to his son.

The largest crime since the inception of this country is being
perpetrated right under your noses, right now,and you all think that's
just dandy.

Am I a racist? I might be, I voted for Obama.

Are you really, really sure of your facts here?

Yes. You should be also.

that to be considered
a native born citizen of the United States you must be born to a man
and woman who are both citizens? You are sure? Really sure? Absolutely
sure?

Unfortunately you are wrong. The 14th amendment to the constitution
says, in the first paragraph that:

" 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of
the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It says that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and
subject to the jurisdiction of are CITIZENS of the United States.

IOWs, being born here merely conveys _citizenship_.

Being born here doesn't not automatically make one a _natural born
citizen_.

The phrase to which you refer gives equal status (citizen) to someone
who was born here -or- has been naturalized.

I can't understand how so many can so easily confuse the issue, it's
simple enough to understand.

Then again, I can't understand how someone who was convicted of
possession of crack cocaine could be elected to mayor of the city of
Washington D.C.

Our standards keep dropping...

Regards to you.
Exactly how would you define "natural born?"

A natural-born citizen is one who was born on US territory. There has been
some controversy about children born in foreign countries, of US-citizen
parents, but that controversy is partly settled today.

The Chester Arthur case described above is bogus history. That's not what
happened at all. And the business about one's father having to be a US
citizen is also bogus -- a misreading, unintentional or otherwise, of a 1790
law.

I have two law-review articles on the subject if you're interested. They're
too long to post here, and I can't give you a URL because they're in
subscription databases. You could find them at a law library, however:

"Presidential Eligibility: The Meaning of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause",
Christina S. Lohman, Gonzaga Law Review, 349 (2000 - 2001).

"Unnatural Born Citizens and Acting Presidents," James C. Ho, Constitutional
Commentary (Winter 2000).

--
Ed Huntress

Ed, you're preaching to the choir. I was referring to this line from
"aarcuda69062":

Being born here doesn't not automatically make one a _natural born
citizen_.

Aside from the double negative, I was wondering what *WOULD*, in the
eyes of the poster, make one "natural born."

On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 08:42:24 -0600, aarcuda69062
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 03:05:46 -0600, Neil Nelson
wrote:

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


Now I have two questions for you, Steve.

I'm not Steve but I'd like to answer those questions.

First, what other president has had
people from the opposing party demand to see his birth certificate?

Chester Arthur.
Chester A. Arthur was the 21st president of the United States, he took
office upon the death of James Garfield. Arthur was Garfield's vice
president.
Section 1 of Article 2 of the constitution states; No person except a
natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of
the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of
President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall
not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen
Years a Resident within the United States."

Natural born citizen? Chester Arthur was not a natural born citizen and
he knew it. To be a natural born citizen he would have had to be born
of parents who were citizens of the United States, but his father who
was born in Ireland did not become naturalized until Chester was 14

years old. Chester Arthur perpetuated his lie well enough and long
enough that it wasn't until much later that it was discovered that he
had usurped the office of the presidency. Historic accounts show that
Chester Arthur went to great lengths, even ordering all of his personal
papers to be burned (sounds familiar) and lying about the year he was
born in hopes that claiming to be one year younger would add
plausibility to whether his father had been in the U.S. long enough to
acquire citizenship.

Barack Obama's father was born in Kenya, to that there is no dispute,
there is also no dispute that at the time of Barack Jr. birth he was a
citizen of Kenya and a british subject. Barack Sr. never sought nor did
he receive United States citizenship. According to the constitution, it
takes both parents being citizens to convey natural born citizenship to
their offspring.


The second question is, if you doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii, WHY do
you doubt it?

Why would it matter which state he was born in? His father was not a
U.S. citizen so he could not by any stretch of the imagination convey
natural born citizenship to his son who now occupies the White House.

The whole issue of the Hawaiian birth certificate is a rouse, a red
herring, the so called "birthers" are a ploy by those who strive to
dismantle the constitution to divert and deflect the real issue.

Again, it wouldn't matter if he was born on the lawn of the White House
with J. Edgar Hoover as witness, his father was a Kenyan national, was
NOT a U.S. citizen and could NOT convey natural born status to his son.

The largest crime since the inception of this country is being
perpetrated right under your noses, right now,and you all think that's
just dandy.

Am I a racist? I might be, I voted for Obama.

Are you really, really sure of your facts here?

Yes. You should be also.

that to be considered
a native born citizen of the United States you must be born to a man
and woman who are both citizens? You are sure? Really sure? Absolutely
sure?

Unfortunately you are wrong. The 14th amendment to the constitution
says, in the first paragraph that:

" 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of
the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It says that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and
subject to the jurisdiction of are CITIZENS of the United States.

IOWs, being born here merely conveys _citizenship_.

Being born here doesn't not automatically make one a _natural born
citizen_.

The phrase to which you refer gives equal status (citizen) to someone
who was born here -or- has been naturalized.

I can't understand how so many can so easily confuse the issue, it's
simple enough to understand.

Then again, I can't understand how someone who was convicted of
possession of crack cocaine could be elected to mayor of the city of
Washington D.C.

Our standards keep dropping...

Regards to you.

It appears that you believe that there are two types of Citizens who
are born citizens? (1) those who are the descendents of a citizen
mother AND citizen father and those who just were lucky and born in
the US, and only the former are qualified to become President, and
you don't see why so many can so easily confuse the issue....

The Constitution states that :
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United
States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be
eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be
eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of
thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the
United States.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code, Section 1401, defines the
following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

* Anyone born inside the United States *
* Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a
citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen
of the tribe
* Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents
are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a
citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other
parent is a U.S. national
* Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen
and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
* Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage
cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not
provided by age 21
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an
alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who
lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and
diplomatic service included in this time)
* A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of
an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

(* There is an exception in the law \u2014 the person must be "subject
to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child
of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.)

There appears to be no additional definition of a natural born
citizen, but if you have a different definition or definition of a
natural born citizen whereby he is, or is not, qualified to be
president it would be nice if you would point to a reference of some
sort for your definition.

Regards,

J.B.

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Dec 1, 2:59 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Dec 1, 9:42 am, aarcuda69062 wrote:



In article ,

wrote:
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 03:05:46 -0600, Neil Nelson
wrote:

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Now I have two questions for you, Steve.

I'm not Steve but I'd like to answer those questions.

First, what other president has had
people from the opposing party demand to see his birth certificate?

Chester Arthur.
Chester A. Arthur was the 21st president of the United States, he
took
office upon the death of James Garfield. Arthur was Garfield's vice
president.
Section 1 of Article 2 of the constitution states; No person except a
natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time
of
the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of
President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who
shall
not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen
Years a Resident within the United States."

Natural born citizen? Chester Arthur was not a natural born citizen
and
he knew it. To be a natural born citizen he would have had to be born
of parents who were citizens of the United States, but his father who
was born in Ireland did not become naturalized until Chester was 14

years old. Chester Arthur perpetuated his lie well enough and long
enough that it wasn't until much later that it was discovered that he
had usurped the office of the presidency. Historic accounts show that
Chester Arthur went to great lengths, even ordering all of his
personal
papers to be burned (sounds familiar) and lying about the year he was
born in hopes that claiming to be one year younger would add
plausibility to whether his father had been in the U.S. long enough
to
acquire citizenship.

Barack Obama's father was born in Kenya, to that there is no dispute,
there is also no dispute that at the time of Barack Jr. birth he was
a
citizen of Kenya and a british subject. Barack Sr. never sought nor
did
he receive United States citizenship. According to the constitution,
it
takes both parents being citizens to convey natural born citizenship
to
their offspring.

The second question is, if you doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii,
WHY do
you doubt it?

Why would it matter which state he was born in? His father was not a
U.S. citizen so he could not by any stretch of the imagination convey
natural born citizenship to his son who now occupies the White House.

The whole issue of the Hawaiian birth certificate is a rouse, a red
herring, the so called "birthers" are a ploy by those who strive to
dismantle the constitution to divert and deflect the real issue.

Again, it wouldn't matter if he was born on the lawn of the White
House
with J. Edgar Hoover as witness, his father was a Kenyan national,
was
NOT a U.S. citizen and could NOT convey natural born status to his
son.

The largest crime since the inception of this country is being
perpetrated right under your noses, right now,and you all think
that's
just dandy.

Am I a racist? I might be, I voted for Obama.

Are you really, really sure of your facts here?

Yes. You should be also.

that to be considered
a native born citizen of the United States you must be born to a man
and woman who are both citizens? You are sure? Really sure? Absolutely
sure?

Unfortunately you are wrong. The 14th amendment to the constitution
says, in the first paragraph that:

" 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of
the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It says that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and
subject to the jurisdiction of are CITIZENS of the United States.

IOWs, being born here merely conveys _citizenship_.

Being born here doesn't not automatically make one a _natural born
citizen_.

The phrase to which you refer gives equal status (citizen) to someone
who was born here -or- has been naturalized.

I can't understand how so many can so easily confuse the issue, it's
simple enough to understand.

Then again, I can't understand how someone who was convicted of
possession of crack cocaine could be elected to mayor of the city of
Washington D.C.

Our standards keep dropping...

Regards to you.
Exactly how would you define "natural born?"

A natural-born citizen is one who was born on US territory. There has been
some controversy about children born in foreign countries, of US-citizen
parents, but that controversy is partly settled today.

The Chester Arthur case described above is bogus history. That's not what
happened at all. And the business about one's father having to be a US
citizen is also bogus -- a misreading, unintentional or otherwise, of a
1790
law.

I have two law-review articles on the subject if you're interested.
They're
too long to post here, and I can't give you a URL because they're in
subscription databases. You could find them at a law library, however:

"Presidential Eligibility: The Meaning of the Natural-Born Citizen
Clause",
Christina S. Lohman, Gonzaga Law Review, 349 (2000 - 2001).

"Unnatural Born Citizens and Acting Presidents," James C. Ho,
Constitutional
Commentary (Winter 2000).

--
Ed Huntress

Ed, you're preaching to the choir. I was referring to this line from
"aarcuda69062":

Being born here doesn't not automatically make one a _natural born
citizen_.

Aside from the double negative, I was wondering what *WOULD*, in the
eyes of the poster, make one "natural born."

Yeah, I realize what you were saying, but I mentioned the law review
articles in case you want to put a stop to this nonsense quickly. If you're
enjoying dragging it out, have at it. d8-)

This is another one of the pack of lies we're hearing from the birthers of
which I'd like to know the origins. I'm not going to track it all down, but
maybe someone knows. Maybe it's all coming from just a few sources.

The funny part is the absolute certitude of the idiots who propagate it. I
think we'll have a long wait to hear how the Constitution tells us that to
be a natural born citizen, your parents or at least your father have to be
US citizens.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 14:59:35 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Dec 1, 9:42 am, aarcuda69062 wrote:
In article ,



wrote:
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 03:05:46 -0600, Neil Nelson
wrote:

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Now I have two questions for you, Steve.

I'm not Steve but I'd like to answer those questions.

First, what other president has had
people from the opposing party demand to see his birth certificate?

Chester Arthur.
Chester A. Arthur was the 21st president of the United States, he took
office upon the death of James Garfield. Arthur was Garfield's vice
president.
Section 1 of Article 2 of the constitution states; No person except a
natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of
the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of
President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who
shall
not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen
Years a Resident within the United States."

Natural born citizen? Chester Arthur was not a natural born citizen and
he knew it. To be a natural born citizen he would have had to be born
of parents who were citizens of the United States, but his father who
was born in Ireland did not become naturalized until Chester was 14

years old. Chester Arthur perpetuated his lie well enough and long
enough that it wasn't until much later that it was discovered that he
had usurped the office of the presidency. Historic accounts show that
Chester Arthur went to great lengths, even ordering all of his personal
papers to be burned (sounds familiar) and lying about the year he was
born in hopes that claiming to be one year younger would add
plausibility to whether his father had been in the U.S. long enough to
acquire citizenship.

Barack Obama's father was born in Kenya, to that there is no dispute,
there is also no dispute that at the time of Barack Jr. birth he was a
citizen of Kenya and a british subject. Barack Sr. never sought nor did
he receive United States citizenship. According to the constitution, it
takes both parents being citizens to convey natural born citizenship to
their offspring.

The second question is, if you doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii,
WHY do
you doubt it?

Why would it matter which state he was born in? His father was not a
U.S. citizen so he could not by any stretch of the imagination convey
natural born citizenship to his son who now occupies the White House.

The whole issue of the Hawaiian birth certificate is a rouse, a red
herring, the so called "birthers" are a ploy by those who strive to
dismantle the constitution to divert and deflect the real issue.

Again, it wouldn't matter if he was born on the lawn of the White House
with J. Edgar Hoover as witness, his father was a Kenyan national, was
NOT a U.S. citizen and could NOT convey natural born status to his son.

The largest crime since the inception of this country is being
perpetrated right under your noses, right now,and you all think that's
just dandy.

Am I a racist? I might be, I voted for Obama.

Are you really, really sure of your facts here?

Yes. You should be also.

that to be considered
a native born citizen of the United States you must be born to a man
and woman who are both citizens? You are sure? Really sure? Absolutely
sure?

Unfortunately you are wrong. The 14th amendment to the constitution
says, in the first paragraph that:

" 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of
the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It says that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and
subject to the jurisdiction of are CITIZENS of the United States.

IOWs, being born here merely conveys _citizenship_.

Being born here doesn't not automatically make one a _natural born
citizen_.

The phrase to which you refer gives equal status (citizen) to someone
who was born here -or- has been naturalized.

I can't understand how so many can so easily confuse the issue, it's
simple enough to understand.

Then again, I can't understand how someone who was convicted of
possession of crack cocaine could be elected to mayor of the city of
Washington D.C.

Our standards keep dropping...

Regards to you.

Exactly how would you define "natural born?"

A natural-born citizen is one who was born on US territory. There has been
some controversy about children born in foreign countries, of US-citizen
parents, but that controversy is partly settled today.

The Chester Arthur case described above is bogus history. That's not what
happened at all. And the business about one's father having to be a US
citizen is also bogus -- a misreading, unintentional or otherwise, of a 1790
law.

I have two law-review articles on the subject if you're interested. They're
too long to post here, and I can't give you a URL because they're in
subscription databases. You could find them at a law library, however:

"Presidential Eligibility: The Meaning of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause",
Christina S. Lohman, Gonzaga Law Review, 349 (2000 - 2001).

"Unnatural Born Citizens and Acting Presidents," James C. Ho, Constitutional
Commentary (Winter 2000).

You are some sort of a heretic? Reading a BOOK for goodness sakes?
(hard enough to get some people to read the instructions on the bottle
:-)

Regards,

J.B.

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Neil Nelson" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


Now I have two questions for you, Steve.

I'm not Steve but I'd like to answer those questions.

First, what other president has had
people from the opposing party demand to see his birth certificate?

Chester Arthur.
Chester A. Arthur was the 21st president of the United States, he took
office upon the death of James Garfield. Arthur was Garfield's vice
president.

snip

This is a complete pack of lies and ignorance, Neil. To be a "natural born
citizen," one has to be born in the US. It has nothing to do with where your
*father* was born, fer chrissake.

Please cite where i claimed that the fathers birthplace was germane to
natural born status.

You can't because I didn't.

Who's the liar Ed?

Wikipedia does a pretty good job of explaining where the "birther" nonsense
comes from on Arthur. It was a bit similar to what Obama faces -- political
opponents who lied through their teeth to try to stop Arthur's presidency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester...ur#cite_note-1

That same article points out that Chester A. Arthur's father did not
become a naturalized citizen until 14 years after Chester A. Arthur was
born on U.S. soil, making Chester A. Arthur a usurper to the office of
president.


Section 1 of Article 2 of the constitution states; No person except a
natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of
the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of
President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall
not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen
Years a Resident within the United States."

Natural born citizen? Chester Arthur was not a natural born citizen and
he knew it. To be a natural born citizen he would have had to be born
of parents who were citizens of the United States...

Complete baloney.

... but his father who
was born in Ireland did not become naturalized until Chester was 14
years old. Chester Arthur perpetuated his lie well enough and long
enough that it wasn't until much later that it was discovered that he
had usurped the office of the presidency. Historic accounts show that
Chester Arthur went to great lengths, even ordering all of his personal
papers to be burned (sounds familiar) and lying about the year he was
born in hopes that claiming to be one year younger would add
plausibility to whether his father had been in the U.S. long enough to
acquire citizenship.

Barack Obama's father was born in Kenya, to that there is no dispute,
there is also no dispute that at the time of Barack Jr. birth he was a
citizen of Kenya and a british subject. Barack Sr. never sought nor did
he receive United States citizenship. According to the constitution, it
takes both parents being citizens to convey natural born citizenship to
their offspring.

Complete nonsense. Show us this provision in the Constitution. (Hint: It

14th Amendment;
" 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of
the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
doesn't exist.)

Plainly states to anyone who can read that a person born in the United
States is a citizen. It also plainly makes no distinction between a
citizen born here and a naturalized citizen.
It doesn't make any distinction that those born here are natural born
versus those who choose to move here and do so can become naturalIZED
citizens, Yet section 1 article 2 of the constitution makes a
distinction by usage of the term natural born citizen as to who is
qualified to be president and since section 1 article 2 of the
constitution also mentions the means by which a mere citizen qualifies
to be president, we must not only recognize that there is a distinction
but also that the distinction exists.

Born here OR naturalized are citizens, just plain old run of the mill
citizens.

Born here of two citizen parents who may or may not have been born on
foreign soil = natural born citizen. Got it Ed? Good, because I'd hate
to see you accuse me again of saying something that I never actually
said.

Then comes the phrase "any person within it's jurisdiction." as is
common knowledge, Barack Obama senior was already married to someone in
Kenya when he married Stanley Ann Dunham, in effect, he considered
himself immune to our laws regarding polygamy (assumes that S.A.D. knew
of the other wife) and thus any children born to him in this country
would not assume citizenship the same as would apply to children born
here to a foreign diplomat subject to diplomatic immunity.


The second question is, if you doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii, WHY
do
you doubt it?

Why would it matter which state he was born in? His father was not a
U.S. citizen so he could not by any stretch of the imagination convey
natural born citizenship to his son who now occupies the White House.

This is an absolute crock of nonsense.

You're claiming that his father -was- a U.S. citizen when lil Barack was
born?

Now I have a question for you, Neil: Where did you get this pile of crap?

Reading the constitution. Sorry that you think it's a pile of crap.
Federalist papers also, I suppose you think they are a pile of crap too?

I don't believe you made it up on your own. This was written by someone who
was counting on his audience to be too dumb or lazy to check any of it out.

"too dumb or lazy" certainly applies, just not how you think.
Barack Obama's whole campaign and presidency depends on people too dumb
or lazy to check any of it out.

I don't believe you did that. So, who did you get it from?

Enterprise High School in Enterprise Alabama. The history teacher there
was an ex army drill sergeant, he expected more than the now popular
show up and fall asleep type of educational process. This was seven
years after Barack Obama was born so feel free to invent whatever
conspiracy theories you feel necessary.

I'm always curious about where these lies get their start.

This particular one, the 2004 DNC AFAIK.

"Edward A. Falk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Steve B wrote:


And anyone with $12 worth of software can produce one.

Are you claiming that's what happened? Because the Republican
governor of Hawaii says otherwise.

--
-Ed Falk,
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

You're not following this thread worth a flying ****, are you?

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 06:40:36 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote

A certification with a certifying seal is considered standard today.

Ed Huntress

And anyone with $12 worth of software can produce one.

Steve

Have a look at the Snopes page on the birth certificate. The
certificate has been examined and it does have an embossed seal. It is
a legal Hawaii State birth certificate.

As I already posted even USA Today accepts that it is a valid
document. CNN considers it a "none issue".

So, are you saying that not only the Hawaii state Director of Health,
the Governor of the state, USA Today and the rest of the major news
agencies have all been bribed?

Regards,

J.B.

Are any of the people you mentioned above bribery?

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 07:57:38 +0700, wrote:

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 06:40:36 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote

A certification with a certifying seal is considered standard today.

Ed Huntress

And anyone with $12 worth of software can produce one.

Steve

Have a look at the Snopes page on the birth certificate. The
certificate has been examined and it does have an embossed seal. It is
a legal Hawaii State birth certificate.

As I already posted even USA Today accepts that it is a valid
document. CNN considers it a "none issue".

So, are you saying that not only the Hawaii state Director of Health,
the Governor of the state, USA Today and the rest of the major news
agencies have all been bribed?

Regards,

J.B.


The big question is..is that the birth cert issued for Obamas birth..or
an fficial one: from todays computer?

Mine is a simple white piece of paper with a grid of names and numbers
all lined up beneith subtitles

No embossing, no green paper, nada. And its from Miami Beach, Florida,
November 11th, 1953

Gunner

"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster

Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 07:57:38 +0700, wrote:

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 06:40:36 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote

A certification with a certifying seal is considered standard today.

Ed Huntress

And anyone with $12 worth of software can produce one.

Steve

Have a look at the Snopes page on the birth certificate. The
certificate has been examined and it does have an embossed seal. It is
a legal Hawaii State birth certificate.

As I already posted even USA Today accepts that it is a valid
document. CNN considers it a "none issue".

So, are you saying that not only the Hawaii state Director of Health,
the Governor of the state, USA Today and the rest of the major news
agencies have all been bribed?

Regards,

J.B.


The big question is..is that the birth cert issued for Obamas birth..or
an fficial one: from todays computer?

Mine is a simple white piece of paper with a grid of names and numbers
all lined up beneith subtitles

No embossing, no green paper, nada. And its from Miami Beach, Florida,
November 11th, 1953

Gunner

"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster

Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton

On Dec 1, 9:38*pm, Neil Nelson wrote:
[snip]
14th Amendment;
" 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of
the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
*doesn't exist.)

Plainly states to anyone who can read that a person born in the United
States is a citizen. *It also plainly makes no distinction between a
citizen born here and a naturalized citizen.
It doesn't make any distinction *that those born here are natural born
versus those who choose to move here and do so can become naturalIZED
citizens, Yet section 1 article 2 of the constitution makes a
distinction by usage of the term natural born citizen as to who is
qualified to be president and since section 1 article 2 of the
constitution also mentions the means by which a mere citizen qualifies
to be president, we must not only recognize that there is a distinction
but also that the distinction exists.

We MUST? Says who? Is it your contention that my mother, who was born
here, to immigrant parents, was a NATURALIZED citizen? Where are her
naturalization papers? When was she naturalized? What actual legal
document do you have with which to back that up?


Born here OR naturalized are citizens, just plain old run of the mill
citizens.

Born here of two citizen parents who may or may not have been born on
foreign soil = natural born citizen.

According to whom? Again, I'm not interested in your conjecture, or
Rush's conjecture. Please provide a reference to a specific line in a
specific federal document that backs up your statement.

[snip]
Then comes the phrase "any person within it's jurisdiction." *as is
common knowledge, Barack Obama senior was already married to someone in
Kenya when he married Stanley Ann Dunham, in effect, he considered
himself immune to our laws regarding polygamy (assumes that S.A.D. knew
of the other wife) and thus any children born to him in this country
would not assume citizenship the same as would apply to children born
here to a foreign diplomat subject to diplomatic immunity.


Where in the world did you get that "in effect, he considered
himself...?"
Again. Is this your conjecture? Do you have a reference to a legal
document that backs this up?

[snip]

On Dec 1, 9:38*pm, Neil Nelson wrote:
[snip]
14th Amendment;
" 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of
the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
*doesn't exist.)

Plainly states to anyone who can read that a person born in the United
States is a citizen. *It also plainly makes no distinction between a
citizen born here and a naturalized citizen.
It doesn't make any distinction *that those born here are natural born
versus those who choose to move here and do so can become naturalIZED
citizens, Yet section 1 article 2 of the constitution makes a
distinction by usage of the term natural born citizen as to who is
qualified to be president and since section 1 article 2 of the
constitution also mentions the means by which a mere citizen qualifies
to be president, we must not only recognize that there is a distinction
but also that the distinction exists.

We MUST? Says who? Is it your contention that my mother, who was born
here, to immigrant parents, was a NATURALIZED citizen? Where are her
naturalization papers? When was she naturalized? What actual legal
document do you have with which to back that up?


Born here OR naturalized are citizens, just plain old run of the mill
citizens.

Born here of two citizen parents who may or may not have been born on
foreign soil = natural born citizen.

According to whom? Again, I'm not interested in your conjecture, or
Rush's conjecture. Please provide a reference to a specific line in a
specific federal document that backs up your statement.

[snip]
Then comes the phrase "any person within it's jurisdiction." *as is
common knowledge, Barack Obama senior was already married to someone in
Kenya when he married Stanley Ann Dunham, in effect, he considered
himself immune to our laws regarding polygamy (assumes that S.A.D. knew
of the other wife) and thus any children born to him in this country
would not assume citizenship the same as would apply to children born
here to a foreign diplomat subject to diplomatic immunity.


Where in the world did you get that "in effect, he considered
himself...?"
Again. Is this your conjecture? Do you have a reference to a legal
document that backs this up?

[snip]

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 07:57:38 +0700, wrote:

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 06:40:36 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote

A certification with a certifying seal is considered standard today.

Ed Huntress

And anyone with $12 worth of software can produce one.

Steve

Have a look at the Snopes page on the birth certificate. The
certificate has been examined and it does have an embossed seal. It is
a legal Hawaii State birth certificate.

As I already posted even USA Today accepts that it is a valid
document. CNN considers it a "none issue".

So, are you saying that not only the Hawaii state Director of Health,
the Governor of the state, USA Today and the rest of the major news
agencies have all been bribed?

Regards,

J.B.


The big question is..is that the birth cert issued for Obamas birth..or
an fficial one: from todays computer?

Mine is a simple white piece of paper with a grid of names and numbers
all lined up beneith subtitles

No embossing, no green paper, nada. And its from Miami Beach, Florida,
November 11th, 1953

Gunner

I seriously doubt that anyone would accept that birth certificate today. It
isn't ootsie cutesy enough, and entirely not pc. The ones they want today
look like they were made on a home computer with a color printer.

HTH g

Steve

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 07:57:38 +0700, wrote:

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 06:40:36 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote

A certification with a certifying seal is considered standard today.

Ed Huntress

And anyone with $12 worth of software can produce one.

Steve

Have a look at the Snopes page on the birth certificate. The
certificate has been examined and it does have an embossed seal. It is
a legal Hawaii State birth certificate.

As I already posted even USA Today accepts that it is a valid
document. CNN considers it a "none issue".

So, are you saying that not only the Hawaii state Director of Health,
the Governor of the state, USA Today and the rest of the major news
agencies have all been bribed?

Regards,

J.B.


The big question is..is that the birth cert issued for Obamas birth..or
an fficial one: from todays computer?

Mine is a simple white piece of paper with a grid of names and numbers
all lined up beneith subtitles

No embossing, no green paper, nada. And its from Miami Beach, Florida,
November 11th, 1953

Gunner

I seriously doubt that anyone would accept that birth certificate today. It
isn't ootsie cutesy enough, and entirely not pc. The ones they want today
look like they were made on a home computer with a color printer.

HTH g

Steve

In article
,
rangerssuck wrote:

Exactly how would you define "natural born?"

It is not my paygrade to define it so I'll defer to the Supreme Court's
words in Minor v. Happersett;

'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. Some authorities go further and
include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without
reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there
have been doubts, but never as to the first."


As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

The Supreme Court acknowledges that there is no doubt that children born
to citizens are natural born citizens. They also acknowledge that
children born to aliens or foreigners give them doubt.

In article
,
rangerssuck wrote:

Exactly how would you define "natural born?"

It is not my paygrade to define it so I'll defer to the Supreme Court's
words in Minor v. Happersett;

'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. Some authorities go further and
include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without
reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there
have been doubts, but never as to the first."


As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

The Supreme Court acknowledges that there is no doubt that children born
to citizens are natural born citizens. They also acknowledge that
children born to aliens or foreigners give them doubt.

aarcuda69062 wrote:
In article
,
rangerssuck wrote:

Exactly how would you define "natural born?"

It is not my paygrade to define it so I'll defer to the Supreme Court's
words in Minor v. Happersett;

'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. Some authorities go further and
include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without
reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there
have been doubts, but never as to the first."


As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

The Supreme Court acknowledges that there is no doubt that children born
to citizens are natural born citizens. They also acknowledge that
children born to aliens or foreigners give them doubt.

Well then, since he was born to a woman who was a full citizen, the
question is settled. Thanks for playing...

wrote:
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 01:33:03 -0500, "Steve W."
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

More lies. Don't you know how to use Snopes, Steve?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/ap.asp

Yes, and I also don't trust them as my only source.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/obama-kenya.htm
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/l/lawyersues.htm
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/obama-lies.htm
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors...ibutions-2.htm
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors...ruth-squad.htm
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors...-auschwitz.htm
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors...yer-md-not.htm


The fact is that it would be very easy to stop all of this crap. Just
release his original birth certificate NOT a copy generated AFTER people
asked for it.

I would bet that very few people here (yourself included Ed) don't have
the original document. I have the original and a state generated copy.
They are ENTIRELY different documents.


If you have "the original" then how could the state generate a copy?
What did they copy?

Regards,

J.B.

Originals are supposed to get filed with the city/county/state agency
(depending on what level your particular jurisdiction uses at the
start). This data gets passed to the state and they can use it to
generate a copy using that data. It also is used to file with the Fed.
to get a SS number.

The problem is that it would be REALLY easy to go into the computer and
generate the "copy" certificate using dates and information as needed.
Not so easy to fake the original and have it match documents from the
same time period, inks, papers and printing methods have changed a LOT.

--
Steve W.

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:20:09 +0700, wrote:

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code, Section 1401, defines the
following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

* Anyone born inside the United States *
* Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a
citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen
of the tribe
* Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents
are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a
citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other
parent is a U.S. national
* Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen
and lived in the U.S. for at least one year


The citizenship laws changed in hum...1968 if I recall

A number of years after 1961,,,the year Obamassiah was born in kenya

Gunner



"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster

Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 20:06:23 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 07:57:38 +0700, wrote:

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 06:40:36 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote

A certification with a certifying seal is considered standard today.

Ed Huntress

And anyone with $12 worth of software can produce one.

Steve

Have a look at the Snopes page on the birth certificate. The
certificate has been examined and it does have an embossed seal. It is
a legal Hawaii State birth certificate.

As I already posted even USA Today accepts that it is a valid
document. CNN considers it a "none issue".

So, are you saying that not only the Hawaii state Director of Health,
the Governor of the state, USA Today and the rest of the major news
agencies have all been bribed?

Regards,

J.B.


The big question is..is that the birth cert issued for Obamas birth..or
an fficial one: from todays computer?

Mine is a simple white piece of paper with a grid of names and numbers
all lined up beneith subtitles

No embossing, no green paper, nada. And its from Miami Beach, Florida,
November 11th, 1953

Gunner

I seriously doubt that anyone would accept that birth certificate today. It
isn't ootsie cutesy enough, and entirely not pc. The ones they want today
look like they were made on a home computer with a color printer.

HTH g

Steve



Chuckle..indeed. And mine is the original, the copy being on file in
Florida. Seems someone screwed up and handed Mom the wrong one.

G

Gunner

"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster

Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton

On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:38:23 -0600, Neil Nelson
wrote:


Now I have a question for you, Neil: Where did you get this pile of crap?

Reading the constitution. Sorry that you think it's a pile of crap.
Federalist papers also, I suppose you think they are a pile of crap too?


Of course Ed does. If it didnt come straight from DNC headquarters..its
GOT to be Crap!!

Snicker

Gunner

"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster

Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 18:52:27 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 06:40:36 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote

A certification with a certifying seal is considered standard today.

Ed Huntress

And anyone with $12 worth of software can produce one.

Steve

Have a look at the Snopes page on the birth certificate. The
certificate has been examined and it does have an embossed seal. It is
a legal Hawaii State birth certificate.

As I already posted even USA Today accepts that it is a valid
document. CNN considers it a "none issue".

So, are you saying that not only the Hawaii state Director of Health,
the Governor of the state, USA Today and the rest of the major news
agencies have all been bribed?

Regards,

J.B.

Are any of the people you mentioned above bribery?

It is probably that every man has a price but you are talking about an
entity bribing The Governor of Hawaii, the Directory of Health, USA
Today and CNN, both at the policy making level and any of the
"soldiers" who might be involved, or who happened to hear about it
from a mate. And doing all this without even a tiny whisper being
heard by any of the avid watchers.

Rather a tall order one might say.

Regards,

J.B.

On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 23:37:44 -0800, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:20:09 +0700, wrote:

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code, Section 1401, defines the
following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

* Anyone born inside the United States *
* Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a
citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen
of the tribe
* Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents
are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a
citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other
parent is a U.S. national
* Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen
and lived in the U.S. for at least one year


The citizenship laws changed in hum...1968 if I recall

A number of years after 1961,,,the year Obamassiah was born in kenya

Gunner

The determining law is Title 8 of the U.S. Code, section 1401, signed
into law by the President, June 27, 1952

Regards,

J.B.

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:06:58 +0700, wrote:

On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 23:37:44 -0800, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:20:09 +0700, wrote:

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code, Section 1401, defines the
following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

* Anyone born inside the United States *
* Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a
citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen
of the tribe
* Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents
are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a
citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other
parent is a U.S. national
* Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen
and lived in the U.S. for at least one year


The citizenship laws changed in hum...1968 if I recall

A number of years after 1961,,,the year Obamassiah was born in kenya

Gunner

The determining law is Title 8 of the U.S. Code, section 1401, signed
into law by the President, June 27, 1952

Regards,

J.B.

There have been changes since then. Ill try to look em up, but they have
been mentioned repeatedly in various threads of this nature.

Gunner

"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster

Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 20:06:23 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 07:57:38 +0700, wrote:

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 06:40:36 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote

A certification with a certifying seal is considered standard today.

Ed Huntress

And anyone with $12 worth of software can produce one.

Steve

Have a look at the Snopes page on the birth certificate. The
certificate has been examined and it does have an embossed seal. It is
a legal Hawaii State birth certificate.

As I already posted even USA Today accepts that it is a valid
document. CNN considers it a "none issue".

So, are you saying that not only the Hawaii state Director of Health,
the Governor of the state, USA Today and the rest of the major news
agencies have all been bribed?

Regards,

J.B.


The big question is..is that the birth cert issued for Obamas birth..or
an fficial one: from todays computer?

Mine is a simple white piece of paper with a grid of names and numbers
all lined up beneith subtitles

No embossing, no green paper, nada. And its from Miami Beach, Florida,
November 11th, 1953

Gunner

I seriously doubt that anyone would accept that birth certificate today.
It
isn't ootsie cutesy enough, and entirely not pc. The ones they want today
look like they were made on a home computer with a color printer.

HTH g

Steve



Chuckle..indeed. And mine is the original, the copy being on file in
Florida. Seems someone screwed up and handed Mom the wrong one.

G

Gunner

So, if you wanted to opt out of the system, there's no legal proof that you
were ever born. Just cite the same standards used for old Purple Lips. I'd
file for a return of all the income taxes I'd paid first off.

Steve ;-)

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 18:52:27 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 06:40:36 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote

A certification with a certifying seal is considered standard today.

Ed Huntress

And anyone with $12 worth of software can produce one.

Steve

Have a look at the Snopes page on the birth certificate. The
certificate has been examined and it does have an embossed seal. It is
a legal Hawaii State birth certificate.

As I already posted even USA Today accepts that it is a valid
document. CNN considers it a "none issue".

So, are you saying that not only the Hawaii state Director of Health,
the Governor of the state, USA Today and the rest of the major news
agencies have all been bribed?

Regards,

J.B.

Are any of the people you mentioned above bribery?

It is probably that every man has a price but you are talking about an
entity bribing The Governor of Hawaii, the Directory of Health, USA
Today and CNN, both at the policy making level and any of the
"soldiers" who might be involved, or who happened to hear about it
from a mate. And doing all this without even a tiny whisper being
heard by any of the avid watchers.

Rather a tall order one might say.

Regards,

J.B.

Stranger things have happened.

On Dec 2, 2:40*am, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 20:06:23 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:





"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 07:57:38 +0700, wrote:

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 06:40:36 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote

A certification with a certifying seal is considered standard today..

Ed Huntress

And anyone with $12 worth of software can produce one.

Steve

Have a look at the Snopes page on the birth certificate. The
certificate has been examined and it does have an embossed seal. It is
a legal Hawaii State birth certificate.

As I already posted even USA Today accepts that it is a valid
document. CNN considers it a "none issue".

So, are you saying that not only the Hawaii state Director of Health,
the Governor of the state, USA Today and the rest of the major news
agencies have all been bribed?

Regards,

J.B.

The big question is..is that the birth cert issued for Obamas birth..or
an fficial one: from todays computer?

Mine is a simple white piece of paper with a grid of names and numbers
all lined up beneith subtitles

No embossing, no green paper, nada. And its from Miami Beach, Florida,
November 11th, 1953

Gunner

I seriously doubt that anyone would accept that birth certificate today. *It
isn't ootsie cutesy enough, and entirely not pc. *The ones they want today
look like they were made on a home computer with a color printer.

HTH *g

Steve

Chuckle..indeed. And mine is the original, the copy being on file in
Florida. Seems someone screwed up and handed Mom the wrong one.

G

Gunner

"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Unknown Usnet Poster

Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Keyton

So, I Gunner lost that "original" and then ran for president, the stat
of Florida would not be able to produce an original birth certificate,
and Gunner would not be allowed to serve. Right?

On 2009-12-02, rangerssuck wrote:
So, I Gunner lost that "original" and then ran for president, the stat
of Florida would not be able to produce an original birth certificate,
and Gunner would not be allowed to serve. Right?

Well, if Gunner was elected President... Think of the headlines!

``President demolishes basketball court, brings three lathes''

``Rush Limbaugh hurt by falling debris on his 34th visit to White House''

``In a surprise move, White House purchases more lathes, says to
stimulate economy''

``President attempts disassembly of nuclear suitcase''

``Diesel fuel spill in Rose Garden''

``Rush Limbaugh to head EEOC part time''

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Dec 2, 2:40 am, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 20:06:23 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:





"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 07:57:38 +0700, wrote:

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 06:40:36 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote

A certification with a certifying seal is considered standard today.

Ed Huntress

And anyone with $12 worth of software can produce one.

Steve

Have a look at the Snopes page on the birth certificate. The
certificate has been examined and it does have an embossed seal. It is
a legal Hawaii State birth certificate.

As I already posted even USA Today accepts that it is a valid
document. CNN considers it a "none issue".

So, are you saying that not only the Hawaii state Director of Health,
the Governor of the state, USA Today and the rest of the major news
agencies have all been bribed?

Regards,

J.B.

The big question is..is that the birth cert issued for Obamas birth..or
an fficial one: from todays computer?

Mine is a simple white piece of paper with a grid of names and numbers
all lined up beneith subtitles

No embossing, no green paper, nada. And its from Miami Beach, Florida,
November 11th, 1953

Gunner

I seriously doubt that anyone would accept that birth certificate today.
It
isn't ootsie cutesy enough, and entirely not pc. The ones they want today
look like they were made on a home computer with a color printer.

HTH g

Steve

Chuckle..indeed. And mine is the original, the copy being on file in
Florida. Seems someone screwed up and handed Mom the wrong one.

G

Gunner

"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster

Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton

So, I Gunner lost that "original" and then ran for president, the stat
of Florida would not be able to produce an original birth certificate,
and Gunner would not be allowed to serve. Right?

reply: Yeah. Kinda like Obama. Except for the serve part.

Steve

"Ignoramus24315" wrote in message
...
On 2009-12-02, rangerssuck wrote:
So, I Gunner lost that "original" and then ran for president, the stat
of Florida would not be able to produce an original birth certificate,
and Gunner would not be allowed to serve. Right?

Well, if Gunner was elected President... Think of the headlines!

``President demolishes basketball court, brings three lathes''

``Rush Limbaugh hurt by falling debris on his 34th visit to White House''

``In a surprise move, White House purchases more lathes, says to
stimulate economy''

``President attempts disassembly of nuclear suitcase''

``Diesel fuel spill in Rose Garden''

``Rush Limbaugh to head EEOC part time''

LMAO

On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 07:29:29 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 20:06:23 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 07:57:38 +0700, wrote:

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 06:40:36 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote

A certification with a certifying seal is considered standard today.

Ed Huntress

And anyone with $12 worth of software can produce one.

Steve

Have a look at the Snopes page on the birth certificate. The
certificate has been examined and it does have an embossed seal. It is
a legal Hawaii State birth certificate.

As I already posted even USA Today accepts that it is a valid
document. CNN considers it a "none issue".

So, are you saying that not only the Hawaii state Director of Health,
the Governor of the state, USA Today and the rest of the major news
agencies have all been bribed?

Regards,

J.B.


The big question is..is that the birth cert issued for Obamas birth..or
an fficial one: from todays computer?

Mine is a simple white piece of paper with a grid of names and numbers
all lined up beneith subtitles

No embossing, no green paper, nada. And its from Miami Beach, Florida,
November 11th, 1953

Gunner

I seriously doubt that anyone would accept that birth certificate today.
It
isn't ootsie cutesy enough, and entirely not pc. The ones they want today
look like they were made on a home computer with a color printer.

HTH g

Steve



Chuckle..indeed. And mine is the original, the copy being on file in
Florida. Seems someone screwed up and handed Mom the wrong one.

G

Gunner

So, if you wanted to opt out of the system, there's no legal proof that you
were ever born. Just cite the same standards used for old Purple Lips. I'd
file for a return of all the income taxes I'd paid first off.

Steve ;-)

Me? Pull something like that?

Hummmm...not a bad Idea! Something to ponder on...indeed G

Gunner

"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster

Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:51:49 -0600, Ignoramus24315
wrote:

On 2009-12-02, rangerssuck wrote:
So, I Gunner lost that "original" and then ran for president, the stat
of Florida would not be able to produce an original birth certificate,
and Gunner would not be allowed to serve. Right?

Well, if Gunner was elected President... Think of the headlines!

``President demolishes basketball court, brings three lathes''

``Rush Limbaugh hurt by falling debris on his 34th visit to White House''

``In a surprise move, White House purchases more lathes, says to
stimulate economy''

``President attempts disassembly of nuclear suitcase''

``Diesel fuel spill in Rose Garden''

``Rush Limbaugh to head EEOC part time''


I LIKE IT!!!


Though..this guy is much better than me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP2p91dvm6M

Gunner

"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster

Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton

On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 07:57:46 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Dec 2, 2:40 am, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 20:06:23 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:





"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 07:57:38 +0700, wrote:

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 06:40:36 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote

A certification with a certifying seal is considered standard today.

Ed Huntress

And anyone with $12 worth of software can produce one.

Steve

Have a look at the Snopes page on the birth certificate. The
certificate has been examined and it does have an embossed seal. It is
a legal Hawaii State birth certificate.

As I already posted even USA Today accepts that it is a valid
document. CNN considers it a "none issue".

So, are you saying that not only the Hawaii state Director of Health,
the Governor of the state, USA Today and the rest of the major news
agencies have all been bribed?

Regards,

J.B.

The big question is..is that the birth cert issued for Obamas birth..or
an fficial one: from todays computer?

Mine is a simple white piece of paper with a grid of names and numbers
all lined up beneith subtitles

No embossing, no green paper, nada. And its from Miami Beach, Florida,
November 11th, 1953

Gunner

I seriously doubt that anyone would accept that birth certificate today.
It
isn't ootsie cutesy enough, and entirely not pc. The ones they want today
look like they were made on a home computer with a color printer.

HTH g

Steve

Chuckle..indeed. And mine is the original, the copy being on file in
Florida. Seems someone screwed up and handed Mom the wrong one.

G

Gunner

"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster

Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton

So, I Gunner lost that "original" and then ran for president, the stat
of Florida would not be able to produce an original birth certificate,
and Gunner would not be allowed to serve. Right?

reply: Yeah. Kinda like Obama. Except for the serve part.

Steve

Indeed!

Gunner


"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster

Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton

On 2009-12-02, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:51:49 -0600, Ignoramus24315
wrote:

On 2009-12-02, rangerssuck wrote:
So, I Gunner lost that "original" and then ran for president, the stat
of Florida would not be able to produce an original birth certificate,
and Gunner would not be allowed to serve. Right?

Well, if Gunner was elected President... Think of the headlines!

``President demolishes basketball court, brings three lathes''

``Rush Limbaugh hurt by falling debris on his 34th visit to White House''

``In a surprise move, White House purchases more lathes, says to
stimulate economy''

``President attempts disassembly of nuclear suitcase''

``Diesel fuel spill in Rose Garden''

``Rush Limbaugh to head EEOC part time''


I LIKE IT!!!


Though..this guy is much better than me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP2p91dvm6M


And finally on January 21, 2017:

``New President cannot move in; White House a Superfund site''

Let the Record show that "Steve B" on or
about Wed, 2 Dec 2009 07:59:32 -0800 did write/type or cause to appear
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

"Ignoramus24315" wrote in message
m...
On 2009-12-02, rangerssuck wrote:
So, I Gunner lost that "original" and then ran for president, the stat
of Florida would not be able to produce an original birth certificate,
and Gunner would not be allowed to serve. Right?

Well, if Gunner was elected President... Think of the headlines!

``President demolishes basketball court, brings three lathes''

``Rush Limbaugh hurt by falling debris on his 34th visit to White House''

``In a surprise move, White House purchases more lathes, says to
stimulate economy''

``President attempts disassembly of nuclear suitcase''

``Diesel fuel spill in Rose Garden''

``Rush Limbaugh to head EEOC part time''

LMAO

He says it like it was a bad thing ...?


pyotr


-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!